PDA

View Full Version : Sox Considered Moving out Fences/ Dave Van Dyke is a Moron


FightingBillini
04-05-2005, 11:11 PM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-050404soxside,1,5247773.story?coll=cs-whitesox-headlines

In the beginning of the article, it mentions that the Sox considered moving the back to distances similar to where they were in 2000. KW said it would mess with the Sox hitters head and make them think they were weak. I am curious as to what ways the Sox considered moving the fences back, seing as they added seats between the old and new fences. They would have had to tear down those seats, and I think that had more to do with the decision that the players' self esteem.

Van Dyck goes on to make an ass of himself, basically saying the team has no power. I guess the Tribune locks out and bans all White Sox statistics pages on of their computers at the office. Otherwise, he might realize that the Sox would still have been in the top half of MLB in homers even if Ordonez, Lee, and Valentin hit ZERO combined. Changing the public's mind-set is the reason Williams is so touchy when the subject of home runs, or the lack of them, comes up.
He calls the Cell's structure "controversial", and refers to FUNdamentals as a "play area". What a tool.

oeo
04-05-2005, 11:18 PM
And once again mocks KW by calling this an experiment, after KW pointed out that it was not. Sounds like a Dyck to me...

batmanZoSo
04-05-2005, 11:30 PM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-050404soxside,1,5247773.story?coll=cs-whitesox-headlines

In the beginning of the article, it mentions that the Sox considered moving the back to distances similar to where they were in 2000. KW said it would mess with the Sox hitters head and make them think they were weak. I am curious as to what ways the Sox considered moving the fences back, seing as they added seats between the old and new fences. They would have had to tear down those seats, and I think that had more to do with the decision that the players' self esteem.

Van Dyck goes on to make an ass of himself, basically saying the team has no power. I guess the Tribune locks out and bans all White Sox statistics pages on of their computers at the office. Otherwise, he might realize that the Sox would still have been in the top half of MLB in homers even if Ordonez, Lee, and Valentin hit ZERO combined.
He calls the Cell's structure "controversial", and refers to FUNdamentals as a "play area". What a tool.

They actually could move the fences back some without removing rows. There's still about three or four feet of space between the current fence and the front row in the gaps, and down the lines near the bullpens, they could move the fences back 8 feet if they wanted to. They're just free standing chain links over there. It wouldn't be a huge change at all, but it would save some runs over the year and make it fairer to the pitchers. And they could always remove the first row in the gaps if they were willing to spend the money and that would allow a substantial change. I'd like it to be 340 and 380 instead of 330 and 375. With the winds now, we'd need big dimensions to make it fair.

GiveMeSox
04-05-2005, 11:35 PM
There is no way they are going to move the fences. The only place they possible could would be in the gaps. THey can't move the fences back down the lines becuase of the new bullpens and new sports bar. There is a very little amount of room between the first rows in the bleachers and the fences. But moving the fences back there would be bad. They made structural changes to the seating there to make closer and better seats. Taking them away would be a mistake. The fences are fine as is.

FightingBillini
04-05-2005, 11:44 PM
They actually could move the fences back some without removing rows. There's still about three or four feet of space between the current fence and the front row in the gaps, and down the lines near the bullpens, they could move the fences back 8 feet if they wanted to. They're just free standing chain links over there. It wouldn't be a huge change at all, but it would save some runs over the year and make it fairer to the pitchers. And they could always remove the first row in the gaps if they were willing to spend the money and that would allow a substantial change. I'd like it to be 340 and 380 instead of 330 and 375. With the winds now, we'd need big dimensions to make it fair.

No. I actually got into a fight with PHG about this, and I was wrong. There is only a 1 or 2 foot gap, and I dont think it would make a bit of a difference. They couldn't move the fences back by the bullpens, either. They would need to move the bullpens back, eliminating several more rows of seats. The chain link area is only in right. The wall infront of the Sox bullpen is fully padded. I wouldn't mind if the park had larger dimensions, but they just cant make that happen without removing more seats. The only change I wouldn't mind seeing would be to eliminate the fence in straight away center, and move it back 10 feet or so to the beginning of the batters eye. CF is the only place where cheap homers were hit at USCF last year. 400 is pretty short for a modern stadium, and there were plenty of balls that just barely cleared the fence to center. Most of the homers to right and left were halfway deep into the seats. Moving the CF fence back is the only moving that might have a significant change.

