PDA

View Full Version : The Schedulers...


jabrch
04-06-2009, 09:25 AM
I know that Lip has been all over this for a while - but I will join him.

Rays vs Red Sox - opening day scheduled IN BOSTON. Why? Put it in the dome - why risk it?

Seattle - a dome team - opens on the road. WHY?

Oakland, not likely to get snowed out, opens in LA? WHY?

It's just stupid.

Oblong
04-06-2009, 09:39 AM
Some of the excuses I've heard is that the warm city/dome teams don't want to burn up so many home games early in the season so they have to balance it out. And teams don't want to start out the season on a "coast" trip, meaning an East/Central team is out West.

It's a crapshoot. Seems like every year the weather the first week of the season is the opposite from the second week of the season.

Kogs35
04-06-2009, 09:46 AM
time to bring back the balanced schedule.

doublem23
04-06-2009, 09:46 AM
The only real complaint is that the season starts so early... There's not much you can do about the weather.

aryzner
04-06-2009, 09:47 AM
I blame mother nature. I thought we were done with the snow!!!! DAMN YOU!!! :(:

Lip Man 1
04-06-2009, 10:26 AM
Jab:

Here's another one. Check your schedules...the Sox are on the road for EVERY major summer holiday...Memorial Day, 4th of July and Labor Day.

-------------------

Regarding the schedule the poster is correct. MLB did this in the late 80's / early 90's...had cold weather teams open on the coast or in the south or in domes and teams bitched because they had so many early home games.

Naturally "Proud To Be Your Bud" did the usual and backed down from the criticism instead of acting like a real commissioner.

Lip

sox102
04-06-2009, 10:31 AM
Jab:

Here's another one. Check your schedules...the Sox are on the road for EVERY major summer holiday...Memorial Day, 4th of July and Labor Day.


Sox are home against Boston on Labor Day. Oops.

InKennyWeTrust
04-06-2009, 10:44 AM
Naturally "Proud To Be Your Bud" did the usual and backed down from the criticism instead of acting like a real commissioner.
Oh please. :rolleyes: First of all, teams with roofed playing areas should not be punished with consistantly less favorable schedules. And second, and this is what really matters:

BAD WEATHER THAT CAN POSTPONE GAMES CAN OCCUR ALL SEASON LONG! RAIN OR SNOW, BOTH CAN CANCEL GAMES!

Dick Allen
04-06-2009, 11:05 AM
Oh please. :rolleyes: First of all, teams with roofed playing areas should not be punished with consistantly less favorable schedules. And second, and this is what really matters:

BAD WEATHER THAT CAN POSTPONE GAMES CAN OCCUR ALL SEASON LONG! RAIN OR SNOW, BOTH CAN CANCEL GAMES!So you're saying that the chances of inclement weather in northern cities are the same during the rest of the season as they are in April? Like in Chicago, where we have 6 months of winter per year? Also ask the people in Cleveland about their April weather, don't recall if it was '07 or '08 with all the snowed-out early games.

johnnyg83
04-06-2009, 11:13 AM
What's the theory behind the "we're disadvantaged if we play an early home game schedule" argument?

Is it attendance related?

I would think that opening with 10 or so games at home would be an advantage.

InKennyWeTrust
04-06-2009, 11:18 AM
So you're saying that the chances of inclement weather in northern cities are the same during the rest of the season as they are in April? Like in Chicago, where we have 6 months of winter per year? Also ask the people in Cleveland about their April weather, don't recall if it was '07 or '08 with all the snowed-out early games.
If it's not snow, it can very easily be rain instead. Bad weather has a pretty much equal chance of occuring all year long.

doublem23
04-06-2009, 11:24 AM
What's the theory behind the "we're disadvantaged if we play an early home game schedule" argument?

Is it attendance related?

I would think that opening with 10 or so games at home would be an advantage.

Yeah, attendance usually goes up in the summer when kids are out of school.

Per usual, everyone is freaking out about nothing. The weather on Tuesday will be fine (a bit cold, but playable).

champagne030
04-06-2009, 11:41 AM
If it's not snow, it can very easily be rain instead. Bad weather has a pretty much equal chance of occuring all year long.

