PDA

View Full Version : Sorry Traditionalists--World Series needs to be played at a "neutral site"



redsfan1966
10-27-2008, 10:03 PM
Just looking at the weather tonite and what occured Saturday (10:00 first pitch)---count me in the group that now believes the World Series should be played at a neutral, warm weather and/or domed site. It is a travesty that the majority of the season is played in warm, dry conditions and the championship is contested in a freezing downpour....and yes, even if our beloved Reds were to finally make a World Series again, I would feel the same way...

bigredbunter
10-27-2008, 10:26 PM
If there were only a league championship series followed by a world series, the games would already be over with anyway.

I hate the WC--If they insist on having it, then they should go back the 154 game season so they're not playing in snow in November.

Boston Red
10-27-2008, 10:28 PM
If the Rays tie it here, can we please call the game and pick it up tomorrow? I mean, the filed could be underwater and they cannot have the Phillies win a World Series title in a rain-shortened game.

Boston Red
10-27-2008, 10:37 PM
Seriously, MLB got TOTALLY bailed out by the Rays tying the score in the sixth. Dupay is lying through his teeth in saying they would have pulled the tarp out if it wasn't tied.

redsfan1966
10-27-2008, 10:43 PM
Boston---good call, DuPay got bailed out by Pena. If he was being interviewed by a real reporter and not the wuss Chris Meyers, we may have gotten an admisssion by DuPay

Jack Burton
10-28-2008, 01:08 AM
Could enforce that all new stadiums must be built with a retractable roof?

putrnrd
10-28-2008, 05:58 AM
how about day games for god sake, especially on the weekends. that could help some. i can't remember the last time i stayed up to finish watching a playoff/ws game. how can you get kids excited about the games when they don't start till after their bedtimes?

HeatherC1212
10-28-2008, 09:12 AM
I feel bad for both teams right now. Those were just horrible conditions to play in, much less playing in a potential deciding game of the World Series, and it couldn't have been much fun for either of them. A friend of mine was at that game and she was miserable, cold, and uncomfortable most of the night due to the weather. :(

Ghosts of 1990
10-28-2008, 10:07 AM
You know what? Boo hoo. Leave things the way they are. Many of these guys have played in poor conditions their entire life. It is part of the game. Its no different than in April when the Marlins or Dbacks go to Chicago and its 10 degrees. Or the Reds for the first month of the season. I know growing up in Ohio I played a lot of games in the spring that were in football weather.

The weather isn't a factor for the teams winning the World Series.

texasdave
10-28-2008, 10:14 AM
You know what? Boo hoo. Leave things the way they are. Many of these guys have played in poor conditions their entire life. It is part of the game. Its no different than in April when the Marlins or Dbacks go to Chicago and its 10 degrees. Or the Reds for the first month of the season. I know growing up in Ohio I played a lot of games in the spring that were in football weather.

The weather isn't a factor for the teams winning the World Series.

Exactly. Tom Hanks said it best 'There is no crying in baseball'.

bigredbunter
10-28-2008, 10:46 AM
The weather isn't a factor for the teams winning the World Series.


You're right. Rain and snow don't affect performance.

The WS should be moved to December so the snow can really not affect performance and mlb can squeeze yet another round of playoffs in.

Orenda
10-28-2008, 11:14 AM
as long as both teams have to play under those conditions I don't have a problem with it. Here is another idea though, how about during the World Series, MLB stops game play in the bottom of 4th so that they can have Brittney Spears, Madonna, Prince, Nelly, and Toby Keith perform acappela.

Red in Atl
10-28-2008, 11:48 AM
Exactly. Tom Hanks said it best 'There is no crying in baseball'.

Exactly...154 game season fixes the problem. And I think next year the season starts a week later, pushing the playoffs a full week into November.

Carin4Narron
10-28-2008, 12:29 PM
20 Spring games, 154 regular season, 1st round-best of 3, 2nd round best of 5, World Series still at best of 7,plus having a commish that had guts would solve the problem.

