Matching Team to Park

thales · 04-08-2011, 10:31 PM

I was wondering if someone could help me. I would like some advice on matching a team with its ball park. If I wanted a team with good defense, good base running, good contact, what should I have my ball park look like (how should I adjust the ball park parameters)? Also, what type of pitchers would work best in a field like this?

ZJYoung · 04-09-2011, 02:25 AM

You would want a big park-- think Petco, AT&T, Safeco field, etc... As for pitchers, most pitchers do well here, but flyball pitchers will do better in these parks than anywhere else. If your team is built for speed though, ground ball pitchers are probably best.

Chicagofan76 · 04-09-2011, 05:31 AM

no ballparks affect your overall defense and baserunning...other then the fact a smaller ballpark can give up more 2B & 3B.....u want a ballpark for pitching go with Sportsman park....or Seals.

Curtis · 04-09-2011, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZJYoung

You would want a big park-- think Petco, AT&T, Safeco field, etc... As for pitchers, most pitchers do well here, but flyball pitchers will do better in these parks than anywhere else. If your team is built for speed though, ground ball pitchers are probably best.

I generally agree, though if your team speed translates to high outfield ranges, flyball pitchers would still be good.

Look at your infield/outfield defense balance. If your infielders (especially 2nd/3rd/ss) have more range than your outfielders, then you should emphasize ground balls. If your outfielders have better ranges and you are in a low home run park, I would prefer flyball pitchers.

endgame · 04-09-2011, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curtis

I generally agree, though if your team speed translates to high outfield ranges, flyball pitchers would still be good.

Look at your infield/outfield defense balance. If your infielders (especially 2nd/3rd/ss) have more range than your outfielders, then you should emphasize ground balls. If your outfielders have better ranges and you are in a low home run park, I would prefer flyball pitchers.

Hmmm...interesting thoughts. Not sure I've ever examined those kinds of comparisons and effect. I'll be looking for it now, though. Thanks.

RchW · 04-09-2011, 03:17 PM

What fraction of consideration do you think RL MLB teams give to park factors?

I'd submit that it is minuscule with core players and may become a tie breaker with certain marginal players where you might look at some obscure stat to differentiate between seemingly equal bench or bullpen players.

Curtis · 04-09-2011, 03:39 PM

It depends on the park and the management team.

The Mets went for speed and defence their first two years in their new park (pitcher-friendly). I know, Jason Bay is hardly a speed demon, but he turned out to be an above-average fielding left fielder.

Anyway, year three and new management, and now they're emphasizing offense over defence*. Likewise the pitching. Citi is a big park with high walls, so the old GM thought they could get by with four flyball starters. The new guy has nothing but groundball pitchers coming up through the minors. (The real problem wasn't the flyballs, it was too many walks.)

* = I say that, but right now with Bay injured their 1-4 outfielders are all primarily defensive. It's only in the infield (2nd/3rd/c) where they're emphasizing offense. So, that kind of looks like what I described above: Big park, flyball pitchers, wide-ranging outfielders, good hitting infielders. And liberal use of defensive replacements and pinch hitters, starting in the seventh inning or earlier.

endgame · 04-09-2011, 04:02 PM

I'm thinking, perhaps wrongly, it's most frequent consideration occurs during evaluation of a potential acquistion. How 'that' player will perform in 'our' park, etc.... results in a factor that may or may not tip the scales.

RchW · 04-09-2011, 04:22 PM

Agreed, but as you say the emphasis is on players coming into the system. I can bet that if a superior player not suited to the park becomes available, he would be acquired despite the defect. Talent/performance should always override park factors unless you have a choice of two nearly equal players. When developing prospects you have that choice

Exhibit 1. The Phillies correctly pursued and acquired Cliff Lee, a definitive fly ball pitcher in a small park.

Edit:

Looking at Coors Field, Yankee Stadium and US Cellular, you could make the case that the extreme HR factors would affect some decisions. I think that would be true for Coors all the time. Not sure about the other two.

prodgers · 04-09-2011, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RchW

What fraction of consideration do you think RL MLB teams give to park factors?

Actually IRL they think about it a lot, but usually backwards. They pay a bunch of money for a guy they want, and then pay a bunch more money to try to "fix" the stadium. It's been that way throughout baseball history.

Afino · 04-09-2011, 10:55 PM

If I have an offensive park, I would get more quality pitchers, preferably with a high GB rate. Then defenders with preferably good range to swallow ground balls. Then you get a big-time outfield and DH and allow the park to prop up the otherwise mediocre offensive performers you're putting in the infield.

Pitching and defense always wins.

RchW · 04-09-2011, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Afino

If I have an offensive park, I would get more quality pitchers, preferably with a high GB rate. Then defenders with preferably good range to swallow ground balls. Then you get a big-time outfield and DH and allow the park to prop up the otherwise mediocre offensive performers you're putting in the infield.

Pitching and defense always wins.

Not in Coors Field.

