Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Transaction Oracle > Discussion
Transaction Oracle
— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Weighted Park Factors, 2003-2005

The question has come up repeatedly here are 3-year weighted park factors for all active major and minor league teams, not counting rookie league teams (since I don’t translate rookie league stats, I don’t keep the factors).  The weights are 8,5,3.  For teams that got new parks, only the stats from the new park count.


Team       R   H   2B     HR     BB     SO  
Aberdeen 0.91 0.91 0.94 1.07 0.85 0.92
Akron   1.06 1.05 0.86 0.79 0.92 0.88
Albuquerque 1.32 1.19 0.80 1.60 0.98 0.89
Altoona 0.94 1.09 1.27 0.77 1.02 1.02
Arizona 1.12 1.06 1.14 1.14 1.06 0.96
Arkansas 1.07 1.02 1.21 1.46 0.97 0.88
Asheville 1.24 1.08 0.82 1.59 1.03 0.85
Atlanta 1.04 1.04 1.02 1.02 1.02 0.94
Auburn 1.01 0.98 0.99 0.94 0.92 0.95
Augusta 0.89 0.94 1.10 0.51 1.00 0.94
Bakersfield 0.93 0.98 1.11 0.95 0.96 1.05
Baltimore 0.94 0.98 0.92 1.00 1.06 0.96
Batavia 1.06 1.24 1.57 0.78 1.21 1.35
Beloit 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.26 0.99 1.05
Binghamton 1.15 1.18 1.11 1.13 1.18 1.27
Birmingham 0.96 0.95 1.08 0.55 1.00 0.95
Boise 1.05 1.05 0.86 1.07 0.86 0.87
Boston 1.10 1.06 1.32 0.94 1.04 0.94
Bowie 0.85 0.92 1.16 1.04 0.95 1.06
Brevard 0.99 1.08 1.06 0.74 1.15 1.16
Brooklyn 0.91 0.85 1.02 0.92 0.84 0.87
Buffalo 0.97 1.00 1.07 0.98 1.00 1.06
Burlington 0.95 0.93 0.99 1.04 1.04 1.11
Carolina 0.94 0.94 1.11 0.87 1.04 0.99
Cedar Rapids 1.09 1.06 0.88 1.14 0.95 0.97
Charleston 0.95 1.06 1.23 0.54 0.99 1.04
Charlotte 1.00 1.01 0.93 1.56 0.98 1.12
Chattanooga 1.17 1.13 1.03 1.21 1.13 1.02
Chicago (A) 1.06 1.02 0.94 1.38 1.06 1.00
Chicago (N) 1.02 1.00 1.04 1.08 0.98 1.08
Cincinnati 1.02 1.00 1.04 1.16 0.96 1.02
Clearwater 0.98 1.00 1.22 1.06 1.00 0.97
Cleveland 0.92 0.94 1.08 0.82 1.06 1.00
Clinton 0.98 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.89
Colorado 1.34 1.22 1.22 1.24 1.08 0.92
Colorado Springs 1.11 1.02 0.92 1.01 0.88 0.83
Columbus 0.93 0.91 0.94 0.90 0.99 1.00
Columbus (A) 0.94 0.95 1.05 0.96 0.96 1.01
Corpus Christi 0.79 0.93 1.00 0.72 0.89 1.04
Dayton 1.05 0.98 0.84 1.04 0.87 0.86
Daytona 1.12 1.03 0.79 1.43 0.91 0.96
Delmarva 1.00 0.98 0.95 0.88 1.13 1.07
Detroit 0.92 1.00 0.82 0.86 0.98 0.98
Dunedin 1.16 1.15 1.07 1.45 0.99 1.11
Durham 1.11 1.03 0.94 1.11 1.00 0.99
Erie 1.10 1.02 0.82 1.24 1.04 0.91
Eugene 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.28 1.10 1.12
Everett 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.11
Florida 0.84 0.90 0.84 0.84 1.04 1.12
Fort Myers 0.97 1.01 1.04 0.90 0.98 1.14
Fort Wayne 0.99 1.09 1.19 1.11 1.14 1.16
Frederick 1.07 1.05 0.84 1.46 1.01 1.04
Fresno 0.94 0.95 1.01 1.23 0.89 0.98
Frisco 1.01 1.00 0.83 1.11 0.97 1.02
Greensboro 0.99 0.97 0.97 1.37 1.07 1.04
Greenville 1.07 1.07 1.00 1.07 1.07 1.07
Hagerstown 0.94 0.91 0.93 0.89 0.93 0.87
Harrisburg 1.06 1.02 0.85 1.14 1.05 1.08
Hickory 0.96 0.96 0.95 1.51 0.82 0.86
High Desert 1.16 1.02 0.81 1.73 0.96 0.91
Houston 1.02 1.00 0.86 1.16 0.96 0.98
Hudson Valley 0.91 1.01 1.07 0.86 0.99 1.13
Huntsville 1.05 1.03 0.82 1.21 1.04 1.08
Indianapolis 1.03 1.07 1.05 0.95 0.97 0.94
Inland Empire 0.97 1.12 1.31 0.66 1.01 1.22
Iowa 1.05 1.08 1.12 1.11 1.22 1.24
Jacksonville 0.91 0.93 0.85 1.02 0.96 1.07
Jamestown 1.07 0.97 0.69 1.49 0.82 0.75
Jupiter 0.86 0.89 0.98 0.57 0.96 0.85
Kane County 1.30 1.31 0.96 1.21 1.36 1.36
Kannapolis 1.01 0.99 1.00 0.76 1.06 0.97
Kansas City 1.00 1.02 1.06 0.80 1.00 0.86
Kinston 0.88 0.88 0.97 0.93 1.02 1.03
Lake County 1.04 1.07 1.14 0.60 1.18 1.09
Lake Elsinore 0.92 0.84 0.79 1.14 0.81 0.68
Lakeland 1.02 1.00 0.91 1.09 1.07 0.96
Lakewood 0.87 0.98 1.23 0.47 1.03 1.14
Lancaster 1.19 1.20 0.96 1.64 1.18 1.19
Lansing 0.93 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.98 0.95
Las Vegas 1.24 1.19 0.97 1.35 1.19 1.16
