Building a Roster Around Park Factors??

[jpeters1734]

I’m a little fuzzy on this aspect of OOTP. Mainly how it relates to defense. I understand that pitcher type has a big impact on how you should set up defense, GBers should have a fantastic infield behind him, FBers should have great OFers.

Do park factors themselves impact how you setup your defense? Understand that I’m specifically asking about park factors, not the literal size of the field. The biggest thing that confuses me is HR factors. If the factors are high, does that mean that OF defense is less important because more fly balls are HR? If I have below average double and triple factors, what does that tell me about how important OF defense is? Does any of the factors make IF defense more or less important?

[Garlon]

I suggest you do not build your roster in any way around ballpark factors. Remember that your team will play half of their games on the road anyway.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by Garlon

I suggest you do not build your roster in any way around ballpark factors. Remember that your team will play half of their games on the road anyway.

I get that. This is more trying to understand park factors better and less of actually getting roster building strategies

[Garlon]

Regarding the HR factor it just adds to the calculation of whether or not the outcome of a PA will be a HR, but it will not turn flyballs into HRs or turn HRs into flyballs.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by Garlon

Regarding the HR factor it just adds to the calculation of whether or not the outcome of a PA will be a HR, but it will not turn flyballs into HRs or turn HRs into flyballs.

That makes sense. So park factors do not affect GB/FB %.

So if 44% (roughly) of all contact is fly balls, and my HR factors are high (1.200+), that would tell me there are fewer catchable fly balls, yes? If that is the case, would it be true in that scenario that OF range is less important since there's fewer chances?

[Garlon]

The average team in 2023 made 1020 OF PO and allowed about 100 HR at home. There are plenty of flyballs that need to be caught. Regardless of the HR you still need to make 27 outs.

Even though it is not what is happening, say in your situation of 1.200 HR Home Ballpark factor those 100 HR turn into 120, and somehow now you need to catch 20 fewer flyballs though I do not know why, well 1020 - 20 = 1000 flyballs. It will not put a dent in those 1000 PO that need to be made.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

That makes sense. So park factors do not affect GB/FB %.

So if 44% (roughly) of all contact is fly balls, and my HR factors are high (1.200+), that would tell me there are fewer catchable fly balls, yes? If that is the case, would it be true in that scenario that OF range is less important since there's fewer chances?

The separate grounder/flyball rate will do that and that’s league-wide, not park specific. I’d look at that just completely removed from HR rates, so in terms of putting a team together I’d be much more worried about lefty righty splits and the tendencies of your pitching staff than park effects on HRs (except of course that you’ll want to watch out for bad movement pitchers in parks that don’t play to their handedness well).

If you’re doing a modern league I think staffs are so large that frankly groundball effects are mostly going to wash out. If you’re in the 70s or into the 80s even I think you can build a team around finesse starters and good defense a la the Orioles in the 70s and Royals and Cardinals in the 80s.

[Iu29]

For a test in OOTP 24, I made four teams (single season neutralized stats, coaching, morale, injuries, suspensions, and storylines off) and placed them in the 1977 American League:

Team #1 had great home run hitters like Ruth, McGwire, Mike Schmidt, Barry Bonds, etc. and a pitching staff that gave up very few homers, playing in a park with home run factors of 1.5, everything else at 1

Team #2- same players as team #1, but in a park with home run factors of 0.5, everything else at 1.

Team #3 had good players that hit few HRs like Ashburn, Carew, Nellie Fox, etc. and a pitching staff that gave up a lot of HRs, (Catfish Hunter, Robin Roberts, Blyleven, etc.) in a park with the same ratings as team #2's park.

Team #4- same players as team #3, same park as team #1.

To fill out the roster, I added to each team, the not so great players of the 2003 Detroit Tigers.

Playing 10 170-game seasons, the results were:

Team #1 had a 1508-193 record, or about 144-18 per 162 games, and hit 5908 HR to 986 HR for their opponents.

Team #2 had a 1462-239 record, or about 139-23 per 162 games, and hit 3782 HR to 637 HR for their opponents.

Team #3 had a 1008-692 record, or about 96-66 per 162 games, and hit 671 HR to 1605 HR for their opponents.

Team #4 had a 966-734 record, or about 92-70 per 162 games, and hit 1076 HR to 2308 HR for their opponents.

There was one tiebreaker game- team #2 won at home vs team #1.

The team of HR hitters and low-HR pitchers did much better overall that the low-HR hitters, high-HR pitchers team- but all four teams did well. Both sets of players only won 4 or 5 more games per a 162-game season with a home park that was suited for them vs. a home park that was very unsuited for them.


The zipped roster file is attached.