Home Field Advantage Topic

rbow923
Posts: 2246 (0)
Hall of Famer
1068
Hall of Famer
Baseball is the only major sport where the home team has a strategic advantage by virtue of batting second and knowing how many runs they are playing for.
6/3/2018 12:12 AM
toddcommish
Posts: 4875 (0)
Hall of Famer
478 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
Hockey home teams get last change, which gives a strategic advantage to (good) coaches that actually know how to line-match.
6/3/2018 1:34 PM
06gsp
Posts: 5435 (14)
Hall of Famer
358
Rookie
Posted by ozomatli on 5/31/2018 3:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 5/31/2018 1:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by schwarze on 5/31/2018 1:16:00 PM (view original):
I think maybe a simple 2.3% bump in home stats should be programmed in for all players (as well as a 2.3% decrease in road stats). So road pitcher vs a home batter works out to 4.6% advantage to the hitter. And a home pitcher vs a road batter works out to a 4.6% advantage to the pitcher. That get's you to 9.2% overall home field advantage.

Using your example, I don't think the actual home/road splits of an individual player should factor into how the sim engine determines any single at bat.
Yes, Larry Walker had huge home splits (mostly due to Colorado) but that doesn't mean he should have those same exaggerated home splits playing in Petco. The park effects will still play a role so it's likely Walker will still do great in Mile High or Coors. He will do better in Coors compared to a visiting player playing in Coors.
One possible issue with this is when multiple teams are using the same ballpark. Using "home field" for Larry Walker in Coors as an example... does that mean if he plays a "road game" which happens to be in Coors, he will suddenly become worse?
Real life home field advantage likely has less to do with the field itself and more to do with being home rather than traveling.
it's also been shown that referees/umpires favor the home team across all sports at every level. the book Scorecasting broke this down.

6/4/2018 8:52 AM
bagchucker
Posts: 18640 (0)
Hall of Famer
415 1 1 2 12
Prospect
if the sim was solid on an inning to inning basis, if it made good score-wise tactical decisions (relief pitching, pinch hitting, pinch running, defensive replacements) there would be a home field advantage even if you stripped out ballpark and psycho-socio

get that right first
6/4/2018 3:24 PM
ShackAttack
Posts: 1547 (0)
Hall of Famer
424 2
Prospect
It would be more realistic. I think this change would make things better.
6/5/2018 1:34 PM
laramiebob
Posts: 7084 (0)
Hall of Famer
151 1
Prospect
Posted by bagchucker on 6/4/2018 3:24:00 PM (view original):
if the sim was solid on an inning to inning basis, if it made good score-wise tactical decisions (relief pitching, pinch hitting, pinch running, defensive replacements) there would be a home field advantage even if you stripped out ballpark and psycho-socio

get that right first
THIS!!
6/5/2018 2:32 PM
ncmusician_7
Posts: 1734 (0)
Hall of Famer
65 133 12 18
All Star
Giving the home team a 2% bump would be ok; but, as mentioned earlier in this thread, other issues should be addressed first. With regard to the dynamic pricing, I didn't think it was a good idea before it was implemented and I still don't think it is a good idea. I don't believe it will ever work properly. Adjusting all the prices every other year or so -with a logical pricing formula for all player seasons- would be better IMO.
6/21/2018 11:24 AM
redwingscup
Posts: 2223 (0)
Hall of Famer
1422 1 4
Hall of Famer
Posted by ncmusician_7 on 6/21/2018 11:24:00 AM (view original):
Giving the home team a 2% bump would be ok; but, as mentioned earlier in this thread, other issues should be addressed first. With regard to the dynamic pricing, I didn't think it was a good idea before it was implemented and I still don't think it is a good idea. I don't believe it will ever work properly. Adjusting all the prices every other year or so -with a logical pricing formula for all player seasons- would be better IMO.
I still believe the concept of dynamic pricing is a good one, especially as its implementation was indicated. The problem stemmed from the fact they did not execute dynamic pricing as it was "promised". This caused for crazy escalations in pricing for some players (let's use Howard Johnson's good season as a glaring example). HoJo costs well over $9m now so has been rendered unusable. Same with '08 Joss. Is he that different than the '08 Mathewson to justify the significant price difference?

