Just wondering if others feel as I do that extreme ballparks seem to favor vet managers. When I first started playing the 80's I followed the conventional wisdom for newbies and went for a neutral park. Five of my first six teams were in Yankee. It worked OK because at first I didn't even have a clue what ball park homers were and the neutral parks seemed to neutralize the disadvantage of being a newbie.
But since then I've gravitated toward the more extreme parks and have settled on Riverfront (8,8-14,14) and Royals (16,16-2,2). I like Riverfront because its kinda like the Kingdome, only less so, providing reasonable support for OBP (I'm a fan of OBP) and scope for the HR guys, but also a little more protection for my pitchers vs HR than in the Dome. I like Royals for the high OBP and serious protection vs the HR. It seems like a more experienced player can take advantage of building a team around an extreme park's peculiarities and also find parks that are comfortable and suit one's style. And also, the extreme parks can be FUN! I have to admit I've avoided the pure pitcher's parks (Astro, Oakland, Shea) because I don't think they'd be as much fun. I did have fun in my one time in Dodger, but that's a little less extreme.
Just wondering how others might feel about this? Is it true that the extreme parks favor vets? Are there any vets (I do see some) who prefer the neutral parks? And what are YOUR favorite parks, and why? :wink:
Do Extreme Ballparks Favor Vet Managers?
20 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Do Extreme Ballparks Favor Vet Managers?
by Outta Leftfield » Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:46 pm
- Outta Leftfield
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by YountFan » Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:56 pm
I think thr difference is not the ballpark but the experiance you have that helps you to build a team for the ballpark. When you are new, you don't know the players and their pros and cons. Vet managers know the players and pick the players to fit the park. Then you find sucess in a Riverfront or Royals and you get confortable because you know the stats it take to win there. So the answer is not the park, but the manager. A vet manager can take advantage of any ballpark (except I cannnot win in Royals)
YF
YF
- YountFan
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by FletchGriswold » Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:46 pm
I think it's hard to be consistently good at one park thanks to the beauty of the Mystery Card. I agree with YF, it is more managing your players and watching for their revealed strengths & weaknesses, than building a team around your particular park. If it were a 200x game, then YES, vets definitely have an advantage building around extreme parks.
That's why BTT80's is the best game around! Rookies and Vets are on a more even playing field.
That's why BTT80's is the best game around! Rookies and Vets are on a more even playing field.
- FletchGriswold
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
How much of a difference?
by honestiago1 » Tue Mar 28, 2006 4:20 pm
The most extreme parks skew things a certain way, true, but you have to win on the road. That said, a team in a pitcher's park, built around solid pitching, should produce better than a team tailored for a HR park moving into pitcher's territory. Doesn't always happen, though, because you don't know what card ya got (as noted above). Basically put, a team with solid pitching, good defense at key positions, plus a mix of OBP and SLG will be successful no matter where they are. Your ball park makes the biggest difference when choosing your corner hitters (you want higher OBP/AVG hitters for pitcher's parks, or power hitters who historically produced in pitcher's parks [Canseco, Strawberry, WClark, Cey, etc.]).
It's all about philosophy. I've favored solid starting pitching and a lockdown closer. That's worked well about half the time (I never score a lot of runs). These teams played in the Astrodome. I am now trying the Earl Weaver strategy (good SP, DEF and HR's in Anaheim [This may backfire, since I have some flyball pitchers]). I don't know how big a factor my ballpark is going to play in the success of the team. I am hoping I made the right choice, but who knows?
I think the real question should be, can you win in extreme parks using extreme rosters (a Kingdome team loaded with high price hitters and cruddy pitching, for example; or a team in OAK with 4 SP's and a closer, each valued at 6M or more). Anyone ever done that?
It's all about philosophy. I've favored solid starting pitching and a lockdown closer. That's worked well about half the time (I never score a lot of runs). These teams played in the Astrodome. I am now trying the Earl Weaver strategy (good SP, DEF and HR's in Anaheim [This may backfire, since I have some flyball pitchers]). I don't know how big a factor my ballpark is going to play in the success of the team. I am hoping I made the right choice, but who knows?
I think the real question should be, can you win in extreme parks using extreme rosters (a Kingdome team loaded with high price hitters and cruddy pitching, for example; or a team in OAK with 4 SP's and a closer, each valued at 6M or more). Anyone ever done that?
- honestiago1
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
Re: How much of a difference?
by Outta Leftfield » Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:25 pm
[quote:81c4cfab91="honestiago"] Basically put, a team with solid pitching, good defense at key positions, plus a mix of OBP and SLG will be successful no matter where they are. Your ball park makes the biggest difference when choosing your corner hitters (you want higher OBP/AVG hitters for pitcher's parks, or power hitters who historically produced in pitcher's parks [Canseco, Strawberry, WClark, Cey, etc.]).
[/quote:81c4cfab91]
My sense it that you want to have the basics very well covered in whichever park you're in, i.e as honestiago puts it: "solid pitching, good D at key positions, plus a mix of OBP and SLG." Beyond that, the idea would seem to be that you tweak in the direction of the park--e.g. extra OBP in Royals or extra emphasis on SLG in a HR park. Maybe extra emphasis on starters in a pitcher's park? The two kinds of players I really try to avoid are the one-dimensional sluggers (all SLG / no OBP) and the banjo hitting glovemen (maybe good BA but no walks or HR).
What I'm wondering, I guess, is whether there's an angle for a vet manager to play that would work in a neutral park? Or just make really, really good choices about players and pitchers, based on experience with the game?
