PDA

View Full Version : Can we (or should we) move the fences back at GABP?



Blitz Dorsey
08-23-2007, 11:17 PM
Honestly, I love almost everything about our (relatively) new park, with one HUGE exception: I think the outfield dimensions are an absolute joke. Most everyone else seems to feel the same way. We've all heard the Great American Small Park references and the hundreds of others.

I know the park is backed up right against the river and the basketball arena right next door. But is there any room to move the fences back just a little bit to make it more legit? I hate knowing that others think we play in a joke of a ballpark. We are the Cincinnati Reds with as much tradition as anyone and we shouldn't be settling for park with high school (middle school?) dimensions. I can't believe the people who constructed the stadium allowed this to happen. They should have went with the exact same dimensions of Riverfront -- and they at least thought of it because they went with 404 in straight away center. But the lines and power alleys are too short. Very, very dumb and I hope something can be done about it.

George Anderson
08-23-2007, 11:20 PM
The fences can be moved for sure, the question is who is going to pay for it??

Being in construction, I can tell you it will cost lots and lots of money!!!

fearofpopvol1
08-23-2007, 11:27 PM
There was a question about this on reds.com in the mailbag I believe last year or earlier this year and the beatwriter seemed pretty confident that there was no way it would ever happen.

I don't know if it's true, but I had heard they made the fences so close so that Griffey could hit more HRs. If that is true, that is absolutely ridiculous. That ballpark will be here very long after Griffey's career is over.

remdog
08-23-2007, 11:34 PM
Personally, I'd like to see the fences moved out some but, between the cost of the construction and the loss of the seats, I'd be really surprised if it happened. (famous shrug)

BTW, everytime I watch a game on EI and they show a shot of a left-hand batter (from about what would be the on-deck circle) GAB looks like a minor league park with the low bleachers in right field and no upper deck. Since I've never been there, I'd like to get some input from those that have been.

Rem

Cyclone792
08-23-2007, 11:44 PM
The only way the fences could be moved back is if the Reds wiped out some of the lower rows in either the moon deck or the left field terrace. Not only would that be mighty costly, but that would wipe out some pretty popular seats (especially those in the moon deck).

Final verdict? Will never happen.


Personally, I'd like to see the fences moved out some but, between the cost of the construction and the loss of the seats, I'd be really surprised if it happened. (famous shrug)

BTW, everytime I watch a game on EI and they show a shot of a left-hand batter (from about what would be the on-deck circle) GAB looks like a minor league park with the low bleachers in right field and no upper deck. Since I've never been there, I'd like to get some input from those that have been.

Rem

The moon deck in right field is a superb place to sit. The deck is angled similar to that of an upper deck in that it's quite steep, but it's the only deck out there and starts immediately behind the wall. With the steep angle starting immediately behind the fence, the view of the park from those sections is fantastic (unless you're more than halfway up in section 144 since the stacks block the scoreboard).

The first dozen rows or so in the moon deck are some of the best seats in the park, IMO.

Reds1
08-23-2007, 11:51 PM
Chicks dig the long ball!

BoydsOfSummer
08-23-2007, 11:55 PM
Peter Gammons said, when asked on one of those talking head shows today, that GABP is the park that most "made him cry" when entering. Meaning that the park should have been way better in his view, what with the history and fandom of Reds baseball.

WVPacman
08-24-2007, 12:03 AM
I have always said it was way to little and I wish it was as big as Riverfront was b/c riverfront imo was perfect.The Brewers park is another park that I wish ours were more like.

If they would change it it would'nt hurt the batters at all b/c the ball would still carry well.

red-in-la
08-24-2007, 12:18 AM
Peter Gammons said, when asked on one of those talking head shows today, that GABP is the park that most "made him cry" when entering. Meaning that the park should have been way better in his view, what with the history and fandom of Reds baseball.

I guess he is crying a river when he walks into his beloved Fenway then. Thought is was a joke back in 1975.....until Bill Lee that is.

redsrule2500
08-24-2007, 12:25 AM
Peter Gammons said, when asked on one of those talking head shows today, that GABP is the park that most "made him cry" when entering. Meaning that the park should have been way better in his view, what with the history and fandom of Reds baseball.

It's Peter Gammons.

TeamBoone
08-24-2007, 01:15 AM
There was a question about this on reds.com in the mailbag I believe last year or earlier this year and the beatwriter seemed pretty confident that there was no way it would ever happen.

