Park Factors Affecting Overall Team Success???

[jpeters1734]

In my online league, some of the members like to claim that the key to success is having a hitter's ballpark. Don't ask how they came to that conclusion. I decided to do a little test. I created a quick 24 team league, and neutralized all the park factors. I turned off all coaching, dev budgets, scouting, morale, injuries, and anything else that could affect results.

for the Philadelphia Defenders, I set the AVG and HR factors to .8

for the Portland Bats, I set them to 1.2

What's interesting is that in a pretty even league, the Bats are historically the worst team and the Defenders are one of the best. Thoughts?

[Dyzalot]

My thoughts are that the optimal strategy is to tailor your team to your ballpark. Got a huge one? Then have a staff of high strikeout, high flyball frequency pitchers along with great outfield defense and a lineup with good speed and high contact & gap power. Got a park with a short right field porch? Try to have more lefties in your staff and more left handed hitting power hitters. Got a park that gives up a lot of home runs? Try to have pitchers who are primarily ground ball pitchers along with great infield defense and a lineup with excellent patience and power with less of a concern for speed.

[bwburke94]

Perhaps the AI is worse at team-building for certain kinds of parks?

[kq76]

Interesting questions. I'd like to see some more in-depth tests to see if there is indeed something wrong here.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by bwburke94

Perhaps the AI is worse at team-building for certain kinds of parks?

you could say that, but how do you explain the Defenders? They had a pitcher's park and thrived in comparison to the Bats who had the hitter's park.

[sprague]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

you could say that, but how do you explain the Defenders? They had a pitcher's park and thrived in comparison to the Bats who had the hitter's park.

Try the sim again.
This time make 3 pitchers parks and 3 hitters parks.
Just to increase the sample size.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by sprague

Try the sim again.
This time make 3 pitchers parks and 3 hitters parks.
Just to increase the sample size.

Fair enough. I cleared all league history and ran it 30 years. It's a lot more even now. Combining the 3 teams each, all named bats and defenders, here's the total wins:

7297 - Bats
7328 - Defenders

While the second run through doesn't make Pitcher's parks that much better, I can conclude that hitter's parks are not the Key to success.

[Blue]

As the person with the infamous hitters park in said online league. When you are able to compile the right lineup, its easier to win in a hitters than a pitchers, but it relies on very specific kinds of offense that may not be targeted by AI. My first two championships were before the change to a hitters and I will say, its easier to acquire the talent to win in a pitcher's.

[sprague]

Originally Posted by Blue

As the person with the infamous hitters park in said online league. When you are able to compile the right lineup, its easier to win in a hitters than a pitchers, but it relies on very specific kinds of offense that may not be targeted by AI. My first two championships were before the change to a hitters and I will say, its easier to acquire the talent to win in a pitcher's.

I am curious. Can you please explain what you mean by specific type of offense that helps win in a hitter park.

[PSUColonel]

I think a great feature would be to track ballpark stats

[ThePretender]

I actually would go against building to your stadium, given that you have to play 81 games outside of your home park. You want to give yourself an advantage in any stadium, not just yours. Yes, you play the most games in your stadium compared to any other individual stadium, but if you build the most balanced team as opposed to one strictly for your stadium, you'll have better overall results.

Groundball or high movement pitchers are effective in both hitter and pitcher parks. Good defence helps you in any park. Well balanced hitters help you in any park. Having the most balanced team will help you in any park.

Even if I play in a pitcher's park, if I have power hitters they'll still hit more HR than my opponents if they have fewer power hitters. Whether I play in a pitcher's park or not I'll still focus on having good defence. These things shouldn't change just because of your park. I'm not going to suddenly go for speedy players or smallball lineups because it's difficult to hit HR in pitcher's parks. Nor would I sell out for power just because I'm in a hitter's park. I have a specific style of offence, and I have and will continue to use it in any park.

If I played in a pitcher's park I wouldn't suddenly justify that by using low movement or FB pitchers, because they'll get destroyed the moment I leave that park.

As for the OP, if they're claiming they win because they play in a hitter's park, then they are bad GMs lol. A good offence will win in any park. You can build a pitching staff that can dominate even in Coors field, you don't just accept that you're in Coors field and focus on a specific type of hitter. The collection of hitters that you think will "win" in a hitters park can also win in a pitchers park. I've lead my league in runs scored from the toughest pitcher's park in the league, and still can have the #1 pitching staff.

I'd never encourage building to your home stadium. I know some people swear by it, but everytime I see people do it, they often win less games than they should because they're building a flawed team.

TLDR - No, park factors don't affect a team's success.

