IndianaTwin

And we're off to a good start. Good feedback, folks.

Thanks for the feedback. I did realize that "overall outfield defense" doesn't fit into my schematic real well, and it is hard to imagine it being as good as last year. Those innings of Rosario-Buxton-Hicks were pretty sweet. I was probably too hard on Hunter in suggesting that others won't be worse. Even as he slowed, one thing he had going for him was the instinct to do the right thing. So unlike me in slow-pitch softball, he's not going to compound not getting to a ball by throwing it to the wrong base. Put another way, even if Sano or someone else is able to get to the same number of balls and have a similar, he may be less effective than Hunter.

In the spring of 1991, I updated my answering machine every couple days with a message about why I thought the Twins were going to the World Series. I say that not to suggest that I’m a genius, but rather to say that I’m optimist. To speak to the not-a-genius part, I was also very high on the 2011 team coming out of spring training. Boy was that a clunker! I’ve spent the last couple of winters thinking that we’re making progress, but when I came back to a read a few postings today, it seemed like the pessimists were yelling a lot louder than the optimists. Call me nuts, but don’t we have more reason for hope than we did at this point a year ago? Forgive the length, but here’s what I see. Starters 2015: Gibson (29 years old; 32 starts; 108 ERA+); Pelfrey (32-30-97); Hughes (30-25-94); Milone (29-23-106); Santana (33-17-104); May (26-16-104); Duffey (24-10-134); Nolasco (33-8-62) 2016: A similar amount of Gibson; less Pelfrey; Hughes is more like 2014 than 2015; Milone’s a wash; a full season of Santana; more of May, either as a starter or as a reliever; possibly more games out of Duffey, though probably not as good each time out; Nolasco can’t be any worse; add Berrios. Isn’t the 2016 scenario a better overall mix? Bullpen: 2015: Besides May (see above), the 10 guys who got the most innings were Boyer, Graham, Fien, Perkins, Duensing, Thompson, Jepsen, Pressley, Tonkin, and O’Rourke. 2016: Watching from a distance, it’s hard to get a feel for this. But among those guys, Boyer, Duensing, and Thompson are gone, and I haven’t heard any weeping. We have a whole season of Perkins, but not sure if the net of that is an improvement. A whole season of Jepsen is an improvement. If May is in the bullpen the whole year, that’s an improvement over a half-season of May. Graham, Pressly, Tonkin and O’Rourke are all 28 or younger, so I’d like to think they should improve in net – were any pitching over their heads? Is Meyer still part of the plan? The other guys on the 40-man are Chargois, Darnell, Dean, Landa, Melotakis, and Rosario. We’re deep into the pen by now, but I hear about prospects that you folks think are pretty good. Isn’t the 2016 scenario a better overall mix? Catcher 2015: Suzuki (123 starts), Herrman (32), Fryer (7) 2016: Suzuki underperformed last year, right? And we added Murphy and now Hicks. Isn’t the 2016 scenario a better overall mix? 1B 2015: Mauer (135), Vargas (14), Plouffe (13). 2016: I get the elephant in the room stuff with Mauer. But if he plays 135 games, isn’t he more likely to improve than regress? If Vargas gets more than 14 starts, it’s because he’s improved. Add Park to the mix. Add a full season of Sano to the mix somewhere. Isn’t the 2016 scenario a better overall mix? 2B 2015: Dozier (157), Escobar (4), Nunez (1). 2016: Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the 2B situation about as settled as anything on this list? Dozier’s 28, so in mid-career. This seems like a wash. And assuming that he’s healthy, it seems like his 2014 is more typical (and a little better) than 2015. I don’t know that 2016 is a better scenario than 2015, but it doesn’t seem any worse. SS 2015: Escobar (71), Santana (65), Nunez (23), Polanco (3). 2016: All four are still on the roster. Escobar is 27 and didn’t play over his head, did he? Santana can’t be any worse. Nunez is what he is. Polanco’s 22, so he only plays if he’s good. Isn’t the 2016 scenario a better overall mix? 3B 2015: Plouffe (138), Nunez (9), Sano (9), Escobar (5), Bernier (1). 2016: Ah, third base. But the starters of 161 games are still on the roster. The incumbent is still only 30. In looking at his last four years, he appears to have underperformed a bit last year. So, if he plays, it seems like we might get a little better performance in 2016. If not, it probably means a lot more Sano, which seems like a good thing as well. Isn’t the 2016 scenario a better overall mix, potentially by a bunch? LF 2015: Rosario (83), Robinson (32), Escobar (27), Arcia (14), Hicks (4), Nunez (2). 2016: Robinson and Hicks are not on the roster. Rather than trying to speculate on who’s playing which position, can we assume that a full season of Rosario playing somewhere is more production than what we got out of LF last year? If he’s not playing LF, can we assume that one of the other likely candidates will be pretty productive, though it may be a downgrade defensively? But really, isn’t the 2016 scenario a better overall mix? CF 2015: Hicks (87), Buxton (35), Schafer (20), Robinson (14), Rosario (3), Santana (3). 2016: Hicks, Schafer, and Robinson are gone. I’m going to work at this one a little differently. Our assumption is that Buxton will get at least 87 games. Don’t we assume that he’ll give us more in his last 87 games than Hicks gave us in his 87 starts, perhaps a lot more? Okay, next let’s say that Buxton gives us 87 + 35 starts. Given that Buxton was good defensively but lousy offensively, can’t we assume that his first 35 starts won’t be any worse than his 35 starts last year, and potentially a lot better. That leaves us the 40 games started by the other four guys. I’ll be honest -- I think the Sweeney signing was a nice low-risk option. I could see the other 40 games being started by 1) Sweeney, who would be no worse and perhaps better than the last four were; 2) Buxton winning the job out of spring training and being no worse and perhaps better than the last four as he gets his feet wet; 3) somebody else, who would be no worse and perhaps better than the last four. So, isn’t the 2016 scenario a better overall mix? Given our expectations for Buxton, maybe a whole lot better? RF 2015: Hunter (121), Rosario (30), Hicks (4), Arcia (4), Robinson (2), Kepler (1). 2016: Hunter’s gone, and you can’t quantify leadership. But it seems like the on-field analysis that he was so-so with the bat and a toadstool on defense. As we look at 2016 and recognizing that I’ve allocated all of Rosario to left, we’re really talking a whole new mix. I haven’t allocated Sano anywhere. If he plays most of his time here, isn’t a full season of him a major upgrade offensively and no worse defensively than Hunter? If Arcia/Kepler/Walker/Sweeney plays the bulk of time, isn’t it because they’ve earned their keep? They have shown that they are no worse defensively than Hunter (maybe better, at least in the case of Sweeney) and perhaps at least a bit of an upgrade offensively, maybe even a large upgrade. So all in all, though it’s tough to make this a certainty, isn’t the 2016 scenario a better overall mix, maybe a whole lot better? DH 2015: Help me out here. Where do I find the games started at DH without looking at each individual player? But at any rate, I did find that Sano started 69, Vargas started 29, and Mauer 19. That leaves 45, which I assume were kind of scattered around. 2016: Sano was a monster in those 69 games, but the rest of our DHs were nothing special. With injuries and attrition, it seems feasible that Sano starts 69 games here, which would seem a wash with last year. For the other 93 games, isn’t a combination of some games from Sano, Park if he’s not at 1B, and whoever’s best among Vargas/Arcia/Kepler/Walker and other guys getting a day off defensively better than what we got out of 93 games of whoever-is-not-named-Sano last year. So, isn’t the 2016 scenario a better overall mix? Summary In summary then, I offer three questions or comments. If you respond, please indicate which part you are responding to. 1-As I go through the lineup, I don’t see any place where we should be expected to be worse. There are a few places that seem like a wash, a few that COULD be somewhat better, a few that SHOULD be somewhat better, and a few that could be a whole LOT better. So, isn’t the 2016 scenario a better overall mix? If so, how much better? If I’m missing the boat, where? 2-I have chosen not to play the “but we could be a lot better still if we only did this” card. It seems like there is plenty of that going around on other articles and forums. If you want to make a comment on this one, feel free, but separate it from responses to No. 1. 3-I also haven’t played the “but will it be good enough to make the playoffs” card. There’s too much unknown in that – injuries (both to the Twins and other teams), luck, moves that other teams make, luck. Oh, and luck. I approach life as saying all a person can do is try to increase the likelihood of good things happening. If you want to make a comment on how this improvement stacks up, feel free as well, but separate it from responses to No. 1.

