|
Viceroy18 posted:I have a question; what are pitchers/hitters parks? Is it something to do with the dimensions/weather or is this something made up by sportswriters? An example of both types would be wonderful as well, just to help my understanding. Hitter's park would be Coors' Field in Denver or the Rangers' ballpark down in Arlington. The Rockies' home field used to inflate offensive number pretty hugely because the air was thin and dry, so a hit ball would fly further. An example of pitcher's parks would be the Oakland Colosseum with its deep fences and ample foul ground.
|
| # ? Sep 1, 2011 17:52 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2013 23:24 |
|
|
Ok thank you.
|
| # ? Sep 1, 2011 17:59 |
|
|
You also have the stadiums in San Diego, San Francisco, and Los Angeles (Dodgers) that are effected by the weather in those areas that just kill offensive numbers. San Francisco and San Diego's stadiums are also extraordinarily large in the power alleys.
|
| # ? Sep 1, 2011 18:25 |
|
|
Don't forget Safeco, Destroyer of Homers.
|
| # ? Sep 1, 2011 18:27 |
|
|
con posted:You also have the stadiums in San Diego, San Francisco, and Los Angeles (Dodgers) that are effected by the weather in those areas that just kill offensive numbers. San Francisco and San Diego's stadiums are also extraordinarily large in the power alleys. San Francisco actually plays neutral to hitter's park; this year it has been an extreme pitchers park, probably because of the team's makeup (unless they changed something I'm not aware of); if you go back a couple of years its multiyear park factors shoot up.
|
| # ? Sep 1, 2011 18:29 |
|
|
It's more than just dimensions that create park effect, too. Coors Field's elevation is the classic example, but Petco's proximity to the ocean tends to suppress the distance of fly balls in addition to its large dimensions, especially during night games. One of the Giants beat writers tweeted an article about it when Nate Schierholtz had about five deep flyouts in a three-game series that would have been home runs even at AT&T.
|
| # ? Sep 1, 2011 18:39 |
|
|
How the concourses are built can also create wind tunnel effects.
|
| # ? Sep 1, 2011 18:59 |
|
|
OdinsBeard posted:San Francisco actually plays neutral to hitter's park; this year it has been an extreme pitchers park, probably because of the team's makeup (unless they changed something I'm not aware of); if you go back a couple of years its multiyear park factors shoot up. I thought it's neutrality was hilariously effected by Barry Bonds' monstrous seasons and it's been steadily becoming more and more of a pitchers park. But I guess their superb pitching would have something to do with that.
|
| # ? Sep 1, 2011 19:01 |
|
|
con posted:I thought it's neutrality was hilariously effected by Barry Bonds' monstrous seasons and it's been steadily becoming more and more of a pitchers park. But I guess their superb pitching would have something to do with that. Actually, looking at the numbers for ATT, it seemed like it played like a pitcher's park when it opened until 2003, then it played neutral/hitter until last year.
|
| # ? Sep 1, 2011 19:12 |
|
|
I want to see some team try all of the wacky trick poo poo that ended up in these movies.
|
| # ? Sep 1, 2011 19:30 |
|
|
gardenald posted:I want to see some team try all of the wacky trick poo poo that ended up in these movies.
|
| # ? Sep 1, 2011 19:39 |
|
|
This is one I have been lambasted for before in the past, but I never understood. What is the difference between the DH/substitution rules in the NL and AL?
|
| # ? Sep 1, 2011 19:39 |
|
|
Farking Bastage posted:What is the difference between the DH/substitution rules in the NL and AL? To be less pithy, there is no DH in the NL; any substitution is a player coming out and going in. Corollary, which I've asked before: Say Micah Owings or a similarly playable hitter is on the mound for an AL team. Can the team elect not to use a DH that game and let the pitcher hit?
|
| # ? Sep 1, 2011 19:42 |
|
|
Yeah the DH is pretty much optional. There have also been instances of line up cards being filled out wrong and AL teams losing their DH.
|
| # ? Sep 1, 2011 19:45 |
|
|
Yep you can forego using a DH. If you don't use one at the beginning, you don't get one for the game. MLB only lets you DH for the pitcher although I think some other levels or leagues allow other positions to be DH'd for. If the DH (in any capacity- eg. you pinch hit/run for the DH and the pinch hitter goes to left field) plays the field, the DH is forfeit for the rest of the game.
|
| # ? Sep 1, 2011 20:09 |
|
|
There has been some demand by fans to bring outfield walls in especially the right field wall at PETCO Park. I agree with that sentiment. PETCO is stupidly in favor of the pitcher especially in April. Going to pitcher duel after pitcher duel gets old really fast. However, that park can be "beaten". The very spacious outfield is good for line-drive singles and doubles through the gaps. 1B your way to victory! That said, I would be really interested to watch the Home Run Derby played at PETCO Park.
|
| # ? Sep 1, 2011 20:10 |
|
|
Badfinger posted:If the DH (in any capacity- eg. you pinch hit/run for the DH and the pinch hitter goes to left field) plays the field, the DH is forfeit for the rest of the game. EDIT: Holy poo poo, it does! Man-Thing fucked around with this message at Sep 1, 2011 around 21:00 |
| # ? Sep 1, 2011 20:54 |
|
|
if you lose the dh as an al manager you are typically dumb as a loving sack of hammers, with some situational exceptions (late and close, extra innings sometimes etc)
|
| # ? Sep 2, 2011 00:17 |
|
|
con posted:I thought it's neutrality was hilariously effected by Barry Bonds' monstrous seasons and it's been steadily becoming more and more of a pitchers park. But I guess their superb pitching would have something to do with that. It would only be affected if Barry hit 75% of his home runs at home. Park factor is not just "total amount of offense achieved in this park", it's a comparison of offense in home games vs. offense in road games.
|
| # ? Sep 2, 2011 00:36 |
|
Terrorism
|
Some of the larger parks are considered more or less hitter neutral because, although they suppress homers, they allow for more doubles and triples because of the extra space.
|
| # ? Sep 2, 2011 00:49 |
|
|
Derek Agony posted:Some of the larger parks are considered more or less hitter neutral because, although they suppress homers, they allow for more doubles and triples because of the extra space. this is also definitely part of the reason Coors is so crazy for hitters (although, despite the humidor hype, it is also still a top HR park iirc, just not far and away THE top) If you go to the baseball reference page on any ballpark it will show you that parks factors year by year  Also here is a page of general info on them http://www.baseball-reference.com/a...arkadjust.shtml
|
| # ? Sep 2, 2011 00:52 |
|
|
Again thanks to all of you who helped clear that up. I may have some more fairly stupid questions before I go to my first baseball game on the 23rd. I'm hopping on the D-backs bandwagon.
|
| # ? Sep 2, 2011 01:27 |
|
|
Viceroy18 posted:Again thanks to all of you who helped clear that up. I may have some more fairly stupid questions before I go to my first baseball game on the 23rd. I'm hopping on the D-backs bandwagon. Nobody mentioned this yet but Chase Field, the dbacks home park, is also one of the top hitters' parks in the league, which a lot of people tend to overlook
|
| # ? Sep 2, 2011 01:28 |
|
|
Chase also has an elevation thing going for it, I think. If I recall correctly it is at 1,200 feet and is significantly smaller than Coors.
|
| # ? Sep 2, 2011 01:44 |
|
|
The Blue Caboose posted:Chase also has an elevation thing going for it, I think. If I recall correctly it is at 1,200 feet and is significantly smaller than Coors. I don't know about the dimensions, it's pretty deep straight away/right-center/left-center but the dry climate has the effect of shrinking baseballs like pre-humidor Coors, though probably not as drastically, if I had to guess.
|
| # ? Sep 2, 2011 01:46 |
|
|
OdinsBeard posted:I don't know about the dimensions, it's pretty deep straight away/right-center/left-center but the dry climate has the effect of shrinking baseballs like pre-humidor Coors, though probably not as drastically, if I had to guess. Yeah, I guess a better example of your classic bandbox is GABP, which is tiny. I think Chase is 405 or so to center with a high fence, but the corners are only 330 ish while Coors is basically 350/410/350. What I'm saying is Colorado kinda screws with baseball.
|
| # ? Sep 2, 2011 02:09 |
|
|
US Cellular is a great example of a HR bandbox that suppresses other XBH and demonstrates how dingerz aren't the only relevant park factor
|
| # ? Sep 2, 2011 02:14 |
|
|
Kauffman is a pretty good example of the opposite, too. Hard to hit home runs in, but it plays pretty neutral because it's always insane about triples.
|
| # ? Sep 2, 2011 02:17 |
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:if you lose the dh as an al manager you are typically dumb as a loving sack of hammers, with some situational exceptions (late and close, extra innings sometimes etc) 
|
| # ? Sep 2, 2011 14:36 |
|
|
Since OPS+/ERA+ was talked about recently (I forgot if it was this thread or the other one), I want to see if I get the concept behind it. If batter A and batter B have the exact same stats across the board, with everything being neutral and their lines are average for the season, both have an OPS+ of 100? If batter A is in the AL and B is in the NL how would league factor into this? Like if AL is considered the stronger hitting league would batter A's OPS+ go down(assuming the same stat lines)? And it would be the same thing based on the park factors too?
|
| # ? Sep 2, 2011 15:40 |
|
|
The Blue Caboose posted:Chase also has an elevation thing going for it, I think. If I recall correctly it is at 1,200 feet and is significantly smaller than Coors. To further that, Atlanta's Fulton County Stadium was at about 1,000 feet elevation (the highest in baseball until Coors) and known as The Launching Pad because it was such a + homers park.
|
| # ? Sep 2, 2011 16:09 |
|
|
TUS posted:Since OPS+/ERA+ was talked about recently (I forgot if it was this thread or the other one), I want to see if I get the concept behind it. If batter A and batter B have the exact same stats across the board, with everything being neutral and their lines are average for the season, both have an OPS+ of 100? If batter A is in the AL and B is in the NL how would league factor into this? Like if AL is considered the stronger hitting league would batter A's OPS+ go down(assuming the same stat lines)? And it would be the same thing based on the park factors too? The league adjusted part of OPS+ is really really simple. Just go to baseball-reference and mouseover OPS+ on anyone's stat page and it will show you the formula. It's just obp/league obp plus slg/league slg (where "league" = AL/NL, not MLB), then scaled to an average of 100. The way park factors are calculated is pretty complex (http://www.baseball-reference.com/a...arkadjust.shtml), but you end up with a number scaled the same as OPS+ (100 is a neutral park) and then I think you just divide the OPS+ into the park factor and re-scale, although I'm not sure about that. If I understand park factoring right I think a 100 OPS+ in a park with a hitting factor of 105 would come out to a 95 OPS+, but maybe someone can clear that up Basically think of a 110 OPS+ as "10% better than average" etc Medical Sword fucked around with this message at Sep 2, 2011 around 16:19 |
| # ? Sep 2, 2011 16:16 |
|
|
Medical Sword posted:Basically think of a 110 OPS+ as "10% better than average" etc That's what I've gathered reading this forum, but I was curious on the nuances about it. You covered what I was looking for, thanks!
|
| # ? Sep 2, 2011 16:31 |
|
|
And do be careful not to confuse "110 OPS+ = 10% better than average" as 10% "above replacement". OPS+ is really truly "the average major-leaguer, and not "replacement level" (which is below average) Anything above 100 OPS+ is "good to pretty good", with over 120 or so becoming more "very good"
|
| # ? Sep 2, 2011 18:58 |
|
|
More OPS+ stuff: - OPS+ is not position-adjusted. This means that a 1B with a 110 OPS+ is really not that great, or that if a LF and CF have the same OPS+, the CF is almost certainly the more valuable player. - OPS+ is not actually a straight comparison of OPS! Medical Sword touched on this: the formula is actually OPS+ = OBP+ + SLG+, where both OBP+ and SLG+ are normalized against league average (with the average being 50). (Alternatively, you can think of it as the average of OBP+ and SLG+ with them both normalized to 100.) This has a couple ramifications: 1) OBP variations are weighted higher (because league average OBP is lower, so variations give a wider fluctuation), and 2) a player with an OPS+ of 200 may not actually have an OPS that's exactly twice league average.
|
| # ? Sep 2, 2011 19:43 |
|
|
For instance, a guy with decent defense and a 90-95 OPS+ at SS is pretty darn valuable. The same guy at 1B is tragic - pre-2011 Casey Kotchman.
|
| # ? Sep 2, 2011 21:02 |
|
|
Does anyone here know where I could find the average margin of victory for every MLB season in the modern era? I know this is likely a long shot, but I thought I'd ask.
|
| # ? Sep 2, 2011 21:14 |
|
|
I can't do modern era but I can do 1950-2009: code:
stuart scott irl fucked around with this message at Sep 3, 2011 around 02:39 |
| # ? Sep 3, 2011 02:13 |
|
|
I'm sure this isn't 100% of it but isn't the basic idea going to be more runs = larger average margin of victory, just because more runs on average create more opportunities for blowouts
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2011 09:24 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2013 23:24 |
|
|
yah stuart scott irl fucked around with this message at Sep 3, 2011 around 12:15 |
| # ? Sep 3, 2011 12:06 |
|
