Fenway Park Renovations

[YanksHater213]

i dont know what could be done but i found this in another forum...

[GreenMonsterSeats]

Looks very interesting. I had envisioned some upperdeck style seating to be added to centerfield myself though I am not sure the cramped space could support many additional seats. Fenway definitely needs to add a level or two to get another few thousand seats at least. But hell, you could put a seat at the top of the flag pole and Red Sox fans would pay big bucks to get into the games.

 

I would pay to sit inside the wall and watch through one of the small slots where they put the numbers up on the scoreboard, lol.

[YanksHater213]

Originally posted by GreenMonsterSeats@Jun 5 2004, 11:27 AM

 

I would pay to sit inside the wall and watch through one of the small slots where they put the numbers up on the scoreboard, lol.

as would i. that would be the experience of a lifetime

[roary]

I've never really liked the idea of renovating Fenway so much. Hell, I don't like the monster seats. But if something needs to be done, renovation is the way to go, not building a new park. Fenway is the sox, and it is perhaps their main draw. If the sox suck, Fenway will still draw the fans in.

 

A park like this:

http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/american/bosbpk01.jpg

Would suck. It seems so impersonal. I dont care about amenities and such, I want a great baseball experience.

[YanksHater213]

but a park like that would do wonders if we want to spend with the yankees. imagine how much money we would make from an entire new part to the park, plus conscessions would be higher as well. i would love fenway to look like that with the exception of the rightfield bleachers. those should stay how they are. i wouldnt mind a 2nd deck behind the plate and down the foul lines.

[roary]

Originally posted by YanksHater213@Jun 5 2004, 12:34 PM

but a park like that would do wonders if we want to spend with the yankees. imagine how much money we would make from an entire new part to the park, plus conscessions would be higher as well. i would love fenway to look like that with the exception of the rightfield bleachers. those should stay how they are. i wouldnt mind a 2nd deck behind the plate and down the foul lines.

We have the second highest payroll in all of baseball. We don't need more money. I dont care if it means that the yankees spend 60 mil more than us, I dont want Fenway to become "just another ballpark".

 

To prove this point, name the top 3 Boston landmarks. Is fenway in the top 3? Yes. Would a new ballpark be? No.

[YanksHater213]

we dont want a new ballpark though. just add a 2nd deck down the lines and behind the plate. i would pay for those seats.

[yeszir]

I'm against major renovations too, thefens. I think the monster seats and right field roof seats are pushing it already. A second deck would suck though. I say get rid of the luxury boxes and just put seats, you could easily get 1000 more seats in the park that way, plus you wouldn't have to deal with corporate bastards getting foul balls all the time.

[YanksHater213]

Originally posted by yeszir@Jun 5 2004, 11:46 AM

plus you wouldn't have to deal with corporate bastards getting foul balls all the time.

god damn them, i hate them. they go to the games for 5 innings then leave their seats (which are usually the best in the stadium) but no one can take them. its SO stupid

[JMDurron]

Now that we've completely departed from reality, I wish every team spent the same amount on payrolls, and that I won the lottery.

 

Seriously, people, renovations have to happen. Deal with it. More seats (and better ones with more room) can only draw more people and more money for the team, which leads to a better product on the field, which is what we should really be thinking about. When I think of Fenway, I think of the wall, the triangle of doom in CF, and Pesky's pole. I really couldn't care less about what the bleachers down the 1st and 3rd base lines look like.

 

And while we're whining about luxury boxes (which will never go away), think about how much those cost, and how much having each and every one of them filled for the entire season makes the team. Even some MINOR LEAGUE parks have some kind of luxury seating for people who are able and willing to pay extreme premiums to watch the games in extreme comfort. As long as they benefit the team, I don't have any problem with them.

[YanksHater213]

Originally posted by JMDurron@Jun 5 2004, 03:04 PM

Now that we've completely departed from reality, I wish every team spent the same amount on payrolls, and that I won the lottery.

