Stadium Edit

[Kushiel]

I am sitting here this morning drinking my coffee and gnashing my teeth waiting for the league download, So I am getting my team ready for AA this week.

I did not want a "tricked up" stadium although I have nothing at all against them. The reason is we Ranger fans felt the porch was designed for Rafael Palmeiro when Globe Life was built and then he was gone. So it did not work out. I have not edited a stadium the first 2 weeks but I used a different MLB stadium that "fit" what my team was as it has evolved. Like everybody else I have been looking for all the little things for an edge and will do so upon release.

But this morning I set all my park factors to 1.000 so when you play me, you can see what your team really is.Conversely, I will see your line ups and how they perform in a neutral atmosphere. I plan for this to be another step in my learning curve to help me compete at harder levels as PT evolves.

Have fun and good luck!

P.S. I just seen I am in Delta Tau for AA.

[MightyVotto]

These factors do make a difference. In my Rookie league two weeks ago, I randomized my ballpark and got an extreme pitcher's park. My pitchers were strong that season, but my offense was awful. I had 70+ contact hitters who couldn't hit .250. I had one 20 HR guy. My team was competitive nonetheless.

Last weak, I adjusted these factors to be more like Dodger Stadium. Pitching was still decent but wound up being my weak point. My offense was much more normal. My team was still competitive.

I do wonder if this should be a randomized setting in PT, though. You should be assigned a ballpark and then have to build a team to fit it. Being able to manipulate the factors doesn't seem right to me. I wonder if players will find optimal ballpark factors eventually and just go with those.

[Josquin]

Originally Posted by MightyVotto

Being able to manipulate the factors doesn't seem right to me. I wonder if players will find optimal ballpark factors eventually and just go with those.

I also dislike the "extreme lefties" tricked up ballparks. Feels too arcade-ish for me.

[zrog2000]

Originally Posted by Josquin

I also dislike the "extreme lefties" tricked up ballparks. Feels too arcade-ish for me.

I'd actually be for a random park to adjust your team to.

[Josquin]

Originally Posted by zrog2000

I'd actually be for a random park to adjust your team to.

It would certainly encourage building balanced and flexible card collections, instead of every team stocking up on the same 15 lefties.

[acclaim99]

I'm becoming not a fan of editing ballparks... seems like you can mess with other teams too much.. I don't have much experience in it, but I like the idea of a general ballpark guidelines... why should I have to worry about what stadium im playing in that will mess with my lineups/stats there..... besides the monster in Boston, and the short RF there or in NI (I forget) it seems all the stadiums have the same distance to the walls.

But, I've never looked at it enough to understand it, but I feel the game should assign you the dimensions of the ballpark for your season, and you have to work with it. Not making your park as hitter or pitcher friendly as you want.

But that might just be me.

**edit** If anyone would like to explain it to me, please, fell free.

[Zorro]

I think all the ball parks should be the same as default. 1.00 for everything. Have the best team win.. I adjusted my park the first season we played and I won the whole thing and got my ring and did not have 1 platinum or gold player. It is to easy to win if you adjust the park.

[Josquin]

Originally Posted by Zorro

I think all the ball parks should be the same as default. 1.00 for everything. Have the best team win.. I adjusted my park the first season we played and I won the whole thing and got my ring and did not have 1 platinum or gold player. It is to easy to win if you adjust the park.

I don't mind strategies that help you win with cheaper cards. Those would be quite welcome, in fact. But in this case, it forces everyone else to use the same strategy in order to compete. And that makes it much less interesting and fun.

[One Post Wonder]

Real life teams adjust their parks to suit their personnel, so I don't see a problem with it.

3 thoughts though:

1. The window in which you can change your park seems too small IMO. I suspect a lot of people who might have wanted to change their parks miss the window. I wouldn't modify my ballpark, but I've never caught a window.

2. IRL you cannot build a park that prevents lefties or righties from doing anything. It's not physically possible. If you build a park that stops them doing one thing, it makes it more likely that they'll be able to do another thing. So you pull out the fences - that makes it less likely to allow a home run but more likely to allow singles, doubles, and triples. It's one or the other.

3. Ballpark modifications in general really aren't fleshed out enough for something that plays such a big role in this game. What about long grass for bunts? Big foul areas? Hitter visibility? Gap power modifications should be separate for both sides, too.

I've always believed that modifying your team to fit a weird stadium pushes you closer to 81-81 as opposed to closer to a championship. It's good if your team is bad, but a hinderance if you've got a .600, .650 team. I've got a couple of those guys in my division this year, and I'm interested to see how they do when they don't have a talent advantage over their competition.

[Josquin]

Originally Posted by One Post Wonder

Real life teams adjust their parks to suit their personnel, so I don't see a problem with it.

Unlike in PT, in real life there are constraints on the personnel you can put on the field day in and day out. Players have salaries and contracts, can only play for one team at a time, get injured, get older, and retire. So any advantage gained by modifying the park is likely to be limited and short-lived.

Originally Posted by One Post Wonder

I've always believed that modifying your team to fit a weird stadium pushes you closer to 81-81 as opposed to closer to a championship. It's good if your team is bad, but a hinderance if you've got a .600, .650 team. I've got a couple of those guys in my division this year, and I'm interested to see how they do when they don't have a talent advantage over their competition.

Let's assume that all teams in a league are equal in talent. Under normal circumstances, they'd be expected to play each other to a .500 draw. Now assume that one of the teams has an extreme ballpark and lineup. Suppose that the ballpark advantage allows them to win 66% of their home games. On the road, they can switch to a less extreme lineup and still win close to 50% of their games (because all the other teams are using "fair" ballparks). Clearly, if the other teams in the league don't counter that strategy, the extreme team always comes out on top. So this strategy forces everyone else to do the same in order to compete.

[One Post Wonder]

Originally Posted by Josquin

Unlike in PT, in real life there are constraints on the personnel you can put on the field day in and day out. Players have salaries and contracts, can only play for one team at a time, get injured, get older, and retire. So any advantage gained by modifying the park is likely to be limited and short-lived.

Modifying a parks playing dimensions doesn't take much effort. Teams will bring in the fences one year, and move them out the next. I don't know if it is still commonly done, but it certainly used to be. Teams that did/do this are usually bad teams who are trying to emphasize the one or two offensive things which they do well.

Originally Posted by Josquin

On the road, they can switch to a less extreme lineup and still win close to 50% of their games (because all the other teams are using "fair" ballparks).

It's tough to be able to switch a lineup in that way. You've got 25 roster spots. 11 or 12 are pitchers, 8 are your regular position players. You need a backup catcher and 2 utility players. So you might have 3 roster spots which you can play with, and generally the people you're switching in are not going to have the same level of talent as a regular. And if you're using those roster spots for this strategy, you're not able to use them for anything else.

One of the teams like this in my league, he's only got 2 players who don't hit right handed. When he comes to my park, he's going to be giving me the platoon advantage in nearly every matchup. On top of that, he can't pinch hit and his in-game roster moves are going to be seriously limited. I can't see him beating me in my park any more than I'm beating him in his.

If you've got a good team which would ordinarily go .650, it doesn't seem to make sense to give your opponent an extra advantage when you go on the road. At home you're going to win most of your games even with a neutral park with a good team, so you're not going to gain too many more games with a weird setup. On the road, you've transformed your good team into an average team because of what I've said above.

Now if you've got a .350 team, those advantages at home are going to make you win games you wouldn't have won. And on the road it won't matter much because you were going to lose most of those games regardless.

So that's what I'm talking about with the idea of pushing you towards .500.

And don't forget, there's some bias in PT because owners who are modding their ballparks are more active than normal, so their records will seem higher than the norm. Also, the only ones talking about the strategy are the guys who are winning.

We'll see. I'll want to see how I hold up against these teams this year, with my neutral park and average talent.

[genuvar]

I really liked the idea that someone threw out of having cards for the real ballparks that you can collect and use. Not sure where that went or if there was a response from Markus & co

[Josquin]

Originally Posted by One Post Wonder

It's tough to be able to switch a lineup in that way. You've got 25 roster spots. 11 or 12 are pitchers, 8 are your regular position players. You need a backup catcher and 2 utility players. So you might have 3 roster spots which you can play with, and generally the people you're switching in are not going to have the same level of talent as a regular. And if you're using those roster spots for this strategy, you're not able to use them for anything else.

On the contrary, it's very easy to do in PT. You can easily run with 10 pitchers:

- "extreme" rotation of 5 righties (or lefties)
- 1 closer
- 1 setup
- 3 starters for middle relief (as a bonus, they can be the opposite handedness from your "extreme" starters, for more flexibility on the road)

That gives you 15 roster spots to fill 9 positions in the batting order. So you can platoon 6 out of 9 positions, which is more than enough for a balanced lineup on the road. It's also easy to find players who are equally talented at these positions, unless your "extreme" lineup is composed of perfects and diamonds.

[genuvar]

Originally Posted by Josquin

On the contrary, it's very easy to do in PT. You can easily run with 10 pitchers:

- "extreme" rotation of 5 righties (or lefties)
- 1 closer
- 1 setup
- 3 starters for middle relief (as a bonus, they can be the opposite handedness from your "extreme" starters, for more flexibility on the road)

That gives you 15 roster spots to fill 9 positions in the batting order. So you can platoon 6 out of 9 positions, which is more than enough for a balanced lineup on the road. It's also easy to find players who are equally talented at these positions, unless your "extreme" lineup is composed of perfects and diamonds.

My other team only runs pre 1940 pitchers that all have stamina ratings +100.. I currently have 9 pitchers but will probably reduce that to 7-8 soon.

[joehart]

Originally Posted by Josquin

I also dislike the "extreme lefties" tricked up ballparks. Feels too arcade-ish for me.

While a bit turned off by the huge differences set by some players (1.200 vs .800), it actually exists in baseball.

CitiField has a HR difference (sorry, I have not looked at the data for stadium averages) of .785 vs. 1.264.

However, it quickly drops off from there and you don't really see these
large differences in the real world.

Unless I am mistaken, the second largest difference is Progressive and the difference is only .266 for RHB vs LHB.

Personally, I would also prefer an additional adjustment by the DEV team to see the max difference closer to .250 instead of .400.

In other words, Perfect Team stadiums will closer represent the other 28 stadiums in the real world and will have fewer extremes that we just don't really see that often.

[Josquin]

Originally Posted by joehart

While a bit turned off by the huge differences set by some players (1.200 vs .800), it actually exists in baseball.

Just because something exists in real baseball doesn't automatically mean that including it in PT is good for the game. Many other elements of real baseball were purposefully left out. Also, I suspect that having 1.200 vs .800 splits in BOTH homeruns and batting average is more extreme than even your CitiField example.

[joehart]

You are probably correct. If you take both HRs and .AVG batting into account, a range of .400 (.800 vs 1.200) as an allowed difference favoring one vs. the other is probably a bit high, hence my initial post that raises this discussion again.

If we grabbed all the MLB stadiums and looked at their differences, the average (mean) difference of all stadiums favoring LHBs would be closer to .150 and even less of an average (mean) that favors RHBs.

Considering that we have 2-3 extreme stadiums, the median of all stadiums is even less than the .150.

In other words, setting anything above .150 difference means you are quickly moving towards an extreme or rare real life stadium.

If you want to have a stadium like 90% of the real ones in the US, you should set it to a difference of less than .250.

[Leo_The_Lip]

In reality, it costs money to refit a park. This should happen in PT, also.

Making a park change cost 5000 PT points would make a player think long and hard before making a switch.

[zrog2000]

Originally Posted by One Post Wonder

Real life teams adjust their parks to suit their personnel, so I don't see a problem with it.

3 thoughts though:

1. The window in which you can change your park seems too small IMO. I suspect a lot of people who might have wanted to change their parks miss the window. I wouldn't modify my ballpark, but I've never caught a window.

2. IRL you cannot build a park that prevents lefties or righties from doing anything. It's not physically possible. If you build a park that stops them doing one thing, it makes it more likely that they'll be able to do another thing. So you pull out the fences - that makes it less likely to allow a home run but more likely to allow singles, doubles, and triples. It's one or the other.

3. Ballpark modifications in general really aren't fleshed out enough for something that plays such a big role in this game. What about long grass for bunts? Big foul areas? Hitter visibility? Gap power modifications should be separate for both sides, too.

I've always believed that modifying your team to fit a weird stadium pushes you closer to 81-81 as opposed to closer to a championship. It's good if your team is bad, but a hinderance if you've got a .600, .650 team. I've got a couple of those guys in my division this year, and I'm interested to see how they do when they don't have a talent advantage over their competition.

It's more that teams adjust their personnel to their ballparks. Changing a park that is 1.2 LH and 0.8RH back and forth is pretty ridiculous year to year. As if Fenway Park moved the Green Monster back and forth between RF and LF.

It's more realistic for players to adjust their swings to fit a ballpark.

I'm not a fan of these extreme park factors. I don't like it in real baseball either. 1.2 to 0.8 is an absolutely huge range.

[Josquin]

Originally Posted by zrog2000

It's more that teams adjust their personnel to their ballparks. Changing a park that is 1.2 LH and 0.8RH back and forth is pretty ridiculous year to year. As if Fenway Park moved the Green Monster back and forth between RF and LF.

It's more realistic for players to adjust their swings to fit a ballpark.

I'm not a fan of these extreme park factors. I don't like it in real baseball either. 1.2 to 0.8 is an absolutely huge range.

Another idea that could curb this thing would be if the HR factor were inversely correlated with the AVG factor. So if you decrease the HR factor to 0.8, then the corresponding AVG factor goes up to 1.2, and vice versa. You make the outfield bigger, then you get fewer homeruns, but the outfielder has more room to cover and this results in fewer line drives being caught.