Camden Yards was perfect looking

[Greenpastures23]

I'd still say it was perfect even when the Hilton was built.

But now,  LOL

[interloper]

Blah blah blah, take a hike with this trash thread. 

[foxfield]

Ill have to give it some time.  This is the section where I had a Sunday ticket package from the time Cal announced his retirement until my 4 kids started playing ball on their own.  These seats, in Section 86 right against the bullpens,  could be mighty warm on Sunday mid day, but we had some great times.  A few of those years my bride was pregnant and Coach Elrod Hendricks would pop over with cold towels for her in between innings.  And bubble gum for the kids.  

But look, it's a great park, either way.  

[deward]

2 minutes ago, foxfield said:

Ill have to give it some time.  This is the section where I had a Sunday ticket package from the time Cal announced his retirement until my 4 kids started playing ball on their own.  These seats, in Section 86 right against the bullpens,  could be mighty warm on Sunday mid day, but we had some great times.  A few of those years my bride was pregnant and Coach Elrod Hendricks would pop over with cold towels for her in between innings.  And bubble gum for the kids.  

But look, it's a great park, either way.  

That's awesome, I miss Elrod. 

It's still a great park, but this feels less great to me. I know others disagree, which is fine. 

[Greenpastures23]

Camden Yards was the one thing this franchise did right.  Not anymore

[jamalshw]

I get that people have memories and I get that the more symmetric look is nice, but I think some of the hatred for the change is a bit hyperbolic. I liked the original look. I'll get this change some time to see how it plays. Would I prefer they didn't make the change? Yes. Does this change make it so this is no longer one of the best stadiums in the league? No. It's still one of the best stadiums in baseball. 

[deward]

2 minutes ago, jamalshw said:

I get that people have memories and I get that the more symmetric look is nice, but I think some of the hatred for the change is a bit hyperbolic. I liked the original look. I'll get this change some time to see how it plays. Would I prefer they didn't make the change? Yes. Does this change make it so this is no longer one of the best stadiums in the league? No. It's still one of the best stadiums in baseball. 

Not trying to be hyperbolic, but I will say that seeing it on tv right now for me is....jarring. Unpleasantly so.

[Porky]

3 minutes ago, jamalshw said:

I get that people have memories and I get that the more symmetric look is nice, but I think some of the hatred for the change is a bit hyperbolic. I liked the original look. I'll get this change some time to see how it plays. Would I prefer they didn't make the change? Yes. Does this change make it so this is no longer one of the best stadiums in the league? No. It's still one of the best stadiums in baseball. 

Not sure if that's really true. The wall change definitely now puts it behind many of the parks it inspired, like Pittsburgh and San Francisco. Add in the classics of Dodger Stadium, Fenway, Wrigley - it might not even be in the top ten anymore.

[NCRaven]

If these dimensions went back to 1992, I don't think anyone here would have spent 30 years saying, "oh, my, if only left field didn't look like that it would be the best park in baseball, but that makes it suck."

[jamalshw]

34 minutes ago, Porky said:

Not sure if that's really true. The wall change definitely now puts it behind many of the parks it inspired, like Pittsburgh and San Francisco. Add in the classics of Dodger Stadium, Fenway, Wrigley - it might not even be in the top ten anymore.

It's all subjective so maybe it's not true to you, to each their own. But, if that change drops it out of the top-10 you have to admit that it's a bit excessive unless you had it near the bottom of the top-10 to start. If you want to put it behind Pittsburgh and San Fran, fine. You could argue those ahead of it before the change and if the change cements that, I can't argue there and may actually agree. But I don't see how the change would put the "classics" ahead of OPACY unless you already had them ahead of OPACY for the historical aspect. I love history and enjoy Dodger Stadium, Fenway and Wrigley. I've been to all three and like them for what they are, but they don't come close to OPACY to me (change or no change) unless your ranking criteria VERY heavily skews to history. I would also note that Wrigley and especially Fenway have their fair share of funky angles. 

Again, to each their own, but the change may be a downgrade, but--at least to me--you may be overselling the negative impact. 

[deward]

5 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

If these dimensions went back to 1992, I don't think anyone here would have spent 30 years saying, "oh, my, if only left field didn't look like that it would be the best park in baseball, but that makes it suck."

Maybe, maybe not, but if you had showed me the two designs side by side back then, the old one would win out all day long. 

[Tony-OH]

I will say this, it looks weird and I'm not a fan of the tall wall out there. There was always something cool about outfielders battling with fans for home runs balls.

[deward]

4 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

I will say this, it looks weird and I'm not a fan of the tall wall out there. There was always something cool about outfielders battling with fans for home runs balls.

Seeing it loom over the left fielder in the close ups now is just....bizarre. Definitely makes it feel less intimate (at least on tv).

[$Greatness$]

Nothing is sacred anymore. But also with time, I'm sure most will get used to it.

[Tony-OH]

41 minutes ago, deward said:

Seeing it loom over the left fielder in the close ups now is just....bizarre. Definitely makes it feel less intimate (at least on tv).

Looks more like one of those tall walls from the cookie cutter stadiums of the 70s.