Citi Field fenceAs the wonderful MLB postseason continues to unfold, the Mets somehow find themselves in the headlines. Unless a Mets fan is living under a rock many have heard that the Mets have once again decided to move the fences in. The last time the Mets moved the fences in the idea made sense because the team was producing a dangerously low amount of home runs compounded by the pitching not being conducive to home runs either. Now the decision makes absolutely zero sense and the Mets will only suffer from this drastic decision.

In case someone needs a brief history lesson, the Mets were sluggers from 2006-2008, finishing at the top or the middle of the pack in home runs at home. Then the infamous stadium change in 2009 altered everything: the Mets finished at the bottom of the pack in home runs at home for the next three years (2009-2011). This caused Sandy Alderson and Co. to move in the fences by no more than a dozen feet. Unfortunately this did not change much as the Mets would go on to hit only a few more home runs at home each season.

For the past several years, the Mets have demonstrated that they are not a very good home run hitting team, with only Lucas Duda and Curtis Granderson surpassing the 20-home run plateau in 2014. This is not a surprise to anyone following the team or anyone involved in the front office. Due to the power outage, the Mets have decided that moving the fences in from right center would be a good idea; this is not the case. One could argue that these changes were made because the Mets are attempting to create a homer-friendly environment for the former slugger Granderson. Unfortunately this theory is flawed because Granderson showed that his body is still intact, which should mean that Granderson should be shooting for doubles and triples instead of home runs. Plus, Duda had no problem blasting 14 home runs out of Citi Field.

One thing that no one seems to discuss about the dimensions of Citi Field is how this will affect the Mets’ pitching. In fact, from 2012-2014 the Mets were always in the top 15 in the Majors in home runs allowed at home– and this was an era known for some pretty solid Mets’ pitching. Even though this data may be somewhat skewed from the ridiculous home run rates of Chris Young, Dillon Gee, and Jeremy Hefner, this cannot be taken lightly. Historically, pitching has been a priority for the Mets, dating back to the late 60s through the 80s. Exposing the pitching to even shorter fences could have a dramatic effect on the team’s record. While the Mets are currently lined up to field a top-five pitching staff in the National League, exposing Matt Harvey and Zack Wheeler to a brand new environment could be the downfall of the 2015 Mets.

Another question that everyone should be asking about this change is, why? Why do this right after the dark ages of modern-day Mets’ baseball? The answer is simple: It is just another extreme excuse made by the Wilpon family. Moving the fences closer, in their minds, will demonstrate why their teams have been failing all these years. I’m not typically a conspiracy theorist, but that clearly seems to be the reasoning behind the drastic change. From the finances to a jagged little elbow to the lack of power, the Mets are consistently making excuses, and it needs to stop.

In short, the Mets should not be fitting the park to their players, but should rather be finding players that fit their park. The Metropolitans should be playing Kansas City baseball with a twist: good pitching, great base running, doubles, triples, and defense, with the added power of a 30-home run bat.

10 comments on “The argument against the Mets moving in the fences again

  • Joe Vasile

    Don’t be ridiculous, Julian. This change wasn’t made for any one player to hit more home runs. After all, the Mets are still going to play at Citi Field after Granderson and Wright are gone. The changes are being made to make the ballpark play more fair. You can crush a ball 395 feet to right center right now and it is an out. Is that a fair dimension? Or when the park first opened when you had to hit it 408 feet far and 20 feet high to hit a HR to center? Of course not. For the first years of this park, it has favored pitchers incredibly, and it’s time to even the playing field and make it neutral, and that’s what the changes are about.

    • Brian Joura

      If the changes would have resulted in 10 extra homers for the visitors last year and five more for the Mets, would they still be pursuing the same “make it neutral” strategy?

  • Chris F

    This is entirely about making more HR for Wright and Grandy, possibly Duda. I think it is mostly flawed, but Im happy to make one adjustment: The Mo’s Zone is preposterous. Always was. I take the RF fence and just draw a straight line right across it. If they wanted a little more ground, they could dray the line a little further into right center, even up to the first break after dead center. Would it subtract a lot of ground? not really. Might it help the psyche some? sure. When Duda or Grandy tangle with the ball, its mostly gone…I mean g-o-n-e gone. Will this catch a few long fly outs for HRs, sure. THe other thing is that Alderson is misguided into the whole “chicks dig the long ball” mantra. He is trying to drum up some attendance, but its misguided…wins will bring in the people, not a few stray HRs.

    This team is all in on pitching. There can be no doubt. As Julian rightly points out, now we should be fitting the team to match our rotation and a slightly more defensive park. We have an outstanding center fielder that will rob runs, and hurting that is a bad thing. I dont think changing the fences is that big a deal in the end in terms of a project or dollars. But it does seem short sighted to steal from one strength to bolster another…

    By the way, very useful links to both stadium dimensions and where people hit in every stadium are below.

    http://www.hittrackeronline.com/ballpark_overlay.php

    http://katron.org/projects/baseball/hit-location/

    • Metsense

      well put Chris F

  • Raff

    The Mets were actually in the middle of the pack, and their home and away splits on HR’s were not that drastic- 59/66. A normal year from Wright, alone, would have put them in the top 1/2 dozen teams in the NL. Additionally, they were right near the top in doubles. Surprisingly their home/away splits skewed to an advantage on the road- 130/145. In short- I don’t think the dimensions are much of an issue. The park still plays “big”, no doubt. Perhaps management is thinking, strategically, about how a little tweak in the current dimensions might allow them a little more roster flexibility in the type of players they could put on the field. You really do need to have a strong defensive outfield with the current dimensions, even as they have been decreased from the original Citi-Field blueprint. There’s no place to hide a “stick” in that outfield, if that stick has limited defensive capabilities. The Mets BA, OBP, and, consequently their slugging Pct are where the offensive shortfall is taking place- Starting with a team BA of .239 A return to “normalcy” from Wright and an uptick from Grandy would really yield significant results- maybe 50 – 60 runs, alone. If we get a return to their norms, and we add a bat in LF, or elsewhere, 90 Wins is a real possibility.

  • pete

    Julian the problem is that the Wilpons Never considered the consequences their new ballpark dimensions would have on the Mets. They were only interested in building a monument to their past heroes (The Brooklyn Dodgers). Thus we have this nightmare of putting round pegs into square holes. I can only think of one word for this. Stupidity! Before we have seizures can we first wait and see how much the fences will be moved in? Citifield is never going to be like Citizens Bank Ballpark. But as usual for the Wilpons, too little too late. Oh and by the way how does changing the dimensions improve their financial woes? I would think that if fred and jeff announced the payroll for 2015 would be increased to 100 million that that would be more of an impact than moving the fences in.

    • Chris F

      funny, those pix from yesterday look like RC is coming way in if the trace in the dirt can be believed as the new wall position.

      • Chris F

        cancel that. i think i was viewing the pictures wrong.

  • Charlie Hangley

    If they wanted to “make it fair,” they would have moved home plate out, rather moving fences in. Yes, it would shorten the distances for homers, but it would also create more foul territory around the plate & a longer distance to the backstop — which at the moment is unusually short, according to Howie, Josh and GKR.

    Overall, I think moving the walls in is a mistake.

    • Chris F

      They cant do that Charlie because the foul poles are fixed and extremely costly reconfigure.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 100 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here