Thank God... at least someone agrees with me. - Page 2

Calvert98 · 07-12-2018, 12:15 PM

In addition to what has already been noted here (good thread by the way), another issue to possibly consider is Stadium size: many of the new stadiums were built as hitter’s parks, which go right to the walk-HR (or SO) approach. It may even be playing a part in the spike of "power pitchers" and their injuries, because putting fly-ball in play now in many of these stadiums, has greater chance to result in a HR.

So, it could be that many of new stadium field dimensions are playing into the pace of the game and the product. It may run against the “grain”, but I believe that the average stadium dimension needs to be increased. I’d be curious what other’s think.

pilight · 07-12-2018, 12:30 PM

The notion that parks have gotten smaller is largely a myth. The original Yankee Stadium was 295 down the right field line and 281 down left field. Fenway Park, the oldest stadium in the AL, has the shallowest outfield in the majors.

drksd4848 · 07-12-2018, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pilight

The notion that parks have gotten smaller is largely a myth. The original Yankee Stadium was 295 down the right field line and 281 down left field. Fenway Park, the oldest stadium in the AL, has the shallowest outfield in the majors.

Well, wait a sec.

Compare a lot of National League parks to the new ones and I think park size is a fair argument. For example, Toilet Bowl Vet verses the Phillies Corporate Name Park... Big difference. (Although steroids negated a lot of that in the 90s.)

Calvert98 · 07-12-2018, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pilight

The notion that parks have gotten smaller is largely a myth. The original Yankee Stadium was 295 down the right field line and 281 down left field. Fenway Park, the oldest stadium in the AL, has the shallowest outfield in the majors.

Not sure about that at all. And I'd bet 14 feet is still a difference maker when you consider the launch angle required.

Also, I stated the average new stadium is smaller; which means the average new stadium is smaller than the one that they replaced. Therefore, if the average stadium in use today is smaller, then it would have impact. When we saw that wave of construction starting in the late mid to late-1990s, for example Memorial Stadium's dimensions were certainly larger than Camden Yards.

Anyway, if I had time, I'd put something together, but perhaps someone has done that here already.

Calvert98 · 07-12-2018, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drksd4848

Well, wait a sec.

Compare a lot of National League parks to the new ones and I think park size is a fair argument. For example, Toilet Bowl Vet verses the Phillies Corporate Name Park... Big difference. (Although steroids negated a lot of that in the 90s.)

Right, and in MLB today, I checked and I think there are only 6 still in use that were built before 1990, and probably only 8 that were built before 1992.

pilight · 07-12-2018, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvert98

Not sure about that at all. And I'd bet 14 feet is still a difference maker when you consider the launch angle required.

Also, I stated the average new stadium is smaller; which means the average new stadium is smaller than the one that they replaced. Therefore, if the average stadium in use today is smaller, then it would have impact. When we saw that wave of construction starting in the late mid to late-1990s, for example Memorial Stadium's dimensions were certainly larger than Camden Yards.

Anyway, if I had time, I'd put something together, but perhaps someone has done that here already.

Actually, Camden Yards is quite a bit bigger than Memorial Stadium. Memorial was 309 down the lines and 405 to center. Camden is 333 to left, 318 to right, and 410 to center.

Calvert98 · 07-12-2018, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pilight

Actually, Camden Yards is quite a bit bigger than Memorial Stadium. Memorial was 309 down the lines and 405 to center. Camden is 333 to left, 318 to right, and 410 to center.

I don't think it was.

Memorial
Left-Center – 446 ft (1954), 378 ft (1990)
Center Field – 445 ft (1954), 405 ft (1980)
Right-Center – 446 ft (1954), 378 ft (1990)
Right Field – 309 ft

The Left Center and Right Center (378 to 405) make-up roughly 75% of that line. The short right field I think was less than 10%.

Camden's back end from 338 to 365 accounts for almost 50%.

From what I recall, Camden was designed to be smaller in overall dimensions.

Calvert98 · 07-12-2018, 03:21 PM

Even that reduced size, it (Memorial) was still overall larger from home plate on average (and even with the reduction, I'm almost certain had a larger foul-ground area both behind home plate and down the lines), but what's interesting to see is when that trend towards smaller parks started: the 1990's.

drksd4848 · 07-12-2018, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvert98

Even that reduced size, it (Memorial) was still overall larger from home plate on average (and even with the reduction, I'm almost certain had a larger foul-ground area both behind home plate and down the lines), but what's interesting to see is when that trend towards smaller parks started: the 1990's.

