Why does the baseball commissioner allow the monster wall at Fenway Park?

Can you tell I know nothing about baseball? Anyway I saw some story on Fenway Park today and was wondering, “Shouldn’t stadiums be standardized?” Why is there no regulation for wall height?

“Variety is the spice of life”.

And who was it who said “It’s a round ball and a round bat, and you’ve got to hit it square.”?

From Rule 1.04 of the Official Rules of Baseball

There is a provision further down stating that stadiums built before 1958 don’t have to follow these rules. And stadiums such as Pac Bell in San Francisco and Minute Maid in Houston have gotten permission from the Commissioner’s Office to have fences that are closer in than is recommended.

There are no restrictions on the height of fences. The lowest fences are in Dodger Stadium, parts of which are only 3 feet high.

The short answer is: the danged thing got grandfathered in. The long answer is longer.

MLB, as it stands today, isn’t this monolith that’s been around forever. The thing just sort of grew.

BobT gave some examples of parks that got exemptions, but for the most part, NL parks are newer than Al parks, and tend to conform to the rules.

Fenway Park is old. It was built long before organized baseball as we know it today developed. It’s also pretty much falling apart.

There’s been a lot of talk about building a new stadium in Boston in recent years, but that wall is causing problems. Boston baseball fans are really attached to it. It’s unique in Major League baseball.

When they talk about building a new park, fans say “we’ll still have a Monster, right?” and the baseball wonks say “well, that would be against the rules.”

So Bostonians say, “Screw you, we’ll just keep Fenway, then.”

Because if you dare suggesting it be changed, there’s plenty of us willing to give you a good solid thrashing. :slight_smile:

Honestly, both teams have to play on the same field, so I don’t see why it should make so much difference. Sure, some parks will favor home run hitters while others won’t, but you can’t control all the variables anyway. Even in something with regulated field sizes (like football) there’s still variation in playing conditions (wind, noise, sun, chance of snow, condition of the turf). It all evens out in the end.

If MLB will allow Pac Bell to have a 309 ft right field foul line, obviously built to favor Barry Bond’s HR swing (left hand hitter who couldn’t hit to left field if his life depended on it), then Boston should be able to keep the Green Monster, possibly one of the most instantly recognizable features in all of professional American sports, after the facade at Yankee Stadium.

I see nothing in the Fenway fence that violates the rules. True it does not meet the “preferable” clause, but that is obviously not obligatory. The wall is high in part to make up for the lack of distance. It actually favors doubles more than HRs. Actually the shortest distance in Fenway is the right field foul line, but it falls off severely in about a 1 degree angle. And the center field in Fenway is just nutty. At any rate, the bottom line is that baseball fans do not like the cookie-cutter fields that were built between about 1960 and 1990 and now are insisting that new fields have odd angles and are strongly assymetric. See the field in Baltimore.

Until about 1960 and with the sole exception of Yankee Stadium, built in the early 20s, all the major league parks were built in the years from about 1905-1915 and they were all built inside city blocks. If the city was gridded (e.g. Philadelphia), the park was rectangular and relatively symmetric (but while the park in Philly was nearly square, it had stands in left and a high louvered wall in right that drove visiting right fielders nuts). Then came the relatively standardized fields that were plain BORING. Now the pendulum is swinging again and the newest fields are more interesting (although I have seen several games at the Safe in Seattle and that one is pretty boring too). Now if they could only get rid of the DH…

I see nothing in the Fenway fence that violates the rules. True it does not meet the “preferable” clause, but that is obviously not obligatory. The wall is high in part to make up for the lack of distance. It actually favors doubles more than HRs. Actually the shortest distance in Fenway is the right field foul line, but it falls off severely in about a 1 degree angle. And the center field in Fenway is just nutty. At any rate, the bottom line is that baseball fans do not like the cookie-cutter fields that were built between about 1960 and 1990 and now are insisting that new fields have odd angles and are strongly assymetric. See the field in Baltimore.

