Here at the ballpark blog, we’ve been very upfront about one particular issue when it comes to Cisco Field: We don’t like bandboxes. From the initial look, that’s exactly what it appears to be. We were even concerned enough to consult a noted expert about the ramifications of implementing the ballpark using the speculated dimensions, and the results only made us more fearful. We’ve been conditioned, as good A’s (and baseball) fans, to love the occasional 1-0 shutout that runs only 2:15. While the Diridon site creates limitations as to the layout, there’s still plenty of room to put in a neutral field.
To refresh your memory, here’s what the existing plan looks like.
In hopes of effecting some kind of change, I took the projected layout and revised it slightly. The changes are as follows:
- Field orientation is rotated 5 degrees north (counterclockwise).
- Home plate is moved roughly 10 feet east. This may seem strange considering the space constraints on the east side of the lot, it’ll make sense later.
- The seating bowl, which is at a 75 degree angle, is made more acute to end up at 65 degrees.
- The outfield wall is redrawn to keep the the left field grandstands parallel to streets and existing lot lines.
Now here’s what the revised layout looks like.
The outfield dimensions are now 328-375-402-376-314.
A lot better, no?
Rotating the field makes an incredible difference, even a 5 degree change. It opens up the outfield a ton and makes for a much deeper transition from the right field corner to the power alley. Now that extra set of seats/bleachers in right field isn’t so bad, as the 36-foot high wall goes from 314′ to 370′ and then drops to a 12′ high wall at 356′. Left field is a pretty standard set of dimensions, with the quirk being a pitcher-friendly jump from 328′ to 370′. Center field’s 402′ is pretty blah.
There are some compromises and penalties that come with rotating the field. The LF line cuts into the grandstand more, so much that I was forced to move home plate 10 feet east to compensate. By doing this, the LF corner can be fairly standard and not many seats are lost. To keep the simple contour of the seating bowl, the angle of the bowl had to be brought in 10 degrees. If that hadn’t been done, a kink or bend along the first base line would’ve been required. The resulting angle is 65 degrees, which should create for better sight lines than the original concept (75 degrees).
As with the original analysis, I’ve projected two capacities, one in which there are a minimal number of rows and another where there are four additional rows for both the lower and upper decks. All else stays the same. One change is the inclusion of a service tunnel near the LF corner. An outline of seating sections is shown where the affected seats would be taken out.
Additional notes:
- ADA locations refers to wheelchair locations and companion chairs. It is assumed that some accessible seats within the seating bowl will have flip-up armrests.
- Temporary seating refers to rows of seats at the back of available sections. It’s a simple way to add seats for a nominal cost, and can be easily adjusted on an as needed basis. Unused ADA rows can be replaced by rows of temporary seats if space is available. The Giants have employed this method of adding seats extensively.
- The third deck (club) has been omitted to reduce clutter. The suite level (tucked underneath the upper deck) is obscured.
- After some discussion, I’m going with 36-foot high wall in right, which is closer to what Jeffrey and gojohn10 have suggested. (The Green Monster is 37′ 3″ high)
- Bullpens are still in center.
Questions? Fire away.
newballpark.org 
ML, this website has been a great education for me and I have tremendous respect for your knowledge in this area.
This is a rare time when I disagree with your take. I do not think they need to make an effort to make it a pitcher’s park. I really like the stadium dimensions as proposed by the team.
Here’s why:
1. Wolff seems adamant that the he is selling the closeness/intimacy as the truly unique part of this experience. When your proposal pushes LF from 328′ to 370′, it helps the pitchers…but it also pushes every fan in that area back 40 additional feet from the action.
2. Your proposal takes away some of the home-field advantage by making the park more generic. When you have an extreme park effect – Petco, or in this case, the Cisco launching pad – you can build a team to it. In the A’s case, they’ll carry only ground-ball pitchers, and continue to employ an outstanding infield defense at the expense of power. They are already doing this, philosophically. But they’ll be able to hide bad defenders like Chris Carter in the outfield corners better in that bandbox, too. That park is small enough that they might be able to get away with keeping Michael Choice in CF, long-term.
