PDA

View Full Version : Should the Reds move the fences back?



Wheelhouse
11-09-2005, 11:24 AM
It seems like the Reds with Dunn, Wily Mo, and Griffey hit a lot of "no-doubters" the would go out of any park...I think the pitching would be helped more than the offense would be hurt if the fences were moved back a few feet...

Redsland
11-09-2005, 12:30 PM
There wouldn't be much point unless they moved 'em back 500 feet and acquired a few outfielders with wheels.

flyer85
11-09-2005, 12:39 PM
I don't see how the can to much effect. They scoreboard is in left and the bleachers in right. The only place the could move the fence back is in CF and it would be maybe 5 feet.

Chip R
11-09-2005, 12:40 PM
It seems like the Reds with Dunn, Wily Mo, and Griffey hit a lot of "no-doubters" the would go out of any park...I think the pitching would be helped more than the offense would be hurt if the fences were moved back a few feet...

How are you going to accomplish that feat? Knock the whole seating in the OF down and rebuild 20 feet further back?

Cyclone792
11-09-2005, 12:44 PM
I would be in favor of it since the park is such a massive home run hitting park. I think in its first three seasons combined the home run index is around 114 or so, even though actual run scoring is slightly below average. The problem to me in actually moving the fences back, however, is the structural design of the park. I'm not an engineer so I'm most likely wrong here, but given the structure of the park it would appear to be a difficult task to move the fences back in most areas except for possibly the small bullpen crevices.

redsfan30
11-09-2005, 12:46 PM
Another 5-10 feet with this pitching staff isn't going to matter, plus you lose seats/revenue.

No.

westofyou
11-09-2005, 12:51 PM
The Reds moved Home plate up the second time after reading about the suggestion in a letter to the Enquirer in 1936, they put in the Goat Run to entice Home Runs, they lowered the walls at Riverfront for the same reason.

How about we get some pitchers and keep the field the way it is?

adampad
11-09-2005, 01:47 PM
I wish the park was deeper. I like watching double and triples, not just home runs. Seems like everyball hit towards right center is gone in GABP.

redsfan30
11-09-2005, 02:09 PM
If the Reds move the fences back, that makes for a bigger outfield which just means that more balls will go all the way to the wall. There will be more doubles and triples instead of homeruns. Runs will score anyway you look at it. Why spend all that money when the results will be similar?

Man, that last sentense sure does sound familiar doesn't it?

M2
11-09-2005, 02:32 PM
Dropping the LF and RF walls back 15-20 feet wouldn't hurt. Obviously that won't affect guys with straight-away power, but it would cut down on cheapies. Whether it's physically possible to do that is another matter.

paintmered
11-09-2005, 02:56 PM
For the amount of money it would cost to move the fences back, you could buy the pitching and save the trouble.

SteelSD
11-09-2005, 03:05 PM
How about we get some pitchers and keep the field the way it is?

You stole that sentence from my brain.

KronoRed
11-09-2005, 04:18 PM
WOY can read minds? cool :D


No..don't move the fences, get good pitchers.

ochre
11-09-2005, 06:39 PM
So the consensus is: Keep the fences; move the pitchers?

Redsland
11-09-2005, 07:57 PM
So the consensus is: Keep the fences; move the pitchers?
:thumbup:

BadFundamentals
11-09-2005, 09:07 PM
So the consensus is: Keep the fences; move the pitchers?
nicely done...

HOWEVER, allow me to remind a few of you about a team some thirty years ago in cincinnati that won the world series back to back with a group of pitchers not altogether of different caliber than the current crop. Sure Nolan/Gullet had careers which were statistically a cut above anything on the current staff but as for the other starters (all the Billinghams, Darcys, Kirbys, Alcalas, Normans, Zachrys etc.) if you adjust up their career ERAs ~ .75 to allow for the greater run scoring in today's game they end up looking statistically surprisingly similar to Corey Lidle, Ramon Ortiz, Paul Wilson, Aaron Harang, Eric Milton etc.......etc....

Sure the performances of Reds pitchers have stunk the last 3 years (apart from bullpen first half of 2003) but part of the problem is that in recent years Reds pitchers UNDER ACHIEVE when they put on the Red uniforms.

If I'm not mistaken Reds have had ONE hall of fame pitcher in the last 30 years, Tom Seaver and maybe a hanful of All Stars (Dibbles, Myers, Rijos, Sotos, Charltons, Armstrongs..??). It's a Reds tradition to rely on strong EVERY DAY lineups. Why have Reds pitching staffs in recent years so grossly under performed relative to the over achieving staffs of Reds history?

Certainly, an infield of Rose, Concepcion, Morgan, Perez, Bench would be a bit more inspiring to a pitcher then EE, Lopez, 2B du jour, Casey, LaRue. Just by association you could likely get more out of pitchers by surrounding them with that caliber of talent. Could it be that what some have suggested about recent reds teams related to "lack of leadership", "lack of intensity", "lack of committment" etc.. etc...could be playing more of a part in under-performing pitching performances than one might initially think?

westofyou
11-09-2005, 09:22 PM
nicely done...

HOWEVER, allow me to remind a few of you about a team some thirty years ago in cincinnati that won the world series back to back with a group of pitchers not altogether of different caliber than the current crop.

1975 NL TEAM PITCHING STATS

TEAM W L PCT G GS CG SV GF IP H R ER BB SO ERA
Dodgers 88 74 .543 331 162 51 21 111 1470.1 1215 534 477 448 894 2.92
Pirates 92 69 .571 387 161 43 31 118 1438.2 1302 565 482 551 768 3.02
Reds 108 54 .667 439 162 22 50 140 1460 1422 586 546 487 663 3.37
Mets 82 80 .506 391 162 40 31 122 1466.1 1344 625 552 580 989 3.39
Padres 71 91 .438 452 162 40 20 122 1464.2 1494 683 570 521 713 3.50
Cardinals 82 80 .506 435 163 33 36 130 1455.1 1452 689 578 571 824 3.57
Expos 75 87 .463 433 162 30 25 132 1480.2 1448 690 614 665 831 3.73
Giants 80 81 .497 420 161 37 24 124 1432.2 1406 671 595 612 856 3.74
Phillies 86 76 .531 445 162 33 30 129 1455.2 1353 694 618 546 897 3.82
Braves 67 94 .416 428 161 32 24 129 1430.1 1543 739 624 519 669 3.93
Astros 64 97 .398 427 162 39 25 123 1458.1 1436 711 656 679 839 4.05
Cubs 75 87 .463 460 162 27 33 135 1445 1587 827 732 551 850 4.56
TOTALS 970 970 .500 5048 1942 427 350 1515 17458 17002 8014 7044 6730 9793 3.63


