Why Move in the Fences?

Why move in the fences when you can move the diamond to the outfield?
Sorry couldn’t let Randy at Read The Apple have all the fun.


15 Replies to “Why Move in the Fences?”

  1. Exactly what I posted over at RTA — makes a LOT more sense and looks a lot less goofy than a line on the great wall…

    1. They might not want to play there with the Great Wall of Flushing. Jason Bay decided he wanted the money…the Mets swore that their computer models said he would do well here…who got the worst of that…him or us?

      There is a reason why Sandy, Colactus and Keith all agree…a more neutral park is better. Get better players too.

      1. I’m going to have to admit ignorance on the “Sandy agrees” part. Where’d he say that? The most I’ve seen about his opinion so far have been various reports of whispers that he might be thinking about it.

        The whole thing is still a red herring. By the “no one’s going to want to play here” logic, the Phillies should’ve never have been able to assemble the rotation they have. I mean, who in their right mind wants to make half his starts in that shoebox? Oh, yeah, guys who want to make money and win titles. Right.

        There are many reasons someone would not want to not sign here. The outfield walls are the least of them.

        1. I don’t expect you to always listen to some blog commenter, but I see you might be a “fencer”…one who for moral reasons does not listen to what the experts say about the benefits of moving the fences. Try these:

          According to a high-ranking Mets official, “It’s pretty certain” some alterations will be made to the three-year old ballpark’s outfield dimensions next season. And while it will look like a reaction to the Mets’ abysmal home record this season (25-34), that’s just one piece of the puzzle. The Mets are looking big-picture here. As they rebuild their roster for next season and beyond, they know how difficult it will be to attract run producers to play 81 games in a park that’s gained the reputation as hitter-unfriendly. (nj.com)

          “It’s very difficult to play here if you’re an offensive player,” Terry Collins admitted today, before the Mets lost, 11-9, to the Milwaukee Brewers. “Especially if you’re a guy who’s supposed to be driving in runs. It’s a tough place to play. If there are some adjustments made, I think that would help. I think it would certainly help to get some of our guys to relax. I’m not denying it won’t. I think the park gets in the mind of hitters.”

          Among the changes, expect to see the left-field wall, which is nearly 16 feet tall, to be lowered. General manager Sandy Alderson, while not definitively stating changes would be made, said earlier this week there are nips and tucks that can be made to the 2.5 acre field that would not require any major structural changes to the ballpark. Of course, that would be in keeping with the tight budget the organization is working with.

          “The buzz is that Sandy Alderson prefers the ballpark to be ‘neutral,’ i.e., not a hitter’s park, not a pitcher’s park. Since last March, I had been hearing the team was considering 1) lowering left field, and 2) rounding out right field. However, while I do think left field is still an option, I’m starting to sense right field will remain as is (at least for next season). Personally, I’d do both: Bring in left, round out right. Make it fair, and even, all around, for everyone.” (Cerrone from Metsblog)

          1. Thanks. This is the first time I’ve seen that first blurb with the “high-ranking” official and the word “certain.” Everything else has been framed as whispers, buzz, rumor and speculation, and of course Alderson himself isn’t saying anything definitive either way.

            I did see the story with the Collins quote, and that sentence amused me to no end. The park is so unfair, the teams could only manage 20 runs that day.

          2. If the Mets were 35-25, instead of having one of the worst home records in baseball, I would not be moving the fences either….but guys a lot smarter than me in baseball want it done.

          3. That’s the whole thing, Steve. Other teams don’t have a problem winning here, just ours.

            I don’t have a problem with the fences either way. It is smart to be more neutral because then you don’t what you want to your roster without having to worry about who’s helped or hindered by the stadium. I just refuse to buy in to the notion that changing the stadium is going to have any negligible effect on the record, even long-term. If the purpose is just to give Bay, Wright, and hypothetical free agents a few more homers over the course of the year, that’s fine, but, honestly, how many times has a Mets batter actually been robbed by the park, and how many of those times would it have been the difference in the game?

            Last I checked, even despite the stingy park, the Mets had the 13th-worst ERA in the NL. That’s a heck of a lot bigger problem than the left field wall being 16 feet high or the Mo Zone.

  2. Obviously you’re kidding here but I wish someone would explain clearly to Mets fans that you can’t move home plate without also moving both foul poles and digging up the drainage system as well. Adjusting the walls is their only realistic option. And given the team’s finances, get ready for some orange line madness.

  3. Here’s another idea: put up a Wrigley Field-style basket along the wall about 10 feet up. If if lands in the basket, home run. Lots cheaper than a new wall, but unlike the dreaded orange line, the ball actually leaves the field and there are no replays involved.

Comments are closed.