GiveMeSox
04-06-2005, 12:04 AM
No. I actually got into a fight with PHG about this, and I was wrong. There is only a 1 or 2 foot gap, and I dont think it would make a bit of a difference. They couldn't move the fences back by the bullpens, either. They would need to move the bullpens back, eliminating several more rows of seats. The chain link area is only in right. The wall infront of the Sox bullpen is fully padded. I wouldn't mind if the park had larger dimensions, but they just cant make that happen without removing more seats. The only change I wouldn't mind seeing would be to eliminate the fence in straight away center, and move it back 10 feet or so to the beginning of the batters eye. CF is the only place where cheap homers were hit at USCF last year. 400 is pretty short for a modern stadium, and there were plenty of balls that just barely cleared the fence to center. Most of the homers to right and left were halfway deep into the seats. Moving the CF fence back is the only moving that might have a significant change.

I agree with everything you said. Plus the reason there is a 1 or 2 foot gap between the first rows of the bleachers and fence is to create seperation of the fans and playing field. When they are right on top of each other like at yankee stadium for instance all you get are problems with fan interference and did someone reach out and grab the ball and help it over the fence and what not. I wouldn't mind seeing a railing put up and like a nice green padded top put between the fence and seats to make it look better but thats about it.

indysoxfan
04-06-2005, 12:28 AM
Cant they just move the plate back to make the park play longer?

FightingBillini
04-06-2005, 12:42 AM
Cant they just move the plate back to make the park play longer?

No. The park is built around homeplate being at that specific spot. The slope of the stands is determined by the area directly behind homeplate. The upperdeck is as steep as it is because it is so high up, but there has to be an unobstructed sightline from the last row of the UD to homeplate. If homeplate were to be moved back, you wouldnt be able to see a good portion of homeplate and the backstop from the upperdeck.
Also, there is very little room in foul territory in the outfield corners. If homeplate was moved back, the distance down the foul lines would actually become much shorter.

shoota
04-06-2005, 12:58 AM
And once again mocks KW by calling this an experiment, after KW pointed out that it was not. Sounds like a Dyck to me...

I read this article this morning and was appalled at Van Dyck's insulting comment. I'll quote it so those who haven't read the entire article don't have to.

The result was a Mark Buehrle-produced 1-0 Sox victory that, for one day with their best starting pitcher, authenticated Williams' experiment.

"Experiment?" Williams asked testily. "This is not an experiment. This is a necessity. We weren't getting it done the other way. It's as simple as that."

Van Dyck ends his article with this:
Stay tuned. We certainly haven't heard the last of Williams' "experiment" or of U. S. Cellular Field.

Thanks for being all over this inaccurate, insulting journalism, Billini.

batmanZoSo
04-06-2005, 01:14 AM
No. I actually got into a fight with PHG about this, and I was wrong. There is only a 1 or 2 foot gap, and I dont think it would make a bit of a difference. They couldn't move the fences back by the bullpens, either. They would need to move the bullpens back, eliminating several more rows of seats. The chain link area is only in right. The wall infront of the Sox bullpen is fully padded. I wouldn't mind if the park had larger dimensions, but they just cant make that happen without removing more seats. The only change I wouldn't mind seeing would be to eliminate the fence in straight away center, and move it back 10 feet or so to the beginning of the batters eye. CF is the only place where cheap homers were hit at USCF last year. 400 is pretty short for a modern stadium, and there were plenty of balls that just barely cleared the fence to center. Most of the homers to right and left were halfway deep into the seats. Moving the CF fence back is the only moving that might have a significant change.

It's more than a foot, it's about three or just under, I sat in the second row out there in left last year. And they could move the left field fence back because it's slanted relative to the line. I don't see what padding has to do with it (also, the bullpen fence has chainlink windows in it, for the record...unless they just changed it, I didn't see opening day). They could make it perpendicular to the foul line, which would add 5 or 6 feet to that 330 sign.