2005 NL TEAM PITCHING STATS

TEAM W L PCT G GS CG SV GF IP H R ER BB SO ERA
Cardinals 100 62 .617 598 162 15 48 147 1445.2 1399 634 560 443 974 3.49
Astros 89 73 .549 597 163 6 45 157 1443 1336 609 564 440 1164 3.52
Mets 83 79 .512 554 162 8 38 154 1435.2 1390 648 602 491 1012 3.77
Nationals 81 81 .500 632 162 4 51 158 1458 1456 673 627 539 997 3.87
Brewers 81 81 .500 557 162 7 46 155 1438 1382 697 636 569 1173 3.98
Braves 90 72 .556 646 162 8 38 154 1443.2 1487 674 639 520 929 3.98
Padres 82 80 .506 618 162 4 45 158 1455.1 1452 726 668 503 1133 4.13
Marlins 83 79 .512 611 162 14 42 148 1442.1 1459 732 671 563 1125 4.19
Cubs 79 83 .488 619 162 8 39 154 1440 1357 714 671 576 1256 4.19
Phillies 88 74 .543 604 162 4 40 158 1435 1379 726 672 487 1159 4.21
Giants 75 87 .463 673 162 4 46 158 1444.1 1456 745 698 592 972 4.35
Dodgers 71 91 .438 620 162 6 40 156 1427.1 1434 755 695 471 1004 4.38
Pirates 67 95 .414 613 162 4 35 158 1436 1456 769 708 612 958 4.44
Diamondbacks 77 85 .475 620 162 6 45 156 1456.1 1580 856 788 537 1038 4.87
Rockies 67 95 .414 621 162 4 37 158 1418.2 1600 862 810 604 981 5.14
Reds 73 89 .451 654 163 2 31 161 1433 1657 889 824 492 955 5.18
TOTALS 1286 1306 .496 9837 2594 104 666 2490 23052.1 23280 11709 10833 8439 16830 4.23

Cyclone792
11-09-2005, 09:38 PM
1975 NL TEAM PITCHING STATS

TEAM W L PCT G GS CG SV GF IP H R ER BB SO ERA
Dodgers 88 74 .543 331 162 51 21 111 1470.1 1215 534 477 448 894 2.92
Pirates 92 69 .571 387 161 43 31 118 1438.2 1302 565 482 551 768 3.02
Reds 108 54 .667 439 162 22 50 140 1460 1422 586 546 487 663 3.37
Mets 82 80 .506 391 162 40 31 122 1466.1 1344 625 552 580 989 3.39
Padres 71 91 .438 452 162 40 20 122 1464.2 1494 683 570 521 713 3.50
Cardinals 82 80 .506 435 163 33 36 130 1455.1 1452 689 578 571 824 3.57
Expos 75 87 .463 433 162 30 25 132 1480.2 1448 690 614 665 831 3.73
Giants 80 81 .497 420 161 37 24 124 1432.2 1406 671 595 612 856 3.74
Phillies 86 76 .531 445 162 33 30 129 1455.2 1353 694 618 546 897 3.82
Braves 67 94 .416 428 161 32 24 129 1430.1 1543 739 624 519 669 3.93
Astros 64 97 .398 427 162 39 25 123 1458.1 1436 711 656 679 839 4.05
Cubs 75 87 .463 460 162 27 33 135 1445 1587 827 732 551 850 4.56
TOTALS 970 970 .500 5048 1942 427 350 1515 17458 17002 8014 7044 6730 9793 3.63


2005 NL TEAM PITCHING STATS

TEAM W L PCT G GS CG SV GF IP H R ER BB SO ERA
Cardinals 100 62 .617 598 162 15 48 147 1445.2 1399 634 560 443 974 3.49
Astros 89 73 .549 597 163 6 45 157 1443 1336 609 564 440 1164 3.52
Mets 83 79 .512 554 162 8 38 154 1435.2 1390 648 602 491 1012 3.77
Nationals 81 81 .500 632 162 4 51 158 1458 1456 673 627 539 997 3.87
Brewers 81 81 .500 557 162 7 46 155 1438 1382 697 636 569 1173 3.98
Braves 90 72 .556 646 162 8 38 154 1443.2 1487 674 639 520 929 3.98
Padres 82 80 .506 618 162 4 45 158 1455.1 1452 726 668 503 1133 4.13
Marlins 83 79 .512 611 162 14 42 148 1442.1 1459 732 671 563 1125 4.19
Cubs 79 83 .488 619 162 8 39 154 1440 1357 714 671 576 1256 4.19
Phillies 88 74 .543 604 162 4 40 158 1435 1379 726 672 487 1159 4.21
Giants 75 87 .463 673 162 4 46 158 1444.1 1456 745 698 592 972 4.35
Dodgers 71 91 .438 620 162 6 40 156 1427.1 1434 755 695 471 1004 4.38
Pirates 67 95 .414 613 162 4 35 158 1436 1456 769 708 612 958 4.44
Diamondbacks 77 85 .475 620 162 6 45 156 1456.1 1580 856 788 537 1038 4.87
Rockies 67 95 .414 621 162 4 37 158 1418.2 1600 862 810 604 981 5.14
Reds 73 89 .451 654 163 2 31 161 1433 1657 889 824 492 955 5.18
TOTALS 1286 1306 .496 9837 2594 104 666 2490 23052.1 23280 11709 10833 8439 16830 4.23

Yep, in 1975 we had an ERA+ of 107 ... compared to an ERA+ of a whopping 86 in 2005. Heck, if we had a 107 ERA+ this past season we'd have won 90 games, if not more.

BadFundamentals
11-09-2005, 09:44 PM
that's irrelevant.

Look at the CAREERS of those 75/76 pitchers you'll see that as a GROUP they over-performed their career stats in 75/76. Look at the Lidles, Miltons, Ortiz etc..etc...they all underperform when they become reds. Bad trend.

BadFundamentals
11-09-2005, 09:47 PM
("irrelevant" maybe a little strong...but 3rd in league vs. last in league is not the point)

pedro
11-09-2005, 09:58 PM
("irrelevant" maybe a little strong...but 3rd in league vs. last in league is not the point)


Well yes it is. IIRC you yourself often like to point out that AB's and games are not isolated events but happen within the context of a league and an entire season. If your team has the 3rd best pitching in the league then it stands to reason that that pitching would be a major contributor to that teams success. Granted, had the 2005 Reds pitching staff been backed up by a defense comparable to the 1975-76 teams they may have been a notch better but nonetheless the fact the 2005 Reds were last in the league in pitching is extremely relevant.

flyer85
11-09-2005, 10:31 PM
The BF shuffle ... open mouth and insert foot.:devil:

SteelSD
11-10-2005, 12:46 AM
HOWEVER, allow me to remind a few of you about a team some thirty years ago in cincinnati that won the world series back to back with a group of pitchers not altogether of different caliber than the current crop. Sure Nolan/Gullet had careers which were statistically a cut above anything on the current staff but as for the other starters (all the Billinghams, Darcys, Kirbys, Alcalas, Normans, Zachrys etc.) if you adjust up their career ERAs ~ .75 to allow for the greater run scoring in today's game they end up looking statistically surprisingly similar to Corey Lidle, Ramon Ortiz, Paul Wilson, Aaron Harang, Eric Milton etc.......etc....

Sure the performances of Reds pitchers have stunk the last 3 years (apart from bullpen first half of 2003) but part of the problem is that in recent years Reds pitchers UNDER ACHIEVE when they put on the Red uniforms.

No. No, they didn't look like "statistically similar" to Corey Lidle, Ramon Ortiz, Paul Wilson, and Eric Milton.

First, you can't just wash away Gary Nolan and Don Gullett, who combined for 735.7 Innings of above-average pitching during 1975 and 1976. That's a big deal because the current version of the Reds doesn't have two Starting Pitchers who can do that although Aaron Harang might be a start.

