Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: FSN: Worley Looking Forward To Target Field

  1. #21
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    3,232
    Like
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    It has nothing to do with backing my opinion or not. Park Factor is nearly useless, period. It's too easily influenced by the home team's pitching staff and offense to be of any real value. I ignore it the same way I ignore wins or RBI. There are too many unbalanced team variables that influence the number and the metric does absolutely nothing to compensate for the fact that Roy Halladay >>>>>>>>> Sam Deduno.
    Okay

  2. #22
    Super Moderator MVP ashburyjohn's Avatar
    Posts
    6,969
    Like
    1,041
    Liked 1,260 Times in 752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    Park Factor is nearly useless, period.... the fact that Roy Halladay >>>>>>>>> Sam Deduno.
    I must not understand the form of park factor you're referring to. What I've seen is that if Halladay posts a 2.50 ERA at home and a 2.00 on the road, and if his staffmates have similar experiences and the batters likewise have inflated stats at home, and taking into account that there usually is some advantage to the team playing at home, then the computation should come out that the Phillies' park has a higher park factor than somewhere like Dodger Stadium. Halladay and the others are being compared to themselves, not to AAAA pitchers like Deduno. How does having a good pitching staff skew a park's factor? (Feel free to point to a link that explains rather than invest much time reinventing some wheel.)

  3. #23
    Senior Member All-Star Willihammer's Avatar
    Posts
    2,379
    Like
    249
    Liked 191 Times in 109 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    If you pull up the first link, do a Target Field overlay, you can see that there are a fair number of balls that wouldn't be gone at TF that were HRs at CBP, esp. in left field.

    Now pull up the 2nd link, and do a PNC overlay.

    Left field is not too pitcher friendly compared to PNC.

  4. #24
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    969
    Like
    3
    Liked 14 Times in 11 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ashburyjohn View Post
    I must not understand the form of park factor you're referring to. What I've seen is that if Halladay posts a 2.50 ERA at home and a 2.00 on the road, and if his staffmates have similar experiences and the batters likewise have inflated stats at home, and taking into account that there usually is some advantage to the team playing at home, then the computation should come out that the Phillies' park has a higher park factor than somewhere like Dodger Stadium. Halladay and the others are being compared to themselves, not to AAAA pitchers like Deduno. How does having a good pitching staff skew a park's factor? (Feel free to point to a link that explains rather than invest much time reinventing some wheel.)
    Thank you. It doesn't mean it's perfect, but people did seem to have a big misunderstanding of how it is calculated.

    One season isn't a great sample size for a few reasons (Josh Willingham and Trevor Plouffe, for example, are much better at Target Field) but it's more well thought out than simply comparing pitching staffs.

  5. #25
    Pixel Monkey MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    6,696
    Like
    32
    Liked 774 Times in 425 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by ashburyjohn View Post
    I must not understand the form of park factor you're referring to. What I've seen is that if Halladay posts a 2.50 ERA at home and a 2.00 on the road, and if his staffmates have similar experiences and the batters likewise have inflated stats at home, and taking into account that there usually is some advantage to the team playing at home, then the computation should come out that the Phillies' park has a higher park factor than somewhere like Dodger Stadium. Halladay and the others are being compared to themselves, not to AAAA pitchers like Deduno. How does having a good pitching staff skew a park's factor? (Feel free to point to a link that explains rather than invest much time reinventing some wheel.)
    I'm well aware of how it is calculated. Did it occur to you that, for example, teams tend to customize their rosters based on home park? Or that individual players often play much better at home than on the road? And that given an unbalanced schedule, the same better (or worse) teams play more often in the same ballparks? Or that weather can impact a ballpark when you're looking at a single season? And that, in the case of a rotation, any kind of skewing of statistics like that over a single season can drastically alter the outcome?

