Am I the only one who liked the turf baseball field loo

[uuh70]

look* ^^^

As you know many baseball stadiums of the 60-90's had turf because most of them were multi purpose. I never went to a game at one of these stadiums as I grew up in and still live in Los Angeles and only been to Ballparks in Southern California (Dodger Stadium, Angel Stadium, Petco Park) but growing up i loved watching games on those fields because i thought those turf baseball fields with the dirt only around the base were very futuristic looking. And while I still like the traditional look of a baseball field being the huge baseball fan I am I wish more than 1 still used this look, even if they wanted to use grass instead of turf (but no more than 3 tops)

You have to admit some of these fields are pretty cool looking

[OchentaYOcho88]

Only issue with turf fields were the ball played really really fast in the in field. But I do agree they look really clean.

[NJTank]

Astroturf in baseball was ugly and horrible, and hopefully soon the Jays and Rays will find a way to get grass too so its all gone forever.

[pmoehrin]

egI didn't mind baseball played on astroturf.

The game was alot faster and there were far less bad hops so you didn't see as many cheap hits. To me it was an even tradeoff for the look of a grass field. I can't say I miss it but I'm not dancing on astroturf's grave when it comes to baseball either.

What I didn't understand was how grown men could play football on that surface. The toll the game itself takes on your body is bad enough, now add the extra speed guys get from the astroturf and essentially falling onto concrete every time you go down. I don't think its a coincidence at all that most of your major catastrophic injuries in football over the last 40 years (Mike Utley, Dennis Byrd, Reggie Brown, Michael Irvin) occured on astroturf surfaces. With football I'm dancing on astroturf's grave. The FieldTurf they have now is far safer, maybe even more so then grass.

[ElwoodCuse]

I never went to a game at one of these stadiums

I think this says it all

[Breakwood]

Astroturf in baseball was ugly and horrible, and hopefully soon the Jays and Rays will find a way to get grass too so its all gone forever.

If you're willing to pay for a new stadium in Toronto then by all means. If not, then you're going to be looking at turf for a long time.

[loogodude90]

I don't really have a strong opinion either way on turf for baseball in terms of the way it might affect the actual game, but I do think it adds some variety in general to the league. It's kind of fun to watch the O's play on turf because at least it's something different. In a way it almost has charm, because it's so rare. The league is going to be a little more boring if and when everyone plays on natural grass, just like it would be a little more boring if all stadiums had the same dimensions, or all stadiums somehow conformed in some other way. Baseball is really the only sport that lets teams basically choose how they want their field shaped, so I don't mind a couple of teams playing on turf.

[infrared41]

You have to admit some of these fields are pretty cool looking

No, you really don't.

[knnhrvy16]

I vastly prefer the look and feel of a grass field over a turf field, both as a fan and a player.

When I played high school ball, we had to use our school's football/soccer field for our first few practices every year (we used a city-owned field for home games and couldn't practice there at times because of different events there). The football/soccer field was turf, and playing on it was awful. The ball plays much faster, and the hops are much different (and more difficult). It's annoyingly tricky trying to field a ball on turf.

As far as looks go, I can't stand the fact that there's hardly any dirt on a turf field. Those little patches of it around the bases aren't enough for me. Gotta go with the full basepath dirt a grass field offers. It's just baseball.

[crashcarson15]

Yeah, from a player's standpoint, I'm with knnhrvy16. We practice and play at a place that has an indoor turf field as part of the facility. When we're inside, we use the turf field to take infield and other things, and you get bounces you won't get outside. It's especially bad whenever we're inside for a couple weeks, then go outside and get completely different hops.

[Fox]

As a fan, baseball on grass is much better looking. However from my playing experiences, I much prefer turf. Almost no bad hops.

[BBTV]

I can't believe that there was a time in my life when I thought that dirt infields and natural grass just seemed minor league or little league. Probably because I grew up watching a team play on one of those horrible fake sterile surfaces. I'd never want to go back to watching games on that turf - grass and dirt just looks so much more like what baseball should be. I'm glad that TB at least has the dirt diamond in their warehouse.

[bosrs1]

As a fan, baseball on grass is much better looking. However from my playing experiences, I much prefer turf. Almost no bad hops.

That's not what I recall. I can remember quite a few bad hops off the crappy turf in stadiums like Philly and KC over the years. Either the ball bouncing ridiculously high due to the turf (and thus being misjudged by players used to playing the game on a proper surface), or worse hitting one of the seams in the turf and careening off the wrong way. I can recall that happening in Philly specifically. So really turf was no better for "true" hits. Particularly given how immaculate the grass fields of today are.

Turf was an abomination that never should have been allowed in any sport, and it's barely passable today in football thanks to "field turf". It's still an abomination for baseball. That said, if someone really likes the look you still have Tropicana Field for now and Rodgers Centre indefinitely to visit. Plus over half the fields in Japan still use it as well (with no plans to change that). The A's will be opening the entire MLB season against the visiting Mariners at this park this season (Tokyo Dome).

[RedSox44]

I do have a soft spot in my heart for the Astrotruf'd, "cookie-cutter" stadiums that populated the MLB from the 60s to the 90s.

But when I look at the stadiums now, they seem trapped in an era. The ballparks of the 90s and afterwards (Camden Yards, Nationals Park, Target Field, Coors Field) look better than the "cookie cutters".

[bosrs1]

I do have a soft spot in my heart for the Astrotruf'd, "cookie-cutter" stadiums that populated the MLB from the 60s to the 90s.

But when I look at the stadiums now, they seem trapped in an era. The ballparks of the 90s and afterwards (Camden Yards, Nationals Park, Target Field, Coors Field) look better than the "cookie cutters".

That and I think they'll last a hell of a lot longer too. I mean I can see them playing games in 50 years at Camden Yards. It's built well for baseball, has character, etc... Most of the new parks are built on the Fenway/Wrigley model, and look at the endurance of those venues. The 60's donut clones on the other hand had no real character too them (ie: it's not easy to immediately tell the difference between an field side picture of RFK, Riverfront, Three Rivers, Veterans Stadiums. And they were not very good stadiums for any of the games they played in them. And that's why none of them are left other than Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego (which was arguably the best of the bunch and also never had fake turf).

[Kramerica Industries]

Astroturf and field turf may provide cleaner looking fields, perhaps, but those things take tolls on players bodies when they've played on them long enough.

Especially in the case of astroturf, it's essentially colored concrete.

[McCall]

It's baseball. When you're a kid do you look forward to going outside with your friends and playing on the AstroTurf field across the street?

At least the new field turf resembles grass and I love that Tampa Bay had the sense to at least cut the infield like a grass field. I wish Toronto would. I know it's been that way since it opened and it's unique, but it just looks so 70's/80's gimmicky.

[NJTank]

Astroturf in baseball was ugly and horrible, and hopefully soon the Jays and Rays will find a way to get grass too so its all gone forever.

If you're willing to pay for a new stadium in Toronto then by all means. If not, then you're going to be looking at turf for a long time.

True but can you imagine a PNC Park type stadium in downtown TO. It would be a beauty.

[crashcarson15]

It's baseball. When you're a kid do you look forward to going outside with your friends and playing on the AstroTurf field across the street?

At least the new field turf resembles grass and I love that Tampa Bay had the sense to at least cut the infield like a grass field. I wish Toronto would. I know it's been that way since it opened and it's unique, but it just looks so 70's/80's gimmicky.

Toronto really can't because of how often they're changing back and forth from baseball to Canadian football and other events.

[TheOldRoman]

What I didn't understand was how grown men could play football on that surface. The toll the game itself takes on your body is bad enough, now add the extra speed guys get from the astroturf and essentially falling onto concrete every time you go down. I don't think its a coincidence at all that most of your major catastrophic injuries in football over the last 40 years (Mike Utley, Dennis Byrd, Reggie Brown, Michael Irvin) occured on astroturf surfaces. With football I'm dancing on astroturf's grave. The FieldTurf they have now is far safer, maybe even more so then grass.

Don't forget the Bears receiver who tore both ACLs in Philly without even being tackled. I was only on astroturf once (Memorial Stadium in Illinois), but I couldn't believe how it felt. It was slightly squishy, but you felt with every step that it was roughtly one inch of turf above concrete. I can't imagine playing on that.

That's not what I recall. I can remember quite a few bad hops off the crappy turf in stadiums like Philly and KC over the years. Either the ball bouncing ridiculously high due to the turf (and thus being misjudged by players used to playing the game on a proper surface), or worse hitting one of the seams in the turf and careening off the wrong way. I can recall that happening in Philly specifically. So really turf was no better for "true" hits. Particularly given how immaculate the grass fields of today are.

Yep, there were lots of horrible bounces on turf. I am too young to remember, but I heard of a game the White Sox played in the Metrodome in the '80s. They were up two runs with two on and two outs in the bottom of the ninth. The batter hit a routine single to RF which would have loaded the bases. Harold Baines approached the ball as normal, but the ball hit a seam and shot over his head. He chased the ball all the way to the wall, but before he could get it in all three Twins had touched home. There is nothing at all good to say about astroturf.