Backtobanks

Baseball-Reference.com's three-year park factors (unless a specific ballpark hasn't been around that long). A park factor above 100 means hitter friendly and a park factor below 100 means pitcher friendly. Let's start at the top … Boston Red Sox – 108 Colorado Rockies – 107 Arizona Diamondbacks – 107 Chicago Cubs – 106 Chicago White Sox – 105 Fenway Park has narrowly overtaken Coors Field as baseball's most hitter-friendly venue, which is remarkable for a place that actually reduces home runs. Thanks to the Green Monster in left field, homers have been harder to come by in Boston while run scoring has increased overall due to dramatically boosting doubles. In other words, when it comes to the Green Monster it's difficult to hit a ball over it and relatively easy to hit a ball into it. Coors Field remains a great place to hit, but over the past three seasons has merely been a very good hitter's ballpark rather than an absurd hitter's paradise. During its first two seasons of existence Planet Coors had park factors of 128 and 129, and from 1995-2000 the average number was 125. However, since then that number has steadily come back down to earth: 117, 110, 119, 110, 107, 109, 105. For whatever reason the offense boosting in Arizona has been sort of overlooked, but whether it's called Bank One Ballpark or Chase Field the Diamondbacks have always played in a place that significantly increases run scoring. All of which makes Brandon Webb's six straight seasons with an ERA under 3.60 even more amazing. Both ballparks in Chicago pump up scoring, and U.S. Cellular Field is particularly great for homers. Cincinnati Reds – 104 Philadelphia Phillies – 103 Baltimore Orioles – 103 Tampa Bay Rays – 103 Cleveland Indians – 103 Los Angeles Angels – 103 For the most part Great American Ballpark in Cincinnati and Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia have been hitter-friendly in the 102-105 range since opening in 2003 and 2004, respectively. Camden Yards has had a hitter-friendly reputation since opening in 1992, but in reality it was very hitter-friendly right away, slightly pitcher-friendly for a decade beginning in the late-90s, and has trended back toward hitter-friendly recently. Detroit Tigers – 102 San Francisco Giants – 102 Texas Rangers – 101 Washington Nationals – 101 Los Angeles Dodgers – 100 Milwaukee Brewers – 100 This group of slightly above-average hitter's ballparks is interesting, because Comerica Park, AT&T Park, and Dodger Stadium all have reputations for being pitcher-friendly while Rangers Ballpark has a reputation for being among baseball's most hitter-friendly venues. Also, note that Nationals Park is a 101 based on just one year of data, because it opened last season. For years Comerica Park was exceptionally friendly to pitchers, but that changed along with a shift in the left field dimensions and Detroit has slightly increased run scoring in three straight seasons. Similarly, AT&T Park (and various other names) was initially very pitcher-friendly—which makes Barry Bonds' exploits even more incredible—but has pumped up offense slightly in five of the past six seasons. Dodger Stadium earned its reputation as a pitcher's ballpark by decreasing offense for nearly 50 years, but has quietly trended toward hitter-friendly over the past few seasons. What's interesting about the change is that Dodger Stadium remains very tough on hitters when it comes to singles, doubles, and triples, but has enhanced homers. In other words, still tough on batting averages, not so tough on power. Rangers Ballpark has gone through the same sort of gradual change as Coors Field, but on a lesser scale. It has been above 100 in all but two of the past 14 seasons, but whereas the park factor was 110, 110, and 112 from 2002-2004 it has been just 103, 103, 97, and 103 over the past four seasons. Texas is still a good place to hit, particularly for power, but it's no longer the best hitter's ballpark in the American League. Houston Astros – 99 Toronto Blue Jays – 99 Florida Marlins – 99 Atlanta Braves – 99 St. Louis Cardinals – 99 The big surprise in this group is Minute Maid Park in Houston, which most people would probably peg as one of the league's most hitter-friendly thanks to the short porch in left field. That was true for a long time, as the ballpark boosted offensive significantly for its first handful of years whether it was named Enron Field or Minute Maid Park, but over the past five seasons the average park factor has been exactly 100. Kansas City Royals – 97 Seattle Mariners – 96 Pittsburgh Pirates – 95 Minnesota Twins – 93 Oakland A's – 93 San Diego Padres – 89 The only real surprise in this group of highly pitcher-friendly ballparks is the Metrodome, but the old "Homerdome" nickname stopped being accurate a while ago. The Metrodome had a park factor of 100 or above in all but five seasons from 1982-2005, typically ranking in the 102-106 range. However, it has been below 100 in each of the past three seasons, including 92 in 2007 and 94 last year. Perhaps the change in carpet is to blame. With a spacious outfield and miles of foul territory Oakland's ballpark has been a great place for pitchers for basically its entire 40-year run. That's bad news for Matt Holliday, who leaves Coors Field and the NL for the most pitcher-friendly home in the AL. He's not going to suddenly turn into Juan Pierre, but Holliday is highly unlikely to put up MVP-caliber raw numbers with the A's and could easily see his OPS drop 150 points.