Until about 1960 and with the sole exception of Yankee Stadium, built in the early 20s, all the major league parks were built in the years from about 1905-1915 and they were all built inside city blocks. If the city was gridded (e.g. Philadelphia), the park was rectangular and relatively symmetric (but while the park in Philly was nearly square, it had stands in left and a high louvered wall in right that drove visiting right fielders nuts). Then came the relatively standardized fields that were plain BORING. Now the pendulum is swinging again and the newest fields are more interesting (although I have seen several games at the Safe in Seattle and that one is pretty boring too). Now if they could only get rid of the DH…

Anyway, I digress. Boston was built on a crazy quilt pattern, similar to London and other European cities and the ball park had to be fit in to an irregular lot. The result is a highly irregular, but interesting, ball park. Given the success Boston has had at the box office, combined with the lack of success on the field, they would be crazy to do anything to disturb the fans. So I would just rebuild it identically, if were running baseball.

Oddly enough, the team most like Boston in combining box office success with on-the-field failure, is the Cubs. Their park, while idiosyncratic in other ways, is, IIRC, completely symmetric. But there it is the ivy-covered walls that create the interest.

Remember, too, that parks of that era could have very short fences because no one was going to hit the dead ball all that far. The Green Monster was considered just too far away to give anyone a second thought.

BTW, hockey rinks and basketball courts weren’t standardized until relatively recently (if they have been at all). Also, Fenway Park made an interesting football stadium when the Boston Patriots played there – there wasn’t quite enough room for the entire end zone. The stands cut across one of them.

Pac Bell is actually, so commentators say, not very easy to hit home runs in. I forget why. Tropicana Field, on the other hand, is a frickin’ sardine can. Ditto Wrigley - it’s charming, but I can’t help but think Sammy would have so many homers playing a lot of other places. :stuck_out_tongue: I’m with the camp who says it doesn’t matter, though, different stadiums make baseball more interesting.

It’s just seems ridiculous that teams screw the local taxpayers to build state of the art stadiums that favor their power hitter of the week.
Pac Bell (SF Giants) Barry Bonds (L) 309 RF Line
Tropicanna (FLA) 315 LF Line

not done yet…

Allow? It was built before he was born.

Haj

Anyway, my point is, that teams blow millions of dollars to build stadiums which do not conform to MLB recommendations in order to satisfy their star player. Bonds is just a glaring example. FTR, I do not like Bonds. I don’t begrudge him his record, but he did not earn it. He is a dead pull hitter who plays half of his games in a field where right center is 420, but the RF line is 309. Why not let him hit is off a tee from first base?

And the stadium commissions and teams are not all to blame. Players bear some of the blame, too. IIRC, Juan Gonzalez refused to sign with the Astros because the team refused to bring the LF fences in to benefit his HR swing. (Righty who pulled, but can at least go the other way.)

Pac Bell was built in 2000, to favor BB’s pull. If he played in Boston, with it’s 302’ RF porch, I got no beef. It’s only 90 years old. When stadiums get built for individual players, that’s where I have a problem.

I apologize for using GQ for what I guess has turned into a rant, but not one worthy of the pit, or IMHO, even. I will desist.

RE: The OP:

Baseball has a commissioner now? I thought Bud Selig was still an OWNER.

Way to be impartial, MLB.

My wild-assed nomination: Jimmy Carter. I’m NOT kidding. He loves baseball, and you can TRUST the sumbitch. Johnny Bench would also be acceptable, as would Cal Ripken Jr or Hank. Heck, Bono could do a better job. Maybe Sting.

He’s stepping down in… '06, if memory serves. Not soon enough, but hey.

The 37-foot wooden left field wall was replaced by a more durable, 37-foot sheet metal structure. In 1936, a 23-1/2-foot tall screen was added on top of the wall to better protect the windows of buildings on adjoining Lansdowne Street. When the wall’s advertisements were covered by green paint in 1947, Fenway Park’s signature feature — the Green Monster — was born.

Three years later, sweet-swinging Ted Williams, a dead-pull left-handed hitter, came to Boston. The following year, 1940, bullpens were constructed in right field to bring the fence 23 feet closer to home plate for Williams. The new bullpens appropriately became known as Williamsburg.

George F. Will seems like he’d make a good commissioner, as well. Anyone but Bud Selig…