Pat Darcy had no history (or future) outside the BRM, so I'm not sure how you can say he "overachieved". Jack Billingham posted his worst ERA+ (ERA versus league average) seasons with the Reds and produced better results than his 1975/1976 seasons with other teams. Likewise, Clay Kirby produced similar and better results before joining the Reds. Pat Zachary was a rookie in 1976, pitched awful ball for the Reds in 1977, but produced at an above-average clip with for three seasons with the Mets.

Fred Norman produced a below average ERA+ in 1975 with the Reds (96 ERA+) which was nearly identical to his numbers in 1971, 1972, and 1973. Norman produced better than average ERA numbers in 1974 and 1976, but did so by significantly cutting his HR rate which has nothing to do with the defense. Santo Alcala put up exactly 132.0 Innings as a rookie in 1976, so it's not as if he was carrying a load.

The BRM bullpen? Rawley Eastwick was a rook in 1974 (amazing how rookies keep popping up during that run, huh?), came out blazing until the Reds traded him in 1977. He's really the only guy I can find who performed with another club at a level significantly lower than he did with the Reds. Will McEnaney was ANOTHER 1974 rookie. He pitched poorly in his short stint that season, then pitched really well in 1975, then pitched very poorly in 1976 (with the same Reds team). He was traded to the Expos in 1977 and pitched much better for them than he did the 1976 club and finished his career pitching well above average ball for St. Louis in 1979.

Pedro Borbon pitched all but 106 Innings with the Reds so it's near impossible to tell if he got a "bonus" from the BRM defense. I have little doubt that the Reds defense helped him more than anyone else because he couldn't strike out anyone. The Reds have NO ONE on the team remotely resembling Clay Carroll- who pitched exceptionally well both before joining the Reds and after he left.

Now the 2005 squad...

Aaron Harang broke out this season at age 27. Let's hope that continues.

Cory Lidle threw awful ball the year before the Reds acquired him. Eric Milton hasn't made anyone even THINK of "league average Starting Pitcher" since 2001. The last time Ramon Ortiz did anything resembling "decent" was 2003 and only then because he was the luckiest pitcher on the planet. You have to be to post an ERA under 4.00 while giving up 40 HR. Ortiz ERA+ in 2003 was 82 and he posted an ERA+ of 83 with the Reds in 2005. No way that cat "underperformed" with the Reds. It was predictable. Claussen hasn't underperformed in the least. In fact, he most likely got a little bit ERA-lucky in 2005 but that's a moot point because we don't have any legit non-Reds performance to compare Claussen to.

Don't even get me started on the bullpen. There's simply zero comparison.

So, where are all these guys who "overperformed" on the BRM? And where are all the guys who've "underperformed" for the recent Reds?

They don't exist.


If I'm not mistaken Reds have had ONE hall of fame pitcher in the last 30 years, Tom Seaver and maybe a hanful of All Stars (Dibbles, Myers, Rijos, Sotos, Charltons, Armstrongs..??). It's a Reds tradition to rely on strong EVERY DAY lineups. Why have Reds pitching staffs in recent years so grossly under performed relative to the over achieving staffs of Reds history?

The Reds pitchers haven't underperformed recently. They're just bad pitchers. That's what happens when you can't draft starting pitchers, can't develop starting pitchers, and can't trade for or sign starting pitchers who have a halfway recent decent of recent performance.

And shame on you for forgetting who John Franco is.


Certainly, an infield of Rose, Concepcion, Morgan, Perez, Bench would be a bit more inspiring to a pitcher then EE, Lopez, 2B du jour, Casey, LaRue. Just by association you could likely get more out of pitchers by surrounding them with that caliber of talent.

It's nice to see that your new pet project is Edwin Encarnacion. I'll warn you, however, his indicators currently point to him having the ability to be one of the top handful of defensive 3B in the game as he matures. I know why you dislike young players and I know that you don't understand how this whole "projection" thing works, but you're as off-base about him as you were about Felipe Lopez and nearly as off-base as you've been about Adam Dunn.

When you're wrong as often as you've been, at some point you need to figure out why you've been wrong and quit being wrong. In short, if it hurts when you do that then STOP DOING THAT.

And there's no one on your "current" list that is close to being as bad at their position as Pete Rose was at 3B (the position he played for the BRM in 1975-76). By the time Rose moved back in from the Outfield to man third, his range had significantly deteriorated versus his days at Second Base and his arm was never truly good enough to play third. After 613 games there from 1975-78, I have a feeling that he was completely happy to accept the Phillies offer knowing that he didn't need to worry about playing that position due to the presence of a guy named Mike Schmidt.

Seriously, a guy with as big an ego as Rose...I can literally hear the conversation:

Phillies: "...and Pete, we won't ask you to play Third Base."

Rose: "And where do I sign?"


Could it be that what some have suggested about recent reds teams related to "lack of leadership", "lack of intensity", "lack of committment" etc.. etc...could be playing more of a part in under-performing pitching performances than one might initially think?

No, because the recent Reds pitchers haven't underperformed. You love Joe Randa for his "leadership". Pitchers stunk. You were a big Rich Aurilia supporter. Pitchers stunk. You love (or I guess, used to) love Sean Casey. Pitchers stunk.

See, bad pitchers can stink regardless of the ballpark. Bad pitchers can stink with anyone playing behind them. Bad pitchers can stink with any collection of teammates walking to the plate. They can stink regardless of who's in the clubhouse.

Why?

Because that's what bad pitchers do.

BadFundamentals
11-10-2005, 10:09 AM
The facts are CLEAR.

There were 10 pitchers on 75/76 staffs who pitched 90+ innings in 75 or 76.
SP Jack Billingham
SP Gary Nolan
SP *Fred Norman
SP Pat Darcy
SP *Don Gullett
SP Clay Kirby
CL Rawly Eastwick
RP *Will McEnaney
RP Pedro Borbon
RP Clay Carroll
SP Pat Zachry

Of those 10, two pitchers (Kirby and Darcy) were every bit as bad pitchers as what we've seen the last few years. Billingham had unremarkable career and worse years in 75/76. Nolan at end of career also stank it up in 75/76. So we have FOUR pitchers who were no better quality than current Reds pitchers.

As for the other 6, ALL the REST OVER-PERFORMED their career numbers in 75/76. All of them ! ! Eastwick didn't have a brilliant career but he was BRILLIANT in 75/76. 72-76 was it for Borbon then nothing, then out of baseball. Norman, journeyman type numbers one of best years of career in 76. Zachry best year of career in 76. Gullet, good career, BEST year in 75. Carrol, 2.90 for career, but 2.60 in 75/76.

Reds didn't have all star staffs then but the guys then typically peformed up to or greater than expectations.

The current trend for Reds pitching is to put on Reds uniform and then stink it up.

Heath
11-10-2005, 10:23 AM
Unfortunately the GABP isn't an erector set where we can take chairs down and stands as we see fit.

They designed the stadium for a short porch in right - we'll make our bed and lie in it.

ochre
11-10-2005, 10:40 AM
The current trend for Reds pitching is to put on Reds uniform and then stink it up.
So the fact that's CLEAR is that bad pitchers stink? What exactly are you trying to say, and how are you going to relate it back to Dunn striking out too much? Cut to the chase, don't leave us all hanging like that.

Chip R
11-10-2005, 10:42 AM
The facts are CLEAR.


