User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 1.1863 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
More hyperbole and straw-men. At no point has anyone claimed that presence of 20,000+ Cubs fans inevitably cause the Astros to "call it quits" or "hang their heads." I'm simply pointing out that having 20,000+ fans screaming for the Cubs is bound to (a) boost the Cubs play and/or (b) make it more disadvantageous for the Astros.
And whatever number it is, the Rays home record this year would seem to be serve as a counterargument.
No it doesn't; if anything, it serves as an argument on just how magnificent the Rays have been to achieve their record without the benefit of what should be a more energized home crowd.
The gun wasn't right at all. Beyond every other pitch for Z being 98 or 99, the other 50% were coming up as in the 40s.
Charging full price for today's game is certifiably insane. They're not gonna draw anything.
All the talk about the Astros whining and complaining from the get-go reminds me of the they won't let us close/open the roof(can't remember which) during the '05 series. They're already telling themselves they can't win under a certain circumstance.
Oh and I'm with the majority, I'm ####### thrilled that this means Milt Pappas will go away. Look we all hate Bruce Froemming, but you have a problem Milt, and you're kinda a jagoff yourself so watch those stones you're throwing.
If the Rays, with the best home record in baseball despite tepid home crowds except when supporters of the the big draw teams (Cubs, Red Sox, Yankees, against whom Tampa is 13-5 this year) flood the gates, are not a counterargument to the idea that big home crowds are important, what possible argument is there?
I kid, of course, but I don't know how much difference this all makes, and I think the impact over the course of two games is so trivial as to hardly be worth discussing, given the circumstances surrounding this Cubs/Astros series.
I mentioned this in the Cub chatter, but the Cubs have very quietly worked their way up to the NL's best road record. Who'd've thought?
And again by how much? 1%, 2%? People keep saying things like the Astros got screwed or hosed. Well, words like screwed and hosed imply to me a big disadvantage. I don't see 20,000 blue fans has being a huge disadvantage to a bunch of a major leaguers who have a history of not calling it quits and winning games down the stretch.
35.87%. Refute that.
Can we at least agree that MLB's solution was about the most Cub-friendly/Astros-hostile possibility? Even if it only makes a 1 or 2 percent difference it's a disadvantage which seems like it could have been easily remedied.
It isn't a good counter-argument for a few reasons. First, it's only one example and may very well be anomalous. Second, while the Trop does draw plenty of Red Sox, Cubs, and Yankees fans for their games, those teams also bring out a lot of Rays fans too. It's not like the Rays regularly play in an environment like the Astros saw last night or will see today.
Third, as I mentioned before, it does nothing to refute that there is a disadvantage in playing before a crowd overwhelmingly in favor of your opponent. If anything it shows that they have been truly magnificent to overcome any such disadvantage.
I didn't say it was a good one. Just that it was one.
I believe that the rooting interest of the crowd has little significance. Moreoever, I'm also arguing against the idea that a big crowd of pro-Cubs fans is somehow vastly more significant than a smaller crowd of pro-Cubs fans.
The Devils Rays have the best HFA record in baseball despite overall small crowds and a great record when playing in front of crowds that are outnumbered or evenly split among Rays fans and fans of the opposing team.
It may not be a be a big data point. But it's certainly an argument on my side (the rooting interests/size of the crowd is not a big part of HFA) rather than yours (big, happy crowds drive wins).
Apparently a lot. They're hitless through 3 so far today.
I was at the Trop for a Red Sox game back in May. 3/4 of the stadium wore red, and the incessant chants of "Let's go Red Sox" was only interrupted by the occasional "Yankees Suck!"
But thats because they're facing the backend of the Daily Double: Ted Lilly.
-- MWE
I have no idea. I don't believe it can be adequately quantified. In this instance, you are taking an average number, playing around with it in ways that make sense in some ways and don't make sense in others, then using it to apply to this particular situation with this particular Astros team. While I appreciate the effort, I don't think it could be measured with anything close to precision.
I just believe that the Astros face a comparative disadvantage in traveling 1200 miles to play in a ballpark 90 miles from Chicago before 20,000 vocal Cubs fans.
Apparently, among Primates I'm alone on this, which stuns me.
Haha, and Casper said they made Sveum the manager and reassigned Simmons to an advisory role. So I guess even if firing Yost, they still found a way to piss of HW.
You're not alone Fred. It seems obvious to me that having a favorable crowd is an advantage to a team, even if I can't quantify that advantage.
Holy ####. The Brewers fired Yost.
Wow. How often does a team fire its manager with two weeks left in a season, with a still good chance of making the playoffs?
You apparently haven't been reading this thread. I don't think anyone says there isn't an advantage, they just think its minimal.
And management whining about it gives the Cubs more of an advantage than the home field does.
Even there, however, it wasn't in consecutive games, as Groom's no-no was in the second game of a doubleheader.
Good news for the Astros. The White Sox went on to win the World Series that year.
I don't think we should be talking about this.
Apparently, among Primates I'm alone on this, which stuns me.
You're not. I just don't think it's worth the aggravation of getting into it.
In the book "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" a computer is built to let people know THE answer - about the life, the universe, and everything. The answer it gives is 42.
That was a joke. See, I think some people on this site wouldn't get that it's a joke unless you explain that to them. They'd want to know what the methodology the computer used was.
Having people cheer for you helps. There's a reason why host counties in the Summer Olympics have done better than in surrounding Olympiads every time but one (1976 - blame those farkin' Quebec separatists!)
First of all, he acts like these deep no-hitters happen often enough for him to know anything. Second, I really think he's full of ####. Thinking back, I really can't remember a single other instance of a guy giving up a hit late and then falling apart. I'm sure it's happened, but I think it far more frequent that the pitcher gives up the hit and then continues pitching extremely well, since he obviously had some pretty good stuff that day, it doesn't just evaporate into Zito-ness instantly.
I thought host countries tended to build up their developmental infrastructure in advance of hosting with an eye toward performing well before the home folks. That and the possibility of greater success in judged sports could be two factors other than just hootin' and hollerin'.
Then again, I think it's actually 23.
Yeah, it is because they are automatically eligible for every single event and the home country tends to spend more money then usual when they are the host team. Well, that and it helps that the host country has been Soviet Union, USA a bunch, and China.
Or do you really believe that the curling crowd or skeet shoot crowd or yacthing crowd is so huge that it fires on those athletes?
Chris did specify . That winter powerhouse Japan went 5-10-2 in medals (and 1-5-0 in Golds) in the 1994-1998-2002 games.
About ten years ago, Jon Lieber retired the first 20 batters he faced in a Cubs-Cards game. Then McGwire homers.
To make a long story short, the Cards get about 4-5 runs in barely six pitches. Just incredible. One guy singled, I think one pitch was taken, and the rest were all hit out of the ballpark. I wanna say it was around 1997-9, if anyone wants to look. It was in Wrigley.
Or do you really believe that the curling crowd or skeet shoot crowd or yacthing crowd is so huge that it fires on those athletes?
Go fu
ck yourself.Do you really believe that people have 100% control of their emotions? Do you think people's emotions never affects their performance? Do you think games are played in computer simluations and not in real life?
done better than in surrounding Olympiads
Which is then addressed by my previous sentence.
Apparently you don't
Do you really believe that athletes not good enough to qualify for the olympics garner a significant number of medals?
and the home country tends to spend more money then usual when they are the host team. Well, that and it helps that the host country has been Soviet Union, USA a bunch, and China.
Do you really believe the USOC's budget rises and falls depending on the location of the olympics?
Not really. But the numbers of the U.S. and old Soviet Union are the most asterisk-deserving of the bunch in this study, since the U.S.S.R.'s 1980 total got a sizable boost from the absence of the United States and others, while the U.S. total enjoyed the same boost in 1984.
Do you really believe that athletes not good enough to qualify for the olympics garner a significant number of medals?
Do you really believe the USOC's budget rises and falls depending on the location of the olympics?
It sure seemed to work for China this year.
I would love to see the bugdets for the USOC. Why wouldn't the USOC devote more time and resources to a squad when it is playing in LA or Atlanta then in say Barcelona? If anything they could spend the same amount but have it mean more simply because they don't have to send everybody overseas.
but like tanya tucker sez
its a little too late to do the right thing nowwwwwww
Sure it doesn't affect their "ability" to play baseball. That's not at issue.
What is at issue is whether it acts as a hinderance to their performance; or, conversely, whether it helps boost the Cubs performance. I would think that there would be no doubt of this, but apparently not.
Insert "fragile psyches" comment and/or "Little Leaguers" response here.
Here I'll reword it for you so we don't play the Philadelphia Attorney game.
Having 23,000 and 15,000 blue seats probably has a miniscule impact on their performance. Again I never said it has no impact, I said it has miniscule impact.
1. Those weren't just blue seats; those seats were filled with loud Cubs fans.
2. Are you also saying those loud Cubs fans have miniscule impact on the Cubs' play?
-- MWE
Well put, Mr. Straw-Man.
The Cubs deserve every bit of what they've gotten the last two days, and so do the Astros.
I'm not McCoy, but since we seem to be in lockstep on this thread, I'll provide my answer: Yes, I think those loud fans have miniscule impact on the Cubs' play.
He can correct me if his opinion differs.
Yes.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main