All Smiles at Miller Park

It's true what they say: Everyone is friendlier in the Midwest.  I noticed this throughout the weekend in Milwaukee and Madison, Wisconsin.  Everywhere you go, people are smiling, wishing you a great day, and generally being cheerful.  When I found out that my Sunday night flight back to the East Coast was cancelled because of Hurricane Irene, I couldn't even muster the anger required to be stressed about it.  Things are so relaxed out by the Great Lakes that you can't help but sit back and smile.  The friendliness I experienced all weekend started on Friday night, when I made my first trip to Miller Park in Milwaukee to watch the Brewers host their rivals, the Chicago Cubs.  From hours before first pitch until the final out, I experienced a calmer side of baseball that was extremely refreshing.  Immediately after we parked and checked out the awesome, football-esque tailgating scene that blankets the Miller Park parking lot, we were greeted by a giant sign welcoming us.

Everything around Miller Park is designed to welcome fans to the facility.

Given that I had no real plans in Milwaukee other than an afternoon tour of the Miller Brewery facility (I'd recommend it), we got to the ballpark extra early to catch batting practice.  I'll have to do a separate post on "BP" sometime soon, but in short it's one of my favorite things to do at the ballpark.  You get to watch tons of swings, see some mammoth home runs and sometimes bond with the players who are shagging balls in the outfield.  On Friday, we went out to right field to watch, and after standing there for about ten minutes Cubs reliever John Grabow (see right) tossed a ball into the stands, and I caught it.  I gave the ball to a little kid sitting behind me, was thanked numerous times by his parents, and I could tell that Grabow took notice.  Twice after that he threw balls clearly intended for me, one of which fell short of his target and another that my brother, standing next to me, caught.  The friendliness of Milwaukee had rubbed off on me right away - I gave my first-ever BP ball to a little stranger - and on Grabow, who was looking to reward the good deed with another baseball.

After batting practice, we took the baseball to our comparatively reasonably-priced seats on the third base side.  Again using ScoreBig, we secured two tickets in the second deck for $35 each, which was slightly below face value and way below what comparable tickets would cost at Yankee Stadium or Citi Field.  The view of the game was fantastic from our vantage point, and we sat near a good mix of Brewers and Cubs fans.  The stadium as a whole was probably 20-25% Cubs fans, most of whom made the short drive from Chicago, but since our section housed a lot of secondary ticket market buyers the ratio in our area was closer to 50:50.  Unlike other baseball rivalries that are filled with hatred and anger (like Yankees vs. Red Sox or, as we unfortunately found out earlier this year, Giants vs. Dodgers), Brewers and Cubs fans are very cordial.  They jokingly taunted one another, but respected each other at the same time.  Definitely not something New Yorkers are used to.

You can get a great view of a sweet ballpark for just $35.

One last anecdote to reiterate how friendly the game at Miller Park was.  Early in the game, a fan from the upper deck accidently dropped an entire margarita over the railing, spilling all over a man sitting on the aisle in the section adjacent to ours.  Had it been New York, I can imagine the guy spewing obscenities, flipping out and demanding compensation.  This man?  He calmly sat back, drenched in margarita and lime, and smiled.  Miller Park staff came over to ask if he was OK, and if they could get him anything.  Without getting up, he asked for a free beer (they happily obliged), didn't complain about it once and stayed for the entire game smelling like an open bar.  Impressive.

As a physical facility, Miller Park is impressive.  It's a massive structure, highlighted by its retractable roof (it was open on this gorgeous Friday evening) and glass walls.  It's a lot more industrial looking than some of the more iconic ballparks like AT&T Park in San Francisco, but the ballpark fits perfectly in an industrial, Midwestern town like Milwaukee.  The open concourses let you walk around the entire ballpark and have a good view of the field while doing it, and there are a sufficient number of (but not too many) quirks that make the park unique - Bernie Brewer's slide in left field, the Sausage Race and a kid's area in right field to name three.  As a Braves fan, I was happy to see that Miller Park devoted a ton of space to remembering the Milwaukee Braves, and the history of baseball in Milwaukee before the Brewers came to town from Seattle.

