I was thinking about this last night and I was curious what other baseball enthusiasts thought: should MLB make all their baseball fields the same dimensions? I was thinking last night about the Yankees lack of power recently - even back to last October when they got bounced in the playoffs by the Tigers. I was thinking how that's exactly what the Yankees need right now and they traded their best hitting prospect last year. True, Jesus Montero isn't lighting it up just yet. But then I also thought that he's playing in Safeco Field, which is a hitters park. Then that began a web of thoughts within itself.

Why do we have the terms "hitters parks" or "pitchers parks"? Is it fair that one man's stats are better than another's based on his home ballpark? I understand that 81 games out of the year are played on the road. However, for those other 81 games that are played at home, they could have an affect on a hitter's stats. Let's say Montero's numbers aren't huge at the end of the year (never mind the fact that this is the kid's first full season in the majors). Take him out of Seattle and put him in a ballpark like Yankee Stadium and I bet you his stats go up. Some homeruns in Yankee Stadium are just loud outs at Safeco Field and other parks.

This led me to another example recently which was Adrian Gonzalez. His numbers weren't bad for Petco Park (since it's notoriously been referred to during it's time as a pitcher's park). Out of all the major offensive stats we judge players by, the only one that went down were his homeruns from 31 in 2010 to 27 in 2011. Everything else went up: hits, doubles, triples, RBIs, SB, AVG, OBP, SLG and OPS. Also, keep in mind this is a player coming to a new league with pitchers whom he's never seen before. This was an example of a hitter going from one park to another and increasing his batting average alone by 40 points from .298 in San Diego to .338 in Boston.

So, again this led me further to question, is it really fair that one players numbers should be better than another's based on his home ball park? I felt the answer was no. Baseball, in my opinion, is really the only sport where there are other elements in play besides the game itself that can negatively affect the player. In basketball, the goal is still 10 feet tall for everyone, always has been. Sure there's been rules added like the addition of the shot clock or 3-point line but the goal has always remained the same. In football the same thing. Sure there have been technological advances in regards to the football itself (as baseball has seen to the baseball itself) but the field is still 100 yards. Baseball is the only one where the field is another element within itself.

So, in all of this, my question to you is: do you believe that MLB should require all stadiums to have the same dimensions? The stadium can be set up any way the team wants, but the left, right and centerfield fences all need to be equal across the board. For the baseball purists out there, what is your opinion? Is it too late to change? Should we leave the game the way it's been for over 100 years? Vote and share your thoughts!

Baseball Field Dimensions single choice
	Yes
	No
	Not Sure
Votes accepted starting: 05/21/12 06:47 PM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

There are other factors at play that influence the "hitters park" versus the "pitchers park." Coors Field due to its altitude is known as a strong "hitters park." I believe that Atlanta Fulton County Stadium also had a reputation as a "hitters park" because Atlanta is well above sea level. Wouldn't wind factors also play a part in how much a park favors hitters or batters?

No universal dimensions are wanted here! Each ballpark being unique makes the game more fun. There are too many similar parks now (and have been since the '70s). Knowing the ground rules for all the different parks make the game a lot more fun.

wind factors make wrigley a hitters/pitchers park

That's always been the remark for teams within the state of Colorado. Whether its right or wrong, who's to say? As for the wind factor, the same could be applied in football. I rarely hear that argument there so I would imagine it wouldn't be a strong argument for MLB. True, wind plays a part in it as well (thank you) but how BIG?

I oppose standard cookie-cutter dimensions. Unique park features within the confines of the parks, particularly the outfields, add uniqueness and charm, and over the course of a 162 game season have a smaller impact on results of pennant races that one may think.

Shrinking the parks generally, however, has affected the game throughout the ages. Baseball was designed to be a game played largely on the bases. Homeruns now have a more profound impact on the game than ever. When outfields were larger and the balls less lively, outfielders had to be jackrabbits as some centerfield walls were close to 500 feet away. Base running, stretching hits into triples and inside the park homers, and relay throws on runners were much more common. Today very often the baserunners' job is towait while a slugger hits a 315 foot homer.

Also, as a result of the smaller parks, teams could routinely put slow-footed, beefy players in the outfield as there is less ground to cover and a larger percentage of hits over their heads sail across the fences.

I think there is more excitement in Sam Crawford's record for career triples than Barry Bonds' record for homers.

As mentioned before universal dimensions would still create hitters and pitchers ballparks. Let's say they took the huge outfield dimensions of the Rockies ballpark (where the ball still flies out of there regardless of how big the field is) and put that in San Francisco. There would never be a home run hit in San Francisco. The right field wall for the Giants is already nearly impossible to hit one out even though it's a very short distance from home plate.

The weather does have a big impact on the game. More home runs are generally hit on a warm day as opposed to a cold night. So colder weather regions are going to play different than hotter areas.

The terms hitter's park and pitcher's park wouldn't leave the game if there were universal dimensions, and we would lose the charm of individual parks. Huge NO vote here.

Sounds like you are trying to control one aspect of the game for the sake of statistics. Maybe all the grass and dirt should be identical too. Players must all be 6' tall and weigh 200 lbs.

It's the variables that make the game interesting and give it character. Variables create the unexpected. Modern technology has stripped some of the human element from the game. I'd like to see a park with 400 feet down the lines and 325 in center.

I can understand these sentiments, and a large part of me agrees with them.

But let me play devils advocate here for a moment. The other 3 major sports, NFL Football, NBA Basketball & NHL Hockey have universal dimensions. Let me use Football as an example. Would it be fair to a running back or a quarterback if their home field was 110 yards long while another teams field was only 90 yards long?

What if Willie Mays had played in Wrigley Field for most of his career and Ernie Banks played in San Francisco? How many more home runs would Mays have had and how many less would Banks have had? Of course it's hard to tell, but for the most part you would have to agree that Mays would have had a lot more HRs playing all of his home games at Wrigley.

While there is a part of me that screams not to make universal dimensions in baseball, another part of me says that in fairness to the players and more so the teams, maybe dimensions should be universal.

BORING!!!

I would much rather watch a game in Fenway or Wrigley than seeing it in an antiseptic cookie-cutter ballpark. Brings more excitement to the game.



Yeah, but we're talking baseball here.

I agree, fairness to the players. I hear what SC is saying about it being boring. I'm not saying each ballpark needs to look identical in nature, just the dimensions. Because as you said, how many more home runs would Mays have hit in Wrigley and is that really fair that he's "punished" because he was a Giant and not a Cub? I don't believe that's right.

And as you said utilizing the football example. Here's another What if the pitchers mound at a stadium was closer/farther than at another stadium. Is that fair?

Aint that the truth.

Yankee Stadium is NOT Yankee Stadium.



Save for MSG, there is no sacred ground in the NBA with a unique personality. (Celtics and Lakers both used too, but traded in for better, more boring traditional arenas.)

NFL, ok it has Lambeau Field and Soldier's Field and...well, that's it. Maybe the Superdome too, but that's a stretch.

Exactly. I am the last guy that would want to compromise the asthetic integrity of the way the stadium itself looks. However I will give in and admit that I would never want to see the Green monster moved out or taken down in order to make that stadium universal in playing field dimensions. Fenway Park is definitely the exception here. But in general, most fields would not have to compromise the overall design of the stadium if they were to change playing field dimensions. I love the tradition of the game...was quite upset when they decided to tear down both Yankee Stadium and Shea Stadium. But again, overall I do not see it being fair that one field is easier to hit in or ptich in than another. In my opinion it pollutes both player and team statistics.



Not that could be dangerous!