Remember me

Mr. Sternberg: Tear Down This Wall

July 24, 2008

Sometime after the All-Star break, the Tampa Bay Rays will begin their inevitable decline in the American League East. It will happen without fanfare, and come October of this year, as the Red Sox and Yankees are readying themselves for another run at the World Series, bulldozers will be stationed on the Astroturf outfield of the Tropicana Stadium. At an appointed time, at, say, the minute of Evan Longoria’s birth on October 7th, 1985, the bulldozers will churn to life and they will knock down the outfield fence They will plow through the rows of bleacher seats that sat empty all year, save for days when the Red Sox or Yankees came to town. And then the Tampa Bay Rays will set about building the largest outfield in baseball history.


At least that’s what should happen.


Look: it’s time for the Tampa Bay Rays to realize some hard truths. This team has the misfortune of playing in the American League East, in direct competition with two of the wealthiest, smartest franchises in baseball. They suffer the indignity of playing ‘home’ games against hostile crowds of Red Sox and Yankee fans, and even after eleven seasons and one name change, they remain a team that lacks anything resembling an identity. They face a Sisyphean challenge of direct competition against better-funded opponents, and even if they reap gems from a top-rated farm system, it is unlikely that the franchise will ever be a consistent contender in the American League East.


To win, the Rays must first accept that the deck is stacked, and then do everything they can to get a new deck in play. They must come up with ways to neutralize the advantages of their opponents, while making it possible for a financially-strapped franchise with a small fan base to win ballgames and attract fans.

As I see it, constructing the largest outfield in baseball history would change the Tampa Bay franchise in three crucial ways. But before I address those changes, I should clarify that I am not merely advocating that the Rays should have a larger outfield than the one in San Diego, or the one in LA. What I am advocating is that the Rays take their outfield dimensions and push them back eighty to one hundred feet. I’m talking centerfield distances of 550 feet and corner distances of 420 feet. This is a drastic, historic change, but there is no rule against building a large outfield. And the benefits would be immediate and long-lasting:

 

Homefield Advantage/Visitor Disadvantage

Having the largest outfield in baseball presents a unique home-field advantage. Rays players would learn how to ‘play’ the new outfield much quicker than their opponents (just like Red Sox leftfielders typically know how to play the Green Monster better than opponents). Furthermore, the Rays could experiment with different defensive alignments: dramatic shifts, four outfielders, etc.

And opposing teams would suffer a defensive disadvantage. The thought of Manny Ramirez tracking fly balls in an expansive left, or Johnny Damon trying to get a throw in from deep center, would be worth the expense.

A large outfield doesn’t neutralize power: it shifts who has the power. Having large outfields would not, I think, decrease offense, so much as change the kind of offense that occurs. David Ortiz and Carlos Pena would not hit homeruns in that park, but Carl Crawford and Jacoby Ellsbury would. And on speed, the Rays have a clear edge on the Red Sox and Yankees. They currently lead the American League in steals, and were 3rd, 2nd, and 2nd in 2007, 2006, and 2005. They have outfielders who, at the very least, can get to the ball quickly.  

 

Ease of Designing Team

It is easier to acquire speed and defense than it is to acquire power. By designing their outfield to reward speed and defense, the Rays would seek players who are a) readily available, and b) comparatively inexpensive. A fast player like Brian Roberts commands a salary of $8 million dollars. Adam Everett, a poor hitter but an elite fielder, received $2.8 million dollars. Meanwhile, a player like Jason Giambi, whose skills are in getting on-base and driving in runs, receives more than $20 million dollars per year from the Yankees. In the near-future, this will remain the case. A large outfield would allow the Rays to shift where they spent their money: instead of paying for the big hitters, they’d acquire inexpensive players whose skills would benefit their team, and only their team.

 

Branding

Finally, building the largest outfield in baseball would create, for the Rays, a strong identity. By eliminating out-of-the-park homeruns, the Rays would be opening the door for a different kind of baseball. ‘Old-Fashioned Baseball,’ or ‘Throwback Ball’ or ‘Baseball the Way It’s Meant to be Played.’ Whatever the hackneyed phrase, I am certain  the media and fans would eat it up. Traditionalists would hail it as a return to a purer version of the game. Hell, I hate small ball, and I’d watch the Rays every time they played in that insane outfield.

