So, whenever I see the name of the Met's new stadium in print, I pronounce it in my head like the Chinese restaurant guy from South Park would. Am I the only one?

I certainly hope that the Mets' new park will be an extreme pitchers' park. We haven't seen one of those in a while.

So the hitters will stay away from Citi just like SF and SD? It's funny, because the WBC hitters didn't seem to mind Petco at all. I guess what I'm trying to say here is, don't the these rumors get out too loudly, or today's fragile-minded players might think they don't have what it takes to hit HR's.

So, whenever I see the name of the Mets' new stadium in print, I pronounce it in my head like the Chinese restaurant guy from South Park would. Am I the only one?

You are not. I can't wait until Carlos Beltran climbs the sChITI Wall to take a homer away. I can only assume the team will be taking sChITI airlines cross country as well.

today's fragile-minded players might think they don't have what it takes to hit HR's.

I think they want to go somewhere where they can hit HRs so they can make money

This is timed right as the Mets are putting the full court press on Lowe. Coincidence?

"####### you, mongolians!"

<embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:southparkstudios.com:153634:" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="window\" width="480" height="360" allowFullscreen="true" scriptAccess="always"></embed>


hmm. it worked in previews...

This is timed right as the Mets are putting the full court press on Lowe. Coincidence?

Well, the original source is the Hardball Times 2009 annual, so, I'd say no? I mean, unless the blog folks at Amazin' Avenue are hugely in favor of Lowe and are trying to call ATTENTION to it now with this follow-up. Which would also imply that someone thinks Lowe reads Mets fan blogs as part of his decision-making process. I think it's just an uptick in articles about the park as the season draws near.

Then again, I keep forgetting that Boras controls us all, I suppose.

This is timed right as the Mets are putting the full court press on Lowe. Coincidence?

Probably. Lowe's a GB guy after all. Now if they announced the infield grass was going to be four-inch Bermuda on the other hand...

Having read the article, there seems to be a lot of guesswork in his explanations. The plans say this, the satellite photos say that, I made my diagram by tracing, no idea how the wind will affect it. Also, the implication that there is some kind of guesswork in where to measure from as opposed to home plate?

This is a weird interview.

Having read the article, there seems to be a lot of guesswork in his explanations. The plans say this, the satellite photos say that, I made my diagram by tracing, no idea how the wind will affect it. Also, the implication that there is some kind of guesswork in where to measure from as opposed to home plate?

Well, his key insight is that 29% of home run balls only clear the fence by 10 ft. So he concludes, based on that, and all else being equal, the facts that CitiField fences appear to be both farther and higher than Shea, will depress home runs.

It makes sense. Of course, all else may not be equal (winds, etc.). The measurement issue only comes up b/c the current Shea CF appears to be shorter than advertised.

Without being able to quantify anything, I am uncomfortable with anyone making broad assertions about park effects without accounting for the batter's eye.

the facts that CitiField fences appear to be both farther and higher than Shea

Understood, snapper, but it's THAT part of what he's saying - not the quantifiable 29% figure - that causes to me to question his incontrovertible conclusion that we're going to be looking at PETCO squared. (And trust me, I'd love it.) I don't see a lot of hard facts to support this as yet. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I just don't find the way he presents it here to be that convincing.

I don't see a lot of hard facts to support this as yet.

Nobody really knows how a park will play until they start playing there. I remember they kept telling everyone that New Comiskey would be a pitchers' park, and it turned out to be the biggest hitters' park this side of Colorado.

What I hope they don't do is the normal thing, where it plays to pitchers for a season or two and then the team steps in and brings the fences in. They never move the fences out, only in. It's annoying.

I thought part of the problem with Shea was visibility for the hitters, which had the effect 9moreso than the dimensions) of reducing offenive numbers across the board. Someone who has studied the issue want to chime in...?

So the hitters will stay away from Citi just like SF and SD? It's funny, because the WBC hitters didn't seem to mind Petco at all.

i dunno, i think if they had to play there everyday they might. i was at the semi-final game between Japan and S.Korea (which included a rain delay) and there were at least 3 balls i remember being absolutely crushed that were either knocked down enough to be caught or failed to get out. i remember thinking i'd never seen anything quite like it and it wasn't even an issue of an unfavorable wind blowing in. while i suppose pitchers would love that, i don't doubt it would be frustrating to hitters over time.

I thought part of the problem with Shea was visibility for the hitters, which had the effect 9moreso than the dimensions) of reducing offenive numbers across the board. Someone who has studied the issue want to chime in...?

