Forum Home

Master Index of Archived Threads


CitiField Dimensions

Mex17
Jun 02 2014 06:40 PM

I think that they can make a few more easy changes. If I did it right, it should be attached below. Let me know your thoughts.

Frayed Knot
Jun 02 2014 06:43 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

I'll start with this: What is your intended point on changing it at all?

d'Kong76
Jun 02 2014 06:47 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Oh sure, make it easier for visiting teams to hit HR's!

Nymr83
Jun 02 2014 07:44 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

fuck that, the park is fine the way it is. its the hitters that are the problem.

d'Kong76
Jun 02 2014 07:46 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

I was joking

Zvon
Jun 02 2014 07:50 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

I certainly would like to see right center back to where it serves Wrights opp field power. And if I was owner, that would be reason enough.

Mex17
Jun 02 2014 08:34 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Zvon wrote:
I certainly would like to see right center back to where it serves Wrights opp field power. And if I was owner, that would be reason enough.


That. And that ridiculous cavernous notch in rightfield taken away so that lefthanded sluggers have half a chance.

But no, me and you are just being silly, aren't we? There is nothing wrong at all!!

Edgy MD
Jun 02 2014 09:02 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Nymr83 wrote:
fuck that, the park is fine the way it is. its the hitters that are the problem.

Fuck that, the hitters are fine the way they are. It's the fans that are the problem.

Mex17
Jun 03 2014 03:57 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDAmPIq29ro

Centerfield
Jun 03 2014 08:05 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Yeah, I hate those notches in RF. Completely pointless. I'd love to see RF be moved to restore Wright's opposite field power. Seems like d'Arnaud would benefit from that too.

And moving them in would certainly help Granderson.

I heard Ron Darling make a comment that the team was looking forward to the amount of road games coming up, and that the hitters felt like that could give them a chance to get into a groove.

I think that these dimensions are certainly in these hitters' heads.

Edgy MD
Jun 03 2014 08:14 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

I mainly don't like the railing fence right on top of the wall on the Party City Deck. It allows an outfielder to reach above the wall, but not over and behind it. So I'd like to see the wall brought in two or three feet. (I imagine the railing fence can't really be pushed back without eliminating seats, but perhaps.)

Ceetar
Jun 03 2014 08:24 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

How about we extend the Pepsi Porch out another 5 feet or so.

Centerfield
Jun 03 2014 08:35 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Edgy MD wrote:
I mainly don't like the railing fence right on top of the wall on the Party City Deck. It allows an outfielder to reach above the wall, but not over and behind it. So I'd like to see the wall brought in two or three feet. (I imagine the railing fence can't really be pushed back without eliminating seats, but perhaps.)



Agreed on this. Plus you then have to go to replay since the ball bounces back in. I don't know why it is so difficult to just make a wall.

Edgy MD
Jun 03 2014 08:38 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun;
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.

Nymr83
Jun 03 2014 09:48 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

d'Kong76 wrote:
I was joking


Sory, I meant "fuck that" to the initial post

seawolf17
Jun 03 2014 10:22 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Centerfield wrote:
Edgy MD wrote:
I mainly don't like the railing fence right on top of the wall on the Party City Deck. It allows an outfielder to reach above the wall, but not over and behind it. So I'd like to see the wall brought in two or three feet. (I imagine the railing fence can't really be pushed back without eliminating seats, but perhaps.)



Agreed on this. Plus you then have to go to replay since the ball bounces back in. I don't know why it is so difficult to just make a wall.

Because without the railing, people will fall onto the warning track, and the Wilpons can ill afford to kill off what few remaining fans they have that are willing to pay for Party City Party Deck™ tickets.

HahnSolo
Jun 03 2014 11:03 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Of all the dimension changing possibilities suggested, moving the left field fence in so they can sell more tickets to the Party City deck seems most likely to me. Not for a 'what's best for baseball' sense, but in a 'let's make a few more bucks' sense.

Frayed Knot
Jun 03 2014 11:37 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

I have no problem with the current dimensions - and the idea that changing them in some fashion or another will somehow benefit NYM bats while not simultaneously helping opposing bats and hurting NYM pitchers is, at best, akin to chasing your tail.

Ceetar
Jun 03 2014 11:53 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

They should map out where all of the Mets deep fly balls are going to land next year against all of the deep flies by the opponents, and zig-zag the outfield walls appropriately.

Centerfield
Jun 03 2014 12:53 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Frayed Knot wrote:
I have no problem with the current dimensions - and the idea that changing them in some fashion or another will somehow benefit NYM bats while not simultaneously helping opposing bats and hurting NYM pitchers is, at best, akin to chasing your tail.


That's never been the idea. The theory is that the dimensions fuck with our hitters more since they play 81 games here, while the opposition simply moves on after 3 games. By changing the dimensions, you unfuck our hitters. Sure, the opposition will get a benefit, too, but the idea is that revised dimensions will benefit our hitters more than they will benefit our competition.

Ceetar
Jun 03 2014 12:58 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Centerfield wrote:
Frayed Knot wrote:
I have no problem with the current dimensions - and the idea that changing them in some fashion or another will somehow benefit NYM bats while not simultaneously helping opposing bats and hurting NYM pitchers is, at best, akin to chasing your tail.


