Column: Two beautiful ballparks, two very different teams
September 20, 2010 at 7:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
I can’t speak for the players, but as a fan, there’s no question which ballpark I like better in a battle between Target Field and Miller Park.
Continue Reading
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0 
11
Both stadiums are wonderful ballparks. But there’s a couple things that put Target Field over the top. When they first announced the plans, I was critical of the fact there they weren’t using a retractable roof. Now that it’s complete, I’m so glad they didn’t. In a stadium like Miller Park, you are very aware of the large sections of the roof looming over the edges of the stadium. At Target field, you get a much more natural look, including the Minneapolis skyline Target Plaza in right field. Because there’s no roof, they were also able to make the lights fully enclosed. Also, all the limestone at Target Field gives it a wonderful, retro-type look, and it fits in so well with the green color. And how can you forget good the giant Minnie and Paul sign in center field? Miller Park is a great field, but it’s no comparison to Target Field.
Like or Dislike:
7 
4
@Jay Skitter, I am curious, have you ever been to either one, or are you judging on the premise that one is newer than the other. I have been to both, and like both, but Target Field is a much better, cozier park. It is considered by many sports pundants (sp.?) to be the #2 rated professional sports venue second only to Lambeau.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
Rain is a part of the game (though November snow storms probably aren’t)
Like or Dislike:
3 
1