PDA

View Full Version : Ballpark rankings---USCF #26


LITTLE NELL
04-19-2011, 05:34 PM
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/646872-is-fenway-park-number-1-ranking-all-30-mlb-teams-stadiums?utm_source=outbrain.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=outbrain.com&utm_medium=referral#/articles/646872-is-fenway-park-number-1-ranking-all-30-mlb-teams-stadiums

DirtySox
04-19-2011, 05:35 PM
Bleacher Report.

Gavin
04-19-2011, 05:39 PM
That was ****ing awful. Bleacher Report should fall on its sword for the benefit of greater humanity. A ****ing fourth grader could write a more compelling article since usually by fourth grade you have to actually write and not just post pictures of ****.

psyclonis
04-19-2011, 05:43 PM
By Collin Berglund (Red Sox Featured Columnist)
1. Fenway Park


lol'd

Hitmen77
04-19-2011, 05:51 PM
"some fans who have attended games said the field was dirty"


:?::?::?:

I didn't bother reading the rest of the reviews after I saw this comment about the Cell.

LITTLE NELL
04-19-2011, 05:53 PM
"some fans who have attended games said the field was dirty"

:?::?::?:

I didn't bother reading the rest of the reviews after I saw this.

Yeah, what the heck does that mean?

kittle42
04-19-2011, 05:55 PM
Should it be #26? Probably not given some of the old and crappy stadiums still around. Should it be in, say, the top half? No way.

thomas35forever
04-19-2011, 05:56 PM
Consider the source. Then don't read it.

hi im skot
04-19-2011, 05:57 PM
Bleacher Report.

/close thread

Fenway
04-19-2011, 05:58 PM
Well they got the bottom 3 right.....but I would make Oakland #30

The Trop at least has the Ted Williams museum for a one time visitor.

Fenway and Wrigley will always be near the top because of history.

I am looking forward to seeing Target Field as I have had so many people say it is the best of all the new parks I can not discount that.

I compare USCF with Kauffman Stadium which is not a knock - they both good ballparks.

soltrain21
04-19-2011, 06:10 PM
and it is not as bad as the previous stadiums on the list.No ****, dumbass. That's how lists usually work.

Carneyman14
04-19-2011, 06:45 PM
Well they got the bottom 3 right.....but I would make Oakland #30

The Trop at least has the Ted Williams museum for a one time visitor.

Fenway and Wrigley will always be near the top because of history.

I am looking forward to seeing Target Field as I have had so many people say it is the best of all the new parks I can not discount that.

I compare USCF with Kauffman Stadium which is not a knock - they both good ballparks.

Been there since they renovated it? It got nicer...

Fenway
04-19-2011, 06:58 PM
Been there since they renovated it? It got nicer...

Yup

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?fbid=1225018738314&id=1014362077&aid=2035249&l=4d6db6f041


I also tried to show how depressing Oakland is

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?fbid=1755204432625&id=1014362077&aid=2097043&l=f0c9142155

TommyJohn
04-19-2011, 07:28 PM
"some fans who have attended games said the field was dirty"


:?::?::?:

I didn't bother reading the rest of the reviews after I saw this comment about the Cell.

If there is one thing I cannot stand, it is a dirty field. When are they ever going to clean up all that dirt around the bases? Sheesh.

Brian26
04-19-2011, 08:28 PM
I finally got to the list after getting sidetracked by the Stacey Keibler photos.

With its iconic ivy lining the outfield walls and prime location in suburban Wrigleyville, Wrigley Field has been one of the best experiences in baseball for nearly 100 years.There's so much wrong with the above statement, it's not even worth the time.

Also, Angels Stadium should be lower than the Cell.

And he takes away points from the Cell because there's nothing that makes it stand out, yet he puts the Nationals new park as #7, which looks like nothing but an amalgamation of Jacobs Field and Citizens Bank.

SI1020
04-19-2011, 08:42 PM
I finally got to the list after getting sidetracked by the Stacey Keibler photos.