That's never been the idea. The theory is that the dimensions fuck with our hitters more since they play 81 games here, while the opposition simply moves on after 3 games. By changing the dimensions, you unfuck our hitters. Sure, the opposition will get a benefit, too, but the idea is that revised dimensions will benefit our hitters more than they will benefit our competition.


and will fuck with our pitchers' heads.

Frayed Knot
Jun 03 2014 02:18 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Centerfield wrote:
Frayed Knot wrote:
I have no problem with the current dimensions - and the idea that changing them in some fashion or another will somehow benefit NYM bats while not simultaneously helping opposing bats and hurting NYM pitchers is, at best, akin to chasing your tail.


That's never been the idea. The theory is that the dimensions fuck with our hitters more since they play 81 games here, while the opposition simply moves on after 3 games. By changing the dimensions, you unfuck our hitters. Sure, the opposition will get a benefit, too, but the idea is that revised dimensions will benefit our hitters more than they will benefit our competition.


I've heard all that but just don't buy it.
I was all for the changes they already made; the RF fence was quirky for quirk's sake and was too tricked out by about half, and the LF fence was simply ridiculous; make it high or make it far but don't make it both.
But now, while still favoring pitching, it's hardly 'extreme' by any definition and I don't think moving this or that by a few feet one way or the other is going to affect much of anything. And if the dimensions are supposedly 'fucking with guys heads' for five years now I think they've got bigger problems than a fence tweak will solve.

Benjamin Grimm
Jun 03 2014 02:21 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

I agree; the original dimensions were absurd and I'm glad they added that blue fence. I don't think further adjustments are necessary.

Has anyone tracked how many homers, both by the Mets and by visitors, have gone over the blue fence but would not have been home runs in 2009?

Zvon
Jun 03 2014 02:28 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

I mainly don't like the railing fence right on top of the wall on the Party City Deck. It allows an outfielder to reach above the wall, but not over and behind it. So I'd like to see the wall brought in two or three feet. (I imagine the railing fence can't really be pushed back without eliminating seats, but perhaps.)



This is a good point that never occurred to me. I hate that the rails there.
They should map out where all of the Mets deep fly balls are going to land next year against all of the deep flies by the opponents, and zig-zag the outfield walls appropriately.


Classic :)

batmagadanleadoff
Jun 03 2014 03:28 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Ceetar wrote:
They should map out where all of the Mets deep fly balls are going to land next year against all of the deep flies by the opponents, and zig-zag the outfield walls appropriately.


Jeffymandering.

Edgy MD
Jun 03 2014 03:51 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Well, a few years ago, maybe. Now it would be Terrymandering.

Edgy MD
Oct 15 2014 07:25 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

This seems like a meaningful difference.

TransMonk
Oct 16 2014 07:49 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Harper, Freeman, Heyward, Jones, Howard must be salivating. Maybe LaRoche, too.

Vic Sage
Oct 16 2014 09:40 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

now all we need is another LHed power hitter to take advantage of it, and a few effective LHPs to neutralize its effect.

Edgy MD
Oct 16 2014 09:54 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

They'll be shopping for another hitter or two, certainly, but I think they'll be pretty happy if it serves Granderson and Wright, and maybe Duda and Nieuwenhuis a little also. Not a single opposite field homer from Wright in 2014.

Lefthanded pitchers? Well, this might make them 10% more likely to trade Gee over Niese.

Ashie62
Oct 16 2014 10:00 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

I am surely in the minority, but I like bandboxes.

TransMonk
Oct 16 2014 10:25 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Edgy MD wrote:
Lefthanded pitchers? Well, this might make them 10% more likely to trade Gee over Niese.

I was thinking the same. Maybe 2% more likely to trade Wheeler over Niese, too.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 16 2014 10:45 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Maybe this'll start a trend where teams alter their field dimensions every single season based upon the composition of their rosters. Why not? It's a cutthroat win at all costs game where teams and players use every possible advantage to try and squeeze out even the tiniest edge. And it's permissible.

Edgy MD
Oct 16 2014 10:52 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Well, dimensional changes need to be approved by the league, so I imagine that it be changed as willy-nilly as all that.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 16 2014 10:57 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Is there a written rule explaining specifically why a proposed dimension change might be denied? I know, for example, that there are minimum home run distances that a team must comply with. Are there other objective criteria that a team must meet to qualify? Or is the enforcement somewhat arbitrary as well, allowing the league to deny the change "just because"?

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 16 2014 10:59 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

batmagadanleadoff wrote:
Is there a written rule explaining specifically why a proposed dimension change might be denied? I know, for example, that there are minimum home run distances that a team must comply with. Are there other objective criteria that a team must meet to qualify? Or is the enforcement somewhat arbitrary as well, allowing the league to deny the change "just because"?


You know what? I bet there's a rule requiring a team to stick with their dimensions for a period of time before altering them again.

Edgy MD
Oct 16 2014 11:03 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

There are certainly minimums on the books --- and perhaps an unwritten rule about sticking with dimensions for a time --- but I tend to believe that, since Charlie Finley was rebuffed from trying to sell off all his better players for cash, the league has had no qualms about being arbitrary in any of their judgments, and happily cite the "best interests of baseball" clause if they ever feel compelled to defend themselves.

