Sports Traditions

[no97]

I moved to Chicago 4 months ago. I lived in St. Louis for a year and a half before that.

I just haven't updated my profile. the We thing was a little soon to some I guess. "Chicagoians" would have been better.

I don't claim St. Louis as my home, but I grew up in Champaign. My loyalties were split between St. Louis (The Cardinals) and Chicago (Bears, Bulls, the city in general.) I never dreamed of living in St. Louis, but I always wanted to live in Chicago.

No big deal, like I said, I was just a bit confused by it. Chicagoins are certainly allowed to be Cardinal fans (but Cardinal football fans would make more sense - especially if they are more than 70 years old ).

Moose

[powersurge]

I don't mind the whole overly done "retro" look in favor of the cookie cutter crap of the old stadiums of the 60's and 70's. Just leave the god damned roof off of them. A retractable roof in Queens?!!!! For what? Its just stupid. I can see maybe in Minnesota, Seattle, or even Houston because of the heat. But even still, does it really matter if a couple of games get rained out here and there? Geez, can't they just build them and stop with all of the "modernization"?

I also have to disagree with whomever said that Houston's park "steals" from old parks. Even old parks stold from each other. There was Ivy on many walls. Crosley field had a huge wall in left field, maybe not as big as Fenway, but it did. There were other parks that hand upper decks that hung over the field like Tiger stadium (Ebbetts field, Polo Grounds to name a couple). So it really doesn't matter what they "borrow" it just matters that when it all comes together it works. It works in Houston.

The best test is can you see a fly ball hit in the outfield and instantly tell what park you are in? The old cookie cutter stadiums didn't allow you to do that. So I would say as far as progress goes, we are doing fine.

[no97]

I also have to disagree with whomever said that Houston's park "steals" from old parks. Even old parks stold from each other. There was Ivy on many walls. Crosley field had a huge wall in left field, maybe not as big as Fenway, but it did. There were other parks that hand upper decks that hung over the field like Tiger stadium (Ebbetts field, Polo Grounds to name a couple). So it really doesn't matter what they "borrow" it just matters that when it all comes together it works. It works in Houston.

I understand what you're getting at, but what Houston's (and I love Minute Maid)guilty of (and, to a greater extent, Arlington), is that the new parks are building this way only because of the old parks. In other words, the hill at Minute Maid is that way because someone said Crosley (?) used to have a hill, or let's put the flag poll in play, because Tiger Stadium and old Comiskey used to have it that way.

The point is, no one used to say, I'm going to make the left field wall artificially taller (like it is in Arlington) just because that's the way it is at Fenway, or we're going to do a double deck in right because that's the way Tiger Stadium was (again, Arlington). Now, maybe you'd see ivy planted at a park because an owner of one team liked the way it looked at another, but basic design elements? Those huge walls were mostly out of necessety (the size of the lots), not because they liked how they looked...

Moose

[VitaminD]

The best test is can you see a fly ball hit in the outfield and instantly tell what park you are in? The old cookie cutter stadiums didn't allow you to do that.

Nonsense. If you pay attention to the details, you could tell exactly what "cookie-cutter" stadium the game was being played in. If appreciating the difference in the outfield walls wasn't enough, you could get an idea by looking at the home team's uniform.

ATL - Plexi-Glas wall, large scoreboard at ground level, folded up bleachers for Falcons games visible

CIN - green wall, fairly short (8'?), no outfield bleachers anywhere near the fence, dark olive hitting background most of the way around the outfield wall running up to the upper deck where the bleachers started, large scoreboard in CF upper deck

NYM - not truly "cookie-cutter" since it wasn't an enclosed circle, but also markedly different - blue wall, all the teams' pennants displayed on the wall, large black rectangular hitting backdrop, large scoreboard in right-center, top hat with apple

PHI - tall green fence (12'), black batters' eye covering the bleachers for Eagles' games when folded up, team logos for all NL teams arranged by standings on the black backdrop above the wall, bleachers directly above the batters' eye (maybe 30 feet tall) within the ring of the lower deck, bullpens in the corners behind the OF wall, with Plexi-Glas panels in the wall in front of the bullpens, originally a huge scoreboard above right-center field wall, later moved to upper deck in right

PIT - lighter blue wall than at Shea, had retired numbers on the wall for years, large scoreboard at top of upper deck in CF, 2 tiers of club level boxes above lower deck; resembles Veterans Stadium except for the markedly different wall color

SD - Palm trees beyond the outfield fence. Large scoreboard in right field

STL - darker blue wall, standing room areas above the fence at the left and right field corners, OF bleachers that ran power alley to power alley, a row of flowers atop the wall toward the end, team logos by division on the wall.

