RealGM

seems like a pretty taboo subject among mariner officials, but what do the fans say? the argument always seems to weigh the boost the offense would receive versus the expense of the pitching staff, but with the arms we have coming up through the system... wouldn't now be a decent time to consider moving the fences in? if hultzen and paxton and walker are who the scouts think they are, i don't think changing the dimensions of safeco is going to hit us in the pitching department as much as the worriers think.

I think we should. But I don't know how much that is going to help these hitters we've got now. I think it's a good idea in that we have a better chance to attract FA hitters, and perhaps a little psychological help for the apparently weak-minded hitters we have now.

We must keep something in mind. The Mariners won 116 games in 2001 playing at Safeco Field, a team that hit .288 with a .360 OBP. It's not like we can't win and can't hit with the current dimensions.

Bulltalk wrote:I think we should. But I don't know how much that is going to help these hitters we've got now. I think it's a good idea in that we have a better chance to attract FA hitters, and perhaps a little psychological help for the apparently weak-minded hitters we have now.

We must keep something in mind. The Mariners won 116 games in 2001 playing at Safeco Field, a team that hit .288 with a .360 OBP. It's not like we can't win and can't hit with the current dimensions.

116 wins came in the peak of the steroid era.

I think we should wait and see how this season plays out before discussing the fences! The weather has played a huge part in the low HR's rates at Safeco Field.

We will start to see the ball fly out more as the season progresses.

Slats wrote:

Bulltalk wrote:I think we should. But I don't know how much that is going to help these hitters we've got now. I think it's a good idea in that we have a better chance to attract FA hitters, and perhaps a little psychological help for the apparently weak-minded hitters we have now.

We must keep something in mind. The Mariners won 116 games in 2001 playing at Safeco Field, a team that hit .288 with a .360 OBP. It's not like we can't win and can't hit with the current dimensions.

116 wins came in the peak of the steroid era.

I think we should wait and see how this season plays out before discussing the fences! The weather has played a huge part in the low HR's rates at Safeco Field.

We will start to see the ball fly out more as the season progresses.

Outside of possibly Brett Boone, and Ryan Franklin, who were the guys on steroids on the M's that season?

I don't think that was much of a factor in our 116 wins and our .288 team batting average and .360 OBP.

Boone did hit .331 with 37 HR's so take those numbers out and it does make a difference.

On a whole though, offense league wide has come down along way since the steroid era.

I think Seattle should wait until after the season before deciding what to do with the fences.

I think we need to look at Safeco becoming more of a neutral park, rather than an extreme pitchers park.

Slats wrote:Boone did hit .331 with 37 HR's so take those numbers out and it does make a difference.

On a whole though, offense league wide has come down along way since the steroid era.

I think Seattle should wait until after the season before deciding what to do with the fences.

I think we need to look at Safeco becoming more of a neutral park, rather than an extreme pitchers park.

But I would argue that our offense has come down a LOT more relative to the vast majority of the rest of the teams since the steroid era. All things not being equal.

But I am for moving in the fences some, in particular left field and those deep power-alleys. It's more about attracting FA hitters than anything else. Players under our control just have to live with and make the best out of whatever dimensions they face.

imo, we don't really need to wait till the end of the season for a sufficient sample size to argue one way or the other... we have seasons and seasons worth of data too look at regarding safeco's dimensions and its effects on hitters.

and i know it's just the royals, but we've got 9 runs through 6 in KC. i'm a total advocate of just forgoing every remaining game in seattle and going on history's greatest road trip. we won't win 'em all, but damn are we more exciting.

Having a more neutral park would be nice.

If you look at the data for the year, which Dave Cameron did, there's several rather interesting points to be made:

The pitching staff’s 61 point difference between home and road wOBA is actually larger than the batter’s split. Away from Safeco, the Mariners are the third easiest pitching staff in the American League to hit against — at home, they are the hardest.

People worry about the psychological effect SafeCo has on young hitters, but what effect would it have on our young pitchers if the park suddenly isn't all that forgiving?

Our pitching staff right now isn't great. Felix is Felix, but after him it's a bit of a mixed bag. A guy like Vargas is tailor-made for Safeco as a left-hander susceptible to giving up flyballs/home runs. In 2012, Vargas has given up 6 HR and a .348 SLG% in 8 games at Safeco; He's allowed 19 HR and a .504 SLG% in 12 away games. What happens to his numbers right now if you move the fences in?

Millwood's home and away numbers are pretty even, but as a right hander I wouldn't expect Safeco to favor him quite as much. But then again Blake Beavan's a right handed pitcher and he's sporting a .585 SLG% away compared to .420 SLG% at home. Maybe that's because he's terrible [i.e. NOT Safeco's fault either way].

