Shitty Field

[batmagadanleadoff]

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/even-the-mets-home-stadium-is-mocking-them-11554292802https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/even-the-mets-home-stadium-is-mocking-them-11554292802

[Ceetar]

sorry, what about Citizen's Bank Ballpark now?

[Lefty Specialist]

Rupert's paywall won't let me see. But I can imagine the gist.

[kcmets]

Except for the Jackie Robinson slant I'm pretty much ok with Citi after ten

years of settling in. What's Jared's main points?



I know several Yankee fans that like Citi much more than The Armory.

[Ceetar]

We discussed it late last season.



Citi Field depresses exit velocity, and no one's totally sure why.



It depresses it for both teams of course.



I assume that's what it's about. paywall'd as well.

[kcmets]

It's windy there. Even when there's no wind, it's windy there.

[nymr83]

why is something that favors pitching over hitting "shitty"?

[dgwphotography]

Man, they have shitty developers. Just view the page source and you can read the whole article.

[batmagadanleadoff]

why is something that favors pitching over hitting "shitty"?

Ask David Wright.

[kcmets]

=dgwphotography post_id=6253 time=1554325238 user_id=78]
Man, they have shitty developers. Just view the page source and you can read the whole article.

[smg58]

Baseball Reference's park factors have Citi Field consistently in the mid-90s, with 100 being average, except for last year which was about 90. On the whole, that qualifies as a great big so what. The drop last year might have had something to do with the stadium, but it's also possible that the calculation of the factor might have been skewed by the enormous disparity between the performance of the Mets' pitchers and hitters. (Unless people think DeGrom was overrated and Jay Bruce got a raw deal?)



ESPN on the other hand had Citi's runs at 75% relative to an average ballpark last year, which is ridiculously implausible.

[Ceetar]

it's the exit velocity, whether or not that translates to reduced offense. It's not necessarily a problem, but if the Mets could figure out what was causing it, maybe they'd be able to tap into a bit of a home field advantage.

[Frayed Knot]

I have no idea how a stadium can affect exit velocity.

And if wind is a factor then it's not really exit velocity that they're measuring but rather the speed of the ball sometime after it exits the bat.

[Fman99]

Paywall. I SHEE NOSSSSHHHHHING

[nymr83]

Frayed Knot wrote: I have no idea how a stadium can affect exit velocity. And if wind is a factor then it's not really exit velocity that they're measuring but rather the speed of the ball sometime after it exits the bat.

maybe hitters are seeing the ball poorly - the "batters eye" isn't as clean/unobstructed as elsewhere and therefore they are getting less on it on average?



that still wouldnt be a problem in my book.



I would think a pitcher's park actually favors a team over the course of a season. if a typical home game has less scoring your guys should have to throw less pitches over the course of the year keeping them fresher.

[Frayed Knot]

=kcmets post_id=6255 time=1554326647 user_id=53]
=dgwphotography post_id=6253 time=1554325238 user_id=78]
Man, they have shitty developers. Just view the page source and you can read the whole article.

[Edgy MD]

Which Web browser to you use?

[dgwphotography]

Frayed Knot wrote: Man, they have shitty developers. Just view the page source and you can read the whole article. Brilliant! What does 'view the page source' mean?

Right-click anywhere on the page, and click "View Source" It will show the page in html.

[smg58]

OK, so can we agree that "unfathomable nightmare" is an exaggeration?



I'm curious that disparities in the performance of Mets' pitchers were not reported. If it were solely the park, you would see similar splits. So the writer either ignored half the story, or conveniently refrained from mentioning it.



One possible explanation is that the Mets have employed a disproportionate number of the kind of players who would be hurt the most by the park. But I'm not sure who those players would be. It's not like the Mets have cornered the market on one-dimensional, all-or-nothing swingers. It would be worth digging into the stats further to see which players have the biggest home/road splits and which ones have the smallest. You know, investigative reporting.

[seawolf17]

=Ceetar post_id=6272 time=1554334525 user_id=102]
it's the exit velocity, whether or not that translates to reduced offense. It's not necessarily a problem, but if the Mets could figure out what was causing it, maybe they'd be able to tap into a bit of a home field advantage.

[batmagadanleadoff]

It's not the same and it doesnt even out. The bigger the park is, the more skill that's taken out. The more luck factors in and the more of a crapshoot each game is, which is especially a problem in baseball, which is already teeming with luck. This might help a perennially underfunded team that can't compete on a level playing field. But big market teams shouldn't build cavernous pitcher's parks, which the Mets are and Citi Field was and maybe, still is. But whaddya expect when you let Jeff Wilpon run wild? You get a plastic Camden Yards knockoff with the stupidest gimmicky dimensions ever and the ugliest scoreboards in all of baseball.



Or you know, Jake deGrom couldve joined this forum, beat me to it, and instead, named this thread "Pretty Field'.

[Lefty Specialist]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=6348 time=1554389570 user_id=68]
But whaddya expect when you let Jeff Wilpon run wild? You get a plastic Camden Yards knockoff with the stupidest gimmicky dimensions ever and the ugliest scoreboards in all of baseball.

[Willets Point]

I'm pretty sure that I predicted in 2009 that the ballpark would not have the same corporate name sponsor in ten years, so here's me, admitting I was wrong.

[smg58]

It's not the same and it doesnt even out. The bigger the park is, the more skill that's taken out.

I was actually happy to see the Mets buck the trend of building bandboxes that took most of the "skill" out of hitting home runs. Places like Camden Yards, for example.

[batmagadanleadoff]

It's not the same and it doesnt even out. The bigger the park is, the more skill that's taken out. I was actually happy to see the Mets buck the trend of building bandboxes that took most of the "skill" out of hitting home runs. Places like Camden Yards, for example.

I'm sure Jimmy Wynn was quite pleased to have to play in the Astrodome for so long. It might've cost him a spot in Cooperstown.



I don't like bandboxes either. I don't like extreme stadiums in general. But you can build for a bandbox. You get top flight pitchers who, the idea is, could pitch anywhere. That's what the Phillies did 10 or so years ago, though they could rake too. But what do you do in a cavern? The ideal player there doesnt exist. He'd be someone who hits the ball so far so often that he'd hit 85 HRs in a neutral park.

[Edgy MD]

There's certainly good players to get if your home is a big field.



1) Good pitchers whose main vulnerability is to the deep fly.



2) Fleet-footed Willie McGee-type outfielders, who on defense can cover more real-estate than the opposition, and on offense can hit one into the gap and run forever.



3) Anybody else that's good. The deeper the park, the better. Bandboxes stink. The smaller the park, the more it makes bad hitters look good, without proportionately making good hitters better.

[nymr83]

It's not the same and it doesnt even out. The bigger the park is, the more skill that's taken out. I was actually happy to see the Mets buck the trend of building bandboxes that took most of the "skill" out of hitting home runs. Places like Camden Yards, for example. I'm sure Jimmy Wynn was quite pleased to have to play in the Astrodome for so long. It might've cost him a spot in Cooperstown. I don't like bandboxes either. I don't like extreme stadiums in general. But you can build for a bandbox. You get top flight pitchers who, the idea is, could pitch anywhere. That's what the Phillies did 10 or so years ago, though they could rake too. But what do you do in a cavern? The ideal player there doesnt exist. He'd be someone who hits the ball so far so often that he'd hit 85 HRs in a neutral park.

what do you do in a cavern? you get Lagares to play CF. you get gap-hitters who have more gap to hit to.

[seawolf17]

Edgy MD wrote: There's certainly good players to get if your home is a big field. 1) Good pitchers whose main vulnerability is to the deep fly. 2) Fleet-footed Willie McGee-type outfielders, who on defense can cover more real-estate than the opposition, and on offense can hit one into the gap and run forever. 3) Anybody else that's good. The deeper the park, the better. Bandboxes stink. The smaller the park, the more it makes bad hitters look good, without proportionately making good hitters better.

Bingo. The mid-80s Cardinals: Coleman, McGee, Van Slyke left to right. Coleman obviously got worse in the field through the years, but McGee and Van Slyke were the real deals. And they averaged 30 triples a year between them.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Busch Stadium wasn't a cavern. And the myth about Whitey Herzog's Missouri teams being tailored to their parks was just that, a myth, Those teams were so talented, they would've won anywhere.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: There's certainly good players to get if your home is a big field. 1) Good pitchers whose main vulnerability is to the deep fly. 2) Fleet-footed Willie McGee-type outfielders, who on defense can cover more real-estate than the opposition, and on offense can hit one into the gap and run forever. 3) Anybody else that's good. The deeper the park, the better. Bandboxes stink. The smaller the park, the more it makes bad hitters look good, without proportionately making good hitters better.

Cavernous parks make every pitcher look better. And getting Willie McGee in the prime of his career when he was putting up MVP caliber numbers ( though not as MVP caliber as Dwight Gooden) is easier said than done. Because every other team would also want that Willie McGee.