August 20, 200917 yr Okay, so I was talking baseball with this guy I know, and he told me that Landshark is basically a hitter's park, and provided me with this: http://www.draysbay....ms-the#comments I'm not really sure what to make of "Carrying Rate," So I wondering what you guys think of it. It honestly sounds like a load of crap to me, but maybe there's some truth to it? Anyone know? Scroll up to see the carrying rate of the ball.
August 20, 200917 yr http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/FLA/2009.shtml Park Factors Over 100 favors batters, under 100 favors pitchers. multi-year: Batting - 99, Pitching - 99; one-year: Batting - 97, Pitching - 97
August 20, 200917 yr http://www.baseball-.../FLA/2009.shtml Park Factors Over 100 favors batters, under 100 favors pitchers. multi-year: Batting - 99, Pitching - 99; one-year: Batting - 97, Pitching - 97 So then its just slightly in favor of pitchers?
August 20, 200917 yr It's big and spacious...and has a huge wall in left field that's saved lots of Homers, it is definetely not a hitter's park. The New Ballpark however, looks like a hitter's park, because of it's small dimensions and circular low fence outfield.
August 20, 200917 yr I guess the ball could carry well but even so it's a pitcher's park but not ridiculous so. It's actually pretty fair.
August 20, 200917 yr It's big and spacious...and has a huge wall in left field that's saved lots of Homers, it is definetely not a hitter's park. The New Ballpark however, looks like a hitter's park, because of it's small dimensions and circular low fence outfield. The new park is huge. are you kidding?
August 20, 200917 yr Author http://www.baseball-.../FLA/2009.shtml Park Factors Over 100 favors batters, under 100 favors pitchers. multi-year: Batting - 99, Pitching - 99; one-year: Batting - 97, Pitching - 97 Wow, thanks! It's complicated, but very interesting!
August 20, 200917 yr I guess the ball could carry well but even so it's a pitcher's park but not ridiculous so. It's actually pretty fair. this. There's no arguing the ball carries well, but just because it carries well doesn't mean it's a hitters park. The dimensions make it a pitchers park even though there's good carry to the ball. PetCO is in the upper half of carry, that doesn't make a hitters park.
August 20, 200917 yr I guess the ball could carry well but even so it's a pitcher's park but not ridiculous so. It's actually pretty fair. this. There's no arguing the ball doesn't carry well, but just because it carries well doesn't mean it's a hitters park. The dimensions make it a pitchers park even though there's good carry to the ball. PetCO is in the upper half of carry, that doesn't make a hitters park.
August 20, 200917 yr I guess the ball could carry well but even so it's a pitcher's park but not ridiculous so. It's actually pretty fair. this. There's no arguing the ball doesn't carry well, but just because it carries well doesn't mean it's a hitters park. The dimensions make it a pitchers park even though there's good carry to the ball. PetCO is in the upper half of carry, that doesn't make a hitters park. Carry = ball stays up If the park has enough room, and the ball carries well enough, it can carry itself right into the OFer's glove.
August 20, 200917 yr You totally missed what I was ing Nny for. You could see the difference between his current edited post and the one I quoted
August 20, 200917 yr It's big and spacious...and has a huge wall in left field that's saved lots of Homers, it is definetely not a hitter's park. The New Ballpark however, looks like a hitter's park, because of it's small dimensions and circular low fence outfield. The new park is huge. are you kidding? My bad, I had never looked at the actual dimensions and was going off a comparison of new marlins ballpark and Citi Field, which is actually a pitchers park but I mixed that up with a hitter's park... Right?
August 21, 200917 yr Frankly, Dolphin's Stadium is more of a pitchers park than the last 3 years would indicate. As much as we like our young guys, they really haven't been reliable as of yet. The Marlins can rake, and the Marlins' pitchers helped other people rake from 06-08, so the Dolphin Stadium looks less like a pitchers' park with some methods of calculation. The very same thing actually deflates the OPS+ of some of our players.
August 21, 200917 yr No way it carries, its to humid Baseballs travel further in higher humidity, all else being equal.
August 21, 200917 yr No way it carries, its to humid Baseballs travel further in higher humidity, all else being equal. Seriously??? I would of thought the humidity would put some reisistance on the flight of the ball and cause it to travel a lesser distance. Thanks for telling me this though, know I won't look like an idiot lol.
August 21, 200917 yr Frankly, Dolphin's Stadium is more of a pitchers park than the last 3 years would indicate. As much as we like our young guys, they really haven't been reliable as of yet. The Marlins can rake, and the Marlins' pitchers helped other people rake from 06-08, so the Dolphin Stadium looks less like a pitchers' park with some methods of calculation. The very same thing actually deflates the OPS+ of some of our players. And coincidentally is the same time frame they did the expansion on the stadium. Many contribute that to the ball carrying better to RF now. But it's a pitchers park. And the new one will be also. They've stated that many times.
August 23, 200917 yr No way it carries, its to humid Baseballs travel further in higher humidity, all else being equal. That doesn't make sense to me just based on the general principles of physics. Also, isn't that why in colorado they put balls in a humidor? We're at sea level and its humid, to me that seems like it would weigh the ball down.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.