To disagree with ncmusician, I truly believe that, properly implemented, dynamic pricing is a positive step in the correct direction. Who doesn't want to discover new values? Isn't it kind of cool that Dilone, Joss, HoJo, and the like aren't battling with and against us so often? We agree there is a litany of adjustments further improving the game. I understand the new ownership is evaluating this and believe in "Rome wasn't built in a day". Still having a lot of fun for a (very) low cost per hour spent on the site. So there.
6/21/2018 5:06 PM
DoctorKz
Posts: 14974 (0)
Hall of Famer
1203 1
Veteran
Home teams should have an advantage, they should be built to play 81 games in that park. With that said, some players play with less pressure and distractions when on the road.

6/21/2018 5:32 PM
ncmusician_7
Posts: 1734 (0)
Hall of Famer
65 133 12 18
All Star
Posted by redwingscup on 6/21/2018 5:06:00 PM (view original):
Posted by ncmusician_7 on 6/21/2018 11:24:00 AM (view original):
Giving the home team a 2% bump would be ok; but, as mentioned earlier in this thread, other issues should be addressed first. With regard to the dynamic pricing, I didn't think it was a good idea before it was implemented and I still don't think it is a good idea. I don't believe it will ever work properly. Adjusting all the prices every other year or so -with a logical pricing formula for all player seasons- would be better IMO.
I still believe the concept of dynamic pricing is a good one, especially as its implementation was indicated. The problem stemmed from the fact they did not execute dynamic pricing as it was "promised". This caused for crazy escalations in pricing for some players (let's use Howard Johnson's good season as a glaring example). HoJo costs well over $9m now so has been rendered unusable. Same with '08 Joss. Is he that different than the '08 Mathewson to justify the significant price difference?

To disagree with ncmusician, I truly believe that, properly implemented, dynamic pricing is a positive step in the correct direction. Who doesn't want to discover new values? Isn't it kind of cool that Dilone, Joss, HoJo, and the like aren't battling with and against us so often? We agree there is a litany of adjustments further improving the game. I understand the new ownership is evaluating this and believe in "Rome wasn't built in a day". Still having a lot of fun for a (very) low cost per hour spent on the site. So there.
Im not against finding new values. Can you explain -formula-wise- how it could work logically?
6/21/2018 8:18 PM
mixtroy
Posts: 1057 (0)
Hall of Famer
120 3 1 2
Prospect
IMO, I think there should've been just one price increase for certain players that were routinely used throughout various leagues which would have served the objective of having used as much. For example, prior to dynamic pricing, Joss was $12.8. I think a simple increase to about $16 mil would have severely curtailed his usage in OLs while still being affordable in themes. But the way they've overpriced some guys now is ridiculous. And makes them not cost effective.
6/21/2018 11:06 PM
mixtroy
Posts: 1057 (0)
Hall of Famer
120 3 1 2
Prospect
IMO, I think there should've been just one price increase for certain players that were routinely used throughout various leagues which would have served the objective of having used as much. For example, prior to dynamic pricing, Joss was $12.8. I think a simple increase to about $16 mil would have severely curtailed his usage in OLs while still being affordable in themes. But the way they've overpriced some guys now is ridiculous. And makes them not cost effective.
6/21/2018 11:22 PM
Jtpsops
Posts: 13985 (1)
Hall of Famer
624 1 2 2 138
Prospect
What about simply applying positive ballpark effects only to the home team and negative effects only to the home team? This would make ballpark selection more critical, and could actually give a healthy advantage to your team based on the effects of the ballpark you select.
6/22/2018 7:31 PM
ncmusician_7
Posts: 1734 (0)
Hall of Famer
65 133 12 18
All Star
Posted by Jtpsops on 6/22/2018 7:31:00 PM (view original):
What about simply applying positive ballpark effects only to the home team and negative effects only to the home team? This would make ballpark selection more critical, and could actually give a healthy advantage to your team based on the effects of the ballpark you select.
Applying beneficial ballpark modifiers only to the home team would be too much of an advantage.
6/23/2018 11:21 AM
schwarze
Posts: 37927 (4)
Hall of Famer
1693 74 4 1 1
Hall of Famer
I don't like the idea of inflating the park affects for the home team players only. That's not what the data I presented shows.

This isn't that complicated.

Add some pre-defined % bump to certain stats for players playing at home. How hard is that? They are already doing something like that in their sim basketball game.

I posted enough data on the first page to show that home field advantage is a real thing (and NOT due to park effects). It's up to those in charge to open their eyes and program the change.
7/3/2018 1:43 PM
◂ Prev 12
Home Field Advantage Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.