If I had to rank the fields I've visited this summer, I'd put Miller Park as my second-favorite, a little behind San Francisco.  It's interesting and modern like Citi Field, but has way more Milwaukee baseball and Brewers "stuff" that makes it feel like a part of the city, so for that reason I have it slightly ahead of the homes of the Mets and Yankees.  This was the first Midwestern ballpark I've had the chance to visit, and I think I picked a great place to start.  If this is what baseball in between the coasts is like, it might be time to look into catching a Twins, Cardinals or Royals game some time very soon.  Before that, though, I have a date with Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia to see Braves vs. Phillies one week from today, and I'm not expecting to be greeted with a smile. 

No Sausage For You!

I don't think I've ever gone to a Major League Baseball game and had a "bad" time, and Wednesday night's Yankees game was no exception.  The contest between the Yanks and the Oakland A's was filled with longballs (five home runs, two each for Nick Swisher and Coco Crisp), some impressive defensive plays and well-pitched games from both C.C. Sabathia and Trevor Cahill.  But while the game itself was entertaining, the stadium experience left a lot to be desired.  From the poor concessions to the oversaturation of in-stadium advertising, the new Yankee Stadium disappointed me once again.

First, the concessions.  Everyone who's been around Yankee Stadium knows that all the good food offerings are located on the main level - the upper level concourse features only generic stands that sell basics like hot dogs, sausages and pretzels (for the most part).  Fortunately, I'm not a picky eater and usually go with a hot Italian sausage at a game anyway, so I went up to one of the concession windows marked "Sausages" and placed my order.  A mysteriously angry employee told me that they were out of hot Italian sausages, which was perplexing given that a) it was prior to the game's first pitch and b) the stand only had about three items on the menu to choose from.  When I got my replacement item (a sweet Italian sausage, the poor man's hot Italian sausage in my opinion), it was a combination of cold, burned and soggy.  For $8 I expect at least a little quality control, but Yankee Stadium takes your money and offers as little as possible in return.

Once I got over my terrible purchase, I had to sit through three hours of Yankee Stadium in-stadium advertising.  In addition to the signage plastered all over the field, every single aspect of the game was sponsored by one company or another.  Most stadiums have sponsors for featured in-between-inning promos such as trivia games and the "Kiss Cam," but the Yankees take it to an entirely different level.  Every stolen base was sponsored by Modell's Sporting Goods and accompanied by the trademark Modell's jingle.  The player stats on the Jumbotron featured a giant Majestic logo in the corner, and each of the three Yankees home runs was sponsored by Geico.  For a team as concerned with "tradition" as New York, you'd think the Yankees would have enough respect for the game to lay off some of the sponsorship excess.  Unfortunately, not the case.

Bad food, too many ads - and an awesome view.

There were some good deals to be had, though.  Thanks to StubHub I scored tickets in my favorite area - upper deck behind home plate - for just $15 each, and we had a great view of the stadium on a near-perfect evening (see above).  While baseball can never be "bad," the Yankees seem to be doing all they can to milk every last penny out of their fans - regardless of the negative ramifications on the fan experience.

How Much More Do You Need?

Earlier this week, Angels starting pitcher Jered Weaver signed a five-year, $85 million contract extension with Los Angeles of Anaheim.  Today, Weaver admitted that he had to go against the wishes of his agent, Scott Boras, to sign the deal; Boras wanted him to test the free agent market next summer (Weaver would have been a free agent after the 2012 season).  Always looking to milk his star players for all they're worth, Boras likely felt that, had he waited, Weaver could have commanded something closer to C.C. Sabathia's seven-year, $161 million contract with the Yankees, rather than the "meager" $17 million per season that he just agreed to.

After inking the deal with the Halos, Weaver said all the right things - from a fan's perspective, anyway.  On Tuesday, he noted that "if $85 (million) is not enough to take care of my family and other generations of families then I'm pretty stupid," and rhetorically asked the question that sports fans wonder everytime a local hero signs elsewhere for more cash: "How much money do you really need in life?"  Weaver also said "I've never played this game for the money. I played it for the love and the competitive part of it. It just so happens that baseball's going to be taking care of me for the rest of my life," which is exactly what you love to hear from a guy your team just invested a boatload of money into.

