In your opinion which park is better? Neutral, Pitcher's park of Hitter's park?

 

Let's discuss the pros and cons, and evaluate the home parks of the World Series winners over the last 10-15 years.

 

What are the following (Neutral, Pitchers, Hitters)

- Yankee Stadium (?????)

- PPS (Pitcher)

- Arizona DB Stadium (????)

- Turner Field Stadium (????)

- Angels Stadium (????)

- Toronto BJays (????)

- Minnesota Twins (????)

 

 

I for one, don't like Hitters park. Most of the good pitchers stay clear of those team, and I hate when no lead is ever safe.

pitchers park for the Marlins is almost a sure thing, the organization is built on "arms" so why would you go the other way with your park?

pitchers park for the Marlins is almost a sure thing, the organization is built on "arms" so why would you go the other way with your park?

KJC

 

That's true now, but what about 10 years from now?

pitching will always win.

 

the Fish have young strong talented arms throughout the entire system.

 

they dont say "Good pitching beats good hitting" for nothing.

if turner field is a pitchers park, then the BOB is also a pitchers park.

if turner field is a pitchers park, then the BOB is also a pitchers park.

the BOB?

both are hitters parks

yes bank one ballpark.

For some reason I'm having trouble finding park effects for the last 5 years, but I found this explanation on how park effects are calculated and the park effects for 1997. Note: Don't read too much into a single year of park effects...they are only valuable if taken as am average over a couple years.

 

 

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/btf/sc...parkfactors.htm

Turner Field is a neutral park.

Yankee Stadium is a pitchers park, though not as much as before it was redone in the 1970s. It's traditionally been tougher on right-handed batters which is why you see lefty pitchers thrive there, like Whitey Ford, Guidry, Pettitte.

 

Turner Field is pretty neutral.

 

The BOB is a hitter's park, which makes Brandon Webb's season last year that much more impressive.

 

Edison Field in Anaheim has been pretty neutral except the last two years where it played as a pitcher's park.

 

The Sky Dome in Toronto is mostly a hitter's park.

 

Minnesota's Metrodome is also a hitter's park.

 

I much prefer a pitcher's park to a hitter's park. If your pitchers have to play 81 games in a hitter's park and deal with high-scoring games, that's that many more batters they're facing and that many more pitches they're throwing. I think it wears down a staff.

 

The better teams over the years, like the Yankees and Dodgers, have played in pitchers parks. The loser teams, like the Cubs and Red Sox, are from hitters parks (though Wrigley is playing like a pitchers park the last few seasons).

 

I got the Park Factors from Baseball Reference which got the formulas from Total Baseball.

Pitcher's Park for sure. No questions asked.

 

And actually, it would be alot easier to create a pitcher's park in Miami. Where the stadium is going to be located, the air is going to more condusive to dead flies rather than long bombs. If we put the fences back a little bit, put some nice tall walls, and some quirky features in the outfield, it'll be a pitcher's heaven. Our offense will adapt rather quickly like it always does, and playing 81 games there would be a HUGE home advantage because the harder it is to hit in a park, the more of an advantage the home team has.

 

Also I believe we need to do everything in our power to make this stadium THE Home Field Advantage in the Majors. Closer fans, seats priced and located strategically in prime trash talking areas, bounces in the outfield that would make a football jealous, etc. We need to really go through with this and make it AWESOME.

Let's see...a successful hitter is successful only 1/3 of the time while a mediocre pitcher gets batters out 2/3 of the time. Hmm...I wonder how you should build your franchise...

 

Of course we have to go pitcher's park. We are built on young arms, why would you all of a sudden want to play in Minute Offense Park?

I'd like to see us play in a pitchers park, but with some sort of quirk. If it's a short RF line, that's fine, but watching these 3 games in Houston, low scoring can be accomplished in an offensive minded park. I mean, when Lowell and Cabrera came up in the ninth, I instantly thought about that left-field overhang. How cool would something like that be in the stadium; I'm not advocating the whole park be that small, but something like that is necessary...

I vote with pitcher's park.

 

On a related matter: Most likely, 2 teams will be contracted in 2007. A new stadium means that the Marlins won't be contracted, but Contraction = Realignment. Do any of you think the Marlins will be realigned in a way that would affect stadium-choice? In other words, is there any chance the Marlins might get shifted into the AL? I have a good friend who swears that the Marlins are the most likely candidate for such a move (given that Tampa Bay is a probable for contraction and that Milwaukee won't go back to the AL so long as Selig is commissioner). I told him he is full of bullsh*t, but he sticks to his opinion.

There will be no contraction. Contraction means the other 29 owners would have to endure the costs of another lame duck season of the Expos and face legal action from powerful state politicians and Congress. And if any team were be contracted along with the Expos it would be the Twins or Athletics who have cheaper leases MLB would have to buy out.

Contraction will not occur. MLB has announced this already.

IF CONTRACTION DOES OCCUR, the marlins won't go to the american league. it would most likely be the Diamondbacks.

Contraction won't happen. The owners have called this relocation of the Expos "the last residue of contraction."

 

Plus look at the relocation committee: Selig-Prieb (Brewers), Reinsdorf (White Sox), and Hicks (Rangers)

 

Those 3 will be there until the Expos are moved and they disapporve of relocation, but will keep shut because the Expos are doing that bad in their current situation.

Don't want to veer too much off-topic, but in the 2003-2006 the Player's Union agreed not to protest if the owners voted to contract 2 teams in 2007. This was the urgency for breaking ground in time for the stadium to be complete (or near completion) in 2007. Here is the exact wording:

 

H. Future Contraction

The Office of the Commissioner and/or the Clubs shall not undertake any centralized effort to reduce the number of Major League Clubs effective for a season covered by this Agreement. The Clubs shall, however, have the right, subject to the terms and conditions set forth inthis Article XV(H), to reduce by as many as two (2) the number ofMajor League Clubs effective for the 2007 championship season.

 

(1) Procedure(a) The Clubs may not take a vote relating to contraction effec-tive for the 2007 season prior to April 1, 2006. The Clubs shall notify the Association of any decision to contract effective for the 2007championship season no later than July 1, 2006 and, on or beforethat date, shall supply to the Association a tentative championshipschedule for the 2007 championship season reflecting such decision.

 

2003-2006 Collective Bargaining Agreement