What's clear is you are trolling. All you do is post here to get a rise out of others. Even when confronted with evidence to the contrary you ignore it and continue to troll. That is clearly against the rules. Consider yourself warned.

Jim
11-10-2005, 10:57 AM
For the amount of money it would cost to move the fences back, you could buy the pitching and save the trouble.

EXCELLENT point!

Blimpie
11-10-2005, 11:29 AM
What's clear is you are trolling. All you do is post here to get a rise out of others. Even when confronted with evidence to the contrary you ignore it and continue to troll. That is clearly against the rules. Consider yourself warned.Warning (20%)...Warning (40%)...Will Robinson! :runaway: :runaway: :runaway:

SteelSD
11-10-2005, 12:27 PM
The facts are CLEAR.

Not to you.


The current trend for Reds pitching is to put on Reds uniform and then stink it up.

Let's take a look at the guys who were hanging around the Reds in 2005 who came from somewhere else...

Paul Wilson ERA+

Tampa Bay 2001: 92
Tampa Bay 2002: 92
Cincinnati 2003: 92
Cincinnati 2004: 92

Ramon Ortiz ERA+ (as Starter)

Anaheim 2003: 82
Anaheim 2004: 84
Cincinnati 2005: 83

Eric Milton ERA+

Minnesota 2002: 91
Philadelphia 2004: 92
Cincinnati 2005: 69

Paul Wilson joins up. SAME pitcher he had been with the D-Rays. Ramon Ortiz signs on. SAME pitcher he had been with the Angels. A Home Run machine like Eric Milton has money thrown at him while everyone knows he's got a knee injury that will never EVER heal, and you get his 2005 season. None of those three guys "underperformed" while with the Reds.

Two of those pitchers posted identical ERA numbers versus league average for at least two seasons prior to joining the Reds. Milton was below average before signing on and there was every chance that we'd see nothing but the worst of him because of his physical issues. Even Cory Lidle threw 192+ awful Innings for Toronto the year before joining the Reds. Then what did he do? Threw awful ball for the Reds. Hardly a mind-blowing occurrance.

Coming into 2005, only four active MLB Pitchers had posted a season in which they allowed 40+ Home Runs while also posting a season in which they had allowed 50 Doubles. Dan O'Brien, in his infinite wisdom, decided that it was a good idea to acquire two of them for the 2005 Cincinnati Reds. Three of those four pitchers (Ortiz, Milton, Lima- in that order) finished 91st, 92nd, and 93rd in OPS Against among the ninety-three 2005 ERA qualifiers. The fourth (Jamie Moyer) was saved only by the cavern he calls a ballpark. Moyer's road numbers (.913 OPSA) would have ranked him between Milton and Lima on that list.

You think that's some kind of coincidence?

See, here's the thing...

When you bring in pitchers who have a history of stinking things up, they'll most likely stink things up with your team as well. When you import pitchers who have proven they can give up the longball like nobody's business and then watch them suck, you're not seeing "underperformance". You're watching DESTINY in full-on action.

Has nothing to do with "intangibles" or "chemistry" or fairy dust or magic jelly beans.

It has everything to do with the fact that bad pitchers pitch badly.

ochre
11-10-2005, 01:59 PM
You're watching DESTINY in full-on action.


Woah. She cheer for the panthers?

BadFundamentals
11-10-2005, 02:11 PM
What's clear is you are trolling. All you do is post here to get a rise out of others. Even when confronted with evidence to the contrary you ignore it and continue to troll. That is clearly against the rules. Consider yourself warned.
Everything I posted was factual. I made no personal attacks on players or posters. You seem unable to enforce rules objectively without bias. And you're a "moderator".....that's interesting...........

paintmered
11-10-2005, 02:16 PM
Everything I posted was factual. I made no personal attacks on players or posters. You seem unable to enforce rules objectively without bias. And you're a "moderator".....that's interesting...........


See below.



5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

BadFundamentals
11-10-2005, 02:16 PM
Ortiz had highest ERA of his career last year (of years with 100+ innings, 5 of those previous to last year).
Milton had BY FAR worst year as a pro last year - almost 2 FULL RUNS above his ERAs of previous years.
Lidle fully capable of sub-5.00 ERAs but he notches 5.32 with Reds second worst of career

BadFundamentals
11-10-2005, 02:18 PM
See below.
I succinctly demonstrate in my post just below yours that Lidle, Ortiz, Milton clearly did have relatively bad years with the Reds. There is nothing inflammatory about that. It is all fact.

paintmered
11-10-2005, 02:19 PM
I succinctly demonstrate in my post just below yours that Lidle, Ortiz, Milton clearly did have relatively bad years with the Reds. There is nothing inflammatory about that. It is all fact.


Perhaps you should re-read the thread title.

ochre
11-10-2005, 02:22 PM
They are bad pitchers. The scale of their badness could be discussed I suppose. Seems kind of pointless to me though.

What was your point again?

BadFundamentals
11-10-2005, 02:34 PM
I'm pretty sure NOBODY would argue that Reds have anything close to strong pitching.

However, one point I am making is that whereas successful Reds teams of the mid-70s took 2nd/3rd tier "type" pitchers and got in most cases ABOVE PAR performances from them (relative to their careers). Our present day reds bring in 2nd/3rd tier "type" pitchers (particularly "starters") and routinely see them UNDER PERFORM. Three key off season acquisitions of the last 2 years Lidle, Milton, Ortiz are all examples of this.

And yes "paintmered" it relates to the question of whether to move fences back. Getting better pitching "performances" is the ultimate goal. If better "pitchers" can't be obtained as things are, well trying to make the park a bit more attractive to free agent pitchers might not hurt in helping to obtain them or perhaps help the performances of the ones already here...............

paintmered
11-10-2005, 02:43 PM
And yes "paintmered" it relates to the question of whether to move fences back. Getting better pitching "performances" is the ultimate goal. If better "pitchers" can't be obtained as things are, well trying to make the park a bit more attractive to free agent pitchers might not hurt in helping to obtain them or perhaps help the performances of the ones already here...............

And that has to do with the BRM's pitching staff how? :confused:

SteelSD
11-10-2005, 02:44 PM
Ortiz had highest ERA of his career last year (of years with 100+ innings, 5 of those previous to last year).

In 2003, Ortiz posted a 5.20 ERA versus the league average of 4.26. In 2004, his ERA as a Starter was around 5.40. In 2005, his ERA of 5.36 was actually BETTER versus the NL average than his 2003 ERA was versus the AL average.

Ortiz was plenty bad before he came to the Reds and was equally as bad when he got here. You obviously don't understand how to properly contextualize things. If you did, we wouldn't even need to have this conversation.


Milton had BY FAR worst year as a pro last year - almost 2 FULL RUNS above his ERAs of previous years.

Yeah, he also came in with a degenerative knee that will never heal while being one of the most extreme fly ball and HR pitchers in the game. You buy damaged goods that are below-average when they're healthy AND put them in a park not conducive to their propensities and you're just asking for Eric Milton's 2005 season.


Lidle fully capable of sub-5.00 ERAs but he notches 5.32 with Reds second worst of career

Had a whole season of 5.75 ERA ball the season before that and "bounced back" in 2005 to post exactly league average ERA numbers and below-average (the bad way) OPS Against numbers. Below average before the Reds got him. Below average when he was with the Reds. Below average after he left. Color me unimpressed.

