re: Writer Mark Zuckerman ranks all 30 MLB ballparks

Either you are very good at guessing, or you're an outright liar.

quote:

---

I agree having it in the bottom 5 is a joke.

---

No, its about right.

You can take escalators UP before the game, but after the game they don't let you take them DOWN (instead you have to take a VERY VERY long winding ramp).

Plus it takes forever to get to your parking spot.

It's ranked near the bottom--just like the team is most years.

I've only been to #2 and #4. The San Fran stadium really is that awesome.

Putting the Ballpark in Arlington at 26 is terrible. It's a nice park. It's middle of the pack.

It's kind of a shitty list. He puts a lot of stock into meaningless things.

Well he also knocked on the Marlins park for the whole taxpayer thing. While obviously a shitty Loria move, is it something you consider when just ranking the best ballparks?

So his criteria for these rankings is kind of all over the place.

quote:

---

So his criteria for these rankings is kind of all over the place.

---

Yep

Yeah, gotta put aside any convoluted love & hate feelings for Pittsburgh teams, because that park is true. Also had batsh#t fun both visits.

Watched All-Star Game there from a box, where only a few people were really paying attention. I sat down next to one of them to watch along & it was Buck O'neil.

quote:

---

AT&T PARK, San Francisco
WRIGLEY FIELD, Chicago
SAFECO FIELD, Seattle
COORS FIELD, Denver

---

Of the best 4 ballparks I've been, I agree with his order.

After that not so much.

My first ever mlb game was at Arlington in the ballpark's first year. I was 14, and I could tell it was a fake old park. I didn't hold it against them, though, since the place was nice.

I didn't go to Camden until a couple years ago, and though I know it was built in 1992, the place had me fooled into thinking it'd been there since before the Browns moved there.

By the way, surely I'm not the first person who notices that two teams called the Browns moved to Baltimore?

Arlington is a neoclassical ballpark. I'll put all the neos into three categories: "Real," "Fake," and "Haven't been to this one yet."

"Real" (that is, I "believed" that this park was 100 years old):
Baltimore
San Francisco
Pittsburgh
Cleveland (not that it's hot stuff, but I bought it)
Cincinnati (I actually enjoy the view of Daniel Boone country)

"Fake" (a new ballpark wearing too much obvious old ballpark makeup)
New York
New York
Washington
Philadelphia
Arlington

Haven't been to yet:
Saint Louis
Detroit
Minneapolis
Denver
San Diego


Seattle, Oakland, Los Angeles, Anaheim, Phoenix, Houston, Kansas City, Chicago, Chicago, Milwaukee, Saint Petersburg, Miami, Atlanta, Toronto, and Boston all have parks that is consider something other than "neoclassical."

The writer admits that his criteria are probably inconsistent, and he's definitely open-minded, but it warts me that he uses symmetrical field dimensions against White Sox Park; Old Comiskey was always symmetrical. Symmetry/asymmetry is not a factor for me.