ESPN's Battle of the Ballparks

Link Stats

Added By: Scott

Added on: 06/19/2012 @ 1:03:21 PM

Link View Count: 742

Baseball
All Categories >> Sports >> Baseball

Rate this Link

Yours:

Rated 0 times.

ESPN's Battle of the Ballparks

For starters, this is why I don't like national rankings of local things. Here's my first example before I was even close to reading what the content of the article contained:

Before you cast your ballot, though, consider this your voter's guide to what makes a good ballpark:

VOTER'S GUIDE

1. Location: The best ballparks not only are in the heart of a city, they feel as if they are deep in the city's soul as well, with identifiable views, distinctive features and a relationship with the surroundings.

Ok, this is a rather biased description of what makes a good ballpark. So if are fans that like a ballpark that isn't right next to a skyscraper and isn't just down the sidewalk from the mall or a bank wrong for liking their stadium? Wouldn't a better system of "ranking" a ball park take into consideration how the ballpark actually fits into the local atmosphere and culture?

I don't think that Miller Park is or should be considered baseball's best ballpark, but I will say this; had they somehow figured out how to build Miller Park somewhere downtown, they would have ruined one of the great traditions of Wisconsin baseball. The New Yorkers, Chicagoans, Dodger fans, (you name it (although tailgating isn't necessarily exlusive to Brewer fans)), might not understand or even make fun of Milwaukee fans for showing up to the park 3 hours early to have a good time with their friends before the game, but the fact is that Brewer fans DO do that. That's what baseball looks like in Wisconsin. Building a park downtown would have changed what baseball is to lots of Wisconsin fans. If that's not how other teams watch baseball, that's fine. You can take your fancy downtown stadiums with their fancy views, along with the parking garages (that can be a nightmare to exit from), limos, and VIP hangouts all within walking distance. I'll take my 60 acre concrete-paradise pre-game ritual over your "that's a pretty building I can see from my seat" anyday of the week.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see where this ends up.

*not to mention, item 1 says that the best ball parks are in the heart of the city. Item 8 says the best ballparks have excellent parking. Seems like you can't have one while also having the other.
View External Link [espn.go.com]
Back to Link List

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/19/2012 @ 01:08:22 PM
It also should be noted that Jim Caple apparently doesn't think much of Miller Park: The Big A not only has a SoCal vibe, it has SoCal weather. It shouldn't need the Rally Monkey for a win over Milwaukee's stadium, where the best asset is outside in the parking lot, where there is the best tailgating in baseball. Someone tell Jim that Miller Park is destroying Angel Stadium. I never knew Jim Caple was such a snoot. Also, really, Jim Caple? You ranked Miller Park as the 24th best ballpark in the league? For practicality purposes, a stadium in the "heart of the city" should deduct points from a stadiums rankings, not add to it. How's that for making up arbitrary criteria? Jim Caple thinks that stadiums should all fit into his criteria and what he decides is best? Well, I think they should fit into MY criteria. His criteria is garbage. The stadium should appeal to the local, not the outsider.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 2 times, last at 06/19/2012 1:19:46 pm

	Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 06/19/2012 @ 10:38:33 PM
Miller park destroyed angels stadium because brewer fans voted for their stadium, not because it actually is better. The poll is stupid because, even for people like Sarah and I who have crossed a number of stadiums off, there was one matchup where we had been to both (Fenway vs Busch) it's an apples vs apples thing. The flaw in this poll is that, especially early, it's primarily going to measure which fans most care about silly polls. I think setting up some criteria by which to try and compare is fair, and I think bonus points to parks in which you can even see the city they claim to be in is one of the better ones. If you don't think miller park should be that low, which parks should be below it? I know I'm biased, but I honestly don't think Miller Park is as nice as y'all seem to insist it is, comparatively speaking.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 06/19/2012 10:47:49 pm

	Jeremy - Super Chocolate Bear 06/19/2012 @ 10:44:48 PM
Also, for what it's worth, the 3 main parking ramps are connected to Target field, and even have their own mini gate. While I'm not going to pretend you just drive right out of them I dont think our worst time from gate to interstate is longer than the best time we've made getting ushered out of the Miller park parking sea and into the various city/side streets and back to I94		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 06/19/2012 10:45:52 pm

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 06/20/2012 @ 08:13:29 AM
City streets? Who are you following that you've ended up in the city upon exiting Miller Park? From my experience, you have to miss a turn or in need of some gas to end up somewhere other than 94 right from the parking lot. Also, the vote totals for the Miller Park/Angels Stadium matchup were virtually the same as every other matchup. I don't think there was much Chicago style ballot stuffing going on. My bet is that most people from all over went though each matchup one by one. If it was a Milwaukee fan voter bomb, I would have thought the total votes cast would have been much higher for that matchup, but they were the same as every other matchup. Here's another reason why I don't think it wasn't a Milwaukee Fan ballot stuffing: I didn't know about it until tuesday afternoon (right at the very end of voting for round 1). And I'm a guy that'll go to the mat for all things Wisconsin. If I didn't know about it, clearly it wasn't well known around the state. Regarding location, they might be the "Milwaukee" Brewers, they really do represent Wisconsin. You don't think of big city when you think of Wisconsin. You think of factories and farms and woods. Miller Park is in the perfect location to epitomize Wisconsin. Besides, they could have built Miller Park in the city to make the Jim Caples of the world happy, but whatever way outsiders want to trash Miller Park (and almost directly if not by association, those that like it), the locals are the most important, and if the locals think it's the greatest park in the world, then that's all that matters. Afterall, the majority of Wisconsinites are a prideful people. We feel blessed with what we have, and we don't need anyone telling us that our stuff's no good.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this 4 times, last at 06/20/2012 8:48:20 am

	Alex - 3619 Posts 06/20/2012 @ 12:09:03 PM
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 01:08:22 PM His criteria is garbage. And yet you ranted and linked to his article. You lose. Scott Wrote - Today @ 08:13:29 AM City streets? Who are you following that you've ended up in the city upon exiting Miller Park? From my experience, you have to miss a turn or in need of some gas to end up somewhere other than 94 right from the parking lot. It's easy enough to get on 94, but it's also easy enough to end up going east when you wanted to go west if you're not sure which lane you're supposed to be in.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 06/20/2012 @ 03:03:40 PM
also, one of his criteria is: Roofs: Bonus points for parks with roofs that retract for bad weather. Negative points for roofs that stay in place during good weather. The highest any retracable roof stadium was initially ranked was 10th.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 06/20/2012 @ 06:07:44 PM
Re City streets: We just exited as directed/forced. I didn't mean we wound up in downtown MIL, just on not highway for much longer. Re roofs: if the implications are that he is obviously ignoring his own guidelines, then I'd says. That's why they're guidelines, that one even more so. I don't think he uses the phrase "bonus points" elsewhere.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/21/2012 @ 07:56:22 AM
So I'll recognize that now the battleoftheballparks is being infiltrated by Wisconsin voters. The first two rounds I don't think were, but there is a full-fledged twitter/facebook campaign being waged by all wisconsin personnel to get out the vote, as is evident by the fact that not only is Miller Park now leading PNC park, that matchup has about 20,000 more votes than the other three matchups. Never underestimate the power of Wisconsinites waging war in a popularity contest.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Anon. Nut Can Fan - Cube Phenomenoligist 06/21/2012 @ 10:13:35 AM
From the comments it looks like a lot of the people consider being seeded at 24 as a "slap in the face", and I can obviously see that, but really, all it necessarily means is people/teams have gotten really good at building ballparks. Like I said, if #24 is just crazy too low, then name the 7 parks that are obviously worse.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/21/2012 @ 11:23:09 AM
MinuteMaid Park: there is a hill AND a flagpole that are in the field of play! Dodger stadium: never been there, but it's pretty old and apparently your safety is at risk any time you go to a game Wrigley Field: all they have is that it's an old, classic park, and from what I hear it's a nice place to watch a game at. Other than that, no one denies that the place is a dump Chase Field: When watching on TV, it looks like a completely enclosed stadium. Petco: if only because the field dimensions are so extreme that they change the game. And even the local players complain about this aspect of the field. Miller Park is slightly a hitters park, but much much closer to neutral than the extremely pitcher friendly PetCo. park factor I've been to a game at Safeco Field, and it was nice, but I didn't think it was lightyears ahead of Miller Park. Beside, it is located in such a place that there are scored of homeless people that sleep under an onramp that you have to walk past to get to the stadium. So while there might be a nice view of the city, the parking there sucked, and the scenary around stadium was like the part of town that society forgot about. Also, the concourse seemed a little cramped. Miller Park has a nice wide concourse. Nice stadium, but I'd say pretty comparable to Miller Park. In a previous article, Jim Caple said Miller Park was no better than County Stadium. I question someone's credibility with a statement like that. (although he also ran the sausage race and said it was the highlight of his professional career). (although, I should have said "I can name 23 parks that are obviously worse") I've only been to a couple of parks (safeco, the Trop, Miller Park, County Stadium, and the Metrodome), so I'm not going to say anything too much authority. I'll stop there.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 4 times, last at 06/21/2012 11:31:40 am

