Left field at OPACY going through a big change

[LookinUp]

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Perhaps we can’t sign good FA pitchers because we never offer the most money, or anything close to it.  

While I don't think the goal of this construction is to maximize our current composition of players, I do think what it does is broadens the list of pitchers who can be successful here.

Grayson Rodriguez, assuming health, should be successful in any stadium, but we'll almost never be in the market for them unless through trades. It's the tier 2/3 guys that we will probably always target who will have better chances of success.

[sportsfan8703]

19 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Nobody with three functioning brain cells changes significant parts of ballpark architecture based on the current team and opponent's makeup.  Maybe 75 years ago with Greenberg Gardens, but that didn't work.  I don't think I've ever heard of a team messing with fences and having it definitively impact a team's on-field performance in any way.

You’re entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. 
 

There are several factors that help us with doing this but some may just be a coincidence. We’ve invested a lot of draft  capital on LH and SH. We have a majority LH rotation. OF depth is the biggest strength of our farm system and current MLB team. We play 68 division games against a lot of teams built around lumbering RH OFs, on big contracts. We make our opponent change their lineup from their past lineup constructions when playing in OPACY. 
 

Can’t win playing on a whiffle ball field. 

[Orioles0615]

12 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Agreed. They probably removed extra to allow room for construction. Certainly seems like more than 30 feet in most of that.

It might be interesting (probably in a bad way) if they actually didn't move the bullpen though. One of those crazy cutouts that some fields have.

I wish the Orioles would release the planned field dimensions...

[Frobby]

6 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

While I don't think the goal of this construction is to maximize our current composition of players, I do think what it does is broadens the list of pitchers who can be successful here.

Grayson Rodriguez, assuming health, should be successful in any stadium, but we'll almost never be in the market for them unless through trades. It's the tier 2/3 guys that we will probably always target who will have better chances of success.

What does “successful” mean to you?   To me, it means a guy who can outpitch the other pitcher in the stadium in which they’re pitching.   If that requires a 4.75 ERA in Baltimore and 3.75 in Tampa, that’s fine.  I don’t consider a pitcher with a 4.20 ERA in Tampa to be a better pitcher than a guy with a 4.60 in Baltimore.

[Can_of_corn]

8 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

You’re entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. 
 

There are several factors that help us with doing this but some may just be a coincidence. We’ve invested a lot of draft  capital on LH and SH. We have a majority LH rotation. OF depth is the biggest strength of our farm system and current MLB team. We play 68 division games against a lot of teams built around lumbering RH OFs, on big contracts. We make our opponent change their lineup from their past lineup constructions when playing in OPACY. 
 

Can’t win playing on a whiffle ball field. 

Huh?

Why not?

It's the same field for both teams.

[ChuckS]

Probably already said to death, but for me this move makes sense in how Elias has chosen to construct the team.  He's drafted a lot of athletic outfielders who should be able to cover these wider dimensions and we can use our speed to take advantage of balls hit in the gap when we are at the plate to an extent other teams may not be able to. 

Not sure if it makes a huge difference in us attracting free agent pitchers, but it can't hurt. 

As a fan, the game should be a little more fun to watch due to more balls being put in play. 

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Pic of the construction underway. 

Looking at this photo and then doing some measurements with Google Maps, it looks like the the bend in the fence about 40' from the foul pole would go from roughly 360' to about 400'.  If they're correct in saying that the fences will move back "up to 30 feet" then the changes aren't going to result in the fence being right at the farthest point of removed seats.  If you take the 364' point and drag that back to 394' that puts the fence maybe 3-4 rows in front of the first row of seats still present.

If the removed seats were the location of the new fence both bullpens would have to move or be modified.  The front of that last section before the bullpens is about 420' from the plate.

This photo also makes it look like the RF pole will remain at 330', but then very quickly fall back to a much deeper number.  Almost like RF at Fenway, just much farther away.