Frayed Knot
Oct 16 2014 11:06 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

- There are rules for changing (can't be done within a year for instance) and they do require MLB approval, although it may be permissible as often as once per year.

- There are also minimum distances for walls but many of those got waived in the 90s/2000s era of stadium building for design purposes (i.e.: manufactured 'character') see: YSIII, Houston, etc.

- Steinbrenner used to pull in his LF wall whenever the Yanx signed a RH power hitter (Winfield, Jack Clark) while always denying that that was why they were doing it.



I'm kind of indifferent to this change. I thought the first time they did it was more necessary but the idea that this one will either help or hurt the home team is speculative at best and probably marginal even if correct.

John Cougar Lunchbucket
Oct 16 2014 11:12 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

I'm sort of filing this under General Wilpon Incompetence. You'd figure as real estate people that they'd at least design a stadium correctly but it was so wrong right off the bat. Generally I don;t like the idea of adjusting for the sake of an advantage -- you'd figure, be a good team and learn to adapt to the environment you play in -- but I guess as a means of correcting for the huge mistake they made designing it it's OK.

Ceetar
Oct 16 2014 11:14 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Frayed Knot wrote:
- There are rules for changing (can't be done within a year for instance) and they do require MLB approval, although it may be permissible as often as once per year.

- There are also minimum distances for walls but many of those got waived in the 90s/2000s era of stadium building for design purposes (i.e.: manufactured 'character') see: YSIII, Houston, etc.

- Steinbrenner used to pull in his LF wall whenever the Yanx signed a RH power hitter (Winfield, Jack Clark) while always denying that that was why they were doing it.



I'm kind of indifferent to this change. I thought the first time they did it was more necessary but the idea that this one will either help or hurt the home team is speculative at best and probably marginal even if correct.



It's not going to hurt or help anything, even as significant as it looks, that's a relatively small area and it's pretty hard to say that more Mets fly balls will go there than opposition.

I think there is at least some design aspect to it, rounding out the walls and/or adding a seating tier. The Mo's Zone has kind of died as a group sales area in comparison to the LF seats, so that may have a large part of it if they can turn that into (my dream: beer garden open to all to wander in and out and stare at the game through the fence) a group sales area with outdoor viewing of the game and able to peek right into the bullpens too.


John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote:
I'm sort of filing this under General Wilpon Incompetence. You'd figure as real estate people that they'd at least design a stadium correctly but it was so wrong right off the bat. Generally I don;t like the idea of adjusting for the sake of an advantage -- you'd figure, be a good team and learn to adapt to the environment you play in -- but I guess as a means of correcting for the huge mistake they made designing it it's OK.


There was nothing _Wrong_ with either of the configurations. They were just different.

Edgy MD
Oct 16 2014 11:16 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

You have more faith in real estate developers getting it right the first time than I do, but I hear ya.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 16 2014 11:38 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Ceetar wrote:



John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote:
I'm sort of filing this under General Wilpon Incompetence. You'd figure as real estate people that they'd at least design a stadium correctly but it was so wrong right off the bat. Generally I don;t like the idea of adjusting for the sake of an advantage -- you'd figure, be a good team and learn to adapt to the environment you play in -- but I guess as a means of correcting for the huge mistake they made designing it it's OK.


There was nothing _Wrong_ with either of the configurations. They were just different.


I think the original dimensions were a disaster, and dumb. Cavernous dimension that favor the pitcher in every part of the field are the worst kind of dimensions, as I see it. Especially for a team that plays in a big market and is supposed to have a financial advantage over its competition in acquiring talent. Cavernous dimensions neutralize pitching and power advantages. If you're a perennially bad team playing in a small market and with no real hope of acquiring expensive free agents, then, maybe cavernous dimension might work.

This is what happens when you give Jeff Wilpon free reign to design stadiums and generally, lord it over MBA's and Ivy League grads at team executive meetings.

It'll be fun rooting for this team when Fred retires and Sandy's gone.

Ceetar
Oct 16 2014 11:54 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

that's your opinion, as stated by the 'i think' and 'as i see it'.

hence, not right/wrong.

It's just different. There is so little control on balls in play that good pitchers generally succeed everywhere and bad hitters don't. Sure, there is some variation and you can certainly augment mediocre players either way based on dimensions, but mediocre teams aren't competing for championships anyway.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 16 2014 12:03 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Ceetar wrote:
but mediocre teams aren't competing for championships anyway.


Yes they are. A team doesn't even need to win 90 games to have a strong chance of getting into the post-season anymore. And an 87 win wild card team might really be a very lucky mediocre 81-81 team in disguise.

Edgy MD
Oct 16 2014 12:09 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

I think just the opposite. I think small dimensions are an equalizer. Large dimensions favor the better equipped teams.

Yes, this is just my opinion. But I think I could back it up with facts and science and reason and stuff.

Ceetar
Oct 16 2014 12:33 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Lots of factors at work. I definitely think the small parks are less fair than the big ones. it's rare that a well struck ball finds a glove even in a big park unless it's a high fly type. The best players drive the ball and drives find the grass, perhaps more so in big parks. Fewer well-struck balls are becoming outs in big parks than 'just-missed' type flies becoming hits/homers in small ones.

