Jump to content

Roger's Centre Moving Walls In


Can_of_corn

Recommended Posts

I heard a take this weekend like all 30 teams want neutral parks to avoid any drag on their ability to value shop both hitters and pitchers, because everybody's a hedge fund manager chasing The Extra 2%.

Elias' wall helping him buy Lyles and Gibson is like a whole exciting new class of equities for the portfolio!

Sure, the 2021 NL RBI champion got kind of a weak sauce contract but the Players probably still like it when the HR total or ERA on the NFT looks right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I guess that the Tigers and Blue Jays aren't planning on ever signing another free agent pitcher.

 

Also a dig at the Yankees.

 

That's strange.  In a world where Rogers Center is already a very good HR park and people are talking about wanting more action and balls in play, the Blue Jays go the other way and decide they want their own Baker Bowl or League Park.

I think it's been a while since a MLB park was a short as 357' in a alley.  When OPACY was 364' to LC medium fly balls would carry out.

The next step will be to make the RC fence 300', and then you don't need a RFer at all.  Just have the second baseman go fetch anything hit that direction.

Or, maybe they're going to make the walls 100' tall all around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Hallas said:

why did MLB approve this stupid change?  They should be moving all the walls back.

This is covered by Official Rule 2.01, formerly Rule 1.04. The following is for some reason referred to as a "Note" to the rule, but I don't think that matters.

NOTE: (a) 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.

(b) No existing playing field shall be remodeled after June 1, 1958, in such manner as to reduce the distance from home base to the foul poles and to the center field fence below the minimum specified in paragraph (a) above.

The rule doesn't say so, but MLB (that is, Commish) is authorized to allow exceptions to the requirements in this rule. He must have given one to the BJs for bringing in CF so that it's three feet under the minimum of 400 feet. Maybe the BJs pointed out that it would be less than a meter under the minimum, or said it would be just aboot 400 feet, and MLB couldn't figure out what they meant.

As you'll see from the article linked below, there have been a number of other exceptions granted, including those for Camden Yards and the new Yankee Stadium. In most of those cases, there was a practical reason for allowing a distance under the minimum. If that was the case in Toronto, I don't know what the reason was.  

https://www.closecallsports.com/2012/06/rule-104-note-minimum-field-dimensions.html

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

This is covered by Official Rule 2.01, formerly Rule 1.04. The following is for some reason referred to as a "Note" to the rule, but I don't think that matters.

NOTE: (a) 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.

(b) No existing playing field shall be remodeled after June 1, 1958, in such manner as to reduce the distance from home base to the foul poles and to the center field fence below the minimum specified in paragraph (a) above.

The rule doesn't say so, but MLB (that is, Commish) is authorized to allow exceptions to the requirements in this rule. He must have given one to the BJs for bringing in CF so that it's three feet under the minimum of 400 feet. Maybe the BJs pointed out that it would be less than a meter under the minimum, or said it would be just aboot 400 feet, and MLB couldn't figure out what they meant.

As you'll see from the article linked below, there have been a number of other exceptions granted, including those for Camden Yards and the new Yankee Stadium. In most of those cases, there was a practical reason for allowing a distance under the minimum. If that was the case in Toronto, I don't know what the reason was.  

https://www.closecallsports.com/2012/06/rule-104-note-minimum-field-dimensions.html

They usually approve a short porch if you increase the wall height.  That's why OPACY's right field was allowed.  But unless they're putting a 12 foot wall in center field I don't really get this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im also confused why any team would want a 357 power alley in RF. That is just ridiculously short. 366 in LF is almost as bad. Its old Camden Yards bad, which I thought was the shortest in baseball. 

Im guessing a few years or less they'll so how bad of an idea it was and change it back. Because IMO, it is a bad idea. 

Their fans must have voted for this or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...