Stadium Journey: Best Major League Ballpark, 2009
The folks at Stadium Journey are out with their rankings of MLB ballparks. Progressive Field was ranked 19th, with food/drinks being its biggest failing. Here's the details behind their rating system.
3 months ago
Ryan
61 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
This list is a piece of garbage. Honestly, the Rangers #2? When I was there I was looking for someone that works there so I could ask them to turn up the lights. It was horribly lit and the placement of the scoreboards was terrible.
Why did every stadium that was under the #18 have a failing of fans or food?
And have they ever been to Progressive Field? Apparently they didn’t bother to go to the food locations behind home or the Batters Eye where they could find the more interesting foods.
shenaningans I say.
by lenred on Nov 11, 2009 6:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, boring list. Whoever set it up seems a bit obsessed with food and drink. If a ballpark didn’t sell cold beer, then I can see it being a problem for a lot of people. Otherwise, you’re at a baseball game. Why is not having gourmet food a problem?
Il faut d'abord durer.
by CU Adam on Nov 11, 2009 7:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It shouldn’t be. Gourmet food at a ballpark is overrated. Have an f-ing hot dog already.
Wait 'til next millennium!
by emd2k3 on Nov 11, 2009 10:09 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
If hot dog and/or beer isn’t the first thing on your mind when you walk through the gates then you need to turn around, exit and try again. All other edibles are inconsequential.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Nov 11, 2009 11:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I blame the West Coast ballparks.
Beside Cleveland, Philly and Milwaukee have the right idea. Beer served at 7 degrees Kelvin and nothing but artery clogging food. That’s what I expect at a ballpark.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Nov 13, 2009 4:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I can’t remember ever not having a good time at a major league ballpark. I loved Municipal Stadium. They all rate better than a day at the office.
by kennesawmountainwahoo on Nov 13, 2009 9:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It is a huge pain in the ass to get a glass of wine at The Jake.
by stuart dean on Nov 12, 2009 10:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As well it should be. What are we, the Giants?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Nov 13, 2009 4:23 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It seems that half of the parks’ downfalls are ‘the neighborhood’ and, I don’t know, but that seems like the biggest downfall to me of their #1 ‘flawless’ park. I mean, it’s Baltimore.
by ASP on Nov 11, 2009 8:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
It’s like they’ve never seen HBO.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Nov 11, 2009 9:54 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
But they have Great Lakes at Progressive.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Nov 11, 2009 9:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I actually agree. Food has gotten much worse at Progressive Field over the past few years. And I mean just simple stuff. The hot dogs are way overpriced and they switched from all beer to chintzy little hot dogs. The soft pretzels are usually served cold and are inedibly doughy.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Nov 11, 2009 10:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I haven’t been to a game at the Jake since 2002, do they still have the footlongs behind home plate?
by Roger Dorn on Nov 11, 2009 10:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve had some bad experiences with the soft pretzels, but if I’m eating at the ballpark it’s almost exclusively the hot dogs. And there’s nothing better than those kosher all-beef ones they sell at the stands. Or all beer. That would be something, too.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Nov 11, 2009 10:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But that’s what I’m saying… do they even sell those kosher all beef dogs anymore? And they rarely have onions, and they’re sometime out of Bertman’s!
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Nov 12, 2009 11:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I have, praise the Lord, never been there when there was a Bertman’s shortage.
by fwembt on Nov 12, 2009 7:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Progressive Field carries a standard selection of all the traditional fare you would expect to find at a ballpark, plus a few items not found at every sports venue.
Just to rehash this, I see that the food is their dislike, OK, whatever. But what about it do they not like? It is standard ballpark food with a few extra items. That isn’t criticism. If everyone offered the outrageous then it would no longer be outrageous. To quote Office Space, “If you want me to wear 37 pieces of flair, like your pretty boy over there, Brian, why don’t you just make the minimum 37 pieces of flair?”
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Nov 11, 2009 11:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
If you’re okay with doing the minimum, then, ok. But some people like to express themselves. And we encourage that.
Il faut d'abord durer.
by CU Adam on Nov 11, 2009 11:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There, this is me, expressing myself. Ya happy?
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Nov 12, 2009 12:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
second try:
shouldn’t the rating system have a huge weighting around the team and the actual facilities? Baltimore? This is a team that has entire sections of fans walking out at the beginning of games in protest of how awful they are. They put a terrible product on the field.
And why bother bringing up the neighborhood? It’s not as important as football where 1/2 the day is spent tailgating in the surrounding neighborhood. If that part was so important, both Florida locations should be #1 and 2.
Granted Progressive Field no longer has the New Stadium Smell™, so I’m not saying it should be #1. But 19 makes this list laughable.
by lenred on Nov 11, 2009 11:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. I still think it is more than worthy of top 10 potential.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Nov 12, 2009 12:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just for clarification, I agreed on the tone, not the team quality thing.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Nov 12, 2009 11:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I do not think the quality of the team should have an impact on ballpark rating.
by Roger Dorn on Nov 12, 2009 8:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
By that logic, The Jake (prog) should be lower ranked.
Wait 'til next millennium!
by emd2k3 on Nov 12, 2009 9:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And PNC should be in the bottom 5. PNC is a beautiful park. I only went there once, but it was a great place to see a game.
by lenred on Nov 12, 2009 9:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m going to create my own list of ballparks. Here’s the system I’ll use for ranking them:
- Quality of team on the field
- Tastiness of hotdogs
- Availability of beer
- atmosphere. aka, how much fun is it being around the people in the stadium
- negative points if my life is in danger by commuting through bad areas just to attend the game
- negative points for not having Bertman’s Stadium Mustard
- cost of tickets
- negative points for douchiness of fans
Obviously, the new Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park won’t be #1 due to the final 2 rating categories.
by lenred on Nov 12, 2009 2:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i don’t get the quality of team thing. that’s like judging the design of the house by the car the owner parks in the garage or something.
by Brick. on Nov 12, 2009 2:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You’re paying to see the team play. At it’s core, that’s what you’re paying for. The vast majority of people attending games go to see the product on the field, everything else is gravy, a distraction or enhances the experience. The percentage of people attending a game in a city that is directly attributed to people wanting to visit the ballpark is so small, it’s negligable (sp?).
So you’re analogy doesn’t fit because people don’t pay money to see someone else’s garage. People pay money to see the baseball team, while a miniscule percentage of attendees are there for the actual stadium.
And you seem to have missed the larger point that my list was completely subjective, just like the link this thread is built off of.
by lenred on Nov 12, 2009 11:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You’re paying to see the team play. At it’s core, that’s what you’re paying for.
I don’t know if that’s true. In fact, I can’t see how it could be true. You can watch the team on TV basically for nothing — even out-of-market people pay less than a dollar per game. It can’t be (and isn’t) the case that the actual watching of the team is so much better live-and-in-person that people will pay 20 to 100 times more for the privilege.
I think people are paying for the whole experience of going to and being at the ballpark, the particular food and drink and sights and smells and atmosphere, hell, just to sit outside with people you like (or your family) for a few hours and hang out while nice people bring beer to you. The privilege of being able to cheer and yell at the team in person (instead of cheering and yellling at the TV like an idiot, like we ordinarily do). And all of the bells and whistles, too.
All of this is organized around the game, but that doesn’t mean that watching the game is what you’re really paying for.
by Jay on Nov 13, 2009 12:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There people who without a doubt pay for the “experience”. My girlfriend has very little interest in the actual sport, yet very much enjoys going to the ballpark, buying a hotdog, etc.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Nov 13, 2009 6:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You can watch the team on TV basically for nothing
You get to watch a small slice of the game – only the slice the cameras want you to see. If you want to see the whole field, see everybody preparing, moving, reacting, you have to be at the game.
I went to a Browns scrimmage last year with my wife. It was the first time she had gone to a football event live. She said that she was actually able to follow the plays because she could see the whole field. Same concept.
I’ll agree that some people don’t care at all about the team, so they go for the experience. I would also call them “bandwagon fans”. Because they need the large crowd to enjoy the experience, they won’t go when the team is bad or mediocre or located in Miami, they only go when the team is doing well. So indirectly, they too are going because the product on the field is attracting them.
by lenred on Nov 13, 2009 5:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But the in-person view of the game is also limited severely, and the TV view shows you things you could never see live. It is at best a break-even.
There is a wide gap between “going mostly to watch the game” and “don’t care at all about the team.” Almost every person at every game falls into that gap, and not into either of your two big buckets.
There is also a huge difference between enjoying the experience and needing to be there among a huge crowd. The latter is a tiny subset of the former.
by Jay on Nov 13, 2009 5:25 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
i don’t buy it. we’re talking about rating venues. you stick the red sox in camden yards and the rating for camden yards should not change. soldier field isn’t a better place to see U2 than it is (who the devil are the kids listening to these days) Britney Spears.
by Brick. on Nov 13, 2009 10:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So when’s the last time you went to Camden Yards when there wasn’t a game? Because you had to have just been going there to see the stadium. If you’re not going for the game, you have to be going to see the venue itself.
by lenred on Nov 13, 2009 5:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
to answer your question, the 1999 Tastes of Baltimore when I lived there. It was a neat venue for such an event. beats the hell out of “eat trash off the gunk off the ground day” at wrigley field.
tying the quaility of what the stadium offers to the goodness of the home team is ridiculous. might as well break it down to days when both teams have their ace on the mound versus days when they each have to spot start some roster fodder. progressive field was not appreciably better in ’07 when the indians were good than it was in ’06 or ’08.
by Brick. on Nov 13, 2009 5:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My friend was married at Camden Yards.
Wait 'til next millennium!
by emd2k3 on Nov 15, 2009 8:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No way in Hades an experience at the Jake is worse than one at Tropicana Field.
Wait 'til next millennium!
by emd2k3 on Nov 12, 2009 9:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Two years ago Progressive Field finished #1 in an SI.com fan poll. So there’s some disconnect here.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Nov 12, 2009 10:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
At least the SI poll has an established metric.
Overall, this trend of “lists as news” is a really disturbing one. The majority are arbitrary at best. Almost all are unscientific. Even U.S. News & World Report’s college rankings are questionable. The problem is that readers love them. The internet page views on lists perform quite well compared to stories that actually require legwork. As long as readers continue clicking though dumb lists in droves, news organizations and websites will continue to produce shoddy and pointless lists. The only remedy is to stop looking at them.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Nov 12, 2009 11:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Really? You’re complaining that rating ballparks is “unscientific”? I understand (and totally agree with) your statement that they are arbitrary. However, what do these “scientific” analyses of ballparks look like? The SI poll, which asks random fans on an internet site to give their opinion on what’s affordable, or team quality? I mean, Tigers rank first in Team Quality and Cardinals rank 21st, really? Just because something has an established “metric” doesn’t mean it’s scientific.
Sorry if you walked into a pet peeve.
by Nat on Nov 12, 2009 12:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Remember that this was in 2007.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Nov 12, 2009 1:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes. The summer after the Cardinals beat the Tigers in the World Series.
by Nat on Nov 12, 2009 2:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
When the Cardinals were bad and the Tigers were good.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Nov 12, 2009 2:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess that I was looking at Team Quality as more of a long term, rolling average, rather than an instantaneous quality. As in, the Cardinals have been a higher quality team this decade than the Pirates. So for the two teams that played in the World Series the year before to be ranked so completely different seemed extreme to me.
This whole exchange, in reality, further exemplifies my point that these metrics are hardly “scientific”.
by Nat on Nov 12, 2009 2:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Cardinals have the 2nd most WS titles. I don’t think looking long-term or short-term you could ever call them anything but a top 5-10 franchise.
by Roger Dorn on Nov 12, 2009 3:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I never said that the SI poll was a good one or scientific. In fact, I intimated the opposite.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Nov 12, 2009 5:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hard to believe anyone would rank Washington’s National Stadium next to last. Granted there is nothing right outside the gate yet, but DuPont Circle (for example) is just a short Metro ride away. The stadium itself is a delight.
If you believe it's just a game, you're also probably wondering why Santa keeps skipping your house every year.
by LeftyCatcher on Nov 12, 2009 1:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t consider the ballpark to be anywhere near Dupont in terms of DC. There’s really nothing to do around there— yet.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Nov 15, 2009 5:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t understand the surrounding area criteria. Are they rating the experience of actually going to the park and seeing a game there or going near the ballpark?
Wait 'til next millennium!
by emd2k3 on Nov 15, 2009 8:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The idea is that going to the ballpark might include going somewhere right before and/or right after the game.
by Jay on Nov 15, 2009 9:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I sit in traffic on Carnegie, does that count?
by fwembt on Nov 16, 2009 12:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I get that, it just seems strange to equate that as one of the determining factors with the actual ballpark itself.
Wait 'til next millennium!
by emd2k3 on Nov 16, 2009 2:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Can’t see why. I think what they’re rating is the entire experience of going to a game.
by Jay on Nov 16, 2009 7:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The best ballpark in the world is one that I’m in. I’ve never had a bad experience in a major league ballpark. I suspect addicts say the same thing when ranking opium dens.
by FredOx on Nov 16, 2009 10:03 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Sweet Baboo
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
