Poll: Citi Field Outfield Fences

[metsmarathon]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: if we're dropping data because it conflicts with our preconceived notions, then i suggest we also toss out shea's 2008 park effect of 1.081, which was likely inflated by citi's affect on the natural wind patterns. doing that, shea's average home run park effect is 0.884. I don't know what you mean when you write that I was "dropping data".

i merely offered the opportunity.

According to these numbers, Shea reduced HR's by 9%; Citi reduces HR's by 14% --- a difference of more than 50%

(0.91-0.86)/0.91 = 0.054 = 5%

i would expect 5% fewer homers at citi field than shea based on the available historic data.

if you scale the home homers to the same number of road homers, you get, for every 1,217 homers hit in road mets games, there will be 1062 homers hit in home mets games, presuming the current ratio stands up.

1106 -1062 = 44

44 / 1106 = 0.040, or 4% fewer homers hit at citi than shea, given an equivalent road-homer environment.

fuck jason bay and david wright even more.

oe: those espn park factors sure are wonky, aren't they?

[Ceetar]

There isn't enough data.

also, you can't ignore the injuries to Wright and Davis and Bay sucking. These guys are just not hitting home runs. Johan Santana is out. Oliver Perez was pretty good at Shea, sucked in Citi.

offense is down across the league the last two years. There's rumors that they changed the ball a bit going into 2010 They definitely changed the maximum diameter of the bat. Which means less margin for error in hitting the ball cleanly.

There are way too many variables to deduce how much Citi Field hurts homers. What's more important is that we stop trumping it up like that and scaring the players away. (or inversely, making sure our players get it but the opponents are intimidated, maximizing home field advantage)

[batmagadanleadoff]

metsmarathon wrote: (0.91-0.86)/0.91 = 0.054 = 5% i would expect 5% fewer homers at citi field than shea based on the available historic data. if you scale the home homers to the same number of road homers, you get, for every 1,217 homers hit in road mets games, there will be 1062 homers hit in home mets games, presuming the current ratio stands up. 1106 -1062 = 44 44 / 1106 = 0.040, or 4% fewer homers hit at citi than shea, given an equivalent road-homer environment. fuck jason bay and david wright even more. oe: those espn park factors sure are wonky, aren't they?

It's 5% more ... but 5% more than 9% ... a difference of more than 50% (5 over 9) ... a large difference. (And this is counting, not dropping, the 2009 season).

I don't know why you say fuck Bay and Wright. It seems to me that Citi Field reduces HR's so drastically that the stadium is, in all likelihood, a factor in their dropoffs. I assumed this would happen before a single game was ever played at CF, as soon as I learned what the dimensions and height of the outfield walls were. I'd say" fuck Citi Field" before I gave the fuck you to Bay or Wright.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: you can't ignore the injuries to Wright and Davis and Bay sucking.

Yes you can. They play road games, too.

[metsmarathon]

relative to a neutral field, citi field is a 50% more difficult place to hit homers in than shea stadium.

so for every 1217 road homers, shea costs you 111 home homers, whereas citi costs you 155.

yes. yes. i know.

so if you have a hitter who hits 12 homers on the road, with a home-run-distance distribution equivalent to the sum total of all hitters to play for or against the mets over the prior ten seasons , he will hit one fewer home run at shea, and 1.5 fewer home runs at citi.

so that 24 home run hitting guy who plays all his games on a neutral field will become a 23 home run hitting guy at shea, and a 22.5 home run hitting guy at citi field.

yes, i see how this should cause home run hitters to cry and carry on and drastically change their approach.

obviously, a guy who routinely hits the ball farther will be affected less by citi than a guy who does not. that's why i wanna see the specific data for a specific hitter.

[batmagadanleadoff]

metsmarathon wrote: that's why i wanna see the specific data for a specific hitter.

Hitter's spray charts aren't necessarily probative of the matter. We don't know what specifically causes a hitter to tinker with his approach to playing at CF. It probably differs from hitter to hitter. It might not take more than one or two HR's lost for a hitter to change (consciously or not) his swing. It might not even be a lost HR. It might be a shot that's a double anywhere else, but results in a CF fly out because there's more room for the outfielder to run down flyballs or because CF allows the outfielder to position himself one or two steps deeper. It might be based on batted balls hit during batting practice. Only the hitter knows for sure how he's mentally affected by having CF convert some of his seemingly sure extra base hits into outs.