There's so much wrong with the above statement, it's not even worth the time.

Also, Angels Stadium should be lower than the Cell.

And he takes away points from the Cell because there's nothing that makes it stand out, yet he puts the Nationals new park as #7, which looks like nothing but an amalgamation of Jacobs Field and Citizens Bank. Is that unbelievably bad or what? I guess Rogers Park is in Wisconsin.

doublem23
04-19-2011, 08:42 PM
And he takes away points from the Cell because there's nothing that makes it stand out, yet he puts the Nationals new park as #7, which looks like nothing but an amalgamation of Jacobs Field and Citizens Bank.

Yeah, I can't figure out how Nationals Stadium was ranked so high. I haven't been there, but I can't tell what is noteworthy about that place other than it is in Washington.

This whole ****ing list reads like a guy whose only been to 3 MAX MLB parks and is just going off stuff he reads on the internet, probably from other jack-off Red Sox fans.

DeadMoney
04-19-2011, 09:19 PM
The Sox are about right where they belong on this list (possibly up to 5 spots too low, but so be it). Honestly, this list is totally screwed up, but there probably are 20-25 parks in major league baseball that are nicer than the cell.

I actually see the cell grouped in a collection of about 5-10 parks (after those bottom 4) that just don't offer the same atmosphere/experience that some of the new parks offer (or even compare to what Wrigley and Fenway offer). Then again, these types of lists are fully based on personal preference, so mine might be much different than someone else's (and vice versa). And for the record, Wrigley and Fenway are WAYYY too high on this list.

LITTLE NELL
04-19-2011, 09:41 PM
I think PNC should be #1.

Hitmen77
04-19-2011, 09:44 PM
Should it be #26? Probably not given some of the old and crappy stadiums still around. Should it be in, say, the top half? No way.

The reality is that there are 26 pretty good and/or popular ballparks in MLB right now. That's a very good thing for us fans, but when that happens and people feel like they have to rank them, some good park has to end up being #26. After the 26 baseball-only parks, there is a HUGE drop off to the stadiums for Oakland, Toronto, Tampa Bay and (until next year) Florida.

That's the problem with these "rank the MLB stadium" things - you end up ranking 26 good parks and 4 bad ones. Plus this rankings have been done to death on websites. It's the same old crap about how great Wrigley and Fenway are, etc. We've heard it all a million times already. As if re-hashing the same old stuff that isn't bad enough, these clowns look like they did a totally half-assed job in their write up..

If there is one thing I cannot stand, it is a dirty field. When are they ever going to clean up all that dirt around the bases? Sheesh.

Roger Bossard sucks! I hope some day we'll get a real groundskeeper who won't put up with all that dirt.

I finally got to the list after getting sidetracked by the Stacey Keibler photos.

There's so much wrong with the above statement, it's not even worth the time.

Also, Angels Stadium should be lower than the Cell.

And he takes away points from the Cell because there's nothing that makes it stand out, yet he puts the Nationals new park as #7, which looks like nothing but an amalgamation of Jacobs Field and Citizens Bank.

Yeah, but does Angels Stadium have a dirty field?:tongue:

veeter
04-19-2011, 09:51 PM
The Cell is a great place to watch a game. What's wrong with it?

DeadMoney
04-19-2011, 10:00 PM
I think PNC should be #1.

I'd say PETCO, then PNC for me. But when you start getting up near the top of the list, they're all VERY comparable.

LITTLE NELL
04-19-2011, 10:24 PM
The Cell is a great place to watch a game. What's wrong with it?

There is nothing wrong with it except its basically a symetrical ballpark which compared to Oriole Park and all the others that followed makes it sort of bland. The Sox blew it, they should have built a park facing one of the great skylines of the world having it double decked in RF and bleachers in left so the skyline would be visable ala Clevelands Progressive Field. I know home plate then would be one block further south and facing the same way as old Comiskey, but so what, a grand entrance could have been built at 35th and Wentworth.

DSpivack
04-19-2011, 11:24 PM
Yeah, I can't figure out how Nationals Stadium was ranked so high. I haven't been there, but I can't tell what is noteworthy about that place other than it is in Washington.

This whole ****ing list reads like a guy whose only been to 3 MAX MLB parks and is just going off stuff he reads on the internet, probably from other jack-off Red Sox fans.

Nats Park reminded me a lot of Turner Field and Coors Field.

There is nothing wrong with it except its basically a symetrical ballpark which compared to Oriole Park and all the others that followed makes it sort of bland. The Sox blew it, they should have built a park facing one of the great skylines of the world having it double decked in RF and bleachers in left so the skyline would be visable ala Clevelands Progressive Field. I know home plate then would be one block further south and facing the same way as old Comiskey, but so what, a grand entrance could have been built at 35th and Wentworth.

The one thing I do really like Nats Park is that it is a great, 'grand' entrance coming off the Metro on Half St., you enter directly onto a large concourse in center field. That said, Turner Field has basically the same setup.

veeter
04-20-2011, 09:09 AM
There is nothing wrong with it except its basically a symetrical ballpark which compared to Oriole Park and all the others that followed makes it sort of bland. The Sox blew it, they should have built a park facing one of the great skylines of the world having it double decked in RF and bleachers in left so the skyline would be visable ala Clevelands Progressive Field. I know home plate then would be one block further south and facing the same way as old Comiskey, but so what, a grand entrance could have been built at 35th and Wentworth.I just don't need my team's ballpark to fulfill my eyes' aesthetic needs, that deeply. The grass is lush and green, the playing surface is second to none, and the park is clean. People cried when they knocked the Polo Grounds down, and you know that place was a dump. It's about the game, the players, cheering with your family. Maybe because prices have gone up so much people expect so much for their disposable dollar. As long as I don't have rusty nails sticking out of my seat I'm happy as a clam at the ballpark. The Cell is #1 to me.

Fenway
04-20-2011, 09:15 AM
If there is one thing I cannot stand, it is a dirty field. When are they ever going to clean up all that dirt around the bases? Sheesh.

In perhaps the dumbest idea in White Sox history...

The astroturf infield at old Comiskey in the 70's


http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/past/comiskeyart.jpg

LITTLE NELL
04-20-2011, 09:20 AM
In perhaps the dumbest idea in White Sox history...

The astroturf infield at old Comiskey in the 70's


http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/past/comiskeyart.jpg
Yeah, but it was so clean.

TomBradley72
04-20-2011, 10:14 AM
In perhaps the dumbest idea in White Sox history...

The astroturf infield at old Comiskey in the 70's


http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/past/comiskeyart.jpg

Dumbest idea?

What about:

The uniforms with shorts in the last 70's?
Moving games from WGN to WFLD in the late 60's
Moving game to OnTV in the early 80's
Mary Shane
"New Comiskey Park"- from 1991-2004- the absolute worst of the new baseball only ballparks- blue seats and concrete- yuck
Terry Bevington
Ribbie and Rhubarb
Lou Brock as an announcer
Carlton Fisk in LF
Ken Harrelson as GM

TheOldRoman
04-20-2011, 10:58 AM
There is nothing wrong with it except its basically a symetrical ballpark which compared to Oriole Park and all the others that followed makes it sort of bland. The Sox blew it, they should have built a park facing one of the great skylines of the world having it double decked in RF and bleachers in left so the skyline would be visable ala Clevelands Progressive Field. I know home plate then would be one block further south and facing the same way as old Comiskey, but so what, a grand entrance could have been built at 35th and Wentworth.There were a lot of things wrong with the park when it was built, but that wasn't one of them. As you can see from the third base ramp, there isn't really much of a view of downtown from there. You see a bunch of trees and then the Sears tower sticking up above them. The park is too far from downtown to provide a decent view.

Uncle_Patrick
04-20-2011, 11:02 AM
The line about "Sterotypical bleacher fans" making Wrigley great made me laugh. Most of the Cubs fans I know hate the "stereotypical bleacher fans". The ones who don't hate them are the ones who are stereotypical bleacher fans.