3. Home runs bring fans to the park. As a purist, you enjoy 1-0 games, and I can appreciate that…but the corporate and increasingly casual fanbase that this new stadium will be cultivating is going to want to see home runs.
4. Hitters are always available in free agency, whereas pitching is far more scarce. Yet the team can’t lure good hitters in free agency partially because hitters don’t want to play in the Coliseum. If the new park is a bandbox, it reaffirms two things: Free agent hitters will find it more attractive, and the team will continue to have a pitching staff that’s almost entirely cost-controlled young guys.
@nsj–you are nuts wanting a launching pad. You’re probably one of these guys who likes that gawd-awful Arena Football too. Great game:73-66!!
nsj, while I like the way you think… I don’t believe that rotating the field counterclockwise by 5 degrees actually changes the joint from a bandbox into a pitcher’s park. It more changes it from a ridiculous bandbox to something more reasonable, but still offense friendly.
Maybe I am missing something but the proposed dimensions of the ballpark are very similiar to Fenway—while I know that Fenway is in the T10 of homerun ballparks I would by no means call it ridiculous so I am not sure why there is so much energy over the proposed dimensions of Cisco-
Agree with nsj–you get the both of best worlds–a more intimate feel–like Fenway and a more exciting game–and as ML noted they are already asking for the fences to be brought in in Minnesota–bring them in 10 feet and your not that far off from what is proposed at Cisco field with the exception of right–
@jk-usa: Water is wet. Fish swim in water. Therefore fish make water wet. Where did I go wrong in that supposition?
.
@nsj: While I’m not opposed to Cisco Field being a hitter-friendly joint, the dimensions indicated in the 360 renderings are extreme. Concerning Chris Carter’s and Michael Choice’s coverage of the OF: we’re talking about the same A’s right with Billy Beane and David Forst in the front office? You should know that you can’t expect anyone to stay in the A’s system more than 3 years. Compare that to how long Cisco Field could be the A’s home. If even the proposed dimensions in the article above, Cisco Field would still likely be more hitter-friendly than the Coliseum and it’s more likely the A’s can commit to 4-6 yr contracts rather than the 1-2 yr contracts we’re all used to seeing, so Free Agents hopefully wouldn’t be as worried about their next contract beyond Oakland… I mean San Jose (honestly—saying SJ would take a little getting used).
.
@Marine Layer: Are they any examples of currently operating ballpark seating bowls that are 65 degrees? The first Yankee Stadium comes to mind, but didn’t they need an extremely deep backstop to wedge the playing field in?
like it, still can’t believe the a’s would go along with the initial dimensions of the park renderings we’ve seen so far.
if nothing really different has to change other than rotating the park by a few degrees then i’m all for it. i don’t mind a offensive friendly park, at least a park geared to that which you’d think cisco field would be although still perfer a pitching friendly park, like most have said the current dimensions would make this sj park into too extreme of a hitter’s venue.
OT: per MLB.COM, looks like instant replay and an extended playoff format won’t be addressed at the owners meetings later this week. Let us all hope that the topic at hand does come up.
Great work as always RM! If (and its a big if) somehow Diridon South became unworkable due to unforeseen reasons, the Cisco Field ballpark footprint would fit perfectly at Brandenburgh/N. San Pedro. For “fun,” just reverse the design (as if looking at it through a mirror) and it fits perfectly at NSP.
Another data point—while Fenway was 7th in overall runs scored they were about equivalent to ATT for home runs—-once again–Cisco Field is almost identical dimensions—why the bandbox label when Fenway is anything but a bandbox?
ML – I’m continually amazed at the depth of your analyses and the critical thinking you put into them. This is really amazing work. Thanks once again for this incredible blog.
.
Adulation aside, I much prefer the larger dimensions. I also like that by rotating the field a bit the colonnade fills slightly less of the outfield view. In the existing layout it ends almost in center. With your change, it stops right up the power alley. I like that feature, mind you. But you can have too much of a good thing and I think it works better as a piece of the outfield view rather than dominating half of it.
.
I very much hope Cisco Field ends up at the high-end of your attendance calculations. Something in the 35-40K range would be good in my book. At that size, I think they can create scarcity and still allow for the energy and additional revenue from a larger crowd. I fear they are overcorrecting based on recent history in the Coliseum and will make Cisco Field smaller than it should be.
@Dude: Good point about the length of the colonnade between the 360 design and ML’s proposal. I didn’t think of that. While I like ML’s dimensions from a gameplay standpoint, I like the idea of a long, grand colonnade as the 360 design suggests. The colonnade would be a defining feature of the ballpark so I’m attracted to the almost overwhelming nature of its size. I guess you can’t have your cake and eat it too. That said, it would still be a key feature even with ML’s proposed adjustments.
Go A’s, out of curiosity what was the ballpark in last for runs scored?
@Dan- Tropicana and Safeco were at the bttm- AT&T was 22nd and the Coli was 20th–Coors and Yankee stadium topped the list–ironically Arlington was 6th–ahead of Fenway which was 7th–
@nsj – It would be pretty easy to add up to 8 rows to LF if someone wanted. That would put the corner at 306, power alley at 353. It’s always easier to bring in the fences than to push them out.
@Briggs – The previous Yankee Stadium was actually 55 degrees. To accommodate an acute degree properly, architects have to start the curvature of the bowl further up the lines.
Is there a sunlight consideration? (i.e. sun in hitter’s eyes at dusk, seat exposure, etc.) I realize many home games will be at night, and sunglasses/sunblock are readily available. I just wonder if it’s a factor.
@Ed – Sunlight won’t be much of a factor as the bulk of the grandstand is to the west and southwest, blocking the setting sun. The only time it might be a problem would be those 4/5 PM games, perhaps during the playoffs. The sun coming in between the decks could be a slight problem, but you never hear anything about that at Wrigley.
In the Earthquakes stadium promo video, the roof looks like it serves as a limited video board more likely a surface for projections. Given the relatively large roof on Cisco Field there’s a good chance 360 has a similar idea there too. The possibilities are pretty neat. Night games with blimp coverage could look amazing. Also regarding revenue, a screen-roof could allow for some unique advertising.
So, I can’t find that video where I saw the Epicenter’s roof flashing and moving the Earthquakes’ logo around. That, or I dreamt the whole thing up.
I’m a bit confused by Dude’s comment about shifting the angle of the field and the colonnade. Couldn’t the colonnade be shifted along with the field so it ends in the same spot in right center? If so, more of the bottom portion of the colonnade would be exposed and part of the field of play. BTW, fantastic job. I like this design much better than the proposed 360 one. Obviously, the dimensions are more reasonable, but I also like the fact that more LF seats are angled toward the action.
Briggs, you dreamt it.
@Dan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtArMxFcKhE&NR=1
Wouldn’t such a high wall be unnecessary with the walls being pushed out?
gojohn – sure, they could adjust everything. It was just something I noticed on ML’s design vs. the design of record. I like it as a feature of the park, so I’m fine with it either way. I just think that once it commands about 50% of the outfield view, it’s longer than it needs to be given its height. For example, I like the brick wall in right at ATT. Not sure I’d like it as much if it curved around to dead center. Not a huge deal though.
OT comments have been deleted.
@Briggs/Dan – It’s possible and may have extra value since it would be viewable on the normal approach to SJC. Something like that could trigger a reopening of the EIR, so I’d tread cautiously with the concept.
Maybe we’ll finally hear a verdict on this on Wednesday or Thursday at the owners meetings. MLB can’t let this drag on for more years – can they?
I’m with Marine Layer in not liking bandboxes, and I’m sorry, nothing in baseball is more gripping than a 1-0 game, where the game is literally on the line with every pitch. This is not to say you want to have a park where home runs are super difficult, but on the other hand, you don’t want a Baker Bowl, a League Park or an Ebbits Field. IMO, the proposed layout comes too close to the Baker Bowl and the others for comfort. I like ML’s layout. And in point-of-fact, to whoever might think the first layout approximates Fenway Park, I’d say ML’s layout comes much closer. If Fenway Park’s dimensions were actually similar to the proposed layout, Ted Williams, rather than Roger Maris, probably would have been the first to beat Ruth’s single season HR record. ML’s proposed layout might actually come pretty close to Dodger Stadium, which wouldn’t be all bad, considering the similarities in climate between L.A. and San Jose.
–
But I’d sure like to see the park with a seating capacity around 40K. I think arbitrarily limiting it to a lower figure will ultimately prove detrimental to the fans. Yes, you’ll get a more “intimate” experience with a smaller park, but you’ll also pay more for it. At least get it up to the level of PNC Park, a truly great new stadium, which holds about 38.5K. For those who haven’t been to PNC Park, if you can get anywhere near that, you’ll think you’ve died and go to heaven after the Coliseum. I like it better than Phone Company Park.
–
And to the Oakland die-hards, I’ll say this: I won’t even get into the relative merits between Oakland and San Jose. I’ll just say that, as one who’s often frozen at night games in San Francisco and (not so much) in Oakland, there is something to be said about enjoying baseball in shirt sleeves or a light windbreaker rather than in parkas. I think a downtown San Jose ballpark will attract a lot of people on that count alone. San Jose, with close to the best weather on the planet, is made for baseball.
still missign it guys–dimensions are near the same as Fenway—-I would take a Fenway over any of the new ballparks today…any day….and it isn’t a bandbox—so someone’s gotta explain to me where the misconception is coming into play—its becoming emotion not logic–
How many acres does the proposed SJ ballpark sit on?
@Ethan – The whole block is 14 acres. The ballpark’s footprint is 8-9 acres.
Fenway Park (LF to RF): 315/379/390(straight away center)/ 420 (in the triangle deep right center)/ 380/ 302
Cisco Field (LF to RF): 302/375/400/345/300
Not only are they not the same distances, Fenway has a 37 foot high left field and an 18 foot high wall in center.
I have Fenway 310 down the left field line-302 down the right field line- pretty close to Cisco—380 in the alleys–Cisco has 375 left Center- 345 in rt center with a 36′ wall–390 center for Fenway–400 for Cisco—sorry the 18′ wall in dead center is meaningless to me—402 dead center—not sure what the wall will be in Cisco–isn’t the ballpark sunk by 25′ or so—but regardless 400″ to dead center you shouldn’t have to hit it over an 18′ fence also—while the 345 may be a bit shallow you’ve got the 36′ wall that will make the plays off the wall interesting—like it the way it is—too many cookie cutters already out there–
FWIW, the Red Sox listed dimensions more closely match GoA’s:
http://mlb.mlb.com/bos/ballpark/information/index.jsp?content=facts
How does 405 in center and 345 in right center match 390/420 in center and 380 in right center? And why is a 36-foot wall in a power alley desirable? Fenway was built the way it is due to Boston restrictions a hundred years ago. Why would you want that in San Jose now? What you’re suggesting is Fenway redux with a monster in right rather than in left. Will it be green, too?
–
Oh, yeah, everybody loves Fenway. It’s quirky and all that. I like it, too. But left field is still a joke. The Monster is still ugly.
@oldblud–the Colonnade–the key feature of the SJ ballpark is a modern day version of the green monster–with a twist–4 person suites embedded in it instead of people sitting on top of it—not only does it provide a unique seat but it also opens up the ballpark by allowing you to see through it–so yes—the modern day version of the monster will exist and its a great element. And completely disagree the the left field in Fenway is a joke–its one of the key features in the park that makes it what it is–one of the most unique and coolest ballparks–only one better IMHO is Wrigley because of the way they incorporated the roofs of the surrounding building.s A differing of opinion but I would take Fenway anyday over ATT, Arlington, Nat’s etc—same cookie cutter fields with different amenities around them.
I would love to find a stat that shows how many home runs are actually hit to the power ally’s–the difference in SJ will be playing the ball off the wall v. chasing it down out in the warning track–
Well done.
A little too much foul territory behind home plate, but I otherwise like it.
Still not a fan of placing the bullpens in the Hitter’s Eye, and I’m almost certain that MLB will have a problem with that configuration.
@Go A’s, the wall is about 10-12 feet high where it is 345 in Cisco Field, not 36 ft high. Go to Ballparks.com and look over head shots of Fenway and then look at the overhead shot of Cisco Field that ML is suggesting. Fenway is 302 down the right field line but shoots out to 380 about 15 feet down the line.Cisco Field will be considerably shorter for most of the length of the fence Left and Right field with considerably lower fences.
This place is a way easier home run than Fenway.
ha, never leave a comment sitting for 20 minutes and come back to it… what i meant to say is that the fences will be shorter, both in height and distance, in many parts of Cisco Field. Where it would be 345 in Cisco, the fence is about 12 feet high. The same spot in Fenway is 40 feet further away and 8 feet high.
.
The gap in Left Center, Fenway is 379 feet away and 37 feet high, while it is 375 feet away (after a long slope out from 302 feet) in Cisco and 8 to 10 feet high. Also a much easier Home Run.
i’m sure the bullpens in straight away cf will be concealed as they looked to be sunken into the ground below the cf wall.
I know the Coliseum’s huge foul territory is not too good for fans being further from the action and lowering the players averages, but seeing great running catches and the bullpens right there has always been rather cool.
jk, I will always miss Carney Lansford racing back towards the bullpens, fully extended, and hauling in an over the shoulder pop up. That was a thing of beauty.
@Jeffrey–stop!! You’re bringing back some fond memories!!
@ letsgoas:
In these illustrations, you can see that the upper bullpen is not adequately sunken to prevent the warming-up-pitcher from interfering with the batter’s field of vision. The only way to allow the bullpens in center field would be to build a 30-foot wall, which would interfere with sightlines for the fans in left-center field.
@Pudgie/letgoas – Whether the bullpens are level, sunken or raised, it won’t be hard to implement a series of staggered walls or fences to ensure that the batter’s eye isn’t compromised. A pitcher’s standing reach combined with the mound’s height won’t be higher than 10 feet, and thrown balls should be much lower than that. Combine a 12-foot CF fence with a 20′ fence behind the first bullpen and the 40′ high batter’s eye behind that and it should work just fine.
@Jeffrey– my bad–was overlooking the bleachers that shorten the distance in right center–hopefully we will soon be at a point where there can be an open Q&A session with the architects to better understand some of their thinking about dimensions and options in the ballpark
It is good that the bullpens are in straight away center field. In fact it shall be a first amongst major league ballparks. Better to have the bullpens in cnter field than on the field as they are at Wrigley, Petco (Visitors bullpen) , and AT & T. @Marine Layer: In an earlier review of the new Cisco Field a few weeks back you mentioned that the Giants forgot about where they would put the bullpens when they designed their new ballpark. Could that be true or was this by design with Peter Magowan wanting the park to have the bullpens in foul territory thus adding to a more unique feel to the ballpark? I remember on the Dodger broadcast ,on Pac Bell Park’s opening day, Vin Scully saying that it was a mistake to put the bullpens in foul territory.
@Guy – The bullpens were a detail that was left out when the field orientation was rotated. As a result, they put the pens down the line and stuck some benches in the corners. Only the visiting team actually uses its bullpen bench, whereas the Giants’ pitchers typically stay in the dugout. There are guidelines for building pens in new ballparks. As I understand it, all pens should have restrooms, drinking facilities, and proper shelter. There was no room for that at the new Pac Bell Park, so the Giants asked for an exception and were granted one.
@ Guy
Vin Scully is a an ass.
Bullpens don’t belong on the field. They are an injury risk. Even if it is small, it should be avoided.
Your work is impressive to say the least but the sun will shine directly in a right handed batters’ eye during night games. MLB wouldn’t likely allow this orientation. Better to flip it around 180 degrees and give a view of downtown. The Trib tower could be framed nicely with the scoreboard and 1st base side stands.
I think this orientation might shelter the field from wind coming off the estuary, too.
Excellent improvements to the design! I knew there was something wrong with the way the left seats and grandstands looked in the first design released, and you made the necessary upgrades.
It was all about angles really. Your revised design is a much needed one and is a HUGE improvement. Glad you lowered the wall to 36 feet also.
Keep up the good work. Looks there will indeed be a battle between San Jose view of the downtown SJ skyline for the Diridon Station ballpark plan and Oakland new Victory Court ballpark plan.