The moment that Liotta appeared as Shoeless Joe* was a pivotal moment in a pivotal film, even if the whole thing made no sense. I don't think Liotta was especially great, but his role and what it meant was great.
If you really think about it, Field of Dreams is plain silly. It has a fairy-tale premise that's fit for children, which is based on a century-old scandal from MLB that no child would understand. So why the hell does it work so well? I get the primal male need to connect through time with our dads, but framing it within a story about baseball history is a huge leap. The parts shouldn't fit together, yet the film gets to me every time.
Can you appreciate Field of Dreams if you're not a baseball fan? Do women get anything from it, or is it the male version of The Notebook? Field of Dreams is one of those rare films that can't be engineered and can probably never be re-done. It's a one-off curiosity that balances past & present with sentiment & sports.
* Shoeless Joe was an ugly mofo. Liotta looked nothing like him. Another example of how the impact of seeing Shoeless Joe Jackson relied on a knowledge of baseball but not a knowledge of the player himself. You couldn't have done that with Babe Ruth.