New Mets Stadium (CitiField) - by HOK Sport [Archive] - Page 3

BrooklynLove

February 3rd, 2009, 10:58 PM

What, that Citi officials are trying to find a way out of the deal?

Read my post again.

When was it hunky dory? If a corporate culture can reward itself with $18 billion during its worst performance in recent memory, what sort of record merits no bonus?

Pssst. You call a trillion-dollar bailout of select industries a free-market?

Again, it's Citi that's trying to get out of the deal. They got into it for advertising, and now they want out because the advertising is turning negative. The only person harmed is Wilpon.

Ironic how you blame the government that was AWOL for years when all this was developing, and now you want them to disappear - of course, after they hand over a check with too many zeros in it.

This bailout won't accomplish anything until a corporate culture that never has a bad year and always rewards itself, is corrected.

Citi is not trying to get out of the deal b/c they think it's necessary, they're doing it due to politcal pressure - and they're not even really trying to get of the deal anyway.

What % of last year's bonus sum is the 18 bill? Did you take that large of a pay cut this year? Do you think that every front office role performs the same role? Prime brokerage and equity trading had killer numbers over the past few recent quarters - under your meritocracy they should be punished? What do you think the vast of majority of mortgage traders are doing right now? Hint - not collecting a bonus or a salary.

By the way, "bonus" is lump sum salary on Wall Street. Even the low paid back office employees make 50% of their yearly comp on average in a "bonus" and their job duties are not at all tied to the profitability of the firm. Should they take a 50% pay cut when they have zero involvement in risk taking?

You're missing my point re govt - I don't denounce the need for regulation - what I denounce is the timing. The markets need stimulus right now - this is an urgently needed item. The needed regulations are for the long term health as we rebuild again and are not going to do anything for the urgent problems we are facing at this immediate moment, nor has knee jerk reactionary regulation ever done more good than harm.

Anyway - just a general observation - main street did not dare stop the party when the money was flowing - they just sucked up all the credit they could get and spent, spent, spent; and now that the party has stopped it's all wall street's fault. fact is that it's everyone's fault b/c everyone was being piggish and now it's time for everyone to work together to fix the problems everyone caused instead of spewing the same old political BS, which accomplishes nothing for anyone except politicians.

ZippyTheChimp

February 3rd, 2009, 11:23 PM

Did you take that large of a pay cut this year?I had a better year than they did.

Prime brokerage and equity trading had killer numbers over the past few recent quarters - under your meritocracy they should be punished?Killer numbers! Oh boy, you really don't get it.

What do you think the vast of majority of mortgage traders are doing right now? Hint - not collecting a bonus or a salary.The "vast majority" of traders don't set corporate culture. In the already bloated 1980s, CEOs were paid at a rate 40 times the average worker. Today, it's 340 times. You really don't get it.

You're missing my point re govt - I don't denounce the need for regulation - what I denounce is the timing. The markets need stimulus right now - this is an urgently needed item. The needed regulations are for the long term health as we rebuild again and are not going to do anything for the urgent problems we are facing at this immediate moment, nor has knee jerk reactionary regulation ever done more good than harm.Sorry, I get confused when someone refers to all this as free-enterprise.

Just a bloated way of saying "hand over the money, and walk away." If not regulation now, when? Has recent corporate behavior given any indication that a lesson has been learned? You talk as if this entire mess is just something that happened, like a hurricane, and we have to deal with it. People made this happen.

Anyway - just a general observation - main street did not dare stop the party when the money was flowing - they just sucked up all the credit they could get and spent, spent, spent; and now that the party has stopped it's all wall street's fault.Main streeters aren't the professionals here, getting paid all that money to make intelligent decisions.

fact is that it's everyone's fault b/c everyone was being piggish and now it's time for everyone to work together to fix the problems everyone caused instead of spewing the same old political BS, which accomplishes nothing for anyone except politicians.Check the foreclosure rate, the unemployment rate, the pending municipal budget deficits. Main streeters are going to pay dearly for this; last time I checked, when Fuld joined the unemployment line, he took $400 million with him. Wait, excuse me, it was $300 million.

BrooklynLove

February 4th, 2009, 07:17 AM

I had a better year than they did.

Killer numbers! Oh boy, you really don't get it.

The "vast majority" of traders don't set corporate culture. In the already bloated 1980s, CEOs were paid at a rate 40 times the average worker. Today, it's 340 times. You really don't get it.

Sorry, I get confused when someone refers to all this as free-enterprise.

Just a bloated way of saying "hand over the money, and walk away." If not regulation now, when? Has recent corporate behavior given any indication that a lesson has been learned? You talk as if this entire mess is just something that happened, like a hurricane, and we have to deal with it. People made this happen.

Main streeters aren't the professionals here, getting paid all that money to make intelligent decisions.

Check the foreclosure rate, the unemployment rate, the pending municipal budget deficits. Main streeters are going to pay dearly for this; last time I checked, when Fuld joined the unemployment line, he took $400 million with him. Wait, excuse me, it was $300 million.

What don't I get? Your comments just follow the general theme of ok when it goes well not ok when it doesn't - it's always the big corporate's fault. The companies whose executive pay you critique over the past 20 years - what was the total return to an investor in those companies through the end of 2007? and how much did those CEOs make last year? your comment re fuld is completely ignorant - i'm not even going to address it. if you need to pick a whipping boy - choose stan o'neil or chuck prince.

lofter1

February 4th, 2009, 09:38 AM

Why did you so conveniently choose the end-date of 2007 for the "total return to the investor" as a way to judge the performance of all those financial folks :confused:

My stuff looked A-OK through 12.31.07.

Now ... fuhgeddaboutit :mad:

DMAG

February 4th, 2009, 12:45 PM

Almost gone....though, its going to take some speedy work to have this a parking lot by opening day. Not sure that is going to happen. (pics from 01/25/09)

Source wcbs880.com

http://imgsrv.wcbs880.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/200901/3810971.jpg

http://imgsrv.wcbs880.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/200901/3810972.jpg

http://imgsrv.wcbs880.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/200901/3810970.jpg

http://imgsrv.wcbs880.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/200901/3810973.jpg

http://imgsrv.wcbs880.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/200901/3810976.jpg

http://imgsrv.wcbs880.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/200901/3810974.jpg

http://imgsrv.wcbs880.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/200901/3810975.jpg

antinimby

February 4th, 2009, 12:46 PM

I don't think that spot will ever be a parking lot. Think they're planning on building the parking garage right there.

ZippyTheChimp

February 4th, 2009, 01:24 PM

What don't I get? Your comments just follow the general theme of ok when it goes well not ok when it doesn't - it's always the big corporate's fault.Where have I said that "it's ok when it goes well." I posted just the opposite. Don't call me ignorant if you can't read.

I can't help it if the "general theme" in this case is correct, and I happen to agree with it.

The companies whose executive pay you critique over the past 20 years - what was the total return to an investor in those companies through the end of 2007?This is the last time I'm going to say "you really don't get it." You're never going to get it.

your comment re fuld is completely ignorant - i'm not even going to address it. if you need to pick a whipping boy - choose stan o'neil or chuck prince. Go back and read my comment about Fuld. It wasn't about his role in the demise of Lehman; it was his attitude while testifying before Congress, when among other things, he corrected the committee chair about the size of his exit compensation.

ZippyTheChimp

February 4th, 2009, 01:26 PM

My stuff looked A-OK through 12.31.07.Almost as funny as "killer numbers."

BrooklynLove

February 4th, 2009, 01:33 PM

end of 2007 b/c the walls street CEOs that zippy loves to hate got zero bonuses in 2008.

why do you find killer numbers funny? prime brokerage and equity trading had among their best year ever in 2008? so in your incentive system, one of the only profitable areas in the bank should be punished for losses in another group? that strategy sounds like a winner to me.

ZippyTheChimp

February 4th, 2009, 01:39 PM

end of 2007 b/c the walls street CEOs that zippy loves to hate got zero bonuses in 2008.Show me evidence that I hate CEOs just because they're CEOs, and not just the ones that act like buttholes.

why do you find killer numbers funny?I said I wasn't going to use that phrase again. So you'll have to figure it out for yourself.

BrooklynLove

February 4th, 2009, 01:52 PM

BofA
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/01/ken_lewis_joins_team_no_bonus.html

JPM
http://uk.reuters.com/article/rbssFinancialServicesAndRealEstateNews/idUKN1943912820081219

Goldman
http://blogs.wsj.com/ceo-council/2008/11/17/blankfein-goldman-bonus-decision-wasn%E2%80%99t-political/

Morgan Stanley
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/08/morgan-stanley-chief-john_n_149379.html

Citi
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/no-bonuses-for-citis-top-bosses/downwardly-mobile/

UBS
http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/17112008/323/swiss-bank-ubs-scrap-chairman-s-bonus-2008.html

Credit Suisse
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE4BH5MT20081218

Deutsche Bank
http://www.twine.com/item/11jtmt6qd-4j/deutsche-bank-s-ackermann-to-forgo-2008-bonus-payout-update2

Barclays
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/3476002/Barclays-chief-to-forgo-bonus-as-board-says-back-us-or-sack-us.html

ZippyTheChimp

February 4th, 2009, 02:08 PM

Funny, but the only company listed that made the announcement today is the one we're talking about.

What's you're point? That they were goaded bu this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/us/politics/05pay.html?hp

Duh.

Of course, BL will think that this is the demise of the free-market. He still thinks the financial sector is operating as a free-market.

BrooklynLove

February 4th, 2009, 02:14 PM

My point is that you're pumping the same rhetoric that follows every breakdown in the financial markets and then dissipates once markets recover. Makes for good cathartic politics but does nothing for the recovery of markets.

ZippyTheChimp

February 4th, 2009, 02:19 PM

Instead of dismissing what I say as "pumping rhetoric," why don't you counter it.

Your free-market remark seems to have gone nowhere, or do you think this breakdown is like all others?

BrooklynLove

February 4th, 2009, 02:43 PM

I keep countering with more detail and you keep repeating the same generic rahrah. I don't have anymore endurance for you.

If my free market is so flawed then why does the US economy grow more than shrink?

ZippyTheChimp

February 4th, 2009, 02:56 PM

I'm getting tired of pointed out your errors in what I say, let alone what I think.

It's simple enough to find my statements. Nowhere did I offer an opinion on whether or not the free market is flawed. I countered your observation that limiting CEO pay and other controls was stripping the place of free markets by asking if you thought the present environment with huge bailouts of select industries was still a free market.

You never addressed the question, and instead twist it into me thinking that a free-market is flawed.

the same generic rahrahThe same bullshit I asked you not to do in my last post.

And you're out of endurance? Give me a break.

BrooklynLove

February 4th, 2009, 03:17 PM

a loan from the govt is nothing more than a loan until it becomes more than one. if it remains just a loan then free mkts aren't being stripped.

voiding the citi agreement would be by definition intefering with free markets - the freedom to contract.

ZippyTheChimp

February 4th, 2009, 03:23 PM

^
Nonsense.

In a free market, the companies would have been allowed to fail, as others have. There was even a debate as to whether or not the same protection should go to the auto industry.

Take this here.

Alonzo-ny

February 4th, 2009, 04:49 PM

Guys, PMs maybe? or a different thread?

BrooklynLove

February 4th, 2009, 08:26 PM

Hmmm. Can we get Obama to extend the 500k pay limit to Mets players?

DMAG

February 7th, 2009, 01:18 PM

Another update: 02/06/2009

Source: wcbs880.com (http://www.wcbs880.com/pages/3803516.php?)

http://imgsrv.wcbs880.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/200902/3849777.jpg

http://imgsrv.wcbs880.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/200902/3849775.jpg

http://imgsrv.wcbs880.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/200902/3849781.jpg

http://imgsrv.wcbs880.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/200902/3849783.jpg

http://imgsrv.wcbs880.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/200902/3849776.jpg

Citi:

http://imgsrv.wcbs880.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/200902/3849779.jpg

http://imgsrv.wcbs880.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/200902/3849778.jpg

http://imgsrv.wcbs880.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/200902/3849780.jpg

http://imgsrv.wcbs880.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/200902/3849785.jpg

http://imgsrv.wcbs880.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/200902/3849784.jpg

Kid's Wiffle ball field at Citi:

http://imgsrv.wcbs880.com/image/DbLiteGraphic/200902/3849782.jpg

Jasonik

February 19th, 2009, 01:36 PM

A nice photo here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/krissatin/3286670740/in/set-72157601135581361/) of the crisp new stadium by Kristin&Joe (http://www.flickr.com/photos/krissatin/) from February 8, 2009.

antinimby

February 21st, 2009, 06:59 AM

The Final Goodbye: Shea Rests in Pieces

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/02/18/sports/baseball/18shea-600.jpg
The last piece of Shea Stadium was brought down on Wednesday morning in Flushing, Queens.

By JOSHUA ROBINSON
Published: February 18, 2009 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/sports/baseball/19shea.html)

Shea Stadium, the site of the Mets’ two World Series victories, their many seasons of futility and a few historic concerts, met the fate of Ebbets Field and the Polo Grounds on Wednesday morning. At 11:21 a.m., a demolition crew pulled down the final section, and what remained of the old blue stadium was gone in a cloud of dust: the final collapse at Shea. It was 45.

Besides several months of work by a wrecking crew, what killed the stadium was the need for a sprawling parking lot for the Mets’ gleaming new home, Citi Field. Shea is survived by a team that would prefer to forget its most recent memories of the place, two seasons that ended in mind-boggling failure.

From about 9 a.m. on, about three dozen fans gathered around the fences of the demolition site to pay their respects despite a bitter February chill and funereal gray skies over Queens. All they had to look at was the column of ramps that used to lead to the press gate towering over the piles of rubble.

Wearing Mets gear, many chronicled the proceedings on video cameras and cellphones. They cheered when the ramps suddenly pitched forward, as if bowing to Citi Field, and started a brief chant of “Let’s go, Mets” as the dust settled.

But a few treated it with far more solemnity. Tears were shed, and one fan even crossed himself as he walked away from the fence and into the arms of a loved one.

Word of Shea’s agony had spread over a few Mets blogs and even on Shea Stadium’s Wikipedia page. Peter McDonnell brought his 7-year-old son, Jason, and stood for about two hours to watch the 30 seconds it took for the last section to crumble. That moment was originally scheduled for Tuesday. The McDonnells, who attended the final game at Shea and have tickets for opening day at Citi Field, had been there for three hours then.

“It’s one last chance to say goodbye and let my son witness history,” McDonnell said. “Maybe someday he’ll bring his son to watch Citi Field being torn down.”

Joe DeAngelis, a construction worker who has been a Mets fan for 40 years, fought back tears as he stared at the pile of rubble. Even though he believed the stadium’s last moments were fairly anticlimactic — there were no explosions or wrecking balls as in some other stadium demolitions — they felt just as painful.

“It’s like watching a slow death,” DeAngelis said. “All we can do now is reminisce.”

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/02/18/sports/baseball/6.jpg

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

BrooklynLove

February 21st, 2009, 08:24 AM

CitiField looks great. I'm excited about catching some games there this year.

Radiohead

April 6th, 2009, 09:46 PM

From the Mets-Red Sox exhibition the other day.

(Pics from Baseball Fever contributors and Flickr).

http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee98/citi_field/072-3.jpg

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/1541/057a.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v722/thrill5one6/Mets%20Pre%20Season%20Workout%20April%205%202009/CitiFieldPreSeasonWorkoutApril52-50.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3592/3414773422_6c9816a737_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3299/3413467328_781d81e423_b.jpg

http://www.baseball-fever.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=66892&stc=1&d=1238885191

http://www.baseball-fever.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=66895&stc=1&d=1238885247

A totally different feel from any of the entrances at Shea.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3545/3413413598_ff4386df51_b.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v722/thrill5one6/Mets%20Pre%20Season%20Workout%20April%205%202009/CitiFieldPreSeasonWorkoutApril52-25.jpg

Where Shea once stood
http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee98/citi_field/027-5.jpg

ZippyTheChimp

April 6th, 2009, 09:58 PM

So that Bullpen Gate faces the Iron Triangle.

Smart move if they develop the area. By that time, the Cubs will probably have won a few World Series.

Well, maybe not.

Radiohead

April 6th, 2009, 10:15 PM

Looking at this pic, it's hard to believe the capacity is about 8000 less than Shea.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3325/3415105739_b3d77ca9d6_b.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v722/thrill5one6/Mets%20Pre%20Season%20Workout%20April%205%202009/CitiFieldPreSeasonWorkoutApril52-19.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v722/thrill5one6/Mets%20Pre%20Season%20Workout%20April%205%202009/CitiFieldPreSeasonWorkoutApril52-11.jpg

http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/johnql/CF%20Red%20Sox%204-4-09/IMG_5865.jpg

The Acela Club
http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/johnql/CF%20Red%20Sox%204-4-09/IMG_5861.jpg

http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/johnql/CF%20Red%20Sox%204-4-09/IMG_5840.jpg

http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/johnql/CF%20Red%20Sox%204-4-09/IMG_5841.jpg

The Delta Club
http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/johnql/CF%20Red%20Sox%204-4-09/IMG_5874.jpg

The Ebbets Club. With all the clubs, one is liable to forget about the club on the field.
http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/johnql/CF%20Red%20Sox%204-4-09/IMG_5874.jpg

That plexiglass has GOT to go. Is this a baseball or a hockey game?
http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/johnql/CF%20Red%20Sox%204-4-09/IMG_5881.jpg

Overall, it looks like a nice park. Hope to make it there and to the New Yankee Stadium this spring (once I take out a second mortgage to afford the seats)

Radiohead

April 6th, 2009, 10:27 PM

The circled area really needs to be fixed up. The multi colored storefronts & signage looks cheap. I wonder how long that whole strip has before it's demolished. I'll give it under 5 years. It's potential is being wasted in it's current form.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3337/3420198748_44ed13c98a_o.jpg

philvia

April 6th, 2009, 11:20 PM

the circled area really needs to be fixed up. The multi colored storefronts & signage looks cheap. I wonder how long that whole strip has before it's demolished. I'll give it under 5 years. It's potential is being wasted in it's current form.

willets pointtttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

ZippyTheChimp

April 6th, 2009, 11:50 PM

There's a thread (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4621&page=2) on the entire mess.

Radiohead

April 7th, 2009, 12:10 AM

Interesting. I've gotten off at the Willets Point Station many times and never realized that THIS (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/11/13/nyregion/willetspoint-480.jpg) was in the area. It looks more like the slums of Mexico City or Rio. I hate seeing long time business owners get forced out, but something needs to be done. You're right, what a mess, in more ways than one.

STT757

April 7th, 2009, 12:11 AM

The City should look to what's going on in the area surrounding the new National's stadium in Washington DC, My brother and I caught a Nationals game there last Summer and besides the beautiful new stadium they are totally rebuilding the surrounding neighborhood (Navy Yard). It used to be a rough area now it's totally undergoing a transformation anchored by the new ballpark.

http://www.halfstreet.com

BrooklynLove

April 11th, 2009, 10:03 PM

Stadiums are good. Cry babies are not good.

Ratner >> cry babies.

Brooklyn >> everything except Brooklyn.

TREPYE

April 16th, 2009, 02:59 PM

So far based on fans that have been to the first 2 games there seem some major defects in some very fundamental aspects of the stadium's desgin. The most glaring one is that in several seats there seems to be major blindspots of the outfield. This has to do with the less inclined (compared to Shea) layout of the upper tier has sectioned off the view of a major portion of the outfield. I have not seen this yet (I am going on May 8th to check this out) but many fans are calling up WFAN and blasting the sightlines of some of the upper level seats.

It seems like the Mets management traded off the view of the whole field to "closer to the field experience so that you can jut see the homeplate section better". Usually, I would like to see the whole field...

Has anybody been to CitiField yet and noticed this as well??

Alonzo-ny

April 16th, 2009, 05:00 PM

Thats fundamental, in a stadium every seat should see all of the field.

STT757

April 16th, 2009, 05:14 PM

All the calls to WFAN are complaining about the seats and obstructions, big problem.

BrooklynRider

April 16th, 2009, 05:30 PM

That is incredible. You buy a ticket; you expect to be able to see THE game - not a portion of the game.

Rather arrogant of the Mets and City to have approved this.

Alonzo-ny

April 16th, 2009, 05:32 PM

Greed and incompetence.

BrooklynRider

April 16th, 2009, 05:35 PM

Ah, then it's even more appropriate that the "Citi" name is on the stadium.

lofter1

April 16th, 2009, 05:52 PM

What is the cost for a single-game ticket in the obstructed-view seat area?

BrooklynRider

April 16th, 2009, 05:54 PM

One arm, two legs, and promise of your first-born child.

Not bad in 2009.

TREPYE

April 16th, 2009, 07:33 PM

See for yourselves, go the Mets Website and there is a link to the seating aroung the stadium and if you click on a certain section it shows what the view would look like form there.

Try sections 538-527 and Sections 501-503, you can kinda tell that you miss out on like 1/3rd of the right and left fields. :rolleyes:

STT757

April 16th, 2009, 09:08 PM

I really feel bad for the Mets, they can't catch a break. Their new stadium cost half of what the new Yankee stadium cost to build, of course it's not going to be as nice but it's a HUGE improvement over Shea which was downright depressing.

JCMAN320

April 16th, 2009, 09:18 PM

Also a big thing I hear is that it is a giant homage to the Dodgers and Ebbets Field because of the lack or complete absence of references to Mets history and pictures throughout the ballpark; while they're places in there named the Ebbets Club and Empire Club. I mean c'mon nothing devoted to the 69' and 86 Mets teams. What a joke!

http://www.metstoday.com/citi-field/2009/david-howard-answers-citi-field-complaints/

I mean if the Mets had an original thought it would die of lonliness. Their whole history is a bunch of "homages" to two teams that STILL exist. The colors, blue & white; Dodgers, orange & black; Giants; the Dodger blue cap with orange Giants "NY"; the home uniform template with the cursive script "Mets" based off the Dodgers home unis and the pinstripes from the Yankees; the away uniform template with gothic script "New York" based off the Giants away unis.

Shea was even original, while a dump, original. Now their stadium is a larger replica of Ebbets Field; fully equipped replica facade, shape, and a rotunda that pays homage to Jackie Robinson, while justified for his greatness and what he did for the game and society, NEVER played for them. Also the seats are green for the Polo Grounds and the over hang, while copied from Tiger Stadium, also existed in the Polo Grounds in left field and Ebbets Field in center field. So the most original thing the Mets can now claim are their orange Foul Poles, the Home Run Apple, and the skyline from the old scoreboard now on the Shake Shack.

It's nothing against the Mets I'm just of the school of thought that with all these new ballparks being built, each team should make it unique to suit their team's history. I mean the Astros copied the Green Monster scoreboard along with "Citgo" sign in left field at Minute Maid Park along with the Cleveland Indians at Progressive Field creating a "Little Green Monster" in left field and calling it just that. The Texas Rangers and Chicago White Sox all copied the Yankee Stadium freize just around the grandstand in exposed metal. Copying when it comes to baseball is not a form flattery to me, just shows lack of orginiality and reseach of teams's first historical ballparks.

ramvid01

April 17th, 2009, 01:09 AM

At least they have a Shake Shack. Yankee Stadium can't lay claim to that. :o

TREPYE

April 17th, 2009, 10:01 AM

The people who designed this stadium and this layout are really a bunch of a--holes :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:.

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/3752/20090416002.jpg

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/6897/20090416003.jpg

STT757

April 17th, 2009, 11:27 AM

Also a big thing I hear is that it is a giant homage to the Dodgers and Ebbets Field because of the lack or complete absence of references to Mets history and pictures throughout the ballpark;

Yeah that kept coming up on the FAN and Mad Dog radio on Sirius, no Mets colors in the ball park. No Mets historical items, plaques, statues etc.. Just lots of Jackie Robinson tributes which is nice and all but he did not play for the Mets, he played for the Dodgers who still exist.

ZippyTheChimp

April 17th, 2009, 11:57 AM

I've noticed that both the new Yankee Stadium and Citifield have discontinued the section numbering system that was used in the old Stadium and Shea - behind home plate was the zero point. Odd numbers progressed toward right field, even toward left. Once you became familiar with it, it was easy to visualize where the sections were, how far out they were. Section 15 down the first base line was similar to section 16 down third base. And you knew that sections 19 and 20 were further away from the infield.

Both are now using a clockwise from right field numbering system. Wonder why they did that? Research? The old way seems much more intuitive.

JCMAN320

April 17th, 2009, 06:05 PM

Zippy from what I understand, the new numbering system is what was used in the old ballparks before Yankee Stadium was renovated. Shea I can't speak on because I don't know, but Yankee Stadium, that is what I've heard, is back to it's original numbering system.

ZippyTheChimp

April 17th, 2009, 07:40 PM

Running foggy-memory filter....please wait, this may take a few minutes.

Nope. Learned early - odd-numbers meant first base side.

The 1923 stadium had sequential numbering starting in right field, but that layout only had 4 field level portals. There've been several renovations over the years. Numbering may have been changed in late 30s or 1946, but definitely before 1973.

Shea always ad odd-even numbering, and Dodger Stadium still does. Some of the cookie-cutters may have used it. I think it was unique to a few places. Fenway and Wrigley have sequential numbering, as do all the new parks.

JCMAN320

April 17th, 2009, 08:32 PM

Lol oh ok kool Zippy. Thx I didn't realize that.

JCMAN320

April 21st, 2009, 01:28 AM

Write on! Mets decide not to erase Doc Gooden's name at Citi Field

BY Peter Botte
DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITER
Updated Monday, April 20th 2009, 5:35 PM

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/04/21/alg_gooden.jpg
Cataffo/News
Former Mets ace Dwight Gooden doesn't understand why the team wants to remove his signature from the wall of a Citi Field restaurant.

Responding to a backlash from fans and the concerns of one of their former star players, the Mets announced Monday night that they will find an appropriate place for a section of wall that Dwight Gooden spontaneously autographed last week.

The star-crossed former Mets ace had acknowledged earlier in the day that he signed his name - with inscriptions depicting his status as the 1984 NL Rookie of the Year, the 1985 Cy Young Award winner and a 1986 World Series champion - on a blank wall near the bar inside the Ebbets Field Club.

The Mets, who have been criticized by fans and media for not paying much homage to the team's history at their new stadium, had informed Gooden on Sunday night that they planned to remove his signature by the time the team returns home on Friday.

Monday night, however, PR honcho Jay Horwitz said the wall will be removed from the club, preserved behind Plexiglass and moved to an undisclosed area at Citi Field that is more accessible to all fans. He added that the Mets plan to procure similar autographs from other popular ex-Mets such as Tom Seaver, Darryl Strawberry, Mike Piazza and Mookie Wilson and display them around the concourse.

"We've listened to our fans on this," Horwitz said. "The last thing we want is for them or Doc to be upset. We just didn't want everyone to think it was OK to start writing on walls all over the stadium."

Earlier in the day, Gooden couldn't understand why the Mets were so adamant about removing his signature, and openly wondered if it meant that the team didn't want him to hang around this season.

"One of the guys that worked there asked me to sign one of the walls, so I did it. It wasn't like I was walking around with a Sharpie in my pocket," Gooden said. "They asked me to sign the wall as a favor, as something for the fans to see."

Owner Fred Wilpon indicated last week that plans are in the works for a Mets Hall of Fame exhibit to be constructed near the outfield food court in the near future. But like many fans, Gooden wondered why that wasn't considered a priority for the opener.

"I think it's great that they're talking about doing it now, but I would've thought it would've been there already," said Gooden. "You'd think they'd want to connect to the '86 team as much as they can, and the '69 team, because those are the only times that they won (the World Series). ... I think the former players expect that. I think the fans want that. They want to share it with their kids. I know I want to share it with my kids, too."

Gooden, 44, returned to Shea for last September's closing ceremony after being away for years since his Mets career was derailed by substance abuse.

"Last year when I came to say goodbye to Shea, the ovation the fans gave me made me want to come around more, but when things like this happen, it makes me feel like maybe the Mets don't want me around," Gooden said. "Maybe I shouldn't be, I don't know."

Gooden, who plans to open the Doc Gooden Baseball Academy in Blauvelt, N.Y., in the fall, didn't return calls later Monday night after the Mets had reversed the decision to remove his autograph.

.................................................. .................................................. ...........
JCMAN Thought of the Night:

Are they serious? The Phillies, who have won two World Series in a 126 YEARS, have a Wall of Fame with Monument Park like plaques on the center field concourse devoted to those teams and great Phillies players ALONG with great Philly A's (now Oakland A's) players as well. They honor TWO teams. The Mets who have been around for 47 years with two World Series titles have nothing showing their Mets "pride", but they won't allow Doc Gooden, a pitching great, who actually played for them unlike Jackie, to autograph the park? C'mon!!

However they did manage to build a giant supersized replica of Ebbets Field with larger similar footprint, facade, rotunda, and quirky right field fence. Along with green Polo Grounds seats and over hang, just instead of left field, put it right field. When you look at the place on TV it looks like the Mets are playing in any ballpark USA.

One thing they can claim is that their park doesn't allow homeruns at a record pace unlike my favorite Bronx team. ;)

JCMAN320

April 22nd, 2009, 01:13 AM

Citi Field Asks Its First Phillies Fan to Leave
A Phillies jacket leads to an untimely exit from Citi Field's inaugural game.

By JOSH ALPER
Updated 4:09 AM EDT, Wed, Apr 1, 2009

Reed Frazier is a St. John's student majoring in Television and Film Production. He got a job working a camera for the school's athletic department which brought him to Citi Field for the stadium's opening game on Sunday when the Red Storm took on Georgetown.

Frazier is also a Phillies fan. So, when he was told to bring a rain-proof jacket to wear over his St. John's polo shirt, he grabbed one with a Phillies logo and set out to Citi Field. As you'd expect, he encountered Mets fans who gave him a hard time about wearing rival colors. What was less expected was that Frazier would eventually be forced to choose between his jacket and his job.

I returned my attention to my camera. Moments later, the head of the department rumbled up the platform and stood beside me. I looked to my side.

He said, “You have to take off your jacket.”

I replied, “In no way does it affect the job I am doing. It is a nonissue.”

He responded by saying, “It is an issue with the Mets. You can either put on the jacket or leave.”

“Then, I’m leaving.”

The whole thing is pretty absurd. If the Mets did ask for Frazier's change of attire and/or departure, then they're being extremely petty and will do nothing but create an untenable situation when the Phillies actually come to Queens during the season. Kicking out people in the other team's gear isn't going to go over well.

If it was just St. John's being overzealous in their attempt to be a good guest, that's just as silly but a bit more understandable. Still, it's one guy there to do a job and, by his telling, causing no discernable stir in the process. It's a jacket, there are bigger fish to fry in the world.

Frazier tells The700Level.com that he didn't wear the jacket to be provocative, but he wore a Phillies jacket to the first game at the new Mets stadium. It's his right, and he certainly should be allowed to wear it, but there was a reason for his clothing choice on Sunday morning. He got a good story out of it, at least, although he'll probably need to find another way to burnish his resume.

Josh Alper is a writer living in New York City and is a contributor to FanHouse.com and ProFootballTalk.com in addition to his duties for NBCNewYork.com.

Copyright NBC Local Media

lofter1

April 22nd, 2009, 10:54 AM

These ball clubs act like they're autonomous nation-states and can rule their little fiefdoms at will.

Truth is that the new Mets field is made possible only by tax payer dollars.

Get a grip, idiots. Show some respect.

TREPYE

July 3rd, 2009, 02:00 PM

Most Met Fans would not notice this but as an architectural enthusiast Mets Fan I could not help noticing the "value engeneering" that took place:

Commemorate this....
http://www.ebbets-field.com/TheEarlyYears/1913OpeningDay.jpg

http://www.ebbets-field.com/TheEarlyYears/1922Bedford.jpg

by proposing this...

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/04/02/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/mets450.jpg

And it ends up like this...

http://www1.dailynewspix.com/sales/sales_image.php?name=8920ck5k.jpg&id=138914&lb=-1&size=medium

http://s3.amazonaws.com/images.nachofoto.com/b-The-outside-of-Citi--479e92d00c01.jpeg

Now the arches were a pretty fundamental aspect of Ebbets Field. Is it that expensive to do brick layer into arches just like Ebbets had it?? At first I thoufght that they hadnt finished it and were still working on it but it is indeed the final product: brick arches halfway throught the facade.

I have been to the stadium and it has a vast majority of improvements over Shea in terms of amenities and individual seating experience (the blocked views or right and left fields from the outfield seating are indeed a problem). But out of all the corners being cut this one perturbed me the most because it seemed too fundamental to the commemorative design and I do not percieve it to be very exorbitant to execute (maybe Im wrong). I was like WTF, why cant they just do it till the end of the wall and make it look consistent?

Why do the Wilpons have to half-ass everything???:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

NYatKNIGHT

July 3rd, 2009, 07:57 PM

I hadn't noticed that. You're right, it does look value-engineered, the arches should go the full length.

dtolman

July 7th, 2009, 12:03 PM

I'm going to stick my neck out and say it. They did a good job, and should be commended.

Value engineering be damned. They deserve praise for getting it done. On time. Relatively on budget. It still resembles the original rendering. They even put the parking lot in on time. Think the Bronx is getting its parkland back soon? I got a feeling old Yankee stadium will be around for a while.

In this bold new age of getting 2 out of 4 WTC towers for the price of 8, or the never ending saga of the future generic box that will hold the Nets, just getting the original job done is a job well done.

This is the end of the era of Gilded Renderings - where even a half assed job that kinda resembles the original out of reach renderings is a minor miracle. Hell we even have a new Empty State Building - the future WTC 1, to give our era of excess an exclamation point.

ZippyTheChimp

July 7th, 2009, 12:34 PM

Have Met fans tossed the season; resorting to taking pot-shots at Yankee Stadium? :)

Citifield looks pretty good. Inside too, except they need more Mets stuff. The Dodgers don't play home games there.

Maybe Wilpon should take some of that value-engineered cash and get a left-handed bat.

BrooklynLove

July 12th, 2009, 09:00 PM

My first time to CitiField today - IMHO way more impressive than the new Yankee Stadium.

STT757

July 12th, 2009, 10:51 PM

My first time to CitiField today - IMHO way more impressive than the new Yankee Stadium.

Wow I actually agree with you, I've been to both the new ballparks and I prefer Citifield. The Shake Shack has great food, and the Shake Shack ale is wonderful. The new Yankee stadium was quiet when I was there, and they were playing the Red Sox. Citifield is more rowdy for good and bad.

sfenn1117

July 13th, 2009, 12:13 PM

I admit my opinion is heavily biased but Citi doesn't come close to the new Yankee Stadium. Yankee history is celebrated at the park. Its design is based off a beautiful original stadium, not some other team's from another borough. Every detail about the stadium was perfected in its construction- which is the reason for the admittedly high price tag. I'm all for an intimate crowd, but having 10,000+ more seats is going to make Yankee Stadium a much louder place come October. Citifield won't be hosting October baseball this season anyway. :p

Citifield is just another retro park in anytown usa. imo at least.

TREPYE

July 13th, 2009, 02:39 PM

I admit my opinion is heavily biased but...

Should have stopped reading right then and there as what was to follow was nothing but typical patented Yankee Fan chest thumping shennaningan trash. :rolleyes:

Hey sfenn, why dont you worry bout getting real Yankee fans, not dork corporate bigwigs in your precious little band box...

BrooklynLove

July 13th, 2009, 08:21 PM

JCMAN320

July 14th, 2009, 12:30 AM

Should have stopped reading right then and there as what was to follow was nothing but typical patented Yankee Fan chest thumping shennaningan trash. :rolleyes:

Hey sfenn, why dont you worry bout getting real Yankee fans, not dork corporate bigwigs in your precious little band box...

Don't get madd because your team is having their annual collapse two months early. I'll take a trademark short right field porch, beautiful stadium, and great homefield advantage over a vast archetype retro ballpark where everyone else can hit a homerun out of it except the team that calls it home. That new homerun apple ain't gettin much of a work out huh?

ih8samson

July 14th, 2009, 01:31 AM

Don't get madd because your team is having their annual collapse two months early. I'll take a trademark short right field porch, beautiful stadium, and great homefield advantage over a vast archetype retro ballpark where everyone else can hit a homerun out of it except the team that calls it home. That new homerun apple ain't gettin much of a work out huh?
How's that move to Newark working for the Devils? 23rd of 30 in attendance in the largest market in the US. Keep beating that drum.

BrooklynLove

July 14th, 2009, 07:38 AM

Trying to discuss stadiums here. If you need to debate the teams call the Mad Dog and scream out loud with the other retards.

TREPYE

July 14th, 2009, 09:57 AM

I'll take a trademark short right field porch, beautiful stadium, and great homefield advantage over a vast archetype retro ballpark

Um...isnt yankee stadium a "vast archetype retro ballpark"?:rolleyes:

Besides, if you guys wanna gloat over those cheap homers be my guest, I couldnt be happier with the dimesions at Citifield. One of the things that Jeff Wilpon got absolutely right with Citifield is the outfield dimensions. I look forward to the team building around the dimensions of the ball park with great outfielders fast runners and hopefully an increased incidence of inside the park homeruns which is ten times more exciting to watch and lasts that much longer than a gofer ball at Yankee Stadium, specially one that traveled 315 feet.

OmegaNYC

July 14th, 2009, 10:56 AM

As a Mets fan, I haven't been to Citi, yet. What am I waiting for!

From what I hear, it is very nice and a great place to watch a game. I even heard that from Yankee fans. :)

Though, Citi is killing David Wright.

ZippyTheChimp

July 14th, 2009, 11:49 AM

I heard the apple has rusted, and is stuck in the down position.

OmegaNYC

July 14th, 2009, 12:01 PM

I heard the apple has rusted, and is stuck in the down position.

Sounds more like the Mets, than the apple. :cool:

Ninjahedge

July 14th, 2009, 04:06 PM

Actually, from what I heard on teh news, it needs a few minutes (2.5) to recharge the hydraulics, so the other day when they got 2 in short order, it would not come back up again.

I actually like both parks, but I think Yankee got the dims wrong. There are just too many homers with that short field and the favorable wind.

Citi Field is good except for the logo!!! I am wondering how the prefab brickwork will weather, but I LOVE the interior rotunda truss.

I do not know if they should have put the whole office space INSIDE the stadium though (Right center), it kind of liimits the SF, but I liked the layout for the open circle above the entrance atrium and the upper deck plaza space.

I think HOK did a great job and the guys working there are very nice to work with......

JCMAN320

July 14th, 2009, 10:03 PM

Devils will do just find believe me. I've been to the Rock many times and everytime I've gone it was packed full!!

DMAG

July 15th, 2009, 10:03 AM

CitiField to host All-Star game in 2013.

TREPYE

July 27th, 2009, 05:10 PM

I cannot believe Minaya just did that. What an idiot!:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Monday, July 27, 2009
Mets fire executive Bernazard

ESPN.com news services

The New York Mets (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/clubhouse?team=nym) have fired vice president for player development Tony Bernazard, who has been implicated in recent outbursts involving the team's minor leaguers and closer Francisco Rodriguez (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=5357).

General manager Omar Minaya announce Bernazard's dismissal at a news conference Monday afternoon. The Mets had said they would investigate Bernazard's conduct last week.

http://sports.espn.go.com/photo/2009/0722/mlb_a_berzanard1_200.jpgMets executive Tony Bernazard reportedly challenged the club's Double-A team to fight him during a recent postgame tirade.

"It reflects upon my watch," Minaya said. "And I take full responsiblity."

Bernazard reportedly pulled off his shirt and challenged the Double-A Binghamton Mets in the tirade, about 10 days before the All-Star break. He in particular targeted middle infield prospect Jose Coronado, according to the report.

Minaya said he told Bernazard of his dismissal Monday morning after notifying Mets ownership of the move Sunday.

"It was tough, because nobody likes to be fired," Minaya said. "He was not happy."

Minaya's news conference took a bizarre turn when the GM said that the New York Daily News' Adam Rubin, who wrote the initial story about Bernazard's confrontation in Binghamton, had lobbied in the past to get a personnel job with the Mets.

Rubin told Minaya he was "despicable" for implying that Rubin wrote a story to get Bernazard fired so he could get his job.

The 52-year-old Bernazard had held the position since December 2004.

Bernazard has been fingered in the media as a key influence behind the firings last season of manager Willie Randolph and pitching coach Rick Peterson.

This year, Bernazard drew criticism because the Mets' farm system has been unable to supply players to replace injured stars such as center fielder Carlos Beltran (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=3971), first baseman Carlos Delgado (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=3020), pitcher John Maine (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=6041), shortstop Jose Reyes (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=5411) and setup man J.J. Putz (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=5640). The depleted Mets have nine players on the disabled list.

The New York Daily News reported last week that at a recent game at Citi Field, Bernazard, who wanted a seat behind home plate that was occupied by an Arizona Diamondbacks (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/clubhouse?team=ari) scout, unleashed a profanity-laced tirade against a subordinate who suggested he wait until the half-inning was over to take the seat.

Olney: Mets Face Exectutive Hurdle

The perception within the Mets that Tony Bernazard held more practical power than GM Omar Minaya is crucial, because it affects how others do their jobs, Buster Olney writes. Blog » (http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=4356797&name=olney_buster) http://assets.espn.go.com/i/in.gif

In addition, the New York Post reported that Bernazard and Rodriguez had a heated verbal confrontation last week, when the Mets were in Atlanta.

"Yeah . but I'm not going to talk about that,'' Rodriguez said Wednesday, according to the Post. "Not going to get into it."

Bernazard played 10 seasons for Montreal, the Chicago White Sox, Seattle, Cleveland and Detroit.

From 1992 until he joined the Mets, Bernazard was a special assistant to the executive director of the Major League Baseball Players Association.

[I]Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.

ZippyTheChimp

July 27th, 2009, 05:15 PM

I cannot believe Minaya just did that. What an idiot!:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:What , firing Bernazard?

sfenn1117

July 27th, 2009, 09:45 PM

The Minaya era is a disaster.

TREPYE

July 27th, 2009, 11:52 PM

What, firing Bernazard?

No, Captain Obvious, that was the logical thing that he did. For Minaya to insinuate that a reporter tried to get an excutive fired in a press conference was about the stupidest thing that he has done since.....firing Willie at 3 AM. This is actually worse, way worse because the reporter did the right thing and reported the facts about that knave Benazard; No need for assholes like that in an organization. Rubin did the organization a favor and should have been commended for it for exposing him. And boy, Omar sounds like a total incompetent talking when he is under pressure. And then to eat his own word a few hours later.........ugh, is he stupid.

TREPYE

August 23rd, 2009, 05:10 PM

Sunset over Citifield's Shake Shack.

http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss179/TREPYE/427727128_1485422735_0.jpg?t=1251061647

The Skyline replica should be on top of the scoreboard as it was at Shea.

TREPYE

September 5th, 2009, 06:31 PM

Updated: September 3, 2009, 7:21 PM ET
Report: Dimensions same for 2010

Comment (http://myespn.go.com/conversation/story?id=4441983) Email (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4441983#) Print (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=4441983&type=story) Share (javascript:void(0);)
ESPN.com news services

Sluggers hoping that the dimensions at cavernous Citi Field will be more home run friendly in 2010 reportedly are going to be disappointed.
The New York Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/2009/09/03/2009-09-03_mets_dont_intend_to_adjust_dimensions_or_wall_h eights_at_citi_field_for_2010_sea.html), citing an unnamed source, reported Thursday that New York Mets (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/clubhouse?team=nym) general manager Omar Minaya and manager Jerry Manuel recommended no changes be made to Citi Field's dimensions for next season, and the team's owners, the Wilpon family, will abide by that request.

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2009/0624/fantasy_e_sheaciti_300.jpg Greg Rybarczyk/Hit TrackerCiti Field's fences are deeper and taller than they were at Shea Stadium, except in right field.

According to the hittrackeronline.com (http://hittrackeronline.com/) Web site, Citi Field averages 1.67 home runs per game, putting it 11th out of the 16 National League stadiums. Shea Stadium averaged 2.15 home runs per game in 2008.
The Mets, although depleted by injury, are last in the majors with a paltry 77 home runs. Third baseman David Wright (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=6035), one of the few Mets players who has stayed relatively healthy this season, has just eight home runs (five at home). He averaged 29 per season from 2005 to 2008.
"I would say it's probably built the opposite than for me," Wright said, according to the Daily News. "I think one of my strengths is driving the ball to right field. I sometimes think I have to hit it twice to get it out there. It is what it is. It's not something I'm going to complain about or anybody else should complain about. It's the park and we have to adapt."
While Wright's old home -- Shea Stadium -- was 378 feet in right center, Citi Field ranges from 378 to 415 feet in that area.
Greg Rybarczyk, who runs the hittracker Web site, told the Daily News that Citi Field has deprived Wright of eight possible home runs.
Left center ranges from 364 to 384 feet, but also features a high wall that is 15 feet, 8½ inches tall.
"I don't even think they have to move the dimensions in," Mets right fielder Jeff Francoeur (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=6345) said, according to the Daily News. "In left field, it would be nice just to put a regular wall."
Francoeur said that Citi Field's deep dimensions also might be sapping the team's power on the road.
"Now you go on the road and you feel like, 'Shoot, I've got to get some home runs on the road,'" he said, according to the Daily News. "I wish we would have changed it, to be honest with you. I'm not saying we need to make it a hitters' park."
Manuel said that the Mets needed to see how Citi Field would play in its first season, and now they need to build a team whose style of play will fit their home park.
"We didn't know how the park would play," Manuel said, according to the Daily News. "It might look big but still could have possibly played small. Now that you see, you have to make a decision which way you're going. Are you going to try to go power, and not defense and speed and pitching?"

TREPYE

September 5th, 2009, 06:45 PM

They should not dare interrupt the wonderful nooks and cranies of right field! Homeruns should be earned by true power hitters not gimmicks by some mediocre hitter hitting em in a cheap park. :mad::rolleyes:

By not taking their power for granted it will encourage players to bust it out of of the gate instead of that stupid self glorification stare/jog they do when they hit it hard; a la Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa. And if they get the right type of player the Mets would lead the league in the thrill of an inside the park homerun.

The outfield dimensions in Citifield are wonderful as they are; in fact it has proved itself to be a homefield advantage. The Metsies with their dinky triple A lineup through most of the season have managed to have a winning home record through 67 home games; 35-32.:D;)

DarrylStrawberry

September 5th, 2009, 11:42 PM

Homeruns should be earned by true power hitters not gimmicks by some mediocre hitter hitting em in a cheap park.

darryl led the league with 39 in '88.

ZippyTheChimp

September 6th, 2009, 06:12 AM

The outfield dimensions in Citifield are wonderful as they are; in fact it has proved itself to be a homefield advantage. The Metsies with their dinky triple A lineup through most of the season have managed to have a winning home record through 67 home games; 35-32.:D;)The difference between good teams and bad teams is winning on the road.

Most teams have winning home records. In the NL, 12 of 16 are above .500 at home. Even the putrid Pirates and Padres, sitting in last place, have winning home records. If you only used home records, the standings would look very different. The Pirates would be 5 games behind the Phillies, not 26.

Mets have to win on the road.

JCMAN320

September 7th, 2009, 02:16 AM

Mets in 'foul' territory
By JAMES FANELLI

Last Updated: 10:45 AM, September 6, 2009
Posted: 2:28 AM, September 6, 2009

Meet the mess.

The Mets' new $850 million stadium is breaking down at about the same rate as its beleaguered lineup, the Post has learned.

Less than a season old, Citi Field has been plagued by water damage to several luxury suites -- including Jerry Seinfeld's -- as well as mold, falling signs and concrete, flooding in outfield seats, faulty electrical wiring and shoddy tile work, sources said.

"Yankees fans must have built the place," an insider scoffed.

"Sh- - -y Field -- that's what we call it."

Perhaps the biggest bungle is a water leak that sprang in early August, the source said, creating mold in Seinfeld's lavish suite and three others nearby.

The posh boxes rent for $250,000 to $500,000 a year.

The problem was so bad that repairmen were forced to tear down walls in the suites on Aug. 9 to search for the source of the leak while the Mets were on a seven-game road trip, a source said.

"I think Jerry's a Yankees fan now," a neighboring suite-holder joked of Seinfeld, who was not available for comment.

Sources said other problems have turned Mets maintenance crews into the team's real five-tool stars. Among the problems:

* A nonworking elevator last week that forced Mets owner Fred Wilpon to climb four flights to his office.

* An outfield section known as "Mo's Zone" flooding in a rainstorm three months ago because drains were clogged. The backup was caused by 20 feet of pipe collapsing in the bullpen.

* A 4-by-6-foot illuminated sign falling in the field-level promenade during an off day.

* Electricity in the kitchen above the ticket booths near the rotunda shorting out. One outage caused the refrigerators to fail and water to leak into the ticket booths.

* A piece of concrete breaking off; it's now sitting in a field crew's office.

* Air conditioning and heating in the maintenance crew's locker room that hasn't worked since Day 1.

* Improperly installed electrical outlets. There is only one socket in the team's laundry room, so a power strip is needed to plug in all the washing machines.

* A black granite capstone on the stadium's ground-level façade falling off. Yesterday, Mets workers were spotted fixing the broken tile.

* Soaked seats in another luxury suite caused by a leaky ceiling during a rainy Mets-Yankees game. Crews carrying buckets, mops and towels paraded into the suite all night to stem the tide.

Even before the 42,500-seat ballfield opened in April, there were signs of trouble. In January The Post spotted rust on a beam running down the wall of the front entrance.

Dave Howard, the Mets' executive vice president of business operations, acknowledged some of the problems, but called them minor and not unexpected.

"Any suggestion that Citi Field is less than an elite, world-class entertainment facility is flat-out inaccurate and unfounded," he said.

"When you open a building with 1.2 million square feet, you're going to have issues like this," he added. "Whether it's a leak or a circuit tripping, you have a punch list of items. There were thousands on the list, mostly minor things.

"That is a routine matter in a major building . . . Nothing on that list had any effect on the enjoyment of the fans and their experience."

A spokeswoman for Xerox, which rents the suite adjacent to Seinfeld's, said, "We've had absolutely no problems with our suite this season."

Howard confirmed luxury-suite leaks but said the walls were mold-resistant. He also said Wilpon's elevator had not failed but was momentarily unusable while technicians tested its backup generator. He denied that the air conditioning in the maintenance crew's locker room was on the fritz.

Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester), who criticized the city Industrial Development Agency over its deal to give the Mets and Yankees tax-free bonds to build new stadiums, said there should be an assessment of the stadium's condition now that the inaugural season is drawing to a close.

"Taxpayer money is going to build the stadiums for these wealthy private entities, and it's not clear that anyone is checking on anything," Brodsky said. "No one knows who's accountable."

The city and state issued $697 million in tax-free bonds to finance the construction of the throwback-style ballpark resembling Ebbets Field. Under the deal, the Mets pay off the bonds, but save on interest and taxes.

Contractor Hunt-Bovis built Citi Field over two years. Federal prosecutors are investigating whether Bovis overbilled for work performed at the stadium.

Additional reporting by Kathianne Boniello

james.fanelli@nypost.com

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/mets_in_foul_territory_Kv3ab9itte145lFGr1vyhL

JCMAN320

September 7th, 2009, 02:22 AM

Woeful team's park is worse than its bite
Mike Vaccaro

Last Updated: 10:45 AM, September 6, 2009
Posted: 2:29 AM, September 6, 2009

If only real life could be as simple as a kickball game or a stickball game, if only the Mets could employ the most basic of all Wiffle ball weapons, then maybe they could poke their heads out from this relentless nightmare of a 2009 season.

If only the Wilpons could stand up and scream: "Do-over!"

But there is no such elixir in the Mets' medicine cabinet. There is no way to press a rewind button, all the way back to April, and wipe out everything that has befallen them all across a cruel spring and a torturous summer, with a yawning autumn still to come.

It was bad enough that the Mets broke camp as a team composed mostly of strangers, forced by the World Baseball Classic to spend more time apart than together during spring training. It was bad enough that, once the season began, the Mets and basic fundamentals were barely on speaking terms: Bases were missed, fly balls dropped, ground balls flubbed.

Bad enough the team's disabled list started to get crowded early in the season and never emptied out, the Mets losing every one of their stars to time served on the disabled list, some for as little as two weeks, some for as much as four months and counting.

Bad enough that they've spent the summer swallowed by the shadow of the deep-pocketed Yankees, at the same time their own coffers were compromised by Bernie Madoff's deceit.

All of that, it turns out, is prelude.

Because if there was supposed to be one source of solace for the Mets, no matter what else befell them, it was going to be their ballpark, Citi Field, the bright new beacon by Flushing Bay, the $850 million replacement for outdated, outmoded Shea Stadium, the culmination of all the dreams Fred Wilpon brought to the Mets when he first bought into the team 30 years ago.

Only, from the start, Citi Field has been a lightning rod. Fans were furious that the place was bereft of Mets history. For a brand-new ballpark, there seemed to be an awful lot of seats with obstructed views. People have screamed about parking logistics.

And now comes the news that no homeowner wants to hear: that your brand-new dream house has a leaky basement and a drafty attic. For a brand-new building, there seem to be an awful lot of old-time issues: broken tiles, moldy walls and busted pipes.

"Yankee fans must have built this place," a source told The Post's James Fanelli, proof positive that if the 2009 Mets weren't already in an irrevocable death spiral, the elevator is certainly speeding downward. Assuming they're using one that works.

michael.vaccaro@nypost.com

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/woeful_team_park_is_worse_than_its_kAd2o78TxtiEzwG f22kFQN

ZippyTheChimp

September 9th, 2009, 03:00 PM

Such is the state of the Mets season, I came into 4 free tickets to tomorrow's game. Hope they have some motivation to drive a nail in the Marlins' slim wildcard chances.

I'll check out the construction problems (not too thoroughly). Don't know how a one-socket laundry room got by the building code.

DarrylStrawberry

September 10th, 2009, 09:39 PM

Mets Reward Streaker: Ban Him From Citi Field
Owes $3,000 in fines and gets banned from the ballpark

By JENNIFER MILLMAN

Updated 6:44 PM EDT, Thu, Sep 10, 2009

The man who made history by being the first to streak across Citi Field clad only in a striped animal thong has pleaded guilty to disrupting the Mets game against the Atlanta Braves back in May. And the Mets rewarded him -- sort of.

In an incident that was caught on tape and spread virally online, Craig Coakley took off his clothes and jumped onto the field naked except for the stuffed monkey wrapped around his waist. He took off from the first base side of the field and slid into second base before trying to make his escape through center field. He wasn't quite that lucky, however, as he stumbled and was dragged off by security.

Coakley today plead guilty to interfering with a professional sporting event -- a misdemeanor charge that cost him a $1,000 fine and $2,000 in civil penalties (payable to the New York Mets). He's also got to complete 20 days of community service and stay away from Citi Field for a year -- a move that may encourage more beleagured Mets fans to drop trou and run the bases.

In addition to the year-long ban, the Mets have issued a trespass notice to Coakley, which bars him from entering any of their playing venues indefinitely. Perhaps a better punishment would be to force him to attend all of the Mets remaining games.

At the time of his arrest, Coakley told police that he "didn’t think I was gonna get in so much trouble. It was a bet. My boss said he would pay me a week’s worth of salary if I did it and my lawyer told me it’s only a misdemeanor."

Sure, he'll go down in history, but was it worth it?

"The defendant’s antics have resulted in a criminal record, the paying of thousands of dollars in fines and civil penalties, and – perhaps the worse punishment for any true Mets fan – precludes him from ever again visiting Citi Field or any of the New York Mets other venues – such as KeySpan Park in Brooklyn or Tradition Field in Port St. Lucie, Florida,” said Queens District Attorney Richard Brown. “The Queens District Attorney’s Office and the New York Mets have zero tolerance for those who interfere with the play of America’s pastime."

lofter1

September 11th, 2009, 09:28 AM

LMFAO:

Coakley told police " ... my lawyer told me it’s only a misdemeanor."

Mr. Coakley: It's time to get new counsel.

TREPYE

September 11th, 2009, 12:41 PM

The difference between good teams and bad teams is winning on the road.

Mets have to win on the road.

Good point.

Based on your baseball experience do you think that the unusual dimensions of Citifield will serve as a home-field advantage for them?

I was at that garbage game last night too and all I can say is....thank god for beer or else it would have been a really depressing time. The crowd was [understandably] dead and the stadium had about as much buzz as a swatted fly. I tried to heckle my way into getting the crowd a lil more lively.... but to no avail.

It would have been nice for Parnell to have planted a 95mph'er right in Handley Ramirez's thigh, but, considering the itsibitsy character of this team....that was wishful thinking.:rolleyes:

ZippyTheChimp

September 13th, 2009, 06:24 PM

Based on your baseball experience do you think that the unusual dimensions of Citifield will serve as a home-field advantage for them?Yes, but all teams are designed around their home field, since half the games are played there.

You don't want to get one-dimensional.

The open concourses are a great design, especially if the game sucks. We had seats at the "Pepsi Porch," just on the foul side of the pole (which is too short). Only stayed in the seats until it was 4-0, which wasn't too long. Then walked around.

The pulled pork sandwiches at both stadiums are really good.

TREPYE

October 6th, 2009, 08:53 PM

This stadium glows gorgeously at night. If they had not skimped out on the beautiful brick arches by only going halfway down the stadiums sides the facade (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=289710&postcount=564)would have been pound for pound just as glorious as Yankee Stadium's limestone facade.

http://images2c.snapfish.com/232323232%7Ffp53666%3Enu%3D3285%3E935%3E558%3E2376 935649252ot1lsi

Although I must admit that while YS as a whole is better on the outside it does not have as an impressive/photogenic angle as the above one.

JCMAN320

December 14th, 2009, 10:48 PM

Mets expand club presence at Citi Field
Parts of stadium will be re-named for influential Mets

FLUSHING, N.Y. -- The New York Mets today announced plans to expand the presence of club history at Citi Field next season in a variety of ways including renaming areas of the ballpark after Casey Stengel, Gil Hodges, Tom Seaver and William A. Shea.
The Mets also have re-formed the Mets Hall of Fame Committee, and will increase the number of visuals commemorating great players and moments both inside and outside the ballpark. The Mets previously announced a 2010 opening of the Mets Hall of Fame & Museum at Citi Field.

RENAMING OF AREAS IN BALLPARK The Mets will rename and visually theme Citi Field's VIP entrances and outfield bridge after individuals who made an indelible mark on the club. First Base VIP will be named after Hodges to honor the manager who led the Mets to their first World Championship in 1969. Third Base VIP will honor Seaver, the Hall of Fame pitcher and Mets leader in wins, earned run average and strikeouts. Left Field VIP will be named after Stengel, the first manager in Mets history. The outfield bridge will be dedicated as Shea Bridge, honoring the legacy of the man who was the driving force to bring National League baseball back to New York after the departure of the Dodgers and Giants.

METS HALL OF FAME & MUSEUM & HALL OF FAME COMMITTEE The centerpiece for Mets memorabilia will be the Mets Hall of Fame & Museum, located adjacent to the Jackie Robinson Rotunda and accessible from both inside and outside the ballpark. A re-formed Mets Hall of Fame Committee will evaluate potential inductees, and is comprised of a combination of media members with a long-standing connection to the club and Mets front office staff.

Media members on the committee are: Marty Noble, the Mets.com beat writer who is entering his fifth decade covering the team; Gary Cohen, the New York native and voice of the Mets on SNY who has been a Mets broadcaster for 21 years; and Howie Rose, a Queens native and radio voice of the Mets on WFAN who has covered the team for 21 years on radio and television.

The Mets committee members are: Dave Howard, executive vice president, business operations who has been with the organization for 18 years; Jay Horwitz, vice president, media relations who just completed his 30th season with the team; Tina Mannix, senior director, marketing who has been with the Mets for nine years; and former Mets pitcher Al Jackson, a pitching consultant who is entering his sixth decade with the Mets. Chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon serves as ex-officio.

"The re-formation of the Mets Hall of Fame Committee is central to our concerted efforts to better connect our present and future to our past," said Wilpon. "It reinforces the organization's and our fans' shared desire to recognize our greatest players. With our 2010 opening of the Mets Hall of Fame & Museum at Citi Field, now was the time to bring this group together."

Candidates will be evaluated on their impact on the field while in a Mets uniform, how they represented and affected the organization and their place in Mets history.

The Mets Hall of Fame was established in 1981 with an inaugural class of Joan Payson, the first Mets owner, and Casey Stengel, the first Mets manager. The Mets Hall of Fame has 21 members including former players, managers, front-office executives and broadcasters. Tommie Agee was the last person inducted in 2002.

The following is the list of Hall of Fame members in order of the year they were inducted:

Joan Payson (1981); Casey Stengel (1981); Gil Hodges (1982); George M. Weiss (1982); William A. Shea (1983); Johnny Murphy (1983); Ralph Kiner (1984); Bob Murphy (1984); Lindsey Nelson (1984); Bud Harrelson (1986); Rusty Staub (1986); Tom Seaver (1988); Jerry Koosman (1989); Ed Kranepool (1990); Cleon Jones (1991); Jerry Grote (1992); Tug McGraw (1993); Mookie Wilson (1996); Keith Hernandez (1997); Gary Carter (2001); and Tommie Agee (2002).

The Mets will announce further details about the Mets Hall of Fame & Museum in the coming weeks.

IMAGERY & TEAM COLORS Next season, fans will be greeted by Mets colors as they approach Citi Field with full-color banners of Mets players on Mets Plaza in front of the Jackie Robinson Rotunda. Mets logos will be added on entry points to the parking areas and on the light poles in the parking lots. The addition of team colors will continue inside the ballpark with staircases painted with blue and orange and more Mets logos throughout the ballpark. Flowers in the gardens at Mets Plaza in front of the Jackie Robinson Rotunda will also be blue and orange.

