Skip to content

One man’s rankings of all 30 major league ballparks

Jul 24, 2014, 9:17 AM EDT

pnc park getty Getty Images

CSN Washington’s Nationals Insider Mark Zuckerman has been covering baseball for a long time. And, thanks to the 2014 All-Star game at Target Field, he has now been to all 30 MLB stadiums. Even among baseball writers that’s rare — many haven’t done the full circuit thanks to unbalanced schedules and interleague rotations that have kept some teams from facing others — so it’s a pretty neat accomplishment.

This morning Mark ranks them all. You can read those rankings and his justifications here.

The parks at the top will not surprise you. I think he’s a bit hard on U.S. Cellular Field — I kinda like it for some reason — but for the most part his assessments of the parks I’ve been to track roughly with my own. Also, unlike a lot of writers who do this, he doesn’t focus too much on how the park is for the media as opposed to the fan. I mean, really, if I had a dime for every time someone tried to tell me a place was good or bad based on how friendly the people are in the media dining room …

Always love these features.

  1. Gordon - Jul 24, 2014 at 9:25 AM

    I’m a White Sox fan & totally agree with his ranking on “The Cell”. I went when it first opened & sat in the upper deck in left field.

    I got dizzy walking down the steps because of how steep it was & thought I was going to fall over.

    It has zero character, despite the renovations.

    • jerze2387 - Jul 24, 2014 at 10:13 AM

      I disagree. While the upper deck is VERY steep and can be a problem, If you get tickets for the lower level its a GREAT stadium. nice and clean, lots of food choices that are pretty decent for the most part, getting in and out is easy traffic wise and also as people exit.

      I stopped reading the article when i saw wrigley rated so high. id rather go to US cellular, which is much cleaner, has actual urinals, than having to pee in a trough in a dust and asbestos covered hell hole like wrigley field. The concourse is so jammed up in that place its insane, theres no parking, the place is falling apart, the seeting views can be just as bad if not worse than US Cellurals upper deck (see the poles part). Its nice to think Nostalgically, but practically theres absolutely no way wrigley is better than US cellular.

      • bringin1234 - Jul 24, 2014 at 10:19 AM

        Agreed jerz

      • NatsLady - Jul 24, 2014 at 10:21 AM

        I’ve never been to US Cellular, but growing up on the South Side, I was endlessly in Comiskey Park, often with my sis, so I have happy memories of it.

        Now, as an out-of-town visitor, I agree on a lot of what you said about Wrigley (well, can’t comment on the urinals, and the Ladies Rooms are fine). In order to have a good experience at Wrigley you have to know where (and HOW) to park, where to sit, etc. and the lower concourses are like a very, very crowded shopping mall. I didn’t enjoy it much the first time, but I’ve learned to appreciate certain touches, such as the brick walkway with fans names and dates, and the friendliness of the fans and staff, although there are some real Chicago types there!

    • bringin1234 - Jul 24, 2014 at 10:19 AM

      Id have to disagree, in fact he even talks about the housing projects which were torn down. Theres apartments over there but not the old project buildings. Pre renovation the cell was awful with all the grey paint and concrete, but its much nicer now and while you can get vertigo up top, the view of the actual game is awesome and down low is a great time. You can walk the entire concourse and have a million different food choices. I have to agree with Craig, I like US Cellular.

      I also think he ranks CBP too high, That stadium just seems too big and far away from the action. I felt like I could have had a better time drinkin beers and watching a game at home

      • NatsLady - Jul 24, 2014 at 10:27 AM

        I was pleasantly surprised by CBP, so can’t agree with you there. I was in the upper deck on the RF side and felt about as close to the action as in similar seats at Nats Park. The concourses are wide and walkable, not crapped up with gimmicky games (Miller Park) or endless shopping (Wrigley) and yet food/drinks (and a souvenir if you want one) are easily available. The scoreboard, however, is awkwardly located, doesn’t have enough stats, has too many ads, and is difficult to read.

      • bringin1234 - Jul 24, 2014 at 3:45 PM

        I was behind home plate and as for the game atmosphere, basically felt like I found myself staring out at the city because I was up higher. CF in CBP gets jammed because of the Genos out there. lines for food there were forever long.

  2. jfk69 - Jul 24, 2014 at 9:35 AM

    He nailed the “new” Yankee Stadium. However I really like Citi field. Maybe he is right. Shea was so bad and the bathrooms putrid that anything they built was an improvement

    • thebadguyswon - Jul 24, 2014 at 9:56 AM

      Citi Field at #25 is a joke. I can see middle of the pack. But that low is ridiculous – it’s twice as nice a stadium than Yankee Stadium yet five spots lower. Give me a break.