But the other teams play there too. You may be able to tweak a stadium to get a mediocre team a wild card berth in the right year, but that just as easily could get your team not even as much as a home playoff game as it does a championship run. And that's sorta the best part about the MLB playoffs, even with the wild card you rarely get a team that's truly got no shot in there. You're not getting strictly lucky teams that manipulated the dimensions of their park to absolutely maximize their team and then getting destroyed against quality competition.

d'Kong76
Oct 16 2014 01:23 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions


Grown men on steroids should be
able to hit hrs! Moving the fences
in costs mucho dinero!

Frayed Knot
Oct 16 2014 01:32 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

I don't think there's any correlation between stadium dimensions and market size, or between dimensions and competitiveness.
The original to me was bad simply because it was so over-the-top big in LF (make the walls deep or make them high, but don't make them both) and too quirky in RF by at least half.
I was fine with what they went to and it would be fine with me if they left it alone now even though I doubt the new changes are going to make any difference in the team's fortunes one way or the other.

Lefty Specialist
Oct 16 2014 02:23 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Moving the fences in is cheaper than getting a legitimate power outfielder. That's how they roll in Wilponland. Can't wait for all the 'Matt denDekker is going to have a breakout year' stories in Spring Training.

Edgy MD
Oct 16 2014 02:26 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

I'm certain it's not a choice undertaken as an alternative to signing better players.

Ceetar
Oct 16 2014 02:31 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Lefty Specialist wrote:
Moving the fences in is cheaper than getting a legitimate power outfielder. That's how they roll in Wilponland. Can't wait for all the 'Matt denDekker is going to have a breakout year' stories in Spring Training.


even if that were true, it's not the Wilpons that would write those columns, it's hack sports writers. And they'll write something equally stupid regardless.

MFS62
Oct 16 2014 03:44 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Someone on the radio this week (Joe and Evan show on WFAN?) said that 7 of the 8 best teams played in the more pitcher friendly parks. But I'd like to see if the final 2014 Park Factor numbers back this up.

Later

Frayed Knot
Oct 16 2014 05:12 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

MFS62 wrote:
Someone on the radio this week (Joe and Evan show on WFAN?) said that 7 of the 8 best teams played in the more pitcher friendly parks. But I'd like to see if the final 2014 Park Factor numbers back this up.


But even if that's true, is that a constant trend or just a one-year variation?
A hitter's park didn't adversely affect the Phils in 2008 or for the better part of a decade for that matter (until all their players got old all at once, now it suddenly is the park's fault .... funny how that happens). The Yanx did OK for themselves in 2009 when their new park seemed to play even easier for offense then their old one, as have the Rays recently despite their ballpark and their financial limitations. And are we going to cite the BoSox park as the reason for their failures in 2012 & 2014 or as the reason for their success in 2013? Yadda, yadda.
And all this presumes the idea that parks can all be sorted into an either/or category.


What this "fact" sounds like to me is one being cited by someone eager to massage something so as to make the outcome fit his pre-determined conclusion - and that it's vein paraded on Benigno's show doesn't surprise me. He's the king of reaching his conclusion first and worrying about whether it's actually true later on if at all.

MFS62
Oct 16 2014 06:12 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Not sure its a one year thing. Offense has declined the past few years (since they blew the whistle on the 'Roids). Anyhow, it will be interesting to see how park factor tracks to winning percentage and something to keep an eye on to see if this year wasn't the outlier.
But, you're right, one year can't be called a trend.

Later.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 16 2014 06:25 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Frayed Knot wrote:


But even if that's true, is that a constant trend or just a one-year variation?


Even if it's true -- what's their definition of a pitcher's park? Because there are pitcher's parks, and then there are cavernous parks.

Edgy MD
Oct 16 2014 08:27 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Looking at all of the park factors at Baseball-Reference.com --- both batting and pitching --- the data is something of a mixed bag.

NationalPBFPPFAVGAmericanBPFPPFAVG
COL115116115.5DET105104104.5
CHC103104103.5KCR105104104.5
MIA103104103.5MIN102103102.5
WSN104102103TOR102102102
MIL102103102.5BOS102101101.5
ARI102102102HOU101102101.5
STL101100100.5TEX101101101
PHI100101100.5CHW100101100.5
ATL999999NYY100101100.5
CIN989898BAL100100100
PIT989797.5OAK999798
LAD969595.5CLE979797
SFG959595TBR979797
NYM949594.5LAA969595.5
SDP919191SEA959595


I mean, the data possibly leans toward teams in pitching-friendly parks being more successful, but it's certainly nothing definitive enough to bank on.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 16 2014 08:37 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 16 2014 08:48 PM

Got a link? B-ref's a powerfully informative web site that ain't as easy to navigate as it could be.

Anyways, park factors won't transform a 75 win team into a juggernaut. And an excellent team will be a force to reckon with no matter how their stadium plays. But a team can gain an edge by tailoring their team to their park, or their park to their team. And in a game where the qualitative differences between teams separated by half a dozen or so games in the standings are miniscule, every tiny edge adds up.

Edgy MD
Oct 16 2014 08:42 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

That's fine and nuanced, but it seems to differ from your prior position.