A huge issue at Shea was the lighting. It used the "light ring" across the top of the stadium -- it can be seen in this view -- as opposed to the more typical light towers. You can see in that same panoramic picture Citi Field in the background (at least in some shots), and you'll see it has towers. That should make the visibility for night games the way it is at other parks. I expect offense to increase at Citi Field for that reason alone.

It used the "light ring" across the top of the stadium -- it can be seen in this view -- as opposed to the more typical light towers.

Yankee Stadium (II) had the "light ring". I don't recall that being an issue.

Yes, Shea was always known to add KOs.

They never move the fences out, only in. It's annoying.

they actually moved the fences about 10 feet back in LF in philly. that was before the 2006 season, i believe.

Without being able to quantify anything, I am uncomfortable with anyone making broad assertions about park effects without accounting for the batter's eye.

The Mets will be installing a jumbotron showing non-stop anime sequences directly beyond the centerfield wall.

The Mets will be installing a jumbotron showing non-stop anime sequences directly beyond the centerfield wall.

Like this?

"####### you, mongolians!"

Actually, I believe it's "####### you, mongoRians!".

They never move the fences out, only in. It's annoying.

They moved the fences back at Citizens Bank Park after the 2005 season. Not that that really changed anything...

EDIT: Damn, #20. You'll pay for this.

One of the posters on the original article mentioned the prevailing wind. I hadn't heard what he or she posted about the prevailing wind direction changing with the season. It makes sense, however. The prevailing wind in the northeast is from the west. Near water, however, and Shea is very close to the Long Island Sound, wind will come in from the water on warm days. This is due to the land being warmer than the water and hot air rising from the land. On hot days the wind in Citifield may be more directly blowing out than it was at Shea.

Is he saying that the actual dimensions of CitiField aren't what they have been reported to be? Or that the actual dimensions of Shea weren't what we thought they were? Because if he's not saying one of those two things, I have no idea what he is saying.

Is he saying that the actual dimensions of CitiField aren't what they have been reported to be? Or that the actual dimensions of Shea weren't what we thought they were? Because if he's not saying one of those two things, I have no idea what he is saying.

Greg (from Hit Tracker) indicated that, based on satellite imaging, Shea Stadium is smaller than advertised.

ChitiField?

FUN FACT: Chiti's son was a pitcher, but never made it past AA...

Right. Here's a Google Earth image that shows what I am saying about Shea's CF not being 410 feet.

http://www.hittrackeronline.com/Shea_Distance_to_Center.jpg

Here's a comparison of Shea's fence line to Citi Field's:

http://www.hittrackeronline.com/CF_vs_Shea_comparison.jpg

Here's one source for the fence line of Citi Field. I actually have a better one, but need to protect my source, however, mine matches this exactly.

http://www.stadiumpage.com/citi_models/citi_blueprint.jpg

Sorry, not good with the tags...

Oh, there goes Carlos Delgado's opposite field home run power...

Here's a comparison of Shea's fence line to Citi Field's:

Was someone drunk when they came up with that fence?

Greg, do you have any info on the relative size of foul territory? I've got Shea at 0.96 for foul flies.

Greg, do you have any info on the relative size of foul territory? I've got Shea at 0.96 for foul flies.

In the blueprint OF foul territory looks minimal--hell, it looks nonexistent.

ummm...that says 408.14 feet. Couldn't that simply be an error in the measuring? I mean, how can you even be sure where home plate is in that big white spot?

Am I missing something?

ummm...that says 408.14 feet. Couldn't that simply be an error in the measuring? I mean, how can you even be sure where home plate is in that big white spot?

Am I missing something?

Well, you have a point there, you can make up most of the difference between 408.14 and 410 by variation in where exactly on home plate you measure from (front edge, back corner) and where on the fence you measure to (front of padding, back of padding). However, I measure the distances the same way for every park, so those sort of things should cancel out. In other words, maybe by measuring from different spots on the plate and the fence you could get 409 from Shea's home plate to the CF wall, but if so, then at Citi Field it's 411.

And when I say a dimension is a certain number, of course, I acknowledge some uncertainty in that number, but the best way to express these numbers succinctly is to give the nominal number. I.e. if I've got an overhead image showing home plate and the CF fence, I measure from the back angle of home plate to the center of the fence, and that's my nominal. Depending on the resolution of the image, you can make an estimate of the uncertainty - the better the resolution, the less uncertainty.

As for finding home plate in the spot, cross the foul lines, and then move back a few inches (a tiny bit on the image), and you've got it.

I've seen some other critiques of the use of overhead images, so I'll say something about that, too. It's true that most overhead images are not taken from directly overhead, so most images have some distortion. But that's why the ancient Greeks invented trigonometry. I use the foul poles to identify the overhead angle, and then correct wherever necessary to account for that viewing angle. It's not easy, but it's not that complicated, either.

I've seen some people cite the Mets BP in the new park, where Wright and a couple other guys each hit one out, as evidence that it is not a huge park. But ask yourself this: how deep would the fences have to be for David Wright to not hit a homer in BP? Therefore, what does Wright hitting a homer really tell you?

In any event, I think the center field distances are a pretty minor part of the differences. No one can dispute that RF and RCF are a lot deeper at Citi than at Shea. No one can dispute that the LF wall is higher at Citi than at Shea, and if you study it, you'll know it's deeper at Citi as well. The RF overhang is a minor factor, since balls that just miss the overhang will land very close to the lower level fence, maybe inside the park if a high fly, maybe out of the park if a liner (I've got 15,000 home runs from 2006-08 that I can examine to confirm this). So distance-wise, Citi is bigger, end of story. Wind is an unknown right now - I don't know how air will move in the park, and it will probably be a couple seasons before we have a firm grip on this factor. Wind is important, no question, but just because wind is unknown that doesn't make everything unknown.

Anyway, it makes for good discussion. I am predicting a big drop-off in home runs in the Mets home park. I think the question of how offense changes is more complicated, but overall I expect it to go down, but probably less than the % drop in homers. I'm anxious to see how it turns out.

I remember when the Rogers Centre (nee Skydome) was opened the CF wall was labeled at 400 feet (I think). Almost immediately in the first couple of games a local paper reported some players claiming it was well beyond 400 feet. For a couple of days the radio and shows and papers made a big deal about whether the wall was mislabeled and what the Jays' motivation was etc. A lot of the discussion was around accusations the team was tailoring the park for hitters or pitchers advantages without being forthcoming.

Shortly into the mini-debate Skydome allowed a local paper to arrange for a professional survey. The wall was within an inch of the stated number and it was all forgotten about within a day.

I remembered it at the time as an example of the press creating a story and then following their own creation as if they tripped across something - and then casually leaving the scene when it turned out there was nothing there.


A few minutes on google have not allowed me to back any of this up but it is how I remember it.

Didn't someone--CHB, perhaps--take one of those things you roll in front of you to measure distance out to the LF corner at Fenway and end up forcing them to re-label it? I also remember O's pitchers complaining about the distances at Camden Yards being shorter than marked (this sounds, it pains me to admit, like a Mussina thing though I can't remember exactly). And there was that debacle with the measurements at RFK, which I never got sorted out.

So clearly this kind of thing happens a lot. But until they actually start playing at CitiField, I'm not confident calling it a distinctly worse hitting park than Shea.

Thanks for the explanation Greg. It sounds like you have a more robust system than it appeared at first blush.

Your comment about the influence on offense as a whole being less than on home runs got me thinking. Has anyone ever looked at square footage of outfields and what kind of impact that has on offense? There are some obvious assumptions that would be interesting to test.

Here's a comparison of Shea's fence line to Citi Field's:

Was someone drunk when they came up with that fence?

Be interesting to see how RF's deal with the angles. Could be fun to watch early in the year.

Thanks for the explanation Greg. It sounds like you have a more robust system than it appeared at first blush.

Thanks. I'm happy to answer questions about what I have done, and how I've arrived at my conclusions (and suppositions). Some commenters don't seem to want to learn more about this, but I'm glad you seem to.

Has anyone ever looked at square footage of outfields and what kind of impact that has on offense?

There is a study I saw linked from the Book Blog recently that was a big regression model on various factors, including outfield size.

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2008/12/17/695875/what-factors-have-an-effec

Obviously a larger outfield will promote more scoring *aside from* the home run effect, since more singles will fall in front of outfielders who have to play deeper to avoid XBH's over their head but not over the wall, and more singles to the gap will become doubles for speedy hitters or because of slow outfielders, and more doubles will become triples due to the deeper fences, and more fly outs will be sacrifice flies due to deeper outfielders, and even for the balls that would have been home runs, many of these will become doubles, triples or sac flies rather than unproductive flyouts.

Stating the obvious there, I know...

Ok, this is actually very interesting (the first number is change in park factor and the second is the change in number of runs per game with 9.54 runs per game average:

10 ft increase in LF -0.010 -0.10
10 ft increase in LC -0.006 -0.06
10 ft increase in CF -0.010 -0.10
10 ft increase in RC -0.002 -0.02
10 ft increase in RF 0.011 0.10

In most cases, pushing the wall back suppresses offense, but moving the wall back in RF actually increases offense. How odd.