Jump to content

A potential new rule that could be a huge game-changer in MLB


pf9

Recommended Posts

You can tell OP does not follow MLB.  He said a lot of ignorant things

 

Retractable roofs woulda come in handy in 1908, when the White Sox and Indians were denied the opportunity to match the Tigers' record due to rainouts.  Both teams ended behind Detroit only because they didn't play as many games.  If they were allowed to make up their postponed games, there may have been a 3 way tie for the pennant, which would have resulted in 2 tiebreaker games.  Alas, we'll never know who was the rightful AL champ of 1908.

 

Anyway, MLB had their chance to implement this new rule, but then Truist Park got built recently with no roof, and no one cares.  The last ballparks built have been:

 

Yankee Stadium- no roof

 

Citi Field- No roof

 

Target Field - no roof

 

Marlins Park- roof

 

Truist- no roof

 

The Shed- roof

 

So as you see, no one cares about OP's rules.  The Twins literally went from warmth and comfort in April to cold and misery, but the fans prefer that so they can enjoy the summer air, which was impossible in the Dome.

 

Hopefully no new parks are built for a very long time, like minimum 50 years.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2020 at 12:32 AM, TLO said:

I’d prefer to see cold, outdoors October baseball than your “solution” to solve a non existent problem. 
 

I am glad to know that your proposal will allow for postponements in case of a terrorist attack, though. Thank you for clarifying. 

This is the quality **** we expect from you 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RuskieTitan said:

I would assume the cost for a retractable roof would probably come in higher than an open air one. So there's one downside for owners.

Sure, that's one. But then I'd argue a roof allows for other uses. They could host concerts, March Madness, high school sports, whatever at Target Field in addition to what the OP is saying if they had a roof. They're already spending a crazy amount of money, might as well spend a little more and open up those other opportunities 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, smetana34 said:

Sure, that's one. But then I'd argue a roof allows for other uses. They could host concerts, March Madness, high school sports, whatever at Target Field in addition to what the OP is saying if they had a roof. They're already spending a crazy amount of money, might as well spend a little more and open up those other opportunities 

Sure, if you have the money for it, why not. But there's a reason the Yankees have a payroll of $113 million and the Marlins have $28 million. Sure, when we're talking stadium costs it's a crazy amount, but there's still quite a difference in terms of footing a bill for hundreds of millions of dollars in difference.

https://www.livescience.com/42996-open-stadium-super-bowl-2014.html#:~:text=All this roof technology comes,closed%2C fixed-roof stadium.

Quote

All this roof technology comes with a price tag. A retractable roof adds between $100 million and $150 million to a project over an open stadium, Waggoner said, and between $25 million and $40 million over the cost of a closed, fixed-roof stadium.

$100-150 million more is quite a chunk of change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...