I don't know if it's true, but I had heard they made the fences so close so that Griffey could hit more HRs. If that is true, that is absolutely ridiculous. That ballpark will be here very long after Griffey's career is over.

I heard this too, though I never could quite follow the logic if that's true. Most of Jr's HRs go way further than just over that short porch.

KronoRed
08-24-2007, 01:43 AM
The fences should not be moved, it would be a tremendous waste of money, and it certainly wouldn't help, how bout we spend cash on better pitchers? :)

BCubb2003
08-24-2007, 02:25 AM
Is Adam Dunn the only player to hit a ball into another state?

(Not counting the proverbial homer that landed in a railcar heading out of town, that's been told about nearly every minor league field there's ever been.)

redsmetz
08-24-2007, 05:40 AM
Take a look at this site and look at some of the comparisons, both old and new. Except for right field, we compare with Crosley (40 feet difference on right field), but then check out right field in Fenway, they're at 302, compared to our 325. I think we all got used to the doughnut shaped bowl stadiums which seemed bigger, but actually GABP's dimensions do not differ much from Riverfront's: 330 - 404 - 330, with 375 in the gaps - GABP is 328 - 404 - 325, with 365 in the gaps.

Anyway here's the site: http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/Dimensions.html

I'd love to know what the aerodynamic phenomenon is going on down at GABP.

Ltlabner
08-24-2007, 06:44 AM
If you push the fences back it's only going to hurt the players that routienly squeek homers out to left field (or right field).

So you prevent the Scott Hatteburgs of the world from getting homers, while the Dunns, JR's, Howards and Texeria's of the world contine to launch bombs into the upper reaches of either field.

As Redsmetz pointed out the dimentions are simular to Riverfront and plenty of teams currently play in "small ballparks". I'd rather they invest the money needed to radically alter the stadium into better pitching than making a change that would only effect a minor portion of the home runs hit at GABP.

paintmered
08-24-2007, 06:44 AM
We could afford Johan Santana for three years for the cost of moving the fences back at GABP.

macro
08-24-2007, 08:34 AM
We had a lengthy discussion about this a couple of years ago. I don't have time to read it right now, but it might be interesting to see what people were saying then...

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40996

FWIW, the poll that went along with that thread was split 50/50.

RFS62
08-24-2007, 09:01 AM
One thing that always strikes me as odd is the idea that a smaller park helps a slugging team.

To me, it negates the advantage of having sluggers. It makes everyone a potential home run hitter.

The advantage of having guys who can hit it as far as Dunn does is minimized by bringing the fences in.

Same thing with swinging hard. The advantage of being big and strong isn't that you can swing hard and hit it 500 feet. It's that you can swing at 80% and hit it 425.

wheels
08-24-2007, 09:06 AM
We had a lengthy discussion about this a couple of years ago. I don't have time to read it right now, but it might be interesting to see what people were saying then...

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40996

FWIW, the poll that went along with that thread was split 50/50.

Yup. And for anyone not familiar with BadFundamentals, there is some EXCELLENT sparring going on in that thread.

It really is some of his "finest" work.

remdog
08-24-2007, 09:24 AM
There was a question about this on reds.com in the mailbag I believe last year or earlier this year and the beatwriter seemed pretty confident that there was no way it would ever happen.

I don't know if it's true, but I had heard they made the fences so close so that Griffey could hit more HRs. If that is true, that is absolutely ridiculous. That ballpark will be here very long after Griffey's career is over.

I think the ballpark was designed before Jr. ever came to the Reds so I doubt it was true.

Rem

Ltlabner
08-24-2007, 10:45 AM
We had a lengthy discussion about this a couple of years ago. I don't have time to read it right now, but it might be interesting to see what people were saying then...

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40996

FWIW, the poll that went along with that thread was split 50/50.

Wow...that's a read that is well worth the time. RFS's idea for floating seats in the river is my pick for "post most likely to make me wet my pants laughing" in the RZ awards this year.

Hoosier Red
08-24-2007, 10:52 AM
Take a look at this site and look at some of the comparisons, both old and new. Except for right field, we compare with Crosley (40 feet difference on right field), but then check out right field in Fenway, they're at 302, compared to our 325. I think we all got used to the doughnut shaped bowl stadiums which seemed bigger, but actually GABP's dimensions do not differ much from Riverfront's: 330 - 404 - 330, with 375 in the gaps - GABP is 328 - 404 - 325, with 365 in the gaps.