Chez
04-20-2011, 11:05 AM
Yeah, what the heck does that mean?

On windy days there are a lot of hot dog wrappers, bags and other paper refuse that seems to end up on the field. Maybe that's what "dirty" means? I've noticed it too -- but its probably no different than at any other ballpark on a windy day!

LITTLE NELL
04-20-2011, 12:50 PM
There were a lot of things wrong with the park when it was built, but that wasn't one of them. As you can see from the third base ramp, there isn't really much of a view of downtown from there. You see a bunch of trees and then the Sears tower sticking up above them. The park is too far from downtown to provide a decent view.

I still think the view looking north would be better than what we have now.

TheOldRoman
04-20-2011, 12:58 PM
I still think the view looking north would be better than what we have now.True, but that would mostly be trees, anyway. I just think it isn't a great loss like others have made it out to be. With the field at ground level (instead of below ground level likst most new stadiums) and the massive lattice work around the outfield, there wouldn't even be much of a view of those trees unless you were in the upper deck.

doublem23
04-20-2011, 12:58 PM
I still think the view looking north would be better than what we have now.

Now that Stateway Gardens is gone, it'd essentially be the same.

skobabe8
04-20-2011, 01:07 PM
I finally got to the list after getting sidetracked by the Stacey Keibler photos.


25 Women We Want back In Sports?

I was stuck on Anna Semenovich for a while.

chisoxfanatic
04-20-2011, 03:36 PM
That list is terrible...I never understood why the age of a ballpark really made it more "charming," which is what they're saying really matters by putting Fenway and Wrigley up there.

C-Dawg
04-20-2011, 03:56 PM
With the field at ground level (instead of below ground level likst most new stadiums)

That's an important point but its one that is seldom mentioned. At most new ballparks, you just walk right in from the gate onto the main concourse level, because the field is lower than ground level. At USCF, you climb about two stories on the escalator, and if you're going to the upper deck its another three or four stories further up. I think if the 100-level concourse was at street level, much of the illusion that the upper deck was really high and steep would be gone. However, there may have been issues with the soil (or some other reason) why they didn't sink the field below ground level.

Nellie_Fox
04-20-2011, 03:59 PM
...much of the illusion that the upper deck was really high and steep would be gone.It's not an illusion. It's high, and it's steep.

DSpivack
04-20-2011, 04:08 PM
It's not an illusion. It's high, and it's steep.

It is compared to Comiskey, but it's really not compared to any other new park.

TheOldRoman
04-20-2011, 04:14 PM
It's not an illusion. It's high, and it's steep.It is largely an illusion. As you mentioned, you hated the upper deck in Target Field and other new parks due to steepness. However, USCF is no steeper than those upperdecks. USCF got a bunch of crap about the upper deck steepness which other parks didn't get, and that is because of the illusion. To many people, the UD looks more daunting because it is so high off the ground, formerly was so massive, and as mentioned earlier, the entrances are inexplicably at the bottom instead of in the middle of the level.

C-Dawg
04-20-2011, 04:14 PM
It's not an illusion. It's high, and it's steep.

I know it is.... But is it any higher than, say, Miller Park, Chase Field, or the 1975-2008 version of Yankee Stadium? Those all seemed extraordanarily high and steep to me. But they aren't an extra two stories above the street like the upper deck is at USCF.

fox23
04-20-2011, 04:21 PM
Yeah, I can't figure out how Nationals Stadium was ranked so high. I haven't been there, but I can't tell what is noteworthy about that place other than it is in Washington.

This whole ****ing list reads like a guy whose only been to 3 MAX MLB parks and is just going off stuff he reads on the internet, probably from other jack-off Red Sox fans.

I haven't been out west so I can't comment on any of those, but Nats stadium is my favorite ballpark. Nice new concessions, wide concourses, plenty of space to just wander around and watch the game from different angles, nice little restaurant in CF, and still they didn't overdo it will all sorts of crazy crap everywhere.

