Baseball Debate: Stadium Edition (Part 2)

(Click Here for Part One)

After yesterday's overview about the current state of baseball stadiums--and some basic data from our friends at Stadium Journey--we really haven't settled any debate yet about who's got the best stadium. So now we're left with 30 stadiums, each with their own merits and drawbacks, their own idiosyncrasies that make them what they are. There's the Green Monster out in Fenway's left field, the home run balls flying into McCovey's Cove in San Francisco, and even that weird hill that Houston decided to build in the middle of center field, flagpole and everything.

But how can you even attempt to quantify something as subjective as a stadium? It's not easy, and as good a job as the folks at Stadium Journey do, it's still not easy to take one person's review of a stadium as the end game for stadium ratings. So, keep in mind that the data we used is flawed, but that's what makes it fun to add to the debate--if you think about it, the majority of basic statistics are flawed in some way (a 30-point night sounds nice until you find out the guy took 45 shots to do it), but the important thing is that they have given us some sort of quantifiable data to work with it. And that's what we do best. So, to see how well (or poorly) your stadium did, hit the jump!

Baseball Debate: Stadium Edition (Part 1)

Think, for a second, about the history and diversity of the baseball stadium. Not just the 30 that currently stand for MLB teams, but their predecessors both direct and indirect. Stadiums like Wahconah Park in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. Built in 1919, the park has games that are delayed because the sun sets--when it was built facing the west, there was no such thing as baseball at night. It's one of the few ballparks left with wooden bleachers, one of the few ballparks that watching a game at feels like it should. There's no distractions, no giant scoreboards, no vendors walking up and down the aisles, getting in your way. It doesn't have the history of a Fenway or a Wrigley, but it has all the authenticity of those two giants of the baseball stadium world. 

 Given the option between a game at Wahconah  (right) and a game at one of the awful cookie-cutter stadiums used for both baseball and football (Philly's old Veterans Stadium is a perfect example, as was New York's Shea Stadium), it's really not a close comparison in terms of the atmosphere and purity. However, the newer stadiums--starting with Baltimore's Camden Yards in 1992--have given baseball purists another angle to consider: stadiums built to be modern and fan-friendly, while still trying to retain some of the Wahconah Park charm. These kinds of throwback stadiums combine with some of the retractable-roof stadiums (i.e., Arizona's Chase Field)  and some of the ultra-modern stadiums (Minnesota's new Target Field) to make the ballparks something they've never been before: a source of debate. With such diversity in style and substance, from the old to the new, it's now not enough to compare the players on the field; that same debate has shifted to the buildings they play in. So, we turned to our friends over at Stadium Journey for the expertise on Major League stadiums, and see if we can't try and pick apart the debate just a little more.