Still waiting for you to tell us about all these great pitchers who joined the Reds over the past couple seasons who then suddenly and inexpicably tanked. So far all you've done is given us a list of pitchers (including Wilson whom you're now ignoring) who were bad before the Reds got their hands on them and who were then bad for the Reds.

rdiersin
11-10-2005, 02:48 PM
I'm pretty sure NOBODY would argue that Reds have anything close to strong pitching.

However, one point I am making is that whereas successful Reds teams of the mid-70s took 2nd/3rd tier "type" pitchers and got in most cases ABOVE PAR performances from them (relative to their careers). Our present day reds bring in 2nd/3rd tier "type" pitchers (particularly "starters") and routinely see them UNDER PERFORM. Three key off season acquisitions of the last 2 years Lidle, Milton, Ortiz are all examples of this.

And yes "paintmered" it relates to the question of whether to move fences back. Getting better pitching "performances" is the ultimate goal. If better "pitchers" can't be obtained as things are, well trying to make the park a bit more attractive to free agent pitchers might not hurt in helping to obtain them or perhaps help the performances of the ones already here...............

The problem is your reason for them under performing. You mentioned "team leadership". I have a hard time seeing that. Before this year, we had both Sean Casey and Barry Larkin. That is a pretty good leadership for a team. But, they still had horrible pitching. But maybe that doesn't help you and your crusade to blame all of the teams problems on Dunn, etc.

Your original post had more to do with blaming position players for the pitching than the pitchers themselves. That's a difficult argument, and I hope you can give a better answer, because so far it is completely lacking, IMO.

Blimpie
11-10-2005, 02:48 PM
And yes "paintmered" it relates to the question of whether to move fences back. Getting better pitching "performances" is the ultimate goal. If better "pitchers" can't be obtained as things are, well trying to make the park a bit more attractive to free agent pitchers might not hurt in helping to obtain them or perhaps help the performances of the ones already here...............I must be missing something. I assume that your position that "better pitchers can't be obtained" is due to the financial constraints of the team. If so, then who in blue blazes shall be responsible for the ridiculously costly refitting costs that you would recommend in order to "make the park a bit more attractive to free agent pitchers?"

My guess is that the citizens of Hamilton County just shot milk out of their collective noses, so that leaves....uhm...THE TEAM! Brilliant.

If the team had that kind of cabbage lying around, why then, wouldn't they use it to acquire pitching that could pitch in basically any type of environment? By the way, last time I checked, the Reds still play 81 games per year in parks not customized to suit our dreadful staff.

ochre
11-10-2005, 02:51 PM
Your argument requires that people agree with your premise. The one or two 'bad' pitchers on the BRM are not even close to the ineptitude that is the current Reds pitching situation. The Reds have 1 starter that *may* have made the rotation for the BRM. Even at that he would have been at best the 5th starter.

Milton has a degenerative knee. Using his performances from previous seasons is disingenuous.

Ortiz is on the downslope of his career. Using his statistics from '04 to say he pitched worse for the Reds, when his '03 and'04 numbers as a starter were just as bad, is disingenuous.

Saying Lidle has performed in other places requires a person to jump back to '02 when he was with the A's. Saying he pitched worse with the Reds than with the Blue Jays, and to some degree the Phillies (more than 10hits/9innings for the Jays, Reds and Phillies aside from the 10 games there at the end of '04) is disingenuous.

So again, the appearance here is that you made some off the cuff comments about the BRM that you thought were valid. These comments have been proven, through objective measures to be invalid, yet you continue to belabor the point, changing the target as your original premises are refuted.

BadFundamentals
11-10-2005, 03:17 PM
laughable ...... making any point to some of you that doesn't include what you all "believe" to be gospel is a waste of energy.

And then for some of you to make the leap about my point being "disingenuous" is ridiculous. Look in the mirror on that - some of the most "not candid; insincere, calculating" folks I've ever run into I've encountered on this board.

Facts are facts. I have my theories just like you. Just because you don't agree doesn't make them disingenuous or wrong.

It's not a crime by the way to just not post in thread. If you don't like discussing my theory why don't you let it be. Maybe someone else will or it will just get old and drift to the bottom.

ochre
11-10-2005, 03:20 PM
What exactly is you point again?

flyer85
11-10-2005, 03:26 PM
Ortiz had highest ERA of his career last year (of years with 100+ innings, 5 of those previous to last year).
Ortiz had an ERA of 5.31 in 430 IP as a starter in 2002-2004 for the Angels. Only the blind didn't see his 2005 coming.

Blimpie
11-10-2005, 03:50 PM
laughable ...... making any point to some of you that doesn't include what you all "believe" to be gospel is a waste of energy.

And then for some of you to make the leap about my point being "disingenuous" is ridiculous. Look in the mirror on that - some of the most "not candid; insincere, calculating" folks I've ever run into I've encountered on this board.

Facts are facts. I have my theories just like you. Just because you don't agree doesn't make them disingenuous or wrong.

It's not a crime by the way to just not post in thread. If you don't like discussing my theory why don't you let it be. Maybe someone else will or it will just get old and drift to the bottom.I am still wondering which entity will bear the economic burden within your plan to make GABP more attractive to free agent pitchers...and then where the money will come from to pursue said free agent pitchers.

SteelSD
11-10-2005, 03:56 PM
Facts are facts. I have my theories just like you. Just because you don't agree doesn't make them disingenuous or wrong.

Yes, facts are facts. The problem is that your theories have little-to-nothing to do with facts. If they did, you'd find that more people would agree with you and that you'd be wrong less. Instead, you continue to position your unsubstantiated opinion as fact and then circle back on it when it suits you.

If you haven't figured it out yet, folks have noticed that all of your "theories" begin and end with faulty premises. You're the king of circular logic.

And yes, when someone points out that a guy like Ramon Ortiz was a pile of poo for multiple seasons before joining the Reds, it IS disingenuous to continue to attempt to use him as someone who suddenly got worse when he donned a Reds uniform.

Milezinni
11-10-2005, 05:43 PM
The old adage is pitching AND defense win championships.....

Improve the defense and you improve the pitching.

And with the Reds, they both could use all the help they can get.

The Reds can't attract any big name FA's (remember Kenny Rogers?) because they would have to financially top the going market price, aka the highest bidder, and they can't even afford the going market price.

I don't know if anyone has noticed, but they haven't been able to attract ANY big name, top end starting pitchers for about 15 years now. And most realistically, they haven't attracted a "name" since Seaver.

Look at their history and star pitching just hasn't been an integral part of the Reds saga. A few exceptions though. And that is not about to change this off season.

I am more encouraged by a possible trade. Then, most pitchers, can't refuse to show up.

ochre
11-10-2005, 06:03 PM
The old adage is pitching AND defense win championships.....

Improve the defense and you improve the pitching.

And with the Reds, they both could use all the help they can get.

The Reds can't attract any big name FA's (remember Kenny Rogers?) because they would have to financially top the going market price, aka the highest bidder, and they can't even afford the going market price.

I don't know if anyone has noticed, but they haven't been able to attract ANY big name, top end starting pitchers for about 15 years now. And most realistically, they haven't attracted a "name" since Seaver.

Look at their history and star pitching just hasn't been an integral part of the Reds saga. A few exceptions though. And that is not about to change this off season.

