Poll: Citi Field Outfield Fences

[batmagadanleadoff]

What, if anything, should the Mets do about the Citi Field fences? A poll, and an article.

Klapisch: Moving in fences is Wright move

Whatever you think about the $66 million the Mets have invested in Jason Bay � whether it could�ve been better spent on John Lackey or tucked away for a run at next year�s elite crop of free agents � this much is irrefutable: Home runs have become the most critical currency at Citi Field. It�s a ambitious change in philosophy, considering the Mets hit the fewest HRs in the National League last year. But overwhelming firepower obviously worked for the Yankees and the Mets have a chance to emulate that formula in 2010. With Bay coming off a 36-homer season in Boston, Mets now have the potential to rival the Phillies in sheer muscle. That is, if Carlos Beltran can stay healthy all year, if Carlos Delgado returns and David Wright finds his 2008 stroke. And we haven�t mentioned Jeff Francoeur, who could bat as low as seventh in this power-laden lineup. The mitigating factor, of course, is Citi Field itself and its daunting 16-foot wall in left-center and even crazier 415-foot power alley in right center, 44 feet deeper than it was at Shea Stadium. The Mets don�t appear to be close to any significant up grades in their starting rotation, so if they want to improve their run-differential why not maximize their HR quotient by reconfiguring the ballpark? Doing so would ensure that Bay remains a 30-homer threat, and more importantly, would give Wright a much-needed helping hand. Club officials admit Wright�s transition to Citi was less than encouraging � he hit only five HRs at home � but are waiting to see how the third baseman responds to this year�s bolstered lineup. �Obviously something was very wrong,� is how one official described Wright�s drop-off. That�s one reason the Mets ultimately chose Bay over Lackey and why Omar Minaya flatly said Tuesday, �We felt we had to slug more.� That represents a critical shift by a team that tailored its monstrous new ballpark around pitching, speed and athleticism. The formula worked � to a degree. According to ESPN.com�s park factors that were released Tuesday, Citi was the major leagues� seventh-easiest place to hit a triple in 2009. The Mets finished second in the NL in triples, but were last in the East (and 12th overall) in runs scored. Injuries obviously played a huge role in that disparity, but the Mets hardly can be called a young, fleet team anymore. Even if everyone returns to full health in 2010, who other than Jose Reyes actually can take turn doubles into triples? Bay�s home runs are more important than Reyes� triples, which is why Citi needs to become less asymmetrical and more conventional � and realistic � in the outfield. Will it happen? It�s not impossible. Officials plan to see how Bay and Wright fare in 2010 before bringing in the fences. Wright, in particular, will be watched closely: With Bay hitting behind him, he�ll get better pitches to hit and should return to his 33-home run form in 2008. Still, some believe Wright�s home run drought had nothing to do with Citi, since he hit only five HRs on the road last year. One talent evaluator, however, believes Citi was entirely at fault, noting Wright�s swing was so radically altered trying to reach the fences in Flushing, he developed bad habits that become permanent, home and away. �I think the whole thing [about hitting home runs] got into his head and he was never able to fix that,� said the scout. Bay could be the antidote, as he seems to have the right mix of power, on-base ability and maturity to handle what awaits him in 2010. The new left fielder glided through Tuesday�s introductory press conference with grace and professionalism, which is exactly how he accepted the burden of being Manny Ramirez�s successor in Boston. Bay spoke glowingly (and convincingly) about the Mets, saying his experience with the Red Sox had whetted his appetite for winning. Bay was smart enough to avoid the obvious follow-up: If he was so enamored with Fenway�s winning culture, why did he � a refugee of 5� losing seasons in Pittsburgh � refuse the Sox� offer of four years and $60 million in July? Bay would only say, �I don�t want to get into that.� Clearly, he and agent Joe Urbon misjudged the market as the Red Sox� package ultimately shrank to three years, $44 million. The Mets were far and away Bay�s best option, maybe his only one. But if was Bay was at all disappointed at the way the Sox backed away, he didn�t show it. Instead, blissfully ignoring the last three years of frustration in Flushing, Bay noted his new team�s formidable on-paper talent and asked, �What�s not to like?�

http://www.northjersey.com/sports/010610_Klapisch_Moving_in_fences_is_Wright_move.html

[MFS62]

No.
Anything Klapisch is for, I'm automatically against.

Later

[TransMonk]

The fences are fine.

[Edgy MD]

I can go for standardizing the height.

[Centerfield]

Me too. A lower height.

And no stupid alcove in RF.

