CitiField Dimensions

[ashie62]

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

[TransMonk]

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]

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]

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

[batmagadanleadoff]

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]

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]

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]

- 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.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

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]

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]

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

[batmagadanleadoff]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Guest d'Kong76]

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

[Frayed Knot]

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]

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]

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

[Ceetar]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

National	PBF	PPF	AVG		American	BPF	PPF	AVG
COL	115	116	115.5		DET	105	104	104.5
CHC	103	104	103.5		KCR	105	104	104.5
MIA	103	104	103.5		MIN	102	103	102.5
WSN	104	102	103		TOR	102	102	102
MIL	102	103	102.5		BOS	102	101	101.5
ARI	102	102	102		HOU	101	102	101.5
STL	101	100	100.5		TEX	101	101	101
PHI	100	101	100.5		CHW	100	101	100.5
ATL	99	99	99		NYY	100	101	100.5
CIN	98	98	98		BAL	100	100	100
PIT	98	97	97.5		OAK	99	97	98
LAD	96	95	95.5		CLE	97	97	97
SFG	95	95	95		TBR	97	97	97
NYM	94	95	94.5		LAA	96	95	95.5
SDP	91	91	91		SEA	95	95	95

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]

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.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Guest

[Edgy MD]

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]

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]

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