The synopsis: I liked Cincy best, though Tiger Stadium was close, with Cleveland last of the three, and not high on any "all-time list."
For context, my favorite three: Candlestick (by whatever name) Park, D-backs Stadium, and Camden Yard.
Bottom three: Anaheim, Kansas City, and Wrigley (I know...but, really...)
I have some criteria: I want a park with amenities (different types of food, plenty of bathrooms), seats with good views (see Wrigley, above, where the last several times I've gone part of the field was blocked by the pillars), and the stadium having certain design quality: one qualm I have with Pittsburgh park is the fact they didn't bother with any brick or stone facing anywhere in the park. The river is great, if you have the right seats, but not that kind of almost hidden external feature elevates the place.
Cincy (named "Great American Ball Park") has these things. I had Skyline chili dogs for lunch (with the instant heartburn that comes with Cincinnati chili -- a feature of that haute cuisine) and they had a huge craft beer stand. The Ohio River is still there (like Pittsburgh) and you add the cheesiness of the steamboat with the smoke stacks that shoot fireworks and you have something. Where's the thumbs up emoji?
Tiger Stadium has tigers. Huge statues of tigers. Multiple types of food. The fascade was stone covered. There was no river in the background, but it was a quality, inner city park.
Cleveland. Okay, credo: one's experience of a game is better or worse depending on the weather. It was 55 with a breeze, with potential showers, for the Indians game. They were playing the Orioles -- you know, the best team in baseball. And lost to them.
Generally, there's nothing terribly wrong with Progressive Field (okay, too many Flo references, but we'll ignore that, for now) -- you have good views of the field; it's cozy enough, as the modern style baseball-only parks are, and had plenty of food. But there was no brick or stone on the facades (this is a feature of Target Field in Minneapolis that really stands out) and the background of the Cleveland skyline is...blah.
So, that's my report. K liked Detroit best by a little bit.
But all three are variations, more or less, of the current thinking in baseball stadium: smaller, good seats, good amenities, with some touches to add character. None of them is Wrigley or Anaheim or KC, all dinosaurs of our baseball architectural past.
I think our next addition is Fenway (no, never been there...based on my criteria, I don't have high hopes -- I've not been a fan of either Wrigley or Yankee Stadium -- but we both want to see it. Something to look forward to.
Play ball everyone!
