Comments on: Stats: Citi Field is Good for Right-Handed Hitters

By: adenzeno

adenzeno — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:30:08 +0000

The numbers dont lie. It was not the park taht kept the Mets HR 3s down- it was the personnel

By: hotcorner5

hotcorner5 — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:39:18 +0000

When was the last time a player took the word of a newspaper writer at face value?

The Mets will no doubt make James’ analysis page 1 of their “Hey, Matt Holliday, Sign with the New York Metropolitans!” pamphlet.

By: Old Backstop

Old Backstop — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:07:20 +0000

I’m somewhat bored by these studies, because these studies are based on very small sample sizes of random activity. In one season, park factors very even when the parks DO NOT, showing that as a small sample size tool, they are very wrong.

How about simply looking at the dimensions and conditions?

I mean, Citi Field is at sea level and weather tends to be cooler here, so it’s not like we’re playing in Arlington or Denver, aside from a potential jet stream wind off of the water, which with the enclosed new park I am not sure there really is much of, there is nothing advantageous about it.

Now look at the dimensions. The walls are significantly further away than most parks (except for right down the lines), and the fences in many areas are much higher as well. Simple common sense should tell you that it’s harder to hit homeruns there, for righties and lefties …

Instead, we seem to be basing our thoughts off of studies that are based on Chase Utley or Ian Kinsler having a big day when they came to Citi Field because they were seeing the ball well that week.

Buy a fly ball machine, set it to hit balls between 300 and 500 feet randomly, and in random directions between the foul poles, and let it fire off 5 million shots and record which ones leave Citi Field.

Then move the same machine to Philly’s park and do the same thing, and other parks as well.

My guess is that the parks that have closer fences with standard heights are going to yield more dingers than the larger fields like Citi Field and it’s 20 foot walls.

We could try to lie and twist the truth as much as we want to sign free agents the same way OJ Simpson pretended that his gloves were too small … but in the end, it’s a much bigger park, with much bigger walls. Bill James, who I like, can go screw :)

By: therambler

therambler — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:21:16 +0000

My 2010 Mets plan says grab another RH bat for LF. Specifically Jermaine Dye….
http://rightwingrambling.blogspot.com/2009/11/blueprint-for-world-domination-part-2.html

By: thedude

thedude — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:59:34 +0000

Hey, why use stats when you can pull something out of you know where like Cafardo?

By: Sylow59

Sylow59 — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:56:14 +0000

Citi has a higher park factor then did Shea. Something like .960 to .910. It is not the original Braves Field.

By: Tidewater

Tidewater — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:50:37 +0000

I wonder if it’s “hard” to hit doubles because it’s so easy to hit triples. In other words, were there fewer doubles by comparison simply because many of what would have been doubles in other parks turned into triples?

If so, that makes Citi a damn good place to hit!

By: JefJarrett

JefJarrett — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:44:57 +0000

It is not an impossible ballpark to hit a HR in….other teams didn’t seem to have a problem with it. The high fences do rob a few HRs, but I’d rather have that than give up cheap shots.

Unfortunately if you were to purposely build a park to negate the things David Wright does well at the plate, you would have built Citi Field…….David must go back to what got him to where he is, and he’ll hit tons of doubles and some triples instead of 30 HRs…….not the end of the world.