May 7, 2013, 9:35 PM EST
Barry Jackson, columnist at the Miami Herald, has the story:
The Marlins, whose attendance ranks last in the National League five weeks into the season, have decided to close the upper bowl at Marlins Park for at least some weeknight games – an approach the team used at times at Sun Life Stadium.
The upper bowl will be closed for six dates in the team’s nine-game homestand that begins next Tuesday. Fans can sit only in the lower bowl for games May 14-16 against Cincinnati and May 20-22 against Philadelphia. The upper bowl will remain open for May 17-19 games against Arizona.
The Marlins will make a decision before each homestand from here on out about whether the upper deck sections are going to be accessible.
Marlins representative P.J. Loyello told the Miami Herald that closing the upper bowl will “give an overall better fan experience.” But, as Jackson points out, it also means fewer shifts for some stadium employees.
The Marlins averaged 18,772 fans per game in their final year at Sun Life. They’re doing 18,865 per game in their second season at Marlins Park — a building that will wind up costing Miami taxpayers over $1 billion.
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene 56
- Report: MLB panel split on rehab for Josh Hamilton; one-year suspension is in play 23
- Joc Pederson goes 2-for-2 in Cactus League debut 4
- Braves scratch Mike Minor from start with more shoulder problems 3
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” 360
- Blue Jays sign Dayan Viciedo to a minor league deal 8
- Chris Sale will be sidelined for three weeks with foot fracture 11
- Aramis Ramirez says 2015 will be his last year 33
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” (363)
- If addiction is an illness — and it is — Josh Hamilton shouldn’t be suspended (307)
- Curt Schilling lowers the boom on some men tweeting threats against his daughter (137)
- John Baker, Jeremy Brown, coal mines and class (80)
- Billy Bean responds to Daniel Murphy’s comments (77)