The real issue is "can we attract free agent hitters" to the worst ballpark for hitters. The answer is "great hitters don't come to central division teams generally and St. Louis specifically". The ones they get come by trade. And big hitters are expensive. Signing pitching and defense is cheaper. Mostly I think they don't want to be the "worst". Oakland will move to Vegas and leave only Seattle, so I bet they will do a few things to modestly improve hitting but nothing drastic.

It's also the case that the entire MILB org is built around teaching defense so why not use that.

They’re high on Sunday starter, lefty Steven Matz, because of his groundball-greedy approach and how he’ll benefit from the big ballpark. Reliever Nick Wittgren was bit by homers in 2021. The Cardinals believe his numbers will be reduced simply by transplanting him.

Fun approach by the Cards here, targeting pitchers who give up a bunch of homers. Seems like that has a pretty fair chance of backfiring, pitcher's park or no. That this article was posted here after Matz got shelled by the Pirates is [chef's kiss].

why would a "ground ball greedy" pitcher benefit from a large park? That's a head scratcher.

The funny thing is that Matz isn't even all that pronounced of a groundball pitcher, and at times during his career has been a rather strong flyball pitcher.

Meanwhile, the article will also have us know that the Cards went all-out in researching why Busch is a pitchers' park (emphasis mine):

“Does it suck for hitters?” he said. “The answer is yeah. It’s tough on them.”

The question the Cardinals explored is why.

Dan Good, the Cardinals’ vice president of business development, “quarterbacked” the research, DeWitt said, and pulled together data and resources from the in-house analytics department and Major League Baseball’s expansive studies. The Cardinals looked at spray charts for all current players and overlaid the fly balls they’ve hit at Busch to see how many homers, say, they might have hit if they called Cincinnati’s small park home. The Cardinals had the ballpark measured to assure that the distances were “as built,” that 400 feet to center was actually 400 feet to center, that nine-foot walls were actually nine feet tall.

Laying the credulity on a bit thick, I'd say.

I get that. Baseball owners are so untrustworthy that I wouldn't even believe a park dimension without measuring it for myself.

But the reporter didn't measure it, he just reported that the Cards measured it. So if it was already untrustworthy, it still is.

why can't anybody simply measure it from the aerial view on google?

I get exactly 400 feet.

I think it has been done

Fun approach by the Cards here, targeting pitchers who give up a bunch of homers. Seems like that has a pretty fair chance of backfiring, pitcher's park or no. That this article was posted here after Matz got shelled by the Pirates is [chef's kiss].

Fun approach by the Cards here, targeting pitchers who give up a bunch of homers. Seems like that has a pretty fair chance of backfiring, pitcher's park or no. That this article was posted here after Matz got shelled by the Pirates is [chef's kiss].

[/bbbstrong]

If you have a chance, I think tailoring the park to be a pitchers park is almost always the best option...

You don't want it to be Dodger/Petco extreme of course, but considering the nature of pitching, you want to give them a fair chance and hope to have your team offense show up.

is Duke OK?

is Duke OK?

Yes (I think) he was trying to fix the error with formatting that was going on, apparently a mod or someone else fixed it finally.

Hopefully someone was able to reboot The Duke.

Keep in mind, Busch in whatever version it was back in the 1990s was also considered a pitcher's park with walls that were very difficult to reach.

Then some Irish guy moved in and suddenly balls were flying way beyond the walls.

I don't think Busch was a pitchers park after they did a remodel... It was a moderate pitchers park maybe, but you never want to play in an extreme park anyway, outside of Dodgers, no extreme park has routinely had good teams.

no extreme park has routinely had good teams

I don't believe that. I think it's better to have an extreme pitcher's park than a hitter's one (because pitching is inherently dangerous), but the Red Sox played in the AL's best hitting park for decades, and finished over .500 for 20 straight years.

no extreme park has routinely had good teams

That just isn't true. Dodger Stadium played like the Grand Canyon back in the 60s, when they were at the peak of their success. It's still a pretty severe pitcher's park, though it gives up its fair share of dingers. Yankee Stadium was a severe pitcher's park in its first incarnation. County Stadium in Milwaukee was perhaps even more severe, and yet the Mathews-Spahn-Aaron Braves managed to win there all the time.

