From: kimmel@epx.cis.umn.edu (Eric Kimmel)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: ARTIFICIAL TURF: EMBARASSMENT TO THE GAME
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:36:49 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota

In article <1992Jul21.161110.23401@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> g_waugaman@nac.enet.dec.com (Glenn R. Waugaman) writes:
>If not from Boston, then from somewhere else.  Since they've been in the 
>Metrodome, Minnesota has demonstrated the largest home/road differential,
>by far, of all the teams in baseball.  They know how to play that park, 

That's part of baseball.  Nobody said anything when Cleveland moved their
fences back 10 feet last year to take advantage of their speedy OF.  You
didn't see a bunch of whiners saying "That would have been out of the
park anywhere else!!!" when their ball gets caught on the warning track.
You don't see a lot of people bitching about the wide foul area in
Oakland.  The Metrodome suits the Twins well.  They are a good hitting
team who take advantage of the turf.  Teams can change the park to
suit their needs.  If your team doesn't do it, it's their fault.  But I
seem to remember Boston putting up a big fence in left.  If the Twins
lost a game in Boston because a ball hit the fence instead of going over
it, nobody would complain that the park was the cause of the loss.

>especially the roof backdrop, and apparently the teams that come in twice 
>a year don't pick it up.  From experience, it seems to me that one game 

I have NEVER seen a single team practicing catching balls against the dome
backdrop.  If they felt it was that big of a deal, they'd be out there
working on it.

>every series seems to turn against Boston because someone loses a ball in 
>the roof, or misplays a turf carom.  I know they lost two fly balls in a 
>close loss there earlier this year, and this past weekend was a nightmare.
>:>
>This past Saturday, Roger Clemens pitched a two-hitter in the Metrodome. 
>The first hit was a home-plate area Baltimore chop that wouldn't have been
>a hit in all but the most dried-out grass infields.  The second hit was a
>bloop to centerfield that Billy Hatcher didn't pick up against the roof.
>The game was virtual no-hitter, one of those few where the pitcher is
>dominant and has a chance at the no-hitter if he gets the breaks.  Who
>knows what might have happened if the field hadn't played a factor? 

For that matter, there could have been slow rollers in the infield that
would have been hits on grass, but the speedy turf allowed the infielder
to make a play.  Hobson should have known Hatcher would have trouble in
the dome since he's never seen it before.

>I don't even want to talk about Sunday's game, where among other things a
>damned speaker played a factor (Tom Kelly: "we deserved to get beat").  I
>understand that balls hitting off speakers present the same chances for
>both teams, but that just ain't baseball in my book... 
>
So what is baseball?  Is every team supposed to have the same park dimensions
so that everything is equal all the time?  I bet people would still complain
about it.  Different parks with different dimensions and features is what
makes baseball great.

Blaming a ballpark for a team losing is just plain ridiculous.  Sometimes
it works for the home team, sometimes it works against the home team.  Had
Boston won with a few of those bouncers or a lost ball, Tom Kelly would have
just said "That's life" and gone to work on the next day's schedule.

I'm done now.

ewk
kimmel@epx.cis.umn.edu

>---
>Glenn Waugaman
>Digital Equipment Corporation
>Littleton, MA
>g_waugaman@nac.enet.dec.com
>---