Rob Muhlhausen wrote:
So, the Yankees new stadium, which is opening in 2009, is being advertised as having the same dimensions as the current Yankee Stadium. Yankee Stadium currently is 318ft. down the left foul line and 314ft. down the right foul line. Major League Baseball rule 1.04(a) says, “Any Playing Field constructed by a professional club after June 1, 1958, shall provide a minimum distance of 325 feet from home base to the nearest fence, stand or other obstruction on the right and left field foul lines, and a minimum distance of 400 feet to the center field fence.” Aren’t the Yankees breaking the rules here?
Yes. But the Commissioner allows them to do it. While many parks have their fences at the minimum required distance, the last wave of ballparks had many that violated the space requirements:
- AT&T Park
- Minute Maid Park is 315 feet down the left-field line
- Oriole Park at Camden Yards is 318 feet down the right field line
- Petco Park is 396 feet to center field and 322 feet to right field
- PNC Park is 399 to center and 320 to right field
In each case, the team went to the Commish and said “hey, we’d like to put the fences closer than the rules allow” and he waived the requirement. Presumably, that’s what the Yankees will do to have their new digs built with dimensions that violate the rulebook requirement.
This raises an obvious question: if the Commissioner regularly waives the requirement, why is the requirement in the rules at all?
I don’t know. The league’s argument would probably be that the rules are designed to prevent a team from building a field that’s too crazy, and that requiring the Commissioner to review plans that violate the rule ensures that they can be sure that the close foul lines (or whatever the other tweak is) aren’t egregious, and the outfield ground’s made up in the power alleys (or somewhere).
But that’s not what happens – Minute Maid Park’s played as a severe hitter’s park since its inception, dragging up the whole league’s run-scoring. If the rules are intended to ensure that the game’s played within certain general run-scoring parameters, the way this is implemented has failed.
Considered this way, there’s nothing wrong with letting the Yankees build a new stadium with the same dimensions as the old. We have decades of information on how the current park plays, and it’s obvious it plays normally. Yankee Stadium today isn’t an oppressive pitcher’s park or a band box. As long as the Commissioner’s granting exceptions, there’s no reason you wouldn’t let this by.
In another way, though, giving this discretionary power to the Commissioner is part of baseball’s long move during Selig’s reign to put more and more authority to Selig, and includes other actions like the abolition of the league presidents (which is also not reflected in the rules). All of that allows him to award or punish teams based on his own feelings about the franchise, which in turn allows him to wield a huge stick in forcing draft slotting, for instance. Andrew Miller didn’t drop to the Tigers because the other teams didn’t want him. But that’s another topic entirely.
88fingersluke | 25-Apr-07 at 10:10 am | Permalink
Derek, if you think that Twins and Angels fans are bad, wait until you see all the Yankees fans that are gonna start bombarding you with insults. Those guys know how to insult 10x that of some wussy SoCalian.
Evan | 25-Apr-07 at 1:13 pm | Permalink
Furthermore, I suspect that Selig would exert pressure if a team built a stadium that was crazy, but within the rules. If a team built a stadium with Polo Grounds dimensions to center and the alleys (the Polo Grounds were 440 to center, and even deeper to the alleys because the wall was straight). I’d love that park (imagine all the triples and inside-the-parkers), but Selig seems to like smaller parks.
Ryan | 25-Apr-07 at 5:16 pm | Permalink
Once again, wouldn’t this have an equal benefit for both teams having shorter dimensions? I know the Yankees have power hitters but I am a Toronto fan and I see shorter fences benefiting Blue Jays players like Troy Glaus, Vernon Wells, Frank Thomas and Alex Rios equally. The same principle applies to all power hitters, especially those in Toronto, Boston, Tampa Bay and Baltimore.
Disco | 25-Apr-07 at 9:27 pm | Permalink
Is there any way to oust Selig? I think he’s been terrible for baseball. Everything I hear or read about him just irks me.
What good are rules if they’re just broken? Either obey the rule or rewrite it. Baseball was a lot more pure of a sport in 1958, and they probably had very good reasons for imposing that rule.
Orlandu | 26-Apr-07 at 5:21 am | Permalink
What do you make of the stuff that was on the top part of the bill of Joe Blanton’s cap yesterday (assuming you watched the game)? Was it the worst display of cheating you’ve ever seen, or was it just really dirty?
Mirabeau | 26-Apr-07 at 6:23 am | Permalink
Minute Maid is certainly not as much a hitter’s park as you say it is. Based on park factors, it only slightly favors the hitter, ranking 33, 9, 9, 14, 23, and 12 in hitter friendliness from 2001-2006. Surely a park that has never been in the top 5 in park factor based on runs cannot be considered a “severe hitters’ park.”
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor
DMZ | 26-Apr-07 at 8:35 am | Permalink
ESPN’s park factor stats are terrible, for one. 2000-2003 Minute Maid played hugely to hitters, though you’re correct, in recent years it’s been much more fair. I should have been clearer.
tangotiger | 27-Apr-07 at 7:50 am | Permalink
Here are the park factors:
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/run_impact_in_parks/#13
Focus on the RUNS column. Houston has 0.68 more runs (per 9IP) scored at their home games than their road games. That puts them in the top third.
Matt in Toledo | 27-Apr-07 at 10:45 am | Permalink
I seem to remember a story about the Reds moving in the center field wall in the last days of Riverfront/Cinergy Field, and MLB telling them they had to make it a certain height in order to be able to do it. Am I misremembering or does that seem like an odd incongruity to anybody else?
Bob | 27-Apr-07 at 2:19 pm | Permalink
From Wikipedia:
This rule (a footnote to official rule 1.04) was passed specifically in response to the fence at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, which was not originally designed for baseball, and thus was only 251 feet (77 m) to the left field pole (1 foot (0.3 m) over the bare minimum required by the rules).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball
Miles | 27-Apr-07 at 2:56 pm | Permalink
While I appreciate your blog, this post is ridiculous. The requirements are there as guidelines, and are appropriately used as such. Baseball fans talk about the “charm” and “uniqueness” of baseball parks in a way unlike any other sport’s areanas specifically because ballparks can have their own character (such as variations in dimensions). Yes, you could still accomplish this and be within the rules, but it isn’t as if they’re putting the wall at 265′. Would we be better off with more of the cookie-cutter parks like the AstroDome, Olympic Stadium, and Three Rivers? Selig has done his best to cripple the game, but using this as a condemnation of Selig’s tenure as Commissioner is completely misplaced.
DMZ | 27-Apr-07 at 4:40 pm | Permalink
I entirely agree with you about the character and uniqueness of stadiums, and obviously, don’t quite understand why the post is ridiculous.
Here’s my question – you clearly think that 265′ is too close. At some point, baseball thought that the current dimensions outlined in the rulebook were as close as you should be able to build a field, and implemented this rule to prevent parks from being built closer than what’s laid out.
What changed between then and now?
Why did baseball leave the requirement and allow the Commissioner to waive it, rather than change it?
I’ll talk about why this kind of Commissioner power is concerning in a later post.
Miles | 02-May-07 at 9:59 am | Permalink
I should’ve been more precise in my wording. I meant using the deviation from ballpark standards as an indictment of Selig is ridiculous. Your facts are correct, and I must concede it violates the letter of the law. That said, you’re using field dimensions as a vehicle to question Selig’s integrity as Commissioner. I agree that his tenure has been auspicious at best, and there are perhaps instances where we could point to his integrity (rather than simply ineptitude), but this is a real stretch. Qualcom’s LF was moved to 327′ in 1982, long before Selig’s tenure. Similarly, Camden Yards opened the same year as Selig became commissioner, but it was under Faye Vincent’s tenure that the dimensions for the park were set (318′ to RF)
What changed? Obviously I can’t answer that with any inside knowledge, but how about I postulate a bit? Camden Yards was hailed as a testament to what a ballpark could be. A new era of ballparks was heralded and Camden set the standard for this new generation of, in my opinion, spectacular ballparks. This standard wasn’t set by Selig, he wasn’t Commissioner yet.
Why did they leave it in? Again, I can only postulate, but if the commissioners office (3 in the last 20+ years) have been willing to bend the rule then what good does it do to remove it. Its been utilized as a guideline and rewriting for posterity’s sake just seems meaningless, as the precendent is clear.
While its more than fair to say Selig has taken this to unforseen new heights, isn’t a more likely scenario simply that having odd dimension has become a bit of a fad in ballpark building? While it violates the letter of the law, the Commissioners Office, not just Selig himself, has decided that certain degrees of deviation from the letter of the law do not violate the spirit of the law, and thus no harm is done to the game.
I enjoy your blog and commend you on engaging your commentors.
DMZ | 02-May-07 at 12:25 pm | Permalink
My disagreement isn’t that this should be taken as an indictment of his integrity – there’s nothing that suggests he’s being bribed, for instance.
Where I disagree is in whether the rules should be adapted to suit changing times, or if the Commish should have ever-increasing powers to waive them.
Essentially, for stadium dimensions today, we can see that they’re not restrained by what’s in the rules, they’re restrained only by what Selig’s willing to sign off on. What Selig is willing to sign off on is unknown, and because of that, there’s a huge area for interpretation.
If the Tigers wanted to build a new park next year, for some reason, hoping to put the RF wall only 315 feet away at the corner, and Selig denied it, suddenly there are other factors we’d be discussing: is he angry that the Tigers broke slotting to draft and sign Miller, in particular?
This isn’t an isolated case, either – over Selig’s reign, the MLB head office has accumulated a huge amount of discretionary money and power that they use to reward friends and punish maverick ownership groups, and I don’t see that that’s healthy.