Blue Jays Turf: Home Field Advantage?

OK, so the new turf at Rogers Centre has been the subject of much scrutiny. Some seem to think that it provides a distinct advantage for the home team- your Toronto Blue Jays. We’ve heard that it plays slower, it provides bad hops, it holds bunts, it causes infielders to get a ball in the face during warm ups. It produces a trail of pellets whenever something or someone crosses its path. We’ve heard it all. Or, at least I thought we had.

Apparently, Baltimore Orioles manager, Buck Showalter was so disgusted with the surface that he considered forfeiting a game because of it. Seriously. Let’s set aside the idea that taking a loss as a way to protest a potential loss due to the turf is just silly. Let’s also set aside the fact that the turf is the same for both sides. The Blue Jays are just as likely to see bad hops and slow rolls as the other team. The advantage comes in playing there 81 times in a season, obviously. But, these “random” hops are just that: random. They can happen to anyone. Visiting teams should also be equally able to drop down a bunt. But, let’s leave aside all of that.

Does Rogers Centre hold a distinct advantage? Is it worthy of being monitored by MLB? Does it represent unusual challenges for professional baseball games?

Immediately, there are those who say that the Blue Jays do not hold an advantage and that, while the turf has issues, Rogers Centre is no different or worse off than any other ballpark. Take this for example from Michael Wray:

His obvious disdain for the complaining from the Orioles aside, he is pointing to something he found in the 2015 Bill James Handbook that would indicate that Fenway park is much harder to play defense in than Rogers Centre.

As well, Owen Watson at Fangraphs.com put together a little piece that the Orioles should read. He looked at the numbers thus far from ballparks across MLB. The turf at RC is said to help batters because it plays slower. Well, according to Watson, the BABIP for RC is .284. Where does that rank? 20th in MLB! Is that a clear advantage? There’s more. Watson looked at the idea that the turf is causing extra base hits to slow down, thus turning doubles to singles, etc. So, he looked at adjusted SLG % (HR are taken out). RC should yield  a lower SLG % if the extra bases are being cut down by turf. The result? RC sits in the middle of MLB in this regard. He acknowledges that there is a lot that goes in to the SLG numbers, but it is still interesting to note in the early goings of 2015. The apparent issues with the new turf don’t seem to play out.

Perhaps the bigger issue is the safety concerns, etc that turf can bring about. A ball can hop and hit you in the face, your spikes can get caught, etc. These hops, although probably less likely, can happen on natural turf. Ask Michael Saunders about sprinkler injuries from natural grass. Are the Orioles, or anyone else for that matter telling me that there are no other ballparks in MLB that cause issues?

There are lots of ballparks that have eccentricities that can cause issues for players who are not used to playing there. Let’s take a look at some that have “advantages” built into them.

Next: Fenway Park

Credit: S Doyle

Fenway Park- Boston Red Sox

The dimensions of Fenway park clearly show a huge advantage for a left handed batter. The RF foul pole is only 302 ft away. As well, the famous Green Monster is only 310 ft. In fact, according to BaseballAlmanac.com, the Red Sox have been adjusting the distance to the walls for a very long time. In 1912, LF was 320 1/2 ft away and CF was 488 ft! They’ve brought it in over 100 ft. Throughout it’s history, RF has been 313 ft, 358 ft, 332 ft. Did this cause MLB to “monitor” situations?

Photo via BaseballAlmanac.com

But, the distance is not the only thing that stands out. If you look at the outfield wall, there are 7 (!) different distances. That creates a potentially confusing situation for visiting players. Let’s not forget about the Green Monster itself. It is a 37 foot wall! While RF is about waist high, LF is ridiculous. Now, many will talk about how it has become a hallmark of Fenway Park, a traditional symbol. That’s true. But, haven’t we seen many visiting players get beaten by a ball that hits the metal and doesn’t know where it will ricochet? What about the manual scoreboard? It is quaint and nostalgic, but if a ball hits just so, it could create some crazy bounces, resulting in the error rate mentione dpreviously.

Fenway Park is a part of American history. But, if we want to be picky, it creates several advantages for the home team. It also sits at a .295 BABIP according to Owen Watson’s list at Fangraphs. That’s 9th in baseball.

