Rank the ballparks.
4.Jul.08 | sports |
My recent trip to Great America Ballpark in Cincinnati to see a Reds game is just one more check off the list to see a baseball game in every ballpark in my lifetime. However, not all stadiums are created equal. In fact, some just flat out suck. So, here is my rankings for the stadiums I’ve seen games in. The criteria for ranking the experience is four-fold: Connectedness with baseball history; Fans interaction with each other and with the game; Uniqueness; Overall design.
So here’s the current list.
1] Wrigley Field: There isn’t a stadium like it in all of baseball. In fact, it seems to be the model that many of the newer parks are attempting to replicate in some way. It is ripe with history standing as the second oldest stadium in the majors - and perhaps one of the more interesting facts about Wrigley Field: it took a month and a half to build. It is a simple, unique design from the ivy to the manual scoreboard atop center field, and maintaining the old charm of organ music. The seventh inning stretch is the best in the majors and the fans are incredible. Wrigley Field stands above the rest in a big way! (P.S. don’t forget the trough’s!)
2] AT&T Park: Home of the San Francisco Giants this is the best new park I’ve been to hands down. In fact, it would be easy to call this the best park because of how beautiful it is. In the background is a beautiful view of the Bay and the Oakland Bay Bridge, McCovey cove is a spectacular innovation with the kayaks waiting for the illusive home run ball, and although it’s not a historical ballpark, it certainly incorporates a tremendous sense of history throughout the stadium. I truly love watching games in this park!
3] New Busch Stadium: It’s hard to admit, but I actually really like the New Busch Stadium. It’s got a great view of the city of St. Louis in the outfield, and the fans are really great. The food is amazing, the seats are great, and it truly is an enjoyable experience.
4] Miller Park: Even though it’s got a retractable roof that makes a horrendous sound, and the biggest piece of history rattling around is an All Star Game that ended in a tie, there isn’t a bad seat in the place! The views are amazing and the 6th inning sausage race is one of a kind. The fans are great as of late (since there’s a team to actually root for) and the design is great for a new stadium.
5] Kauffman Stadium: This is the best stadium from the 70’s that has an amazing outfield view. It probably helps that when I visited Sosa hit 2 homeruns, but it was an exciting place to visit…
6] The Ballpark at Arlington: This is one of the better new parks that I’ve visited. It’s got great outfield seating and has a great “old” ball park feel to it. The fans weren’t spectacular, but the ball park certainly was.
7] US Cellular Field: A space ship has landed on the south side of Chicago. It was poorly designed aesthetically and I’m not really sure what the gigantic lollipops adorning the scoreboard are all about, but they’re not good. The Cell is simply utilitarian and not beautifully designed. It doesn’t connect well with history and although the fans are great and can bring the stadium alive, they can also make a game a real bore and simply sit idly by. A funny note about it’s design: it had to be renovated nearly 10 years after opening because of faulty design. The cost to build=$167 million… the cost of renovation=$118 million. Poor design led to massive costs only 10 years later.
8] Old Busch Stadium: This was perhaps one of the ugliest, stadiums of all-time. I’ve seen several games here, and even though there were some good experiences, the travesty of design and turf can’t outweigh what good times there may have been. The circular design blocked any good views of the city—thankfully that was rectified with New Busch. At least the fans are always into the game! That certainly bumped it up on the list.
9] Great American Ballpark: 16,860. That was the number in attendance the night I went to watch a game at the “Great” American Ballpark. It’s perhaps one of the ugliest “new” parks out there… the steamboat in center field is hideous, the scoreboards are in horrible locations, and the fans just simply don’t have it. It was an okay experience, but the ballpark is one of the worst I’ve been to.
10] Dodger Stadium: There is some good history here in Chavez Ravine, however there’s not much to look at. It’s a hard stadium to navigate your way through and there is simply no view. The fans leave after the 7th inning and there are police officers patrolling the grounds at every corner—not the seemingly family friendly ballpark you might be hoping for.
Steve J. |
4.Jul.08 @ 10:14 am
No Fenway, No Yankee stadium, No Camden Yards, Not even Safeco Field and its amazing sushi Ichirolls.
Probably worst list ever.
And you ranked Wrigley as number one, go figure.
monts |
4.Jul.08 @ 10:16 am
These are the only 10 ballparks I’ve been to. I haven’t been to Fenway, Yankee Stadium, Camden Yards, etc to watch games. This is my current list of the parks I’ve been to.
John Mark |
5.Jul.08 @ 9:32 pm
have you been watching the last two Cub/Cardinal games at St. Louis? The fans are dead throughout the game. Even when Pujols is up, there’s no excitement unless he hits it and starts his little “walk” towards first base. No 2-1 or 3-1 count “buzz”. Just dead. And this is a Cubs/Cards series for basically 1st place. I have to admit, the fans at the Cell were way more involved. I’ve been to Cub/Cardinal games in St. Louis, and it’s a joke.
When you’ve moved to CA, you’ll have to check out San Diego’s park. I thought it was pretty nice. Anaheim’s was decent. I agree though, Dodger stadium was crap. And it’s unsafe. Take in a game in San Diego where the usher’s are like the old people at Wrigley, and then go to LA where they have full uniformed police everywhere. And it still didn’t stop a fight!
monts |
6.Jul.08 @ 3:21 pm
I think there’s something different with the way the sound is set up for the games in St. Louis as opposed to wrigley and everywhere else. When I was at a game there last year it was against the Astros and the Astros clobbered the Cards 14-2 (or something very similar). The crowd was in it for quite a while and they were really loud. It was a great atmosphere. I’m heading down there again in a couple of weeks for a game and I’m expecting much the same.
JM, You’ll have to come out and spend some time with us in SF and go to a game at ATT… it’s spectacular. Then we can take in a game at the Coliseum across the bay. I’m looking forward to getting down to San Diego and taking in a game there as well as in Anaheim at some point.
rags |
6.Jul.08 @ 9:33 pm
I agree with you on Kauffman. It gets a bad rap because the team sucks and it’s a 70’s era park. But it wasn’t built like other parks in the 70’s. It isn’t just an ashtray design like old Busch or the Vet or Three Rivers. We went to a Yanks/Royals game there last year and it was outstanding. The park is super easy to get to. Parking is a breeze. And because the team sucks it is extremely affordable. They even have “all you can eat seats” in the outfield for like 50 bucks.
Let me settle the debate on the worst ballpark once and for all. Tropicana is a travesty of a ballpark. There is no atmosphere. The ceiling is too low. There is no history. There are no fans (even this year). It is ugly, ugly, ugly. And as Bill Simmons on ESPN says, it looks like someone made a massive sculpture of a boob and set it in St. Pete. How could you be in a place as beautiful as Tampa and have such a horrible park?
rags |
6.Jul.08 @ 9:39 pm
By the way Steve. You love the troughs. Admit it.
Let me continue my rank about the Trop. For those of us who love baseball, there is an indescribable, almost religious feeling that you get when you walk into a ballpark. The sights, the sounds, the smells - it all takes you back to some boyhood place that may not even exist outside of your own imagination. I’ve gotten that feeling with every park I’ve gone to (even the Cell and old Comiskey) except one - Tropicana. There may be worse stadiums. I’ve heard that Shea is horrible and wherever the Marlins play is a joke - but I can’t imagine a more disappointing experience than going to that ballpark.
Jeff |
7.Jul.08 @ 10:32 am
Hey Monts - do a little research and you will find out why those “lollipops” are on the scoreboard.
Enough with the Sox bashing already!
gentry13 |
8.Jul.08 @ 11:39 am
i’m with rags on tropicana. i hate the place. it’s even worse than the old arlington stadium, which was the only AAA stadium that was afforded an opportunity to spend decades in the major leagues.
of course, fenway would be towards the top of my list. the fans, before 2004 at least, were fantastic, there aren’t a lot of bad seats and the sawx are usually competitive.
i have to disagree with you concerning the old bush stadium. i loved the arch design around the crown of the stadium and i thought it was more personalized than the rest of the late 60s/early 70s ufos. of course, we won a lot of games in that ballpark, so i’m sure that strengthened our attraction to old busch as well.
as for the new busch, eh. i also enjoy the outfield view and the bleachers are excellent, affordable seats. in general, the fans are pretty solid, though i was disappointed with the quality of the fans when i attended the cubs/cards battle there in may. as with any cubs/cards tilt there were at least 15k cubs fans in the stadium - and most of them, though fortunately not the washington university student sitting next to me, were either southern illinois grandmamas or drunken, blathering idiots. the odd mixture of fans in the ballpark led to a weird vibe throughout the evening which, i think, is directly attributable to the tendency of cards fans to be far too welcoming to visiting fans. i noticed the same dynamics at play in the 2006 world series. we had a couple of dozen tigers fans in our section then and i felt as though i was the only person willing to give them shit. which, of course, i offered in bulk.
Rick Pekan |
8.Jul.08 @ 5:01 pm
Aaron,
I enjoyed the list but have one category beef with you on fan interaction. I think you are overstating fan interaction based on when you went to the game. The fans may not “have it” at some places but that’s not as much because of the ballpark as it is the team or game. Most fans aren’t into games early in the year or for bad teams. I went to camden yards and appreciate how beautiful it is. But I am not going to downgrade it’s rating because the fans weren’t into an interleague game with the diamondbacks when they were in last place. I understand the context and can still rank it fairly. If you watch games from wrigley when they have sucked (i.e.- mid nineties, and most of the seventies) and you won’t see much fan interaction. Want proof? Watch the first seven innings of Kerry woods 20 strike game. Nobody’s into because at the time it’s not a great team in cold rainy weather.
So if you want to grade on overal design, uniqueness etc. I’m all for that. I agree with most of your list (except you saying that us cellular field doesn’t have history, then admitting you do not know what the loolipops are, which shows it’s more about you not knowing the history), but your rationale in using fan interaction is terribly flawed.
monts |
9.Jul.08 @ 10:30 am
Pekan, I can somewhat agree with you on your points about fan interaction… but not completely. When I visited Kauffman, it was a last place team… yet the fans were in the game… it was also early in the summer (July). When I visited Arlington, it too was early in the season (May) and the team wasn’t in last, but pretty close–they haven’t been good in a while… yet the fans weren’t silent. I think some fans are good regardless of the teams situation and hoot and holler no matter what. There might be a better, less subjective way to rate it, but this one’s all I’ve got.
About the cell… I’ve tried looking up the lollipops and what they’re all about but can’t find a thing. And if that’s what Sox fans are basing the entirety of “history” on… then that’s a pretty weak argument. Cause let’s face it… there’s not much else. In fact, AT&T does a better job of incorporating history throughout the park than the Cell and it’s a decade younger.
Jeff |
10.Jul.08 @ 1:07 pm
Cell history?
The “lollipops” as you call them are a throw back to the old exploding scoreboard from Old Comiskey.
http://flyingsock.com/OldComiskey/Scoreboard.htm
Other bits of history? Let’s see - there is the shower in center field. The bullpen bar. The retired numbers on the outfield wall. The arched windows. Should I go on?
You don’t understand the history in the park cuz you probably never went to the original Comiskey.
Jeff |
10.Jul.08 @ 1:22 pm
And btw Aaron - check out the fans ranking of ballparks here:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/specials/fansurvey/2008/?eref=T1
SUCK IT, WRIGLEY!
Jason |
10.Jul.08 @ 2:24 pm
The park while not designed well at the beginning, since the face lift is absolutely beautiful and one of the best seats in baseball. Easy parking, easy to get to, clean restrooms, outstanding food, etc. Chase Field and Miller Park also very very nice stadiums. Obviously you know I cant stand stand piss trough field, and the players rank it year in and year out one of the worst places to play every year. If they can tear down Yankee Stadium they can tear down that crap hole.
Falling concrete, no bathrooms, no parking, the usual non baseball crowd, smelly and to small seats, the list goes on and on.
And the best argument of them all….AAA Baseball stadiums shouldnt count! HA HA
monts |
11.Jul.08 @ 1:00 pm
I like the categories that put the cell up over wrigley…
Traffic - that’s because no one goes to the games… of course traffic will be good. This year the cell has seen 1.3 mil fans vs. 2.0 for wrigley.
Promotions - that’s an attempt to get fans to the game… they may be good, but obviously not working! Real fans don’t need incentives to see their team play.
Food - It’s not a restaurant… it’s a baseball game. Shouldn’t a hot dog & a beer do? Why do you need a gourmet meal?
I can’t really agree with a list that is biased towards new ball parks… notice all the top 10 are new parks. Not a good list.
I’d really like to see the players list that Jason is referencing… cause that’s certainly not what you hear. They love playing in Wrigley because of the history… I think Jason’s been listening to Ozzie and A.J. a little too much!
Jason |
11.Jul.08 @ 1:25 pm
Why not drive a 1920 Model T every day then? Why not live in a home from the 1800s? Times change, and stadiums get old and need to be replaced. Again, if they can tear down Yankee Stadium then every stadium can be tore down.
Actually the Sox are drawing well now that its a winning product, and warmer weather. Unlike the 80% of the people that show up for drunk fest at Wrigley, people actually care whether or not there is good baseball and decent weather to sit in it.
Amenities my friend, thus why these new stadiums are so well received. Thus most people by new clothes, new cars, new homes, etc. The point being is simply its a nasty ball park, and not just Sox players complain, players around the league hate it, and even Pinella says he’d love to have batting cages in each dug out, bigger benches, locker rooms, etc. He is a strong proponent of a remodel.
Its a crappy park, with no amenities, with a crappy AAA baseball team playing in it!
Didnt you love my stats about how the AL OWNS the NL yet again? Inferior league = Inferior Wins
monts |
11.Jul.08 @ 5:29 pm
“Drunk fest at Wrigley Field” The funny thing about that statement is I’ve had more beer spilled on me and seen more drunk people at Sox games than at Wrigley…
Anyhow, that’s a pointless argument you’re making. And your response is exactly what I would expect from a Sox fan who has no appreciation for baseball history… (they’re still trying to forget about the Black Sox, that’s why newer is better.)
John Mark |
11.Jul.08 @ 6:50 pm
and i quote..
“Actually the Sox are drawing well now that its a winning product”
Get some real fans.
gentry13 |
11.Jul.08 @ 7:20 pm
i’m really enjoying this battle of who sucks less.
keep it up boys!