Comments on: Park Factors May Not Be a Factor With Uniform Dimensions http://chickenfriars.com/2012/05/11/park-factors-may-not-be-a-factor-with-uniform-dimensions/ A San Diego Padres Fan Site - News, Blogs, Opinion and More Sat, 15 Dec 2012 18:08:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: Justin Hunter http://chickenfriars.com/2012/05/11/park-factors-may-not-be-a-factor-with-uniform-dimensions/comment-page-1/#comment-1003462 Justin Hunter Fri, 11 May 2012 18:53:31 +0000 http://chickenfriars.com/?p=6378#comment-1003462 Thanks for the great comment Lonnie. Thanks for the great comment Lonnie.

]]> By: Justin Hunter http://chickenfriars.com/2012/05/11/park-factors-may-not-be-a-factor-with-uniform-dimensions/comment-page-1/#comment-1003461 Justin Hunter Fri, 11 May 2012 18:53:06 +0000 http://chickenfriars.com/?p=6378#comment-1003461 The expense of making the dimension uniform would be prohibitive, but it could be done at every park. In Fenway, you wouldn't move the monster in, but move home plate closer - or vice versa. Then you can alter the other walls as necessary. The same is true with Petco and the Western Metal Supply Co building. I agree the numbers are skewed by bad teams, but I don't think you can simply alter hitter-friendly parks and leave the rest. The expense of making the dimension uniform would be prohibitive, but it could be done at every park. In Fenway, you wouldn't move the monster in, but move home plate closer – or vice versa. Then you can alter the other walls as necessary. The same is true with Petco and the Western Metal Supply Co building. I agree the numbers are skewed by bad teams, but I don't think you can simply alter hitter-friendly parks and leave the rest.

]]> By: Lonnie Brownell http://chickenfriars.com/2012/05/11/park-factors-may-not-be-a-factor-with-uniform-dimensions/comment-page-1/#comment-1003456 Lonnie Brownell Fri, 11 May 2012 15:56:21 +0000 http://chickenfriars.com/?p=6378#comment-1003456 My takeaway from that park factors analysis wasn't that we need uniform park dimensions in order to achieve park-dimension neutrality, but rather that we need to modify hitter-friendly parks to make them neutral (or pitcher-friendly). Which, apparently, is more of a problem for the player's union than is adopting uniform dimensions and changing the majority of ballparks. You indicate that there are ways to do this without changing actual park dimensions; I don't see how you get to keep the Green Monster (and presumably the Pesky Pole) and make that happen. I can see raising wall heights to, in essence, make a distance longer, but I can't see lowering fences very much to make them shorter. The biggest leveler would be to get true payroll parity. The success correlation for pitcher-friendly parks was dragged down by the low winning percentages of the Padres and Mariners; if those two fielded better teams, we would see that pitcher friendly parks have a positive correlation to home team success, given parity on the field. My takeaway from that park factors analysis wasn't that we need uniform park dimensions in order to achieve park-dimension neutrality, but rather that we need to modify hitter-friendly parks to make them neutral (or pitcher-friendly). Which, apparently, is more of a problem for the player's union than is adopting uniform dimensions and changing the majority of ballparks. You indicate that there are ways to do this without changing actual park dimensions; I don't see how you get to keep the Green Monster (and presumably the Pesky Pole) and make that happen. I can see raising wall heights to, in essence, make a distance longer, but I can't see lowering fences very much to make them shorter.

The biggest leveler would be to get true payroll parity. The success correlation for pitcher-friendly parks was dragged down by the low winning percentages of the Padres and Mariners; if those two fielded better teams, we would see that pitcher friendly parks have a positive correlation to home team success, given parity on the field.

]]>