Park factors for the NL are here and for the AL are here.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 16 2014 08:45 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Edgy MD wrote:
That's fine and nuanced, but it seems to differ from your prior position.

Park factors for the NL are here and for the AL are here.


Why of course! It's under attendance and miscellaneous! Naturally.

What was my prior position?

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 16 2014 08:47 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

That's fine and nuanced, but it seems to differ from your prior position.

Park factors for the NL are here and for the AL are here.


Try this. Better.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor

John Cougar Lunchbucket
Oct 16 2014 08:52 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Edgy MD wrote:
Looking at all of the park factors at Baseball-Reference.com --- both batting and pitching --- the data is something of a mixed bag.

NationalPBFPPFAVGAmericanBPFPPFAVG
COL115116115.5DET105104104.5
CHC103104103.5KCR105104104.5
MIA103104103.5MIN102103102.5
WSN104102103TOR102102102
MIL102103102.5BOS102101101.5
ARI102102102HOU101102101.5
STL101100100.5TEX101101101
PHI100101100.5CHW100101100.5
ATL999999NYY100101100.5
CIN989898BAL100100100
PIT989797.5OAK999798
LAD969595.5CLE979797
SFG959595TBR979797
NYM949594.5LAA969595.5
SDP919191SEA959595


I mean, the data possibly leans toward teams in pitching-friendly parks being more successful, but it's certainly nothing definitive enough to bank on.


I think if you asked Joe Sixpack, or his stupider cousin, Joe Benigno, he'd say Philadelphia & Cincinnati are awesome hitting parks and that Miami is a pitcher's paradise.

Edgy MD
Oct 16 2014 08:56 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

batmagadanleadoff wrote:
Edgy MD wrote:
That's fine and nuanced, but it seems to differ from your prior position.

Park factors for the NL are here and for the AL are here.


Why of course! It's under attendance and miscellaneous! Naturally.

What was my prior position?

I think the original dimensions were a disaster, and dumb. Cavernous dimension that favor the pitcher in every part of the field are the worst kind of dimensions, as I see it. Especially for a team that plays in a big market and is supposed to have a financial advantage over its competition in acquiring talent. Cavernous dimensions neutralize pitching and power advantages. If you're a perennially bad team playing in a small market and with no real hope of acquiring expensive free agents, then, maybe cavernous dimension might work.

smg58
Oct 17 2014 08:14 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

The fangraphs overall park factor for Citi is 95, but with a 103 for home runs while basically everything else is suppressed relative to the average. In other words, the second set of dimensions produced the polar opposite of the impressions generated by the first set of dimensions, which for some reason have lingered. There doesn't appear to be any evidence that offense increased any due to the change (the old park factor was actually a 96). So I'm not sure what this is supposed to do.

Edgy MD wrote:
I'm certain it's not a choice undertaken as an alternative to signing better players.


It might be seen as an enticement to power hitters, but Ike Davis and Lucas Duda have hit 30 with the new dimensions. And I imagine anybody who's played at Citi knows the second set of dimensions weren't so intimidating.

Edgy MD
Oct 17 2014 08:22 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

smg58 wrote:
So I'm not sure what this is supposed to do.

I think all signs point to what it's supposed to is bring the homer to right-center and center-right center back into play.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 18 2014 11:25 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Edgy MD wrote:
Edgy MD wrote:
That's fine and nuanced, but it seems to differ from your prior position.

Park factors for the NL are here and for the AL are here.


Why of course! It's under attendance and miscellaneous! Naturally.

What was my prior position?

I think the original dimensions were a disaster, and dumb. Cavernous dimension that favor the pitcher in every part of the field are the worst kind of dimensions, as I see it. Especially for a team that plays in a big market and is supposed to have a financial advantage over its competition in acquiring talent. Cavernous dimensions neutralize pitching and power advantages. If you're a perennially bad team playing in a small market and with no real hope of acquiring expensive free agents, then, maybe cavernous dimension might work.


I'm not changing positions. I'm saying two different, reconcilable things. One - that there's value in tailoring the team to the park, or the park to the team. And two - that a big market team should never install cavernous dimensions that drastically reduce offense.

Ceetar
Oct 19 2014 09:09 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

On the other hand, the original dimensions certainly favored players who drive the ball and aren't slow. Of which the Mets had quite a few. Wright, Reyes, Pagan, Beltran. And it wasn't unfavorable to lefty-pull hitters like Delgado. A lot of Beltran's power was lefty.

d'Kong76
Oct 19 2014 09:24 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

batmagadanleadoff wrote:
that a big market team should never install cavernous dimensions that drastically reduce offense.

I'm having trouble with this... a small market team should
install cavernous dimensions? Why?

Edgy MD
Oct 19 2014 12:39 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

batmagadanleadoff wrote:
batmagadanleadoff wrote:
That's fine and nuanced, but it seems to differ from your prior position.

Park factors for the NL are here and for the AL are here.


Why of course! It's under attendance and miscellaneous! Naturally.

What was my prior position?

I think the original dimensions were a disaster, and dumb. Cavernous dimension that favor the pitcher in every part of the field are the worst kind of dimensions, as I see it. Especially for a team that plays in a big market and is supposed to have a financial advantage over its competition in acquiring talent. Cavernous dimensions neutralize pitching and power advantages. If you're a perennially bad team playing in a small market and with no real hope of acquiring expensive free agents, then, maybe cavernous dimension might work.


