Mariano Rivera bobblehead night turns chaotic at Yankee Stadium

48 Comments

The Yankees were giving away Mariano Rivera bobbleheads to the first 18,000 fans through the gates at Yankee Stadium last night. Only problem: they didn’t have the bobbleheads. The truck delivering them broke down in New Jersey. The Yankees held the gates closed late but, when it became obvious that the bobbleheads weren’t going to arrive in time, they opened the gates, bobblehead-free. Vouchers were given out instead.

You can imagine how that went over at Yankee Stadium.

The merch arrived midway through the game and the team made an announcement that people with vouchers could line up to get their bobbleheads. The lines stretched down the concourses and, according to the Daily News, it took people several innings on line to get what they came for. Click through to the Daily News for your requisite angry New Yorker quotes.

A couple of thoughts:

1. Why did the Yankees limit the bobblehead giveaways to the first 18,000? I never get that. Is the idea to incentivize people to get to the ballpark early so that they buy more beer and nachos? Would it really cost the team that much more to make sure everyone who buys a ticket can get one? Imagine how much less chaos it would have caused if the Yankees just handed them out when people left the ballpark, the way teams do with free tickets for ice cream and pizza and stuff; and

2. Chaos aside, given how poorly the Yankees played last night, one would think that standing on line in the concourse waiting for a bobblehead would be preferable to the game, but maybe that’s just me.

Anyway: heckuva job, Yankees.

Consider the Concrete Donut

Getty Images
3 Comments

Ben Schulman wrote a long, interesting article about stadium architecture over at The Hardball Times today. He asks us to consider the old concrete donut stadiums — multipurpose parks like Three Rivers and The Vet — and to think about what we have gained by their near-extinction. And what we’ve lost.

The article starts out with what I feared would be too much misplaced nostalgia for the Brutalist, functional places that no longer exist outside of Oakland, with the now de rigueur references to astroturf and weird 1970s baseball. It backs away from that early on, though, and presents what I feel is a thoughtful look at the various approaches to building a ballpark. Stadium geeks and architecture geeks will find much to love here.

From a personal perspective, I have a love/hate relationship with newer parks. I spent a good deal of time going to places like Riverfront Stadium when I was a kid and do not miss them at all. But I also think there have been a lot of missteps in the last 25 years or so too.

Most new parks are pleasant and comfortable places to take in a ballgame, but so many of them are totally unimaginative and uninspiring from an architectural point of view. I am not fan of nostalgia, and so many of them — particularly the ones built in the 90s — were fueled by a great deal of misguided retro-ism that looks backwards. I suspect this is the case because either (a) no one had the guts or vision to look forward; and/or (b) they felt they could make easier bucks by catering to people who think everything went to hell once Eisenhower left office than by doing something bold. To be fair, there are examples of newer parks that eschew the faux old-timey vibe to greater degrees — Target Field in Minneapolis and Marlins Park in Miami come to mind — and I tend to prefer those to more backward-looking places. Again, architecturally speaking.

I think the sweet spot — and the linked article touches on this a bit — are ballparks which think bigger than the bland and dreary functionalism of the 1960s and 70s but which eschew derivative, traditionalist approaches. Parks which were built with then-modern sensibilities and saw their vision through without compromise. Dodger Stadium is a fine, modernist example of this. So too is Kauffman Stadium in Kansas City, about which I wrote a few years ago. They had a great opportunity to do this in Chicago in the late 80s but muffed it. I think Marlins Park could fall into that category if (a) there is ever anything approaching memorable baseball there; and (b) if they stop being afraid of its bold aspects and stop trying to turn it into a vanilla monument to its vanilla owner. The common denominator, I suppose, is that these parks weren’t and aren’t trying to cater to the childhoods of local fans.

Anyway, good read on a slow news day.