Never confused any of them, so it can be done. What is posted above was done from memory, although slight changes were made by each team from time to time. And I didn't mention differences in turf material, turf color, seat colors, height and size of the lower and upper decks and the other sight cues that made these parks different.

This argument is just ridiculous on its face. If you watch an NFL game, can you "instantly tell" (your words, your criteria) what stadium you're looking at? 9 times out of 10, it's likely no. Other than field painting visible at the end zones and midfield, you have no visual cues unless you appreciate the subtle differences in the fonts used to paint the field numbers. And the uniforms are no help; some teams wear dark jerseys at home, others wear white.

It's an absurd claim, impossible to support. It basically boils down to the fact that most are brick, and most have the color green somewhere on them.

Oh, it's a little bit more than that. How about:

- the contrived quirkniess that they all have to have. As Moose said, in the original parks, the fences were irregular heights and the fields were asymmetrical because the parks were shoehorned into existing neighborhoods. High fences made up for short fields and protected neighboring buildings. What needs to be protected in an Arlington or Philadelphia parking lot? Dodger Stadium was built on ample land where they could build a symmetrical field; Turner Field and (new) Comiskey Park also proved you don't need to make a funky outfield wall when you have plenty of space.

- the sensory overload. Used to be, you went to a game to watch a baseball game. I watch people at CBP in Philadelphia, and it's like 40,000 adults with ADD. After you're done taking a lap of the park, sampling the food court, building a Phanatic doll, testing the speed pitch, grabbing a beer at either of the 2 bars, checking out the kids' play area and playing in the arcade section, you've missed six innings. My ability to concentrate and have my attention held by a baseball game means I don't need all the bells and whistles that are plaguing all these new parks.

- the forced scarcity of tickets through smaller seating capacities. I am actually in favor of this one - there's nothing more depressing that going to a game and being surrounded by tens of thousands of empty seats. But having fewer seats gave teams a license to jack up the ticket prices and stoking the demand for tickets artificially. It does create for a better atmosphere at the game, though.

- the desperate need for a "signature". The older buildings came by their iconic look almost by accident. The Green Monster was built because left field is laughably short. Tiger Stadium had a flagpole in play because there wasn't anywhere else to put it. They became distinctive with time. But the new parks all saw how effectively the Orioles incorporated the warehouse into the design of their park, and instantly everyone had to come up with something similar. The faux steamboat in Cincinnati. The giant Liberty Bell in Philadelphia. The train in Houston. Enough already! Every place is trying so hard for that one thing that makes you say, "Gosh! I know I am in [city] now!" that it comes off as forced.

[leopard88]

The train in Houston. Enough already! Every place is trying so hard for that one thing that makes you say, "Gosh! I know I am in [city] now!" that it comes off as forced.

D,

Good recitation of the differences in the cookie cutters.

As for Houston, you forgot the most ridiculous quirk of the many -- the pointless, stupid, totally unnecessary hill in center field.

[no97]

The best test is can you see a fly ball hit in the outfield and instantly tell what park you are in? The old cookie cutter stadiums didn't allow you to do that.

Nonsense. If you pay attention to the details, you could tell exactly what "cookie-cutter" stadium the game was being played in. If appreciating the difference in the outfield walls wasn't enough, you could get an idea by looking at the home team's uniform.

ATL - Plexi-Glas wall, large scoreboard at ground level, folded up bleachers for Falcons games visible

CIN - green wall, fairly short (8'?), no outfield bleachers anywhere near the fence, dark olive hitting background most of the way around the outfield wall running up to the upper deck where the bleachers started, large scoreboard in CF upper deck

NYM - not truly "cookie-cutter" since it wasn't an enclosed circle, but also markedly different - blue wall, all the teams' pennants displayed on the wall, large black rectangular hitting backdrop, large scoreboard in right-center, top hat with apple

PHI - tall green fence (12'), black batters' eye covering the bleachers for Eagles' games when folded up, team logos for all NL teams arranged by standings on the black backdrop above the wall, bleachers directly above the batters' eye (maybe 30 feet tall) within the ring of the lower deck, bullpens in the corners behind the OF wall, with Plexi-Glas panels in the wall in front of the bullpens, originally a huge scoreboard above right-center field wall, later moved to upper deck in right

PIT - lighter blue wall than at Shea, had retired numbers on the wall for years, large scoreboard at top of upper deck in CF, 2 tiers of club level boxes above lower deck; resembles Veterans Stadium except for the markedly different wall color

SD - Palm trees beyond the outfield fence. Large scoreboard in right field

STL - darker blue wall, standing room areas above the fence at the left and right field corners, OF bleachers that ran power alley to power alley, a row of flowers atop the wall toward the end, team logos by division on the wall.