Anyway here's the site: http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/Dimensions.html

I'd love to know what the aerodynamic phenomenon is going on down at GABP.


I looked at this before and aside from the right field line. All the other fields are somewhere in the middle of every other major league stadium. The gaps aren't even on the short end if I remember correctly.

westofyou
08-24-2007, 10:57 AM
I think the ballpark was designed before Jr. ever came to the Reds so I doubt it was true.

Rem

May 11, 2000: The Reds and Hamilton County officials unveil the architectural model of what will become Great American Ball Park.

Yachtzee
08-24-2007, 11:02 AM
What are the park effects for having really awful pitching?

flyer85
08-24-2007, 11:05 AM
RF and RC are short, the rest of dimensions are fine. Better pitching is what is needed. I don't think the Reds or the county have any interest in coming up with the cash to tear down part of the sun/moon deck.

westofyou
08-24-2007, 11:28 AM
RF and RC are short, the rest of dimensions are fine. Better pitching is what is needed. I don't think the Reds or the county have any interested in coming up with the cash to tear down part of the sun/moon deck.

It's short in the gaps too, hence the lack of doubles and triples.

flyer85
08-24-2007, 11:31 AM
It's short in the gaps too, hence the lack of doubles and triples.
its 379 in LC and 370 in RC. The RC gap is the one that cuts down on the triples. It takes a really big LC field to produce many triples.

RF limits doubles as well. The Braves bounced a couple of the RF wall in the series and were held to singles.

westofyou
08-24-2007, 11:34 AM
its 379 in LC and 370 in RC. The RC gap is the one that cuts down on the triples. It takes a really big LC field to produce many triples.

RF limits doubles as well. The Braves bounced a couple of the RF wall in the series and were held to singles.

Rf Center kills doubles on the LH heavy Reds. AT&T park is 421 in RC, 51 feet more the GAB, that's a lot of room.

flyer85
08-24-2007, 11:38 AM
Rf Center kills doubles on the LH heavy Reds. ... and increases HRs. :thumbup:

Ltlabner
08-24-2007, 11:38 AM
What if they dig out underneath homeplate and lower the elevation by say 25 feet.

Then leave the back edge of the warning track at the same elevation so the entire feild slopes upwards from home plate to towards the wall.

Then dig a moat around second base.

See...totally easy problem to fix.

flyer85
08-24-2007, 11:39 AM
What if they dig out underneath homeplate and lower the elevation by say 25 feet. kind of like Gallagher's idea of a pitchers hole instead of a pitchers mound.

Yachtzee
08-24-2007, 11:40 AM
If they really wanted to move back the fences, they could always see what they could do about moving back home plate. Of course it might involve removing seats along the foul lines and less foul area.

Ltlabner
08-24-2007, 11:41 AM
Better yet, train Sam the Bald Eagle to fly around the outfield and pickoff home runs that qualify as "cheap shots" and let the total bombs pass. Then he can drop the ball into the waiting hands of youngsters who are looking for a souvineer.

That, or he can attack Gapper.

flyer85
08-24-2007, 11:43 AM
Better yet, train Sam the Bald Eagle to fly around the outfield and pickoff home runs that qualify as "cheap shots" and let the total bombs pass.or don't move back RF but put up a 30 foot plexiglass(so the fans could still see) monster to knock down the cheapies.

flyer85
08-24-2007, 11:45 AM
Better yet, train Sam the Bald Eagle to fly around the outfield and pickoff home runs that qualify as "cheap shots" and let the total bombs pass. Then he can drop the ball into the waiting hands of youngsters who are looking for a souvineer.
or just have the cheerleaders go topless and the guys in the ballpark wouldn't care about outfield dimensions.

Ltlabner
08-24-2007, 11:47 AM
In all serriousness, what's wrong with having a park that gives up more homers than others? In all the hoopla, it appears to get overlooked that the Reds benefit from this too. You really think Scott Hatteburg cranks out 16 homers in a larger park?

In my mind, the boost to the offesense is there for the advatage of both teams (should they build a team to avail themselves of the cheep homers). And while the home runs are far more noticable, few people seem to worry that the park suppresses triples and doubles.

It all get's back to the pitching folks. Fix that and all your worries about the walls will go away.

flyer85
08-24-2007, 11:51 AM
It all get's back to the pitching folks. Fix that and all your worries about the walls will go away.
being better than will always trump park size ... size doesn't matter. :D

Ltlabner
08-24-2007, 11:51 AM
or just have the cheerleaders go topless and the guys in the ballpark wouldn't care about outfield dimensions.

