Master Index of Archived Threads


I Like Big Parks and I Can Not Lie

Edgy DC Apr 28 2010 08:14 PM

One trait of this homestand I have to celebrate is run-scoring plays that --- instead of featuring Big Bad Jack banging the ball a country mile and going for a jog --- feature guys hitting the ball between outfielders, or one bounce drives off the wall, with running and pursuing and relaying and tagging and coaching decisions and arguing and dirty uniforms and just a lot more baseball. Yeah, the wall is infused with artificial character. Yeah, the height robs us of pullback plays. And yeah, David Wright may have lost his favorite homerun target behind the 371 mark, but I'll take those power alleys, and I'll take the baseball game that features more actual baseball. The more baseball it takes to win, the more the team that plays well will win also (if that last makes sense at all).

Fman99 Apr 28 2010 08:18 PM Re: I Like Big Parks and I Can Not Lie

I'm starting to warm to this concept. Someone near me today said that "triples are the home runs of Citi Field." I can dig it.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 28 2010 08:26 PM Re: I Like Big Parks and I Can Not Lie

I love the way it plays, last year too. It was made for gap-hitters like Reyes and good outfielders like Beltran or even Francoeur, who'll get a chance to show off his gun.

Ashie62 Apr 28 2010 09:44 PM Re: I Like Big Parks and I Can Not Lie

It still plays like the world's largest minature golf course

seawolf17 Apr 29 2010 04:22 AM Re: I Like Big Parks and I Can Not Lie

Totally agree. Let Reyes and Pagan and Wright triple into the gaps all day long.

Edgy DC Apr 29 2010 07:09 AM Re: I Like Big Parks and I Can Not Lie

Ashie62 wrote: It still plays like the world's largest minature golf course How so?

Ceetar Apr 29 2010 07:16 AM Re: I Like Big Parks and I Can Not Lie

I love the park. I don't mind the quirks. (would've prefered they didn't lower the CF line. that bothers me a bit. I don't like home run "lines" that aren't the tops of fences in most cases) The RF power by Wright is exaggerated. ALL hitters power is mostly pull. It's been documented. sure, Wright occassionally slashed one the other way and out, but he still can, just further down the line, or higher up so it hits the porch. or gets a triple. I love the triples. The idea of triples over home runs reinforces the team to run hard and aggressively around the bases. Sometimes you feel like (not sure if this is actually documented) rallys die after home runs, but a bases clearing triple with Reyes standing on third is sure to mess up a pitcher. And keeps him out of the windup. It puts pressure on opposing outfielders to field fast, and make good throws, and very few do. We're biased with Frenchy, (and Beltran if he ever returns, who people seem to underrate his arm. I remember a game he airmailed a throw to home plate so high/hard it hit the net. But he's usually pretty accurate, which is great.)

bmfc1 Apr 29 2010 07:18 AM Re: I Like Big Parks and I Can Not Lie

Just wanted to say that while I generally do not like punny thread titles, this one made me laugh.

Edgy DC Apr 29 2010 07:28 AM Re: I Like Big Parks and I Can Not Lie

Part of what I liked about coming of age in the 80s was that different parks and different surfaces and different skill sets and different managerial approaches had different teams often playing very different brands of baseball. So each game had more at stake than the triumph of a different set of colors, but entire philosphies. The explosion of the nineties ironed this out a lot, I definitely think to the diminishment of the game. The Kiner-inspired fifties led to this sort of stylistic homogenization also. Even as the influx of colored talent sought to change the game, it wasn't until the sixties that stylistic variety returned to baseball.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 29 2010 08:38 AM Re: I Like Big Parks and I Can Not Lie