"These additions amplify our commitment to better recognize our team's heritage and honor the players and memories our fans cherish," said Howard. "Ownership is acting upon our fans' desire to see more Mets around the ballpark. We hear our fans loud and clear and these additions continue the process that started last season."

TREPYE

March 1st, 2010, 11:40 PM

Red Rubber Ball (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy0ja70jz8E&feature=related)over Citifield...

http://images2c.snapfish.com/232323232%7Ffp53669%3Enu%3D4847%3E5%3B4%3E252%3EWS NRCG%3D32%3B2%3A25%3B65343nu0mrj
<sigh!>

The worst is over now, isn't it???

paul_houle

April 6th, 2010, 06:01 PM

http://images.ny-pictures.com/photo2/m/26689_m.jpg (http://ny-pictures.com/nyc/photo/picture/26689/night_outside_citi_ball_mets)

Picture of Citi Field (http://ny-pictures.com/nyc/photo/topic/2361/Citi_Field) thanks to terryballard (http://ny-pictures.com/nyc/photo/photographer/604679/terryballard) and New York Pictures (http://ny-pictures.com/nyc/photo/)

Derek2k3

May 18th, 2010, 10:23 PM

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2441/4544681743_2ecaa31429_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4545368454_57d1a8df54_b.jpg
INLINE6CHILLIN (http://www.flickr.com/photos/39971042@N02/4545368454/sizes/l/in/set-72157623914168458/)

TREPYE

March 14th, 2011, 12:25 PM

Sometimes cohersing your fan base to a pricing scheme that favors your unbridled economic outlook can back fire on you. If your fans cannot afford tix then you deplete your your younger fans who buy these cheap seats so that one day when they are older and have real jobs they can pay for more optimal seat in the lower bowl. Or the blue collar fellow can afford to take his two kids and wife to a game, and make his kids Mets fans as well.

This is such BS on behalf of the Mets, it really dismays me. Not only are they killing the whole idea of a walk up crowd but they are screwing the less financially fourtunate fans out of attending playoff games. Shortsighted and a horrible way to treat your fans.

You can rationalize a lot of unjust, unfair, morally reprehensible, screwed up and shallow, effed up things on the account of finances...it does not make it right. I doubt the Mets were going to go broke with ALL of those extra seats;they did pretty OK for some 40 somoe odd yrs at Shea. Here they were cutting corners only thinking about only having more expensive seats which is being shamelessly guised as more seats that give you "a more intimate and entertaining experience throughout the park".
http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/nym/ballpark/citifield_overview.jsp

March 9, 2011

Mets Had Money Trouble Before Lawsuit Was Filed

By RICHARD SANDOMIR (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/richard_sandomir/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and KEN BELSON (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/ken_belson/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

When the owners of the Mets (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/sports/baseball/majorleague/newyorkmets/index.html?inline=nyt-org) said in late January that they would seek buyers for up to 25 percent of the club, they cited “the air of uncertainty” created by the $1 billion lawsuit brought by Irving H. Picard (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/irving_h_picard/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the trustee representing the victims of Bernard L. Madoff (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/bernard_l_madoff/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s Ponzi scheme (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/frauds_and_swindling/ponzi_schemes/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier).
But a look at the team’s financial condition — gleaned from public financial documents and numerous interviews — suggests the team may well have needed the proceeds from selling part of the team regardless of the suit.
The reasons in many cases were the result of bad timing and unforeseen circumstances, including an economic downturn that coincided with the opening of the Mets’ new stadium in 2009 and a rash of player injuries (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/sports/baseball/07metnotes.html) that sank the team on the field and disillusioned fans.
For instance, revenue from about 10,600 club seats and suites and from advertising and concessions dedicated to paying off the Mets’ new $800 million home, Citi Field (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/citi_field/index.html?inline=nyt-org), fell tens of millions of dollars short of forecasts made just two months before the season began in 2009. That was followed by a nearly 20 percent decline in attendance in 2010 and a resulting slide in revenue that was compounded by an increase in stadium bond payments.
Fred Wilpon (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/fred_wilpon/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and Saul Katz (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/saul_katz/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the team’s owners, have not been able to tap into the lucrative accounts they held for decades with Madoff, money that Picard has accused them of having used to fuel day-to-day operations, a financing device that evaporated with Madoff’s arrest in 2008.
In the late summer, as the 2010 season wound down, those pressures moved the owners to quietly start canvassing friendly potential investors, according to people briefed on these discussions. Without any immediate takers and the team in need of cash, the Mets took the step of asking Major League Baseball for a $25 million loan. This was shortly before Picard filed suit and the true dimensions of his attempt to recover money from the team’s owners were fully understood by Wilpon and Katz.
In an interview this week, David Cohen, the chief counsel for the Mets, maintained that the size of the lawsuit was what really motivated the hunt for a partner, not any financial pressures. And while the Mets’ owners were looking for buyers in the days before Picard filed his suit on Dec. 7, going public with their search prompted more potential bidders to step forward.
“The decision to seek minority investors was not related to any intermittent fluctuations in revenue,” Cohen said. “You operate a baseball team, you expect the ticket sales to go up and down based on team performance.”
Announcing that the team was seeking investors was “deemed a more effective way to reach a broader number of interested investors.”
But when asked what the owners would do with the money they might make from a sale, Cohen said it would be put into running the team, not pay the owners dividends or be set aside for a possible settlement. “The purpose is to make a positive contribution to the team’s resources,” Cohen said.
When the Mets built Citi Field, mostly with tax-free bonds issued by New York City, they anticipated the new ballpark would generate considerably more revenue than Shea Stadium (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/shea_stadium/index.html?inline=nyt-org), which the team leased from the city.
In February 2009, two months before opening day, the team estimated in a financial disclosure document that Citi Field would generate $224 million — mainly from luxury boxes, parking, club seats and advertising — money that would be more than enough to cover their bond payments.
Yet the recession; ticket prices as high as $500, which alienated some longtime fans; and the Mets’ fourth-place finish caused revenue in 2009 to come in well short, at $180.4 million, according to audited team financial statements. The way sponsorships are booked accounted for about $7 million of the difference in revenue, but the gap was still large.
In the Bronx, the picture was brighter. Revenue dedicated by the Yankees (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/sports/baseball/majorleague/newyorkyankees/index.html?inline=nyt-org) to pay for their new stadium — which had more seats and higher prices than Citi Field — fell from $396.9 million in 2009, when they won the World Series, to $383.9 million in 2010, when they had three fewer home playoff games.
Though the figures for 2010 are not yet available, it seems improbable that things went appreciably better for the Mets. They cut ticket prices by as much as 20 percent for the 2010 season (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/sports/baseball/02tix.html?scp=1&sq=2009%20mets%20ticket%20prices&st=cse), particularly in the highest-priced seats that had been hard to fill, yet wound up drawing nearly 600,000 fewer fans.
For 2011, the team has already cut ticket prices another 14 percent.
At the same time that ticket sales were slipping last year, the Mets’ payments on their tax-free bonds more than doubled, to $43.7 million, from $19.1 million in 2009. Still more is due on $65 million in taxable bonds that had also been used to build the ballpark.
The Mets do have several other sources of revenue, including payments from SNY and nonpremium tickets. But if the Mets start the 2011 season poorly, problems could mount. Last year the Mets refinanced hundreds of millions of dollars in loans on the team and SNY, their cable network, and exhausted a $75 million credit line with M.L.B.
With the regular season closing in, the Mets have to start issuing paychecks to their players on April 15 and pay their stadium bondholders $22 million in June, the first of two semiannual payments.
Moody’s Investors Service (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/moodys_corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org) downgraded those bonds to junk status last year, and last month the ratings agency cited Picard’s lawsuit as a reason for changing its outlook on the bonds from stable to negative.
As the Mets prepare for the new season, their owners continue to solicit interest from potential bidders. Stepping back from Wilpon’s initial comments, the team’s adviser on the sale, Steve Greenberg, said the Mets would consider selling more than 25 percent as long as the owners retain control. About a dozen investment groups have applied to M.L.B. for permission to see the team’s financial records. Baseball is expected to start approving the groups in the next week.
But many sports investment bankers say bidders are almost certain to want more than a simple minority stake in the club, particularly if the Mets’ finances are in distress, as some bidders suspect. That could lead to protracted negotiations, they said, and delay any financial boost the team hopes to get from the sale.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/sports/baseball/10wilpon.html?_r=1&ref=sports&pagewanted=print

ZippyTheChimp

March 14th, 2011, 12:58 PM

Meet the Debts;

Meet the Debts.

Come on Fred, and

Greet the Debts.

TREPYE

March 14th, 2011, 01:31 PM

Love the new name Steve Somers (WFAN radio host) gave the Mets owners:

Wilponzies....

LMAO

GordonGecko

March 14th, 2011, 05:14 PM

Well, after the owners whored themselves out to jump start renewals by offering prizes like taking batting practice, hanging out with players, going on the field in between innings, etc..., and especially selling off assets to make rent - I've become partial to the Wilpawns myself

TREPYE

March 14th, 2011, 07:04 PM

Backing yourself into a corner financialy to the point where you are a humilation is hardly an admirable trait.

TREPYE

August 30th, 2011, 11:24 PM

Coulda, woulda, shoulda....
http://www.giants.com/assets/images/imported/NYG/photos/centerpiece/August/MetLife-Stadium-Logo.jpg

injcsince81

August 31st, 2011, 05:43 PM

^^^

While the MetLife name would certainly be fitting, I seriously doubt that Met Life would like to associate itself with the utter losers which the Mets are at every level of their organization. Citigroup, on the other hand, absolutely. Birds of feather....

ZippyTheChimp

August 31st, 2011, 05:55 PM

I warned Fred that it sounded too much like Shittyfield.

arcman210

August 31st, 2011, 11:10 PM

STT757

September 1st, 2011, 08:42 PM

MetLife was the losing bidder for what is now known as Citi Field. It was down to Citibank and MetLife. Hell, the brand new MetLife Stadium logo even resembles the Mets skyline logo.

Best naming rights scenarios would have been 'MetLife Field' for the Mets and 'JetBlue Stadium' for the Jets and Giants.

The better name for the Meadowlands stadium would have been "United [airlines] stadium". Consider that it's co-owned by both franchises, and unlike Jetblue, United through their merger with Continental actually have a hub (EWR) in New Jersey. Jetblue is in Queens, which goes better with the Mets.

GordonGecko

September 6th, 2011, 01:05 PM

MetLife was the losing bidder for what is now known as Citi Field. It was down to Citibank and MetLife. Hell, the brand new MetLife Stadium logo even resembles the Mets skyline logo.

Best naming rights scenarios would have been 'MetLife Field' for the Mets and 'JetBlue Stadium' for the Jets and Giants.

The City & MTA did the right thing by not putting "Citi" on public signage, instead referring to it as "Mets-Willets Point", "Mets Baseball", etc... Naming rights shouldn't include public advertising unless the government receives direct compensation. Governments should smarten up, but Bloomberg made the right choice for the public with the Mets

ZippyTheChimp

November 3rd, 2011, 07:20 AM

Monday, October 31, 2011

Mets reveal big changes to Citi Field

By Adam Rubin
ESPNNewYork.com

The New York Mets revealed dramatic dimension changes to Citi Field on Monday that should mean the home team belting more than 25 additional home runs in 2012.

After Citi Field produced the third-fewest homers in the National League last season, Mets officials decided to reduce the in-play surface area by 2 percent, general manager Sandy Alderson said. The playing surface beyond 300 feet from home plate is being reduced by 5 percent.

"Any time you talk to a hitter about making a park more hitter-friendly, it's a thing that we're all for," said Mets third baseman David Wright. "I very briefly looked at the pictures and those dimensions and everything. It just looks, obviously, fair."

Alderson said the ballpark should lie roughly in the middle of NL stadiums in terms of homer friendliness after the changes. He added that there should be a disproportionate benefit to the Mets from the perspective that home players may have been psychologically deflated by the imposing previous dimensions, which included a 16-foot wall in left-field and a right-center alley that measured 415 feet.

"You'd be lying if you said you enjoyed hitting at Citi Field," Wright said. "I don't think anybody would say they enjoyed hitting in such a pitchers' ballpark. I don't think we ever looked at the field and it intimidated us. But obviously it's frustrating at times when you hit a ball good and you don't see the results that you want to see."

The reconfigured outfield wall will be a uniform eight feet in height. The dimensions from left to right are: 335-358-385-408-398-375-330.

The old measurements, although not precisely in the same spots, were: 335-371-384-408-415-378-330.

Citi Field allowed 1.33 homers per game last season, which ranked 14th of 16 National League ballparks, ahead of only San Francisco (1.00) and San Diego (1.23).

While noting that the Mets did not incorporate data about the trajectory of the balls put in play into their study -- making the numbers slightly less precise -- the team nonetheless determined the Mets would have hit 81 additional homers over the three years Citi Field has been open using the revised dimensions. Opponents would have hit 70 more homers, Alderson said.

Alderson noted the ballpark had only nine opposite-field homers to left field in three years -- all by opposing players.

To appease fans critical of the ballpark's lack of recognition of the club's history, the new wall will be blue. The old wall has been a blackish shade referred to as soot, which is not in the team's color palette.

The new dimensions certainly should benefit Mets power hitters such as Wright, Ike Davis and Jason Bay, although Alderson insisted the changes were not designed for any particular player. "I don't want to give you the impression we've done this for David, or we've done this for Ike, or we've done this for anybody in particular," Alderson said. "It's really about having a more neutral ballpark -- and maybe even to some extent, given that I think offense is exciting for many fans, maybe it'll be slightly more entertaining."

"I'd like to think that I'm pretty good at going gap to gap," Wright said. "One of my biggest strengths, I think, is going the other way into right-center field. Hopefully this will help me with one of my strengths."

Images (http://espn.go.com/new-york/gallery/index?id=7174877)

Sid

November 3rd, 2011, 01:31 PM

Only in baseball can the team just decide to change the dimensions/configuration of the playing surface. Can you imagine if that was allowed in hockey, football, basketball, soccer, etc.?

GordonGecko

November 3rd, 2011, 01:38 PM

I believe it's technically allowed in Hockey (but must be symetrical with minimum dimensions), but the NBA and NFL have standard dimensions. You have to remember that baseball developed in a field, where if you hit the ball way out there "in the field" it was a home run. Then they added fences and everyone's field was different, but they all have standard dimensions from the plate up to at least 200 feet past the bases

Sid

November 3rd, 2011, 02:09 PM

It's not allowed in hockey for a team to just change the dimensions of it's rink. For a while there were smaller-sized rinks in some of the older buildings, but a team wasn't allowed to take a newer building with a larger rink and make it smaller. None of the really old arenas are left, so the rinks are all the same-sized now.

GordonGecko

November 3rd, 2011, 02:10 PM

I guess that's right, the NHL standardized to 200 x 85. MLB does have standard dimensions for the infield

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Ice_hockey_layout.svg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Baseball_diamond.svg

ZippyTheChimp

November 3rd, 2011, 05:52 PM

Only in baseball can the team just decide to change the dimensions/configuration of the playing surface. Can you imagine if that was allowed in hockey, football, basketball, soccer, etc.?Can't you see the difference?

A football team changing its field dimensions would be like a baseball team changing the distance between the bases. All that's ever allowed to change is the distance to and height of the fences. That changes the game slightly from stadium to stadium, but that's what baseball is about.