GoGoWhiteSox
10-28-2008, 03:45 PM
Just looking at the weather tonite and what occured Saturday (10:00 first pitch)---count me in the group that now believes the World Series should be played at a neutral, warm weather and/or domed site. It is a travesty that the majority of the season is played in warm, dry conditions and the championship is contested in a freezing downpour....and yes, even if our beloved Reds were to finally make a World Series again, I would feel the same way...
I'm sorry, but I wholeheartedly disagree with everything you said. This is baseball, not football. Holding the World Series in a neutral site would just be a slap in the face to season ticket holders, and fans of the teams in general. First of all, if the World Series was in a neutral site, it would be reduced to being played in either warm weather cities, or cities with a retractable roof stadium. Why should Reds fans (or any other fans of a team in a cold weather city) have to go all the way out to Los Angeles, or somewhere like that, to see them play the World Series?

Second of all, the World Series is something that an entire city can take pride in hosting. Knowing that your team has fought hard all the way, and has earned the right to play in the World Series is a satisfying feeling, not only because you get to see your team go for a title, but because your city has earned the right to host a major sporting event. It doesn't just go to the higest bidder. Cincinnati will never get a NCAA Final Four, nor will they ever host a Super Bowl. They can host a World Series though.

Finally, October weather is very unpredictable, especially on the east coast, and in the Midwest. You can easily have days with a high of 44 degrees in October, then have a high of 68 degrees just 5 days later. Take for example, the 1979 World Series. Game 1 in Baltimore that year (October 10, 1979) had a game time temperature of 41 degrees. Game 7, exactly one week later in Baltimore, had a game time temperature of 65 degrees. October weather, much like April weather, always has, and always will be, unpredictable.

Saying that the World Series should be held in a neutral site is just overreacting to what's going on, and it would be a huge bastardization of one of America's premier sporting events. I'm sure there are older Reds fans out there (maybe even you included) who remember that there was 5 days between Games 5 and 6 of the World Series in 1975, becuse of rain. The only thing that needs to be amended is the ridiculous number of off days during the postseason that they implemented after 2006. That would definitely keep the postseason from reaching into November.

FlightRick
10-28-2008, 05:04 PM
I figured we'd be in for a day or two of blustering about this issue (kind of like how a small subset of people got their underdrawers in a bunch at the start of last season when there was a weekend's worth of games affected by snow). So I'm also completely ready to file this under "Normally Rational People Flying Off The Handle In Kneejerk Response To Something That Happens Rarely, If Ever."

I mean, honestly: every single thing written about the weather debacle in Philly last night contains the not-so-trivial tidbit that this is the FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF BASEBALL (100 plus years) that a World Series game has been suspended due to weather like this. It happens once, and we're ready to do something rash (and something I think is demonstrably silly) to "fix" a problem that, historically, doesn't technically exist 99.4% of the time?

Blargh.

The comparisons with football don't really hold sway here, either. For a bunch of reasons. The one that goes in favor of a World Series Neutral Site is that baseball actually is a bit more weather-sensitive (there are no rainouts in football, and to be honest, I think it's 100 kinds of lame that I'll never see an outdoor/cold weather Super Bowl as long as I live; in football, that's part of the game, and it's a non-factor in the championship game, all in the name of pampering the fans, I guess). But that's not nearly enough to argue for domed/warm weather World Series, simply because this is such a rare problem, and such an EASY problem to work around. It's certainly a hiccup, but is it really the end of the world that the Series is on hold till Wednesday? Not at all. Problem fixed. No big deal.

But all the other ways in which the baseball vs. other sports comparisons fall short in a Neutral Site argument go the other way. To me, the biggest thing is that you would rely HEAVILY on the local market hosting the Series to fill the stadium, because fans of the teams will NOT travel the same way they do for other sports. Why?

Think about it: whether it's the Super Bowl or college bowl games or the Final Four, the "event" has a defined duration, and fans can know precisely how to schedule their trip, and do it affordably as a 3-day "long weekend." Further, the notion of traveling to support the team is more likely because in those sports, home games are limited; fanaticism becomes a lot more intense and concentrated when you don't have 81 opportunities per year to go out to the park to support the team. Baseball is just not as naturally conducive to an overly-dramatic, overly-hyped "big game atmosphere."

Instead, a neutral site World Series could be anywhere from 4 to 7 games. Last anywhere from 5 days to a week-and-a-half. May contain a few genuine "big game atmospheres," or could conceivably finish in a sweep. The idea of booking hotels and spending money for a 10-day "road trip" to support a team you had 80 chances to see (and 80 chances where your total expenditure could be as little as $10 or $20 per person, instead of reaching into the four digits per person) is simply not as appetizing as it is for other sporting events where the huge splurging can be justified as the capper to a 10-game season.

