Major League Baseball Stadiums vs Major Championship Golf Courses

[John Kavanaugh]

It's my contention that Major League Baseball stadiums express as much variety as Major Championship golf courses. I have been lucky to have been on the field at both Wrigley and Busch stadIa. They are as different as Merion and Torrey Pines. The crown of center field at Wrigley coupled with the ivy covered brick wall intimidated me more than any forced carry. Busch is sanitary seemless surgical ward with rubber rooms that could easily be a local putt putt. It's time to stop the chant that only golf sports variety on our fields. 

I see where Citi Field just shortened their course to make the game more fun for the fans. Desperation.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Great topic.

You say you see parallels between Wrigley and Merion:

[John Kavanaugh]

I wonder if any of us had a shot at batting practice on our favorite field that we would ask them to bring in the fences?  No of course not, but I wouldn't be ashamed of using an aluminum bat and a tight ass ball.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Another good comparison. Personally I always wanted to tee it up at (old) Yankee Stadium and hit one out. Wouldn't even need driver. Can't say I've ever wanted to fungo on Merion 1 tee though.

[Rich Goodale]

When I was ~10 years old my pals and I used to hit golf balls with a fungo bat in the fields surrounding my elementary school.  450 feet was an average distance for those with reasonable hand-eye coordination.  We struggled to get past 150 feet at that age with a proper baseball.  Nike's "Ball go far" was the best expression I've ever seen of the fascination of golf.

[Chris DeToro]

Great comparison.  Another cool thing about golf compared to other sports. 

[Matt MacIver]

I typed a rather long post about Camden Yards but it got deleted - oh well. It was built in 1992 and led the way to the new- old school era.

Bandon Dunes was built seven years later, in 1999.

Luckily for both sports, boring and hard finally lost out and unique and character came back.

Do the Astros still have that little ramp in center field?  Now that was fun. What's the golf equivalent to that?  Certainly not the DA at PV...perhaps the island green? 

[Tom_Doak]

Now here is a topic dear to my heart ... I was just as interested in baseball stadium architecture at age 12, as I was golf course architecture.  Happy Thanksgiving, John.

In olden days ballparks were asymmetric, because they were built into city blocks that were also asymmetric.  Fenway has the Green Monster in left field because there's a street right behind it; home runs that clear the nets usually wind up on the roof of the building across the street, although occasionally balls bounce over that building [475 feet] and down toward the Massachusetts Turnpike.  But Fenway was far from alone.  Ebbets Field and Baker Bowl were the same, only right field was shorter.  Yankee Stadium had a big grandstand in left field and right field, but it was short down the lines and then very long from left-center to right-center field; the Polo Grounds were an even more extreme version of that.

The thing about these different parks is that they introduced strategy into pitching.  When Jim 'Catfish' Hunter was with the Yankees, and the Red Sox came to visit, announcers would talk all day about these long fly outs that "would have been home runs at Fenway".  No one understood that better than Mr. Hunter ... he was just pitching to the park, secure in the knowledge that the Red Sox hitters would be content to hit their long fly balls and then complain about the park.

The modern retro ballparks are generally much better places to watch a game, and they've done pretty well at introducing little quirks to give them a character of their own.  Sometimes these quirks go overboard ... Tal's Hill in Houston, for example, is a nod to an old rise to the warning track in left field at Crosley Field in Cincinnati, but the new version is very unnatural.  It's comparable to all the Redan or Biarritz greens on modern courses, many of which don't get the tilt or firmness quite right so they actually PLAY different.  

Most of all, few of the quirks in new ballparks actually create any strategy that the pitchers or hitters can utilize, as many of the old ballparks did, because the modern architects are afraid to affect the game that much.  As in golf, most of the real strategy only happens when the conditions of the ground force the architect's hand.

[Ryan Hillenbrand]

It's my contention that Major League Baseball stadiums express as much variety as Major Championship golf courses. I have been lucky to have been on the field at both Wrigley and Busch stadIa. They are as different as Merion and Torrey Pines. The crown of center field at Wrigley coupled with the ivy covered brick wall intimidated me more than any forced carry. Busch is sanitary seemless surgical ward with rubber rooms that could easily be a local putt putt. It's time to stop the chant that only golf sports variety on our fields. 

I see where Citi Field just shortened their course to make the game more fun for the fans. Desperation.

John

New Busch may feel surgical but when it's time to relieve yourself I much prefer it to the horse troughs at Wrigley. Sometimes character gives way to comfort.

[Matt MacIver]

Tal's Hill in Houston, for example, is a nod to an old rise to the warning track in left field at Crosley Field in Cincinnati, but the new version is very unnatural. 

Tom - in the post that got deleted I compared Tal's Hill to an island green.

The Green Monster is indeed unnatural, but good. Was reading the new CG this morning; Hoylake and its cops probably are applicable.