Yes, yes, yes. I've made the same argument on Cabrera. And Albert Pujols followed a reasonably similar path, though without the SS part. Then add -- the last two years, Mauer averaged 117 starts at 1B. If something similar happens, that's 45 games Sano may not start in the OF. He can DH while Park plays 1B. Plouffe averaged 132 starts at 3B. That's 30 games Sano can play the 3B many desire. And Park ain't gonna play 162 games either, so Sano is the DH those days. Let's get real, folks. "Sano to the OF" isn't going to result in 162 games out there. And if it does, that's because Plouffe, Mauer, and Park all stayed incredibly healthy and productive. That's a problem I can deal with.

Though Joe Nathan didn't come over until 2004, I clump him in with that group. My kids were at the autograph-seeking age, and we went to a lot of games around the country. I'm sure I was biased, but I thought the Twins (especially the bullpen guys) were particularly gracious signers for my kids, and I thought Nathan set the tone for that. He and Juan Rincon.

Pretty good for the 2001 Cardinals also.

Been there, done that! It gets better though -- at some point, it's your kids hounding you to get there by the beginning of BP. :-)

Thanks for the feedback. I teach my kids to always look for an alternative explanation for conclusions drawn from statistical data. You found one with the observation that the third-time-through data has a disproportionate number of PAs from the top of the order. To some extent, that will happen in the second time through as well, though likely not as often. I suppose the way to correct for this is to drill down a step and see what the difference is on a lineup spot by spot basis. That is, does a No. 1 hitter's OPS go up the third time they face a starter, etc. Any idea where to find that data? Counterbalancing that, I wondered if the third-time-thru data is also disproportionately affected by having better pitchers included. Whether it's good pitchers that disproportionately get to the third time in the order or so-so pitchers having a good day, it seems like the pitcher facing hitters for the third time is at least perceived to be effective that day. If a guy is getting shelled, he has fewer chances to face batters a third time. At any rate, I did find that the league average last year was for starters to have .723 OPS against the first time through and a .727 the second time through, but to jump to .751 the third time through. What jumped out at me, however, is that the OPS against for a reliever in his first time through was .703. That may be affected by having a disproportionate number of PAs against the bottom of the order, but it applies to all relievers, so it includes second, third, and fourth relievers as well, when the lineup has turned over. If the difference is indeed genuine, why not maximize the number of at bats against a reliever by asking them to go more than an inning?

Thanks for the feedback. My sense on the second guy having less pressure is that he's typically asked to through four innings (or three to set up the closer) rather than five and that he doesn't have the perceived pressure of starting. But you're also right in that the second guy is potentially pitching in higher leverage system. In some ways, the system takes care of the bad day/good day effect. It takes a 1.50 or worse WHIP to get through 18 batters and not also get through more than four full innings. In most games, the starter will be into the fifth by the time he gets to the 18th batter. The approach I'm suggesting is that if he opens the fifth by getting the No. 8 and/or 9 batter out, he gets the chance to finish the inning. If he's really cruising (it works to a WHIP of 1.13 or better, or getting help from a double play) he'll get to begin the sixth, and again, if he gets the 18th batter out to open the sixth, keep him in there. See next comment on bringing in a "bad day" reliever.

