Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
If you can't access your old account but want to post, post as a guest. The permissions have been altered so guests can post.

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Baseball Stadium Sizes and Other Issues
Topic Started: Fri Jun 6, 2008 1:21 pm (58 Views)
LAL
Member Avatar


I like baseball, but there are a few things that have always bothered me about the sport.

1) Why are MLB fields not the same size? I don't understand why the league has not imposed strict regulations regarding the dimensions of the playing field. They have minimums, but that doesn't really help much. Having a symmetrical field, meaning both left and right field are of equal distance from homeplate, makes perfect sense. People are stuck in the old days... they are traditionalists and don't want to see any change whatsoever to the game. Having different-sized fields is like having to run 120 yards down one football field as opposed to 100 in the rest... it just doesn't make any sense. A homerun in one park should be a homerun in any park. The homerun is subjective because getting a homerun depends somewhat on which park you are playing in. A right-handed hitter could have 50 more HRs over their career if they played at Minute Maid Park as opposed to some other park. Doesn't seem right to me that a player's statistics can be so greatly affected by a simple thing such as the stadium in which they play. Might as well just change the distance of the bases since dimensions obviously aren't a concern in the MLB. While we're at it, just move the mound in the Roger's Centre back a couple feet :sarcastic:. Other than to stay true to the historic ways of baseball, I don't see how or why anyone could support such ambiguity in the sport and the way it's scored.

Also, foul territory should be the same in all stadiums. I think the Dodger's Stadium and Roger's Centre have the right idea. No crazy dimensions or weird shapes and they are symmetrical on the left and right sides for the most part. I hate that stupid thing sticking out of Fenway in center field. Obviously you can't just rip down all the old stadiums and build new ones, but the MLB should enforce very strict guidelines for any team that is making a new stadium. In time, they will all have the same dimensions and all will be good. A park can still have an identity without having a ridiculous-shaped field.

2) Another issue I have is with the whole left-handed, right-handed batter thing. Looking from behind home plate out towards the field, right-field can be identified by looking right. When a left-handed batter lines up to bat, they are on the right side of the plate. Why are they considered a left-handed batter? I'm assuming it's because their left hand is above their right on the bat, but I think it would make more sense to call them a right-handed batter or "right-side" batter. Not that big of a deal, but it has been bothering me for the past few days.

3) Why don't they make retractable roofs or at least domes mandatory for new parks? We've advanced fairly well over the centuries yet we still can't manage to avoid falling victim to rain during an MLB game? It's kinda sad if you ask me. This quote says it all:
"It's a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains"

Thats all for now...
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Infallable
Member Avatar
I don't break character until after the DVD commentary

1) Outside of just trying to get unique architecture, there are things that are taken into account for park dimensions. For example, the ball travels farther in Colorado, ergo Coor's field is huge. Imagine if Coor's were the size of Arlington.

2) This is obvious. The handedness of the batter is based on the dominant hand in his swing (top hand) not what side he stands on. If it makes you feel better, from the perspective of the pitcher (or anyone else on the defense), the left handed hitter is on the left side.

3) I'd actually prefer it if they just sucked it up and played through a little rain. And let's face it, some teams can't afford, or just refuse to pay for, players, much less state of the art stadium technology.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
sportslover
Member Avatar


It's very hard to field a ball when the dirt is wet. Nearly impossible. There's no reason why players should have to play through the rain, both for logistics and for safety reasons.

And I'm sure we will see more retractable roofs through the years, as all these stadiums that were built in the 90's age and new ones are need.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
LAL
Member Avatar


Infallable
Fri Jun 6, 2008 3:45 pm
1) Outside of just trying to get unique architecture, there are things that are taken into account for park dimensions. For example, the ball travels farther in Colorado, ergo Coor's field is huge. Imagine if Coor's were the size of Arlington.

2) This is obvious. The handedness of the batter is based on the dominant hand in his swing (top hand) not what side he stands on. If it makes you feel better, from the perspective of the pitcher (or anyone else on the defense), the left handed hitter is on the left side.

3) I'd actually prefer it if they just sucked it up and played through a little rain. And let's face it, some teams can't afford, or just refuse to pay for, players, much less state of the art stadium technology.
1) I see. I forgot about the altitude issue. Still doesn't account for all those weird shapes that some field's have. Something could still be done to establish some form of uniform stadium size though. Get some scientists or something to account for the altitude and build accordingly B)

2) Yea, that's what I figured. I did consider looking at it from the pitcher's perspective, but if I did that, then left field would be right field and vice versa.