[Peter Pallotta]

This supports the argument that only the very best golfers truly understand architecture. Ted Williams didn't hit .406 just by flaring opposite field singles off the Green Monster, but by bringing discipline and strategic thinking to every pitch of his at-bats in every game and in every ball-park in the league. (In other words, he wasn't hitting long fly-ball outs and them complaining about the stadium.) Mickey Mantle's Triple Crown numbers obviously weren't the result of playing in the 'cosy confines' of Yankee Stadium, but of the talent and speed to hit for power and extra-bases not only in New York but everywhere. The very best ball players understand and accommodate themselves to the different stadiums/fields of play,  and manage to excel -- meaningfully engage -- in whatever setting they find themselves. All of which to say, an argument can be made that the very best golfers like Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods -- who have won majors on every kind of golf course -- understand golf course architecture better and more meaningfully than Ben Crenshaw does.

Peter  

[JMEvensky]

This supports the argument that only the very best golfers truly understand architecture. Ted Williams didn't hit .406 just by flaring opposite field singles off the Green Monster, but by bringing discipline and strategic thinking to every pitch of his at-bats in every game and in every ball-park in the league. (In other words, he wasn't hitting long fly-ball outs and them complaining about the stadium.) Mickey Mantle's Triple Crown numbers obviously weren't the result of playing in the 'cosy confines' of Yankee Stadium, but of the talent and speed to hit for power and extra-bases not only in New York but everywhere. The very best ball players understand and accommodate themselves to the different stadiums/fields of play,  and manage to excel -- meaningfully engage -- in whatever setting they find themselves. All of which to say, an argument can be made that the very best golfers like Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods -- who have won majors on every kind of golf course -- understand golf course architecture better and more meaningfully than Ben Crenshaw does.

Peter  

True,but...

There were always those who envisioned a Williams/DiMaggio trade with TW getting 77 games with the short porch in right at Yankee Stadium and JD an equal number of games with Fenway's Green Monster.

Baseball's ultimate version of horses for courses.

[Peter Pallotta]

Indeed, Jeff -- just as if every major was held at Augusta JN would've won about 60 of them. But just like JN, both Williams and DiMaggio had the smarts and talents to 'figure it out' wherever they were. 

Happy Thanksgiving - a peaceful and blessed day to you and yours.

Peter

[John Kavanaugh]

It's my contention that Major League Baseball stadiums express as much variety as Major Championship golf courses. I have been lucky to have been on the field at both Wrigley and Busch stadIa. They are as different as Merion and Torrey Pines. The crown of center field at Wrigley coupled with the ivy covered brick wall intimidated me more than any forced carry. Busch is sanitary seemless surgical ward with rubber rooms that could easily be a local putt putt. It's time to stop the chant that only golf sports variety on our fields. 

I see where Citi Field just shortened their course to make the game more fun for the fans. Desperation.

John

New Busch may feel surgical but when it's time to relieve yourself I much prefer it to the horse troughs at Wrigley. Sometimes character gives way to comfort.

Oddly enough, ANGC also uses piss troughs for the patrons. Problem with the bathrooms at Busch are the long lines during the playoffs year after year after year.

[David Kelly]

True,but...

There were always those who envisioned a Williams/DiMaggio trade with TW getting 77 games with the short porch in right at Yankee Stadium and JD an equal number of games with Fenway's Green Monster.

Baseball's ultimate version of horses for courses.

I've read that one year as a practical joke someone associated with one of the two teams announced that DiMaggio and Williams had been traded for each other before a Yankees vs. Red Sox game and the two players posed in opposite uniforms on the field before the game.  However, I've never seen this picture so I wonder if it really happened.

For fun here are Williams' and DiMaggio's stats in Fenway Park and Yankee Stadium.

Williams @ Fenway Park      .361 BA/.496 OBP/.652 SLG   1.148 OPS
Williams @ Yankee Stadium .309/.484/.543/   1.027 OPS 

DiMaggio @ Fenway Park       .334/.410/.605    1.015 OPS
DiMaggio @ Yankee Stadium  .315/.391/.546    .938 OPS

But remember that Williams had to bat against Yankee pitching in Yankee Stadium and NY was consistently much better than the rest of the AL in pitching.

BTW, for consistency, you can't do much better than Stan Musial. 1815 hits at home and 1815 hits on the road.

[Chip Gaskins]

Last time I played Oakmont, I also went to PNC Field.  I would say they are about as far as part as you could be.  One is a massive, hard, sprawling (minus the trees) test of sport, while the other is small and intimate with its own unique vibe.

[Tom_Doak]

For fun here are Williams' and DiMaggio's stats in Fenway Park and Yankee Stadium.

