All-Star Game Sites

by soco on Sep 7, 2007 12:01 AM EDT

So you can file this under the "Who Gives A Crap" section, but I feel like talking about it so suck it up and deal. Specifically, about how it seems Arizona will never get the chance to host the ASG.

Big deal, you say. Who cares, you say. Well, I really shouldn't but I can't help it.

First of all, I understand why we haven't/won't get it, at least not for a while. Who honestly wants to vacation in Phoenix is July? Not many, and most of us here would probably rather be somewhere else cooler. And sure, the economic impact would be great (San Francisco allegedly had $65 million dumped into their city because of the ASG, though I'm too lazy to find anything official to verify that), but it's not like Phoenix doesn't host other events like the Fiesta Bowl, the Super Bowl (when Miami isn't free, apparently), and lots of conventions.

Also, we came into the league at the in the middle of the "everyone build a new stadium" trend, which means that there are tons of place to go first.

Since 1998:

1998: Rockies. New park, new team, great way to help the franchise.
1999: Boston. Allegedly the send off of Fenway Park (old ownership) and a farewell of sorts to Ted Williams. Last ASG was in 1961.
2000: Atlanta. New stadium, last ASG was in 1972.
2001: Seattle. New stadium, last ASG was in 1979.
2002: Milwaukee. New stadium, Bud's pet project, last ASG in 1975.
2003: Chicago White Sox. New stadium (well, since 1991). Original team to host the ASG. Last ASG in 1983.
2004: Houston. New stadium. Last ASG in 1986.
2005: Detroit. New stadium. Last ASG in 1971.
2006: Pittsburg. New stadium. Last ASG in 1994.
2007: San Francisco. New stadium. Last ASG in 1984.
2008: New York Yankees. Last season for Yankee Stadium before being torn down. Last ASG in 1977.
2009: St. Louis. New stadium. Last ASG in 1966.

Also, if you look at the ASG's before 1998 you see a bunch of other teams that have hosted it, and they all share the same thing except for a few: new stadium.

Why is that important? Well, obviously a new stadium will be cleaner and nicer, and hold more luxury suites which mean more money, and generally indicate that the city is willing to play by baseball's rules. That being said, the teams with new stadia (or in the works) that haven't hosted one with the new stadium are as follows: San Diego, Philadelphia, Minnesota, Oakland, Washington, New York (both), and last which is Arizona. We have to throw in Kansas City, even though they don't have a new stadium, simply because Mr. Selig has promised they would get an ASG in the near future (before 2012). Also, the word is out via Lucchino (Red Sox big wig) that the Red Sox will get to host in 2012 again.

All of these stadia, except for Kansas City and Boston, are newer, so even though our Chase Field isn't that old, it still looks like Woody from Toy Story in comparison to those other Buzz Lightyears. So if we take worse to worse, we would expect an ASG in 2019.

That's weird to think about as the Diamondbacks would be over 20 years old at that point. New stadium no longer!

Of course, there's no use getting bent out of shape, and to be honest this newer, shinier stadia probably should get the chance first. It just would be nice to go one in what I consider my home park, Chase Field. You can disagree but that's just how I feel. I'm just impressed if you made it this far through that rambling, unedited mess.

Tweet Comment 21 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Good point.

Won't happen, because 1. the heat and 2. nobody outside of 480, 520 and 602 cares about the Diamondbacks. Would be a nice big boon to the organization, though. I sorta feel like we should certainly be next in line before those other cities, since we've been here awhile now. But, let me reiterate, NOBODY CARES ABOUT THE DBACKS. We're kinda the Sedona red-headed stepchild, an afterthought.

Come on, Sandy Baby, loosen up. You're too tight.

by DbacksSkins on Sep 7, 2007 12:09 AM EDT reply actions

Well

down (and I guess up) in 928 they like D'backs as well. Yuma, where I grew up, was largely a Dodgers and Padres town until 1998, but after that there was a lot of D'backs' fans too.

