Tailoring a roster to Wrigley's schizophrenic nature

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The obvious solution is to abandon Wrigley Field and build a new park with an easily exploitable eccentricity.

[seanimal]

yeah, i think that's kind of obvious. so it's colder and windier the first two months of the season? that applies to both teams. it's not like we play in the elements and our opponents are in some sort of neutral environment.

 

 

well, the opposition could be built better to win with the wind blowing in

 

well then they probably suck and we'll beat them the next day when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing out. it's an idiotic way to think about building a team.

[seanimal]

The obvious solution is to abandon Wrigley Field and build a new park with an easily exploitable eccentricity.

 

wrigley field actually does have an easily exploitable eccentricity, it's far and away a hitters park. so like, get some good pitchers with low whips and a good ground-to-fly ratio and a bunch of hitters that work the count, get on base, and hit with power. kind of like most other teams that want to win.

[Guest]

yeah, i think that's kind of obvious. so it's colder and windier the first two months of the season? that applies to both teams. it's not like we play in the elements and our opponents are in some sort of neutral environment.

 

 

well, the opposition could be built better to win with the wind blowing in

 

well then they probably suck and we'll beat them the next day when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing out.

 

so if they have, for instance, better line drive hitters and efficient base stealers while the cubs maybe have a bunch of guys who thrive off wind blown fly balls, the opposing team probably sucks?

 

i left out the part about you wrote about it being an idiotic way to build a team since you left out the part where i acknowledged that already (since that was the whole point of the post you quoted anyway).

[SouthSideRyan]

Who builds a team around guys that hit pop ups that will drift out under a heavy wind?

[seanimal]

yeah, i think that's kind of obvious. so it's colder and windier the first two months of the season? that applies to both teams. it's not like we play in the elements and our opponents are in some sort of neutral environment.

 

 

well, the opposition could be built better to win with the wind blowing in

 

well then they probably suck and we'll beat them the next day when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing out.

 

so if they have, for instance, better line drive hitters and efficient base stealers while the cubs maybe have a bunch of guys who thrive off wind blown fly balls, the opposing team probably sucks?

 

i left out the part about you being awesome and me being maybe not as awesome.

 

are you suggesting that a team could hit deep pop flies as some sort of collective skill set, to the point that they live or die by the direction of the wind?

 

i took your statement that a team better built to win with the win blowing in means that the same team wouldn't benefit from the wind blowing out. a team that hits line drives is going to manage success with the wind blowing in, but they'll be more successful with the wind blowing out. efficient base-stealing is wind-neutral.

 

we're talking about wind right?

[Guest]

Who builds a team around guys that hit pop ups that will drift out under a heavy wind?

 

[expletive] if i know.

 

i'm sure there are hitters that hit a lot more hr of the high fly ball variety (those which are HR only in some parks in some conditions) than of the line drive variety (more likely to be no doubters), though

 

i feel like edmonds hit a bunch of the former in 08 and albert hit a bunch of the other kind always

[Guest]

yeah, i think that's kind of obvious. so it's colder and windier the first two months of the season? that applies to both teams. it's not like we play in the elements and our opponents are in some sort of neutral environment.

 

 

well, the opposition could be built better to win with the wind blowing in

 

well then they probably suck and we'll beat them the next day when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing out.

 

so if they have, for instance, better line drive hitters and efficient base stealers while the cubs maybe have a bunch of guys who thrive off wind blown fly balls, the opposing team probably sucks?

 

i left out the part about you being awesome and me being maybe not as awesome.

 

are you suggesting that a team could hit deep pop flies as some sort of collective skill set, to the point that they live or die by the direction of the wind?

 

i took your statement that a team better built to win with the win blowing in means that the same team wouldn't benefit from the wind blowing out. a team that hits line drives is going to manage success with the wind blowing in, but they'll be more successful with the wind blowing out. efficient base-stealing is wind-neutral.

 

we're talking about wind right?

 

all I said in that statement was that one team in a given game could be built in such a way to be hurt more by the wind blowing in than the other team in said game. i don't see how either of those teams is necessarily better than the other in neutral or opposite conditions.

 

again, i was acknowledging that in theory, there might be a situation where one team is hurt more (even if marginally so) than the other by the conditions, and that in practice its pretty much impossible to build a team intentionally for that and pointless because of the minimal benefit (if any) achieved.

 

i agree with you, ffs.

[seanimal]

and all i'm saying is that a team that is not hurt by the wind blowing in totally [expletive] sucks.

 

and if you agree with me, why are you arguing with me ffs