	Micah - 584 Posts 06/21/2012 @ 11:39:47 AM
Wrigley Field? Are you kidding? "Chase Field: When watching on TV, it looks like a completely enclosed stadium." And this is unlike Miller Park how?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 06/21/2012 @ 11:54:51 AM
Micah Wrote - Today @ 11:39:47 AM Wrigley Field? Are you kidding? "Chase Field: When watching on TV, it looks like a completely enclosed stadium." And this is unlike Miller Park how? re: wrigley, was I wrong about it being a dump? re chase field: You can see the outside from virtually any TV shot, sometimes even when the roof is closed, and especially in the outfield. Miller Park may have the feeling that you are still inside to a certain degree, but I get the feeling that Chase Field (from what I can see watching it on TV) much more so feels (and looks) like a completely indoor stadium. (again, basing this on what I see from the TV, not from actual in-person experience.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 06/21/2012 11:55:58 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/21/2012 @ 12:45:36 PM
Miller Park is in the Final 4! With all due respect, gentlemen, I believe this is going to be Wisconsin's finest hour!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 2 times, last at 06/21/2012 12:47:42 pm

	Anon. Nut Can Fan - 9543 Posts 06/21/2012 @ 02:02:23 PM
Even by WI's nothing-better-to-do usual poll response standards, this is just sad. Have you people no objectivity what-so-ever?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Anon. Nut Can Fan - 9543 Posts 06/21/2012 @ 02:12:54 PM
Also, while I suppose you could debate just how much of it should and shouldn't get a pass, Fenway, Wrigley, and, to a lesser extent, Dodger stadium, get a pass on "being dumps" because there's so much history there. Before Sarah and I went to Fenway I had a feeling that by most objective standards it would be a dump, and that the only reason people think it's anything is because it was old, and just sort of "declared" to be great. I was right...but I was wrong, because it was still pretty awesome. It might have quirks and oddities (and Red Sox fans) that would drive you crazy in any other setting, but the fact that it's 100 years old makes you kind of forget that.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Anon. Nut Can Fan messed with this at 06/21/2012 2:13:17 pm

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 06/21/2012 @ 03:07:12 PM
I don't discount the history that surrounds places like Wrigley and Fenway. I melt and generally give lots of weight to something based on the history behind it. Take Lambeau Field, for example. It's not 100 years old, but it is really old and has as much history as any venue short of the old Yankee Stadium. But despite being really old, it has been completely renovated in such a way that they have retained the classic, historical look and feel, while adding the ammenities that are required to keep up with current trends (like bathrooms). I'm sure if I went to Fenway I would have the same feelings you did about the history making up for the dumpishness. But that only goes so far. (again, i've never been to fenway or wrigley, so I can't speak first hand. What I have heard from people is very similar to what you said "it's a dump, but watching a game there is quite enjoyable"; it is possible to have it be enjoyable without it being a dump)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 06/21/2012 @ 03:24:21 PM
Also, as far as being "objective", the standard that person A uses might be different than the standard person B uses. So some people will say that the stadium should be downtown. That's fine. But I don't agree, or better put, that's not the criteria I would use. What I've grown up knowing is not a park on a city street, but a stadium you see from the highway that towers over everything around it. In that sense, it's hard to be objective about it all, because it's all about what you THINK (or what you prefer) makes up a good park. My preference is for a stadium that is outside of town. Miller Park is an imposing figure against the surrounding skyline (in that there is no surrounding skyline). It makes for an amazing backup for pictures from many different vantage points. And it serves the locals very well. Target Field on the other hand is downtown. I've never been inside of Target Field, but I've been to the gate before, and the fact that it's downtown to ME takes a way a little bit of the experience of going to the game. It's not just that you can't tailgate (because I don't tailgate every time I go to a brewer game), but I missed the heartpounding excitement of approaching a baseball stadium that I can see from a long way away and it gets bigger with every step. When I approached Target Field, I didn't realize we were anywhere near it until I saw the big brown glove which is like 50 feet from the gate. I'm not saying that Miller Park is superior to Target field, but from my subjectivity regarding what gets me excited about baseball and going to a game, this particular aspect goes to Miller Park. If what I just described about going to Miller Park doesn't apply to you, that's fine. That just means that your standards are different. I just happen to think that Miller Park is a pretty friggen sweet venue to enjoy every aspect of what I like about going to a baseball game. And when it and it's fans get slapped in the face, we'll show the world that we take a lot of pride in what we have. I'm guessing that if Miller Park had been ranked maybe 15th or so, and had Jim Caple not written about Wisconsin fans with such disdain (or at least with certain degree of "they're just a bunch of simpletons"), I don't the push would have been so dramatic.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 06/21/2012 @ 03:59:28 PM
So, basically, you have to lie to WI sports fans about how great their setup is, or feel their wrath? Doing that with Lambeau isn't enough? Again, I get that 24 sounds low...but if all these people talking about how "dissed" it was can't actually name N stadiums it's better than, then they can't really complain. Does it "feel" like Miller Park is the 6th "worst" stadium? Maybe, Maybe not, but if you actually start going through the list, which is something I'm guessing roughly .000000001% of these people have actually done, I'm not sure there are many specific complaints. If you can't actually point to a number of stadiums that is "absurd" for anyone with half a brain, let alone a guy who has probably been to all of them, to consider as "better" than Miller Park, then you can't just say "Miller Park should be higher." Frankly, looking at his seeds, I'm not sure a couple of the people below Miller Park shouldn't be offended. The Nationals and Marlins parks are fairly-to-brand new.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 06/21/2012 4:00:30 pm