Now I'm hoping that the changes exactly follow the removed seats.  We'd end up with at least a 15' fence and LF power alley well over 400'.  That would mean a massive blast for a homer there.  Unfortunately that doesn't square with the up to 30' statement.

[DrungoHazewood]

39 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

You’re entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. 
 

There are several factors that help us with doing this but some may just be a coincidence. We’ve invested a lot of draft  capital on LH and SH. We have a majority LH rotation. OF depth is the biggest strength of our farm system and current MLB team. We play 68 division games against a lot of teams built around lumbering RH OFs, on big contracts. We make our opponent change their lineup from their past lineup constructions when playing in OPACY. 
 

Can’t win playing on a whiffle ball field. 

Nobody is changing their lineup because the Orioles moved the fences back 20-30 feet.  Aaron Judge and Giancarlo Stanton and Vlad Jr and JD Martinez are all still going to be there.  Both Orioles and their opponents' RHHs will see their home runs go down some percentage.  Hank Greenberg didn't sit the bench every time the Tigers went to Yankee Stadium with its 461' LC sign.

[Orioles0615]

54 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Looking at this photo and then doing some measurements with Google Maps, it looks like the the bend in the fence about 40' from the foul pole would go from roughly 360' to about 400'.  If they're correct in saying that the fences will move back "up to 30 feet" then the changes aren't going to result in the fence being right at the farthest point of removed seats.  If you take the 364' point and drag that back to 394' that puts the fence maybe 3-4 rows in front of the first row of seats still present.

If the removed seats were the location of the new fence both bullpens would have to move or be modified.  The front of that last section before the bullpens is about 420' from the plate.

This photo also makes it look like the RF pole will remain at 330', but then very quickly fall back to a much deeper number.  Almost like RF at Fenway, just much farther away.

Now I'm hoping that the changes exactly follow the removed seats.  We'd end up with at least a 15' fence and LF power alley well over 400'.  That would mean a massive blast for a homer there.  Unfortunately that doesn't square with the up to 30' statement.

 

If you look at this that would give one of if not the deepest LFs in baseball. I think that would be to drastic and shortsighted 

[spiritof66]

On 1/12/2022 at 12:45 PM, Can_of_corn said:

If you push back the wall and don’t raise the field it’s going to have to be taller unless you make some more significant changes to the underlying flooring.

I thought about this last night, and I think I see what you’re saying. Let me try to explain it, because others may be missing it as well.

There’s a fixed relationship (maybe a range, but if so it’s small) between the height of an OF fence and the elevation above the playing field of the seats directly behind the fence. I don’t know what that exact relationship is, but let’s say the part of the seat where fans in the front row of OF seats park their butts should be 18 inches lower than the top of the OF fence. (The actual numbers don’t matter for these purposes.) If the seats in the front row are too high relative to the top of the OF fence, kids or short adults will have trouble seeing over the fence. If the seats are too low relative to the top of the OF fence, there will be too great an  opportunity for grown-up Jeffrey Maiers to interfere with balls in play or fall out of the stands. So you want the front-row seats to be a fixed elevation – I’m using 18 inches -- below the top of the fence.

The Orioles’ plan will get rid of a bunch of seats behind the moved-out fence. Let’s say it’s the first eight rows. (Again, the actual numbers  . . .) The plan apparently is to remove those eight rows and the support structure under them, and to leave the seats behind them where they were. What was the ninth row will become the front row, right behind the OF fence. Assume that the seats in that former ninth row are elevated 12 feet above the playing field. Unless you want to demolish and rebuild a much larger hunk of the stands to move OF seats, or alter their elevation by changing the level of the field or otherwise, you need to make the OF fence 13 1/2 feet high (12 + 1.5 feet) to get the right relationship between the top of the fence and what is now the front row of seats.

