Toughest ball park to put together a winner...

[FUDU]

consistently?

Taking into consideration all the related circumstances like:
a)ball park effects
b)players that fit the park the best
c)^ limited pool of players in relation to ball park choice
d)your competition and how similar or identical their ball park is

etc?

[rburgh]

This is an easy one. All data is from DD.

Worst 5 win %, by ballpark (min 50 uses reported)

1. Bank One '05 .464
2. Rogers Centre '05 .467
3. Dodger '78 .471
4. Three Rivers '78 .471
5. Anaheim '78 .476

Worst 5 win % (no minimum uses)

1. Kauffman '05 .421/6
2. Metropolitan '78 .451/12
3. Memorial '78 .452/19
4. Candlestick '78 .458/15
5. Comiskey '59 .461/11

Conclusion - stay away from the '78 ballparks. But I had a 100 win team in Metropolitan '78 at $100 million, so I guess none of them are impossible.

[The Last Druid]

Not quite so easy. You would need to be able to parse out manager effects before making any definite statements. It could be that a lot of very casual managers were the folks using the aforementioned parks. Doubt many of the shark types played in those parks.

[PotKettleBlack]

Generally speaking, there is not a strategic advantage to playing in a balance park with the balance being middling numbers.

Three Rivers, Anaheim, Dodger 78 all, off the top of my head, have that kind effect. I have two first place teams running in three rivers right now, but one of them is a theme league, so I dunno that I count it since I got an advantageous player set vs my division.

Easier to win when you can enhance one side or the other, or enhance/suppress HR or BP single.

[hackra]

Petrosian is right. I do not think that it is such an issue of which park in general that any group of managers finds toughest, but how each individual manager likes to handle the challenge of different stadiums.

Many feel most comfortable building for a certain type of park (it is usually some sort of polar stadium - Dunn, Hilltop, Petco, Fulton, Polo grounds....) but they are perhaps less well able to build a winner in parks that do not fit their style.

It can be a fun and good learning experience to try different types of parks, and after doing so you may learn which types are easiest (and hardest) for [b:cf13ee59d4]you[/b:cf13ee59d4] when building a team.

:wink:

[bkeat23]

Every park I select :D

[rburgh]

hackra, you are 100% right. There are undoubtedly new managers out there who feel most comfortable with doing the sorts of things you need to do to win in neutral parks, or pitchers' parks, or whatever.

But I stand by the first list of 5. The MOST used ballpark in the DD database is Minute Maid, which has 437 uses. Anaheim has 119. The other four range from 52 to 87 uses.

The winning percentage for Minute Maid is .526 (2nd to Griffith 24 among ballparks with 50+ uses), which is enough closer to .500 that we can have some confidence that the tough parks are just that - tough.

We can get some confirmation of this from the results of the Barnstormers' tour. Most of the time, the wins leader for the neutral group parks won fewer games than the wins leader for most of the other groups. (I'm being deliberately wishy-washy here since I don't want to go look it up. I suspect the data is more positive than my statement might lead you to believe.)

Earnest advice to newbies - DO NOT play in symmetrical ballparks with all ratings between 8 and 14. I suppose Petrosian or Nev could win 100 games there, but they are past masters at evaluating their competition and adjusting their rosters accordingly.

[FUDU]

[quote:13a047d0ab="rburgh"]hackra, you are 100% right. There are undoubtedly new managers out there who feel most comfortable with doing the sorts of things you need to do to win in neutral parks, or pitchers' parks, or whatever.

But I stand by the first list of 5. The MOST used ballpark in the DD database is Minute Maid, which has 437 uses. Anaheim has 119. The other four range from 52 to 87 uses.

The winning percentage for Minute Maid is .526 (2nd to Griffith 24 among ballparks with 50+ uses), which is enough closer to .500 that we can have some confidence that the tough parks are just that - tough.

We can get some confirmation of this from the results of the Barnstormers' tour. Most of the time, the wins leader for the neutral group parks won fewer games than the wins leader for most of the other groups. (I'm being deliberately wishy-washy here since I don't want to go look it up. I suspect the data is more positive than my statement might lead you to believe.)

Earnest advice to newbies - DO NOT play in symmetrical ballparks with all ratings between 8 and 14. I suppose Petrosian or Nev could win 100 games there, but they are past masters at evaluating their competition and adjusting their rosters accordingly.[/quote:13a047d0ab]

LOL, I won my only ring in Veterans 78. IIRC 1-10 across the board.

The reason I even ask this is b/c I'm considering this approach: sticking with the same ball park for a while through all caps to help learn the cards that best fit that park, and hopefully get good at building a line up that way.

[motherscratcher]

[quote:83ed868085="FUDU"][quote:83ed868085="rburgh"]hackra, you are 100% right. There are undoubtedly new managers out there who feel most comfortable with doing the sorts of things you need to do to win in neutral parks, or pitchers' parks, or whatever.

But I stand by the first list of 5. The MOST used ballpark in the DD database is Minute Maid, which has 437 uses. Anaheim has 119. The other four range from 52 to 87 uses.

The winning percentage for Minute Maid is .526 (2nd to Griffith 24 among ballparks with 50+ uses), which is enough closer to .500 that we can have some confidence that the tough parks are just that - tough.

We can get some confirmation of this from the results of the Barnstormers' tour. Most of the time, the wins leader for the neutral group parks won fewer games than the wins leader for most of the other groups. (I'm being deliberately wishy-washy here since I don't want to go look it up. I suspect the data is more positive than my statement might lead you to believe.)

Earnest advice to newbies - DO NOT play in symmetrical ballparks with all ratings between 8 and 14. I suppose Petrosian or Nev could win 100 games there, but they are past masters at evaluating their competition and adjusting their rosters accordingly.[/quote:83ed868085]

LOL, I won my only ring in Veterans 78. IIRC 1-10 across the board.

The reason I even ask this is b/c I'm considering this approach: sticking with the same ball park for a while through all caps to help learn the cards that best fit that park, and hopefully get good at building a line up that way.[/quote:83ed868085]

well, yeah, you won there...but look at the competition!

[rburgh]

Or, alternatively, FUDU might be one of the few with a good feel for what to do in neutral parks. As I said, I think it's possible that there are managers of which this is true.

I just think that most of us find it much easier to simply eliminate LH or RH power, or power altogether, or simply suppress all hitters. And I have a lot of empirical evidence to support this statement.