Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
October 24, 2005
Roof!

There was a particularly funny Looney Tunes cartoon about show business which ended with a the old joke about a dog who can talk. The owner is showing the dog off to an agent, and starts asking the dog questions:

Owner: What's the texture of sand paper?

Dog: Rough!

Owner: What's on top of a house?

Dog: Roof!

Owner: Who's the greatest baseball player of all time?

Dog: Ruth!

You then see the owner and the dog kicked out on the street, at which point the dog interjects, "Maybe I should have said DiMaggio!"

I'm more interested in what's on top of a house, however. The roof in Houston has become an issue.

The Astros have kept the retractable roof shut tight for all five of their postseason games over the first two rounds. But during the World Series, it's MLB's call. And MLB officials have told the Astros they prefer the great outdoors -- tropical storms permitting.

The Astros correctly believe that the closed roof helps them:

"Bottom line," said manager Phil Garner on Monday, "is that I think that with it closed, it does generate a lot of noise and it's a lot of fun. And I think that we play for that. We play for that excitement, and that noise -- it helps a little bit."

So how much has it helped? The Astros had the second-best home record in the sport (53-28) this year, trailing only Boston. And they have gone 4-1 at home during this postseason, losing only the game in which Brad Lidge allowed that game-winning two-out homer in the ninth to Albert Pujols in the NLCS.

But their winning percentage when the roof is open is only .577 (15-11) -- versus .684 (39-18) when it's closed (counting the postseason). (There were two other games this year in which the roof was opened during the late innings.)

It's a very interesting decision. I would guess that nobody other than the White Sox want the roof open. The Astros obviously believe it helps them. I would guess the Astros fans want what's best for the team and would vote to keep the roof shut (Astros fans, please comment). My guess is that Fox would prefer the roof closed, as they don't have to worry about sudden changes in weather causing a delay in their broadcast. So who is Selig helping by having the roof open? His old friend Reinsdorf, maybe? I thought they had a falling out after Jerry signed Albert Belle, but 10 years is a long time. They could have patched up things.


Posted by David Pinto at 11:10 PM | World Series | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Full disclosure - I'm a White Sox fan. And yes, I do think the dome should be open (weather permitting). Baseball was meant to be played outside in real conditions, not in some antiseptic bubble, and on an even footing. If the dome is closed, the noise level from the fans gives the Astors an uneven footing (which I believe was a point made by MLB) - not to mention making that stupid buzz sound louder.

And hey, if inclement weather shuts up McCarver and Buck, I'm all for it.

Posted by: Joseph J. Finn at October 25, 2005 12:22 AM

By that logic why not hold the World Series at a neutral location so that the "footing" is more even?

Posted by: Chris at October 25, 2005 12:49 AM

One would think MLB would also want the roof closed, 'cause if it helps the Astros then it could possibly make the series run longer and therefore generate more buzz and excitement. Even a 5 game series is better than a sweep.

Posted by: Devon at October 25, 2005 01:21 AM

Jerry, that check should be made out to B-u-d S-e-l-i-g. Thanks.

Posted by: Rob McMillin at October 25, 2005 02:07 AM

If they wanted the great outdoors, why didn't they play the first two games (weekend dates) during the daytime? I can understand the logic for prime-time games during the week, although I don't agree with it, but Saturday/Sunday games should be played in daylight.

Posted by: Linkmeister at October 25, 2005 03:05 AM

A domed stadium is one of the very few things that has been reliably and statistically shown to be a factor in the home field advantage. Look at stats from the Minnesota Metrodome sometime... when I was doing my undergrad thesis on the home field advantage (see http://www.hiremetheo.com for a link to the thesis), I found an article talking about how it consistently has the most errors made by a visiting team out of all AL parks - by a wide margin. And, the Twins tend not to have such a high error rate there. In addition, sound recordings during the world series a few years ago showed it to have twice the decibel level of the stadium the Twins were playing (St. Lous I think?).

Posted by: Mike at October 25, 2005 07:26 AM

The roof should be closed or it should be up to the Astros not MLB. The white sox got their home field advantage and now the Astros should get theirs.

If I were the Astros owner I'd tell Selig to shove it.

Posted by: Bill at October 25, 2005 09:13 AM

As a White Sox fan I'm fine with having the roof closed. Not sure what MLB's reasoning is here. 'Consistency' doesn't really tell us much. One interesting note from the article is that they had the 2001 Diamondbacks open their dome too. No reason given for that.
On the Houston side, please stop looking for preemptive excuses. Please don't tell me that your team is so fragile that they can only do well in a carefully controlled enviroment. They're better than that, right? If the Astros can't win a game at home with the proclaimed best pitcher of the Series, they don't deserve to win it all.

Posted by: Peder at October 25, 2005 09:29 AM

Selig has no business sticking his ugly nose here. The Astros should be able to do what they want with their field.

That said, if the Astros lose with an open roof, it won't be Selig's fault.

Posted by: Scott Janssens at October 25, 2005 09:34 AM

Look at this in Win Probability though. I believe that begins with the home team having a 54% chance of winning. However, when the home baseball team is playing in a dome as its home stadium, I think it's something like a 58% home field advantage. So Selig's WPA of -.04 does in fact have an impact. To put it in perspective... I found the blown call on AJ Piercyznski striking out and then getting to first in the 9th against the Angels to have a WPA impact of .06.

So, Selig forcing the roof to be open is about 2/3 as crucial as that blown call, in terms of the degree to which they impact the outcome of the game. That's still pretty significant, to me.

Posted by: Mike at October 25, 2005 10:39 AM

Mike, whatever. What's the win probability of grooving a fastball with the bases loaded to Paul Konerko? If the reason a team loses is because their roof is open, they shouldn't be in the playoffs at all much less the World Series.

The Astros should be allowed to close the roof for a host of reasons. The chief one being to avoid a lot of annoying bellyaching.

Posted by: Scott Janssens at October 25, 2005 11:26 AM

I'm a die-hard Astros fan!!

Pitching, hitting, catching and throwing will determine the winner of these games, not the roof.

I believe the Astros have already gained an advantage over the roof flap - if closed, fan support will be loud, if open, probably even louder.

The common practice early in the season was to begin games with the roof closed for the first 6 innings, then open it before the top of the 7th. I guess the process only takes a few minutes. Hey, maybe FOX gets to sell an extra commercial or two during that time.

At any rate, Astro bats and Oswalt's arm will decide the winner of game 3, not MLB.

Posted by: James at October 25, 2005 11:49 AM

Sure, you can probably even work in a sponsorship.

"Tonight's roof-opening brought to you by 'Prison Break' - Hey, when there's an opening, you have to make to your move. Tim, take a look at the view from our Fox roof cam as it moves along past the choo-choo."

Posted by: Smiley at October 25, 2005 12:06 PM

My comment would be that the roof was built to keep Houston fans cool during hot days with the original thought being the roof is open on days where it is 80 degrees or cooler and not raining. As for tonight, open or closed the game comes down to weather Oswalt and Lidge can get the job done. I say keep it closed so I can hear less of McCarver and Buck talking about the roof.

Posted by: Pete at October 25, 2005 12:41 PM

A movement is being started by Houston fans. The Astros organization cannot complain to MLB too much about the roof, but the fans can sure voice their opinion.

On other blog sites, it is being suggested that the 40,000 plus fans lucky enough to have a ticket to the game should start a chant "Close the Roof" just prior to the start of the National Anthem. Such a display of solidarity would provide our team with a spark and show MLB our displeasure over their interefence into our home field advantage.

I would not mind it if the chant continued until they had to close the roof to start the game. It would be difficult to get the Anthem in over 40,000 fans chanting "Close the Roof", and the game is not going to start until the Antem has been sung.

Houston fans paid for the stadium the game is to be played in and paid enormous prices to attend the game. They should be able to experience the game in whatever environment they prefer.

Moreover, the Sox were provided with the full benefit of their home field advantage; 45 degree temperatures, wet conditions, and the DH. In return, Houston deserves the full benefit of it's home field advantage; controlled climate, maximum crowd noise, and no DH.

Posted by: Randy at October 25, 2005 01:21 PM

In my opinion, if MLB had a problem with the roof, they should have said so prior to the postseason....

"The Astros have kept the retractable roof shut tight for all five of their postseason games over the first two rounds. But during the World Series, it's MLB's call."

This is not very consistent, so it leads me to believe that Bud has an agenda...

No worries... Houston has played against the odds all year, they always do thing the hard way.

Posted by: Ken at October 25, 2005 01:31 PM

Ken, I have problems with both sides in this. If baseball is "meant to be played outside" why allow roofs at all? If closing the roof improves home field advantage, why have a retractable roof, or why was the roof ever opened?

Posted by: Scott Janssens at October 25, 2005 01:36 PM

Randy, I don't quite get some of your logic.

How was playing in cold, wet weather a "full benefit" for the White Sox? How was the addition of a ninth batter a detriment to the Astros?

Posted by: Michelle at October 25, 2005 03:09 PM

it won't be loud with the roof open. ive been there with it open and it shut.

the players and the fans expect to lose with it open and the cold temperatures and i personally think we have very little chance

mike, thank you for showing the stats.

agree completely with ken and randy.
'
bud most definitely has a personal agenda.

i keep telling people that the roof opens to grow grass, not because we want to cook or freeze watching baseball.

and jerry reinsdorf - make sure you spell the name on that check right - bud sellout

Posted by: lisa gray at October 25, 2005 03:25 PM

Jeebus, listening to the Houston faithful you'd think the Sox played in 45 degree weather from April to October. (I know I was wishing it was when I sat in 105 degree heat in July.) You'd think the Sox regularly played in the rain. If Qualls hadn't put one on a tee for Konerko do you think there would still be harping about the Sox home field advantage? Sadly, there probably would be.

Home field advantage is for mindless sports writers looking to fill column inches and fans without faith in their team. I expect more from fans of a World Series team. Ask the Angels about home field advantage.

Posted by: Scott Janssens at October 25, 2005 04:17 PM

Clearly there is a big difference with the roof closed. The Astros are something like .800 with the roof closed and .500 or so with the roof open. Why? Mostly because of crowd noise. Which is much much louder with the roof closed.

Posted by: Jeremy at October 25, 2005 04:31 PM

Crowd noise?

That crowd shut up P.D.Q. after Pujols annihilated that meatball slider from Lidge. That was friggin awesome! I could hear the beer cans hit the floor when that blast knocked off the ...

wait for it...

closed roof.


The SOX just need to jump on Oswalt early. Mr. Pants-too-tight is just gonna be gassing it in the first 2 innings anyway.

Posted by: bmc at October 25, 2005 04:58 PM

Lets face it, Astros and Chicago, so far, has been a nail biter. No matter the outcome, itll be a good series.
Now astros dont rely on the dome being close to win games, because they've been down 15 games under and managed to make it to the world series. obviously winning away games.
Its their home game, their stadium, thier choice.

Posted by: marcus at October 26, 2005 01:12 AM

If the roof was not a factor why did Bud insist it be kept open? I'm a 44 year astro fan.... it was bad enough being two games down, but Bud kicked us while we were down. When you are used to something and someone takes it away unexpectedly its creates a shock. The timing was horribly unfair. The Sox are the better club, but Selig gave them the extra edge which took the air out of Astro fans and I think temporarily took the air out of an already struggling team. Of course, Bud is a longtime fan of teams in that region, especially Milwaukee and the White Sox. This does not pass the smell test. Of course, this isn't the first time Selig has loused things up.
Chicago, you had a chance to prove you were the best fair and square, but you put on the black sox again.
For you grinning sox fans who says it doesn't matter, you never had baseball under a roof, so how would you know?
Not terribly disappointed in losing the series, just disappointed in the curve that Bud threw for the White Sox. The roof did not matter to Bud until the series was played.

Posted by: Old Hoodoo at October 27, 2005 08:56 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?