Lexington 1.10 1.04 0.90 1.42 0.95 0.98
Los Angeles (A) 0.94 0.98 0.98 0.94 0.96 1.00
Los Angeles (N) 0.90 0.94 0.86 1.12 0.90 1.06
Louisville 1.05 1.01 0.97 0.89 1.01 0.84
Lowell 1.04 1.02 1.08 1.10 1.10 1.04
Lynchburg 1.01 0.97 1.16 1.00 0.83 0.95
Mahoning Valley 0.99 0.96 0.92 0.89 1.04 1.05
Memphis 0.86 0.91 1.03 1.00 1.01 0.99
Midland 0.99 0.98 0.94 0.80 0.90 1.02
Milwaukee 1.02 0.94 1.00 1.08 0.96 1.02
Minnesota 1.06 1.02 1.04 0.98 0.96 1.12
Mississippi 0.97 0.98 1.18 0.91 1.00 1.01
Mobile 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.12 1.04 0.96
Modesto 0.99 0.96 1.10 0.69 0.99 1.10
Montgomery 0.91 0.98 1.17 0.77 0.86 0.93
Myrtle Beach 1.01 1.09 1.26 0.76 1.28 1.30
Nashville 0.89 0.92 1.12 0.94 1.07 1.16
New Britain 0.95 0.94 1.11 1.11 0.90 0.89
New Hampshire 0.87 0.84 0.98 1.18 0.92 0.95
New Jersey 0.94 0.86 0.77 0.85 0.79 0.79
New Orleans 0.83 0.96 1.15 0.69 1.04 1.21
New York (A) 1.00 1.02 0.88 1.06 0.94 1.02
New York (N) 0.98 1.02 1.04 0.84 1.00 1.00
Norfolk 0.84 0.91 1.08 0.70 0.93 0.92
Norwich 0.92 0.99 1.00 0.59 0.90 0.87
Oakland 1.00 0.98 1.06 0.96 1.00 0.94
Oklahoma 0.87 0.98 1.13 0.64 1.00 1.03
Omaha 0.98 0.98 0.92 1.22 1.03 1.05
Oneonta 1.10 1.00 0.81 0.54 0.96 0.84
Ottawa 1.00 0.96 0.96 0.93 0.96 0.91
Palm Beach 0.91 0.97 1.07 0.80 0.95 1.02
Pawtucket 1.05 1.04 0.91 1.59 1.10 1.15
Peoria 0.98 1.02 1.18 1.13 0.94 0.99
Philadelphia 1.10 1.04 1.02 1.16 1.02 1.06
Pittsburgh 0.94 1.02 1.08 0.88 0.92 0.96
Portland (AA) 1.08 0.97 0.88 1.18 1.01 1.03
Portland (AAA) 0.81 0.82 1.03 1.02 0.95 0.93
Potomac 0.96 0.96 0.86 1.00 0.91 0.87
Quad Cities 0.95 0.98 1.10 0.88 0.95 0.94
Rancho Cucamonga 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.06 0.92 1.09
Reading 1.08 0.98 0.82 1.33 1.17 1.03
Richmond 0.94 0.97 1.08 0.75 0.94 0.89
Rochester 0.98 0.95 0.94 0.75 0.91 1.02
Rome 0.89 0.99 1.17 0.64 1.02 0.95
Round Rock 1.00 1.04 0.99 1.05 1.03 1.12
Sacramento 0.91 0.96 1.00 0.81 0.95 1.05
Salem 0.93 1.04 1.18 0.71 0.88 0.83
Salem-Keizer 1.01 0.98 0.95 1.61 1.08 1.04
Salt Lake City 1.21 1.09 0.83 1.13 0.95 0.91
San Antonio 0.85 1.00 1.24 0.86 1.07 1.10
San Diego 0.82 0.92 0.88 0.76 0.98 1.06
San Francisco 1.00 1.02 0.98 0.86 0.96 0.94
San Jose 0.86 0.93 1.05 0.62 1.03 1.06
Sarasota 0.94 0.95 1.06 0.61 1.09 1.02
Savannah 0.93 0.95 0.90 1.07 0.94 0.97
Scranton 1.03 1.03 1.02 0.76 1.14 1.03
Seattle 0.90 0.92 0.90 0.94 1.04 1.06
South Bend 0.84 0.88 1.06 0.65 0.85 0.89
Southwest Mich 0.98 1.01 1.05 0.97 1.02 0.88
Spokane 1.06 0.95 0.81 1.61 1.06 0.96
Springfield 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.05
St. Louis 0.98 1.00 1.06 0.92 0.98 0.94
St. Lucie 0.98 0.97 1.11 0.83 0.91 0.90
Staten Island 0.87 1.04 1.36 1.05 1.04 1.16
Stockton 0.90 0.93 0.98 0.82 0.99 0.85
Syracuse 1.08 1.08 1.02 1.25 1.04 1.02
Tacoma 0.83 0.88 1.15 0.85 1.09 1.16
Tampa 0.98 0.95 0.90 0.97 1.01 0.94
Tampa Bay 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.88 1.02 1.04
Tennessee 1.02 0.96 0.84 1.20 0.89 0.88
Texas 1.16 1.08 1.10 1.20 0.98 0.98
Toledo 0.88 0.93 1.14 0.85 0.95 1.04
Toronto 1.08 1.06 1.10 1.22 0.98 1.04
Trenton 0.96 1.00 1.19 0.69 0.97 1.01
Tri-City (NP) 1.30 1.33 1.09 1.93 1.30 1.41
Tri-City (NW) 0.95 1.08 1.34 0.34 1.05 1.17
Tucson 1.32 1.23 0.95 0.99 1.06 0.89
Tulsa 0.95 0.94 0.96 1.19 1.13 1.18
Vancouver 0.86 0.97 1.36 0.30 0.92 0.85
Vermont 1.12 1.09 0.83 1.09 1.23 1.11
Vero Beach 1.12 1.04 0.88 1.62 1.07 1.06
Visalia 1.07 1.03 0.92 1.60 1.00 0.93
Washington 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.76 0.98 1.06
West Michigan 0.95 0.97 0.96 0.75 1.01 1.01
West Tennessee 0.99 1.04 1.13 1.12 0.96 1.09
West Virginia 0.99 1.04 1.19 0.57 0.89 1.19
Wichita 0.93 0.97 0.88 0.88 1.10 0.99
Williamsport 0.92 0.99 1.18 0.93 1.27 1.04
Wilmington 0.94 0.95 0.91 0.75 0.93 0.99
Winston-Salem 1.11 1.00 0.94 1.19 1.13 0.98
Wisconsin 1.04 1.02 1.09 0.94 1.09 1.08
Yakima 1.00 0.97 1.07 0.70 1.05 0.98

Dan Szymborski Posted: December 06, 2005 at 05:37 PM | 64 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: December 06, 2005 at 06:07 PM (#1763855)
Thanks for posting this, Dan - I (we?) appreciate it.
   2. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: December 06, 2005 at 06:15 PM (#1763872)
Is the PF for Corpus Christi supposed to be 0.79 for everything other than doubles?

Biggest pitching/hitting park (by classification):
San Diego 0.82 / Colorado 1.34
Portland 0.81 / Albuquerque & Tuscon 1.32
Corpus Christi 0.79 / Chattanooga 1.17
Jupiter & San Jose 0.86 / Lancaster 1.19 (not High Desert!)
South Bend 0.84 / Kane County 1.30
Vancouver 0.86 / Tri Cities (NYP) 1.30
   3. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: December 06, 2005 at 06:15 PM (#1763874)
Ah, Charlotte - making Joe Borchard look good.
   4. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 06, 2005 at 06:20 PM (#1763880)
Something went goofy with Corpus Christi. It's fixed.
   5. greenback calls it soccer Posted: December 06, 2005 at 06:24 PM (#1763891)
Jupiter & San Jose 0.86

Interesting, because Jupiter and Palm Beach are the same stadium.
   6. RP Posted: December 06, 2005 at 06:32 PM (#1763917)
I had no idea Bowie was such an extreme pitchers park. Maybe that's why B. James' ML projection for Markakis is so good (.900 OPS).
   7. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 06, 2005 at 06:33 PM (#1763918)
Interesting, because Jupiter and Palm Beach are the same stadium.

Yeah, that struck me as weird. They share office space and a lot of their employees, too, no?
   8. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 06, 2005 at 06:38 PM (#1763929)
I had no idea Bowie was such an extreme pitchers park. Maybe that's why B. James' ML projection for Markakis is so good (.900 OPS).

Anyone who's seen all of James' projections, how are they looking? The scattered ones I've seen are really high. Some people feel mine are on the high side and times and I have Markakis at 266/333/398 and Pie at 273/319/409 but James had both of them in the .800-.900 OPS range, if memory serves.
   9. Kyle S Posted: December 06, 2005 at 06:40 PM (#1763935)
I'm curious about the Myrtle Beach rating. All I hear elsewhere (and in BPro's last few publications) is how much of a pitcher's park it is. And yet here it's a slight hitter's park? I guess it crushes homers but inflates doubles, other hits, and walks?
   10. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: December 06, 2005 at 07:28 PM (#1764026)
Well, Palm Beach is 0.91 - not too far off from 0.86. Comparing the two:
<table>
teamRH2BHRBBSO
Jupiter0.860.890.980.570.960.85
PBeach0.910.971.070.800.951.02
</table>
Incidentally, how do people feel about regressing park factors?
   11. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: December 06, 2005 at 07:29 PM (#1764029)
Or formatting correctly?
   12. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: December 06, 2005 at 07:48 PM (#1764063)
What about cross-league factors? Is a .94 run park factor in the California League still a better hitters' park than a 1.04 in the Florida State League?
   13. Pleasant Nate (Upgraded from 'Nate') Posted: December 06, 2005 at 07:53 PM (#1764068)
Dan,

James' major league projections are pretty standard. However, any player that has zero or little major league experience always get high grades. Mike Jacob's had a lofty projection, so did Hermida, Markakis, Willingham, and pretty much every other major league ready prospect. He did that last year too, although it seems a bit higher this year. I don't put much weight into them -- yours are more realistic.
   14. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 06, 2005 at 08:30 PM (#1764187)
What about cross-league factors? Is a .94 run park factor in the California League still a better hitters' park than a 1.04 in the Florida State League?

I'll have to extricate the 3-year factors from my spreadsheet.

For 2005, if you call FSL a 1.00, the league factor for the California League would be 1.27.
   15. AROM Posted: December 06, 2005 at 08:39 PM (#1764214)
Very cool. Where do you get these, Dan?

I have run park factors from BPro, and Baseball America published park factors for a single year. I've never seen the detailed PF's for minor leagues before.
   16. Pregnant women are Mug Posted: December 06, 2005 at 08:41 PM (#1764217)
Huh... so Spokane is one of the most homerrific parks in baseball and Tri-Cities is the second least? Interesting.

It surprises me that Spokane is homer good and double ungood because there's a high wall there.

Why the weighting? To account for stadium changes? I would think less weighting would be better.
   17. Pleasant Nate (Upgraded from 'Nate') Posted: December 06, 2005 at 09:02 PM (#1764263)
I'm surprised Colorado Springs is so different from Colorado -- are they that different in altitude? The prospect guys always make it sound like we should discount C Springs stats as much as Coors Field numbers, but that's not nearly the case according to the above.
   18. Scoriano Flitcraft Posted: December 06, 2005 at 09:19 PM (#1764310)
Is Atlanta the most neutral park in MLB on an aggregate basis for these categories?
   19. TDF, situational idiot Posted: December 06, 2005 at 09:52 PM (#1764393)
That's an interesting line for Cinci - essentially neutral, except for HRs.

Which begs the questions: If it's exactly neutral for hits, and essentially so (1.02) for runs, how can the HR factor be so high? Is the slightly low walk rate (.96) suppressing runs that much?

Also, are triples now so rare that there is no way to calculate for them (or are they so rare they're irrelevant)?
   20. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 06, 2005 at 09:56 PM (#1764401)
Very cool. Where do you get these, Dan?

Someone sent me the raw data and I calculated them.

Why the weighting? To account for stadium changes?

Stadium changes and the mix of road stadium factors changes a lot. These are generally small leagues and changing a road city or road stadium can have a major impact.
   21. Steve Treder Posted: December 06, 2005 at 09:56 PM (#1764402)
I'm surprised Colorado Springs is so different from Colorado -- are they that different in altitude?

Actually Colorado Springs is almost 1,000 feet higher than Denver. The issue is that the rest of the cities in their league are at a much higher aggregate altitude than the rest of the cities in the National League.
   22. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 06, 2005 at 09:57 PM (#1764404)
I don't bother with the triples factor. There are wild swings in factor due to the low amount of triples.
   23. Kyle S Posted: December 06, 2005 at 10:01 PM (#1764409)
What do the error bars look like on these estimates, by the way? I imagine these move around a lot from year to year.
   24. Damon Rutherford Posted: December 06, 2005 at 10:06 PM (#1764415)
I don't bother with the triples factor. There are wild swings in factor due to the low amount of triples.

Also, I think triples would be more dependent on speed of ballplayers than the ballpark. Unless the park favors triples by an extreme amount, probably best to ignore the triples factor (i.e., mark it 1.00).
   25. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: December 06, 2005 at 10:09 PM (#1764419)
Would somehow combining doubles and triples be wise? Just throwing that out there...

Dan, if you felt even more magnanimous, adding the # of years of data as a column (3,3,1,3,2,etc...) might be nice.

I haven't seen his #s for '06 yet, but BJ's projections for rookie position players are more optimistic than almost everyone else's - I, too, take 'em with a grain of salt.
   26. Steve Treder Posted: December 06, 2005 at 11:06 PM (#1764481)
Also, I think triples would be more dependent on speed of ballplayers than the ballpark. Unless the park favors triples by an extreme amount, probably best to ignore the triples factor (i.e., mark it 1.00).

Perhaps nowdays, with triples so rare, that's true. But it sure wasn't true anything further than 20-30 years ago, when triples were more plentiful. There were enormous differences between ballparks in triples production. Forbes Field was a veritable Triples Factory.
   27. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 06, 2005 at 11:36 PM (#1764551)
Dan, if you felt even more magnanimous, adding the # of years of data as a column (3,3,1,3,2,etc...) might be nice.

I'll do that, but it'll take me some time.
   28. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: December 06, 2005 at 11:50 PM (#1764578)
What's an extreme amount, Greg? I bet if you were to pull out specs on a series of parks and then guess whether or not it was going to be good or bad for triples, you'd be right a majority of the time. Sure, your relative error would be large, but that might also be true, say, for walks, which are relatively common.

Dan (27), that would be very cool of you to do, but don't kill yourself or anything... I'm appreciative for what you've presented already.
   29. Damon Rutherford Posted: December 07, 2005 at 12:32 AM (#1764673)
But it sure wasn't true anything further than 20-30 years ago, when triples were more plentiful. There were enormous differences between ballparks in triples production. Forbes Field was a veritable Triples Factory.

I agree with this. Was only discussing the park factors above for the present day parks.

What's an extreme amount, Greg? I bet if you were to pull out specs on a series of parks and then guess whether or not it was going to be good or bad for triples, you'd be right a majority of the time.

I'm not sure, as I would want to examine the numbers. Yes, I'm sure a larger park would produce more triples, but would it be significant in present day? I think the important question is whether or not the park factor adjustment increases or decreases the error present in one's prediction or model. While you would probably more accurately predict or model those fast runners who can take advantage of the larger park (or conversely, are hurt by a smaller park), you could be negatively affecting all other batters who would still be at second base. I don't know. Might be way off here.
   30. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: December 07, 2005 at 12:50 AM (#1764702)
First off, let me say triples are almost a non-issue - I'm making a tiny mountain out of a molehill (after all, that's what these boards are for, right?) Furthermore, I haven't looked at the numbers in order to know what I'm talking about. That said...

While you would probably more accurately predict or model those fast runners who can take advantage of the larger park (or conversely, are hurt by a smaller park), you could be negatively affecting all other batters who would still be at second base.
Well, they probably didn't get past second before either, so they shouldn't suddenly be projected to hit lots of triples. Furthermore, I suspect that slower runners might contribute to a high triple factor more than fast ones - guys who go from two to four triples, rather than from eight to twelve. This is *totally* speculative and likely to be wrong.

Don't get me wrong, Greg - I share your concerns (Jim Albright uses/used(?) linear multipliers in his NPB/MLB conversions, with silly results when it comes to triples) and I'd rather err on the side of not including it (or lumping doubles and triples together) rather than introducing further error into my predictions if I'm not real comfortable with my understanding of triples data.
   31. AROM Posted: December 07, 2005 at 12:58 AM (#1764716)
I tried to find the "weirdest" park factors. Kind of like Cincy, huge HE park but close to average on runs.

I took an average team statline, used the RC formula, then adjusted each stat and recreated the RC estimate.

Tri-city is the weirdest. Hits are up 33%, walks 30%, homers 93%. Should be a park factor of 1.83 with those characteristics, but its only 1.30. Very few homers are hit in the low minors, so that HR factor shouldn't have the same impact it would on a an average major league team.

Staten Island increases everything, but not runs. Should have a 1.12, but its only .87

At the other end Oenonta decreases everything, including HR at .54, but still has a 1.1 run factor.
   32. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: December 07, 2005 at 01:25 AM (#1764750)
Dan, you may want to re-weight the park factors to account for park replacement and avoid what I'll poorly term the "Lake Wobegon" effect.

(The following ignores noise in the data.)
Let's say you've a league with 7 essentially neutral parks and one monster hitting environment (7 PF of 95, 1 PF of 135). The hitter's park is replaced with a pitcher's park (7 PF of 102, 1 PF of 86). The resultant park factors are 86 for the new stadium and 98.5 for everyone else ... thus, every stadium is a pitcher's park! Obviously, this is a simplified situation, but a lesser instance of this happened in the Texas League (Round Rock was replaced by Corpus Christi), where the park factors are 107, 105, 101, 99, 95, 93, 85, 79.
   33. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 07, 2005 at 04:46 AM (#1764994)
I could do that, but park factors are inaccurate enough that a whole lot more work really doesn't help at any practical level.
   34. Damon Rutherford Posted: December 07, 2005 at 05:01 AM (#1765008)
Furthermore, I suspect that slower runners might contribute to a high triple factor more than fast ones - guys who go from two to four triples, rather than from eight to twelve. This is *totally* speculative and likely to be wrong.

Good point. I could see that being correct. I should probably have crunched numbers before I jumped in with speculation.
   35. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: December 07, 2005 at 05:31 AM (#1765040)
I should probably have crunched numbers before I jumped in with speculation.
Why - it hasn't stopped me. :)
   36. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: December 07, 2005 at 07:39 AM (#1765138)
I figured that NH's park factor would be pitching oriented, but not that far.
   37. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 07, 2005 at 09:19 AM (#1765193)
I think parks can still have a big impact on triples, things like a deep RF line and extra foul territory in RF for one . . .
   38. Steve Treder Posted: December 07, 2005 at 05:36 PM (#1765676)
I think parks can still have a big impact on triples, things like a deep RF line and extra foul territory in RF for one . . .

At least historically, I think the left field configuration had more impact than right field. The historic ballparks that were best for triples were Forbes Field (when it didn't have the Greenberg Gardens/Kiner Korner short fence in left), Griffith Stadium, and Yankee Stadium -- all ballparks with enormously deep left-center fields. The Polo Grounds was a good triples park too, with the incredibly deep dead center.

I think the ball in the RF corner is equally likely to be a triple in any ballpark. What made these parks exceptionally good for triples was that triples could be hit to left-center, which almost never happens anywhere else.
   39. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: December 07, 2005 at 06:10 PM (#1765749)
I took an average team statline, used the RC formula, then adjusted each stat and recreated the RC estimate.

I haven't built my own MLEs in years (mid 90s?), so it's been a long time since I've played with park factors but you reminded me of an adjustment I used to make. I trusted the run factor more than the components, so I'd adjust the components to match the run factor.

So, if started with:
R = 101, H = 103, 2B = 103, 3B = 103, HR = 140, BB = 102, SO = 100
I might end up with:
R = 101, H = 101, 2B = 95, 3B = 91, HR = 120, BB = 99, SO = 102 (or something like that)

I have zilch of my documentation still around (computer imploded), but I remember that the adjusted components were a better predictor of future factors than the unadjusted ones were. (I used 3/2/1 weights of the previous three years and did not test whether other year weights would have been better. I also removed Ks from other outs in building the H factor, but that's kind of beside the point.)
   40. gyros Posted: December 08, 2005 at 10:01 PM (#1768387)
I was sorry to see Montreal not make this listing. That park was active for two of these years, at least, and there are certainly plenty of players around whose stats were impacted by that park. Got the numbers lying around, by chance?
   41. Darren Posted: December 09, 2005 at 05:27 PM (#1769731)
Could someone please clear this up for me (Dan)? Does a HR factor of 1.5 mean that it would inflate player for that team's HRs by 50 percent? Or does it mean it would inflate his home HR total by 50 percent? Thanks.
   42. Jeff K. Posted: December 09, 2005 at 06:13 PM (#1769843)
It would inflate his homers in his home park by 1.5.
   43. b-ball23 Posted: December 17, 2005 at 01:30 AM (#1780989)
Sorry to bump the thread, but this is a question for Dan. Dan, did you use BB and SO against PA and 2B, H, HR agaisnt BIP? I was hoping that you used BIP because the new Bill James handbook uses AB...

Would be interesting to see if you could do lefty/right park adjustments just like your overall park adjustments shown above. Would you be able to do that?

Last thing...do you use a process similar to Jim's old article: http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/btf/scholars/furtado/articles/parkeffects.htm

Thanks!
   44. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 17, 2005 at 03:13 AM (#1781150)
Sorry to bump the thread, but this is a question for Dan. Dan, did you use BB and SO against PA and 2B, H, HR agaisnt BIP? I was hoping that you used BIP because the new Bill James handbook uses AB...

I had considered doing it against balls in play instead after 2003, but decided that it would end up mixing in new problems and a lot of new work. I did test-run from 2001-2003 of all major league parks and the standard error between PA and BIP denominators was something like 15% the year-to-year standard error in park effects.

Would be interesting to see if you could do lefty/right park adjustments just like your overall park adjustments shown above. Would you be able to do that?

I'd something I'd like to do, but it would only be for the minor leagues. One problem with l/r park adjustments is the inaccuracy of the park effects. All of a sudden, instead of 81 games worth of PA for the home park, you're getting a lefty factor that's only 81 games worth of PA total for *3* years. The error range is going to start killing your accuracy.

No, I use STATS method - there's just not enough you can gain with a more precise method. Park factors aren't precise; I tend to think even 2 digits is a bit of false precision.
   45. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 17, 2005 at 03:15 AM (#1781158)
I trusted the run factor more than the components, so I'd adjust the components to match the run factor.

I've actually done this for estimated minor league park factors in the past based on previous years in which I *did* know each component. Managed to get good data the last 3 years, but availability varies. Unless of course, I win the lottery, in which case, I'd just buy the stuff I need from STATS or BB Info Solutions.
   46. b-ball23 Posted: December 17, 2005 at 03:22 AM (#1781176)
All of a sudden, instead of 81 games worth of PA for the home park, you're getting a lefty factor that's only 81 games worth of PA total for *3* years. The error range is going to start killing your accuracy.

That's true; however, that's why regressing the past few years becomes very important. It minimizes most of the errors. The only problem with that is new parks (ie. Petco is only 2 years old and RFK just 1). I talked with a guy from Baseball Info Solutions, and they don't even have lefty/right park adjustments for everything like overall park adjustments because of all the work, etc. The only lefty/right ajustments in the Bill James Handbook this year is HR and AVG (which you can techincally calculate w/out a park adjustment by using the raw stats).

No, I use STATS method

What are the differences between the STATS method and Jim's old method?

I agree that park adjustments/factors aren't precise, but I know a lot of major league teams use them for minor league players as well as major league players that they are considering trading for, signing, etc. It helps in a lot of ways.
   47. b-ball23 Posted: December 18, 2005 at 04:04 PM (#1782885)
??
   48. Home Run Teal & Black Black Black Gone! Posted: December 18, 2005 at 05:09 PM (#1782936)
Jupiter and Palm Beach (about a mile from my home) make a good case study in park factors.
   49. b-ball23 Posted: December 21, 2005 at 02:57 AM (#1787464)
Just bumping it up for Dan...
   50. b-ball23 Posted: December 27, 2005 at 08:40 PM (#1795952)
Dan, did you get my response?
   51. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 27, 2005 at 10:14 PM (#1796128)
Oops, sorry, behind on stuff thanks to holidays and being sick as hell for two weeks.

Just the simple home/road ratio per PA.
   52. b-ball23 Posted: December 29, 2005 at 09:12 PM (#1799028)
Hmm...then why do you use the weights 8/5/3? The home/road ratio per PA is the same way the BJ Handbook uses (except they used AB), but I don't think they weight the past few years. Or do they? I thought they just averaged the last three years out.
   53. b-ball23 Posted: January 07, 2006 at 02:25 AM (#1809929)
??
   54. BobbyMac Posted: January 13, 2006 at 11:47 AM (#1819475)

No, I use STATS method


This may not severely impact minor league BF's, but I have a real issue with one of the basic assumptions of BF, and the way it's being calculated by STATS/BIS/Shandler, etc. I posted something on BTB blog about it: http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/story/2005/12/22/3397/3327

Also - Is P'tucket really at +59% homers now? Both BP (3-year) and BA (2004) have them as under 100% overall factor. And one of the very first "tricks" I learned to use for fantasy/sim gaming (back in "The Day" - before MLE's were popularized) was that I could take Pawtucket stats for a player, and assume he would hit almost the same in Boston. Does anyone know if they reworked or replaced that park at some point?

Rob :)
   55. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: January 13, 2006 at 05:49 PM (#1819702)
This may not severely impact minor league BF's

It depends on the league - some have pretty imbalanced schedules, others don't.
Oddly enough, I posted some blurb on this in a different thread here yesterday - if you're putting together major league PF, you really should take it into account. At the minor league level, it would be more considerably more work, so I can see letting it go.
   56. Danny Posted: January 17, 2006 at 09:55 PM (#1825601)
BA has Kane County as the best pitchers park in the Midwest League, but you have it as one of the best hitters parks in the minors. Is there a reason for the difference?
   57. peter21 Posted: January 18, 2006 at 06:06 AM (#1826296)
Does anyone know if this data exists going back further than 2003? It doesn't have to be 3-year factors, so long as it differentiates between doubles, homers, etc. I appreciate any help!
   58. Spivey Posted: January 19, 2006 at 03:17 AM (#1827854)
Does anyone know if this data exists going back further than 2003? It doesn't have to be 3-year factors, so long as it differentiates between doubles, homers, etc. I appreciate any help!

Old STATS, Inc. books had this information. Broken down for lefties and righties too, as I recall. They stopped publishing it around 2001 or so. I'm not sure if you'd be able to find new copies of these - you'd probably have to buy old ones.
   59. cuzmaydak Posted: February 01, 2006 at 08:50 PM (#1846789)
These are my regressed factors for historical major league parks, including triples. They have a high standard error, but nonetheless, they are here. These take into account such things as Yankee Stadium being over inflated due to having better players play there, and year effects due to rule changes. Stadiums with name changes (Enron/Minute Maid) are consolidated under the most current name. Also, these are the seasonal effects of someone who plays 1/2 their home games at these fields, not the stadium factors themselves. Thus, someone switching teams from the Rockies (Coors field HR = 1.0522) to the Nationals (R.F.K. HR = 0.9483) would expect a 90% decline in their season HR/AB ratio.

ParkH2b3bHRR
23rd Street Grounds 1.03771.06130.60480.73671.0663
3Com Park 0.98840.96681.01520.99040.9876
Agricultural Society Fair Grounds 0.92461.20750.89530.51130.8727
Allen Pasture 1.09071.04211.65380.87641.2843
American League Park I 0.99121.1441.09661.58241.0275
American League Park II 1.00741.04850.92950.84821.0213
Ameriquest Field 1.0030.991.01671.02821.0073
Anaheim Stadium 0.9880.92730.9360.97220.9572
Angel Stadium 0.99240.96261.08770.89960.9516
Arlington Stadium 0.99530.97830.92990.98980.9832
Association Park 1.01571.32410.90941.6951.0091
Association Park I 0.99521.00961.011.2471.0081
Astrodome 0.99981.00151.0720.88290.9865
Athletic Field 1.09981.46510.85481.61581.2602
Athletic Park 1.06521.03741.35921.53711.2169
Athletic Park I 1.00390.97370.95631.28441.0096
Athletic Park II 1.091.17060.65511.91841.2229
Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium 0.9930.95480.92661.04510.9933
Avenue Grounds 1.00460.93710.76931.25070.9871
Baker Bowl 1.01431.06730.90291.08551.0266
Baker Bowl/Shibe Park 0.93890.9470.67050.51560.7912
Bank One Ballpark 1.02171.00391.2361.05741.0547
Bank Street Grounds 1.03560.98990.96812.15641.1002
Bennett Park 1.01391.07650.99281.03981.0394
Boundary Field 1.01481.05691.01241.24021.0442
Braves Field 0.98870.95870.95980.89840.9563
Briggs Stadium 0.99810.99351.01550.97390.9922
Busch Stadium II 1.0031.00421.10480.96751.0123
Capitoline Grounds 0.97880.75790.91090.00130.8612
Centennial Grounds 1.04361.58330.44240.00111.1401
Citizen's Bank Park 10.91960.95460.99211.0006
Cleveland Stadium 0.99150.95860.91120.96540.9677
Colt Stadium 0.95370.84451.19880.97190.899
Columbia Park 1.01361.15470.87781.31261.0389
Comerica Park 1.00820.95741.34350.88330.9829
Comiskey Park 0.99310.96861.0150.93060.9765
Congress Street Grounds 1.10221.04621.38311.31131.3739
Connie Mack Stadium 0.99260.98281.03610.91710.9788
Coors Field 1.03591.02441.25931.05221.0898
County Stadium 0.99360.98291.00140.94610.9768
Crosley Field 0.99160.98291.03050.9160.9674
Crosley Field/Riverfront Stadium 1.00360.971.23291.22631.0853
Culver Field I 1.06120.98291.11161.61871.179
Dodger Stadium 0.9920.92950.94070.95250.974
Eastern Park 1.01581.02650.96671.06381.0312
Ebbets Field 0.99681.00591.02440.98880.9937
Eclipse Park I 1.03471.02380.94321.0571.0824
Eclipse Park II 0.99321.00240.86151.20130.9811
Exhibition Stadium 0.99690.99081.08160.98620.9951
Exhibition Stadium /Skydome 0.99481.00920.92190.97531.0014
Exposition Park 1.00241.00091.11951.02561.0337
Exposition Park I 1.08131.08281.03322.0861.28
Exposition Park/Forbes Field 1.04961.34951.13731.2751.1689
Fenway Park I 0.98261.04750.96490.74450.9552
Fenway Park I / Braves Field 0.97631.19020.79270.66760.967
Fenway Park II 1.00511.03021.02380.99161.0097
Forbes Field 1.0020.96891.07270.92290.9955
Forbes Field/Three Rivers Stadium 0.97640.92931.3440.96040.962
Grand Avenue Park 1.05211.27761.23370.00121.2384
Great American Ball Park 1.00451.01010.94980.99071.0083
Griffith Stadium I 0.99730.9781.050.7860.9725
Griffith Stadium II 0.98080.95361.01660.94080.9575
Hamilton Field 0.89230.68390.46420.76740.7083
Hamilton Park 0.98011.02510.82930.8320.8968
Hartford Ball Club Grounds 1.03351.11160.80950.51581.0846
Haymakers' Grounds 1.01781.05380.8250.87741.0319
Hilltop Park 0.99470.99850.91771.04130.991
Hubert H Humphrey Metrodome 1.00671.01151.07370.91240.9945
Huntington Avenue Grounds 0.99530.98721.02111.15540.9864
Jack Murphy Stadium 0.98730.95130.9430.93840.971
Jacobs Field 1.00461.01480.98421.04981.0116
Jarry Park 0.99860.97531.07911.06721.0228
Jefferson Street Grounds 1.02741.0790.96521.08271.0845
Joe Robbie Stadium 0.97170.89951.09010.93430.9441
Kennard Street Park 0.9721.08260.81041.52360.976
Kingdome 0.99631.01880.94081.03620.9956
Kingdome / Safeco Field 0.95670.85020.99571.08220.9499
Lake Front Park I 1.09261.20560.66840.6851.1292
Lake Front Park I/Lake Front Park II 1.03631.39490.88080.88081.0724
Lake Front Park II 1.01961.15790.6973.13541.1037
League Park 0.99361.16670.92390.39430.9324
League Park I 1.01911.1220.95730.98951.0344
League Park I in Cincinnati 1.01470.98671.05791.35711.0789
League Park II 1.00881.05330.95360.83881.0139
League Park II in Cincinnati 1.00681.12590.96091.03231.0268
League Park II/Cleveland Stadium 1.00481.0421.0670.93381.0012
Lloyd Street Grounds 1.01761.20080.88351.10751.0479
Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum 0.98280.93771.01451.03870.9717
Louisville Baseball Park 1.05951.11790.74482.92911.1693
Mansfield Club Grounds 1.04490.95910.73670.58611.0368
McAfee Coliseum 0.98440.95950.89280.95540.9582
Memorial Stadium 0.99340.97091.00980.97950.9858
Messer Street Grounds 1.0091.0940.91011.32261.052
Metropolitan Stadium 1.00440.98651.00760.9781.0068
Mile High Stadium 1.03621.01911.57331.02911.0725
Miller Park 0.99830.98981.07190.9960.9996
Minute Maid Park 1.0061.01781.32571.02591.0141
Municipal Stadium I 1.00261.01791.12690.93920.9986
Municipal Stadium II 1.00580.97421.06060.92440.9875
National Association Grounds 0.97290.82610.92221.07990.9017
National League Park 0.99530.9020.93431.14270.9921
National League Park II 1.06181.10211.06580.76461.1911