3) Never occurred to me that they could just play through the rain. I guess that would be a good solution too. But it would suck for some fans as they would get soaked... I prefer the domes. If you don't want to shell out money, don't own a team. Cheap bastards.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
JoeCoolMan24
Member Avatar
I got Alicia Sacramone

Lakers008
Fri Jun 6, 2008 4:07 pm
Infallable
Fri Jun 6, 2008 3:45 pm
1) Outside of just trying to get unique architecture, there are things that are taken into account for park dimensions. For example, the ball travels farther in Colorado, ergo Coor's field is huge. Imagine if Coor's were the size of Arlington.

2) This is obvious. The handedness of the batter is based on the dominant hand in his swing (top hand) not what side he stands on. If it makes you feel better, from the perspective of the pitcher (or anyone else on the defense), the left handed hitter is on the left side.

3) I'd actually prefer it if they just sucked it up and played through a little rain. And let's face it, some teams can't afford, or just refuse to pay for, players, much less state of the art stadium technology.
1) I see. I forgot about the altitude issue. Still doesn't account for all those weird shapes that some field's have. Something could still be done to establish some form of uniform stadium size though. Get some scientists or something to account for the altitude and build accordingly B)

2) Yea, that's what I figured. I did consider looking at it from the pitcher's perspective, but if I did that, then left field would be right field and vice versa.

3) Never occurred to me that they could just play through the rain. I guess that would be a good solution too. But it would suck for some fans as they would get soaked... I prefer the domes. If you don't want to shell out money, don't own a team. Cheap bastards.
1) Yeah, they could have it all scientically structured to make it all even, but I like that you have to learn a new ballpark and play with stadium quirks. Personally I think the hill at Minute Maid is stupid, but it would be cool to play there and have to fight with the hill. Going to Wrigley with no foul area down the lines, then go to the Collusium and have shitload of space to catch balls. It just kind of adds to the excitment of quirks and uniqueness (sp?).

2) I used to wonder about that too why a righthanded hitter was in the leftside box. It makes sense though like Infallable stated.

3) Well the big reason for the stopping for rain is probably just injury reasons. Yes, they do it in football, but does not rain as much during football season, so its not an issue usually. I agree though that all new stadiums need to have a retractable roof, or at least, you need to have one if your city is located in a place where rain is more likely to happen. Like Seattle 100% needed theirs, but other places that are dry won't need them that often.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Infallable
Member Avatar
I don't break character until after the DVD commentary

Lakers008
Fri Jun 6, 2008 4:07 pm
Infallable
Fri Jun 6, 2008 3:45 pm
1) Outside of just trying to get unique architecture, there are things that are taken into account for park dimensions. For example, the ball travels farther in Colorado, ergo Coor's field is huge. Imagine if Coor's were the size of Arlington.

2) This is obvious. The handedness of the batter is based on the dominant hand in his swing (top hand) not what side he stands on. If it makes you feel better, from the perspective of the pitcher (or anyone else on the defense), the left handed hitter is on the left side.

3) I'd actually prefer it if they just sucked it up and played through a little rain. And let's face it, some teams can't afford, or just refuse to pay for, players, much less state of the art stadium technology.
1) I see. I forgot about the altitude issue. Still doesn't account for all those weird shapes that some field's have. Something could still be done to establish some form of uniform stadium size though. Get some scientists or something to account for the altitude and build accordingly B)

2) Yea, that's what I figured. I did consider looking at it from the pitcher's perspective, but if I did that, then left field would be right field and vice versa.

3) Never occurred to me that they could just play through the rain. I guess that would be a good solution too. But it would suck for some fans as they would get soaked... I prefer the domes. If you don't want to shell out money, don't own a team. Cheap bastards.
1) It would be kind of boring to standardize everything, not to mention it would make the game even more mechanical than it already is. Of course, there's still no excuse for Houston having a hill and a god damn pole in the playing area.

2) If the pitcher turned to face the outfield (because if he has his back turned to it it's not really his perspective), then it would be "right". Of course, none of this has anything to with a hitters HANDEDNESS, and I'm going through this whole course of logic solely to make you feel better.

3) It'd never happen obviously (They'd also say that it's unfair to hitters), but I think it's ridiculous that they have to pull a tarp over the field and make a whole big commotion over a little rain. Then again, in a league where guys get hurt sneezing, sleeping, and carrying deer meat up the stairs, adding elements would probably spell disaster.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · United Sports · Next Topic »
Add Reply