Red Sox A-Z: F is for…

Fenway Park. (What else could it possibly be for?)

Fenway Park is the long-time home of the Red Sox. How long-time? It’s the oldest major league park…ever. It’ll hit 100 years old in the near future, and I’m sure the plans for the celebration are already beyond belief. I won’t bore you with the history of the park. I’ll assume that if you’re enough of a Sox fan to stumble upon this blog, you have a pretty good knowledge of the park. But, what do I think of the Park? That you might not know.

I’m glad the current ownership group has kept Fenway, for a couple reasons. First, I hated the idea of building a new replica park. Just because a park looks the same doesn’t mean it is the same. Just because it was the same pole in right didn’t mean it was still Pesky’s Pole. I think Yankees fans are realizing that with their new stadium. Just because it looks similar doesn’t give it a similar feel. Plus, I just like history. If something old can still be functional, then I’d just as soon use it. Once the park was fixed up a bit, it made the experience all the better…even if I don’t like the new seats that automatically flip up when you stand.

Really, it’s the seats themselves that give the park its charm. I’ve sat in a variety of seats around the park. Some have been good, and some have been bad. A few places I remember sitting…

The last row of Section 39, right field bleachers. This is about as far away from the action as you can get. What made this worse was that it was an October night game. When you’re that high, the wind just beats on your back. Behind you at that point is nothing but a wall, about 5 feet high. So, sitting down you were fairly shielded from the wind. Standing up though, it cut through you like a knife. The view was nice and clean though, as long as you didn’t mind watching a baseball game being played by ants.

Right field box. These are the seats suckers get. They sound like they’re nice and close to the action, which they are. The odd part is, the seats don’t face any of it. If I sat normally in my seat, I looked directly out along the right field warning track. Very little happened on the warning track. To see any real action, I had to turn my head 90 degrees to look in at the plate. The problem with that, though, is that I had trouble convincing everyone else in the section to move so I could have a clear view. So, I spent all game with a crick in my neck, looking at the back of my buddy’s head. Not the best. I’m still not sure why, even in 1912, nobody thought to face the seats to the action.

Left Field Boxes, first row. These seats were the first row just past third base, directly behind the ballboy. The little door to the field was in front of my knees. The seats were pretty great. We could chat with the third base umpire between innings. It was a thrill to look back and see Steven King about 10 rows BEHIND me. I even got a foul ball. Ok…the ballboy handed me a foul ball, but still. The constant threat of line drive foul balls kept me on my toes a bit. The only problem with the seats? I couldn’t see a dang thing. The third baseman, pitcher, and first baseman were all perfectly lined up. So, the guy at third blocked my view of the pitch, and any play at first. The batter? The third base coach liked to block that one. Left field? Couldn’t see it around the corner. So, here I am in the front row and I can’t see the batter, the pitcher, or the first baseman. Huh? (I was reminded of people who brag about sitting behind the bench at a basketball game. I always thought the last place I wanted to sit was behind a row of seven-foot guys.)

Section 42, right field bleachers, second row. These seats wouldn’t have been too bad if they were a little farther back. But, at this row there are a couple issues. One was people crossing in front of you along the aisle blocking my view. The other was the fence to the bullpen. It was like paying to watch the game through a fence. I got used to it after a while, but it was fairly annoying. A few rows back though, and it would have been a great time.

Right Field Roof Boxes. These would have been pretty decent seats. They’re actually a lot closer to the field that I thought they’d be. It’s just a little higher than usual. Mine were before first base, so it was a great aerial view of the game. The only problem with my particular seat? It was behind the television camera…for the tigers. So, the view of the pitcher’s mound was through a camera just in front of me. It was a nice advantage that I could see replays through the camera’s viewfinder. But, it made the flow of the game a little choppy.

Section 43, right field bleachers, on the aisle. I never would have thought of being on the aisle as being a bad thing. If I want to get up for a soda, I don’t have to climb over anyone else, right? I guess I never realized, though, just how often everyone else in the park was out of their seats. It wasn’t even so bad letting people from my row out. It was everyone else walking up and down from their seats. The section is skewed slightly from the field, so I was looking almost directly down the aisle. Naturally, every time someone used the aisle, it blocked my view of the game. And, that was a lot.

Section 36, centerfield bleachers. Maybe now you’ve realized why I say the seats in section 36 have been my favorite. It was the only time I don’t think I had any complaints. The view is actually towards the field of play. (It may technically aim you at the Red Sox dugout, but just barely.) I liked being able to see the strike zone…even if from a distance. Very little of the park was blocked…maybe just the triangle. As long as you’re high enough to avoid people crossing in front of you, and in far enough to avoid the aisle, I can’t think of a better place to be.

Those are places where I remember sitting for games. I’m sure I’ve left some out. Anyone else have stories, or pictures, of places they’ve sat that they’d like to share?

F is for Fenway Park

Team Sets: 1989 Topps

Players Included: Joe Morgan (mgr), Marty Barrett, Todd Benzinger, Mike Boddicker, Wade Boggs, Tom Bolton, Dennis Boyd, Ellis Burks, Rick Cerone, Roger Clemens, Steve Curry, Steve Ellsworth, Dwight Evans, Wes Gardner, Rich Gedman, Mike Greenwell, Bruce Hurst, Dennis Lamp, Spike Owen, Larry Parrish, Carlos Quintana, Jody Reed, Jim Rice, Jeff Sellers, Lee Smith, Mike Smithson, Bob Stanley

Best Picture: Bruce Hurst. Here we have Sox star lefty Bruce Hurst…scratching his elbow! What a great moment in the game. I’m thankful that Topps was on hand to record this instance in baseball history.

Hall of Famers: Wade Boggs, Jim Rice

Future Hall of Famers: Roger Clemens

Reason the buy the set: While the player selection isn’t exactly stacked, there are several quality players in the set. With Lee Smith and three (future) Hall-of-Famers, the star quality is there. This set also contains the core of the fun teams of the late 80’s and early 90’s. Excitement was riding high in those years with the young group of homegrown talent the Sox were playing on a nightly basis.

Overall Reaction: I like the design of the ’89 Topps set. It’s an artistic yet simple way to display the basic elements of a card. It’s a set, and a team, I think of fondly.

Collecting the Sox: Autographs

Autographs are an old hobby that has become quite a business these days. While it may seem odd to some to collect something just because someone wrote on it, there are many collectors out there who do just that. As with any collectable, it’s a matter of what you enjoy.

In the old days, autographs served as proof that you met, and had an encounter with, a famous person. It didn’t matter whether it was an athlete, entertainer, or politician. If you met someone, you had them sign a piece of paper, or autograph book. That way you could take it home, and show off to your friends. For that reason, many old autographs are found on index cards, or blank sheets of paper. It didn’t much matter what the autograph was on, as long as you had it. Somewhere along the way, instead of bragging rights, autographs turned into collections. People started getting specific things signed, which made for nice displays. Babe Ruth could sign a baseball. Judy Garland could sign a script. When pictures became plentiful, those started to get autographs as well. Once the signatures became collections, it became less important to have actually met the person. It was ok to trade an autograph you had for one you wanted. Or, you could write a letter to a famous person, and ask them to send back an autograph. This made the autograph simply a collectable, to be traded, bought, or sold as seen fit. This led to the big business of today. Athletes get big buck to make personal appearances at shows to sign their name hundreds of times. Baseball card companies have players sign cards to insert into packs. Players are hounded at hotels and ballparks by people demanding piles of autographs. It sometimes looks like a big mess.

The bright side, though, is that autographs are easier to collect. Ted Williams made several appearances at shows before he died, leading to many more autographs than there would have been otherwise. Celtics great Bill Russell realized that he really enjoyed going to shows to sign autographs. What was once an impossible autograph in person has become much easier. So, as an autograph collector, you need to take the good with the bad.

One of the more important decisions when it comes to autographs is what to have the autograph signed on. This decision could be based on something you already collect. If you collect baseballs, or pictures, adding an autograph to one of those would add to the collection. Those also make attractive displays for an autograph. An autograph on a picture of your favorite player hangs nicely on a wall. Another option is a simple piece of paper. While these might not look like much on their own, they can be added to other collectables to improve the look. I’ve seen people collect autographs of entire teams on index cards, and then mat them together into a nice collage. I remember reading an article once about someone who collected autographs on squares of fabric. The squares were then sewn into a great looking quilt. As with any collectable, the only limit is your imagination.

Autographs can be an easy collection to store. Obviously, if you’re getting motorcycles signed, that could take up some room. But, a binder of signed index cards, or baseball cards fits rather nicely just about anywhere. It can be a challenging hobby to collect as well. Tracking down the players to get a signature can be a lot of fun, and adds a personal story to each item in the collection. Which is really the whole point of any collection.

Anyone have a favorite autograph story?

36 Questions: Seeing a pitcher

Question: How does Seeing a Pitcher Help a Hitter?

The Sox have hit a little snag recently against pitchers they have no business hitting a snag against. They often find themselves struggling against young pitchers who haven’t been around very long. The reasoning usually given is that the batters haven’t seen the pitcher before, so that presents problems. What exactly does that mean? I’ve also heard that term used when talking about closers. It’s been said that closers can get away with fewer pitches in their arsenal since a batter only sees them once, as opposed to a starter. Is that the same thing?

I can almost understand the young pitcher part of the equation. It takes a while to know what sorts of pitches the pitcher throws, and maybe even which arm slot those pitches come from. Scouting can tell some of that. A decent scout can tell you which pitches the guy can throw, and probably even when he likes to throw them. But, knowing exactly where the ball comes from every time probably takes actually facing the pitcher. So, when a patter faces a pitcher for the first time, I can see it taking a pitch or two just to see where the ball is coming from. But, does that mean that the batter remembers where the ball comes from for every pitcher he’s ever faced? When David Ortiz digs in against CC Sabathia, does he know instantly where to look? Does he have in his head that a curveball should come from 2 inches above his cap, or whatever? I know some golfers who remember almost every detail of golf courses they’ve only played once, a few years ago. They know which holes have doglegs left, or clumps of trees in the fairway. Are batters like that? Do they just have this photographic-like memory of every pitcher ever? If so, how do pitchers stay around? Hasn’t every batter in the majors seen Jamie Moyer by now? Don’t they all have that picture of where the ball comes from? How does he not get hit hard every time out? (Ok, maybe Moyer’s not the best example?) I assume he survives by changing things up. If so, aren’t all those mental pictures out there wrong? So, how are they helpful?

How does that apply to the difference between starters and closers? I remember people saying Derek Lowe might make a good closer since he always seemed to pitch 3 great innings at the beginning of a start. But, once the batters got a second look at him, he was hit pretty hard. So, apparently, the mental picture the batters had of Derek Lowe needed some fine-tuning, and it took a plate appearance to remember exactly wheat Lowe looked like on the mound? Why doesn’t that apply to these rookie pitchers? After an at-bat, don’t they now know what it all looks like? And, what about long-time closers like Mariano Rivera or Trevor Hoffman. Haven’t all the batters faced them enough to have the mental picture all ready to go? Is that why Rivera has so much trouble with the Red Sox? Do all the Sox have great mental pictures ready to go right out of the box?

Is “seeing a pitcher” one of those things that’s different for every pitcher and hitter? Does Manny Ramirez just need one pitch to figure it all out, while Nick Green might need three at-bats to just get a clue? Did Pedro Martinez have so much working in his favor that batters never really figured it out, while John Wasdin never fooled anybody?

What does it really mean to have seen a pitcher before?

Eh.

The Sox made a couple moves yesterday. While they both improved the team, they weren’t exactly the blockbusters I keep hoping for.

One move was to trade Julio Lugo to the Cardinals for Chris Duncan. It’s amazing to me that a team would actually give up a player to acquire Lugo and his salary. I assume part of the deal was for the Sox to pick up a chunk of the salary themselves, but still. It seems like an odd deal. Maybe Lugo’s a better fit for an NL team with his speed. We’ll have to see. Since the Red Sox sent down Duncan to AAA, it doesn’t really affect the big club, other than to save some amount of money.

The other, slightly more important deal was picking up Adam LaRoche. Again, this move improves the team, although not in a Halladay way. It does do a couple nice things for the Sox flexibility-wise. First, it lets them rest Mike Lowell. At the very least, when Mike takes every fifth game off, they have a decent replacement now. That’s assuming that Youkilis is ok bouncing over to third once or twice a week. Obviously, he wouldn’t make a stink about it, but I wonder if it would affect his game at all. I know he seems to make a lot more errors over at third. I wonder what the numbers would show. Along the same lines, the move would appear to help late-inning defense. LaRoche is apparently an excellent first baseman. With Mike Lowell so hobbled by his hip, getting him out of the hot corner every once in a while is probably a good thing. LaRoche at first and Youk at third has to be better than Youk at first and Lowell at third in a close game. And, if things go sour and Lowell’s spot in the order comes up in a key spot, LaRoche isn’t enough of a downgrade to cause too much concern. It’s not like having Pokey Reese come to the plate.

The big question comes up whenever a starter comes to a new team as a bench player. How will he handle it? Will his attitude allow him to accept a new role? Common thinking around here is that any player would do whatever it takes to get out of Pittsburgh and play in front of the Fenway crowd. That’s not always the case. Will his game be affected by a sudden lack of flow? Will one game a week be enough to keep him sharp? When I made the post about the Blaylock schedule, it was assuming that a starter like Blaylock (or LaRoche) would need to keep seeing regular playing time to stay focused. It’s going to be up to Francona to come up with some sort of rotation to keep everyone happy and fresh.

It was a nice pick up. The Sox only had to give up a couple minor leaguers. That makes it a better deal than the Victor Martinez or Hank Blaylock rumors. It improves the bench, so maybe they’ll be a pinch hitter around for Lowrie in the late innings. Over all, the Sox are an improved team over the way they started yesterday. That’s always a good thing.

Still a week left for the Buchholz Showcase to lead to a blockbuster.