Knowing Boston, they'd probably ask for something more than just Bradley. Bradley + Fuld/Colvin + Berg/Stevens/Atkins for Lowell + Hermida (No cash exchanged) Boston can trade Ellsbury for Adrian Gonzalez and use an OF of Bradley, Cameron, and Drew with Gonalez, Pedroia, Scutaro, and Youkilis in the IF with Martinez @ C. This would also help the Red Sox avoid the luxury tax (from MLBTR): WEEI's Alex Speier says Boston's payroll is at an all-time franchise high and projects to be just under the $170MM luxury tax threshold. Once they get over $170MM there is a 22.5% penalty. Is the Lowell trade to Texas offiicially dead in the water?? Don't know, but it hasn't happened yet.

In the Bradley Trade Thread, I suggested: Bradley + Fuld/Colvin + Berg/Stevens/Atkins for Lowell + Hermida (No cash exchanged) Boston can trade Ellsbury for Adrian Gonzalez and use an OF of Bradley, Cameron, and Drew with Gonalez, Pedroia, Scutaro, and Youkilis in the IF with Martinez @ C. As you stated Ellsbury is one of the frontliners the Padres would want in exchange for Gonzalez. I'd be happy with getting Hermida and Lowell while dumping Bradley.

Knowing Boston, they'd probably ask for something more than just Bradley. Bradley + Fuld/Colvin + Berg/Stevens/Atkins for Lowell + Hermida (No cash exchanged) Boston can trade Ellsbury for Adrian Gonzalez and use an OF of Bradley, Cameron, and Drew with Gonalez, Pedroia, Scutaro, and Youkilis in the IF with Martinez @ C. This would also help the Red Sox avoid the luxury tax (from MLBTR): WEEI's Alex Speier says Boston's payroll is at an all-time franchise high and projects to be just under the $170MM luxury tax threshold. Once they get over $170MM there is a 22.5% penalty.

From MLBTR: WEEI's Alex Speier says the Red Sox told Jeremy Hermida they'd trade him if they re-signed Jason Bay. Speier wonders if the Cameron signing will prompt a Hermida deal How about a deal of Hermida + Lowell for Bradley + $5-$6 million.

It's not park adjusted enough to say he will put up those numbers in a Cub uniform. He's actually a pretty good role model for the use of OPS+. When he was in Phily, he maintained a higher OPS+ than he did when he was in Washington. Phily is a much better hitting park than Washington ever was. The numbers spike tremendously when he moves on to Texas. A quick look at his splits in Texas consistently puts him in the 130 range in OPS+, but in the 100 range for his road games. Since a significant amount of his road games are against teams with horrible hitting parks (Seattle, Oakland and Anaheim), it makes sense that his road splits are probably a touch lower than his real ability. However, Texas' park is not even realistic, as it might be a worse park than Colorado during the time we are comparing Byrd's stats. If I had to guess, I'd say he's a 95-105 OPS+ guy in the NL Central. There are some good hitting parks, but he won't have the pleasure of Arlington anymore to prop up his stats. That's about as generic as it gets. Bradley was in that range last year, but we already know he had a pretty bad year by his own standards. Byrd's probably not much better than a bad Milton Bradley season. I'm not saying he's the second coming of Willie Mays, but maybe he's just a late bloomer. DeRosa was a fair utility guy until he got a chance to play regularly and met Jaramillo. Maybe Byrd got his chance, moved to a hitter's park, and met a great hitting coach. I'm not upset with Byrd as a 3rd choice as long as he doesn't cost too much.

In today's Tribune, Phil Rogers writes about a newly formed committee to make suggestions on changes to MLB. Selig's 14-member committee to consider all on-field issues, which was announced on Tuesday, will not have formal authority. It includes four current managers, four current or former general managers and four ownership representatives, along with MLB official Frank Robinson and journalist/baseball fan George Will. Selig said he will "be guided by what this committee comes up with" on matters including "scheduling, postseason format, umpiring, pace of play and instant replay." The commissioner did not mention the DH rule, but Cardinals manager Tony La Russa and longtime Braves executive John Schuerholz, who joined Selig on a conference call, both listed it as the one thing they potentially would change if they could. Schuerholz did not say he would be in favor of eliminating the rule. "When I was in the American League, I was in favor of the designated hitter," said Schuerholz, whose teams won World Series in Kansas City and Atlanta. "In the National, I've maybe taken another position. Our game has proved it can succeed and flourish with the different approaches in the different leagues." La Russa said he would be in favor of eliminating the DH, except for the All-Star Game. "I think the game is more complete without the DH," he said. La Russa, like the other three managers on the committee (Joe Torre, Jim Leyland and Mike Scioscia) has seen the DH rule play a major role in World Series play involving his teams. It is used in the AL park and not the NL, creating two different styles of games in determining championships. Forced to build deeper rosters because of the DH rule, the AL has had an upper hand against the NL in recent years -- a trend borne out in results from the All-Star Game, the World Series and in interleague play. AL teams have been bigger spenders than their NL counterparts. Like many matters that the new committee may consider, including expanding the role of instant replay, a change in the DH rule would require approval of the players' union. Owners never have gone to the union to consider a change in the rules but could do that in the round of talks expected to begin in early 2011. In addition to Schuerholz, Robinson, Will and the four managers, the committee includes Andy MacPhail, Mark Shapiro, Terry Ryan, Paul Beeston, Chuck Armstrong, Bill DeWitt and Dave Montgomery.

He will, i guarantee it and so will Joel Pineiro, who's asking for a Wolf type contract. Hendry will overpay, you just watch. i honestly havent though much about the cubs since college football started, but this post really just made me angry Sorry bud, its just how Hendry operates. Last year the player i least wanted was Bradley and Hendry signed him. I never in a million years thought they'd pay that much for miles and Hendry paid it. I never thought they'd trade Derosa away without getting Peavy and he ended up doing so. When you try to predict Hendry's moves you have to think of worse case scenario and not best case. Granderson, Cameron, Halladay, etc were all best case. Worst Case is Podsenick, Byrd (Yes Byrd, dont overrate the guy after his career year), Overpaying Piniero, etc. We'll see what happens but I doubt Hendry pulls off anything good. The best move he made was not trading away Castro, Cashner, Vitters, etc. Though i still would've traded Vitters for Granderson. You can't complain about "best case scenarios" for this offseason. You're blaming Hendry for not getting Granderson or Halladay in one breath, but complimenting him for not trading Castro, Cashner, and Vitters in the next breath. Well in the real world, it would haven taken at least two of those guys (plus others) to get either Granderson or Halladay. As for Cameron, he would have been a nice pickup for 1 year or 2 years and less money than he signed for.

It's not a matter of whether I like Bradley or not, it's the fact that his non-trade looks like it's delaying other moves by the Cubs. As for whether he has value or not, the market will let us know. If you've been paying attention, then you know that I usually engage in many conversations, but this one has been the busiest for quite awhile.

I wouldn't let Bradley anywhere near me. That seems to be the same attitude all of the MLB GMs have right now.

Today's Tribune says that Capps is interested in the Cubs too.

His value would have to go up since it's negative infinity now.

I didn't mean moving on Bradley necessarily (but it would be nice to have it over), but picking up Capps or some other move would be good.

Red Sox dump Manny to pick up Bradley. Interesting! I couldn't find another salary dump that the Red Sox would want to get rid of.

The way it's sounding now, the Cubs might have to keep Bradley because nobody else wants him. The last team to show interest was the Rays and now they've spent money on Soriano and are hinting they may be done. I guess something might happen later (after the FAs sign), but I'm tired of waiting. Whether you're for trading him or not, it's time to make some kind of move.

Apparently the mystery team moved on from Bradley to Bay.

Apparently I have a different definition of very productive player (Davell) and extremely productive player (Rusch 33) than some of you. I still say if he was as productive as some of you claim, somebody would be take him when Hendry is offering him for next-to-nothing.

You can be sure the Cubs have nothing new to say that Bradley hasn't been told many times before under similar circumstances. This is not exactly uncharted water for this dude. The guy is what he is, and expecting him to change his stripes now is pretty silly, especially as a result of some reconciliatory meeting. Of course he is, but he's an extremely productive player. Bradley's replacement in RF and his possible replacement (Cameron) in CF aren't as productive as he is and both are older than he is. Let's quit kidding ourselves, Bradley is a good hitter with injury and anger issues. If he was "an extremely productive player" someone would have taken advantage of the fact Hendry is basically giving him away and willing to pay a big chunk of his contract. Awhile ago we had a discussion about whether Bradley's attitude negated his ability on the field. Here's the answer to that from MLBTR: Indians, Blue Jays Eyeing Marcus Thames By Tim Dierkes [December 11 at 3:26pm CST] The Indians and Blue Jays have interest in free agent outfielder Marcus Thames, reports Jon Paul Morosi of FOX Sports. Thames, 33 in March, hit .252/.323/.453 in 294 plate appearances this year, logging 125 innings in left field. He's also spent time at right field and first base in his career. Thames earned $2.275MM this year, and the Tigers let him go in November. Thames is better against left-handed pitching. His 2007-09 splits: .263/.326/.541 against lefties, .233/.281/.461 against righties. Hendry is willing to take a bad contract off your hands and pay all of Bradley's 2nd year and they would rather go after Marcus Thames.

Nothing wrong with talking to their agents. Sure, assuming they were talking about somebody else and they just happaned to have the same agent as the unknown worthy players. I still say nothing wrong with talking to their agents and finding out what their asking price is at this time. Somebody like Ankiel might be a bargain as a 4th OF later on.

Oh please. Everybody can harp back on some report they heard to defend anything. Yeah, reports were dozens of teams were interested in Bradley this year as well. Dempster was a 31 year old with 1 good year under his belt as a starter. Are of those guys were much better free agent targets and were always going to get much more money. There is no comparison. Look at Meche and Silva and their contracts.

Nothing wrong with talking to their agents.

Red Sox picking up 9M of the 12M owed to him. This doesn't help Hendry in the slightest, either. A guy who can play a corner infield position, doesn't cause a media circus on a daily basis and only has 1 year on his contract still has 75% it picked up by his former employer without taking back an equally bad contract in return. Actually, a pretty highly respected prospect at one time, although I think he's fallen below the radar a little bit of late. Well even though Lowell can play both corner IF positions, doesn't cause a media circus on a daily basis, and only has 1 year on his contract, he is still a serious health risk and is probably at the end of his career.

No it wouldn't. The Cubs aren't going to lose money because Milton Bradley is around. They aren't going to lose fans to the White Sox. The only fans that would leave the Cubs because Milton is around would be racist white people, and I don't see any racist white people who are Cubs fans rushing to support the White Sox. The Cubs will lose fans, and money, if they wallow around in mediocrity much longer. If they go back to the 2005/2006 let's just make sure we're all nice guys who get along no matter how much we lose ways, then they will lose fans and money. The way to make money in Chicago sports is to win. Wrigley didn't become the place it is today until after 1998, and it didn't become the year-in-year-out sellout until 2003 when fans were given the taste of what could be. Nice guy teams and PR strategies don't sell tickets. Winning does. I'm not worried about the Cubs losing fans (racist or not) to the White Sox. The real worry is losing advertising dollars and sponsors to the White Sox. Most companies are pretty conservative and may not want to be associated with a mediocre team with a loony-toon acting out weekly.

No it wouldn't. The Cubs aren't going to lose money because Milton Bradley is around. They aren't going to lose fans to the White Sox. The only fans that would leave the Cubs because Milton is around would be racist white people, and I don't see any racist white people who are Cubs fans rushing to support the White Sox. The Cubs will lose fans, and money, if they wallow around in mediocrity much longer. If they go back to the 2005/2006 let's just make sure we're all nice guys who get along no matter how much we lose ways, then they will lose fans and money. The way to make money in Chicago sports is to win. Wrigley didn't become the place it is today until after 1998, and it didn't become the year-in-year-out sellout until 2003 when fans were given the taste of what could be. Nice guy teams and PR strategies don't sell tickets. Winning does. You're leaving out the influence of the media and marketing on the finances. Ricketts knows that public relations is a gigantic part of his investment. You start reading and hearing negative publicity about the Cubs on a daily basis and you're going to start losing advertising and sponsors. You think Tiger Woods is worried about his mess affecting his golf game? Hell no, he's worried about his sponsors and the money that he's going to lose even though he will still win golf tournaments. I will agree that winning will help, but you admitted that with Bradley the Cubs "wallowed in mediocrity", so if they're a mediocre team with a public relations nightmare you might as well ditch the public relations nightmare.

I think part of the benefit biittner was seeing was that if nobody claims him, it potentially demonstrates to Bradley that his value might not be what he thinks it is. Maybe it opens a door to sitting down with him and explaining that mending fences and playing with the Cubs in 2010 is his best option. Not sure that would be the outcome, but I think that is part of what biittner was saying. I'm sure that would be the outcome. :pig: Do you think Bradley worries about his value when he's sitting on $21 million. Bradley has serious anger problems, which he can't control and posters think that that sitting down with him and telling to be good is going to change things. :-))