[metsmarathon]

since wright hit all those homers on the road, and so many fewer at home, yeah, i can totally see how moving in the fences would be the obvious cure. i mean, look how many homers our home took away from the team, when you look at how much power they were able to show on the road. the mind boggles at how much more offense we could've gained last year!

[Chad ochoseis]

Boob Klapisch wrote: who other than Jose Reyes actually can take turn doubles into triples?

David Wright.

Carlos Beltran, if he stays healthy.

Angel Pagan.

Possibly FMart, if he sticks with the big club.

That's more combined speed/power hitters than most teams have. Plus, their ace pitcher is a fly ball pitcher who is helped by CF's dimensions.

The genius also wrote: Still, some believe Wright�s home run drought had nothing to do with Citi, since he hit only five HRs on the road last year. One talent evaluator, however, believes Citi was entirely at fault, noting Wright�s swing was so radically altered trying to reach the fences in Flushing, he developed bad habits that become permanent, home and away.

So, the idea here is to bring the fences in so that Wright will swing for them even more, thus completely screwing up his hitting ability, right?

Never mind that the park is going to be around far longer than the current Mets team will be.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I'm undecided. I'd like to see a few more seasons worth of data. But I would be inclined to move the fences in and/or reduce some of the height if it turns out that CF negates HR's to a greater extent than most other stadiums.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

It's weird to me how many writers jumped on the CitiField-is-killing-David-Wright bandwagon, when two mouse clicks over to Baseball-Reference's 2009 splits* show you that the stadium didn't cause the power outage**.

That said... I'm undecided-- you've got to see at least 2-3 years of numbers before you can make anything like an informed decision. I am positive, though, about cutting the fences down. I want some home run-saves... or at least, the future prospect of same.



*In what other field-- entertainment, sports, politics, science-- are the professional journalists who cover the field not only so ill-informed, but wear their ignorance/laziness as badges of honor?

**Unless his approach changed as a result of his thinking re: same. But that's more of a Wright mental issue than a physical-plant one.

[metsmarathon]

well, i do believe his approach changed this year, and i expect that's most likely due to the size of the park.

but the solution to that problem is not changing the park, but changing the approach, and it amazes me to think that this is not the clearly most obvious answer.

[batmagadanleadoff]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: It's weird to me how many writers jumped on the CitiField-is-killing-David-Wright bandwagon, when two mouse clicks over to Baseball-Reference's 2009 splits* show you that the stadium didn't cause the power outage**

Ten HR's (Wright's 2009 totals) is too small a sample size to exonerate Citi Field as the cause of Wright's power shortage last season. One possible explanation for Wright's neutral home-road splits might simply be that by sheer coincidence, the four or five longest balls that Wright hit in 2009 were all hit at Citi Field. This would mask the possibility that CF is reducing Wright's home HR's.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: It's weird to me how many writers jumped on the CitiField-is-killing-David-Wright bandwagon, when two mouse clicks over to Baseball-Reference's 2009 splits* show you that the stadium didn't cause the power outage** Ten HR's (Wright's 2009 totals) is too small a sample size to determine whether Citi Field caused Wright's power shortage last season. One possible explanation for Wright's neutral home-road splits might simply be that by sheer coincidence, the four or five longest balls that Wright hit in 2009 were all hit at Citi Field. This would mask the possibility that CF is reducing Wright's home HR's.

A fair point-- owing to sample size, the numbers really don't-- and can't-- disprove anything (although some "near-miss" data from Hittracker suggests that your guess isn't quite right, either). Neither, however, do they begin to prove any sort of direct deleterious effect of the park's dimensions on Wright's production-- the Wright-versus-Citi stories are 100-percent confirmation-bias-borne. Even more nettlesome... the far more interesting story is being missed here by most MSM-ites-- that Wright's power drop last year is historically weird.

[Benjamin Grimm]

metsmarathon wrote: but the solution to that problem is not changing the park, but changing the approach, and it amazes me to think that this is not the clearly most obvious answer.

Exactly.

I'm not necessarily opposed to eventually changing the ballpark configuration at some point; there's nothing wrong with a little tinkering as we get to know what the park is really like, but doing it now is, as others have said, too much of an overreaction based on a small sample size. Give it a few years.

[batmagadanleadoff]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: the far more interesting story is being missed here by most MSM-ites-- that Wright's power drop last year is historically WEIRD.

This is the most interesting aspect of Wright's drop in HR's. Have you come across any worthwhile articles attempting to discuss Wright's power shortage in historical context? I haven't.

[Edgy MD]

Chad Ochoseis wrote: Boob Klapisch wrote: who other than Jose Reyes actually can take turn doubles into triples? David Wright. Carlos Beltran, if he stays healthy. Angel Pagan. Possibly FMart, if he sticks with the big club.

