The LF wall tracker

[DrungoHazewood]

On 6/5/2022 at 9:03 AM, 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"

In the old days there were abrupt changes in the fences because of immovable obstacles just beyond the fence like streets or houses.  In modern parks the abrupt changes are usually because old parks had them and old parks were cool in the minds of people who saw games as 12-year-olds in old parks.  When the Marlins played in that football stadium the fence was a zigzag because... uh... Ebbets Field rocked?

At least the abrupt changes in the OPACY fence is for a reason: that there's really no other place to put the bullpens. Not because they're pandering to people who remember 1945.

[Aristotelian]

On 6/5/2022 at 9:03 AM, 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"

Agreed, the corner makes it look exactly like they used to have a wall there and decided to move it back after the fact. 

[jamalshw]

8 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

In the old days there were abrupt changes in the fences because of immovable obstacles just beyond the fence like streets or houses.  In modern parks the abrupt changes are usually because old parks had them and old parks were cool in the minds of people who saw games as 12-year-olds in old parks.  When the Marlins played in that football stadium the fence was a zigzag because... uh... Ebbets Field rocked?

At least the abrupt changes in the OPACY fence is for a reason: that there's really no other place to put the bullpens. Not because they're pandering to people who remember 1945.

This is fair and probably accurate. That said, I don't mind the abrupt change and angle solely because it should (and has to an extent) produce more interesting plays (players taking the extra base or getting thrown out based on how the ball hits and is played in the corner. That said, I also didn't have a problem with the fence where it was. 

[Hallas]

On 6/5/2022 at 4:30 AM, DrungoHazewood said:

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.

You've probably come closer to convincing me of the merits of changing ballpark dimensions to accomodate modern players than anyone else.

 

Is there a time period that you want the modern game to look like in terms of run environment/home run frequency?  or do you not think in those terms?  I'd probably lean toward preferring a run environment right before the big 90s home run binge.  Slightly higher than the 80s and 70s but quite a bit lower than what it is today.

[DrungoHazewood]

3 hours ago, Hallas said:

You've probably come closer to convincing me of the merits of changing ballpark dimensions to accomodate modern players than anyone else.

 

Is there a time period that you want the modern game to look like in terms of run environment/home run frequency?  or do you not think in those terms?  I'd probably lean toward preferring a run environment right before the big 90s home run binge.  Slightly higher than the 80s and 70s but quite a bit lower than what it is today.

I don't think I really think in those terms.  I kind of like higher scoring games, just not in the recent fashion of sitting around waiting for a home run. I'd rather have it doled out in lots of little bits. It's like Christmas. I'd rather have 14 little presents than one or two big ones.  You enjoy it longer.

Of course I've never experienced this, but I always thought I'd enjoy one of those eras where the big stars were constantly chasing .400.  Which is kind of the opposite of today, where nobody has hit .350 in a full season in a decade.

[Frobby]

 

[jdwilde1]

I think Trey lost a second homer tonight too.

[Frobby]

22 minutes ago, jdwilde1 said:

I think Trey lost a second homer tonight too.

Maybe.  Statcast says 371 feet.  

[Orioles0615]

So 2 months into the season can we all just about agree that the wall has hurt more than helped so far

[emmett16]

7 minutes ago, Orioles0615 said:

So 2 months into the season can we all just about agree that the wall has helped more than it’s hurt so far

Yes

[Frobby]

14 minutes ago, Orioles0615 said:

So 2 months into the season can we all just about agree that the wall has hurt more than helped so far

Who said that?   Here are our home/away splits so far:

Hitters: 31 homers in 30 games at home; 25 homers in 27 games on the road.

Pitchers: 23 homers in 30 games at home; 38 homers in 27 games on the road.   

So, we’ve outhomered our opponents by 31-23 at home in 30 games, and we’ve been outhomered on the road 38-25 in 27 games.   

Edit: also, this article from the Sun a week or so ago suggests we’ve been helped more than hurt.  SG posted it previously.  
https://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/orioles/bs-sp-orioles-camden-yards-left-field-wall-by-the-numbers-20220601-qqtwac7njbcenoro5jpzmluwlu-story.html
 

[Sports Guy]

10 minutes ago, Orioles0615 said:

So 2 months into the season can we all just about agree that the wall has hurt more than helped so far

Tough to say considering offense is down so much across the league.  It also depends on how you define “hurt”.  

[Sports Guy]

 

[Moose Milligan]

Looks like it's about even as far as helping/hurting.  We've lost 12 homers but the opponents have lost 13 and in those lost homers it's the same number of outs.

I'm overall fine with it, but it still hurts to see guys like Mountcastle drill one and it'd be a homer anywhere else instead of here.  But that's to be expected.

 

[deward]

21 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Looks like it's about even as far as helping/hurting.  We've lost 12 homers but the opponents have lost 13 and in those lost homers it's the same number of outs.

I'm overall fine with it, but it still hurts to see guys like Mountcastle drill one and it'd be a homer anywhere else instead of here.  But that's to be expected.

 

Neutral overall would make sense, right? Since both teams are playing under the same conditions. There's no reason why this move would lead to more wins over the long-term, just altered stat lines. The notion that this would somehow be more helpful to O's pitchers than it would to visiting pitchers has always seemed bizarre to me.