Jump to content

Y'all Seen the New Stadium in Texas?

Can_of_corn

By Can_of_corn
in MLB

 Share

Recommended Posts

ShaneDawg85 Hangout Veteran Council

ShaneDawg85

Posted
Posted

I still don't buy the argument that the Rangers needed a new ballpark when the The Ballpark in Arlington was 25 years old.  If you're going to make the lack of a retractable roof argument then spare me because the Rangers played over twenty years in a metal scrapheap that was a glorified minor league park.  

As for the stadium, by the looks of it the Rangers better hope the baseball is finger licking, lip smacking good.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, ShaneDawg85 said:

I still don't buy the argument that the Rangers needed a new ballpark when the The Ballpark in Arlington was 25 years old.  If you're going to make the lack of a retractable roof argument then spare me because the Rangers played over twenty years in a metal scrapheap that was a glorified minor league park.  

As for the stadium, by the looks of it the Rangers better hope the baseball is finger licking, lip smacking good.

I had some darned good food across the street before the new park was revealed as a smoker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrungoHazewood Hangout Grand Counsel

DrungoHazewood

Posted
Posted
On 7/3/2020 at 11:10 AM, Frobby said:

I like those OF dimensions.   Should make for some very wacky bounces and maybe a few gruesome injuries.

I prefer interesting outfield dimensions based on constraints imposed on the architecture like the shape of the lot.  It's pretty artificial when you have 11 weird angles in the outfield fence in a park that looks like a Zeppelin hangar stuck in the middle of 11,000 acres of parking.

Oh, and so much for my idea of bigger parks to encourage contact.  This one looks like another bandbox with short alleys.  Every new park should be at least 350-390-430-390-350.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frobby Hangout Grand Counsel

Frobby

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I prefer interesting outfield dimensions based on constraints imposed on the architecture like the shape of the lot.  It's pretty artificial when you have 11 weird angles in the outfield fence in a park that looks like a Zeppelin hangar stuck in the middle of 11,000 acres of parking.

Oh, and so much for my idea of bigger parks to encourage contact.  This one looks like another bandbox with short alleys.  Every new park should be at least 350-390-430-390-350.

The angles may be artificial, but they’re still fun.    I agree with you that overall I’d like it better if the fences were deeper.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BRobinsonfan All-Star

BRobinsonfan

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mlbs-newest-ballpark-is-a-shift-away-from-retro-era-stadiums/

I just saw this article and was about to post it myself but you beat me to it.  Some pretty cool statistical comparisons with stadiums built after Camden Yards.  I'm still not sure how I feel about this "modern" stadium.  I like the idea of being closer to the field, but it's hard to beat a game at Oriole Park at Camden Yards.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrungoHazewood Hangout Grand Counsel

DrungoHazewood

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, BRobinsonfan said:

I just saw this article and was about to post it myself but you beat me to it.  Some pretty cool statistical comparisons with stadiums built after Camden Yards.  I'm still not sure how I feel about this "modern" stadium.  I like the idea of being closer to the field, but it's hard to beat a game at Oriole Park at Camden Yards.  

I think someone could design a nice ballpark that doesn't look like a warehouse, that fits into a city grid, and has a cantilevered design that puts fans closer without obstructing beams.  I'm not at all a fan of parks way out the suburbs surrounded by huge parking lots and entertainment complexes designed to maximize revenues.

I'm guessing we won't see all that many new parks in the near future with almost everyone in a nice place that's been built in the last 30 years, or Fenway/Wrigley which aren't going anywhere.  Although I guess the Rangers/Braves model is to tear down parks built for $750M in taxpayer money 20 years ago and replace with $1B+ parks paid for by taxpayers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Posts

    • Bahama O's Fan
      JD Martinez

      By Bahama O's Fan · Posted

      From here https://www.mlb.com/orioles/stats/ops/regular-season
    • OsFanSinceThe80s
      JD Martinez

      By OsFanSinceThe80s · Posted

      Where are you getting your stats from that's not correct looking at OPS.
    • Bahama O's Fan
      JD Martinez

      By Bahama O's Fan · Posted

      On the O's this year, Martinez would have been: 5th in OPS 5th in AVG 6th in HRs in 120 games
    • Hallas
      2024 Ravens regular season discussion

      By Hallas · Posted

      I think PFF is grading Roquan badly because the safeties behind him are playing like ass and it's making him look bad.  If teams are going to attack him over the middle on crossing routes with WRs (like KC did with Rice) he doesn't really stand much of a chance if the safeties behind him don't throw him a bone.  He's still a huge help in the run game.   In general I think PFF assigns a little too much blame to linebackers on passes over the middle, so unless you're an elite coverage guy at LB it's really hard to grade well.  The flip side to this is that teams probably need to adjust their coverage areas to account for the fact that LBs aren't going to be able to hold down WRs for long.  
    • Tony-OH
      2024 Ravens regular season discussion

      By Tony-OH · Posted

      Thanks. This tells me what my eyes have seen with Roquan. He's been a liability in coverage and the fact that Simpson is ahead of him is not good for our defensive leader. Do you have the PFF grades for offense too?
    • foxfield
      JD Martinez

      By foxfield · Posted

      What you want is perfectly reasonable.  But you seem entirely to focused on money.  The team needs to work to improve.  I don't care what it costs, you shouldn't either.  They are going to spend money and payroll will be higher next year and the year after that.  We need them to make improvements and some of that is rightfully going to come from within and not cost much. The improvements that are needed are going to cost too, I'm not saying they wont.  But ownership and the GM should simply work in tandem to make sure the team has what it needs.  I am not really concerned about how much that costs because it should be able to be done without jumping this particular team into say top ten in payroll.
    • casadeozo
      JD Martinez

      By casadeozo · Posted

      This is the right approach. the orioles should be spending more money and I believe they will, but I expect it to be measured with less risk (ie we won’t be handing out a Hader type deal or a  long term contract to Santander IMO) improving on some of the obvious weaknesses certainly makes sense.    1x SP: Burnes, Fried, Buehler 1x RH OF/DH: Martinez, O’Neill, Profar 1x 1B: (wishlist) Alonso, Walker

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...