PDA

View Full Version : How/Why Did The Cell Become a Home Run Hitting Paradise/Launching Pad?


Thome25
11-19-2008, 11:05 AM
I remember when The Cell was built. It seemed to be a pitchers paradise. How and when did it become a launching pad? I know that the renovations had alot to do with it but, what was it specifically? Has this ever been talked or written about?

Is it just the caliber of White Sox hitters? I hope it isn't a reflection of our pitchers. I.E. do we tend to have too many flyball pitchers that get teed off on?

THANKS for posting!!:D:

esbrechtel
11-19-2008, 11:20 AM
They moved in the fences an awful lot...

SaltyPretzel
11-19-2008, 11:24 AM
They moved in the fences an awful lot...

After they chopped off the top of the upper deck, the ball seemed to fly out quite a bit more also.

Thome25
11-19-2008, 11:33 AM
They moved in the fences an awful lot...

Are you sure? I know the fences were moved in but, I don't think they weren't moved in alot.

chisox616
11-19-2008, 11:34 AM
We just make it look small :tongue:

hi im skot
11-19-2008, 11:37 AM
Are you sure? I know the fences were moved in but, I don't think they weren't moved in alot.

Yep.

Wikipedia:



Field dimensions(2001-present)
Left Field - 330 ft (100.58 m)
Left-Center - 375 ft (114.3 m) (Not Posted)
Center Field - 400 ft (121.92 m)
Right-Center - 375 ft (114.3 m) (Not Posted)
Right Field - 335 ft (102.1 m)

Backstop - 60 ft (18.28 m)
Outfield Wall Height - 8 ft (2.4 m)

(1991-2000)
Left Field - 347 ft (105.76 m)
Left-Center - 375 ft (114.3 m)
Center Field - 400 ft (121.92 m)
Right-Center - 375 ft (114.3 m)
Right Field - 347 ft (105.76 m)



The left and right field walls were brought in dramatically.

eriqjaffe
11-19-2008, 11:39 AM
http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/USCellularField.html#diag

That page has a good before & after chart so you can really see the difference.

Thome25
11-19-2008, 11:41 AM
Yep.

Wikipedia:



The left and right field walls were brought in dramatically.

Did it really affect home run totals that much? I wonder if there's a stat head out there that could tell us what percentage of home runs at The Cell are hit down the left and right field lines.

If so, would those home runs not have been home runs with the old dimensions? I find that hard to believe.

I want Mags back
11-19-2008, 11:43 AM
Did it really affect home run totals that much? I wonder if there's a stat head out there that could tell us what percentage of home runs at The Cell are hit down the left and right field lines.

If so, would those home runs not have been home runs with the old dimensions? I find that hard to believe.

any homerun hit into the Bullpens or the bar at the present distances would not have gone out previously.

slavko
11-19-2008, 12:19 PM
Also consider that there were many seats added along the foul lines from the dugouts out which reduced the distance between the foul lines and the stands, thus causing formerly catchable balls to wind up in the seats.

I'm old enough to vaguely remember Old Comiskey before the bullpens were moved to CF and were still along the sides. That was a cavernous park! The current place is too small, IMO.

Red Barchetta
11-19-2008, 12:23 PM
Also consider that there were many seats added along the foul lines from the dugouts out which reduced the distance between the foul lines and the stands, thus causing formerly catchable balls to wind up in the seats.

I'm old enough to vaguely remember Old Comiskey before the bullpens were moved to CF and were still along the sides. That was a cavernous park! The current place is too small, IMO.

I remember Ricky Henderson and some other Oakland players complaining about the large foul ball area in their park and how it effects BA and other offensive stats compared to players who play in smaller parks.

RedHeadPaleHoser
11-19-2008, 12:53 PM
I used to work with a person who told me, hand to whatever Higher being you believe in, that the reason the New Comiskey Park had more home run balls hit in it is because fewer people go there than Cub games (this was 1998-1999).

Back on topic - I thought there was a study done that when the UD roof was added, the airflow matched Coors Field relative to how the wind affected ball travel.

chaerulez
11-19-2008, 01:27 PM
I used to work with a person who told me, hand to whatever Higher being you believe in, that the reason the New Comiskey Park had more home run balls hit in it is because fewer people go there than Cub games (this was 1998-1999).

Back on topic - I thought there was a study done that when the UD roof was added, the airflow matched Coors Field relative to how the wind affected ball travel.

I hope they were joking.

But I think the smaller park size would have a lot to do with more HRs. Pushing in the left and right field walls more than 15 feet is a big change.

Zisk77
11-19-2008, 01:30 PM
I think the biggest reason is the new upper deck and wind flow. The Ball carries well now where it just didn't previously. Sure shorter fences make difference, but I don't believe its quite as profound as some make it out to be.