Center field isn't important because not a lot of homers go out there, probably fewest of all. And 400 is not cheap, that's almost the gold standard in ballparks. Some have a corner that might go 410 or something.

FightingBillini
04-06-2005, 01:52 AM
It's more than a foot, it's about three or just under, I sat in the second row out there in left last year. And they could move the left field fence back because it's slanted relative to the line. I don't see what padding has to do with it (also, the bullpen fence has chainlink windows in it, for the record...unless they just changed it, I didn't see opening day). They could make it perpendicular to the foul line, which would add 5 or 6 feet to that 330 sign.

Center field isn't important because not a lot of homers go out there, probably fewest of all. And 400 is not cheap, that's almost the gold standard in ballparks. Some have a corner that might go 410 or something.

Well, if they moved the fence back in left, it would be symmetrical again and even more boring. I only mentioned the padding because you said it was just a chain link fence. 5 feet wouldn't make that much of a difference. I watched most games last year, and I dont remember many homers landing in the bullpen. Due to the wind currents, the balls fly half way up the seating sections. Therefore, it wouldnt do a bit of help to move the fence back 5 feet. 10 feet would probably be the miminal amount that would allow us to see a significant difference in homers.

As for CF, most newer parks have distances further than 400:
BOB 407
Citizen Bank 401
Comerica 420
Coors 415
GABP 404
Jacobs Field 405
Minute Maid 436
Oriole Park 417
Safeco 405
I know that very few HRs are hit to center. My point is, it seemed last year like balls went out easier to center than in the past. Also, the HRs to center barely cleared the fence, for the most part. I said that moving the fences back 5 or 10 feet in center would save more homers than moving it back 10 feet down the lines. Since most balls dont make it to the batters eye, some homers would be saved.

Wsoxmike59
04-06-2005, 06:51 AM
I vehemently argued against moving the fences in after the 2000 season. Ron Scheuler at the time had spent the previous two years drafting nothing but pitching.

The die was cast for the future, to build a team around pitching and defense, the cornerstone of many a Major League Champion, and the legacy of White Sox baseball of my youth. To pull the fences in NOW made absolutely NO SENSE TO ME!

I argued that Comiskey Park II in its' original state, played very fair for both hitters and pitchers. To my way of thinking, a left handed batter should have to hit the ball the same distance a right handed batter has to, to hit a HR.

The results were so damn predictable it was laughable. U.S. Cellular Field became the Coors Field of the A.L. It's one the easiest places in the Majors to hit HR's.

The Old Roman himself would be spinning in his grave if he ever found out the OF dimensions at the Cell. He thought HR's should be "earned"

I hope the White Sox organization pulls the fences back after the '05 season, I would welcome the change.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-06-2005, 08:49 AM
The old moat was filled in by new rows of seats mounted on concrete risers. There is no gap anymore, except in right field with the cyclone fence in front of the Patio and the Bullpen Sports Bar.

The ballpark plays exactly the same for both teams. If we have a superior pitching staff (and wasn't that the whole point of this past winter's moves?), the home runs they allow will be fewer than those given up by the opposition's pitchers.

Atlanta had the best pitching staff in all of baseball throughout the 90's and they pitched inside a ballpark nicknamed the Launching Pad. How ****ing stupid must Dave Van Dyck be?
:?:

Van Dyck is an idiot. Nuff said.

wdelaney72
04-06-2005, 08:52 AM
I think moving CF back would be very interesting. It would give the outfield more character.

I completely agree that the LF and RF homeruns clear the fences with great ease. Given the space available, moving those back wouldn't make much difference.

Centerfield should be more than 400 ft and they have plenty of room to make an adjustment.

Then again, Monday proved that if your pitchers do their jobs, this isn't an issue.

Lip Man 1
04-06-2005, 12:36 PM
Perhaps this is simply semantics but isn't the FUNdamentals area an area where kids 'play'?

Lip

LVSoxFan
04-06-2005, 12:44 PM
At all the games I was at last year, sitting in left field, like somebody said above I don't recall a whole lot just barely making it over the bullpen fence, where an extra five feet would have made the difference.

I did see one, once, that landed straight on top of the fence (padding) and bounced back onto the field, for a GR double. That was funny.

But nope: they were all drilled about halfway up, same with the RF homers I saw. They were gone, and they weren't coming back.

So moving a fence in that place five feet or so back is hardly gonna make a difference IMO. How about throwing good pitches, LOL?

Plus, the Cell in some ways ain't that big--or maybe it's that it's just sort of enclosed now. I was at Comerica last year (and will be in two weeks!); now THAT is not a hitter's park. And they STILL have extra space if they wanted to move the OF fences back.

FightingBillini
04-06-2005, 02:32 PM
Perhaps this is simply semantics but isn't the FUNdamentals area an area where kids 'play'?

Lip

No. Per its description, its a place where kids go to learn baseball and softball techniques. Van Dyke deliberately called it a play area to trivialize it. He might as well called it a daycare center.

ma-gaga
04-06-2005, 03:51 PM
They should put a roof over the top of US Cell, and turn the fans on whenever the Sox are batting... That will help their fragile egos.

:cool:

batmanZoSo
04-06-2005, 05:10 PM
Well, if they moved the fence back in left, it would be symmetrical again and even more boring. I only mentioned the padding because you said it was just a chain link fence. 5 feet wouldn't make that much of a difference. I watched most games last year, and I dont remember many homers landing in the bullpen. Due to the wind currents, the balls fly half way up the seating sections. Therefore, it wouldnt do a bit of help to move the fence back 5 feet. 10 feet would probably be the miminal amount that would allow us to see a significant difference in homers.

As for CF, most newer parks have distances further than 400:
BOB 407
Citizen Bank 401
Comerica 420
Coors 415
GABP 404
Jacobs Field 405
Minute Maid 436
Oriole Park 417
Safeco 405
I know that very few HRs are hit to center. My point is, it seemed last year like balls went out easier to center than in the past. Also, the HRs to center barely cleared the fence, for the most part. I said that moving the fences back 5 or 10 feet in center would save more homers than moving it back 10 feet down the lines. Since most balls dont make it to the batters eye, some homers would be saved.

A few of those measurements are off dead-center where the quirky dimensions reach their pinnacle. Jacobs and Oriole park for instance. Coors field simply can't have anything less than 415. Enron has to have something to offset the joke that is the rest of that bandbox. I'm sure off to the left and right where our straight CF fence comes to a point, it's at least 402. But 400 to dead center is the most common measurement you'll see, give or take a foot or two in parks with asymmetrical dimensions. Fenway for instance is 420 in the corner, but straightaway it's probably right around 400. Whatever.....

I think even three feet would help and would be worth doing. I always see homers land in the first row at this park in the gaps. If you eliminate ten of those a year, it makes a difference.

Lip Man 1
04-06-2005, 08:41 PM
Billini:

In other words they're 'playing...'

:?:

Lip

GiveMeSox
04-06-2005, 09:08 PM
It's more than a foot, it's about three or just under, I sat in the second row out there in left last year. And they could move the left field fence back because it's slanted relative to the line. I don't see what padding has to do with it (also, the bullpen fence has chainlink windows in it, for the record...unless they just changed it, I didn't see opening day). They could make it perpendicular to the foul line, which would add 5 or 6 feet to that 330 sign.

Center field isn't important because not a lot of homers go out there, probably fewest of all. And 400 is not cheap, that's almost the gold standard in ballparks. Some have a corner that might go 410 or something.

Then that negates the point of the rennovations to change the field from a boring symmetric shape to a more exciting, better looking, and retro styled asymmetical shape. The reason the fence isn't perpendicular to the pole and the gaps get way back to hit the center field wall is to create that asymmetrical shape and give the playing field a little uniqueness. To make balls take different hops of it and such. The old way was boring and un-unique, that is why the sox rennovated or changed it around for 2001.