 

Seriously, people, renovations have to happen. Deal with it. More seats (and better ones with more room) can only draw more people and more money for the team, which leads to a better product on the field, which is what we should really be thinking about. When I think of Fenway, I think of the wall, the triangle of doom in CF, and Pesky's pole. I really couldn't care less about what the bleachers down the 1st and 3rd base lines look like.

 

And while we're whining about luxury boxes (which will never go away), think about how much those cost, and how much having each and every one of them filled for the entire season makes the team. Even some MINOR LEAGUE parks have some kind of luxury seating for people who are able and willing to pay extreme premiums to watch the games in extreme comfort. As long as they benefit the team, I don't have any problem with them.

finally someone agrees with me

[JethroTull]

Fenway Follies........we so love that which kills us. Fenway Park is a fools dream. How can you not love the charm and folksy historical appeal ? To coin a phrase, it is bass ackwards. Don't get me wrong. I love watching a game there. But of all the "reasons" attached to the dearth of championships, Fenway Park is at the top of the list.

 

Baseball is a game of numbers and percentages. The righty/lefty matchup is at the heart of the debate. It is the onfield layout that works against the Red Sox year in and year out. Fact: there are more right handed people than left handed. This translates to more right handed pitchers and batters. Most all major league rosters have 75% right handed pitchers. The percentage play is to have more lefty batters to gain more favorable matchups. More batting champs are left handed for this reason. Lefties also get one to two steps head start to first on ground balls.

 

Another way to maximize this advantage is to make right field shorter to benefit the lefty batter. Since most pitchers are righty, making left field deeper will tilt the advantage further to the pitcher. In other words, Yankee Stadium is perfectly designed to take advantage of baseball's most basic percentage play, while Fenway Park does the opposite. Boston has forever tailored their roster to suit their park. Right handed power, and right handed pitching have dominated, with Ted Williams being the obvious exception. The Yankees have likewise filled their roster with left handed power, and usually featured strong lefty pitching.

 

This advantage, combined with 20,000 additional seats, give New York two legs up on the Sox before the first pitch is thrown. Saving Fenway is a nostalgic endeavor. We love the cozy confines. But in keeping with tradition, we do so with the knowledge that it thumbs it's nose at conventional baseball wisdom. Even the fabled Green Monster works against us. A 330 foot line drive to right in New York is a home run. In Boston, it is a routine out. But hit to left, the Wall makes singles out of home runs. Not the best result for a right handed power lineup. Save Fenway ? If maintaining the close to the field action is the priority, then absolutely save the park. But if winning championships is the goal, the current layout must be changed. Did you think it mere coincidence that "The House That Ruth Built" has met with continued success?

[RedSoxRooter]

I 100% agree with you. And well said. But if you lose Fenway, you lose a huge piece of Red Sox nostalgia, therefore fanbase, therefore ticket sales, therefore revenue. There has to be a way to win at the Fens. Sure, the park has worked against the Sox at times, but most of their "heartbreakers" in the playoffs have been on the road and because of bad calls (managers included), pitching and plays. Not because of the field.

[JethroTull]

My main point was that the roster is tailored to a flawed ballpark. That same roster puts them at a speed disadvantage. But addressing your heartbreaking losses, in my lifetime that point doesn't hold up. In '67, they lost game 7 in Boston. Ditto '75. We all remember the one game playoff in '78. In '86, Boston won the first two at Shea Stadium, only to lose 2 of 3 at home, which set the stage for their biggest fold in team's history.

 

Having said that, you won't necessarily find a game by game comparison to prove my theory. Rather just look at how each season continues to turn out. Yes, they could win with Fenway. Having Pedro, Schilling, & Saberhagen in their prime would do. But there again, the limited seating comes in to play. Revenue only goes so far with the smallest seating capacity in MLB. Do you honestly think Boston couldn't fill a 40-45,000 seat stadium ? If they put it a little west of Boston, with easy access, plenty of parking, and public transportation available, they would still sell out. And as long as they didn't tailor it after Fenway, things would change.

