jmh@ltuxa.UUCP (cecw 64lt503310-Jon Mcecw) (06/18/85)
In response to David Rubin's latest comments on the Cubs WS games at night: 1) Apparently I didn't make myself clear. The point was not what the Cubs should do about night vs. day baseball, but rather what right the networks and/or commish have to require a team to change drastically for the WS, like requiring the Cubs NOT to play at Wrigley. 2) You say that night baseball is "good", which, of course, is totally subjective. Some would say the DH is "good", which you would disagree with. 3) Of course Dallas Green and the Tribune Company would prefer night baseball! It makes more money. However, as far as the good of the teams and fans, who knows? The fact remains that the Cubs over the years have a much better record in day ball than other teams in the NL, and to deprive them in the WS would be unfair. The day record percentage in 1982, 1983, and 1984 was better than their home record percentage, so it is not just attributable to the home field. A team that plays mainly in the day during the season appears to have an advantage in day games, and vice versa. 4) I agree that WS games are not like regular season games, but don't you think requiring a team to play away from home is a little drastic? Anybody else have any comments? Or maybe I'm making a big deal over nothing. It may never come to pass (I mean if someone else wins the NL East). Jon Hanrath ihnp4!ltuxa!jmh p.s. Side Note: How often do you see a pitcher hit for himself in the 8th inning with no one on, one out, and losing 2-0. Sutcliffe did (as I'm sure many of you saw on ABC) last night against the Mets. He got a hit, and was lifted for a pinch runner - just a bit unusual but will never show up in the box score.
bd@peora.UUCP (Bernie Dougan) (06/19/85)
> In response to David Rubin's latest comments on the Cubs WS games > at night: > . > . > . > 3) Of course Dallas Green and the Tribune Company would prefer > night baseball! It makes more money. However, as far as the good > of the teams and fans, who knows? The fact remains that the > Cubs over the years have a much better record in day ball than > other teams in the NL, and to deprive them in the WS would be unfair. > The day record percentage in 1982, 1983, and 1984 was better than > their home record percentage, so it is not just attributable to > the home field. A team that plays mainly in the day during the season > appears to have an advantage in day games, and vice versa. > If your statistic about the Cubs home record in the daytime is correct is may contradict the reason I thought the Cubs would want to play at night. That is, playing all day games is much more tiring when there are long homestands in very hot daytime weather. This has been used as an excuse for some past Cub teams fading down the stretch. > > Jon Hanrath > ihnp4!ltuxa!jmh > -- Bernie Dougan Perkin-Elmer Southern Development Center 2486 Sand Lake Road Orlando, Florida 32809 (305)850-1040 {decvax!ucf-cs, ihnp4!pesnta, vax135!petsd}!peora!bd
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (06/23/85)
[">" = Jon Hanrath] >In response to David Rubin's latest comments on the Cubs WS games >at night: >1) Apparently I didn't make myself clear. The point was not what the >Cubs should do about night vs. day baseball, but rather what right >the networks and/or commish have to require a team to change drastically >for the WS, like requiring the Cubs NOT to play at Wrigley. Attributing the entire blame for the possibility of the Cubs playing "home" games away from Wrigley to the Commish/ABC is an oversight. The primary cause is the intractability of the neighborhood denizens, combined with their political clout (South Siders would never get away with something like this). >2) You say that night baseball is "good", which, of course, is >totally subjective. Some would say the DH is "good", which you >would disagree with. Night baseball, whether it suits your tastes or not, has an indisputable virtue (unlike the DH): it permits more people to see more games. >3) Of course Dallas Green and the Tribune Company would prefer >night baseball! It makes more money. However, as far as the good >of the teams and fans, who knows? The fact remains that the >Cubs over the years have a much better record in day ball than >other teams in the NL, and to deprive them in the WS would be unfair. >The day record percentage in 1982, 1983, and 1984 was better than >their home record percentage, so it is not just attributable to >the home field. A team that plays mainly in the day during the season >appears to have an advantage in day games, and vice versa. An impressive argument...if it weren't just FALSE. I do not have the figures for 1982. In 1983, the Cubs were 8-17 in day away games (a slightly worse percentage than their overall road record of 28-53; not enough to show that they had a DISadvantage during the day, but enough to throw cold water on the supposition that they had an advantage); in 1984, they were 20-5; this year, they are 1-19 (that is not a typo!) thus far. It seems that some years the Cubs fare well in away day games, and in others not. Your claim is justified for 1984 and maybe 1982; it is dead wrong for 1983 and (most impressively) for 1985. Perhaps this is due to something other than the collection of players the Cubs have. It may be that the advantage or disadvantage a team enjoys in day ball may actually be due to the quality of the team's fifth and spot starters (who pitch disproportionately often in doubleheaders and the final games of series -- both things tend to be day games). It may be due to randomness. Etc. >4) I agree that WS games are not like regular season games, but don't >you think requiring a team to play away from home is a little drastic? Yes, it's drastic. So complain about the intransigence of the neighborhood rather than the desire of baseball fans to be able to see the World Series. If I had my druthers, I druther have weekend games played during the day, and I druther have temporary lights installed at Wrigley for post-season play, if necessary. >Anybody else have any comments? Or maybe I'm making a big deal over >nothing. It may never come to pass (I mean if someone else wins the >NL East). I think we are making a big deal over nothing. In the end, I'll lay long odds that temporary lights would go up at Wrigley before the Cubs would play at Riverfront... David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
wjnz@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (James Cooper) (06/25/85)
I feel that day baseball is the real thing. I am also convinced however,
that the Tribune will move the Cubs if they don't get lights. Possibly into
a domed stadium that the city has been wanting for a while now.