What is clear is that the Rays would be playing a different kind of baseball. It would be interesting, very exciting, and unique. And, considering the home-field edge that such a park would allow and the affordability of acquiring players who would thrive in such an environment, I believe that such a change would allow the Rays would be competitive in their division.  
 

In Summary

Look: there is every possibility that I’m wrong about this. It’s a stab in the dark, a thought that occurred to me once that I haven’t been able to shake.  

What I know for certain is that the Tampa franchise has never been competitive. What I know for certain is that they play in a division against teams that are richer, smarter, and better-loved than they are. The Rays have had a nice run this year, but I’m not at all convinced that the Rays are for real, nor am I convinced that they will ever be competitive against the Yankees and Red Sox, at least not as things stand now. I think a whole lot of people want to believe the Rays can be competitive, mostly because all of us want to be optimists. We want to believe that underdogs can win and anything is possible. But from where I stand it seems highly unlikely that things are going to change, unless the Tampa Bay Rays take it upon themselves to cause change.

So cause that change, Tampa Bay. Start up the bulldozers, tear down the wall, and show us how to play a different kind of baseball.

 

 
 

COMMENTS (14 Comments, most recent shown first)

Ron
Looks like you were wrong about The Rays....
I did enjoy your article... however of baseball is played on the field... Tampa did a good job in the first half, to me that was a big enough sample to project more of the same in the second half... however I am saying that in hindsight, you were predicting the demise of the Rays was bold, however wrong.
12:08 PM Sep 28th
 
DaveFleming
Sorry...I meant to address the question about maximum outfield dimensions.

I scanned the MLB rule book and only minimun outfield dimensions are cited. That said, a reader mentioned that MLB gets final approval on all field dimensions, so it's possible they'd veto such a plan. That said, if they did that they'd be setting an interesting, troubling precident.

If anyone has more information, please let me know.
10:17 PM Jul 28th
 
rnotr2
Think about all the opportunities for Willie Mays' type catches...in all 3 outfield positions, no less.
3:06 PM Jul 28th
 
DaveFleming
Thanks, Amos. On the home/road thing, yeah, it's possible such a change would make the Rays a good home/bad road team. Historically, however, they've been a bad home AND a bad road team. At least this way they'd have an edge in 50% of their games.

On Matt's white flag comment...it's an interesting point. I think whatever team tries this would have to make an effort to get their team on board with the concept, right from the beginning. In a way, a younger team is more apt to adjust to such a change than an older team: young players would be less convinced about what works, and more open to trying new strategies.
8:22 PM Jul 25th
 
prezzpac
Welcome aboard Mr. Fleming. And congratulations on Saturday's festivities!

A couple thoughts: isn't there a rule about acceptable dimensions? I know there are minimums, but aren't there maximums too?
Also, the Rays might be getting a huge homefield advantage, but probably at the price of being a terrible road team. These light-hitting, speedy Rays are going to have a heck of time winning those 19ish games at Fenway and the new Yankee Stadium

That said, I love the boldness of the idea.
6:54 PM Jul 25th
 
MattDiFilippo
Nice article and a very intriguing concept.

With Tampa Bay, the talent is right but I don't think the timing is. It's sort of a "white flag" strategy. In a sense, you're telling the young players that you don't think they can win unless you do something gimmicky. I'm speculating, but I would think a young team (or any team, really) needs to have the opposite feeling.

It's also a big gamble, because it has to work, and work almost immediately. If the Rays do this and start out 15-16 at home, we'll see 20 articles asking, "Where's the big home-field advantage?" If the Rays do this and start losing on the road, players will say they're messed up by playing in the Grand Canyon.

I think this concept might work betetr with a team like the Pirates or even the Royals (although I think the Royals can compete, and they did have a higher payroll than the Indians last year) -- a team that can say, "Hey, we've tried competing. It doesn't work. We had to try something different."