Stay grindy, my friends.

by soco on Sep 7, 2007 12:29 AM EDT up reply actions

Phx in July

is still better than Detroit, Atlanta, or Houston.

by johngordonma on Sep 7, 2007 7:01 AM EDT reply actions

Big article in the Republic today

Link:

In April, Selig strongly hinted that the wait would not be much longer, saying on a Diamondbacks broadcast during the club's home opener that the city is "very much in the running" for the 2011 All-Star Game and that its chances are "better than pretty good." However, by the time the 2007 All-Star Game rolled around in San Francisco, reports indicated that the New York Mets might have the inside track for the 2011 game with a new stadium, Citi Field, opening in 2009. Because baseball has gone back to alternating between American League and National League cities, that could push the Valley's hopes to 2013 or beyond.

by Jim McLennan on Sep 7, 2007 11:16 AM EDT reply actions

Hoho!

Great minds think alike.

Stay grindy, my friends.

by soco on Sep 7, 2007 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions

Even though Derrick Hall is

the pointman for this, I appreciate Young took the trouble to flesh out the story with half a dozen interviews: Dozer & Colangelo, MLB, Ken and Derrick, and some downtown partnership guy. A lot of common interest, to be sure, but at least Hall isnt the sole source, framing the issue as only he can.

Kendrick framed it nicely, I thought, ie we're not owed it, we'd like to have it and are trying hard to get it. I dont exactly agree, but it's reasonably stated. Valley weather affords us so many advantages, like spring ball, The Fall League, and a plethora of players who call the Valley home (local free agent perk for Dbacks). Why cant we graciously accept that our weather also presents an insurmountable obstacle to hosting a world class event in mid-July?

No points, I'm afraid, for answering this one correctly :-)

by Diamondhacks on Sep 7, 2007 7:31 PM EDT up reply actions

Which brings up the question

if weather is the sole thing keeping an ASG away from Phoenix, how did Houston get it?

Though I agree that we're blessed with enough great sporting events and great weather from October to March/April that I shouldn't really complain. It just makes me feel better ;-)

Stay grindy, my friends.

by soco on Sep 7, 2007 8:31 PM EDT up reply actions

Houston's nasty...

...but their mid July weather is still preferable to ours, with historical daily averages 18-20 degrees cooler(ie in the high eighties). July triple digits are extremely rare in Houston.

You could have an All Star game here - heck we already play baseball games - but I'm afraid the reasonable ceiling for most extracirricular festivities would be 'tolerable' rather than 'pleasant'.

btw, my remark that "we should graciously accept..." was intended more as a generic Phoenician "we", not directed at you personally :-)

by Diamondhacks on Sep 8, 2007 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions

That seems pretty consistent...

...with my experience when I was there in mid-June '04. It was humid, to be sure, dreadfully humid, but not quite Arizona hot.

Come on, Sandy Baby, loosen up. You're too tight.

by DbacksSkins on Sep 8, 2007 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions

As they say...

It's not the heat, it's the humidity. In July, Houston has 92% average humidity in the mornings, and it's still at 63% in the afternoons. That, and an average July temp of 84.5 F, would seem to make for a more unpleasant climate than the dry heat of Arizona.

by Jim McLennan on Sep 8, 2007 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions

But is it truly a dry heat in July?

Depends when the monsoons start, I think.

Come on, Sandy Baby, loosen up. You're too tight.

by DbacksSkins on Sep 8, 2007 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions

Average in July

43% in the morning, 20% in the afternoon, so looks like it's less than half that of Houston. And the ASG is always in the first half of the month, meaning it would probably be a little lower than that. The average monsoon start date is July 7th.

by Jim McLennan on Sep 8, 2007 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions

Actually

temperature (heat)is a more important driver of Heat Index (ie comfort) than humidity. At very high temps, the level of relative humidity needed to make the Heat Index higher than the actual temperature is lower than at cooler temperatures. For example, at 80 °F the heat index will agree with the actual temperature if the relative humidity is 45%, but at 110 °F , any relative-humidity reading above 17 % will make the Heat Index higher than 110 °F.

Further, these comfort indices are based on shade temps only, which ignores addtl sun stress endured by folks in unusually sunny, hot places like Phoenix.

by Diamondhacks on Sep 9, 2007 4:13 AM EDT up reply actions

Galveston Disaster

I just discovered that my "Houston" data from noaa was actually for Galveston(cooler), which overstated the 18-20' gap above. The true temp gap with Phoenix is more like thirteen degrees.

Which is still huge, btw, at those high temperatures. In terms of Cooling Degree Days(CDD), Phoenix (900 CDDs) is 50% higher than Houston(600 CDDs) in July. CDDs do not account for humidity, which is obviously significant, but it illustrates how a relatively small change at high temps (10-15%), places a geometrically greater stress (50%) on air conditioners - and people :-)

by Diamondhacks on Sep 9, 2007 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions

I think

We're really splitting hairs here. Phoenix may be marginally more unpleasant in July than Houston, but both pretty much suck. :-) After you give an All-Star Game to Houston, you can hardly claim that climate is a show-stopper in Phoenix.

by Jim McLennan on Sep 9, 2007 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions

The only real showstopper, I suppose,

is money, and the perception that MLB cant hold a first class party here in July without being embarassed. That perception is almost entirely due to the heat and while I acknowledge there are ways to mitigate that, Hall and his predecessors still have a very tough sell, IMO, convincing Selig that he wont come out of this looking like a fool.

Claiming both cities "suck" in no way makes them the same, any more than claiming Flagstaff and Fairbanks are both "real cold". Houston's a truly uncomfortable summer city, like most Texas burgs, Atlanta, New Orleans, pretty much the entire South. Is Houston the worst of that group? Maybe, maybe not - but that's a side argument here. Phoenix is in its own category - the hottest North American city - with July sidewalk temps in the sun exceeding 130-140'. No one in their right mind would dream of hosting a summer olympics here in July, like Atlanta did.

Admittedly, the ASG is not an athletic event like the Games, but all daytime activities would need to be inside nonetheless. And that's a problem because you cant play a true nightgame and fully exploit East Coast prime time television.

Unlike fans, tourists and journalists in Houston or Atlanta, say, many newbies here will have no idea what that 130' air is like. No frame of reference for it, unless they've been to Death Valley. Trust me, the heat will be the story. I'd frame it this way. In a place like Houston, people are apt to complain about the heat and ask for a drink of water. In PHX people will complain about the heat and question why Selig bothered to insert his prominent party into this seasonal hellhole. Guests can swim at the resorts and watch videos in their hotel rooms I suppose. You cant golf or hike or bike anywhere. Or shop down Mill Ave or Scottsdale Rd. Not really.

Big downside risk for Selig. If I was him, I'd lead Phoenix on until someone else is commish - or at least wait and see what light rail's impact will be. If MLB can air pix of sleek railcars pulling up next to BOB and trot out their air conditioned corporate tents next to Sliders, they might consider making a go of it.

by Diamondhacks on Sep 10, 2007 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions

Hmm... that does make sense

Galveston IS a little cooler, even in the summer.

Come on, Sandy Baby, loosen up. You're too tight.

by DbacksSkins on Sep 9, 2007 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Arizona Republic has a story today about ASG

and it's right here.

Summary: The D'backs management have been working on Bud Selig and attempt to get an ASG to the Valley ASAP, first year available to us is 2011, however we would have to compete with the new Mets stadium, after that it's 2013. Chances look good, but plenty of other teams want it as well, then there is a chart basically outlining what I did above, the various recent ASG and new stadia.

D'backs are attempting to sell an Arizona ASG as: new lightrail (expected to be up Dec. 2008), plenty of new hotels in the downtown area and across town, an expanded convention center (very nice), new improvements to Chase Field (new scoreboard, et cetera), and the D'backs being financially fit.

Stay grindy, my friends.

by soco on Sep 7, 2007 11:17 AM EDT reply actions

Somehow, my support for the new scoreboard

Just went up tenfold.

Why SHOULD we have to wait?? New York gets the 2008 ASG, why should it get 2011 as well? Especially since that new Mets stadium will still be new in 2013...

Come on, Sandy Baby, loosen up. You're too tight.

by DbacksSkins on Sep 7, 2007 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions

I completely agree with you

but it's all about money for those that run (or at least are powerful within) MLB. If the rumor is true that Boston will get it in 2012, it's for one reason only: money. If New York gets it twice in two years, it's only because of money. Even though Phoenix is a great city (in my humble opinion) we still have the reputation as being one of the smaller players.

If San Francisco can bring $60 million or more for the ASG to their city (and that's not even what MLB made!) then who knows what kind of money they can bring in at these larger cities.

Stay grindy, my friends.

by soco on Sep 7, 2007 8:29 PM EDT up reply actions