2010: Say Hello to the Dominance of Pitching - Part 2

How did the tide of new, pitcher-friendly parks and the advent of the humidor in Coors factor into this analysis?

Good Question. The numbers are strictly based on performance and not normalized. However there have been more hitter-friendly ballparks built since 2000, than pitcher-friendly. By my count, based on homeruns allowed as compared to the mean, Great American, Miller, Citifield, Yankee, Citizens, PNC are all more hitter friendly than their predecessor. And that wasn't a typo on Citifield, last year Citifield was above the mean in HRs allowed. On the other end, only Busch, Petco, and Nationals appear to be less slugger friendly than their predecessors.

Why use HRs only? Wouldn't park effects be better, since they include a broader scope of statistics? For instance, Citi Field is indeed HR-friendly, as you mentioned. It's also 3B-friendly. However, it has such a dramatic effect on H, 2B, & BBs that it ends up being decidedly pitcher-friendly in spite of its proclivity towards HRs.

Yes, park factors should be a consideration, but the other ballpark factors you mention are all a clean sweep in favor of Citi field being more favorable to hitters over Shea. Take a look at the most recent 3 year history of Shea. Based on the 3 year average, we see lower production at each of the listed categories (R, H, HR, 2B, & BBs). Granted it might turn out to be the opposite as one year is a poor barometer....but that's all we have right now.

Going back to the original post, there should be no debate that the fantasy landscape has shifted from the start of the last decade to the end of it. Is PEDs the reason? I think it's a big part of it...but I can not say for sure. No one can, unless we knew every player who injected, and stil lthere would be conjecture. It's just awfully coincidental that the greatest peak of offensive aggression in MLB history coincides with the PEDs scandal.

It could be the darn baseballs (as Curt Schilling once claimed) but I am confident it's not the establishment of pitcher friendly ballparks...if anything I believe the opposite would be true...and the data seems to agree.

Jay, thanks for reading.

There is a bit of a debate going on on the Cafe Forums regarding the effect of the new ballparks. Some are taking the stance that Ballpark Runs Effect (ESPN's Park Factor) is more relevant than your reference to Ballpark HRs. With the assumption that the power outage may not be PEDs, but the effect of the new pitcher freindly ballparks. Do you have any analysis on the effect of the new ballparks in relation to runs factor?

Since pitching is becoming more dominant, should we change the splits ratio from its default 68% hitting, 32% pitching to a more 50% - 50% split? Just wondering your thoughts on the matter.

Andrew, Thanks for the suggestion. I've devoted a blog to this today: http://bit.ly/dve1Bp

Scott good question. The short answer is no, because the Fantistics valuation model already comes closer to valuing pitchers closer to their intrinsic value than most other rankings/valuations out there. So we want the best outcome at the least cost. Sort of like going into a car dealership. You want the car, but you don't want to pay much above what the dealer will let you have it for.

I am currently updating some research that I had previously done with regards to positional probability. I hope to post that in the days ahead along with some strategy.

At the risk of badgering you, can you expound on this: "Additionally the strength of a lineup can exaggerate the effects of a ballpark." BTW: I love your site and the projections software, I have won 8 league championships with your help. Keep it up.

Andrew here's my theory on how park factors can be exaggerated.

Park factor uses Runs Scored for the home team and follows that same home team to other stadiums. Now here’s the faulty premise which can exaggerate the effects of a ballpark, and why it's not a true neutral indicator:

If a team has more hitters in its lineup that are built to capitalize on the dimensions or atmospheric variables, then that team can exasperate the Park Factor. Let’s say, Home Team A & Home Team B both play at a pre humidor Coors field. Team A is stocked with 9 ground ball hitters (think Luis Castillo) and Team B is stocked with 9 fly ball hitters (think Carlos Pena). Which team is going to capitalize on the advantages or disadvantages of a ballpark better? Chances are that it will be Team B, the team with hitters that are more able to utilize the dimension of the ballpark or benefit of altitude. Sure Team B’s production on the road is noted, and compared to their home park, but the degree to which it is…is accentuated by the fact that he capitalizes on the altitude more often than Team A. For Team A (ground ball hitters without power), the advantages of elevation (in this case) could be negated based on lack of use or instances. Therefore I surmise that there would NOT be a wide variance in home/away runs scored for this type of lineup. Hence the exaggeration potential.

How did the tide of new, pitcher-friendly parks and the advent of the humidor in Coors factor into this analysis?

Good Question. The numbers are strictly based on performance and not normalized. However there have been more hitter-friendly ballparks built since 2000, than pitcher-friendly. By my count, based on homeruns allowed as compared to the mean, Great American, Miller, Citifield, Yankee, Citizens, PNC are all more hitter friendly than their predecessor. And that wasn't a typo on Citifield, last year Citifield was above the mean in HRs allowed. On the other end, only Busch, Petco, and Nationals appear to be less slugger friendly than their predecessors.

Why use HRs only? Wouldn't park effects be better, since they include a broader scope of statistics? For instance, Citi Field is indeed HR-friendly, as you mentioned. It's also 3B-friendly. However, it has such a dramatic effect on H, 2B, & BBs that it ends up being decidedly pitcher-friendly in spite of its proclivity towards HRs.

