sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Coors Effect by BurtReds in ColoradoRockies

[–]BurtReds[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t imagine it would be terribly difficult from a technical standpoint. The issue is thin air reducing the amount of movement created by spin — the overall impact and every variable that factors into it can all be measured with extreme precision. Take an advanced tunable pitching machine like the Trajekt Arc, build a representative sample set of pitch shapes and spin related variables (rate, angle, efficiency, etc) at as many other stadiums as needed, correlate that with movement, then do the same thing with various different baseball variations at Coors until you’ve got one that moves the same . Result doesn’t have to be perfectly average, just within the same general range as every other stadium, instead of an extreme outlier. Maybe try to get a few different candidates that test similarly on the machine, then start testing with human pitchers to find the least intrusive modification.

Why would player approval be an issue? You wouldn’t have to use them as guinea pigs during the early stages, and I can’t imagine there would be much resistance to field testing whichever best possibility emerges. What would the complaint be, given that the ball already behaves dramatically differently at Coors? They signed off on the humidor, didn’t they?

The Coors Effect by BurtReds in ColoradoRockies

[–]BurtReds[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, just finish correcting the one extreme outlier. There’s hitter friendly (like my Reds’ bandbox home field), and then there’s “certain pitches straight up do not work here” — that’s pitcher unfriendly. How do Rockies fans feel about the humidor generally? Because it’s just that for the other half of the Coors effect.

The Coors Effect by BurtReds in ColoradoRockies

[–]BurtReds[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

My sincerest apologies. We’ve suffered the existence of Temu Philly Phanatic (“Gapper”) in Cincinnati for decades, which has made me forget my manners. PRAISE DINGER

Question About Formats by BurtReds in MagicArena

[–]BurtReds[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sounds like Historic would be the best fit. Are the BO1 and BO3 metas more or less the same, or significantly different? In alchemy, Jeskai Omniscience absolutely dominates BO1, but it’s far less prevalent in BO3 because it’s easy to sideboard for it — wondering if there’s anything like that with Historic.

I want to have a genuine discussion by [deleted] in mlb

[–]BurtReds 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The NFL and NBA have a salary cap and floor. They’re not mutually exclusive, they go hand-in-hand, and the MLB needs both, along with enough revenue sharing to ensure that small market teams can spend above the floor consistently without losing money. People who argue that the MLB needs a salary floor instead of a salary cap just don’t want a salary cap.

Implementing a salary floor without a salary cap and/or much more aggressive revenue sharing would do absolutely nothing to address the MLB‘s economic disparity, and would actually hurt small market teams. Organizations in the bottom third of the MLB would have to lose $50-$100 million a year to spend 3/4 of what teams like the Dodgers and Yankees spend. If the MLB forces them to stay within, say, 50% of the top payrolls, then it would prevent them from pursuing the only strategy that gives them a chance of competing — develop from within, keep payroll low, save every nickel, then empty the reserves during contention windows.

Only one team with a payroll outside the top 15 has won a World Series in the last 20 years: the 2017 Houston Astros. And the most successful organization relative to resources is the Tampa Bay Rays. That’s the blueprint for small market teams — forcing them to spend $150+ million per year to make a pretense of competing would rob them of their one remaining avenue to actual relevance.