Milwaukee Now the Designated Site for Random Games
Seriously, this annoys me. If anyone has ever watched a Cubs-Brewers game in Milwaukee knows that the insufferable Cubs fanbase can invade Wisconsin faster than you can say "self-important".
It's even worse now that the Astros have emerged as Wild Card contenders.
over 3 years ago
Freneau
34 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I think
that this was a pretty dumb solution. I would be pissed if I were an Astros fan.
Why would you be pissed?
It’s not like there would be any particular reason the MLB offices would favor Milwaukee, right?
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on Sep 14, 2008 12:49 AM EDT up reply actions
Are you joking?
Selig ain’t biased at all, homes.
I mean, it obviously makes plenty of sense to use Milwaukee as the meeting place for games between the Angels and Indians, right?
And in this scenario, it makes perfect sense to make the “road” team travel a much shorter distance than the “home” team, especially when the “road team” will have a sizable advantage in home fans.
Perfect, perfect sense.
It has nothing to do with Selig’s past affiliation with Milwaukee and everything to do with Milwaukee just being the perfect solution.
Plus, what a great metropolitan area.
Come on, d_f. You’re better than that, assuming that Selig likes Mulwaukee more than other cities. Pfft.
but they have good brats and beer - Astros fans will appreciate that
The concept of progress acts as a protective mechanism to shield us from the terrors of the future. - Collected sayings of Muad'Dib
We need to start using something else as a sarcastic font
does this work
It takes 46 muscles to frown but only 4 to flip 'em the bird.
Thanks, kcscoliny
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on Sep 14, 2008 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions
This is ludicrous.
Those games should have been played in the stadium of a team uninvolved in the Wild Card chase. San Francisco. Washington. (Not Cincinnati; should avoid NL Central parks too.)
Or even better: Toronto. Minnesota. Tampa. Detroit. Seattle. Kansas City. Or, you know, the best possible option involving a neutral stadium whose team happens to be on the road:
TEXAS.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
I think KC would be a good choice
proof that Bud hate the Royals
The concept of progress acts as a protective mechanism to shield us from the terrors of the future. - Collected sayings of Muad'Dib
KC was a great choice.
I bet if we had a roof on our stadium we would be getting these games.
Don't forget to send your broken maples to the US Forest Service.
KC already got "rewarded" with the All-Star Game
Pete Rose will be signing autographs somewhere, I bet!
Get the fumigators ready…
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on Sep 14, 2008 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Milwaukee has a roof
The other parks with a roof are Arizona, Toronto, Tampa Bay, Minnesota, Seattle, and Houston. Only Toronto, Seattle, and Milwaukee had availability. Toronto requires customs and Seattle is not centrally located, so Milwaukee was pretty much the only option.
Because an untouched Ballpark at Arlington wasn't an option?
I repeat: they should have played this game at Texas, where it still would have been a “home game” rather than essentially turning it into a home game for the sCrUBS.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
The Ballpark does not have a roof and was unavailable tomorrow.
MLB was only going to play these games where there was absolutely zero chance of a rainout. (And Chicago 90 minutes away does not hurt with the gate).
Do you not understand
that by playing in Milwaukee, they’ve turned three Astros home games into three CUBS home games?
Does this not strike you as bullshit, for a team in the playoff hunt?
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Sep 14, 2008 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Doesn't seem to have had any effect so far!!1
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on Sep 15, 2008 9:04 AM EDT up reply actions
Do you not understand that this happens almost every year?
Almost every year, teams (including contenders) have home games turned into road games due to rain outs, snow outs, problems with ballparks, and natural disasters. The same thing happened to Cleveland last year, except Cleveland had to play its make-up “home” game against fellow playoff contender Seattle at Seattle’s home field.
Making up three mid-September games is almost impossible without affecting the playoffs, so the priority is playing the games, not silly things like home field advantage that only matter to 12 year-old boys who watch too much ESPN. Home field advantage in baseball is nominal — just ask all of the wild card teams who have made the world series. To ensure the games were played, the choices were Toronto, Seattle, and Milwaukee. Milwaukee was the obvious choice of the three. And as a bonus, Houston gets back some of the financial hit by playing the games before 20,000+ fans in Milwaukee rather than 200 fans in Seattle or Toronto.
by Gopherballs on Sep 15, 2008 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions
so the priority is playing the games, not silly things like home field advantage that only matter to 12 year-old boys who watch too much ESPN. Home field advantage in baseball is nominal
It seems like teams, in general, have a considerably better winning percentage at home, vs. on the road. Looks more than nominal to me.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Sep 15, 2008 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions
For a small sample size like a playoff series or two makeup games, yes, it is nominal
The Astros are not going to consider playing in front of 20,000 Cubs fans more important than playing a triple header on the day before the playoffs begin, or instead of a two-hour flight to Milwaukee, taking a four-hour, two-time-zone flight to Seattle and then taking a six-hour, three-time-zone flight to Miami.
Perhaps
But the difference in records at home and on the road show it to be real. And while we are talking about just one series, it isn’t just any series. These are high leverage games, if you will. A small advantage in these games is more important than in an average, random series.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Sep 15, 2008 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Playoff games are not high leverage?
Under the circumstances, the Cubs fans were the least of the Astros problems.
There's no home field advantage in the playoffs?
If you look at the last 20 years of playoff records, do you think there haven’t been more wins by the home team or the away team?
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Sep 16, 2008 1:02 AM EDT up reply actions
In the past six postseasons
the majority of teams who have played in the world series (7 out of 12) never had home field advantage getting there.
And I think if you look at a larger sample size (like the last 20 years of playoff games) you’ll see a better record for the home teams.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Sep 16, 2008 1:38 AM EDT up reply actions
The research shows the home field advantage is nominal
Eric Seidman did an article on this and found any advantage was nominal and generally not statistically significant (see comments).
The home team wins a little more than the road team, but is it because the better team (with the better record) plays more home games? Or because the home team gets the strategic advantage of batting last? Or because the home team gets to stay at home rather than out of a suitcase? Or because the home team has built their roster to suit its home park?
Playing in Milwaukee gave the Cubs none of those advantages (well, other than being a better team than the Astros, but that would have been true if the games were played in Houston).
by Gopherballs on Sep 16, 2008 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm sure that warms the Astros hearts
after spending the afternoon listening to all those Cubs fans go crazy over a no-hitter.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
Yes, the Cub fans are responsible for the no hitter
In the stone silence of Safeco Field, I am sure the Astros would have eked out an infield hit.
Home field advantage is real
It really doesn’t make any sense to ignore it or act like it isn’t important in a pennant race.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Sep 16, 2008 1:03 AM EDT up reply actions
The faulty assumption
is that the number of partisans in a half empty ballpark causes a home field advantage.
It is more of an unproven (and unprovable) assumption than a faulty assumption
Arguing that home field advantage doesn’t exist is pretty silly (at best), when the win-loss record throughout the history of baseball in both the regular season and postseason shows that it does exist.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Sep 16, 2008 1:40 AM EDT up reply actions
No, I have been arguing that a half-filled or third-filled stadium with partisan fans
does not cause the home field advantage (at least in any significant way).
Teams that bat last have an advantage. Teams that do not have to travel and stay in a hotel for a series have an advantage. Teams that can configure their roster with their home park effects in mind have an advantage. None of those factors, however, were present in Milwaukee.
by Gopherballs on Sep 16, 2008 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions
re: Toronto
The SkyDome also sucks. Mike Sweeney requires surgery just by being in Ontario.
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by Matt Klaassen on Sep 14, 2008 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