[kq76]

Good post, Pretender. At first I thought you were going into absurd territory, "don't tailor your team to your ballpark". What?! But then you explained your reasoning quite well.

I'm not sure I agree that balanced hitting is good though. The way I see it, OBP, AVG, and speed plays well anywhere, hitter's ballpark or not, just like good defense plays well anywhere. Home run hitters are obviously great, but they're often expensive, they're not as reliable as other offense (there are a lot more singles, etc in baseball than home runs), and they clearly don't play as well in most big ballparks. Everyone might love the longball, but it's a risky venture / dangerous distraction.

Similarly, I'm not so sure pointing to high movement is always great because if you are putting a premium on high movement then you're likely missing out on high stuff and high contact pitchers. And high movement pitchers are like high power batters in that they don't play as well everywhere as clearly you don't have to worry about the longball as much and in most big ballparks. No, I'd say high control and high strikeout pitchers are a more reliable bet than high movement pitchers.

Lastly, groundball pitchers might sound great at first, but you better have a decent infield defense if you're going to load up on lots of groundball pitchers.

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

I actually would go against building to your stadium, given that you have to play 81 games outside of your home park. You want to give yourself an advantage in any stadium, not just yours. Yes, you play the most games in your stadium compared to any other individual stadium, but if you build the most balanced team as opposed to one strictly for your stadium, you'll have better overall results.

I disagree. Since no stadium is the only one like it, you will likely play 100-120 games in stadiums that play to the same strengths. Would be silly not to take advantage of that.

[Blue]

Originally Posted by sprague

I am curious. Can you please explain what you mean by specific type of offense that helps win in a hitter park.

My park, known as "The Crown" is heavy LH HRs. So my lineup typically included a lefty heavy lineup with mostly players involving 6 power or higher, 5 at a minimum. As time has passed, I have taken on more lower power guys, mainly one that can get on base, to make those dingers more worthwhile. And then my rotation is strictly groundball pitchers, its never worked if they were flyball and even neutral I'd have to keep an eye on their % stats.

It became much easier to matchup against me however, just fling some lefties on the mound, so I've found success in recent times with switch hitters, keeping an eye on their splits, some still prefer the righties. Star power has definitely helped, but my team in its present form has survived well in a well rounded team fitting these requirements top to bottom.

Its my 10th season in the modern Crown, and before the current season, my record in this span is .617 Win %, playoffs in every season. I've lead my conference in HRs in every year expect one, where I was only behind by 2, including a league record of 144 HRs(88 game season) one year.

Now where I will say there may be some consideration, in this span I only have one championship in three championship series appearances. I think the best way to put the difference is its easier to build a playoff team in a hitters park, but to take rings home in the process, is easier on those that call a pitcher's home.

[ThePretender]

Originally Posted by kq76

Good post, Pretender. At first I thought you were going into absurd territory, "don't tailor your team to your ballpark". What?! But then you explained your reasoning quite well.

I'm not sure I agree that balanced hitting is good though. The way I see it, OBP, AVG, and speed plays well anywhere, hitter's ballpark or not, just like good defense plays well anywhere. Home run hitters are obviously great, but they're often expensive, they're not as reliable as other offense (there are a lot more singles, etc in baseball than home runs), and they clearly don't play as well in most big ballparks. Everyone might love the longball, but it's a risky venture / dangerous distraction.

I don't think speed plays well, anywhere. There have been many studies on run correlation in OOTP and speed generally plays out poorly. I like to think of speed as a bonus, but not something I'd focus on.

As for power, yes, it's quite expensive. And I wouldn't sell out for power either, but you still need power bats throughout your lineup. Even if you play in a pitcher's park.

You need a mix of guys - guys who can get singles and on base via walks, guys who get doubles/triples, and guys who hit HR. But I would continue to use all those bats regardless of where I play.

Similarly, I'm not so sure pointing to high movement is always great because if you are putting a premium on high movement then you're likely missing out on high stuff and high contact pitchers. And high movement pitchers are like high power batters in that they don't play as well everywhere as clearly you don't have to worry about the longball as much and in most big ballparks. No, I'd say high control and high strikeout pitchers are a more reliable bet than high movement pitchers.

I think Movement > Stuff > Control. So I would agree to disagree. The worst skill a pitcher can have is low movement because even in pitcher parks they give up too many HR - yes, even in pitcher's parks.