Sometimes you feel like (not sure if this is actually documented) rallys die after home runs, but a bases clearing triple with Reyes standing on third is sure to mess up a pitcher. Ah, yes-- the McCarver Hypothesis-- the extremist version of which sounds something like "If I want a multi-run rally, I'd rather have a single than a home run-- a runner on base gives the pitcher something to think about." Debunked a few times over; the most expedient means of doing so is BP's Run Expectancy Matrices (based on actual data from particular seasons). Regardless of what season you look at, you get something like: Man on third: 1.31461 expected runs with none out, 0.96548 with 1 out, 0.37008 with 2 out Man in dugout, having scored: 1.51732 expected runs (1.0 for the scored run, plus exp. run value for 0 on, 0 out) with none out, 1.27885 with 1 out, 1.1064 with 2 out. Sure, Jose Reyes dancing off third while juggling fire and sporting wood that could keep his team in bats for a year would be mighty distracting. On balance, though, you score more runs when you... well... score those runs. As far as Citi goes... triples are more fun. But the RCF jut still kinda irks me, the prospect of an Endy-catch-less future is a little depressing, and the ball makes weird, unShealike sounds-- a thin "pock" more than a resonant, pleasing "thump"-- when it smacks off of the "Great Wall" in left. So, yeah, I'm still getting used to the field.

Ceetar Apr 29 2010 08:46 AM Re: I Like Big Parks and I Can Not Lie

Never really thought it made sense statistically, but that run expectancy doesn't really address it. Curious what the numbers are for OBP after a triple and after a home run. The triple with less than 2 outs forces the opposing team to think a bit too, play the outfield in a bit for the sac fly? who's at bat? is it Delgado and do we still overshift? is the squeeze play going to be on? The more you force guys to have to think, the more mistakes they'll make. Of course, it's almost impossible that you'll score more runs in an inning with a bases loaded triple than a grand slam.

Gwreck Apr 29 2010 02:01 PM Re: I Like Big Parks and I Can Not Lie

I like the size of the park but aside from the ineptitude in promenade stairway construction, I think nothing bothers me more than the outfield wall. I hate the artificial indentation of the wall in right field so the porch can hang over the field. It makes the overhang forced and stupid. I hate the centerfield "tab" that sticks up in front of the Apple. Changing the home run line doesn't make me hate it less. The solution was a more creative plan of where to put the apple, and indeed, earlier plans for the park called for it to be towards the back right corner of the batter's eye. I dislike that the wall is too high. With few exceptions, there's nowhere to make a home-run robbing catch. I dislike the size and prominence of the wall in left field. I like the new park just fine, but it's ok to be honest and say that certain things were screwed up. Unfortunately, this is one of those problems that can't be rectified by adding pictures, banners, renaming parts of the stadium and putting in a museum.

Centerfield Apr 29 2010 02:37 PM Re: I Like Big Parks and I Can Not Lie

Yup.

Rockin' Doc Apr 29 2010 02:41 PM Re: I Like Big Parks and I Can Not Lie

I too agree with Gwreck regarding the outfield walls. However, if the Mets were to start decorating them with World Series banners, then I'm sure I would be for more accepting of the fences.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 29 2010 02:42 PM Re: I Like Big Parks and I Can Not Lie

But hey-- Shake Shack! Crab Cakes! Taco, bellyachers!

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 29 2010 02:48 PM Re: I Like Big Parks and I Can Not Lie

Not for nothing but many of Gwreck's observations were addressed in the first post, acknowledging the artificialness of the outfield angles and fence heights, etc., I think the thread was more about how the park plays not another opportunity to get snarky on the Wilpons.

soupcan Apr 29 2010 05:59 PM Re: I Like Big Parks and I Can Not Lie

I like how it plays - The Mets are 'supposed' to be pitching and defense. Well now they've added speed to that and I dig it the most. I agree with this too - Edgy DC wrote: Part of what I liked about coming of age in the 80s was that different parks and different surfaces and different skill sets and different managerial approaches had different teams often playing very different brands of baseball. So each game had more at stake than the triumph of a different set of colors, but entire philosphies. The explosion of the nineties ironed this out a lot, I definitely think to the diminishment of the game. When I think of the Cardinal teams of the '80's playing in Busch II, I think of Coleman and McGee and the turf that turned games there into track meets. The Cardinals played to their stadium. Red sox and Cubs had to slug to win and were built that way. Astros - pitching, pitching, pitching in the Astrdome - Ryan, Richard, Scott, etc., etc. Most of he new parks are home run havens right? Much smaller dimensions - Minute Maid, Citizens Bank, Yankee Stadium III. Nice to see that Citi Field went in another direction weather it was the intent or not.