Nationals Grounds 0.88360.32780.44850.00090.5945
Navin Field 1.0061.00451.03280.83510.9985
Newell Park 0.99260.77040.47560.99670.7498
Newington Park 1.0090.96850.76341.12960.9857
Oakdale Park 1.02221.04580.58210.94061.0529
Olympic Park I 1.02471.05311.06731.68371.136
Olympics Grounds 0.92110.94170.820.76060.8219
Oriole Park 1.00541.02691.13051.1961.0877
Oriole Park at Camden Yards 1.0080.98140.95271.00010.9988
Palace of the Fans 1.0191.01111.12141.09611.0514
Pendleton Park 0.99690.96531.08291.24491.074
Perry Park 0.88660.78611.08230.00070.644
Petco Park 1.00350.97821.10080.93151.0036
Philadelphia Baseball Grounds 1.04461.10730.93631.07211.1003
PNC Park 0.98410.9841.02990.94930.9678
Polo Grounds I 0.99930.96371.11441.34131.0362
Polo Grounds I West Diamond 1.07831.08291.16321.5521.2817
Polo Grounds II 1.03811.20561.15741.19181.1442
Polo Grounds III 1.00161.05490.89031.03231.0191
Polo Grounds III/Polo Grounds IV 1.01361.16381.1321.14411.0931
Polo Grounds IV 0.99020.95280.91631.07270.9864
Pro Player Stadium 0.99441.00681.21180.88950.9746
Putnam Grounds 0.99851.13830.6150.98310.9596
R.F.K. Stadium 0.98930.99161.02320.94830.979
Recreation Park 1.0091.08490.93131.26221.0371
Recreation Park I 1.0490.85531.19962.2661.1506
Recreation Park II 1.06371.15261.03251.10261.147
Red Stocking Baseball Park 0.94830.89220.25950.00090.7529
Ridgewood Park 1.00191.13770.90580.72531.0509
Riverfront Stadium 0.99690.99641.01161.00941.0243
Riverside Park 0.97951.02780.89480.88330.9843
Robison Field 0.99550.9540.95611.02020.9928
Robison Field/Sportsman's Park IV 1.02620.98941.18710.49830.975
Rogers Centre 0.99320.99451.07380.96790.9906
Royals Stadium 1.00330.99581.04050.93240.992
Safeco Field 0.99960.97261.05620.92190.9824
SBC Park 1.03431.03251.35041.07421.1123
Seals Stadium 1.01471.08661.09060.91431.0285
Seventh Street Park 1.06081.09921.15071.20871.1237
Shea Stadium 0.98760.98050.9410.96650.9615
Shibe Park 1.00220.99131.01470.98611.0039
Sicks Stadium 0.99260.94350.97281.00671.0032
South End Grounds I 1.02251.09760.89491.74851.0839
South End Grounds II 1.01141.06260.89811.25941.0873
South End Grounds II / Congress Street Grounds / South End Grounds III 1.0761.21550.97981.67151.2024
South End Grounds III 0.99441.03530.86091.1790.9837
South Side Park I 1.01851.0111.09081.14941.0726
South Side Park II 0.9861.06790.970.72271.009
South Side Park II/Comiskey Park 0.88960.78110.85370.4960.7776
South Street Park 0.99720.99030.65570.9760.9356
Speranza Park 1.04651.06891.07731.17291.1586
Sportsman's Park I 1.03041.08730.87071.56381.1046
Sportsman's Park III 0.99621.05010.88141.02810.9847
Sportsman's Park IV 1.0031.0220.99310.97821
Sportsman's Park IV/Busch Stadium II 0.9740.89871.37170.99040.9532
St. George Cricket Grounds 0.99940.90151.02461.07661.0354
Stade Olympique 0.98621.02341.05590.88680.9764
Star Park II 1.07361.18310.91310.81961.1417
Swampdoodle Grounds 0.96650.96580.96831.44850.9562
Three Rivers Stadium 1.00131.01731.07870.97751.0159
Tiger Stadium 0.99660.97481.00461.03421.0021
Tropicana Field 0.99550.99211.07790.86890.9678
Troy Ball Clubs Grounds 0.94841.0490.96520.74840.8673
Turner Field 1.00461.01841.04970.93591.0002
U.S. Cellular Field 0.99530.95510.99030.96520.9864
Union Base-Ball Grounds 0.97421.07290.7211.95760.9503
Union Grounds 0.96410.70210.65090.62140.839
Union Grounds (Brooklyn) 0.96111.00350.74471.17090.8995
Union Park 1.05011.12560.99241.03091.1537
Veterans Stadium 0.9951.01221.03190.98430.9945
Washington Park I 1.01941.05630.96941.25811.0794
Washington Park II 0.96971.07540.84211.93121.0089
Washington Park III 0.99631.03390.92451.02920.9814
Waverly Fairgrounds 0.93310.74760.62780.00070.6957
West Side Park I 1.01430.9721.04421.88171.1109
West Side Park II 0.99821.05860.92491.1221.0117
Worcester Driving Park Grounds 1.01081.12650.87581.0740.9911
Wrigley Field 1.0021.00620.981.01611.0027
Wrigley Field (LA) 0.99530.950.7391.21691.0619
Yankee Stadium I 0.99570.96651.02240.97050.9975
Yankee Stadium II 0.9920.97850.93131.00780.9753
   60. KJOK Posted: February 08, 2006 at 05:49 AM (#1854343)
Cuz - That's impressive. What type of regression factor did you use?
   61. BobbyMac Posted: February 14, 2006 at 05:58 PM (#1861507)
What about cross-league factors? Is a .94 run park factor in the California League still a better hitters' park than a 1.04 in the Florida State League?

I'll have to extricate the 3-year factors from my spreadsheet.


Is this still something you could still do and post, possibly? It would be more useful. Thanks!
   62. BobbyMac Posted: February 14, 2006 at 06:00 PM (#1861510)
^That was supposed to say "most useful".
   63. Dan Szymborski Posted: February 14, 2006 at 10:42 PM (#1861969)
Is this still something you could still do and post, possibly? It would be more useful. Thanks!

No. My laptop with the raw data on it is now toast.
   64. BobbyMac Posted: February 15, 2006 at 11:58 PM (#1863532)
Ouch. Sorry to hear that.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Vegas Watch
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.9339 seconds
47 querie(s) executed