Thanks for the response. Your variation has a quite similar feel. With not having the Kershaw type, it seems like the 2016 Twins could be a good fit for this approach. That I had to suggest Meyer/Nolasco for the fourth in the reliever quartet might make your approach of three second guys more feasible. That also keeps one more guy available for situational stuff. What I liked about the quartet in relief is two-part: 1) it has the expectation of sometimes getting through the game on two pitchers, which saves the end guys; and 2) it gives opportunity for a structured change in pitching style, which I think could be pretty significant. Whether it's lefty to righty or offspeed to fastballer, it could increase the second guy's effectiveness even more.

A couple weeks ago, a friend and I were discussing a player’s HOF credentials and noted that the quality of a guy’s Strat-O-Matic card is a good snapshot of a guy’s dominance. Anybody remember that Barry Bonds card from 2001? Anyway, that also reminded me of the year that I dominated my league by using starters for only a couple innings so that I could maximize my dominant relievers. So, I’ve been batting around an idea in my head, knowing that no team will actually use it, but wondering how it could actually work. It grows from a stat on MLB Network yesterday saying that OPS goes up by 66 points with the pitcher’s third time through the lineup. So, indulge me, and let’s have a little fun with it on a holiday weekend. How about a return to the four-man rotation, with each starter having the goal to throw to only 18 batters? For a pitcher with a 1.20 WHIP, that gets them through five innings. For a pitcher with a 1.28 WHIP, it gets you through 4.2 innings. So, the plan is that if the starter gets through 18 batters and there are no runners on base, he gets to finish the inning. On occasion, that may even mean finishing the sixth. Here’s how that shapes up on this year’s schedule. Starter 1 makes 23 starts on three days’ rest and 17 on four days (including his first start), plus seven days of rest over the All-Star game. Starter 2 makes 25 on three days and 14 on four days (plus one on seven days and one on five when they have two off days in the same week). Starter 3 makes 24 on three and 14 on four (plus one on seven and one on five). Starter 4 makes 23 on three and 16 on four (plus one on seven). So, the reality is that about 41 percent of the starts come on what is now seen as “normal” rest. And no one ever goes long into a game, probably about 80 pitches a start, so they should be able to come back on three days’ rest. At 40-41 starts apiece, the average five innings from a 1.20 WHIP gets a guy to 200 innings for the season. For argument’s sake, let’s put Santana, Hughes, Millone, and Gibson in the rotation. Then, pair them up with Duffey, May, Berrios, and maybe Meyer. Since so much of pitching is throwing off timing, I tried to match them for the biggest contrast. So, after getting two at bats off Millone, hitters get greeted by Berrios the third time through, etc. You folks who have a chance to see them more often than me might have better matches to screw up the timing. Suggestions? In general, these relievers are all guys who can go as far as four innings. On many occasions, they could be expected to finish up the game in those combinations. If it seems that the starters are getting worn down at times, protect them a bit by flipping the role. Say Hughes is wearing down – just start May for 18 batters and use Hughes in relief for a couple times through the rotation, etc. There is also some room for specialists in this plan. Let’s assume that the relief quartet is solid enough to go four innings and get the three-run saves. For one and two-run saves and other high leverage situations when a reliever is needed in the eighth and ninth, let’s reserve Jepsen and Perkins for that. There will also be a few cases when the starter gets hammered in his first two times through the lineup. If the offense has scored enough runs to keep the team in the game, just bring in the reliever in an inning earlier. Hopefully this happens rarely enough that the reliever may be able to go five innings, or long enough to get to Jepsen/Perkins for the closer. And if the team is out of it, bring in the take-one-for-the-team guy: Nolasco. (I’d actually consider Nolasco over Meyer for the fourth spot in the relief quartet, but it’s not a real TwinsDaily post without taking a potshot at Nolasco, so I’m using him here.) And one more specialist. The relief quartet is all guys who are used to start innings fresh, as are Perkins and Jepsen. So save a spot somebody like Fien or Tonkin, whose role it is to be used in whatever situation to finish off an inning and get back to the relief quartet, Jepsen, and Perkins starting innings. That could mean finishing off the rare third or fourth inning when the starter gets hammered or the fifth (or even sixth) when he doesn’t quite get through it, and the sixth through eighth when the relief quartet guy doesn’t quite have it. It never works out so cleanly, of course, but it seems there is enough room for flexibility to shuffle roles around. For example, if a starter ends up on the DL, there are four relief quartet guys who could step into the rotation with minimal stretching out. If Nolasco pitches himself out of the take-one-for-the-team (in a good way, I mean), he could get promoted to the relief quartet in place of the guy most deserving of relegation (think European soccer). Studs in Rochester deserving of promotion would step into lower-pressure roles of the relief quartet, rather than coming up to a role that is expected to get six or seven innings. I think some teams have tried some variation of this approach in their minors. It seems like the Twins current staff is the type of staff that it would best with, since there’s not the dominant starter that is going to get you 7-8 innings every time out. So, other than the fact that it’s different enough that no manager would try it, could it actually work in practice? What am I missing? Any other wacko ideas to trot out on a holiday weekend with nothing else to do?

Pujols (6-3, 230) played a bunch of OF after virtually no OF in the minors. Miguel Cabrera (6-4, 240) played a bunch of OF after virtually no OF in the minors. And Jim Rice (6-2, 200) was a toadstool. Seems like it's at least a possibility for Sano. Going there for a time doesn't put him in the OF for the rest of his career.

dougkoebernick, do you have suggestions on this week's Powerball drawing?