Gwreck Apr 29 2010 07:15 PM Re: I Like Big Parks and I Can Not Lie

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Not for nothing but many of Gwreck's observations were addressed in the first post, acknowledging the artificialness of the outfield angles and fence heights, etc., I think the thread was more about how the park plays not another opportunity to get snarky on the Wilpons. Fair enough, and I didn't really mean to co-op anyone else's argument or threadjack, just got on a good rant for a little bit there.

Willets Point Apr 30 2010 07:53 AM Re: I Like Big Parks and I Can Not Lie

Funny, I remember the ballparks of the 80s being more similar to one another than they are now. They were after all cookie cutters with symmetrical dimensions. And if the variations among ballparks were artificial turf and domes, well I'll take today's "throwback" parks - artificial as they are - thank you very much.

Edgy DC Apr 30 2010 08:31 AM Re: I Like Big Parks and I Can Not Lie

But they weren't. Tiger Stadium played very different from Candlestick, which played very different from the Astrodome, which played very different from Fulton County Stadium, which played very different from Busch Stadium which played very different from Arlington Stadium, or Shea, or Fenway, or the Astrodome. Symmetrical outfield walls weren't as much of a sin as all that, and making rightfield the same distance as leftfield didn't make Riverfront Stadium the same as Exhibition Stadium. And I'm not in any way saying that the parks of the eighties are superior or inferior to the parks of today. I'm really speaking of stylistic differences among the teams that emanated in part from the ballparks, and praising the Mets for today evolving their play into a unique style that is, in part, emanating from their ballpark. If you re-read, you see that I list the nineties as the nadir of stylistic differences among teams --- not today --- and that came at a time of transitions between the eighties stadia and today's, with more of the old ones. The main culprits then wouldn't be the stadia at all, but the allegedly hopped-up ball and allegedly doped-up players.

Chad Ochoseis Apr 30 2010 11:05 AM Re: I Like Big Parks and I Can Not Lie

soupcan wrote: Red sox and Cubs had to slug to win and were built that way. Astros - pitching, pitching, pitching in the Astrdome - Ryan, Richard, Scott, etc., etc. I've heard this before, but never understood it. I could see why the Red Sox would want to load up on right handed sluggers to take advantage of Fenway's asymmetry. But why would it be more important to have good hitters in a hitter's park and good pitchers in a pitcher's park? If J.R. Richard is a better pitcher than, say, Ray Burris, he's a better pitcher when they pitch in the Dome, and he's a better pitcher at Wrigley. The raw ERAs - for both pitchers - may be higher in Wrigley because of park effects, but better pitching is useful anywhere. Maybe even more so in a hitter's park. Oh, yeah, and I have the same opinion of home runs that Crash Davis has of strikeouts. So I like the way Citi Field plays.

Edgy DC Apr 30 2010 11:13 AM Re: I Like Big Parks and I Can Not Lie

It's likely more subtle than that. Some good hitters or good pitchers suit a park --- or learn to work a park and become better. Few lefty starting pitchers, for instance, have flourished at Fenway. Yankee Stadium, on the other hand, has frequently featured good-but-not-great hitters --- Bill Dickey, Roger Maris, and Graig Nettles are three --- who were nonetheless able to elevate their games by wrapping flyballs around the rightfield foul pole that would have been long strikes in other stadia.