If that’s how this stuff works, the amount you expand the playing field determines, within a narrow range, the height of the new fence. It also means that where the plan shows a diagonal line across section 80, the height of the fence will slope diagonally (or some adjustment to the elevation of the stands will need to be made). And it means that posters like me who have said, in one way or another. “Yeah, 25-30 feet is good, but the fence should be lower than 12 feet” were describing an impractical scenario.

I didn’t grasp this yesterday. Is that what you were saying?

[Can_of_corn]

Yes.

[interloper]

1 hour ago, Orioles0615 said:

 

If you look at this that would give one of if not the deepest LFs in baseball. I think that would be to drastic and shortsighted 

It's fun to change it up. It will spur a whole bunch of new analysis and conversation, and it will change how the game is played in Camden Yards at least a small amount. Lefties will still have no issue slapping dongs out to RF, and it will add a new element for righties. Can they muscle it out over there (it would seem, for now, that most of them will still have no problem doing so), but maybe it increases triples, maybe it benefits guys who can hit up the middle, maybe it means an end to unathletic LFers. It's exciting I think. 

[Moose Milligan]

8 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I don't know if you're the only one, but I am more interested in this than probably any player acquisition they'll make until 2023.  I've been arguing in an invisible, anonymous, ineffective, interweb-y kind of way for something like this to happen across the league for years.  Good to see it worked.

That's a really good summary, actually.  Yeah, I would say this is more interesting than any offseason FA signing, to be sure.  Which is a sad commentary.

[fansince1988]

3 hours ago, Dipper9 said:

I'd say 75% of the fans in the left field bleachers are there to drink, party, and the game is secondary.  It's always annoyed me sitting out there with the drunks who think I'm there to watch them perform, tell stupid jokes, or yell at the opposing team's players. 

 I would remove all the seats from this section, level it off, and have another beer/food court with standing room only tickets sold for this section.  

This is interesting, I tend to agree. By eliminating the LF seats all together would increase demand for the actual bleacher seats in RF. Another option would be to make the remaining LF sections a grassy berm and make it kid friendly. 

[Daddy-O's]

1 hour ago, spiritof66 said:

I thought about this last night, and I think I see what you’re saying. Let me try to explain it, because others may be missing it as well.

There’s a fixed relationship (maybe a range, but if so it’s small) between the height of an OF fence and the elevation above the playing field of the seats directly behind the fence. I don’t know what that exact relationship is, but let’s say the part of the seat where fans in the front row of OF seats park their butts should be 18 inches lower than the top of the OF fence. (The actual numbers don’t matter for these purposes.) If the seats in the front row are too high relative to the top of the OF fence, kids or short adults will have trouble seeing over the fence. If the seats are too low relative to the top of the OF fence, there will be too great an  opportunity for grown-up Jeffrey Maiers to interfere with balls in play or fall out of the stands. So you want the front-row seats to be a fixed elevation – I’m using 18 inches -- below the top of the fence.

The Orioles’ plan will get rid of a bunch of seats behind the moved-out fence. Let’s say it’s the first eight rows. (Again, the actual numbers  . . .) The plan apparently is to remove those eight rows and the support structure under them, and to leave the seats behind them where they were. What was the ninth row will become the front row, right behind the OF fence. Assume that the seats in that former ninth row are elevated 12 feet above the playing field. Unless you want to demolish and rebuild a much larger hunk of the stands to move OF seats, or alter their elevation by changing the level of the field or otherwise, you need to make the OF fence 13 1/2 feet high (12 + 1.5 feet) to get the right relationship between the top of the fence and what is now the front row of seats.

If that’s how this stuff works, the amount you expand the playing field determines, within a narrow range, the height of the new fence. It also means that where the plan shows a diagonal line across section 80, the height of the fence will slope diagonally (or some adjustment to the elevation of the stands will need to be made). And it means that posters like me who have said, in one way or another. “Yeah, 25-30 feet is good, but the fence should be lower than 12 feet” were describing an impractical scenario.

I didn’t grasp this yesterday. Is that what you were saying?

Nobody told me there would be math, I would have stopped at page ten.