Funny, your post reminded me of what Frank Robinson said about Camden Yards just before it opened, calling it more of a "doubles park".

Calvert98 · 07-12-2018, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drksd4848

Funny, your post reminded me of what Frank Robinson said about Camden Yards just before it opened, calling it more of a "doubles park".

That's interesting; and in the future, for-telling the time of B-Rob too.

I would think however the main plus for pitching in having more foul ground area behind the plate and down the line, at least towards the end of the infield grass, would be less out-of-play foul balls and more foul outs.

pilight · 07-12-2018, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvert98

Right, and in MLB today, I checked and I think there are only 6 still in use that were built before 1990, and probably only 8 that were built before 1992.

Seven predate 1990. Fenway, Wrigley, Dodger, Angel, Oakland-Alameda, Kauffman, and Skydome.

Quote:

what's interesting to see is when that trend towards smaller parks started: the 1990's

Well, let's look at the parks built since then. We covered Camden above.

Tropicana is pretty small (315/404/322). It is the Rays original stadium.

Guaranteed Rate Field (330/400/335) is certainly smaller than Comiskey (347/409/347)

Globe Life (332/400/325) is basically the same size as Arlington (330/400/330)

Progressive (325/405/325) is slightly larger than the Mistake by the Lake (322/400/322)

Coors field is enormous (347/415/350). It is the Rockies original stadium.

Chase Field is about average size (330/407/334). It is the DBacks original stadium

Safeco (331/401/326) is slightly larger than the Kingdome (331/405/312)

AT&T (339/399/309) is smaller than Candlestick (330/420/330)

Comerica (345/420/330) is longer down the lines but shorter in center than Tiger Stadium (340/440/325). It's not a small park.

Minutemaid (315/409/326) is smaller than the Astrodome (340/406/340), but the Astrodome was one of the largest parks in the majors

Miller Park (344/400/345) is much larger than Milwaukee County (315/402/315)

PNC (325/399/320) is smaller than Three Rivers (335/400/335)

Great American (328/404/325) is basically the same size as Riverfront (330/404/330)

Citizens Bank (329/401/330) is basically the same size as Veterans (330/408/330)

Petco (334/396/322) is longer to left but shorter to center and right than Qualcomm (327/405/330)

Busch (336/400/335) is slightly larger than Busch Memorial (330/402/330)

Nationals (337/402/335) is Washington's original park. It is larger than Olympic (325/404/325)

CitiField (335/408/330) is slightly smaller than Shea (338/410/338)

Yankee Stadium (318/404/314) was specifically designed to be the same size as Old Yankee Stadium (318/404/314)

Target (339/404/328) is slightly smaller than the Metrodome (343/408/328)

Marlins Park (344/407/335) is larger than Joe Robbie (328/401/347) but shorter down right field

SunTrust (335/400/325) is basically the same size as Turner Field (335/400/330).

That's six smaller and six larger, with seven about the same, as the stadiums they replaced. Not exactly a trend.

Calvert98 · 07-12-2018, 06:20 PM

I think it's more of a trend than one would think. Baseball prospectus discussed this as well. I have the book somewhere.

As with Camden, Memorial was still much bigger even after the refit in 1990.

As an example, just like Camden, with Cleveland's stadium:
Left Field – 322 ft (98 m)
Left-Center – 385 ft (117 m)
Center Field – 400 ft (122 m)
Right-Center – 385 ft (117 m)
Right Field – 322 ft (98 m

That 385/375 to 400 is about 75% of the outfield wall / line, making it much larger on average than the new park. The slash lines are deceiving. That 320 on both sides is likely less than 10%.

Great American is also smaller. Riverfront was actually 330 on the shortest L/R, about 15% to 20%, with the majority of the outfield CF wall from 375 to 404, at roughly above 60%.

As I mentioned with Camden being smaller, think of the field as "volume", most of which is from the infield top grass to the back wall. If you filled your average older stadium outfield with water, you will have a lot more than the average new stadium. Also, there always seemed to more foul territory.

Calvert98 · 07-12-2018, 06:38 PM

So, I went to that article, and found something interesting (Extra Innings, pg 76 to 80.)

