|
Malleus Dei is, of course, right when he says that better teams tailor their rosters to their ballparks.
He's also right that parks with equal dimensions can still be tailored to. Anyone who watched the Cubs of the late 80s trying to paly on astroturf fields should be able to immediately understand that. Some clubs even used to be notorious for tailoring their fields to their personnel (watering the infield, or not, depending on the speediness of thier players is an obvious example). In addition, the fact that the dinemsions are the same all around is not the requirement for tailorability...it's the distance to the fences that matters there--bring all the fences in and you want to tailor for power, push all the fences back and you want to tailor for speed...as an example. Foul ground is another tailorable characteristic, as is hitting background. Neither of those has to do with fence distance at all.
Look at the St. Loius Cardinals of that time, and you'll find a ballclub about perfectly tailored to a park--consistently in the upper regions of the league in OBP, doubles, triples, and SB, and at the bottom in HR...while winning a world series and a couple NL pennants. They played in a park that accentated speed and defense...and that's what they built their team around. Back then, if you couldn't run and get on base, you didn't play much for the Cardinals.
The numbers are still the numbers, though. I've yet to see any sabermetrician's study show definitively what causes the home field advantage. Perhaps it's been done, but I know I haven't seen it. If it exists, please point me to it.
I have seen data, however, that indicates travel distance (hence travel fatigue/jet lag) is not the cause of the homefield advantage.
|