That would be incorrect. March and April, each with 13, have the greatest number of days providing more than .01 inch of precipitation. June, July and August have 10,10 and 9, respectfully.

doublem23
04-06-2009, 11:49 AM
That would be incorrect. March and April, each with 13, have the greatest number of days providing more than .01 inch of precipitation. June, July and August have 10,10 and 9, respectfully.

You can play ball in if .01 inches of precipitation falls.

Huisj
04-06-2009, 11:52 AM
If cold climate teams open up in warm areas, they'll still be back to play home openers by the next week in April. The chances of the weather being crappy the first week and the second week in April are about the same--and the weather could be good either of those weeks too. I mean, we've had some stretches of nice weather already this year. If the season would have started last week (more in line with when it has started in recent years), the weather would have been fine.

goon
04-06-2009, 11:53 AM
If it's not snow, it can very easily be rain instead. Bad weather has a pretty much equal chance of occuring all year long.

I think your missing the point. In early April you KNOW you are risking games being played by having teams like Chicago or Cleveland (midwest) play at home. The schedulers know the weather hasn't warmed up here... plus it's early Spring, more precipitation in general I assume.

So if you they know the weather has a good chance of being ****ty, why schedule games here?

champagne030
04-06-2009, 12:00 PM
You can play ball in if .01 inches of precipitation falls.

I was just correcting the idea that the chance of rain is as equal in April and July. :shrug:

doublem23
04-06-2009, 12:07 PM
I think your missing the point. In early April you KNOW you are risking games being played by having teams like Chicago or Cleveland (midwest) play at home. The schedulers know the weather hasn't warmed up here... plus it's early Spring, more precipitation in general I assume.

So if you they know the weather has a good chance of being ****ty, why schedule games here?

The weather was gorgeous for Opening Day 2005 in Chicago and it was nice in 2006 until the rain hit.

JB98
04-06-2009, 12:08 PM
The weather has always been bad in April in Chicago. This is not a new phenomenon. What is MLB supposed to do? Send the Sox and other Northern teams on 30-game road trips to start the season? I sure as heck wouldn't want to see that.

There's going to be a few postponements in April. That's how it is. That's how it always has been.

The only thing that has changed is the amount of screaming and yelling about the bad weather.

I'm sad that our home opener had to be backed up a day just like everyone else. But that's life. There's nothing that can be done about it. Even if the home opener were scheduled for April 20 or May 1, there would still be a chance of inclement weather.

jabrch
04-06-2009, 12:09 PM
The weather has always been bad in April in Chicago. This is not a new phenomenon. What is MLB supposed to do? Send the Sox and other Northern teams on 30-game road trips to start the season? I sure as heck wouldn't want to see that.


Nope - but don't play 2 california teams against eachother and 2 dome teams against eachother. At least leverage your risk free sites and see if the extra week makes a difference.

doublem23
04-06-2009, 12:11 PM
I was just correcting the idea that the chance of rain is as equal in April and July. :shrug:

Yeah, but what are the odds of getting significant rainfall? Nobody's cancelling a game because 1/100th of an inch of rain falls. I would venture to guess that if you looked over the course of the last 10 years or so you'll see there's probably an even distribution per month of games rained out over the season. Maybe it doesn't rain as many days in the summer, but I bet the days of significant rainfall are about the same.

doublem23
04-06-2009, 12:12 PM
The weather has always been bad in April in Chicago. This is not a new phenomenon. What is MLB supposed to do? Send the Sox and other Northern teams on 30-game road trips to start the season? I sure as heck wouldn't want to see that.


That's not even true... There have been plenty of nice days in April. Everyone just has a ridiculously short memory and is acting like a 1-day postponement is the ****ing Apocalypse.

JB98
04-06-2009, 12:18 PM
Nope - but don't play 2 california teams against eachother and 2 dome teams against eachother. At least leverage your risk free sites and see if the extra week makes a difference.

I don't think it does make a difference, though. Some of the worst weather I've ever experienced at the ballpark was Easter Sunday in 2006. That was like April 15 or something like that. Freezing cold, deluge of rain, just awful.

You're always going to have days like this throughout April, and inevitably, a couple of them are going to fall on days where the Sox have home games.

Everyone is up in arms because snow canceled our home opener. The disappointment is understandable and felt by all of us, but I feel it's an overreaction to call for major alterations to the schedule.