Sort of contradictory information but I wonder if that point I made about outfield average line, has something to do with it, because it was missed in the data breakdown in the article (using set 5 points, rather than average depth of the outfield fence line).

During the 5 year period from 1988 to 1992, all 5 new stadiums saw a 11.8% HR increase above league average.

From 1993 to 1997, those new stadiums saw a 13.4% increase.

Those built after that, around 5.4%.

However, they are using like noted above, just the 5 set points to calculate the average field depth, rather then overall outfield line, so what's interesting is that these points show increases of anywhere between .7 to 5.0, with the exception of the CF point which saw a decrease from -.6 to -1.0

Anyway, interesting discussion.

pilight · 07-12-2018, 07:07 PM

There's less foul territory in the newer parks and that favors the hitters. It doesn't really have anything to do with the problem of not enough balls being put in play.

As far as the homer increase goes, it's not just the size of the park that affects that. The 90's parks were built with short walls, making for easier homers. They also incorporated wind models, ostensibly to keep fans cooler in the stands but also to affect fly balls. That design possibility wasn't available in older parks.

Orcin · 07-12-2018, 07:46 PM

There's a lot of discussion about parks, which overlooks the real reason for increasing strikeouts. The strikeout rate has increased because batters are more interested in exit velocity and launch angle than contact. This is the same reason why they can't beat a simple shift.

mitchkenn · 07-12-2018, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orcin

There's a lot of discussion about parks, which overlooks the real reason for increasing strikeouts. The strikeout rate has increased because batters are more interested in exit velocity and launch angle than contact. This is the same reason why they can't beat a simple shift.

truer words have seldom been spoken!

Brad K · 07-13-2018, 03:18 AM

I have certainly lost interest. It's not much of a game anymore.d

Didn't go to spring training this year. First time since 2007. There's 4 spring training teams within 30 miles.

For the last 6 years I've lived within walking distance of Tropicana. I have been one time.

But in my 20s I'd drive 80 miles to see my favorite team as the visitors.

ThePretender · 07-13-2018, 01:38 PM

I'm legitimately surprised so many people read this article and came away with the thought of "Wow, this is a great article". I had to stop reading halfway through because it was so terrible.

Also it's mildly shocking how anti-analytics some of you are.

pilight · 07-13-2018, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePretender

I'm legitimately surprised so many people read this article and came away with the thought of "Wow, this is a great article". I had to stop reading halfway through because it was so terrible.

Also it's mildly shocking how anti-analytics some of you are.

I'm not anti-analytics, but if you do what the analytics tell you without getting improved performance then there's something wrong with the analytical model. If the model says draw walks and hit homers to score more runs and teams do that but don't score more runs, what does that mean to you?

ThePretender · 07-13-2018, 01:57 PM

The model doesn't say walk more and hit more home runs. The model is do everything you can to get on base, or limit your outs. So walks are useful, sure, but you're twisting the concept to create a strawman argument against analytics.

Likewise the best outcome for an at bat is a home run because you score yourself and anybody on base, but you still want to make contact and not just hit home runs.

If you really think analytics says just hit home runs and walks then you don't know what analytics are, and are simply against it from a personal bias.

07-12-2018, 03:21 PM	#28
Calvert98 All Star Reserve Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 579	Even that reduced size, it (Memorial) was still overall larger from home plate on average (and even with the reduction, I'm almost certain had a larger foul-ground area both behind home plate and down the lines), but what's interesting to see is when that trend towards smaller parks started: the 1990's. Last edited by Calvert98; 07-12-2018 at 03:26 PM.

07-12-2018, 06:20 PM	#32
Calvert98 All Star Reserve Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 579	I think it's more of a trend than one would think. Baseball prospectus discussed this as well. I have the book somewhere. As with Camden, Memorial was still much bigger even after the refit in 1990. As an example, just like Camden, with Cleveland's stadium: Left Field – 322 ft (98 m) Left-Center – 385 ft (117 m) Center Field – 400 ft (122 m) Right-Center – 385 ft (117 m) Right Field – 322 ft (98 m That 385/375 to 400 is about 75% of the outfield wall / line, making it much larger on average than the new park. The slash lines are deceiving. That 320 on both sides is likely less than 10%. Great American is also smaller. Riverfront was actually 330 on the shortest L/R, about 15% to 20%, with the majority of the outfield CF wall from 375 to 404, at roughly above 60%. As I mentioned with Camden being smaller, think of the field as "volume", most of which is from the infield top grass to the back wall. If you filled your average older stadium outfield with water, you will have a lot more than the average new stadium. Also, there always seemed to more foul territory. Last edited by Calvert98; 07-12-2018 at 06:43 PM.

07-12-2018, 06:38 PM	#33
Calvert98 All Star Reserve Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 579	So, I went to that article, and found something interesting (Extra Innings, pg 76 to 80.) Sort of contradictory information but I wonder if that point I made about outfield average line, has something to do with it, because it was missed in the data breakdown in the article (using set 5 points, rather than average depth of the outfield fence line). During the 5 year period from 1988 to 1992, all 5 new stadiums saw a 11.8% HR increase above league average. From 1993 to 1997, those new stadiums saw a 13.4% increase. Those built after that, around 5.4%. However, they are using like noted above, just the 5 set points to calculate the average field depth, rather then overall outfield line, so what's interesting is that these points show increases of anywhere between .7 to 5.0, with the exception of the CF point which saw a decrease from -.6 to -1.0 Anyway, interesting discussion. Last edited by Calvert98; 07-12-2018 at 06:41 PM.

07-13-2018, 03:18 AM	#37
Brad K Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2016 Location: St Petersburg Florida USA Posts: 6,618 Infractions: 0/2 (3)	I have certainly lost interest. It's not much of a game anymore.d Didn't go to spring training this year. First time since 2007. There's 4 spring training teams within 30 miles. For the last 6 years I've lived within walking distance of Tropicana. I have been one time. But in my 20s I'd drive 80 miles to see my favorite team as the visitors. Last edited by Brad K; 07-13-2018 at 08:01 AM.

07-12-2018, 12:15 PM	#21
Calvert98 All Star Reserve Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 579	In addition to what has already been noted here (good thread by the way), another issue to possibly consider is Stadium size: many of the new stadiums were built as hitter’s parks, which go right to the walk-HR (or SO) approach. It may even be playing a part in the spike of "power pitchers" and their injuries, because putting fly-ball in play now in many of these stadiums, has greater chance to result in a HR. So, it could be that many of new stadium field dimensions are playing into the pace of the game and the product. It may run against the “grain”, but I believe that the average stadium dimension needs to be increased. I’d be curious what other’s think.

07-12-2018, 12:30 PM	#22
pilight All Star Starter Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Where the Action is Posts: 1,953	The notion that parks have gotten smaller is largely a myth. The original Yankee Stadium was 295 down the right field line and 281 down left field. Fenway Park, the oldest stadium in the AL, has the shallowest outfield in the majors.

07-12-2018, 07:07 PM	#34
pilight All Star Starter Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Where the Action is Posts: 1,953	There's less foul territory in the newer parks and that favors the hitters. It doesn't really have anything to do with the problem of not enough balls being put in play. As far as the homer increase goes, it's not just the size of the park that affects that. The 90's parks were built with short walls, making for easier homers. They also incorporated wind models, ostensibly to keep fans cooler in the stands but also to affect fly balls. That design possibility wasn't available in older parks.

07-12-2018, 07:46 PM	#35
Orcin Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Indiana Posts: 9,847 Infractions: 1/0 (0)	There's a lot of discussion about parks, which overlooks the real reason for increasing strikeouts. The strikeout rate has increased because batters are more interested in exit velocity and launch angle than contact. This is the same reason why they can't beat a simple shift.

07-13-2018, 01:38 PM	#38
ThePretender All Star Starter Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 1,321	I'm legitimately surprised so many people read this article and came away with the thought of "Wow, this is a great article". I had to stop reading halfway through because it was so terrible. Also it's mildly shocking how anti-analytics some of you are.

07-13-2018, 01:57 PM	#40
ThePretender All Star Starter Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 1,321	The model doesn't say walk more and hit more home runs. The model is do everything you can to get on base, or limit your outs. So walks are useful, sure, but you're twisting the concept to create a strawman argument against analytics. Likewise the best outcome for an at bat is a home run because you score yourself and anybody on base, but you still want to make contact and not just hit home runs. If you really think analytics says just hit home runs and walks then you don't know what analytics are, and are simply against it from a personal bias.