Yankees

Having Frank Viola and Bert Blyleven on the 87 Twins pitching staff and Jack Morris on the 91 Twins pitching staff was "lucky" too. Both teams peaked at exactly the right time, especially the 87 Twins, and are the perfect examples of "anything can happen."

Sorry. You can't begin to prove this. The stadium had nothing to do with Lonnie Smith not scoring from 2nd in Game 7 of the 91 World Series. It also didn't have anything to do with Jack Morris pitching 10 innings in that game.

 

The Twins gain about 5-10 more wins a year just from their stadium. While most teams play better at home, because of the crappiness and peculiarity of the Metrodome, you can tack on an additional 5-10 wins a year for the Twins' home field games.

The '87 team was lucky, no doubt about it. They were probably the 5th or 6th best team that year.

The '91 team was good, which I conceded above. The '91 W.S. was so close that giving home field advantage to either team essentially gave that team the victory. Who's to say Jack Morris pitches that well if Game 7 is in Atlanta? You're right, we don't know for sure, but we can use the statistics that tell us most teams play better at home, and the Twins play better than anyone else at home, particularly because of their horrific stadium.

I mean, can't they get an outfield wall that doesn't look like it's made of kiddie pool material?

 

The twins didn't gain much playing at home so far this series...:BangHead:

 

Please prove this.

If you don't like the Twins that is your own right. But don't make up these silly reasons to support it. Just admit your bias and move on. :thumbsup:

 

What is it about the Metrodome that gives such an advantage to the Twins, when the other team gets to bat and field there, too? I believe the measurements are uniform down the lines, in the alleys and to center, so what's the big quirk(s) that give(s) the Twins such an advantage?

Good luck proving this one

 

Well, the Twins record was +12 at home vs. away. That is the same differential as the Rockies, who incidentally were last in their division. However it trails the Blue Jays (+13), Cardinals (+15), and is far behind the Devil Rays, who had the largest home field advantage??? (+21), but were this year's worst team in baseball at 61 - 101. BTW, the Padres (-2) and Tigers (-3) actually did better on the road. And are in the playoffs.

Ed

 

This is just not my opinion; it's the opinion of just about everyone in baseball (experts, sportswriters, etc). The Metrodome is a blight on sports. For one thing, it is difficult to pick out fly balls with the white roof. If you play there 81 times a year, you have an advantage over a team who plays there 6 times a year. The acoustics are terrible making the home crowd noise an even greater factor than in a typical game. The turf is crappy. The outfield wall is crappy. All of these things are "abnormal", but the Twins players are used to them, so it gives a decided advantage to them at home.

The Twins this year are a decent team, but they are not a 96-win team. More like 85-90. Their two losses at home against Oakland just accentuates that fact. Sometimes luck runs out.

 

Sorry, I disagree! "Home-field advantage" (or disadvantage) is a part of most sports, including baseball. What about Fenway (Red Sox +10); Camden Yards (Orioles +10); Dodger Stadium (Dodgers +10); Jacobs Field (Indians +10) or the PNC 'bandbox' (Pirates +19), and the aforenamed infamous duo of best and worst in a division of Busch (Cardinals +15) and Tropicana (Devil Rays +21)?? Whether or not one likes the team, and I am no fan of any, per se, including not knowing who one person is on the Twins roster, there is nothing sinister about the Twins record. Each and every team plays an equal number of games "on their home turf", and "on someone else's home turf." It all balances out. And the Twins are far less "suspect" than the Cards could possibly be at at 83-78 and five games behind the next nearest qualifiers, in this.

Ed

 

I agree that home field advantage is part of the game. Year in and year out, there are some teams that play better at home than others. All those teams you mentioned played better at home this year. That means nothing to my argument. Even in years where the Twins are down, and they play .500 at home, I still maintain that their awful stadium gives them at least an extra 5 wins. Whether they play .500 at home in their down years, or .650 at home when they are good, their stadium helps them out.

 

You may be right about the Metrodome. I may be crazy.

But, anecdotal evidence does not make for proof. Empirical evidence must be supplied to support your claim. You've heard that the Pythagorean Theorem can be applied to baseball, right? That's the perfect tool to use to evaluate whether the Metrodome is worth 5-10 additional wins per season all by itself.

Oh, btw, the Athletics winning the first 2 games at the Metrodome does not add to, nor subtract from, Andy's contention. 2 games is far too small a sample size to project over an entire 162 game schedule.

 

Speaking of numbers, Bill James agrees with me. I've read some of his stuff "proving" my point. I don't have the time or concern to statisically prove my point. I go by reputable sources who look at this stuff for a living, and the expert consensus is that the Metrodome helps the Twins more than any other park helps its home team.

 

In that case, I'm sure you won't mind posting a link to the article where Bill James agrees with you. Or, perhaps, you can point to some pages in one of Bill's books where he agrees with you. I am interested in seeing the statistical evidence.

Thanks!

 

You keep saying this, yet you have not shown any support for it.

 

In other words you can't.

