Yankee Stadium Supporters & Yankee Stadium vs. Citi Field.

[LGehrigFan]

I honestly like the new idea. The new Yankee Stadium is going to be retro and I've always wanted to step in the old Stadium. Hey, it'll be more vicarious to walk into the new Stadium than turniing on MVP Baseball 2005 and playing in it there.

I just don't like the idea they're knocking down the older Stadium, though. There's so much history in that ballpark, including Monument Park. But I guess we all want those cozy luxury boxes.

[mrow1927]

I know there are many of us (including myself) that doesn't like the idea of a new Yankee Stadium. I just want to know if there are any supporters of the new stadium and why?

Also who do you think got the better deal in the stadium war, the Mets or the Yanks? I think the Mets got the better deal of the two. What do you think?

[MattM]

I know there are many of us (including myself) that doesn't like the idea of a new Yankee Stadium. I just want to know if there are any supporters of the new stadium and why?

Also who do you think got the better deal in the stadium war, the Mets or the Yanks? I think the Mets got the better deal of the two. What do you think?

From a financial standpoint, the Yankees got the better deal long-term, just with those luxury boxes alone. Aside from that, I think that Citi-Field will be the better of the two. Wilpon and HKO or whatever the engineering company name is, are keeping the fans in mind with the seats so close, and paying hommage to the marble rotunda.

Yankee Stadium is built for the tourist and the wealthy of New York.

[tommydee2000]

I'm a lifeflong Yankee fan, and I support the new Stadium. Please see the attached. I believe the Mets and Yankees got equally good, and necessary deals.

http://home.att.net/~t.deangelo/NewStadium.htm

[EvanAparra]

Citifield is definately more visually appealing.

[mrow1927]

I think Citi Field is better because they took the timeless design of Ebbets Field and made it a new classic. It evokes the past and looks to the future while Yankee Stadium is a souless copy of a legend.

Many Met fans that were Brooklyn Dodger fans will feel a sense of nostalgia seeing the rotunda and remember when they were going against the Yankees in the 50s. Even though there is a strong case to add elements of the Polo Grounds to Citi Field since the Mets played there for two years which I agree with, the Dodgers and Mets have a common bond that they were and are beloved by many New Yorkers. Hence paying homage to Ebbets Field.

I think the new Yankee Stadium will be exciting for about a year then it will be forgotten. Kind of like a kid getting a new toy for Christmas, play with it for a while then shoving it aside. That is very sad. It is impossible to replicate or recreate the history of Yankee Stadium and they shouldn't. They have to build the stadium on such a grand scale that even though it will never come close to Yankee Stadium, at least it will have its own identity and inspire awe. Unfortunatly its not going to happen. I think more people will be happy if they bring back a prominent Death Valley to left center. MaKe the facade as prominent as can be. Give us something to like about the stadium. Make Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle and the rest proud. Please?

[TJH1923]

I believe it is time for a new Yankee Stadium. I am a huge fan of the original stadium and on a lesser degree the renovated version. The bottom line is the core of the stadium will be 84 years old in the spring. It is time for a new venue.
I do disagree with a few things in regards to the new stadium. The roof should be larger and the facade should be more prominent than currently proposed. The outfield wall should be an exact replica of the old stadium with the monuments & flag pole on the field and the auxiliary scoreboards. Death valley should also be incorporated, maybe not as extreme as the old stadium. 430 ft or 411 ft would be sufficient. Probably the most important feature would be moving the upper deck closer to the field. Not only is it beneficial for the fans it is also an intimidating factor to visiting teams.
As far as Citifield, I believe that it will be a nice stadium. It is also time to replace Shea. I would have liked to have seen more elements of the Polo Grounds incorporated into the design.

[Mariano_Rivera]

I would prefer for them to just renovate the current stadium.

I think what the Yankees are doing is better but the Mets are improving while the Yankees are getting worse. i`m looking forward to the new stadium I guess. At least they are keeping the field intact and not turning it into a parking lot.

[EvanAparra]

I think what the Yankees are doing is better but the Mets are improving while the Yankees are getting worse

What? How does that make sense?

[Mariano_Rivera]

What? How does that make sense?

Current Yankees Stadium>>>>>>New Yankees Stadium>Citifield>>>>>>>>Shea Stadium

Does that make sense to you?

[EvanAparra]

Current Yankees Stadium>>>>>>New Yankees Stadium>Citifield>>>>>>>>Shea Stadium

Does that make sense to you?
ohh ok --- gotcha

[mrow1927]

With all the artist renderings of both new Yankee Stadium and Citi Field, it will be very interesting how the actual stadiums are going to be like. I think Citi Field is going to look the same because the pictures all show the same stadium while new Yankee Stadium has two different styles.

Yankee Stadium version 1:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16051&stc=1&d=1165276088
402210.jpg

Yankee Stadium version 2

http://www.baseball-fever.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16052&stc=1&d=1165276299
nyybpk02.jpg

I like version 2 better. As for Citi Field, I think that the field is going to look pretty much like the artist drawings.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16053&stc=1&d=1165276651
img_citifield1_450x338.jpg

[RichardLillard1]

Hey everyone, its been a while but I want to chime in with my two cents and some things to think about.

First, I think the Mets are definately getting the better deal here. The Yanks are spending around a billion on this new home and it isn't even going to really break the mold HOK has set in recent years. Sure the frieze will be back and a nice limestone facade around the outside. How ever the entire stadium will be a farce. At the end of the day, it still won't have the history or the charm that the current Yankee Stadium has.

Has anyone noticed that most if not all of the artist renderings of the new stadiums are the exact angles, or very close to ones from famous pictures of the original stadium. We've been had and they are trying to sell us buy tugging at our heart strings.

Restored or not we are still packing into the same building that Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, Berra, Maris and Jackson played in and some Yankee greats are still going strong there.

If its lost I won't be able to take my kids there some day and say "you see those bleachers? Reggie Jackson hit three home runs there and on three pitches. That flagpole once flew a proud flag that had definately seen better days before a tragic attack on what was the World Trade Center. Some guy once came running out of that dugout right there, fuming mad, because he lost a home run from having too much pine tar on his bat. And this guy named Jeter once hit a homer from that batters box to win a game in November!"

I feel this need and burning desire to go and see Yankee Stadium a place that has sat proudly for over three quarters of a century while it helped the neighborhood around it grow. When they bulldoze it and move into this new one all that passion will be gone, the mystical power of Ruth's house and all the Yankee tradition will be blinked away over night. Quite a shame.

Maybe the lack of obstructive columns isn't as advanced as everyone thinks it is?

Look familiar? Two very famous pictures of Yankee Stadium and the artist rendering ot publicity photo of the model that copied it.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a286/RichardLillard1/sI.jpg
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a286/RichardLillard1/18037606.jpg

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a286/RichardLillard1/Yankee_Stadium2.jpg
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a286/RichardLillard1/nyybpk02.jpg

[mrow1927]

Hey everyone, its been a while but I want to chime in with my two cents and some things to think about.

First, I think the Mets are definately getting the better deal here. The Yanks are spending around a billion on this new home and it isn't even going to really break the mold HOK has set in recent years. Sure the frieze will be back and a nice limestone facade around the outside. How ever the entire stadium will be a farce. At the end of the day, it still won't have the history or the charm that the current Yankee Stadium has.

Has anyone noticed that most if not all of the artist renderings of the new stadiums are the exact angles, or very close to ones from famous pictures of the original stadium. We've been had and they are trying to sell us buy tugging at our heart strings.

Restored or not we are still packing into the same building that Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, Berra, Maris and Jackson played in and some Yankee greats are still going strong there.

If its lost I won't be able to take my kids there some day and say "you see those bleachers? Reggie Jackson hit three home runs there and on three pitches. That flagpole once flew a proud flag that had definately seen better days before a tragic attack on what was the World Trade Center. Some guy once came running out of that dugout right there, fuming mad, because he lost a home run from having too much pine tar on his bat. And this guy named Jeter once hit a homer from that batters box to win a game in November!"

I feel this need and burning desire to go and see Yankee Stadium a place that has sat proudly for over three quarters of a century while it helped the neighborhood around it grow. When they bulldoze it and move into this new one all that passion will be gone, the mystical power of Ruth's house and all the Yankee tradition will be blinked away over night. Quite a shame.

Maybe the lack of obstructive columns isn't as advanced as everyone thinks it is?

Look familiar? Two very famous pictures of Yankee Stadium and the artist rendering ot publicity photo of the model that copied it.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a286/RichardLillard1/sI.jpg
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a286/RichardLillard1/18037606.jpg

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a286/RichardLillard1/Yankee_Stadium2.jpg
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a286/RichardLillard1/nyybpk02.jpg

I agree. I give a year of oohs and aahs then it will be forgotten. No matter how much they say new memories will be created, they will be empty memories. The only stadium that matters in the history of baseball will be destroyed.

I'm trying to find a reason to like the new stadium. I never been to the classic stadium before the renovation or was too young to remember, so bringing back the facade and the look of how it looked back in the day is a good idea in theory but fails to capture the essence and soul of what Yankee Stadium brings to the sport. I think the dimensions may hold the key of getting people to like this stadium more. Yankee Stadium is held on such a grand scale when it was first built and remained that way until the renovation with its deep fences (the renovated version had nice dimensions too before the final distance), bringing the fences to at least the renovated version or a variation of that will be a little truer to Yankee Stadium. Unfortunatly HOK doesn't believe in the upper deck being larger than the lower deck, that is why they have the same stadium design for so many parks. Steinbrenner is taking a trendsetter and turning it into a follower. That is what is so bad about this Stadium.

Maybe they were better of building a stadium completely different from Yankee Stadium to have it's own identity. Not a cheap knockoff.

