PDA

View Full Version : Time to move the fences back


soxinem1
08-27-2006, 10:00 PM
While I have generally liked and even enjoyed most of the changes to The Cell, or Reinsdorf Field as I've always called it, I am getting tired of watching these 'Punch-and-Judy' and 'Poke' hitters dink these little shots over the fences. I'd rather have the bullpens moved to the baselines than have to keep watching these phony homeruns.

It was the same with the roofshots in Comiskey during the early 80's. The Sox moved the plate up eight feet before the start of the 1983 season, and roofshot numbers jumped dramatically. When they moved it back for the 1986 season, it turned Comiskey into a pitchers park again.

I know the Sox did it to lure power hitters, but honestly, Konerko, Thome, and even Crede will not lose anything by moving back the fences, as they almost always hit the seats on their drives.

Other than 2004 and this year, the increase in the teams HR output at home has been nothing, but it has increased the output for the visiting teams.... and for ping hitters like Nick Punto and Jason Bartlett.

I like HR's as much as anyone, but I'm tired of the cheapies. I've watched this for the past five years and am just getting sick of it.

The White Sox should have a strong offensive for several years more, and it should help pitchers be more aggressive to have real dimensions down the lines and in the alleys.

Parrothead
08-27-2006, 10:12 PM
It will not happen. The only places they can move is the power alleys and center but only a few feet. All they have to do is get ground ball pitchers and the problem is solved.

Myrtle72
08-27-2006, 10:13 PM
...and how much do you think it will cost to do this relatively major overhaul to the outfield?

dickallen15
08-27-2006, 10:19 PM
Punto's homerun was gone if they moved the fences back 20 feet.

batmanZoSo
08-27-2006, 10:23 PM
...and how much do you think it will cost to do this relatively major overhaul to the outfield?

There's nothing major about it. It's just supplanting a chainlink fence. The only thing is there's a nice buffer zone between the fence and the fans right now and when you have the fence flush against the 1st row, you run into problems (see: Jeffery Mayer).

FedEx227
08-27-2006, 10:36 PM
There's nothing major about it. It's just supplanting a chainlink fence. The only thing is there's a nice buffer zone between the fence and the fans right now and when you have the fence flush against the 1st row, you run into problems (see: Jeffery Mayer).

Especially with our fans keeps us from interferring to end games or paying homage to the great Ligue.

Jjav829
08-27-2006, 10:37 PM
We could always make the wall about 25 feet high instead...



...Or just get better pitching. :dunno:

Harry Potter
08-27-2006, 10:42 PM
Lets worry about installing the rest of the green seats first.

Hitmen77
08-27-2006, 10:46 PM
Where would you put the bullpen bar, patio area, and not to mention the actual bullpens if you move back the fences? :?: Doesn't sound so simple to me.

At any rate, I thought it wasn't only the change in dimensions that turned the Cell into a HR haven. I thought I heard that the reconfigured Upper deck roof somehow changed the aerodynamics of the playing field and resulted in the wind assisting HRs more than before. Prior to the renovation, the wind was more likely to swirl around in the park. Can anyone confirm this? Am I remembering this correctly?

TheOldRoman
08-27-2006, 10:49 PM
They didn't move the fences in to attract power hitters. They moved them in so they could add more great seats in the outfield. They did it in an attempt to cover up the hideous "moat", make the park look better, and make it more intimate. Most importantly, they did it to increase homers because "chicks dig the longball", and fairweather fans love offense. They wanted to make games more high scoring and exciting, not lure more power hitters.
Also, remember that the fences weren't a problem until they chopped off the upperedeck. Then again, the homers weren't a problem for us last year because the pitching was better. I agree that it is frustraing to watch garbage like Punto and Bartlett hit homers, but that is more a result of bad pitching than anything else.

Not only would it be pointless to move the fences back, they would have to tear out the seats they built in 2001. Besides that, it seems like very few homers are cheap at the cell. Even of the ones Punto and Bartlett hit, they made it well past the fence. The only place where moving the fences back would have and impact on homers is in CF. If they moved the fence back 10 feet to the batter's eye, it would cut down on homers. The majority of homers to straight-away center fall in that gap. Then again, not many homers are hit to CF.

TheOldRoman
08-27-2006, 10:52 PM
Where would you put the bullpen bar, patio area, and not to mention the actual bullpens if you move back the fences? :?: Doesn't sound so simple to me.