Williams @ Fenway Park      .361 BA/.496 OBP/.652 SLG   1.148 OPS
Williams @ Yankee Stadium .309/.484/.543/   1.027 OPS 

DiMaggio @ Fenway Park       .334/.410/.605    1.015 OPS
DiMaggio @ Yankee Stadium  .315/.391/.546    .938 OPS

But remember that Williams had to bat against Yankee pitching in Yankee Stadium and NY was consistently much better than the rest of the AL in pitching.

No matter whether you batted left-handed or right-handed, Yankee Stadium was just a tougher park to hit in than Fenway.  There's quite a bit more foul territory, and the outfield is quite a bit bigger.  DiMaggio's numbers are pretty indicative of the difference.

[Tom_Doak]

This supports the argument that only the very best golfers truly understand architecture. Ted Williams didn't hit .406 just by flaring opposite field singles off the Green Monster, but by bringing discipline and strategic thinking to every pitch of his at-bats in every game and in every ball-park in the league. (In other words, he wasn't hitting long fly-ball outs and them complaining about the stadium.) Mickey Mantle's Triple Crown numbers obviously weren't the result of playing in the 'cosy confines' of Yankee Stadium, but of the talent and speed to hit for power and extra-bases not only in New York but everywhere. The very best ball players understand and accommodate themselves to the different stadiums/fields of play,  and manage to excel -- meaningfully engage -- in whatever setting they find themselves. All of which to say, an argument can be made that the very best golfers like Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods -- who have won majors on every kind of golf course -- understand golf course architecture better and more meaningfully than Ben Crenshaw does.

I do think that both Jack and Tiger were better at course management than most of their peers -- but they were also better golfers from A to Z.    The latter gives them more majors than everyone else, but it doesn't make them better architects.

[John Kirk]

A couple of San Francisco ballpark comments:

The new ballpark, AT&T Park, has a huge right field wall, and is deep to left and left-center.  It is a pitcher's park, and yields a lot of triples.  Two Giants (Crawford and Pence) had 10 triples this year.  Theoretically, building a pitcher's park, which allows your pitcher's staff to face fewer batters, should be the best way to build a championship team.  The strategy appears to have worked.

The former park, Candlestick Park, was a symmetrical design, but the wind factor was powerful.  The prevailing wind blew hard out to right center field, and fly balls to left field were often held up by the same wind.  I once saw Cesar Cedeno crush one to straight left field, with the low pitched sound reserved for the hardest hit balls, and that ball held up in the sky for the longest time before being caught at the warning track.

Willie Mays learned how to play the wind, and began to hit home runs to center and right center field.   One of the great feats in baseball has to be Mays leading the National League in home runs in 1964 (47) and 1965 (52) in his mid-thirties.  Boy was he ever great. 

[BCrosby]

There are interesting parallels between the evolution of ballparks and golf courses in the 60's and 70's. During that period a number of new,  symmetrical ballparks were built. Fulton County, Three Rivers, River Front, the Mets, Royals and St Louis ballparks. The dimensions of the parks were very similar. A senior partner in one of the consulting architecture firms was an old friend of my father. We were at a cocktail party sometime in the mid-70's and I had a chance to talk with him about his work on ballparks.

Some background. I had been to many Bosox games and fallen in love with Fenway. I thought then and still think that asymmetric outfield dimensions make baseball a more interesting and better sport. So I asked the architect why his firm put such importance on building these new parks so symmetrically, particularly in light of the affection many felt for Wrigley Field, Yankee Stadium and Fenway.

His answer was interesting. He said, first. that it was less expensive to build symmetrical parks, in part because you could duplicate a lot of the architectural prep work, contractors expertise at one park could be used at others and they became more efficient, etc. But he also said that MLB wanted to see more symmetrical parks. Players would have a better sense of outfield walls and would hurt themselves less often. But also MLB (read team owners) wanted play to be conducted at venues that were more consistent so that performances could be compared more accurately.

But the main thing was that communities wanted their new parks make a statement about the community itself. They wanted their ballparks to look clean, 'modern' and not like an after-thought from a less prosperous era that had been shoe-horned into a city block.

The urge to build ball parks in the 60's and early 70's that looked 'modern', in the sense that they were carefully planned from A to Z with no loose ends, the pressure to build them quickly and cheaply and to make them easier to maintain, all those concerns strike me as having parallels with what was going in golf architecture over the same time period.

You can think of the turn in American gca in the 90's to more Golden Age type designs as also occurring in parallel with the revival of old style, asymmetrical ballparks that began at about the same time.

Which for you historians in the room seems to suggest that changes in the playing venues of baseball and golf were ultimately motivated by factors that did not originate inside the sports themselves.    

Bob

  

[Ronald Montesano]

I typed a rather long post about Camden Yards but it got deleted - oh well. It was built in 1992 and led the way to the new- old school era.