Evans pick off was a defining moment in my marriage. Married just over a year, my wife went to bed in our tiny mobile home in the middle of the eighth, saying "keep it down out there." When he got nabbed I instinctively leaped off the couch and let out a yell that probably woke the neighbors. I immediately raced to the bedroom and asked for forgiveness. I'm so lucky to have married her.

So, my son, Tony, has been giving me a daily synopsis of standings, tiebreaker scenarios, etc. He's more of a geek than me, so I trust his work. Here's today's report: Toronto and KC are tied for the top seed. Toronto has the tiebreaker based on head-to-head. If Tex and Hou tie for the division (requiring Tex to lose out and Hou to win out), the other would get the wild-card. Tex would host Hou in the G163 to win the division. In two-way ties to determine the second wild card, Hou would host Ana, Ana would host Min, and Min would host Hou. But in Tony's dreams, maximum complexity always occurs. So he's hoping for would be a three-way tie. In that scenario, MLB has declared that Team A hosts Team B in G163; the winner of that would host Team C in G164. So, Team C gets the bye, but has to play on the road in G164. Team A would need to win G163 and G164 at home. Team B would have to win G163 on the road and then G164 at home. He said that the coin flips have given Ana the chance to pick its slot first, followed by Hou, with Min getting the leftover. It seems like Team C is the best slot to be in, followed by A, meaning the Twins would likely get slot B. How things shape up... Tex has 87 wins and hosts Ana for three games.Hou has 84 wins and is at Ari for three in interleague play.Ana has 83 wins and is at Tex for three.Min has 83 wins and hosts KC for three.At worst (for them) Tex loses three and Hou wins three, giving the two of them the Division and WC. In that scenario, Ana ends up at least a game behind Hou (if Hou loses out) and tied with Min (if Min loses out). So, let's hope that Tex wins out and eliminates Ana. Then, the Twins just need to pick up a game on Hou for the tie and the right to host Hou in G163 or picks up two games on Hou to win the WC outright. PS: I have developed a man crush on Tyler Duffey.

Hope to on Friday night.

"Giggle. Gawd, I love playing the White Sox. Here's the play of the game. Also, your moment of zen: "http://m.mlb.com/vid...?game_pk=415617" I've commented before, and others join me in this. The painful part about living near Chicago is that we have to put up with Hawk Harrelson doing games. But in this case, watching that play was even more enjoyable listening to him. Or should l say, "not listening." I'll bet the mute button is still in pain from how hard Hawk had to have been squeezing it for about 10 seconds. Then he went off blubbering about their misplays. Ah.... the sound of silence.

Great article, great comments. Let me summarize what I'm hearing and offer a new option... 1-Berrios has continued to be lights out throughout his 155.1 innings, but he has nothing left to prove in the minors. 2-He could help the big club make the playoffs by getting up to 7 or starts and then ostensibly would get a few more when we go on a Royals-type run. 3-He could help the big club by joining the bullpen as a lights-out setup guy and then ostensibly (I like that word) would get a few more when we go on a Royals-type run. 4-To be eligible for the postseason roster, he has to be promoted by Aug. 31. 5-Ostensibly (see point 3), a primary reason to skip points 2 and 3 is to keep the clock from starting on his arbitration/free agent clock. 6-Because he has nothing left to prove in the minors, he is a given to start 2016 in the rotation. 7-There is no No. 7, at least not yet. Let me now spin out a scenario in a different direction... 1-I like the first part of No. 1, but I think he does have something to prove. Namely, that he can pitch 200-230 innings, which is where I think we see him headed in the future. He only pitched 103.2 in 2013, 140 in 2014, and is at 155.1 this year. Study or no study, going from 140 IP to 200 IP as a 21-year-old scares me. 2-Which is why I don't like No. 2 above. Seems like the injury risk is too great. 3-One could argue (and I think someone did) that he would upgrade the bullpen more than he would upgrade the rotation. At the least, in the bullpen, his innings could be managed well. He would never pitch in a game when the Twins are up or down more than three runs. One could argue that having him start a game when the Twins score six runs, for example, is a wasted start, because even the worst starter ought to keep them in the game (especially when backed up by Berrios himself if the schmuck gives up five). So, I like the idea of bringing Berrios up to the bullpen and giving him the opportunity to pitch up to 15 or so innings out of the bullpen on days when he's rested and on days when his innings have the potential to make a difference between a win and a loss. The moment they are deemed out of the playoff chase, shut him down and let him live the good life and learn the MLB process. This approach keeps him at about 170 innings, which feels much better coming on the heels of last year's 140. 4-Make the promotion by the 31st so that he can help us in the ostensible playoff run. Keep him in the pen in the playoffs to help manage innings, but feel free to bring him in a bit earlier if the game is getting away, etc. If he ends up getting a little past 170 innings, at least it was spread over a longer time span. 5-Help me if I'm understanding incorrectly. To pull a Kris Bryant, the thought is to keep him off the MLB roster until a couple weeks into season, say April 20 or whatever the magic day is, right? but can't we accomplish thing by using him for a month now and waiting to bring him up until about May 20? But, you say, that's a dumb idea because of No. 6. 6-But I wonder. Again, I don't think he's proven that he's ready for the jump to 200-230 innings. And if we're talking about a long playoff run in 2016, it's probably going to include Berrios getting us there and Berrios carrying us through the early rounds, getting him to 230 innings or more. I'd love to see that happen, but I'm really skeptical about a progression of 103.6-140-170-230. But bring him up on May 20 and he can get to late October on 200 innings in healthy fashion. 7-But how do we get to May 20 without the mighty Berrios? Don't forget that we've got Santana, Hughes, and Nolasco under contract for 2016. One can argue that Berrios is better than at least one of them, but realistically, with the kind of money they are getting, they are going to be in the rotation if healthy. And then you've got Gibson, who's pretty much a lock. And Milone's pitched well enough to be viable, particularly at the time of year when a No. 5 starter isn't needed every time through. And I don't think we've given up on May, Meyer, and now Duffey. If Berrios wasn't in the picture, I suspect most of us would feel pretty good about the Santana-Hughes-Nolasco-Gibson-Milone-May-Meyer-Duffey octet fighting for five spots to go along with the Sano-Buxton-Dozier, et al. lineup. Let those eight guys sort themselves into the foursome that is joined by Berrios when the next opening appears after May 20. Let Berrios stay sharp by pitching about 75 pitches every five-six days in Rochester. (Besides, maybe I'll get lucky and one of those games will be in Toledo so I can see him, but I digress.) 7a-And if Berrios comes in and lights things up spring training, perhaps you say, "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead." But I will also say that I live in northern Indiana where all my Cub-fan friends were flipping out about Bryant getting sent down. They'll be singing a different tune in a couple winters when they've got him locked up for an extra year. If you've survived this far, is there any wisdom here?

The first trip was in 2002, and it did seem like the enthusiasm of a new park had somewhat worn off. The second trip was in 2013, so it had some of the things you describe.

Thanks to some revisits, I've actually done all of them in the last 12 years, but if you are at half of them at age 35, you are ahead of where I was at that point (I am 49). I was able to catch a couple of them on my employer's nickel thanks to some professional development travel, but I know the feeling -- we've always lived on one or two teacher-type salaries (though I don't get the summer off). It's not cheap, but I found some ways to keep it manageable -- for example a $200 round-trip flight to Tampa, mooched a room at my cousin's house, a $50 rental car and late-season Stubhub tickets to Tampa and Miami. Things went in earnest when I decided to do a father-son trip with each of my son's when they turned 11. One's a baseball junkie and the other at least enjoys it, so I knocked off nine in those two trips. It also helps to live in Indiana and be a lot closer to a bunch of them than you are.

There's been a great thread about people's favorite MLB parks. Thanks to all who have contributed. This is WAY too long to use as a reply to that, so I'm starting a new one. Over spring break 2015, my wife and I took a trip to the southwest, checking the last three current stadiums off my list. In addition to the current 30, I’ve been able to take in games at 12 parks that are no longer in use. I’ve thought about ranking all 42, but that would be like splitting hairs. Here are brief comments on each, generally moving from west to east, with some rankings at the bottom. Everyone’s experience is different obviously, but this is one person’s ramblings… • Safeco (Seattle) – Pretty decent. The best part was the enthusiasm of the fans in the left field seats holding up their “K” signs each time King Felix got to two strikes. Thankfully the roof was open and I was jazzed up on the six-chowder sampler from Pike Street Market. • Pac Bell (San Francisco) – Still cold, even in June. Also decent. The kayaks in McCovey Cove are more impressive on TV than at the game, though admittedly I didn’t see them in full force going after a home run ball. • O.com or whatever it’s called in Oakland these days – Weak. The Raiders are boss. Though you hear about the large foul territory or even see it on TV, it becomes more real in person. One could get several dozen big round bales of hay out of those acres. • Dodger Stadium (Los Angeles) – The field itself was beautiful. Or should I say, the view out over the mountains beyond center field was gorgeous. For such an old stadium (now the 3rd-oldest), it has aged really well. Fans, however, are lame. They do leave early (didn’t think so much about them coming late). It wasn’t until there were two strikes on the last hitter that a ridiculous few of them stood up to cheer. • Big A (LA Angels) – For another 60s stadium, it has aged really well. The big A is iconic. But it’s still old, so it’s hard to compete with the newer parks. The addition of the rocks in center is pretty cool. • Petco (San Diego) – Was sitting high behind home. Has probably the second-best view of a city skyline (see Pittsburgh comments below). Pretty nice, overall. • Bank One Ballpark (Arizona) – The roof was closed both times, so I have to wonder what it would have been like to see when open. As a closed stadium, it had the airplane hangar feel that some have described in Seattle. Would be toward the bottom of the list. • Coors Field (Colorado) – In some ways, the stadium doesn’t stand out. It’s fairly representative of the 90s/00s parks. But the purple row of seats at 5,280 give it a nice distinction. And the sunset. I admit that I missed about two innings of the game while taking pictures of the sun setting over the stadium and mountains. Wow. I’m a pastor, so forgive me for invoking my appreciation for the Creator and the created world as I remember the view. • Minute Maid (Houston) – It’s Texas. So let’s see -- if there’s a way to gimmick it up, they’ll do it. The train after the homer was a little underwhelming. The hill in center was just weird. Probably one of my bigger disappointments, because my son loves trains and I was hoping for much more. And with its propensity for homers, I do like the "Juice Box" nickname. • Ballpark at Arlington (Texas) – Compared to Minute Maid, this one captured Texas better for me. It’s got some of the classic architecture one associates with the Alamo and other missions. Fans weren’t great despite being in a pennant race. Decent. • Busch II (St. Louis) – It was a cookie cutter, yes, but the view of the Arch saved it. And the fans. Such a sea of red. I’ve often said that no park captures the feel of a college football Saturday afternoon better than Busch II. It’s also true that the fans both love their Cardinals and love their baseball, so they will appreciate excellent play by the visiting team. They also appreciate their history, so any appearance by an old Cardinal is greeted with a warm reception. • New Busch (St. Louis) – See above, but with a nicer, newer stadium. I’m guessing that there are few who would give Busch their highest ranking, but I can’t see anyone not ranking a visit there as an above-average experience. Practically the only thing that could make it better would be to have Jack Buck slip into the seat next to you for the afternoon. I’m guessing it would make my top 10, even without Jack. • Metropolitan Stadium (Minnesota) – Yeah, I’m that old. I only saw two games there, as an 11-year-old. One was miserably hot and the Twins lost. The next day was the June 26, 1977, 19-12 masterpiece over the ChiSox that others on this site have referenced over the years. As a result of being so young, it’s hard to rank it as a stadium – I only know that day remains one of the best memories of baseball that I’ve ever had (along with Game 6, Game 7, and Darrell Evans getting picked off third in ’87 ALCS Game 4, etc.). • Target Field (Minnesota) – I live in Indiana now, so I’ve only gotten to Target once so far. It’s really nice. By default the Twins are there, which makes it a good choice. The shaking hands sign in center is impressive. But I found it hard to distinguish from so many of the new stadiums in any meaningful way. I look forward to getting back. • County Stadium (Milwaukee) – I actually kind of liked old County Stadium. Having grown up in the Midwest League at Cedar Rapids, County Stadium definitely had the feel of the minor league park that had grown into a major league stadium. As long as one’s expectations weren’t too high, it had a pleasant feel. • Wrigley (Chicago) – So many people like it. I don’t particularly. I’ve been to too many games in early spring when it’s been miserable weather. A parka in June? Really? I’ve not been there since the recent upgrades that were so badly needed. Can’t find a parking spot. And while there are plenty of true Cubs fans there, there are also too many who are just there to be able to claim that they’ve been to Wrigley. The ivy, yeah, but it’s just covering brick. Okay, there’s something fun about peeing in a trough for the first time, but after that I can’t help but think I’m whizzing in dad’s cattle tank back on the farm. Appropriate, I suppose, since you pretty much feel like you’re cattle in a stampede when