[Ceetar]

Do you have any specific instances of where a player has said how he would adjust his swing if he noticed he wasn't hitting it out? Would he try to pull the ball more? hit it more level and ignore HR? Has anyone actually admitted to tailoring a swing to a park in any real way? (More so then "If you hit it in the gaps here, you can really run" or "You really have to step into one")

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Remember how Wright c. 2009 came to ST rather freshly-pumped?

Perhaps it's less of a swing-adjustment thing, and more of a loss/degradation-of-quick-twitch (that of most use in maintaining bat speed, footspeed-burst, etc.) in putting on more muscle mass?

/Totally whistling in the dark

[Ceetar]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Remember how Wright c. 2009 came to ST rather freshly-pumped? Perhaps it's less of a swing-adjustment thing, and more of a loss/degradation-of-quick-twitch (that of most use in maintaining bat speed, footspeed-burst, etc.) in putting on more muscle mass? /Totally whistling in the dark

I thought it was 2010 that he came particularly bulked up? I'm not sure strictly muscle mass adds any appreciable distance to home runs as compared to bat speed and what not.

Since the impulse of force is mass times change of velocity over time, the quicker you get the bat through the zone, the greater the impulse and also why increasing the weight of the bat can often be determental to power, because it may slow you down more than it helps. (and why some have speculated that Ruth would've had even more power had he not felt less manly wielding a lighter bat)

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: Do you have any specific instances of where a player has said how he would adjust his swing if he noticed he wasn't hitting it out?

I'm not aware of any. I doubt that a player would admit to altering his swing to make up for the HR's he thinks he'd otherwise lose to Citi Field. The player wouldn't want to be perceived as blaming a stadium for his diminished production; it goes against baseball's unwritten code that looks down on a player who makes excuses for his play, even when those excuses have merit; and he'd probably be admitting to ignoring instruction or advice from the coaching staff.

Ceetar wrote: Would he try to pull the ball more? hit it more level and ignore HR?

My guess is that a player would try to pull the ball more often to increase HR production, especialy a right-handed hitter at Citi Field (like Bay and Wright). To pull the ball, the batter must hit the pitch earlier instead of later. This allows the batter to make contact at the point in his swing where the speed of the bat is at its fastest. Distance = mass x velocity. So assuming all else equal, like the weight of his bat and the incoming speed of the pitch, the ball will travel farther when struck harder, which is faster, which is the velocity variable. That's why, all else equal, it's much easier for a batter to pull a ball for distance x than it is to hit the ball for the same distance x to the opposite field. Of course, to swing harder, a batter has to swing earlier, and that's where the tradeoff begins. He might hit a few more HR's, but at the expense of not seeing the ball as much, or as well, and thus, also striking out more or hitting more clunkers. It's possible that by trying to hit the ball farther, the player, in the long run, ends up hitting the ball for shorter distances.

I think that Jason Bay is definitely swinging earlier. To me, this is obvious enough that it's readily apparent from simply watching him on TV. He might be trying to hit the ball farther to compensate for CF. Or he might be trying to compensate for reduced bat speed from age or injury. Or he just might be messed up. Only Bay knows for sure.

[Ceetar]

It seems illogical that he'd be actively altering his swing _in game_. It's not like he's having any trouble blasting them out in BP. Granted those pitchers are slower and you see them longer. Maybe that's all it is the extra half second or whatever is enough to overcome the disadvantage of starting early? Beats me, I'm not a professional hitter (is he?) There certainly seems to be plenty of pitches in which the bat is in the zone at the optimal time and his swing looks fine. but he misses.

Sometimes I wish Terry would demand he just stand there and watch, and strike out if that's what happens. no swinging. Maybe he should be the batter-dummy for all the pitchers side sessions. just stand in the batters box and track the pitches. I would do some crazy stuff if i was manager..