I would rather sacrifice the day games to keep the Cubs in Wrigley Field.
Dallas Green has said that the Cubs will not accept a temporary light
solution. The team would not be used to the lights in Wrigley. It seems
clear however that the Tribune is using this as leverage to go all or nothing.
The Tribune is proposing permanent lights and a limited number of night games,
roughly corresponding to the 3:05 starts (about 20 a season). The state
legislature is beginning to waffle, although the mayor has vowed not to change
the city ordinance.
It was unethical of whoever signed the ABC treaty to word it as he or she did,
and unfair that the owners don't give back the money as requested. Given the
situation, however, I favor the Tribune going for lights. At least this may
keep the Cubs in Wrigley in the long run (the Trib has said it will expand
the park if it gets lights.)
What they really need are a double set of lights during the day to help the
Cub hitters see the ball! :-)
And David, about the south-siders- Comiskey Park is in Mayor Daley's old
neighborhood. They got plenty of clout for 22 years!
--
James Cooper
..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!wjnzstevev@tekchips.UUCP (Steve Vegdahl) (06/26/85)
It seems that the simplest solution is to move both Wrigley Field AND
the Cubs to Honolulu. :-)
This would have the following advantages:
* The Cubs' current neighbors would no longer be bothered.
* The Cubs could play all their home games, even World Series ones,
during the day and not upset the TV networks. (2pm HST = 8pm EDT)
* More fans would have access to Major League baseball. Chicago would
still have the Sox. (This presumes that AL still plays baseball;
this can be debated, given that they use the DH. :-))
Steve Vegdahl
Computer Research Lab.
Tektronix, Inc.
Beaverton, Oregonmcal@ihuxb.UUCP (Mike Clifford) (06/27/85)
> I feel that day baseball is the real thing. I am also convinced however, > that the Tribune will move the Cubs if they don't get lights. Possibly into > a domed stadium that the city has been wanting for a while now. > I would rather sacrifice the day games to keep the Cubs in Wrigley Field. > Dallas Green has said that the Cubs will not accept a temporary light > solution. The team would not be used to the lights in Wrigley. It seems > clear however that the Tribune is using this as leverage to go all or nothing. > The Tribune is proposing permanent lights and a limited number of night games, > roughly corresponding to the 3:05 starts (about 20 a season). The state > legislature is beginning to waffle, although the mayor has vowed not to change > the city ordinance. > James Cooper > ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!wjnz Mayor Washington and the state legislature and the citizens of Wrigleyville will relent and allow night games at Wrigley Field when they realize that the Cub organization is serious about moving the team to the suburbs and into a new stadium. Now that the Tribune Company owns the team, there is more than enough money available, as well as the resolve to move the team if C.U.B.S. (Citizens United for Baseball in Sunshine) continues to resist permanent lights at "the friendly confines". Mike Clifford
chip@vaxwaller.UUCP (Chip Kozy) (07/01/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
What happens if the Cubs do make the series is, at best, going
to involve a lot more talk, compromise, more talk, etc. With that I
agree. What I take issue with is the supposed selfishness of the surrounding
neighborhood.
The feeling that the Cubs should be allowed day games for any
post-season play, and that those games should be played at Wrigley, isn't
confined to the people in the immediate area. This is generally a city-wide
attitude. To state that the people around Wrigley have enough clout to get
city hall to pass anti-night baseball legislation is to be a bit ignorant
of the politics involved with the city. The state legislation is no surprise
...as Chicago goes, so goes Illinois (from the days of King Daley, but
still true today). Although the south-siders don't necessarily agree with
the legislation, it comes down to "us agin them", and they support the
proposition. All this is clear to anyone born and raised in Chicago, north
or south side. Call it "civic pride", "hard-headedness", or whatever you
wish. Whatever it is, it's there and I don't think it will ever change...
at least not in our life-times. (Why do you think the Cubs have had such
a good following for all these years?)
Anyway, off the soapbox, and on to other things. Cubs in '85? I
sure hope so.
(As an aside, no matter who your favorite team happens to be,
the Cubs and the Mets have sure given us one hell of an entertaining
early season.)
Happiness;
Chip
--
Chip Kozy (415) 939-2400 x-2048
Varian Inst. Grp. 2700 Mitchell Dr.
Walnut Creek, Calif. 94598
{zehntel,amd,fortune,resonex,rtech}!varian!chipdavid@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (07/07/85)
> The feeling that the Cubs should be allowed day games for any > post-season play, and that those games should be played at Wrigley, isn't > confined to the people in the immediate area. This is generally a city-wide > attitude. To state that the people around Wrigley have enough clout to get > city hall to pass anti-night baseball legislation is to be a bit ignorant > of the politics involved with the city............. > > Chip Kozy Perhaps this should be moved to net.politics... :-) In any case, I beg to differ. Regardless of how other Chicagoans feel, they do not feel as strongly as the neighborhood residents. In actual fact, city ordinances and state laws were a DIRECT result of political action by the residents of the Wrigley area. It is my informed opinion (I was attending the U. of C. during the period these laws were passed) that politicians representing other consituents went along with the legislation because no direct harm was evident; politicians, and especially Cook County politicians, do not overly concern themselves with much that is not immediate. It was a desire not to alienate those colleagues who had a real political stake in the issue that allowed the statutes to sail through. Had the dangers of such legislation been apparent at the time, there would likely have been a debate. Before the Tribune Co. took over the Cubs, voting for day baseball was as controversial, and as likely to bring harm, as voting for apple pie. But when there are more customers for cherry pie than for apple, the unzealous start to see things is a somewhat different light (pun intentional). David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david