Rainouts and the need for retractable roof stadiums

By The Cactus Leaguer

May 13, 2006

There has been a lot of talk recently in Miami and Minneapolis over the need for a retractable roof in their new facilities that they are attempting to have funded and built.

Portlanders went through this exercise during the Expos derby and I'd say the consensus was that a retractable roof would be aesthetically unappealing and, despite Portland's reputation for rain, it would be an unnecessary expense (Portland actually has less rain than most MLB cities during baseball season and the minor league team has less than one rainout per year). Current estimates set the cost of a retractable roof at somewhere between $100 million to $150 million.

Miami, which gets about 45 inches of rain on average during baseball season, has flatly stated that they need a retractable roof facility because of the summer heat and humidity in South Florida. Twins Sports Inc. president Jerry Bell stated just the other day that the Twins would have six rainouts per year if they did not add a retractable roof to their new facility.

We have pored through the average rainfall statistics in here many times before, but I thought it would be more interesting to test Bell's hypothesis in the context of MLB rainouts (or rain-shortened games) overall. So I took a quick look through all of the 2005 boxscores (thanks, Yahoo! Sports) and looked for rainouts and rain shortened games. Now granted, one year is only a snapshot, and the overall trends might be very different. But since A.) I didn't see any long term trends when looking at the SABR website nor by doing a Google search; and B.) I'm happily married and I'd like to stay that way, I decided to restrict myself by looking at a single year. Here's what I came up with for 2005:

Rainouts/rain shortened games by month:

April – 11 rainouts, 3 rain shortened games

May – 3 rainouts, 2 rain shortened games

June – 3 rainouts, 2 rain shortened games

July – 1 rainout, 3 rain shortened games

August – 7 rainouts, 1 rain shortened games

September – 1 rainout

Total – 26 rainouts, 11 rain shortened games

Rainouts/rain shortened games by team:

Arizona – n/a, retractable roof stadium

Atlanta – 2 rainouts

Baltimore – 1 rainout, 1 rain shortened game

Boston – 4 rainouts

Chicago Cubs – 2 rainouts

Chicago White Sox – none

Cincinnati – 1 rain shortened game

Cleveland – 2 rainouts, 1 rain shortened game

Colorado – 3 rainouts

Detroit – 3 rainouts

Florida – 2 rain shortened games

Houston – n/a, retractable roof stadium

Kansas City – 2 rainouts, 2 rain shortened games

Los Angeles Angels – none

Los Angeles Dodgers - none

Milwaukee – n/a, retractable roof stadium

Minnesota – n/a, domed stadium

New York Mets – 1 rainout

New York Yankees - none

Oakland - none

Philadelphia – 2 rainouts, 1 rain shortened game

Pittsburgh – 2 rainouts

San Diego – 1 rain shortened game

San Francisco – none

Seattle – n/a, retractable roof stadium

St. Louis – 1 rainout, 1 rain shortened game

Tampa Bay – n/a, domed stadium

Texas – 1 rainout

Toronto – n/a, retractable roof stadium

Washington DC – 1 rain shortened game

It was also interesting to note that for the NL West and AL West teams, the only rainout issues were as follows: first, the Rockies rained out a game on April 27^th and then a doubleheader on the 28^th; and second, the Rangers rained out a game on May 28^th. That's it. No rainouts or rain shortened games the rest of the season.

Overall, the 23 teams without domes or retractable roofs had 26 rainouts and 11 rain shortened games. As you can see, Boston led with 4 rainouts (April 27^th, May 7^th, August 14^th, and September 26^th). Colorado and Detroit had 3 apiece. Kansas City had 4 rain-affected games, and nobody else had more than 3 rain-affected games. So in the context of the 2005 season, 6 rainouts would be quite a stretch. Note that the Marlins had no rainouts and 2 rain-shortened games.

Now beyond the fact that this only represents a single season, there are other potential flaws in drawing conclusions from this.

First of all, we're excluding the cities that already have domed stadiums. But, with the exception of the Diamondbacks, one could infer that the rainouts would not be drastically different than nearby locales without domes (Seattle/Portland, Houston/Dallas or Miami, Tampa Bay/Miami, Toronto/Detroit, etc.).

Second, we're ignoring the "threat of rain" effect that could hurt attendance, particularly attendance for people who need to plan ahead or make a long journey to the game. Fair enough. We could try to draw similar conclusions from looking at other nearby cities, but such an analysis would be more difficult to quantify.

Third, we're ignoring the fact that in Miami and Minneapolis, a retractable roof is just as much about overall fan comfort (temperature and/or humidity) as it is about precipitation levels. Again, this is a valid point, especially in April/May in Minnesota, and in the late summer in South Florida. And again, such an analysis would be difficult to quantify. Probably the best comparisons for the Marlins would be either the Rangers or the Braves, while the best comparisons for the Twins would be the Tigers and Indians. Anecdotally speaking, it does make a difference, but nonetheless the comparison teams do seem to manage OK.

In the case of the Twins, this issue is limited to the very early part of the season. With the Marlins it's more complicated. Most summer days in South Florida have temperatures over 85 degrees with high humidity. The Rangers have similar issues in Arlington, although the comfort level might be a bit more tolerable, yet they continue to draw well with mediocre teams. Now if the comfort level is anything approaching Phoenix during the summer, then I would say that that a retractable roof is much more of a necessity.

I should say that I have never sat at a late afternoon game in Dolphins Stadium in August, but friends of mine have, and they tell me that, while it is not an enjoyable experience, the annoyances are more due to the stadium itself rather than the heat/humidity issues. I have gone to games at Comerica and Jacobs Field in early April, and I still had a good time (it is baseball, after all), but I had to dress like I was going to a football game in order to enjoy it properly.

So do the Marlins and Twins "need" retractable roof stadiums? Judging from the standpoint of rainouts, the answer appears to be no. But other issues conspire to make retractable roofs a factor to help drive up attendance levels.

One thing that could help to defray the expense of a retractable roof would be the ability to use the facility for the other events. The Arizona Cardinals new stadium is taking this approach by utilizing a "rolling turf" which gives the facility more flexibility for all kinds of conventions and other events. The Indianapolis Colts will be taking a similar approach as well so that they can lure big events such as the Final Four. This approach has not yet been utilized for a baseball-centric stadium which has unique field dimensions, a pitcher's mound, and specially configured seating to make a baseball-centric multipurpose retractable roof facility more complicated.