Park Effects working?

[atlbrave1]

If this has been asked and answered, my apologies, did a search and didn't find it right off the bat.

Been running a solo league for a while and started to wonder why I hadn't seen the hitters from a couple of the "hitter's parks" popping up on the leaderboards. So I set up a Standard League and ran one season and here were the results.

Park Effects (Colorado):
AVG RHB: 118
AVG LHB: 115
HR RHB: 140
HR LHB: 130
2B: 110
3B: 140

Team Totals: HOME
AB H 2B 3B HR RBI R BB K
2828 719 168 35 78 372 379 238 508
.254 AVG and .421 SLG
Team Totals: AWAY
AB H 2B 3B HR RBI R BB K
2957 805 157 24 81 377 404 270 557
.272 AVG and .424 SLG

Park Effects: (Los Angeles)
AVG RHB: 92
AVG LHB: 93
HR RHB: 87
HR LHB: 80
2B: 80
3B: 47

Team Totals: (Home)
AB H 2B 3B HR RBI R BB K
2648 715 102 9 86 389 404 289 562
.270 AVG and .413 SLG
Team Totals: (Away)
AB H 2B 3B HR RBI R BB K
2708 696 153 14 82 416 406 318 560
.257 AVG and .415 SLG

Consider me confused.

[Steve Kuffrey]

I haven't looked at any season total data but I know that just about every time my team plays in Colorado that the score is high on both sides.

[mrbill]

Whoa..weird, I just looked at the colorado team in my online league and they're hitting .245 at home and .272 on the road, with the same stadium settings.

[mrbill]

And, my own team is hitting .300 at home and .280 on the road, despite my ballpark being the #1 pitchers park in the league (89 avg vs RHP, 93 avg vs LHP)

[mrbill]

Why all the posts, I double clicked I guess...my bad.

My league is using 6.12 still, and the stats are through August 4th, lots of data to work with. And no selection bias here, these are the first two teams I chose to examine (the best hitters and pitchers parks in my league).

Both are WAY off their park effects expected results.

Just for kicks, picked a 3rd team, Toronto (90/86 Contact ratings), and they're hitting .259 at home and .253 on the road...

Chalk me up confused too.

[mrbill]

Alright, I created a new MLB-replica league in 6.12, set one team to 200 contact for RHB and LHB, and ran a full season. They made one trade in May adding one new player, before I remembered to turn off trades.

Drum roll....

Home avg: .278
Away avg: .281

Now I can only hope "Park effects now work!" was one of the bug fixes in 6.5, and I'm testing that out right now, but this is disturbing to say the least.

[mrbill]

Going for it all here...in 6.51a, testing each park effect category.

Test league, 8 teams, 1 division, 1 league, no trades, no waivers (so still partial chance of player movement, just low chance), 162 game season.

Each team is either 200 or 50 in Contact (both RHB/LHB), HR (both), 2B, or 3B, and 100 in the rest (that's one change from 100 for each team).

Here's the results:

200 Contact team: .268 at home, .266 on the road
50 Contact team: .259 at home, .293 on the road
League average: .266

200 HR team: 144 HR at home, 69 on road
50 HR team: 45 at home, 101 on road
League average: 177 HR/team, 88 per 81 games

200 2B team: 349 at home, 110 on road
50 2B team: 46 at home, 238 on the road
League average: 331/team, 166 per 81 games

200 3B team: 49 at home, 16 on road
50 3B team: 4 at home, 21 on road
League average: 37/team, 19 per 81 games

Then, I set the league to REPLAY, reset the season, and switched each team to the opposite 50/200 rating for their park, to see what would happen. This should give the same general lineups for every team as the first season.

50 (was 200) Contact team: .279 at home, .266 on the road
200 (was 50) Contact team: .267 at home, .274 on the road
League average: .269

50 (was 200) HR team: 37 HR at home, 111 on road
200 (was 50) HR team: 133 at home, 86 on road
League average: 184 HR/team, 92 per 81 games

50 (was 200) 2B team: 61 at home, 220 on road
200 (was 50) 2B team: 318 at home, 143 on the road
League average: 336/team, 168 per 81 games

50 (was 200) 3B team: 9 at home, 16 on road
200 (was 50) 3B team: 31 at home, 8 on road
League average: 35/team, 17 per 81 games

My conclusions:

AVG is completely broken, no effect whatsoever. That one where the 50 contact team hit far better on the road looked promising, but now seems to be the anomaly, because 200 contact sure should make a team hit a lot better at home than on the road.

HR actually looks correct, teams either doubled or halved their HR power with 200/50 park ratings.

2B looks broken. 200 more than doubles 2Bs, and 50 more than halves 2B.

3B looks broken in the same way as 2B.

But, on 2B and 3B, I'm willing to yield to "needs further testing", as they're fairly volatile stats and I may have got 5 of 8 extreme cases (the odds aren't for that though).

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

Oddly, I've been noticing the same problem in my solo league (which uses 6.51). It appears that park effects are doing little if anything there, although I don't have any parks extreme enough for me to draw definitive conclusions.

[atlbrave1]

Nice work there mrbill. I ran the 2nd season last night, and just eyeballed the numbers, and again the effects (at least for average) did not work. If I have time tonight I may also run a couple of seasons with the 200/50 numbers to see if the 2B/3B/HR are in line.

Edit: Version is 6.51

[bibs]

Originally Posted by Steve Kuffrey

I haven't looked at any season total data but I know that just about every time my team plays in Colorado that the score is high on both sides.

How can you top beta testing like this!

[andymac]

Originally Posted by bibs

How can you top beta testing like this!

As far as I can tell this thread has nothing to do with the new version or any testing of it.

[bibs]

Originally Posted by andymac

As far as I can tell this thread has nothing to do with the new version or any testing of it.

As far as I can tell my point flew far above your head

[A.J. Holz]

Originally Posted by bibs

As far as I can tell my point flew far above your head

Mine, too. But I'm really short.

As far as the actual issue: Can we get a chime-in from OOTPDev's beta tester?

[andymac]

Originally Posted by bibs

As far as I can tell my point flew far above your head

As far as I can tell your point was to take a stupid jab at the beta testing for the new version for no apparent reason.

[ronzonie007]

Originally Posted by andymac

As far as I can tell your point was to take a stupid jab at the beta testing for the new version for no apparent reason.

I'd say the reason he took a jab at them was because they didn't catch dozens of 'features' that the game playing populace has been dealing with since OOTP6 was released.

[mad0die]

Re-tweak, re-draft.

Either that or SAMPLE SIZE

[Fool Inc.]

Originally Posted by mad0die

Re-tweak, re-draft.

Either that or SAMPLE SIZE

Sample is OOTP's 42.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by ronzonie007

I'd say the reason he took a jab at them was because they didn't catch dozens of 'features' that the game playing populace has been dealing with since OOTP6 was released.

Just like on every other game that has been or ever will be made beta testers aren't going to catch everything.

The alternative is to implement less features so that the beta testers have less to test. I would definitely rather have the features.

[mrbill]

Originally Posted by mad0die

Re-tweak, re-draft.

Either that or SAMPLE SIZE

mads... I want to hear none of this I will beat you in a playoff game this year, I've doubled my resolve!

[mad0die]

Originally Posted by andymac

Just like on every other game that has been or ever will be made beta testers aren't going to catch everything.

The alternative is to implement less features so that the beta testers have less to test. I would definitely rather have the features.

I'd rather have a paid OOTP QA team. Hopefully we actually have that now.