 

Keep Fenway for the nostalgia. It would make an impressive home for the college W.S., as well as for high school championships, Cape Cod feature games, and the like. Maybe it could even lure the Montreal Expos. But Red Sox titles will remain a long shot.

[yawkeyway]

Jethro, I think I'm confused about your point.

My main point was that the roster is tailored to a flawed ballpark. That same roster puts them at a speed disadvantage. But addressing your heartbreaking losses, in my lifetime that point doesn't hold up.

Is the point that, since the sox have mostly righties, they dont get that one step advantage that lefties tend to get? Is that what you meant by speed?

 

Another way to maximize this advantage is to make right field shorter to benefit the lefty batter. Since most pitchers are righty, making left field deeper will tilt the advantage further to the pitcher. In other words, Yankee Stadium is perfectly designed to take advantage of baseball's most basic percentage play, while Fenway Park does the opposite. Boston has forever tailored their roster to suit their park. Right handed power, and right handed pitching have dominated, with Ted Williams being the obvious exception. The Yankees have likewise filled their roster with left handed power, and usually featured strong lefty pitching.

I went to look up some home/away records for the past few years, and found this for win percentages:

2003: .519 Road .654 Home

2002: .630 Road .519 Home

2001: .512 Road .506 Home

2000: .531 Road .519 Home

1999: .556 Road .605 Home

1998: .506 Road .630 Home

1997: .481 Road .481 Home

1996: .469 Road .580 Home

1995: .611 Road .583 Home

1994: .451 Road .484 Home

 

That does it for the past 10 years. Looking at this, it is really hard to come up witha conclusive answer. I was unable to find the all time split stats, so if someone had those they would help I guess. But this really shows it goes either way. Some years (1998), we're infinitely better at home, other years (2002), we're better on the road. I think it comes out that we do slightly better at home (in the past 10 years at least) from looking at the numbers, but it isnt too drastic.

 

But maybe it doesnt need to be drastic? A small difference can equal 4 or 5 games, and thats all thats needed for the yankees to beat us. You also need to factor in the "home field advantage", which can be pretty big at Fenway.

 

The team could certainly win at Fenway. I think its a bit unfair to pin our problems on the ballpark. I think you could attribute it to crappy ownership, crappy personnel decisions, etc.

 

But, if we had to get rid of fenway,

Keep Fenway for the nostalgia. It would make an impressive home for the college W.S., as well as for high school championships, Cape Cod feature games, and the like. Maybe it could even lure the Montreal Expos. But Red Sox titles will remain a long shot.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Keep the original Fenway standing for posterity. Its too cool of a place to tear down.

[JethroTull]

Thank you, Yawkeyway, for a well thought, reasoned reply. I'll try to address your points. The speed reference had several meanings. Most right handed power hitters that Boston stocked its roster with over the years were average at best base runners. The Sox opted for power over speed. Speed guys typically handled the bat better in bunting situations and obp numbers, while power guys were typically slow footed big mashers. Today's athletes are better conditioned, quicker types. Some names from the past include Orlando Cepeda, Danny Cater, Rob Deer, Tony Armas, Tom Brunansky, et cetera.

 

While it is understandable that Boston tailored its roster to suit the park, in so doing, they left themselves shorthanded in other baseball aspects. They were forever a terrible baserunning team. They usually shy away from smallball....ie hit and run, bunting, and moving runners along, in favor of the 3 run bomb. That works and plays well in Boston in the summer, but when the cold September/October winds blow, a team needs a well balanced attack to win.

 

The lack of overall team speed hurts on the defensive side, but is less measurable. How many hits up the gap would have been outs had a Willie Wilson type been patrolling center? Even when bringing in supposed speed guys, their numbers seemed to drop once reaching Boston. It is telling that Tommy Harper's 54 stolen bases in the early 70's is the high water mark. Remy came in off leg injuries, and Rickey Henderson came in too far beyond his prime. Jose Canseco was a 40/40 guy, but long before donning the Red Sox jersey. They even traded off the only speed demon in the organization last year(Lew Ford). John Damon is the current speedster, and he's battling leg injuries.

 

The research on home & away records tells the regular season results, but it doesn't show accurately how the lack of team speed reflects poorly in the post season. In short, the Red Sox are built for a powerful display designed to fill up seats. But that doesn't translate to post season success, where a more balanced lineup gets the job done. Should Boston tailor its roster to a more speed/small ball type lineup more fit for post season play, they might not get there at all due to lack of power for the regular season home schedule. It becomes a catch 22 staying in Fenway. The new ownership group is trying to change the approach with the Moneyball system. The pitching more than anything else will determine where they end up. I jumped around a bit, but hope my point is not lost. The park is fan friendly, but not necessarily solid baseball conducing.

[yeszir]

Originally posted by JethroTull@Jun 6 2004, 03:28 PM

While it is understandable that Boston tailored its roster to suit the park, in so doing, they left themselves shorthanded in other baseball aspects. They were forever a terrible baserunning team. They usually shy away from smallball....ie hit and run, bunting, and moving runners along, in favor of the 3 run bomb. That works and plays well in Boston in the summer, but when the cold September/October winds blow, a team needs a well balanced attack to win.

You're absolutely right in this. The biggest drawback of the park is the lack of speed it induces in the team. I personally like small ball. Base stealing is exciting. I watch a national league game and am shocked by how much different it can be. It certainly is interesting to think about how the lack of speed, which is most likely a result of the ballpark, can affect the team in postseason play.

 

But that alone can't be the reason the sox fail all the time. Look at the Yankees. Sure their ballpark can be more favorable to their team, but they don't have speed. They're the "Bronx Bombers", not the "Bronx Base Stealers." Yet they still manage to win in the postseason, and win consistently. Or can this just be attributed to the 200 million dollar payroll?

[pilumpyphi]

I have to agree with yawkeyway. Everyone can relax, we have new ownership. I think so many Sox fans have been beat over the head with the same ownership for the past few decades that they're worried the old habits will hang around to haunt us. Not so. The renovations are meant to be as minimally invasive as possible. The Monster Seats, the Right Field seats are an attempt to make use of the space available without altering the geometry or nostalgia of the park. Although I am concerned about the "annex" mentioned in the diagram. Does that mean they'll get rid of Boston Beerworks!!!??

 

People are busting down the doors to go to these games. They need more seats. I'd rather them put seats on top of the wall or roof rather than add a whole new tier around the park making it look like a football stadium. Instead they're using the space they have.

 

Henry and Lucchino know best that it would be cheaper and easier to just build a new park somewhere else and move the team out of the Fens rather than keep renovating and repairing. Jon Harrington was the one that wanted to do just that. He's gone and these guys are doing their best to balance the demand while preserving the spirit of the experience.

 

My main point was that the roster is tailored to a flawed ballpark.

 

The same goes for Theo. He's not Lou Gorman. Those days seem well behind us. No more Jack Clark, Rob Deer or Kevin Mitchell roster moves. Pitching and OBP wins championships.

 

And I have no idea where people get the idea that a park ever sets up a home team to lose. It's nine ups each for any game. The only advantage a home team has is to bat last. If anything, the home team's manager should know the situation and how the park favors/limits the team in each situation.

[RedSoxNut]

I haven't heard anything on this? Any more news?

[yeszir]

Originally posted by RedSoxNut04@Jun 7 2004, 02:49 PM

I haven't heard anything on this? Any more news?

No news, but welcome to the site.

[RedSoxNut]

Thanks a lot, are we allowed to put pictures in our signature.

 

I made a small 500 X 100 graphic that I would like to put in my signature.