kinda funny that the sunlight isn't that bad but the heat is. Different strokes. Some people like hills, some people don't. I definitely wouldn't call it 50/50 but MMP has the roof open quite often and can fit 40,000+. So, I guess I'm not the only one...
As has been clarified multiple times, the sunlight is bothersome for 30-45 minutes during 6pm starts (or 3pm starts that go long)... For which they only play those games on Sautrday. Additionally, not all of those Saturday games feature a cloud-less/rain-free Sky that causes the direct sun effect to be more pronounced. As far as the roof being open... It's really isolated now to April and mid-September games (but closed for the playoffs... Because noise is impactful). By comparison, SkyDome and Miller Park actually have the opposite timeline due to the cold... And get plenty of open-roof games from May-early September.
Moving the fences (center field) in would seem to favor "power" clubs over "OBP" type clubs. Does anyone think it will influence the players we draft or trade for?
Seems there's <10 balls per season that reach Tal's Hill on the fly. Some of those still won't be HRs due to having to clear the wall. I doubt the shorten fence adds more than 5 HRs per season.
It could definitely add extra-base hits though... as not all plays close to the wall are routinely made. The dimensions after the change will be very similar to Camden Yards... actually will be slightly smaller than Camden... and the ballpark in Baltimore has ALWAYS been towards the extreme hitters side. Again, this is more about finding additional revenue streams in MMP... rather than trying to improve the team's power numbers. I presume they will be doing away with the 5-7 grille (or whatever it is now) as part of these renovations... I always thought that was a huge waste of a good chunk of the concourse.
I would guess that it would actually decrease the number of extra base hits, since there is less field area that needs to be covered by the outfielders.
Talking specifically for plays right at the wall. In many ways, this Astros team (of course minus Carlos Gomez) was built with the vision of having 3 CF's in the OF at all times... that allows them to cover plenty of ground that would otherwise not be able to be done. Some of that advantage gets mitigated when the fences come in. Secondly, plays at the wall are a 50/50 proposition. I've seen both Jake and George (elite fielders by most measures) get a little bit hesitant when a ball gets close to the wall, and sometimes mis-judgements commence.
Talk to me about the power alleys, how does this affect them? Talk to me about when they moved LCF in 2001.
It's sickening they put a kid in the photo to try and take out the critics. My plan is to buy up all the dirt and take a pile of sand out and drop it through my pant leg each day until the Hill reforms without anybody noticing. There is hope. Get busy living or get busy dying people.
Don't care much about the hill. I do care about the dimensions and how this will effect power alleys. It is all for money... trying to squeeze every bit of space out of MMP to make more of it. They'll probably do away with the kids area and make that into another bar or VIP lounge... or they'll just start charging kids for admission to it. Any other ideas to maximize revenue? Are the naming rights up for sale soon? Chico's Bail Bonds Park?
The front office that MMP was built under utilized Berkman in the OF for many years. I doubt they were any where close to being as pro-defense at the corners (especially LF) as the current regime.
Its been well documented that MMP was not built to utilize the strengths (and mitigate the weaknesses) of those 90's teams. Those 90's teams thrived in the Dome... pitching that took advantage of the cavernous spaces, prodigious hitters that could reach the seats when others couldn't. MMP/Enron's dimensions were based largely on incorporating Union Station (which led to the short porch). LCF and CF were measured out in order to mitigate the effects of the short LF. Once they raised the LCF fences (after 2000), it started playing quite fair (coinciding with the arrival of Oswalt, Miller, and other pitchers not intimidated). And forget Berkman... the front office that MMP was built under had Biggio trying to cover ground out there. And I would still say the current front office found it advantageous (defensively) to have 3 CF's patrolling the once spacious gaps.
This doesn't support your statement that MMP was built with vision to have 3 CFs. If anything, this supports my view that the Astros didn't envision playing a CF in LF. The front office that designed MMP probably drafted Berkman after initial plans for MMP with the thought that he'd be the LF for a few years.
I never said MMP was built with that vision... I said this Astros team was built with that vision (perhaps in part based on where they play the majority of their games...). I highly doubt any members of the front office took 2 seconds to consider the dimensions of their future ballpark down the road in 3 years when they drafted Berkman. Honestly, Colorado would be the perfect venue to have 3 CF's... hell 4 OF's may be needed to cover that place.