Now you are talking. Great spitballing session.

I was going to suggest they just pretend the walls are there ala Les Nessman.

But I'm going to scrap that in favor of your distraction tactics.

flyer85
08-24-2007, 11:53 AM
I was going to suggest they just pretend the walls are there ala Les Nessman.

But I'm going to scrap that in favor of your distraction tactics. ... no masking tape is needed. :beerme:

westofyou
08-24-2007, 11:59 AM
What if they dig out underneath homeplate and lower the elevation by say 25 feet.

Then leave the back edge of the warning track at the same elevation so the entire feild slopes upwards from home plate to towards the wall.

Then dig a moat around second base.

See...totally easy problem to fix.

At Crosley the moved Home Plate out and away from the backstop.

Twice.

Roy Tucker
08-24-2007, 11:59 AM
Take out the first few OF rows and let all those fans sit on the Big Red Sofa.

Or just raise the OF walls, keep the seats, put TV monitors on the back of them, and let those fans sitting there watch the game on TV.

Or build a new ballpark at Broadway Commons.

TOBTTReds
08-24-2007, 12:09 PM
LCF is ridiculously short. Here is a great way to measure.

Download/Go to Google Earth
Search Great American Ballpark
Zoom in til it fits the screen
Click tools in the top menu bar
Click Measure
Change "Miles" to "Feet"
Then click on home plate and drag the line to the LF corner - 325 ft...so it is accurate
Then drag it to LCF...360! Yikes. Short.

Caveat Emperor
08-24-2007, 01:20 PM
Peter Gammons said, when asked on one of those talking head shows today, that GABP is the park that most "made him cry" when entering. Meaning that the park should have been way better in his view, what with the history and fandom of Reds baseball.

I'd agree with him. The best word to describe GABP is "utilitarian." Its gotten better with the addition of the riverboat deck, but it still isn't anywhere near the kind of stadium I'd want for my home team -- especially compared to parks like Comerica and Oriole Park. GABP, to me, is neither a good place to watch a game or bad place to watch game, and I think that indicates everyone could've done a better job.

And I really don't see a great benefit to giving the Cincinnati Reds a great view of Kentucky from inside the park.

Just my .02.

flyer85
08-24-2007, 01:22 PM
GABP, to me, is neither a good place to watch a game or bad place to watch game, and I think that indicates everyone could've done a better job.They had less money to build GABP than they wanted after bulding PB stadium ... and it shows. It is OK but nothing special.

KronoRed
08-24-2007, 01:23 PM
And I really don't see a great benefit to giving the Cincinnati Reds a great view of Kentucky from inside the park.


It'll look better when they build up over there in the next few years.

Also, who else can have a homer land in another state? :D

TOBTTReds
08-24-2007, 01:28 PM
Also, who else can have a homer land in another state? :D

Not to rain on your parade, but I believe something like 1/5 of the Ohio river is still in Ohio. So it isn't like you touch water and you are automatically in Kentucky. I'm not sure about that, but I feel I have heard that before.

Roy Tucker
08-24-2007, 01:32 PM
Interesting ongoing articles at the Washington Post about their new ballpark. GABP is mentioned.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2007/08/a_warning_from_cleveland_how_b.html?nav=rss_blog
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2007/08/lessons_for_the_lerners_what_t.html

KronoRed
08-24-2007, 01:32 PM
Supposedly the state line is the low water line from 1793, so it doesn't have to go very far into the river

flyer85
08-24-2007, 01:34 PM
Supposedly the state line is the low water line from 1793, so it doesn't have to go very far into the river
1/5 would sound about right. Supposedly before the days of locks and dams you could almost walk across the river during the dry days of summer.

westofyou
08-24-2007, 01:45 PM
I'd agree with him. The best word to describe GABP is "utilitarian." Its gotten better with the addition of the riverboat deck, but it still isn't anywhere near the kind of stadium I'd want for my home team -- especially compared to parks like Comerica and Oriole Park. GABP, to me, is neither a good place to watch a game or bad place to watch game, and I think that indicates everyone could've done a better job.

And I really don't see a great benefit to giving the Cincinnati Reds a great view of Kentucky from inside the park.

Just my .02.


Personally I like it, it is a good place to watch a game, better then Safeco, Oakland and AT&T IMO, better the Wrigley and Turner Field too.

Cyclone792
08-24-2007, 02:19 PM
If they really wanted to move back the fences, they could always see what they could do about moving back home plate. Of course it might involve removing seats along the foul lines and less foul area.

I'd say there's room to move the plate back maybe two or three feet before they'd have to approach the issue of knocking seats out of the corners down the lines. Once it gets to the point of knocking part of the stadium's concrete foundation out, the costs go up exponentially, not to mention lost seats.

I'm not even necessarily sure moving the plate back would suppress offense anyway, because if the plate goes back, what small foul territory there is decreases even further. The playing field itself, fair and foul territory combined, is just very small. Part of the stadium's design was to put fans very close to the action on the field, and the side effect was less foul territory. This all further plays into helping transform the park into a hitter's park. Watch all those pop ups that land in the dugout, on top of the dugout, or in the first few rows as harmless foul balls in GABP, and in many other parks around baseball those are pop ups landing softly in the gloves of fielders. Instead, those hitters in GABP aren't yet out, and as we all know sometimes they eventually reach base in that PA instead of making an out.

RFS62
08-24-2007, 02:58 PM
Allow me to be of assistance.

It will never, ever happen.

Hope that clears things up.

Roy Tucker
08-24-2007, 03:42 PM
Perhaps they can make the first 2-3 rows of OF seats be in play. Outfielders would have to climb in the stands and fight the fans for the ball.

I think that's a good idea.

(I agree with RFS, it ain't ever going to happen)

Chip R
08-24-2007, 03:47 PM
I seem to recall a game earlier this year when the Indians and Reds played a 1-0 game that lasted 12 innings. No freak weather conditions, it was a beautiful Sunday afternoon and just a gentle breeze was blowing. Matter of fact I don't recall a ball being hit to the warning track in that game. Of course the main reason why it was such a low scoring game is because of the starting pitchers. Sabathia and Harang. C.C. went 9 and Aaron went 8. You want lower scoring games in GAB? Get better pitching.

Blitz Dorsey
08-25-2007, 10:54 AM
I don't understand the "it would take too many seats away" argument. There might not be as many seats as close to the field as there are now, but they could just add more rows to the top of the sun/moon deck to compensate for the lost seats when moving the fences back.

Blitz Dorsey
08-25-2007, 11:10 AM
Allow me to be of assistance.

It will never, ever happen.

Hope that clears things up.

There have been a few posts like this and while l enjoy your humor and respect your concise nature, let me ask you a question: How were the Philadelphia Phillies able to move the fences back at their park starting in the 2006 season? Are they a superior organization than our Reds? (enter jokes)...

The Phillies were in a very similar situation with everyone around baseball and most of their home fans thinking the new park was a joke. So they did something about it! The Reds can do the same, but like cutting corners in other areas, it won't surprise me if it doesn't happen. But it most certainly should happen. 360 to the gaps and 325 down the RF line is a JOKE for a Major League ballpark. Like many here I played high school ball many moons ago and most of the fields we played on had longer dimensions than that. That might not bother some, but it bothers me. I hate seeing someone hit a pop-out to RCF that carries into the stands for a HR. That's not baseball. It would be one thing if we had some unique dimensions that made it very deep in some areas (like LCF and CF or something) and short everywhere else. But to make it short all around makes us a laughingstock. I know some don't care about that, but I do. It wouldn't be that hard to fix, they could do it in a way where they could keep the same seating capacity and everyone could drink their Hudy Light in peace (OK, well maybe if we get about three good pitchers this offseason).

vaticanplum
08-25-2007, 11:18 AM
Personally I like it, it is a good place to watch a game, better then Safeco, Oakland and AT&T IMO, better the Wrigley and Turner Field too.

GABP is now one of my favorite places on earth to watch a ballgame. I didn't see it until last year, and I thought I would hate it. I love it. The view of Kentucky is genius in my opinion. Who cares if it's not the official "state" of the Cincinnati Reds? Cincinnati and northern Kentucky are intrinsically linked, whether people like it or not. And more importantly, the river is the reason this city (and, by extention, the ballclub) exists, and I actually find it poignant that it's what you see from the ballpark. And those hills of Kentucky that you see are quite underdeveloped for now, so it's quite an attractive view.

I think it was FCB who once mentioned the stand-up lights -- I love them too. Because of the way the ballpark faces, those lights go way up against a completely empty sky for the most part. I think that's really what I love about the park: it feels more wide open than any other park I've ever been in, hands down. And in a sense, this wide openness is conducive to the feel of all the homers too. Comerica feels wide open too, but you look up at skyscrapers. Very different.