For me, a bigger concern is how deep the season stretches into October now. Early-season games can always be made up during the summer. When bad weather wreaks havoc with the postseason schedule in mid-to-late October, it's major problem because the weather doesn't tend to get better when late October turns to early November. A that point, they have to suck it up and play in crap weather.

doublem23
04-06-2009, 12:18 PM
Jab:

Here's another one. Check your schedules...the Sox are on the road for EVERY major summer holiday...Memorial Day, 4th of July and Labor Day.



Sox are home against Boston on Labor Day. Oops.

They're home Memorial Day weekend, too. Yes, they're on the road Monday, but they have a 3-game series with Pittsburgh that weekend.

Oblong
04-06-2009, 12:18 PM
Part of my off season baseball fix is to read basebll books. I've got a book full of photos of Detroit baseball prior to 1950. There were at least 3 opening days back then that had snow. One photo shows Cobb at the plate against the White Sox and it's a blizzard. The snow was blowing sideways.

Also... last Monday here in Detroit it was High 49 degrees and hardly a cloud in the sky. Same with the previous Monday. Today we've got several inches of snow. Next Monday it'll probably be 55 and sunny.

JB98
04-06-2009, 12:21 PM
That's not even true... There have been plenty of nice days in April. Everyone just has a ridiculously short memory and is acting like a 1-day postponement is the ****ing Apocalypse.

Well, yeah, sure. I was at Opening Day 2005, and that was a beautiful day for baseball. There are also a lot of crap days in April, but that's just part of it.

On my end, I just assume make the ****ing Twinkees play in horse**** weather this weekend. They don't like to play outdoors in the middle of summer. The 40-degree weather should be an even greater advantage for the Sox.

Frater Perdurabo
04-06-2009, 12:32 PM
Northern teams that play outdoors should have fewer home games in April. It just makes sense for so many reasons. Cleveland, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Philly, New York, Boston and Detroit definitely fall into this category. You might add St. Louis, KC, Cincinnati and Colorado to this list. At most that's 13 teams. That means 17 teams can absorb the "extra" home games in April: Mariners, Athletics, Giants, Angels, Dodgers, Diamondbacks, Rangers, Astros, Braves, Reds, Orioles, Nationals, Marlins, Rays, Brewers, Blue Jays and Twins.

Tthe whole argument is about maximizing attendance during non-school year months. This can be mitigated by giving the teams that take more April home games a few extra weekend series. Having interleague play throughout the year would mitigate things as well. Total NFL-style revenue sharing with a hard cap and floor would solve the whole thing.

doublem23
04-06-2009, 12:35 PM
This can be mitigated by giving the teams that take more April home games a few extra weekend series.

Sounds like an even more unneccessarily complex way to make a schedule (a venture that I'd wager to say is already complicated enough).

Having interleague play throughout the year would mitigate things as well.

That sucks.

Total NFL-style revenue sharing with a hard cap and floor would solve the whole thing.

That sucks even worse.

PKalltheway
04-06-2009, 01:14 PM
Geez, people need to relax. This has always been part of baseball. Heck even Oblong provided an example of seeing a picture of Ty Cobb batting in the midst of a blizzard. April weather is very unpredictable in most parts of the country. Heck, there have been times at the beginning of the season where the weather in some midwest cities was 68 degrees and sunny. But just let one damn game get rained/snowed out and everybody's up in arms...oh my mistake...TWO games...

ChiSoxFan81
04-06-2009, 01:17 PM
Seriously, there's nothing that can be done. I've been at games in late April/early May that have been freezing, and snow isn't any different than rain. This season even started a week later, and we're still snowed out. The World Series is already on the verge of November. Yeah, it sucks that the game got postponed, but that's why they put the day off after the home opener.

AZChiSoxFan
04-06-2009, 01:34 PM
I think your missing the point. In early April you KNOW you are risking games being played by having teams like Chicago or Cleveland (midwest) play at home. The schedulers know the weather hasn't warmed up here... plus it's early Spring, more precipitation in general I assume.

So if you they know the weather has a good chance of being ****ty, why schedule games here?

How long of a homestand do you want warm weather/dome teams to start the season with? Three weeks? Look, there's isn't a dimes worth of difference in the weather from the first week of April to the second. So, as Doublem correctly pointed out, this is a thread about nothing.

