Originally Posted by TDog
Imagine how the Rangers felt playing some and being postponed some in Chicago this week.
Chicago is a two-team city. Somebody is going to have to play or at least be scheduled to play in cold weather. It's the same as it's always been. In 1970, I sat through a scheduled double-header on April 12, the first Sunday of the season, and it was quite cold. (As I recall, the Cubs were in Montreal that weekend and Apollo 13 was up in space.) I've read that even the first day the American League played games in 1901, the season didn't start until April 25, and Chicago was the only city in the league where it was dry enough and warm enough to play games.
For that matter, I attended quite a few May White Sox games in my youth when a winter coat failed to keep me sufficiently warm. It is true that a Chicago columnist wrote after the 1975 season that it was inevitable the Sox would leave Chicago before the 1976 season for reasons that included the need to schedule so many April baseball games in Chicago. It isn't true that the White-Sox-hating-conspiring-schedule-makers screwing the White Sox. The issue is their geography.
But you should probably send your unrealistic ideas to the commisioner's office and complain that Bud Selig is an idiot when you get nothing but a form letter in return.
If you're watching the game in your living room hundreds of miles away, it shouldn't be such as big deal.
One of the coldest baseball games I remember attending was on Memorial Day, 2002 or 2003, I want to say. At Wrigley. 1-0 game in 16 innings. Raw, cold windy day, I think the wind chills were in the 30s.
There is no getting around Chicago weather. Sometimes it's cold in April, sometimes it's even cool in May. Deal with it.