DoogMinAmo
08-25-2007, 11:45 AM
There have been a few posts like this and while l enjoy your humor and respect your concise nature, let me ask you a question: How were the Philadelphia Phillies able to move the fences back at their park starting in the 2006 season? Are they a superior organization than our Reds? (enter jokes)...

The Phillies were in a very similar situation with everyone around baseball and most of their home fans thinking the new park was a joke. So they did something about it! The Reds can do the same, but like cutting corners in other areas, it won't surprise me if it doesn't happen. But it most certainly should happen. 360 to the gaps and 325 down the RF line is a JOKE for a Major League ballpark. Like many here I played high school ball many moons ago and most of the fields we played on had longer dimensions than that. That might not bother some, but it bothers me. I hate seeing someone hit a pop-out to RCF that carries into the stands for a HR. That's not baseball. It would be one thing if we had some unique dimensions that made it very deep in some areas (like LCF and CF or something) and short everywhere else. But to make it short all around makes us a laughingstock. I know some don't care about that, but I do. It wouldn't be that hard to fix, they could do it in a way where they could keep the same seating capacity and everyone could drink their Hudy Light in peace (OK, well maybe if we get about three good pitchers this offseason).

IIRC, the reason Philly was able to do it was the construction of the outfield stands was different than at GABP.

With Griffey here only 1.5 more years, maybe less, it may be foreseeable that the Reds would fork over the extra dough and try to push the stands back in 2010, but by then is it really worth it? Get good pitching, as many have already said, and the point is moot.

For those who want quirky dimensions, why not remove the lawn below the batters eye and make it extra deep to straight-away center? That would seem less cost prohibitive than removing seats.

KronoRed
08-25-2007, 01:31 PM
The view of Kentucky is genius in my opinion. Who cares if it's not the official "state" of the Cincinnati Reds? Cincinnati and northern Kentucky are intrinsically linked, whether people like it or not.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Blitz Dorsey
08-25-2007, 03:55 PM
IIRC, the reason Philly was able to do it was the construction of the outfield stands was different than at GABP.

With Griffey here only 1.5 more years, maybe less, it may be foreseeable that the Reds would fork over the extra dough and try to push the stands back in 2010, but by then is it really worth it? Get good pitching, as many have already said, and the point is moot.

For those who want quirky dimensions, why not remove the lawn below the batters eye and make it extra deep to straight-away center? That would seem less cost prohibitive than removing seats.

I agree with much of what you say, but I honestly don't like the "just sign some good pitchers" argument. Of course we want to sign some good pitchers. But even good pitchers give up pop-ups to deep RCF. In most parks, those are outs. At GABP, they're HRs. So, my point is get real pitchers and move the fences back.

And to be clear, I don't think moving the fences back would necessarily help or hurt the Reds win games. My point is that the oldest franchise in baseball and an organization dripping with tradition shouldn't have a park with absurd dimensions in the OF. Something can and should be done about it IMO.

pedro
08-25-2007, 04:06 PM
There have been a few posts like this and while l enjoy your humor and respect your concise nature, let me ask you a question: How were the Philadelphia Phillies able to move the fences back at their park starting in the 2006 season? Are they a superior organization than our Reds? (enter jokes)...

The Phillies were in a very similar situation with everyone around baseball and most of their home fans thinking the new park was a joke. So they did something about it! The Reds can do the same, but like cutting corners in other areas, it won't surprise me if it doesn't happen. But it most certainly should happen. 360 to the gaps and 325 down the RF line is a JOKE for a Major League ballpark. Like many here I played high school ball many moons ago and most of the fields we played on had longer dimensions than that. That might not bother some, but it bothers me. I hate seeing someone hit a pop-out to RCF that carries into the stands for a HR. That's not baseball. It would be one thing if we had some unique dimensions that made it very deep in some areas (like LCF and CF or something) and short everywhere else. But to make it short all around makes us a laughingstock. I know some don't care about that, but I do. It wouldn't be that hard to fix, they could do it in a way where they could keep the same seating capacity and everyone could drink their Hudy Light in peace (OK, well maybe if we get about three good pitchers this offseason).

