Amidst the desperation of Met fans after four increasingly disappointing seasons in a row, there has been much debate about the somewhat ample dimensions of the Mets’ new home.
At first glance, one could quite easily fall into the trap of the shouters who insist we must move in the fences! Lower the fences! How can we attract home run hitters?!
But, as is often the case with the loudest and least thoughtful, a careful look at this issue indeed shows that we may very well be watching the infancy of a stadium which might actually be a wonderful home field advantage for our beloved Mets.
The Mets’ home record was 47-34, which, considering their mediocrity and inconsistency, was pretty good. The Mets had baseball’s 20th best record, but were 12th best at home. As this space has pointed out before, two more wins at home and a .500 road record and the team is already at 90 wins. 91 was the wild card in the NL this year.
The 2010 Mets were led by their pitching; specifically by the starters. Johan when healthy, Dickey, and Pelfrey were the stalwarts. Looking ahead, it is reasonable to expect Dickey and Pelf to be the most important starters barring a major move; both stayed healthy and should throw 200+ innings in 2011. While very different in repertoire and approach, one thing they definitely have in common is their ability to succeed without relying on the strikeout. Johan after another injury will very likely continue to lessen his reliance on Ks. Hence, the larger the playing field for these gentlemen, the better the advantage for their styles.
In a small sample, Gee also succeeded without many strikeouts, so Citi’s dimensions may assist him as well. Niese may turn out to be the exception, with by far the highest K/9 of the men who may eventually be the rotation in 2011. Takahashi also strikes out quite a few, but it is too early to tell whether he will start or relieve if he even returns to Queens.
When looking at the offense, David Wright, while back to his normal HR total, did hit a few less HR at home than he usually did at Shea. But just a few. Carlos Beltran has a maximum of one year left with the team, Boras’ comically disingenuous, money-sniffing recent faux compliments to the Met organization notwithstanding. Jason Bay? Who knows what to expect in the next year or two. Bay hit 35 and 36 HR once each, and otherwise never topped 32, so this is not someone we should expect 40+ HR from should Citi be shrunk.
Ike and Duda do have power, which did not seem to be significantly hindered by Citi. And we do not yet know if Ike is going to be a 30+ HR producer or a 20-something; Duda’s HRs were impressive, but the jury is most definitely out on his MLB abilities.
That leaves Reyes, Pagan, and Thole among nearly certain 2011 starters. Three players whose games are indisputably aided by Citi’s dimensions. Reyes, if healthy again, can amass many 2B and 3B, while Pagan’s game also is tailored to that approach. Thole seems to be a doubles hitter who sprays the ball all over the field. These three should thrive in Citi’s current configuration. Should Murph or Tejada play a lot in 2011, they clearly are also players who a larger field can benefit offensively.
So does the team want to move the fences in to attract HR hitters? The feeling here is that, over the last few years, the most attractive players this writer could have imagined the Mets acquiring would have been CC, Halladay, Oswalt, or maybe even Lee.
Yes, the Yankees took advantage of a smaller stadium to ride their incredible collection of mercenaries to another title, but could it not be argued that CC has been perhaps their most important acquisition the last two years? The Phillies have a very good, opportunistic offense, but were not Lidge, Hamels, Lee, Halladay, and Oswalt huge keys to their success over the last three years, despite the hugely overstated blather about their “bandbox” ballpark?
Might not future free agent pitchers look at the success enjoyed by pitchers at Citi and consider it a potentially serious career-aiding place to pitch?
It says here that the Mets have built a stadium which, as constructed, wisely pays tribute to the pitching which has almost always led the way to the franchise’s successes over the decades. Perhaps the classic silver-spoon attitude recently exhibited by the owner’s son in his comment on the stadium’s size “We tailored it to what the old GM and the baseball department wanted” yet again simply shows his lack of respect for and understanding of the team’s—and maybe even the game’s—overall history.
Wright and Bay are productive players with good power, but not 40-HR hitters. The offense very possibly is going to be led in 2011 by Reyes and Pagan, who are precisely the type of players who can run wild in a large ballpark. Dickey and Pelf are right now 1-2 to start next year; it would be hard to imagine a pair who are also more suited to Citi as it is.
What would bringing in the fences accomplish? A handful more HR for Wright, Bay, and Ike? How many less extra base hits for Reyes and Pagan? How many more HR allowed by Pelf and Dickey and the Met staff?
This is not a power-based team, nor is it a strikeout-based pitching staff. A close examination actually appears to show that this team as currently built is pretty well-suited for the stadium just as it is. Speed, moderate power, and players who can leg out more bases on balls hit in gaps. Outfielders with good to excellent range who can track down many balls in those gaps. Pitchers who rely on fielders to get to batted balls and who will benefit from warning-track outs.
Leave Citi Field as it is Mr. Wilpon. We may eventually gratefully watch it become one of the very best home field advantages in all of baseball.
17 comments
Mr North Jersey
10/9/2010-4:01pm at 4:01 pm (UTC -4)
I think you’ll be happy to know that Wilpon jr and you share many of the same thoughts when it comes to the stadium.
They may consider dropping the walls if the new GM feels it will help them win more games but as far as ownership is concerned they like things just the way they are.
Prismo
10/9/2010-4:17pm at 4:17 pm (UTC -4)
As usual, a well written article Kingman. And I was happy to see the word “Phillies” only used once.
I think arguments can be made for or against moving in the fences. I’m with you, though primarily for traditional reasons. Ballparks getting smaller and smaller just doesn’t feel right to me. For me, the more difficult it is to hit a home run, the better – it makes it more special.
However, I was happy to hear that the Wilpons will listen to their new GM’s thoughts on the issue. If the GM has very well-reasoned arguments to pull in the fences, I hope they seriously consider doing so. I would assume any GM hired knows more about this stuff than you or I.
Prismo
10/9/2010-4:20pm at 4:20 pm (UTC -4)
In another controversy, what are your thoughts on instant replay?
I’ve had battles with Keith Law on twitter the past few days, because he thinks it computers/robots/replay should be used for almost every call in baseball.
I’m all for expanding instant replay, and personally would like to see it instituted in a challenge scenario, similar to the NFL. However, I am NOT for computerized calling of balls and strikes, which Law is in favor of. I find it disgusting and something that would severely tarnish the game. Maybe this is because I umped in little league for several years, but I *like* the added strategy in catering your gameplan to the umpires on the field. The more strategy needed to win ballgames, the better…because it more distinctly separates teams with good strategic leadership and teams with poor strategic leadership.
Mr North Jersey
10/9/2010-4:26pm at 4:26 pm (UTC -4)
I like the human element of baseball. The problem is not that they need Instant replay the problem is they need to raise the standard of quality of the Umpiring.
metsfan4decades
10/9/2010-7:15pm at 7:15 pm (UTC -4)
Agree.
MLB needs to open their purse strings, spend some money on attracting quality umps in the minors, pay them better and ramp up the training.
From what I’ve been reading the low salaries and treatment of the umps in the minor leagues is not attracting talent. Change that and maybe we’ll see better umpiring in the years to come at the major league level.
stickguy
10/9/2010-5:33pm at 5:33 pm (UTC -4)
I like a stadium to be fair and balanced, like Shea. No cheapies, but not death valley.
mostly, I don’t want a team built for one thing that sucks at another, functionally or mentally.
I think a good compromise for now is dropping most/all walls to 8′. Deep OF + the green monster = silly. One of the other please!
rustyjr
10/9/2010-5:45pm at 5:45 pm (UTC -4)
I agree 100% – Shea was a hard but fair park to play in
GravediggerHebner
10/9/2010-5:50pm at 5:50 pm (UTC -4)
I like the stadium the way it is for the most part. If the powers that be decided to lower some of the “impossible to elicit a home-run-robbing catch” higher walls I would not complain, I find the home-run-robbing catch to be one of the most exciting plays in the sport. That millisecond when you don’t know whether the ball is caught or gone is really an attention getter.
But as to strictly the distance from home plate I like it just fine. As an old-school fan who despises the DH and prefers pitching and defense I am no fan of those ballparks in which every fly ball elicits that “is it gone?” feeling.
I think a home field advantage is important but worry about going full bore with a “tailor your team for your park” philosophy as obviously it’s helpful to be able to win road games too. The team with the home park most like Citi Field, the Padres, had identical 45-36 records at home and on the road, so it’s possible for a team to be built for it’s home park yet still win significantly away from home too. I just don’t want the Mets to become like this year’s Tigers who went 52-29 at home but 29-52 on the road.
njstuckintx
10/9/2010-6:07pm at 6:07 pm (UTC -4)
The whole lower the wall stuff I just don’t buy. So, basically, I agree with what Heb stated.
Also, I’m not sure it’s the “I don’t want to play in Citi Field” is such a deterring factor as the “I’m not sure I want to play for a dysfunctional club” factor is.