At any rate, I thought it wasn't only the change in dimensions that turned the Cell into a HR haven. I thought I heard that the reconfigured Upper deck roof somehow changed the aerodynamics of the playing field and resulted in the wind assisting HRs more than before. Prior to the renovation, the wind was more likely to swirl around in the park. Can anyone confirm this? Am I remembering this correctly?
Yep. The new roof changed how the wind travels in the park. The fences were moved in for three years before the new roof, and this is the third year of the new roof. The homers jumped up in 04. Then again, our pitching sucked in 04. We didn't have much of a problem giving up homers last year.

Brian26
08-27-2006, 10:55 PM
Forget about moving them back. I say we move them in another 20 feet.

Then let's lay down artificial turf only in the infield, paint the outside of the stadium white with lime green trim, and hire a bunch of midgets in martian costumes to rake the infield. Wait, that's already been done...

TheOldRoman
08-27-2006, 10:56 PM
There's nothing major about it. It's just supplanting a chainlink fence. The only thing is there's a nice buffer zone between the fence and the fans right now and when you have the fence flush against the 1st row, you run into problems (see: Jeffery Mayer).
They would only be able to move the fence back a foot or 2 feet or so, because that is where the seats begin. That would cost money, but it would do virtually nothing to bring the homers down. If they wanted to move the fences back more than 2 feet, they would have to tear out seats.

Chips
08-27-2006, 10:57 PM
We could always make the wall about 25 feet high instead...



...Or just get better pitching. :dunno:

Or the picthing can just pitch to their full potential.

But I like that idea about 25 foot walls. :redneck

schmitty9800
08-27-2006, 10:58 PM
Not only would it be pointless to move the fences back, they would have to tear out the seats they built in 2001. Nah, they need to move back the left center power alley. If you stand in a first row bleachers seat you can see that there's a gap between where the fence can be (right next to the seats), and where the fence actually is (about 5-10 feet in). They need to take that fence out for next season. The right field power alley will still be kinda close but it's not a big deal.

Brian26
08-27-2006, 11:11 PM
In reality, very few homeruns actually fall in between the first row of the bleachers and the LCF or RCF wall. The biggest culprit seems to be the leftfield bullpen. If they seriously ever wanted to make an adjustment, they should consider erecting a 15-ft high screen on top of the leftfield wall, from the foul pole all the way over to section 159. Check out this chart and see where a majority of the cheapie homers are falling this year:

http://s72.photobucket.com/albums/i172/brian2653/uscellularfield_rings_2006_scatter.jpg

kjkobs
08-27-2006, 11:11 PM
http://www.global-lampoon.be/cpg/albums/3/THIS_THREAD_BLOWS.jpg

schmitty9800
08-27-2006, 11:28 PM
In reality, very few homeruns actually fall in between the first row of the bleachers and the LCF or RCF wall. The biggest culprit seems to be the leftfield bullpen. If they seriously ever wanted to make an adjustment, they should consider erecting a 15-ft high screen on top of the leftfield wall, from the foul pole all the way over to section 159. Check out this chart and see where a majority of the cheapie homers are falling this year:

http://s72.photobucket.com/albums/i172/brian2653/uscellularfield_rings_2006_scatter.jpg
It would still knock off 10 or so homers, that's not too insignificant. Plus it would not look stupid, because it looks stupid now.

35th&Shields
08-27-2006, 11:39 PM
I like HR's as much as anyone, but I'm tired of the cheapies. I've watched this for the past five years and am just getting sick of it.

The White Sox should have a strong offensive for several years more, and it should help pitchers be more aggressive to have real dimensions down the lines and in the alleys.

Interesting point, but I'd like to see some hard facts (i.e. statistics) to support your point. It's easy to feel this way after a couple of easy HR's by the visiting squad, but that doesn't mean that it would, in fact, benefit the Sox.

WizardsofOzzie
08-27-2006, 11:41 PM
http://www.global-lampoon.be/cpg/albums/3/THIS_THREAD_BLOWS.jpg

HAAAHHA i love it. Mind if i borrow for future use....lord knows i'll probably need it

Foulke You
08-28-2006, 12:00 AM
I honestly believe a thicker wind screen between the opening of the upper deck and the canopy roof would help cut down on some of the cheapies. The ball started jumping out of our park in the warm months after the upper deck renovations of '04 and NOT when they reconfigured the outfield seats and wall in '01. It has more to do with the wind pattern change than the distance of the fences. The old UD config had the high bowl of seats that caused a "swirling" wind that knocked a lot of would be HRs down at the track. When the bowl was trimmed down and a space for air to flow was opened between the canopy and the last row of seats is when the ball started jumping between June-August.

