are mlb fields smaller tody than they used to be?

Answer 1

Generally speaking, yes.

Answer 2

Obviously the infield is pretty set, but the outfield, while having minimum distances (that are sometimes ignored, ala LF in Houston and RF in Pittsburgh), has no maximum distances. I'm too lazy to do the math, but you could basically figure out the "size" of the park by determining the square footage of the outfield.

Doing that, I believe that the average field size has decreased. The most notable reason for this being that it allows for more HRs. That being said, there are still fairly large parks today, and there were still fairly small parks in the first half of the century. While many people remember that the Polo Grounds had a ridiculously deep CF, most people don't remember that LF and RF were extremely short, making the park look something like a bath tub. Baker Field in Philadelphia was ridiculously small. Forbes Field was notoriously big (they left the batting cage out on the field in center b/c it wasn't in the way out there, despite being on the field), but Exposition Park before it wasn't all that big at all. Other parks were about the same size as the average park is now. Many fields in the early days didn't even have outfield walls.

So, without doing any math, I'd say that the average size has diminished. But I don't think you could say it for sure without supporting it with the math. I think the perception is there because the big fields were indeed bigger than most of our big fields today, but people forget the small fields.

**To Jake below me. Forbes was never as short as you state, although it did have 300' to right in it's final configuration. You can see my link below for more, but...

Original dimensions: 462 to center, 360 to left, and 376 to right field. I think this may have been the biggest ballpark overall, as most parks with CF that deep had really short fences somewhere else, like Yankee Stadium in RF and the Polo grounds in LF and RF.

Final Dimensions: Left Field: 365 feet, Left-Center Field: 406 feet, Deepest Part of the Park; Left-Center: 457 feet, Center Field: 435 feet, Right-Center Field: 408 feet , Right Field: 300 feet.

Left was only 335' from 1947-1953, but moved back out for 1954 (Greenberg's Gardens for Hank Greenberg, and Kiner's Korner for Ralph Kiner). Right came in in 1932. However, a screen was added, meaning a HR had to clear the roof to get out, which was 86' high. To be honest though, I'm not 100% sure it had to clear all 86' to be a HR, but I know it couldn't just clear the fences, as Clemente was well known for his ability to play balls off the screen. Comparitively, the Green Monster is 37' and 310' down the line.

Answer 3

In general, yes. The distance to center and the alleys is smaller. You won't see 483 to dead center anymore(Polo Grounds). At the same time, the MLB put the minimum distance to the foul poles at 330', so you won't see 260 and 254 down the lines either(Again the Polo Grounds) I think the exception is if the wall is a certain height. The average park is about 335' down the lines, 385 to the alleys, and 405 to dead center. That's compared with the 60s, when it was about 300 down the lines, 395 to the alleys, and 420 to center.

Answer 4

Yes and no. The distance of the fence is more regulated across the park now. Older parks had very short fences down the line, and incredibly far fences in center and to the power alleys. 420 feet is usually as far as they go now, but back in the old stadiums, such as the Polo Grounds, the fences could be as far as 485 ft. But, now, Boston has the shortest fences down the lines, and it is just under 300 ft. But, it is the Green Monster, so you have to hit it pretty good to get it over. Crosley, Forbes, and the Polo Grounds all had fences below 280 at one point in the park, Polo Grounds w/ a 265 ft fence down the right field line.

Answer 5

The basic field shape and minimum size are subject to the rulebook. The field itself and the stadium surrounding them must be configured to fit within the property available.

Are today's stadia smaller than the Polo Grounds? Yes, but that field wasn't built for baseball. It was adapted to baseball.

Some stadia favour one type of hit over another, and this is referred to as park factor. But why? Well, the rules give minimum distances to the outfield fences, but there are no maximums. And there isn't a lot of variation either. Any given park may have various nooks and crannies along their outfield walls, in order to help the stadium conform to the property shape. They walls themselves may be made of different materials, or are of different heights. The stadium walls are of different heights in different stadia, and even around any given stadia, and these affect the way the wind swirls around in the stadium itself. Elevation, climate and time of day also play their parts.

The apparent characteristics of any given park are not static, either. After all, the games have to be played.

The idea of park factor might be of interest to you. See the links below.

Answer 6

Yes! The most notable is Yankee Stadium because dead center field used to be 461 feet from home plate and now it's only 408. The field of Minute Maid Park in Houston was built pretty big with 430 feet from home plate to dead center field. Fenway Park in Boston still has 420 feet in Center field.

Answer 7

For the most part yes, but remember i think its Griffith Park or Cleveland Municipal but one of them was 260 feet down both lines.

Answer 8

Baseball parks overall are smaller today when compared to parks in the past although they seat about the same. A smaller park means more home runs and the possibility of more home runs brings more people to the park to buy $8 hot dogs. More people in the park, more action, more food to sell, everybody wins.

Answer 9

yeah they are way smaller just look at the old Polo Grounds and Yankee Stadium.

Answer 10

yes