But then, too, you're dealing with whether the personnel fits those dimensions. The 1986 White Sox and the 1991 Indians both tried moving their fences back so they could have a speed-based team, and it was a disaster each time. So it would work better with the Rays' personnel.

All in all, this is fascinating. I'd love to see it done sometime.

6:46 PM Jul 25th
 
evanecurb
Good article and brings ideas to mind. The dimensions in Memorial Stadium, Baltimore, in 1954 and 1955 were 445 to the power alleys and 450 to center. Those who have been there will recall that there was a permanent fence from the lines to straightaway left and right, then a chain link fence for the remainder, so was easy to move in and out. The other idea that comes to mind: Why have a fence at all? In my days as a high school and small college outfielder, and later as a slow pitch softballer and men's league amateur player, I played a lot of games with NO outfield fence at all. I often wondered how big leaguers, with their tremendous speed and power, would be affected by this type of field. Several plays could happen there that you never see today, such as a fast player stretching a routine single into a double because the outfielders have to play so deep.
5:40 PM Jul 25th
 
DaveFleming
Thanks for the kind words, all.

To Roel: I'll try to keep the loopy coming. You're right, of course, that the Rays are having a great year, and that they have an excellent farm system. I simply don't think they can sustain their success, either in 2008 or beyond.

I might be wrong, so I'll tell you what: if the Rays manage to beat the Sox and Yanks in the AL East, I'll buy you lunch the next time I'm in Somerville.
3:39 PM Jul 25th
 
chuck
I love the idea. Terrific. I agree- I'd love to watch this kind of baseball. Please send your piece to the Tampa powers that be; you never know when a miracle will occur, and someone might actually see the sense in it- so give it a shot.
10:50 AM Jul 25th
 
bokonin
Yay! I endorse your idea completely, including the timing -- the Rays ought to be running away with a playoff spot, not have 3rd place breathing down their back -- and the extremeness of it. The downside risk, obviously, is the Rockies: you don't want a team so geared for the park that it can't play anywhere else. But building a park to emphasize the team you already have and give it an identity? Bravo.
10:43 AM Jul 25th
 
greggborgeson
This is one of the most interesting baseball articles I've read in months. Although I think the suggested dimensions are probably too extreme, even a more modest alteration to dimensions that neutralized traditional power and rewarded speed and arm-strength would be really fun to watch. Triples are probably the most exciting normal play in baseball -- and the least common. There would be far more triples, and a significant number of inside-the-park homers, both bringing the thrilling race of man against thrown ball. And it would, as Dave points out, allow Tampa to acquire low-cost appropriate players.
7:40 AM Jul 25th
 
BigDaddyG
I absolutely love this idea. I think it's good for the Rays, and I think it is even better for baseball. It adds variety and rewards a more exciting style of play. And on the rare chance that someone hits a ball out of the park- wow, that would be a big deal.
12:57 AM Jul 25th
 
Zeth
The effect of a gigantic outfield, all else being equal, would be to kill homeruns, but drastically increase singles, doubles, and triples. I suspect the overall effect would be more run scoring, not less. One of the things that makes Coors such a hitters' paradise is that it has one of the biggest outfields in the game. Coors jacks up batting average a *lot* more than it jacks up home runs; it's just that our lasting image of it is Dante Bichette, a guy with warning track, 20 HR power that the park turned into 40 HR power. But Todd Helton is more the real story: A .300 hitter that Coors turns into a .390 hitter.

For the record, I am strongly in favor of distant fences and large outfields. I think doubles and triples are exciting, and baseball could stand to have more of them.
12:25 AM Jul 25th
 
RoelTorres
Hi Dave,

Welcome aboard and congratulations on the nuptials! Fascinating article, and a wonderfully zany idea. I love the concept.

Having said that, the timing for this suggestion seems odd. Um, Tampa Bay is in first place in the AL East, they have one of the best records in baseball, and they have the best rated farm system in the Major Leagues (by a wide margin, from the consensus.) They are poised for a strong run of success for years to come. Doesn't that argue for keeping a steady course rather than radical re-invention?

Cheers. I look forward to more loopy ideas coming from your general direction.
12:01 AM Jul 25th
 
 
©2024 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Powered by Sports Info Solutions|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy