As someone who has actually been toEnron for a fair number of baseball games, as a fan, I think I can say with an unbiased viewpoint that Enron is still spectacular to me. It has been a success in so many areas. The retractable roof works great, The grass is beautiful. The sightlines are amazing, with the smallest foul area of anypark--which I like as a fan. There are big offensive numbers (hey, this can be good too, especially after years of the Dome). It looks spectacular, well designed, under cost, cheap, friendly, nice atmosphere, etc,etc. I think the list of success goes on and on. It is unfortunate that the Astros had such a bad year and poor pitching lead many outside observers to believe Enron is the Coors of the south. Gerry Hunsicker is a smart individual. The Astros have had expert statisticians look at the actual statistical numbers. Offensive production was of course slightly higher, but not amazingly high. The Astros had a similarly crappy ERA both at home and on the road. This is why I get angered by statements found on MLBTALK such as the follwing in an article on the 9 worst ballparks- 8. Enron Field - Houston I detest this park for one reason: It's illegal. It's 315-foot distance down the left field line is plainly a violation of the rules of baseball. Why was this allowed? Who can say. Probably the mindless infatuation with home runs. Teams that play in bandboxes like this have a hard time developing top-shelf pitchers and thus have a harder time winning. Enron speaks to the virtues of Comerica and Safeco. Most likely this writer has rarely visited Enron. Beyond this, he is obviously a complete idiot. If youre criteria for having a ballpark be not liked is the fact that the fence is too close, then San Francisco's PacBell has to be on there too. With a rightfield fence at only 307 feet the "illegality" of PacBell dwarfes that of Enron. I beleive there are a few other parks that similarly have short fences with varying size walls, but I guess they dont make this guys list. Maybe the big, dumbarse coke bottle at PacBell got this writer real excited....who knows. Regardless, the Astros have changed the biggest problem, by raising the POWER ALLEY fences so the media no longer makes such dumb statements as those above. They have also improved their pitching. While their are still some quirks I dont care for....the hill in center field for one, these are just very minor details. All in all I couldnt be more pleased with Enron Field. One year later, Im just as pleased with Enron as I was a year ago this time, eagerly awaiting its opening. Thoughts?? ------------------ [This message has been edited by JayZ750 (edited January 29, 2001).]
I really like the park. Since I'm in Minnesota, I was only able to go to one game at Enron last year. (I certainly hope the Metrodome was at or near the top of the worst fields list) The 315 feet is actually "illegal" as the writer wrote according to baseball's rules. Enron and Pac BEll had to get a special dispensation from MLB to have the fences that short. From the games I saw on TV it did not appear that there were many 'cheap' home runs in that park. We'll see what raising the wall in the left center power alley does this year. ------------------
I went to more Astros games this season than I had in the last 10 so I must've liked it. Also, all the Sports Authority meetings were held there so I got to wander around during non game days which was cool. I even went into the press box a couple of times. Damn, what a view! ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
I'm not a baseball fan at all but can someone explain to me why all parks are not all the same? I mean if the Rocket's Homecourt was 100 Ft with 12Ft goals and LA was 80 Ft with 9'6 Goals Would this be a bit. . . unfair? I guess it is like Boston Garden where they know all the deadspots on the floor. I guess I just don't get baseball Rocket RIver ------------------
"with the smallest foul area of anypark" That small foul ball area contributes to offense, right? (just regurgitating what I've read from baseball columnists) Parks with small foul areas (like Fenway) have more foul balls fall into the stands, so less potential foul ball outs. So parks with smaller foul areas have higher BA and OBP than parks with larger foul areas. Maybe the short fence and small foul areas combine together to increase offense? I only saw two games at Enron, but I saw a lot of home runs to left field. Lots of balls that I figured to be fly balls off the bat turned out to be home runs. I've seen lotsa live baseballs, but I didn't even stand up for the first couple home runs I saw hit to left, thinking they were fly balls. I really like the new park, though. Maybe the taller fences. And it's only 8 blocks away from my parking garage too!
I love Enron Field. After growing up watching games in the Dome, it is wonderful to go to such an intimate place. My first game there was the first weekend of the season last year, and I sat 20 rows behind home plate. You could hear Bagwell curse after striking out. It was beautiful. ------------------ "Blues is a Healer" --John Lee Hooker
This is one my biggest nagging points with baseball. I've always wondered why on earth they bother keeping stats. It's not like everybody's playing on the same field with the same regulation sizes. A homerun in one park would never be a homerun in another, a foul in one park would have been a double in another, etc. People always point to "that's just tradition". Horse poop!!!! That's not tradition; it's pointless. Dealing with varying weather conditions is one thing, but when your field-of-play is different, you've artificially changed the game. ....I hate baseball ------------------ "No Brain Grant, no trade." -- Typos are a b**** as ZRB is holding Rocket trades hostage while he seeks a brain. Conspiracy theorists say this would explain why Hakeem has yet to be traded...
maybe I'm reading this part wrong, but that's too rare to have much an effect. This can only happen with a hooking liner catching the wall on one field and continuing to hook foul on another. That isn't going to effect stats very much. Homerun dimensions were probably of no concern early in history because home runs were not part of baseball early on, so where the fence was didn't matter too much. I think artificial turf has a much bigger effect on stats than the fences do. Hey DoD, you make it sound like Stats are the game. Do you "hate baseball", or hate Fantasy baseball Wins and Losses are not affected by different fence dimensions. Stats aside, different stadiums are widely regarded as adding flavor to the game. my big beef with Enron is why didn't they use their shade better. The first base line in the outfield area is brutal. They could have built the stadium 90 degrees counter clockwise and used shade of the tall retracted roof much better. I don't know, maybe the sun would be in their eyes or something. Maybe the league has rules about north and south. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited January 30, 2001).]
I'm not saying that it happens all the time, but drives down the 3rd base line that plop foul vs. fair in other parks do happen. It's not the rate-of-occurrence I'm complaining about as much as the records and such are skewed if a player plays most of his career at one field known for home runs or known to be a pitcher's park. But that doesn't explain modern-day stadiums still doing the same thing. The worst is "oh damn, there's not enough offense, let's move the fences in". I mean having to change rules to accomodate more or less offense is bad enough, but changing dimensions of the playing field seems wierd. Yeah, but how many times do you see teams changing artificial vs. natural turfs repeatedly? Once it's set, it's set for the most part. The Astrodome had to have it. [quote Hey DoD, you make it sound like Stats are the game. Do you "hate baseball", or hate [/quote] If there's one sport where stats have a ton to do with the game, it's baseball. It is the sport that is synonymous with every odd-ball stat you can think of. But to be honest... I hate baseball (I thought I said that... lol). I'm not so much worried about the wins and losses and what effects the dimensions have because in any given game, both the home and away team are playing on the same field with the same regulations. My only beef is with these stats... I don't see a point in saying this guy was better than that guy at anything if you're not even playing on the same-size field. Yeah, yeah... I've heard all that about the traditions and the "flavor" and what-not. You want flavor? Booby trap one of the bases. The player has to touch at least 2 of the bases on his way to home plate. If he touches the wrong one, it blows up. Now THAT would make baseball exciting. Maybe I should get with Vince McMahon and start the XLB or something. I can't think of too many sports that quote the dimensions of the field before the game... yeah yeah, i know... flavor and tradition. Seriously, though, the thought of varying dimensions on a playing field for the same sport has always seemed bizarre -- even when I used to like baseball. ------------------ "No Brain Grant, no trade." -- Typos are a b**** as ZRB is holding Rocket trades hostage while he seeks a brain. Conspiracy theorists say this would explain why Hakeem has yet to be traded...
LOL I went to Enron last season and I have to admit it was sweeeeeet. I had me a seat in the crawford boxes and in the first row. I was lookin down straight at Vlad Guerrero's head and yelling to him. Like 5 balls came towards us and that was just the 1st inning. ------------------ Charles Barkley on TBS on the "fat track" poll: "What? 47% said I'd gain more.....why those.....they better be glad this is a family show."
Dr of Dunk I thought you'd think this is cute. Fenway Park added 3-5 rows of seats at the top a decade ago (or thereabouts). My future brother-in-law was an engineer student at MIT and his group did a project to prove that the effect of the new seats would change the air flow through the stadium and lower the home run output. Similar to those teams that open doors at key moments to cause air flow. They got their finding published, and were interview by the Globe. Anyhow, home run production indeed went down noticeably. oh...I just found reference to it:
