Deck chairs meet Titanic.

I was hoping that Buckaroo Bonzai was the contractor and we were going to see some *real* innovation this off-season.

Deck chairs meet Titanic.

The Orioles moved the fences back last year and their pitching numbers changed significantly. Could this be a way to help develop Tigers hitters, or at the very least, attract free agents that may have been wary of hitting there?

While it is obvious that bad teams losing low-scoring games is morally superior to bad teams losing high-scoring games, we have discovered that fans find the latter more entertaining.

The Orioles moved the fences back last year and their pitching numbers changed significantly. Could this be a way to help develop Tigers hitters, or at the very least, attract free agents that may have been wary of hitting there?

The PF was like 99/100 last year. ~96-97 long term. It was already in a good spot I think.

I was hoping that Buckaroo Bonzai was the contractor and we were going to see some *real* innovation this off-season.

...Why is there a watermelon there?

Whether we are on one side of the aisle as a pitcher’s park, or on the other side of the aisle as a hitter’s park, we have the opportunity to build a team a certain way to take advantage of the dimensions 81 times a year,

does this really make any sense?

Whether we are on one side of the aisle as a pitcher’s park, or on the other side of the aisle as a hitter’s park, we have the opportunity to build a team a certain way to take advantage of the dimensions 81 times a year,

does this really make any sense?

Not in a park that's largely symmetrical.

Constructing your roster to the home park is the most overrated thing in the history of baseball. You have to play elsewhere 81 times, too.

does this really make any sense?

Well, I think the idea is that a distinctive park in some way gives you a potential advantage to exploit, like playing more left-handed hitters in a lefty-friendly park, or using speedy, good fielding outfielders in a park with a spacious outfield. Easier said than done - you have to identify, develop & retain players with the advantageous skills, and those skill are also attractive to other teams even if they don’t have quite the same ballpark advantages. There are also 81 games on the road, but in theory there could be an advantage to be had from constructing a team better-suited to one’s home park. Just getting really good players is difficult enough, so I’m not sure teams are all that successful in tilting the roster in the direction the ballpark favors.

Constructing your roster to the home park is the most overrated thing in the history of baseball. You have to play elsewhere 81 times, too.

I agree with your sentiment. I also wince whenever someone is a naysayer about acquiring a non-superstar hitter for a team with a pitcher's ballpark, or a pitcher for a team with a hitter's ballpark - "how's he going to do in that park?"

As always, give me a pitcher's park when it comes to team building. Fewer pitches equal fewer visits to the shoulder docs.

I'm not holding my breath about it actually happening, but I'd love it if Cabrera ended his career with a mini resurgence like Pujols did.

With these changes to the fences, maybe his HR total can skyrocket to like...9 or 10 dingers next season!

Well, I think the idea is that a distinctive park in some way gives you a potential advantage to exploit, like playing more left-handed hitters in a lefty-friendly park, or using speedy, good fielding outfielders in a park with a spacious outfield. Easier said than done - you have to identify, develop & retain players with the advantageous skills, and those skill are also attractive to other teams even if they don’t have quite the same ballpark advantages. There are also 81 games on the road, but in theory there could be an advantage to be had from constructing a team better-suited to one’s home park. Just getting really good players is difficult enough, so I’m not sure teams are all that successful in tilting the roster in the direction the ballpark favors.

There's only so much you can do with a ballpark to "suit" your team -- mostly related to outfield and foul territory dimensions and wall height -- and it seems there are only limited things you can do to take advantage of those without giving a similar advantage to the other team. Are there pitchers who are particularly skilled at generating foul popups? Maybe, but it doesn't seem like a particularly notable skill.

I'm wondering, though, let's say you had a generationally elite defensive center fielder like Andruw Jones or Willie Mays, or maybe TWO of them, and you were able to completely reconfigure your ballpark before the season. What would you do to take advantage of your home field?

I'm wondering, though, let's say you had a generationally elite defensive center fielder like Andruw Jones or Willie Mays, or maybe TWO of them, and you were able to completely reconfigure your ballpark before the season. What would you do to take advantage of your home field?

This is Fenway sorta, especially if you got rid of the very short porch down the line. It's a relatively huge RF and that CF wall goes back a long way and is very high. So let Mookie and Bradley run wild out there. Meanwhile put some lead-footed slugger in LF to play the Monster. When you go on the road, maybe put somebody else in LF while JBJ and Mookie running wild would still be useful.

In a way, this is something we lose with the shift ban. All infields are roughly the same of course but teams configured to the hitter and considered whether the 3B is now the SS, whether the SS is now the short RF, etc.

The club hasn't enjoyed a winning record since 2016 so of course it's got to be the ballpark's fault.

Speaking of home field etc. What was final tally on AL vs NL last season? Its been decidedly AL for years which I'm nottconvinced has something to do w DH. So was it more balanced last year?

Double post

Speaking of home field etc. What was final tally on AL vs NL last season? Its been decidedly AL for years which I'm nottconvinced has something to do w DH. So was it more balanced last year?

Well, interleague play has been decidedly AL for the last 20 years. I don't know how one would separate HFA from that.

Well, interleague play has been decidedly AL for the last 20 years.

It's been even for the last 4-5 years. Final tally this year was 152-148 AL. The AL won pretty handily in 2021, tied in 2020 (was there interleague in 2020?) but the NL had comfy wins in 2018 and 2019.

The AL did take every year from 2004-17, usually pretty easily. In 2006, the AL had a 611 WP; in 2008 it was 591.

Constructing your roster to the home park is the most overrated thing in the history of baseball. You have to play elsewhere 81 times, too.

It might be easier the other way around, construct your home park to your roster. If you have flyball pitchers, expand the fences. If you have lefty hitters, move right field in. Seems like this should be a component of stadium design, let yourself customize the fences for each season, or even each series. MLB/Manfred might kvetch but if enough owners want it it would happen.

It's been even for the last 4-5 years. Final tally this year was 152-148 AL. The AL won pretty handily in 2021, tied in 2020 (was there interleague in 2020?) but the NL had comfy wins in 2018 and 2019.

The AL did take every year from 2004-17, usually pretty easily. In 2006, the AL had a 611 WP; in 2008 it was 591.

OK, but that's not really the point. How does one determine that HFA was decidedly in the AL's favor without a firm knowledge of the difference in league quality?

OK, but that's not really the point. How does one determine that HFA was decidedly in the AL's favor without a firm knowledge of the difference in league quality?

Couldn't you compare the difference between home/road W% for inter-league, vs the home/road W% for intra-league?

I'm not holding my breath about it actually happening, but I'd love it if Cabrera ended his career with a mini resurgence like Pujols did. With these changes to the fences, maybe his HR total can skyrocket to like...9 or 10 dingers next season!

20 would be a pretty safe bet if he gets a steady diet of Aaron Judge Superballs.

...or even each series

.

The Bill Veeck Rule would prohibit that, alas.

(was there interleague in 2020?)

There was interleague, just not interdivision.

Coming soon: Buckaroo Banzai Against the World Crime American League!

#22 ... yeah, I got no interest in that question. But ... if more AL teams had full-time DHs then maybe in that they'd have a good 9th bat to stick at DH while NL teams would be using their 4th OF (incl putting him in the field and a regular at DH). But even if that's a, say, 90 OPS difference, spread out over 9 batters, that's just a 10 OPS difference, could that really have such a big impact to explain 14 straight years of clear AL winning it easily. But in practice, so many AL teams used a DH rotation that I'm not sure it offered any substantial advantage.

And Shapper's on to it -- get some estimate of the "typical" HFA based on intra-league games then see if interleague HFA was a bit larger for AL teams. But that impact would seem pretty minor compared with league differential. You could also complicate things by looking at HFA by opponent distance from home or something. If we further assume the NL should have no additional HFA then this could also inform the estimate of league quality differential.

So let's say that intra-league HFA in both leagues is a 520 WP. Over a few years, we see that the NL won just half of it's home games against AL teams and 520-500 give us an estimate of league quality differential. If so then we would expect AL home teams to win about 54% but maybe they win 56% and 56-54 gives us an estimate of a HFA boost for the AL due to something -- probably the DH. To be clear, I don't think that would turn up anything of importance and you might well need something like 10 years' worth of interleague to get a big enough sample size to have much hope of statistically detecting a difference with confidence.

And Shapper's on to it -- get some estimate of the "typical" HFA based on intra-league games then see if interleague HFA was a bit larger for AL teams.

I still don't know how. Without knowing league quality, we can't tell what's super extra HFA and what's just the league being better.

Let's look at this situation.

In the DH era, the AL wins 55 percent of its games against the NL.

The AL wins 53 percent of interleague games overall.

Therefore, the AL wins 51 percent of its road games against the NL.

Say the average winning percentage for home teams in AL vs. AL games is .530.

Does that two percentage point difference between AL HFA and regular HFA demonstrate a DH edge? No, because the AL may simply be the better league.

Moreover, why would we assume the presence of a DH is only an advantage for an AL team, rather than the absence of one be a disadvantage in NL parks? That doesn't make any sense, seeing as the AL may be forced to bench one of its best players for three games (outside pitcher hitting ability being, theoretically, greater in the NL).

I didn't think the initial comment by Sunday was about homefield,

Speaking of home field etc. What was final tally on AL vs NL last season? Its been decidedly AL for years which I'm nottconvinced has something to do w DH. So was it more balanced last year?

It felt like his comment was since we are talking about homefield advantage, why not talk about other advantages, and what was the result of interleague play last year. (if I'm wrong, sorry for interpreting it that way) Basically it felt like he was trying to get a conversation started on AL/DL interleague play. Him mentioning the DH (which is something I think factors into it, but have been roundly toasted for that belief) as potentially a reason.

Basically it feels like wanting to add to the conversation more than what the thread has.

Moreover, why would we assume the presence of a DH is only an advantage for an AL team, rather than the absence of one be a disadvantage in NL parks? That doesn't make any sense, seeing as the AL may be forced to bench one of its best players for three games (outside pitcher hitting ability being, theoretically, greater in the NL).

It's all theoretical, but my argument is about the long term nature of a full season, and the ability to rest players with the DH while keeping the better ones in the lineup, combined with the ability to focus on a bench spot that is offense focused, allowing DH teams to have fatties that can crush the ball and not be expected to contribute in the field except maybe 3 times 6 series a year. When you are stuck putting a crappy fielder on the field in a couple of games because it's interleague play and he lost his position, the defensive impact over 3 games is relatively minor compared to the offensive impact. Maybe teams will eventually learn to take advantage of the defensive shortcomings of a dh in the field, like they did with Piazza's arm, but mostly teams aren't willing to change their approach to take advantage of one player weakness, unless it's pronounced enough to be known throughout the league, and that is not something that is going to happen in an interleague three game series.

I was hoping that Buckaroo Banzai was the contractor and we were going to see some *real* innovation this off-season.

Shut up, Spencer Torkelson, you coward. You are the weakest individual I ever know!

It felt like his comment was since we are talking about homefield advantage, why not talk about other advantages, and what was the result of interleague play last year. (if I'm wrong, sorry for interpreting it that way)

no, you're right that's pretty much what it was. I had been thinking about this issue a few weeks ago and I didnt want to forget to look it up. Its a bit off topic and mostly just a reminder to myself to look up the record.

Sorry if that derailed the conversation, it was just something I was wondering about.

Moreover, why would we assume the presence of a DH is only an advantage for an AL team, rather than the absence of one be a disadvantage in NL parks? That doesn't make any sense...

Logically, you're right. There's no reason to think whatever advantage would work the otherway to the NL's advantage. And yet for years there was this AL advantage.

Is it possible: that there's a more definite problem in coming off the bench to hit (in AL park) the corresponding problem: having the pitcher swing the bat (in NL park).

The recent things I've read suggest that there's actually a disadvantage to hit as a DH. Like even DHs dont hit as well as they are supposed to. So there is some sort of problem coming off the bench its a disadvantage. But as for pitchers, the guys in both leagues take a couple of swings in batting practice and then flail away in the game. They're both equally lousy.

But for the DH's, there's a process of having to get used to hitting off the bench and AL guys have practiced it and NL guys have not so it gives the AL some advantage. Its just an idea.

But yes it's not logical for it to be an AL advantage and yet...

And yet for years there was this AL advantage.

We don't know there was any AL advantage. What we know is the AL teams won more games than the NL teams for about 15 years. But we don't know AL teams enjoyed any significant HFA (whether based on the DH or some other factor).

