Heatcheck Wednesday - Week 3

Week 3 of Heatcheck Wednesday, a permanent feature here at Ballpark Frankness. The idea behind this post is to track the past week's Rays home games and wonder how tolerable they would have been, had they been played outdoors.

Five home games since last Wednesday (Four night games, one Sunday afternoon contest). It's only May --- and things will change --- but so far neither heat nor rain has been a factor. We did rate Sunday's 1:30 p.m. first pitch "Hot, but nothing a cold beverage couldn't cure," based on the strength of the afternoon sun. (We acknowledge that the Rays' say that the retractable fabric roof would shade the stands from the sun, but we're deciding to be conservative in our estimates).

So after 22 homes games, 27 percent of the home schedule, here are our up-to-date standings:

How you feeling? Hot. Hot. Hot. ---- 0

Hot, but nothing a cold beverage couldn't cure. ---- 1

Take me out the ball game. ---- 21

Comments

[Rick K]

Of all the "anti" arguments, this one about it being too hot on the waterfront cracks me up the most. I am no meterologist, but I am pretty sure the temperature in the many outdoor minor league stadiums in the greater Bay area is fairly similar to the temp in downtown St. Pete.

Still, I think this is an interesting study by the Times. Not measuring the temp in conditions that will mirror those in the new stadium is just a silly exercise, really. The most valid comparison, in my view, would be comparing the "feels like" temperature.

I think it would be great if the Times set up some way to measure temps and humidity in the sun and in the shade, within the confines of the current Al Lang field and published those figures daily.

That would be great!