However, while Weaver will undoubtedly gain respect from baseball fans for his decision (and, in particular, his rationale for it), not everyone in the baseball community will be so supportive.  It's not only Scott Boras who may be angry that Weaver didn't hold out for more money; upcoming free agents will also likely be ticked off.  Going forward, teams can use Weaver's $17 million per year figure as a benchmark to justify lower salaries for stud starters going forward.  Just as Boras intended to use Sabathia's deal to argue for a huge payday for Weaver, teams will use Weaver's contract in an effort to control contracts for other young top free agents-to-be (such as Tim Lincecum and Cole Hamels, for example).

Players like Lincecum and Hamels actually might view Weaver as a sellout, if anything.  As a baseball player and a member of the Players Association, your unwritten duty is to go after as much money as you can command, thereby setting up future generations of Major Leaguers for increasingly large salaries.  When someone like Weaver takes a more reasonable offer (I'm obviously using the term "reasonable" very loosely here), he might be the subject of backlash from his peers. 

As mere mortals who don't live the dream of playing professional baseball for a living, it's easy to say that we would do the same thing as Weaver did if put in his position.  After all, when "normal people" make job decisions, they factor in location and lifestyle as much as salary, and it's natural for us to assume that more baseball players would do the same.  For a guy like Weaver who grew up in California, re-signing to play for five more seasons in Anaheim just seems to make sense.  But it's important to remember that Major Leaguers don't negotiate their contracts in a silo and are instead pressured by teammates and opponents to milk their teams for as much as possible.  So while Weaver's decision and rationale are refreshing, don't expect it to start a trend among star baseball players.  It'll take more than one bold decision to push back against the pressure of the MLBPA.

Learning from Little League

When Major League Baseball players behave badly - use PEDs, get arrested for DUIs, or engage in any other undesirable three-letter acronyms - the sports-consuming public criticizes these athletes for their actions primarily because they should be acting like "good role models for children."  It's widely believed - and probably rightfully so - that baseball-loving youngsters copy and idolize their MLB heroes, that will thus seek to mimic their actions (both on and of the field) whenever possible.

But what if the situation was turned upside down?  What if, instead of Little Leaguers imitating Major League Baseball players, MLB took a few pointers from the Little League World Series in an effort to improve the sport?  While the main reasons people watch the LLWS admittedly aren't baseball-specific (people love watching kids from across the globe compete in all sorts of sports - remember Global Guts on Nickelodeon?), there are a number of great aspects of the world's dominant youth baseball competition that would translate well to the professional game.

• You have to love the way the the Little Leaguers hustle back to their dugouts after a strikeout.  While I don't expect Major Leaguers to sprint out of the batter's box after a called strike three, MLB could definitely use a little less chatter between hitters and umpires.  Somehow, Little League baseball has taught its youngsters a lesson that most MLB players have yet to absorb: it's a long season (or tournament) with tons of at-bats, so there's no use getting worked up over one bad plate appearance or one blown call.
• The LLWS features an awesome array of uniform colors that Major League Baseball cannot match.  I'm not asking classic teams like the Yankees or Red Sox to change their vintage duds, but at the same time there's no reason every team (particularly the relatively modern franchises) needs to gravitate toward unis that are predominantly black, navy, royal blue and / or red.  This weekend alone I saw LLWS teams wearing lots of orange, green, baby blue and gold; there's no reason some unimaginative MLB teams (like the Padres, perhaps) couldn't go back to a more interesting color palette (with perhaps a more modern design).
• How awesome would it be if MLB had more pitchers that could really hit?  I love a good sacrifice bunt as much as anyone, but it would be great to see some NL starting pitchers that could not only handle the bat, but who were good enough to be inserted into the middle of their team's lineup.  Or what about a guy who played in the outfield on nights when he wasn't pitching?  Given the movement toward more and more specialization in baseball, we're unlikely to see this one any time soon - but can you tell me you wouldn't like to see more stories like this (or this, for that matter) in Major League Baseball?

We all know that Little League Baseball isn't perfect.  Sometimes, the kids are too tall.  Sometimes they're too old.  And sometimes they're, well, just kind of weird looking.  But there are definitely a few elements of the Little League game that could be used to improve the MLB fan experience.  While nothing will keep me away from an exciting summer of MLB baseball, I'll be sure to tune in to the LLWS from time to time for a refreshing change of pace. 

Corporate Classics

This morning the New York Post reported that MetLife has secured the naming rights to New Meadowlands Stadium for up to $20 million per year for 20 years, and will rename the facility Metlife Stadium (clever, I know).  The completely unsurprising move (the stadium has been looking for a naming rights sponsor since it opened over a year ago) got me thinking about stadiums with corporate naming rights, and more specifically this: Can a stadium become a "classic" if it has a company's name and logo bolted onto its facade?*  Will a list of baseball's all-time classic parks ever read Fenway, Wrigley, AT&T and PNC?

As I see it, there are two main reasons that a corporate naming rights partner weakens the chances of a stadium ever becoming a classic.  The first is that these stadiums are likely to change names over the lives of the building as a) the naming rights deals expire and new companies step in or b) companies change names and / or logos.  Parks like Wrigley and Fenway are great because fans aged eight to eighty all know it by the same name; The Red Sox have played in Fenway Park since the venue opened in 1912.  While San Francisco's AT&T Park has only been around since 2000, it's already had three names: Pacific Bell Park (commonly referred to as Pac Bell) from 2000 to 2003, SBC Park from 2003 to 2006 (after SBC acquired Pacific Bell), and AT&T Park since 2006 (when SBC and AT&T merged).  When I went to my first Giants game this spring, I almost called the place Pac Bell Park ten different times, evern though a huge AT&T logo was staring at me from centerfield.

Second, a corporate name removes an element of history from the stadium.  Cubs fans know that their park was named Wrigley Field in 1926 after owner and chewing gum magnate William Wrigley, Jr.  Red Sox Nation knows that Fenway Park was named after the Fenway neighborhood of Boston and the marshland, or "fens," that was filled in to build up the surrounding area.  But what can Pirates fans, for example, say about the origins of PNC Park?  Only that Pittsburgh-based bank PNC purchased the naming rights to their beautiful ballpark for $1.5 million per season, effective when the park opened in 2001.

  As nice as any stadium in baseball, can a place called "PNC Park" be considered a true classic?

Having worked on the business side of sports for years, I understand as well as anyone the modern need to sell stadium naming rights and use the revenue to improve the state of the team both on and off the field.  That being said, it will be interesting to see how modern masterpieces like AT&T and PNC compare to the likes of Fenway and Wrigley in the minds of baseball historians.  As facilities go, there is no doubt in my mind that San Francisco and Pittsburgh are homes to two of the finest ballparks America has ever seen; we'll have to wait and see if I still feel the same way when they're better known as "Google Field" and "84 Lumber Stadium," respectively, in 2025.

*NOTE: Don't misunderstand me here.  I'm not saying I think the New Meadowlands is poised to become a classic football stadium with or without a corporate naming rights partner.  MetLife Stadium (for $20 million a year we better start calling it that now) is a perfectly acceptable, generic field, but it was never going to be held in high esteem by sports historians or architecture buffs.

Hypocritically Optimistic

Every Major League Baseball offseason, I get a tremendous amount of joy (and a moderate amount of frustration) from listening to Mets fans talk about how good their team is going to be next year.  In spite of all of the signals that annually suggest that an overpaid Mets roster will limp to a third-, fourth- or fifth-place finish, fans of the Amazin's can always convince themselves that their team is poised for a deep playoff run.  Listening to their absurd arguments, I've always promised myself that I will stay committed to reality when it comes to forecasting success (or lack thereof) for my favorite teams. 

For the first time that I can remember, though, the NFL offseason and the New York Giants' 2011 prospects are causing my realistic side to do battle with my optimistic side.  Deep down, I know, recognize, and have come to terms with the fact that the Giants are likely to struggle this year.  Outside of drafting already-injured first round pick Prince Amukamara and resigning the consistently inconsistent Ahmad Bradshaw, New York added virtually nothing to a roster that missed the playoffs in 2010, and lost a number of key role players including Steve Smith and Caught Looking favorite Kevin Boss.  With the Philadelphia Eagles seemingly loaded and the Dallas Cowboys - and diabolical owner Jerry Jones - always a threat to pull together a dominant team, things look somewhat bleak for the 2011 edition of Big Blue.

But then again, maybe not.  After all, isn't it possible that the shortened summer practice schedule created by the lockout helps a cohesive unit like the Giants, as opposed to a new and rebuilt Eagles squad?  Now that Hakeem Nicks and Mario Manningham have another year of the offense under their belts, maybe Eli Manning really is in the same class as Tom Brady, like he claimed this week, and will prove it this season.  Why, just this morning ESPN.com columnist KC Joyner proclaimed that the Giants, and not the Eagles or Cowboys, were the favorites to take the NFC East crowd, and has some pretty good reasons to back his point up.  And with everyone underestimating them, maybe this is the year the Giants fly under the radar deep into the playoffs like they did in 2007.

You can see how easy it is to go from realistic fan to optimistic fan in no time.  And while the logic above is way more realistic than anything I've heard from Mets fans each and every Spring Training (not only is a surprise run in football more likely than in baseball but, come on, it's the Mets we're talking about here . . .), it's not really that different.  So while I'll be working hard to curb my enthusiasm about the Giants' chances until after the regular season starts in mid-September, next spring I'm also going to try and remember to cut all of those "glass is half empty" Mets fans some slack.  After all, it's the allowance for some completely irrational pre-season hope that makes sports so great. 

(Homers) Flying Under the Radar

Just over a month ago, New York Yankees captain Derek Jeter became the 28th member of baseball's 3,000 hit club, and the baseball universe nearly exploded.  When Jeter reached the milestone in predictably historic fashion, becoming only the second man (along with Wade Boggs) to hit a homerun for number 3,000, it seemed as if the entire sports world was watching and rooting for Number 2.  The "DJ3K" watch spanned almost the entire first half of the season (or so it seemed), had its own logo (see right) and overshadowed every single other MLB-related event in June and July, somehow even including the days when Jeter was on the DL.

Contrast that with Jim Thome's 600th homerun last night, which got about 1/100th of the press coverage but is arguably a much more impressive feat.  Thome became the eighth person ever to reach the 600 HR mark, but if you remove the steroid-fueled Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez and Sammy Sosa from the list, the Twins 1B/DH now belongs in a group that only all-time greats Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, Willie Mays and Ken Griffey Jr. can stake a claim to.  Admittedly, Jeter has amassed some career accomplishments that Thome cannot come close to matching, including postseason success, defensive prowess (at one time, anyway), having spent his entire career with one team and having played under the New York spotlight for the last two decades.  But Thome has gone about his business for the past twenty years as a true professional - no matter what team he's been on (he's played for five different clubs) - and has produced consistently and without PED-related speculation.

Not to hate on Jeter too much here or diminish his admittedly impressive accomplishment, but I do think it's a shame that Jim Thome's pursuit of homerun number 600 received just a fraction of the attention that DJ's 3,000 hit parade got.  While some will argue that Thome's decreased production at the age of 42, and the fact that he doesn't play everyday anymore, takes away from his milestone a bit, I will counter with the fact that it's not Thome's fault that he's stuck on a team with a number of talented 1B/DH types (Cuddyer, Kubel, Morneau and, until yesterday's trade, Delmon Young) and a manager that doesn't value reputation over production.  Had Thome been given an everyday starting job in spite of his increased age and decreased production like Jeter has been, the Twins slugger would have reached 600 weeks ago.  Would that have changed anything?  Probably not.