Player Report for #37 Jerry 'Fossil' Brown is a perfect example. His ratings throughout his career should have made him an ace with a 120-130 ERA+, but because his split vs LH bats, specifically movement, is so low, despite his strong K and BB numbers, he always underachieved. A career 106 ERA+ isn't terrible, but for a guy with ace ratings, it's a massive disappointment. He averaged a 9K/9, and a 2.3 BB/9, fantastic ratings. But that HR rate? Nearly 1.4 per 9.

Movement plays in every park because it's the most important skill for a pitcher. Stuff? Useful, but stuff without movement is useless. Stuff & control without movement are an awful combination.

Stuff/Movement - Great
Control/movement - Good
Stuff/Control? Generally speaking, pretty worthless, unless supported by at least green movement.

Lastly, groundball pitchers might sound great at first, but you better have a decent infield defense if you're going to load up on lots of groundball pitchers.

You can say the same for flyball pitchers, though.

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

I disagree. Since no stadium is the only one like it, you will likely play 100-120 games in stadiums that play to the same strengths. Would be silly not to take advantage of that.

You're certainly welcome to build your team however you like. But a team of balanced players will win more at home & on the road over one built to a specific dimension.

[ThePretender]

Originally Posted by Blue

My park, known as "The Crown" is heavy LH HRs. So my lineup typically included a lefty heavy lineup with mostly players involving 6 power or higher, 5 at a minimum. As time has passed, I have taken on more lower power guys, mainly one that can get on base, to make those dingers more worthwhile. And then my rotation is strictly groundball pitchers, its never worked if they were flyball and even neutral I'd have to keep an eye on their % stats.

It became much easier to matchup against me however, just fling some lefties on the mound, so I've found success in recent times with switch hitters, keeping an eye on their splits, some still prefer the righties. Star power has definitely helped, but my team in its present form has survived well in a well rounded team fitting these requirements top to bottom.

Its my 10th season in the modern Crown, and before the current season, my record in this span is .617 Win %, playoffs in every season. I've lead my conference in HRs in every year expect one, where I was only behind by 2, including a league record of 144 HRs(88 game season) one year.

Now where I will say there may be some consideration, in this span I only have one championship in three championship series appearances. I think the best way to put the difference is its easier to build a playoff team in a hitters park, but to take rings home in the process, is easier on those that call a pitcher's home.

FYI that strategy works well in both hitter and pitchers parks. It's not about the stadium, it's about the fact that you're building your team taking advantage of the skills most rewarded in OOTP. It's not easier or more difficult depending on the park, as I essentially do the same thing and I play in multiple leagues, one a hitter's park and another a pitcher's park. So I can tell you from experience it's not about the park factors that make it easier to win a ring.

Just platoon the LHB who struggle vs lefties with RHB or switch hitters on your bench and you won't struggle vs LHP. Don't need to get lesser RH hitters just to protect yourself vs LHP.

[Blue]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

FYI that strategy works well in both hitter and pitchers parks. It's not about the stadium, it's about the fact that you're building your team taking advantage of the skills most rewarded in OOTP. It's not easier or more difficult depending on the park, as I essentially do the same thing and I play in multiple leagues, one a hitter's park and another a pitcher's park. So I can tell you from experience it's not about the park factors that make it easier to win a ring.

Just platoon the LHB who struggle vs lefties with RHB or switch hitters on your bench and you won't struggle vs LHP. Don't need to get lesser RH hitters just to protect yourself vs LHP.

May be right, I think the park at least promotes the style further. In terms of the platoon, that too has been a target of mine for the past few seasons. It has helped as the stars of the team's past have been replaced with more above average talent.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

I don't think speed plays well, anywhere. There have been many studies on run correlation in OOTP and speed generally plays out poorly. I like to think of speed as a bonus, but not something I'd focus on.

Perhaps in OOTP, but I've seen too much real baseball to believe speed doesn't play well everywhere. Of course you need to be able to get on base too, but I'll stick with speed over power even if some math may seem to prove otherwise.

Originally Posted by ThePretender

As for power, yes, it's quite expensive. And I wouldn't sell out for power either, but you still need power bats throughout your lineup. Even if you play in a pitcher's park.

I like power too, but I just don't think you need it throughout your lineup, not in the slightest. Look at the best offensive teams in history (runs scored per game) and championship teams, you might think they would be dominated by the best home run hitting teams of all time, but they're really not. The best home run hitting teams are certainly up there, but I'd say most fall in that second tier.

Originally Posted by ThePretender

I think Movement > Stuff > Control. So I would agree to disagree. The worst skill a pitcher can have is low movement because even in pitcher parks they give up too many HR - yes, even in pitcher's parks.

