From: hasch@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Bruce M Hasch)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: WHY BOTHER TO WATCH WORLD SERIES
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:39:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <3OCT199215430677@wild.ucis.vill.edu>, mcclure@wild.ucis.vill.edu (MCCLURE HAROLD) writes...
>One more reason why home field advantage does not necessarily predict 
>who wins a playoff. Last year, the Pirates were 2-1 in Atlanta but the 
>Braves took 3 of 4 in 3 rivers. Hopefully, it does not stand to reason that
>the Pirates have the edge since 4 games will be in Atlanta. 

Given that the series is 2-0 at this point, the Pirates had better get it going
soon...

>One of the reasons why World Series play has been been won by the team with
>home field advantage in every year since 1987 and the first and last of those
>went to the Twins:
> 
>1987: 4-0 in the DOME and 0-3 in St. Louis
>1991: 4-0 in the DOME and 0-3 in Atlanta
> 
>Notice a pattern? 

Wait a minute, here.  Last year's world series was a great matchup--I'm not 
going to discuss it now.  In 1987, there were several factors which caused
this series to evolve as it did:

1) In three of those home games, the Twins were able to go with their 
best pitchers (Viola and Blyleven).  The Twins staff was notorious for their
lack of depth in '87 (Les Straker, Ack!), and certainly the Twins had a much
better shot of winning any game started by one of those two guys, regardless 
of its location.

2) Without Jack Clark, it surprised me that this series even lasted 7 games. 
Given this injury, the Twins, despite their rather unimpressive regular season
record, were probably the better team.  Especially since pitching depth doesn't
matter in a short series.  Jack Clark was the only decent power hitter for the
Cards in '87, and, even in cavernous Busch Stadium, it's hard to win
when you're playing Tommy "Bat Flip" Lawless.

In addition, the 1990 (Reds-A's) and 1989 (Giants-A's) series were sweeps, 
in which both teams played two games each at home.  No home field advantage
there (unless you're trying to argue that playing the first two games at home
is a huge advantage, but that's not the impression I get from your article).

>Not only was baseball meant to be played outside

Ok, I'll buy this, even though it's a moot argument.  Baseball IS played 
indoors now, and although you, or I, may not like it, it's probably here to
stay.  Now let's hope that artificial turf isn't... :-)

, but for a NL team to have to play in such a ridiculously designed arena for
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ah yes, yet another TL fan (that's Turf League) complaining about the Metrodome.
I don't like the Metrodome that much either, but while these "the way baseball
is meant to be played" posts are amusing, it doesn't change the reality of the
game.  There are turf parks in both leagues, there are domed stadia in both
leagues.  Let's say the Tigers and Astros make it to the WS next year 
(just hypothetically...)--is it ridiculous for the Tigers to have to play
in the domed-turf-bigger than the goddamn Grand Canyon-Astrodome?  Personally,
I say NO.  

>even one game is patently unfair. Now, watch the Braves move into the
>Georgia Dome and have me eat my words.

Nahhhh.  As several posters have pointed out in related articles, the Braves
will not be moving into the Georgia Dome.  The Braves are scheduled to move
to the Olympic Stadium being constructed in Atlanta for the 1996 Summer Games 
for the 1997 season.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce 'Please let the Rockies take Bill Ripken--PLEASE!!' Hasch
hasch@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu				Go O's in 93!!
Jacobs: Spend some of that $40,000,000 profit on the club!!