Yes, park factors should be a consideration, but the other ballpark factors you mention are all a clean sweep in favor of Citi field being more favorable to hitters over Shea. Take a look at the most recent 3 year history of Shea. Based on the 3 year average, we see lower production at each of the listed categories (R, H, HR, 2B, & BBs). Granted it might turn out to be the opposite as one year is a poor barometer....but that's all we have right now.

Going back to the original post, there should be no debate that the fantasy landscape has shifted from the start of the last decade to the end of it. Is PEDs the reason? I think it's a big part of it...but I can not say for sure. No one can, unless we knew every player who injected, and stil lthere would be conjecture. It's just awfully coincidental that the greatest peak of offensive aggression in MLB history coincides with the PEDs scandal.

It could be the darn baseballs (as Curt Schilling once claimed) but I am confident it's not the establishment of pitcher friendly ballparks...if anything I believe the opposite would be true...and the data seems to agree.

Jay, thanks for reading.

There is a bit of a debate going on on the Cafe Forums regarding the effect of the new ballparks. Some are taking the stance that Ballpark Runs Effect (ESPN's Park Factor) is more relevant than your reference to Ballpark HRs. With the assumption that the power outage may not be PEDs, but the effect of the new pitcher freindly ballparks. Do you have any analysis on the effect of the new ballparks in relation to runs factor?

Since pitching is becoming more dominant, should we change the splits ratio from its default 68% hitting, 32% pitching to a more 50% - 50% split? Just wondering your thoughts on the matter.

Andrew, Thanks for the suggestion. I've devoted a blog to this today: http://bit.ly/dve1Bp

Scott good question. The short answer is no, because the Fantistics valuation model already comes closer to valuing pitchers closer to their intrinsic value than most other rankings/valuations out there. So we want the best outcome at the least cost. Sort of like going into a car dealership. You want the car, but you don't want to pay much above what the dealer will let you have it for.

I am currently updating some research that I had previously done with regards to positional probability. I hope to post that in the days ahead along with some strategy.

At the risk of badgering you, can you expound on this: "Additionally the strength of a lineup can exaggerate the effects of a ballpark." BTW: I love your site and the projections software, I have won 8 league championships with your help. Keep it up.

Andrew here's my theory on how park factors can be exaggerated.

Park factor uses Runs Scored for the home team and follows that same home team to other stadiums. Now here’s the faulty premise which can exaggerate the effects of a ballpark, and why it's not a true neutral indicator:

If a team has more hitters in its lineup that are built to capitalize on the dimensions or atmospheric variables, then that team can exasperate the Park Factor. Let’s say, Home Team A & Home Team B both play at a pre humidor Coors field. Team A is stocked with 9 ground ball hitters (think Luis Castillo) and Team B is stocked with 9 fly ball hitters (think Carlos Pena). Which team is going to capitalize on the advantages or disadvantages of a ballpark better? Chances are that it will be Team B, the team with hitters that are more able to utilize the dimension of the ballpark or benefit of altitude. Sure Team B’s production on the road is noted, and compared to their home park, but the degree to which it is…is accentuated by the fact that he capitalizes on the altitude more often than Team A. For Team A (ground ball hitters without power), the advantages of elevation (in this case) could be negated based on lack of use or instances. Therefore I surmise that there would NOT be a wide variance in home/away runs scored for this type of lineup. Hence the exaggeration potential.

How did the tide of new, pitcher-friendly parks and the advent of the humidor in Coors factor into this analysis?

Good Question. The numbers are strictly based on performance and not normalized. However there have been more hitter-friendly ballparks built since 2000, than pitcher-friendly. By my count, based on homeruns allowed as compared to the mean, Great American, Miller, Citifield, Yankee, Citizens, PNC are all more hitter friendly than their predecessor. And that wasn't a typo on Citifield, last year Citifield was above the mean in HRs allowed. On the other end, only Busch, Petco, and Nationals appear to be less slugger friendly than their predecessors.

Why use HRs only? Wouldn't park effects be better, since they include a broader scope of statistics? For instance, Citi Field is indeed HR-friendly, as you mentioned. It's also 3B-friendly. However, it has such a dramatic effect on H, 2B, & BBs that it ends up being decidedly pitcher-friendly in spite of its proclivity towards HRs.

Yes, park factors should be a consideration, but the other ballpark factors you mention are all a clean sweep in favor of Citi field being more favorable to hitters over Shea. Take a look at the most recent 3 year history of Shea. Based on the 3 year average, we see lower production at each of the listed categories (R, H, HR, 2B, & BBs). Granted it might turn out to be the opposite as one year is a poor barometer....but that's all we have right now.

Going back to the original post, there should be no debate that the fantasy landscape has shifted from the start of the last decade to the end of it. Is PEDs the reason? I think it's a big part of it...but I can not say for sure. No one can, unless we knew every player who injected, and stil lthere would be conjecture. It's just awfully coincidental that the greatest peak of offensive aggression in MLB history coincides with the PEDs scandal.

It could be the darn baseballs (as Curt Schilling once claimed) but I am confident it's not the establishment of pitcher friendly ballparks...if anything I believe the opposite would be true...and the data seems to agree.

Jay, thanks for reading.

There is a bit of a debate going on on the Cafe Forums regarding the effect of the new ballparks. Some are taking the stance that Ballpark Runs Effect (ESPN's Park Factor) is more relevant than your reference to Ballpark HRs. With the assumption that the power outage may not be PEDs, but the effect of the new pitcher freindly ballparks. Do you have any analysis on the effect of the new ballparks in relation to runs factor?

