Single Greatest Thread Ever

[Brownie]

There are two reasonable points:

1) The change in the wind from day to day makes it tougher to build a team for the park.

2) Lemmings who buy tickets in the bleachers regardless of record take the pressure off management to win.

I think #1 has some validity. #2 appears to have been reduced in recent years judging by the number of empty seats.

The point this guy skipped altogether was that the Ricketts pay property tax and maintenance costs on Wrigley and do not enjoy the concession or advertising revenue potential of competitors, who get sweetheart leases from local governments. The Wirtz/Reinsdorf crew realized the potential revenues and maintenance cost savings by building the UC and tearing down the Stadium. Reinsdorf realized even more savings by having Jim Thompson and Michael Madigan generously build them a new ballpark for no charge to Jerry, only at a charge to the hospitality industry and to the city and state.

The other point this guy skipped is the players' facilities, which most argue puts the team at a disadvantage.

[Oleg]

There are two reasonable points:

1) The change in the wind from day to day makes it tougher to build a team for the park.

2) Lemmings who buy tickets in the bleachers regardless of record take the pressure off management to win.

I think #1 has some validity. #2 appears to have been reduced in recent years judging by the number of empty seats.

The point this guy skipped altogether was that the Ricketts pay property tax and maintenance costs on Wrigley and do not enjoy the concession or advertising revenue potential of competitors, who get sweetheart leases from local governments. The Wirtz/Reinsdorf crew realized the potential revenues and maintenance cost savings by building the UC and tearing down the Stadium. Reinsdorf realized even more savings by having Jim Thompson and Michael Madigan generously build them a new ballpark for no charge to Jerry, only at a charge to the hospitality industry and to the city and state.

The other point this guy skipped is the players' facilities, which most argue puts the team at a disadvantage.

But, the visitor's clubhouse sucks even worse.

[Chuck to Chuck]

1. Field a team of guys who can hit and pitch and field and who gives a shit which way the wind is blowing.  Fine, if they played at Coors, it might make it easier for them build a team around home run hitters, as evidenced by the how many WS titles The Rockies have.  If only The Yankees would have made that rumored DiMaggio for Williams trade...they would have won so many more titles.

2.  Cool.  We're still under the impression that it's the attendance revenue that is the majority of a teams' revenue stream.  Cool.  And, somehow, management doesn't want to win because people see games no matter what, TV revenue or stadium advertising be damned.

1) The Yankees have tailored their team to their park. They've had a modicum of success.

2) No one is saying management doesn't want to win. But there is validity in the argument that if revenues are inelastic relative to product quality, the incentive to improve the quality is mitigated.  I just don't think that the slope of that curve is as vertical today as it was pre-2003.

[PenPho]

This thread is really not living up to its title right now.

[Bort]

This thread is really not living up to its title right now.

Damn this thread for making me agree with PenFoe.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

There are two reasonable points:

1) The change in the wind from day to day makes it tougher to build a team for the park.

2) Lemmings who buy tickets in the bleachers regardless of record take the pressure off management to win.

I think #1 has some validity. #2 appears to have been reduced in recent years judging by the number of empty seats.

Insofar as it's the only truly substantive point in the entire thing, Point #1 got me thinking...

1. The park is schizo.

A few years ago, when I was traveling with the Cubs for a story, I had a long talk with Andy MacPhail, then the team's president. MacPhail had just come from Minnesota, where he won two World Series.

In Chicago, he told me, the big challenge was building a team that could win in Wrigley, a stadium that suffers multiple-personality disorder. In Minnesota, he'd been able to fashion a roster designed to win in the Metrodome, where the Twins played; as the Yankees were long able to design a team for their stadium, where left-handed power hitters take advantage of right field's so-called "short porch."

But Wrigley has no such peculiarity. It looks like a home-run hitter's park, and when the wind blows out, it is. But when the wind screams off the lake, the park turns nasty. Even balls headed for the seats are reduced to routine flies. For the Cubs, MacPhail said, every game might as well be away. Which means the front office has to build a kind of All-Star team, perfectly rounded for every kind of park. Which is impossible.

For the Cubs, every game might as well be away?

Far be it from me to not trust the keen judgement of a baseball wunderkind like Andy MacPhail, but this premise struck me as... well, testable.

To Baseball-Reference!

Per this B-R doodad, here are the win-loss records for both the Cubs and the rest of the NL since the Chicago National League Ball Club began playing at Wrigley in 1916, both overall and broken out into home and road records:

            W      L      W%     HW     HL     HW%     RW     RL     RW%
CHC      7366   7657   0.490   4011   3532   0.532   3355   4125   0.449
NL      80206  80372   0.499  43415  36874   0.541  36791  43498   0.458
NL-CHC  72840  72715   0.500  39404  33342   0.542  33436  39373   0.459

That's the Cubs, the entire NL and the NL minus the Cubs.

So, the Cubs' home winning percentage over these 96+ seasons has indeed been below the league average. But, then, so have their road and overall winning percentages.

What interests me is their record at Wrigley relative to their record elsewhere. And how the difference between the two compares to the rest of the NL.

        H%/R%   H%/W%
CHC     1.186   1.085
NL-CHC  1.180   1.082

Those are the ratios of home winning percentage to road winning percentage on the one hand, and home winning percentage to overall winning percentage on the other. And the Cubs have kept in remarkably close step with the rest of the NL. Go figure.

Granted, these numbers don't take into account the possibility that the various roster compromises engendered by a supposedly hostile home field might have depressed winning on the road as much as Wrigley depressed winning at home. (I'd figure it would be the opposite. If every game is road game, you build a team that can win road games.)

But I still feel pretty safe in concluding from this quick exercise (and general experience) that Andy MacPhail is a twat.

The fact of the matter is that (save for the obvious) the Cubs have won at Wrigley over the years. In fact, outside of the true 40 38 years in the wilderness between 1945 and 1984, they've actually posted a home winning percentage above the NL average over the same span (1916-1945, 1984-2012):

            W      L      W%     HW     HL     HW%     RW     RL     RW%
CHC      4652   4414   0.513   2507   2048   0.550   2145   2366   0.476
NL-CHC  45837  46241   0.498  24850  21167   0.540  20987  25074   0.456

[Eli]

Doesn't everyone complain that the infield grass at Wrigley is like a foot high? Why have the Cubs not tried signing as many ground-ball pitchers as possible?

[Powdered Toast Man]

Doesn't everyone complain that the infield grass at Wrigley is like a foot high? Why have the Cubs not tried signing as many ground-ball pitchers as possible?

Maybe they have, just not good ones.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Doesn't everyone complain that the infield grass at Wrigley is like a foot high?

I thought they started trimming it shorter when they gutted the field a few years back.

At least I seem to recall Unkie Borb talking about something like that early in the season one year.

[Eli]

Doesn't everyone complain that the infield grass at Wrigley is like a foot high?

I thought they started trimming it shorter when they gutted the field a few years back.

At least I seem to recall Unkie Borb talking about something like that early in the season one year.

So grow it back out. Sign some sinkerballers, stock the lineup with fly-ball hitters and PROFIT.

[PenPho]

Doesn't everyone complain that the infield grass at Wrigley is like a foot high?

I thought they started trimming it shorter when they gutted the field a few years back.

At least I seem to recall Unkie Borb talking about something like that early in the season one year.

So grow it back out. Sign some sinkerballers, stock the lineup with fly-ball hitters and PROFIT.

I'm still holding out for Brandon Webb. 

[CT III]

Doesn't everyone complain that the infield grass at Wrigley is like a foot high?

I thought they started trimming it shorter when they gutted the field a few years back.

At least I seem to recall Unkie Borb talking about something like that early in the season one year.

So grow it back out. Sign some sinkerballers, stock the lineup with fly-ball hitters and PROFIT.

I'm still holding out for Brandon Webb. 

So he can be flipped for Peavy?

[Fork]

Doesn't everyone complain that the infield grass at Wrigley is like a foot high? Why have the Cubs not tried signing as many ground-ball pitchers as possible?

Every infield in the majors is tailored to the home team's players. Some shortstops like the dirt harder for better bounces, some like slower grass. I'm not sure Castro has figured out what he likes yet.

That being said, they had tall grass and soft dirt everywhere when the Cubs' pitching staff was setting strikeout records.

[Eli]

Doesn't everyone complain that the infield grass at Wrigley is like a foot high? Why have the Cubs not tried signing as many ground-ball pitchers as possible?

Every infield in the majors is tailored to the home team's players. Some shortstops like the dirt harder for better bounces, some like slower grass. I'm not sure Castro has figured out what he likes yet.

That being said, they had tall grass and soft dirt everywhere when the Cubs' pitching staff was setting strikeout records.

So, just to be clear: The run sets up the play-action pass?

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Doesn't everyone complain that the infield grass at Wrigley is like a foot high? Why have the Cubs not tried signing as many ground-ball pitchers as possible?

Every infield in the majors is tailored to the home team's players. Some shortstops like the dirt harder for better bounces, some like slower grass. I'm not sure Castro has figured out what he likes yet.

That being said, they had tall grass and soft dirt everywhere when the Cubs' pitching staff was setting strikeout records.

So, just to be clear: The run sets up the play-action pass?

And you can't just throw fastballs, son.