[DevilRays1969]

I have mixed emotions on both although I think the Mets are getting the better end of the deal. Of course Shea Stadium is a much easier ballpark to replace than Yankee Stadium if only because the Mets don't have nearly as lengthy a tradition as the Yankees. If the new Stadium is a close replica of the pre-renovation Stadium, fine. But there will still be something missing. Even though I think Steinbrenner ruined the Stadium when he had it renovated in the early 70s by removing the facade from the main grandstand, it's still the same field the likes of Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, Maris, Reggie, etc. played on. That alone is enough to give anyone goosebumps. So why not re-renovate the Stadium to more closely resemble the original Stadium, build in the skyboxes and have the facade on the upper deck roof?

[mrow1927]

So why not re-renovate the Stadium to more closely resemble the original Stadium, build in the skyboxes and have the facade on the upper deck roof?

I think Steinbrenner doesn't want the Yankees playing anywhere else while the stadium is being built or he didn't get permission from Selig or other team owners to make arrangements so they can build it on the same site. They can ask the Mets to play at Shea (again) or play all away games. Who knows?

Also you have a strong point I noticed other people made in which he possibly ruined Yankee Stadium when it was renovated in the 70s. At least it was on the same site.

Basically most of us are in agreement that HOK sucks since they only build one type of stadium, but we have to give to them with Citi Field. It looks really good and it looks like its going to be very popluar. Lets just hope that the ghosts of Yankee Stadium guide their hands and build a proper stadium. Something we (the fans) can be proud of.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

I think that the Yankees missed out on a great opportunity. They could have put up a big facade and re-made death valley. I think that people would be alot warmer to the idea of a new stadium if they tried to bring back some elements from pre-renovation.

Any reason why they wouldn't bring back the facade/roof and/or death valley?

[TJH1923]

NO!!!!!!!! :grouchy I do disagree with a few things in regards to the new stadium. The roof should be larger and the facade should be more prominent than currently proposed. The outfield wall should be an exact replica of the old stadium with the monuments & flag pole on the field along with the auxiliary scoreboards. Death valley should also be incorporated, maybe not as extreme as the old stadium. 430 ft or 411 ft would be sufficient. Probably the most important feature would be moving the upper deck closer to the field. Not only is it beneficial for the fans it is also an intimidating factor to visiting teams.

[mrow1927]

I think that the Yankees missed out on a great opportunity. They could have put up a big facade and re-made death valley. I think that people would be alot warmer to the idea of a new stadium if they tried to bring back some elements from pre-renovation.

Any reason why they wouldn't bring back the facade/roof and/or death valley?

I don't know why they're not bringing back death valley, but I think that they want it hitter friendly. Even though it's still kind of hard to hit a ball to left center. My opinion death valley should be at least 410 ft or maybe two to three feet shorter than center. Make center around 430 ft. Also bring the fences in at the foul poles. Less than 310 ft with the right field porch being less than left.

I also hear conflicting statements that either the dimensions are going to be the same as the current stadium or they might change. If the dimensions are going to be different, I just hope they are going to be deeper and bring back a little bit of the asymetrical look it had.

I agree that the facade should be one of the most prominent features if not the most prominent. Also the flag pole should be in center with the three monuments in front. I think the facade is suppose to be a hint of the past.

NO!!!!!!!! I do disagree with a few things in regards to the new stadium. The roof should be larger and the facade should be more prominent than currently proposed. The outfield wall should be an exact replica of the old stadium with the monuments & flag pole on the field along with the auxiliary scoreboards. Death valley should also be incorporated, maybe not as extreme as the old stadium. 430 ft or 411 ft would be sufficient. Probably the most important feature would be moving the upper deck closer to the field. Not only is it beneficial for the fans it is also an intimidating factor to visiting teams.

I agree 100% with everything you said, but HOK doesn't believe in the upper deck being closer to the field. I forgot why they said that but it's nonesense.
I also think what they are trying to do is bring Yankee Stadium into the future while respecting the past but again nonesense. Since they are still digging the foundation of the stadium, maybe they'll will make changes along the way and it will change for the better.

[CMart]

Here is my opinion -- if anyone happens to still be reading this forum :)

I am sensing alot of the negativity thrown toward the New Yankee Stadium here is due to factors beyond its design, which is the true purpose of the discussion here. So I just wanted to address that before anything else.

First off, I have been a life-long Yankee fan, but have only known Yankee Stadium as it is currently -- during its renovated years. The place is an awsome, I will admit; it has that great aura about it that nothing compares to. I totally understand and appreciate the history of the current stadium; the new one will never compare to the nostalgia, the history that the current one brings.

That said, I truly feel that the New Yankee Stadium is a better stadium, even moreso than the current one. Yes I know that is blasphemy, and yes I share the same sentiments that many do about the upper deck design not respecting the characteristics of the original, and yes, I may even think that the models show the new stadium to be more round than the characteristic shape of the current Yankee Stadium. But I honestly feel that this one will be an improvement. I have to be brutally honest: from a design perspective, I feel the current stadium is boring; it has lost some of the charater the pre-renovated stadium had. It is a symbol of the drab, utilitarian style that is present among most structures built in the 70's.

I see the character restored in the new version. To me, the new stadium will be sort of a mixture of old and new: you will get some aspects of the old (the restored frieze surrounding the park interior, the bleachers that seem to be (to me) reminiscent of the old design) in a new, updated and structurally stronger frame; heck the exterior is even going to resemble the old design to some degree -- alot more than the renovation ever did.

It is going to be different, I agree with what all of us are feeling here; it won't be the same place where Ruth, DiMaggio, Mantle, Maris, Jackson and Mattingly played. It will feel like an illegitimate successor to all of us who know it as it is now. But that is, again, simply because of the aura the ground carries now. Change was necessary, and since another renovation would have been impractical (where exactly would the Yakees play during the renovation?), the only other option would be a move to a new location; unfortunate, I agree, but again, necessary.

I really think and I see from the plans that when they designed the plans for the new Yankee Stadium, HOK did step things up a notch; yes, it carries a degree of the "HOK" style, but it also pays much respect to the history of the old stadium. And you know, I would truly wait on final judgement as to which is better until both stadiums are built. Plans don't always tun out to be the same in reality; I actually think it will look better than the drawings and computer models that we have seen.

As for Citi Field, I honestly have to say I am not impressed with it. I think it is a great thing to pay respect to Ebbets field with that rotunda. But honestly, beyond that, can anyone truly say that the new stadium maintains the spirit of the Mets? I see something in Citi Field that is completely and radically new in this respect. Does Citi field show any connection to its predecessor? I don't feel so, and I am curious if anyone feels differently.

To take it further, Citi Field looks more like a cookie cutter HOK design than New Yankee Stadium. It's interior looks no different to me than does Coors Field, or Citizens Bank Park. And doesn't anyone else feel that the Left field upper deck in the plans are a bit too high? Hopefully the reality won't be the same.

Lastly, something about Citi Field that isn't left to conjecture and can be truly critiqued upon. Anyone who has seen the recent pictures of the Citi Field construction will notice the brick facade being put up. Now how is that different from every other new stadium that has been built lately (i.e. Busch, GABP, Citizens Bank, Coors)? And even more so, how does that convey a sense of the spriti of the Mets? At least with the New Yankee Stadium, we gat a whitish, limestone facade, reminiscent of the stadium of old.

Just my 2 cents. :)

[nymdan]

As for Citi Field, I honestly have to say I am not impressed with it. I think it is a great thing to pay respect to Ebbets field with that rotunda. But honestly, beyond that, can anyone truly say that the new stadium maintains the spirit of the Mets? I see something in Citi Field that is completely and radically new in this respect. Does Citi field show any connection to its predecessor? I don't feel so, and I am curious if anyone feels differently.

To take it further, Citi Field looks more like a cookie cutter HOK design than New Yankee Stadium. It's interior looks no different to me than does Coors Field, or Citizens Bank Park. And doesn't anyone else feel that the Left field upper deck in the plans are a bit too high? Hopefully the reality won't be the same.

Lastly, something about Citi Field that isn't left to conjecture and can be truly critiqued upon. Anyone who has seen the recent pictures of the Citi Field construction will notice the brick facade being put up. Now how is that different from every other new stadium that has been built lately (i.e. Busch, GABP, Citizens Bank, Coors)? And even more so, how does that convey a sense of the spriti of the Mets? At least with the New Yankee Stadium, we gat a whitish, limestone facade, reminiscent of the stadium of old.

Just my 2 cents. :)

I agree with the lack of uniqueness, but as far as the red brick/Ebbets Field look and not "conveying a sense of the spirit of the Mets"... what's the spirit of the Mets, architecturally? A big, blue, round, featureless stadium? There's nothing worth paying tribute to there. Though they are bringing over the home run apple, which is keeping some Mets history.

So, having established that they're not going to build something that looks like Shea, they really had three options: something that looks like Ebbets, something that looks like the Polo Grounds, or something completely new and different. From pictures I've seen of the Polo Grounds it seems like it wasn't much to look at, so that was out of the question... and while I know lots of people would have liked to see something new and unique looking, I don't mind the Ebbets Field exterior.

Back to the uniqueness of the place, or lack thereof... I was a little upset about that at first, but I'm sure when I'm at a game and I'm actually sitting in a comfortable seat rather than one falling apart, can actually go to the bathroom without missing an entire inning, or can actually buy food without missing three innings, I won't be sitting thinking it looks too much like Citizens Bank Park (if I can get a ticket in the first place, but that's another issue for another day). And having been to CBP a handful of times, it's a nice place to watch a ballgame, so being similar is nothing to be too upset about. And I'm sure most Mets fans agree after putting up with Shea for so many years.

[CMart]

First off, you did catch me on some things - I have rarely been to Shea (2 times I think) so I really can't speak of things that the regular fan would know more than I. And I have not been to Citizens Bank Park myself; I just think each stadium should have some more uniqueness to them and not look similar in style to others. And I would want Citi Field to stand out in some fashion more than just the Ebbets Field rotunda.

