I refuse to aknowledge it's existence. I think it's absolutely retarded, and it doesnt keep things interesting, it keeps them moronic. It doesnt make any sense to put that there. And it better not be there in the new stadium.

 

 

 

What sense does Citi-Field's oval outfield thingy make, or Fenway's Green Monster? They're supposed to make the stadium's unique and possibly give the home team the advantage of knowing their park better.

 

The oval outfield thing is moronic. The Green Monster is different. It's not an imperfection, it's much more like an oddity. Having random indents makes no sense, and it shows absolutely no regulation in the matter. Why dont we just make random patches of dirt in the OF that way the outfielders have trouble running? And a random pole too? No, the walls need to be even to say the least.

If I remember correctly from the guided tour of fenway, the wall was built because the area was always dense with buildings and storefronts and the owners of the stores complained that balls would come crashing through their windows-thus, partly to satisfy tthese people the wall was built to minimize and make hitting it out of the park more difficult.

I think the "nook" is there because it's integrated with the Red Grooms eyesore. It's not entirely pointless.

What reason is there to not fill it in with something? A wall... perhaps...

Aesthetic reasons. Loria and the architects consider the ballpark as a whole to be a work of art. A lot of care and consideration has been applied to every inch of the designs.

 

The Red Grooms piece is intended to be a major attraction at the park so understandably it would be integrated into the park as closely as possible. As you can see, it's the only are distinctive oddity of the playing field:

 

 

 

If you just "fill it in" you lose the effect. Asymetry occurs in a most resonating form when certain features (city blocks, artwork) are in place and the field dimensions conform to them. Try thinking as an artist would.

My friend, I was referring to SunFin Robbie Stadium, and the corner in that field. Which serves no purpose.

I'm responding to this:

 

I really hope there isnt an imperfection in the field like there is right now... for no reason at all...

 

 

In my previous post I mentioned the Red Grooms piece which is a known feature of the new park, so I'm not sure why you are talking about Sunlife.

 

There is no uncertainty as to what "impefections" there will be in the park or what dimensions the field will have. This was all set in stone long ago.

I'm responding to this:

 

 

I really hope there isnt an imperfection in the field like there is right now... for no reason at all...

 

 

In my previous post I mentioned the Red Grooms piece which is a known feature of the new park, so I'm not sure why you are talking about Sunlife.

 

There is no uncertainty as to what "impefections" there will be in the park or what dimensions the field will have. This was all set in stone long ago.

 

Because I have absolutely no idea what Red Grooms is. Not a clue. None the less, I was referring to the original corner in center field at Dolphin.

 

Read my posts from the beginning, I've never seen the field layout for the new park, so I wouldnt know anything about it.

If you didn't know what I was talking about, why didn't you ask for clarification or look it up? To most people who have been even casually following the stadium news, I'd imagine that it was pretty obvious I was talking about the new park.

 

And secondly, I wouldn't necessarily say that the triangle in Sun Life "serves no purpose." Obviously the stadium was designed for football with baseball considered as a possibility down the road. They have limited space on the left field side. Since left field is shorter than right, you'd probably have a pretty short far left-center distance. That being if the wall were divided into three pieces only and the CF wall extended straight into the teal monster. Or perhaps they were just trying to compensate more for the shoft distance to the left field fence down the line. There could be a lot of reasons but I wouldn't necessarily say that there is "no purpose." I'm sure that if you talked to the original architect back in 1991 or 1992, he would give you plenty of reasons as to why the field is configured in this fashion.

That still doesnt give any answer as to why the wall isnt flat. It points in at deep center when that wall easily could've just either all been pushed back (for a deeper field, note that there are not seats back there!!) or they could've extended the wall just a little bit. Or they can have two sets of walls, there is absolutely no reason that field space needs to be there.

 

And relax about the Red Grooms or whatever. Dont blame me if you didnt read the thread properly, please.

:lol @ you accusing me at not reading the thread "properly." Based on the fact that you found it necessary to even address it, I've been suspecting all along you are backtracking because you goofed.

 

And of course, it explains why the wall might not be flat. There are limitations on how far back the left and right field seats can be extended. The distances down the lines are reasonable (especially with the high wall in left), but this would understandably become a mess in the centerfield area where everything needs to be balanced perfectly.

 

As I said already, if one made that middle wall "straight", there is a risk of having an far too short left-center field distance. Considering that the engineers and architects had to work with several unique constraints (putting a baseball field in a stadium not designed for baseball unlike the cookie cutters), then it's much more reasonable to assume it serves a purpose than to assume it doesn't.

:lol @ you accusing me at not reading the thread "properly." Based on the fact that you found it necessary to even address it, I've been suspecting all along you are backtracking because you goofed.

 

And of course, it explains why the wall might not be flat. There are limitations on how far back the left and right field seats can be extended. The distances down the lines are reasonable (especially with the high wall in left), but this would understandably become a mess in the centerfield area where everything needs to be balanced perfectly.

 

As I said already, if one made that middle wall "straight", there is a risk of having an far too short left-center field distance. Considering that the engineers and architects had to work with several unique constraints (putting a baseball field in a stadium not designed for baseball unlike the cookie cutters), then it's much more reasonable to assume it serves a purpose than to assume it doesn't.

 

 

What? Yeah okay, Im backtracking. You caught me. In fact, I made that whole thing up, about not knowing what the heck Red Grooms or whatever was. Because I really do think of these large complex ways to backtrack. Cool conspiracy.

 

It's 434 feet to that part of the ballpark, I highly, highly, highly doubt that if you cut off even all 34 of those feet to fix the wall (which is absurdly overdoing it), the ballpark would still be big enough .

 

But just to make sure, you are referring to the deepest part of the ballpark? You're afraid it would be too short if they re-aligned the wall?

 

 

 

That corner up there, you're telling me it 'needs' to be there? Im sure the wall can be extended, any case you try and make for it not being extended is ridiculous.

I'm assuming that you were talking about extending the wall in dead center straight toward the Teal Monster (left field wall), making the outfield wall entirely three straight lines, rather than four straight lines.

 

I don't have any way of reliably estimating what that modified distance would be, but based on the configuration of the stadium, I'm guessing there was a fear that the left-center portion would be too short, which is pretty logical.

 

And if you read the commentary from Clem's site (the one you took the graphic from), there is reason to believe that the CF distance measurements are completely bogus (too short):

 

There is no marked distance to straightaway center field, perhaps because it is so short: only about 394 feet. I estimate the distance to the deepest corner as about 420 feet; unfortunately, the mistaken "434" marker in that spot is still in place. Prior to the 2004 season the distance marker in left center field was changed from "361" to "360," and the marker in right center field was changed from "385" to "363" and moved about 30 feet toward the right. For some reason, the latter marker was changed back to "385" in 2006, but was left it in the same place, which is clearly mistaken. (The distances to the foul poles may be off by a couple feet as well, according to Professor Brian Raue at Florida International University.)

 

If the distance to dead away center field is only 394 feet, the corner configuration makes perfect sense and is probably required.

I don't like the fact that the park is a pitcher's park when the team is built to outhit opponents. This further means that some hitters should be traded for quality pitching.

I don't like the fact that the park is a pitcher's park when the team is built to outhit opponents. This further means that some hitters should be traded for quality pitching.

 

Well, pitcher's parks make bad pitchers better. Plus, if our team can outhit opponents, they'll still outhit them in a pitchers park.

 

Both teams play in the same park my friend.

I don't like the fact that the park is a pitcher's park when the team is built to outhit opponents. This further means that some hitters should be traded for quality pitching.

 

Well, pitcher's parks make bad pitchers better. Plus, if our team can outhit opponents, they'll still outhit them in a pitchers park.

 

Both teams play in the same park my friend.

I pretty much agree with this.

 

I think a pitcher's park means more that it has the potential to inflate pitching statistics than it does hitting statistics, and not necessarily that a pitching proficient team will outperform the hitting stacked team.