The Thome 600 versus Jeter 3,000 debate was brought up last night during the Twins TV broadcast (which I saw via live look-in on MLB Network) just before Thome cranked number 600, and will likely chug along for the next day or two before people drop it in favor of going back to talking about Yankees-Red Sox.  Sadly, this might not be the last time a Thome accomplishment will be overshadowed by Jeter.  If the two happen to be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in the same year (a definite possibility), you can guess that the always professional Thome will step aside as Jeter steals the spotlight once again.

We're Goin' Streaking!

Sports teams, leagues and media companies are always trying to walk the thin line that distinguishes online sports fantasy games from sports gambling.  The NCAA, for example, knows that encouraging fans to fill out March Madness brackets (and offering prizes to the winners) will encourage them to watch more games.  The NFL loves that fans are obsessed with fantasy football; while the league would rather people play on its own NFL.com site, even playing through ESPN or CBS Sportsline indirectly helps professional football.  Sports media companies, as opposed to sports leagues, aren't looking to promote any one sport or sporting event, but instead are working to encourage people to consume more sports in general.  It's here that ESPN.com's "Streak for the Cash" is such an addictive and brilliant concept.

While "Streak for the Cash" isn't new, I'll briefly explain it for those of you who aren't aware of how this simplistic game works.  Every day, ESPN posts a number of bets that you can select, from "Who will win the game between X and Y?" to "How many strikeouts will Player Z record in tonight's game?"  The choices range from money line to prop bets and everything in between, and span every conceivable sport, league and country.  The goal is to build the longest streak of correct selections in any given month, with the month's longest streak winning a $50,000 prize and another few grand worth of bragging rights.  One wrong pick, however, knocks you back down to zero and you're forced to start over again.

For a $50,000 per month investment on ESPN's part, it seems like "Streak for the Cash" is generating a lot of interest in random sports - in particular, random sports than ESPN is trying to promote.  Let's use myself as a case study of a typical sports fan and ESPN consumer: Within the past two weeks I've "bet" on international club soccer, the soccer Under 20 World Cup, the WNBA and, most recently, PGA golf in addition to a lot of MLB baseball.  Not only am I playing the online game, but I'm also trying to follow my bets - and thus, some obscure sports - on TV or elsewhere online.  Today, for example, I bet on Tiger Woods shooting 71 or worse during the second round of the PGA Championship and have spent most of the afternoon tuned in to TNT for the live broadcast and tracking the scoreboard on PGA.com.  Without ESPN's "Streak for the Cash" game, would I be glued to the TV this afternoon?  Highly unlikely.

Hopefully a 71+ from Tiger Woods will get me to seven straight wins.

For someone who never bets on sports for money, I've become strangely addicted to this simple ESPN fantasy game.  I love how it rewards you for a wide range of sports knowledge; knowing a little something about club soccer or WNBA hoops might help make the difference between an impressive 11-game streak and two respectible 5-game streaks with a loss in between (for reference, since I started playing at the beginning of August, the best I've done is six straight, but I'm hoping that another collapse by Tiger gets me to seven - the game is harder than it seems at first blush).  If you like meaningless competition and testing the breadth of your sports knowledge, try your hand at "Streak for the Cash."  And if you win next month's prize, I'd say that $5,000 would be a fair and reasonable referral fee.

Way Ahead of the Trend

Over a year ago, I posted an "Open Letter to MLB Network," asking the channel's executives to implement an idea I called Ducks On The Pond; essentially, a Red Zone Channel for baseball.  Amazingly, MLB Network listened and debuted an hour-long block called Solid 60 featuring "highlights, updates and live look-ins at games" as part of the network's MLB Tonight program. It was a small victory for Caught Looking and all fans of out-of-market baseball games, and I was happy with MLB Network for heeding my advice.

That is no excuse, however, for MLB Network to steal my intellectual property (please ignore the fact that the Caught Looking logo does, admittedly, slightly resemble that of Major League Baseball).  Recently, MLB Network has unveiled a new series of promotional sports for their live game coverage, where the network shows live baseball games in their entirety four nights a week.  What slogan has the MLB Network chosen to promote these games, you ask?  They went with "Get Caught Looking on MLB Network" - check out the video below for the proof.  The video was uploaded to MLB.com on April 29 of this year, still well after the debut of this blog in April on 2010, though I just noticed it on TV fairly recently.  After the Solid 60 debut, I could have believed that the MLB Network heads had independently come up with the same idea as me shortly after I posted about it.  Now that the channel has incorporated the name of this blog as the slogan for its live game programming, however?  I'm not so sure.

Incredibly, this isn't even the first time this year that a company has started using the "Caught Looking" slogan to promote baseball-related products.  You may recall that, in May, I posted about Victoria's Secret's line of PINK / MLB-branded merchandise featuring the "Caught Looking" tagline.  While the raunchy-ness of the first example of IP theft made me question my choice of blog name, this more recent offense actually makes me more confident than ever that "Caught Looking" was the right choice.  While stealing is always wrong (shame on you, MLB Network - I appreciate your readership, but next time please ask my permission before blatantly ripping off my blog title), if "Caught Looking" is good enough for what has quickly become one of my all-time favorite TV channels, it's certainly good enough for me.

The Best Seat in the House

On Friday night I went to (only) my fifth baseball game of the 2011 season.  Each time I've been to a game this spring / summer, I've sat in a different part of the stadium: at AT&T Park in San Francisco I watched the Braves beat the Giants from the left field bleachers, at the Oakland Coliseum I saw the Yankees pound the A's from the field level on the third base side, at Citi Field I viewed Angel Pagan's walkoff homerun versus the Cardinals from the left field corner, and at Yankee Stadium I witnessed the Mariners snap the season's longest losing streak from the upper deck in right field.  For each of those four games, I didn't buy the tickets and thus didn't have control over where I sat.

Friday night was different, though; I decided weeks ago to get tickets to see my Braves battle the Mets at Citi Field this weekend, and went out of my way to find my preferred tickets on StubHub.  In my opinion, you can't beat upper deck seats right behind home plate.  They're the best bang for your buck, and provide an awesome view of the entire field.  For about $25 a ticket (right around face value), I was able to secure an unobstructed view of the entire playing surface - unlike seats down the lines which prevent you from seeing what happens in the left or right field corner.

Section 516 provides a great view of everything Citi Field has to offer.

I know a lot of people will avoid the upper deck at all costs - they'd rather spend a lot more money for lower-level seats toward the outfield than sit with the commoners upstairs.  I never really understood that decision, however.  There's a reason that TV broadcasts primarily use cameras located behind the mound and behind the plate; the best vantage points from which to watch a game are, not surprisingly, centered.  While there are no seats situated in dead center field anywhere (each stadium must have a dark-colored, fan-free "batter's eye" directly behind the mound), every park offers excellent (and usually reasonably-priced) seats in the upper deck behind home plate.

Our Section 516 seats let us see everything at Citi Field; the entire playing surface, the dugouts, the bullpens and the scoreboards.  Sure, you're sitting pretty high up, but it's the height that helps you judge the depth of flyballs (as opposed to outfield seats that make judging flyballs nearly impossible) and the speed of baserunners.  Factor in the reasonable pricing of these sections, and I'll choose them over more expensive down-the-line seats any day of the week.  My next scheduled MLB game is Yankees vs. Oakland at Yankee Stadium; I recently purchased the tickets for just $15 each (including fees) on StubHub, and I bet you can guess where I'll be sitting.

Shut Up And Play

It's been a bad summer for the NBA - that's no secret.  Perhaps the only positive recent basketball-related news of the last few weeks has been Kevin Durant's dominance in a host of pickup games across the world.  As the Washington Post recently noted, he's been tearing up Rucker Park in Harlem, random courts in the Phillipines and the Pro City League in Manhattan.  If you haven't seen highlights of Durant's recent on-court work, I've posted some highlights below.  You can waste some serious time this weekend YouTube-ing recent Durant highlights.

