Just for Fun > Ok Blue Jays Talk

Rogers Centre New Turf: Less than Satisfactory?

<< < (2/3) > >>

hockeyfan1:

--- Quote from: Andy007 on July 29, 2015, 12:47:32 PM ---
--- Quote from: hockeyfan1 on July 29, 2015, 11:06:48 AM ---It (the article) is still worthy to post and to know.

--- End quote ---

Well it is kind of important considering the team no longer "has eight games left to play on their homestand" wherein "we should know a lot more about how big a deal this turf is."


--- End quote ---

So, Deadspin pretty accurate, eh?  (*sic*)

bustaheims:

--- Quote from: hockeyfan1 on July 29, 2015, 01:11:42 PM ---
--- Quote from: Andy007 on July 29, 2015, 12:47:32 PM ---
--- Quote from: hockeyfan1 on July 29, 2015, 11:06:48 AM ---It (the article) is still worthy to post and to know.

--- End quote ---

Well it is kind of important considering the team no longer "has eight games left to play on their homestand" wherein "we should know a lot more about how big a deal this turf is."


--- End quote ---

So, Deadspin pretty accurate, eh?  (*sic*)

--- End quote ---

It probably was. When the article was published. In April.

hockeyfan1:

--- Quote from: bustaheims on July 29, 2015, 01:13:30 PM ---
--- Quote from: hockeyfan1 on July 29, 2015, 01:11:42 PM ---
--- Quote from: Andy007 on July 29, 2015, 12:47:32 PM ---
--- Quote from: hockeyfan1 .link=topic=3290.msg234202#msg234202 date=1438182408 ---It (the article) is still worthy to post and to know.

--- End quote ---

Well it is kind of important considering the team no longer "has eight games left to play on their homestand" wherein "we should know a lot more about how big a deal this turf is."


--- End quote ---

So, Deadspin pretty accurate, eh?  (*sic*)

--- End quote ---

It probably was. When the article was published. In April.


--- End quote ---

That's the point.  Even if the article dates back to April, it's worth a read.  That is all.

Oh, perhaps I should have stated that it was an old article (the way I did other times).  My mistake.  But, no need for all the vitriol.  😐  ::)

CarltonTheBear:

--- Quote from: hockeyfan1 on July 29, 2015, 01:23:57 PM ---That's the point.  Even if the article dates back to April, it's worth a read.  That is all.
--- End quote ---

But it's actually not worth reading if the data posted in it isn't valid anymore. After more than 2 home games, are people still reacting negatively towards the turf? Are there still stats that back up the idea that the turf is having an impact on the BABIP at Rogers Centre, or are the stats posted in the article just a case of using an incredibly small sample size? Has the team made any changes in the past 3 months to improve the turf? 

cabber24:

--- Quote from: CarltonTheBear on July 29, 2015, 01:42:41 PM ---
--- Quote from: hockeyfan1 on July 29, 2015, 01:23:57 PM ---That's the point.  Even if the article dates back to April, it's worth a read.  That is all.
--- End quote ---

But it's actually not worth reading if the data posted in it isn't valid anymore. After more than 2 home games, are people still reacting negatively towards the turf? Are there still stats that back up the idea that the turf is having an impact on the BABIP at Rogers Centre, or are the stats posted in the article just a case of using an incredibly small sample size? Has the team made any changes in the past 3 months to improve the turf?

--- End quote ---
Any recent news on real turf? I find it really surprising that engineers cannot manufacture something that more closely resembles the real thing.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version