Yes I agree, Shea, to many people, may not be something most fans fawn over, but the stadium does play some role in the character of the New York Mets; now I don't think they should be building an updated Shea mind you (ugh!), and the new stadium is nice in that it isn't that, but it should have some connection to its past, I would think. Like, in the very least, maybe make the seats orange or something, instead of that green in the plans? Or maybe they are doing that in the final plans, I don't know.

However, I did not know that they were bringing over the Home Run Apple, though; that is nice to see.

I like the Ebbets facade too, but I just wonder how much of the use of brick is the wishes Mets ownership (I know they really wanted to emulate Ebbets) and how much of it had to do with the fact that it is so the standard in HOK stadiums.

[nymdan]

Yes I agree, Shea, to many people, may not be something most fans fawn over, but the stadium does play some role in the character of the New York Mets; now I don't think they should be building an updated Shea mind you (ugh!), and the new stadium is nice in that it isn't that, but it should have some connection to its past, I would think. Like, in the very least, maybe make the seats orange or something, instead of that green in the plans? Or maybe they are doing that in the final plans, I don't know.

Eh... I see what you're saying, and while some great moments have happened at Shea, there's nothing about the actual building that's worth preserving.

As far as orange seats, that would look disgusting in this place. I could see the argument for blue seats instead of green ones, though.

[CMart]

Eh... I see what you're saying, and while some great moments have happened at Shea, there's nothing about the actual building that's worth preserving.

As far as orange seats, that would look disgusting in this place. I could see the argument for blue seats instead of green ones, though.

I agree, definitely blue

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

[QUOTE=nymfan9;939647]
So, having established that they're not going to build something that looks like Shea, they really had three options: something that looks like Ebbets, something that looks like the Polo Grounds, or something completely new and different. From pictures I've seen of the Polo Grounds it seems like it wasn't much to look at, so that was out of the question... and while I know lots of people would have liked to see something new and unique looking, I don't mind the Ebbets Field exterior.

[QUOTE]

You are so wrong about the polo grounds. it was one the greatest venues in sports history and was so unique because of its design.the mets should never have left the polo grounds for shea stadium.the mets should put some features of the polo grounds in there new ballpark along with the ebbets field features.of the 3 new york classic stadiums the polo grounds does not get the respect it should.

[grandslamsingle]

You are so wrong about the polo grounds. it was one the greatest venues in sports history and was so unique because of its design.the mets should never have left the polo grounds for shea stadium.the mets should put some features of the polo grounds in there new ballpark along with the ebbets field features.of the 3 new york classic stadiums the polo grounds does not get the respect it should.

I think they're trying to invoke the Polo Grounds with the overhang in right field.

http://www.stadiumpage.com/citi_models/metsb4.jpg

[placount]

You are so wrong about the polo grounds. it was one the greatest venues in sports history and was so unique because of its design.the mets should never have left the polo grounds for shea stadium.the mets should put some features of the polo grounds in there new ballpark along with the ebbets field features.of the 3 new york classic stadiums the polo grounds does not get the respect it should.

I don't know that it was that wonderful. looks as if it had the worst sightlines of any of the old stadiums, and was not really a good setup for baseball. I think people love it more because it was in new york, and because of the history that was made there. It was in a way the precursor of all the multipurpose stadiums that we all seem to hate. dont get me wrong i love 280 foot pop up homeruns just as much as the rest of us... in little league

[nymdan]

I think they're trying to invoke the Polo Grounds with the overhang in right field.

http://www.stadiumpage.com/citi_models/metsb4.jpg

That's interesting. The one that you posted was the original rendering, which I hadn't seen a while, and I didn't realize how many changes they made.
http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/nym/images/ballpark/citifield/img_citifield_view_hp_450x338.jpg

I knew they had changed the lights and moved the home run apple, but look at the left field seats in the upper deck. In the new rendering the stairs up to each section in the top upper deck are in the front of each section, which is different than most parks... while in the older rendering they had the setups most parks have, with the steps going up from behind. I guess in the time between the two renderings, they decided they could add a few more seats in the place by having the stairs in front... I thought they had planned this setup all along.

Ah, don't mind me, I'm probably the only one who finds these small differences interesting.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

I don't know that it was that wonderful. looks as if it had the worst sightlines of any of the old stadiums, and was not really a good setup for baseball. I think people love it more because it was in new york, and because of the history that was made there. It was in a way the precursor of all the multipurpose stadiums that we all seem to hate. dont get me wrong i love 280 foot pop up homeruns just as much as the rest of us... in little league

Well you have the right to like what ever you want but the polo grounds still has many fans today 43 years after she was torn down. and it is one of the greatest sports venues in history.the only stadium with more history than the PG is yankee stadium.it would be nice to see something of the polo grounds in the new mets stadium. i cant wait to see shea stadium come down.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

It was in a way the precursor of all the multipurpose stadiums that we all seem to hate. dont get me wrong i love 280 foot pop up homeruns just as much as the rest of us... in little league

It seems to me that you are refering to shea stadium instead of the polo grounds. shea stadium can never match the polo grounds.

[metfan13]

It seems to me that you are refering to shea stadium instead of the polo grounds. shea stadium can never match the polo grounds.

Depends. If you're a Mets fan the Polo Grounds meant two years of awful baseball in a worn out ancient park with ridiculous dimensions.

Shea is where Mets history took place. Where Seaver pitched, where World Series were won.

I'm happy that the new park is reportedly going to keep the Shea tradition of being a pitcher's park. Enough of the cheap homer fields.

[nymdan]

I'm happy that the new park is reportedly going to keep the Shea tradition of being a pitcher's park. Enough of the cheap homer fields.

Me too. Although I'm wondering if the park will play too big, with the distances to the gaps being 379 and 383.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

Depends. If you're a Mets fan the Polo Grounds meant two years of awful baseball in a worn out ancient park with ridiculous dimensions.

Shea is where Mets history took place. Where Seaver pitched, where World Series were won.

I'm happy that the new park is reportedly going to keep the Shea tradition of being a pitcher's park. Enough of the cheap homer fields.

She stadium has been a dump and will always be a dump. the mets have not played a home game in a real park since the polo grounds.and the polo grounds was not worn out either.i am sure that you are way to young to appreciate the polo grounds.

[placount]

polo grounds was hardly a baseball stadium though. if you want those dimensions go throw homeplate in the endzone in your giant stadium and call it even

[placount]

actually im just messin with ya, i like the polo grounds. however it would not be viable in todays baseball world. to make it so theyd probably have to totally rework the upper deck.

add luxury boxes (on top of the upper deck possibly? how high up was that?). id say make the top deck as long as it was prior to 1923 on the first base side on both sides. Also I'd fence in the bullpens shortening up the centerfield corners a little bit, but not dramatically, it would retain the real deep notch to center though. i dunno, just thoughts...

[metfan13]

She stadium has been a dump and will always be a dump. the mets have not played a home game in a real park since the polo grounds.and the polo grounds was not worn out either.i am sure that you are way to young to appreciate the polo grounds.

Obviously Shea was not a dump when they built it. Shea is also the history of the Mets. And yes the Polo Grounds was worn out by 1964. And the foul line distances were absurd.

I like looking at old pics of the Polo Grounds. It was interesting in it's weird way.

I missed the Polo Grounds by just a few years. My Dad however attended many games at the Polo Grounds, some at Ebbets and many at Shea, so I've got some pretty good second hand info on each place.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

Depends. If you're a Mets fan the Polo Grounds meant two years of awful baseball in a worn out ancient park with ridiculous dimensions.


.

Well i will say this the mets were not as bad as there record says they were. the mets played alot of exciting baseball at the polo grounds in 1962 and 1963.i have 44 games on audio tape that i listen to all of the time and these are complete games.they did have some blow out games but most of those games were very close games. and the mets had over 2 million fans come to the polo grounds for both the 1962 and 1963 seasons.
i hate shea stadium with a passion and cant wait to see it come down.i hope that i can enjoy a nice cold rheingold beer when shea stadium is torn down.
alot of younger baseball fans have missed out on the classic ballparks including the polo grounds.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

polo grounds was hardly a baseball stadium though. if you want those dimensions go throw homeplate in the endzone in your giant stadium and call it even

The problem with todays ballparks they are all the same. including these new parks. they are all new versions of the 1960s and 1970s cookie cutter stadiums.back when the polo grounds was still standing the ballparks then were all diffrent and all had special features. the shape of the polo grounds is what made it special. at least it was not a cookie cutter stadium and the PG still to this day has many fans out there.

[metfan13]

Well i will say this the mets were not as bad as there record says they were. the mets played alot of exciting baseball at the polo grounds in 1962 and 1963.i have 44 games on audio tape that i listen to all of the time and these are complete games.they did have some blow out games but most of those games were very close games. and the mets had over 2 million fans come to the polo grounds for both the 1962 and 1963 seasons.
i hate shea stadium with a passion and cant wait to see it come down.i hope that i can enjoy a nice cold rheingold beer when shea stadium is torn down.
alot of younger baseball fans have missed out on the classic ballparks including the polo grounds.

Please, they lost all the time. In record numbers. And they drew 2 million for the two years combined. 922K for 1962 and less than 1.1 million in 1963.
Considering it was a new team and NL baseball had been missing for 4 years people weren't exactly lining up to watch bad baseball in an old ballpark.

[metfan13]

She stadium has been a dump and will always be a dump. the mets have not played a home game in a real park since the polo grounds.and the polo grounds was not worn out either.i am sure that you are way to young to appreciate the polo grounds.

Did you say in another thread that you were 3 when they tore down the Polo Grounds? I doubt you have many memories of it either.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

Did you say in another thread that you were 3 when they tore down the Polo Grounds? I doubt you have many memories of it either.