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 06/21/2012 @ 05:26:12 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 03:59:28 PM So, basically, you have to lie to WI sports fans about how great their setup is, or feel their wrath? Doing that with Lambeau isn't enough? it's comments like that that get us going		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 06/21/2012 @ 06:52:49 PM
So, yes then?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 06/21/2012 @ 07:00:44 PM
Also, you still seem to be avoiding the main issue, in this lame non issue we're discussing out of sheer boredom. As the nutcan rep of all brewer fans: you're reacting all butthurt to the 24 as if Miller Park was given a D-, where it could slide independent of anything else. It's a ranking, so your up is someone else's down. If Brewer fans want to claim it as a top 10 or top 15 stadium then there actually has to be 15 to 20 worse ones. No one seems to be too particularly concerned with that fact. If Miller Park got jobbed then which specific parks is it better than, and why?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 06/21/2012 7:01:51 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/21/2012 @ 09:07:54 PM
well, I did lay out several ball parks that I think may have a chance at being overrated compared to Miller Park. I would have taken 15 or 18, but still. I'm not necessarily as upset about the rankings as I am about the less then flattering things Caple had to say about the stadium as well as the implicit and explicit comments about the attendants of said Park. But the people have spoken! Obviously, at worst, Miller Park is the 4th best stadium, and probably number 1 after tomorrow! Also, maybe they don't need to be ranked at all. Like I said, comparing stadiums from different parts of the country existing in different climates with different cultures and people with different preferences seems kind of silly. For someone to claim that Miller Park is too much this or that or some other stadium did something better even though that stadium doesn't have to worry about cold, or maybe even rain is like me telling someone in Texas that they aren't supposed to like wearing cowboy boots because they so impractical. So in light of that, we as a people are telling the rest of the world that the most important part of any stadium is the fans that take up the seats each game. Do you really want to get into where Lambeau Field ranks among venues in all of sports, let alone just football?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 06/21/2012 9:16:23 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 06/21/2012 @ 09:21:46 PM
Lambeau gets a big bump for the same reason Wrigley does. I'm not sure what Brewer fans are "telling the world" other than we have no shame, or anything better to do.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Super Chocolate Bear 06/21/2012 @ 09:29:44 PM
Also, you named 6, so assuming your past statements about the trop are on the record, means you have Miller Park at 23, and some of those were flimsy reasons, to say the least. I really didn't necessarily mean you, personally, just that none of you Brewer fans seem to be actually "running the numbers" and are instead just freaking out over what is largely just the fact that a ton of stadiums have been built since Miller Park		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Pie Racist 06/21/2012 @ 09:39:47 PM
Also, as far as I can tell, the big "insult", besides the ranking, was him saying that the best part of Miller Park is the parking lot, adding that it's the "best tailgating in baseball". Which sounds much like what you Brewer fans have been trying to argue forever.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 06/21/2012 9:40:08 pm

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 06/21/2012 @ 10:08:28 PM
Also, for what it's worth, but mostly because I'm sitting in the dark watching basketball, tailgating doesn't have to stop just because the Park is downtown. You can tailgate at some lots near Target Field (most of us just don't care to.) We walked past lots of tailgating near PNC tonight. Dodger Stadium isn't really downtown, but it overlooks the city, though the outfield doesn't face it. It's surrounded by massive parking lots, so if they don't/can't tailgate it's because they opt not to, or there's a rule/ordinance against it. (A cursory google search seems to point to the latter.) I didn't see any at Safeco or Fenway, but I think all the parking is past the lightrail station, or hobo junction, one would take to not drive to Safeco from downtown. Fenway has coopted a street as part of the park where the "pre game" party happens. Angels Stadium has massive lots, but doesn't allow grills or alcohol, though they evidently won't tackle you for eating a sandwich near your car. I'll let you know about Cincinnati tomorrow.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 06/21/2012 @ 10:08:53 PM
Well, it's the way he said it. The tailgating is awesome. But he makes it sound like going to game is torture. I named 6 that were ahead of Miller Park. I ignored the ones that were behind miller park because I figured they were obvious. So at first glance, I found 6 stadiums to jump over putting Miller Park at about 17 or 18. Also, it does seem weird that it's been over 10 years now since Miller Park opened up. I went to the 2nd game ever! And it still almost feels brand new. Twitter blew up like no other for this too. Not even for all-star votes or Donald Driver's DWTS campaign have I seen the Brewer personnel going to such links to promote a vote. And the crazy thing about the three competitions here is that the Stadium vote only allows one vote per person (or at least per computer). It seems all that more impressive that THAT many people were "mobilized" to let the voice of pride be heard. Wrigley isn't even in the ballpark (pardon the pun) as Lambeau. Lambeau has all the history that Wrigley or Fenway or Yankee Stadium have, but is also has all the state of the art amenities as all the new stadiums being built currently. So while there might be a somewhat Wrigley-esq like bump because of the history, an outsider from China who doesn't know anything about NFL football would walk into lambeau field and think it's a brand new stadium and not a falling apart relic.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 06/21/2012 @ 10:09:02 PM
It's not a "we have no shame" thing. I'd say it's a "we really love our stuff!" I mean it isn't just Miller Park. My feeling is that Wisconsin fans tend to take pride in even the smallest things. We talk about the sausage race as if it's very existence could solve world hunger! We see a ranking that says that Wisconsin fans have the best tailgating and we jump up and down and embrace it like we just won the Super Bowl. We have a football player from our team on some stupid dancing show and we go crazy like the British just surrendered and we now have attained independence when he wins a matchup between him and a British opera singer. A madison couple wins the amazing race and it suddenly becomes the most amazing race that ever existed! I think it's more positive than having no shame. It's having a love of what we can relate to and wanting to be recognized. Because unlike a Kardashian or Hilton, or an athlete that goes on a 3 hour special to announce how many championships he's gonna win with a new team, we feel like we have to earn any recognition we are going to get. And if we have to pump up the volume on a poll tournament that no one really cares about until Wisconsin fans get their hands on it, then we'll take that the bank, take a picture of it, and share the story with our kids about the time when for one moment Miller Park was the greatest stadium in all of baseball! Hate on it all you want, that's who we are.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 2 times, last at 06/21/2012 10:12:47 pm