    I could keep going all day with reasons why park factor sucks. There are simply too many variables that are completely untracked, rendering the metric virtually useless. It's really no different than RBI or wins. I suppose the number tells you something but given how many things it flat-out ignores, there's just as good a chance it's feeding you bad information.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    969
    Like
    3
    Liked 14 Times in 11 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    I'm well aware of how it is calculated. Did it occur to you that, for example, teams tend to customize their rosters based on home park? Or that individual players often play much better at home than on the road? And that given an unbalanced schedule, the same better (or worse) teams play more often in the same ballparks? Or that weather can impact a ballpark when you're looking at a single season? And that, in the case of a rotation, any kind of skewing of statistics like that over a single season can drastically alter the outcome?

    I could keep going all day with reasons why park factor sucks. There are simply too many variables that are completely untracked, rendering the metric virtually useless. It's really no different than RBI or wins. I suppose the number tells you something but given how many things it flat-out ignores, there's just as good a chance it's feeding you bad information.
    All good points (and why I agreed with the post that single season doesn't tell you much and cited Willingham and Plouffe); however, to be fair, I read your initial posts the same way as ashburyjohn.

  7. #27
    Super Moderator MVP ashburyjohn's Avatar
    Posts
    6,969
    Like
    1,041
    Liked 1,260 Times in 752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    I'm well aware of how it is calculated. Did it occur to you
    I'm not sure why my straightforward attempt to make sure we're talking about the same thing earned condescension. And if you had actually read my paragraph, you'd have had the answer to whether it had occurred to me that individual players often play better at home, because I said that. If weather is enough of a factor one year that it skews the calculation of a park factor, then maybe that is data worth having when evaluating the players' numbers for that season, rather than discard it. As for it being no different than RBI or wins, we understand that these depend on teammates setting things up for each other, and I don't see anything analogous in trying to determine how much effect Coors Field has on a game.

    This seems awfully similar in spirit to the debate about measuring clutch performance. Do you believe that park effects basically don't exist and thus shouldn't be measured? Or that the ways of measuring park effects aren't getting to the core of the matter?

    I'm sure there exists a good point-counterpoint discussion on the topic somewhere else on teh internets, and I guess I'll go search.

  8. #28
    Pixel Monkey MVP Brock Beauchamp's Avatar
    Posts
    6,696
    Like
    32
    Liked 774 Times in 425 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by ashburyjohn View Post
    I'm not sure why my straightforward attempt to make sure we're talking about the same thing earned condescension. And if you had actually read my paragraph, you'd have had the answer to whether it had occurred to me that individual players often play better at home, because I said that. If weather is enough of a factor one year that it skews the calculation of a park factor, then maybe that is data worth having when evaluating the players' numbers for that season, rather than discard it. As for it being no different than RBI or wins, we understand that these depend on teammates setting things up for each other, and I don't see anything analogous in trying to determine how much effect Coors Field has on a game.

    This seems awfully similar in spirit to the debate about measuring clutch performance. Do you believe that park effects basically don't exist and thus shouldn't be measured? Or that the ways of measuring park effects aren't getting to the core of the matter?

    I'm sure there exists a good point-counterpoint discussion on the topic somewhere else on teh internets, and I guess I'll go search.
    I didn't mean to be condescending about it.

    It's the same as RBI or wins because it fails to track influences on the metric that drastically alter outcomes. The same way RBI doesn't mention whether you have Drew Butera or Joe Mauer hitting in front of a player, Park Factor doesn't take into account that Willingham might hit 20 homers in a year at home and 10 on the road while the rest of his team hits a 50/50 split. It doesn't try to factor in whether the median temperature was 3 degrees warmer that summer. It also doesn't properly factor if you play in, say, Fenway Park, and face Miguel Cabrera and Prince Fielder 19 times a year, two guys who could absolutely mash at that park. Or vice versa, where you face the Houston Astros 19 times a year while facing the Yankees three times in interleague.

    Attempting to compensate for park is a very valid goal and I'd love to see it happen. My only point is that the current tools we have available (particularly ESPN's awful Park Factor) are so half-assed that they are unusable and should be used sparingly (if at all) and never be quoted as definitive truth. You could just as easily be getting information that is completely wrong from the statistic as you are getting something insightful. And when that happens, the metric becomes useless.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.