Next: Tropicana Field

Photo via Joshua McNeil at joshuamcneilmlblogs.com

Tropicana Field- Tamp Bay Rays

While it may appear that the Tamp Bay Rays play in a stadium that has an even, uniform outfield wall, it isn’t actually so. Like Fenway Park, Tropicana Field has a total of 7 different distances to its wall. LF sits 315 ft away from home plate. This is a tempting target for those right handed batters, no? It provides an advantage to righties when lefties have 322 ft to hit a home run, assuming they don’t hit to opposite field.

Image via BaseballAlmanac.com

But, the dimensions are nowhere near the issue with Tropicana Field. Firstly, the foul poles do not extend all the way up. So, they have an extra piece that hangs down that is supposed to lineup. It doesn’t. They are off. How is an umpire supposed to call that properly?

As well, there are multiple catwalks on the ceiling of the stadium as seen in the photo from Joshua McNeil’s blog at MLBlogs.com. Depending upon where someone hits those catwalks, it could be an automatic HR or a double. Do we think that that is not an issue? Speaking of the ceiling at Tropicana Field, it is very white. Oddly, so are baseballs. We’ve seen players struggling to pick up the ball on a pop fly. Is that not an advantage to the home team? If you are used to it, this is less likely to happen. But, visitors may have difficulty.

Tampa Bay also plays on artificial turf. Though, there seem to be so many other issues at play with this stadium, that the turf hardly seems worth mentioning at this point. Regardless, MLB doesn’t seem to be in a rush to address this one, do they? How about Buck Showalter?

PS: Tropicana Field has the 2nd lowest BABIP on Watson’s list at .263.

Next: Coors Field

Image via Astors ballpark info page at MLB.com

Minute Maid Park- Houston Astros

The dimensions of Minute Maid Park are wonky, to say the least. And, while 435 ft to CF is not crazy, the actual shape of the wall from pole to pole is bizzare. By my count, there are 6 (!) corners, or edges, that could really mess with someone who is not familiar with the confines of Houtson. And, these are not just little juts, but actual edges that if you are not expecting, could end up hurting an outfielder who is tracking a ball.

Image via PepperBaseball.com

As well, we have to add that there is an actual slope in CF. Imagine this, you’re playing CF and a ball is hit straight to you. But, it is way over your head. You start on a run back to the wall, then you come to an incline. You have to run UPHILL to catch this ball. Now, what if it is hit just to the left of CF? Well, you may actually encounter a flag pole! That’s right. There is a pole directly on the hill that is on the field!

How is that for an advantage? A wonky wall AND an uphill dead center field with a pole in it! And, not that this is a direct result, but Minute Maid Park is dead last in 2015 BABIP on Watson’s list at .237.

There is obviously a home field advantage to Minute Maid Park. Guys who are used to its outfield are clearly better off than those who are not. What’s more, this park actually has safety concerns with a hill and a pole that players have to contend with to go along with edges and what not. Is MLB looking into this? Doubt it.

Next: Buck Showalter Should Calm Down

Mandatory Credit: Nick Turchiaro-USA TODAY Sports

Obviously, there are advantages that each MLB ballpark has that benefit those who are more comfortable playing there. Do we really think that the Bleacher Creatures at Yankee Stadium do not provide an intimidating atmosphere for visitors and a welcoming one for the home team?

Heck, even Oriole Park at Camden Yards with its shorter walls offers somewhat of an advantage. When it first opened in 1992, that was one of the big attractions to it: that a player could jump up and steal a home run with little effort.

Now, I have a ton of respect for Buck Showalter. He’s great. But, the reaction to the new turf at Rogers Centre is a bit over the top. It is new. It has its issues. But, so do many other ballparks. We can’t go throwing a tantrum and just not play games because of these issues. This kind of spoiled attitude toward things is, at best, off putting. At worst it is downright angering.

Just like all of the ballparks I featured here, the walls, turf, dimensions, etc are the same for both teams. If Showalter is worried about the Blue Jays bunting for base hits, he gets 27 chances to do the same thing. If he is worried about ground balls bouncing funny, he is going to have to manage his team to help them adjust. Can he not get his team to use the field to his advantage? Surely, a manager of his caliber can find a way to win despite the “home field advantages” the new turf provides. Forfeiting a game, though sure isn’t going to accomplish that.

Next: Jays Nest Podcast: Episode 16- Bisons and More