Damn. I expect to see an owner who makes the playoffs every season and has won multiple World Series when I see a statement that definitive.

WRONG! I make very few definitive posts with reference to team building. Mostly because there are plenty of ways to build a team. When someone says "You have to....." or 'Wrong.....", it's just bluster. Screaming an answer doesn't make it right.

HAHAHA!! Post-deleting *****.

Thanks for the input guys.

Quote: Originally posted by soxfan121 on 2/22/2010
Wrong. Baserunners are the key thing in a hitter's park, and allowing extra basreunners due to poor defense is the worst thing you can do in a hitter's park. The second worst thing is not put enough guys on base to take advantage of the increased hits.

I see some Tacoma experience - which "hitters park" did you play in?

Each runner is more important in Tacoma than in Coors because of relative scarcity. Your position is conventional wisdom, and it's wrong.

In HBD the rates of walks and errors are not affected by stadiums, while hits are. Pitchers' parks decrease the number of baserunners on balls in play. As a result, those means of reaching base that do not involve hits (i.e., walks, HBP, and errors) are more valuable when they occur in pitchers' parks due to the relative scarcity of baserunners. An alert owner will play this fact into a natural advantage by maximizing walks and HBP on offense while minimizing walks, HBP, and errors on defense.

Hitters' parks increase the number of baserunners on balls in play, and walks, HBP, and errors are relatively less valuable to teams because of the increase in baserunners. As a result, a player whose primary value lies in defense and walks will be relatively less valuable in a hitters' park than in a pitchers' park.

To illustrate the issue, think of it in terms of basic math. If your pitching and defense allows 500 walks+errors a year, would those baserunners account for a larger percentage of opponents' offense if you allowed 500 hits or 1,000? In the first case they account for fully half of all runners, while in the second they account for a third.

Quote: Originally Posted By jdbkaput on 2/22/2010

Quote: Originally posted by soxfan121 on 2/22/2010 Wrong. Baserunners are the key thing in a hitter's park, and allowing extra basreunners due to poor defense is the worst thing you can do in a hitter's park. The second worst thing is not put enough guys on base to take advantage of the increased hits.

I see some Tacoma experience - which "hitters park" did you play in?

You lack a fundamental understanding of the game. Put simply, in HBD the rates of walks and errors are not affected by stadiums while hits are. And to respond to your barb, it's unnecessary to own a (fantasy) team in a particular (fantasy) stadium to understand the ways in which stadiums affect the different components of offense and defense/pitching.

Pitchers' parks decrease the number of baserunners on balls in play. As a result, those means of reaching base that do not involve hits (i.e., walks, HBP, and errors) are more valuable when they occur in pitchers' parks due to the relative scarcity of baserunners. An alert owner will play this fact into a natural advantage by maximizing walks and HBP on offense while minimizing walks, HBP, and errors on defense.

Hitters' parks increase the number of baserunners on balls in play, and walks, HBP, and errors are relatively less valuable to teams because of the increase in baserunners. As a result, a player whose primary value lies in defense and walks will be relatively less valuable in a hitters' park than in a pitchers' park

Correct me if im wrong, but you're saying that a hit with men on base due to errors or walks is less damaging in a pitchers park than a hitters park. Common sense tells you that if a guys walks and then your shortstop bobbles the ball, which puts runners on 1st and 2nd, and the next guy gets a base hit it is just as damaging in either park.

Hitters parks, with the exception of coors, are known for being shorter and allowing more long balls. If you give up two free passes and then a jack in a hitters park it is going to do more damage than 2 free passes in a pitchers park and then a base hit. Which is going to do more damage?

Yeah, we're misunderstanding each other. I'm talking about relative value.

Walks account for a larger percentage of offense in a pitchers' park than a hitters' park. If you're in a pitchers' park, they are more valuable to you than if you were in a neutral park. If you're in a hitters' park, walks are less valuable to you than if you were in a neutral park.

Re: errors. If your stadium allows an average of 20 baserunners per game, an error accounts for a smaller percentage of the overall offense than if the stadium averaged 15 runners per game.

I understandwhat you're saying, but I disagree about the perceived value. I believe that a hitters park can lead to more potential damage, because there is more of a chance for a big inning when walks occur, which can be a game changer.

couldn't agree more jd

Quote: Originally posted by strikeout26 on 2/22/2010I understandwhat you're saying, but I disagree about the perceived value. I believe that a hitters park can lead to more potential damage, because there is more of a chance for a big inning when walks occur, which can be a game changer.  

the walks are more of a "game changer" in a pitchers park because of relative scarcity and the fact that they are stadium independent...

A base hit with men on 1st and 2nd does alot less damage than an extra base hit. I understand that baserunners are alot more scarce in a pitchers park, but they also have a smaller chance of scoring.

That's true--the expected run value of a runner on first is going to be less in Safeco than Coors by virtue of a higher frequency of hits in Colorado. I'll see if I can find some Run Expectancy Matrices based on stadium to see how much that cuts into the scarcity benefit.

That would be nice, it was be nice to have some data for this debate.

Zero luck. If anyone finds any stadium-specific run matrices, I'd love to see them.

I was always under the impression that defence is important no matter which park you are in. Look at it this way. You only get 3 outs every inning to score as many runs as you can. If you make an error you are essentially giving your opponent a 4th out. That is an increase of 33% which is a very signinfcant number. Obviously not all of those errors are going to result in runs but doesn't it make sense that those errors are going to hurt you more in a hitters park where the chances of giving up a home run are increased? Same thing for walks. You can probably get away with a low control pitcher in a pitchers park because there is a smaller chance of that pitcher giving up the long ball in the bigger park.

Another thing, wouldn't it make sense that a high GB pitcher would be more valuable in a hitters park where he can get those double plays to erase some of the BB's and singles? Of course GB pitchers are probably more valuable in all parks for this reason but if I wanted to play in a stadium like Coors should I target GB guys?

I'm not sure if that's been successful for you more experienced guys but I'd like to know if I'm off base. I put my teams in neutral parks right now because I don't really know if my thoughts are correct but that is how I perceive things to work.