What's your take?

[farmkidD2]

For years, I've wondered something in my head and it has never really made complete sense to me.

Why is it that if you have a hitters ballpark, the rule of thumb is to always specialize hitters over pitchers and vice-versa. On the surface it seems like a simple question, but I have struggled with this concept for as long as I've been a baseball fan.

For example, if you built a stellar pitching staff, but had a hitters ballpark, well, then wouldn't your pitchers still out-perform the competition and theoretically still have a good chance of shutting down a visiting team at home? Sure I understand that if you invest heavily in a pitching staff, you will not be able to invest as much in a lineup but why should that matter? Wouldn't a good hitters park make average hitters slightly better?

I've never understood this mentality. Can someone maybe throw something in the box that I'm not thinking of?

[akw4572]

I think the Reds are a good example, and I've thought about this as well. GABP used to be thought of as strictly hitter launching pad. Depending on what metric you use, that has changed to varying degrees. Is it a product of better pitcher, or worse hitting? OR both? It's a great question, but I tend to think the Reds pitching has gotten a lot better.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by farmkidD2

For years, I've wondered something in my head and it has never really made complete sense to me.

Why is it that if you have a hitters ballpark, the rule of thumb is to always specialize hitters over pitchers and vice-versa. On the surface it seems like a simple question, but I have struggled with this concept for as long as I've been a baseball fan.

For example, if you built a stellar pitching staff, but had a hitters ballpark, well, then wouldn't your pitchers still out-perform the competition and theoretically still have a good chance of shutting down a visiting team at home? Sure I understand that if you invest heavily in a pitching staff, you will not be able to invest as much in a lineup but why should that matter? Wouldn't a good hitters park make average hitters slightly better?

I've never understood this mentality. Can someone maybe throw something in the box that I'm not thinking of?

i have always thought the way you do. But I always believe in pitching first if possible.

[farmkidD2]

Originally Posted by akw4572

I think the Reds are a good example, and I've thought about this as well. GABP used to be thought of as strictly hitter launching pad. Depending on what metric you use, that has changed to varying degrees. Is it a product of better pitcher, or worse hitting? OR both? It's a great question, but I tend to think the Reds pitching has gotten a lot better.

My understanding of real life ball park factors is that similar to what are saying, they can be slightly under/over-inflated depending on what kind of team is built.

While I agree with you that the Reds pitching has gotten better, it cannot physically change the actual real-life park factor of GABP. Because of the volatility you mention, it can be tough to say what a ballpark is on paper though except for a few obvious ones(Coors field) or something like the Wrigley where they have decades of data to track what happened there. I was talking more about in-game strategy though.

In OOTP, there is a park factor that does not change over time. From my understanding of how that works(please correct me if I'm wrong), say it calculates the ball was hit 400 ft, then if you had a HR park factor of .9, it would make the ball travel 360 ft. I know that is not EXACTLY how it works, but basically, it calculates the result, then modifies that result slightly based on a teams ballpark.

My question is since that happens to every type of batter(good or bad), and every type of pitcher, why does it matter in OOTP which team you build. I'm talking about how most teams have to build here. I know the Yankees can buy and keep the best of everything, but say you are a smaller market team and you had a slugger's park. Wouldn't a viable strategy be to go against conventional wisdom and get a good pitching staff that could keep HR in the park, and then your mediocre hitters would also have slightly better batting numbers at home.

Isn't it all the same difference? Has anybody tried something like this, or maybe someone can point out a flaw in my logic there that I haven't thought of.

[farmkidD2]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

i have always thought the way you do. But I always believe in pitching first if possible.

What extreme do you take it to? I have also believed something similar and wanted to do something to the crazy side of things. In my most recent inaugural draft, I drafted 5 pitchers first just to see what would happen.

I went back and looked at the draft logs, and by the end of the fifth round the most another team had drafted was 3 pitchers, most had 2 though. Maybe things will eventually even out, but my starting rotation isn't the best statistically. It probably has something to do with park factors(the Giants are in first), but I would have thought my team would be noticeably better in pitching(starters at least). They aren't. I guess this has something to do with diminishing returns, where since me drafting my 4th or 5th starter that early didn't make me that much better, because my first 3 pitchers were already amazing. I don't know though, I would have thought I would still be better then I am.

[kingtut313]

having a tremendous pitching staff will be good in any ballpark but having them in a "pitchers park" will give them that extra little bit of an advantage.
having them in a "hitters park" will give them that extra little bit of a disadvantage but its not to say that they wont still be great.

i think you are putting too much value into how much the advantage is on particular ballparks. there isnt really a ballpark that makes so much of a difference that you would change the make-up of your team to coincide with it.

[farmkidD2]

Originally Posted by kingtut313

i think you are putting too much value into how much the advantage is on particular ballparks. there isnt really a ballpark that makes so much of a difference that you would change the make-up of your team to coincide with it.

It isn't as much as what I value as what I perceive to be the general rule of thumb that I either hear people say on the forums. I can't point to one specific instance, it is just what I picked up on with my years playing.

Originally Posted by kingtut313

having a tremendous pitching staff will be good in any ballpark but having them in a "pitchers park" will give them that extra little bit of an advantage.
having them in a "hitters park" will give them that extra little bit of a disadvantage but its not to say that they wont still be great.

Do you think it is possible that it is something like an exponential rate of return? For example, a great power hitter may hit 10 more HR in a heavily weighted hitters park, while an average hitter may only hit 1 more HR? Maybe this is the reasoning behind this thinking?

[kingtut313]

Originally Posted by farmkidD2

Do you think it is possible that it is something like an exponential rate of return? For example, a great power hitter may hit 10 more HR in a heavily weighted hitters park, while an average hitter may only hit 1 more HR? Maybe this is the reasoning behind this thinking?

i know exactly what you mean and sure there is some advantage but i dont believe it is to such an extreme that i would build my team to accomodate it. i know there is people who believe otherwise (many so) but i am just not one.

EDIT: fyi- i am speaking on my views in real life.. i am a huge newbie on ootp and am only in my third year with a small budget club

[injury log]

Would need to think about how this ought to really work in practice, but there might be a kind of 'compounding effect'. If you increase something by 20% twice, you increase it by 44%, not by 40% (1.2 times 1.2 = 1.44). So perhaps if a batter has 20% better than average power, and plays in a park that boosts power 20%, his power plays more than 40% better than average.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by farmkidD2

For years, I've wondered something in my head and it has never really made complete sense to me.

Why is it that if you have a hitters ballpark, the rule of thumb is to always specialize hitters over pitchers and vice-versa. On the surface it seems like a simple question, but I have struggled with this concept for as long as I've been a baseball fan.

For example, if you built a stellar pitching staff, but had a hitters ballpark, well, then wouldn't your pitchers still out-perform the competition and theoretically still have a good chance of shutting down a visiting team at home? Sure I understand that if you invest heavily in a pitching staff, you will not be able to invest as much in a lineup but why should that matter? Wouldn't a good hitters park make average hitters slightly better?

I've never understood this mentality. Can someone maybe throw something in the box that I'm not thinking of?

Rockies tried to compile a good pitching team with people like Kile & Mike Hampton and they got killed. Kevin Ritz & Ubaldo Jimenez are just a few pitchers who had success in Coors.
Atlanta-Fulton & Turner both favored hitters over pitching but we know what type of pitchers they had. Depends. It is nice if you can do both. Personally I focus on my stadium and build to that strength. The Cell favors offense so while i do concentrate on offense I try to also get good defenders which will help even mediocre SP.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by kingtut313

h
i think you are putting too much value into how much the advantage is on particular ballparks. there isnt really a ballpark that makes so much of a difference that you would change the make-up of your team to coincide with it.

Personally I disagree with this. Why have 8 left handed hitters in Wrigley when no lefty has hit 30 HR there in over 30 years? Why put 9 right handed hitters in Old Yankee or even New Yankee when there have only been a handful of righties to hit more then 30 HR there since the 50's. Wrigley's strength is to have a pull rightie like Sosa or a guy who can spray the ball like Derek Lee. Ruth, Mantle, Maris, Reggie, Bernie, Mattingly have all had success in Yankee stadium because they can take advantage of the short porch in RF and are lefties or switch hitters.
Pretty much any contending team has several players that will cater to that park's strengths.
Phillies were good a few years back because of the amount of lefties like Utley & Howard who can pull the ball.
Only guys that I can think of right now who were good for the team they played for who were opposite of what the hitting strength of their park are: A-Rod, Barry Bonds. Thats all I can think of right now. I am sure there is 5 more in the last 20 years. Ortiz is another one that comes to mind, but less sure on that one.

