I've always been curious as to what makes a "pitchers" park.

I'm not necessarily talking about SIM ratings, since those are hopefully based on real life stats, and I know that a bigger park will likely = more 3B and fewer 2B and HR, etc.

But what makes one park easier to hit singles at than another? Why are some parks with similar attributes (and even similar effects in the SIM) so different when it comes to park factor?

The park in Oakland had a TON of foul ground which lead to a lot more foul outs which lead to less hits.

Some parks (Coors comes to mind) give up more singles because OF's play deeper.

Shea was just really windy, the ball never carried there.

The Astrodome was just huge.

The Astrodome was cavernous.

Quote: Originally posted by nmchnv on 5/26/2010The Astrodome was cavernous.

But it would almost seem a cavernous park should be a hitters park. It would cut down on HR, but that would mean there's more ground for fielders to cover and more places for a hit to drop in.

I don't think the ball carried well in the Astrodome. I remember the announcers saying something about the air conditioning.

Also, since it was turf, the 2b and SS played like 20 feet into the OF. I think Bill Doran robbed Keith Hernandez of a hit up the middle every time the Mets went to Houston.

That's because he was Mr. Greybeard looking for Miss hotty

I hadn't really considered the speed of the turf. That makes a bit more sense.

weak hitting and good pitching. one of the reasons petco looks like an extreme pitchers park.

Quote: Originally posted by rbow923 on 5/26/2010weak hitting and good pitching. one of the reasons petco looks like an extreme pitchers park.

An interesting theory as well. Teams in a slight pitchers park tailor their roster to suit it, thus making it even more of a pitcher's park.

'There's no play for Mr. Grey'

Quote: Originally posted by Jtpsops on 5/27/2010

Quote: Originally posted by rbow923 on 5/26/2010weak hitting and good pitching. one of the reasons petco looks like an extreme pitchers park.

An interesting theory as well. Teams in a slight pitchers park tailor their roster to suit it, thus making it even more of a pitcher's park.

Dude thats not true. Petco has the wind blowing from outfield in, since the coast is only a few miles off. Fly balls die in Petco, robbing hitters of potential hrs and doubles.

A pitchers park (or hitters park) is measured statistically by looking at both the home team and their opponents stats. A home team's roster is irrelevent in this determination.

Quote: Originally posted by schwarze on 5/27/2010A pitchers park (or hitters park) is measured statistically by looking at both the home team and their opponents stats.  A home team's roster is irrelevent in this determination.

No, I know, that's not what I meant at all. What I'm saying is, if a team has a pitcher's park and they build their roster to suit it (ie: better pitchers, good fielding/average hitting offense), then the pitching stats at the park should get even better and hitting stats worse...thus statistically, it would become even more of a pitchers park because the home team's stats would theoretically skew it even more in that direction

Obviously the road team's stats factor in, but with the home team playing 82 games there, their roster/team's stats are going to have more of an impact on the park factor.

Not sure I agree. There are many ways in which park factors are calculated, but the most common way is to compare the total runs scored (or runs scored per inning) by the team and its opponents at home vs on the road.

Example: Team A scores 350 runs and allows 400 runs at home (81 games). Team A scores 300 runs and allows 350 runs on the road (81 games). The park will be considered a "hitters park" because the total runs scored and allowed at home is greater than total runs scored and allowed on the road. Even though team A is obviously a lousy offensive club. The makeup of the home team should have minimal influence over this calculation, because it is effectively controlled for.

Quote: Originally posted by contrarian23 on 5/27/2010Not sure I agree.

I'm shocked.