It's always seemed nuts to me that MLB teams get to decide the dimensions of their parks as opposed to a standardized dimension.At the time, they were in the AL East. The thinking was since they couldn't compete with Boston & NY for free agents they would win with pitching and defense, similar to KC. Of course they never built a team that way and ended up moving to the Central anyway. Ilitch decided to spend big when he realized his window for winning and living was running out.
I am not a fan of the giant scoreboard [read: distraction], the noise, or baking in the sun at Comerica.
On a related note, I tried to take my kids to LCA for a hockey game and felt like I needed ear plugs to physically stay in the arena. We left early.
1953
I have to disagree about that. Part of what makes baseball fun is the widely varying dimensions and unique aspects of each park. It developed from baseball's early days when, as popularity grew and seating expanded, they had to fit the seats into the city block where the park was built. There would have been no overhang in right field at Tiger Stadium, etc. otherwise. How boring were all the cookie cutter stadiums in the National League in the '70's? Sure that was partly because they were multi-sport but also because every park had the same dimensions in right, right center and left and left center.
I'm not a baseball fan. I have A LOT of criticism for baseball and how SLOW and BORING it is. However, the unique park dimensions has always been a win for baseball in my eyes.
The sport lends itself to make the unique dimensions possible. It wouldn't work for hockey, basketball, or football. But for baseball, it makes sense. It also makes visiting other cities and watching baseball games in their parks more enjoyable because each stadium can be so unique.
What impresses me far more than the scoreboard is how much the Hudson Site skyscraper now dominates the Detroit skyline from the stadium as seen from this TV view.
|
Bookmarks