Dimensions
Left-field line: 328 feet/12-foot wall
Left-field power alley: 379 feet/12-foot wall
Center field: 404 feet/8-foot wall
Right-field power alley: 370 feet/8-foot wall
Right-field line: 325 feet/8-foot wall

MWM
08-25-2007, 04:06 PM
I'd agree with him. The best word to describe GABP is "utilitarian." Its gotten better with the addition of the riverboat deck, but it still isn't anywhere near the kind of stadium I'd want for my home team -- especially compared to parks like Comerica and Oriole Park. GABP, to me, is neither a good place to watch a game or bad place to watch game, and I think that indicates everyone could've done a better job.

And I really don't see a great benefit to giving the Cincinnati Reds a great view of Kentucky from inside the park.

Just my .02.

Pretty much how I feel, although I disagree about watching. From a purely watchability standpoint, I think it's great. But the atmosphere is non-existent. It's neither good nor bad. It's just plain. There's nothing special about it. I think Comerica is the best of the new parks I've been to.

I love Safeco and Petco, but they are the opposite of the GABP, IMO. Both have great atmosphere and setting (especially Petco, it's a gorgeous park), but unless you're in the lower sections of the lower bowl, it feels like you're in the Red seats at Riverfront. You just feel so far from the action, that you feel like a distant spectator as opposed to really a part of the game like at GABP.

pedro
08-25-2007, 04:09 PM
Pretty much how I feel, although I disagree about watching. From a purely watchability standpoint, I think it's great. But the atmosphere is non-existent. It's neither good nor bad. It's just plain. There's nothing special about it. I think Comerica is the best of the new parks I've been to.

I love Safeco and Petco, but they are the opposite of the GABP, IMO. Both have great atmosphere and setting (especially Petco, it's a gorgeous park), but unless you're in the lower sections of the lower bowl, it feels like you're in the Red seats at Riverfront. You just feel so far from the action, that you feel like a distant spectator as opposed to really a part of the game like at GABP.


I didn't think Safeco was all that great. I think it's really overrated. I prefer Turner Field to Safeco myself.

westofyou
08-25-2007, 04:12 PM
My point is that the oldest franchise in baseball and an organization dripping with tradition shouldn't have a park with absurd dimensions in the OF. Something can and should be done about it IMO.

If they were the oldest franchise in baseball I might agree, but they're not.

Other than that, 1.26 HR's allowed at home and 1.04 on the road (per game) last year 1.44 to 1.18.

It's something they can live with with better pitching and it's something that will forever attract hitters to the franchise.

There have been way worse dimensions throughout the games history and there will probably be more, that's what makes the game so great, no uniform field rules, no generic example of the game.

It almost happened in the 50's with the smaller older parks and again in the 70's and 80's with the multi-use parks. I like the makeup myself, and while we are discussing history of the Reds it wouldn't be right to ignore that the franchise went to great lengths to insure HR's at Crosley in the 1950's, so having a park that creates runs now seems right on the mark.

westofyou
08-25-2007, 04:13 PM
I didn't think Safeco was all that great. I think it's really overrated. I prefer Turner Field to Safeco myself.

Safeco is too flat at the stands, the viewing of the game was not premium.

pedro
08-25-2007, 04:15 PM
Safeco is too flat at the stands, the viewing of the game was not premium.

I also thought too many of the lower level seats had overhang above them.

MWM
08-25-2007, 04:17 PM
I didn't think Safeco was all that great. I think it's really overrated. I prefer Turner Field to Safeco myself.

From the outside, it's terrible with all the scaffolding for the roof. But I think the ambiance is great. I think a lot of the appeal of the park to me was in the concourses and attractions. Safeco had a lot of gathering spots to hang out with friends and enjoy the game with a great view while you're not in your seat. They also had other cool places to sit down and chill with a group of people. I agree that watching the game from the seats there is very average. I hadn't thought much of it, but your post made me realize that a lof of what I liked about the park was more about non-game watching activities.

jojo
08-25-2007, 04:18 PM
One thing that always strikes me as odd is the idea that a smaller park helps a slugging team.

To me, it negates the advantage of having sluggers. It makes everyone a potential home run hitter.

The advantage of having guys who can hit it as far as Dunn does is minimized by bringing the fences in.

Same thing with swinging hard. The advantage of being big and strong isn't that you can swing hard and hit it 500 feet. It's that you can swing at 80% and hit it 425.

It's funny you posted this because I've joked the last few years that the Reds should move the fences in to negate the pitching advantage that several teams in their division have had.... Maybe 300ft to dead center?

