Skip to content

The Mets are bringing in, lowering the fences

Oct 31, 2011, 2:01 PM EDT

Citi Field

Everyone talks about Citi Field’s large dimensions, but nobody ever does anything about them.  Oh, wait:

The Mets announced Monday they are moving the walls in by as much as 12 feet next season, lowering the height to 8 feet and changing the color to blue.

In addition to the blue outfield walls they’re going to change the name of the ballpark to “Shea Stadium,” release a lot of rats and stuff and sign a bunch of no-goodnik guys who are nonetheless fabulous baseball players.

In other news, if David Wright doesn’t bounce back to a 30-homer pace starting next year can we officially stop listening to dudes whine about this sort of thing?

  1. halladaysbiceps - Oct 31, 2011 at 2:06 PM

    Moving the walls in by as much as 12 feet? Is this a joke? We all know it’s a bigger ballpark than most in the NL. But, is is 12 feet bigger? Talk about going overboard.

    • kopy - Oct 31, 2011 at 2:20 PM

      12 feet bigger? In some places, yes. It won’t be 12 feet everywhere, which the article alludes to, but the right field alcove and bullpen areas certainly have some walls that are 12 feet further than average.

      • halladaysbiceps - Oct 31, 2011 at 2:29 PM

        From wiki:

        “and reducing the distance in right center field from 415 feet (126 m) from home plate to 390 feet (120 m).”

        It looks like they are doing more that 12 feet in some locations. It looks like a 25 foot reduction in the right field centerfield power alley.

        My only question is what donkey did the Mets pay 900 million dollars to build a ballpark with these dimensions, only to later spend more money fixing the problem?

      • yankeesgameday - Oct 31, 2011 at 2:34 PM

        Bernie Madoff’s construction co.

      • kopy - Oct 31, 2011 at 2:37 PM

        It’s tough to say. I know the Twins were a little upset that Target Field “plays” a little bigger than it actually is. Teams just don’t know how the wind will flow through a ball park until it’s actually built, and sometimes the ball just carries more or less than originally thought. Although, there’s no explanation for why the Mets thought a park that cavernous wouldn’t play as such.

      • phillyphreak - Oct 31, 2011 at 2:37 PM

        A similar company that the Phillies paid to build CBP only to have to adjust the dimensions later?

      • Bryz - Oct 31, 2011 at 5:27 PM

        I know the Twins were a little upset that Target Field “plays” a little bigger than it actually is. Teams just don’t know how the wind will flow through a ball park until it’s actually built, and sometimes the ball just carries more or less than originally thought.

        I disagree a bit with this based on how Target Field was built. I can’t believe someone thought it would be a good idea to build a right field/right-center field fence the same height as the Baggie in the Dome (23 feet), extend it further into center field, and then call that “fair” to both hitters and pitchers.

      • dlevalley - Oct 31, 2011 at 5:40 PM

        The discussions here (about the Target field and CBP) make me wonder whether a team would have the design firm take into account the idea that maybe the fences would need to be moved? It seems like it would be a whole lot easier to move the fences in (if the park plays too big) than to move the fences out (the park played too small).

        I remember when the Giants built their new park, there was a ton of research into how the winds (a big issue in the Bay area) would effect fly balls. They eventually settled on a short right field with a pretty high wall. Additionally, they ended up rotating the whole stadium pretty late in the design process because of some new study on the way wind would flow through the park. The seem to have gotten it pretty close in SF, but there’s no way that right field wall could be moved without some major reconstruction today.

        Do you think teams take that into account when building a new park, and attempt to error on the ‘a little too big’ side, with the idea that it would be cheaper and easier to move the fences in later?

  2. WhenMattStairsIsKing - Oct 31, 2011 at 2:39 PM

    Whatever benefits the Mets in this instance also benefits their opponents. I think this is a non-issue.

    Btw Craig – you have a typo in the subject line :)

  3. crash1582 - Oct 31, 2011 at 3:02 PM

    I believe Chipper is one happy guy!!! Thanks NY.

    • natstowngreg - Oct 31, 2011 at 5:58 PM

      Not to mention Ryan Zimmerman, Michael Morse, Brian McCann, Ryan Howard, and Mike Stanton.

  4. philliesblow - Oct 31, 2011 at 3:07 PM

    Dear Dave Dombrowski,

    Please take note of this and do something about center field at Comerica National Park.


    Miguel Cabrera

    • paperlions - Oct 31, 2011 at 3:47 PM

      Dear Dave:

      Please don’t.


      The Entire Detroit Tigers Pitching Staff

  5. Ben - Oct 31, 2011 at 3:09 PM

    I don’t totally get this decision–the fences represent an easy-to-exploit market efficiency that something like, say, power doesn’t. The Mets would be better off paying less not-so-sexy pitchers in the hopes that their more forgiving park will offer them opporuntiies (like Jon Niese) rather than paying big bucks for free agent hitters who are relatvely overvalued.
    I guess a big-market team can’t, for PR purposes, play like the Padres who know the score with their park.

    • Ben - Oct 31, 2011 at 3:09 PM

      Derp, inefficiency. Edit function please!

    • 18thstreet - Oct 31, 2011 at 3:37 PM

      Seems like you can find some hitters with speed to turn doubles into triples in a bigger park, too.

  6. dcfan4life - Oct 31, 2011 at 4:39 PM

    Bringing the outfield in some will help, but the Mets need a farm system. Like the Cubs, they only sign, never develope.

  7. sdelmonte - Oct 31, 2011 at 4:40 PM

    Not how I would do it. But if they play better at home, I won’t mind. And this might reflect the sad reality that you can’t build the team around the triple-hitting machine once called Reyes.

  8. icanspeel - Oct 31, 2011 at 5:13 PM

    Aren’t changes like this mostly for the fans benefit? Fans who enjoy more offense.. Since really both teams hitters enjoy the shorter distance.

  9. awriterorsomething - Oct 31, 2011 at 8:21 PM

    I wonder if this is a reaction to a perceived reluctance on the part of power hitters to sign with the Mets after seeing the perceived damage that the dimensions of that park has done to Bay and Wright

  10. awriterorsomething - Oct 31, 2011 at 8:57 PM

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. G. Stanton (2725)
  2. C. Correa (2642)
  3. G. Springer (2636)
  4. H. Ramirez (2634)
  5. B. Crawford (2428)
  1. M. Teixeira (2402)
  2. H. Pence (2352)
  3. J. Baez (2331)
  4. J. Hamilton (2258)
  5. Y. Puig (2235)