I never said in all of the years that i have been here on this forum that i ever went to a game there but i do know alot from studying the stadium over the years.i have alot of photos and alot of games from there on audio.
and i also helped out with Mr Joshua Prager with his new book called ECHOING GREEN which was about the 1951 season. so i do know things about the polo grounds and i was alive when the stadium was still standing. i know that you were not around in 1964.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

Please, they lost all the time. In record numbers. And they drew 2 million for the two years combined. 922K for 1962 and less than 1.1 million in 1963.
Considering it was a new team and NL baseball had been missing for 4 years people weren't exactly lining up to watch bad baseball in an old ballpark.

Listen Pal i have many games on audio from 1962 and 1963 at the polo grounds and some games on the road. i listen to these games all the time so i do know what i am talking about when i say that those games back in 1962 and 1963 were very entertaining and close.go ahead and look at the website retrosheet for the 1962 and 1963 new york mets boxscores.maybe a youngster like you can learn something.

[placount]

i love defensive interweb posts

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

i love defensive interweb posts

Why dont you post something that relates to this thread.

[placount]

i dont agree with you about the mets being exciting, but enjoy your passion about a bad team. your defensiveness makes me smile. this thread is about stadiums, and not the teams playing in them, so you yourself should focus on the buildings and not the team. as far as the new citi field, i looks too small to me, but much better than the new yankee stadium.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

i dont agree with you about the mets being exciting, but enjoy your passion about a bad team. your defensiveness makes me smile. this thread is about stadiums, and not the teams playing in them, so you yourself should focus on the buildings and not the team. as far as the new citi field, i looks too small to me, but much better than the new yankee stadium.

You also need to go look at retrosheet website on this matter and check it out.and i am sure that the new yankee stadium will be just as big of a dump that shea stadium is. they have no business tearing down and moving from yankee stadium.

[placount]

You also need to go look at retrosheet website on this matter and check it out.and i am sure that the new yankee stadium will be just as big of a dump that shea stadium is. they have no business tearing down and moving from yankee stadium.

im confused... did i knock the current yankee stadium? i dont like it. i cannot bring myself to like it for the sole reason that i despise the yankees. aside from that, it is a good stadium i suppose, could use the luxury suites, but im sure they could have found a way to get those in there without replacing the whole damn place

[metfan13]

I never said in all of the years that i have been here on this forum that i ever went to a game there but i do know alot from studying the stadium over the years.i have alot of photos and alot of games from there on audio.
and i also helped out with Mr Joshua Prager with his new book called ECHOING GREEN which was about the 1951 season. so i do know things about the polo grounds and i was alive when the stadium was still standing. i know that you were not around in 1964.

Incorrect. I'm two years older than you. I've been attending baseball games at Shea Stadium since the late 60's. As I said earlier my Dad attended games at the Polo Grounds, Ebbets and Shea. I know what I'm talking about. I realize you have a love for that old park, but is there a need to try beating down anyone who doesn't agree?

And I'm sorry, but 120 losses isn't exciting, no matter the scores. The "cuteness" of the lovable loser Mets wore off a lot sooner than the media has made it seem.

[metfan13]

Listen Pal i have many games on audio from 1962 and 1963 at the polo grounds and some games on the road. i listen to these games all the time so i do know what i am talking about when i say that those games back in 1962 and 1963 were very entertaining and close.go ahead and look at the website retrosheet for the 1962 and 1963 new york mets boxscores.maybe a youngster like you can learn something.

Thanks for the compliment! 48 next month.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

Incorrect. I'm two years older than you. I've been attending baseball games at Shea Stadium since the late 60's. As I said earlier my Dad attended games at the Polo Grounds, Ebbets and Shea. I know what I'm talking about. I realize you have a love for that old park, but is there a need to try beating down anyone who doesn't agree?

And I'm sorry, but 120 losses isn't exciting, no matter the scores. The "cuteness" of the lovable loser Mets wore off a lot sooner than the media has made it seem.

Everyone does have the right to there opinion on everything. and again you need to go to the retrosheet website and checkout some 1962 and 1963 mets boxscores.you will then find out that just because those teams lost 120 and 111 games they were not as bad as that. i have have listened to alot of those games on audio tape to know what i am talking about. shea stadium to me will always be a dump. and ebbets field just like the polo grounds was not a perfect ballpark. but i have talked to alot of people who did go to those ballparks and do believe these people who are fans and ex ball players that the polo grounds was a great place to see a baseball game. i have also heard that from brooklyn dodgers fans. there is nothing like listening to one of my 1962 and 1963 mets games on audio and sitting in my polo grounds seat and drinking a cold rheingold beer.

[metfan13]

Everyone does have the right to there opinion on everything. and again you need to go to the retrosheet website and checkout some 1962 and 1963 mets boxscores.you will then find out that just because those teams lost 120 and 111 games they were not as bad as that. i have have listened to alot of those games on audio tape to know what i am talking about. shea stadium to me will always be a dump. and ebbets field just like the polo grounds was not a perfect ballpark. but i have talked to alot of people who did go to those ballparks and do believe these people who are fans and ex ball players that the polo grounds was a great place to see a baseball game. i have also heard that from brooklyn dodgers fans. there is nothing like listening to one of my 1962 and 1963 mets games on audio and sitting in my polo grounds seat and drinking a cold rheingold beer.

OK, then. Enjoy.

I'll continue with 2007.

[RichardK]

Yikes, I started reading this thread and it was about Yankee Stadium vs Citi Field, now it's turned into a stupid flamewar about Polo Grounds and who has memories of it or whatnot. Lets get back ON TOPIC please.

[gemcaptom]

Yikes, I started reading this thread and it was about Yankee Stadium vs Citi Field, now it's turned into a stupid flamewar about Polo Grounds and who has memories of it or whatnot. Lets get back ON TOPIC please.

well its the Pologrounds1957 guy that posts PG was the greatest stadium ever in every thread but that same guy never saw a game there, thats hysterical.. How could you make such a claim based on what???, Other peoples opinions??. Older people like to hold onto the past.. I have alot of family history involved in baseball and quite a few said PG was kinda dumpy but had a nice feel to it and had alot of memories but said the original Yankee stadium blew it AWAY!!! PG wouldn't of survived the needs of what is necessary for a stadium today. The dimensions were horrible and it would have had to been reshaped and renovated worse then Yankee stadium was in the 70's to make it compatible.. , so should i beleive them or some guy who never went there for a game.. He says dont bash PG but then he trashes on every other stadium for the most part...

[Yankeefan90]

well its the Pologrounds1957 guy that posts PG was the greatest stadium ever in every thread but that same guy never saw a game there, thats hysterical.. How could you make such a claim based on what???, Other peoples opinions??. Older people like to hold onto the past.. I have alot of family history involved in baseball and quite a few said PG was kinda dumpy but had a nice feel to it and had alot of memories but said the original Yankee stadium blew it AWAY!!! PG wouldn't of survived the needs of what is necessary for a stadium today. The dimensions were horrible and it would have had to been reshaped and renovated worse then Yankee stadium was in the 70's to make it compatible.. , so should i beleive them or some guy who never went there for a game.. He says dont bash PG but then he trashes on every other stadium for the most part...

No he says don't bash the PG because you have never been there. Like he's been there though, or like he's "been" to Comerica Park becuase he walked around it (but never inside). I don't want to attack the guy if he likes the Polo Grounds, but I don't understand how you can base your opinions if you have never been to the place. I don't like the fact that he says that he knows friends and former players who've been to the Polo Grounds and they have no reason to lie about what a nice place it was, but when you tell him you know friends and former players who've been to the Polo Grounds that say it wasn't a nice place he'll tell you they don't know what they're talking about or he doesn't believe you. I'm not trying to stur anything up but the guy is hardly reasonable, and that's why this thread has a become a debate about the Polo Grounds.

I think both the Yanks and Mets have gotten a pretty good deal. But I think the Mets more so than the Yanks, only because it's Yankee Stadium they're replacing.

[gemcaptom]

I think both the Yanks and Mets have gotten a pretty good deal. But I think the Mets more so than the Yanks, only because it's Yankee Stadium they're replacing.



You summed it up right there.. The Mets are replacing basically an old outdated , lets face it ugly stadium and i love shea, the Yanks are replacing a stadium which is Holier then Jesus himself to some and leaving its sacred ground it lie on. Since im not a Yankee fan, i can only say thats a tough call.i I like new things, but love the history value in the old as well. So the Yankees deal will be a little soured to most fans as us Mets fans are mostly ecstatic about the new satdium

[Yankeefan90]

You summed it up right there.. The Mets are replacing basically an old outdated , lets face it ugly stadium and i love shea, the Yanks are replacing a stadium which is Holier then Jesus himself to some and leaving its sacred ground it lie on. Since im not a Yankee fan, i can only say thats a tough call.i I like new things, but love the history value in the old as well. So the Yankees deal will be a little soured to most fans as us Mets fans are mostly ecstatic about the new satdium

Believe me though I think Yankee fans sometimes have short term memory loss. If the Yankees win the WS the first year or 2 in the new Stadium that sour taste of how the old stadium being replaced will be forgotten by many, not all, but many. I for one am happy the Yanks are getting a new venue that harkens back to when the Stadium was in her prime.

[David Atkatz]

Believe me though I think Yankee fans sometimes have short term memory loss. If the Yankees win the WS the first year or 2 in the new Stadium that sour taste of how the old stadium being replaced will be forgotten by many, not all, but many.

Only those with no sense of history. You know, the people who think the imitation European landmarks at Disney's Epcot are as good as (if not better than) the real thing.

I for one am happy the Yanks are getting a new venue that harkens back to when the Stadium was in her prime.

The new monstrosity has nothing in common with Yankee Stadium in her prime.

[Yankeefan90]

Only those with no sense of history. You know, the people who think the imitation European landmarks at Disney's Epcot are as good as (if not better than) the real thing.