AZChiSoxFan
04-06-2009, 01:36 PM
Sounds like an even more unneccessarily complex way to make a schedule (a venture that I'd wager to say is already complicated enough).



That sucks.



That sucks even worse.

Totally agree on all 3 counts. Preach it.

jabrch
04-06-2009, 01:37 PM
Jab:

Here's another one. Check your schedules...the Sox are on the road for EVERY major summer holiday...Memorial Day, 4th of July and Labor Day.


Not so...I know I am going to Sox vs Sawx on Labor day.

jabrch
04-06-2009, 01:39 PM
That's not even true... There have been plenty of nice days in April. Everyone just has a ridiculously short memory and is acting like a 1-day postponement is the ****ing Apocalypse.


I don't see that as the reaction here...

Why does everything have to be so freaking polarized?

doublem23
04-06-2009, 01:49 PM
I don't see that as the reaction here...

Why does everything have to be so freaking polarized?

:scratch:

You're the one who started this thread... Why don't you tell us?

JohnTucker0814
04-06-2009, 02:13 PM
No reason that the first week of the season shouldn't be hosted in the following cities:

NL:

Florida, Atlanta, Houston, Arizona, Milwaukee, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco

AL:

Tampa Bay, Arlington, Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle, Minnesota, Toronto

These teams take the first 2 series and then the middle of April the other teams take the following 2 weeks... Sounds like each have the same amount of home dates in April??? Seems fair to me!

LITTLE NELL
04-06-2009, 02:16 PM
This is all about greed with all the major sports adding more and more games to the schedules.
MLB in the 50s started in mid April and the World Series was over by the 2nd week in October.
The NFL had 12 games with the Championship game played just after Christmas.
NHL and NBA played 70 games with playoffs over by mid April, now they finish in early June.
I know the owners dont want to give up home games but lets go back to double headers which could shorten the season by 2 weeks or more depending on how many DHs they would schedule. If they hate giving up the revenue go to day night DHs.

doublem23
04-06-2009, 02:23 PM
No reason that the first week of the season shouldn't be hosted in the following cities:

NL:

Florida, Atlanta, Houston, Arizona, Milwaukee, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco

AL:

Tampa Bay, Arlington, Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle, Minnesota, Toronto

These teams take the first 2 series and then the middle of April the other teams take the following 2 weeks... Sounds like each have the same amount of home dates in April??? Seems fair to me!

What bizarro world do you live in that it's definitely going to be miserable in the Northern cities the 1st two weeks of April and nice the next two? It was beautiful over St. Patrick's Day and that was weeks ago. Weather in April is unpredictable. There's no reason to try and schedule ridiculous 2-week home stands/road trips because you might have to brave the elements a little.

PS, Minnesota will be in an open air stadium next year, so you'd better find somewhere else.

DeadMoney
04-06-2009, 02:30 PM
I have no problem with the schedule the way it is...

As a fan, it means much more to me to have the opportunity to go to a White Sox Opening Day game on the true Opening Day of the season as opposed to this Friday or next Monday (or some other time). Granted, Opening Day is still special whenever it is, but it means more to me when it's truly the Opening Day of baseball and the Sox are at home. To give every fan of every team this opportunity, every team needs to have the chance to open up (in early April) at home.

On top of this, I would also be completely opposed to having the Sox open up on a 6-12 game road trip (which still wouldn't solve all of the problems associated with weather in April).

And as others have mentioned, the issues surrounding the amount of home games teams have in April and September compared to May-August have to be fair for each team.

Any changes to try and fix any of these things would make some team or some fans unhappy, so it doesn't really matter what MLB does because they're never going to please everyone.

JB98
04-06-2009, 02:51 PM
No reason that the first week of the season shouldn't be hosted in the following cities:

NL:

Florida, Atlanta, Houston, Arizona, Milwaukee, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco

AL:

Tampa Bay, Arlington, Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle, Minnesota, Toronto

These teams take the first 2 series and then the middle of April the other teams take the following 2 weeks... Sounds like each have the same amount of home dates in April??? Seems fair to me!

But what makes you think the second week of the season is going to have better weather than the first? There's basically no difference between April 6 and April 20. You can have a freak snowstorm anytime in April.

jabrch
04-06-2009, 02:57 PM
:scratch:

You're the one who started this thread... Why don't you tell us?

I wasn't the one talking about a ****ing apocolypse. All I said was I don't understand why MLB doesn't optimize schedule aroud weather...wasting two dome teams against eachother or to California teams against eachother is hardly a polarized arguement. ****ing Apocolypse? What are you talking about Dubs?

mrfourni
04-06-2009, 03:40 PM
What bizarro world do you live in that it's definitely going to be miserable in the Northern cities the 1st two weeks of April and nice the next two? It was beautiful over St. Patrick's Day and that was weeks ago. Weather in April is unpredictable. There's no reason to try and schedule ridiculous 2-week home stands/road trips because you might have to brave the elements a little.

PS, Minnesota will be in an open air stadium next year, so you'd better find somewhere else.

Even if 1 week makes a very small difference, what would be the harm in all warm weather/dome locations hosting the first week? If its more trouble than its worth, then don't do it, but at the very least, its a PR move.

Lip Man 1
04-06-2009, 08:09 PM
Memorial Day - May 27th, the Sox are in Anaheim.
July 4th, the Sox are in Kansas City.

I stand corrected on Labor Day.

Lip

Eddo144
04-06-2009, 08:43 PM
Inevitably, each team will have a handful of games rescheduled due to weather every season. Wouldn't it be best to have those games occur early in the season, so that there are more options for the rescheduled game. There are five months to reschedule an April rainout, but only two for a July rainout, for example.

I agree with those posters who have pointed out that the second week of April is just as likely to bring inclement weather as the first week. Should all cold-weather teams play their first four series on the road? Could you imagine the Sox home opener being their thirteenth or fourteenth game?

InKennyWeTrust
04-06-2009, 10:24 PM
I think your missing the point. In early April you KNOW you are risking games being played by having teams like Chicago or Cleveland (midwest) play at home. The schedulers know the weather hasn't warmed up here... plus it's early Spring, more precipitation in general I assume.

So if you they know the weather has a good chance of being ****ty, why schedule games here?
Temperature has nothing to do with it. If it's cold, it snows, or the rain is freezing. If it's warm, then it's rain. When a low-pressure system comes into the area, there's a good chance of bad weather that can postpone games, regardless of the time of year.

Cold weather is more of an annoyance, but no reason to have less games in April (especially when you pretty much have to have one Chicago team playing in town at all times).

Lip Man 1
04-06-2009, 11:27 PM
Two things that can be done to help this issue:

1. Go back to the format that MLB had in the late 80's / early 90's. i.e. as many teams as possible open south of the Mason-Dixon line or in domes for the first week to 10 days. To the teams that feel they are playing to many home games that early with the kids still in school, the MLB central fund can kick in a couple million to each team that has been "inconvienced."

2. You can open the season later in April, say April 15th or so and allow teams the option of having a real double header or two (like they used to do) or play a "split" day / night double header charging two admissions. Say up to eight home dates a year in this format.

Lip

doublem23
04-06-2009, 11:31 PM
Even if 1 week makes a very small difference, what would be the harm in all warm weather/dome locations hosting the first week? If its more trouble than its worth, then don't do it, but at the very least, its a PR move.

It's a better PR move let Opening Day move around to different cities.

Madscout
04-06-2009, 11:39 PM
With all this, I don't know how the Twins are allowed to build the open air stadium that they are building. We all love the demise of the baggie dome, but they could at least have a set up like the Brewers. If I was comish, no teams North of St. Louis could build open air stadiums, unless they had a retractable roof.

Nellie_Fox
04-06-2009, 11:51 PM
With all this, I don't know how the Twins are allowed to build the open air stadium that they are building. We all love the demise of the baggie dome, but they could at least have a set up like the Brewers. If I was comish, no teams North of St. Louis could build open air stadiums, unless they had a retractable roof.If you were the "comish," would you be paying for it? If a retractable roof had been required, it would not have happened at all.

doublem23
04-07-2009, 01:15 AM
With all this, I don't know how the Twins are allowed to build the open air stadium that they are building. We all love the demise of the baggie dome, but they could at least have a set up like the Brewers. If I was comish, no teams North of St. Louis could build open air stadiums, unless they had a retractable roof.

Retractable roofs suck.

Nellie_Fox
04-07-2009, 01:25 AM
Retractable roofs suck.That too.

goofymsfan
04-07-2009, 05:38 AM
I know that Lip has been all over this for a while - but I will join him.

Rays vs Red Sox - opening day scheduled IN BOSTON. Why? Put it in the dome - why risk it?

Seattle - a dome team - opens on the road. WHY?

Oakland, not likely to get snowed out, opens in LA? WHY?

It's just stupid.

Especially since we had an absolutely beautiful day here in Seattle. Would have been perfect opening day weather.

goofymsfan
04-07-2009, 05:45 AM
Retractable roofs suck.

I happen to enjoy the retractable roof at Safeco!

oeo
04-07-2009, 07:42 AM
Retractable roofs suck.

Not at all. It beats the hell out of a dome, and teams with extreme weather can get by without tons of delays/postponements.

mrfourni
04-07-2009, 08:13 AM
It's a better PR move let Opening Day move around to different cities.

Considereing this comes up every year and the commissioner and baseball get slammed, I disagree.

PKalltheway
04-07-2009, 08:40 AM
With all this, I don't know how the Twins are allowed to build the open air stadium that they are building. We all love the demise of the baggie dome, but they could at least have a set up like the Brewers. If I was comish, no teams North of St. Louis could build open air stadiums, unless they had a retractable roof.
The Twins played at Metropolitan Stadium (an outdoor stadium) from 1961-1981. If they did it once (for 20 years at that), they can do it again. Weather.com says the average high for this time of year in Minneapolis is around 52-53 degrees.:dunno:

Lip Man 1
04-07-2009, 10:23 AM
The sports editor of the Idaho State Journal is a Twins fan from Minnesota. He came to my opening day party yesterday.

I asked him the same question about the roof issue and he said the Twins were trying to build the cheapest ballpark they could.

Lip

UofCSoxFan
04-07-2009, 10:34 AM
If it's not snow, it can very easily be rain instead. Bad weather has a pretty much equal chance of occuring all year long.

This is an absurd statement.

April in Chicago is awful. June, July, and August are some of the best weather you'll find anywhere and are the reason we put up with 8 months of crappy weather.

And even if it doesn't snow, it is so damn cold here in April no one wants to go to a game. Peak attendance months are June through August. The weather is great and kids are out of school. I guarantee you if you asked management and they responded truthfully, they would say the would rather have these early home games shifted to latrer in the eyar.

UofCSoxFan
04-07-2009, 10:36 AM
The sports editor of the Idaho State Journal is a Twins fan from Minnesota. He came to my opening day party yesterday.

I asked him the same question about the roof issue and he said the Twins were trying to build the cheapest ballpark they could.

Lip

The reason they were trying to build the cheapest stadium they could was the alternative was no stadium at all. The plan currently is to add the roof at some point in the future when money becomes available...which likely will never happen, especially with the Vikings wanting a new stadium and the limited financial resources of the state.

Nellie_Fox
04-07-2009, 11:28 AM
The plan currently is to add the roof at some point in the future when money becomes available...That's incorrect. The new Twins stadium was not built "roof-ready." There are no plans to add a roof.

mrfourni
04-07-2009, 11:51 AM
This is an absurd statement.

April in Chicago is awful. June, July, and August are some of the best weather you'll find anywhere and are the reason we put up with 8 months of crappy weather.

And even if it doesn't snow, it is so damn cold here in April no one wants to go to a game. Peak attendance months are June through August. The weather is great and kids are out of school. I guarantee you if you asked management and they responded truthfully, they would say the would rather have these early home games shifted to latrer in the eyar.

I guarantee if you asked management of the Angels, Dodgers, Marlins, Rays, Padres, etc., and they answered truthfully, they would also say they would rather have these early home games shifted to later in the year as well. Kids are out of school in warm weather cities at the same time and their peak attendance months are during that time as well. And that's the reason given every year as to why warm weather cities don't host more April games. Its not really fair for them to do so.

I think there needs to be some compromise. My suggestion is to at least have the first two weeks in warm weather. I know 14 days isn't a huge difference, but it might help slightly.

InKennyWeTrust
04-07-2009, 11:51 AM
This is an absurd statement.

April in Chicago is awful. June, July, and August are some of the best weather you'll find anywhere and are the reason we put up with 8 months of crappy weather.

And even if it doesn't snow, it is so damn cold here in April no one wants to go to a game. Peak attendance months are June through August. The weather is great and kids are out of school. I guarantee you if you asked management and they responded truthfully, they would say the would rather have these early home games shifted to latrer in the eyar.
Ya think? Just ask any team, and most of them will say the same thing! But hence the problem when some fans and analysts want cold weather teams to start the season on a three-week road trip. Whoever hosts those teams have to deal with that lower attendence! It's not fair to punish the teams that were smart enough to invest in a dome.

But again, missing the point. Look at this link (http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=3527&refer=&units=us). Yes, on average there's less rainy days in the summer than there is in April. But it's not a significant difference! If it was 13 in April to 2 in July, fine. But it's basically one better day a week. The clear days may be wonderful, but the storms that come through are total hell! Point, the possibility of game-postpoining weather (news flash, you can still play when it's cold) does not change significantly enough throughout the year to mandate playing more games in the summer.

Eddo144
04-07-2009, 12:13 PM
This is an absurd statement.

April in Chicago is awful. June, July, and August are some of the best weather you'll find anywhere and are the reason we put up with 8 months of crappy weather.

And even if it doesn't snow, it is so damn cold here in April no one wants to go to a game. Peak attendance months are June through August. The weather is great and kids are out of school. I guarantee you if you asked management and they responded truthfully, they would say the would rather have these early home games shifted to latrer in the eyar.
So what would you propose? No home games at all for either Chicago team until May 1? That's preposterous.

Iwritecode
04-07-2009, 12:27 PM
On one hand, I don't think it's a bad idea to have all the opening series in warm weather/dome stadium cities. As long as they can balance the schedule so those cities aren't overloaded with home games in April. I think most people would like to see their team play the first series without postponements. It's a long winter and we're all ready for some real baseball.

On the other hand, many people complained for years that the Sox never opened the season at home. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


Personally, I think they should keep it the way it is.

UofCSoxFan
04-07-2009, 12:49 PM
So what would you propose? No home games at all for either Chicago team until May 1? That's preposterous.

Where did I say that? Seroiusly that is a HUGE leap from what I'm saying.

I'm saying start the Sox on the road for the first two or three series of the year. There was a span of 8 or 9 years straight where the Sox had started on the road and people bitched about it all the time. There was a reason for this.

UofCSoxFan
04-07-2009, 12:55 PM
Ya think? Just ask any team, and most of them will say the same thing! But hence the problem when some fans and analysts want cold weather teams to start the season on a three-week road trip. Whoever hosts those teams have to deal with that lower attendence! It's not fair to punish the teams that were smart enough to invest in a dome.

But again, missing the point. Look at this link (http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=3527&refer=&units=us). Yes, on average there's less rainy days in the summer than there is in April. But it's not a significant difference! If it was 13 in April to 2 in July, fine. But it's basically one better day a week. The clear days may be wonderful, but the storms that come through are total hell! Point, the possibility of game-postpoining weather (news flash, you can still play when it's cold) does not change significantly enough throughout the year to mandate playing more games in the summer.

Reading comprehension is a skill. I mentioned that Sox management would rather start on the road despite the fact that some people on this board think it makes perfect sense to play series in 40 degree weather when it can be avoided to add an added benefit.

The fact of the matter is as follows: baseball is meant to be played in weather where you can actually feel your fingers. It isn't just the fact that rain in April is nearly as likely as in June, its the fact that its 35 degrees vs. 75 degrees. If you don't think there is a difference there I don't know what to tell you.

And spare me the "why punish teams that have domes or are in warm weather arguement." If you think domes are good for baseball give me a break. Should the Sox build a new stadium?

I can't believe this is even a debate...that the weather in June is more suitable for baseball than in April. Baseball is not the same as football. I spent four years of college playing baseball a mile from the lake, including a game that had a starting temperature of 25 degrees. It sucked and wasn't baseball in the true sense of the word.

UofCSoxFan
04-07-2009, 12:57 PM
That's incorrect. The new Twins stadium was not built "roof-ready." There are no plans to add a roof.

Well I guess you'd know more than me. I know at least until the very end part of the compromise proposal was to add a roof later (which again I was skeptical of) but maybe they just scraped that altogether.

Eddo144
04-07-2009, 01:51 PM
Where did I say that? Seroiusly that is a HUGE leap from what I'm saying.

I'm saying start the Sox on the road for the first two or three series of the year. There was a span of 8 or 9 years straight where the Sox had started on the road and people bitched about it all the time. There was a reason for this.
But what about the fourth, fifth, and sixth series, which all occur during April as well? April 20 is just as likely to have wintry weather as April 6; putting off the home opener until the fourth series isn't going to fix anything in the long run.

And during that "8 or 9" year span, the Cubs were opening at home; the Sox weren't on the road for weather concerns, as there were still games being played in Chicago.

Lip Man 1
04-07-2009, 07:10 PM
Eddo asks: "So what would you propose? No home games at all for either Chicago team until May 1? That's preposterous."

Eddo see my two suggestions earlier in this thread for your answer.

Lip

Frater Perdurabo
04-07-2009, 09:36 PM
I don't want the Sox to open on the road every year. But I think it's reasonable that two out of every three years they begin the season on the road. For instance, since they already are out West, they should start with a 12-game road trip to Seattle, Oakland, Anaheim and Texas (not necessarily always in that order). Then come back to Chicago for the hope opener on or around April 15.

On average, April 15 is 7-8 degrees warmer than April 1. Obviously in a given year April 15 may be colder than April 1. But statistically it is much more likely that April 15 will have less snow and warmer temperatures than April 1.

Nellie_Fox
04-07-2009, 11:56 PM
I don't want the Sox to open on the road every year. But I think it's reasonable that two out of every three years they begin the season on the road. For instance, since they already are out West, they should start with a 12-game road trip to Seattle, Oakland, Anaheim and Texas (not necessarily always in that order). Then come back to Chicago for the hope opener on or around April 15.I'm confused. They'd start the season on April 6th, do a 12 game road trip. With off days, this would take at least 15-16 days. But they'd be home on or around April 15th? The math here escapes me.

It's Dankerific
04-07-2009, 11:58 PM
I'm confused. They'd start the season on April 6th, do a 12 game road trip. With off days, this would take at least 15-16 days. But they'd be home on or around April 15th? The math here escapes me.

Last season started a week earlier, thats the only thing I can think of.

InKennyWeTrust
04-10-2009, 12:39 AM
Reading comprehension is a skill. I mentioned that Sox management would rather start on the road despite the fact that some people on this board think it makes perfect sense to play series in 40 degree weather when it can be avoided to add an added benefit.
Of course the Sox would prefer that. All teams would prefer that. But it's just not always going to happen.

The fact of the matter is as follows: baseball is meant to be played in weather where you can actually feel your fingers. It isn't just the fact that rain in April is nearly as likely as in June, its the fact that its 35 degrees vs. 75 degrees. If you don't think there is a difference there I don't know what to tell you.
When it comes to actually playing the game, there is no difference. Unless I'm mistaken, games aren't postponed due to it just being 35 degrees out. It's more of an annoyance, like I've said. These two postponements were because of parcipitation, which is snow in April, as we've seen, or rain in June.

And spare me the "why punish teams that have domes or are in warm weather arguement." If you think domes are good for baseball give me a break. Should the Sox build a new stadium?
Actually, I'd love to see something similar to what Kansas City was considering for Kauffman and Arrowhead, building a retractable roof around the stadium(s). But that's not happening. Actually, isn't that what the new Rays stadium will feature? But as for the argument, these teams spent a lot of money on their respective roofs for the benefit of their team. Why should they deal with the lost revenue of more April games on a consistant basis, to benefit the teams that chose not to build that way? If you don't have a roof, deal with the elements.

I can't believe this is even a debate...that the weather in June is more suitable for baseball than in April. Baseball is not the same as football. I spent four years of college playing baseball a mile from the lake, including a game that had a starting temperature of 25 degrees. It sucked and wasn't baseball in the true sense of the word.
But you still played the game. If the opener played on schedule, despite 25 degree weather, I doubt this thread would exist.