A team has a minimum of four starting pitchers, which means four different teams. Games vary widely from day to day. A football team plays once a week with the same QB. There's more consistency.

.600 will probably win the division in baseball; in football, you'll probably miss the playoffs.

Sid

November 4th, 2011, 01:36 AM

Of course I can see the difference.

TREPYE

November 8th, 2011, 12:58 PM

Only in baseball can the team just decide to change the dimensions/configuration of the playing surface. Can you imagine if that was allowed in hockey, football, basketball, soccer, etc.?
This was a consequence of the early years of the sport in which the playing area was contained by lot size limitations. If you look up old baseball stadiums you will see that some outfields when out as far as 500ft. How ever in the case of Fenway for example left field was contained by Lansdowne St thus the distance from homplate was very short but they compensated this short distance for it by erecting a 39ft wall (AKA the Green Monster) so that homeruns would be more physics-honest; Ebbets field had the same issue with their right field. Thus these where organic consequences of building a stadium in the inner city and all the nuances of property limitations. This introduced an interesting element, true homefield advantage; through these idiosyncrasies home teams would have an edge over the visiting team through familiarizing themselves to them; an identifying element to the stadium.

Then came Yankee Stadium where the stadium designers decided to fudge baseball physics by building a shortly distance right field and short wall to inflate left handers HR totals. In an attempt of balance left center field at YS was 491ft; AKA Death Valley. None the less the actions of right fields design lead to an increase in the fascination of the over-the-wall manner of scoring in baseball and several other franchises followed suit. There was a built in advantage in this violation of baseball physics in that you can fit in more outfield seating. Then the cookie cutter era from the architectural barren 60's normalized each stadiums dimensions

Ever since then stadiums have been shrinking, ironically minimizing the base aspect in baseball and due to shorter fences scoring by in large became an all-or-none phenomenon. The last remnants of Death Valley where removed in the 80's to accommodate Dave Winfield. Now it is just a normalized Left Field.

Mets had it right when they made the Citifield's dimensions larger than the most stadiums. Here unfortunately, instead of accomodating, Wright yelped about walls being too tall or too far (which yielded more physics-honest HRs) and kept using the stadium as an excuse for his mental frailty. Unfortunately they have caved to the establishment and have made it more "normal" which goes against the movements of retro ballparks and bring us back to those mundane cookie cutter days. Too bad Alderson is too impatient and the Wilpons didn’t have enough character to keep (as it was their idea) it as it would have allowed us to see The Game the way it is described to be played, with the bases, not the fences.

arcman210

November 8th, 2011, 09:04 PM

I don't think it was just Wright who was complaining. The park was way too big and had forced quirkiness. The Mets offensive production has been way down which doesn't help an already struggling franchise. Fans today pay money to go to games and see home runs and offense, not long fly balls and defense. That's the way it is now.

I understand the desire to make the fences deep, but they took it way too far. The Wilpons got the fences wrong the first time (along with many other decisions), and they're fixing it two years too late in my opinion. I do wish they'd elected to keep the black walls instead of changing them to blue, I thought that was a nice touch that blended in with the overall feel of the park in general.

TREPYE

November 9th, 2011, 10:33 AM

I don't think it was just Wright who was complaining. The park was way too big and had forced quirkiness. The Mets offensive production has been way down which doesn't help an already struggling franchise. Fans today pay money to go to games and see home runs and offense, not long fly balls and defense. That's the way it is now.

Untrue.... http://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/actually-citi-field-is-not-that-bad-for-the-mets/

It is these type of impression based opining that has led the games peversion continue and do not let it achieve its full entertainment potential.

Watch the clips in their totality and tell me what is more exciting?

This.....
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=15929807

Or this...
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=8141357

To me it is so obvious. As far as the difference in the frequency of occurence, lets bear in mind that the establishment has facilitated/favored one of them.

GordonGecko

November 9th, 2011, 11:02 AM

The fans want to see more home runs, and the Mets are in no position right now to go against the fans

ZippyTheChimp

November 9th, 2011, 11:35 AM

Right field at YS was constricted by the presence of the EL along River St. The dimensions were actually extended during the renovation. And during their most successful era, their star was Joe D, a RH hitter who had to deal with death valley. Learning how to pitch to the dimensions of your ballpark is what it's all about.

The greatest era of pitching domination was during the 1960s, when run production started to decline. Overall MLB attendance started to decline as well. That's when changed such as lowering the mound began. Fences started coming in.

Yearly attendance over the last 8 years has been the highest in MLB history.

The big problem at Citifield is that when a hitter takes advantage of a pitching mistake, he's rewarded with a long out. And the 12 foot high wall is more of a problem than the distance. It makes the outfielder reluctant to jump at the wall for an "eight foot high" shot, thinking the safer action is to play the rebound.

Pitchers have to learn how to pitch to contact. Look at the NLCS final game at the Philly "bandbox" last season : a 1-0 gem between Carpenter and Halladay.

Mets are doing the right thing.

TREPYE

November 9th, 2011, 12:04 PM

The fans want to see more home runs, and the Mets are in no position right now to go against the fans

Me thinks that the fans are more interested in winning. Does more HR's = winning?

Right field at YS was constricted by the presence of the EL along River St. The dimensions were actually extended during the renovation. And during their most successful era, their star was Joe D, a RH hitter who had to deal with death valley. Learning how to pitch to the dimensions of your ballpark is what it's all about.

Untrue, I can believe that with all the access to old stadium pictures folks still cite this ultra-bullcrap. Fenways left field was consricted by Lansdowne St, Ebbets right field was constricted by Bedford Ave as the outfield wall was around 10 feet away from the constricting agent. Look at a picture of Yankee Stadium, Zip, how many feet are there between the right field wall and the El?? There was NO space to build an honest right field?? Stop it.

But I do resoundingly agree with your second point; albeit Yankee Stadium's idea of a short HR is stuff for the theather of the absurd and minimizes the accomplishment of a HR (as you dont really have to be a major leaguer, or even a proffesional hitter, to hit a homer to RF in that stadium), the premise of being asymetricall and quirky is something I am all for. Through these normalization changes the Mets Ballpark is missing out on one of the beauties of Baseball.

Mets are doing the right thing.
Of course you think this, your team has made a living off short homeruns. For those of us who enjoy the game as it was conceived (not as it has devolved) these changes are abject stupidity that take away from the games full potential.

ramvid01

November 9th, 2011, 12:29 PM

Of course you think this, your team has made a living off short homeruns. For those of us who enjoy the game as it was conceived (not as it has devolved) these changes are abject stupidity that take away from the games full potential.

The Polo grounds left field was only 279 feet while right was 258 feet. And that was 1951 (granted dead center was 475 or more) so this devolution you talk about (short fences in general) has been around for a while.

GordonGecko

November 9th, 2011, 02:03 PM

Me thinks that the fans are more interested in winning. Does more HR's = winning?
Reyes is unlikely to be re-signed, so that extra-base threat won't be there to benefit from the cavernous dimensions. On the flip side, Bay & Wright will benefit from the higher home run totals, so as long as the pitching can hold off the opposing team's power then yes that should help them win. Either way I think fans would rather lose with power than lose while power-less

ZippyTheChimp

November 9th, 2011, 02:25 PM

Untrue, I can believe that with all the access to old stadium pictures folks still cite this ultra-bullcrap. Fenways left field was consricted by Lansdowne St, Ebbets right field was constricted by Bedford Ave as the outfield wall was around 10 feet away from the constricting agent. Look at a picture of Yankee Stadium, Zip, how many feet are there between the right field wall and the El??Had you ever been anywhere near the old YS? The wall was right on the streetwall of River Ave.

Of course you think this, your team has made a living off short homeruns. For those of us who enjoy the game as it was conceived (not as it has devolved) these changes are abject stupidity that take away from the games full potential.

You're talking attitudes off the top of your head and regarding them as facts. Let's look at some big Yankee HR hitters who contributed to the Yankee record.

HRs Home and Away

Ruth..........345....349
Gehrig.......251....243
Joe D.........148....213
Berra..........210...148
Mantle.......266....270
Jackson.......66.....78 (5 years)

Yankees made a living from winning on the road, what all successful teams do.

Funny how the old YS has yielded three perfect games. The record.

TREPYE

November 11th, 2011, 12:26 AM

Had you ever been anywhere near the old YS? The wall was right on the streetwall of River Ave.

How does a being that prances around with a Yankee cap on not know this? Stare at the picture below and tell me what you see....

What immovable object is behind the RIGHT OUTFIELD WALL?
I'll make it real simple: Stands (that where arbitrarily placed there to contain playing field), or River Avenue? How far is it from the RIGHT OUTFIELD WALL (that separates the fans from the field, not the stadium's exterior wall), to the River Avenue El?

http://i780.photobucket.com/albums/yy90/Bucket2NYY/1934Aug14-5.jpg
http://img.discountpostersale.com/posters/PFLAAGI06903/1/Yankee-Stadium-Right-Field---1951-World-Series-Game-6---Hank-Bauer-hitting-3-run-triple.jpg

Unless you wanna tell me that my eyes are lying to me and there is a train track flush up against the right outfield wall that prevented the field from being deeper, we now have occular proof of what is actually there and hence you may want to correct your memories of being there.

You're talking attitudes off the top of your head and regarding them as facts. Let's look at some big Yankee HR hitters who contributed to the Yankee record.

HRs Home and Away

Ruth..........345....349
Gehrig.......251....243
Joe D.........148....213
Berra..........210...148
Mantle.......266....270
Jackson.......66.....78 (5 years)

Yankees made a living from winning on the road, what all successful teams do.

Funny how the old YS has yielded three perfect games. The record.

How about a little less cherry picking and give us the totals of the non-superstars?

ZippyTheChimp

November 11th, 2011, 11:18 AM

How does a being that prances around with a Yankee cap on not know this? Stare at the picture below and tell me what you see....Don't be a fool. Interior dimensions are influenced by many factors, one of which is seating. Overall stadium dimensions are influenced by the neighborhood.

What immovable object is behind the RIGHT OUTFIELD WALL?Funny that during the Joe DiMaggio era, the Yankees most successful period with 11 WS wins and no loses, it never occurred to them to bring in the (err) movable left field wall to accommodate maybe their best player of all time, a RIGHTHANDED hitter.

How about a little less cherry picking and give us the totals of the non-superstars?I wasn't about to waste time pulling out every stat when you have done ZERO research on the data except post a silly picture. But I thought it might ring a bell that Babe Ruth hit more home runs away from the house that he built.

But if you need some more stuff:

The 1998 Yankees were one of the best teams of all time, with 114 wins. Tino Martinez led the team in HR, with 28. Their cleanup hitter had 24.

Some HR totals for 1998:
McGwire........70
Sosa.............66
Griffey...........56
Vaugn............50
Belle..............49

From 1996-2001, the Yankees were in 5 World Series, winning 4. Only once during that span did any Yankee hit over 40 HR, Tino Martinez (44). Ironically, that was in 1997, the year they didn't go to the WS.

During that run, three players were the main run producers. Here are their HR stats:

Home & Away
Martinez..........99 - 93
O'Neill.............59 - 63
Williams.........143 - 144

I repeat, the Yankees were successful because they could win on the road. They also had the best bullpen in baseball during that run, something you wouldn't expect from a homer park.

If you want to know when and how baseball changed, look at offensive production pre and post 1994. Pay special attention to the late 90s. What do we call that era?

Pitching has begun to recover in the last few years. Notice that offensive production is down, and all the no hitters lately? Last time I checked, no fences were moved out, so it must be something else.

Even if they tailor their team to the ballpark, the Mets would be at a big disadvantage on the road, with a ballpark that's too different from typical. They have to play half their games in other parks, while the other teams play a minimal number at Citifield.

You can either accept that the Mets are doing the right thing, or stereotypically blame the Yankees for Mets failures.

If you're going to respond, please do a little research first.

JCMAN320

November 11th, 2011, 04:05 PM

Most Mets fans blame the Yankees for everything. One of my friends even blames the fact that the Mets can't afford Reyes and highpriced free agents squarely on the Yankees. If Steinbrenner didn't jump on that train someone else would of.

Citi Field needs this if it wants to stop being one of the many punchlines that are the NY Mets.

arcman210

November 11th, 2011, 08:13 PM

Back to the initial argument, baseball is not what it was 100 years ago. It's evolved, as all sports do. Would it be better for the goalposts in football to be on the goal line rather than behind the endzone like it was 50 years ago?

Certain aspects of Citi Field pay homage to baseball's past (as do many of the stadiums that have been built in the last 20 years), but to say that the fences being further away is the way the game was meant to be played isn't a good argument. If that's the logic, lets get rid of helmets, night games, and polyester uniforms.

TREPYE

November 12th, 2011, 05:43 PM

Look at you Chimpy, getting all insulting

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp http://wirednewyork.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?p=381813#post381813)
Don't be a fool. Interior dimensions are influenced by many factors, one of which is seating. Overall stadium dimensions are influenced by the neighborhood.

And evasive....

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by TREPYE http://wirednewyork.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?p=381793#post381793)
What immovable object is behind the RIGHT OUTFIELD WALL?

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp http://wirednewyork.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?p=381813#post381813)
Funny that during the Joe DiMaggio era, the Yankees most successful period with 11 WS wins and no loses, it never occurred to them to bring in the (err) movable left field wall to accommodate maybe their best player of all time, a RIGHTHANDED hitter.

Over a subject that I wasnt even trying to address, how right field has helped the Yankees. It could be that it did or didn't I really dont give a crap about that as much of the fact that they are the ones who started disregarding baseball physics and setting up ridiculously short fences without any just cause (as we have established above that the space was available). If you feel the need to whip out all these statistics to try to convince me of something I dont give a crappola about then be my guest but I would like you to answer one question:

In the absence of any obstructions why was the field so short? No tangents, now please state your opinion about this exact question.

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp http://wirednewyork.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?p=381813#post381813)
Even if they tailor their team to the ballpark, the Mets would be at a big disadvantage on the road, with a ballpark that's too different from typical. They have to play half their games in other parks, while the other teams play a minimal number at Citifield.

As you mentioned this is why you as a professional baseball player LEARN to play in your home ballpark instead of whining about it.

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp http://wirednewyork.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?p=381813#post381813)
You can either accept that the Mets are doing the right thing, or stereotypically blame the Yankees for Mets failures.

Stop that garbage please this a not a Mets-Yankee thing, get over yourself, it is Yankee-Quality of baseball thing. Short HR's take away from baseball's entertainment potential and depth of plays.

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp http://wirednewyork.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?p=381813#post381813)
If you're going to respond, please do a little research first.

No, Im not going to sit here as clean up your sloppy cherry picked research; just focus on the exact questions and we can get throught this much more efficiently. But I will give you a very intersting number....

Ever since the Yankees move to that stadiums short right porch they have won 31% of the championships and appeared in 45% of the world series...What is that they say about improbable success?

Anyways, that is not even what I wanted to origially talk about; fact of the matter of that the larger dimensions weren't given a fair chance. The Mets had major multiple injuries in 2 out of the three seasons, which yielded 1 bad home record and a .500 record and the one season where there was a full staff, 2010, the team was 14 games over .500 at home.

ZippyTheChimp

November 12th, 2011, 08:58 PM

[INDENT]Look at you Chimpy, getting all insulting

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp http://wirednewyork.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?p=381813#post381813)
[I]Don't be a fool. Interior dimensions are influenced by many factors, one of which is seating. Overall stadium dimensions are influenced by the neighborhood.

And evasive....

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by TREPYE http://wirednewyork.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?p=381793#post381793)
[I]What immovable object is behind the RIGHT OUTFIELD WALL?As I said, interior dimensions are influenced by seating. YS was the first ballpark to be called a stadium with the highest capacity, around 67,000. It was followed by Cleveland Municipal in 1932 with 72,000. As baseball got more popular, the only way to increase revenue in a pre-tv age was to get more people into the stadiums. By the way, the photo you posted was the original YS. When the right field upper decks were added in the 1930s, the right field fence was pushed out 20 feet, since the 67,000 capacity was maintained.

Fenway Park was continually shorted since it was built. Compare the 1912 center field to right-field foul pole to later dimensions.

Over a subject that I wasnt even trying to address, how right field has helped the Yankees. It could be that it did or didn't I really dont give a crap about that as much of the fact that they are the ones who started disregarding baseball physics and setting up ridiculously short fencesYou don't know what you're talking about. Ebbets Field (1913) had the same distance to the right-field foul pole, but their alleys were ridiculously short - 318, 344 vs 385, 408 for YS. And guess what, they kept bringing in the left and center field fences over the years.

And what exactly are the formulas of "baseball physics" that everyone has agreed on over the last hundred years?

as we have established above that the space was availableIn your mind, maybe.

If you feel the need to whip out all these statistics to try to convince me of something I dont give a crappola about then be my guestAnd yet twice in this thread you accuse me of cherry-picking.

but I would like you to answer one question:

In the absence of any obstructions why was the field so short? No tangents, now please state your opinion about this exact question.I answered this twice. Go back and re-read. I ask you why was left and center so huge. How many ballparks of the time had left and center dimensions of 457 and 461?

As you mentioned this is why you as a professional baseball player LEARN to play in your home ballpark instead of whining about it.When did I say this? I said that a championship team has to win on the road.

Stop that garbage please this a not a Mets-Yankee thing, get over yourself, it is Yankee-Quality of baseball thing.You brought the Yankees into this discussion, with yet another whine about how they've ruined baseball. The rest of us were talking about the dimensions of Citifield, and whether altering them would help the team. Your opinion on the entertainment value of baseball is just that, an opinion. And it seems, not shared by the majority of Citifield customers.

No, Im not going to sit here as clean up your sloppy cherry picked research; just focus on the exact questions and we can get throught this much more efficiently.And the next thing out of his mouth.....

But I will give you a very intersting number....

Ever since the Yankees move to that stadiums short right porch they have won 31% of the championships and appeared in 45% of the world series...What is that they say about improbable success?The Yankees were a shit team before the 1920s. Amazing that no other team caught on to this simple solution to championships.

The only decade that the Yankees were shut out of a WS was the 80s. They had plenty of hitting. Guess what was missing. What changed in the late 90s? You still haven't explained how a team that didn't have all the big HR hitters - McGwire, Arod, Sosa, Bonds, Belle, Gonzalez (in fact the Rangers were the power team of the late 90s) - managed to win 4 of 5 WS, won 14 straight WS games.

I wonder how the Boston Celtics did it. Lower the rim? How about the Montreal Canadiens? Or the UCLA Bruins?

Anyways, that is not even what I wanted to origially talk about; fact of the matter of that the larger dimensions weren't given a fair chance.Three years?

You'd better start attracting some power hitters. Besides Reyes, the Marlins are talking to Pujols.

TREPYE

November 14th, 2011, 10:10 PM

As I said, interior dimensions are influenced by seating. YS was the first ballpark to be called a stadium with the highest capacity, around 67,000. It was followed by Cleveland Municipal in 1932 with 72,000. As baseball got more popular, the only way to increase revenue in a pre-tv age was to get more people into the stadiums. By the way, the photo you posted was the original YS. When the right field upper decks were added in the 1930s, the right field fence was pushed out 20 feet, since the 67,000 capacity was maintained. I answered this twice. Go back and re-read. I ask you why was left and center so huge. How many ballparks of the time had left and center dimensions of 457 and 461?

They could havce just shifted the seats on the short right field and made the huge left field shorter. Stop circumventing logical thinking, the space was there to make RF more honest, and you know it.

You don't know what you're talking about. Ebbets Field (1913) had the same distance to the right-field foul pole, but their alleys were ridiculously short - 318, 344 vs 385, 408 for YS. And guess what, they kept bringing in the left and center field fences over the years.

At least they built a 40 ft wall on their short RF; left field was short but not nearly as absurd as Yankee Stadiums right field.

And what exactly are the formulas of "baseball physics" that everyone has agreed on over the last hundred years?

Fence distance BS aside, the literal definition of a HR is when the ball has been hit to a distance that the fielders cannot get it into homeplate before the batter rounds the bases.

And yet twice in this thread you accuse me of cherry-picking.

Giving me the home and away numbers means nothins as we do not know where these HR's where dumped off in terms of distance. I think we can safely assume that many of the made their way to the first few rows behind the right field wall; you dont have to be that talented to hit a ball over 300 ft. It turns mediocre hitters in "power" hitters. This obviously does not apply to the Babes, Clippers, or Iron Horses of the world, thus that is why I rejected your intial list a good research; to be fair it it very hard to do at this point cuz we do not have much info of the HRs (distance, location hit, etc). More on this below...

When did I say this? I said that a championship team has to win on the road.
Teams adjust to their stadiums. Both pitchers and hitters.
V

Right field at YS was constricted by the presence of the EL along River St. The dimensions were actually extended during the renovation. And during their most successful era, their star was Joe D, a RH hitter who had to deal with death valley. Learning how to pitch to the dimensions of your ballpark is what it's all about.

The greatest era of pitching domination was during the 1960s, when run production started to decline. Overall MLB attendance started to decline as well. That's when changed such as lowering the mound began. Fences started coming in.

Yearly attendance over the last 8 years has been the highest in MLB history.

The big problem at Citifield is that when a hitter takes advantage of a pitching mistake, he's rewarded with a long out. And the 12 foot high wall is more of a problem than the distance. It makes the outfielder reluctant to jump at the wall for an "eight foot high" shot, thinking the safer action is to play the rebound.

Pitchers have to learn how to pitch to contact. Look at the NLCS final game at the Philly "bandbox" last season : a 1-0 gem between Carpenter and Halladay.

^

You brought the Yankees into this discussion, with yet another whine about how they've ruined baseball. The rest of us were talking about the dimensions of Citifield, and whether altering them would help the team. Your opinion on the entertainment value of baseball is just that, an opinion. And it seems, not shared by the majority of Citifield customers.
Cuz they got short HR's shoved down their psyche throughout the years. Cypher from the Matrix comes to mind. Besides, a good chunk of the fans loved CF the way it was, they liked that it plays big; but there is an instant gratification crowd who is enamored with just a ball going over a wall, even if has no merit.

The Yankees were a shit team before the 1920s. Amazing that no other team caught on to this simple solution to championships.

The only decade that the Yankees were shut out of a WS was the 80s. They had plenty of hitting. Guess what was missing. What changed in the late 90s? You still haven't explained how a team that didn't have all the big HR hitters - McGwire, Arod, Sosa, Bonds, Belle, Gonzalez (in fact the Rangers were the power team of the late 90s) - managed to win 4 of 5 WS, won 14 straight WS games.

I wonder how the Boston Celtics did it. Lower the rim? How about the Montreal Canadiens? Or the UCLA Bruins?

Im just saying that albeit HRs are not the end all be all sometimes we make deductions off trends. Cause and effect. Had right field been honest then that woud NEVER be a valid association but by one absurd design aspect of the stadium the following outcome was an [some would say unnatural] abundance of success. We will never know if it is really the case, but it can never be disproved either. The association will always be there

Three years?
Did you read the post? One of the three years were injury free.

As far as what is best for attendace, IMO winning sells. The Giants averages a meager 1 homerun per game in their ballpark they were at 90% capacity all season. They adjusted the team not the stadium, and they won. HR's do not sell, winning sells.

ZippyTheChimp

November 15th, 2011, 12:47 AM

They could havce just shifted the seats on the short right field and made the huge left field shorter. Stop circumventing logical thinking, the space was there to make RF more honest, and you know it.Please stop telling me what you think I know; try to concentrate on what you know.

You seem to be under a misconception that ballparks of the time were large. They were virtually all asymmetrical, with one short field. Yankee Stadium conformed to existing field-area. They had a huge left field and a small right-field, because that was the land available. It was built as a stadium, with a large capacity. At the time, the typical ballpark held under 31,000 seats. One was about 18,000. The first symmetrical stadium was Comisky.

Fence distance BS aside, the literal definition of a HR is when the ball has been hit to a distance that the fielders cannot get it into homeplate before the batter rounds the bases.When they start playing games on open fields, I'll take this seroiusly.

Giving me the home and away numbers means nothins as we do not know where these HR's where dumped off in terms of distance.But you know enough about it to make statements about "making a living off the home run", right?

I think we can safely assume that many of the made their way to the first few rows behind the right field wall;Why, because it conveniently fits your argument?

u dont have to be that talented to hit a ball over 300 ft.You think it's easy to pull a ball down the line if a good pitcher doesn't want you to?

This obviously does not apply to the Babes, Clippers, or Iron Horses of the world,So who does it apply to? Give me the names of the mediocre players who were responsible for homering the Yankees to all those championships?

Besides, a good chunk of the fans loved CF the way it was, they liked that it plays big;What's a big chunk? Ten percent? Twenty percent? Was there a poll that I missed?

Cause and effect. Had right field been honest then that woud NEVER be a valid association but by one absurd design aspect of the stadium the following outcome was an [some would say unnatural] abundance of success.

Ah yes, I'd like to return to that absurd statement you made:
But I will give you a very intersting number....

Ever since the Yankees move to that stadiums short right porch they have won 31% of the championships and appeared in 45% of the world series...What is that they say about improbable success?I thought you would just run away from it, given you ignored questions i asked. Now you just pronounce it "a valid association." I'll ask them again:

The Yankees were a shit team before the 1920s. Amazing that no other team caught on to this simple solution to championships.

The only decade that the Yankees were shut out of a WS was the 80s. They had plenty of hitting. Guess what was missing. What changed in the late 90s? You still haven't explained how a team that didn't have all the big HR hitters - McGwire, Arod, Sosa, Bonds, Belle, Gonzalez (in fact the Rangers were the power team of the late 90s) - managed to win 4 of 5 WS, won 14 straight WS games.

I wonder how the Boston Celtics did it. Lower the rim? How about the Montreal Canadiens? Or the UCLA Bruins?

I'll add another anomaly to your theory:
The Baltimore Orioles played in hitter-neutral Memorial Park in the 60s through 80s. During that time, they went to the postseason 8 times, and the WS 6 times. In 1992, they moved into hitter friendly Camden Yards. By your theory, they should have been more successful; however, in 19 years, they made the playoff twice. Seven straight years in 4th or 5th place.

Do Trepye's Laws of Baseball Physics only apply to a parallel Yankee Universe?

The answer is simple, if you care to look at the Oriole rosters.

We will never know if it is really the case, but it can never be disproved either. The association will always be there.Only in Mets World does it have to be disproved. Or in "a chunk of it."

Did you read the post? One of the three years were injury free.I meant it took three years to figure it out. To be fair, Alderson figured it out right away.

The Giants averages a meager 1 homerun per game in their ballpark they were at 90% capacity all season. They adjusted the team not the stadium, and they won. HR's do not sell, winning sells.you shouldn't use words like meager to disguise the fact that the numbers don't agree. It only makes it worse.

The Giants hit 162 home runs in 2010, a dead even home and away split. That was #6 in the NL.
Reds - 188
Brewers - 182
DBacks - 180
Rockies - 173
Phillies - 166
Giants - 162

Meager?

In 2011, their HR total dropped to 121, 11th place. That's Mets territory (13th). Giants only won 86 games, and didn't make the playoffs.

TREPYE

November 17th, 2011, 12:46 AM

Pleasestop telling me what you think I know; try to concentrate on what you know.

You seem to be under a misconception that ballparks of the time werelarge. They were virtually all asymmetrical, with one short field. YankeeStadium conformed to existing field-area. They had a huge left field and asmall right-field, because that was the land available. It was built as a stadium,with a large capacity. At the time, the typical ballpark held under 31,000seats. One was about 18,000. The first symmetrical stadium was Comisky.

Yes they where asymmetrical but the short distance was compensated by high fences.

Was YS right field fence short? 4 ft then, 8 ft now, I know that. Do you?

All stadiums build according to their available plots and build the field tomaximum capacity. If there was no more space the field was short hence Ebbets, and Fenway.

Did the Yankee have space behind the right field wall to make right field bigger?? Yes, the next immovable obstruction was over 100 feet ,I know that. Do you?
Did they absolutely have to build seats instead making the distance more honest? No, I know that cuz they had space in LF to add more seats. Do you?

When they start playing games on open fields, I'll take this seroiusly.

Not open fields but at least the fence distances can represent this literaldefiniton. Can you at least agree that if the ball ends up 320ft from homeplate not even Hussein Bolt can round all four bases to score. The deeperfences could have overcome should they have just juiced the ball. They did itonce in the 20's and presumably for extra seating they just rather made thefields smaller than just making a ball that had a more effective coefficient of restitiution (http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/baseball.html).

But you know enough about it to make statementsabout "making a living off the home run", right?

It is a well known fact that they always seek a left handed "power"bat to optimize the stadiums dimensions.

Why, because it conveniently fits your argument?
So who does it apply to? Give me the names of the mediocre players who wereresponsible for homering the Yankees to all those championships?

No cuz when one team is hitting ~60% more HRs than the rest of the league; orwithout the Babe ~25% greater than the league average somethings going theirway. If you want to do some adequate research why dont you tally up the HRtotals from 1923-1930 and tell me by how much of a margin the yankees hit HR'smore than the rest of the league. I'll give you 1923: Yankees: 105, Tigers: 41,Red Sox: 34, Indians: 59, White Sox: 42..... furhermore, why dont you check howmany home runs where tallied by batters that where not the top 2 HR hitters.

You think it's easy to pull a ball down the line ifa good pitcher doesn't want you to?
A good pitcher, no; most pitchers dont have the talent to do this consistently,and most MLB batters and better than average high school batters have enough"power" to clear a 320ft fence.

What's a big chunk? Ten percent? Twentypercent? Was there a poll that I missed?

Somewhat surprisingly,a good number of readers did not want to make any changes to three-year-oldCiti Field. (http://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/stuffing-the-mets-suggestion-box/?ref=citifield)

I'll add another anomaly to your theory:
The Baltimore Orioles played in hitter-neutral Memorial Park in the 60s through80s. During that time, they went to the postseason 8 times, and the WS 6 times.In 1992, they moved into hitter friendly Camden Yards. By your theory, theyshould have been more successful; however, in 19 years, they made the playofftwice. Seven straight years in 4th or 5th place.

Do Trepye's Laws of Baseball Physics only apply to a parallel Yankee Universe?

The answer is simple, if you care to look at the Oriole rosters.

Do the Oriolesballpark (http://www.hittrackeronline.com/detail.php?id=2011_3072&type=ballpark) have a 320ft fence with an eight foot wall? Or is the wall three times the heigh? Youre better than to bring up such a stupidass comparison.

Only in Mets World does it have to be disproved.Or in "a chunk of it."

I meant it took three years to figure it out. To be fair, Alderson figured itout right away.

you shouldn't use words like meager to disguise the fact that the numbers don't agree.It only makes it worse.

The Giants hit 162 home runs in 2010, a dead even home and away split. That was#6 in the NL.
Reds - 188
Brewers - 182
DBacks - 180
Rockies - 173
Phillies - 166
Giants - 162

Meager?

In 2011, their HR total dropped to 121, 11th place. That's Mets territory(13th). Giants only won 86 games, and didn't make the playoffs.

Baseball, IMO is just better when a batter is instensely running round thebases rather than jogging. Most highlight are of fielding plays in the outfield. HR's ae just balls going over walls, every once in a while you get a Prince Fielder moonshot that is different but they are all for the most part the same sequence of nondescript event. My preference was for the Mets to adhere to how baseball was MEANT to be played, not how it ended up being played. SF provedthat winning will ALWAYS supercede a low HR total. Too bad the Mets did not have enough character to see this through.

I wonder how the Boston Celtics did it. Lower the rim? Howabout the MontrealCanadiens? Or the UCLA Bruins?

Another doozy. These perenials played in sports that the field was highly standarized. Any deviations where no where near the absurdity of Yankee Stadium's right field.

Ah yes, I'd like to return to that absurd statementyou made: I thought you would just run away from it, given you ignoredquestions i asked. Now you just pronounce it "a valid association."I'll ask them again:

TheYankees were a shit team before the 1920s. Amazing that no other team caught onto this simple solution to championships.

The onlydecade that the Yankees were shut out of a WS was the 80s. They had plenty ofhitting. Guess what was missing. What changed in the late 90s? You stillhaven't explained how a team that didn't have all the big HR hitters - McGwire,Arod, Sosa, Bonds, Belle, Gonzalez (in fact the Rangers were the power team ofthe late 90s) - managed to win 4 of 5 WS, won 14 straight WS games.

The association is what it is; ever since the Yankees move to that stadiums shortright porch they have won 31% of the championships and appeared in 45% of theworld series. Like I said you cannot prove it, but you certainly cannot disprove it either. You wanna belive that they are Bronx Bombers go ahead...
I will just believe that when it came to many homeruns to right fields these "bombs" where just pop-its being thrown against a microphone.

ZippyTheChimp

November 17th, 2011, 07:51 AM

It is a well known fact that they always seek a left handed "power"bat to optimize the stadiums dimensions.They won more WS with Joe D, a right-handed hitter.

[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=#0000ff][qu8ote]Somewhat surprisingly,a good number of readers did not want to make any changes to three-year-oldCiti Field. (http://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/stuffing-the-mets-suggestion-box/?ref=citifield)A "good number" is as worthless as "a good chunk." You ask me for adequate data, then give me subjective phrases.

Baseball, IMO is just better when a batter is instensely running round thebases rather than jogging.You want to argue opinions? That's useless. You're just pissed because Citifield is being changed, and "a good chunk" [just had to say that] of Mets fans are happy about it.

The association is what it is; ever since the Yankees move to that stadiums shortright porch they have won 31% of the championships and appeared in 45% of theworld series. Like I said you cannot prove it, but you certainly cannot disprove it either.Yankee fans don't have to disprove anything. Neither do Mets fans, for that matter. We don't care about the Mets except when we play them. Mets fans shouldn't care about the Yankees.

Do the Oriolesballpark have a 320ft fence with an eight foot wall? Or is the wall three times the heigh? Youre better than to bring up such a stupidass comparisonYou completely missed the point. The comparison is Orioles-Orioles, not Orioles-Yankees.

Another doozy. These perenials played in sports that the field was highly standarized. Any deviations where no where near the absurdity of Yankee Stadium's right fielMissed the point again. I specifically chose sports with standardized fields to show that your conclusion - the stadium led to success - is baseless. The Canadiens, Celtics, and Bruins had tremendous runs of championships because they had great teams. When they didn't have the players, success was harder to come by.

Just like the Yankees. You never explained, except for some blah-blah about "the association is what it is" as to why the Yankees went from 1979 to 1995 without a WS, and most of those years without a playoff appearance. They had plenty of hitting, and played in the same stadium. So what was it?

The last one is a classic. You come up with another "stat" - the Giants hit a "meager" one HR per game in 2010. I give you real stats - the Giants were #6 in the NL in HR in 2010.

Your response?
Baseball, IMO is just better when a batter is instensely running round thebases rather than jogging.Another opinion. Does that mean the Giants are not as interesting as you thought they were when they hit a "meager" number of home runs?

Please. You're talking in circles.

GordonGecko

November 17th, 2011, 10:28 AM

Am I the only that automatically skips over any post where the reply breaks up a quote into ten million pieces? :cool:

TREPYE

November 19th, 2011, 11:07 AM

Yes they where asymmetrical but the short distance was compensated by high fences.

Was YS right field fence short? 4 ft then, 8 ft now, I know that. Do you?

All stadiums build according to their available plots and build the field tomaximum capacity. If there was no more space the field was short hence Ebbets, and Fenway.

Did the Yankee have space behind the right field wall to make right field bigger?? Yes, the next immovable obstruction was over 100 feet ,I know that. Do you?
Did they absolutely have to build seats instead making the distance more honest? No, I know that cuz they had space in LF to add more seats. Do you?

Again being evasive, well, do you know these things?

They won more WS with Joe D, a right-handed hitter.

Ok but it doesnt go along with my point. Go see how many of the secondary and terciary players offensive production was. The funny thing is that I had not asked you to justify the championships yet you continually go out of your way to do so (interesting); and you avoid my direct inquiries as to what reason was it built so short. My point with that right field is that it changed baseball, it dumber it down to, HR or no HR, instead of having all of the myriad of variables of baserunning and fielding.

A "good number" is as worthless as "a good chunk." You ask me for adequate data, then give me subjective phrases.

My point is that many more than a small minority like the ballpark the way it was. It is no fault of mine that there are no polls about it thus it was what I could find.

You completely missed the point. The comparison is Orioles-Orioles, not Orioles-Yankees.

And their respective stadiums, with two very different right field layouts that arent comparable.

Missed the point again. I specifically chose sports with standardized fields to show that your conclusion - the stadium led to success - is baseless. The Canadiens, Celtics, and
Bruins had tremendous runs of championships because they had great teams. When they didn't have the players, success was harder to come by.

It would be baseless for these sports because they played on a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. By virtue of this significant deviation of how the sport is played through playing field variables it could be said, that it had an impact, we can never truly prove it one way or another. But the two anomalies are still side by side with respect to the Yank WS and Stadium design. What anomalies in the playing field could be said of these teams that can be associated with their abundant success, beside the absurdy-obvious observation of them having great teams?

Just like the Yankees. You never explained, except for some blah-blah about "the association is what it is" as to why the Yankees went from 1979 to 1995 without a WS, and most of those years without a playoff appearance. They had plenty of hitting, and played in the same stadium. So what was it?
They didnt have a great team. No mystery there, didnt you just say that? Again I never said that the stadiums design was the end-all-be-all to winning but as mentioned above it is hard to say that it did not help in any manner.

The last one is a classic. You come up with another "stat" - the Giants hit a "meager" one HR per game in 2010. I give you real stats - the Giants were #6 in the NL in HR in 2010.
Does that mean the Giants are not as interesting as you thought they were when they hit a "meager" number of home runs?

I meant 2011 they hit one HR per game, typo. My point is that they are still drawing near sellouts in their stadium every night despite the fact that the ballpark does not give up many HRs. Thus the Mets should have not used HR output as the reason that the fans didnt come to the citifield. Per the comment; winning sells, not more HR's.

Your response? Another opinion.

Yes thats what we do around here we state opinions by researching and citing facts.

My opinion is that citifield as it was originally designed had to offert a different more profound brand of baseball in its layout, baseball in its early stages of progression. Before a seeminly arbitrary change in the definition and merits of a HR ushered in by the Yankee Stadium (and polo grounds to some exent, but even they used higher fences). No I do not and cannot prove for sure that YS RF is the reason for their success but I can say, and opine, that it changed baseball for the mundane. The black and white ball going over a fence, or not; instead of the shades of gray from an infinite set of variables that baserunning a fielding offer.

ZippyTheChimp

November 19th, 2011, 01:09 PM

I guess the great Yankee teams didn't play good fundamental baseball. They didn't have great fielders. Didn't know how to run the bases. Didn't have great pitchers.

Sure they didn't.

You still haven't named any of these terciary [sic] players.

I could do this to you all day long, but I'll leave you with this:

Your 31% theory is disproved in that during the 89 years of YS, there were two long periods (I'm not even including short stretches of a few years) during which the Yankees did not win a WS. 13 years from 1963-1976, and 17 years from 1979-1995. Those two periods account for 33% where your theory fails. Ask any statistician what a 33% failure rate of your base data means.

1961 Yankees

Regarded as the best home run hitting Yankee team in history, held the record until Seattle in the late 1990s.

Home & Away
Mantle.........24....30
Maris...........30....31 (LOL. The perfect pull hitter for YS hits more on the road)
Blanchard.....14.....7
Skowron........7.....21
Berra............12....10
Howard.........10....11
Team total....112....128 (Look at that. The Yankee team record holder for HR hit more on the road.)

The 1961 team also won with defense, or do you think that Maris and Mantle were lousy fielders. Or that Howard wasn't a good catcher. Or Skowron at first. Ever heard of Bobby Richardson or Clete Boyer? They weren't known for their hitting (Boyer hit .224 in 1961); ask someone what sort of fielders they were.

And pitching. They had this guy named Whitey Ford who won the CY.

The 1961 Yankees ranked 1st in HR, 2nd in ERA, and 1st in Fielding %

From the mid 60s to the mid 90s, the Yankees only won WS in the late 70s. They didn't change stadiums during those years. What changed is the players they added: Thurmon Munson. Willie Randolph at 2nd, Graig Nettles at 3rd. Know anything about their defensive play?

And pitchers: Catfish Hunter, Ron Guidry. Sparky Lyle and Goose Gossage in the BP.

The 1978 team ranked 6th in HR, 1st in ERA, and 2nd in Fielding %.

They won again in the 1990s when players like Jimmy Key, David Cone, Andy Pettitte, Mariano Rivera, John Wetteland were added to everyday players who played good defense.

That's what was missing in the 70s and early 90s. Plenty of hitting, but little defense or pitching.

The Yankee run 1996-2000, team ranking:
............HR.......ERA......Fielding %
1996.....12........5.........2
1997......8.........1.........5
1998......4.........1.........3
1999......8.........2.........6
2000......6.........3.........4

They really ""made a living on the HR." :rolleyes:

For all the HR they hit, the Yankees have a better defensive team than the Mets. How long have you followed baseball, and do you watch anything besides the Mets? How many Yankee games have you been to? I've been to plenty of Mets games over the years, was even at the 1973 WS.

You seem like someone using Google Street View to argue life in Madrid to a Spaniard.

If Albert Pujols agreed to sign with the Mets only if they made the changes to the outfield, what would you say?

I wonder what a poll of Mets fans would show.

TREPYE

December 4th, 2011, 12:16 PM

I almost forgot about this silly conversation. You can give me all the selecetive data you want but you know that the Yankees curtail themselves against that Right field porch. Ever since Bill Dickey, Charley Keller, Tommyu Henrich, Yogi Berra, Mantle, Reggie, Jackson, Greg Nettles, Tino Martinez, Darryl Strawberry, Mark Teixera. This has yielded the following stat:

Most Seasons
Leading The League

AL

New York Yankees (http://wirednewyork.com/teams/yank.shtml)

37

NL

New York / San Francisco Giants (http://wirednewyork.com/teams/giants.shtml)

29

Most Seasons
Leading The League
Consecutively

AL

New York Yankees (http://wirednewyork.com/teams/yank.shtml)

12

1936-1947

NL

Brooklyn Dodgers (http://wirednewyork.com/teams/dodgers.shtml)

7

1949-1955

Most Seasons
With 100+ Home Runs

AL

New York Yankees (http://wirednewyork.com/teams/yank.shtml)

84

NL

New York / San Francisco Giants (http://wirednewyork.com/teams/giants.shtml)

72

Most Seasons
With 200+ Home Runs

AL

New York Yankees (http://wirednewyork.com/teams/yank.shtml)

11

NL

Colorado Rockies (http://wirednewyork.com/teams/rock.shtml)

6

Cut the shit out Chimpy the Yankees have always been known for their propensity of high homerun totals. Dont try to tell me that a right field that is from 314ft to its max 350 ft at the middle does not assist in such accomplisments, because it does. And right handers batters with opposite side "power" can benefit from fly ball Homeruns as one Jeffrey Mayer can attest to.

So full of it you are that you have been avoiding my question of why was right field so short without any obnvious obstruction or elment that would not allow reconfiguration of the outfield. Instead look at you... you hurl insults and a silly stats that avoid answering the question. You know why, because in the answer lies its intention and most importantly my point. Which is not that the Yankees have benefited from making the outfield (yet you manically defend, LOL), but that in doing so they have invoked a game of scientific principle, physics, into science FICTION. The Yankees in this design elements disregarded science.

The Mets tried to bring back a semblsce of real physics homeruns but in combination with a thirdbaseman that cannot hit in the clutch as well as he yelps about homeruns being too diffcult, a general manager that could not give two shits about honest homeruns, and an ownership with not enough character to hold up to their intial convictions when they first designed the ballpark they have yielded a ballpark that has no identity.

Thats the point but in a reflexive mode of indignity you attempt to mock, like you are a conservative commentator on the Fox channel instead of focusing on the topic at hand. As if.... (lol) the topic stirs up a false sense of accomplishment that you must vehemently defend; short right field=lotsa championships, when what I am trying to say is short right field homeruns = science fiction. Reacting in an unevoelved manner instead of processing like an intellectual the conversation I am trying to have.

....perhaps your avatar picture is apropo to the reflexive way you react and I should not have attempted to hold the discusssion.

ZippyTheChimp

December 4th, 2011, 02:47 PM

I almost forgot about this silly conversation.I knew you didn't forget. Is this all you can come up with? Still waiting for all those tertiary players.

You can give me all the selecetive data you want but you know that the Yankees curtail themselves against that Right field porch.Does anyone know what this means?

Ever since Bill Dickey, Charley Keller, Tommyu Henrich, Yogi Berra, Mantle, Reggie, Jackson, Greg Nettles, Tino Martinez, Darryl Strawberry, Mark Teixera. This has yielded the following stat:

More Trepye blah-blah.

I've already posted stats that the Yankee players (and entire teams) that hit lots of home runs, hit as many or more on the road. I've also given you defensive and pitching stats in my last post that you've completely ignored. They are only selective to a frustrated Mets fan who can't think of anyone else to blame than the Yankees.

The Yankees won a lot of WS because they had a lot of great players, and a lot of great teams. If you want to argue that they had an unfair financial advantage, that's one thing. But you won't go there, because until recently, the Mets had the same advantage.

Thats the point but in a reflexive mode of indignity you attempt to mock,Oh , you mean like this:

Cut the shit out Chimpy
So full of it you are
perhaps your avatar picture is apropoLOL, insulting my avatar. that really hurts. :rolleyes:

Your post has so many typos and spelling errors that you must be in some sort of rage. Is it me, the Yankees, or Capuano going to the Dodgers? You're not as cool as your avatar.

I leave you with another response to one of your "stats," referring to the SF Giants and their attendance.

I meant 2011 they hit one HR per game, typo. My point is that they are still drawing near sellouts in their stadium every night despite the fact that the ballpark does not give up many HRs. Thus the Mets should have not used HR output as the reason that the fans didnt come to the citifield. Per the comment; winning sells, not more HR's.If you asked the question - Why did the Giants draw good attendance numbers in 2011? What reasons would you expect?

Would that they always had good attendance, and they were the reigning WS champs, have anything to do with it? Who ever heard of a WS winner having a drop in attendance?

But in Trepye's Laws of Physics, the logical answer is a negative. That fans went in spite of low HRs.

Like I said, I can do this to you all day. Come back when you "remember" this thread again.