But has anyone tried to use the method Walt is suggesting:

So let's say that intra-league HFA in both leagues is a 520 WP. Over a few years, we see that the NL won just half of it's home games against AL teams and 520-500 give us an estimate of league quality differential. If so then we would expect AL home teams to win about 54% but maybe they win 56%...

I.e. they have a bigger advantage at home then they have on the road. Would that be a way to control for any league personnel advantage?

I.e. they have a bigger advantage at home then they have on the road. Would that be a way to control for any league personnel advantage?

It should be. As per Walt's logic, say a typical home team in intra-league play has a 4% home field advantage, so home team has a .520 W%, road team .480%. Then we look at the AL's road W% vs. NL. say it's .500. So, we estimate the AL is 2% better than the NL, and we'd expect the AL to win 54% of their home games. If they win 56% we'd surmise they have some "extra HFA". If they win 54% or less, we'd think it's just the league quality.

But has anyone tried to use the method Walt is suggesting:

Sure, if we can do that. But how do we know what the proper estimate is for league quality difference in a given season that doesn't heavily involve the results of interleague play? He's just throwing a number out there as an estimate.

If you could know the AL is a true .520 league against the NL and they end up winning games at a .560 rate (above standard HFA), then you could surmise that there was something beyond traditional HFA at work. But you've got to identify the true league quality first, and how does Walt or anyone else propose we do that?

As per Walt's logic, say a typical home team in intra-league play has a 4% home field advantage, so home team has a .520 W%, road team .480%. Then we look at the AL's road W% vs. NL. say it's .500. So, we estimate the AL is 2% better than the NL, and we'd expect the AL to win 54% of their home games. If they win 56% we'd surmise they have some "extra HFA". If they win 54% or less, we'd think it's just the league quality.

Why doesn't the extra HFA go to the NL team, and they're winning more games at home than their true talent would dictate? Why are we assuming the NL games are the neutral ones?

If you turned this exercise around, you'd conclude the NL has extra HFA.

If you could know the AL is a true .520 league against the NL and they end up winning games at a .560 rate (above standard HFA), then you could surmise that there was something beyond traditional HFA at work. But you've got to identify the true league quality first, and how does Walt or anyone else propose we do that?

You compare the AL's W% in their home parks, and on the road, to the typical MLB home/road W% in intra-league games. Calculate home and road W% in all intra-league games. Then calculate home and road W% for the AL in inter-league games. Then calculate the deltas, presumably positive, if the AL is winning more than 50% of games overall.

If the AL gets a bigger delta or lift in home games than road games, you'd suspect some kind of extra HFA.

You compare the AL's W% in their home parks, and on the road, to the typical MLB home/road W% in intra-league games. Calculate home and road W% in all intra-league games. Then calculate home and road W% for the AL in inter-league games. Then calculate the deltas, presumably positive, if the AL is winning more than 50% of games overall.

If the AL gets a bigger delta or lift in home games than road games, you'd suspect some kind of extra HFA.

Say the AL was a true .560 league against the NL.

The AL went .570 in home games in interleague play, .510 in road games.

Typical HFA is .520.

You would conclude the AL is getting a big lift in interleague play because their delta is above the norm, when actually the NL was getting the HFA lift.

Your argument is premised on the idea that the AL's road record in interleague games is their true talent level, rather than that record possibly being affected by a structural advantage held by the NL in interleague play.

I think SoSH is right. If I may rephrase it:

If the AL goes 56% at home and say 50% on the road.

Snappers reasoning would say the AL is 53% on neutral field (therefore: home/road 55/51%)

Therefore: AL is 1% better at home, since we expected merely 55%, and that due to the DH or whatever AL HFA offers.

SoSH responds: its just as possible the AL Is 54% on neutral field, therefore we expect: home/road 56/52%

In that case, the NL has a 2% advantage at home because we expected them to be 48% but they got 50%.

I.e. its impossible to determine this outcome was caused by an AL HFA or a NL HFA. either one is possible

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Thank you sunday.

test

you know we had this discussion a few years back. And I knew someone brought up that a point that you cant prove that AL HFA, but for the life of me, I couldn't figure out how that worked.