:beerme:

pedro
08-25-2007, 04:22 PM
From the outside, it's terrible with all the scaffolding for the roof. But I think the ambiance is great. I think a lot of the appeal of the park to me was in the concourses and attractions. Safeco had a lot of gathering spots to hang out with friends and enjoy the game with a great view while you're not in your seat. They also had other cool places to sit down and chill with a group of people. I agree that watching the game from the seats there is very average. I hadn't thought much of it, but your post made me realize that a lof of what I liked about the park was more about non-game watching activities.

I agree that the amenities are top notch, the area around the park is pretty good, and the mariners museum is pretty cool. i really just didn't like it from a watching POV.

One of the reasons I like Turner Field so much is that it is good for watching the game and has a lot of places for people to congregate as well. Outside the stadium, well that suck, except for being able to get boiled peanuts.

I've never been to the GABP, but am looking forward to making the trip someday.

HumnHilghtFreel
08-25-2007, 04:34 PM
I don't know why people are worried about losing seats, it's not like they fill them all anyway. :evil:

In all seriousness though. I'd like to have more of a middling park, but it is what it is, so you have to adjust around what you have. So, to echo what many others have said, get better pitching.

Blitz Dorsey
08-25-2007, 06:07 PM
Dimensions
Left-field line: 328 feet/12-foot wall
Left-field power alley: 379 feet/12-foot wall
Center field: 404 feet/8-foot wall
Right-field power alley: 370 feet/8-foot wall
Right-field line: 325 feet/8-foot wall

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, those are bogus dimensions. It's actually 360 to one of the alleys and the Reds are lying about it just like the Red Sox lied about the Green Monster for years, saying it was 315 instead of 310 or 308 or whatever.

The fact that the Reds are putting up bogus dimensions kinda proves they know they're doing something wrong and need to cover it up. Like I said, this really isn't about them winning more games. Who knows if that would happen. But this is about the integrity of the game. We should not have a laughingstock of a ballpark. And it's very good in many areas. So why ruin it with high school dimensions?

Blitz Dorsey
08-25-2007, 06:12 PM
If they were the oldest franchise in baseball I might agree, but they're not.

Other than that, 1.26 HR's allowed at home and 1.04 on the road (per game) last year 1.44 to 1.18.

It's something they can live with with better pitching and it's something that will forever attract hitters to the franchise.

There have been way worse dimensions throughout the games history and there will probably be more, that's what makes the game so great, no uniform field rules, no generic example of the game.

It almost happened in the 50's with the smaller older parks and again in the 70's and 80's with the multi-use parks. I like the makeup myself, and while we are discussing history of the Reds it wouldn't be right to ignore that the franchise went to great lengths to insure HR's at Crosley in the 1950's, so having a park that creates runs now seems right on the mark.

Again, if GABP had some interesting quirks like some of the old ballparks you are referring to, I would completely agree. The difference is GABP is small all the way around. It's not really deep in center and then small everywhere else. Or really deep in LCF and CF and small everywhere else. It's just small all the way around and it's a joke. Places like Ebbets Field had to have short dimensions in certain parts of the outfield because they had to fit it into one city block. But to build a modern-day stadium with these OF dimensions is a joke.

pedro
08-25-2007, 06:15 PM
As was pointed out earlier in this thread, those are bogus dimensions. It's actually 360 to one of the alleys and the Reds are lying about it just like the Red Sox lied about the Green Monster for years, saying it was 315 instead of 310 or 308 or whatever.

The fact that the Reds are putting up bogus dimensions kinda proves they know they're doing something wrong and need to cover it up. Like I said, this really isn't about them winning more games. Who knows if that would happen. But this is about the integrity of the game. We should not have a laughingstock of a ballpark. And it's very good in many areas. So why ruin it with high school dimensions?

Google earth aside, I'm not sure I believe that it is that short. It's impossible to know if he is measuring the same point where the markers are in the power alley's.

westofyou
08-25-2007, 06:40 PM
http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/Diag/GreatAmericanBallpark.gif

Clems site (http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/GreatAmericanBallpark.html)has this rendering for those interested.

GullyFoyle
08-25-2007, 07:33 PM
Google earth aside, I'm not sure I believe that it is that short. It's impossible to know if he is measuring the same point where the markers are in the power alley's.

If you look at the snap shots that are linked to the google earth stadium shot (particularly the one behind home plate high in the stands) you can see the 370 marker slightly to the right of the last aisle before the stacks.... when measured with google earth I got 369.2... the second alley marking I got 379.7...

It looks like the public dimensions are correct to me...