Since pitching is becoming more dominant, should we change the splits ratio from its default 68% hitting, 32% pitching to a more 50% - 50% split? Just wondering your thoughts on the matter.

Andrew, Thanks for the suggestion. I've devoted a blog to this today: http://bit.ly/dve1Bp

Scott good question. The short answer is no, because the Fantistics valuation model already comes closer to valuing pitchers closer to their intrinsic value than most other rankings/valuations out there. So we want the best outcome at the least cost. Sort of like going into a car dealership. You want the car, but you don't want to pay much above what the dealer will let you have it for.

I am currently updating some research that I had previously done with regards to positional probability. I hope to post that in the days ahead along with some strategy.

At the risk of badgering you, can you expound on this: "Additionally the strength of a lineup can exaggerate the effects of a ballpark." BTW: I love your site and the projections software, I have won 8 league championships with your help. Keep it up.

Andrew here's my theory on how park factors can be exaggerated.

Park factor uses Runs Scored for the home team and follows that same home team to other stadiums. Now here’s the faulty premise which can exaggerate the effects of a ballpark, and why it's not a true neutral indicator:

If a team has more hitters in its lineup that are built to capitalize on the dimensions or atmospheric variables, then that team can exasperate the Park Factor. Let’s say, Home Team A & Home Team B both play at a pre humidor Coors field. Team A is stocked with 9 ground ball hitters (think Luis Castillo) and Team B is stocked with 9 fly ball hitters (think Carlos Pena). Which team is going to capitalize on the advantages or disadvantages of a ballpark better? Chances are that it will be Team B, the team with hitters that are more able to utilize the dimension of the ballpark or benefit of altitude. Sure Team B’s production on the road is noted, and compared to their home park, but the degree to which it is…is accentuated by the fact that he capitalizes on the altitude more often than Team A. For Team A (ground ball hitters without power), the advantages of elevation (in this case) could be negated based on lack of use or instances. Therefore I surmise that there would NOT be a wide variance in home/away runs scored for this type of lineup. Hence the exaggeration potential.

How did the tide of new, pitcher-friendly parks and the advent of the humidor in Coors factor into this analysis?

Good Question. The numbers are strictly based on performance and not normalized. However there have been more hitter-friendly ballparks built since 2000, than pitcher-friendly. By my count, based on homeruns allowed as compared to the mean, Great American, Miller, Citifield, Yankee, Citizens, PNC are all more hitter friendly than their predecessor. And that wasn't a typo on Citifield, last year Citifield was above the mean in HRs allowed. On the other end, only Busch, Petco, and Nationals appear to be less slugger friendly than their predecessors.

Why use HRs only? Wouldn't park effects be better, since they include a broader scope of statistics? For instance, Citi Field is indeed HR-friendly, as you mentioned. It's also 3B-friendly. However, it has such a dramatic effect on H, 2B, & BBs that it ends up being decidedly pitcher-friendly in spite of its proclivity towards HRs.

Yes, park factors should be a consideration, but the other ballpark factors you mention are all a clean sweep in favor of Citi field being more favorable to hitters over Shea. Take a look at the most recent 3 year history of Shea. Based on the 3 year average, we see lower production at each of the listed categories (R, H, HR, 2B, & BBs). Granted it might turn out to be the opposite as one year is a poor barometer....but that's all we have right now.

Going back to the original post, there should be no debate that the fantasy landscape has shifted from the start of the last decade to the end of it. Is PEDs the reason? I think it's a big part of it...but I can not say for sure. No one can, unless we knew every player who injected, and stil lthere would be conjecture. It's just awfully coincidental that the greatest peak of offensive aggression in MLB history coincides with the PEDs scandal.

It could be the darn baseballs (as Curt Schilling once claimed) but I am confident it's not the establishment of pitcher friendly ballparks...if anything I believe the opposite would be true...and the data seems to agree.

Jay, thanks for reading.

There is a bit of a debate going on on the Cafe Forums regarding the effect of the new ballparks. Some are taking the stance that Ballpark Runs Effect (ESPN's Park Factor) is more relevant than your reference to Ballpark HRs. With the assumption that the power outage may not be PEDs, but the effect of the new pitcher freindly ballparks. Do you have any analysis on the effect of the new ballparks in relation to runs factor?

Since pitching is becoming more dominant, should we change the splits ratio from its default 68% hitting, 32% pitching to a more 50% - 50% split? Just wondering your thoughts on the matter.

Andrew, Thanks for the suggestion. I've devoted a blog to this today: http://bit.ly/dve1Bp

Scott good question. The short answer is no, because the Fantistics valuation model already comes closer to valuing pitchers closer to their intrinsic value than most other rankings/valuations out there. So we want the best outcome at the least cost. Sort of like going into a car dealership. You want the car, but you don't want to pay much above what the dealer will let you have it for.

I am currently updating some research that I had previously done with regards to positional probability. I hope to post that in the days ahead along with some strategy.

At the risk of badgering you, can you expound on this: "Additionally the strength of a lineup can exaggerate the effects of a ballpark." BTW: I love your site and the projections software, I have won 8 league championships with your help. Keep it up.

Andrew here's my theory on how park factors can be exaggerated.