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 06/21/2012 @ 10:17:09 PM
Also, tailgating isn't as fun if you're the only one doing it. What makes it special is that there are 30,000 others joining you.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 06/21/2012 @ 10:17:25 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:08:53 PM . Lambeau has all the history that Wrigley or Fenway or Yankee Stadium have... Child, please. (Assuming Yankee Stadium gets to "count" the other stadiums of the same name, which I don't think it gets to, in which case it has about all the history that Marlins Park has.) Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:08:53 PM ... but is also has all the state of the art amenities as all the new stadiums being built currently. Except for the small portion of it where the you actually watch the game, where you get about 4 square inches of backless metal bench per ticket that the fat ass next to you is taking up. Not to mention that, the whole point of the Wrigley/Fenway "mystique", for whatever it's worth, is that they, kind of, haven't kept up. If all Lambeau is at this point is a "state of the art" stadium of the same name, that sits on the same coodinates, but only shares 5 iron beams, and the high school style seating, with the "original" then you can't really play both sides of that coin. Fenway and Wrigley are, for better or worse, largely the same stadiums that were built 100 years ago.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 5 times, last at 06/21/2012 10:29:10 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/21/2012 @ 10:34:22 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:17:25 PM Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:08:53 PM . Lambeau has all the history that Wrigley or Fenway or Yankee Stadium have... Child, please. (Assuming Yankee Stadium gets to "count" the other stadiums of the same name, which I don't think it gets to, in which case it has about all the history that Marlins Park has.) 13 World Championship Teams? Wrigley has like 1. From a championships standpoint, the Packers are the Yankees of the NFL. (I was referring to the old Yankee stadium). Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:17:25 PM Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:08:53 PM ... but is also has all the state of the art amenities as all the new stadiums being built currently. Except for the small portion of it where the you actually watch the game, where you get about 4 square inches of backless metal bench per ticket that the fat ass next to you is taking up. . That helps you stay warm in December. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:17:25 PM Not to mention that, the whole point of the Wrigley/Fenway "mystique", for whatever it's worth, is that they, kind of, haven't kept up. If all Lambeau is at this point is a "state of the art" stadium of the same name, that sits on the same coodinates, but only shares 5 iron beams with the "original" then you can't really play both sides of that coin. Fenway and Wrigley are, for better or worse, largely the same stadiums that were built 100 years ago. Ok, so we've come to this. I do think Lambeau can have it both ways. They renovated the stadium several times to bring up to date from both a structural, revenue generating, and an aesthetics standpoint. They did so because they needed to in order to save the franchise. But in doing so, they kept all the signature things that made Lambeau what it was. I don't think having a dump of a stadium for the sake of being able to brag that your stadium is the most classic stadium there is is really something to hang a hat on. Lambeau has gone to great lengths to capture the best of both worlds. They retained all the history while making it possible to help sustain the team in the smallest market in sports.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 2 times, last at 06/21/2012 10:35:44 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 06/21/2012 @ 10:38:41 PM
Also, and I don't want to do a 19 post back and forth on my Lambeau trolling, given that my point was that people, and the media, set aside foibles and shortcomings "because it's Lambeau" just like Wrigley/Fenway, where if a new stadium were build without actual seats outside of the suites, people would wonder what they hell they were thinking, and hold it against it. I don't need to "get into where it ranks" because I know where it "ranks". Given that I'm talking about the fact that the "rankings" are skewed and flawed, and that any member of the media anywhere who even thought about arguing that Lambeau isn't the best place to watch a football game would have their head called for, I don't need to actually see the rankings I'm talking about. I know it's the "best", of course, I also "know" Miller Park is in the top 2 baseball stadiums according to a similar highly scientific ranking system.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 06/21/2012 10:41:01 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 06/21/2012 @ 10:45:12 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:08:53 PM Well, it's the way he said it. The tailgating is awesome. But he makes it sound like going to game is torture. I named 6 that were ahead of Miller Park. I ignored the ones that were behind miller park because I figured they were obvious. So at first glance, I found 6 stadiums to jump over putting Miller Park at about 17 or 18. I think you read too far into that. Also, I guess I didn't assume that anything Caple happened to seed lower already was gospel. I have it on good autority he has no idea how to do a ranking.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 06/21/2012 @ 10:46:28 PM
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-top-100-venues-in-sports Well, I already found this link before I read your last post, so too bad. But, Lambeau rated number 1 in all of sports. I just don't think Lambeau is in the same "the only reason it's great is because it's old" category as Wrigley or Fenway. There's something to being old and having history, but Lambeau has proven that you can have history with a modernized stadium. I know you don't want to do a 19 post back and forth about Lambeau, but I also know you can't resist.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 06/21/2012 10:50:13 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/21/2012 @ 10:47:25 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:45:12 PM Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:08:53 PM Well, it's the way he said it. The tailgating is awesome. But he makes it sound like going to game is torture. I named 6 that were ahead of Miller Park. I ignored the ones that were behind miller park because I figured they were obvious. So at first glance, I found 6 stadiums to jump over putting Miller Park at about 17 or 18. I think you read too far into that. Also, I guess I didn't assume that anything Caple happened to seed lower already was gospel. I have it on good autority he has no idea how to do a ranking. Well, he got all the ones behind Miller Park correct. And is the "good authority" you're referring to me?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 06/21/2012 10:47:58 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 06/21/2012 @ 10:51:06 PM
It's not the "only" reason, but it gets a pass on some things that others wouldn't, and a bump. Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:47:25 PM Well, he got all the ones behind Miller Park correct. And is the "good authority" you're referring to me? Care to explain why they're correct? I mean, obviously they could be, but it's interesting at least that he "nailed" the part where he "agreed" with you. You and 32432098 commeters/voters on espn		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 06/21/2012 10:54:41 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/21/2012 @ 10:58:21 PM
I'd say Lambeau gets a pass on the seats that are just benches. Other than that, I'd have to really think about what was different about it and, say, Raymond James Stadium. Because in reality, history of the specificness of the field itself aside, it is really a nice stadium with a lot to offer. re: explain: the trop sucks, Rogers center astro turf, Oakland coliseum (don't know much about it, but nobody ever says anything good about it), Marlins park: was Green Screen the only paint color left at Lowes? Great American Ball Park (don't know anything about this park, but obviously it sucks), Nationals Park (I know nothing about it)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 06/21/2012 11:00:01 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/22/2012 @ 08:05:38 AM
Also, Miller Park was ranked 5th by ESPN just one year ago. I haven't been to Miller Park yet this year, but maybe a roof panel blew off that made Jim Caple drop it 19 spots in just over a year.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 06/22/2012 8:06:09 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/22/2012 @ 08:57:09 AM
According to this, Caple lists the Stadiums with the worst beer as Wrigley, Busch, and Miller Park. I can't blame him because Budweiser and Bud light are terrible, and I'm no fan of Miller Lite either. I wonder if he judged it based soley on that, because Miller Park does have some pretty good beer (Leinies, Lakefront Brewery, Sprechers). The interesting thing about Wrigley is that my strong educated guess is that they too serve a large share of Miller Lite, since Chicago makes up about 60% of Miller's overall market share. Also, note what I wrote in the comment about Beer in Sarah's ballpark article, and you may find it interesting that the stadiums he listed with the best beer are all west of the continental divide.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3941 Posts 06/22/2012 @ 09:37:26 AM
Old Style is the beer of choice at Wrigley Field. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/08/wrigley-field-old-style-beer_n_953579.html		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/22/2012 @ 09:58:21 AM
Well there you go. Either way, when you compare the traditional American pilsner which is light in color and light on taste to small craft breweries where the options a lot wider and generally better, it's no surprise that ballparks that likely offer more of the latter would win out. It also depends on your preference. I personally prefer small craft beers over most miller products and that style of Beer.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 06/22/2012 9:58:47 am

	Sarah - So's your face 06/22/2012 @ 10:38:25 AM
This whole thing has upset me greatly. You shouldn't be able to vote if you haven't been to at least a few ballparks. I wouldn't pick target field as the best ballpark, but I would say miller park ranks either last or second to last in ones I've been to. That's not necessarily saying it's a bad ballpark, but that there are so many more wonderful parks that beat Miller park without even blinking an eye.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/22/2012 @ 10:41:14 AM
Well, you're obviously wrong. Brewer fans apparently love their stadium more than other fans love theirs! In a related note, I don't know how you can deny who the best fans are after something like this.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Scott edited this 2 times, last at 06/22/2012 10:45:51 am

	Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 06/22/2012 @ 10:45:58 AM
In that article miller gets a big bump from promotions, the actual stadium part is much lower. It's also another fan vote anyway.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 06/22/2012 @ 10:48:05 AM
Only if you define “best“ as borderline sad and irrational. Reacting to every perceived slight like a scorned 15 year old girl would to her ex isn't exactly something to be proud of.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 06/22/2012 10:50:50 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/22/2012 @ 10:49:24 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:48:05 AM Only if you define “best“ as borderline sad and irrational. again, Wisconsin sports fans are often viewed as if their interests are of a substandard level to those that differ, and are often portrayed in a rather negative light. I would take offense to statements like this, but that they come from everyone and everywhere outside of the club. I'm as excitable and joyful of a person as you'll meet. Nothing sad over on this end.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 5 times, last at 06/22/2012 10:55:40 am

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 06/22/2012 @ 10:50:17 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:45:58 AM In that article miller gets a big bump from promotions, the actual stadium part is much lower. It's also another fan vote anyway. It's 14th, but if food is a criteria for a good stadium", shouldn't promotions be part of it too?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Pie Racist 06/22/2012 @ 10:58:53 AM
How is that value judgement different than you declaring those positions to be the best?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/22/2012 @ 11:03:13 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/sportsnation/story?id=6664816 Actually, that article was much more scientific. It is, however, a measure of how much each teams fans like the team/facility/etc, but i might then say that Milwaukee fans seem to like their stadium more than other teams' fans. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:58:53 AM How is that value judgement different than you declaring those positions to be the best? This should be obvious, but I'll say it anyway. Wisconsin fans say loudly "we have the best stadium", or whatever. Those that disagree or respond to the Wisconsin fans' enthusiam are saying "Wisconsin sports fans are sad/irrational/drunkards/stupid/obsessive/naive/simpletons/etc." Those responding to the Wisconsin sports fan are more responding to the character of the fan, and doing so rather negatively. The Wisconsin Sports fan isn't denigrating anything. Their haters are. (yes, I know in the comments there might be a good bit of back and forth, but the overall picture is of fans being excited about something and outsiders mocking them for their excitement). Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:48:05 AM Reacting to every perceived slight like a scorned 15 year old girl would to her ex isn't exactly something to be proud of. thanks for illustrating my point to a T.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 5 times, last at 06/22/2012 11:09:21 am

	Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 06/22/2012 @ 11:09:23 AM
Maybe that's because you routinely set your credibility on fire and then dance around it in celebration and point to that at itself as if it's some kind or virtue. All fans are irrational to one extent or another, some groups more than others, but it's not something to be proud of. It's a bug, not a feature.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 06/22/2012 @ 11:15:48 AM
I disagree. We're loyal to a fault. And that's not a bad thing. If it's genuine, then it's a virtue. The more we're mocked, the more we're proud of what we've got. It's also not just sports. You wouldn't believe the attitudes people have of Wisconsin (generally it's positive, but even so it's often in an "oh, you poor thing having had to grow up there" kind of positive). Like when I moved to florida, the people down their who from there acted like moving to Florida was the ultimate goal for everyone. When we decided to move back, people were genuinely in disbelief that anyone would choose to move back to Wisconsin. To me it's the same thing. I think Wisconsin is the best state there is!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 06/22/2012 11:16:37 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/22/2012 @ 11:27:33 AM
It's pretty obvious who Caple is pulling for in this fight. He's practically begging people to vote for AT&T Park. But I say screw all y'all! This is the most exciting thing so far this summer! I can hear Al Michaels' question now!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 06/22/2012 11:30:40 am

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 06/22/2012 @ 11:29:00 AM
I'm not sure you get what the “to a fault“ portion of that saying means. I mean, if, for example, a writer said that the mascot race at Target field felt forced and stupid, not only would I not take it as a personal insult, but I wouldn't defend it just because it's "ours“. It is stupid. It's painful. Personally, I don't see that as disloyalty, just honesty.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 06/22/2012 @ 11:32:27 AM
Right, but if you actually thought the target field race was cool, there would be nothing wrong about thinking that either.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 06/22/2012 @ 11:34:51 AM
Here's a comment from the final round that I thought expressed what I'm trying get across: Caple and everyone else badmouthing Miller Park are missing the point. This is about how fans PERCEIVE their own individual game experience. Brewers' fans LOVE going to Miller Park. They have a ton of fun, thus leading to the strong perception that their park is the best in the nation. There's no objective formula for figuring out which park is the "best," no matter how hard Caple tries. It comes down to individual feelings, and obviously Brewers' fans feel VERY strongly about Miller Park.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 06/22/2012 11:35:25 am

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 06/22/2012 @ 11:38:14 AM
to further that comment. Say you gave a kid a toy truck. He loved that truck more than anything and played with it always. Then a little while later some other kid had a newer, shinier truck that a few online reviews said was better in a few categories, and that kid starts telling the first kid that his truck is so much better. But the kid with the new truck doesn't play with it as much as the first kid and the first kid goes around telling everyone how much he loves his truck and wants to share his truck with everyone around him, even if sometimes he just digs in the dirt with the truck in view. You tell me, whose truck is the better truck.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 4 times, last at 06/22/2012 11:41:01 am

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 06/22/2012 @ 11:50:40 AM
I think that whole argument is beside the point when attempting to objectively rank the trucks. Ideally fans shouldn't even be able to vote for their own place. However, you don't think other fans enjoy their parks? Talk about condescending.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/22/2012 @ 12:22:34 PM
But you're assuming the premise has to be objective. We're being no more/less subjective than Jim Caple. Objective and subjective aren't good/bad points of view. The whole concept this particular battle of the ballparks is almost exclusively subjective. It's based on the rankings of one guy who judged the ballparks based on his own preferences. Objectivity isn't king here. In fact even HE isn't being all objective. The article that ranked Miller park number 5 or whatever is much more objective because they polled fans scientifically. It's not that we or I think that others don't enjoy their own ball parks. It's the resentment that other fans feel when Wisconsin fans talk about how much they like their ball park.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 06/22/2012 1:59:01 pm

	Micah - 584 Posts 06/22/2012 @ 01:56:39 PM
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 11:38:25 AM I wouldn't pick target field as the best ballpark, but I would say miller park ranks either last or second to last in ones I've been to. That's not necessarily saying it's a bad ballpark, but that there are so many more wonderful parks that beat Miller park without even blinking an eye. +1....I have been to Miller, Target, Metrodome, Both Yankee Stadiums, Citi Field, Shea Stadium, Wrigley, Camden Yards, Nationals Park, and Busch. I would say Miller is ahead of only the Dome and is close to both Met's stadiums. And I really like tailgating, too, but Miller is pretty much last in everything that is actually related to the physical watching of baseball.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 06/22/2012 @ 02:16:57 PM
You're confusing objective as in "unquestionable fact" and objective as in the process of trying to be aware of and account for your own biases, emotions, and feelings. If you don't do that you wind up with a fairly worthless internet poll, even by worthless poll standards. For example, I actually liked the Trop better than Miller Park. However if I step back and think about factors such as The Trop is so hated that my expectations were so low that if the building didn't fall on top of me then it had no where to go but up, the fact that I heard for so long that Miller Park was the baseball god's gift to the planet, and then was extremely underwhelmed bythe mostly indoor airport hanger overlooking some dirt farm, the fact that on some level I probably don't want to like Miller Park, the fact that Sarah and I only sat in fairly choice seats at the Trop, and one of the 2 games I've taken in at Miller Park involved a sherpa and oxygen, then it probably isn't an apples to apples comparison.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 3 times, last at 06/22/2012 2:45:07 pm

