PDA

View Full Version : ESPN Page 2 ballpark reviews


Fisk72
07-23-2003, 04:27 PM
Have any of you guys read any of the reviews thus far? What do you think they'll give Comiskey? I'm hoping they'll rave about the food --AND THE CHURROS!!!! I just hope those guys won't go in with all of the awful reviews spinning through their heads and actually give it a fair shot.

maurice
07-23-2003, 04:32 PM
The Cell shouldn't score any worse than the rating for Jacobs Field. Much of Caple's review applies equally to the Cell. (Pros: good food, good public transportation, etc. / Con: too many skyboxes, upperdeck too high, etc.).

A.T. Money
07-23-2003, 04:53 PM
How do you find Page 2 from the MLB homepage at ESPN.com?

Eddie Gaedel
07-23-2003, 04:53 PM
Of the few that i've gone to that they have reviewed (Pac Bell, Dodger Stadium, Fenway, and Jacobs), they have been right on the money. I'm suprised since I rarely agree with anything that comes from espn. I'll be looking forward to the Comiskey review. As long as the reviewer has the $5 corned beef sandwich w/chips & a pickle, it should be OK.

Eddie Gaedel
07-23-2003, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by SoxDemon
How do you find Page 2 from the MLB homepage at ESPN.com?

There's a 'Page 2' link at the top of the page.
or
http://espn.go.com/page2/

FJA
07-23-2003, 05:16 PM
If you click on the link below, you can e-mail Caple and tell him what to look for when he comes to the Cell. Click the link under "Tell Us About Your Park."

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/caple/030630.html

PaleHoseGeorge
07-23-2003, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by maurice
The Cell shouldn't score any worse than the rating for Jacobs Field. Much of Caple's review applies equally to the Cell. (Pros: good food, good public transportation, etc. / Con: too many skyboxes, upperdeck too high, etc.).

What worries me is the extra 6.5 "wild card" points he gave Jacobs Field. Those points made the winning difference between an overall high score and a low one. Somehow I doubt the Cell will do nearly as well. You know, "bad neighborhood", too many parking lots, blah, blah, blah...

:angry:

RKMeibalane
07-23-2003, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
What worries me is the extra 6.5 "wild card" points he gave Jacobs Field. Those points made the winning difference between an overall high score and a low one. Somehow I doubt the Cell will do nearly as well. You know, "bad neighborhood", too many parking lots, blah, blah, blah...

:angry:

I agree. It seems like everyone wants to bash the 'Cell because of its location. Yet, everyone who goes to the park on a regular basis talks about how the area has improved over the past decade. Funny how this always seems to slip the minds of the people rating the ballparks.

maurice
07-23-2003, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
What worries me is the extra 6.5 "wild card" points he gave Jacobs Field. Those points made the winning difference between an overall high score and a low one. Somehow I doubt the Cell will do nearly as well. You know, "bad neighborhood", too many parking lots, blah, blah, blah...

:angry:

That IS a bit disconcerting. I would be particularly irked if Caple suggested that Bridgeport was a worse neighborhood than ANYWHERE in Cleveland.

delben91
07-24-2003, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
I agree. It seems like everyone wants to bash the 'Cell because of its location. Yet, everyone who goes to the park on a regular basis talks about how the area has improved over the past decade. Funny how this always seems to slip the minds of the people rating the ballparks.

I know when I made a trip to Chicago a couple of weeks ago and saw the Cell for the first time, I was really, really impressed. I'd heard all the comments from the people here at WSI about how much the improvements made a difference.

Having seen most of the games in my life in Camden Yards, I had set the bar pretty high as far as ballpark experiences. Let me just say that the Cell really was a great place to see a game. I loved the look of it, and especially the feel of getting to see the Sox play at home.

Just the opinion of an "outsider".

B. Diddy
07-24-2003, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by delben91
Just the opinion of an "outsider".

You're not the only "outsider" to think it's a nice place. I've taken five friends (two from Iowa, one from Cleveland, one from St. Louis, and one from Waterbury) to The Cell/Comiskey over the years and they all had very positive things to say about it (ranging from "really nice" to "beautiful"). Oh, and we've gotten upper deck seats every time and three of them went before any of the rennovations. Granted, they're probably not going to make harsh, damning comments to me, but it seemed obvious that they weren't just making those comments to be polite.

Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that these people were not under the influence of "The Borg" (The Tribune Co.) back home? Sure, they can get WGN where they're from, but choose not to watch it.

Brian26
07-24-2003, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
I agree. It seems like everyone wants to bash the 'Cell because of its location. Yet, everyone who goes to the park on a regular basis talks about how the area has improved over the past decade. Funny how this always seems to slip the minds of the people rating the ballparks.

It's really very simple. People rating the ballpark who are seeing it for the very first time are probably out-of-towners who have to drive down the crappy expressway and see the crappy areas right around the park. They are probably a bit intimidated because there's nothing between downtown and The Cell that is friendly-looking or charming. It's hard, industrial, and dirty. It's not "charming" like the Wrigley's neighborhood is. Getting to Wrigley encompasses maybe a pleasant ride down LSD, through the Gold Coast, next to the Lake, and through a cute little neighborhood to the shrine. The trip to the Cell takes you down the Dan Ryan where you see projects or the remnants of the projects. People who are true Sox fans and go to the Cell consistently are familiar with the areas to the west and north of the park. People who walk over to Grandstand know about the new townhomes and gorgeous new houses going in on the side streets. It's just a matter of perception based on that introductory look at the park based on where it is compared to downtown. The neighborhood really isn't that bad at all, and it HAS improved a lot over the years. You can't expect an out-of-towner to know this.

soxnut
07-24-2003, 10:13 AM
I was wondering if anyone here has given Jim Caple any suggestions about the Cell......and if they could post a recap here. I think it would be interesting to see what you guys had to say.

And also, is the policy of not being able to access the lower deck, if you have an upper deck ticket still in place? And, how strongly do they enforce that policy? I'd hate to see the guy buy tickets for the UD and then not be able to access the the rest of the park.
What kind of rating would he give our ballpark then? Geez.... :?:

mandmandm
07-24-2003, 10:24 AM
I believe the policy is still in place and is pretty strict. There are gates at the ramp entrance to the concourse with people checking tickets. I was at a game a couple weeks ago and they were not letting a family in during the seventh inning. Tomorrow I am planning to buy an upper deck seat and get there early to sit in the bullpen bar deck. $10 but worth it. I am hoping that the lower bowl will be selling out for the rest of the season into the playoffs.

soxnut
07-24-2003, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by mandmandm
I believe the policy is still in place and is pretty strict. There are gates at the ramp entrance to the concourse with people checking tickets. I was at a game a couple weeks ago and they were not letting a family in during the seventh inning. Tomorrow I am planning to buy an upper deck seat and get there early to sit in the bullpen bar deck. $10 but worth it. I am hoping that the lower bowl will be selling out for the rest of the season into the playoffs.

Ok, thanks mandmandm. I am planning on going tomorrow and am probably just going to buy a bleacher ticket then. :smile:

alohafri
07-24-2003, 12:17 PM
I think we have the stupid scrub fans (and the other idiots who ran out onto the field) to thank for the gestapo-like security. Management blamed the incidents on people who bought UD seats but went down to the lower deck. THey seem to think that only season-ticket holders and "nice" people buy the lower deck seats.

The guys who are reviewing the park should be made aware of the rule about staying in the UD so that they don't buy UD seats, only to be unable to experience the best of Sox Park. The rule will definitely impact the rating, but then again, they need to realize the purpose behind it and how much pressure was put on Sox management to increase security at the Cell.


(Mrs. Aloha)

Eddie Gaedel
07-24-2003, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
It's really very simple. People rating the ballpark who are seeing it for the very first time are probably out-of-towners who have to drive down the crappy expressway and see the crappy areas right around the park.

You could say the same about Yankmee Stadium. I was an out of towner who took the subway there. What I saw of the surrounding area was not nice at all. From what I could tell, I wouldn't want to be in that area when there was no game, and certainly not at night. I've lived in Chicago proper for 13 years and currently live in Humbolt Park, so I think my judgments of urban areas are usually right on. I can't see espn giving Yankmee Stadium a bad mark because of it's suurounding area, so hopefully Comiskey's review won't either. Then again, nothing surprises me when it comes to espn.

MarqSox
07-24-2003, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by Eddie Gaedel
You could say the same about Yankmee Stadium. I was an out of towner who took the subway there. What I saw of the surrounding area was not nice at all. From what I could tell, I wouldn't want to be in that area when there was no game, and certainly not at night. I've lived in Chicago proper for 13 years and currently live in Humbolt Park, so I think my judgments of urban areas are usually right on. I can't see espn giving Yankmee Stadium a bad mark because of it's suurounding area, so hopefully Comiskey's review won't either. Then again, nothing surprises me when it comes to espn.

Yeah but Yankee Stadium has mystique and history. As much as I like The Cell, it has virtually no mistique.

Eddie Gaedel
07-24-2003, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
Yeah but Yankee Stadium has mystique and history. As much as I like The Cell, it has virtually no mistique.

of course. i was only commenting on the surrounding areas.

Mighty4
07-25-2003, 02:30 PM
From page 2 today (memorable all star moments)


10. Stepping onto the field. Lemme tell you something ... it doesn't get much better than walking onto a major league baseball field with 30,000-plus people in the stands. You can't even really describe the feeling. Even when you're at a generic park like US Cellular Field.



Couldn't just say something nice and stop, could they? I'm not looking forward to the ESPN page 2 "Cell" report

Max Power
08-15-2003, 01:43 PM
I was reading the review of Kaufman Stadium (got an 84, same as Wrigley) and I was puzzled by this line:

"18. Seventh-inning stretch: Who's behind this "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" thing? I mean originally. Who started this thing? Can we find this person? Can we beat on 'em with an ugly stick for a while? Can we damn them to sing-along hell? Does anybody know? Anybody?"

You didn't seem to mind it at Wrigley! Whatever.

MarqSox
08-15-2003, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by Max Power
I was reading the review of Kaufman Stadium (got an 84, same as Wrigley) and I was puzzled by this line:

"18. Seventh-inning stretch: Who's behind this "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" thing? I mean originally. Who started this thing? Can we find this person? Can we beat on 'em with an ugly stick for a while? Can we damn them to sing-along hell? Does anybody know? Anybody?"

You didn't seem to mind it at Wrigley! Whatever.

The reviews are done by 3 different guys (which, IMO, makes them even less valuable since it skews the scale). Anyway, the Kauffmann guy and the Wrigley/Cell guy aren't the same person.

maurice
08-15-2003, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Max Power
the review of Kaufman Stadium (got an 84, same as Wrigley)

Kaufman Stadium is the park most similar to the Cell (even designed by the same firm), and it got a grade 10 points higher. This is getting ridiculous.

voodoochile
08-15-2003, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by maurice
Kaufman Stadium is the park most similar to the Cell (even designed by the same firm), and it got a grade 10 points higher. This is getting ridiculous.

Black people don't live around Kaufman stadium, so it must be a nicer place...

Max Power
08-15-2003, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
The reviews are done by 3 different guys (which, IMO, makes them even less valuable since it skews the scale). Anyway, the Kauffmann guy and the Wrigley/Cell guy aren't the same person.

My mistake. I agree, that would skew the overall scale.

MarqSox
08-15-2003, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by maurice
Kaufman Stadium is the park most similar to the Cell (even designed by the same firm), and it got a grade 10 points higher. This is getting ridiculous.

What about it, Hangar? You were just there -- is Kaufman 10 points better?

maurice
08-18-2003, 12:26 PM
And now the antiquated Busch Stadium has gotten a higher rating (http://espn.go.com/page2/s/ballparks/busch.html) than the Cell.

Apparently, a hot dog that is "OK [but] not as good as Wrigley's" and absolutely no "fun stuff to do besides the game" both merit a 4-out-of-5. Offering a $6.50 luggage tag and having the 7th inning stretch sung by "four kids who sang way out of key" gets you a perfect 5.

MRKARNO
08-18-2003, 12:40 PM
It seems like reputation of the park and pressure to give it a high score is factored in to every score

Fisk72
08-18-2003, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
It seems like reputation of the park and pressure to give it a high score is factored in to every score

True for the most part. However, is Yankee Stadium then an exception?

maurice
08-18-2003, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by Fisk72
However, is Yankee Stadium then an exception?

Reputation of the neighborhood also may be an overriding factor (i.e., apparently, proximity to homes containing black people).

Where are the editors? I really wish they would have insisted that the category ratings match the comments. This could have been a useful tool for folks planning a baseball-related vacation.

For a second opinion on Busch, click here (http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/buscharticle.htm):

Bottom line - Sorry if I offend the faithful Cardinal fans, but Busch Stadium reminds me of Veterans Stadium with history and better fans. I like that they embrace their history, but this is still a cookie-cutter 1970s multi-purpose stadium. Without the history in center field this could be Veterans, Three Rivers, or Riverfront Stadium.

My thoughts exactly.