Between the uncertainty of scheduling/length-of-the-series and the costs involved for something that is less special than in other sports, you're just not gonna see a ton of fans use a neutral site World Series as an excuse to travel. And so baseball would end up making their championship event even LESS of a spectacle; I'd rather a day or two of weather delays than watching my favorite sport's world title determined in front of a half-full stadium of local fans with no real rooting interest. And I promise you that baseball fans would rather the "inconvenience" of weather delays and possibly freezing their rumps off to see a game at home over paying thousands of dollars to watch their team in some antispetic dome.

So: yeah, last night in Philly was kind of an exercize in futility, and yeah, spend a day or two ranting irrationally about how bad it sucks. But let's all agree that in the end, once logic and clear-headedness return, we should just put this notion of a neutral site World Series back on the shelf to collect dust....


Rick

redsfandan
10-28-2008, 05:40 PM
apparently marty also thinks the series should be played in a dome or warm weather city. but i just don't see it happenning.

bigredbunter
10-28-2008, 06:50 PM
I
I mean, honestly: every single thing written about the weather debacle in Philly last night contains the not-so-trivial tidbit that this is the FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF BASEBALL (100 plus years) that a World Series game has been suspended due to weather like this. It happens once, and we're ready to do something rash (and something I think is demonstrably silly) to "fix" a problem that, historically, doesn't technically exist 99.4% of the time?



It has only happened once for good reason. The final game of the 1918 WS was played on Sept. 11. The final of the '68 series was Oct. 10th. Realignment (1969) pushed things back to Oct. 16-17.

By 2001 they played the final game on Nov. 4th (luckily game 5 in NY was a balmy 61 degrees).

I think the point was that the further back mlb pushes the series, it becomes more likely that elements will interfere.


As a footnote, it has taken me nearly 4 years to reach 100 posts. Slow but steady, slow but steady.

gedred69
10-28-2008, 07:35 PM
Series belongs in the cities of the teams that made it that far. Baseball is financed by us Fans, we deserve to have a chance to be there if our investment pays off. I am dissappointed though, that teams in markets with questionable weather in Oct. didn't build stadiums to deal with the possibility of bad weather. Let's see....... Who, in colder Fall climates other than the Chi-crap-o Cubs, and Bo-Shix, hasn't built a new stadium in the last 10-12 years? In that baseball has expanded its season to the brink of Nov., it shoulda' been taken into account when building a stadium.

steig
10-28-2008, 07:59 PM
The only thing that will make MLB change is money. The world series is played late at night for higher ratings and more money. They don't want to compete with football on the weekends in the afternoon. The more playoff games the more money.

However, in my opinion MLB should do the following:
1. Cut the season down to 154 games
2. Add one double header each month for every team

These two changes will allow for the playoffs to be started 1 week earlier and the season to also start a week later in April.

3. Add the DH to the national league as a trade off to the players. The American League has the dominant pitching and hitting, possibly because pitchers have to face tougher line ups due to the DH and learn how to pitch better.

4. Reduce the unbalanced schedule weighted with divisional games. Let teams play more than 6 games against teams in the other divisions. Increase the games out of division to ~9. This will help the wild card be more 'fair' if a single division is significantly better than the other two in each league.

redsfan1966
10-28-2008, 08:38 PM
Looks like we will wait at least until Wednesday to play again.....

Red in Atl
10-29-2008, 10:25 AM
Oh so there's a group that advocates a neutral site? Never heard of them, never want to. Haven't you people ruined baseball enough with the DH, Wild Card, interleague games, etc.

If you were a real baseball fan, you would be against all that and the neutral site crap. Go watch the NBA or NHL or Arena Footballl and stay nice and comfy...

Orodle
10-29-2008, 02:49 PM
One of the only thing baseball has going for it at the moment is tradition. Dont start taking away baseball's strengths. DH, Interleague, and expansion is already working against that.

redsfan1966
10-29-2008, 05:07 PM
Time to move into the modern ages people.......

GoGoWhiteSox
10-29-2008, 05:53 PM
Time to move into the modern ages people.......

If bastardizing the World Series by moving it to a neutral site means moving into the modern ages, I'll stay in the Stone Age, thank you.;)

redsfan1966
10-29-2008, 06:38 PM
Me caveman, me like World Series in sleet...ugh!

GoGoWhiteSox
10-29-2008, 07:15 PM
Me caveman, me like World Series in sleet...ugh!

Cute. Real cute. :rolleyes: Look, just because I'm not agreeing with your knee-jerk reaction to something that has never happened before (a World Series game being suspended), doesn't mean that you can resort to likening me to a Neanderthal. Besides, it was rain, not sleet. It rains in July. It rains in August. It rains in September. And guess what? It rains in October, too. There have been World Series games called because of rain. There has never been one that has been suspended mid-game because of rain until now. Just because it happened once doesn't mean that it will happen every year. Besides, October weather is very unpredictable. Game 4 of the 2001 World Series in New York City (October 31, 2001) had a game time temperature of 57 degrees, with no rain. Hardly what I call a "World Series in sleet."

FlightRick
10-29-2008, 07:17 PM
No: me caveman, me willing to put up with mild inconvenience of 1- or 2-day weather delays in rare cases like this rather than go all spaz and create an annual MAJOR inconvenience by putting the World Series at a neutral site.

The day the World Series is DECIDED by weather (rather than just DELAYED by it), we can revisit the debate. But till then, this is an easily addressed issue (as we've seen this week), and not even close to a full-fledged "problem." Thus, we are in no need of full-fledged "fixes" other than to pull out the tarp and play the waiting game every now and again.

If my tone is strident, I apologize, but not only do I feel the correct approach is fairly self-evident in this case, but also: the most outspoken supporter of a neutral site World Series that I know of is Scott Boras. And on the grounds that he is the biggest ******bag in the universe, he cannot possibly be right about anything. Sorry....


Rick

gedred69
10-29-2008, 07:23 PM
If bastardizing the World Series by moving it to a neutral site means moving into the modern ages, I'll stay in the Stone Age, thank you.;)

Bravo! Fans are the hometown financial engine that pays the salaries. A WS ticket is expensive, and some would add to that cost of an extremely expensive trip to some other place to see the hometown fans' regular season investment pay off? Absolutely positively, NO. Shorten the season by a couple of weeks. Scheduled Double-Headers. Less off days. Shorten the season a few games. Anything but take the Big Event from the fans that paid the money to get them there.

gedred69
10-29-2008, 07:49 PM
And another thing. I was at the 2nd game of the '76 Series with my Dad. It was "football" weather, blankets, teeth chattering, frost, etc. The place warmed up when Perez came to the plate in the bottom of the 9th, score tied, and pounded the ball for the hit that won the game, in route to a 4 game sweep. Who wants to deny the Hometown fans a moment like that? (Must be the anti-Christ).

bigredbunter
10-29-2008, 08:16 PM
the most outspoken supporter of a neutral site World Series that I know of is Scott Boras. And on the grounds that he is the biggest ******bag in the universe, he cannot possibly be right about anything. Sorry....

Rick

Tru dat

Orodle
10-29-2008, 11:25 PM
No: me caveman, me willing to put up with mild inconvenience of 1- or 2-day weather delays in rare cases like this rather than go all spaz and create an annual MAJOR inconvenience by putting the World Series at a neutral site.

The day the World Series is DECIDED by weather (rather than just DELAYED by it), we can revisit the debate. But till then, this is an easily addressed issue (as we've seen this week), and not even close to a full-fledged "problem." Thus, we are in no need of full-fledged "fixes" other than to pull out the tarp and play the waiting game every now and again.

If my tone is strident, I apologize, but not only do I feel the correct approach is fairly self-evident in this case, but also: the most outspoken supporter of a neutral site World Series that I know of is Scott Boras. And on the grounds that he is the biggest ******bag in the universe, he cannot possibly be right about anything. Sorry....


Rick

Couldnt agree more. People (more so the media) just looks for reasons to freak out.

redsfan1966
10-30-2008, 11:00 PM
Sorry if I offended anyone with the caveman remark---just yankin' chains. But I (the anti-Christ :D) still truly believe if MLB insists on playing WS games into November (yes, in '09!) and starting them no earlier than 8:20 pm at night---the warm weather, neutral site idea must be given strong consideration...

morande
10-31-2008, 12:30 AM
terrible for the fans who cant afford to see there teams play at some vacation destionation