The old configuration was a big ballpark, but the new DOESN"T make it a small park, just pretty average in dimensions. Its a very fair park dimension-wise. Whats not fair is how the ball now carries especially when its warm.

cub killer
11-19-2008, 01:37 PM
I used to work with a person who told me, hand to whatever Higher being you believe in, that the reason the New Comiskey Park had more home run balls hit in it is because fewer people go there than cub games (this was 1998-1999).


That person you worked with is a moron. Those flub fans never fail to speak nonsense.

oeo
11-19-2008, 02:54 PM
I used to work with a person who told me, hand to whatever Higher being you believe in, that the reason the New Comiskey Park had more home run balls hit in it is because fewer people go there than Cub games (this was 1998-1999).

Please tell me you no longer work with them because they were locked up...

LITTLE NELL
11-19-2008, 03:50 PM
From the start new Comiskey was more of a hitters park because home plate faces southeast as compared to northeast in the old ballpark and the Urinal. In the spring and fall a lot of potential Home Runs turned into easy outs in old Comiskey. Those same balls in new Comiskey are not knocked down by the wind, they are pushed more away from the LF foul pole towards CF. If you still get a hold of it, it will still be a HR and not a warning track flyout.

areilly
11-19-2008, 04:55 PM
I think the biggest reason is the new upper deck and wind flow.

I think the second-biggest reason is that chicks dig the longball. This is what the White Sox mean by the "home-run-or-none" approach to hitting.

:redneck

RedHeadPaleHoser
11-19-2008, 05:20 PM
That person you worked with is a moron. Those flub fans never fail to speak nonsense.

Please tell me you no longer work with them because they were locked up...

I don't work with them anymore. Let me just say they didn't think downloading porn off of explicit porn sites, as well as 68GB of ITunes music DURING work time to the WORK public drive, was an issue.

So yes - they are a moron. But locking them up allows them 3 square meals a day.

turners56
11-19-2008, 05:43 PM
That person you worked with is a moron. Those flub fans never fail to speak nonsense.

Haven't you heard? The more people at the ballpark, the shorter baseballs fly! Don't blame us for goin' to ball games and gettin' drunk. No wonder the Cubs haven't won anything for 100 years, we've been too loyal. FUKUDOME BRING IT HOME BABY!

oeo
11-19-2008, 05:59 PM
I don't work with them anymore. Let me just say they didn't think downloading porn off of explicit porn sites, as well as 68GB of ITunes music DURING work time to the WORK public drive, was an issue.

So yes - they are a moron. But locking them up allows them 3 square meals a day.

Damn, I was hoping society no longer had to worry about this person.

Zisk77
11-19-2008, 07:00 PM
I think the second-biggest reason is that chicks dig the longball. This is what the White Sox mean by the "home-run-or-none" approach to hitting.

:redneck

Damn't i forgot about the Chicks. Of course!:redface:

Frater Perdurabo
11-19-2008, 07:28 PM
In addition to the smaller LF and RF distances, the LCF and RCF power alley dimensions actually are taken at points slightly closer to CF. In other words, the points at which are now measured at 375 might have been at 380 or 385 previously. And the points at which 375 was measured previously might be 370 or 365 now. So it's not just that the fences are closer in the corners, but they are closer just about everywhere other than straight-away CF.

cws05champ
11-19-2008, 09:15 PM
I think the biggest reason is the new upper deck and wind flow. The Ball carries well now where it just didn't previously. Sure shorter fences make difference, but I don't believe its quite as profound as some make it out to be.

The old configuration was a big ballpark, but the new DOESN"T make it a small park, just pretty average in dimensions. Its a very fair park dimension-wise. Whats not fair is how the ball now carries especially when its warm.

I think this is the reason as well. The old UD not only had the extra rows but it was pure concrete with no opening with a roof that slanted upwards, blocking the wind. Now, with the roof straight across and the metal mesh at the top it allows an airflow not seen before. That combined with moving in the fences has made it a launch pad.

ode to veeck
11-19-2008, 09:28 PM
In addition to the smaller LF and RF distances, the LCF and RCF power alley dimensions actually are taken at points slightly closer to CF. In other words, the points at which are now measured at 375 might have been at 380 or 385 previously. And the points at which 375 was measured previously might be 370 or 365 now. So it's not just that the fences are closer in the corners, but they are closer just about everywhere other than straight-away CF.

and the power alley differences would make a bigger difference than down the line deltas, just look at the urinal

StillMissOzzie
11-20-2008, 03:14 AM
Back on topic - I thought there was a study done that when the UD roof was added, the airflow matched Coors Field relative to how the wind affected ball travel.

I think the biggest reason is the new upper deck and wind flow. The Ball carries well now where it just didn't previously. Sure shorter fences make difference, but I don't believe its quite as profound as some make it out to be.