you’re in the concourse. • Old Comiskey (Chicago) – It’s been a while, obviously. But the closed in feel was pretty special. I think they still had the fire hose as the foul line. Despite the Sox being there, it was a decent place. • Tiger Stadium (Detroit) – But Tiger Stadium was better. Being on top of the action from the upper deck outfield seats. Simultaneously an oasis in and a representative of a rust belt town that was hurting even in the ’80s. The crisp white uniforms on a sea of green. Impressive. Among my favorites of the closed stadium. • Comerica Park (Detroit) – When I walk up these days, I’m not sure if I’m going to a baseball game or the county fair. Between the massive Tiger and the carousels, I have this urge to get cotton candy, ask where the cattle barn is, and head to the grandstand for the tractor pull. Once you’re inside, it’s quite nice, but not distinctive. I’d give it a pretty average ranking. • SkyDome (Toronto) – I’d rank it pretty low, though that may be a function of having no sleep from driving through the night from Montreal. But it felt like the worst of the 70s cookie cutters and didn’t have the enthusiasm of the early 90s. Not even the hope that the roof would close saved it for me. • Olympic Stadium (Montreal) – Talk about a dive. I went there when the Expos were clearly on their way out, and there were only about 4200 fans. Of course, that made it easy to move down close to the field without the ushers even caring. And yet, I could still picture Bruce Jenner in the ’76 decathlon. And the 4200 fans still put up a ruckus. They also appreciated the Expo heritage of Staub, Carter, Dawson et al. And where else can you get a few minutes with Youppi? After all, there weren't many other fans to entertain. So, despite being such a dive, it was actually enjoyable in a quirky sort of way. • Shea Stadium (Mets) – Compared to the Big A, Shea was a ’60s park that didn’t age well at all. In its grittiness, it did capture the essence of New York. The big apple rising after a homer was lackluster. And I had a good view of planes approaching and leaving LaGuardia. I have a picture of a big massive empty parking lot after the game that sort of captures the experience well. Shea would get one of my lower rankings. Oh, and Mr. Met is fun in a goofy sort of way. • Citi Field (Mets) – Okay, they tried. Probably the best thing about being there is it reminds you that you are not at Shea. Otherwise, nothing unique. If Yankee Stadium is the Taj Mahal, Citi Field is where you pick up a Velvet Elvis. • Old Yankee (Yankees, duh) – There is so much heritage here that it’s almost hard to rank as a stadium. Seeing the façade outside is indeed an elegant, almost regal, experience. Monument Park – wow. I went to two games, one in the upper deck above first base, which reminded me of all those aerial shots of World Series games over the years. The second game was in the right field seats which had two distinct feels. The highlight was the first inning recitation of each position player’s name [“Der-ek-Je-ter,” clap, clap, clap-clap-clap] with an actual acknowledgement from each player. The lowlight was that you indeed were always worried about the next fight breaking out. It was a day game and still had the strongest police presence and most fan ejections I’ve found at a game. It was both a special place and a reminder of the dark side of fan behavior. I don’t think I’d have enjoyed taking my kids out there when they were younger. • New Yankee (still Yankees) – If Old Yankee Stadium is Lou Gehrig reminding us that he’s the luckiest man on the face of the earth, New Yankee Stadium is A-Rod. On steroids. George definitely wanted to remind us that he had money and that he saw the Yankees differently than the commoners. Massive concourse at the entrance. In its newness and sterility, it was hard to accurately capture the history. I’ve not been to the Cowboys’ new stadium, but I have to imagine a similar feel. • Citizens Bank (Philadelphia) – I went here on the second night of a seven-games-in-eight-days trip with my then-11 year-old son. The image that remains is a picture of him keeping score with the massive lighted Liberty Bell in the back. So it’s more of an emotional reaction than anything, but isn’t that what any trip to the ball park is? So, again, on the surface I have to name that it’s another decent 90s/00s park. • Jacobs Field (Cleveland) – Ditto. And I live around too many annoying Indians fans here in northern Indiana, so that takes off points. My first visit there had me seated so high I was looking down on the right field foul pole, which was funky. It was nice at the time, but has been passed by so many of the new parks that I suspect it would end up in my lower half. • Three Rivers (Pittsburgh) – ’60s cookie cutter. Not much else to say. Was there on a rainy Friday night against Atlanta in the middle of the Braves’ title run. Highlight was the local version of the Tomahawk Chop. Pirates are leading 3-1 in the eighth and get a couple runners on base. A noticeable, but unintelligible sound arose. Eventually, I realized it was thousands of people intentionally doing the Chop off key and out of rhythm with each other. Sounded like a herd of cattle. Hilarious. I couldn’t help but join in, even though I didn’t dislike the Braves. You had to be there. • Riverfront Stadium (Cincy) – ’60s Cookie cutter. Not much else to say. It did provide me with the best “wave” experience, if there is such a thing. I'm sitting in a section called “top six,” which was the top six rows of seats all around the stadium. Because it was a circle, there was nothing to impede a wave’s progress, and I think it made a dozen laps or more, increasing in speed throughout. • Great American Ballpark (Cindy) – Okay, this is hands-down the best name for a stadium. It wasn’t until a couple years later that my son told me it was naming rights for a bank. But still, that’s pretty good. Unfortunately, the name is the best part of the stadium. Not that the park is bad, it’s just nothing special. It has a bit of the loyalty feel of being at a Cardinals game, but not to the same extent. And it has one of the better home team halls of fame that I’ve seen. • Camden Yards (Baltimore) – I can definitely see why it ranks so high for everyone. Perhaps my expectations were a little too high, so I was a little let down. I did love the spirit that was present with the warehouse and smelling Boog’s Barbecue. Next time maybe I’ll spring the $20-plus that I think it cost for the ribs. And it did set a high standard for all newer parks to emulate. I’d probably rate it a bit above average if I hadn’t had such high expectations, but it realistically deserves a top 10. • RFK Stadium (Washington) – Uh, it was just biding time until something better came along. Otherwise, see Shea Stadium comments, though perhaps not quite as run down. • Nationals Park (Washington) – Like Citi Field, its best feature is that it’s not the old place. Amidst all the museums and historical sites of Washington, it sort of feels like an afterthought. With so many transplanted people, it doesn’t feel like a place that is “owned” by the locals. So all in all, probably bottom half. • Turner Field (Atlanta) – Been there twice. First time I was pretty disappointed. It’s a new park, but not particularly well done. It’s like they knew they needed a new park, but didn’t realize that trying to make it special like Camden or the Ballpark at Arlington would be worth the effort. The second time, I realized it wasn’t as bad as I thought, but it still would rank in the bottom half. The best part is their choosing to leave up a section of the left field fence from Fulton County Stadium, where Hank hit No. 715. That’s in the middle of what is now a parking lot. • Tropicana Field (Tampa Bay) – Many of the bad things that could be said about the various domed fields could be said about the Trop. Plus the fans didn’t care, at least when I was there last September and the Rays were out of the race. I kept hoping for a ball off the catwalk so there would be something memorable about the visit (other than the 80s rocker Evan Longoria bobblehead). I can understand why they want a new field. Definitely a bottom-tier field. • Marlins Park (Miami) – Similarly lackluster in fan involvement. Like the BOB, I was there with the roof closed, and it made me wonder if it might have at least moved up to average if the roof was open. The Dolphins were also playing across town, so as I was driving across the state, all the enthusiasm was for football. So, thus completes a brief tour of 36 of the 42 parks I’ve been too. That leaves six. I’ll start with… • No. 42: U.S. Cellular (White Sox) – This goes alongside my earlier ranking of 30 teams where I ranked the other 28 as tied for second and Sox number 30. By default, every time I go to this place the Sox are there. The best thing about New Comiskey is that I can watch a game without listening to Hawk Harrelson. But the stadium is also lousy. It’s a monument to cement. Decorated in two or three shades of gray. If you’ve got upper deck seats, get a Sherpa or learn to repel. Even getting to the stadium is bad. I can’t tell you how much of my life I’ve wasted sitting on the interstate outside the stadium. Probably the sole redeeming factor of the park itself is the good accessibility to visiting players. And because the Twins play there so much, they seem to let their hair down more there during batting practice. My kids best autographing experiences have been here (Joe Nathan and the bullpen crew were the best). The most enjoyable thing about being here is standing to announce that “you can put it on the boarrrddd” when the Twins homer in a blowout. And for my top five… • No. 5: Royal/Kauffman Stadium – My ranking is affected by the fact that it was here 40 years last summer that I went to my first MLB game as a child. It was beautiful. Even after going back several times in high school and college and seeing the turf, it was beautifuler. The fountains, the cleanliness, the expansiveness of being on the edge of town, remembering the ghosts of Amos Otis and Frank White. Then I went back a few years ago after the grass was installed and other upgrades happened. Did I mention the fountains? What’s beyond “beatifuler”? After 40 years, it is still pretty. And yes, “pretty” is an okay adjective for this master garden. I’m going back this summer after the latest round of improvements, and I can’t wait. (Aside -- if you go to Kansas City, make the time to take in the Negro League Baseball Museum. Excellent.) • No. 4: The Metrodome – Really. I understand all the reasons why people hated it. But I love unique. And besides, this is a personal list. I liked the odd shape. The site of a quilted, puffy marshmallow growing out of the city. Getting sucked in and out of the revolving doors. The baggy. The portrait banners of the retired number guys. Breaking the rules to muster up with the courage to ask for Tony O’s autograph while he’s standing in the press box. And getting it, taking me back to something I’d have died for as a kid 25 years earlier. That it genuinely offered a home field advantage in a world where there’s not that much different in playing situations. The noise, even for a regular season game. Bob Casey reminding us that there is “nnnnnooooooooo smoking” in the Metrodome. “We’re gonna win Twins…” It was a veritable feast for the senses. May it rest in peace. • No. 3: Miller Park – I know it’s not good form here to like Milwaukee. And I made a rules proposal to contract the Brewers out of my fantasy league when Selig was trying to do the same to the Twins. But the park is great. I have a son with a mild physical disability, and I’ve found Milwaukee to be hands down the most accessible park in baseball, both in terms of parking and the stadium itself. One of the better places for good seats at an economical price. Sitting up near Bernie Brewer was perhaps the last good $5 seat in baseball. And the racing sausages are still the original. Even if I don’t take the grill with me, I gain three pounds in the parking lot from the smell of the best of the tubed-meat industry. • No. 2: Fenway Park (Boston) – Magical. I generally don’t care for Jimmy Fallon (Drew Barrymore, sure), but Fever Pitch captures the essence of the stadium and the passion of the fans so well. So why is it so much better than Wrigley? After all, you still pee in a trough, it’s a pain to get to, there's no parking, and the concourse is dingy. Well, just like rock crushes scissors, a Monster eats Ivy. Cub “fans” are about bragging at the office that they’ve been to Wrigley. This was pre-Curse breaking, but I experienced Red Sox fans as genuinely living and dying with the BoSox. My second round of visits was in the aforementioned trip with my son, and as we spoke with fans around us, they all wanted to join us in the van to Montreal and Toronto. They knew it was about baseball and the experience. The “Sweet Caroline” craze had just begun and I wasn’t yet familiar with it. So unlike the gimmick that is bringing in a celebrity to sing the Seventh-Inning Stretch, this crowd rose as one to sing and shout “Woh-woh-woh” and “so-good, so-good, so-good” in the eighth. My wife has been a trooper in going to most of these parks with me, but this is the one that I want to take her back to. I’ve chosen not to drink, but this is a place where if Ray Kinsella and Terrance Mann offered me a “dog and a beer,” I think I'd consider it. • And No. 1: PNC Park in Pittsburgh – It’s hard to put a finger on it. I’m a Hawkeye fan too, so I suppose the black and gold doesn’t hurt. In my mind, it joins Miller Park in affordability of really good seats. Looking out over the Roberto Clemente Bridge to see the city is definitely a part of the excellence; I think that would be my choice as the single best view in baseball. To know that they chose to make the right field fence exactly 21 feet high in Clemente’s honor demonstrates the care they took in making the stadium. The history of the Honus Wagner statue out front – that was more than a hundred years ago and he’s still inconic. People in Stargell jerseys. Yet it’s not overdone, so they appreciate today’s McCutcheon as well. Even the Pirate Parrot and the racing pierogi are fun without being obnoxious. I confess that I’ve not been to the upper deck, since I can’t bring myself to not sit behind home for the view. I rarely hear people talk about Pittsburgh on their “must see” list, but virtually everyone I’ve talked to that’s been there ranks it very highly. Change that – if you’ve not been there, put it on your “must see” list. You won’t be disappointed. See you at the game…

My apologies for asking an administrative question in the wrong place. This spring I finished off the circuit of visiting all 30 stadiums over the last dozen years or so. In addition, I've been to 12 stadiums no longer in use. This thread prompted me to start the ranking process and I put together a piece with brief comments on each. With 42 parks, it's WAY too long to share as a reply to this thread, but I thought at least a few folks might be interested in one person's ramblings. What's the best way to share it with y'all, given that I don't have (or plan) a blog to link you to?

Agree that it depends on situation. I think they give May and Meyer at least a month or so in Rochester. If they need someone because of injury in the first few weeks, Pelfrey is probably still stretched out and would get the nod. If it goes much beyond that, Pelfrey will either have 1) pitched too poorly in the bullpen to be considered for the rotation; or 2) pitched well enough in the bullpen to be deemed too valuable to take out of that role. I'd be glad to have option 2 work itself out. I still think it could happen.

Of course, my real rankings are: 1. Twins. 2-29 (tied). Everybody else. 30. White Sox.

Loved this recounting, Tom. There is so much similarity to my own story as an 11-year-old farm boy making his first and only trip to the Met. I say “trip” because we had actually gone to the game the day before as well. To add to the Glenn Adams story, he had gotten booed pretty badly during Saturday’s game, a disappointing 7-1 loss on a similarly hot and muggy day. He had misplayed a ball in right field, though no error was charged, so getting eight RBIs the next day was no doubt extra sweet. Another memory from the day is that the game was halted at one point because a drunk fan had climbed part way up the left field foul pole. It seemed like they were announcing a new team record every inning, and each time I see a copy of a Twins media guide I check to see how many records still stand from that day. One of the announced records was the crowd of 46,463. I know for a fact, however, that the crowd was at least two less than that. The t-shirt giveaway was only for kids under a certain age, and the brother-in-law who had taken me to the game wanted one of his own. He bought an extra two tickets for the cheap seats in left. We went in, I got my t-shirt, and we exited. Then, we went to the first-base side, where our other tickets were, and went in again so that we could get a second shirt. And like you, I didn’t get back to see the Twins until they were in the Dome. It was the spring of 1985, when I went to visit my then-girlfriend, now wife, near the end of her first year at a small college in the Twin Cities.