From: jjd@TEAK.CRAY.COM (Jeff Drummond)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: ARTIFICIAL TURF: EMBARASSMENT TO THE GAME
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:53:02 GMT


In article <1992Jul21.161110.23401@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> you write:
>
>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.

I've heard that before.  Do you have any data on that?  I know a lot
was made of the Twins home/away differential in 1987, but looking at
the numbers this year, it seems the Twins have virtually identical
home/away records.  In fact, it looks like Boston has a much harder
time winning on the road this year than at home.  Does that prove
anything about an advantage (unfair or otherwise) to the Red Sox of
playing in Fenway?

>                                       They know how to play that park, 
>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 
>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.
>
>The plate/dirt area might as well be artificial turf in an artificial turf 
>park, because instead of soil there's concrete a few inches below.  The 
>dirt area is very hard, and produces the same high bounces as the turf 
>does.  In fact, the concrete below probably produces most of the turf 
>bounce.

I don't know what contributes to the bounce of the plate and the dirt in
front of the plate in the MetroMuffin, or how that bounce compares to that
of other parks.  I know the infield in Texas is very hard too (something
about getting baked in the sun all summer).  But outdoor parks are allowed
to have quirks, ah, I mean, character.

>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? 

Yes, who knows.  Perhaps in another park Clemens would have gotten
shelled for a loss.  But I'm puzzled.  Fenway fans see weird caroms off
the wall and the angled stands behind third base and talk about the
charm of an old ballpark.  But a high bouncer off the plate in the
MetroMuffin is an embarrassment to the game.  Go figure.

I've seen the Twins misplay the caroms in Fenway more than a few times.
Maybe it's even cost them a game here and there.  I--for one--will never
consider Fenway an embarrassment to the game.

>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... 

I think that a lot of ballparks have quirks, and I like that.  The only
fair alternative would be cookie-cutter parks; where every park was
identical.  I'm against that, and I suspect many Boston fans would be too.

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

-Jeff Drummond    jjd@cray.com
--
"Attend to your bullpen, and let the bounces take care of themselves."
-Benjamin Franklin, in "Poor Richard's Baseball Almanac"