I am more encouraged by a possible trade. Then, most pitchers, can't refuse to show up.
I assume by "attracted" you mean traded for? Rogers had a no-trade clause in his contract and turned down a trade. He was not a Free agent.

Seaver was acquired in a trade as well:

June 15, 1977: Traded by the New York Mets to the Cincinnati Reds for Pat Zachry, Doug Flynn, Steve Henderson, and Dan Norman.
So, by those modified conditions, the Reds have not "attracted" top pitching talent since Denny Neagle, or so? Sure. I'll buy that. Of course others might try to convince you that when they "attracted" Ortiz from LAAA they were acquiring the equivalent of top talent, but for the fact that Cincinnati has some mystical ability to make pitchers worse once they get there.

Heath
11-10-2005, 06:08 PM
Let's pause 10 seconds for station identification...all along the RedZone Radio Network........















Now back to the Original Question....should fences be moved back....or not...Vote Now! :thumbup:

Milezinni
11-10-2005, 06:08 PM
No, my point was that the Reds are not attractive to the top tier pitchers, whether it's via FA or trade.
Rogers was just as obvious example I knew most people would remember.

And Neagle, if I remember correctly, was coming off some kind of injury when he signed here.

ochre
11-10-2005, 06:09 PM
No, my point was that the Reds are not attractive to the top tier pitchers, whether it's via FA or trade.
Rogers was just as obvious example I knew most people would remember.

And Neagle, if I remember correctly, was coming off some kind of injury when he signed here.
he didn't sign here. We traded for him.

Chip R
11-10-2005, 07:03 PM
The old adage is pitching AND defense win championships.....

Improve the defense and you improve the pitching.

And with the Reds, they both could use all the help they can get.


That's true but only to a point. We could have the infield of the 99 Mets here and it would only improve the pitching so much. Unless this improved defense can catch all these balls that are going over the fence, it's not going to help enough.

Krusty
11-10-2005, 07:13 PM
I don't know how they can move the fences back at GAB.

wheels
11-10-2005, 11:34 PM
The old adage is pitching AND defense win championships.....

Improve the defense and you improve the pitching.

And with the Reds, they both could use all the help they can get.

The Reds can't attract any big name FA's (remember Kenny Rogers?) because they would have to financially top the going market price, aka the highest bidder, and they can't even afford the going market price.

I don't know if anyone has noticed, but they haven't been able to attract ANY big name, top end starting pitchers for about 15 years now. And most realistically, they haven't attracted a "name" since Seaver.

Look at their history and star pitching just hasn't been an integral part of the Reds saga. A few exceptions though. And that is not about to change this off season.

I am more encouraged by a possible trade. Then, most pitchers, can't refuse to show up.

John Smiley says hi.

BadFundamentals
11-11-2005, 07:01 AM
That's true but only to a point. We could have the infield of the 99 Mets here and it would only improve the pitching so much. Unless this improved defense can catch all these balls that are going over the fence, it's not going to help enough.
The rest of the free world recognizes that the human brain has two sides. Yes, we have the "left side" which in the free world processes things in a "linear, sequential, logical etc..etc..." manner. Then in the brains of the free world we have the "right brain" which is a place for less concrete, intuitive, abstract thought. Some how in the evolution of the redszone the poor right brains were overtaken. Evidently they were trampled by strikeouts, errant throws or poisoned by fancy formulas.

You young chip should put out an APB for your lost hemisphere.

RANDY IN INDY
11-11-2005, 09:36 AM
I don't know how they can move the fences back at GAB.

Anybody know the distance from home plate to the backstop? I don't think it is very far, but moving home plate backwards might be a possibility. Allowing more distance there would have been a logical move when building the ballpark, not knowing how it would play. It would have at least given them an option.

BadFundamentals
11-11-2005, 09:40 AM
Anybody know the distance from home plate to the backstop? I don't think it is very far, but moving home plate backwards might be a possibility. Allowing more distance there would have been a logical move when building the ballpark, not knowing how it would play. It would have at least given them an option.
You can also always raise the height. Combining extending distance a tad and making them higher could be very signicant change...

919191
11-11-2005, 09:58 AM
You can also always raise the height. Combining extending distance a tad and making them higher could be very signicant change...


You talking about raising the fences? Much of the area behind the fence are seating sections.

You would raise the entire outfield seating area? Seats and all? Think about that task.:thumbdown

wheels
11-11-2005, 10:08 AM
The rest of the free world recognizes that the human brain has two sides. Yes, we have the "left side" which in the free world processes things in a "linear, sequential, logical etc..etc..." manner. Then in the brains of the free world we have the "right brain" which is a place for less concrete, intuitive, abstract thought. Some how in the evolution of the redszone the poor right brains were overtaken. Evidently they were trampled by strikeouts, errant throws or poisoned by fancy formulas.

You young chip should put out an APB for your lost hemisphere.

That's pretty deep, man.:pimp:

Chip R
11-11-2005, 10:14 AM
The rest of the free world recognizes that the human brain has two sides. Yes, we have the "left side" which in the free world processes things in a "linear, sequential, logical etc..etc..." manner. Then in the brains of the free world we have the "right brain" which is a place for less concrete, intuitive, abstract thought. Some how in the evolution of the redszone the poor right brains were overtaken. Evidently they were trampled by strikeouts, errant throws or poisoned by fancy formulas.

You young chip should put out an APB for your lost hemisphere.

OK, smart guy, you tell me how an improved defense is going to keep Milton, et. al. from serving up home runs. If the Reds sign Rafael Furcal is he going to run out to left field and jump 20 feet in the air and catch the latest bomb Milton has served up? Is he going to put an extra yard on Milton's fastball? Oh, I know! He's going to bribe the opposing hitters with the money he receives from his new contract. Or maybe he'll talk to the Braves and convince them to not be so hard on poor Eric Milton.

BadFundamentals
11-11-2005, 11:36 AM
You talking about raising the fences? Much of the area behind the fence are seating sections.

You would raise the entire outfield seating area? Seats and all? Think about that task.:thumbdown
hmmmmm..... transparent fence? :thumbup: see hockey arenas?? :confused:

You think there is that little margin right now that 5-10 extra feet of height would significantly block vision? ...maybe so? hadn't thought about that......:confused:

M2
11-11-2005, 11:52 AM
What hemisphere of the brain is it that causes BF to think that a year of being wildly wrong about every take he's ventured has made him anything other than the resident court jester around here?

Blimpie
11-11-2005, 11:54 AM
hmmmmm..... transparent fence? :thumbup: see hockey arenas?? :confused:

You think there is that little margin right now that 5-10 extra feet of height would significantly block vision? ...maybe so? hadn't thought about that......:confused:Why not just put up an invisible force field? Those don't cost much do they?

For years, Reds fans wait patiently for a new "real ballpark" in Cincy. Natural grass, nice ambience, out of town scoreboard, fans close to the field, etc...But now--instead of efforting quality ML pitching--we should retrofit the park to look like the Metrodome?

zombie-a-go-go
11-11-2005, 12:06 PM
You think there is that little margin right now that 5-10 extra feet of height would significantly block vision? ...maybe so? hadn't thought about that......:confused:

That's a fact; I've sat in the first row of outfield seats before, and if you raise the wall even five feet you wouldn't be able to see anything at all. And I'm pretty tall.

westofyou
11-11-2005, 12:10 PM
When the White Sox built the first Comiskey Park their ace Ed Walsh helped lay out the dimensions for the field, opting for a large expansive OF and the place had a PF of 82 in its first year.