CaseStreet
10/9/2010-7:09pm at 7:09 pm (UTC -4)
I’m actually a greater fan of the triple than the home run. The former requires speed + power, while the latter just requires power. On the other hand, having three 25+ HR guys in the middle of the lineup is pretty important, too. That’s why I really like the Mets lineup as constructed. Plus, a large field puts the game more in the team’s hands by requiring them to play better defense.
metsfan4decades
10/9/2010-7:18pm at 7:18 pm (UTC -4)
Nice post and I agree with all points.
However…as Grave pointed out, I don’t think I’d have a problem with lowering some of the fences. Everything else, I’d leave exactly as is.
hazmet
10/9/2010-7:19pm at 7:19 pm (UTC -4)
The cynic in me says the Wilpons would never move the fences in because then in the event there is a HR hitter everybody would want that they wouldn’t want to fork the money over for then they can always have the inuendo that the hypothetical player wouldn’t sign here because of the park dimensions. A perfect built in cost saver.
Question, think when Piazza was here after coming from the Marlins that he would have re-up’d if the park was Citifield? I don’t, especially considering his power the other way. The dimensions are definitely a deterrent to power hitters.
All the blather I just wrote aside, I actually like the park as it plays.
Mr North Jersey
10/9/2010-7:37pm at 7:37 pm (UTC -4)
It is an interesting topic. The idea that a stadium would deter Piazza from resigning. I can’t see Citi playing that much into his decision. I feel if everything else is to his satisfaction the players the management the city the money then the dimensions of Citi somehow just don’t seem that relevant. Then again maybe they do to him.
I guess we will never know.
hazmet
10/9/2010-8:01pm at 8:01 pm (UTC -4)
At the time, there was discussion that he may not have wanted to sign based on the dimensions of Shea and his chase of the all time HR record for catchers. If it was Citi and that chase in his mind I don’t think he’d have stayed. It is irrelevant givin it’s past history but just something to kick around on a playoff evening.
What it points to is that with the way Citi plays I think we’ll be looking to grow our own power hitters as opposed to signing them. I like that approach better anyway. I think any free agent it would be like anything an individual preference. Like I could see a guy like Adam Dunn not caring about the dimensions since I believe he’s more a pull hitter and when he connects the RF dimensions won’t matter. But a hitter like a Pujols who can equally hit more out the other way it might. Although he certainly crushed a few the other way in Citi anyway.
GravediggerHebner
10/9/2010-8:38pm at 8:38 pm (UTC -4)
It’s better for the organization overall if they do produce their own power hitters I agree, but if they are going to sign outside power hitters to play in Citi they perhaps should concentrate on the guys with prodigious power who mostly hit homers that would leave almost any stadium as opposed to the guys who mostly hit homers that would only leave a few.
Hittrackeronline tracks every home run in the majors and they keep a column on “how many parks” each homer would have left I find it an interesting thing to look at.
Dunn hit 38 HR in 2010, 17 of which would have left all 30 ballparks. Pujols hit 42, 15 of which would have left all 30 ballparks.
Joey Votto hit 37, 9 would have left all 30 parks. Carlos Gonzalez hit 34, 6 would have left all 30 parks.
Dan Uggla hit 33, 10 were homers anywhere. So at least in 2010 Uggla may have had a greater chance of HR success playing 81 times at Citi than Votto or Cargo.
What takes more research than I can handle is would the balls hit that would not have been homers at Citi more likely have been doubles, or outs?
3 of Lucas Duda’s 4 HR would have left all 30 parks. 5 of Ike Davis’ 19 HR would have left all 30. 12 of David Wright’s 29 would have left all 30.
metsfan4decades
10/9/2010-10:07pm at 10:07 pm (UTC -4)
Ralph Kiner has often commented how impressed he is with Duda’s swing. That last month every time he came to the plate when Ralph was in the booth he’d mention it. He compared it to Ike’s swing, who he always found fault with. Something about his hands low – can’t exactly remember what the critique was. The last game he actually said something to the effect of if Ike isn’t willing to change that, take the advice he implied he’s been given, he’s never going to be good.
Duda, on the other hand, he said already had the basics down pat and it was just a matter of getting some experience with regular playing time.
metsfan4decades
10/9/2010-10:08pm at 10:08 pm (UTC -4)
Good for the Rays. They at least are making it a competition and refuse to just lay down and die.
And jeeze…can the Twins at least put up an effort here? 5-0 in the 5th? They’re going to get swept, aren’t they?
Sigh……