Fenway regulars: how do you deal with the place?

38 Comments

I have never been to Fenway Park. I want to go, desperately. I want to sit in the Monster seats, actually, because those look pretty fantastic.  Also: because everyone I know who has been to Fenway tells me that the rest of the park — while historic and beautiful and all of that — is something of a pain.

The say that the seats are small and the legroom is poor. Many seats don’t face the infield. The tunnels and concourses, for lack of a better term, are dark and crowded.  It’s totally expected in a park that age, but it certainly makes for a big disconnect between comfort and coolness. The latter is in great abundance and can overcome a lot of problems, but the former is in short supply, I’m told. So I guess I’m looking forward to going someday, but I’m kind of thankful that I don’t have an 81-game package. Because I fear that, once the novelty wore off, I’d find it a bit miserable.

I know a lot of you have weighed in on this in recent threads, particularly that Luke Scott “Fenway is a dump” post. But what I really want to know is how regular Fenway goers feel about the place. In all honesty, as a baseball-going destination, not as a historical thing. We know it’s cool and great and a gem from that certain perspective — I love seeing it on TV too — but what is it like to go there a lot?

Are the complaints I listed above overblown? Is it one of those things where it’s great if you don’t know any better but if you’ve spent time in more modern parks it’s hard to go back? How do you make it work?  I ask because while history and novelty would cover it all for me if I went there a few times, I’m guessing it doesn’t outweigh the inconveniences if you go there a dozen times a year.

Have at it.

Mike Trout has been really good at baseball lately

Getty Images
Leave a comment

“Water wet,” “Sky blue,” “Dog bites man” and “Mike Trout good” are not exactly newsworthy sentiments, but once in a while you have to state the obvious just so you can look back later and make sure you were, in the moment, aware of the obvious.

And to be fair, “Mike Trout good” is underselling the Angels outfielder lately. He’s on the greatest tear of his great career lately, and dang it, that’s worthy of a few words on this blog.

Last night Trout went a mere 1-for-1, but that’s because the Diamondbacks were smart enough not to pitch to him too much, walking him twice. There was no one on base the first time he came up and he got a free pass. There was a guy on first but two outs the second time, so he was once again not given much to hit and took his base again. Arizona was not so lucky the third time. The bases were loaded and there was nowhere to put Trout. He smacked the first pitch he saw for a two-run single. They probably shoulda just walked him anyway, limiting the damage to one. The last time up he reached on catcher’s interference. Maybe Arizona figured that literally grabbing the bat from him with a catcher’s mitt was the best bet?

If so you can’t blame them, really. Not with the month he’s had. In June, Trout is hitting .448/.554/.776 with five homers. He currently leads the league in the following categories: home runs (23), runs (60), walks (64), on-base percentage (.469), OPS (1.158) OPS+ (219), total bases (179) and intentional walks (9). He currently has a bWAR of 6.5. WAR, in case you did not know, is a cumulative stat. When he won the 2014 MVP Award, he “only” had 7.6 for the entire year.

Sadly, one man does not a team make, so the Angels are only 9-8 in the month of June and have fallen far back of the red-hot Houston Astros and Seattle Mariners in the division race. For this reason I suspect a lot of people are going to do what they’ve long done and overlook Mike Trout’s sheer dominance or, even more ridiculously, claim he is overrated or something (believe me, I’ve seen it even this month).

Feel free to ignore those people and concentrate instead on the greatest baseball player in the game today, who has somehow managed to up his game in recent weeks.