[JPL86]

Originally Posted by farmkidD2

For years, I've wondered something in my head and it has never really made complete sense to me.

Why is it that if you have a hitters ballpark, the rule of thumb is to always specialize hitters over pitchers and vice-versa. On the surface it seems like a simple question, but I have struggled with this concept for as long as I've been a baseball fan.

For example, if you built a stellar pitching staff, but had a hitters ballpark, well, then wouldn't your pitchers still out-perform the competition and theoretically still have a good chance of shutting down a visiting team at home? Sure I understand that if you invest heavily in a pitching staff, you will not be able to invest as much in a lineup but why should that matter? Wouldn't a good hitters park make average hitters slightly better?

I've never understood this mentality. Can someone maybe throw something in the box that I'm not thinking of?

I always thought this way as well, until the Mets moved to Citi Field. Being a Mets fan, I watched David Wright struggle to hit HR's in a "Pitchers Ballpark". As the year went on it seemed to affect him more and more. As a guy whom the Mets depended upon to hit for power, this lack of power seem to affect him mentally. His numbers sufferred. He hit for less average, power, and strike outs soared. Whereas it did not affect guys who were not known for their power.

I guess a Pitchers Ballpark might affect hitters that are expected to produce big offensive numbers, just as a Hitters Ballpark might affect pitchers that are expected to be at the top of the league in Pitchers Stats.

Again, this is just a theory on my part, but I can see how this affected David Wright, and may affect other players as well.

[tomwolf2008]

Originally Posted by JPL86

I always thought this way as well, until the Mets moved to Citi Field. Being a Mets fan, I watched David Wright struggle to hit HR's in a "Pitchers Ballpark". As the year went on it seemed to affect him more and more. As a guy whom the Mets depended upon to hit for power, this lack of power seem to affect him mentally. His numbers sufferred. He hit for less average, power, and strike outs soared. Whereas it did not affect guys who were not known for their power.

I guess a Pitchers Ballpark might affect hitters that are expected to produce big offensive numbers, just as a Hitters Ballpark might affect pitchers that are expected to be at the top of the league in Pitchers Stats.

Again, this is just a theory on my part, but I can see how this affected David Wright, and may affect other players as well.

Well, the stadium affected Wright about a year, he has 6.9 and 5.8 fWAR season for the past two years so it seems to not affecting him anymore. Wright is still as good as he usually was, the only thing went down is the HR (understandably) and I'll argue that stadium is not the only reason for it.

[tomwolf2008]

Go back to OP's question, I contend that Coors is an extreme example because the thin air greatly reduces effectiveness of Changeup, Curve, or any other pitches that uses lifting/friction of air (cutter, slider, etc.). In short, it reduces the effectiveness of almost every pitch. Compound the problem, to counter the HR, Coors Field is hugely built, and there is a limit to human fielding range, and there are bounded to be more balls hit to the area where fielders can't get to. So I think Coors Field tends to be extremely unfavorable to pitchers, so it make more sense to have a loaded lineup (which Rockies doesn't currently have) that will outslug its opponent.

[JPL86]

Originally Posted by tomwolf2008

Well, the stadium affected Wright about a year, he has 6.9 and 5.8 fWAR season for the past two years so it seems to not affecting him anymore. Wright is still as good as he usually was, the only thing went down is the HR (understandably) and I'll argue that stadium is not the only reason for it.

Yes his last two seasons, as you stated, are back or close to normal. However, that did coincide with the Mets bringing in the OF walls considerably (also they lowered the hight of the LF fence).

Funny, but as soon as they made those adjustments to Citifield, David starting hitting more HR's and his overall batting (AVG, and other stats) came up as well.

I still say it was mostly mental with him.

[farmkidD2]

Originally Posted by tomwolf2008

Go back to OP's question, I contend that Coors is an extreme example because the thin air greatly reduces effectiveness of Changeup, Curve, or any other pitches that uses lifting/friction of air (cutter, slider, etc.). In short, it reduces the effectiveness of almost every pitch. Compound the problem, to counter the HR, Coors Field is hugely built, and there is a limit to human fielding range, and there are bounded to be more balls hit to the area where fielders can't get to. So I think Coors Field tends to be extremely unfavorable to pitchers, so it make more sense to have a loaded lineup (which Rockies doesn't currently have) that will outslug its opponent.

I used Coors Field as an example because it has some obvious park factors that affect every player, just as the park factors in OOTP do. I know that in Coors Field, good pitchers may struggle, but similar to JPL86 said about David Wright, there may also be some other factors(such as overpitching to compensate or thinking too much) that contribute to poor pitching that are not necessarily in this game.

Have any of you guys ever built a great pitching team(in OOTP) in a heavily weighted hitters park and had consistent success or know of anyone who has? Or is the best strategy just to just go with a good mix.

[farmkidD2]

Originally Posted by The Game

Personally I disagree with this. Why have 8 left handed hitters in Wrigley when no lefty has hit 30 HR there in over 30 years? Why put 9 right handed hitters in Old Yankee or even New Yankee when there have only been a handful of righties to hit more then 30 HR there since the 50's. Wrigley's strength is to have a pull rightie like Sosa or a guy who can spray the ball like Derek Lee.

Huh, I've been a lifelong Cubs fan and somehow I've failed to realize this. But yet, what do you think about this then?



I only remembered this because I am the Cubs and just did an inaugural draft. I drafted good LH SP and good LH power bats. Am I interpreting the HR park factors backwards, or is this just not true to life then?

[ihatenames]

Originally Posted by farmkidD2

Huh, I've been a lifelong Cubs fan and somehow I've failed to realize this. But yet, what do you think about this then?



I only remembered this because I am the Cubs and just did an inaugural draft. I drafted good LH SP and good LH power bats. Am I interpreting the HR park factors backwards, or is this just not true to life then?

I'd say the homerun factors are backwards. The right center game at Wrigley is extremely short as is dead center field. Yet the Center-right field gap is a good 400 feet. One of the reasons there hasn't been a ton of plus 30 homerun lefties at Wrigley.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by farmkidD2

Huh, I've been a lifelong Cubs fan and somehow I've failed to realize this. But yet, what do you think about this then?



I only remembered this because I am the Cubs and just did an inaugural draft. I drafted good LH SP and good LH power bats. Am I interpreting the HR park factors backwards, or is this just not true to life then?

Dont know what to say, mine is not a whole lot different. RL Cubs have not had a 30 HR guy since Billy Williams. Pena would have done it had he not missed so many games. He had 28. I have a 10 power guy who has 29 August 1st.
I use Wrigley for 2 other fictional leagues and only had Babe Ruth hit more then 30 in Wrigley. He had 31 the same age he hit 60 IRL. Wind tends to blow to LF not RF. OOTP does a good job of having this be true to RL.

I use the factors from Pstrickets set. I use 2012.

[Carlton]

Great thing about a "hitter's park" nowadays is that it can easily be negated by the type of pitcher's you get.

Sinkerballers, Splitter, Cutter? It becomes a pitcher's park
Strikeout pitchers? It becomes a neutral park

For a hitter's park, depending if it isn't like Fenway where a LH hitter has the advantage over RH I'd grab a cheap power hitter who hits .22

Conversly for a pitcher's park, you put in the 20's Pirates, 80's Cardinals, it becomes a hitters park


and farmkid I do not understand those park factors

BUT I have seen park factors inversed (ALOT) and incorrect (1930's type park factors)

In a case of the former
Baker Bowl (Huntingdon Street Baseball Grounds)usually gives a great HR to LHers but...there was a 60ft wall, which increased LH Batting average and doubles, but killed triples and dimished HRs even if it was only 272ft

It was RHers who benefitted from Baker Bowl with the low wall and 340 ft LF