Never confused any of them, so it can be done. What is posted above was done from memory, although slight changes were made by each team from time to time. And I didn't mention differences in turf material, turf color, seat colors, height and size of the lower and upper decks and the other sight cues that made these parks different.

This argument is just ridiculous on its face. If you watch an NFL game, can you "instantly tell" (your words, your criteria) what stadium you're looking at? 9 times out of 10, it's likely no. Other than field painting visible at the end zones and midfield, you have no visual cues unless you appreciate the subtle differences in the fonts used to paint the field numbers. And the uniforms are no help; some teams wear dark jerseys at home, others wear white.

It's an absurd claim, impossible to support. It basically boils down to the fact that most are brick, and most have the color green somewhere on them.

Oh, it's a little bit more than that. How about:

- the contrived quirkniess that they all have to have. As Moose said, in the original parks, the fences were irregular heights and the fields were asymmetrical because the parks were shoehorned into existing neighborhoods. High fences made up for short fields and protected neighboring buildings. What needs to be protected in an Arlington or Philadelphia parking lot? Dodger Stadium was built on ample land where they could build a symmetrical field; Turner Field and (new) Comiskey Park also proved you don't need to make a funky outfield wall when you have plenty of space.

- the sensory overload. Used to be, you went to a game to watch a baseball game. I watch people at CBP in Philadelphia, and it's like 40,000 adults with ADD. After you're done taking a lap of the park, sampling the food court, building a Phanatic doll, testing the speed pitch, grabbing a beer at either of the 2 bars, checking out the kids' play area and playing in the arcade section, you've missed six innings. My ability to concentrate and have my attention held by a baseball game means I don't need all the bells and whistles that are plaguing all these new parks.

- the forced scarcity of tickets through smaller seating capacities. I am actually in favor of this one - there's nothing more depressing that going to a game and being surrounded by tens of thousands of empty seats. But having fewer seats gave teams a license to jack up the ticket prices and stoking the demand for tickets artificially. It does create for a better atmosphere at the game, though.

- the desperate need for a "signature". The older buildings came by their iconic look almost by accident. The Green Monster was built because left field is laughably short. Tiger Stadium had a flagpole in play because there wasn't anywhere else to put it. They became distinctive with time. But the new parks all saw how effectively the Orioles incorporated the warehouse into the design of their park, and instantly everyone had to come up with something similar. The faux steamboat in Cincinnati. The giant Liberty Bell in Philadelphia. The train in Houston. Enough already! Every place is trying so hard for that one thing that makes you say, "Gosh! I know I am in [city] now!" that it comes off as forced.

Wow, I've never seen such a self-contradicting argument in my life. First, you say that "small details" (such as outfield fence height, batters-eye color and scoreboard location) mean that the old multi-purpose stadiums that were not "cookie-cutter," then, in the very next breath, you argue that large details are irrelevant in modern retro ballparks, and that only the "contrived quirkiness" shared by all (the Train in Houston, the Liberty Bell in Philly, etc.), condemn these to "cookie cutter" status. So which is more important? Small details, like paint color, or fence height, or large details, like contrived quirkiness, or odd shaped playing-surfaces? You can't hold the multi-purpose stadiums to one standard, then the retro parks to another.

Moose

[BBM]

I agree with Moose, you're contradicting yourself. I agree with you on the fact that the new stadiums have a contrived quirkiness to them, but they are *still* better than the cookie cutters; I don't think anyone was arguing that. The cookie-cutters didn't even try to have aesthetic appeal; it was simply function over form, down to the letter. They were boring, generic, and deservedly didn't stand the test of time the way the more classical stadiums did.

Fenway Park is the only park to get it right; they modernized without drastically changing the appeal of the stadium, and had a classic design to begin with. The dimensions have remaind virtually unchanged for 70 years. They added plenty of seats (the Monster seats are amazing), and the inside of the place looks pristine. If the older stadiums could have followed this formula there'd be a lot more shrines out there and a lot less copy-catting. Perhaps there wouldn't have been a need for Comerica Park or PNC Park (assuming Forbes Field could have been restorated) or some of the others.

But it was beyond just a decaying park; the structures themselves could stand for hundreds of years (just look at some soccer stadiums in Europe). No, these teams wanted more BOXES. It's all about how many BOXES you can fit in your park, and how much you can hike seat, consession, and parking prices.

Someone before said that ballparks aren't made for the fans, but for the players. Last time I checked there are 18 players on the field, but about 40-50,000 fans. And many time WE the fans are PAYING for these stadiums. Unfortunately the owners still listen to the almighty dollar over anythign else.

[speedo]

Personally, I'd rather sit in any of the new retro parks than any of the old cookie-cutters, simply because there is more to see at the ballpark, whether you like the newfangled bells, trains, whistles or not.

Having said that, I'd give my eye-teeth for a chance to see a major league game again from row one in Tiger Stadium's upper deck. When the average fan is pushed back from the action even further that the view he/she enjoyed at a cookie-cutter (hello, St. Louis!) then you know it's all about private box bucks and zero about Joe Fan's game experience.

[Rocknjosie]

Someone before said that ballparks aren't made for the fans, but for the players. Last time I checked there are 18 players on the field, but about 40-50,000 fans. And many time WE the fans are PAYING for these stadiums. Unfortunately the owners still listen to the almighty dollar over anythign else.

Which is why ballparks are constantly full of these fans enjoying the view in the ballpark they paid for, even when there's no baseball.

Oh wait, no they don't. Without those eleven players there isn't one fan. And again, they're the ones at work, not you. The ballpark is meant to keep people out unless they're willing to pay to see these people work.

[dpnation]

Personally, I'd rather sit in any of the new retro parks than any of the old cookie-cutters, simply because there is more to see at the ballpark, whether you like the newfangled bells, trains, whistles or not.

For me, I still like the classics, but I prefer the newer ballparks purely from a spectator's standpoint. Atlanta has all the bells and whistles, but most importantly, there aren't any majorly obstructed view seats. I went to Wrigley for the first time in years and ended up sitting behind a pole. Would've been great seats in a newer ballpark, but with the older architecture I couldn't see lefthanded batters with the pole in the way.

[speedo]

Someone before said that ballparks aren't made for the fans, but for the players. Last time I checked there are 18 players on the field, but about 40-50,000 fans. And many time WE the fans are PAYING for these stadiums. Unfortunately the owners still listen to the almighty dollar over anythign else.

Which is why ballparks are constantly full of these fans enjoying the view in the ballpark they paid for, even when there's no baseball.

Oh wait, no they don't. Without those eleven players there isn't one fan. And again, they're the ones at work, not you. The ballpark is meant to keep people out unless they're willing to pay to see these people work.

If ballparks aren't for fans, then why not simply do without them altogether then?

Simply set up a TV studio around a perfectly groomed, symmetrical baseball diamond and shoot the season for television. Think of the camera angles without those annoying grandstands. They could used "canned" sound for cheering. It'd be the newest in reality TV!

[Rocknjosie]

Someone before said that ballparks aren't made for the fans, but for the players. Last time I checked there are 18 players on the field, but about 40-50,000 fans. And many time WE the fans are PAYING for these stadiums. Unfortunately the owners still listen to the almighty dollar over anythign else.

Which is why ballparks are constantly full of these fans enjoying the view in the ballpark they paid for, even when there's no baseball.

Oh wait, no they don't. Without those eleven players there isn't one fan. And again, they're the ones at work, not you. The ballpark is meant to keep people out unless they're willing to pay to see these people work.

If ballparks aren't for fans, then why not simply do without them altogether then?

Simply set up a TV studio around a perfectly groomed, symmetrical baseball diamond and shoot the season for television. Think of the camera angles without those annoying grandstands. They could used "canned" sound for cheering. It'd be the newest in reality TV!

well sure if you take my position to its logical conclusion . But while fans are necessary they're necessary the way customers are necessary to a retail store. And MLB definitely is not your neighborhood boutique, it's a franchised corporation like the GAP. But baseball isn't like retail in that the product your selling is entertainment. So it's more like AMC theatres. Sure your local moviehouse might have been built by a member of the community wanting to give the locals a place to see motion pictures, but AMC moves into a community because there's an untapped market they want to get money out of. Sure you can enjoy the movie, and the theatre will have amenities for your enjoyment, but fooling yourself into thinking they care about you is kinda sad. Last I checked MLB franchises don't fold these days, they just find a better market. And for all the nostalgia about Yankee Stadium, no one seems to care about the fact that the Yankees moving left Baltimore without baseball for almost 50 years...

Although I really can't remember what this has to do with Sports Traditions. Oh yes, stop feeling nostalgic for marketing gimmicks.

[speedo]

Last I checked MLB franchises don't fold these days, they just find a better market.

True. And I was just stirrin' up the ol' poo.

Joe Fan is about the last person on the minds of ownership and players...

[no97]

Fenway Park is the only park to get it right; they modernized without drastically changing the appeal of the stadium, and had a classic design to begin with. The dimensions have remaind virtually unchanged for 70 years. They added plenty of seats (the Monster seats are amazing), and the inside of the place looks pristine. If the older stadiums could have followed this formula there'd be a lot more shrines out there and a lot less copy-catting. Perhaps there wouldn't have been a need for Comerica Park or PNC Park (assuming Forbes Field could have been restorated) or some of the others.

I think you're leaving off Wrigley in that "only park to get it right" list. There's a reason there are two parks left from the 19teens that are still around that the teams largely aren't trying to tear down (anymore, anyway). And maybe pre bleacher expansion, it could be said that the Red Sox were doing more to keep Fenway modernized than the Cubs were to Wrigley, but don't forget what the Cubs did back in 1988 - they moved the press box to the upper deck, and put in luxury boxes where the press box was. Throw in the "Triangle Building" going in after this season, and I'd say Fenway and Wrigley are about even...

Moose

edit - and the Cubs field dimensions have remained unchanged since 1937, when the bleachers were first installed in their current form... And as far as a "prestine" interior for Fenway, there are a lot of crappy, uncomfortable wood seats that can't be upgraded at Fenway because they would have to be widened, to accomodate today's wider Americans (thus decreasing already small capacity). Wrigley has long ago done this with no problems.

[BBM]

Someone before said that ballparks aren't made for the fans, but for the players. Last time I checked there are 18 players on the field, but about 40-50,000 fans. And many time WE the fans are PAYING for these stadiums. Unfortunately the owners still listen to the almighty dollar over anythign else.

Which is why ballparks are constantly full of these fans enjoying the view in the ballpark they paid for, even when there's no baseball.

Oh wait, no they don't. Without those eleven players there isn't one fan. And again, they're the ones at work, not you. The ballpark is meant to keep people out unless they're willing to pay to see these people work.

You're theorizing it the way owners do. And while that works, it's not correct. The consumer drives the product, or at least, is supposed to. It's not the other way around. They're working FOR us. We're PAYING them to perform, and therefore they cannot operate without the fans.

How do you suppose you expand your product if you exclude such a broad market by driving ticket prices through the roof and limiting the seats? Even though it may draw more revenue for the short run, cheaper and more accessible seats for "commoners" will drive up brand recognition and boost sales that way.

Everything should NOT be about boxes. Unfortunately it is. So beit.

[hecticbro]

Cookie-cutter or not.... Who cares! I love the fact that these new parks have such interesting design elements and that the owners are doing what they can to add to the fan's experience.

I've been a huge sports fan for my entire life, and honestly, even I'm pretty close to falling asleep by the sixth inning of most baseball games I attend if I'm not piss-drunk or enjoying something at the park in addition to the action on the field. I think it's a pretty boring sport, and enough people agree with me that teams have to do extra work if they want to get more than 15,000 people or so to show up for their games.

[Gothamite]

I think it's a pretty boring sport, and enough people agree with me that teams have to do extra work if they want to get more than 15,000 people or so to show up for their games.

In what way?

Specifically, what do baseball teams do that teams in other sports do to encourage attendance?

Edit: that should be "what do baseball teams do that teams in other sports do not do to encourage attendance?"

[hecticbro]

Well, I just threw out a random attendance figure to try to illustrate my larger point.

Promotions like free hat day, one-dollar hot dot night, mascot ballgame night and so on can increase attendance.

But interesting stadium-design elements (and attractions tied into that, like museums inside the park, etc.) are what I was referring to in this thread.

I'd much rather go to a game at Minute Maid Park than the Astrodome.

[no97]

Well, I just threw out a random attendance figure to try to illustrate my larger point.

Promotions like free hat day, one-dollar hot dot night, mascot ballgame night and so on can increase attendance.

But interesting stadium-design elements (and attractions tied into that, like museums inside the park, etc.) are what I was referring to in this thread.

I'd much rather go to a game at Minute Maid Park than the Astrodome.

You know, bells and whistles are great, but they aren't everything (nor are give-aways). The Twins, playing at the soon to be vacated Metrodome, with no give-away (nor bells and whistles), got 43,204 to show up recently for a ballgame (the most recent weekend game I could find with no give-away. They also have had week-day games with 26,492 and no give-away...)

Interestingly enough, sometimes, people actually show up for the game

Moose

[Gothamite]

Well, I just threw out a random attendance figure to try to illustrate my larger point.

Promotions like free hat day, one-dollar hot dot night, mascot ballgame night and so on can increase attendance.

So what? Other sports do stadium promotions, too. Even the NFL does give-away promotions.

What do baseball teams do that teams in other sports do not do to boost attendance?