Park factor uses Runs Scored for the home team and follows that same home team to other stadiums. Now here’s the faulty premise which can exaggerate the effects of a ballpark, and why it's not a true neutral indicator:

If a team has more hitters in its lineup that are built to capitalize on the dimensions or atmospheric variables, then that team can exasperate the Park Factor. Let’s say, Home Team A & Home Team B both play at a pre humidor Coors field. Team A is stocked with 9 ground ball hitters (think Luis Castillo) and Team B is stocked with 9 fly ball hitters (think Carlos Pena). Which team is going to capitalize on the advantages or disadvantages of a ballpark better? Chances are that it will be Team B, the team with hitters that are more able to utilize the dimension of the ballpark or benefit of altitude. Sure Team B’s production on the road is noted, and compared to their home park, but the degree to which it is…is accentuated by the fact that he capitalizes on the altitude more often than Team A. For Team A (ground ball hitters without power), the advantages of elevation (in this case) could be negated based on lack of use or instances. Therefore I surmise that there would NOT be a wide variance in home/away runs scored for this type of lineup. Hence the exaggeration potential.

How did the tide of new, pitcher-friendly parks and the advent of the humidor in Coors factor into this analysis?

Good Question. The numbers are strictly based on performance and not normalized. However there have been more hitter-friendly ballparks built since 2000, than pitcher-friendly. By my count, based on homeruns allowed as compared to the mean, Great American, Miller, Citifield, Yankee, Citizens, PNC are all more hitter friendly than their predecessor. And that wasn't a typo on Citifield, last year Citifield was above the mean in HRs allowed. On the other end, only Busch, Petco, and Nationals appear to be less slugger friendly than their predecessors.

Why use HRs only? Wouldn't park effects be better, since they include a broader scope of statistics? For instance, Citi Field is indeed HR-friendly, as you mentioned. It's also 3B-friendly. However, it has such a dramatic effect on H, 2B, & BBs that it ends up being decidedly pitcher-friendly in spite of its proclivity towards HRs.

Yes, park factors should be a consideration, but the other ballpark factors you mention are all a clean sweep in favor of Citi field being more favorable to hitters over Shea. Take a look at the most recent 3 year history of Shea. Based on the 3 year average, we see lower production at each of the listed categories (R, H, HR, 2B, & BBs). Granted it might turn out to be the opposite as one year is a poor barometer....but that's all we have right now.

Going back to the original post, there should be no debate that the fantasy landscape has shifted from the start of the last decade to the end of it. Is PEDs the reason? I think it's a big part of it...but I can not say for sure. No one can, unless we knew every player who injected, and stil lthere would be conjecture. It's just awfully coincidental that the greatest peak of offensive aggression in MLB history coincides with the PEDs scandal.

It could be the darn baseballs (as Curt Schilling once claimed) but I am confident it's not the establishment of pitcher friendly ballparks...if anything I believe the opposite would be true...and the data seems to agree.

Jay, thanks for reading.

There is a bit of a debate going on on the Cafe Forums regarding the effect of the new ballparks. Some are taking the stance that Ballpark Runs Effect (ESPN's Park Factor) is more relevant than your reference to Ballpark HRs. With the assumption that the power outage may not be PEDs, but the effect of the new pitcher freindly ballparks. Do you have any analysis on the effect of the new ballparks in relation to runs factor?

Since pitching is becoming more dominant, should we change the splits ratio from its default 68% hitting, 32% pitching to a more 50% - 50% split? Just wondering your thoughts on the matter.

Andrew, Thanks for the suggestion. I've devoted a blog to this today: http://bit.ly/dve1Bp

Scott good question. The short answer is no, because the Fantistics valuation model already comes closer to valuing pitchers closer to their intrinsic value than most other rankings/valuations out there. So we want the best outcome at the least cost. Sort of like going into a car dealership. You want the car, but you don't want to pay much above what the dealer will let you have it for.

I am currently updating some research that I had previously done with regards to positional probability. I hope to post that in the days ahead along with some strategy.

At the risk of badgering you, can you expound on this: "Additionally the strength of a lineup can exaggerate the effects of a ballpark." BTW: I love your site and the projections software, I have won 8 league championships with your help. Keep it up.

Andrew here's my theory on how park factors can be exaggerated.

Park factor uses Runs Scored for the home team and follows that same home team to other stadiums. Now here’s the faulty premise which can exaggerate the effects of a ballpark, and why it's not a true neutral indicator:

If a team has more hitters in its lineup that are built to capitalize on the dimensions or atmospheric variables, then that team can exasperate the Park Factor. Let’s say, Home Team A & Home Team B both play at a pre humidor Coors field. Team A is stocked with 9 ground ball hitters (think Luis Castillo) and Team B is stocked with 9 fly ball hitters (think Carlos Pena). Which team is going to capitalize on the advantages or disadvantages of a ballpark better? Chances are that it will be Team B, the team with hitters that are more able to utilize the dimension of the ballpark or benefit of altitude. Sure Team B’s production on the road is noted, and compared to their home park, but the degree to which it is…is accentuated by the fact that he capitalizes on the altitude more often than Team A. For Team A (ground ball hitters without power), the advantages of elevation (in this case) could be negated based on lack of use or instances. Therefore I surmise that there would NOT be a wide variance in home/away runs scored for this type of lineup. Hence the exaggeration potential.

How did the tide of new, pitcher-friendly parks and the advent of the humidor in Coors factor into this analysis?

Good Question. The numbers are strictly based on performance and not normalized. However there have been more hitter-friendly ballparks built since 2000, than pitcher-friendly. By my count, based on homeruns allowed as compared to the mean, Great American, Miller, Citifield, Yankee, Citizens, PNC are all more hitter friendly than their predecessor. And that wasn't a typo on Citifield, last year Citifield was above the mean in HRs allowed. On the other end, only Busch, Petco, and Nationals appear to be less slugger friendly than their predecessors.

Why use HRs only? Wouldn't park effects be better, since they include a broader scope of statistics? For instance, Citi Field is indeed HR-friendly, as you mentioned. It's also 3B-friendly. However, it has such a dramatic effect on H, 2B, & BBs that it ends up being decidedly pitcher-friendly in spite of its proclivity towards HRs.

Yes, park factors should be a consideration, but the other ballpark factors you mention are all a clean sweep in favor of Citi field being more favorable to hitters over Shea. Take a look at the most recent 3 year history of Shea. Based on the 3 year average, we see lower production at each of the listed categories (R, H, HR, 2B, & BBs). Granted it might turn out to be the opposite as one year is a poor barometer....but that's all we have right now.

Going back to the original post, there should be no debate that the fantasy landscape has shifted from the start of the last decade to the end of it. Is PEDs the reason? I think it's a big part of it...but I can not say for sure. No one can, unless we knew every player who injected, and stil lthere would be conjecture. It's just awfully coincidental that the greatest peak of offensive aggression in MLB history coincides with the PEDs scandal.

It could be the darn baseballs (as Curt Schilling once claimed) but I am confident it's not the establishment of pitcher friendly ballparks...if anything I believe the opposite would be true...and the data seems to agree.

Jay, thanks for reading.

There is a bit of a debate going on on the Cafe Forums regarding the effect of the new ballparks. Some are taking the stance that Ballpark Runs Effect (ESPN's Park Factor) is more relevant than your reference to Ballpark HRs. With the assumption that the power outage may not be PEDs, but the effect of the new pitcher freindly ballparks. Do you have any analysis on the effect of the new ballparks in relation to runs factor?

Since pitching is becoming more dominant, should we change the splits ratio from its default 68% hitting, 32% pitching to a more 50% - 50% split? Just wondering your thoughts on the matter.

Andrew, Thanks for the suggestion. I've devoted a blog to this today: http://bit.ly/dve1Bp

Scott good question. The short answer is no, because the Fantistics valuation model already comes closer to valuing pitchers closer to their intrinsic value than most other rankings/valuations out there. So we want the best outcome at the least cost. Sort of like going into a car dealership. You want the car, but you don't want to pay much above what the dealer will let you have it for.

I am currently updating some research that I had previously done with regards to positional probability. I hope to post that in the days ahead along with some strategy.

At the risk of badgering you, can you expound on this: "Additionally the strength of a lineup can exaggerate the effects of a ballpark." BTW: I love your site and the projections software, I have won 8 league championships with your help. Keep it up.

Andrew here's my theory on how park factors can be exaggerated.

Park factor uses Runs Scored for the home team and follows that same home team to other stadiums. Now here’s the faulty premise which can exaggerate the effects of a ballpark, and why it's not a true neutral indicator:

If a team has more hitters in its lineup that are built to capitalize on the dimensions or atmospheric variables, then that team can exasperate the Park Factor. Let’s say, Home Team A & Home Team B both play at a pre humidor Coors field. Team A is stocked with 9 ground ball hitters (think Luis Castillo) and Team B is stocked with 9 fly ball hitters (think Carlos Pena). Which team is going to capitalize on the advantages or disadvantages of a ballpark better? Chances are that it will be Team B, the team with hitters that are more able to utilize the dimension of the ballpark or benefit of altitude. Sure Team B’s production on the road is noted, and compared to their home park, but the degree to which it is…is accentuated by the fact that he capitalizes on the altitude more often than Team A. For Team A (ground ball hitters without power), the advantages of elevation (in this case) could be negated based on lack of use or instances. Therefore I surmise that there would NOT be a wide variance in home/away runs scored for this type of lineup. Hence the exaggeration potential.

How did the tide of new, pitcher-friendly parks and the advent of the humidor in Coors factor into this analysis?

Good Question. The numbers are strictly based on performance and not normalized. However there have been more hitter-friendly ballparks built since 2000, than pitcher-friendly. By my count, based on homeruns allowed as compared to the mean, Great American, Miller, Citifield, Yankee, Citizens, PNC are all more hitter friendly than their predecessor. And that wasn't a typo on Citifield, last year Citifield was above the mean in HRs allowed. On the other end, only Busch, Petco, and Nationals appear to be less slugger friendly than their predecessors.

Why use HRs only? Wouldn't park effects be better, since they include a broader scope of statistics? For instance, Citi Field is indeed HR-friendly, as you mentioned. It's also 3B-friendly. However, it has such a dramatic effect on H, 2B, & BBs that it ends up being decidedly pitcher-friendly in spite of its proclivity towards HRs.

Yes, park factors should be a consideration, but the other ballpark factors you mention are all a clean sweep in favor of Citi field being more favorable to hitters over Shea. Take a look at the most recent 3 year history of Shea. Based on the 3 year average, we see lower production at each of the listed categories (R, H, HR, 2B, & BBs). Granted it might turn out to be the opposite as one year is a poor barometer....but that's all we have right now.

Going back to the original post, there should be no debate that the fantasy landscape has shifted from the start of the last decade to the end of it. Is PEDs the reason? I think it's a big part of it...but I can not say for sure. No one can, unless we knew every player who injected, and stil lthere would be conjecture. It's just awfully coincidental that the greatest peak of offensive aggression in MLB history coincides with the PEDs scandal.

It could be the darn baseballs (as Curt Schilling once claimed) but I am confident it's not the establishment of pitcher friendly ballparks...if anything I believe the opposite would be true...and the data seems to agree.

Jay, thanks for reading.

There is a bit of a debate going on on the Cafe Forums regarding the effect of the new ballparks. Some are taking the stance that Ballpark Runs Effect (ESPN's Park Factor) is more relevant than your reference to Ballpark HRs. With the assumption that the power outage may not be PEDs, but the effect of the new pitcher freindly ballparks. Do you have any analysis on the effect of the new ballparks in relation to runs factor?

Since pitching is becoming more dominant, should we change the splits ratio from its default 68% hitting, 32% pitching to a more 50% - 50% split? Just wondering your thoughts on the matter.

Andrew, Thanks for the suggestion. I've devoted a blog to this today: http://bit.ly/dve1Bp

Scott good question. The short answer is no, because the Fantistics valuation model already comes closer to valuing pitchers closer to their intrinsic value than most other rankings/valuations out there. So we want the best outcome at the least cost. Sort of like going into a car dealership. You want the car, but you don't want to pay much above what the dealer will let you have it for.

I am currently updating some research that I had previously done with regards to positional probability. I hope to post that in the days ahead along with some strategy.

At the risk of badgering you, can you expound on this: "Additionally the strength of a lineup can exaggerate the effects of a ballpark." BTW: I love your site and the projections software, I have won 8 league championships with your help. Keep it up.

Andrew here's my theory on how park factors can be exaggerated.

Park factor uses Runs Scored for the home team and follows that same home team to other stadiums. Now here’s the faulty premise which can exaggerate the effects of a ballpark, and why it's not a true neutral indicator:

If a team has more hitters in its lineup that are built to capitalize on the dimensions or atmospheric variables, then that team can exasperate the Park Factor. Let’s say, Home Team A & Home Team B both play at a pre humidor Coors field. Team A is stocked with 9 ground ball hitters (think Luis Castillo) and Team B is stocked with 9 fly ball hitters (think Carlos Pena). Which team is going to capitalize on the advantages or disadvantages of a ballpark better? Chances are that it will be Team B, the team with hitters that are more able to utilize the dimension of the ballpark or benefit of altitude. Sure Team B’s production on the road is noted, and compared to their home park, but the degree to which it is…is accentuated by the fact that he capitalizes on the altitude more often than Team A. For Team A (ground ball hitters without power), the advantages of elevation (in this case) could be negated based on lack of use or instances. Therefore I surmise that there would NOT be a wide variance in home/away runs scored for this type of lineup. Hence the exaggeration potential.

How did the tide of new, pitcher-friendly parks and the advent of the humidor in Coors factor into this analysis?

Good Question. The numbers are strictly based on performance and not normalized. However there have been more hitter-friendly ballparks built since 2000, than pitcher-friendly. By my count, based on homeruns allowed as compared to the mean, Great American, Miller, Citifield, Yankee, Citizens, PNC are all more hitter friendly than their predecessor. And that wasn't a typo on Citifield, last year Citifield was above the mean in HRs allowed. On the other end, only Busch, Petco, and Nationals appear to be less slugger friendly than their predecessors.

Why use HRs only? Wouldn't park effects be better, since they include a broader scope of statistics? For instance, Citi Field is indeed HR-friendly, as you mentioned. It's also 3B-friendly. However, it has such a dramatic effect on H, 2B, & BBs that it ends up being decidedly pitcher-friendly in spite of its proclivity towards HRs.

Yes, park factors should be a consideration, but the other ballpark factors you mention are all a clean sweep in favor of Citi field being more favorable to hitters over Shea. Take a look at the most recent 3 year history of Shea. Based on the 3 year average, we see lower production at each of the listed categories (R, H, HR, 2B, & BBs). Granted it might turn out to be the opposite as one year is a poor barometer....but that's all we have right now.

Going back to the original post, there should be no debate that the fantasy landscape has shifted from the start of the last decade to the end of it. Is PEDs the reason? I think it's a big part of it...but I can not say for sure. No one can, unless we knew every player who injected, and stil lthere would be conjecture. It's just awfully coincidental that the greatest peak of offensive aggression in MLB history coincides with the PEDs scandal.

It could be the darn baseballs (as Curt Schilling once claimed) but I am confident it's not the establishment of pitcher friendly ballparks...if anything I believe the opposite would be true...and the data seems to agree.

Jay, thanks for reading.

There is a bit of a debate going on on the Cafe Forums regarding the effect of the new ballparks. Some are taking the stance that Ballpark Runs Effect (ESPN's Park Factor) is more relevant than your reference to Ballpark HRs. With the assumption that the power outage may not be PEDs, but the effect of the new pitcher freindly ballparks. Do you have any analysis on the effect of the new ballparks in relation to runs factor?