The power alleys and CF at New Comiskey remain the same distance today that they were when the park opened in 1991. 375 in both gaps and 400 straight away. In 2001, the configuration of the corner walls changed a bit. RF was brought in 12 feet to 335 and LF was brought in 17 feet to 330. Nobody was complaining about our park being a launching pad from 2001-2003 post outfield renovation because the swirling wind patterns were relatively unchanged. Anyone remember the feeble attempts at long HRs during the 2003 HR derby? There were plenty that fell at the warning track and plenty others that just cleared the fence. It was the least impressive HR derby of the last 10 years with only Pujols putting on a power display and only a few of his homers made it into the back end of the bleachers.

If the pattern holds true, when the weather cools off, the ball will won't jump quite as much as it does now. It seems like in April, May, and late September (and in the case of '05, October) the park plays more like it did pre 2004 UD renovations.

OzzyTrain
08-28-2006, 12:10 AM
I'd rather have the bullpens moved to the baselines than have to keep watching these phony homeruns.

I smell cubs fan

TheOldRoman
08-28-2006, 12:50 AM
I honestly believe a wind screen between the opening of the upper deck and the canopy roof would help cut down on some of the cheapies. The ball started jumping out of our park in the warm months after the upper deck renovations of '04 and NOT when they reconfigured the outfield seats and wall in '01. It has more to do with the wind pattern change than the distance of the fences. The old UD config had the high bowl of seats that caused a "swirling" wind that knocked a lot of would be HRs down at the track. When the bowl was trimmed down and a space for air to flow was opened between the canopy and the last row of seats is when the ball started jumping between June-August.

The power alleys and CF at New Comiskey remain the same distance today that they were when the park opened in 1991. 375 in both gaps and 400 straight away. In 2001, the configuration of the corner walls changed a bit. RF was brought in 12 feet to 335 and LF was brought in 17 feet to 330. Nobody was complaining about our park being a launching pad from 2001-2003 post outfield renovation because the swirling wind patterns were relatively unchanged. Anyone remember the feeble attempts at long HRs during the 2003 HR derby? There were plenty that fell at the warning track and plenty others that just cleared the fence. It was the least impressive HR derby of the last 10 years with only Pujols putting on a power display and only a few of his homers made it into the back end of the bleachers.

If the pattern holds true, when the weather cools off, the ball will won't jump quite as much as it does now. It seems like in April, May, and late September (and in the case of '05, October) the park plays more like it did pre 2004 UD renovations.
There already is a wind screen between the last row of seats and the roof.

soxinem1
08-28-2006, 07:26 AM
I smell cubs fan

I think you should get your nose checked.....

If you knew your history, the White sox had bullpens down the lines for years in Comiskey.

If you don't agree with my opinion, fine. Don't insult me, Bandwagon Jumper......

PaulDrake
08-28-2006, 09:13 AM
I think you should get your nose checked.....

If you knew your history, the White sox had bullpens down the lines for years in Comiskey.

If you don't agree with my opinion, fine. Don't insult me, Bandwagon Jumper...... Yes it was a pleasure to heckle opposing pitchers warming up. Again, questioning posters fan credentials, like yours just were is getting tiresome. I also agree that something should be done, even if its minor. I find it ironic that the Tigers, a team with a great hitting tradition built a park for pitchers, and the White Sox a team with a great pitching tradition turned their park into a hitters bandbox.

Foulke You
08-28-2006, 09:16 AM
There already is a wind screen between the last row of seats and the roof.
I guess I should have been more specific. What I should have said is we need a wind screen that significantly cuts down on the wind more than that flimsy thing they have up there right now. I've sat up there and plenty of air seems to gets through the opening.

soxinem1
08-28-2006, 09:39 AM
Yes it was a pleasure to heckle opposing pitchers warming up. Again, questioning posters fan credentials, like yours just were is getting tiresome. I also agree that something should be done, even if its minor. I find it ironic that the Tigers, a team with a great hitting tradition built a park for pitchers, and the White Sox a team with a great pitching tradition turned their park into a hitters bandbox.

Thanks for the defense. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but making a fandom reference is pretty silly.

I did forget about the changes to the upper deck, but I still think that the dimensions should be adjusted somehow.

But it is not like the White Sox have made it any easier on themselves. If you look at the pitchers we have had since alterations were made, and last year's rotation, all of them are HR-high pitchers. We added El Duque who gave up a ton too. Then this year we add Vasquez to the mix, and you can add a few more bombs. To me last year was an exception because a lot of these guys, other than Garland and Garcia, went against their career numbers and didn't serve up many HR's.

Sure, these things stand out when your SP's are not firing on all cylinders, but your pitchers will be in a much better state of mind if they know they can challenge a hitter and not have to worry about giving up a 338 ft. HR.

Frater Perdurabo
08-28-2006, 09:46 AM
The power alley dimension may be unchanged, but the point at which the power alleys are measured is now slightly more toward center field. If they had kept the "numbers" where they were before, the distance in RCF and LCF would measure slightly shorter.

miker
08-28-2006, 09:51 AM
We could always make the wall about 25 feet high instead...Or just get better pitching. :dunno:
Can we put baseballs in a humidor like the Rockies do, and then just use those balls when the opponent is at bat?

TheOldRoman
08-28-2006, 10:14 AM
Can we put baseballs in a humidor like the Rockies do, and then just use those balls when the opponent is at bat?
Ask Roger Bossard. His dad used to do that back in the day, only they didn't announce they did it, unlike the Rockies.

Lip Man 1
08-28-2006, 12:23 PM
Ah yes the 'frozen baseballs!' J.C. Martin in his interview had some of the funniest comments about that I ever heard.

Regarding the stadium, I'd love for the Sox to do something, anything, to cut down the amount of home runs, to me that's beer league softball not baseball, but regardless there's no money to pay for the renovations to the renovations and ownership won't do it themselves.

So in the long run it's cheaper to improve the pitching then to try to reconfigure the stadium (again.)

Lip

mrfourni
08-28-2006, 01:02 PM
Is there enough room down the foul lines for bullpens?

OzzyTrain
08-28-2006, 01:39 PM
I think you should get your nose checked.....

If you knew your history, the White sox had bullpens down the lines for years in Comiskey.

If you don't agree with my opinion, fine. Don't insult me, Bandwagon Jumper......

It was a joke :smile: , I'm no bandwagon jumper. Lets put the bull pens like they were in the polo grounds. Imagine the defense of player running for a fly ball, and just for the hell of it have AJ catching in there.

Fake Chet Lemon
08-28-2006, 04:23 PM
This was addressed at SoxFest two years ago. Kenny Williams said that they thought about it, but no. They could never really move the fences back because they'd lose too many good seats and there would be too much fan interference with any new re-alignment.

slavko
08-28-2006, 08:15 PM
I'd like to see LF and RF fences back to the original dimensions, but too many seats were added along the foul lines so that if you put the 'pens along the lines you'ld wind up with a congested mess like Wrigley Field. Is there enough room in the batter's eye area so that one or both 'pens could be put there, along with a see-through fence so the personnel stationed there could see the field?

TornLabrum
08-28-2006, 08:31 PM
I think you should get your nose checked.....

If you knew your history, the White sox had bullpens down the lines for years in Comiskey.

If you don't agree with my opinion, fine. Don't insult me, Bandwagon Jumper......

In my lifetime the bullpens were behind a fence in centerfield.

BA: The Hitman
08-28-2006, 09:06 PM
the fences didn't seem to be too much of a problem last year, how bout our pitching improves and we quit wasting time talking about making chnages to the park that wont be happening anytime soon.

Brian26
08-28-2006, 10:46 PM
Lets put the bull pens like they were in the polo grounds. Imagine the defense of player running for a fly ball, and just for the hell of it have AJ catching in there.

I'm imagining all of the balls that would be flying over Mackowiak's head. Instead of misplaying flyballs for doubles, he'd be giving up inside-the-parkers.:D:

Brian26
08-28-2006, 10:50 PM
In my lifetime the bullpens were behind a fence in centerfield.

Sort of a random question, but I remember seeing a picture in one of the old Sox yearbooks of the Old Comiskey outfield with a cyclone fence around it (had to have been from the 60s or early 70s, but it could have been the 50s). This just wasn't the centerfield area, but it was from the LF pole to the RF pole. Do you remember this?

A. Cavatica
08-28-2006, 10:55 PM
Isn't it easier to move home plate than the walls?

batmanZoSo
08-28-2006, 11:04 PM
Isn't it easier to move home plate than the walls?

Still not a signifact move-back without the need for renovations. But I imagine that would require much less of a renovation than removing the first few rows of the entire bleacher area (which, obviously were recently added...). In your idea, you'd just have to pull back the area down in the corners a few rows. Make it 410 to dead center. Baltimore did this a few years back and I believe they moved it back shortly after. :?:

Wsoxmike59
08-29-2006, 06:55 AM
Sort of a random question, but I remember seeing a picture in one of the old Sox yearbooks of the Old Comiskey outfield with a cyclone fence around it (had to have been from the 60s or early 70s, but it could have been the 50s). This just wasn't the centerfield area, but it was from the LF pole to the RF pole. Do you remember this?

Brian that was the 1969-70 seasons when the Sox placed a chain link fence in front of the old OF wall and changed the dimensions to 330 down the lines and 375 to the power alleys. The chainlink fence came down following the 1970 season

P.S. As a footnote in 1970 Bill Melton became the first Sox player to hit 30+ HR in a season when he hit 33. To Melton's credit the following season when he won the A.L. Homerun Crown with the same total of 33, he did it with the ballpark's original dimensions.

wassagstdu
08-29-2006, 06:55 AM
The problem with cheap HR's is that both teams get them. That makes the Sox hitters less likely to play Ozzie ball and more likely to swing from the heels. It makes Iguchi want to go back to his Japanese style instead of doing the little things that won last year. It makes Pods want to stay put and wait for the big fly.

There has been some discussion of MLB having juiced the ball to compensate for the anticipated drop in power numbers as a result of drug testing. Watching one-handed, end of the bat, off balance fly balls sail out of the park makes me think there is something to that. Also the increased number of singles with a man on second that fail to score because the ball gets to the outfield so quickly. If that is true, it has badly hurt the Sox, who arguably did not need the help as much as the opposition did. So I say, put the balls in the refrigerator, and use the same balls for both teams, being consistent about it, and tell MLB what they are doing. It is no different from having a "quirky" ballpark or sloping the dirt along the foul lines.

.

Wsoxmike59
08-29-2006, 07:05 AM
Also put me down in the camp that HATES the new dimensions in the OF that has turned U.S. Cellular Field in to Coors Lite Field.

I loved the dimensions (347 down the lines) of the OF when the new Comiskey Park II opened for business in 1991. I loved the fact that it played fair to both left and right handed hitters. The spacious gaps and ample foul ground down the lines made it more of a pitchers park in the beginning years.

I still say they could've done the remodeling in the OF and KEPT THE ORIGINAL DIMENSIONS of the playing field. They could've tilted the bullpens 90 degrees AND filled in the "moat" with extra seats and still leave the fences where they were!

At the time of the announced renovations, the Sox were drafting pitching left and right, and I said to myself.....if they're trying to build a team based around pitching, why would they pull the fences in so much to aid the hitters??

It didn't make sense to me at the time, and it still doesn't.

batmanZoSo
08-29-2006, 08:27 AM
Also put me down in the camp that HATES the new dimensions in the OF that has turned U.S. Cellular Field in to Coors Lite Field.

I loved the dimensions (347 down the lines) of the OF when the new Comiskey Park II opened for business in 1991. I loved the fact that it played fair to both left and right handed hitters. The spacious gaps and ample foul ground down the lines made it more of a pitchers park in the beginning years.

I still say they could've done the remodeling in the OF and KEPT THE ORIGINAL DIMENSIONS of the playing field. They could've tilted the bullpens 90 degrees AND filled in the "moat" with extra seats and still leave the fences where they were!

At the time of the announced renovations, the Sox were drafting pitching left and right, and I said to myself.....if they're trying to build a team based around pitching, why would they pull the fences in so much to aid the hitters??

It didn't make sense to me at the time, and it still doesn't.

The dimensions are the same as when the park opened except for right down the two lines. The gaps have always been 375 and that's where the majority of home runs tend to go.

soxfan13
08-29-2006, 08:28 AM
the fences didn't seem to be too much of a problem last year, how bout our pitching improves and we quit wasting time talking about making chnages to the park that wont be happening anytime soon.

Exactly, there was no talk about the fences last year when the pitching was a bit more consistent.

soxinem1
08-29-2006, 10:09 AM
the fences didn't seem to be too much of a problem last year, how bout our pitching improves and we quit wasting time talking about making chnages to the park that wont be happening anytime soon.

2005 had several pitchers having career years. Almost every starter the White Sox have employed in the last decade have given up a lot of HR's on a consistent basis.

slavko
08-29-2006, 11:02 AM
The dimensions are the same as when the park opened except for right down the two lines. The gaps have always been 375 and that's where the majority of home runs tend to go.

A quick check of the graphic in post 16 of this thread says the majority of HR's are in the closest part of dead left field, the bullpen area.

Wsoxmike59
08-29-2006, 06:43 PM
U.S.Cellular Field
DimensionsLF 330 feetLCF 377 feetCF 400 feetRCF 372 feetRF 335 feetU.S. Cellular Field
Capacity 40,615

Dimensions: Left field: 347 feet (1991), 330 feet (2001); left-center: 375 feet (1991), 377 feet (2001); center field: 400 feet (1991); right-center: 375 feet (1991), 372 feet (2001); right field: 347 feet (1991), 335 feet (2001); backstop: 60 feet (1991).

BatmanZoso writes: The dimensions are the same as when the park opened except for right down the two lines. The gaps have always been 375 and that's where the majority of home runs tend to go.

Not necessarily Batman, you can play with the placement of the 375 ft marker on the OF walls by placing them further out toward the CF area on the RF wall and a little toward the foul line on the LF side. It may look symmetrical to the naked eye, but one side of the field is a little shorter in the power alley than the other.

Also the Sox took several feet of foul ground out down the lines. If you took in to account all the square footage of OF space lost in the renovations I think it makes quite a difference, and I think the HR totals in the park have increased dramatically since they pulled the fences in.

Lorenzo Barcelo
08-29-2006, 06:58 PM
Punto's homerun was gone if they moved the fences back 20 feet.

Ditto. That goes for Bartletts too.

TornLabrum
08-29-2006, 07:01 PM
Sort of a random question, but I remember seeing a picture in one of the old Sox yearbooks of the Old Comiskey outfield with a cyclone fence around it (had to have been from the 60s or early 70s, but it could have been the 50s). This just wasn't the centerfield area, but it was from the LF pole to the RF pole. Do you remember this?
It was probably the late '70s/early '80s. Bill Veeck took out the CF fence and returned Comiskey Park to its 1927 configuration for a few years. Those are the only years since 1955 that I recall the bullpens being on the sidelines.

EDIT: Or during the chain link fence years. I honestly don't remember the bullpens back then.

Lip Man 1
08-29-2006, 10:52 PM
Hal:

From the video that I have I can tell you that in 1972 (chain link in CF) the bullpens were along the sidelines right near the box seats down the first and third base lines.

They were also there during the time period that Bill took out the CF fence and used the original dimensions. (1977 for sure)

During the 60's the bullpens were in the area behind the chain link fence in CF (at least the early / mid 60's)

That's all I know.

Lip

doctorlecter
08-29-2006, 10:57 PM
Where would you put the bullpen bar, patio area, and not to mention the actual bullpens if you move back the fences? :?: Doesn't sound so simple to me.

At any rate, I thought it wasn't only the change in dimensions that turned the Cell into a HR haven. I thought I heard that the reconfigured Upper deck roof somehow changed the aerodynamics of the playing field and resulted in the wind assisting HRs more than before. Prior to the renovation, the wind was more likely to swirl around in the park. Can anyone confirm this? Am I remembering this correctly?

No question. When they closed the club level off, the place turned into a launching pad.

Brian26
08-29-2006, 11:33 PM
It was probably the late '70s/early '80s. Bill Veeck took out the CF fence and returned Comiskey Park to its 1927 configuration for a few years. Those are the only years since 1955 that I recall the bullpens being on the sidelines.

I think someone already answered this...'69 & '70. I'm not just talking about centerfield, but there was a chain-link fence in front of the picnic area in left field and all the way down the right field wall. There was no extra seating or anything placed in this area, so it looked very strange. I remember seeing the photo in the Sox '85 program/yearbook. If anyone still has that, it's in there (I think I threw my copy out).

Wsoxmike59
08-30-2006, 06:24 AM
I think someone already answered this...'69 & '70. I'm not just talking about centerfield, but there was a chain-link fence in front of the picnic area in left field and all the way down the right field wall. There was no extra seating or anything placed in this area, so it looked very strange. I remember seeing the photo in the Sox '85 program/yearbook. If anyone still has that, it's in there (I think I threw my copy out).

That was me Brian, check out this link http://www.chicagobaseballphotos.com/years/1969-70.htm

Click on the Gary Bell photos from 1969 and you can clearly see the chain link fence in front of the OF walls.


There was a photo of the Chain Link Fence in front of the OF walls in the Dan Helpinstine book 1959 and Beyond (pg 60).