Comments on: The fence dilemma

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 17:17:51 +0000

Isn’t the Collie more homer-friendly now than it was pre-Mt. Davis. My understanding is that the winds generally blew in and that Mt. Davis blocks them to some degree. The dimensions are also shorter than they were.

By: SierraSpartan

SierraSpartan — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 01:14:09 +0000

I was at the game in question, and when Hicks hit it, it “sounded” gone. Then I remembered where I was, and spent a moment to watch the play unfold. Moving the fences in, or cutting them down to a symmetric 8 foot height isn’t going to do one damn bit of good for the long-term health of the franchise in that stadium – the only thing that will help is for a demo crew to come in and remove Mount Davis. Perhaps then the outbound wind will aid fly balls in going out, and you won’t have to look at those foil-covered windows any more. Only downside is losing the guys in 149, who were having too much fun. But their arms got kinda tired after two or three minutes of the Balfour intro tune.

By: letsgoas

letsgoas — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 00:55:27 +0000

wasn’t there a report during the previous offseason that they were gonna replace the old video screens that are still there from the original renovation done in the mid 90s? i’m guessing they haven’t done that.

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 00:51:59 +0000

Wouldn’t expect them to do much more than has already been done. It’s not their stadium, it’s Oakland’s stadium to fix.

By: Jeffrey

Jeffrey — Sun, 08 Jul 2012 21:14:06 +0000

Eb, nope.

By: eb

eb — Sun, 08 Jul 2012 20:37:44 +0000

Has Wolff or the A’s front office ever mentioned the possibility of a spruce up of the Coliseum? It’s probably my own bias, but I just have a hard time seeing current ownership committing to really revamping the place.

By: Jeffrey

Jeffrey — Sun, 08 Jul 2012 18:26:00 +0000

I may be in the minority, but I’d love to see any sort of aesthetic change that makes the place look different. I have now traveled to several existing MLB ballparks (half of the existing stadiums). I have yet to make it to Tampa, but without a doubt, the Coliseum is the least atheistically pleasing. The only place I have ever been that I would say was worse was the old Kingdome. If anyone thinks this doesn’t influence decisions on whether to go to a game or not, I’d encourage to ask a casual fan that has (hint, they didn’t say a single thing about crime rates or how horrible Oakland was, they did compare the Coliseum very unfavorably to other stadiums) recently been what they thought. I had an interesting conversation with one recently that was really a fair assessment of the place.
.
Neutralizing park factors by reducing the height of the sections between CF and the out of town scoreboards would be fine, but I’d like it to be a change (as cuppingmaster alludes too) that made it somehow “easier on the eyes.”
.
I am sure there are ways to do it. Murals in the outfield, getting more gold than green in the color scheme, sweet tarps, etc. All of it is just window dressing until there is a new yard somewhere, but I’d welcome it.

By: Anon

Anon — Sun, 08 Jul 2012 03:20:41 +0000

E. Coli-seum has a park factor which ranks ~#20 out of the 30 teams. That’s not exactly compelling to see it as affecting us that much offensively (we’re barely ahead of Yankee stadium). Considering also that our strength is/had been pitching, i’m inclined to leave as is. I can understand ML’s point of transitioning to Cisco Field if/when the TRs are lifted but for today, it’s best to protect our most important assets: our pitchers.

By: James

James — Sun, 08 Jul 2012 01:43:44 +0000

@gojohn10

Getting rid of all the foul territory will help the A’s offense but it will hurt their pitching in exchange. Everything about the Coliseum is pitcher-friendly now and their teams have been built in part to take advantage of that.

It’s not that different from the way the old Cardinals teams in the 80s were built for speed with the artificial turf. Line a ball into the gap, let it roll on the carpet, and you’ve got an easy triple. In fact, during the 80s they led the NL in triples four times and were 2nd or 3rd three times. Take out their low of 33 in 1988 and they averaged 50.7 a season.

As long as the A’s pitching is good enough to keep other teams from scoring a bunch of runs, especially at home, there’s no real reason for the A’s to try to alter the dimensions or the fence, let alone reduce foul territory. It just means we have to be used to an offense that is usually subpar, but that’s only part of the issue with the bats over the last number of years.

By: letsgoas

letsgoas — Sun, 08 Jul 2012 01:13:59 +0000

a lot easier to chop that wall in half than it is to get rid of part of the foul territiory though. i mean it should take only a day or even less time to get rid of the top half of the wall in the power alleys. what can they do to take away even half the foul territory? put more on field seating down the lines?