Talk:Oriole Park at Camden Yards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Oriole Park at Camden Yards is maintained by WikiProject Baseball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball and baseball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Baseball To-do: edit  Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Baseball: The current Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Article improvement drive article is New York Yankees. Requests: Attention: 1873 New York Mutuals, 1947 Little League World Series, Bobby Cox, China national baseball team, National Association as a major league Expand: 2007 Major League Baseball season, Kansai Big Six Baseball League, Players League Stubs: 2005 Major League Baseball All-Star Game, Batboy, Catch (baseball), Check-swing, International Baseball Federation, Korean Baseball Organization, Korean Series Images: Quality watch: 8 FA-Class Baseball articles - 6 GA-Class Baseball articles.

[edit] Influence of OPACY

I'm getting a little wary of the list of parks that Camden Yards has influenced. The article states "The retro-style ballpark began a trend among other cities to construct more traditional, fan-friendly ballparks, including..." then proceeds to list practically every major league park built since 1994. Is there any proof that Oriole Park was the inspiration for all of these new parks? While I'd love for OPACY to get credit for it, I don't know if our ballpark was the inspiration for that list of about ten parks.

Now on a more scrutinous reading, the article technically doesn't say that Oriole Park *influenced* the new parks. It just says it started a trend for "traditional" and "fan-friendly" ballparks, then lists them. I think that list is getting too long, and it's tough to pick out just a few parks because nobody wants theirs left out. So maybe we can remove that list entirely. And if we decide to keep it, then we need references that all the listed parks are "traditional" and "fan-friendly."

Comments? Questions? Bitter invective? --PKirlin 02:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Pkirlin! No bitter invective here. I actually JUST finished reading "Home of the Game: The Story of Camden Yards" by Thom Loverro (Taylor Publishing) ISBN 0878332227. On p 57, the first page of the chapter "Ancestors and Offspring", the author writes in 1999 that four have been built since Camden Yards, five more are on their way, and yet more are in the planning stages. Aside from the parks which obviously pre-date Camden Yards, there is one park of note NOT in the Camden Yards mode, and that is "New" Comisky Park (now U.S. Cellular Field, which was built at the same time, but has none of the Camden Yards-type traditional feel. Of course, in turn, Camden Yards has many predecessors: Ebbets Field in Brooklyn, Chicago's Wrigley Field, Boston's Fenway Park, and New York's Yankee Stadium. --Mmpartee 04:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The Cell had its predecessors: Dodger Stadium, Anaheim Stadium and Royals Stadium had all been built along similar lines, as baseball-only facilities at a time when the other option was the multi-purpose concrete donut. In fact, Yankee Stadium and U.S. Cellular are not all that different in design. I wouldn't call Yankee Stadium a predecessor of OPACY at all. Wahkeenah 06:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is all well and good. I guess my point is that the sentence is getting too long and unwieldy, and doesn't cite any sources as to "fan-friendliness" or "traditionalness" of any of the parks. I think basically every new park built from now on that is baseball-only is going to get added to that sentence. I mean, have you seen plans for the Nationals' new ballpark? I think it's been said that it would look "futuristic" or something of that sort, with lots of glass. It doesn't inspire me as "traditional" -- OPACY is traditional because of the "Steel, rather than concrete trusses, an arched brick facade, a sun roof over the gentle slope of the upper deck, an asymmetrical playing field, and natural grass turf." Which of the parks mentioned in the article are like this? In truth, I'd rather just get rid of the list of parks completely and say something like "The retro-style ballpark began a trend among other cities to construct more traditional, fan-friendly ballparks." Am I being too harsh? I just don't want everyone and their kid brother adding their favorite ballpark to the list if it was built after 1992. --PKirlin 17:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

oh yeah, and I think I'm going to try to add in info from orioles.com: "Ebbets Field (Brooklyn), Shibe Park (Philadelphia), Fenway Park (Boston), Crosley Field (Cincinnati), Forbes Fields (Pittsburgh), Wrigley Field (Chicago), and The Polo Grounds (New York) were among the ballparks that served as powerful influences in the design of Oriole Park." (not verbatim, of course). --PKirlin 17:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The main feature of the "retro" ballparks is that they are square instead of round, which puts more of the seats closer to the field. However, they still have some features the same as the donuts, in having a large middle tier for club boxes, and larger upper decks that are set back, and smaller lower decks. That's in sharp contrast to the old parks, which had a large lower deck, with posts in the way that supported a smaller upper deck. Wrigley is the perfect living example of that situation. The so-called "retro" ballparks are a synthesis of two styles. And you're right, you could probably reduce the references to both old and new to a single sentence. Maybe there should be a separate article about the architectural styles of the ballparks throughout history (or maybe there already is one?) Wahkeenah 18:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's an idea for what could prove to be best and most useful for Wiki readers: I can totally get behind the simplification of that sentence to not list all the ballparks influenced right there, just stating to the effect that it sparked a new trend in ballpark design because of its innovate new (old) ideas, instant affinity with fans and financial success. And a new article about the overall history and trends of ballpark design sounds like a really good idea. I think it would also be a good idea to then link that statement to an ending-type section listing out the actual ballparks influenced so that the reader can then go check those out if desired. Sound good? --Mmpartee 18:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Give it a shot. Wahkeenah 20:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baltimore Sun sign

The article states: The scoreboard advertises The Baltimore Sun at the top. The "H" in "The Sun" will flash to show a scoring decision of a hit and the "E" will flash to show an error. I have attended many games at Camden Yards and have never seen that sign flash to signal hits or errors. Last night, I made a point of watching for it, and despite there being 3 errors committed in that game, I did not observe any letters flashing in the Baltimore Sun sign. I would like to remove this sentence. Alternatively, if this is something that hapenned at one time and has since stopped, the sentence should be corrected accordingly. Tzadik 14:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't know the answer, but a possible explanation is that it might flash only if there is doubt as to whether the play was a hit or an error. If it was clearly an error, maybe they don't flash it. They certainly don't flash the H for every hit, only if it was a close call where it might be a hit or might be an error. --Mmpartee 14:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm that I've seen it flash. I believe it only flashes when there is doubt as to whether the play might be scored as a hit or an error (those are really the only times I bother to look). --PKirlin 16:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)