Add Anderson Hernandez and Alex Cora and plenty of guys we've yet to meet.

Re-engineering the ballpark to suit the current makeup of the team is the kind on narrow-minded shortsigned, self-centered approach I can only think of as Steinbrennerian. It's malfecant!

[Frayed Knot]

I'm for tinkering a bit just to get rid of some of the more gimmicky "quirks" rather than as a solution to any hitting problem - perceived or real.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

the far more interesting story is being missed here by most MSM-ites-- that Wright's power drop last year is historically WEIRD. This is the most interesting aspect of Wright's drop in HR's. Have you come across any worthwhile articles attempting to discuss Wright's power shortage in historical context? I haven't.

ACTUALLY...

Stumbled onto this piece yesterday, on Patrick Flood's Mets Blog (a newcomer to the 'sphere, apparently... and a hell of a regular read, if the first two months are any indication). That article tries to put Wright in context historically (in short: he's in good company among those who've had such outages... but disturbingly young to have one), while these two look at his struggles against fastballs/swing speed last year and where he hit 'em. Good, nutritious-- and funny*-- stuff.

*SAMPLE (discussing DW's swing mechanics):

"So something was off with David, but why? Well, some of it was probably D.W. himself - maybe his front shoulder really was flying open... Then again, Keith Hernandez seems to think everyone's front shoulder is always flying open. David Wright's is flying open, Daniel Murphy's shoulder is flying open, Fernando Martinez' shoulder is flying open, the hog dog vendor in the upper deck's shoulder is flying open, Sandy Alomar's front shoulder was flying open when he hands in the line-up card, Gary Cohen's front shoulder is opening up, my front shoulder is flying open, your front shoulder is flying open - everyone's front shoulder is flying open. Go ahead, check your front shoulder right now. It's probably already flown open during the time you took to read this."

[metsmarathon]

so i thought i'd take a look at hittrackeronline.com's home run data for each of the ballparks in 2009. i found that citi field allowed an average "true" home run distance of 400' (actual distance of 398.1'), with an average speed off the bat of 104.2 mph. the average home run distance at citi field ranks 14th among all parks, and the average speed off the bat ranks 10th.

now, i would expect two things, if citi field is truly that difficult a place to hit home runs - one, that the average home run distance would have to be high, as there wouldn't be as many short home runs. and two, that the average speed off the bat would have to be high, as you'd have to crush the ball to get it out. the average speed may also be an indication of the quality of the batters and/or pitchers faced, or how well the ball carries in the park, or something else i'm not thinking of - its a big factor, and i'm unsuccessfully wrapping my mind around the implications... the average true distance in san francisco is also 400.4', but the average speed off the bat is only 102.8 mph. does that mean san francisco allows cheaper home runs, or just different home runs? probably the former.

regardless, this hasty analysis shows that citifield is not necessarily unfair in the home runs it allows. right? in fact, the closest data point to citi field, is the metrodome, at 400.2' and 104.3 mph. and that's not a notoriously unfair place to hit, is it?

[ashie62]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: metsmarathon wrote: but the solution to that problem is not changing the park, but changing the approach, and it amazes me to think that this is not the clearly most obvious answer. Exactly. I'm not necessarily opposed to eventually changing the ballpark configuration at some point; there's nothing wrong with a little tinkering as we get to know what the park is really like, but doing it now is, as others have said, too much of an overreaction based on a small sample size. Give it a few years.

I may not have a few years...please lower the fences and can the alcove

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Enjoying David Wright Shark Week.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Enjoying David Wright Shark Week.

Great, no?

How do we recruit this guy without creeping him out?

[Guest attgig]

added to my google reader. I'm enjoying it tons.

[nymr83]

NO. Its been one year, chill out and see how the park plays in the long-term.

[Guest Kong76]

I took no, if there was a no way Jose I'd take that.
I could see shortening some fence 3-4 years after next year,
but let's see how things go.

(largely skimmed thread and didn't read Klap for medical reasons)

[batmagadanleadoff]

A response to the Klapisch piece at the top of this thread, in the stlye of Fire Joe Morgan dot com:

