Citi Field Dimensions Thread - 2014

[batmagadanleadoff]

Centerfield wrote: A parallel to this could be Mike Hampton, who was terrific before and after his time in Colorado. But while he was in Colorado, he was terrible. Many said it wasn't Coor's Field, since he was terrible on the road during those years as well (in one year he was even worse away from Coor's). But the minute he went to Atlanta, he returned to being a pretty good pitcher. There can be many factors, but there is at least the suggestion that his struggles were based on Coor's, and that he was screwed up to the point he took his bad habits on the road with him. Of course, by that theory, Jason Bay should be lighting it up someplace now, and he clearly isn't, so take from it what you will. Anyway, I'm repeating myself. I just don't think that any numbers can easily prove or disprove one side or the other. Which I guess is why we debate this every year.

As if pre-humidor Coors wasn't bad enough, Mike Hampton also pitched there during the steroid era. That Coors was a freak show --- a baseball game inside of a pinball machine. There was never, not even close, to another stadium that generated offense like that Coors. (And the current humidor Coors is still the best place to generate offense).

Anyway, in Hampton's Coors, pitchers had to throw every pitch as if they were in the late innings of a tied Game Seven of the World Series. Pitchers there could never let down, not even for a single pitch, and couldn't pace themselves. They were mentally, if not physically drained by the middle of the game. I wouldn't question the idea that the pre-humidor Coors fucked with any Rockies pitchers head for a nano-second.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Nymr83 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: As I said, I'm not sure where that gets us. I'm certain much of this discussion is just going in circles, but I'm even more certain that moving fences and getting good players are not mutually exclusive. I'm not sure which guys you're advocating giving up on. Moving fences is going to hurt the pitchers and arguably hurts us more than the opponent at least moving the centerfield wall due to Lagares' range. so unless you're going to move them every season after an exhaustive analysis of the current roster (would mlb allow this even?) i dont see the point. if you're going to move them once and talk about a general philosophy thats another story, but the Mets seem to want to move them not because they want to build a team of groundball pitchers and homerun hitters but because the current team isnt playing well and they are scrambling for an explanation other than the talent level

The Mets ain't movin' those fences in any more. That costs a lot of money. The Mets have to borrow money from Bud Selig just to pay their phone bill.

[Edgy MD]

NYMR wrote: ...but the Mets seem to want to move them not because they want to build a team of groundball pitchers and homerun hitters but because the current team isnt playing well and they are scrambling for an explanation other than the talent level... .

Can you tell why we should draw this conclusion?

[Guest d'Kong76]

While I appreciate all the thought and expression that has
gone on in this thread so far ... I don't buy most of it.

a) I especially don't buy the visiting team has an advantage
because they're not traumatized by having to play here.
Swing the frickin' bat .. you might hit one over the bag
for a double or one in the gap for a triple. The amount of
third call strikes this team take seems excessive.
c) It's hardest to hit a HR when trying to. Stop thinking.
d) Maybe the guys they have only have warning track power
to play here .. stop blaming the park.

For me, moving the fences in again next year would only add
to the over coverage and analysis this topic has gotten. The
dimensions are fine, they are what they are, and aren't overly
abnormal.

Play ball!

[Guest d'Kong76]

Justin Turner, feeling no home-team-park anxiety!!

[Edgy MD]

Who can explain it?
Who can tell you why?
Fools give you reasons,
Wise men never try.

[Frayed Knot]

Edgy MD wrote: Who can explain it? Who can tell you why? Fools give you reasons, Wise men never try.

It has yet to be established whether or not this is going to be an enchanted evening.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Edgy MD wrote: Fools give you reasons, Wise men never try.

Well, not sure I subscribe to this.

[Vic Sage]

Don't argue with Oscar Hammerstein, sir!

[Ceetar]

d'Arnaud said he's aware of the deep spots but tries to put it out of his mind at the plate "just hit it hard" and also that he's happy the park is deep because he's part of the battery and it helps the pitchers.

[MFS62]

Nymr83 wrote: so unless you're going to move them every season after an exhaustive analysis of the current roster (would mlb allow this even?) i dont see the point.

IIRC, the last time MLB legislated on ballpark distances, it set the minimums of 330' (or was it 325'?) down the lines and 400' to dead center. As long as the teams adhere to those standards, any changes the home team wants to make to other distances or fence heights seem fair game. I guess you would need to ask for a waiver if you wanted any of those distances to be shorter.

Later

[Frayed Knot]

MFS62 wrote: IIRC, the last time MLB legislated on ballpark distances, it set the minimums of 330' (or was it 325'?) down the lines and 400' to dead center. As long as the teams adhere to those standards, any changes the home team wants to make to other distances or fence heights seem fair game. I guess you would need to ask for a waiver if you wanted any of those distances to be shorter. Later

Yes, MLB put in minimums and then promptly allowed almost every stadium built afterward to ignore them.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: d'Arnaud said he's aware of the deep spots but tries to put it out of his mind at the plate "just hit it hard" and also that he's happy the park is deep because he's part of the battery and it helps the pitchers.

Responding to a astandard question asked on all concussion tests.