Of course, other NBA players have been in the news lately, too.  Derek Fisher has had plenty of on-camera time for his work as the President of the National Basketball Players Association, negotiating the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the owners.  Deron Williams (and others) have made headlines for agreeing to play with teams in Europe (Turkey in particular) during a season-long NBA lockout.  And, taking the cake, Ron Artest had another fifteen minutes of fame earlier this summer for legally changing his name to "Metta World Peace."  Durant is the only one who has been in the news for actually playing basketball, however.

I've always liked Kevin Durant, and feel like he's never gotten the respect he already deserves as one of the NBA's best players.  He may lack the killer instinct of Kobe Bryant, the hype of LeBron James or the boyish charm of Dwight Howard, but he's an incredible talent and, as his summer clearly shows, he absolutely loves the game of basketball.  He's not worried about his next contract or making himself more marketable - he just wants to play, and he's having a great time doing it.  During an otherwise miserable NBA-related summer, Durant's been the one bright spot we can all continue to watch and enjoy.

FedEx Needs Better Logistics

Continuing a string of excellent soccer matches that began with the World Cup last July, I spent Saturday night watching Manchester United take on FC Barcelona at Landover, Maryland's FedEx Field, home of the Washington Redskins.  Before talking about the quality of the game or the crowd - both of which were excellent, as expected - I need to take you through the nightmare that was getting into the stadium.  I've been to a lot of stadiums and arenas in my life and have dealt with some pretty horrific travel experiences, but I don't think anything can top what I went through this weekend.

We all know that the traffic in the DC metro area is notoriously bad, so I wasn't surprised when we hit traffic driving from downtown to Landover.  Once we got off the highway at the stadium's exit, however, the downside of building a stadium in the suburbs became immediately obvious; unlike Baltimore's M&T Bank Stadium (which we passed by the next afternoon), FedEx Field is miles away from the highway.  Between the exit and the stadium was a few-mile-long two-lane residential road crammed with cars, with everyone trying to reach the same stadium extrance.  It took us more than 45 minutes between the time we got off the highway and when we got to the parking lot.  Overall, a very frustrating experience.

But that was just the start of the poor stadium planning.  After we parked in a grass and gravel lot pretty far from the stadium, a police officer directed us to a pathway "through the woods" as a shortcut to the field.  After following hundreds of other fans along a tree-covered dirt parthway, we came to a small stream (think of the river that Little John's toll bridge crosses in Mel Brooks' Robin Hood: Men in Tights).  Where the path reached the stream, someone had kindly placed a wooden board over the water so that people could cross to the other side; unfortunately, a tree branch had fallen on the board, smashing it into a "V" shape and making it treacherous to cross.  FedEx actually sent a stadium official to help people make it over the damaged "bridge," and women in heels and flip-flops were stumbling all over the place.  Truly incredible.

When we finally made it to the stadium itself, we got to our seats without incident.  That being said, I was thoroughly unimpressed by FedEx Field.  Though I had been there once years before for a Redskins pre-season game, I didn't remember how bare the place was.  The food options were extremely limited (basically just hot dogs and pretzels), the concourses and bathrooms were dingy and outdated, and the vendors sold only beer (for $9 a pop).  Compared to the relatively nearby New Meadowlands in New Jersey or Philadelphia's Lincoln Financial Field (I've never been, but I've heard good things), Washington's FedEx Field was kind of a dump.  Considering that it's just 15 years old and shares an NFL Division with the Meadowlands, The Link and Cowboys Stadium, I was expecting a lot more from the home of the Skins.

Once I was able to get past the FedEx Field debacle, I really enjoyed the game.  The superior play of Man U and Barca relative to MLS clubs was obvious from the first few minutes of the match, and we were able to see some of the game's top stars (including David Villa, Wayne Rooney and Michael Owen) from our fantastic seats in the 100s section near midfield (see the photos below).  It was great to see 81,000+ (mostly) Americans crammed into a stadium to watch soccer - it's just a shame that many of them had to cross a dirty stream covered by a broken wooden plank to get there.