PDA

View Full Version : Is the Cell really a hitters park?


house215
05-03-2005, 10:08 PM
After last years renovations everyone was saying the Cell was now a hitters paradise. While the numbers that backed that claim up last year was the record number of home runs we saw the Sox hit and give up at home; could it be that this was a result of their potent lineup/ poor pitching? Or could it be a little of the Sox and the renovations? Because I know our pitching is improved this year and our lineup doesn't have as much firepower but we aren't seeing the longball nearly as much as we saw it last year. Thoughts?

White Sox Josh
05-03-2005, 10:21 PM
numbers speak for themselves

Home5.02
9
7
0
0
19
19
1
129.0
159
76
72
22
24
87
.306
Away2.63
7
3
0
0
16
16
3
116.1
98
43
34
11
27
78
.229

SouthSide4Life
05-03-2005, 10:35 PM
I know Comiskey is

Palehose13
05-03-2005, 10:40 PM
numbers speak for themselves

Home5.02
9
7
0
0
19
19
1
129.0
159
76
72
22
24
87
.306
Away2.63
7
3
0
0
16
16
3
116.1
98
43
34
11
27
78
.229

:?:
It's Greek to me!

balke
05-03-2005, 10:42 PM
I think the #'s are a little tilted. We had one of the greatest hitting squads in the league, and have had some big HR sluggers for a while on this team. I'd like to see how many HR's are Home team, compared to away, and compare that to some other parks.

On the other hand, PK's #'s suggest this is a great HR hitters park.

TheOldRoman
05-03-2005, 10:53 PM
I know Comiskey is
Comiskey was a cold, blue, cavernous barn.
US Cellular Field is one of the finest parks in baseball, and yes, it is a hitters park.

SOX ADDICT '73
05-03-2005, 11:01 PM
5 dingers tonight, 3 of them from (if the Rockies hang on to win) the worst team in all of baseball? Yeah, it's a hitter's park.

Now, if we can only get PK to remember that...

White Sox Josh
05-03-2005, 11:02 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?statsId=6525&type=pitching&year=2004

samram
05-03-2005, 11:07 PM
I know Comiskey is

Dude, get over it.

TDog
05-03-2005, 11:26 PM
Comiskey was a cold, blue, cavernous barn.
US Cellular Field is one of the finest parks in baseball, and yes, it is a hitters park.

There was a year in the 1980s -- not a good year by any means -- when old Comiskey led the majors with home runs allowed at 190. You can't go by the numbers alone.

SOX ADDICT '73
05-03-2005, 11:34 PM
There was a year in the 1980s -- not a good year by any means -- when old Comiskey led the majors with home runs allowed at 190. You can't go by the numbers alone.
I'm pretty sure TheOldRoman is not referring to Old Comiskey vs. New Comiskey/USCF, but rather to the current ballpark in both of its incarnations:

As Comiskey II, it was a "cold, blue, cavernous barn" (original Comiskey was green, remember?).

But the money brought in by selling the naming rights to U.S. Cellular has made possible all of the recent fan-friendly renovations.

TheOldRoman
05-04-2005, 12:14 AM
I'm pretty sure TheOldRoman is not referring to Old Comiskey vs. New Comiskey/USCF, but rather to the current ballpark in both of its incarnations:

As Comiskey II, it was a "cold, blue, cavernous barn" (original Comiskey was green, remember?).

But the money brought in by selling the naming rights to U.S. Cellular has made possible all of the recent fan-friendly renovations.
Yep. The park is beautiful now (well, beautiful when its full - it will be beautiful 24/7 when the green seats go in). I dont mind the name change because it was done for the betterment of the park.

Banix12
05-04-2005, 12:18 AM
Certainly the stats lean toward a hitters park.

I think the sox pitching over the last few years has been hitters pitching, especially at the back of the rotation. Maybe that has something to do with it.

GiveMeSox
05-04-2005, 12:29 AM
I think its a hitters park but I also think last year was a fluke in the home run category. The cell has had its current configuration now since the 2001 season. Prior to 2004 no one considered it a launching pad. However three factors changed that last year. One was the sox being massive power team that hit 242 homers and set a club home run record. The second was the new upper deck which cut down on the old swirling, non previaling, winds; remember seeing the trash swirl in the outfield corners. THe third is what Paulie said, last year in May and throughout the summer the temperatures were very warm, humid and windy. THis contributes to the ball jumping a lot more, and it did. Remeber than game against the Phillies last year in June when it was like 90 degrees the balls were flying out, it was like 14-11.

This year the numbers are going to come down and reflect 2001-2003 cell's homer stats. Not only is our team less of a homer happy team, but our pitching improved and already this spring has been 10x cooler than last. All those factors together will show last year was a fluke and this year will be average.

oharewx
05-04-2005, 05:09 AM
could the fundamentals area affect the wind patterns in the park? that would be the only significant change since last year.

JRIG
05-04-2005, 06:10 AM
There was a year in the 1980s -- not a good year by any means -- when old Comiskey led the majors with home runs allowed at 190. You can't go by the numbers alone.

OK, you got me here. If you're not going to try to judge the park by numbers (i.e. runs, home runs, ERA, etc), how exactly do you plan on doing it? Ranking the park's intangibles?

fquaye149
05-04-2005, 10:07 AM
OK, you got me here. If you're not going to try to judge the park by numbers (i.e. runs, home runs, ERA, etc), how exactly do you plan on doing it? Ranking the park's intangibles?

you become one with the park and discover it's inner animal. If it is a penguin it is a pitcher's park. A mandrake, a hitter's park. If, however, it is a bobcat, then you're looking at the rare MANAGER'S park.

TDog
05-04-2005, 10:23 AM
OK, you got me here. If you're not going to try to judge the park by numbers (i.e. runs, home runs, ERA, etc), how exactly do you plan on doing it? Ranking the park's intangibles?

Old Comiskey Park after home plate was moved (in time for Luzinski and Kittle to re-write the book on "roof shots" certainly was different from the more spacious Comiskey of the 'sixties, with the deadest possible regulation American League baseballs. Still, no one would say it was as "home-run friendly" as Wrigley Field. Yet there were seasons when more home runs were hit in Comiskey. There was at least one season where more home runs were hit in Comiskey than were hit anywhere else.

You can't compare a ballpark by the numbers because not every team has the same hitters. Probably more importantly, not every team has the same pitchers.