The Reds designed theirs by consulting Juniors swing.

As far as moving the fences back, installing delightful plexiglass barriers or moving HP back (which I think could only stand 5 feet) It's all a waste of time.

The GAB's park PF was 92 then 92 and this year a whopping 113, which also happened to be the year that the Reds led MLB in giving up doubles and home runs. Which also happened to be the year that the Reds had Ortiz and Milton on their staff, plus the fact that Paul Wilson's brief apperance was a mirror of Brian Reith's in 2001 (but for much more money)

Occams Razor much?

RFS62
11-11-2005, 12:31 PM
When the White Sox built the first Comiskey Park their ace Ed Walsh helped lay out the dimensions for the field, opting for a large expansive OF and the place had a PF of 82 in its first year.

The Reds designed theirs by consulting Juniors swing.



Exactly.

Junior came here with the promise of an 8 year march towards Aaron's home run record. He was supposed to provide the attendance bounce that Big Mac brought to St. Louis.

BadFundamentals
11-11-2005, 01:30 PM
That's a fact; I've sat in the first row of outfield seats before, and if you raise the wall even five feet you wouldn't be able to see anything at all. And I'm pretty tall.

I guess I was thinking more the center field wall where you have open space etc.......??

As for right/left fields, it might be the case (depending on the slant) that removing 3 rows in the front could buy you a fair amount of additional height and distance ?? Put the seats back in somewhere else...?

paintmered
11-11-2005, 01:41 PM
I guess I was thinking more the center field wall where you have open space etc.......??

As for right/left fields, it might be the case (depending on the slant) that removing 3 rows in the front could buy you a fair amount of additional height and distance ?? Put the seats back in somewhere else...?


But here's the problem. It's not that easy. Really. There's more to it than unscrewing the seats from the stadium. Concrete needs torn out, electrical conduit needs rerouting, etc.... And then there's that whole structural integrity thing. How is removing all that material going to affect the rest of the stadium? These kinds of things can't happen overnight and require many hours of engineering and skilled labor. The cost would easilly be a few million bucks.

Let's concentrate on finding some pitching instead. The whole idea (while not a bad one) just sounds like it's more trouble than it's worth.

Cyclone792
11-11-2005, 02:58 PM
I guess I was thinking more the center field wall where you have open space etc.......??

As for right/left fields, it might be the case (depending on the slant) that removing 3 rows in the front could buy you a fair amount of additional height and distance ?? Put the seats back in somewhere else...?

Structurally, the cost would be ridiculous, rendering it mostly a waste of time and precious money. I'm not even sure homeplate could be moved back more than perhaps a foot or so since the seats down the lines near the wall also cradle the foul line. Let's face it, the Reds built a bandbox of a ballpark and there's nothing we can really do about it now. In fact, the outfield is so small that it actually helps suppress run scoring because outfielders are able to catch up to many more balls than in more spacious outfields. Essentially, the effect on overall run scoring the high HR index contributes to is negated by a low park index for doubles and triples. The end result for overall runs is that the park is rather neutral.

Probably the most feasible way to alter the home run index at GABP is for somebody to conduct a massive wind study, and attempt to see that if any minor modifications at the top of the stadium could redirect the wind patterns. Of course, by saying most feasible that's not necessarily implying that that is even possible, either. Like any other suggestion, it's likely to cost way too much money to be worth it ... plus you wouldn't want to run the risk of creating another Candlestick effect by messing with the wind patterns.

919191
11-11-2005, 04:44 PM
I guess I was thinking more the center field wall where you have open space etc.......??

As for right/left fields, it might be the case (depending on the slant) that removing 3 rows in the front could buy you a fair amount of additional height and distance ?? Put the seats back in somewhere else...?

You are serious, aren't you?

Red Leader
11-11-2005, 04:54 PM
I guess I was thinking more the center field wall where you have open space etc.......??

As for right/left fields, it might be the case (depending on the slant) that removing 3 rows in the front could buy you a fair amount of additional height and distance ?? Put the seats back in somewhere else...?


Maybe they could move those seats and have seating on top of the "Plexiglass Monster", or move them on top of the batters eye and call it "Adam's Pad". ;)

MWM
11-11-2005, 05:11 PM
They could dig up the entire field and leave the walls where they are now making it a "pit" type of field. It would be similar to the Big House in Michigan.

Red Leader
11-11-2005, 05:18 PM
They could dig up the entire field and leave the walls where they are now making it a "pit" type of field. It would be similar to the Big House in Michigan.

Great idea, maybe the ball won't carry as well if we dig it about 70 feet below sea level. It could be the anti-Coors.

Maybe they'd consider naming it "The Underground Railroad" Ballpark since its next to the Underground Railroad Museum

Blimpie
11-11-2005, 05:30 PM
Great idea, maybe the ball won't carry as well if we dig it about 70 feet below sea level. It could be the anti-Coors.

Maybe they'd consider naming it "The Underground Railroad" Ballpark since its next to the Underground Railroad MuseumI'm all over those tickets on Harriet Tubman bobblehead night.;)

TheGARB
11-11-2005, 05:30 PM
Great idea, maybe the ball won't carry as well if we dig it about 70 feet below sea level. It could be the anti-Coors.

Maybe they'd consider naming it "The Underground Railroad" Ballpark since its next to the Underground Railroad Museum

Clearly the name would be "The Big Underground Railroad Park" or The BURP - where the wind is always blowing out.

westofyou
11-11-2005, 05:31 PM
I'm all over those tickets on Harriet Tubman bobblehead night.;)Everyone with a big beard and a bible gets in free on John Brown Night too.

RFS62
11-11-2005, 05:31 PM
I was thinking along the lines of taking out the right field bleachers and putting them on pontoons, letting them float on the Ohio river. Kind of a party barge effect.

KronoRed
11-11-2005, 05:33 PM
I was thinking along the lines of taking out the right field bleachers and putting them on pontoons, letting them float on the Ohio river. Kind of a party barge effect.
Outfield on waterskis!

Red Leader
11-11-2005, 05:34 PM
I was thinking along the lines of taking out the right field bleachers and putting them on pontoons, letting them float on the Ohio river. Kind of a party barge effect.


They should just take the whole OF seating out and put in those hovering dishes like they have at the Senate meetings in Star Wars.

Talk about plush luxury boxes. Nick Lachey would be all over that.

and marketing appeal for kids? They'd be all over their parent's to get seats there.

RFS62
11-11-2005, 05:38 PM
Really, you put those seats on pontoons or a barge, do a little rechanneling of the Ohio River, and you're golden.

All the room you need, baby.

TheGARB
11-11-2005, 05:39 PM
They should just take the whole OF seating out and put in those hovering dishes like they have at the Senate meetings in Star Wars.

Talk about plush luxury boxes. Nick Lachey would be all over that.

and marketing appeal for kids? They'd be all over their parent's to get seats there.

Could you get season tickets near the ET box? He'd be great for curing the post game hang over.

http://www.bashthemonkey.com/images/In_jokes/Ep_1.jpg

Red Leader
11-11-2005, 05:50 PM
Could you get season tickets near the ET box? He'd be great for curing the post game hang over.



You could, but they won't come cheap. Someone has to pay for the constuction, you know. Hey, maybe we can re-negotiate Milton's contract and put a clause in there about working construction as part of the contract.

Maybe if Wily Mo worked on the construction we could re-negotiate his contract and get him another option year.

Hey, this is a great idea!

Heath
11-11-2005, 05:53 PM
Everyone with a big beard and a bible gets in free on John Brown Night too.


One more comment like that from you mister, will get this thread sucked to the Peanut Gallery.....we don't need this to turn into a religious debate.....;) :evil:

MWM
11-11-2005, 06:30 PM
I'm all over those tickets on Harriet Tubman bobblehead night.;)

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

indyred
04-06-2006, 01:52 PM
Yes they should.....the Phillies just did it.....figuring it was a way to save money in the long run....not having to overpay pitchers to come there.....and being more attractive to them as well.......On epsn they said in the last 3 years GAP is #3 in home runs given up........only Texas and Chicago White Sox had more hit there....also GAP was #1 last season in HR allowed.....I think it would be smart to move them back some and raise the fences......pitching mindset overall in the whole organization would be better off....I'm sick of hearing about how GAB is such a home run haven.....with 9 hit 2 games already, there on pace to pass COORS FIELDS ALL TIME RECORD FOR A SEASON...... Don't get me wrong I love the long ball, just not so many.....

Blimpie
04-06-2006, 01:56 PM
How can so many people see fit to ignore the fact that the Ohio River (and the building codes pertaining to the stadium's floodwalls) might play a larger part in this scenario?

Fix the pitching. It's cheaper and quicker.

indyred
04-06-2006, 02:10 PM
Can't they just reconfigure the seating......there has got to be room to move stuff around in the outfield areas........I don't see how that would compromise the exterior of the park or flood walls. I could be wrong.......Of coarse better pitching would help some, but the label is firmly attatched to GAB of a HR haven.....I think the few million it would cost to reconstruct, would pay off in not overpaying pitchers....the Phillies seem to think............and that place hasn't given up as many as GAB

puca
04-06-2006, 02:16 PM
I've heard more than once that the hitters background in the GAB is the best in baseball. With the white background batters see the ball really well. I wonder how much a factor that is in how the GAB plays. I also wonder if it also partially explains Aurilia's home/road splits.'

westofyou
04-06-2006, 02:23 PM
In the 20's and 30's and 40's the Reds moved the fence in to create offense.

They haven't had pitching since.

pedro
04-06-2006, 02:29 PM
It's probably a lot harder (and expensive) to move the fences back from an engineering standpoint than most people think.

ochre
04-06-2006, 02:30 PM
The homerun situation at GABp is compounded/confounded by the respective states of their offense an pitching since they began playing games there. This one team with really bad pitching and a litany of homerun hitting, low picoFreel players plays half their games there.

ochre
04-06-2006, 02:31 PM
It's probably a lot harder (and expensive) to move the fences back from an engineering standpoint than most people think.
Perhaps we should ask the Corps of Engineers to build us a levee, or something.

Roy Tucker
04-06-2006, 02:52 PM
Maybe we could move the fences back and sign Alex Cole.

Hap
04-06-2006, 02:57 PM
Maybe we could move the fences back and sign Alex Cole.

:laugh:

Believe it or not, I completely get the reference. I remember the casual Indians fans being convinced by the PR machine that was going to make a difference. The trouble was, he couldn't hit.

westofyou
04-06-2006, 02:58 PM
Maybe we could move the fences back and sign Alex Cole.
Smokin Idea

http://www.ballcardz.com/images/colealex.jpg

Blimpie
04-06-2006, 04:27 PM
Can't they just reconfigure the seating......there has got to be room to move stuff around in the outfield areas........I don't see how that would compromise the exterior of the park or flood walls. I could be wrong.......Of coarse better pitching would help some, but the label is firmly attatched to GAB of a HR haven.....I think the few million it would cost to reconstruct, would pay off in not overpaying pitchers....the Phillies seem to think............and that place hasn't given up as many as GABNo offense, but you are starting to sound alot like my wife....

"...The little one is nice, but I REALLY like this big armoire! Can't we just, I dunno--MOVE this wall over? How hard is that really? We'll just need some spackle and paint, right? How much could that cost...$25-30???"

redsmetz
04-06-2006, 04:51 PM
I noticed a picture in USA Sports Weekly (I think) where they're raising the fence height in Philadelphia. The other question is, do we have any room for moving the fences back? Or would we have to move Home Plate in (and can that be done?).

joe

westofyou
04-06-2006, 04:57 PM
Or would we have to move Home Plate in (and can that be done?).

That's what they did at Crosley Field in 1926 and 1938, the field was border by city streets and the walls could not be adjusted (nor in the future could stands expand out, making the park more obsolete) I think in each instance it was moved 20 feet forward.

Howver moving the plate back would cause demolition of premium seating, so that won't happen.

Big Klu
04-06-2006, 05:36 PM
Perhaps we should ask the Corps of Engineers to build us a levee, or something.

When the levee breaks, we'll have no place to stay.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/87/LedZeppelin-Symbols.jpg

indyred
04-06-2006, 06:03 PM
I noticed a picture in USA Sports Weekly (I think) where they're raising the fence height in Philadelphia. The other question is, do we have any room for moving the fences back? Or would we have to move Home Plate in (and can that be done?).

joe

They talked about it on ESPN from Citizens Bank (Phillies Park) yesterday....they raised the fence in places and moved the fence back......the money they spent doing this..........will be balanced out when they don't have to overpay for pitching and can attract decent pitching.......it's not like outfield seats are big bucks anyways......I'm sure they could reconfigure the outfield quite a bit if they wanted at GAB......lots of places tinker with them.....didn't Detroit actually move them in when Juan gone was there.......

tripleaaaron
04-06-2006, 08:04 PM
It is difficult to compare now to then, with steroids, chick digging the longball more, and less of a concern for defense and small ball. The reds of the 70's had great defense, further home run walls, and a stand-up group of guys who new what it took to win, today we have a similar pitching staff, with alot worse defense(no names) and no confidence, they dont understand what it takes to win. Maybe with an ownership group who "will win at all-cost", and the right selection of players to bring in, then our pitching staff may get the added boost needed to their confidence to win ball-games. It's either that or move out the fences 50 feet, Im hoping for the first option and it looks like we may head in that direction

gilpdawg
04-07-2006, 12:32 AM
:laugh:

Believe it or not, I completely get the reference. I remember the casual Indians fans being convinced by the PR machine that was going to make a difference. The trouble was, he couldn't hit.
That totally just made me spit Mr. Pibb out my nose.:D I was , like 13 when that happened. I had that Cole card.

GridironGrace
04-07-2006, 01:12 AM
I say yes.

But it wont matter. Most the HR's in GAB are far enough that unless u move the walls to the River... more then likely its still gonna go out :)

indyred
04-12-2006, 02:39 PM
Is Marty B trying to push for the fences to be moved back........ I read in a game thread....he brought up the idea on the radio........Isn't most of the batting eye area in center field area, non seating areas.......you would think they could easily push back them fences.......they also really need to move right field back.........370 is way to shallow......that would be the only area some redsigning would be needed........I think left field is fine..........just push back the centerfield and right field area's as much as you can........