Before there was Camden Yards, there was this place and it made Camden Yards possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_Field

[John Kavanaugh]

There are interesting parallels between the evolution of ballparks and golf courses in the 60's and 70's. During that period a number of new,  symmetrical ballparks were built. Fulton County, Three Rivers, River Front, the Mets, Royals and St Louis ballparks. The dimensions of the parks were very similar. A senior partner in one of the consulting architecture firms was an old friend of my father. We were at a cocktail party sometime in the mid-70's and I had a chance to talk with him about his work on ballparks.

Some background. I had been to many Bosox games and fallen in love with Fenway. I thought then and still think that asymmetric outfield dimensions make baseball a more interesting and better sport. So I asked the architect why his firm put such importance on building these new parks so symmetrically, particularly in light of the affection many felt for Wrigley Field, Yankee Stadium and Fenway.

His answer was interesting. He said, first. that it was less expensive to build symmetrical parks, in part because you could duplicate a lot of the architectural prep work, contractors expertise at one park could be used at others and they became more efficient, etc. But he also said that MLB wanted to see more symmetrical parks. Players would have a better sense of outfield walls and would hurt themselves less often. But also MLB (read team owners) wanted play to be conducted at venues that were more consistent so that performances could be compared more accurately.

But the main thing was that communities wanted their new parks make a statement about the community itself. They wanted their ballparks to look clean, 'modern' and not like an after-thought from a less prosperous era that had been shoe-horned into a city block.

The urge to build ball parks in the 60's and early 70's that looked 'modern', in the sense that they were carefully planned from A to Z with no loose ends, the pressure to build them quickly and cheaply and to make them easier to maintain, all those concerns strike me as having parallels with what was going in golf architecture over the same time period.

You can think of the turn in American gca in the 90's to more Golden Age type designs as also occurring in parallel with the revival of old style, asymmetrical ballparks that began at about the same time.

Which for you historians in the room seems to suggest that changes in the playing venues of baseball and golf were ultimately motivated by factors that did not originate inside the sports themselves.    

Bob

  

The possibility exists that with the expansion of baseball there was not enough talent to play in asymmetrical parks. In theory, with a simple outfield you could pay less talented players less and still field a team. 

[Joe Bausch]

Was Tiger Stadium a model for having both very long and very short par 4's?  IIRC, it was about 300' down each line, but 440 to dead center.

 

[Ronald Montesano]

Fulton County Stadium fence was shortened in left field to encourage Henry Aaron to hit more home runs and break Babe Ruth's record. Kind of the opposite of the Tiger-Proofing that went on north of that ball park.

[Mark Bourgeois]

There are interesting parallels between the evolution of ballparks and golf courses in the 60's and 70's. During that period a number of new,  symmetrical ballparks were built. Fulton County, Three Rivers, River Front, the Mets, Royals and St Louis ballparks. The dimensions of the parks were very similar. A senior partner in one of the consulting architecture firms was an old friend of my father. We were at a cocktail party sometime in the mid-70's and I had a chance to talk with him about his work on ballparks.

Some background. I had been to many Bosox games and fallen in love with Fenway. I thought then and still think that asymmetric outfield dimensions make baseball a more interesting and better sport. So I asked the architect why his firm put such importance on building these new parks so symmetrically, particularly in light of the affection many felt for Wrigley Field, Yankee Stadium and Fenway.

His answer was interesting. He said, first. that it was less expensive to build symmetrical parks, in part because you could duplicate a lot of the architectural prep work, contractors expertise at one park could be used at others and they became more efficient, etc. But he also said that MLB wanted to see more symmetrical parks. Players would have a better sense of outfield walls and would hurt themselves less often. But also MLB (read team owners) wanted play to be conducted at venues that were more consistent so that performances could be compared more accurately.

But the main thing was that communities wanted their new parks make a statement about the community itself. They wanted their ballparks to look clean, 'modern' and not like an after-thought from a less prosperous era that had been shoe-horned into a city block.

The urge to build ball parks in the 60's and early 70's that looked 'modern', in the sense that they were carefully planned from A to Z with no loose ends, the pressure to build them quickly and cheaply and to make them easier to maintain, all those concerns strike me as having parallels with what was going in golf architecture over the same time period.

You can think of the turn in American gca in the 90's to more Golden Age type designs as also occurring in parallel with the revival of old style, asymmetrical ballparks that began at about the same time.

Which for you historians in the room seems to suggest that changes in the playing venues of baseball and golf were ultimately motivated by factors that did not originate inside the sports themselves.    

Bob

  

Interesting, Bob. I thought the main reason was to make them multipurpose, with retractable stands that could provide good sight lines for football as well as baseball. Perhaps the analogue to golf would be the attempt for courses to accommodate all ranges of golfing skill, eg via lots of tees.