Rogers Centre New Turf: Less than Satisfactory?

[hockeyfan1]

Since  the commencement of the season, MLB has been monitoring the Rogers Centre new artificial turf, amid complaints of strange and bad bounces occurring:


...there has been a lot of talk from players and coaches about the ball bouncing abnormally on the new surface, and the league has apparently taken notice.

The main issue with the turf is that it plays incredibly slow, apparently due to the fact that it is overloaded with the little black rubber pellets that get sprinkled on artificial turf these days.

...but so far this season the batting average on balls in play at the Rogers Centre is just .193, the lowest mark in the league by a considerable margin.The Jays have eight games left to play on their current homestand, and we should know a lot more about just how big of a deal this slower turf is by the end of it.



http://deadspin.com/mlb-is-reportedly-looking-into-the-blue-jays-weird-new-1698040135

 

[L K]

This is an article back from April at the start of the year.  Nothing more has been said since that time.

 

[hockeyfan1]

It (the article) is still worthy to post and to know.

 

[Andy007]

It (the article) is still worthy to post and to know.

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."

 

[herman]

This is an article back from April at the start of the year.  Nothing more has been said since that time.

Heard this yesterday: http://www.tsn.ca/radio/toronto-1050/o-dowd-tulowitzki-will-thrive-with-jays-1.337283

Turf talk in relation to the Tulo signing, by Dan O'Dowd (Former Rockies GM) at around the 3:00 mark.

 

[hockeyfan1]

It (the article) is still worthy to post and to know.

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."

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

 

[bustaheims]

It (the article) is still worthy to post and to know.

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."

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

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

 

[hockeyfan1]

[quote author=hockeyfan1 .link=topic=3290.msg234202#msg234202 date=1438182408]
It (the article) is still worthy to post and to know.

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."

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

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

[/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]

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

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]

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

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?

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

 

[hockeyfan1]

By 2018, the Rogers Centre should have a "natural grass field" for the Jays.

The idea began in 2014, even though the field currently sports the new artificial turf that was placed in this season (2015).

Replacing with grass will most doubt take time, but it will get done, a promise first stated by Jays President Paul Beeston and others in the Blue Jays organization.

"We need the time as well to make sure we do this right, because we?ve got one shot at this,? said Stephen Brooks, the Jays? senior vice-president of business operations.

?As soon as you put jackhammer to concrete . . . you better know what you?re doing.?


Though the partnership has yet to be formalized, the Blue Jays are working with researchers at the University of Guelph to test and develop the blend of grasses best suited to the Rogers Centre?s unique conditions and also the methods by which it will be maintained.


Here it is: (article dated April 2014)
http://t.thestar.com/#/article/sports/bluejays/2014/04/24/blue_jays_pave_way_for_grass_at_the_rogers_centre.html

 

[Kin]

For the record the "This is stupid, this field should have natural grass" idea did not start in 2014. It dates back at least to July of 1990 when a 8 year old me went to his first game at the Dome.

The Blue Jays realizing what everyone else did 25 years later did not represent bold new thinking.