OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post

terpsfan101 · 03-07-2010, 09:47 AM

Gambo obviously put a lot of hard work into his park.dat file. There are 500+ ballparks to choose from. But there are some serious issues with his park factors. Sometimes they don't match reality at all. Take the Polo Grounds for instance. Using Retrosheet, I calculated Park Factors (correcting for the offset of other parks in the league) for the Polo Grounds using data from 1920-1939, 1945-1948, and 1952-1957, with no Yankees data (1920-1922) included. Perhaps too big of a sample size, but the dimensions of the Polo Grounds didn't change at all from the early 1920's until it the Giants left after 1957. Here are the factors:

Batting Average: .96
Home Runs/PA: 1.55
2B/PA: .69
3B/PA: .86

Gambo's park factors are the exact opposite in almost every respect:

Batting Average LHB: 1.167
Batting Average RHB: 1.116
Home Runs LHB: .844
Home Runs RHB: .768
2B: 1.143
3B: 1.096

So in real life, the Polo Grounds reduced batting averages 4%, decreased doubles and triples by 25%, and increased home runs by over 50%. According to Gambo, the Polo Grounds increased batting averages at 13-14%, increased doubles and triples around 12-13%, and decreased homeruns roughly 20%.

His park factors for Fenway Park II are also terrible. Everyone knows Fenway Park inflates batting averages, especially for left handed batters. But Gambo has Fenway Park II reducing batting averages, showing a rediculous .954 park factor for left handed batting average.

Gambo, you might want to look into fixing these. I know that you don't have empirical data for most seasons, but you at least need to tweak something so your park factors at least agree with common sense.

03-07-2010, 09:47 AM	#1
terpsfan101 Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 31	Gambo's Questionable Park Factors Gambo obviously put a lot of hard work into his park.dat file. There are 500+ ballparks to choose from. But there are some serious issues with his park factors. Sometimes they don't match reality at all. Take the Polo Grounds for instance. Using Retrosheet, I calculated Park Factors (correcting for the offset of other parks in the league) for the Polo Grounds using data from 1920-1939, 1945-1948, and 1952-1957, with no Yankees data (1920-1922) included. Perhaps too big of a sample size, but the dimensions of the Polo Grounds didn't change at all from the early 1920's until it the Giants left after 1957. Here are the factors: Batting Average: .96 Home Runs/PA: 1.55 2B/PA: .69 3B/PA: .86 Gambo's park factors are the exact opposite in almost every respect: Batting Average LHB: 1.167 Batting Average RHB: 1.116 Home Runs LHB: .844 Home Runs RHB: .768 2B: 1.143 3B: 1.096 So in real life, the Polo Grounds reduced batting averages 4%, decreased doubles and triples by 25%, and increased home runs by over 50%. According to Gambo, the Polo Grounds increased batting averages at 13-14%, increased doubles and triples around 12-13%, and decreased homeruns roughly 20%. His park factors for Fenway Park II are also terrible. Everyone knows Fenway Park inflates batting averages, especially for left handed batters. But Gambo has Fenway Park II reducing batting averages, showing a rediculous .954 park factor for left handed batting average. Gambo, you might want to look into fixing these. I know that you don't have empirical data for most seasons, but you at least need to tweak something so your park factors at least agree with common sense.