The Failed Park Factors Experiment (2043.18)

[StormZ_23]

So, a couple of seasons ago I had a brilliant idea, which you can read here. After looking at the overall season stats of my team, I decided to change the park factors of my pitcher's park in order to make my park more hitter friendly. Here are the changes I made:

AVG LHB: .950 -> 1.040
AVG RHB: .950 -> 1.040
Doubles: .900 -> 1.070
Triples: .950 -> 1.010
HR LHB: .900
HR RHP: .900

I made these changes because in 2041, when I reached the Cartwright Cup and had one of the league's best offenses, my away record was better than my home record. Seeing as my home park was a pitcher's park, I felt my offensive potential was being suppressed, even though it was one of the best in the league. Also, considering that my young players were only in the league for 1 or 2 seasons, I thought this would only boost their abilities. Clearly this did not work. My offense has not produced stats on the level of 2041, despite playing in a more neutral park. And my pitching has suffered too. There a few reasons as to why this experiment failed.

One thing I did not take into account was the changing landscape of the league. Due to the influx of IFA stars from 2035 and the drafts in the late 2030's, there are more superstar hitters in this league than ever. I had incredible hitters in 2041, but not everyone we see in 2043 was in the league in 2041 as they were still developing. So, these new players are now able to advantage of my park factors and my weak pitching staff. I didn't have a good pitching staff in 2041 and I don't have a good pitching staff now. It's not like I haven't attempted to upgrade it, but it hasn't really worked out.

Also, I did not take into account the crop of young starting pitching that was coming up in the Pacific. I don't really have to name these players, but these guys are much better than what my top pitchers can do. Also, I had a top pitching prospect of my own with Richie Vanness. He was progressing really well but then he fell with a season long injury in 2042, which considerably altered his potential (70 to 45). When I changed the park factors, I assumed that I would be able to find more pitching, which ended up not happening. Couple that with the rising crop of hitters and pitchers in the Frick and you have a recipe for disaster.

So, now I'm at the crossroads of what I should do next. I have an above average offense with mediocre pitching. My pitching talent is not going to change anytime soon unless I do something super drastic. I have some money that will be off the books soon, but I will be re-signing my three outfielders to multi year extensions. I have also thrown around the idea of relocating the team, mainly due to stagnant fan interest and a budget that never rises with participation points. However, I only meet 2/6 of the criteria (attendance and fan interest), so if my market size or fan loyalty goes down, I will definitely consider a move. For now, I will be staying and hoping that my contract extensions help out my fan interest. As for the park factors, I think I might have to change the park factors again. Although, I don't really want to pay the points or the money to do so, especially considering it's only been two seasons since I first changed them. However, if I do nothing, then I feel I'll be destined for another mediocre season.

I have quite the off-season ahead of me.

[RonCo]

Make a plan, change a plan, they always say.

[jleddy]

Nice write-up, Taylor. I'm in somewhat of the same predicament but I'm likely to take a wait-and-see approach to see how our offensive players who dropped off this year bounce-back in Year Two after the league environment change.

Vancouver, among many other teams, have an interesting off-season in front of them...I'll be sure to pay attention to see what you decide to do.

[usnspecialist]

the vanness injury was brutal, but the fact that you have only fallen to the mid 70s despite a series of things going wrong to me indicates a potential quick turn-around coming.

[RonCo]

Trying to configure a team to park factors is always interesting. Mostly I think park factors warp how skills look to us more than provide any great advantage of disadvantage...though on the far edges, as Ted posited at one time, they probably do influence wins and loses in the sense that low-scoring games probably tend to be a bit more random in nature (as in the "better" team wins maybe a little less often in big pitching parks???)

[StormZ_23]

Trying to configure a team to park factors is always interesting. Mostly I think park factors warp how skills look to us more than provide any great advantage of disadvantage...though on the far edges, as Ted posited at one time, they probably do influence wins and loses in the sense that low-scoring games probably tend to be a bit more random in nature (as in the "better" team wins maybe a little less often in big pitching parks???)

The park factors might just be something easy for me to scapegoat. The pacific really changed in 2042 and my pitching couldn’t keep up, same with my offense but to a lesser extent. It’s hard to diagnose the problems of a team that won 97 games the previous year and showed little signs of slowing down.