	Jeremy - Pie Racist 06/22/2012 @ 02:55:34 PM
Along those lines, I really have no idea how anyone thought the Trop was worse than the Dome. Unless you really penalize the Catwalk I'm not sure what case you had. As an out of towner who had no idea where anything is and just turns when the phone says so, maybe it's really crappy to get to? Otherwise, the concourses are wider, and doubled in some areas, there's the Ray tank feature in center, there was an assortment of food (though the dome is getting better at variety). I don't get it. I have so many good memories at the dome that the news the Vikings got a new stadium was bitter sweet, because now it has to come down, but, unless I missed something, I'm not sure now the Trop was ever at #30.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/27/2012 @ 10:51:40 AM
The trop is dark, and the field is a funky color. The seats seemed smaller, and all in all it seemed more cramped. I don't know if the roof is lower than the Dome, but I personally liked the Dome better than the Trop. While the Dome had it's shortcomings, it still felt and looked like baseball should when compared to the Trop. At least for the actual act of watching the game. to me, the Trop had the feeling of walking into somebody's basement and watching a baseball game. I know that the metrodome could get loud, but I don't remember thinking "man, this place is ear piercing even with only 12000 fans at the game" like I did at the Trop, which is an insanely loud building. It was nicknamed the "Thunderdome" at one time because of how loud it would get. They even had concerts on the field after the game and it was impossible to make out what people were actually singing because of how bad the ekho was. Parking was also a little weird, and in a sort of rough part of town. But it's now been almost 3 years since I've been to the Trop, so I don't remember too many specifics anymore. I can't exactly put my finger on it, but the Rays were a team that I actually wanted to get into (and they were good when I lived down there), but going to a game, while fun because it I was at a baseball game, always seemed a little disappointing to me (also because I might be judging every park I go to from now on against Miller Park, which inspite of everything is still a very nice ballpark by lots of objective and subjective measures)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/27/2012 @ 10:56:00 AM
Jeremy Wrote - 06/22/2012 @ 02:16:57 PM and one of the 2 games I've taken in at Miller Park involved a sherpa and oxygen I looked, but I couldn't find deck heights for either Miller Park or Target Field. The only thing I found was that the roof at Miller Park starts 200 feet from the playing field and the overhang at Target Field starts at 200 feet as well. Is there any imperical evidence that the seats in the top deck in Miller Park are significantly higher than the seats in the top deck of Target Field? I'm fairly certain that the decks at Miller Park are probably closer horizontally to the field than other stadiums because of the fact that the built it "straight up" I'm not challenging anything, I'm actually just curious.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 06/27/2012 @ 04:10:32 PM
Well, for starters I didn't necessarily mean it as a comment on how Miller Park is "higher" than anything, just that we had pretty much the most way up there seats possible. They do seem to be pretty high/far though. I couldn't find any data either, but this guy (I assume) did mention it in his review: http://www.ballparkreviews.com/milw/miller.htm Though he did mention the same thing about Target Field: http://www.ballparkreviews.com/template2.php?in_name=Target%20Field&in_city=Minneapolis&in_state=Minnesota I suppose even if we had close to equal data it might come down to what "feels" better. Higher vertically and closer horizontally, or vise versa.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 06/27/2012 @ 04:44:06 PM
http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/Stadiums_superimposed.html I found this, but it doesn't line up the part we care about, and doesn't necessarily imply scale anyway.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 06/27/2012 @ 09:56:02 PM
I have noticed that if you are sitting in the 4th deck, being inside first and 3rd base is still a pretty nice view. However, if you are in the outfield in the 4th deck it is a long long way away, or at least it feels like it. It is a really neat vantage point, though.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 06/27/2012 9:57:14 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/27/2012 @ 10:30:25 PM
upon reading the review from www.ballparkreviews.com, I question the credibility of the writer for the following reason: I guess we can thank Bud Selig for something else - first the wild card, then interleague play, and now Miller Park. Among the three, Miller Park is probably the best innovation, but that is not meant as any sort of complement. The guy not only has ill-feelings towards Miller Park (which I suppose is fine), but for how bad he thinks it is, he thinks the Wild Card and interleague play are even worse. Yeah, innovations that have increased attendance and revenue league wide have really set the sport back a generation.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 06/27/2012 @ 11:45:45 PM
A lot of people don't like those. The Twins announcers voice their displeasure over inter-league play almost every year. (They don't like that the Twins only play some AL teams 5-6 times in early April/May, and then never see them again, because we play the Brewers 6 times a year, plus some others. ) Others don't like the Wild Card, and now the expanded Wild Card, because, among other reasons, (including the fact that it was spawned by an unbalanced realignment) it's a thinly veiled way to ensure, as much as possible, that the Yankees and Red Sox are involved with every playoffs. Also because for every big exiting race it created, it killed a more important one by making the 'Who finishes first or second' race fairly meaningless. You were MUCH better off saving your Aces for the ALDS, even if that meant losing the division, because all that meant was a 1 game not-at-home disadvantage, IF it went all the way. Though, from what I can gather, expanding the Wild Card would actually placate a lot of the haters, because in a weird way expanding it actually lessens its impact.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 06/27/2012 11:52:49 pm

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 06/28/2012 @ 07:45:07 AM
I'm sure a lot of people dislike things that make things better. Attendance is up on average in the interleague play era, as well as during the Wild Card era. It's hard to argue that these two innovations have been bad for the sport. The finish of the 2011 regular season does not exist without the Wild Card, and that has been dubbed the best night of baseball ever. Also, I think it's probably fairly rare that your "throw the division if you need to save your aces" scenario actually plays out, for a couple reasons: 1) there is probably only one and at most 2 teams (al and NL) that might even be able to rely on the wild card should the division lead slip away, and 2) even if that is the case, that means there are 4 other division races that ARE exciting and don't have that possibility. I'll exchange a maximum of 2 exciting races prior to the Wild Card for a minimum of 4 exciting races and possibly more in the current era. Re interleague play and seeing teams in your own league only a few times: So? Who cares if the Brewers play the Dodgers the same amount of times as the Twins. Part of that is attributed to the unbalanced divisional schedule, so you can only play teams outside of your division a handful of times anyway. The Brewers draw much bigger crowds for the Twins series than they do for the Rockies. Re thinly veiled...: that makes it sounds like it was a secret agreement between red sox and yankees management and MLB. For what it's worth, the Red Sox were not perenial contenders prior to the Wild Card. In the 10 years prior to the Wild Card, the Red Sox finished 5, 7, 2, 1, 3, 1, 5, 1, 5, 4. They had 3 losing seasons in that span and one .500 season. They won their division 3 times, but had gone 10 years between division titles prior to their win in 1986, finishing 4th or worse in their division 5 straight times prior to 1986, and 10 times between 1980 and 1993, when the Wild Card was instituted. In other words, to claim that somehow baseball was trying to figure out a way to make sure the Red Sox were part of the playoffs by making room for the best non division winner is absurd, because in the prior 13 years, the plan they went with would have worked a grand total of 1 time. It just so happens that they have gotten a lot better in the past 15 years. And furthermore, the Yankees weren't much better prior to the Wild Card. From 1980-1993, the Yankees finished 2nd or better 4 times, and only once between 1987 and 1993. I think there are a lot of factors for why the Yankees and Red Sox are seemingly always in the playoffs (although that's not true about the Red Sox, but they certainly have a plurality of playoff appearances in the wild card era). But I don't think that there is evidence that the Wild card was a "thinly veiled way to ensure, as much as possible, that the Yankees and Red Sox are involved with every playoffs", particularly when analyzing the decade+ propr to the Wild Card era. We rate this statement FALSE.* unless the conversation went something like "oh, so second place gets in now? Oh, well then now we'll actually start trying. We used to just give up in July." *sorry, I got to my conclusion and it sounded a lot like a politifact article, so I included this last line.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 8 times, last at 06/28/2012 8:03:49 am

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 06/28/2012 @ 10:22:40 AM
A few things: 1) I was talking about the wild card, and the expansion of it. 2) I said "involved with" the playoffs. You don't have to actually make them to be relevant to them for longer. 3) I was talking about how a number of people don't like it, so the one reason I happened to mention doesn't actually have to be true. People "feel" inaccurate things all the time. 4) It didn't have to be conceived for that reason for MLB to ignore that problem with it. People had been clamoring for MLB to fix the Wild Card in some form pretty much since its inception, and it didn't go unnoticed that it finally got changed a few years into the Rays mucking up how long the Yankees and Red Sox were relevant for. I don't know if I really feel that was why, but I hardly think it would need to be some backroom shadow discussion to be true. If "what's good for baseball's popularity" is your main criteria for "what's a good move by Selig and Co" then that qualifies.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 06/28/2012 @ 11:01:35 AM
The Rays won the division twice during their stretch of goodness. What does that have to do with the Wild Card mucking up the yankees and red sox?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3941 Posts 06/28/2012 @ 11:04:21 AM
You might not have had the excitement of last year's final day without the wild card, but you also wouldn't have had Bobby Thomson's "shot heard round the world" if there was a wild card in 1951.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt messed with this at 06/28/2012 11:06:38 am