I'm not changing positions. I'm saying two different, reconcilable things. One - that there's value in tailoring the team to the park, or the park to the team. And two - that a big market team should never install cavernous dimensions that drastically reduce offense.

Yabbut you're also saying that

Anyways, park factors won't transform a 75 win team into a juggernaut. And an excellent team will be a force to reckon with no matter how their stadium plays.


which doesn't to me reconcile with the notion that large dimensions diminish market advantages. Which I don't think holds.

Nymr83
Oct 19 2014 10:55 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

d'Kong76 wrote:
batmagadanleadoff wrote:
that a big market team should never install cavernous dimensions that drastically reduce offense.

I'm having trouble with this... a small market team should
install cavernous dimensions? Why?


The only argument i can think of is that defense, particularly outfield defense, is cheaper to acquire than offense and plays best in these types of parks. the same is true of offense that is based on speed rather than power. but its a weak argument.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 21 2014 10:49 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

What I'm saying is that cavernous parks that suppress offense to a large degree neutralize the home team's pitching and power hitting advantages. Therefore, a big market team should never play in a cavernous park, because a big market team, given its economic advantage, is likelier to be a good team*. Extreme pitcher's parks undermine the home team's superiority. A perennially bad team, however, might be better off in a cavernous stadium so as to drag down the competition to their crappy level of play.


* "Big market" team, as used here, is synonymous with a wealthy team that can outspend most of its competitors. As a fan of the present Mets, I should know better.

Edgy MD
Oct 21 2014 10:56 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

I'd like you to outline the process by which you figure that happens.

You may be right, but, to my way of thinking, shallow walls are the great equalizer. If you build walls 250 feet away, Rey Ordóñez is going to hit as many homers as Mark McGwire --- perhaps more, because of Rey-O's superior contact rates. McGwire won't get extra points and the Cardinals won't get extra runs because his homers go 480 feet while Rey's go only 280 feet. Once they clear the fence, all homers are equal.

Now, if you truly are advantaged, and your roster is composed mostly of gods while the other teams are mostly strapped with mere mortals, than it would seemingly behoove you to build walls only gods can reach.

d'Kong76
Oct 21 2014 08:28 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

batmagadanleadoff wrote:
A perennially bad team, however, might be better off in a cavernous stadium so as to drag down the competition to their crappy level of play.
Now it's might be?
batmagadanleadoff wrote:
* "Big market" team, as used here, is synonymous with a wealthy team that can outspend most of its competitors. As a fan of the present Mets, I should know better.
We knew that, lol.

Edgy MD
Oct 27 2014 07:48 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

One of those annual articles about how the Mets need to copy the model of the World Series teams, who both play in expansive parks.

Now, like most of such articles, their data is highly selective --- what of the friendly dimensions of the home park of the (no longer) defending champion Red Sox? --- but it's certainly an argument for deep dimensions, citing one large and one small market.

Lefty Specialist
Oct 27 2014 08:46 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Yeah, we've seen this before......

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/p ... -sox-model


http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseb ... -1.1483409

metirish
Oct 27 2014 09:17 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Tom Kaminski @TomKaminskiWCBS
From @wcbs880 Chopper 880: Work has begun on moving in right-center field fence at #CitiField. #Mets #LGM

John Cougar Lunchbucket
Oct 27 2014 09:43 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Don't like that the wall appears to be getting off the parallel with the "bridge" section of the building. It's the only thing that made sense of its weird configuration in the first place.

Also, that looks like a dramatic adjustment.

Edgy MD
Oct 27 2014 09:43 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Golly.

Centerfield
Oct 27 2014 09:49 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Wait, that existing wall we are seeing are the original dimensions right? I think the current fence has been removed.

Edgy MD
Oct 27 2014 09:52 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Yeah, that was my understanding.

Still struck me dramatically.

Ceetar
Oct 27 2014 09:52 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

I think it's just straightening the wall



Look at the Xerox ad (The one in the left of the picture) it bends away from home plate. make it straight.

Look atthe picture from the chopper. There's a wide spot on the fence which I imagine is before/after. 3 feet?

Zvon
Oct 27 2014 01:37 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

metirish wrote:

Ceetar wrote:



Lets get both pics onto this page.
I didn't realize there was that much dead space between the OF wall and CF stands/vis bullpen.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 27 2014 02:08 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

[fimg=722:3m66pjkr]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B09DjOxCIAE3Afd.jpg:large[/fimg:3m66pjkr]

Is that "white track" where the new wall will be? Because if so, that looks like a major overhaul of dimensions. What is that ---- 15 ... 20 feet closer?

Ceetar
Oct 27 2014 02:34 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

batmagadanleadoff wrote:
[fimg=722]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B09DjOxCIAE3Afd.jpg:large[/fimg]

Is that "white track" where the new wall will be? Because if so, that looks like a major overhaul of dimensions. What is that ---- 15 ... 20 feet closer?



like..4? look at the white on the wall. that's the difference.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 27 2014 02:44 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Ceetar wrote:
batmagadanleadoff wrote:
[fimg=722]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B09DjOxCIAE3Afd.jpg:large[/fimg]

Is that "white track" where the new wall will be? Because if so, that looks like a major overhaul of dimensions. What is that ---- 15 ... 20 feet closer?



like..4? look at the white on the wall. that's the difference.


Ceets, I'm not following you. No comprendo.

Ceetar
Oct 27 2014 02:50 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

There's a white panel on the CF wall by the apple. That's the difference between 2013-2014 dimensions and 2015 dimensions.

prior to next year, the wall curve out a little bit before going across towards the apple. now it'll stay straighter.

seawolf17
Oct 27 2014 02:51 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

You're looking at the old old dimensions there. There's a white panel on the wall, just to the right of the apple, that shows the difference; and a chalky-looking track that leads out from the right side of that white panel that shows where the 2014 wall was. So it's only a small move.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 27 2014 03:00 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

I'm still all mixed up. How does a white panel stuck on a wall tell me anything? Am I supposed to be able to read the panel for information? And that long metal track in the dirt, just above some vehicle of sorts, what's that? Does that track mark where the wall was for the last three seasons?

Ceetar
Oct 27 2014 03:12 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

here. courtesy of The7Line

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 27 2014 05:17 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Ceetar wrote:
here. courtesy of The7Line



Thanks. All clear.

Ashie62
Oct 27 2014 05:57 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Well done.

Frayed Knot
Oct 27 2014 06:08 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Not much to get all in a twist about in other words.
At the same time, it's also not enough to think it's going to have a positive effect on Wright & Grandy, the supposed reason for the move in the first place.

Zvon
Oct 27 2014 07:28 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

This is what I was hoping they'd do.

Looks like they wont fill in the cutout there and the grey wall will be the way it goes in 2015 in that area. That's if I'm following this correctly.

Edgy MD
Oct 27 2014 07:32 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Frayed Knot wrote:
Not much to get all in a twist about in other words.
At the same time, it's also not enough to think it's going to have a positive effect on Wright & Grandy, the supposed reason for the move in the first place.

I think the Mets have a lot of belief that, if not the difference-maker going forward, it would have made a lot of difference for Granderson in 2014.

I tried superimposing the spray charts over the Citifield surface, but it didn't quite work (one of them isn't a perfectly perpendicular view), but you can see a line of demarcation that seems to represent the maximum distance Granderson's topspin shots reach, and the management likely hopes t bring the wall within that distance.

Frayed Knot
Oct 27 2014 07:52 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

I think the Mets have a lot of belief that, if not the difference-maker going forward, it would have made a lot of difference for Granderson in 2014.


One report I read talked about the Mets figuring that the proposed new fences would have netted the team an extra 7 HRs in 2014. Maybe a chunk of those were Granderson's but you wouldn't think it would be all of them.
The same report and them calculating that it would have cost the pitching staff an addition 4 HRs allowed.

As the basketball player once famously said: 'Whoop-de-damn-doo'

Edgy MD
Oct 27 2014 08:01 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

I'd appreciate seeing that report, but I'd be happy if it turns out that way.

d'Kong76
Oct 28 2014 05:45 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Zvon wrote:
This is what I was hoping they'd do.

That is what they're doing according to Mex's first plot plan.
Sort of. The two walls and the change in direction are in
slightly different spots but the quirky cutout will be gone.

Where did that original plot plan come from?

Frayed Knot
Oct 28 2014 06:26 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Edgy MD wrote:
I'd appreciate seeing that report, but I'd be happy if it turns out that way.


It was just a line from one of the recent stories about the wall (I forget exactly where) citing those 7 & 4 figures as coming from NYM sources.

Ceetar
Oct 28 2014 07:27 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Frayed Knot wrote:
Edgy MD wrote:
I'd appreciate seeing that report, but I'd be happy if it turns out that way.


It was just a line from one of the recent stories about the wall (I forget exactly where) citing those 7 & 4 figures as coming from NYM sources.


just reaching back into my brain, I think I read that on Metsblog and attributed to Mark Simon.

Landing spots of 2014 HR have little relevance of 2015 HR anyway. particularly in random tiny stretches of track.

Also, Granderson wasn't really bad last year, in fact, he was better than average. People are forgetting to adjust for park and offensive era since 2013-2014 seems to be a new low. Of course, now he's switching hitting coaches again (And he wasn't real great in 2013 with the new guy)

Zvon
Oct 28 2014 01:35 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

d'Kong76 wrote:
Zvon wrote:
This is what I was hoping they'd do.

That is what they're doing according to Mex's first plot plan.
Sort of. The two walls and the change in direction are in
slightly different spots but the quirky cutout will be gone.

Where did that original plot plan come from?


If you mean the diagram heading the thread, I think Mex made that. I used to like quirky cutouts in stadiums, and I still like them, only not at home.

d'Kong76
Oct 28 2014 01:49 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Oh, when I read 'if I did it right' I thought he meant
if he attached an image correctly.

Zvon
Oct 28 2014 02:22 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

d'Kong76 wrote:
Oh, when I read 'if I did it right' I thought he meant
if he attached an image correctly.

I think that is what he meant, as far as the "doing it right" part goes.

I think he's got the left field wall coming in a bit too, and if they bring it in, only a foot, to get that guard rail out of play, I'm all for that.
Or just bring the railing back a foot-get it off the wall.

Edgy MD
Oct 28 2014 02:28 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Two feet, if you please, Mets. Some outfielders have a long reach.

Ceetar
Oct 28 2014 02:39 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Edgy MD wrote:
Two feet, if you please, Mets. Some outfielders have a long reach.


how big are Cuddyer's arms? asking for a friend.

Edgy MD
Oct 28 2014 02:42 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Make sure this catch is again possible. That would be pleasing.

Zvon
Oct 28 2014 04:56 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Wow. I've never seen that photo. Freakin' awesome.

Edgy MD
Oct 28 2014 06:35 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Yeah, it's fab. That's the furthest I've seen the extension captured in a single shot. But I think it went further. Look at the apparent cleat markings in the B, seemingly going three inches above where his cleats currently are.

Ceetar
Nov 18 2014 12:07 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Farmer Ted
Nov 18 2014 02:44 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Sandy says the dimensions are nearly identical to Shea, blah, blah blah. Shea was an open air horseshoe. I'm not a meteorologist or a wind expert (insert pun here, folks) but I'd be willing to bet $1 that the winds blew in more than out (more pun opportunities, ladies and gentlemen) and the shape of Shea and location probably created more swirling conditions. That's not as big a factor with the enclosed Citi. Suckers are going to pop out of there this year, yessir.

Ceetar
Nov 18 2014 02:53 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Farmer Ted wrote:
Sandy says the dimensions are nearly identical to Shea, blah, blah blah. Shea was an open air horseshoe. I'm not a meteorologist or a wind expert (insert pun here, folks) but I'd be willing to bet $1 that the winds blew in more than out (more pun opportunities, ladies and gentlemen) and the shape of Shea and location probably created more swirling conditions. That's not as big a factor with the enclosed Citi. Suckers are going to pop out of there this year, yessir.


a handful more homeruns. whatever.

Citi swirls like crazy. worse than Shea, particularly in April.

Zvon
Nov 18 2014 03:39 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Walls schmalls. They should listen to me and install some wind tunnels behind home.

Mets Guy in Michigan
Nov 18 2014 08:16 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

My good friend John Munson is a photographer for the Newark paper and snapped the photos for today's event.

[url]http://www.nj.com/mets/index.ssf/2014/11/mets_move_in_citi_field_fences_so_everyone_can_stop_talking_about_it.html

Edgy MD
Nov 18 2014 09:13 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

That Times article was... highly disappointing, frankly.

Zvon
Nov 19 2014 12:16 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

My dimensions were more based on sentimental #'s regarding the team.

Who's got their old ballpark? Imagine if a ball caught that curve in the wall the right way (for a Met, wrong for the opposition). The ball would get whipped around all the way to left.




OE: File says 2005. Was the stadium mock ups that long ago?

metsmarathon
Nov 19 2014 02:30 PM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

min actually had a number of features that made it into citi field. expansive field, big bouncy wall in left, room for rattling around in right.

yes. i'm to blame.

Centerfield
Nov 20 2014 07:15 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

I think this is a great move. I like how Sandy Alderson stresses that this makes the field a "fair" ballpark, and compares it to Shea Stadium. I think this will have some impact on the results, but I think this will make more of an impact on the mindset of our hitters.

Hopefully this move, which I don't view to be drastic, will finally put all talk of the Citi dimensions to bed.

Edgy MD
Nov 20 2014 07:22 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Still have to adjust the position of the left field wall relative to the party city railing. Fair means fair for the left fielder, too, man!

But I tend to agree.

Centerfield
Nov 20 2014 07:28 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Yes, agreed on that. But I view that as more about having to move the railing than having to move the wall. In a perfect world, I'd also get rid of that notch in the RF.

Maybe I'm boring but my idea of an ideal outfield wall is one that is 8 ft. tall (no railings), fair distances (such as Shea) and symmetrical all around.

Has anyone taken a look at the original dimensions recently? I had forgotten about that high wall in the Modell's cutout. Those were just such stupid dimensions. I can't believe Jeff Wilpon would take the position that they don't need to be moved.

Ceetar
Nov 20 2014 08:26 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

I wonder if they expected a little more carry from the ball with the original dimensions and the orientation of the park. I remember reading they factored in the ability to move the walls originally. Maybe they figured the ball would carry better and often carry over those walls? So power guys would blast it and it'd go, but the line drive hitters (Admittedly, David Wright) would be more of the guys wracking up doubles and triples (Reyes). Everyone forgets the benefits to Reyes in the park design, like tailoring a park to one or two guys that will get maybe 10% of the total (home) AB at the place is a good idea anyway.

Plus it was almost impossible to get the ball over the Mo's Zone fence anyway, high or low, because of the porch. Either the drive was higher and hit the porch, or lower and wouldn't clear any fence.

Mets Guy in Michigan
Nov 20 2014 08:53 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

The fences in those photos. They're temporary, right? Just there to illustrate the changes?

Ceetar
Nov 20 2014 08:54 AM
Re: CitiField Dimensions

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote:
The fences in those photos. They're temporary, right? Just there to illustrate the changes?


I assume they're getting padding.