 

Look, I'm not making this stuff up. I've read and heard basbeball experts say similar things about the Metrodome. All my Bill James books are packed up in the basement. When I feel like in the next 10 years, I'll find you a quote, but I do remember reading his analysis in one of his earlier books (like from the late 80's or early 90's). Bottom line is, if the Twins had won their pennants in even numbered years (say, in '88 and '92), and thus would not have had home field advantage, they in all probability would have 0 World Series wins. Shoot, I would argue that without the Metrodome, they wouldn't even have made the playoffs in '87 (in '91 they probably would have still made it).

And finally, this is a sports forum where we give opinions and arguments that ultimately can't be "proved" scientifically. Even Bill James with all of his formulas will admit that he can't "prove" with absolute certainty any of his theories on different subjects, like who was the greatest hitter of all-time. Ultimately, there is a dose of subjectivity in sports arguments.

So I'll throw it back to you all - someone "prove" to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Twins gain no advantage whatsoever with the Metrodome vs. any other team and their home park.

 

:applause: Nice try. But that is not how this works. You made the statement and therefore the ball is in your court to prove your statement. You have talked around the statement for a few days now showing all of us that you really have no proof. For whatever reason it seems you just don't like the Twins and it irks you that they won 2 World Series titles.

In reality what you have here is your opinion. You are welcome to your opinion as all of us are, yet let's not play like it is fact. :thumbs:

 

It obviously makes little difference what anyone says, here, since you (A.) detest the Metrodome, which is your privilege, I guess; (B.) are not a fan of virtually anything the Twins do, apparently not liking them, and this being partly because you don't like their stadium; (C.) feel free to cite other canonized rhetoric, while ignoring actual facts mentioned and (D.) dispense with any arguments that do not support your preconceived ideas.

And "beyond a shadow of a doubt", is not even required in any court, at least in the Commonwealth of KY, rather the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Anyway as to 'evidence' "vs. any other team and their home park", for 2006, at least, the differential of several equal or exceed that of the Minnesota Twins and the Metrodome.

1.) Colorado Rockies and Coors Field: +12 at home. (They finished tied for last in their division at 76W- 86L.)
2.) Toronto Blue Jays and SkyDome +13 at home. (Managed to finish at 86-76, missing Wild-Card by eight games, and 10 games behind the Yankees.)
3.) St. Louis Cardinals and Busch Stadium: +15 at home: (It would seem that if any team in the playoffs should be "dissed" on the basis of their supposedly 'helped' record, this is the one. given their home field advantage, and the fact that the overall record of was the worst in the playoffs, and they finished 1 1/2 games behind a team that did not make the Playoffs in the NL, and they actually had six fewer wins, than a team which did not make the AL layoffs.)
4.) Pittsburgh Pirates and PNC Park: +19 at home: ( I really wanted to call this the PNC 'shoebox' but decided to play nice! The Pirates has the second worst record in the NL, at 67-95, finishing one game above the Cubs.)
5.) Tampa Ray Devil Rays and Tropicana Park: +21 at home. (Amazing! The worst team, with the worst record in baseball manages to finish a 'close' 36 games behind the division winner, rolling to a blazing red-hot 61-101 record. Without this "advantage", Why!, they might have won 50 games!!!)

Perhaps if the Detroit Tigers still played in Tiger (Briggs) Stadium, in place of Comerica Park, AND the San Deigo Padres still played in Jack Murphy (Qualcomm/San Deigo) Stadium, in place of PETCO Park, they could have a home-field advantage, as well. But maybe they made the playoffs just because they happen to play in the two newest facilities in MLB. You think?? Happens to make as much sense as subtly suggesting that the Twins are overrated, and probably don't even deserve to be there.

One final comment. Somehow it seems that the cominations of good pitching, good defence, good hitting, timely hitting, and good base-running, all somehow seem to sometimes combine to give a definite "home-field advantage!

Ed

 

Yes, it is an opinion shared by many basbeball people that I've heard over the years. Ask any baseball expert who the better team was in 1987 and why the Twins won. They will answer you (a) the Cardinals and (b) the Twins' home field advantage with their lousy stadium. 1991 is more of a draw in that Atlanta and Minnesota were pretty even. Again, the Twins lucked out since home field was to the AL that year and won in a tight series. Interesting fact: the Twins have never won a road World Series game.

 

Ed, I'm making arguments going back to the 1980's and you keep pulling out stats from one season. If you want to rebut me with stats, then your sampling needs to go a bit deeper than that. Besides, I'm not convinced that your home/road differential really addresses my assertion. There are too many other variables involved that affect bare home/road records. My assertion isn't that the Twins are always the best home team; it's that they are helped more by their home park more than any other team. By the way, I would put the Rockies a close second in this category.

To prove my assertions would require more than stats. Some of it would require knowledge from the players and managers - asking them questions about the different parks, etc. And you know what, the sportswriters and experts spend a lot of time talking to the players and managers, so I will trust their opinion in the matter.

 

And yet you continue to have no proof of all these opinions. :laugh:

Oh well, believe what you will.

This discussion is starting to sound like the person in the church who comes to their pastor, "Oh pastor, there is a big group of people upset about so and so."

The pastor responds, "oh yeah, who are these people?"

"Oh, well pastor, you know I can't really say, but they are there."

Translation: I have a strong opinion about something and right or wrong I am going to make it appear that I have a group of people on my side without any facts to support it.

:laugh: :thumbsup: