Cubs sign OF Marlon Byrd (3/$15M)

[Serge]

It is though. That's not really opinion either, it's a fact. By ESPN's numbers Wrigley from 2007-2009 ranked 2nd, 8th, and 3rd in Park Factor. Arlington went 18th, 1st, and 7th. By Baseball-references numbers, Wrigley the past three years has been a 107, 105, and 111. Arlington a 97, 103, 105. By any objective measure, Wrigley is a better hitters park than Arlington.

 

Not even mentioning that he's going from the AL to the weakest division in the NL....

Talk about stats that don't pass the smell test... a ballpark went from 18th to 1st in one year?

 

Absent significant changes to the field's dimensions, its park factor should remain essentially constant from year to year. So unless they moved in the fences 25 feet or chopped the foul territory in half of something, that just doesn't add up.

 

They're calculated based off of how teams scored on the road and at home, so it's obviously not a static number. There's a good deal of variance. That's why I gave three years.

[davearm2]

It is though. That's not really opinion either, it's a fact. By ESPN's numbers Wrigley from 2007-2009 ranked 2nd, 8th, and 3rd in Park Factor. Arlington went 18th, 1st, and 7th. By Baseball-references numbers, Wrigley the past three years has been a 107, 105, and 111. Arlington a 97, 103, 105. By any objective measure, Wrigley is a better hitters park than Arlington.

 

Not even mentioning that he's going from the AL to the weakest division in the NL....

Talk about stats that don't pass the smell test... a ballpark went from 18th to 1st in one year?

 

Absent significant changes to the field's dimensions, its park factor should remain essentially constant from year to year. So unless they moved in the fences 25 feet or chopped the foul territory in half of something, that just doesn't add up.

 

They're calculated based off of how teams scored on the road and at home, so it's obviously not a static number. There's a good deal of variance. That's why I gave three years.

I understand how park factors are calculated. And it's flawed, as this example illustrates.

 

A truly robust and reliable measure would have virtually no year-to-year variance, since the parks themselves aren't changing (with a few exceptions).

[davearm2]

It is though. That's not really opinion either, it's a fact. By ESPN's numbers Wrigley from 2007-2009 ranked 2nd, 8th, and 3rd in Park Factor. Arlington went 18th, 1st, and 7th. By Baseball-references numbers, Wrigley the past three years has been a 107, 105, and 111. Arlington a 97, 103, 105. By any objective measure, Wrigley is a better hitters park than Arlington.

 

Not even mentioning that he's going from the AL to the weakest division in the NL....

Talk about stats that don't pass the smell test... a ballpark went from 18th to 1st in one year?

 

Absent significant changes to the field's dimensions, its park factor should remain essentially constant from year to year. So unless they moved in the fences 25 feet or chopped the foul territory in half of something, that just doesn't add up.

 

Weather.

If that's truly the explanation then the term "park factor" is a misnomer. Might as well just call it a weather factor instead, if that's what it is.

[SouthSideRyan]

It is though. That's not really opinion either, it's a fact. By ESPN's numbers Wrigley from 2007-2009 ranked 2nd, 8th, and 3rd in Park Factor. Arlington went 18th, 1st, and 7th. By Baseball-references numbers, Wrigley the past three years has been a 107, 105, and 111. Arlington a 97, 103, 105. By any objective measure, Wrigley is a better hitters park than Arlington.

 

Not even mentioning that he's going from the AL to the weakest division in the NL....

Talk about stats that don't pass the smell test... a ballpark went from 18th to 1st in one year?

 

Absent significant changes to the field's dimensions, its park factor should remain essentially constant from year to year. So unless they moved in the fences 25 feet or chopped the foul territory in half of something, that just doesn't add up.

 

Weather.

If that's truly the explanation then the term "park factor" is a misnomer. Might as well just call it a weather factor instead, if that's what it is.

 

Weather causes variance, the parks themselves are the most important factor to how the stadium plays.

[Derwood]

Wouldn't the relative dominance/crappiness of the home team's pitching staff have more of an affect on park factors than stadium design or weather? Or is that neutralized in the park factor number?

[davearm2]

Wouldn't the relative dominance/crappiness of the home team's pitching staff have more of an affect on park factors than stadium design or weather? Or is that neutralized in the park factor number?

It's neutralized in the park factor computation.

[Cubswin11]

So with the backloading of this contract what other moves do you think Hendry has in mind? Maybe target a 2B leadoff option like Orlando Hudson or Felipe Lopez? Maybe bring in a buy low SP like Sheets? Trade ideas? I don't know if Hendry will target a 2B option if he has to give out more than a 2 year deal, with the inevitable move of shifting Theriot to 2B within the next year or two to make way for Castro at SS along with our depth at MI in the minors where we will likely have guys ready to come up starting next year.

[davearm2]

It is though. That's not really opinion either, it's a fact. By ESPN's numbers Wrigley from 2007-2009 ranked 2nd, 8th, and 3rd in Park Factor. Arlington went 18th, 1st, and 7th. By Baseball-references numbers, Wrigley the past three years has been a 107, 105, and 111. Arlington a 97, 103, 105. By any objective measure, Wrigley is a better hitters park than Arlington.

 

Not even mentioning that he's going from the AL to the weakest division in the NL....

Talk about stats that don't pass the smell test... a ballpark went from 18th to 1st in one year?

 

Absent significant changes to the field's dimensions, its park factor should remain essentially constant from year to year. So unless they moved in the fences 25 feet or chopped the foul territory in half of something, that just doesn't add up.

 

Weather.

If that's truly the explanation then the term "park factor" is a misnomer. Might as well just call it a weather factor instead, if that's what it is.

 

Weather causes variance, the parks themselves are the most important factor to how the stadium plays.

How do you explain how Arlington went from 18th to 1st in one year?

 

Look it's plainly obvious that the various parks play differently -- some more pitcher friendly and some more hitter friendly -- and in principle we should be able to measure those effects statistically.

 

I just question whether what's being sold as a "park factor" really is capturing the park effects reliably. Sure doesn't seem like it in this instance anyway, which calls the entire method into question.

 

And if weather really does play a significant role, then the only proper response to a question like, "what will Marlon Byrd's stats look like now that he's playing home games at Wrigley instead of Arlington" is, "that depends on the weather". That answer, while perhaps accurate, is of very little practical use.

[Serge]

It is though. That's not really opinion either, it's a fact. By ESPN's numbers Wrigley from 2007-2009 ranked 2nd, 8th, and 3rd in Park Factor. Arlington went 18th, 1st, and 7th. By Baseball-references numbers, Wrigley the past three years has been a 107, 105, and 111. Arlington a 97, 103, 105. By any objective measure, Wrigley is a better hitters park than Arlington.

 

Not even mentioning that he's going from the AL to the weakest division in the NL....

Talk about stats that don't pass the smell test... a ballpark went from 18th to 1st in one year?

 

Absent significant changes to the field's dimensions, its park factor should remain essentially constant from year to year. So unless they moved in the fences 25 feet or chopped the foul territory in half of something, that just doesn't add up.

 

They're calculated based off of how teams scored on the road and at home, so it's obviously not a static number. There's a good deal of variance. That's why I gave three years.

I understand how park factors are calculated. And it's flawed, as this example illustrates.

 

A truly robust and reliable measure would have virtually no year-to-year variance, since the parks themselves aren't changing (with a few exceptions).

 

That's not true at all. Any statistic, even the most sound and reliable, is prone to have variance within the course of a small sample. You're condemning an entire statistic based on the existence of an outlier.

[davearm2]

It is though. That's not really opinion either, it's a fact. By ESPN's numbers Wrigley from 2007-2009 ranked 2nd, 8th, and 3rd in Park Factor. Arlington went 18th, 1st, and 7th. By Baseball-references numbers, Wrigley the past three years has been a 107, 105, and 111. Arlington a 97, 103, 105. By any objective measure, Wrigley is a better hitters park than Arlington.

 

Not even mentioning that he's going from the AL to the weakest division in the NL....

Talk about stats that don't pass the smell test... a ballpark went from 18th to 1st in one year?

 

Absent significant changes to the field's dimensions, its park factor should remain essentially constant from year to year. So unless they moved in the fences 25 feet or chopped the foul territory in half of something, that just doesn't add up.

 

They're calculated based off of how teams scored on the road and at home, so it's obviously not a static number. There's a good deal of variance. That's why I gave three years.

I understand how park factors are calculated. And it's flawed, as this example illustrates.

 

A truly robust and reliable measure would have virtually no year-to-year variance, since the parks themselves aren't changing (with a few exceptions).

 

That's not true at all. Any statistic, even the most sound and reliable, is prone to have variance within the course of a small sample. You're condemning an entire statistic based on the existence of an outlier.

It's not just one outlier though. Parks move up and down these rankings all the time without any plausible explanation. That leads me to question the validity of the measure itself.

 

It could be that extraneous factors (such as weather) are not being controlled for. It could be a sample size problem like you mentioned. Or there might just be too much noise in the data. Regardless, there's a problem (IMO).

[Serge]

Talk about stats that don't pass the smell test... a ballpark went from 18th to 1st in one year?

 

Absent significant changes to the field's dimensions, its park factor should remain essentially constant from year to year. So unless they moved in the fences 25 feet or chopped the foul territory in half of something, that just doesn't add up.

 

They're calculated based off of how teams scored on the road and at home, so it's obviously not a static number. There's a good deal of variance. That's why I gave three years.

I understand how park factors are calculated. And it's flawed, as this example illustrates.

 

A truly robust and reliable measure would have virtually no year-to-year variance, since the parks themselves aren't changing (with a few exceptions).

 

That's not true at all. Any statistic, even the most sound and reliable, is prone to have variance within the course of a small sample. You're condemning an entire statistic based on the existence of an outlier.

It's not just one outlier though. Parks move up and down these rankings all the time without any plausible explanation. That leads me to question the validity of the measure itself.

 

It could be that extraneous factors (such as weather) are not being controlled for. It could be a sample size problem like you mentioned. Or there might just be too much noise in the data. Regardless, there's a problem (IMO).

 

If you know how they're calculated like you said then you should know why there's so much variation. It's based on teams' run scoring/prevention at home versus away. There is nothing directly about the park that is being measured. And the ESPN ones in particular are very simplistic, which is why that one varies more. If you have a few guys on the team that just happened to have all their big hot streaks on homestands then that could cause a big variation. If you have a weird summer of weather that could cause a big variation. If you have September schedule of nearly all road games and you're out of it so you pretty much only play callups that could cause a big change. Etc. It's basically the same principle as why for an individual player you always want to use 3 year splits when possible, or why UZR is nearly useless under a 1000 innings. There's a lot of variation for a variety of reasons, but over a large sample that noise is greatly reduced.

[dew1679666265]

If you know how they're calculated like you said then you should know why there's so much variation. It's based on teams' run scoring/prevention at home versus away. There is nothing directly about the park that is being measured. And the ESPN ones in particular are very simplistic, which is why that one varies more. If you have a few guys on the team that just happened to have all their big hot streaks on homestands then that could cause a big variation. If you have a weird summer of weather that could cause a big variation. If you have September schedule of nearly all road games and you're out of it so you pretty much only play callups that could cause a big change. Etc. It's basically the same principle as why for an individual player you always want to use 3 year splits when possible, or why UZR is nearly useless under a 1000 innings. There's a lot of variation for a variety of reasons, but over a large sample that noise is greatly reduced.

 

Using this argument, I don't see how we come to the conclusion that the park is affecting the team moreso than the team is affecting the park. Some in this thread have used park effects to show that Wrigley and Arlington are both good hitters' parks. But are they? Or is it just that teams that have been assembled in the parks have hit well at home?

 

I can see how the train of thought would lead you to the parks having an effect, but could it not very well be a correlation does not equal causation subject? (i.e. just because the teams are hitting well at home, it doesn't necessarily mean the park is great for hitting in?)

[davearm2]

That's not true at all. Any statistic, even the most sound and reliable, is prone to have variance within the course of a small sample. You're condemning an entire statistic based on the existence of an outlier.

It's not just one outlier though. Parks move up and down these rankings all the time without any plausible explanation. That leads me to question the validity of the measure itself.

 

It could be that extraneous factors (such as weather) are not being controlled for. It could be a sample size problem like you mentioned. Or there might just be too much noise in the data. Regardless, there's a problem (IMO).

 

If you know how they're calculated like you said then you should know why there's so much variation. It's based on teams' run scoring/prevention at home versus away. There is nothing directly about the park that is being measured. And the ESPN ones in particular are very simplistic, which is why that one varies more. If you have a few guys on the team that just happened to have all their big hot streaks on homestands then that could cause a big variation. If you have a weird summer of weather that could cause a big variation. If you have September schedule of nearly all road games and you're out of it so you pretty much only play callups that could cause a big change. Etc. It's basically the same principle as why for an individual player you always want to use 3 year splits when possible, or why UZR is nearly useless under a 1000 innings. There's a lot of variation for a variety of reasons, but over a large sample that noise is greatly reduced.

So we agree then: a "park factor" (in its various formulations) doesn't do a very good job of isolating the effect the ballpark itself has on the hitting environment -- as you said, there's lots more going on that can't very easily be controlled for. That's been my point all along.

[Rob]

Park factors were never meant to be exact, and most satistics that adjust for park use 3/4/5 year splits. This argument is stupid.

[dew1679666265]

Park factors were never meant to be exact, and most satistocs that adjust for park use 3/4/5 year splits. This argument is stupid.

 

I'm not arguing for or against them. I'm just curious about their use.

[biittner77]

Also, the more I think about this signing, the more I wish we had actually front-loaded it. It doesn't look like we'll be going after anything else significant this offseason(middle reliever, spot starter, 4th OFer) and our payroll won't touch the 140 mark. Should be right at 135ish actually. Basically, if this winds up being the case, I wish we had structured it 8/4/3, instead of the way it's backloaded at 3/5.5/6.5. Byrd at 2/7 next year or 1/3 the year after is a much easier commodity to trade(and possibly even get value for) than he would be at 2/12 or 1/6.5......It'd be nice to see a little less money on the books longterm and at some point, whether it's Hendry or his replacement, I hope they employ this strategy from time to time. If done correctly, you just wouldn't be as hamstrung at any point, like we are right now......

 

What's the difference between paying him 3/4/8 or 8/4/3? Either way the total cost is $15 million. If they want to trade him they can always include money in the deal. So there's really no advantage to paying him more up front. If he stinks then they likely will have to pay him to go away. If he's good they might not have to pay as much or they won't mind keeping him.

[SouthSideRyan]

What's the difference between paying him 3/4/8 or 8/4/3? Either way the total cost is $15 million.

 

And that's not even true. 8/4/3 is "more" money than 3/4/8.

[dew1679666265]

What's the difference between paying him 3/4/8 or 8/4/3? Either way the total cost is $15 million.

 

And that's not even true. 8/4/3 is "more" money than 3/4/8.

 

Consider, also, that with the backloaded deal, should we try to trade him, say, in the third year of his deal, we'll save more money. For instance, with a 3/4/8 setup, we pay him $7 million the first two years and then trade him and eat, say, half of his third year's money. That leaves us paying a total of $11 million for him. If we set up the contract as 8/4/3, then we pay $12 million up front and, in the same scenario, we pay half his third year salary. In that instance, we pay a total of $13.5 million for him.

 

That may be what you're talking about, but I thought I'd point it out.

[Garwilly]

What's the difference between paying him 3/4/8 or 8/4/3? Either way the total cost is $15 million.

 

And that's not even true. 8/4/3 is "more" money than 3/4/8.

 

Consider, also, that with the backloaded deal, should we try to trade him, say, in the third year of his deal, we'll save more money. For instance, with a 3/4/8 setup, we pay him $7 million the first two years and then trade him and eat, say, half of his third year's money. That leaves us paying a total of $11 million for him. If we set up the contract as 8/4/3, then we pay $12 million up front and, in the same scenario, we pay half his third year salary. In that instance, we pay a total of $13.5 million for him.

 

That may be what you're talking about, but I thought I'd point it out.

 

He was talking about the time value of money.

[dew1679666265]

What's the difference between paying him 3/4/8 or 8/4/3? Either way the total cost is $15 million.

 

And that's not even true. 8/4/3 is "more" money than 3/4/8.

 

Consider, also, that with the backloaded deal, should we try to trade him, say, in the third year of his deal, we'll save more money. For instance, with a 3/4/8 setup, we pay him $7 million the first two years and then trade him and eat, say, half of his third year's money. That leaves us paying a total of $11 million for him. If we set up the contract as 8/4/3, then we pay $12 million up front and, in the same scenario, we pay half his third year salary. In that instance, we pay a total of $13.5 million for him.

 

That may be what you're talking about, but I thought I'd point it out.

 

He was talking about the time value of money.

 

Yeah, I remember that now. He explained it in an earlier post.

[davell]

Also, the more I think about this signing, the more I wish we had actually front-loaded it. It doesn't look like we'll be going after anything else significant this offseason(middle reliever, spot starter, 4th OFer) and our payroll won't touch the 140 mark. Should be right at 135ish actually. Basically, if this winds up being the case, I wish we had structured it 8/4/3, instead of the way it's backloaded at 3/5.5/6.5. Byrd at 2/7 next year or 1/3 the year after is a much easier commodity to trade(and possibly even get value for) than he would be at 2/12 or 1/6.5......It'd be nice to see a little less money on the books longterm and at some point, whether it's Hendry or his replacement, I hope they employ this strategy from time to time. If done correctly, you just wouldn't be as hamstrung at any point, like we are right now......

 

What's the difference between paying him 3/4/8 or 8/4/3? Either way the total cost is $15 million. If they want to trade him they can always include money in the deal. So there's really no advantage to paying him more up front. If he stinks then they likely will have to pay him to go away. If he's good they might not have to pay as much or they won't mind keeping him.

 

The reason I said that, was looking at it from a future payroll standpoint. It could give us a few extra mill to spend next year and the year after, since it doesn't appear as if we're going to do that THIS year. It would also make it easier to trade Byrd and get value, instead of dealing him away for nothing and/or paying money as well in the deal.

[TheVolCub08]

What's the difference between paying him 3/4/8 or 8/4/3? Either way the total cost is $15 million.

 

And that's not even true. 8/4/3 is "more" money than 3/4/8.

 

Not to mention that most players who sign multi-year deals don't typically sign up to take a 50% pay cut from year 1 to 2, followed by a 25% pay cut from year 2 to year 3. This is an incredibly unrealistic scenario.

[haltz]

See the pattern?

The pattern is that players who play in hitters' parks tend to have a higher sOPS+ at home than players who do not. This is not surprising.

 

Rockies home sOPS+ in 2009: 120 (overall OPS+ of 98)

Padres home sOPS+ in 2009: 72 (overall OPS+ of 96)

 

You shouldn't confuse the two. It's not the same thing.

 

Chone has him at .281/.345/.448 (4 RAA). That's probably your best guess.

[Soul]

 

Chone has him at .281/.345/.448 (4 RAA). That's probably your best guess.

 

I'd take that. Wish the OBP was a tad higher.

[RynoRules]

Shouldn't Hendry be fired for giving us the Byrd?