Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I think it's the difference between short-run and long-run changes. You can build a team to suit a park, but the park's not changing from game to game. You can't water down the basepaths only for those games with speedy teams (didn't a team nearly forfeit a game for doing this sometime in the 90s?). Because they can close/open the roof at will, it seems more unfair than the normally accepted differences. (grass is a close call, i admit).
BTW, from what I read the weather would have suggested an open roof.
|
I see what you're saying. I guess now we have to figure out why closing the roof is an advantage.
If it's because the ball carries better or worse and they believe they have a more powerful or less powerful team, then you have a point.
If it's because they want to take advantage of the crowd noise, more power to 'em. I feel the same about taking advantages of losing the ball in the roof. Tough shit.
I think it was stupid for them to require that the roof remain open. If you can't tell what the advantage is (other than their record in closed roof vs. open roof games), then why shouldn't I do with my stadium what I like?
As for your and spooky's analogies (watering down the basepaths or lengthening the fences), I don't buy either one of them. Those are changes to the actual playing field. Closing the roof may affect the wind and the flight of the ball, I guess. But it just seems different to me.
TM