Since pitching is becoming more dominant, should we change the splits ratio from its default 68% hitting, 32% pitching to a more 50% - 50% split? Just wondering your thoughts on the matter.

Andrew, Thanks for the suggestion. I've devoted a blog to this today: http://bit.ly/dve1Bp

Scott good question. The short answer is no, because the Fantistics valuation model already comes closer to valuing pitchers closer to their intrinsic value than most other rankings/valuations out there. So we want the best outcome at the least cost. Sort of like going into a car dealership. You want the car, but you don't want to pay much above what the dealer will let you have it for.

I am currently updating some research that I had previously done with regards to positional probability. I hope to post that in the days ahead along with some strategy.

At the risk of badgering you, can you expound on this: "Additionally the strength of a lineup can exaggerate the effects of a ballpark." BTW: I love your site and the projections software, I have won 8 league championships with your help. Keep it up.

Andrew here's my theory on how park factors can be exaggerated.

Park factor uses Runs Scored for the home team and follows that same home team to other stadiums. Now here’s the faulty premise which can exaggerate the effects of a ballpark, and why it's not a true neutral indicator:

If a team has more hitters in its lineup that are built to capitalize on the dimensions or atmospheric variables, then that team can exasperate the Park Factor. Let’s say, Home Team A & Home Team B both play at a pre humidor Coors field. Team A is stocked with 9 ground ball hitters (think Luis Castillo) and Team B is stocked with 9 fly ball hitters (think Carlos Pena). Which team is going to capitalize on the advantages or disadvantages of a ballpark better? Chances are that it will be Team B, the team with hitters that are more able to utilize the dimension of the ballpark or benefit of altitude. Sure Team B’s production on the road is noted, and compared to their home park, but the degree to which it is…is accentuated by the fact that he capitalizes on the altitude more often than Team A. For Team A (ground ball hitters without power), the advantages of elevation (in this case) could be negated based on lack of use or instances. Therefore I surmise that there would NOT be a wide variance in home/away runs scored for this type of lineup. Hence the exaggeration potential.

How did the tide of new, pitcher-friendly parks and the advent of the humidor in Coors factor into this analysis?

Good Question. The numbers are strictly based on performance and not normalized. However there have been more hitter-friendly ballparks built since 2000, than pitcher-friendly. By my count, based on homeruns allowed as compared to the mean, Great American, Miller, Citifield, Yankee, Citizens, PNC are all more hitter friendly than their predecessor. And that wasn't a typo on Citifield, last year Citifield was above the mean in HRs allowed. On the other end, only Busch, Petco, and Nationals appear to be less slugger friendly than their predecessors.

Why use HRs only? Wouldn't park effects be better, since they include a broader scope of statistics? For instance, Citi Field is indeed HR-friendly, as you mentioned. It's also 3B-friendly. However, it has such a dramatic effect on H, 2B, & BBs that it ends up being decidedly pitcher-friendly in spite of its proclivity towards HRs.

Yes, park factors should be a consideration, but the other ballpark factors you mention are all a clean sweep in favor of Citi field being more favorable to hitters over Shea. Take a look at the most recent 3 year history of Shea. Based on the 3 year average, we see lower production at each of the listed categories (R, H, HR, 2B, & BBs). Granted it might turn out to be the opposite as one year is a poor barometer....but that's all we have right now.

Going back to the original post, there should be no debate that the fantasy landscape has shifted from the start of the last decade to the end of it. Is PEDs the reason? I think it's a big part of it...but I can not say for sure. No one can, unless we knew every player who injected, and stil lthere would be conjecture. It's just awfully coincidental that the greatest peak of offensive aggression in MLB history coincides with the PEDs scandal.

It could be the darn baseballs (as Curt Schilling once claimed) but I am confident it's not the establishment of pitcher friendly ballparks...if anything I believe the opposite would be true...and the data seems to agree.

Jay, thanks for reading.

There is a bit of a debate going on on the Cafe Forums regarding the effect of the new ballparks. Some are taking the stance that Ballpark Runs Effect (ESPN's Park Factor) is more relevant than your reference to Ballpark HRs. With the assumption that the power outage may not be PEDs, but the effect of the new pitcher freindly ballparks. Do you have any analysis on the effect of the new ballparks in relation to runs factor?

Since pitching is becoming more dominant, should we change the splits ratio from its default 68% hitting, 32% pitching to a more 50% - 50% split? Just wondering your thoughts on the matter.

Andrew, Thanks for the suggestion. I've devoted a blog to this today: http://bit.ly/dve1Bp

Scott good question. The short answer is no, because the Fantistics valuation model already comes closer to valuing pitchers closer to their intrinsic value than most other rankings/valuations out there. So we want the best outcome at the least cost. Sort of like going into a car dealership. You want the car, but you don't want to pay much above what the dealer will let you have it for.

I am currently updating some research that I had previously done with regards to positional probability. I hope to post that in the days ahead along with some strategy.

At the risk of badgering you, can you expound on this: "Additionally the strength of a lineup can exaggerate the effects of a ballpark." BTW: I love your site and the projections software, I have won 8 league championships with your help. Keep it up.

Andrew here's my theory on how park factors can be exaggerated.

