THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I looked at this a while back.  Here are a couple articles on it:

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2008/12/17/695875/what-factors-have-an-effec

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/1/7/713479/what-factors-have-an-effec

Fantastic stuff.  You guys are awesome…

"Has anyone tracked this?  It does seem that the mew Yankee Stadium and Mets park took people by surprise.  Did anyone guess Coors?”

Yankee stadium did.  I think Greg Rybarczik called the Met stadium.  For Coors, I can’t verify my opinion at the time since I wasn’t on the internet in 1995, but I’m pretty sure I knew it would be a great hitter’s park. 

We had already seen 2 years of mile high stadium, and Coors field is probably, overall, a bit smaller than Mile High.  Coors is longer in left but shorter to center and right.  Given that the main factor is the elevation of the city and not anything specific to the park, It’s hard to see Coors as surprising anyone.

I forgot about Mile High.  And of course Denver had a minor league team (go Bears!), so, there should have been little surprise that it would be a hitter’s park.

However, the extent to which it was the best hitter’s park must have been a bit of a surprise I’d think?  Maybe?

Yankee Stadium caught people by surprise because the Yankees told everyone the dimensions were the same, when they were not (right field is significantly shorter). Also, I’m pretty sure it’s been more neutral since the first half of 2009, but everyone’s opinions were formed when the homers were flying out in the first 2-3 months of the stadium.

"However, the extent to which it was the best hitter’s park must have been a bit of a surprise I’d think?  Maybe?”

Yeah.  At the time “great hitters park” meant Wrigley or Fenway.  I don’t think baseball minds had the frame of reference, and had to adjust to the new reality of Colorado baseball.

My thoughts:

Can you construct a neutral park?  Yes, the Nationals did exactly that.

As for the conditions that make it hardest to call, I believe that the impact of wind in parks that are relatively open can create variability that takes longer to even out.  But really, the presence of any strongly aberrent atmospheric condition (wind as at Wrigley, altitude as at Coors, dry air as at Chase Field, heat as at Atlanta or Texas) makes things tougher to predict…

You guys will no doubt be interested to hear about the new Marlins Ballpark.  I’m working on it right now.  For now, all I will say is: it’s big.

Dry air as at Chase Field? Chase Field is one of the best hitting parks in baseball, right? Dry air would tend to suppress scoring, although the effect of changes in humidity (if I understand it correctly) is pretty minimal. The extreme heat in Arizona combined with it’s elevation above sea level are the factors that drive increased scoring there.

Nathaniel,

Dry air, as in “the ball is stored in dry air and gradually shrinks and gets lighter, becoming much easier to hit over the fence”.  This is what drove the HR-crazy early years of Coors Field.  And Phoenix is the only MLB city that is drier than Denver, on average, during baseball season…

You’re right that the aerodynamic effects of drier air are minimal.  It’s what happens to the baseball…

Greg/#9

Ah, that makes perfect sense. I hadn’t thought about the effect on balls, a la Coors.

I wonder if Nathan has anything to offer about the changes in Magnus effect brought about by changes in ball size and weight? Does a drier (hence lighter) or smaller ball see a difference in break due to a difference in Magnus force? Would they tend to balance each other out?

There’s basically just two ballparks left to be built in the next 20 years - the Rays and the A’s (assuming they aren’t contracted, and that there isn’t any expansion in that time frame). 

I think a lot about how those two parks should be built.

We know that any future ballpark will be built specifically for baseball, and that it will have bullpens beyond the outfield, rather than in foul territory past the baselines.  We also know that future parks will minimize foul territory, because you can charge more money for closer seats. 

So, if we ignore elevation, wind patterns and proximity to the sea for a moment (because we don’t know where exactly these last two parks will be built), we have to do something to balance out an extremely small amount of foul ground.

I think my ideal new park would be extremely deep to center field, and extremely shallow in one corner.  You want it shallow in at least one corner so that you could do some mini-suites or box suites or some gimmicky thing that’s only 300 feet away from home plate and about 20 feet above ground.  (This is basically what the A’s are planning with their San Jose Cisco Field model). 

The extremely deep center field is excellent because it doesn’t decrease any potential revenue (those seats are far away anyway, and that’s where I’m hiding the bullpens, so there aren’t any expensive seats out there, if any at all), and it helps balance out the park effect for all the offense-friendly things I’m doing - no foul territory, short porch in right field, etc.

"Can you construct a neutral park?  Yes, the Nationals did exactly that.”

I have the Nats park with a RF of .97, which is pretty pitcher friendly.

I cannot think of any reason to want a neutral park.  You would want anything but neutral in order to tailor your team to your park. Plus, parks with quirky things tend to create a larger HFA, although quirky things do not necessarily mean a non-neutral park.

If anything, you probably want a pitchers park, which allows you to utilize your pitchers more effectively.

It is difficult to be able to take everything into consideration in order to create a neutral park, but you should be able to come close. You could certainly tweak your park after the fact.

I doubt that many, if any, teams try and build a neutral park.  In fact, teams seem to not care very much what kind of park is constructed…

A priori, I think you’re better off building an extreme pitcher’s park and tailoring your team to it (i.e. speedy outfielders, contact-oriented pitchers).

The Padres have always seemed to be able to play over their heads a bit, and I think a lot of that has to do with being able to field a team that is very competitive in Petco relatively cheaply.

On the other hand, the pitching staffs of teams in hitter friendly parks seem to wear down over the course of the season.

MGL/#12

Look at the Twins and Target Field, with their roster construction was it truly their intention to build that park?  They have one true power hitter beyond Thome’s retirement in Morneau.  One decent defensive OF in Span and several ground ball pitchers.  It would seem easier for them to build a smaller park.

I think having a park that is more neutral will not hinder you in pursuit of FAs.  Think of this past winter when reportedly Adrian Beltre lacked interest in signing with either Oakland or Anaheim.  Presumably the parks factoring strongly in the decision.  Also some pitchers will decline long term deals going to parks like The Cell, GAB, Coors or Wrigley unless the clubs pay significantly more than the competition, which will put a strain on the club’s finances.

It would have to be expensive to tweak the park after the fact.

I agree that I would much prefer a pitcher’s park, so that my pitchers can last longer.