Bleacher Reconstruction & Wristband Line Update - February 23

by Al on Feb 23, 2006 12:56 PM CST in 2005-06 Bleacher Reconstruction Project Comment 50 comments

As of 10:30 am, once again (as you can see in the last photo in the sequence), there was absolutely no line for wristbands. This is far different from the past two years, and likely means that far fewer wristbands will be handed out. For those of you who have one or are planning on getting one before 10 pm tonight, that gives you a better shot at tickets tomorrow. Also tomorrow, I will post the winning wristband number and begin a thread where all of you can post your ticket successes, failures and nightmares -- so don't go posting a dozen diaries on this subject, let's try to consolidate everything in one place.

The construction project continues -- as you can see, the brick walls are nearly done on the Waveland side, and there was quite a bit of activity today; there were cranes around, though they moved out before I could take photos of them.

I also, based on this Phillies blog entry a couple of days ago (which I found thanks to this Hardball Times article), played around with Google Earth and did some admittedly unscientific measurements of Wrigley Field based on that.

Turns out the measurements at the ballpark are pretty darn accurate. I got 353.18 feet to LF; 398.29 to dead CF (which is NOT the deepest part of the part - that measured 401.95 feet); 351.16 feet to the RF corner and 367.37 feet to the left-center power alley, 368.63 feet to the right-center power alley. All of these are within variances that could be explained by me not quite using my mouse properly.

What do come up as very different numbers are several famous home run distances. The HR that Sammy Sosa smacked onto Kenmore Avenue on June 24, 2003, that at the time was said to be 540 feet, measured 510.54 feet. Glenallen Hill's famous rooftop HR (you know, this is one date that stumps me), estimated at over 500 feet, showed up as 471.68 feet.

And the so-called longest HR ever at Wrigley Field, the one Dave Kingman hit as a member of the Mets on April 14, 1976, that landed in front of the fourth house on the east side of Kenmore Avenue, said to be 600 feet, wasn't that -- though close, it was 574.09 feet.

Go have fun with Google Earth yourself!

Top: workman topping off the brick wall on Waveland; wider view of Waveland wall; peek at wall through plastic sheeting; behind CF

Middle: looking east down Waveland; more Waveland-side walls; back fence behind LF bleachers; the "knothole"

Bottom: beginnings of another section of wall on Sheffield; another view of RF side looking north on Sheffield; closer view of Sheffield wall work; the entrance to the wristband distribution point at 10:30 am (note the ad for Premium Ticket Services right under the wristband sign) -- no line whatsoever

Photos by Al

0 recs | Comment 50 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Al sighting!

I picked up my wristband at about 10:30 this morning, and saw a guy taking pictures of the park. Now I wish I had introduced myself!

"Respect the game above all else." - Ryne Sandberg, July 31, 2005, Cooperstown, NY

by Tom on Feb 23, 2006 1:02 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I wish you had too!

Yes, that was me. I was there from about 10:20 to 10:40. Why did it take so long?

Because my darn camera batteries died and I had to go over to the 7-11 to buy new ones!

by Al on Feb 23, 2006 1:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Saw Wrigley in person today

I posted this on the previous picture series (below), right before Al posted these new pictures.
I thought part could bear repeating here:

I went by Wrigley to get my wristband today (#11735) and got my first look at the construction.
You know what? I was disappointed.
Not at the amount of construction, or the progress that has been made, but seeing it LIVE and IN PERSON really did nothing whatsoever to add to what Al (and David) have already shown us with their thorough photologues.
So, in essence, I'm writing to commend Al, once again, for this service.
For those of you out of state or unable to get to Wrigley . . . if you have been keeping up with Al's updates here, you aren't missing ANYTHING.
(Although it was pretty cool to see the grass through the knothole.)
THANKS, AL!

"Respect the game above all else." - Ryne Sandberg, July 31, 2005, Cooperstown, NY

by Tom on Feb 23, 2006 1:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I always thought

not sure why though, the longest HR at Wrigley was by , I believe, Clemente to CF? Not even sure if it's Clemente I'm thinking of. Rambling, obviously.

Kingman hit one to the 4th house!! Wow.

by escapegoat on Feb 23, 2006 1:06 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Clemente...

... hit a ball which was probably the closest one to ever hit the CF scoreboard. No baseball has ever hit that board. If you want to win a bar bet one day, bet someone that the board HAS been hit.

It has. By a golf ball, on April 18, 1951:

In the pregame ceremonies at Wrigley Field, Sam Snead tees off from home plate and hits a golf ball off the CF scoreboard, the only ball ever to reach the structure. The Cubs follow suit in their home opener, slamming the Reds 8-3 and beating Cub nemesis Ken Raffensberger. Rookie 1B Dee Fondy hits a 2nd-inning bases-loaded triple, off Ken Raffensberger, in his first ML at bat, one of his three hits.

About Kingman's blast, sometime when you're there, walk down Kenmore and stand in front of that house (on the east side of the street). You'll be amazed how far that is.

by Al on Feb 23, 2006 1:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

So I was

halfway right. The longest HR INSIDE Wrigley was hit by Clememte.

Interesting note that I'm sure you knew, but searching the link you just supplied, the HR Kingman hit was off Dettore, who pitched in his last MLB game 1 week later.

by escapegoat on Feb 23, 2006 1:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's correct...

... Kingman homered AGAIN off Dettore two days later, and on April 21, he got pounded by the Expos, after which even the sorry 1976 Cubs had had enough.

by Al on Feb 23, 2006 1:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Cubs-Brewers

I was at that game! The power went out in the first and there was a half-hour delay while they got things working again.

...sorry, I'll go back to work now.

by drone1047 on Feb 23, 2006 1:08 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Glenallen Hill HR date

I don't know the exact date of the Glenallen Hill HR, but I remember it was in early May of 2000. I was at school moving out of my apartment and we had the game on TV. We took a break and were watching some of the game and HOLY S#!T DID YOU JUST SEE THAT HOME RUN BY GLENALLEN!!! Landed ON the building across the street. I don't remember the team either, but I want to say it was off of ex-Cub Telemaco of the Phillies. Could've been the Brewers too.

The poster formerly known as CherryPoppinCubbies

by jrm78 on Feb 23, 2006 1:18 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

is it possible

that the hill hr distance was an extrapolation of where the ball would've landed if the building wasn't there? just a thought.

by tomas21 on Feb 23, 2006 1:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Quick Google search

gives the Hill HR on May 11th, 2000 against the Brewers.

Brewers won 14-8, which was the longest NL 9 inning game ever at 4 hours and 22 minutes.

The game featured 35 hits and an incredible 19 Walks!!

by escapegoat on Feb 23, 2006 1:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Home run distances...

...typically are extrapolations. They have some (to my mind inaccurate) method of figuring out how far a home run "would have gone". That's how a number of Mac's and other homers that were alleged to be 500 foot blasts were computed, when it was clear they were nowhere near 500 feet.

by Wahkeenah on Feb 23, 2006 6:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

... Hill didn't face Telemaco in 2000.

That makes it likely this game on May 11, 2000 vs. the Brewers, which was also notable at the time for tying the then-record for the longest 9-inning game by time (four hours, twenty-two minutes). That's since been broken, IIRC.

by Al on Feb 23, 2006 1:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Watch the HR

http://www.youtube.com/?v=3O64EgRJTx4

You watch the video of Hill hitting the HR.

This is the year!

by VivaLosCubs on Feb 23, 2006 6:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The real reason

Glenallen Hill was able to hit that towering home run, was his shoes. I remember that the replay, of the home run, was widely shown on TV. The MLB dress code monitors noticed his bright red Fila baseball shoes. They didn't comply with official MLB regulations, by being too different from the official team uniform colors. He had to ditch the red shoes, and soon thereafter he disappeared from the majors. See, it must have been the shoes.

by holy mackerel on Feb 23, 2006 7:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The 600 foot estimate of Kingman's HR...

... was made by some guy who had caught about 200 home run balls in his time before picking up Kingman's. In the Trib the next day, Rick Talley wrote about the guy giving Kingman the ball after the game. I looked up the article in ProQuest; that article says the ball came down on the porch of the third house down Kenmore's east side and caromed back (which may mean it bounced off the fourth house; that article doesn't describe exactly how the ball deflected backwards).
The interesting part was where the guy defended his 600 figure: he had measured the distance from the plate to the back wall of left ("about 400 feet") and knew it was another 75-80 across Waveland. "Kingman's ball landed at least another 100 feet past that," said the collector. So he estimated 600 feet, but adding his piecemeal figures comes out to 580 feet -- 6 off what Al just calculated...
The guy also said it was as high as the flagpole when it left the park. I tend to believe it: I was watching on WGN that day, and I don't recall ever seeing another occasion when the camera angle spazzed so violently to track a ball in flight. Jack Brickhouse was stunned into silence for an instant before saying "Oh, man" in his voice-of-doom that he used when the opponents did something that really hurt.

Kingman's shot in the 23-22 game a couple years later couldn't have been too far short: it landed in the front yard of the third house on Kenmore.

by One of Als Pals on Feb 23, 2006 1:58 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

That was, of course...

... the same week that the Cubs blew a 13-2 lead and lost to the Phillies 18-16 with Mike Schmidt hitting four home runs.

It was a very warm and unusually windy April week in Chicago -- many of the HR were wind-aided.

by Al on Feb 23, 2006 2:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Indeed

Talley's article mentioned a "16 mph jet stream" helping the ball. Kingman hit 2 more onto Waveland the following day.

by One of Als Pals on Feb 23, 2006 3:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

April 17, 1976

Yep. I was there that day, and I wanna tell ya, I learned who Mike Schmidt was that day, fer shur. And I recall watching the replay on WGN-TV that night, where all the normally-talkative Brick could say when Schmidt smacked number 4 was, "What is goin' on here?"

by Wahkeenah on Feb 23, 2006 8:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Kingman's second porch shot...

...was probably the one where Boudreau, doing TV while spelling Brick in the middle innings, remarked "That one's in Milwaukee!" Both homers were wind-aided, but Kong didn't need too much help. When that boy got hold of one, in between his numerous strikeouts, he could seriously launch it, and he didn't need to stinkin' steroids, either. Just a lot of height and attitude.

by Wahkeenah on Feb 23, 2006 6:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wall at CF bleacher entrance

Having seen Wrigley myself, I have a question:
What do you think the wall around the bleacher entrance will be like? There's the brick wall running up Sheffield, and the brick wall running up Waveland . . . but there's really nothing around the old bleacher entrance except the elevator shaft.
Any ideas?

"Respect the game above all else." - Ryne Sandberg, July 31, 2005, Cooperstown, NY

by Tom on Feb 23, 2006 2:06 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure...

... obviously, they have to have room for entranceways, and they have said there will be MORE entrance points in the new setup. There were four turnstiles in the old setup; I've heard there will be six in the new one, which would pretty much match the fact that there are 50% more seats (thus, 50% more turnstiles).

Other than that, I guess it would be some sort of gate or fence there. The walls won't come up all the way to the corner.

by Al on Feb 23, 2006 2:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hill's HR

I was actually in the bleachers that day with Al, watching the game. One of those "I can't believe what I just saw moments."

It looks like the project is coming along quickly and the wall looks great. I've read elsewhere that the bricks that they are using are actually the old wall bricks. I wonder if there is any way to know. Either way, with the coping, they've done a nice job makin the wall not look too modern. This is why I love the Ballpark in Arlington. Its a gorgeous, red brick ballpark that is very well done.

I wonder if they'll be putting in benches soon. Perhaps the cranes were moving in some of the new materials?

DmL

by dmlichte on Feb 23, 2006 3:18 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

It's hard to tell...

... what's going on inside now -- the walls are starting to block some of the views from the street.

About the bricks -- there's really no way of knowing. If I had to guess, I'd guess the answer is no. The wall looks traditional and very similar to the old one, but it looks like new materials are being used.

Once again, the Cubs have been really, really lucky this winter has been so mild -- there can't have been more than a handful of days on which the weather was too cold or snowy to work. It's in the mid-40s again today.

by Al on Feb 23, 2006 3:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think this may be an original question...

I know they used to have batting cages under the bleachers under the old configuration, and I know that they are planning on putting those types of facilities in the new building when it's done. So where will they go in the interim? Obviously they can't go under the bleachers if there will be fans walking down there along with consession stands and bathrooms... will our beloved Cubbies just have to go without the indoor, heated BP for the next year or two?

Between genius and madness, lies Conrad

by conrad on Feb 23, 2006 3:39 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I believe...

... that though there will be a path for people to walk under the stands, there will still be room for the cages.

by Al on Feb 23, 2006 4:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I've always questioned

the distance of home runs. They usually mark the distance to where the ball landed. However, the true measurement should seem to be where it would have landed if the flight continued to level ground. In other words if one homer hit the 3rd floor of a building and the other landed at the base of the building, are they really both given the same distances?

Anyone know if they ever adjust for flight of the ball?

Players win awards but teams win championships.

by tharr on Feb 23, 2006 3:54 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Actually...

...to my observation, they usually do project whether they would have landed. That's where some of the crazy alleged 500-foot distances come from when the ball has actually landed in the bleachers not more than maybe 430 or 440 away.

by Wahkeenah on Feb 23, 2006 6:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wristband line update...

... 4 pm, drove by the ballpark, no line whatsoever.

by Al on Feb 23, 2006 4:29 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Let's hope that...

the 'Virtual Waiting Room' line is just as small tomorrow morning.

by hokie316 on Feb 23, 2006 5:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i got mine at 3:30 pm

i had to wait about 5 minutes to get mine, there were about a dozen of us in line.
this was the first time for me and i got a very low number [300]. i'm wondering, since i have a very poor chance of getting a number drawn below mine, how high of a number should i look for to make it worth driving an hour and a half into chicago?

wheatfield mike down here in god's country

by wheatfield mike on Feb 23, 2006 8:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No, you don't have a poor chance...

... you have an equal chance as anyone else, because:

Say there are 20,000 total wristbands (I am not sure of this; but use that # as an example).

And let's say #19,700 is the one drawn. That would put you 600 numbers behind. In other words, you don't only have to hope that #1-#299 is drawn; you'll have a good chance too if one of the HIGHEST numbers is drawn.

I hope that's clear.

by Al on Feb 23, 2006 8:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

thanks for the tip al.

i'm wondering if wgn radio will say what the highest numbered wristband given out was.

wheatfield mike down here in god's country

by wheatfield mike on Feb 23, 2006 8:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That is ...

... really irrelevant, because even if, say, #19,999 was given out, there might be several hundred numbers before that that were NOT given out.

It's all random.

by Al on Feb 23, 2006 8:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Measurements

Did you measure the distances to the "wells", both at the "back" and "front" of the curves? I claim that the front curve of the left-of-left-center "well" is only about 350, which accounts for all the home runs in that area over the years.

by Wahkeenah on Feb 23, 2006 6:29 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I didn't originally...

... but after you mentioned it, I did.

LF: Front of curve, 351.04; back, 357.88

RF: Front of curve, 348.02; back, 342.22.

Now, that back of curve in RF measurement doesn't intuitively make sense, but that's what I got. Try it yourself.

by Al on Feb 23, 2006 7:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wells

Thank you! The 357-plus to left-left-center makes perfect sense, as it matches the Turkin and Thompson Encyclopedia of Baseball (ca. 1951) measurements. And 342 to right-right-center, as you say, makes no sense, but 3*6*2-plus would, as it would come close to Turkin and Thompon's 363.

by Wahkeenah on Feb 23, 2006 7:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Left field corner

I don't have Google Earth, nor do I think my PC could handle it. But regarding the left field line, did you measure to the foul pole, or to the point where the 355 marker on the wall is, a few feet behind and a smidgen to the right of the pole? Sorry about all this minutia.

by Wahkeenah on Feb 23, 2006 7:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes to...

... all of the above.

by Al on Feb 23, 2006 7:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes to...

...the left field pole? Or yes to the point behind and to the right of it? Or did it come out the same somehow? Meanwhile... Hmmm... I did it the primitive way, printing out a screen from Terraserver and putting a ruler to it: ca.150 mm to right field pole, ca.150 mm to front curve of rf well, ca.155mm to back curve of rf well. Assuming 353 to right, that works out to about ca.363-365 to back curve of rf well. So we have used satellites to verify what Turkin and Thompson already knew 55 years ago. They must be in baseball heaven singing "Told ya so!"

by Wahkeenah on Feb 23, 2006 8:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

LOL!

I'm not sure what you mean. What sort of computer do you have? Google Earth should work on anything that runs Windows 2000 or XP.

by Al on Feb 23, 2006 8:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wishful thinking

First comment on the site, and I find it fitting to say I'm hopefull #17937 gets called. Ok, unlikely but hopefully I can improve on being around 10,000th in line last year.

Stopped by Wrigley tonight around 5:15 ... not too bad, but line was growing.

by Critical Fanatic on Feb 23, 2006 8:38 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Uh oh numbers

As an engineering undergrad, I have always remarked at the relative ignorance of the announcers. Does it really matter how far it goes? Don't we really care about how far it would go? A homerun off the top of the scoreboard would be monster, but depending on speed and wind and trajectory, it could be going much further than another ball going to the same spot. Does anyone care other than me to know how far Hill's shot would have been had that stupid building not been in the way.

by cubbybear on Feb 23, 2006 10:35 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Overhang level?

From all the pictures, it looks like the overhang of the new bleachers structure isn't level, but rather leans a bit down toward the street. Is that true? What's it going to do when there's a crowd standing on it?

by Jed Taylor on Feb 25, 2006 2:30 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

You're very perceptive...

... there is a slight incline, not only toward the street, but also from CF to the corners.

I trust they've put enough support on it so that it will stand. But the only way to know for sure... is to actually have the people on it.

by Al on Feb 25, 2006 4:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Slopes

You may be right. The sloping might be to prevent rainwater from building up on the ramps. Then they could have a nice waterfull over the main bleacher entrance. They could call it "Bill Falls" (how's that for an obscure reference?) As far as its sturdiness... Well, I'll be watching from a safe distance. Good night and good luck. d:)

by Wahkeenah on Feb 25, 2006 7:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs