 |
|
|
|
Next: San Francisco Giants: minor lines, 5/3/08
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: May 21, 2004
Posts: 450
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 7:36 pm
Post subject: Is AT&T Park *that* bad?
Archived from groups: alt>sports>baseball>sf-giants (more info?)
|
|
|
An SI fan survey...
www.si.com/ballparks
AT&T came in at #17 overall. I was quite surprised by this. I would
have guessed somewhere in the top five.
I wouldn't have picked Jacobs Field in Cleveland as #1, but I went a
couple years ago and it was a nice experience.
Miller Park especially surprised me at #2. Went a couple years ago,
also, and it ain't that great. The food, for all the hype, was
especially disappointing. The food at AT&T is much better, albeit also
much pricier.
I would have picked Kaufman Stadium in Kansas City higher. It's very
underrated, IMHO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Jan 21, 2005
Posts: 137
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 7:36 pm
Post subject: Re: Is AT&T Park *that* bad? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
The DaveŠ wrote:
> An SI fan survey...
>
> www.si.com/ballparks
>
> AT&T came in at #17 overall. I was quite surprised by this. I would
> have guessed somewhere in the top five.
>
> I wouldn't have picked Jacobs Field in Cleveland as #1, but I went a
> couple years ago and it was a nice experience.
>
> Miller Park especially surprised me at #2. Went a couple years ago,
> also, and it ain't that great. The food, for all the hype, was
> especially disappointing. The food at AT&T is much better, albeit also
> much pricier.
>
> I would have picked Kaufman Stadium in Kansas City higher. It's very
> underrated, IMHO.
Why are your surprised? It's a survey of fans about their *own*
ballparks. It just appears that fans in the Midwest have lower
standards and are easier to please. 
Seriously, if you look at the ratings for each of the categories that
are going into the calculations for the overall rating, it's no surprise
that AT&T Park resides in the lower half.
Here are categories where the AT&T Park (and the Giants) got hammered on:
Affordability: 26
Team Quality: 27
Promotions: 25
Hospitality: 21
Fan IQ: 17
To me, those seem like fair rankings (in fact in think the Fan IQ
ranking should be a bit lower).
Note that there isn't a category for general visual aesthetics of the
ballparks, where AT&T Park would be one of the highest rated ones. The
two closest categories for this would probably be "Atmosphere" and
"Neighborhood" yet both of these categories encompasses a lot more than
the visual appeal of the stadium and its surrounding area.
- Peter |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 31, 2003
Posts: 1035
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 7:36 pm
Post subject: Re: Is AT&T Park *that* bad? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Mon, 05 May 2008 14:30:24 -0700, Peter Lawrence <hummbaby DeleteThis @aol.com>
wrote:
>The DaveŠ wrote:
>> An SI fan survey...
>>
>> www.si.com/ballparks
>>
>> AT&T came in at #17 overall. I was quite surprised by this. I would
>> have guessed somewhere in the top five.
>>
>> I wouldn't have picked Jacobs Field in Cleveland as #1, but I went a
>> couple years ago and it was a nice experience.
>>
>> Miller Park especially surprised me at #2. Went a couple years ago,
>> also, and it ain't that great. The food, for all the hype, was
>> especially disappointing. The food at AT&T is much better, albeit also
>> much pricier.
>>
>> I would have picked Kaufman Stadium in Kansas City higher. It's very
>> underrated, IMHO.
>
>Why are your surprised? It's a survey of fans about their *own*
>ballparks. It just appears that fans in the Midwest have lower
>standards and are easier to please.
>
>Seriously, if you look at the ratings for each of the categories that
>are going into the calculations for the overall rating, it's no surprise
>that AT&T Park resides in the lower half.
>
>Here are categories where the AT&T Park (and the Giants) got hammered on:
>
>Affordability: 26
>Team Quality: 27
>Promotions: 25
>Hospitality: 21
>Fan IQ: 17
>
>To me, those seem like fair rankings (in fact in think the Fan IQ
>ranking should be a bit lower).
Agreed. Too many people more interested in being on TV on their cell
phones than watching the game. It should have been down with the Team
Quality rating. Fortunately, the Bonds departure should start to pare
those idiots out of the equation.
Sadly, a category for fans who have utilized sabrmetric principles to
succeed in business was not one of the categories, otherwise AT&T would
have scored higher.
--
Greg Lentz >> Stay informed about: Is AT&T Park *that* bad? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 06, 2007
Posts: 779
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 7:36 pm
Post subject: Re: Is AT&T Park *that* bad? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Peter Lawrence" <hummbaby.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:R%KTj.2311$3O7.998@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
> The DaveŠ wrote:
> > An SI fan survey...
> >
> > www.si.com/ballparks
> >
> > AT&T came in at #17 overall. I was quite surprised by this. I would
> > have guessed somewhere in the top five.
> >
> > I wouldn't have picked Jacobs Field in Cleveland as #1, but I went a
> > couple years ago and it was a nice experience.
> >
> > Miller Park especially surprised me at #2. Went a couple years ago,
> > also, and it ain't that great. The food, for all the hype, was
> > especially disappointing. The food at AT&T is much better, albeit also
> > much pricier.
> >
> > I would have picked Kaufman Stadium in Kansas City higher. It's very
> > underrated, IMHO.
>
> Why are your surprised? It's a survey of fans about their *own*
> ballparks. It just appears that fans in the Midwest have lower
> standards and are easier to please.
>
> Seriously, if you look at the ratings for each of the categories that
> are going into the calculations for the overall rating, it's no surprise
> that AT&T Park resides in the lower half.
>
> Here are categories where the AT&T Park (and the Giants) got hammered on:
>
> Affordability: 26
> Team Quality: 27
> Promotions: 25
> Hospitality: 21
> Fan IQ: 17
Well, that says it all. None of these categories has anything to do with
how beautiful a ballpark looks.
Hmm... affordability... would teams in the Central generally be more
affordable as a group than teams in the coasts to watch?
Fan IQ... that depends on what they mean. In terms of real IQ, with the bay
area being the high tech central, it's hard to see them being below average.
 >> Stay informed about: Is AT&T Park *that* bad? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 03, 2007
Posts: 1623
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 7:36 pm
Post subject: Re: Is AT&T Park *that* bad? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Greg Lentz" <nodamnspam RemoveThis @speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:eavu145b41elo8rctht7gj8cqi4ehrn586@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 05 May 2008 14:30:24 -0700, Peter Lawrence <hummbaby RemoveThis @aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The DaveŠ wrote:
>>> An SI fan survey...
>>>
>>> www.si.com/ballparks
>>>
>>> AT&T came in at #17 overall. I was quite surprised by this. I would
>>> have guessed somewhere in the top five.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't have picked Jacobs Field in Cleveland as #1, but I went a
>>> couple years ago and it was a nice experience.
>>>
>>> Miller Park especially surprised me at #2. Went a couple years ago,
>>> also, and it ain't that great. The food, for all the hype, was
>>> especially disappointing. The food at AT&T is much better, albeit also
>>> much pricier.
>>>
>>> I would have picked Kaufman Stadium in Kansas City higher. It's very
>>> underrated, IMHO.
>>
>>Why are your surprised? It's a survey of fans about their *own*
>>ballparks. It just appears that fans in the Midwest have lower
>>standards and are easier to please.
>>
>>Seriously, if you look at the ratings for each of the categories that
>>are going into the calculations for the overall rating, it's no surprise
>>that AT&T Park resides in the lower half.
>>
>>Here are categories where the AT&T Park (and the Giants) got hammered on:
>>
>>Affordability: 26
>>Team Quality: 27
>>Promotions: 25
>>Hospitality: 21
>>Fan IQ: 17
>>
>>To me, those seem like fair rankings (in fact in think the Fan IQ
>>ranking should be a bit lower).
>
> Agreed. Too many people more interested in being on TV on their cell
> phones than watching the game. It should have been down with the Team
> Quality rating. Fortunately, the Bonds departure should start to pare
> those idiots out of the equation.
>
> Sadly, a category for fans who have utilized sabrmetric principles to
> succeed in business was not one of the categories, otherwise AT&T would
> have scored higher.
> --
> Greg LeNTZ
SF giant fans are a lot better than most. >> Stay informed about: Is AT&T Park *that* bad? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 29, 2004
Posts: 555
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 12:47 am
Post subject: Re: Is AT&T Park *that* bad? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
> Awesome Lincecum wrote:
> Fan IQ... that depends on what they mean. In terms of real IQ, with
> the bay area being the high tech central, it's hard to see them being
> below average.
Since it's fans rating their own stadiums, maybe it's a relative
question... do you consider the guy sitting next to you who is
explaining the infield fly rule to his wife an idiot or a genius? >> Stay informed about: Is AT&T Park *that* bad? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 21, 2005
Posts: 137
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 12:47 am
Post subject: Re: Is AT&T Park *that* bad? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
The DaveŠ wrote:
>> Awesome Lincecum wrote:
>>
>> Fan IQ... that depends on what they mean. In terms of real IQ, with
>> the bay area being the high tech central, it's hard to see them being
>> below average.
>
> Since it's fans rating their own stadiums, maybe it's a relative
> question... do you consider the guy sitting next to you who is
> explaining the infield fly rule to his wife an idiot or a genius?
Depends, if he explains it correctly then I would consider him to be
intelligent. But, as it is too often the case at AT&T Park, if he
explains it to her *incorrectly*, then I would consider him to be a fine
example of the typical clueless baseball fan found throughout that ballpark.
- Peter >> Stay informed about: Is AT&T Park *that* bad? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 06, 2007
Posts: 779
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 4:58 am
Post subject: Re: Is AT&T Park *that* bad? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"The DaveŠ" <no RemoveThis @no.com> wrote in message
news:uUNTj.780$hJ1.45@newsfe17.lga...
> > Awesome Lincecum wrote:
> > Fan IQ... that depends on what they mean. In terms of real IQ, with
> > the bay area being the high tech central, it's hard to see them being
> > below average.
>
> Since it's fans rating their own stadiums, maybe it's a relative
> question... do you consider the guy sitting next to you who is
> explaining the infield fly rule to his wife an idiot or a genius?
Then I wonder how the Dodgers fans did on the IQ part. Are they considered
smart or dumb for showing up in the 3rd and leaving by the 7th? >> Stay informed about: Is AT&T Park *that* bad? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
