Sutter Health Park Effects...TBD
The presumption seems to be that the A’s are moving to a launching pad in 2025, and so long as 40% of the rotation includes JP Sears and Joey Estes I suppose HRs will not be in short supply.
But some of the notion of Sacramento as a hitter’s paradise comes from perception that does not necessarily mirror reality. Sutter is being contrasted with the pitcher friendly Oakland Coliseum, with its vast foul territory and evening marine layer. Certainly, a park with normal amounts of foul ground and no heavy fog will play more fairly for the hitters.
The other perception altering factor is the temperature. It is presumed that any climate that reaches 100 degrees will be conducive to the long ball, but Sacramento is not the Las Vegas desert nor does it feature the Denver altitude. And HRs are only one measure of offense — hot days don’t help a ball scoot through the infield or find acreage in right-center field.
Some truths about Sutter Health Park: the dimensions are comparable to the Coliseum. In fact it is an identical 330 feet to straightaway LF and a few feet deeper to CF at 403 feet. RF is 5 feet shorter at 325 feet. So it is not a “band box” by any means.
Also, while summers do get over 100 degrees in Sacramento the vast majority of the games are going to be scheduled at night to offset the heat, and so game time temperatures will generally be in the 80s and falling throughout the evening.
On the flip side, if they do in fact make the horrible and irresponsible decision to install turf that will likely create more offense by way of balls scooting faster through the infield and in the outfield.
Put it all together and certainly you won’t have a pitcher’s park like the A’s have played in for decades. But it’s unclear how much of a hitter’s park it will be or how much it might play “fair” or “neutral”.
I guess it’s looking like the field will play “a bit the hitter-y side of neutral,” which is certainly a significant shift from what A’s fans are accustomed to. But depending on how the turf (if it’s turf) is actually designed and installed, you could conceivably have a surface that slowed down balls a touch more than natural grass, which could in turn shift the metrics radically.
I guess what I’m pointing out is that in a scenario where the grass/turf surface actually favors the defense over the batter, in the 4th inning where the temperature is in the mid-70s and it’s still 325-330 to the corners and 403 to CF...we probably shouldn’t jump to assume games are going to be 9-7.
I do know this: if you’re an A’s hitter who has called the Coliseum home and who has seen his batting average take the usual .010-.020 point dip from foul balls that never made it into the seats and the relentless marine layer, you might be looking forward to at least the level playing field Sacramento will offer.
But this isn’t Fenway Park with it’s “310 feet” to LF (cough under 300 cough) or Wrigley Field with the wind blowing fiercely out. If you’re a hitter, you will still have to hit the ball well and if you’re a pitcher you should have a fighting chance.
One question the A’s front office has to consider is: do they want to factor in their new home park in how they build their roster, and if so how should they tilt? This becomes a more difficult strategy when you don’t know, exactly, what to expect. And we won’t really know until the A’s play some games there — yes, the River Cats have previewed life on the field but AAA baseball just isn’t the same game as the MLB version.
We will find out in 5.5 months just how the field plays, by which time it will even have a playing surface ready to play on. Until then all we can do is conjecture, so: conjecture away. What do you expect? And how should the A’s plan for life at Sutter Health Park in order to gain a home field advantage?