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 06/28/2012 @ 11:32:27 AM
That's true, but you also wouldn't have had the shot heard round the world if there was a National League Championship Series either. Back then, the teams with the best records in each league went straight to the World Series.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Pie Racist 06/28/2012 @ 11:33:27 AM
I never said the Wild Card mucked up the Yankees/Sox, I said the Rays being good did. Detractors have been trying to get the wild card changed, or removed, for years. The change is probably for the better, since if nothing else it makes the Wild Card an actual disadvantage, but it didn't go unnoticed that the MLB finally listened to those people and made a change that would make it possible for 3 teams from one Division to make just a few years into a 3rd team* challenging in the AL East. *A team pretty much on the opposite end of the "how many people give a shit scale" from the Yankees/Red Sox, for that matter. Also, I forgot to mention it before, but I never said anyone ever "threw the division to get the Wildcard" but if you're in the playoffs no matter what, but if a win or opponent loss will get you the division, you're not going to send your ace out for game 162 to be 10% more sure. (Or at the very least, you can make a compelling case you shouldn't.) Saving your ace for game one of the alds/nlds isn't the same thing as drawing ticket numbers and having the winner pitch that day. So, again, for every race it created for 4th place, it made a race for 1st lame. Not to mention the more exclusive something is the bigger those battles are, when they happen.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 06/28/2012 11:36:49 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/28/2012 @ 11:36:54 AM
I'm still not sure why the Rays getting good prompted people to want to "fix" the Wild Card, since the Rays only have taken advantage of the Wild Card once out of their 3 post season appearances. The Rays and the Wild Card seem quite unrelated. Is the "fix" so that when the Rays win the division that the Yankees and Red Sox can both be wild cards? Also, the division/home field is still important. The Brewers had the division wrapped up last year but going into the final game still needed to win to be the higher seed for the first round playoff series. They threw their best pitcher out on the last day of the year to ensure that they had the best case scenario going into the playoffs. I'd be curious to see examples of your scenario. I'm not saying that there aren't any, but is it just a "this could happen" or is it "it happens every year"?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 06/28/2012 11:40:27 am

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 06/28/2012 @ 11:39:22 AM
There were 2 spots, and 3 teams to fill them (in any order). Now there are 3 spots.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 06/28/2012 @ 11:42:22 AM
that doesnt' make sense. 2 spots within the AL East? and 3 teams (rays, yankees, red sox)? and now there are 3 spots for those 3 teams?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 06/28/2012 @ 11:45:44 AM
Although, it works fine in the NL. There is no "AL East" in the national league. So I'm fine with the whole thing. Get your act together over there		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - No one's gay for Moleman 06/28/2012 @ 11:45:56 AM
I really don't get what the hang up is. The Rays winning the division, or the wild card, meant that one of either the Yankees or Red Sox had to sit out. Now, that's not a problem. (Though I don't think anyone says that that is "the reason", just that it didn't go unnoticed.)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 06/28/2012 11:46:36 am

	Matt - 3941 Posts 06/28/2012 @ 11:46:21 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 11:32:27 AM That's true, but you also wouldn't have had the shot heard round the world if there was a National League Championship Series either. Back then, the teams with the best records in each league went straight to the World Series. I am aware of that. My point, however, remains the same. Whatever system you use will create "excitement" in certain instances, while preventing instances that would have occurred in other systems.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 06/28/2012 @ 11:48:09 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:45:56 AM I really don't get what the hang up is. The Rays winning the division, or the wild card, meant that one of either the Yankees or Red Sox had to sit out. Now, that's not a problem. (Though I don't think anyone says that that is "the reason", just that it didn't go unnoticed.) I get it now, your cryptic "there were 2 for 3, now there's 3" message was lost on this reader. Then I figured out your code.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 06/28/2012 @ 11:52:11 AM
Matt Wrote - Today @ 11:46:21 AM Scott Wrote - Today @ 11:32:27 AM That's true, but you also wouldn't have had the shot heard round the world if there was a National League Championship Series either. Back then, the teams with the best records in each league went straight to the World Series. I am aware of that. My point, however, remains the same. Whatever system you use will create "excitement" in certain instances, while preventing instances that would have occurred in other systems. That's true, I supposed. Although you could have 8 "shots heard round the world" in the current format. I mean, who wouldn't get excited about "the Rays win the Wild Card! The Rays win the Wild Card!" after seeing Longoria's walk off shot last year.* All kidding aside though, I think it's hard to deny that wholistically the Wild Card and interleague play have benefitted the game. There might be some points where you could argue that it has taken away from the game. But, in my opinion, the additions that have resulted in these two aspects outway the subtractions. *actually, I want to live that night over again, so I would say that it does get me excited thinking about it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 06/28/2012 11:58:11 am

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 06/28/2012 @ 11:52:25 AM
I think we could debate how "cryptic" that was, but maybe another day. Also world famous face model/offensive lineman Chad Clifton held on every play.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/28/2012 @ 11:55:27 AM
I just couldn't figure out exactly which "point" that message was relating to, since I had made a second point in my response. And by "cryptic", it was more a dig on myself, since I figured it out the moment I typed out my explanation of it, which I could have done by just thinking it, but my hands typed what I was thinking and I clicked "save comment" anyway.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - No one's gay for Moleman 06/28/2012 @ 11:58:57 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 11:52:11 AM Matt Wrote - Today @ 11:46:21 AM Scott Wrote - Today @ 11:32:27 AM That's true, but you also wouldn't have had the shot heard round the world if there was a National League Championship Series either. Back then, the teams with the best records in each league went straight to the World Series. I am aware of that. My point, however, remains the same. Whatever system you use will create "excitement" in certain instances, while preventing instances that would have occurred in other systems. That's true, I supposed. Although you could have 8 "shots heard round the world" in the current format. I mean, who wouldn't get excited about "the Rays win the Wild Card! The Rays win the Wild Card!" after seeing Longoria's walk off shot last year. All kidding aside though, I think it's hard to deny that wholistically the Wild Card and interleague play have benefitted the game. There might be some points where you could argue that it has taken away from the game. But, in my opinion, the additions that have resulted in these two aspects outway the subtractions. But that's just it. What's exciting about "8 shots heard round the world"? "The world" would eventually say "BFD". It's exclusivity that breeds TRUE legendary moments. Fewer irrelevant games doesn't necessarily mean "more excitement", and to the extent it does, that doesn't mean it's "better" excitement. At best it's diluted. It's like the XFL et al vs the NFL. There are a bunch of leagues that seem to think "People love when their team scores, so lets have more scoring." However, we aren't overjoyed when our favorite NFL team scores because we like lights on the board and TD dances. It's the exclusivity of points in the NFL that makes scoring them better. [Insert "especially when you root for the Vikings" joke here]		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 2 times, last at 06/28/2012 12:08:36 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/28/2012 @ 12:08:37 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:58:57 AM It's the exclusivity of points in the NFL that makes scoring them better. have you seen the NFL recently? #thatsajoke #donotanalyze #althoughthereisashredoftruthtoit Also, I agree that you don't want to water it down too much, but I don't think 4 playoff teams from each league (~27% of each league) is quite the watering down that some think it is. (the nfl has 6--38%, the nhl and nba have 8--~57%) There's still plenty of time for legendary moments. I was mostly kidding about the "8 shots round the world" thing. Obviously the only time you are going to get the "true legendary" moment is going to be in a game that gets you into the world series or is actually in the world series. So I don't think the build up to those points really waters it down that much. No one is going to put Longoria's shot in the same category as Thompson's home run. However, day 162 of the 2011 season WILL go down as a legendary moment--or moments-collective.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this 2 times, last at 06/28/2012 12:10:10 pm

	Matt - 3941 Posts 06/28/2012 @ 12:15:41 PM
Indeed it will. The Twins did avoid their 100th loss that day.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Who controls the past now controls the future 06/28/2012 @ 01:16:38 PM
As long as we're just rambling today, does the proliferation of global social media kill the exclusivity of pretty much any exciting event? There's so much stuff that's heard "round the world" that there's no exclusivity to "big" news stories. Plus there's so many options for consuming content that someone who doesn't care about baseball or sports would not be "forced" to consume that news because there's only 2 TV stations or that's what the local paper chose to write about. Anyway, the point is that with extra wild cards they really need to completely revamp the scheduling to get it more balanced.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 06/28/2012 @ 04:50:06 PM
It's possible, but that works both ways too. You might not have to watch whatever the local news covers for Sports, but you're getting hit from so many angles, it's not like you just avoid the Sports section and you're set either.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/29/2012 @ 07:52:54 AM
I'm not sure if I like the idea of an extra wild card, but I can see the benefit. I think the real motivation for the 2nd wildcard was less to do about the Red Sox-Yankees and more to do with the fact that the Wild Card has proven to be equal to winning a division so long as playoff success is concerned. From an objective standpoint, however, interleague play and the expanded playoffs have been wildly successful. The only arguments that can be and are made against it are the "feels" type of arguments. In otherwords, if you aren't a fan of what the game "feels like" with interleague play or a Wild Card team in the playoffs, that's one thing. Using Jeremy's example of alternative football leagues that put so much emphasis on scoring that a 68-65 game becomes so much less exciting than 28-25 NFL game, I completely agree. If you take what is exciting and assume that 10 times that would be 10 times the excitement, you'll probably be pretty sorry about how it turns out. So from a subjective standpoint, I don't "feel" like baseball has watered itself down to anywhere close to that level. Like I said, the baseball playoffs are still the most exclusive playoffs in sports, even with the extra wild card, which will consist of a 1 game play-off (essentially a "play-in" game) that in my opinion probably won't take away much from the current system and has a potential to add even more. That being said, you've got the subjective "I feel like it's taking away from the game too much" which can easily be countered with another equally subjective opinion of "I feel that it adds to the excitement". But you've also got the objective which says that the fans love interleague play (and the wild card); how else do you explain baseball's increased attendance and packed houses for interleague matchups. If the fans thought that these two things were ruining the game, they wouldn't show up to watch. So someone can state their opinion about what they think it does to the game. But to criticize the commissioner for making a move that has actually had a huge positive impact on the game to me seems rather smug. (and I'm referring to the original article that we were discussing, not claiming that anyone on this site has done so)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 06/29/2012 @ 11:59:46 AM
Well, too be fair, if their argument is that inter league play is a gimmick to fill seats at the expense of the purity (both in the historical sense, and in the "it makes the schedule totally uneven" way) of the game, and some of the mystique of the World Series being the only matchup, then pointing out "Yeah, but it's filling seats" is really beside the point. Smug or not.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 2 times, last at 06/29/2012 12:01:31 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 07/01/2012 @ 11:43:35 AM
Well, that would be a stupid argument, in my opinion. but I have to at least give them that it's a point. Although, I'm not sure how interleague play makes the schedule totally uneven. Like I said, if the argument is that the Twins are forced kicking and screaming to play the Brewers the same number of times that they play the heated rivals, the Baltimore Orioles, and thus the unevenness is that they only get to play the AL-nondivisional teams in 2 series, I would say that's a pretty weak argument, in my opinion. But if you mean something differently, let me know.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 07/01/2012 @ 07:08:22 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 11:43:35 AM Well, that would be a stupid argument, in my opinion. but I have to at least give them that it's a point. Although, I'm not sure how interleague play makes the schedule totally uneven. Like I said, if the argument is that the Twins are forced kicking and screaming to play the Brewers the same number of times that they play the heated rivals, the Baltimore Orioles, and thus the unevenness is that they only get to play the AL-nondivisional teams in 2 series, I would say that's a pretty weak argument, in my opinion. But if you mean something differently, let me know. Twins Orioles is always a good series, brings up lots of memories and is definitely a fierce competition. I think one of the arguments against interleague play is that teams within a division don't play the same teams during the 2 week span or whatever it is. For example, the Twins always play the Brewers each year, but the White Sox always get to play the Cubs. This year the AL Central played the NL Central, but the Twins and Tigers never played the lowly Astros (which Cleveland, Chicago and Kansas City did) during interleague play, but did face both the first place Reds and second place Pirates on the road.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 07/01/2012 @ 07:50:24 PM
Well there are 6 teams in the nl central, which brings more issues than just that.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 07/03/2012 @ 12:53:22 PM
So I figured I'd point out my observation from the Brewer game I went to on Saturday. I don't go to very many games (once per year in the last 2 or 3 years), but my observations changed a little bit this time, or at least the manner in which I observed things. First off, parking was only $10. That's not too bad. Food: I got a pretzel in the ball park, but that's all I ate in there. Although the lime-chili chicken shishkabobs that I grilled in the parking lot were declicious! Stadium architecture/location: I don't know where the description of an "airport terminal" came from. from the outside, it looks like an old factory, with the red brick sides and the steel roof. This is the same concept as the design of the renovated Lambeau Field. And driving up to the stadium is always a thrill, as you can see the domed roof peaking up over the trees as you wind your way along I-94. There aren't any skyscrapers in the way to distract me from the beauty that is the stadium itself; the lack of big buildings around it make it all the imposing as it basically is it's own skyline. As far as the view from inside the stadium, see my comments about my seats, but I was there to watch a baseball game. My seats were in the 4th deck (first row) way out in left field (about as far away from homeplate as possible). Before I got to my seats, I was thinking "these are going to be terrible". When I got there, I actually thought "these aren't nearly as bad as I thought". Maybe it's because I've never watched a game from right down by the field (or if I have, I don't remember), but I've determined that as long as you can see the field and the seats are confortable, there is really no bad seat from which to watch a baseball game. I never left my seat the entire game. the one thing I did notice about being so high, and I'm pretty sure that this would pretty universal for any ball park or retractable dome that is opened up, was that the sound crowd noise wasn't as impressive. The Brewers hit 4 homeruns, but being so high, the excitement of the crowd noise wasn't quite there as it would seem if I was down a deck or two. The scoreboard is freaking awesome. It is huge, being about the 4th biggest scoreboard in baseball and I believe it's the only one or one of just a couple that's in HD. Without telling her this, Melissa commented that she couldn't believe how clear the scoreboard was. The only problem is that they don't show a lot of replays, particularly when a play was a "close" call, like a bang-bang play at first or something. This might be true to baseball in general, as MLB isn't as interested in making their officials into villains like the NFL might be. When we left, once we got into the car, it took us 12 minutes from the time I turned the car on to the time I was going 60+ mph on the freeway back home. Anyway, just a few insights I gathered from my 2012 trip to Miller Park.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 07/03/2012 @ 01:15:40 PM
Also, teams should make their "game opening videos" available online. Miller Park has a pretty neat game-opening video that I wish I could watch anytime.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 07/03/2012 @ 03:11:54 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O60fZSe3ejg		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 07/03/2012 @ 05:48:48 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 03:11:54 PM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O60fZSe3ejg I have officially been to YouTube today.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.