[metsmarathon]

you seem to miss my point. my point in looking at the home run tracks is to look at what would happen if the hitter did not adjust his approach. of the 36 homers jason bay hit in 2009, how many would still be homers if he struck them all in citi field.

my argument is that jason bay and david wright should not have tinkered with their swing in some foolish attempt to eke out more power, as the negative impact on their numbers due to the farther fences would not merit the inevitable tradeoffs.

that if they kept on doing what they were doing, they'd be fine. particularly in relation to shea stadium, which already had a depressive effect on home runs.

i'm not arguing that citi field did not cause david wright to change his approach / swing. i'm not arguing that citi field caused jason bay to change his approach / swing. i'm arguing that they were foolish to have. that players have indeed changed their approach due to the dimensions of citi field neither proves nor disproves my point. players do stupid things. players wear plastic necklaces with holographic stickers on them. i don't expect them to have done any sort of scientific analysis on the matter.

[batmagadanleadoff]

metsmarathon wrote: you seem to miss my point. my point in looking at the home run tracks is to look at what would happen if the hitter did not adjust his approach. of the 36 homers jason bay hit in 2009, how many would still be homers if he struck them all in citi field.

Gotcha.

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: Do you have any specific instances of where a player has said how he would adjust his swing if he noticed he wasn't hitting it out? I'm not aware of any. I doubt that a player would admit to altering his swing to make up for the HR's he thinks he'd otherwise lose to Citi Field. The player wouldn't want to be perceived as blaming a stadium for his diminished production; it goes against baseball's unwritten code that looks down on a player who makes excuses for his play, even when those excuses have merit; and he'd probably be admitting to ignoring instruction or advice from the coaching staff.

On second thought, a few weeks ago Jeff Francoeur speculated that David Wright must be suffering from having to play half his games in the cavernous Citi Field. It's possible that Frenchy was speaking from actual private comments Wright made, rather than opinion. Frenchy is in a position to know, given that Frenchy and Wright became Mets buddies and socialized together frequently.

[Edgy MD]

Wow. The word of Jeff Francoeur. Talk about selective data.

Come on. Take it easy and come back to shore. There's no solid ground at all under your feet.

[ashie62]

Aren't you all getting tired with this one?

[Edgy MD]

Gettting?

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy DC wrote: Wow. The word of Jeff Francoeur. Talk about selective data. Come on. Take it easy and come back to shore. There's no solid ground at all under your feet.

What's wrong with that theory? Wright confides to Frenchy. Frenchy disses Citi Field, couching Wright's gripes as Frenchy's own opinion. And how is this "selective data"? Or any kind of data? It's --possibly-- one baseball player's opinion that Citi Field's dimensions are ridiculous.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ashie62 wrote: Aren't you all getting tired with this one?

Bill James would be rolling over in his grave. If he were dead. Park effects are everything.

[Edgy MD]

Nobody said there isn't a park effect. And no, they're not everything. They're effects.

[Elster88]

David Wright has been everything I could've wanted from a ballplayer on my favorite team since he arrived. As EdgyDC put it long ago "I can't believe he's mine." The jackass owners (are we all agreed that they are at least part-jackass?) built a monstrosity of a ballpark that has had at least some kind of effect, mental or otherwise, on David. And intelligent Met fans are telling David to go fuck himself. I don't get it.

[Edgy MD]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy DC wrote: Wow. The word of Jeff Francoeur. Talk about selective data. Come on. Take it easy and come back to shore. There's no solid ground at all under your feet. What's wrong with that theory? Wright confides to Frenchy. Frenchy disses Citi Field, couching Wright's gripes as Frenchy's own opinion. And how is this "selective data"? Or any kind of data? It's --possibly-- one baseball player's opinion that Citi Field's dimensions are ridiculous.

Because you typically responded to self-serving quotes out of Francouer's mouth last year with "I see through that **********." Now that he's gone, the sudden creditiblity of these opinions are useful to your agenda.

This is obvious if you'd take a step back.

I'm not sure how this became a referendum on Wright fucking himself, but no, I'm not in favor of that.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy DC wrote: Edgy DC wrote: Wow. The word of Jeff Francoeur. Talk about selective data. Come on. Take it easy and come back to shore. There's no solid ground at all under your feet. What's wrong with that theory? Wright confides to Frenchy. Frenchy disses Citi Field, couching Wright's gripes as Frenchy's own opinion. And how is this "selective data"? Or any kind of data? It's --possibly-- one baseball player's opinion that Citi Field's dimensions are ridiculous. Because you typically responded to self-serving quotes out of Francouer's mouth last year with "I see through that **********." Now that he's gone, the sudden creditiblity of these opinions are useful to your agenda. This is obvious if you'd take a step back. I'm not sure how this became a referendum on Wright fucking himself, but no, I'm not in favor of that.

I don't have an agenda. I have an opinion --my opinion-- that Citi Field is detrimental to power hitters. David Wright might share my opinion. Francoeur --possibly-- might have been speaking on behalf of his buddy Wright when he said that Citi Field's dimensions are ridiculous and that Wright must be suffering to play half his games there. Francoeur no longer has any skin in this game, thus reducing the possibility that his comments about Citi Field were self-serving. But only Frenchy and Wright know for sure whether Frenchy's recent Citi Field comments were based on actual remarks Wright made.

Am I now obligated to dismiss every one of Francoeur's ideas and opinions till the end of time, just because I generally dislike him? Are you saying that Francoeur must be wrong about Citi Field because I called him a **********? Because the issue here ... the topic of discussion ... is Citi Field's dimensions -- not that I think that Francoeur is a ********** scrub. Besides, Frenchy can hit a baseball a lot better than I could, Major League scrub and all.

I have no idea what you mean by a "referendum on Wright fucking himself", or why that comment even appears as a response to something I wrote, especially since I would excuse Wright --and Bay-- if it should become known that either of them indeed altered their swings as a response to Citi Field's more spacious dimensions. But you could do better than to challenge my posts on vague and conclusory objections that I have an agenda, whatever that even means.

[Fman99]

Here, let me get you guys two napkins to jerk each other off into.

[Edgy MD]

I have an opinion --my opinion-- that Citi Field is detrimental to power hitters.

Great. Everybody agreed with you before the park even opened.

[Centerfield]

It's not just Jeff Francoeur. There have been a number of comments here and there that suggest Wright is affected by the dimensions of the park. Chipper Jones had a comment a few years ago. When Jason Bay hit is long HR in Houston, Burkhardt reported that Wright told him to save the long ones for CitiField. Obviously it's not irrefutable evidence, but if there is this much chatter about it, it's obvious Wright is talking about it.

And he should be talking about it. The dimensions at CitiField are not only stupid, they specifically hurt Wright. David used to hit those opposite field Piazza-like shots, except that he didn't have Piazza's distance. I remember thinking his power would dip drastically as he got older because he had very little margin for error on those HR's. The minute I saw Citi's dimensions, I remember thinking this is going to take away Wright's opposite field power. I imagine he felt so too.

How can someone blame Wright for making an adjustment? He hit TEN home runs in 2009. His strikeouts are through the roof now, and he's not as complete a hitter, but at least he hit 29 last year and no one's talking about David Wright's disappearing power.

And it's not just Wright and Bay. Beltran's having a terrific year but his HR numbers are down. Reyes has one home run this year. The Mets were dead last in HR's during Citi's first year by a considerable margin. They were slightly better in 2010 (24 of 30). Now, even with the adjusted dimensions, they are still 25 out of 30 teams.

And it's hard to blame them for this. I'm sure they consciously think that they should not change their approach, but you can't help things sometimes. Anyone who has stood in front of a long par 5 knows this. You tell yourself to relax, don't try to crush it, swing your normal swing, then you top it and roll it 40 feet. It happens.

They need to get rid of the Mo-Zone. Lower the fence all around and make it a fair field. Hopefully it won't be too late to bring Wright back to the first tier superstar he used to be.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy DC wrote: I have an opinion --my opinion-- that Citi Field is detrimental to power hitters. Great. Everybody agreed with you before the park even opened.

Is this the "one comment per topic" rule?

[Benjamin Grimm]

I think they should just put up a fence; no major reconstruction required. Run a fence (and make it look like the one at Shea!) from left field to right field, however many feet in from the existing walls. The walls are so high that people in the seats would be able to see over the fence, and there would be no ambiguity about home runs. They'd either land in the seats or in the gap between the fence and the wall. And that gap would be a great spot for Joe Pignatano to grow tomatoes.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I think they should just put up a fence; no major reconstruction required. Run a fence (and make it look like the one at Shea!) from left field to right field, however many feet in from the existing walls. The walls are so high that people in the seats would be able to see over the fence, and there would be no ambiguity about home runs. They'd either land in the seats or in the gap between the fence and the wall. And that gap would be a great spot for Joe Pignatano to grow tomatoes.

[Benjamin Grimm]

There you go! I'll start calling some fence guys and get some quotes. I bet it can be done for less than $2,000.