The new monstrosity has nothing in common with Yankee Stadium in her prime.

I'm a big history person. That's about the only class in school I get over a 95 in. So history is pretty important to me. And I already said IMO tha Yankee Stadium had lost alot of that history in the 70's renovation. You might not think so but I do, they killed all of the classic features. And anybody who thinks that the recreations of Europe in Epcot is better, are foolish. It's your opinion though that you don't like the new ballpark and that's fine, but don't attack my sense of history, or the fact that I do like it. I'm a Yankee fan just like you are, unless you're not and you're just one of them baseball purists who think Yankee Stadium is holier than heaven itself.

[David Atkatz]

And I already said IMO tha Yankee Stadium had lost alot of that history in the 70's renovation. You might not think so but I do, they killed all of the classic features.

Take a look at the exterior walls of the Stadium, and then tell me they killed all the classic features. Lost a lot of history? The building can't "lose history." What happened there happened there, and cannot be taken away.

BTW, have you ever been to the "old" stadium"?

[TJH1923]

I have been to both versions of Yankee Stadium and in MHO, the renovation tossed aside many "classic" aspects of the original stadium. The problem back then was "classic" was not in vogue yet and wouldn't be until Camden Yards was built. If the original was scheduled to renovated after 1991, many of the "classic" features would have been preserved or restored. Words like dilapidated and disrepair were used to describe Yankee Stadium in the late
60's and early 70's

With that said, I vividly remember the the proposed renderings of what the renovated stadium would look like. I didn't like it at all and of course I was comparing them to what I already experienced in the old stadium (look in the
'72 and '73 yearbooks). I went to the first game at the renovated stadium and it was much different and somewhat septic (think cookie cutter). There were no left field bleachers, no out of town scoreboard, a much smaller monument park that was not accessible to the fans and limited advertising with none on the outfield walls. The biggest problem was that on many game days was that the stadium was only half filled. It took many years for the renovated stadium to have the current feel and look it has now. The crowds bring the stadium alive. Nothing like a full stadium.

In MHO, I believe both new stadiums are great for New York. I also believe you will need to see a couple of games in each to see how good or bad they might be. Nothing will replace either version of Yankee Stadium and it is a good thing Shea will be put to rest. Each stadium must be given a chance to develop its own history and feel.

[David Atkatz]

Of course many of the classic features were removed--the "facade," the three main entrances, the bullpens...

(BTW, the original stadium did not have a larger "monument park." It had no monument park. The Gehrig, Huggins and Ruth monuments were in play in center, and some plaques were on the outfield wall. It was always a thrill to go out on the field after a game, go look at the monuments, and exit through the Yankees' bullpen.)

There was much "renovation" before 1973. The Babe never hit a home run into the concrete bleachers that were built in 1936, replacing the "temporary" wooden structure that housed "Ruthville," for example.

But it's still "the Stadium." It's still the structure that was christened by a Ruth home run, the structure in which Gehrig cried, and Mantle tore his knee...

It could have been, and should have been "retrovated," for want of a better term.

But money talks, and luxury suites and more concessions are gonna make whoever owns the team even more.

Steinbrenner is not doing this for the fans. he's doing it for Steinbrenner.

(I went to my first game in 1959, and was at the 1976 "re-opening," too.)

[Yankeefan90]

Take a look at the exterior walls of the Stadium, and then tell me they killed all the classic features. Lost a lot of history? The building can't "lose history." What happened there happened there, and cannot be taken away.

BTW, have you ever been to the "old" stadium"?

I've been to the current Stadium if that's what you mean, and believe me I love it (except for the area in left and right field where you miss a good portion of the field) I wish they couldv'e saved the current stadium and done another renovation but this time replacing all the things that are too old and bring back the classic features. But the reality is they're not going to renovate the current one and they're building a new one and there is nothing you could do about it now except for not go when it opens. You can't cry over spilt milk, you just have to except now that they're building this new one and find a positive, no one says you have to love it. Because I think they couldv'e designed it better too but it is what it is. I'm still going to go and root for the Yankees, and not hold a grudge because the Stadium is not the way I like it.

I've never been to the "old" Stadium 1923-1973, I wasn't even born yet.

[David Atkatz]

I've never been to the "old" Stadium 1923-1973, I wasn't even born yet.

Too bad. You really missed something. Had you been there, and seen it the way our fathers and grandfathers saw it, you might feel differently.

Of course I know it's a done deal, and I can't change it, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend that the new structure "harkens back to when the Stadium was in her prime."

[Mex4Prez]

I don't like that they are trying to duplicate Yankee stadium. It's like you can go to Walmart and buy a Mona Lisa painting and hang it over your fireplace, but it's just not the same as having the Di Vinci version.

I know that the current stadium isn't really the original, but atleast when a guy steps in the batters box, he knows that Ruth and Mantle and so on stood in that same 6x4 rectangle. I'll wait to see a game there before I can say for sure, but I think they would have been better off building a new stadium with a new look while paying subtle homages to the old stadium(s).

Also an unrelated question. I think most Mets fans will want to see a game at the new Yankee stadium and vice versa. Any idea how much subway series tickets are going to to scalped for in 09? My guess is 3-5x the ticket value.

[nymdan]

Also an unrelated question. I think most Mets fans will want to see a game at the new Yankee stadium and vice versa. Any idea how much subway series tickets are going to to scalped for in 09? My guess is 3-5x the ticket value.

Impossible to tell now, but that sounds about right.

More interesting than that will be how much tickets to Opening Day at Citi and the new Yankee Stadium will be scalped for.

[Yankeefan90]

Impossible to tell now, but that sounds about right.

More interesting than that will be how much tickets to Opening Day at Citi and the new Yankee Stadium will be scalped for.

I think through most of next year and 2009, tickets will be scalped at very high unreasonable prices. The Final and Opening Day games I wouldn't mind paying a very high price for, since it is what it is, but Subway Series ticks I wouldn't pay those high prices. As much as the games are special to the city they're just like any other game, and they don't hold any sort of weight that a Red Sox-Yankees series or a Mets-Braves series might. I think those games at the new stadiums will also be pretty high.

[TJH1923]

"David Atkatz
(BTW, the original stadium did not have a larger "monument park." It had no monument park. The Gehrig, Huggins and Ruth monuments were in play in center, and some plaques were on the outfield wall. It was always a thrill to go out on the field after a game, go look at the monuments, and exit through the Yankees' bullpen.)"

"There was much "renovation" before 1973. The Babe never hit a home run into the concrete bleachers that were built in 1936, replacing the "temporary" wooden structure that housed "Ruthville," for example."


David, I was referring to the original monument park in the renovated stadium. It was not initially accessible to the fans.

Before '73, The stadium was painted and spruced up in '66 or '67. Prior to that, left and right field were extensions and the permanent bleachers were part of the right field extension project, not a renovation. Both extensions were done when ample funds were available to ownership. This allowed the franchise the opportunity to make more revenue. It has always been a business.

[MSUlaxer27]

Everyone does have the right to there opinion on everything. and again you need to go to the retrosheet website
and checkout some 1962 and 1963 mets boxscores.you will then find out that just because those teams lost 120 and 111 games they were not as bad as that. i have have listened to alot of those games on audio tape to know what i am talking about. shea stadium to me will always be a dump. and ebbets field just like the polo grounds was not a perfect ballpark. but i have talked to alot of people who did go to those ballparks and do believe these people who are fans and ex ball players that the polo grounds was a great place to see a baseball game. i have also heard that from brooklyn dodgers fans. there is nothing like listening to one of my 1962 and 1963 mets games on audio and sitting in my polo grounds seat and drinking a cold rheingold beer.

I don't know why I'm doing this...

A team that records a combined 91-231 over two seasons is not a bad team...it's a horrible team... one of the worst in baseball history. If you calculate the 1962/63 Mets expected wins and losses via the Baseball Pythagorean Theorem their two year combined record should have been 100-222 (50-110 in 62 and 50-112 in 63). The Pythagorean Theorem is supposed to remove "luck" bad or good from a teams expected performance. Even without the bad luck that caused the Mets to lose 9 more games than they were supposed to, this is still a very , very, very bad team.

I checked retro sheet for 1962. 80 of the Mets games were decided by scores of 2 runs or less (wins or losses). Of the 80, 53 were losses and 27 were wins. There were 50 games (included in the 80) decided by 1 run or less - 33 losses and 17 wins. On the flip side they lost 46 games by 4 runs or more and won 8 games by 4 runs or more.

Here are Percentages for the 1962 NY Mets (% may not equal due to rounding).

(I consider 1 run a close game since a bad team may be able to scratch out 2 to win but probably not 3/ 4 runs or more a blowout loss).

Going to a Mets game in 1962 (Pythagorean 50-110 outscored by 331 runs) you had a:

31% chance of seeing them play a close game (50/160)
34% chance of seeing a blowout (54/160)

75% chance of seeing a loss (120/160)
29% chance of seeing a blow out loss (46/160)
21% chance of seeing a close loss (33/160)

and

25% chance of seeing a win (40/120)
5% chance of seeing a blow out win (8/160)
11% chance of seeing a close win (17/160)


To put things in perspective of how absolutely atrocious the 1962/63 Mets actually were: 6 teams (SF 101-61, LA 101-61 (not counting 61 playoff), CIN 98-64, PIT 93-68, LA 99-63, STL 93-69) won more games in a single season (either 1962 or 1963) than those Mets won in 2 seasons. The 1962/63 Mets defined horrible ineptitude (64 and 65 were pretty pathetic as well).

Lets contrast 1962 with 1968 (Mets 73-89 Pythagorean 77-85 outscored by 26 runs)

Going to a Mets game in 1968 you had a:

35% chance of seeing them play a close game (57/162)
22% chance of seeing a blowout (37/162)

55% chance of seeing a loss (89/162)
10% chance of seeing a blow out loss (17/162)
20% chance of seeing a close loss (32/162)

and

45% chance of seeing a win (40/120)
12% chance of seeing a blow out win (17/162)
15% chance of seeing a close win (25/162)

For both studies I consider what your chances are for a given outcome if you went to random game in 1962 or 1968.

These teams faced similar game situations...but the 1968 Mets performed much better than the 1962 Mets. Make no mistake, both teams were bad.

The 1968 Mets were a bad team that with a few breaks might have been mediocre...The 1962 Mets were a dreadful team that with a few breaks might have been simply awful.

Finally, the 1962 Mets had streaks where they lost 7,9,11,13 and 16 games in a row! They won back to back games 7 times and won 3 in a row 2 times.

I know that Donald has cassettes of 45 year old radiocasts...but isn't it the job of the radio announcer to make the game sound interesting and competitive even when it's not? Picture Harry Doyle (Bob Uecker) in the movie Major League. A pitcher throws the ball 6 feet off the plate...his call..."just a bit outside". Listening to a game on the radio you are essentially blind. The announcer is your eyes. Some: Vin Scully, Mel Allen, Jack Buck do it really well...others not so much. 1962 Mets broadcasters: Bob Murphy (who I love) always had a sunny outlook...Ralph Kiner...um no so good... Lindsey Nelson received the Frick from Cooperstown so I'll take that to mean he was good at his job. Still you have to remember these guys were on the "payroll" so to speak, their jobs were to make you want to tune in or go see a game in person.

My point is if you didn't see them in person or on TV in 1962(or video/dvd now)...then it's hard to judge how truly bad they were. The only thing we really have is statistical analysis and statistical analysis points to the 1962/63 NY Mets as being a mind numbingly bad baseball team.

I would appreciate if responses to this post use things like capitalization and punctuation. Factual support and analysis of some sort are welcome additions as well. However I am completely prepared for a compact diatribe without punctuation, capitalization or spacing telling me how I don't know what I'm talking about. :laugh

[Yankeefan90]

I don't know why I'm doing this...

A team that records a combined 91-231 over two seasons is not a bad team...it's a horrible team... one of the worst in baseball history. If you calculate the 1962/63 Mets expected wins and losses via the Baseball Pythagorean Theorem their two year combined record should have been 100-122 (50-110 in 62 and 50-112 in 63). The Pythagorean Theorem is supposed to remove "luck" bad or good from a teams expected performance. Even without the bad luck that caused the Mets to lose 9 more games than they were supposed to, this is still a very , very, very bad team.

I checked retro sheet for 1962. 80 of the Mets games were decided by scores of 2 runs or less (wins or losses). Of the 80, 53 were losses and 27 were wins. There were 50 games (included in the 80) decided by 1 run or less - 33 losses and 17 wins. On the flip side they lost 46 games by 4 runs or more and won 8 games by 4 runs or more.

Here are Percentages for the 1962 NY Mets (% may not equal due to rounding).

(I consider 1 run a close game since a bad team may be able to scratch out 2 to win but probably not 3/ 4 runs or more a blowout loss).

Going to a Mets game in 1962 (Pythagorean 50-110 outscored by 331 runs) you had a:

31% chance of seeing them play a close game (50/160)
34% chance of seeing a blowout (54/160)

75% chance of seeing a loss (120/160)
29% chance of seeing a blow out loss (46/160)
21% chance of seeing a close loss (33/160)

and

25% chance of seeing a win (40/120)
5% chance of seeing a blow out win (8/160)
11% chance of seeing a close win (17/160)


To put things in perspective of how absolutely atrocious the 1962/63 Mets actually were: 6 teams (SF 101-61, LA 101-61 (not counting 61 playoff), CIN 98-64, PIT 93-68, LA 99-63, STL 93-69) won more games in a single season (either 1962 or 1963) than those Mets won in 2 seasons. The 1962/63 Mets defined horrible ineptitude (64 and 65 were pretty pathetic as well).

Lets contrast 1962 with 1968 (Mets 73-89 Pythagorean 77-85 outscored by 26 runs)

Going to a Mets game in 1968 you had a:

35% chance of seeing them play a close game (57/162)
22% chance of seeing a blowout (37/162)

55% chance of seeing a loss (89/162)
10% chance of seeing a blow out loss (17/162)
20% chance of seeing a close loss (32/162)

and

45% chance of seeing a win (40/120)
12% chance of seeing a blow out win (17/162)
15% chance of seeing a close win (25/162)

For both studies I consider what your chances are for a given outcome if you went to random game in 1962 or 1968.

These teams faced similar game situations...but the 1968 Mets performed much better than the 1962 Mets. Make no mistake, both teams were bad.

The 1968 Mets were a bad team that with a few breaks might have been mediocre...The 1962 Mets were a dreadful team that with a few breaks might have been simply awful.

Finally, the 1962 Mets had streaks where they lost 7,9,11,13 and 16 games in a row! They won back to back games 7 times and won 3 in a row 2 times.

I know that Donald has cassettes of 45 year old radiocasts...but isn't it the job of the radio announcer to make the game sound interesting and competitive even when it's not? Picture Harry Doyle (Bob Uecker) in the movie Major League. A pitcher throws the ball 6 feet off the plate...his call..."just a bit outside". Listening to a game on the radio you are essentially blind. The announcer is your eyes. Some: Vin Scully, Mel Allen, Jack Buck do it really well...others not so much. 1962 Mets broadcasters: Bob Murphy (who I love) always had a sunny outlook...Ralph Kiner...um no so good... Lindsey Nelson received the Frick from Cooperstown so I'll take that to mean he was good at his job. Still you have to remember these guys were on the "payroll" so to speak, their jobs were to make you want to tune in or go see a game in person.

My point is if you didn't see them in person or on TV in 1962(or video/dvd now)...then it's hard to judge how truly bad they were. The only thing we really have is statistical analysis and statistical analysis points to the 1962/63 NY Mets as being a mind numbingly bad baseball team.

I would appreciate if responses to this post use things like capitalization and punctuation. Factual support and analysis of some sort are welcome additions as well. However I am completely prepared for a compact diatribe without punctuation, capitalization or spacing telling me how I don't know what I'm talking about. :laugh

Thier record should have been 100-222, not 100-122. Anyway you guys should really create a Polo Grounds thread where these things can be argued. This thread is about both the new Yankee Stadium and Citi Field not a discussion about the Polo Grounds.

[MSUlaxer27]

You are correct. It's just that anytime any mentions the "hallowed" Polo Grounds somebody chimes in...Just wanted to rebut comments and suppositions.

Back to Topic

I am glad that both the Mets and Yankees are getting new stadiums. I have many fond memories from both stadiums. I am really glad that the Mets are getting a new place (as a Met fan). However I am not so happy they chose to copy a stadium built close to 100 years ago and continue to worship at the alter of Dodger and Giants. It is a better baseball design than Shea no matter what.

New Yankee stadium looks interesting and I think will be a great place to watch the game. TI don't have a problem with them replacing the old one. Don't really ever designate between "old" Yankee and "renovated" Yankee. Growing up and living here it's always just been the "Stadium". In time the new one will be as well. Quite frankly I find people who refuse to watch baseball teams because of the stadiums they play in obtuse. I'm sure there will be some "fans" who protest the new place, but there will still be more than enough real fans to support and go to games in the new stadium.

You can never please everybody, but for new stadiums I think both fan groups made out equally. Both are getting well designed baseball specific facilities. You really can't take away history...Yankees history will always exist and the Yankees and their fans will have a new place to make more.

[Mariano_Rivera]

I don't want Yankee Stadium knocked down. Could they have renovated it and while they renovated played in Shea when Citifield was finished and the Mets moved there. At the very least if they had to move could they have let the field stay where it is and make it a public field? I guess they could have screwed it up mroe than they are but they could have done a lot more.

[nymdan]

I don't want Yankee Stadium knocked down. Could they have renovated it and while they renovated played in Shea when Citifield was finished and the Mets moved there. At the very least if they had to move could they have let the field stay where it is and make it a public field? I guess they could have screwed it up mroe than they are but they could have done a lot more.

Maybe in an ideal world, but in this day and age, realistically, that's too much money lost, having the Yankees play in Queens for a couple years.

[David Atkatz]

I'm sure there will be some "fans" who protest the new place, but there will still be more than enough real fans to support and go to games in the new stadium.

Interesting.

The real fans hand their money over to Steinbrenner, no questions asked.

But those that actually care about the Yankees, as something more than a money-making machine are "fans" in name only.

Tell me--what would you have done had you been a "real" Dodger fan in 1957?

[David Atkatz]

[Before '73, The stadium was painted and spruced up in '66 or '67. Prior to that, left and right field were extensions and the permanent bleachers were part of the right field extension project, not a renovation.

Call it what you want. Tearing down the old, original bleachers, and replacing them with a new structure is a renovation. That it occurred at the same time the right field stands were extended is irrelevant.

[sflnyc]

...but isn't it the job of the radio announcer to make the game sound interesting and competitive even when it's not? ...Still you have to remember these guys were on the "payroll" so to speak, their jobs were to make you want to tune in or go see a game in person.



Bingo!

A lot of people tend to forget that. To keep the discussion on the topic of Yankee Stadium, remember that the Yankees fired Red Barber in 1966 after he made the comments during the TV broadcast that the Yankee Stadium was virtually empty for that game. They were around 400 fans at the game.

[sflnyc]

I went to the first game at the renovated stadium and it was much different and somewhat septic (think cookie cutter). There were no left field bleachers, no out of town scoreboard, a much smaller monument park that was not accessible to the fans and limited advertising with none on the outfield walls. The biggest problem was that on many game days was that the stadium was only half filled. It took many years for the renovated stadium to have the current feel and look it has now. The crowds bring the stadium alive. Nothing like a full stadium.

Two things.
1-When Yankee Stadium-II opened in 1976 against the Twins, the stadium was still not yet completed. The entire outfield stands area looks like it does today, but the left center seats were still under construction. I have a picture of a doubleheader against Detroit in September 1976, where the left center seats had still yet to be installed. If I find it, I'll scan and post it. Monument Park did not exist. It was just the 3 monuments and the flagpole behind the fence. The original (1976) left center fence was 430 feet away (417 to dead center). When Steinbrenner brought in the fences in to help Winfield hit HR's, thats when the idea of "Monument Park" began and over the past 20 years has developed into what we know now.

In regards to the out of town scoreboard, it may not have been operational on Opening Day, but came online later during the season. Many, if not most stadiums, are still not 100% complete when they open on their scheduled time (see Busch-III last year). The Oakland Coliseum had no scoreboard structure (note, I said the scoreboard itself, forget whether it was operational or not) when it opened in 1968. From my own personal experience, in another sport, the Miami Heat's American Airlines Arena still had areas of the arena interior behind the Upper Deck still being worked on during that first season in 2000. That's where I sat, so I know.

2-I commented in another thread that drawing 2 million fans for any baseball team during the 1970's was considered hugely successful. Getting 20-25K a night and the occasional 50K was the very, very good. Not so today. When the Dodgers hit 3 million, man it was unbelievable. Now, basically everybody does it. You can't look at attendance numbers of yesteryear and deduce that "no one cared" based off what goes on today, trust me. With time, and people having more disposable income, attendance at baseball games have risen over the decades. Other sports like football, attendance has still ranged in the same 60-65K range (for the league as a whole) because of the limited number of games. It is a lot easier to bring 70K for 8 games spread over 4 months as opposes to 40K for 81 games spread over 6 months.

[NYMets523]

I don't want Yankee Stadium knocked down. Could they have renovated it and while they renovated played in Shea when Citifield was finished and the Mets moved there.

They wouldn't have both Citi Field and Shea in use at the same time. Since the 2 teams are never playing home games at the same time, they would share the one stadium as they did when Yankee Stadium was being renovated in the 70's. It's probably a lot cheaper to build a whole new stadium than renovate the current one.

I prefer Citi Field over New Yankee Stadium. It looks better visually and the dimensions are pitcher-friendly. I think it's hard to judge on computer models though. You really have to be inside the stadium and see it for yourself.

[MSUlaxer27]

Interesting.

The real fans hand their money over to Steinbrenner, no questions asked.

But those that actually care about the Yankees, as something more than a money-making machine are "fans" in name only.

Tell me--what would you have done had you been a "real" Dodger fan in 1957?

So at Yankee Stadium now, benevolent George merely gives away tickets to anyone who wants to attend a game? Tickets prices will increase in the new model, but when was the last year that didn't happen in NYC?

If you care about the Yankees you'd watch them play on the roof of the Port Authority Bus Terminal if you had too. If you care about Yankee Stadium more than the team you'll complain about it being knocked down or even boycott the new stadium.

There are probably (lets be really generous) 1,000 fans nationwide who will not watch another Yankee Game because the stadium is being replaced. They will sit in their basements in an old chair from YS listening to old radio broadcasts drinking obscure beer. They were never fans anyway. Good riddance.

Many are probably disappointed that the stadium is being replaced but are making their peace with the decision.

Some, as shocking as this sounds, may actually be looking forward to a stadium with better sight lines, amenities, wider concourses, and adequate numbers of restrooms.

Last, how does moving across the street into a new Stadium based on the outdated model it is replacing compare with deserting a city and moving 3,000 miles away? What did Dodger fans do in 1957...They gave up on basball (their loss), rooted for another team (or the Mets when they came into existence) or followed the Dodgers from afar. I suppose I would have selected one of these options.

[Yankeefan90]

So at Yankee Stadium now, benevolent George merely gives away tickets to anyone who wants to attend a game? Tickets prices will increase in the new model, but when was the last year that didn't happen in NYC?

If you care about the Yankees you'd watch them play on the roof of the Port Authority Bus Terminal if you had too. If you care about Yankee Stadium more than the team you'll complain about it being knocked down or even boycott the new stadium.

There are probably (lets be really generous) 1,000 fans nationwide who will not watch another Yankee Game because the stadium is being replaced. They will sit in their basements in an old chair from YS listening to old radio broadcasts drinking obscure beer. They were never fans anyway. Good riddance.

Many are probably disappointed that the stadium is being replaced but are making their peace with the decision.

Some, as shocking as this sounds, may actually be looking forward to a stadium with better sight lines, amenities, wider concourses, and adequate numbers of restrooms.

Last, how does moving across the street into a new Stadium based on the outdated model it is replacing compare with deserting a city and moving 3,000 miles away? What did Dodger fans do in 1957...They gave up on basball (their loss), rooted for another team (or the Mets when they came into existence) or followed the Dodgers from afar. I suppose I would have selected one of these options.

This is exactly what I said. I'm in between, I'm upset that they're going to demolish the old Stadium, but I've come at peace with the idea and I'm actually looking foward to the new Stadium. And like you said anybody who gives up watching baseball because of the building thier team plays in is not really a true fan, and it's there loss. You know there are going to be about 5,000-6,000 less seats, so the un-happy fans don't need to be there to waste a seat and be un-happy all game long because they're not in the other building. Save those seats for fans who really want to be there to root fot thier team.

[David Atkatz]

If you care about Yankee Stadium more than the team you'll complain about it being knocked down or even boycott the new stadium.

Of course I care more about Yankee Stadium than the "team." The players we watch every day come and go; the Stadium remains. Derek Jeter, as much as I admire his playing, is not a link to the Yankees' past. The Stadium is.

And, FYI, I have no intentions of boycotting the new stadium. I have no intention of missing the pleasure of taking my children to watch the Yankees play, as my father took me. But I don't have to pretend that I'm not grieving at the loss of an historical treasure.

[Yankeefan90]

Of course I care more about Yankee Stadium than the "team." The players we watch every day come and go; the Stadium remains. Derek Jeter, as much as I admire his playing, is not a link to the Yankees' past. The Stadium is.

And, FYI, I have no intentions of boycotting the new stadium. I have no intention of missing the pleasure of taking my children to watch the Yankees play, as my father took me. But I don't have to pretend that I'm not grieving at the loss of an historical treasure.

I admire that then, I think somewhere all Yankee fans should feel upset at the loss of the Stadium. I know I do, and I'll be there when they start dimantling it. But I'm a fan that also likes the designs for the new place and I know the Yankees will make new history in the new place. Will it feel different, yea, but I think a team's fate is tied to who plays on the team, and not where they play.

[David Atkatz]

but I think a team's fate is tied to who plays on the team, and not where they play.

True enough.

[Astros]

Of course I care more about Yankee Stadium than the "team." The players we watch every day come and go; the Stadium remains. Derek Jeter, as much as I admire his playing, is not a link to the Yankees' past. The Stadium is.

And, FYI, I have no intentions of boycotting the new stadium. I have no intention of missing the pleasure of taking my children to watch the Yankees play, as my father took me. But I don't have to pretend that I'm not grieving at the loss of an historical treasure.

Derek Jeter will be linked to your kids past some day just as players from your childhood are now. Lots of people seem to sometimes get caught up in the memories and sometimes realize they are missing the new ones. I commend you for realizing this with your kids.

I'm a historian and I truly appreciate all of the old memories and the controversies over the new stadiums replacing the old ballparks of our youth I but have to say Derek Jeter does have a link to the past. He wears the pinstripes of the Yankees and that's a tradition I'm sure he is proud to be part of. This is his era (and your children's) much like it was once Babe Ruth's, Joe DiMaggio's, Mickey Mantle's or Thurman Munson's. One day they will want to bring their kids to the new stadium, which will be several years old by then, because they remember going with you. Years ago people just went to games and enjoyed them in a time before we started calling Yankee Stadium, Fenway Park or Wrigley Field a classic. Kids (who know no better like we once were) will do the same now and one day they will talk about their memories in the brand new Yankee Stadium and the Derek Jeter's of their baseball world.

The stadium is linked to the past because of the ball players that made that wonderful history there. The ballpark that is Yankee Stadium would be beloved if it had been built in any city because it is a great stadium, but it becomes even more special because what the players do on the field. And no one should ever hide a disappointment when a stadium they the grew up going to or simply appreciate it's historical value gets replaced.

Yes, I think they could have done some things different in the New Yankee Stadium, but at the same time I realize the ballpark is still under construction. My opinion is based on the renderings and photos of the model that have been released. The actual park may have some very nice positives (or maybe not), but that is for a different thread.

[mrow1927]

When I started this thread, I really hated the idea of a new YS. Why tear down such a historic stadium for a new one. Now I am kind of excited to see it. It has grown on me. I like seeing the construction photos and can't wait to see it built. When the new YS is completed, would it be cool to see both stadiums stand next to each other even for the short time before YS is demolished. It's like changing of the guard kind of. Even though the retro stadium fad had run its course, it fits with new YS because it's bringing the stadium back to a time that many of us didn't know or use to remember. I never been to the old stadium or at least too young to remember, so it will give me a sense of what it use to look like so that it's exciting.

Nothing will ever take away the memories and history of YS, so as sad as I am to see it go, I would love to see games at the new stadium.

[Yankeefan90]

When I started this thread, I really hated the idea of a new YS. Why tear down such a historic stadium for a new one. Now I am kind of excited to see it. It has grown on me. I like seeing the construction photos and can't wait to see it built. When the new YS is completed, would it be cool to see both stadiums stand next to each other even for the short time before YS is demolished. It's like changing of the guard kind of. Even though the retro stadium fad had run its course, it fits with new YS because it's bringing the stadium back to a time that many of us didn't know or use to remember. I never been to the old stadium or at least too young to remember, so it will give me a sense of what it use to look like so that it's exciting.