There's some evidence that it is uniquely difficult to win in Coors Field. But that's also a sample size of one organization. Plenty of other teams have been equally futile in neutral parks over the same period.

Do the NY Giants from 1903-1924 count?

That just isn't true. Dodger Stadium played like the Grand Canyon back in the 60s, when they were at the peak of their success.

Also Griffith Park. Maranville mentioned Polo Grounds, one could also mention Forbes Field.

I think it's better to have an extreme pitcher's park than a hitter's one (because pitching is inherently dangerous)

There's no logic to any of this. If that was any advantage to that why wouldnt every single team be doing that?

There's no logic to any of this. If that was any advantage to that why wouldnt every single team be doing that?

Well, for starters, they believe hitter's parks will sell more tickets, which is vastly more important to teams than a slight edge in team building.

But it absolutely stands to reason. Pitching is harmful. Every extra pitch is one more opportunity for a torn labrum or blowed up elbow. Limiting the number of pitches a team's guys throw will have benefits somewhere down the line, either in injury prevention or just in how worn down they get over the course of the season.

but the Red Sox played in the AL's best hitting park for decades, and finished over .500 for 20 straight years.

What stretch was that? Not defending my half ass comment, but when did the Red Sox go 20 straight years over .500? Looking at their franchise page and I seem to be missing that streak.

Limiting the number of pitches a team's guys throw will have benefits somewhere down the line, either in injury prevention or just in how worn down they get over the course of the season.

it would help the visiting teams almost as much, no?

What stretch was that? Not defending my half ass comment, but when did the Red Sox go 20 straight years over .500? Looking at their franchise page and I seem to be missing that streak.

Sorry, I missed the 83 season. They were over .500 or better from 67 to 86, with one exception (83). So, they were over .500 for 15 straight. Which is plenty enough time to be consistently good (in addition to the other teams mentioned that defy your comment). They've been pretty consistently good since 1967, with just a few wobbly years in there.

it would help the visiting teams almost as much, no?

Sure, but the advantage is spread out over 14 or more different teams, so no opponent is going to benefit like the home team would.

The Rockies pitchers are not going to get much of an advantage from this effect because they get nine games a year in Petco.

but the effect might be diluted too. For instance in high scoring games presumably you would go through more pitchers. So your team did throw more total pitches, but that tends to be distributed to more pitchers. I cant imagine this is much of an effect. Surely there's no reference for that?

For instance in high scoring games presumably you would go through more pitchers. So your team did throw more total pitches, but that tends to be distributed to more pitchers.

Of course, but it's still more pitches. More pitches is more opportunities for a trip to today's Dr. Jobe.

I doubt it's a great effect. But I can't see how it wouldn't be something over time. Pitching is harmful. More pitching is more harmful. If you're going to build a ballpark with nothing but maximizing your team's chances of winning in mind, I can't see how you wouldn't be better off in a place that automatically reduces the workload of your most vulnerable assets.

well that's logical, sure. But is there evidence that pitchers throw more pitches in low scoring environments? so that whatever savings you might get is lost. Im thinking about the low scoring 60s when lots of top pitchers threw 300 inn.

Its hard to control for a lot of factors, cause pitchers just dont pitch as many inn. now. But looking at AL from the 1950s there's usually 5 guys or so who pitch 250 inn. or more In the late 50s more like 2 or 3. But by the late 60s you see 8-9 guys, and 11 in 1969 who hit 250 or more.

13 in 1971. 17 in '72/73. 22 in 74. Even though scoring is now up, I guess it takes a few years for all these trends to have knock on effects. So '75 you have 17; '74: 14. 12 by 1980 (4 of them right at 250)

I havent done any systematic study but its some evidence that pitchers will simply stay in longer if they're pitching in a low run environment. So maybe its a wash?