Meh.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by spookyfish
Sky Dome

The Rogers Centre. Not named, as my boyfriend thought, after some guy named Roger.

Everyone still calls it the Skydome though.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
The Rogers Centre. Not named, as my boyfriend thought, after some guy named Roger.

Everyone still calls it the Skydome though.

Thanks, eh.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by dtb
Hank - I am concerned. Please don't take this the wrong way, but it seems you've been wondering an awful lot what it's like to fuck sebastian. (Hey - who hasn't wondered? But the rest of us keep it to ourselves!) I think you may need a vacation.

Sincerely,

dtb

DTB,

I think Hank was writing about what he thought it would be like to fuck Taxwonk.

I am heartbroken, but you know Hank. His crushes pass in terms of seconds.

FWIW, Taxwonk is all about giving, and a great cuddler. Perfect for a needy, shy, previously hurt lover like Hank.

God bless,
Sebastian

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by spookyfish
The only other place I can think of where this issue would come up is Sky Dome [.]

Was a small issue in Arizona a couple years ago. And there is a moveable roof in Milwaukee, but I think it's fair to ignore what would happen with the roof if the Brewers were in the World Series.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
FWIW, Taxwonk is all about giving, and a great cuddler. Perfect for a needy, shy, previously hurt lover like Hank.

God bless,
Sebastian

Got big tits?

[dtb]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
In that post he was wondering about fucking Wonk. Or maybe I read too fast.

Uh... OK. You must be right.


Hank -- I'm still concerned.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Was a small issue in Arizona a couple years ago. And there is a moveable roof in Milwaukee, but I think it's fair to ignore what would happen with the roof if the Brewers were in the World Series.

Thanks. I had forgotten about Arizona, although in retrospect, I wonder if having the moveable roof in Arizona was really worth the added expense over a fixed roof in that particular climate.

I wonder if there's any sort of record of how often the BOB's (Sorry -- Chase Field's -- Jesus Christ.) roof has been opened vs. closed since the ballpark opened. I'd have to imagine it would be closed most of the time simply because, well, it's fucking hot there, dude.

(But maybe there are more people out there like Thurgreed, who love the hot weather, than ass-burners like Paigow. I don't know.)

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I think it's the difference between short-run and long-run changes. You can build a team to suit a park, but the park's not changing from game to game. You can't water down the basepaths only for those games with speedy teams (didn't a team nearly forfeit a game for doing this sometime in the 90s?). Because they can close/open the roof at will, it seems more unfair than the normally accepted differences. (grass is a close call, i admit).

BTW, from what I read the weather would have suggested an open roof.

I see what you're saying. I guess now we have to figure out why closing the roof is an advantage.

If it's because the ball carries better or worse and they believe they have a more powerful or less powerful team, then you have a point.

If it's because they want to take advantage of the crowd noise, more power to 'em. I feel the same about taking advantages of losing the ball in the roof. Tough shit.

I think it was stupid for them to require that the roof remain open. If you can't tell what the advantage is (other than their record in closed roof vs. open roof games), then why shouldn't I do with my stadium what I like?

As for your and spooky's analogies (watering down the basepaths or lengthening the fences), I don't buy either one of them. Those are changes to the actual playing field. Closing the roof may affect the wind and the flight of the ball, I guess. But it just seems different to me.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Got big tits?

Small C. Tasteful.

[SlaveNoMore]

greatwhitenorthchick
The Rogers Centre. Not named, as my boyfriend thought, after some guy named Roger.

I just learned the Leafs broadcast on FOUR different local networks?

FOUR???? WTF???

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Small C. Tasteful.

I'm not sure how recent this pic is, but it should give Hank a general idea of what to expect on his next visit to Chicago.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I see what you're saying. I guess now we have to figure out why closing the roof is an advantage.

If it's because the ball carries better or worse and they believe they have a more powerful or less powerful team, then you have a point.

Good points.

I'd be interested in having some statistician also show whether the difference in record was significant. That is, it could occur by happenstance, even more so if they happened to have the roof open the days the NL West teams were in town.

And how much does crowd noise matter in baseball? It's not football, with audibles.

[ABBAKiss]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
I'm not sure how recent this pic is, but it should give Hank a general idea of what to expect on his next visit to Chicago.

Is the incision on the abdomen from when they inserted the bowling ball? Also, nice wedding ring. The beard confuses me. I don't understand men with large arms who get tiny tattoos on them. Proportion, please.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

I'm pretty sure I want to go here:

http://www.amanyara.net/swf/amanyara.html

Can anyone beat that? Because I'm listening.

TM

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I see what you're saying. I guess now we have to figure out why closing the roof is an advantage.

If it's because the ball carries better or worse and they believe they have a more powerful or less powerful team, then you have a point.

If it's because they want to take advantage of the crowd noise, more power to 'em. I feel the same about taking advantages of losing the ball in the roof. Tough shit.

I think it was stupid for them to require that the roof remain open. If you can't tell what the advantage is (other than their record in closed roof vs. open roof games), then why shouldn't I do with my stadium what I like?

As for your and spooky's analogies (watering down the basepaths or lengthening the fences), I don't buy either one of them. Those are changes to the actual playing field. Closing the roof may affect the wind and the flight of the ball, I guess. But it just seems different to me.

TM

I think it could be an advantage for any number of reasons, really. I would agree that crowd noise is a "tough shit" sort of proposition, because the Sox have occasion to play in other domes. The roof thing may be a little different situation. I would say it would depend on whether the Sox were allowed to practice on that particular field, in game conditions. In other words, I think if the Astros had left the field open for practices and then closed the roof for the games, then you are venturing into something that might conceivably be unfair.

I think balls do, as a general rule, have a tendency to fly better in closed stadiums, then again, that should presumably benefit both teams the same -- (although I seem to recall a number of years ago in either Minnesota or Houston, there was some allegation that the home team would ramp up the blowers on the air conditioning to blow inward only when the away team was up to bat.)

I guess I asked the question because I just didn't know why this caused such a stink. It seemed like more a distraction to the Astros than anything. Although I do agree that MLB should not have been the one dictating whether the roof remained open or not.