FanGraphs Baseball

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. You weren’t helping Keith Hernandez move by any chance?

    Anywho… I’m suprised the by the Giants and Nationals. I thought they would grade out closer to the Mets/Marlins range.

    Comment by drew — January 16, 2009 @ 1:06 pm

  2. The Nationals will change a bit in the following years. It’s just 1 year of data in their new park so it’s regressed more heavily.

    Comment by David Appelman — January 16, 2009 @ 1:41 pm

  3. Chavez Ravine just 2% below the league average?

    That doesn’t seem right. All we ever hear is how difficult it is to hit there… But hey, 5 years should be a good sample size.

    Comment by Guillermo — January 16, 2009 @ 1:47 pm

  4. That makes sense. I guess I figured that you’d used the data from RFK to figure the value of pitchers in the past years.

    Unrelated to pitching but I’m hoping someone can help me with this. If you click teams at the top tab and then select values you can see the batting values of all the teams in 2008. But I don’t understand the postional column. Obviously the AL teams have a negative positional rating that is greater than their NL counterparts (because you’re factoring in the DH) but what makes up the difference between the teams in their leaugues? Thanks in advance.

    Comment by drew — January 16, 2009 @ 1:50 pm

  5. Blanket park factors? Really?

    I would have thought you’d break them down into their components. HRs, LDs – that sort of thing.

    Comment by Evan — January 16, 2009 @ 1:50 pm

  6. You can compare to 2000-06 data:
    http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/run_impact_in_parks/

    Comment by TangoTiger — January 16, 2009 @ 1:51 pm

  7. Count me in the “misunderstanding” group, but aren’t park factors still not taking into account synergies between individual players and parks? Suppose (ignoring the matchup problems) that the Mariners stacked their lineup with nothing but left-handed pull hitters. Wouldn’t Safeco’s park factor look bigger than it actually is?
    The implication of this in general would be that teams that acquired players that fit their parks offensively would tend to have too-high park factors.

    Comment by Thor — January 16, 2009 @ 2:01 pm

  8. Thor: you are comparing how those guys do to how they did away from Safeco. It is possible that you get guys like Boggs and Lynn who take particular advantage of Fenway, and therefore your sample of players is not representative of the population in whole. That’s a limitation.

    Comment by TangoTiger — January 16, 2009 @ 2:31 pm

  9. Well, simply put, you can make park factors as complicated and as granular as you want them to be. There’s a lot of work still being done on various park adjustments, including park size, weather, etc…

    We’re not going to delve into implementing component park factors on FIP or wRAA right now, since I’d guess that the gains in accuracy won’t be earth shattering. If someone wants to run the numbers and show that it’s worth my while to run those calculations, I’m all ears.

    Comment by David Appelman — January 16, 2009 @ 2:40 pm

  10. For RFK we’re using .96 and it’s 3 years of data and it’s near the bottom, but 2008 is just that 1 year.

    That positional column might be going away. I’m not sure it makes a whole lot of sense to have it there as Dave pointed out to me a few weeks ago.

    Comment by David Appelman — January 16, 2009 @ 2:51 pm

  11. So when you adjust you adjust by dividing by (1+PF)/2?

    Comment by Samg — January 16, 2009 @ 3:20 pm

  12. Nope, that’s already in there. These are the 1+PF/2 versions.

    Comment by David Appelman — January 16, 2009 @ 3:31 pm

  13. Thats what I was asking, and thanks!

    Comment by Samg — January 16, 2009 @ 3:36 pm

  14. I agree. No matter what you do, the reader will automatically include his own uncertainty range of (at least) +/- 0.25 wins anyway. I really don’t see the point of trying to figure out if Youkilis is +2.5 wins or +2.7 wins, if the reader sees the +2.5 wins and automatically thinks 2.25-2.75, anyway.

    If the impact is at least 0.50 wins, then ok, sure. Otherwise, my suggestion is to accept the uncertainty level, so that people can apply the “human factor” that they would anyway.

    Comment by TangoTiger — January 16, 2009 @ 3:58 pm

  15. By the way any chance of a speed score?

    Comment by Samg — January 16, 2009 @ 4:31 pm

  16. Since they cut down on foul territory a few years ago, it plays a bit more neutral overall. Actually, in the summer I think it’s a bit hitter friendly, which is more or less evened out in the early spring and late fall. Don’t have the numbers for this, however. It’s just a guess.

    Comment by Nick — January 16, 2009 @ 4:48 pm

  17. I used to calculate Speed Score when the site first launched, but it was taken off for one reason or another. I think there’s a high chance it makes a return this season, maybe in its new 6 component form, though I don’t know if there’s much of a difference between the 6 component and 4 component forms.

    Comment by David Appelman — January 16, 2009 @ 4:51 pm

  18. I only know of the six component form. I think it is a great stat, but maybe some tweaks on the sixth (fielding) factor?

    Comment by Samg — January 16, 2009 @ 5:06 pm

  19. The home team is only half of the park factor – the visiting team’s performance counts as well.

    Comment by Colin Wyers — January 16, 2009 @ 8:26 pm

  20. I understand park factors and why they are a good idea. But what is meant by “5 year regressed park factor”? How is the regressed part done?

    Comment by OldDogNewTricks — January 17, 2009 @ 7:16 am

  21. Everything you need to know about the park factors and how they’re calculated and why they’re calculated the way they are can be found here:
    http://gosu02.tripod.com/id103.html

    Comment by David Appelman — January 17, 2009 @ 12:07 pm

  22. Does anyone try to do park factors that depend on handedness? For example, Safeco doesn’t hurt LHB like Ibanez but it kills RHB like Beltre. LHP do better than RHP for the same reason. Seems like this is a pretty straightforward thing that would dramatically improve their accuracy.

    Comment by Bryan — January 17, 2009 @ 1:28 pm

  23. Why not adjust every facet of a hitter’s/pitcher’s game separately, because they way they derive value may or may not benefit from his park factor?

    Comment by Samg — January 17, 2009 @ 7:56 pm

  24. Any chance of combining the hitting and pitching values for pitchers?

    Comment by Samg — January 18, 2009 @ 10:40 am

  25. Are the Park Factors used for 2009 available?

    Comment by VegasPaleHoseFan — March 10, 2010 @ 9:57 pm

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


Current ye@r *

Close this window.

0.196 Powered by WordPress