Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
March 10, 2005
Petco Park Factors

An interesting article comparing Petco Park and Citizens Bank Park. It seems the Padres thought about building a pitcher's park on purpose:

Still, the Padres think their task will be easier. "The research we've done, the teams that perennially win are teams that have good pitching," Towers said.

The question then becomes whether it's more difficult to develop pitching in a park that gives away home runs like a guy handing out leaflets on a New York City street corner.

"Ask [Rockies general manager] Dan O'Dowd." Towers said. "I watch what's happened in Colorado, because they're in our division. It's difficult. They've tried it every which way. They tried going with the Blake Street Bombers. That was probably the best years they had. It's hard to attract free-agent pitching. And young pitching, it just kills their confidence.

There's a difference between developing good pitching and having good pitching due to park effects. However, Bill James did research years ago showing that teams playing in pitcher's parks won championships more often. Why? The answer lies in the relationship of runs to winning. If you outscore your opponents by 100 runs in a low run environment, you'll have a better record than if you have the same difference in a high run environment. It's smart of the Padres to notice these details.


Baseball Musings is holding a pledge drive during March. Click here for details.


Posted by David Pinto at 10:16 PM | Stadiums | TrackBack (0)
Comments

There's also the fact that pitchers in these park throw fewer pitches due to the greater number of outs recorded. Fewer pitches would presumably result in healthier, more rested starters who would also be able to give you more innings. In effect, it would allow you to replace the innings sucked up by the 11th man with your top starters.

Posted by: jdb at March 10, 2005 10:36 PM

The reasons (to me, at least...) that teams that play in pitchers' parks are more successful has to do with both health and roster structure.
If you play 81 games a year in a park that shortens innings, it's easier to maintain the health of your pitching staff. Heck, it's even less likely that your star centerfielder will tear a hamstring, given that he'll be frantically chasing fewer gappers, as well as legging out fewer doubles.
Your catchers squat for fewer pitches, and your shorter home games lessen the urge to carry an 11th pitcher, while eliminating any idea of having a 12th pitcher.
All of this seems to me to be common sense, but that is of little consolation in Denver, where you couldn't build a pitchers' park without using a whiffle ball and adding a rover to the outfield.

Posted by: Lance at March 10, 2005 10:52 PM

I wasn't crazy about this article as it doesn't get the Phillies side of the story at all. It seems like typical Philly-media painting the hometeam bad. And, I think the jury is still out on whether or not CBP is a "bandbox", as they say.

Here are two counterpoints:
One
Two

Posted by: Tom G at March 10, 2005 11:29 PM

The "more pitches" argument seems weak. How many more pitches per game are we talking about? 2? 10? 100? Do the starters actually throw more balls on average than other teams' starters? Why can't the team just carry an extra reliever or two and spread the throws out a bit more? What about the other teams in the Rockies' division? Wouldn't they feel some of the pitching tiredness effect due to playing ~10 games/year in Denver? If the only thing separating the Rockies from a World Series were a bit more resting of their starters, I'm sure they would have already taken the steps to fix that problem.

I think Tower's argument about attracting free-agent pitching and developing young pitching has merit. One example: it took a lot of work to convince Schilling that Fenway wasn't an anti-pitchers park before he was willing to sign with the Sox.

Posted by: Jason at March 11, 2005 09:23 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?