[q] I am now trying the Earl Weaver strategy (good SP, DEF and HR's in Anaheim [This may backfire, since I have some flyball pitchers]). I don't know how big a factor my ballpark is going to play in the success of the team. I am hoping I made the right choice, but who knows? [/q]
Actually, it might be worth trying the Weaver strategy in Memorial (or Yankee--same difference), since that was his home park. I've been using a 5 man rotation and cheap RPs plus great up the middle hitter/fielders in Royals and Riverfront (tweaking for OBP or SLG depending on the park) and that approach seems to be working in those two venues. But in my early days I was using the Weaver strategy in Yankee and that was OK too. Maybe a finely honed version of the Weaver approach is the way to go in neutral parks? :D
[/quote:81c4cfab91]
My sense it that you want to have the basics very well covered in whichever park you're in, i.e as honestiago puts it: "solid pitching, good D at key positions, plus a mix of OBP and SLG." Beyond that, the idea would seem to be that you tweak in the direction of the park--e.g. extra OBP in Royals or extra emphasis on SLG in a HR park. Maybe extra emphasis on starters in a pitcher's park? The two kinds of players I really try to avoid are the one-dimensional sluggers (all SLG / no OBP) and the banjo hitting glovemen (maybe good BA but no walks or HR).
What I'm wondering, I guess, is whether there's an angle for a vet manager to play that would work in a neutral park? Or just make really, really good choices about players and pitchers, based on experience with the game?
[q] I am now trying the Earl Weaver strategy (good SP, DEF and HR's in Anaheim [This may backfire, since I have some flyball pitchers]). I don't know how big a factor my ballpark is going to play in the success of the team. I am hoping I made the right choice, but who knows? [/q]
Actually, it might be worth trying the Weaver strategy in Memorial (or Yankee--same difference), since that was his home park. I've been using a 5 man rotation and cheap RPs plus great up the middle hitter/fielders in Royals and Riverfront (tweaking for OBP or SLG depending on the park) and that approach seems to be working in those two venues. But in my early days I was using the Weaver strategy in Yankee and that was OK too. Maybe a finely honed version of the Weaver approach is the way to go in neutral parks? :D
Last edited by Outta Leftfield on Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Outta Leftfield
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by seanreflex » Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:45 pm
[quote:9b909ab2dd](except I cannnot win in Royals)
YF [/quote:9b909ab2dd]
that's because you like hitting WAY more than you like pitching. You take that Higuera / browning / Barker and some fourth guy that you like, mix in some decent relievers (that cost more than .75, YF), and put the same kind of lineup on the field that you win with in Tigers, and you can win in Royals. Your Simmons, McGwire, Randolph, Yount, Horner, Raines, Dykstra, and Parker (those are all guys you wuold typically use, right?) and that lineup could kick some serious butt in Royals. You've got great leadoff ability, great raw power in McGwire, Horner and Parker, and solid D and good speed. You should give it a try, my friend.
We could have an "all Royals" league, where everyone has to play in Royals. It would be VERY interesting to see what the overall league ERA is, which team leads league with HR and how many, and what the overal SLG pct for the league is.
Shall we start a theme, boys?
YF [/quote:9b909ab2dd]
that's because you like hitting WAY more than you like pitching. You take that Higuera / browning / Barker and some fourth guy that you like, mix in some decent relievers (that cost more than .75, YF), and put the same kind of lineup on the field that you win with in Tigers, and you can win in Royals. Your Simmons, McGwire, Randolph, Yount, Horner, Raines, Dykstra, and Parker (those are all guys you wuold typically use, right?) and that lineup could kick some serious butt in Royals. You've got great leadoff ability, great raw power in McGwire, Horner and Parker, and solid D and good speed. You should give it a try, my friend.
We could have an "all Royals" league, where everyone has to play in Royals. It would be VERY interesting to see what the overall league ERA is, which team leads league with HR and how many, and what the overal SLG pct for the league is.
Shall we start a theme, boys?
- seanreflex
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by Outta Leftfield » Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:56 pm
I think an all Royals league would be interesting--but wasn't it done once before? I didn't take part but a report I heard was that EVERYBODY tried to draft the same group of players, so some managers really got squeezed.
What might be really interesting--to me, anyway-- would be a 50/50 league, with managers getting to choose one of the opposite extremes (say Royals vs. the Murph or Tiger.) The league would be balanced with six of each park, two each per division, and managers could sign up for their favored park on a first come, first served basis, with divisions distributed by lottery.
That would avoid repeating the old theme and would allow for a bit more latitude on drafting types of players--with not everybody trying to get the same few guys. Plus there'd be some competition to see which managers could win on the road and which kind of park was really "better"? How does that sound for a theme? :D
What might be really interesting--to me, anyway-- would be a 50/50 league, with managers getting to choose one of the opposite extremes (say Royals vs. the Murph or Tiger.) The league would be balanced with six of each park, two each per division, and managers could sign up for their favored park on a first come, first served basis, with divisions distributed by lottery.
That would avoid repeating the old theme and would allow for a bit more latitude on drafting types of players--with not everybody trying to get the same few guys. Plus there'd be some competition to see which managers could win on the road and which kind of park was really "better"? How does that sound for a theme? :D
- Outta Leftfield
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by nycalderon » Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:15 pm
veteran managers choose extreme parks because they see an opportunity to exploit a competitive advantage. It is easier to win in an extreme park once you know what to look for. just my 2 cents...
- nycalderon
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
20 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Return to Strat-O-Matic Baseball: '70s, '80s, '90s
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests