White Sox Interactive Forums
Talking Baseball

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Talking Baseball
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-26-2013, 10:15 AM
kittle42 kittle42 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lakeview
Posts: 17,813
Default Ballpark Rankings

Bet you'll never guess what No. 1 is...

Link
__________________
Ridiculousness across all sports:

(1) "You have no valid opinion because you never played the game."
(2) "Stats are irrelevant. This guy just doesn't know how to win."
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-26-2013, 10:49 AM
roylestillman's Avatar
roylestillman roylestillman is online now
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Morgan Park
Posts: 1,979
Default

Yikes. Why dump $100's of millions into Wrigley when it's already perfect?

All of this is subjective, but some of these are way off. Kauffman is nice, probably the cleanest public place I've ever been to, but #5? It's in the middle of nowhere and pretty characterless, even after renovations. I'd move Camden and Target up. Busch, Rogers and Citizens down.

As for the Cell, well I've only been to about 19 of existing parks, but I'd put it somwhere around 17 out of 30. It can't seem to shake its first impression, even with the renovations, and seems to fall behind as new ballparks open.
__________________
2014 Home Attendance Record 1-1
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-26-2013, 10:52 AM
kittle42 kittle42 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lakeview
Posts: 17,813
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by roylestillman View Post
Yikes. Why dump $100's of millions into Wrigley when it's already perfect?

All of this is subjective, but some of these are way off. Kauffman is nice, probably the cleanest public place I've ever been to, but #5? It's in the middle of nowhere and pretty characterless, even after renovations. I'd move Camden and Target up. Busch, Rogers and Citizens down.

As for the Cell, well I've only been to about 19 of existing parks, but I'd put it somwhere around 17 out of 30. It can't seem to shake its first impression, even with the renovations, and seems to fall behind as new ballparks open.
To be fair, the Cell probably deserves its rating.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-26-2013, 11:01 AM
MUsoxfan MUsoxfan is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Romeoville, IL
Posts: 9,787
Default

I was surprised the Cell is as high as it is. I thought it would have only been ahead of Oakland and Tampa

At least the guy didn't rank Fenway #1. Wrigley is world class compared to that dump
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-26-2013, 01:46 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 15,779
Default

It's a terribly subjective thing. I didn't like Wrigley Field as a kid when it was, in the strictest sense of the word, a lot newer. I liked Old Comiskey. There are A's fans who will tell you, incredibly, that the coliseum on the east side of the bay (whatever they are calling it on any given day) is a better place to watch a game than AT&T, assuming it's not a late August or September when the A's are out of the divisional race and the field is striped for football even while baseball is being played.

I like Chase, formerly BOB, better than Miller Park. I like the Cell much more than Miller Park. I think the Cell is underrated even by Sox fans. Many Sox fans underrate the Cell because it isn't the old park. National surveys underrate the Cell because it isn't Wrigley. I've met people who have never been to America that revere Wrigley.

But most ratings in the 1980s would have placed Old Comiskey lower than most ratings nowadays place the Cell. In Bob Wood's Dodger Dogs to Fenway Franks (McGraw-Hill, 1988), the author, after a 1985 tour of MLB parks, does rank Old Comiskey 10th out of 26, with an overall grade of B. But he gives the park D's in layout and upkeep and seating. He gives it a D-minus in facilities. B's in the field itself and employees. Food, the scoreboard and atmosphere got A-pluses to bring up the score. Most ratings at the time, and most now, place much greater weight on the areas where the new park on 35th Street substantially improves on the old one.

In the end, these ballpark ratings only mean anything if you agree with them.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-26-2013, 02:15 PM
Hitmen77 Hitmen77 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,124
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kittle42 View Post
To be fair, the Cell probably deserves its rating.
So many of the ballparks in MLB today are well-designed "retro" parks that I don't see any shame in being ranked #25.

The only park I'm surprised to see ranked higher than the Cell is the Rogers Centre. It was well-regarded when it opened in 1989, but I don't see how a multi-purpose stadium with artificial turf can rank above anything but Oakland and Tampa Bay at this point.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-27-2013, 12:26 AM
RadioheadRocks RadioheadRocks is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home of the Dancing Banana!!!
Posts: 5,969
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by roylestillman View Post
... As for the Cell, well I've only been to about 19 of existing parks, but I'd put it somwhere around 17 out of 30. It can't seem to shake its first impression, even with the renovations, and seems to fall behind as new ballparks open.
Somehow I think most of these folks who are voting are still basing their votes on the pre-retrofit Cell, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that most of them haven't been there since the renovations took place. I'm not saying it's top of the line, but it has greatly improved since it opened and shouldn't be ranked as low as it is.
__________________
"Ooooh... I'm SHAKING in my BRIGHT YELLOW SHIRT!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-27-2013, 09:30 AM
kittle42 kittle42 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lakeview
Posts: 17,813
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RadioheadRocks View Post
Somehow I think most of these folks who are voting are still basing their votes on the pre-retrofit Cell, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that most of them haven't been there since the renovations took place. I'm not saying it's top of the line, but it has greatly improved since it opened and shouldn't be ranked as low as it is.
I disagree. It's still crappy vs. almost every - and maybe every - still-existing park I have been to.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-27-2013, 10:56 AM
TomBradley72 TomBradley72 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Antioch, IL
Posts: 5,209
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kittle42 View Post
I disagree. It's still crappy vs. almost every - and maybe every - still-existing park I have been to.
From a ranking perspective- the Cell is in the right slot in my opinion (but the Roger Centre is ranked too high- took in a game there a few years ago- the place is a dump- and should be ranked ahead of Oakland and TB only).

Overall- there are so many great ballparks now- so the bar is alot higher than it used to be.
__________________
TomBradley72
2014 Record: 1-0
2005-2013 Record: 49-38
MLB Parks Visited: 24
MiLB Parks Visited: 11
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-27-2013, 11:42 AM
roylestillman's Avatar
roylestillman roylestillman is online now
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Morgan Park
Posts: 1,979
Default

The question since New Comiskey opened has always been this: is it the first of the new era of parks or the last of the old era. Recall that it was modeled after Kauffman Stadium, a single purpose baseball only park with the vast majority of seats located between the foul poles free of obstructions. It was updated with the addition of, in retrospect, far more skyboxes than the market would ever absorb, pushing the upper deck higher and steeper.

When it opened, even with the flaws, it very likely would have ranked in the top 10 of ballparks. The problem is that since that time 22 new parks have opened and a few of the others substantially renovated. Despite the mid-oughts renovations of The Cell, for the most part all new parks bested it in design, amenities and operations. Comparatively it sunk in the ratings. Food quality and variety, once near the top, has really stayed the same, but offerings at others parks have substantially improved. The skyboxes, which really forced the park's design, have fallen out of favor. The club level simply doesn't have enough seats (the five rows have to be the least found in all the new stadiums) to allow Levi to provide the variety of premium food offerings you'd expect in a Club level. We have endlessly talked about the antiquated scoreboards located in an aging space frame facade that makes up the outfield visual. And don't get me started on those cartilage crushing ramps that wind for blocks to get you out of the place, while newer parks returned to stairs and the wonder of the turn of the last century-the Down Escalator.

Where is this all leading? Well given Atlanta's recent announcement it won't be long before the gears begin turning on a strategy for a new park. I know, I know the lease. But dollars and cents will tell them whether to break it and make more cash elsewhere. The question will be whether that elsewhere is DuPage, Roosevelt and the River, or someplace that currently lacks a major league franchise.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-27-2013, 06:13 PM
hdog1017 hdog1017 is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 537
Default

His list has too many numbers. Just rank them first to last. No need to say, "among ballparks built in 1990, but before 1995, in an odd-numbered year, it ranks 3 of 12."
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-27-2013, 11:27 PM
soltrain21 soltrain21 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Orland Park
Posts: 14,154
Default

Among websites built since the beginning of the Internet, that one ranks super ugly.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:49 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.