Edgy MD wrote: Zvon wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: My guess is that it was intended to be permanent, but didn't look as good in reality as it may have looked in the imagination, and they fairly quickly reversed course. It may have been that they rethought the aesthetics, or else the problem was with the batters' ability to see the pitched ball with that light colored fence in the background. I don't believe that at any time in baseball history would anyone anywhere think that a white outfield wall was,..not even a good idea, it shouldn't even be an idea at all! The ball is white! There has to be a more interesting story here. Though if someone did approve this "idea", the persons level of stupidity would make it interesting. Who was this stupid? I need to know. Standards were different, and bad ideas are allowed to float around all the time. There have been crippling chain link outfield fences and there have been murderous concrete outfield walls. Ask Bobby Valentine about the fence that turned him from a phenom to a journeyman. The most beloved park in the National League has brick walls all around. Behind the plate and down the line too. Stupid, yeah but it looked so good, your retro parks have all imitated it. This is true and a good point but that's material. Color is another matter. How long has baseball had stadiums make sure the area behind the pitcher, the batters eye, is a dark color? Whenever they decreed this is when they realized that a light, especially a white, backdrop was an unacceptable thing. I thought it's been that way as long as I've followed the game tho I could be wrong. If it was planned to be painted that color Id have to say it must have looked darker on the swatch sample they were lookin at, or something. If not it's crazy wacky stuff. Details! I want details!