Yeah, we don't agree on this at all. I just don't think the longball hurts me that bad if I'm usually only giving up a few solo shots a game. What drives me absolutely bonkers however are walks and then 2 or 3 run homers. So I want control by far the most, for my SPs at least.

For my relievers I still like control, but I think stuff is critical for them as too often they're brought in when even just a groundball out can score a run so I want as many strikeouts as possible. Movement would be great for relievers too, but stuff comes first for them.

For a SP I don't care much about stuff however. Whether my pitcher gets a guy out with a strikeout or some other way, I usually don't care. Heck, plenty of times a groundball is better than a strikeout because groundballs can lead to double plays, especially early in the game when you're more likely to have slower men on base.

Originally Posted by ThePretender

Player Report for #37 Jerry 'Fossil' Brown is a perfect example. His ratings throughout his career should have made him an ace with a 120-130 ERA+, but because his split vs LH bats, specifically movement, is so low, despite his strong K and BB numbers, he always underachieved. A career 106 ERA+ isn't terrible, but for a guy with ace ratings, it's a massive disappointment. He averaged a 9K/9, and a 2.3 BB/9, fantastic ratings. But that HR rate? Nearly 1.4 per 9.

Sorry, you're going to have to use more convincing stats than ERA+ and a larger sample size than one player's career to convince me of how important movement is.

Originally Posted by ThePretender

Movement plays in every park because it's the most important skill for a pitcher.

And I could say, "being able to make a mean peanut butter and jelly sandwich is the most important skill for a pitcher". But it means nothing without some convincing evidence / logic.

Originally Posted by ThePretender

Stuff? Useful, but stuff without movement is useless. Stuff & control without movement are an awful combination.

Stuff/Movement - Great
Control/movement - Good
Stuff/Control? Generally speaking, pretty worthless, unless supported by at least green movement.

Yeah, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I'll agree with you on the point that some things play well everywhere, but I just can't agree with you on what those some things are.

[ThePretender]

Originally Posted by kq76

Perhaps in OOTP, but I've seen too much real baseball to believe speed doesn't play well everywhere. Of course you need to be able to get on base too, but I'll stick with speed over power even if some math may seem to prove otherwise.

In real life speed matters. In OOTP it's less important. I do particularly hate the response about the math. You're poking your fingers in your ear going "la la la can't hear you" because you believe something to be true, but it's been proven to be less effective in OOTP.

In real life, absolutely. In OOTP, avoid speed. As a tie breaker for comparable players, absolutely. For significantly different players, don't choose the speed guy. He's less effective.

I like power too, but I just don't think you need it throughout your lineup, not in the slightest. Look at the best offensive teams in history (runs scored per game) and championship teams, you might think they would be dominated by the best home run hitting teams of all time, but they're really not. The best home run hitting teams are certainly up there, but I'd say most fall in that second tier.

Because of the spread of talent and ability to recognize talent in OOTP, whether playing against AI or against human opponents, you can get the best of both world, maximizing BA, OBP, HR, and getting players who avoid K and walk a lot. Maybe realism is important to you, but winning is important to me, and I can get power up and down my lineup by trading for it by GMs who undervalue specific players.

Yeah, we don't agree on this at all. I just don't think the longball hurts me that bad if I'm usually only giving up a few solo shots a game. What drives me absolutely bonkers however are walks and then 2 or 3 run homers. So I want control by far the most, for my SPs at least.

Again, the same people who showed speed is overrated did the same for control. The results they found were movement > Stuff >>>> control in terms of what skills mattered to successful pitchers in OOTP. As long as control is over a minimum (50 in a 1-100 league) I'm not as concerned with it as I am movement/stuff.

Essentially, I'd be fine with a stuff-movement-control combo of 51-80-80, or 80-80-51, but I would not be ok with 80-51-80. The first guy would do well, but he'd be a bit dependant on his defence. The second guy would do well. The third player (80-50-80) would likely be replacement level or below it.

Walks don't always come around to score, but they always score on a HR.

Sorry, you're going to have to use more convincing stats than ERA+ and a larger sample size than one player's career to convince me of how important movement is.

Oh, I wasn't expecting one guy to convince you. He was just an easy example to point out. But the same study that found out about speed being overrated showed that movement was far more important than control, and slightly better than stuff. The point is that control isn't as important as you make it out to be.

And I could say, "being able to make a mean peanut butter and jelly sandwich is the most important skill for a pitcher". But it means nothing without some convincing evidence.

Wish I could find the thread, but the guy did an awesome job showing how awful control/speed are and how movement is tied with stuff for most important stat.

Play however you want, but everytime someone has looked into it they've found how overrated control and speed are.