 

However, I think there are some exceptions to this. If a pitching staff is loaded with fly-ball pitchers, they might fare better in a pitchers park. A team with a lot of Ricky Nolascos might be at a disadvantage playing at Citizens Bank.

No doubt... It's just like the whole Coors Field stuff. It will inflate a players statistics, but it's not going to inflate a teams wins. Everybody plays better there, so it's just a higher level of play.

I don't like the fact that the park is a pitcher's park when the team is built to outhit opponents. This further means that some hitters should be traded for quality pitching.

 

Well, pitcher's parks make bad pitchers better. Plus, if our team can outhit opponents, they'll still outhit them in a pitchers park.

 

Both teams play in the same park my friend.

I pretty much agree with this.

 

I think a pitcher's park means more that it has the potential to inflate pitching statistics than it does hitting statistics, and not necessarily that a pitching proficient team will outperform the hitting stacked team.

 

However, I think there are some exceptions to this. If a pitching staff is loaded with fly-ball pitchers, they might fare better in a pitchers park. A team with a lot of Ricky Nolascos might be at a disadvantage playing at Citizens Bank.

 

Very good points I didn't take into account.

 

Also, the good thing about the current team is that the outfield (at least Maybin and Stanton) are young and very athletic so they should be able to cover a lot of ground for years to come.

I like pitchers parks better, they make the game more interesting. CBP is one of my most hated parks for that reason, it's a f***ing bandbox.

Do we know how much foul territory the new park will have? From the picture that elpenguino put up it looks like it'll be less than now. That would benefit hitters.

Do we know how much foul territory the new park will have? From the picture that elpenguino put up it looks like it'll be less than now. That would benefit hitters.

 

I actually think there will be more. That's just an overview picture, really.

Dimensions say 47' to the back stop so I'd assume the dugouts are a bit further away than they are in Sun Life.

But IDK

Do we know how much foul territory the new park will have? From the picture that elpenguino put up it looks like it'll be less than now. That would benefit hitters.

 

I actually think there will be more. That's just an overview picture, really.

Dimensions say 47' to the back stop so I'd assume the dugouts are a bit further away than they are in Sun Life.

But IDK

 

A guy working on the stadium was on the broadcast just the other night and he said there won't be much foul territory.

Do we know how much foul territory the new park will have? From the picture that elpenguino put up it looks like it'll be less than now. That would benefit hitters.

 

I actually think there will be more. That's just an overview picture, really.

Dimensions say 47' to the back stop so I'd assume the dugouts are a bit further away than they are in Sun Life.

But IDK

 

A guy working on the stadium was on the broadcast just the other night and he said there won't be much foul territory.

 

BS on small foul territory....needs to be bigger. In fact, just to challenge Stanton every home game, left center should be 498 ft.

Do we know how much foul territory the new park will have? From the picture that elpenguino put up it looks like it'll be less than now. That would benefit hitters.

 

I actually think there will be more. That's just an overview picture, really.

Dimensions say 47' to the back stop so I'd assume the dugouts are a bit further away than they are in Sun Life.

But IDK

 

A guy working on the stadium was on the broadcast just the other night and he said there won't be much foul territory.

It can't be less than Sun Life though, there's almost nothing there.

Sure, it can.

 

The distance between home plate and the backstop will be less in the new park, according to the dimensions. Sun Life also has a bit of foul territory in the corners. Consider that compared to places like Wrigley or Fenway where you have the foul line, a foot of foul territory and then the wall.

Sure, it can.

 

The distance between home plate and the backstop will be less in the new park, according to the dimensions. Sun Life also has a bit of foul territory in the corners. Consider that compared to places like Wrigley or Fenway where you have the foul line, a foot of foul territory and then the wall.

 

It's that far from home plate to the back stop at sun life? o.O

I thought it was pretty close...heh

Oh look, my ignorance is showing. D:

 

 

What's the dimensions to the backstop at SLS?