Sometimes I actually think people are a little too hard on Bob Klapisch. He at least thinks differently than his hordes of mainstream media columnist brethren, and sometimes he stumbles upon an interesting idea. And I think it�s become sort of a knee-jerk reaction among Mets fans to assume everything he�s written is bad and dumb and too harsh against the Mets without giving it a fair shake. Then he writes something like this. Holy crap, Bob Klapisch. First of all, this is completely pointless. If the Mets were going to move in the fences, they�d be working on it by now, and they most certainly wouldn�t have said yesterday that they decidedly weren�t moving in the fences. So this column is useless. Second, holy crap. I�m sorry but some things require the ol� Fire Joe Morgan treatment. Here�s to heroes Ken Tremendous, dak and Junior. Bold words are Klapisch�s. Here we go: Whatever you think about the $66 million the Mets have invested in Jason Bay � whether it could�ve been better spent on John Lackey or tucked away for a run at next year�s elite crop of free agents � this much is irrefutable: Home runs have become the most critical currency at Citi Field. Is that irrefutable? I could refute that. Wait, I don�t know if I can. Hold on a second. I�m not entirely sure what you�re saying here, Bob Klapisch. Why are they the most critical currency? Because the Mets didn�t hit many? Other teams did. Other teams hit plenty. Everyone forgets that. It�s a ambitious change in philosophy, considering the Mets hit the fewest HRs in the National League last year. No, silly! It�s an ambitious change in philosophy. Plus, I�m not sure the Mets� decision to hit the fewest home runs in the National League last year was a philosophical one. Actually, I�m pretty sure it had to do with everybody in the freaking lineup getting hurt. But whatever, let�s move on. With Bay coming off a 36-homer season in Boston, Mets now have the potential to rival the Phillies in sheer muscle. That is, if Carlos Beltran can stay healthy all year, if Carlos Delgado returns and David Wright finds his 2008 stroke. And we haven�t even mentioned Jeff Francoeur, who could bat as low as seventh in this power-laden lineup. Wow. And guess what? If the Carloses Beltran and Delgado were healthy all last year and David Wright had his 2008 stroke � even without Bay in the lineup � the Mets would not have hit the fewest home runs in the National League. They�d actually probably have landed somewhere right in the middle of the pack, and so your whole premise would be shot, and so no one would need to be writing columns about bringing in the fences at Citi Field. That�s the whole thing. But wait, here comes my favorite part: The Mets don�t appear to be close to any significant up grades [sic] in their starting rotation, so if they want to improve their run-differential why not maximize their HR quotient by reconfiguring the ballpark? Differential? Maximize? Quotient? Klapisch must be onto something smart here, right? Oh, wait. He�s just using big words to shroud the dumbest f@#$ing thing I�ve ever read. Reconfiguring the ballpark around the same crappy pitchers will not alter the home run quotient. Reconfiguring the ballpark will only make those pitchers allow more home runs. Yes, the Mets will hit more home runs, too, but they�ll be yielding more at the same time, since they�ll be playing in the same ballpark as the other team, no matter how it�s configured. Unless Klapisch has some plan in mind for a radical newfangled wall that changes heights between the tops and bottoms of innings, the home run quotient will stay exactly the same. And then, the kicker: According to ESPN.com�s park factors that were released Tuesday, Citi was the major leagues� seventh-easiest place to hit a triple in 2009. Holy crap, sir. You found your way to ESPN.com�s park factors? While you were there, did you miss the part that showed Citi Field played as a slightly homer-friendly field in 2009? Or, worse, did you see it and think, �meh, it doesn�t really aid my point about how the Mets should move the fences in so they can hit more home runs like the Yankees and Phillies, so I�ll pretend I didn�t see it and cherry-pick this tidbit about the triples�? I�m done here. There�s more fodder for comedy, but I�m bored with it. Look: I don�t know the truth about whether Citi Field squashes home-run totals and I don�t purport to. I don�t think anybody does. It certainly looks big and it�s obviously earned that reputation. But there�s no evidence yet that it plays big, and everything we�ve learned so far says that it takes years to reach a definitive conclusion about a park�s effect on ballgames. It�s baffling how many people think otherwise.

http://www.tedquarters.net/2010/01/06/holy-crap-bob-klapisch/

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

I have no problem with the dimensions of Citi Field. I wouldn't mind bringing in the section of right field fence to get rid of that weird notch before someone gets hurt. Otherwise, I'm fine for leaving it as it is for another year or two. Then, if they want to mess with the fences, I would prefer to see them lower the height on some sections (RF Modells sign & CF in front of the apple). A fence that varies from 8-12 feet high would be fine with me.

[Guest attgig]

get rid of that annoying RF thing


and lower the fences for the highlight reel hr robbing grabs.

[Edgy MD]

Forgive me, as I sympathetically reject the notch on the grounds of its artificial character, but how does the notch threaten people's health?

[Fman99]

attgig wrote: and lower the fences for the highlight reel hr robbing grabs.

This. Holy hell, does anyone who works for that team remember the Endy Chavez catch?



"Wha?"

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

He's not confused-- he's just surprised at how bitter the pennies taste today.