I think this is the reason as well. The old UD not only had the extra rows but it was pure concrete with no opening with a roof that slanted upwards, blocking the wind. Now, with the roof straight across and the metal mesh at the top it allows an airflow not seen before. That combined with moving in the fences has made it a launch pad.
Now, I'm no engineer, but I have always felt that the changes they made to the UD had a major effect on wind flow. In particular, they sealed up the UD concourse with all the glass block, which IMHO, reduced the "flow-through" nature of the winds entering the park. Now, it seems that when wind pours in from the east (LF), the south (RF), or through the gaps in the billboards anywhere inbetween, this lack of "flow-through" slings that wind back out toward the outfiled. That, and 10' - 15' shorter dimensions everywhere BUT CF makes for a cozy HR launchpad.

SMO
:gulp:

RedHeadPaleHoser
11-20-2008, 07:46 AM
Damn, I was hoping society no longer had to worry about this person.

Trust me oeo - the only damage this person is doing now is getting the large vs. medium fries wrong at the local fast food joint. :D:

forrestg
11-20-2008, 02:01 PM
Wrigley field and comiskey park were designed by the same architect linkfirst—Wrigley Field or the original Comiskey Park? ... original Comiskey Park was designed by architect Zachary Taylor Davis, who would also later design cross-town Wrigley Field ... I believe the architech built old comiskey as a pitcher's park because they had good pitching while the Northside ball park later to be known as the urinal was designed to be a hitter's park due to their power lineup.. When cellular field was built I'm sure the science of building ballparks has increased somewhat. I think it was originally built with too many seats and I believe that when the cell was cut down to about 40,000 from 44,000 I'm sure the architects realized that it would be a homer haven.. Sox teams weren't built for speed but rather built to rely on the long ball.

ChiSox65
11-22-2008, 12:44 AM
From the start new Comiskey was more of a hitters park because home plate faces southeast as compared to northeast in the old ballpark and the Urinal. In the spring and fall a lot of potential Home Runs turned into easy outs in old Comiskey. Those same balls in new Comiskey are not knocked down by the wind, they are pushed more away from the LF foul pole towards CF. If you still get a hold of it, it will still be a HR and not a warning track flyout.


This is what I have read to explain the difference..........the new dimensions are the basically the same as most new parks but the fact the park faces a southeast direction rather than northeast. The wind now blows toward the lines ......it doesn't kill the fly balls to center in the cold months and blows out in the warm months.

GoSox

ChiSox65
11-22-2008, 12:50 AM
Wrigley field and comiskey park were designed by the same architect linkfirst—Wrigley Field or the original Comiskey Park? ... original Comiskey Park was designed by architect Zachary Taylor Davis, who would also later design cross-town Wrigley Field ... I believe the architech built old comiskey as a pitcher's park because they had good pitching while the Northside ball park later to be known as the urinal was designed to be a hitter's park due to their power lineup.. When cellular field was built I'm sure the science of building ballparks has increased somewhat. I think it was originally built with too many seats and I believe that when the cell was cut down to about 40,000 from 44,000 I'm sure the architects realized that it would be a homer haven.. Sox teams weren't built for speed but rather built to rely on the long ball.


I believe you are correct that both stadiums had the same architect, but if you look at very early pictures, the stadiums were built with no outfield grandstands. No stadium at this time was designed to be a "pitchers" or a "hitters" stadium, just a place were the people could sit in comfort and watch a game........it wasn't till later that outfield stands were built to accommodate more people

TDog
11-22-2008, 01:31 AM
We just make it look small :tongue:

Indeed, that is a factor, if not the reason. Old Comiskey was bigger, even after they moved up home plate to make roof-shots more frequent, but there was a year in the 1980s when there were 190 home runs hit in the park to lead all of baseball. Sox pitchers gave up quite a few.

Gosox1917
11-22-2008, 02:37 PM
Global warming.

Ball travels further when it is more humid...you can only get more moisture in the atmosphere when it is warmer.

And moving the fences in, cutting off the upper deck, a powerful lineup, steroids, tighter wound baseballs, less foul territory also have a lot do with it.

ode to veeck
11-22-2008, 03:27 PM
I believe you are correct that both stadiums had the same architect, but if you look at very early pictures, the stadiums were built with no outfield grandstands. No stadium at this time was designed to be a "pitchers" or a "hitters" stadium, just a place were the people could sit in comfort and watch a game........it wasn't till later that outfield stands were built to accommodate more people

the outfield grandstands were added later but the dimensions of the playing field should have remained the same

Oakland used to be more of a pitchers park before they built mount Davis, because the swirling winds in the open outfield blew many balls back in, no longer happens to the same extent there at all

PaleHoseGeorge
11-25-2008, 09:15 PM
The size of a ballpark's foul territory has a lot more to do with hitters' BA and offensive stats than most fans realize. Both Oakland and L.A. were much better pitchers' parks before they added seats along the foul lines.

You can't hit a home run if you already fouled out.

I'm certain the shorter foul lines helped build Sox Park home run totals, but the power alleys were virtually unchanged. I would give the smaller foul territory as much credit as changing wind velocities for any increase in offensive stats at the renovated Sox Park.