Park factor uses Runs Scored for the home team and follows that same home team to other stadiums. Now here’s the faulty premise which can exaggerate the effects of a ballpark, and why it's not a true neutral indicator:

If a team has more hitters in its lineup that are built to capitalize on the dimensions or atmospheric variables, then that team can exasperate the Park Factor. Let’s say, Home Team A & Home Team B both play at a pre humidor Coors field. Team A is stocked with 9 ground ball hitters (think Luis Castillo) and Team B is stocked with 9 fly ball hitters (think Carlos Pena). Which team is going to capitalize on the advantages or disadvantages of a ballpark better? Chances are that it will be Team B, the team with hitters that are more able to utilize the dimension of the ballpark or benefit of altitude. Sure Team B’s production on the road is noted, and compared to their home park, but the degree to which it is…is accentuated by the fact that he capitalizes on the altitude more often than Team A. For Team A (ground ball hitters without power), the advantages of elevation (in this case) could be negated based on lack of use or instances. Therefore I surmise that there would NOT be a wide variance in home/away runs scored for this type of lineup. Hence the exaggeration potential.

How did the tide of new, pitcher-friendly parks and the advent of the humidor in Coors factor into this analysis?

Good Question. The numbers are strictly based on performance and not normalized. However there have been more hitter-friendly ballparks built since 2000, than pitcher-friendly. By my count, based on homeruns allowed as compared to the mean, Great American, Miller, Citifield, Yankee, Citizens, PNC are all more hitter friendly than their predecessor. And that wasn't a typo on Citifield, last year Citifield was above the mean in HRs allowed. On the other end, only Busch, Petco, and Nationals appear to be less slugger friendly than their predecessors.

Why use HRs only? Wouldn't park effects be better, since they include a broader scope of statistics? For instance, Citi Field is indeed HR-friendly, as you mentioned. It's also 3B-friendly. However, it has such a dramatic effect on H, 2B, & BBs that it ends up being decidedly pitcher-friendly in spite of its proclivity towards HRs.

Yes, park factors should be a consideration, but the other ballpark factors you mention are all a clean sweep in favor of Citi field being more favorable to hitters over Shea. Take a look at the most recent 3 year history of Shea. Based on the 3 year average, we see lower production at each of the listed categories (R, H, HR, 2B, & BBs). Granted it might turn out to be the opposite as one year is a poor barometer....but that's all we have right now.

Going back to the original post, there should be no debate that the fantasy landscape has shifted from the start of the last decade to the end of it. Is PEDs the reason? I think it's a big part of it...but I can not say for sure. No one can, unless we knew every player who injected, and stil lthere would be conjecture. It's just awfully coincidental that the greatest peak of offensive aggression in MLB history coincides with the PEDs scandal.

It could be the darn baseballs (as Curt Schilling once claimed) but I am confident it's not the establishment of pitcher friendly ballparks...if anything I believe the opposite would be true...and the data seems to agree.

Jay, thanks for reading.

There is a bit of a debate going on on the Cafe Forums regarding the effect of the new ballparks. Some are taking the stance that Ballpark Runs Effect (ESPN's Park Factor) is more relevant than your reference to Ballpark HRs. With the assumption that the power outage may not be PEDs, but the effect of the new pitcher freindly ballparks. Do you have any analysis on the effect of the new ballparks in relation to runs factor?

Since pitching is becoming more dominant, should we change the splits ratio from its default 68% hitting, 32% pitching to a more 50% - 50% split? Just wondering your thoughts on the matter.

Andrew, Thanks for the suggestion. I've devoted a blog to this today: http://bit.ly/dve1Bp

Scott good question. The short answer is no, because the Fantistics valuation model already comes closer to valuing pitchers closer to their intrinsic value than most other rankings/valuations out there. So we want the best outcome at the least cost. Sort of like going into a car dealership. You want the car, but you don't want to pay much above what the dealer will let you have it for.

I am currently updating some research that I had previously done with regards to positional probability. I hope to post that in the days ahead along with some strategy.

At the risk of badgering you, can you expound on this: "Additionally the strength of a lineup can exaggerate the effects of a ballpark." BTW: I love your site and the projections software, I have won 8 league championships with your help. Keep it up.

Andrew here's my theory on how park factors can be exaggerated.

Park factor uses Runs Scored for the home team and follows that same home team to other stadiums. Now here’s the faulty premise which can exaggerate the effects of a ballpark, and why it's not a true neutral indicator:

If a team has more hitters in its lineup that are built to capitalize on the dimensions or atmospheric variables, then that team can exasperate the Park Factor. Let’s say, Home Team A & Home Team B both play at a pre humidor Coors field. Team A is stocked with 9 ground ball hitters (think Luis Castillo) and Team B is stocked with 9 fly ball hitters (think Carlos Pena). Which team is going to capitalize on the advantages or disadvantages of a ballpark better? Chances are that it will be Team B, the team with hitters that are more able to utilize the dimension of the ballpark or benefit of altitude. Sure Team B’s production on the road is noted, and compared to their home park, but the degree to which it is…is accentuated by the fact that he capitalizes on the altitude more often than Team A. For Team A (ground ball hitters without power), the advantages of elevation (in this case) could be negated based on lack of use or instances. Therefore I surmise that there would NOT be a wide variance in home/away runs scored for this type of lineup. Hence the exaggeration potential.