Not sure if you can base a team around San Francisco's park. I've played in San Diego for 30+ seasons and trying to tailor your team around triples is near impossible. They need to be good at power, contact, base running speed and splits........ pretty much everything.

I'd be tempted to take a stadium with short porch on the right side of the field with a taller fence on the left and try to put as many lefties on my team as possible to take advantage.

Victory Field (2,2,2,0,2)
Aloha Stadium (-2,-0,-1,-2,0)
or
Cooper stadium (0,0,0,-2,0)

could be fun to experiment with on this one.

I dont think i have seen anyone post this yet, but the 1b in the ratings refers to all hits, not just singles. The 1b portion of the part effects is used at a different portion of the event tree than the rest of the numbers.

for example (all imply large sample sizes)- comparing a (0,0,0,0,0) field and a (2,0,0,0,0) field - there would be more hits at the +2 1b park, but the % of hits that would be 2b, 3b and HR would be similar. there would be more 2b, 3b and HRs in the park with +2 1b simply because there are more hits.

If you were in a (0,4,0,0,0) park, you would have roughly the same number of overall hits, but the % of those hits that were doubles would be much higher in the +4 2b park (likely at the expense of singles).

If you move to Alb (4,4,4,1,0), you are going to have many more hits in general, but then the % of those hits that are 2bs and triples will also go up, basically creating a multiplying effect. You will end up with more HRs in Alb as well, because even though the (1,0) doesnt add a ton, the number of hits is higher and the % is the same.

For anyone who has played SLB, this is fairly well known.

When constructing teams in + 1b parks, I tend to overemphasize contact and de-emphasize batting eye (its still one of the most important, just it becomes less in a hitters park) because putting the ball in play more often takes better advantage of the park effects. In pitchers parks, extreme power, batting eye and speed/BR become the primary drivers. Extreme power (95+) does not appear to be muted much by -HR effects and batting eye/speed/br work as previously described...turning singles and walks in to doubles and triples.

Interesting. How would you build your team around the Los Angeles park (2, -4, -3, -1, -1)

Same way I built in San Diego (also if you are NL or AL makes a big difference)

Focus on pitching and defense. I'd want guys to walk a lot and put balls into play with that +2 for singles so eye and contact are very important for your hitters. Don't worry about power and you'll save a ton of money. Small ball (stolen bases, sac flies) are how you will win a lot of your games. If you can get a leadoff man that can walk or single and steal second, you'll win more games then you know what to do with.

I wouldnt :) I tend not to play in that type of park simply because there isnt enough of an advantage to be had. If I had to, I would play towards power hitting on offense, a pitching staff based on splits and control (with less emphasis on the pitch quality) and I would be willing to go a light on OF defense to get the hitting I want.
basically, I would think a team like that in LA would be fairly similar to a well rounded team in a roughly neutral park with slightly fewer doubles, which doesnt excite me much.

Personally, I wish they would bring Tiger Stadium (-1,-1,0,2,2) or the Kingdome (-2,1,-1,2,2) over to HBD, Citizen's Bank (-1,0,0,1,1), Miller Park (-2,0,0,1,1) and Rogers Centre (-2,2,0,1,1) are the only parks available in HBD that have a -hits and + to both LF and RF HRs ... and each of those ballparks is only +1 on HRs.

I'm trying a new approach to my Cincinnati Team (0,0,-3,2,2). Like has been mentioned above, I value power above all (70+ ideally), but I'm also putting a huge emphasis on fielding. My thought being that while there are definitely less fielding opportunities in a smaller ballpark, those opportunities matter much more because of the risk of home runs.

Simple example - 2 on, 2 out. A liner is hit at your shortstop who makes the play, and he makes the play but his average arm doesn't get the ball in time at first. Next batter hits a grand slam right over the fence (let's say a fly out in Seattle/Sand Diego/etc.). Having a plus play there saves 4 runs in Cincinnati vs. 0 in Seattle. Now obviously this is super specific and not common, but I'm very curious on the general idea and if you were to dig into it, how much more a plus play/not making an error saves a run in a hitters ballpark vs. pitchers (This would take a lot of data and maybe one day I will actually come up with numbers lol). Would it make defense evenly important between the two? Would it make it even more important in hitters ballparks?

My Cincinnati team ended up 10 games better at home then on the road (small sample size in the scheme of things, but still). Now, I also combined these hitting/fielding strategies with the highest gb ratio in the MLB (1.5 vs. the next closest at 1.31). Which I think makes it even more crucial that you have good infielders in hitters ballparks (assuming you want groundball pitchers).

Here's the quintessential example of a guy I want: https://www.whatifsports.com/hbd/Pages/Popups/PlayerRatings.aspx?pid=8198000

60 OVR. 83 power (only hitting rating over 41, including 19 eye), but that power played to atleast a .650 OPS in Cincy. On Defense, the guy killed it with 23 plus plays and only 9 errors at shortstop (winning the GG). His hitting didn't kill me because the power played, and the fielding absolutely saved a ton of runs in Cincinnati. Got this guy for an average relief pitcher.

I'll probably continue this strategy because it's fun, and honestly like it's been mentioned before, good fielders get slept on sometimes (draft/ifa/etc.).

I've built a pretty successful team in Albuquerque. I look for high OBP, high avg guys with low power. Load up on defense knowing there will be a ton of balls in play.

Lately my approach has been parks that suppress basehits and boost homers.

Focus on power and OBP. Big power/eye hitters with mediocre splits and contact seem to be relatively easy to come by in HBD. I target them, along with stud defenders (lots of range) in the IF. Then get groundball pitchers to help suppress opposition homers. Not a flawless strategy but it seems to work decently so far.

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/13/2019 1:12:00 PM (view original):
Lately my approach has been parks that suppress basehits and boost homers.

Focus on power and OBP. Big power/eye hitters with mediocre splits and contact seem to be relatively easy to come by in HBD. I target them, along with stud defenders (lots of range) in the IF. Then get groundball pitchers to help suppress opposition homers. Not a flawless strategy but it seems to work decently so far.

I had wondered about this. The minor leagues are lousy with 30-90-50-40-80 DHs. Guys who hit 400 HRs but never sniff the bigs. There's always at least one who I dither about whether to keep on my 40 man or not.

I've had them be beneficial. It can certainly be hit or miss.

Brian Ryan is a guy I had more success than expected with.

I’m in Baltimore. 1, -3, -2, 1, 1. So looks like I should build around power and eye? What about pitching and defense? Go groundball pitchers?

Thoughts?

Posted by alockwood86 on 2/20/2019 4:31:00 PM (view original):
I’m in Baltimore. 1, -3, -2, 1, 1. So looks like I should build around power and eye? What about pitching and defense? Go groundball pitchers?

Thoughts?

Definitely power. You can away with having a player at SS, 2B, or CF that has 90+ power and eye and basically anything else for hitting. They'll be productive.

I wouldn't build around BAL at all. HR and single are equally and slightly elevated; doubles and triples are rare enough events that I don't think about them much.

My understanding is that the inefficiency is in the extreme parks that have a fairly large difference between LF wall and RF wall (not many). Or parks that have a huge weakness or strength that you can limit or take advantage of.

Immediate ones that come to mind are Burlington, Tacoma, OKC, Portland, San Antonio, San Diego, San Jose, Seattle, and maybe Wichita and Honolulu. These type of parks are pitcher parks where you can find guys free in agency with decently high eye + decently high split or decently high eye + decently high speed. Still need great defense and decent enough pitching to take advantage of the inefficiency.

It is just my opinion, but I don't feel that any hitter's park presents an inefficiency. Indianapolis might come close because of the difference between the wall in LF vs. the wall in RF, but there are so many Right handed pull hitters in HDB, that it would not give you an advantage vs. most teams. In a hitter's park, even if you get pitchers with high Groundball rates, they will still need to have decent control and splits to make sure that they don't get hammered in a hitter's park. I respect teams more when they have success in a huge hitter's park like Durham, Colorado, Sante Fe, etc. because I know how tough it is to have success in those parks.

I've been going with pitcher's parks recently. My theory is that the park takes care of suppressing hits for you, so pitching and defence are less important. The thing that you can make an impact in is base on balls, so for my pitchers I look for elite control and for hitters, elite eye ratings. Of course it would help if your obp guys are good base runners, and have some good contact/power hitting behind them