Afino · 04-10-2011, 09:11 PM

Coors Field is an extreme example - most parks in OOTP are EITHER 2B/3B heavy or HR heavy. Coors Field is both, and the thin air doesn't help.

Yes, in that instance, it's not going to work.

thales · 04-28-2011, 09:25 PM

Hey,

This all sounds great. But to but a specific question on the table --- what numbers would you use in OOTP to make the field fit a team that would like to go with speed vs power, baserunning versus stealing, on base percentage vs average, etc. Looking for a team with with good defense, especially range.

olivertheorem · 04-29-2011, 05:09 PM

I don't have the game in front of me (and I'm far from an expert), but I'd think you'd want to decrease the HR factors & increase the 2B/3B ones. If you have good OF defense, it should mitigate the opponents' 2B/3B some, but it would play up your speed/baserunning/obp build while hampering everyone else's power.

At least, that's my two cents.

DanP68 · 05-28-2011, 11:44 PM

I agree with most of what has been suggested here. My team's park is based on Petco, and I emphasize building a roster with good defensive position players and solid pitching. However even though I have good range ratings across the outfield, I still prefer ground ball pitchers whenever possible. Even in Petco, if the wind is blowing out you can still have a big home run day. But I've never seen a ground ball go for a home run.

When evaluating free agents, I like to filter by fielding ratings and then try to find undervalued hitters among the pack who have solid wOBA's. In many cases I will look for splits. It is sometimes very cheap to pick up a solid fielder who is not a very good overall hitter, but happens to mash righties or lefties. If you get lucky you can find a cheap platoon. This is what the Rays did in 2008 in RF with Gabe Gross and other outfielders.

Tram2Whitaker · 05-29-2011, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RchW

What fraction of consideration do you think RL MLB teams give to park factors?

I'd submit that it is minuscule with core players and may become a tie breaker with certain marginal players where you might look at some obscure stat to differentiate between seemingly equal bench or bullpen players.

The Detroit Tigers, playing in Tiger Stadium, were allowing tons of HRs (particularly to Mark McGuire), and were finding it hard to develop and keep pitchers. (Kevin Ritz did better in Colorado than in Detroit)

The solution was the spacious confines of Comerica Park. Homers came extremely hard if at all, culminating in the Juan Gonzalez drama. In an effort to appease the free agent (hoping to re-sign him) they moved in the left field wall. Not good enough. Moved it in again. Then they moved in the right field wall. Now the stadium plays as a relatively neutral park.

Jagger · 05-29-2011, 12:21 PM

I keep seeing a preference for groundball pitchers and they certainly have their place. But flyball pitchers have certain advantages over groundball pitchers. The flyball is an easy out. The groundball is a considerably more difficult out. Of course, the flyball turns into a homerun easier than a groundball. However if you have ever been singled to death by groundballs due to a weak or average infield as I have, the flyball can sometimes be a pretty desirable and easy out...especially when the wind is blowing in from center or left field. There are certainly times when I will take a flyball pitcher over a groundball pitcher especially if I have a weak to average overall defense.

04-08-2011, 10:31 PM	#1
thales Bat Boy Join Date: May 2008 Location: Nantucket Island Posts: 10	Matching Team to Park I was wondering if someone could help me. I would like some advice on matching a team with its ball park. If I wanted a team with good defense, good base running, good contact, what should I have my ball park look like (how should I adjust the ball park parameters)? Also, what type of pitchers would work best in a field like this?

04-09-2011, 03:17 PM	#6
RchW Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Toronto ON by way of Glasgow UK Posts: 15,629	What fraction of consideration do you think RL MLB teams give to park factors? I'd submit that it is minuscule with core players and may become a tie breaker with certain marginal players where you might look at some obscure stat to differentiate between seemingly equal bench or bullpen players. __________________ Cheers RichW If you’re looking for a good cause to donate money to please consider a Donation to Parkinson’s Canada. It may help me have a better future and if not me, someone else. Thanks. “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Frank Wilhoit

04-09-2011, 04:02 PM	#8
endgame Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 16,842	I'm thinking, perhaps wrongly, it's most frequent consideration occurs during evaluation of a potential acquistion. How 'that' player will perform in 'our' park, etc.... results in a factor that may or may not tip the scales. __________________ "Try again. Fail again. Fail better." -- Samuel Beckett _____________________________________________

04-09-2011, 04:22 PM	#9
RchW Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Toronto ON by way of Glasgow UK Posts: 15,629	Agreed, but as you say the emphasis is on players coming into the system. I can bet that if a superior player not suited to the park becomes available, he would be acquired despite the defect. Talent/performance should always override park factors unless you have a choice of two nearly equal players. When developing prospects you have that choice Exhibit 1. The Phillies correctly pursued and acquired Cliff Lee, a definitive fly ball pitcher in a small park. Edit: Looking at Coors Field, Yankee Stadium and US Cellular, you could make the case that the extreme HR factors would affect some decisions. I think that would be true for Coors all the time. Not sure about the other two. __________________ Cheers RichW If you’re looking for a good cause to donate money to please consider a Donation to Parkinson’s Canada. It may help me have a better future and if not me, someone else. Thanks. “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Frank Wilhoit Last edited by RchW; 04-09-2011 at 10:48 PM.

04-09-2011, 10:55 PM	#11
Afino Hall Of Famer Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Buffalo, NY Posts: 3,828	If I have an offensive park, I would get more quality pitchers, preferably with a high GB rate. Then defenders with preferably good range to swallow ground balls. Then you get a big-time outfield and DH and allow the park to prop up the otherwise mediocre offensive performers you're putting in the infield. Pitching and defense always wins. __________________ GUBA: Moscow Enforcers

04-09-2011, 02:25 AM	#2
ZJYoung Bat Boy Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 7	You would want a big park-- think Petco, AT&T, Safeco field, etc... As for pitchers, most pitchers do well here, but flyball pitchers will do better in these parks than anywhere else. If your team is built for speed though, ground ball pitchers are probably best.

04-09-2011, 05:31 AM	#3
Chicagofan76 Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Diamond, IL Posts: 6,339 Infractions: 2/2 (3)	no ballparks affect your overall defense and baserunning...other then the fact a smaller ballpark can give up more 2B & 3B.....u want a ballpark for pitching go with Sportsman park....or Seals.

04-09-2011, 03:39 PM	#7
Curtis Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Watertown, New York Posts: 4,567	It depends on the park and the management team. The Mets went for speed and defence their first two years in their new park (pitcher-friendly). I know, Jason Bay is hardly a speed demon, but he turned out to be an above-average fielding left fielder. Anyway, year three and new management, and now they're emphasizing offense over defence. Likewise the pitching. Citi is a big park with high walls, so the old GM thought they could get by with four flyball starters. The new guy has nothing but groundball pitchers coming up through the minors. (The real problem wasn't the flyballs, it was too many walks.) = I say that, but right now with Bay injured their 1-4 outfielders are all primarily defensive. It's only in the infield (2nd/3rd/c) where they're emphasizing offense. So, that kind of looks like what I described above: Big park, flyball pitchers, wide-ranging outfielders, good hitting infielders. And liberal use of defensive replacements and pinch hitters, starting in the seventh inning or earlier.

04-10-2011, 09:11 PM	#13
Afino Hall Of Famer Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Buffalo, NY Posts: 3,828	Coors Field is an extreme example - most parks in OOTP are EITHER 2B/3B heavy or HR heavy. Coors Field is both, and the thin air doesn't help. Yes, in that instance, it's not going to work. __________________ GUBA: Moscow Enforcers

04-28-2011, 09:25 PM	#14
thales Bat Boy Join Date: May 2008 Location: Nantucket Island Posts: 10	Hey, This all sounds great. But to but a specific question on the table --- what numbers would you use in OOTP to make the field fit a team that would like to go with speed vs power, baserunning versus stealing, on base percentage vs average, etc. Looking for a team with with good defense, especially range.

04-29-2011, 05:09 PM	#15
olivertheorem All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,919	I don't have the game in front of me (and I'm far from an expert), but I'd think you'd want to decrease the HR factors & increase the 2B/3B ones. If you have good OF defense, it should mitigate the opponents' 2B/3B some, but it would play up your speed/baserunning/obp build while hampering everyone else's power. At least, that's my two cents.

05-28-2011, 11:44 PM	#16
DanP68 Minors (Double A) Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 151	I agree with most of what has been suggested here. My team's park is based on Petco, and I emphasize building a roster with good defensive position players and solid pitching. However even though I have good range ratings across the outfield, I still prefer ground ball pitchers whenever possible. Even in Petco, if the wind is blowing out you can still have a big home run day. But I've never seen a ground ball go for a home run. When evaluating free agents, I like to filter by fielding ratings and then try to find undervalued hitters among the pack who have solid wOBA's. In many cases I will look for splits. It is sometimes very cheap to pick up a solid fielder who is not a very good overall hitter, but happens to mash righties or lefties. If you get lucky you can find a cheap platoon. This is what the Rays did in 2008 in RF with Gabe Gross and other outfielders.

05-29-2011, 12:21 PM	#18
Jagger Major Leagues Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 308	I keep seeing a preference for groundball pitchers and they certainly have their place. But flyball pitchers have certain advantages over groundball pitchers. The flyball is an easy out. The groundball is a considerably more difficult out. Of course, the flyball turns into a homerun easier than a groundball. However if you have ever been singled to death by groundballs due to a weak or average infield as I have, the flyball can sometimes be a pretty desirable and easy out...especially when the wind is blowing in from center or left field. There are certainly times when I will take a flyball pitcher over a groundball pitcher especially if I have a weak to average overall defense. Last edited by Jagger; 05-29-2011 at 12:23 PM.