Nellie_Fox
04-20-2011, 05:10 PM
It is compared to Comiskey, but it's really not compared to any other new park.

It is largely an illusion. As you mentioned, you hated the upper deck in Target Field and other new parks due to steepness. However, USCF is no steeper than those upperdecks. USCF got a bunch of crap about the upper deck steepness which other parks didn't get, and that is because of the illusion. To many people, the UD looks more daunting because it is so high off the ground, formerly was so massive, and as mentioned earlier, the entrances are inexplicably at the bottom instead of in the middle of the level.

I know it is.... But is it any higher than, say, Miller Park, Chase Field, or the 1975-2008 version of Yankee Stadium? Those all seemed extraordanarily high and steep to me. But they aren't an extra two stories above the street like the upper deck is at USCF.
What you all say is true. I am fully aware that pretty much all the new parks have high, steep upper decks. High to allow for layers of luxury suites, steep due to cantilever construction to eliminate sight-obstructing pillars.

I was only responding to the statement "illusion of high and steep," and said it's not an illusion. Not there, not at Target Field, not at any of them. They're high and steep, and if heights bother you, you can't pretend that they're not. Putting the field level below grade woudn't change a thing. It bothers me because I'm looking straight down, a long way, to the infield.

TheOldRoman
04-20-2011, 05:24 PM
What you all say is true. I am fully aware that pretty much all the new parks have high, steep upper decks. High to allow for layers of luxury suites, steep due to cantilever construction to eliminate sight-obstructing pillars.

I was only responding to the statement "illusion of high and steep," and said it's not an illusion. Not there, not at Target Field, not at any of them. They're high and steep, and if heights bother you, you can't pretend that they're not. Putting the field level below grade woudn't change a thing. It bothers me because I'm looking straight down, a long way, to the infield.You are correct, but I think the illusion is that it appears much worse than it actually is. Whereas most people don't have issues with sitting in the upper deck at any park, I have heard a lot of people say they felt light headed and other stuff at New Comiskey (specifically before renovations). A lot of that has to do with the other factors which make it seem steeper, and of course a lot has to do with the media talking incessantly about it and saying you need a sherpa to get to the last row.

Nellie_Fox
04-20-2011, 05:31 PM
You are correct, but I think the illusion is that it appears much worse than it actually is. Whereas most people don't have issues with sitting in the upper deck at any park, I have heard a lot of people say they felt light headed and other stuff at New Comiskey (specifically before renovations). A lot of that has to do with the other factors which make it seem steeper, and of course a lot has to do with the media talking incessantly about it and saying you need a sherpa to get to the last row.I sat in the last row in the original configuration for the "Bo Jackson Returns" game. It was horrible. People were literally afraid to stand up, for fear of falling to the field. One person who was making her way to the aisle grabbed everybody as she walked past them, saying "I'm sorry, but I'm so afraid I'm going to fall." But, as I said, I had just as bad of a time dealing with it at Target Field, and finally had to abandon my seat and go to standing room on the next level down.

Flight #24
04-20-2011, 05:44 PM
With a great view of the downtown skyline, Minnesota-style food and pine trees in the outfield, Target Field is a microcosm of the state it is located in.

Being a microcosm of MN makes it great? And *** is "Minnesota-style food"? Something extremely deep fried? Does MN have it's own cuisine?

LITTLE NELL
04-20-2011, 06:01 PM
In USCFs original configuration of the upper deck what also made it bad was you entered the seating area in the 1st row and many had to walk 29 rows up to their seats. The illusuion would have been allieved if there was an wide aisle say after the 14th row and that would be were you entered the seating area and either walked up or down to your seats.
I last sat in the UD in 2008 after the lopping off of the 8 rows and of course its still steep but with the new roof it does not seem as severe.

Nellie_Fox
04-21-2011, 01:02 AM
And *** is "Minnesota-style food"? Something extremely deep fried? Does MN have it's own cuisine?Deep fried, yes. Fried walleye, and I love it. If you ever get to Target Field, go to Hrbek's place right behind home plate and get the walleye fingers.

SoxfaninLA
04-21-2011, 08:54 AM
That's an important point but its one that is seldom mentioned. At most new ballparks, you just walk right in from the gate onto the main concourse level, because the field is lower than ground level. At USCF, you climb about two stories on the escalator, and if you're going to the upper deck its another three or four stories further up. I think if the 100-level concourse was at street level, much of the illusion that the upper deck was really high and steep would be gone. However, there may have been issues with the soil (or some other reason) why they didn't sink the field below ground level.

I imagine that reason is $$$. Putting the concourse at ground level instead of the field at ground level would have resulted in an awful lot of excavation work, and Comiskey II was originally constructed on a pretty tight budget.

ewokpelts
04-21-2011, 09:21 AM
I imagine that reason is $$$. Putting the concourse at ground level instead of the field at ground level would have resulted in an awful lot of excavation work, and Comiskey II was originally constructed on a pretty tight budget.that, and parks just werent designed to have below street level fields. that came later in the stadium boom

C-Dawg
04-21-2011, 12:26 PM
I imagine that reason is $$$. Putting the concourse at ground level instead of the field at ground level would have resulted in an awful lot of excavation work...

Right, but by "soil issues" I mean the actual soil itself. In many areas of Chicago, there's a reasonably firm crust of soil near the ground surface, but if you dig down more than about a dozen feet or so you get into some really soft gumbo that extends down 40, 50, or more feet before you find some harder soils. The stadium itself was built on deep caissons but the field is just there on the ground surface or thereabouts.

Hitmen77
04-21-2011, 05:27 PM
There were a lot of things wrong with the park when it was built, but that wasn't one of them. As you can see from the third base ramp, there isn't really much of a view of downtown from there. You see a bunch of trees and then the Sears tower sticking up above them. The park is too far from downtown to provide a decent view.

I agree. I think this issue is greatly overrated. Yes, the skyline views at some other ballparks looks great. But at 35th St. in Chicago, you wouldn't be getting the same type of view as you get in some of the "downtown" ballparks around the league.

Even if the Sox were able to magically rotate the entire park 90 degrees to face downtown, you still wouldn't see much at all over the scoreboards, and Fundamentals area. Yes, some seats in part of the upper deck would have a view over the OF structure but most seats in the park would not have that view.

Remember, the old park "faced" downtown and due to its wrap around upper deck there was no view of the city skyline while watching a game.

Parrothead
04-22-2011, 09:50 AM
While I have not been to all the stadiums (only 9 to go and going to Denver and Seattle) this year. This list is horribly wrong in my opinon. Pit #4 ? Not a chance, it is best one there is. I could die there and be happy. Philly so high, not in my world. Miller Park better than USCF ? Don't think so, ok they have a slide and sausage races but come on.

Red Barchetta
04-22-2011, 11:46 AM
I think it's very easy to pick the absolute worst ballparks...The Rays, A's Jays and Marlins are all playing in multi-purpose designed "ballparks". However, placing US Cellular that low makes about as much sense as the "field was dirty" comment. :scratch:

Unlike the baseball puritans and historians, I don't necessarily equate "old" with "good" so I don't share the love of Fenway or Wrigley. My uncle has an old 1965 Oldsmobile that is cool to look at, however I would not want to drive it every day.

I think after the bottom four, you could mix and match pretty much all the other new ballparks over the past 20 years based on team loyalty. Is US Cellular the best? No, however I think it should get a little more respect due to it being the first baseball-only ballpark of this generation. My personal favorites are: (1) Giants, (2) Twins, (3) Pirates, (4) Orioles and (5) Tigers. I like when they are located either in a downtown/cityscape environment or have some other unique feature like McCovey's Cove.

Hitmen77
04-22-2011, 12:26 PM
That's an important point but its one that is seldom mentioned. At most new ballparks, you just walk right in from the gate onto the main concourse level, because the field is lower than ground level. At USCF, you climb about two stories on the escalator, and if you're going to the upper deck its another three or four stories further up. I think if the 100-level concourse was at street level, much of the illusion that the upper deck was really high and steep would be gone. However, there may have been issues with the soil (or some other reason) why they didn't sink the field below ground level.

The main ramps at USCF are served by escalators. So, getting up to the 100 level or even the 500 level concourse is really not a problem for most fans.

Exiting the park is a different story since the escalators aren't available after the game. Walking down from the 500 level isn't strenuous or anything, but it feels like it takes forever to make your way down those ramps. Even from the 100 level, there's a bit of circling around those ramps needed before you get to street level. That's one thing I like about the new stairs that they added a couple of years ago near the new Bacardi restaurant. From the 100 level, it's a short walk down those stairs and that's it - you're at street level.

C-Dawg
04-22-2011, 01:10 PM
The main ramps at USCF are served by escalators. So, getting up to the 100 level or even the 500 level concourse is really not a problem for most fans.


Right, but looking back with hindsight don't you wish the 100 level was right there at street level? I can't think of any other new parks that are built like ours is.

Hitmen77
04-22-2011, 02:36 PM
Right, but looking back with hindsight don't you wish the 100 level was right there at street level? I can't think of any other new parks that are built like ours is.

Oh, I agree that would be a nice design feature. Like you said earlier, I thought I had heard that there were some technical issues with the land around the Cell that would have made such an excavation impractical.

As I said, at least the stairs by the eastern most bridge across 35th, makes the exit from the 100 level nice and quick.

LITTLE NELL
04-22-2011, 02:48 PM
Here is a site that has some very nice things to say about the Cell:

http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/reviews/uscellreviews.htm

Check out the attendance part where you can see every team by decade vs other teams in a chart format.

mzh
04-22-2011, 03:14 PM
Here is a site that has some very nice things to say about the Cell:

http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/reviews/uscellreviews.htm

Check out the attendance part where you can see every team by decade vs other teams in a chart format.
They did say some nice things but they did throw in the obligatory "This ain't the north side, the Sox play in a ghetto!" comment. I did get my window bashed in last year parked a couple blocks away, but even so, the hyperbole gets irritating.

TDog
04-22-2011, 03:26 PM
Should it be #26? Probably not given some of the old and crappy stadiums still around. Should it be in, say, the top half? No way.

USCF is better than many of the new parks, Miller Park for example.

USCF is better than many of the old parks, Wrigley Field for example.

Hitmen77
04-22-2011, 03:48 PM
They did say some nice things but they did throw in the obligatory "This ain't the north side, the Sox play in a ghetto!" comment. I did get my window bashed in last year parked a couple blocks away, but even so, the hyperbole gets irritating.

Most of those reviews on that page gave the park an "A" or a "B". I think only one clown gave it an F. Most people had nice things to say about the park.

Here's a site that gives USCF a very positive review and even acknowledges the improvements in the neighborhood:
http://www.baseballparks.com/USCellular1.asp

In fact, I want to say that about 5 or 6 years ago, this site had a rather bad review of the Cell and that the guy who runs the site (Joe Mock) actually posted here on WSI to defend his review. I think people here impressed on him that his review was totally outdated and he did re-visit the park and updated his review. Am I remembering that correctly?

ComiskeyBrewer
04-22-2011, 05:39 PM
I'm slightly confused by the criteria of this. Is it based solely off the park itself(amenities/history), or are things like fan experience, best bang for your buck, sight lines, ect. part of it as well?

Nellie_Fox
04-23-2011, 12:51 AM
I'm slightly confused by the criteria of this. Is it based solely off the park itself(amenities/history), or are things like fan experience, best bang for your buck, sight lines, ect. part of it as well?Criteria? You want criteria? It's apparent they just pulled the rankings out of their nether regions.

ComiskeyBrewer
04-23-2011, 01:47 AM
Criteria? You want criteria? It's apparent they just pulled the rankings out of their nether regions.


Yea, my bad, i wasn't thinking. I forgot it was the bleacher report. :tongue: