Sports
28 Jun 08
02 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, Riverfront was a piece of crap stadium. Yes, the Reds franchise, even though it's the oldest MLB team (formed 1859), is not as storied with success as the Yankees and Riverfront never did have quite as impressive a collections of monuments behind center field.
Are you freaking serious? Riverfront Stadium was a piece of crap, "cookie cutter" stadium with artificial turf that wasn't opened until 1970. The Reds had a few very good teams there.
Do I have to tell you the history of Yankee Stadium? You're comparing gold to pyrite.
However, the current Yankee Stadium, as it is now, was also constructed around 1972. Just the outer shell was kept, but it was completely gutted and redone. What stands in the Bronx is not the same ballpark that Ruth, DiMaggio, and Mantle played in. Yankee Stadium, as it is now, has seen only three more WS wins than what Riverfront saw. Reds: '75, '76, '90 Yankees: '77, '78, '96, '98, '99, and '00.
Every report I have read about Yankee Stadium says it is a dirty, filthy place to watch a baseball game full of foul-mouthed, rude fans with terrible ballpark food and no beer in the bleachers. espn.com did a ranking system on ballpark experience, and I believe Yankee Stadium scored in the bottom third while Great American was in the top half. Riverfront was gone by then.
I will have firsthand experience next Wednesday at Yankee Stadium and can give a better eyewitness to this. My experience at Great American was fine, but the game was ho-hum.
Don't get me wrong. I would still rather see a game at Yankee Stadium than at Riverfront, because the likelihood of watching a good game is much higher there. With the Rays in town, it might actually be a good game.
np
02 Jul 08
Originally posted by badmoonWorst ballpark ever! (Okay, Olympic Stadium is, but that team had sense enough to leave and go where it was appreciated.)
I for one am glad that they are tearing down the HHH Metrodome. God riddance and what a vile tribute to the great senator.
I am glad to see the Twins are getting a new stadium, although I'm surprised they didn't get a retractable dome. But knowing how long they've tried to get a new stadium and knowing the public support for this, I suppose it was a sensible compromise. It looks like it will be a beautiful one, too.
np
02 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by neonpeon41You are badly misinformed. The stadium was not "gutted" in the 1974-75 renovation and the changes made weren't any more extensive then the ones made in 1938 (except there were more changes to the dimensions). Here's the facts, something you seem to be very short of:
Yes, Riverfront was a piece of crap stadium. Yes, the Reds franchise, even though it's the oldest MLB team (formed 1859), is not as storied with success as the Yankees and Riverfront never did have quite as impressive a collections of monuments behind center field.
However, the current Yankee Stadium, as it is now, was also constructed around 1972. J is much higher there. With the Rays in town, it might actually be a good game.
np
During the 1974 and 1975 seasons, the Yankees played at Shea Stadium while the city made major renovations to Yankee Stadium. The many steel columns which supported the roof and upper decks were removed, and the upper decks were cantilevered over the lower deck. The original roof and its famous copper facade were removed and replaced with a smaller, more modern roof. The facade was replicated above the new scoreboard which ran the entire length of the bleachers.
http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/american/yankee.htm
It is the same ballpark that Ruth, DiMaggio, Gehrig, Mantle and all the rest played in and when I walk out of the runways and look at the glorious green grass, I think in awe "Babe Ruth played here". There is no place in sports with anything like the same aura and history of greatness.
Apparently the 4 million fans who go to the games there every year thus leading the majors in attendance, disagree with a poll filled with Yankee haters.
02 Jul 08
Originally posted by no1marauderI imagine all but you of the 4 million will continue to root for the Yankees next year in the new ball park because most fans (unlike you) are fan of the team and not the stadium.
You are badly misinformed. The stadium was not "gutted" in the 1974-75 renovation and the changes made weren't any more extensive then the ones made in 1938 (except there were more changes to the dimensions). Here's the facts, something you seem to be very short of:
During the 1974 and 1975 seasons, the Yankees played at Shea Stadium while the city ma ...[text shortened]... ear thus leading the majors in attendance, disagree with a poll filled with Yankee haters.
02 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by jofazIf you say so it must be true. I imagine there are other fans of the Yankees who are fans of the Yankee tradition (not the stadium per se, nitwit) and don't accept the mercenary decision to tear down such a historic icon. It's doubtful Yankee attendance will be as high next year anyway as to make room for the corporate luxury boxes, 5000 less seats per game will be available for Yankee fans.
I imagine all but you of the 4 million will continue to root for the Yankees next year in the new ball park because most fans (unlike you) are fan of the team and not the stadium.
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by no1marauder5000 fewer seats. That's really too bad. Why with the YES network I don't know how people will be able to see the Yankees play.
If you say so it must be true. I imagine there are other fans of the Yankees who are fans of the Yankee tradition (not the stadium per se, nitwit) and don't accept the mercenary decision to tear down such a historic icon. It's doubtful Yankee attendance will be as high next year anyway as to make room for the corporate luxury boxes, 5000 less seats per game will be available for Yankee fans.
http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/american/yankee.htm
Says here that in '71 the stadium lost nearly 11,000 seats. And yet they can still have 4 mil. fans/year visit. 3.6 mil fans still isn't too bad. Far sight better than Marlins and Rays.
Am I correct when I say the city of New York owns the stadium? Maybe they don't want to pay for the upkeep on such an old, dilapidated building? The city is run by elected officials. If the fans are so unhappy about the tearing down of such an icon maybe some people will lose their jobs over this decision?
np
03 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by neonpeon41Why bother to talk to people who are so deliberately ignorant of the facts? The idea that Yankee Stadium is "dilapidated" is laughable. The idea that it is the city of New York that wants to build a new stadium is preposterous. The idea that the situation is similar to 1971 when the Yankees couldn't fill the building and the Stadium did need a refurbishing (NOT a tearing down) is ridiculous.
5000 fewer seats. That's really too bad. Why with the YES network I don't know how people will be able to see the Yankees play.
http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/american/yankee.htm
Says here that in '71 the stadium lost nearly 11,000 seats. And yet they can still have 4 mil. fans/year visit. 3.6 mil fans still isn't too bad. Far sight better t aring down of such an icon maybe some people will lose their jobs over this decision?
np
EDIT: The city is losing money under the new stadium deal:
Rent Subsidy: Currently, the Yankees pay rent to the city and are permitted to deduct stadium maintenance costs. Under the new lease agreement, the Yankees would no longer pay rent and the city would no longer be responsible for maintenance costs. GJNY argued that this may amount to a net loss of revenue for this city. EDC officials responded:
"...the old stadium cost the City over $30 million to maintain in the past five years alone."
--EDC Spokeswoman Janel Patterson in the New York Sun
GJNY: These maintenance charges have not exceeded the Yankees rent payments. Between 2000 and 2004, the Yankees paid the city $26.43 million in rent after deducting maintenance costs.
http://www.goodjobsny.org/yankeestadium_news.htm
03 Jul 08
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI provided some statistical evidence in another thread which showed that teams who spent $90 million and above have had a statistical likelyhood of having a winning season. In fact, there were six teams in all and I looked at winning records from 2004 until present. I then showed that among those six teams there were only 3 seasons in which a team did not attain a .500 average or greater. I then showed teams that spent less and the numbers flipped flopped as the lower spending teams only had 3 or 4 winning seasons. Turn a blind eye to it if you will.
You contradict yourself and the facts in every post. I gave the link to this year's MLB attendance in my first post; if winning/losing records is the primary determinant of attendance, why is Tampa Bay, with the best record in baseball, 28th in attendance? If big market teams have all the competitive advantages, why is Tampa Bay and Arizona in first, and n attendance?
Try to make at least a little sense; you're making none now.
I compare the success of Tampa Bay to someone going to Vegas and striking it rich. Sure it is possible, but the odds are not in your favor as I have shown. It does happen, but not on average.
As far as your assertion that fans will or will not go see a team play regardless of their play on the field, you are welcome to your opinion, however, that is not personal view nor of people I know. Baseball is like anything else really. You either provide the public with a desirable product or you go out of business. As for Tampa Bay, I suspect that if they continue their winning ways like the Yankees have for over a decade that their fan attendance will pick up. It is not something you can fix over night.
BTW: Do you really think Tampa Bay will end up beating the likes of a team like Boston in the post season? LOL.
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by no1marauderHave you ever been there? I have and I do not agree. In its glory it left an impression on me that is woefully lacking in the new stadium. Anyhow, who cares what you think? Value is soley dependent on ones perspective. In and of themselves, both stadiums have no value other than what we place them to be.
Are you freaking serious? Riverfront Stadium was a piece of crap, "cookie cutter" stadium with artificial turf that wasn't opened until 1970. The Reds had a few very good teams there.
Do I have to tell you the history of Yankee Stadium? You're comparing gold to pyrite.
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by whodeyOne or two World Series victories won't cut it either. You must continue to win and compete over several seasons to garner a long-standing following. See Toronto, Florida and Arizona.
You either provide the public with a desirable product or you go out of business. As for Tampa Bay, I suspect that if they continue their winning ways like the Yankees have for over a decade that their fan attendance will pick up. It is not something you can fix over night.
BTW: Do you really think Tampa Bay will end up beating the likes of a team like Boston in the post season? LOL.
As for Tampa Bay beating the likes of Boston in the post-season, it is entirely possible if Boston pitching continues to falter and if Big Papi doesn't make it back onto the field this season. Entirely possible. Just ask members of the Red Sox, a team who haven't won a game at Tropicana field yet this year.
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by whodeyI'm amazed that you would bring up that other thread though not surprised that, even though your arguments were completely refuted, you still make them. As I said there:
I provided some statistical evidence in another thread which showed that teams who spent $90 million and above have had a statistical likelyhood of having a winning season. In fact, there were six teams in all and I looked at winning records from 2004 until present. I then showed that among those six teams there were only 3 seasons in which a team did not a ...[text shortened]... ly think Tampa Bay will end up beating the likes of a team like Boston in the post season? LOL.
In fact the team with the highest payroll finished first in only two of the divisions. And only 4 of the top eight payroll teams even made it to the playoffs - 3 of the bottom 8 in payroll made the playoffs.
3 of the lowest 8 payrolls made it into the playoffs; Colorado (which went to the World Series), Cleveland (which beat the Yankees) and Arizona. Explain that. The Mets were 3rd in payroll; they didn't make the playoffs. The White Sox were 5th; they lost 90 games. The Dodgers and Mariners were 6th and 7th respectively; neither made the playoffs.
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=93617&page=1
05 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI am not saying that low pay roll teams have no chance to compete for a world championship, rather, what I am saying is they have a less likelyhood of doing so.
I'm amazed that you would bring up that other thread though not surprised that, even though your arguments were completely refuted, you still make them. As I said there:
In fact the team with the highest payroll finished first in only two of the divisions. And only 4 of the top eight payroll teams even made it to the playoffs - 3 of the bottom 8 in p made the playoffs.
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=93617&page=1
For example, the Yankees have consistently had the highest payroll for some time now. As a matter of fact, in 2008 their payroll is $209 million! Going back as far as 2004 we see that their lowest winning percentage was .580! Every year they have made the playoffs without fail and have positioned themselves consistently to go to the world series by buying a team that will undoubtidly go to the playoffs.
Conversely, two of the lowest spending teams which are the Rays and Marlins have a total of two seasons comined in which they finished over .500. That is 2 winning seasons in 8 chances compared to the Yankees who have scored 4 out of 4 chances.
Interestingly, in 2005 Detroits payroll was #22 in the league but this year it is #2! That is quite a jump and their record reflects this. From 2004 till 2005 they had a record of under .500 ball, however, as they began to spend more from 2006 till present they have had two seasons over .500 ball. Other consistently high payroll teams are the Red Sox, the Mets, and the Angels from 2004 till 2007. Among the three teams there was only one season in which a team played below .500 ball. This is one loosing season out of 12!!!
You enjoy bringing up consistently low pay roll teams like Colorado who made it to a World Series, however, lets look at their performance over the last 4 years shall we? Over the last four years they have only had one winning season in which they made it to the World Series for the first time, and I might add, unfortunatly as Boston blasted them into another dimension.
Of course, one can buy their way into the playoffs, however, winning in the post season is quite another thing entirely. For example, my Reds beat up on your Yankees this year and in their own back yard, I might add, however, do you really think my Reds have a chance to go to the post season? Conversely, everyone expects the Yankees to make it to the post season. I just get a kick out of the media attention the Yankees get if it looks as though they may not even make the playoffs. It is as if a major scandel had taken place in which everyone is dumbfounded. In fact, I see this happen even if they don't make it to a world series. LOL. Conversly, the same reacion would occur if my Reds actually made it to the post season.
Of course this years record to date probably should not be used because the verdict is still out. There is too much baseball yet to be played to use such data.
06 Jul 08
Originally posted by whodeyTo repeat what is painfully obvious by comparing the amount of payroll to the standings this year and in past years: NO amount of money spent on payroll guarantees you a spot in the playoffs. You can keep claiming it does all you want, but that is at variance with the facts (not that being at variance with facts ever stopped you from claiming rubbish before).
I am not saying that low pay roll teams have no chance to compete for a world championship, rather, what I am saying is they have a less likelyhood of doing so.
For example, the Yankees have consistently had the highest payroll for some time now. As a matter of fact, in 2008 their payroll is $209 million! Going back as far as 2004 we see that their lowes ...[text shortened]... ecause the verdict is still out. There is too much baseball yet to be played to use such data.