The LF wall tracker

[NashLumber]

As mentioned, it was evident that Mancini was not pleased with his blast (resulting in a double) roughly a foot from going out. But I think he got some teasing when Mountcastle and Urias went over the same wall (Ryan's was about three rows from the cement wall of the next section) back to back. I'm guessing he got some "I don't see a problem with that wall".  There was definitely a lot of joking after both HRs. I could sense there would be some dugout teasing was on the way after his HR into the bullpen in his next at bat, ie. the silent treatment and then the joking afterwards.

And yes, another "Walltimore" reference here. https://www.mlb.com/news/trey-mancini-homers-as-orioles-defeat-mariners?game_pk=661343

[deward]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

1. Imagine how many free agent RHH we'd attract if the LC wall was 275' away and 2 inches tall.  They'd be lined up around the block.

2. Haven't you argued that there was never a free agent pitcher who looked at the old 364' sign and considered that as a reason to not sign here?  Then why would the new dimensions impact hitters' decisions more? You can't have it both ways. Or maybe you prefer RHH free agents over free agent pitchers? 

It's just a gut thing, but I suspect that making life harder for hitters would be a little more of a deterrent than the other way around. Think about how players view their counting stats. Pitchers are largely remembered for how many games they won/strikeouts they picked up/saves recorded. A pretty ERA is obviously desirable, but winning an ERA title still doesn't come with the same prestige as winning 20 games does. Randy Johnson could have come here and struck out 300 guys, won 20 games, and not have been too bothered by a few extra home runs. Hitters are more directly impacted in the most prominent counting stats by bad hitting environments. Take a guy who is used to hitting 30-40 home runs and tell him that he likely won't get to that number if he plays here, and I think there's a greater chance of that being an issue for him. 

I can't prove any of that out, of course, it's just a theory that kind of makes sense to me. 

[Aglets]

So far the Orioles have hit 47 HR in 52 games.    (0.904 HR / game)

On the road it is 25 HR in 27 games.     (.926 HR / game)

At OPACY it is 22 HR in 25 games.    (0.880 HR / game)

Interestingly enough we hit over 1 HR / game at home in 2019, 2020, and 2021.

So it appears that the move has had the desired effect stated by Elias and co.    The new wall has depressed HRs at Camden Yards relative to how often HR were hit at that ballpark historically BUT it is now shaping up to be more on par with all other major league stadiums.

The question then I suppose do you think it is good for the franchise long term to keep Camden Yards as it was........where HR were being hit here at a much higher rate.........or not.  I see the argument for the change and I think I mostly agree.

The main takeaway should be that HRs are NOT super depressed here compared to all other stadiums.   It is just depressed compared to how it was before 2022.....when we were significantly above league average.

[Hallas]

7 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I think fair is having both teams facing the same dimensions during the game. 

If we follow this fairness thread to its conclusion we're going to end up back in 1975 when most teams played in symmetrical parks that were about 330-375-400. Fair to everyone, and completely devoid of character.

I think there is a reasonably wide gap between putting everyone in identical, symmetrical parks like in the 70s and 80s, and the limits of what feels fair.  When your stadium incorporates a change that causes your 1 year HR park factor to go from 137 to 68 I think it's a pretty good bet that you overshot a bit.  And yes, I'm aware that 1 year park factors are noisy and it may not stay there, but going 1st to 30th is likely well outside random chance.

 

I'm willing to give it another year or two if you really think it's too noisy at this moment, but if it continues like this I 100% think they need to partially revert this by either reducing the wall height or moving the fence in, or both.

[DrungoHazewood]

15 hours ago, Hallas said:

I think there is a reasonably wide gap between putting everyone in identical, symmetrical parks like in the 70s and 80s, and the limits of what feels fair.  When your stadium incorporates a change that causes your 1 year HR park factor to go from 137 to 68 I think it's a pretty good bet that you overshot a bit.  And yes, I'm aware that 1 year park factors are noisy and it may not stay there, but going 1st to 30th is likely well outside random chance.

I'm willing to give it another year or two if you really think it's too noisy at this moment, but if it continues like this I 100% think they need to partially revert this by either reducing the wall height or moving the fence in, or both.

I'm not saying anything I haven't said before, but I'm good with it the way it is.  I think the league needs more very long dimensions to adjust to today's players, and historically this is completely unremarkable. If you pick a date in baseball history, be it 1950 or 1920 or 1880, 392' to LC wouldn't even be within 60 feet the most extreme distance to that part of the park.  In 1920 half the parks in the league had 450+ signs somewhere, and that was with an average MLB player probably 5' 9" and 165 lbs.

I want to see OPACY's park factor go closer to 100 by moving everyone else's dimensions out (and move the mound back to 63' while they're at it).  If the small-market Orioles can afford it so can everyone else. Baseball is just a better game with more people putting the ball in play and running around doing athletic stuff.

[Aristotelian]

On 6/1/2022 at 10:33 PM, deward said:

Mancini looked disgusted with having to settle for a double on that ball he hit off the top of the wall tonight. I continue to suspect that the biggest impact of The Wall on free agents will be driving away RHH.

I was disappointed with that reaction. Mancini should know the wall helps our pitchers as much as it hurts our hitters. 

It's too bad for our RH power hitters (Mancini, Mountcastle) but interestingly by far the majority of our prospects are LH or S (Rutschman, Cowser, Kjerstad, Stowers, Gunnar plus Prieto and Vavra). Only Westburg, Mayo, and Norby are RH. The current team is RH heavy but the move largely doesn't affect our future hitters. So we help our pitchers and massively favor our future offense vs any RH heavy teams. 

[Hallas]

On 6/3/2022 at 4:24 AM, DrungoHazewood said:

I'm not saying anything I haven't said before, but I'm good with it the way it is.  I think the league needs more very long dimensions to adjust to today's players, and historically this is completely unremarkable. If you pick a date in baseball history, be it 1950 or 1920 or 1880, 392' to LC wouldn't even be within 60 feet the most extreme distance to that part of the park.  In 1920 half the parks in the league had 450+ signs somewhere, and that was with an average MLB player probably 5' 9" and 165 lbs.

I want to see OPACY's park factor go closer to 100 by moving everyone else's dimensions out (and move the mound back to 63' while they're at it).  If the small-market Orioles can afford it so can everyone else. Baseball is just a better game with more people putting the ball in play and running around doing athletic stuff.

So do you think the way forward for baseball to get back toward a more interesting and varied form of the game is to change the playing field the way golf did by making all their courses 400 yards longer than they were in the Nicklaus/Palmer era?

[DrungoHazewood]

6 hours ago, Hallas said:

So do you think the way forward for baseball to get back toward a more interesting and varied form of the game is to change the playing field the way golf did by making all their courses 400 yards longer than they were in the Nicklaus/Palmer era?

Yes.  By doing that it will become clear that wall-to-wall sluggers with 175 strikeouts makes for a losing game.  It kind of brings back some of that deadball era common wisdom that swinging for the fences all the time just leads to a lot of fly outs, so you need a different strategy. 

But you also need to combine longer fences with a 63' pitching distance, since much of the K spike comes from pitchers.  Implement both of those and I think we'll see more contact, higher batting averages and more of an emphasis on speed and defense.  Which also means more baserunning. Also a pitch clock, so we can have 2:30 games with more balls in play and more people doing athletic things rather than standing around waiting for Aaron Judge to hit a ball 475'. Or more often 370' into the third row.

It will not be without controversy, as today's fans are very accustomed to post-1993 baseball where ESPN highlights are typically six home runs and one or two other random things that might include a good defensive play or a close play on the bases.  People today mostly know baseball as a slow-paced game of homers, Ks and pitching changes.  Fans and the media always push back against changes to the status quo, even if it's bringing the game more in line with how it was played for 100+ years.

[Bahama O's Fan]

I don't have an issue with moving the wall back. Honestly, it's the same for both teams, so no biggie. What I hate is the looks of it, with that 90 degree corner (or whatever it is). I just with they could have found a way to make that transition "smoother"

[fansince1988]

46 minutes ago, Bahama O's Fan said:

I don't have an issue with moving the wall back. Honestly, it's the same for both teams, so no biggie. What I hate is the looks of it, with that 90 degree corner (or whatever it is). I just with they could have found a way to make that transition "smoother"

I don't mind it at all, looks unique. Slightly off topic - what I'm not a fan of is the extended netting and cables that went up a few years ago. Really takes away from both the ballpark experience and the at home experience on TV. The nets have also taken away the players ability to make great catches in the stands on foul balls.

[drdelaware]

I absolutely love the wall and new dimensions.   The notch is a bit extreme but not unprecedented.

[Chelsea_Phil]

8 hours ago, fansince1988 said:

I don't mind it at all, looks unique. Slightly off topic - what I'm not a fan of is the extended netting and cables that went up a few years ago. Really takes away from both the ballpark experience and the at home experience on TV. The nets have also taken away the players ability to make great catches in the stands on foul balls.

A couple of serious injuries to fans caused this to occur.  Maybe MLB overreacted, maybe not.  But it does make the fan experience at the ballpark not as nice as it used to be.

[oldfan]

Other than the two homers today, was there another ball within fifty feet of a wall? This lineup does look bad at times, and Cleveland isn't much better, but they put the ball in play. Second and third, none out, next two batters strikeout, how many times have we seen this? Held little hope for Mateo but figured Hays would get run in, fouled off two hittable fastballs then swung at a never strike pitch.

[Can_of_corn]

58 minutes ago, Chelsea_Phil said:

A couple of serious injuries to fans caused this to occur.  Maybe MLB overreacted, maybe not.  But it does make the fan experience at the ballpark not as nice as it used to be.

It's not a good look if a fan ends up with a face fracture and gets taken out on a stretcher.

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, Chelsea_Phil said:

A couple of serious injuries to fans caused this to occur.  Maybe MLB overreacted, maybe not.  But it does make the fan experience at the ballpark not as nice as it used to be.

I went to a game last week, sitting behind 1B,  and a hitter hit a line shot directly at me that ricocheted off the screen.  It came so fast I winced.   I’m thankful the screen is there.   If it prevents one serious injury per year at a major league game, it’s worth it.