Nothing will ever take away the memories and history of YS, so as sad as I am to see it go, I would love to see games at the new stadium.

I think this how alot of Yankee fans feel. I said the samething, I can't wait to see the new one sand next to the old one. It maybe longer than we think, the new Stadium will start to get that completed look probaly by Jan-Feb, so we might see 2 stadiums right next door for from each other for a good 8 or 9 months, and the final months of the old stadium the new one should be about 90-95% complete. So we'll see, and I can't wait to walk through the doors of the new place, and when I have kids bringing them to see the Yankees.

[Onemoredayatshea27]

I might be going to Yankee Stadium next year- so I'll form my opinions about the place then, but I feel with all ballparks- that like people they get older. Certainly you can't replace a person, but a ballpark is a building. Concrete and stee isl all it is. The feeling of grief is coming from losing a place where memories and experiences were built upon. The first ballgame, the hot dogs, seeing your favorite player hit a home run or pitch a shut out.

Citi Field and NYS are exciting and so were Shea Stadium and Yankee Stadium when they opened.

[Yankeefan90]

I might be going to Yankee Stadium next year- so I'll form my opinions about the place then, but I feel with all ballparks- that like people they get older. Certainly you can't replace a person, but a ballpark is a building. Concrete and stee isl all it is. The feeling of grief is coming from losing a place where memories and experiences were built upon. The first ballgame, the hot dogs, seeing your favorite player hit a home run or pitch a shut out.

Citi Field and NYS are exciting and so were Shea Stadium and Yankee Stadium when they opened.

I plan on going to alot of Yankee games next year, so I better not find you with a Met cap on or I'll give a real big Bronx cheer, lol. Just joking, I've actually stopped booing the Mets (except during the Subway Series). There is no reason for me to boo them, the occasional ranking on the Mets fans are fun though, but half my family is full of Mets fans so I guess I'm kinda entitled and able, I also get ranked on when the Yankees start to lose i.e. the beginning of the year. But I like what you said, I agree with it. A building is just a building and only people put sentimental value in it, but still Yankee Stadium is important for historical reasons.

[sflnyc]

BUMP

Here is a photo of the Yankee Stadium outfiield from Shea from Sunday, September 12, 1976 taken from The Sporting News "Take Me Out to the Ball Park", the original 1983 edition.

Thanks to retrosheet.org, I've been able to identify the date of several of the pictures that I have seen in books.

It's the first game of a Doubleheader against Detroit which drew 52,707. Craig Nettles is at bat and Chris Chambliss is the runner at First Base (that part of picture was cut off). Notice the still yet complete Left Center Field Bleachers as I had mentioned before. Seats were installed and ready for the ALCS and World Series.

Apologies for the wide angle and the shadow from the spine of the book. Resolution isn't that good on the scan as the original book.

[TJH1923]

BUMP

Here is a photo of the Yankee Stadium outfiield from Shea from Sunday, September 12, 1976 taken from The Sporting News "Take Me Out to the Ball Park", the original 1983 edition.

Thanks to retrosheet.org, I've been able to identify the date of several of the pictures that I have seen in books.

It's the first game of a Doubleheader against Detroit which drew 52,707. Craig Nettles is at bat and Chris Chambliss is the runner at First Base (that part of picture was cut off). Notice the still yet complete Left Center Field Bleachers as I had mentioned before. Seats were installed and ready for the ALCS and World Series.

Apologies for the wide angle and the shadow from the spine of the book. Resolution isn't that good on the scan as the original book.

Notice the bland, antiseptic look of the the newly renovated stadium. Also notice the area where the monuments and plaques are. very small and not accessible to fans except for views from the stands.

[SBBL]

Also notice the area where the monuments and plaques are. very small and not accessible to fans except for views from the stands.

The left field fences were moved far in after Dave Winfield's first season. The empty space created between the original LF wall & the new one is were they created the popular 'Monument Park' that fans can walk through prior to games. The effect was to make Yankee Stadium play like most every other park. If you look at an over head shot of YS you can see the what the unique field dimensions were like.
It is little know or remembered that "The House That Ruth Built" was also "The House That Was Resized Because Dave Winfield Still Had Nine Years Left On His Monster Contract".
The stadium has never played the same since.

[mrow1927]

The left field fences were moved far in after Dave Winfield's first season. The empty space created between the original LF wall & the new one is were they created the popular 'Monument Park' that fans can walk through prior to games. The effect was to make Yankee Stadium play like most every other park. If you look at an over head shot of YS you can see the what the unique field dimensions were like.
It is little know or remembered that "The House That Ruth Built" was also "The House That Was Resized Because Dave Winfield Still Had Nine Years Left On His Monster Contract".
The stadium has never played the same since.


You are right. Yankee Stadium has never been the same after Dave Winfield's tenure there. After he left they should have moved the fences back. His whining and crying messed up one of the best known parts of the stadium, Death Valley. They tried to tailor it for him and he still didn't do anything to help them. What lesson did we learn boys and girls? Do not change anything on a legendary stadium for a less than legendary player. If they can't handle the park, tough luck. Play for another team.

Based on what I have seen from the construction photos of Citi Field and Yankee Stadium is that Y.S. seems more involved than C.F., not taking anything away from how good CF is going to look. It just seems there is a lot more concrete being on YS and the "Great Hall" looks like it's time consuming. Then again, YS is going to be bigger than CF so it'll take longer to build.

This is wishful thinking on my part, but would it be great that next year they move the fences back at center and left center since the dimensions of NYS is going to be the same as the current one. Bring back some sort of death valley. Make left center at least 400 ft away. :crossfingers:

[Yankeefan90]

You are right. Yankee Stadium has never been the same after Dave Winfield's tenure there. After he left they should have moved the fences back. His whining and crying messed up one of the best known parts of the stadium, Death Valley. They tried to tailor it for him and he still didn't do anything to help them. What lesson did we learn boys and girls? Do not change anything on a legendary stadium for a less than legendary player. If they can't handle the park, tough luck. Play for another team.

Based on what I have seen from the construction photos of Citi Field and Yankee Stadium is that Y.S. seems more involved than C.F., not taking anything away from how good CF is going to look. It just seems there is a lot more concrete being on YS and the "Great Hall" looks like it's time consuming. Then again, YS is going to be bigger than CF so it'll take longer to build.

This is wishful thinking on my part, but would it be great that next year they move the fences back at center and left center since the dimensions of NYS is going to be the same as the current one. Bring back some sort of death valley. Make left center at least 400 ft away. :crossfingers:

Left center is already 399 ft. What difference does one foot make. I think they should make Left center in the new Stadium like 415 ft, deep but not too deep. I think the demensions should be LF: 310, Left Center: 415, CF: 408, Right Center: 385, and RF: 300. These demensions aren't as dramatic as the old ones but it will certainly give the sense of a death valley as well as making the right field porch much more shallower. Also with LF at 310 ft that's shallow enough for A-Rod (if he stays) to hit all of his HR with ease. Just my opinion. And I hope the new YS will be as grand as the old one

[mrow1927]

Left center is already 399 ft. What difference does one foot make. I think they should make Left center in the new Stadium like 415 ft, deep but not too deep. I think the demensions should be LF: 310, Left Center: 415, CF: 408, Right Center: 385, and RF: 300. These demensions aren't as dramatic as the old ones but it will certainly give the sense of a death valley as well as making the right field porch much more shallower. Also with LF at 310 ft that's shallow enough for A-Rod (if he stays) to hit all of his HR with ease. Just my opinion. And I hope the new YS will be as grand as the old one

That was a typing error. I meant to say left center be at least 410 ft. I like your dimensions, but I will make CF 420 to 430 ft. Plus A-Rod has enough power to hit the ball even out the old YS, so the new stadium shouldn't be a problem for him. This one isn't.

[sflnyc]

Here are two photos from the April 26, 1976 issue of TIME magazine of Opening Day at the "New Yankee Stadium" on April 11, 1976. Cover story (with Ruth on cover) was the opening of the baseball season/Yankee Stadium with this new thing called "free agency".

As mentioned before, the stadium was opened before being fully complete. According to the article, the video message board was not yet operating.

The interesting thing to me is the Left Center Field Bleachers. These weren't completed until late September 1976, but there is a gathering of people sitting there watching the game. I'm guessing maybe they were stadium workers taking in the game on the concrete slabs. Anybody know anything about this one?

The second photo is the that of the Yankees lined up on the First Base line for the National Anthem. I can recognize Dick Tidrow, Rick Dempsey, Ed Figueroa, Catfish Hunter, and Lou Pinella.

[sflnyc]

This set of pictures is the exterior of Yankee Stadium, taken from the Harlem River aboard the Circle Line Tour boat around Manhattan. The Major Deegan Expressway is in the foreground and the Bronx County Courthouse in the background.

The first picture is from the Circle Line Souvenier Book (ca. 1974-75), which has the picture of Yankee Stadium-1.

The second picture is from the Circle Line Souvenir Book (ca. 2004-05), which has the picture of Yankee Stadium-2 from almost the exact location, but it is a few yards south of the photo taken some 30 years earlier.

Once again, sorry for the poor resolution on some of these scans

[bASEBAllfANAtiC]

With all the artist renderings of both new Yankee Stadium and Citi Field, it will be very interesting how the actual stadiums are going to be like. I think Citi Field is going to look the same because the pictures all show the same stadium while new Yankee Stadium has two different styles.

Yankee Stadium version 1:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16051&stc=1&d=1165276088
402210.jpg

Yankee Stadium version 2

http://www.baseball-fever.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16052&stc=1&d=1165276299
nyybpk02.jpg

I like version 2 better. As for Citi Field, I think that the field is going to look pretty much like the artist drawings.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16053&stc=1&d=1165276651
img_citifield1_450x338.jpg


lol i think the pics of the new yankee stadium is the same thing just a different angle