But this is the concern for me...are we trading one problem for another? What difference does it make if we bring the fences in if our hitters look better and opposing hitters look 'more' better?

Would opposing offenses see more of a benefit than our offense if the fences were moved in?

Again, from Dave Cameron...

Mariners batters at home: 9.7% BB%, 22.4% K%, .096 ISO, .249 BABIP
Mariners batters on road: 6.9% BB%, 19.7% K%, .160 ISO, .299 BABIP

Mariners opponents at home: 7.5% BB%, 21.0% K%, .120 ISO, .261 BABIP
Mariners opponents on road: 8.0% BB%, 19.1% K%, .201 ISO, .297 BABIP

So...if you focus on the ISO numbers, we'd still come up short, right? The diff. in BABIP is minimal enough that I'd say it's a wash.

As Cameron points out, the weather in Seattle has been horrible. Summer started for the rest of North America but it barely kicked in here a couple weeks ago, and this has been the worst year for offenses in Safeco. Doubles/triples are down a bit, but home runs are down dramatically...everything dies on the warning track.

TTown wrote:imo, we don't really need to wait till the end of the season for a sufficient sample size to argue one way or the other... we have seasons and seasons worth of data too look at regarding safeco's dimensions and its effects on hitters.

But this year's been far worse than other years for all offensive numbers, both Mariner and non-Mariner. So if you move the fences in know based on three months of bad results, what happens if the ball carries more with the weather being more summer-like?

Before we decide 'what' to do, we need to know 'why' we need to do it. Some people have wondered if the removal of the Alaskan Way viaduct has played a part since the wind from the Sound isn't blocked by anything anymore. Maybe before we spend money on moving the fences in we should money on a new anemometer and barometer to put on top of the roof?

The offense isn't fun to watch right now when we play home games. And when the M's played in the Kingdome and our pitching was playing Home Run Derby with the opposition, that wasn't much fun either.

Moving the fences in, at this point, just feels like an attempt to mask the problems with this team. Fences in, fences out: The team isn't that good either way. But before any changes are made I think we need to know why Safeco's playing so tight right now.

Slats wrote:Having a more neutral park would be nice.

I know what you mean, but I disagree with the context. The ideal goal should be to have a home-field advantage, not have a neutral park. A home team should be built to play to whatever the strengths and weaknesses are of the park they play in. The Yankees don't play in a neutral park. The Red Sox certainly don't play in a neutral park. They play in parks that favor certain skillset and punish others, and when they're successful they were able to take more advantage of what their park had to offer than the opposition.

Safeco traditionally favors left-handed pull hitters and punishes right-handed pulls hitters. It rewards gap-to-gap hitters who can turn doubles into triples. It favors left-handed pitchers in particular and punished flyball pitchers less than most parks.

Jack Z's tried to build a team suited to Safeco's strengths that's also serviceable on the road. Let's take a crude look at what he did in his first year with the M's: When it comes to offense, the M's went left-handed heavy in the '09 draft [16 players who can hit left-handed v. 8 right-handed hitters]. Considering maybe 10% of the world's population is left-handed, that's certainly not a coincidence.

He also got rid of defensive liabilities like Raul Ibanez and brought in defensive friendly outfields like Guti and Endy Chavez. Added a flyball prone lefty in Jason Vargas. Added two left-handed power bats in Branyan and Griffey, Jr.

For the most part, the approach was sound. He attempted to build a team that took advantage of what Safeco Field offered. He's still trying to do that. The results have often been a struggle to watch, but bringing in the fences calls for a change in the entire philosophy of the front office.

We have some of the best pitching prospects in the game and great pitchers should be able to pitch in any park!

A neutral park like Kauffman Stadium I would be happy with.

I am so confused. Ichiro's just laced a triple into CF in Tampa Bay, followed by an RBI double by Casper Wells. After a 4 game series at KC where the M's just destroyed the Royals. How can a park--a PARK--make that much of a difference?

Slats wrote:We have some of the best pitching prospects in the game and great pitchers should be able to pitch in any park!

this was essentially my original point, or at least my intended original point. of course i'm getting ahead of myself because naturally hultzen, paxton, and walker are still only prospects at this point, but if our future staff pans out as the scouts seem to indicate... i don't think moving safeco's dimensions in a bit will have a drastic effect on our pitching staff, whereas i think it could play a huge role for our bats.

but i don't know. these splits are jus sickening:

home: .196 BA, 22 HR
away: .257 BA, 61 HR

top 10 in the majors in both away statistics, dead last or next to last in the home stats. just baffling.