  3. sdelmonte - Jul 24, 2014 at 9:36 AM

    He’s dead wrong about Citi Field. But then I also miss Shea a lot, so it’s clear that he and I will never see eye to eye.

  4. scoutsaysweitersisabust - Jul 24, 2014 at 9:43 AM

    Personally I’d bump Camden Yards up to number one, especially since it was such a groundbreaking achievement and trendsetter that is still ahead of it’s time, but I’m obviously very biased. In the end I really can’t argue with this list all that much. If you ask me, Nats park is rated too high. Really for a stadium that’s the newest in the league, it’s really rather…dull.

    • dan1111 - Jul 24, 2014 at 11:04 AM

      Camden Yards is very nice, but PNC Park is by far the best place I have watched a baseball game. I agree with the conventional wisdom on this one.

    • natstowngreg - Jul 24, 2014 at 1:52 PM

      I agree with Zuckerman’s critique of Nats Park. IMHO, middle-of-the pack is about right. It was built to be fan-friendly, and (based on attending around 200 games at the park) it delivers. But it also was built to fit into Washington’s monumental core–impressive, but unexciting. Washington doesn’t do quirky well.

      • scoutsaysweitersisabust - Jul 24, 2014 at 3:59 PM

        I just wish they considered parking and transportation better. When it first opened the closest metro stop was a few blocks away and required you to walk through some of the worst parts of town. Not to mention that late games can cause people to be left with no way home if the team doesn’t pay to keep the metro running.

        It’s not that it’s a bad stadium or anything, it’s just that it’s shiny, new and there is nothing really special about it. It’s kinda sad when wide concourses is it’s biggest selling point. The only reason it’s not ranked lower is so many stadiums are in complete disrepair.

      • natstowngreg - Jul 24, 2014 at 5:47 PM

        The walk to either Metro entrance is not that long. Though the walk down Half St. can be pretty crowded. I take the longer, less congested route to the New Jersey Ave. entrance.

        It’s unfair to say it was walking through “some of the worst parts of town.” The redevelopment and gentrification of that part of DC began before Nats Park opened, and continues rapidly. Having the ballpark there didn’t cause the redevelopment to start, but its presence hasn’t hurt.

        As for the problem with late games, this is true, and a significant frustration. The Lerners continue to wait for someone else to pick up the tab.

        Wide concourses is part of being fan-friendly, which is important. Architectural style and quirkiness aren’t everything. Balancing how the park looks, against how it works as a baseball venue, I think Zuckerman got it about right.

  5. johnnysoda - Jul 24, 2014 at 9:44 AM

    The fact that he ranked Citi Field 25th shows he’s obviously never been to the Shake Shack there. That alone is worth two or three extra spots.

    • thebadguyswon - Jul 24, 2014 at 9:57 AM

      Once I saw Fenway in the Top Ten, he lost all credibility. It’s a green trash can with seats.

      • jerze2387 - Jul 24, 2014 at 10:14 AM

        Ditto for Wrigley. Although wrigley is one of those old, silver, metal, dusty, dirty cans oscar the Grouch lived in

      • thebadguyswon - Jul 24, 2014 at 10:51 AM

        In fairness, I had a blast at Fenway. I just don’t think it’s a very nice park. Needs a lot of updating.

      • [citation needed] fka COPO - Jul 24, 2014 at 11:03 AM

        Once I saw Fenway in the Top Ten, he lost all credibility. It’s a green trash can with seats.

        For me it depends on what your are basing your ranking(s) on: aesthetics, game watching, amenities, etc. To watch a game at Fenway on the lower level is an exercise in seating yoga, unless you are 5’4″ and weigh about 130lbs. The upper levels/box (renovated areas) are really nice, and I’m a fan of the food vendors outside, but it’s still looks like a 100 year old stadium with all the charm of one. Does that make it a top 10 stadium?

      • Glenn - Jul 24, 2014 at 11:38 AM

        Would you go to a museum and complain about all of the old stuff? I disliked that his review of Fenway was mostly a stereotypical and incorrect knock on the people of a region.

      • SocraticGadfly - Jul 24, 2014 at 12:11 PM

        New Busch may not quite be top 10, but I know it’s better than Citizens and Minute Maid. That’s when I lost interest.

