why is that in baseball,unlike all other team sports,the playing field is not uniformed?

Answer 1

Certain parts are uniform; namely, the infield. And even then, some variations exist. Some fields have a full dirt area between the bases, while some have dirt cutouts (usually on artificial turf fields).

There are certain uniform standards that must be met. For example, there are minimum distances for the outfield fences and the backstop. From there, they can go crazy. I guess it's simply because they never really found a good reason why they should NOT allow this. And if you ask just about any baseball fan, they'll give the same answer...

Why not?

In the earliest days of the sport, it was a game that could be played on any grassy pasture, such as a farm or an open field. It was intended to be a game that people could play anywhere, even if there was a barn in left field, or a tree in right-center.

In those days, the ball didn't travel as far, so it was mainly a slap-hitting game that revolved around the infield. In fact, in the earliest days of the game, the ball was still live even if it passed over or through a fence. In that sense, distances to the outfield fences didn't really matter. As the game evolved, nobody found any good reason to standardize outfield distances.

Of course, in the early days of the professional game, that was sometimes hard to do anyway. For example, Boston had to deal with a street just past left field, so left field was a bit short. They adjusted by building a high leftfield fence (now the Green Monster).

Even as recently as the 1990s, fields have adjusted to conditions. Denver has adjusted to its high altitude by having Coors Field's fences a bit deeper than many other parks; 347 LF, 415 CF, 350 RF. Considering the fact that the ball travels about 9% farther at that elevation, that's arguably not deep enough to truly compensate. However, that's another debate.

Just as in designing a golf course, designing a baseball field allows the designer to make a field unique. It makes the game fun, truly giving each city's park a certain "feel." You'll rarely see the same uproar over tearing down a football stadium or an arena that you see if anyone was to talk about tearing down Wrigley Field or Fenway Park.

With the exceptions of maybe Lambeau Field and Madison Square Garden, very few stadiums/arenas in sports other than baseball have become part of the experience by themselves.

It seems as if it's simply a tradition that nobody thought to phase out. Field designers can still design their fields any way they wish, within the rules.

Hey, why not?

Answer 2

The important part of the field is standardized.

Pretty much all of the lesser sports use some variation of a rectangle, with both teams playing at once, trying to get the ball or whatever object to one end of the rectangle and use it to score points.

Baseball never has the teams playing both halves of the game simultaneously, and the offensive team tries to get the ball as far away from the scoring (runs, not points) as possible.

So there are plenty of fundamental differences.

If there was a need to have all the fields, particularly the outfield walls, standardized, it would happen. However there is no need for this; it's a hobgoblin to think otherwise. Partly it is traditional, partly it allows each park its own identity, and partly it lets each home team, if clever enough, craft its roster to best exploit any homefield advantages.

Answer 3

All parks are unique and have a design and feel of their own. MLB has to approve the design and has minimum and maximum standards for the playing field but there is not one set design that everyone must follow except for distance standards for pitching and the bases. This is just another reason why baseball is so great, allowing teams to create their own uniqueness.

Answer 4

that's what makes baseball great its unique

Answer 5

it's a strange game