People talk about various parks being big, cavernous, having a lot of room in the outfield (Petco, Kaufman). Other parks are described as bandboxes (Sox park, Philly, Cinci). Obviously, the infields of all of the parks have the same dimensions, and the outfields don't. Does anyone know of any resource online that simply calculates the area (square footage) of each playing field in MLB? It would interest me more to look at those numbers than it does to hear the broad categorizations of big and small.

People talk about various parks being big, cavernous, having a lot of room in the outfield (Petco, Kaufman). Other parks are described as bandboxes (Sox park, Philly, Cinci). Obviously, the infields of all of the parks have the same dimensions, and the outfields don't. Does anyone know of any resource online that simply calculates the area (square footage) of each playing field in MLB? It would interest me more to look at those numbers than it does to hear the broad categorizations of big and small.

 

Another attribute is foul territory. Oakland has massive amount of foul ground making it very tough to keep up a high average.

I think that it's more about wind speeds and enclosed parks (creating jet streams for balls) rather than actual distances to each wall.

 

 

I don't know the answer to the OP, but does anybody know if there are min/max dimensions to oufield walls. There sure are some crazy ones at either end of the spectrum.

I don't think there are min./ max. dimensions. Fenway is like 300 to each of the foul poles. Tiger Stadium was 440 to dead center.

I've been to Kaufmann, Comerica and this summer Rangers stadium. They are all really, really big. Rangers Stadium was massive. It looked like you could fit the Cell inside it.

 

One thing I did notice is that the infield dirt at Comerica seems much deeper than at other parks.

I don't think there are min./ max. dimensions. Fenway is like 300 to each of the foul poles. Tiger Stadium was 440 to dead center.

 

The only rule I know if is one written in the middle of the 20th century (late 50's or early 60's I believe) that says it's supposed to be at least 325 feet down the lines and 400 to center in all parks built after that rule was put in place. That's a rule that hasn't exactly been tightly enforced though, as you see in several parks in the majors built well after that time frame.

Edited July 1, 201015 yr by whitesoxfan101

The only rule I know if is one written in the middle of the 20th century (late 50's or early 60's I believe) that says it's supposed to be at least 325 feet down the lines and 400 to center in all parks built after that rule was put in place. That's a rule that hasn't exactly been tightly enforced though, as you see in several parks in the majors built well after that time frame.

 

Yeah, Yankee Stadium is 318 down the LF line and 314 down the RF line.

I've been to Kaufmann, Comerica and this summer Rangers stadium. They are all really, really big. Rangers Stadium was massive. It looked like you could fit the Cell inside it.

 

I believe you. I just wish I could see actual numbers to compare relatively how big one park is to the next. When I hear, "this park has a lot of ground to cover in the outfield," I'm caused to want to know how much ground to cover the field actually has compared to others.

Yeah, Yankee Stadium is 318 down the LF line and 314 down the RF line.

 

Yeah, and it's 395 to CF at Dodger Stadium, which i'm almost positive was built after the rule. It's less than 325 to LF in Houston and RF in San Francisco as well. There are quite a few other examples too, just can't think of them off the top of my head.

You can get waivers from the commish on the rules.