      • lphboston - Jul 24, 2014 at 3:05 PM

        Absolutely right.
        And Fenway is torture if the guy or woman sitting next to you is overweight.
        Fenway was built for people born in the 19th century. Much smaller people. They could remove the seats and replace them with wider ones, but that would reduce income — and the Sox are all about the bottom line.

    • 18thstreet - Jul 24, 2014 at 9:57 AM

      There’s like a dozen in NYC. One is at JFK Airport. By this ranking, Washington’s Union Station is the best ballpark in America.

      Do you work for Shake Shack?

      • someguyinva - Jul 24, 2014 at 11:14 AM

        Isn’t there a Shake Shack at Nats Park, as well?

      • 18thstreet - Jul 24, 2014 at 11:17 AM

        Probably. There’s one within a quarter mile of my office.

        But I’m dying to try this new place called Chipotle!

    • echech88 - Jul 24, 2014 at 10:34 AM

      Isn’t there one in Nats Park too? And it gave everyone food poisoning.

      Shake Shack: yes
      Stadium or Airport Shake Shack: no.

      • NatsLady - Jul 24, 2014 at 10:49 AM

        Yes, there is one at Nats Park. The lines are always incredibly long, and I don’t get it. The burgers are soggy and the “special sauce” is too salty. There are better choices, in particular the burgers you get from the outdoor barbeque grill on the lower level.

      • thebadguyswon - Jul 24, 2014 at 10:52 AM

        That’s how I am at Citi’s Shake Shack. I will not waste four innings to wait in line. Although, the way the Mets play, it probably would be time well spent.

      • philipharmonic - Jul 24, 2014 at 10:56 AM

        the shake shack at Citi Field gave Ryne Sandburg food poisoning.

  6. josemartez - Jul 24, 2014 at 9:48 AM

    His comments on Rogers Centre on bang on. When I was 10 I thought it was the greatest thing in the whole world, but now it’s just bland. Now, they have improved it over the years, but the symmetry, turf and concrete make this place pretty stale. I actually got a tour of it earlier this week, and while the roof and engineering behind it all is incredible, it’s still a pretty boring place to see a game.

    • canadiansportsfan77 - Jul 24, 2014 at 10:44 AM

      Problem with the screwed up ownership, they refuse to fix the stadium ie grass, because of a freaking CFL team. The baseball team in the baseball stadium is left to suffer to accommodate a football team, and a CFL football team at that.

      No wonder they can’t lure players to the Jays, ownership isn’t obviously concerned with their best interest

  7. djohnson11882 - Jul 24, 2014 at 9:54 AM

    Way off on Miller Park. It should definitely be in the top 10.

    • NatsLady - Jul 24, 2014 at 10:35 AM

      Can’t agree. It’s an indoor stadium (even with the roof open, and the roof is closed WAY too often). The concourses are dark and junked up with gimmiky games, and you enter your seat through a short tunnel, you can’t see the game from the concourse at all. The good features: (1) GREAT scoreboard, the best I’ve seen, clear, easy to read, nerdy stats; (2) easy, cheap ($10) parking, easy to get to the park driving (3) very friendly staff and fans, fans above average baseball knowlege, family oriented (4) the brats were good, what they have at Nats Park is a poor, poor imitation.

      They closed the roof on an evening when it was about 65 degrees and “foggy” (which it wasn’t, really). They closed the roof mid-game the other day because players didn’t want to deal with the shadows, etc. etc. While baseball isn’t football, c’mon, toughen up a LITTLE!

      • Jeff - Jul 24, 2014 at 11:56 AM

        I don’t know about top 10 but certainly better than Safeco Field, its steel-girder competitor. While MP may not have a nice downtown view, it was built for tailgating friendly functionality. Safeco has such a feel of downtown dumpiness, they missed the boat on that one!

    • fifthstarter - Jul 24, 2014 at 11:50 AM

      Disagree. The roof was open on my visit there and it still felt very much like watching baseball indoors, which was just incredibly weird. It wasn’t terrible, but it’s easily last on my list of the ballparks I’ve been to that are still in use. (I grew up going to Candlestick, which was truly the worst ballpark ever.)

    • DJ MC - Jul 24, 2014 at 3:06 PM

      I wouldn’t say top ten, but of the major-league ballparks I’ve been to (only eight so far for games, but I’m working on that) not one exceeded the expectations I had for it more than Miller Park.

  8. mdpickles - Jul 24, 2014 at 9:58 AM

    Agree with # 1 and 2. Have made the trip almost a dozen times to see Phils/Pirates at PNC. Best placement/setting for a ballpark. AT+T, another that is placed in a great location.

  9. Paul White - Jul 24, 2014 at 10:09 AM

    I’ve been to 20 of these ballparks and I think his rankings are quite good. I love his description of “the indistinguishable middle of the pack….call them the modern-day cookie cutters”. I’ve had that exact feeling with most of the new parks I’ve been to. Nice, perfectly acceptable places to watch a ballgame, but virtually the same as their counterparts. I’ve been to the parks in DC, Philly, Cincy, St. Louis and Atlanta and basically couldn’t tell them apart once I was inside. A clear cut below their contemporaries in Minnesota, Denver, San Diego and SF. And a renovated Kauffman Stadium is 40+ years old and still distinctly better than most of them (I agree with him that AT&T and Petco are better).

    • echech88 - Jul 24, 2014 at 10:24 AM

      Totally agree. A lot of the new stadiums have a kind of sterile, synthetic quality to them. They are extremely nice and clean and have great bathrooms and concourses but they definitely lack personality or distinct qualities.

      The author’s description of Nationals Park pretty much sums up what happens when too many cooks in the kitchen have to compromise and make “safe” decisions that end up creating a bland product.

      I would put Miami a little higher though. For all its weird stuff, I had a great time there and thought the food was a tick above the rest of the league.

      • NatsLady - Jul 24, 2014 at 10:42 AM

        Even as a Nats fan, I have to agree on the park. It’s pleasant, and they’ve improved the food choices and the new flooring is a great look, but overall, if I were a visitor, unless I came when the cherry trees are in bloom, I wouldn’t remember much about it. It has nice views, but you have to hunt for them. The image of the Capitol dome with the moon that they show on TV is in a far corner of the park.

  10. protectthishouse54 - Jul 24, 2014 at 10:10 AM

    I get his comments on Yankee stadium, but I still think it should be higher. The facade, the rumble of the D train, Monument Park…it still has a lot going for it.

    • [citation needed] fka COPO - Jul 24, 2014 at 10:36 AM

      the rumble of the D train

      Was this changed with the new stadium? At the old one, the 4 was above ground and D below ground.

      • protectthishouse54 - Jul 24, 2014 at 1:17 PM

        The 4 is definitely above ground, but I believe the D is as well. Maybe I’m confusing the D with the B? I’m new to the west side so I’m still getting used to it.

  11. blindredhat - Jul 24, 2014 at 10:12 AM

    This is a great ranking system for 1992.

  12. jerze2387 - Jul 24, 2014 at 10:17 AM

    This guy is nuts. he ranks Miller park so low (ive been there, and its a very nice stadium. Id go again just because it was so nice). has US Cellular so low, and Wrigleys dustyness so high. hes ranking them off the scenery mostly. Im sorry, are you here to see the game or look at the skyline? Maybe he’d be better off going on a sight seeing tour, because hes obviously less interested in the game than the view of the city (must be a Cubs fan..not interested in the game, just beeing seen at the park)

    • echech88 - Jul 24, 2014 at 10:30 AM

      The scenery is absolutely factored in. That is why people go on ballpark tours in the first place. Otherwise, why would we be ranking Pittsburgh and San Francisco so high?

      So ya, Wrigley has an amazing backdrop and the best game day experience in the league thanks to the neighborhood.

      Miller Park is definitely nice but once inside it feels a little cookie-cutter.

    • SocraticGadfly - Jul 24, 2014 at 12:19 PM

      That’s why, though, in the “middle of the pack” group, I’d still put new Busch above Citizens, Nats and Minute Maid. Has a better skyline, and everything else is at least equal if not a skoosh better.

      I also don’t get his ranking of “Globe Life.”

      No, the old Ballpark in Arlington isn’t top 10, but change in naming rights every five years isn’t a reason to ding it that low. Naming rights have zero to do with ballpark experience.

  13. dan1111 - Jul 24, 2014 at 10:27 AM

    I’ve never been to the Coliseum, but I have a really hard time imagining that it is a worse experience than Tropicana Field. The latter has all the charm of a warehouse. At least in Oakland you would be sitting outside (in very nice weather), and the ballpark doesn’t have obstacles that interfere with the game.

    • echech88 - Jul 24, 2014 at 10:32 AM

      1. Bay Area weather isn’t always very nice. You’re thinking San Diego.

      2. That stadium is a dumpster fire. Location, utilities, food, view. It is all bad. It feels like a concrete prison.

    • [citation needed] fka COPO - Jul 24, 2014 at 10:37 AM

      If it rains, does the Trop overflow with sh!t? Because does. Think that’d be a trump card for me.

  14. migoli - Jul 24, 2014 at 10:47 AM

    I went to miller park in 2007. It was the first game I had been to besides the metrodome so I was excited for my first ” outdoor” game. It’s a nice place and all but my biggest issues is it doesn’t feel outdoors at all. The roof was open that day but it just felt like I was sitting the the bottom if a big cup. Too many walls to feel truely outside

    • NatsLady - Jul 24, 2014 at 10:55 AM

      Exactly my sentiments (see above). Still, I had a good time there, especially my second game with family, including young nephews (ages 5 and 6) at their first game. They had a cheap ticket day mid-week so it was very affordable for all of us to go.

  15. penguins87and71 - Jul 24, 2014 at 10:53 AM

    PNC Park is truly the best ballpark in baseball, the view is really awesome, and it’s not to big. PNC is small enough, when the fans get loud it just stays in the stadium, especially now that the Pirates are good, it’s become one of the best atmospheres in baseball in my opinion, it’s truly electric there almost every night. My only complaint with PNC is the concourses are to small. My favorite road ballpark is probably Camden Yards. I like the warehouse in the background, they have a nice memorial park, a lot of tables to sit at and eat, pretty good food, and huge concourses. I have also been to Progressive Field, Citizens Bank Park, and Nationals Park. I didn’t really care for all 3 of those stadiums. I have been to Dodgers stadium, and that’s an experience in itself.

  16. philipharmonic - Jul 24, 2014 at 10:59 AM

    I don’t appreciate the dig at us loyal Phillies Phans, “But there’s not a whole lot else that defines Citizens Bank Park. Aside from the Phanatic (who is great) and the local fan base (which is not).”

    That’s a hoot. I live in DC, and the fans here are still learning how to be fans. By game time, only half the crowd has arrived (the rest take 2 – 3 innings to get here).

    Yes, we Phillies are demanding. We expect so much bu are given so little in return by the crappy people who run and ruin this team. Win for us and we’ll love you!

    • philipharmonic - Jul 24, 2014 at 11:05 AM

      I would add that he’s right about Nats park. It’s decent enough and is fan friendly for watching the game if you’re not in your seat.

      My issue: they had a chance to do something creative with the areas beyond left and center fields, like a (albeit contrived) warehouse type of thing, perhaps with retail, apartments, condos, or a hotel. Instead, they put in two big ugly parking lots. There’s a backstory to it that I’m only vaguely familiar with, but nonetheless, it’s ugly when it could be have much more.

      • NatsLady - Jul 24, 2014 at 11:13 AM

        The placement of the parking lots was a big mistake. Not sure what can be done at this point.

    • yahmule - Jul 24, 2014 at 11:07 AM

      He speaks the truth. By the time Nats fans have all found their seats, Phillies fans have committed countless atrocities.

    • NatsLady - Jul 24, 2014 at 11:12 AM

      This could be a reflection of when the “local fan base” traveled by bus to trash Nats games. I didn’t find ANY of that at CBP park, no drunken hooligans, no fights in the stands (both of which I experienced in Philly invasion days), just a nice staff and friendly fans, families and for some reason, a lot of teenage girls. No one said anything negative to me at all, even though I was decked out in fll Nats gear, and there were plenty of Nats fans at the game (though not an “invasion” by any means).

      What you find in DC, however, is that, being without a team for so long, yes, some locals are “learning” to be fans, yes, I can agree with that. Old-timers from Senators’ days are great fans. You also have a lot of people at the park who either aren’t local or who aren’t Nats fans at all, but are fans of the opposing team, due to DC being a tourist town and also a town were a lot of people are not “from” here (as I’m not, though lived here 25 years now). It’s just now getting to the point where you are starting a family tradition of going to games, whereas at CBP I sat next to a granddad (mid 80s), his son and grand kids in town from Texas, plus assorted other family/friends and their idea of a family get-together was for all ten of them to take in a game.

  17. ctony1216 - Jul 24, 2014 at 11:07 AM

    I’ve been to 5 of the ballparks on the list — Camden Yards, Fenway, Progressive, Yankee Stadium and Citi Field — and Zuckerman’s comments are spot on.

    As a Yankees fan, I can tell you that part of the thing that made old Yankee Stadium great was the crowd. That place was electric — funny, noisy, intimidating, friendly and rude all in the same 3-hour span. No place like it. When the Steinbrenner kids jacked up ticket prices, the old fans left and the new place turned into a museum.

  18. Walk - Jul 24, 2014 at 11:45 AM

    Man i would love to be able to see games in all the parks, especially the older ones like mark z did. I have bought video games before just to play in those old parks, or even to use a simulator to make as close to a replica of them as i could. I enjoyed that linked story, i dont completely agree with the rankings but it was a solid listing.

  19. coryrox78 - Jul 24, 2014 at 11:57 AM

    A news director for one of our local stations did the same thing a couple days ago. Check out his rankings:

    I personally have seen ball games at Candlestick, Oco, Wrigley, Coors, and Tropicana. Visiting them all is on my bucket list for sure.

  20. penguins87and71 - Jul 24, 2014 at 12:07 PM

    My goal is to go to all the 30 Ballparks in the MLB. I have been to PNC Park, Citizens Bank Park, Progressive Field, Nationals Park, Camden Yards, Dodgers Stadium, Comerica Park, Yankee Stadium, Marlins Park, and Fenway Park. My rankings: 1. PNC, 2. Camden Yards, 3. Dodgers Stadium, 4. Fenway Park, 5.Citizens Bank Park, 6. Nationals Park, 7.Comerica Park, 8. Yankee Stadium, 9.Marlins Park, 10. Progressive Field.

    • jayjeffrey - Jul 24, 2014 at 1:05 PM

      You are bias to Progressive Field because you are from Pittspuke and hate Cleveland.

  21. jayjeffrey - Jul 24, 2014 at 1:01 PM

    I don’t know why people love Camden yards so much. The warehouse is neat but the stadium is boxy and plain.

  22. stupidusername - Jul 24, 2014 at 2:15 PM

    I can’t agree with a lot of these. Every old stadium is near the top. How great are some of these older stadiums when so many have obstructed views? What’s the basis for being one of the best? Is it fan experience? History? Seems like history had a lot more to do with it than fan experience.

    I haven’t been to a ton of ballparks but I really enjoy what they’ve done with CBP. The last ballpark I was at was Camden Yards and I was not all that impressed. Perhaps my expectations were high because of the way people speak of it. It wasn’t bad but if that’s one of the better ones then there is not much of a gap between the best and average…

    CPB has really good food all over the stadium, good beer selections, and a great concourse that’s plenty wide to handle the largest crowds while also having a view of the field the whole way around. I wouldn’t put it much higher than 15 because there is mentioning of shops/stores around the area and the sports complex in Philadelphia does not have much around it. Maybe that’s a criteria for CBP and not others, who knows.

    Then of course this hack adds in a dig at Phillies fans. Funny, didn’t stop him from putting Dodger Stadium at the top. Not that I am saying Dodgers fans are wholly violent, but others do generalize them as such, which is something this guy should be onboard with. He put Pittsburgh at the top despite the incident with a security guard losing a finger. Well, that must have been just a couple of idiots and doesn’t exemplify the fan base. Wait, what????

    What was it you were saying the other week, Craig, about a Phillies fan having a persecution complex? I guess this guy didn’t unnecessarily make a dig at Phillies fans while not mentioning any other fan base at all.

  23. caeser12 - Jul 24, 2014 at 3:31 PM

    The Mall: Formerly known as Yankee Stadium.

    Nothing but carbet-bagging Wall Streeter’s, while “fans” sit in the upper deck.

    Not a good look.

    Go NY.

  24. bweigandt - Jul 24, 2014 at 3:40 PM

    The Trop is rated way to high.

  25. soundsofsuccess7 - Jul 24, 2014 at 3:48 PM

    Not only is Dodger Stadium a dump, but the Latino fans in the outfield and upper decks can get uncomfortably rowdy and getting out of Chavez Ravine is a traffic nightmare.

    Ranked way too high.

    • Reflex - Jul 24, 2014 at 6:57 PM

      Yeah, it is always uncomfortable when fans get excited during a game. Especially if they are not of my ethnicity.


Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. B. Crawford (2794)
  2. C. Correa (2533)
  3. Y. Puig (2492)
  4. G. Stanton (2438)
  5. G. Springer (2367)
  1. H. Pence (2283)
  2. J. Hamilton (2170)
  3. M. Teixeira (1958)
  4. H. Ramirez (1933)
  5. J. Fernandez (1902)