Ballpark question

Ok, this is a real life question and not a strat question. I ask forgiveness in advance.
It is sort of a trivia question but not really a trivia question. I ask for patience.

Here is the question. What impact would you say moving fences in closer to the plat and/or lowering fence height have on offense? More HRs or less HRs? More total runs scored or less runs scored?

I have a link to an article that discusses ballpark changes. I will post a link after allowing some time for votes to be cast.

I feel like this is a trick question.
I suspect there's some data from Comerica, Citifield, and maybe The Cell.

The logic, that I feel is a trap, is that pulling fences in (in the right places) should increase homers, which, should increase run production based on HRs being the most efficient scoring mechanism.

Now, the counter logic, I'll go with some left handed Yankees. Johnny Damon, when put into New Yankee Stadium hit something like 25 HRs by flicking them over the short porch. But his OBP dropped because he couldn't flick everything over, which probably decreased his overall run scoring. HR Up, Scoring Down. Giambi's approach to the Bronx also yielded some 40+ HR seasons that were not necessarily high scoring as he gave up some average and some OBP to get the HRs.

Yeah, without looking at the data from the three C's where I'm pretty sure they've moved fences... I'm gonna go with HR Up, Scoring Down.

Good points about Damon and Giambi. But those are individual numbers, not team numbers. Do you think entire teams would fall victim to the trap you describe for Damon and Giambi?

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/moving-in-the-fences-a-history/

Here is the link to the article I referred to. It presents the theory that bringing in fences cuts down on doubles and triples.
I would add to that the notion that hitters with more inviting targets may be less patient at the plate looking to get the ball in the air for the HR rather than concentrating on squaring the ball up for line drives. And perhaps not waiting out as many walks. And perhaps baserunners are less aggressive as the prospects/frequency of HRs increases.

Not sure if I would want to go here or not but is it possible with a bigger park teams focus more on "small ball" and that perhaps small ball is more offensively effective than we give it credit for.

I voted both up. I get the counter arguments but I have trouble believing that more HRs could mean less runs. It's right there in the name!

I have a small ball preference and I too was surprised increased home runs did not lead to more runs. But I think when you did geeper some understandings emerge. With big hr hitters on deck players are often reluctant to run and waste the out. After they can score easily from first on the next hr or even double

Jim Kaat once called a HR a rally killer. Before he was stressed and focusing really hard on both batter and runner.Thus there was synergy between runner and batter. As HR potential goes up runners get less aggressive with running. I think that then tends to carry over to future ABs