deward

That split is definitely on the extreme side, almost to the point of feeling a little flukey. In 2014 the Home/Away split for HR was basically even. For 2014-2020, the split averages out to 54%/46%, then in 2021 it skyrockets to 63%/37%. I'm not sure what the reason for that would be, other than randomness. In 2020 it was 51%/49%.

You would think, but the figures seem to bear out some correlation between PF (or at least, the HR portion) and the quality of the pitching staff. For example, the 2021 HR PF for OPCY is the highest since 2001 (as far back as ESPN goes); I think that's based on a 3 year average, which would seem to align with the abysmal pitching staffs the O's have thrown out there recently. That's sort of apart from my main point, which was that pitching in a comparable bandbox doesn't stop every team from developing good pitchers, so I don't know that OPCY works as a scapegoat for the O's pitching woes.

I'm not sure Tillman belongs in a list with the rest of those guys, given that he seemed to figure things out fine for a few years. I would argue that you're giving a pass to the organization by blaming things on the park, rather than a deeply compromised ability to identify and develop pitching talent over the past couple of decades. If it was just the park, I would have expected more guys to escape the torture that is OPCY and reinvent themselves elsewhere. You got me curious about how other orgs in HR-friendly parks have done with developing pitching, so I did a little research. I found a website (http://www.parkfactors.com/) that has the 2010-2016 park factors averaged, which I think works as it covers a period during which the O's were largely competitive. OPCY had a HR park factor of 122 during that timeframe, which was 6th (just behind Yankee Stadium and just ahead of Rogers Centre). Coors Field was the highest, of course, but 2nd was Miller Park, at 129. However, since then, Miller Park has played considerably closer to neutral, not because the park has changed, but because they've managed to assemble an impressive core of young pitchers via drafting and trades. It also seemed noteworthy that the best pitching staff the O's have had this century was in 2014, which coincided with the lowest HR park factor for OPCY since 2001 (94). None of this leads me to believe that OPCY is some kind of insane environment where good pitchers go to die. I think you could easily argue that the pitching prospects that have failed over the years either weren't as good as we hoped, didn't survive the injury vortex, or were failed by an incompetent development staff, not victims of the park.

Smart-ass responses aside, what I'm really curious about is whether or not the old Angelos policy of not signing pitchers to more than 4 years has gone by the wayside. That will matter 100x more than the park, if you want to sign guys like Eduardo Rodriguez or Kevin Gausman (who both signed 5 year deals this off-season).

Factors that would deter a free agent pitcher from signing with the O's: 1) $ per year/length of contract . . . . 2) Bad team/poorly run organization 3) Doesn't like the city/prefers another region of the country 4) Not a fan of hearing "Thank God I'm a Country Boy" 81 times a year 5) Allergic to crabs . . . 6) Worried that he might give up a couple of extra home runs a year due to the park

That's how I've been interpreting it. I hope they don't change the outline to the new dimensions any time this season, it would make this harder to track.

I don't know that the Benintendi fly ball would have been out, looks like it would have been on the old warning track by this graphic

It's not possible to move the wall back to the new distance without having the height. It wouldn't work otherwise with the angle of the seating bowl. I suppose they could draw a yellow line at the old height and put a scoreboard or something over it.

What proof is there that the team was having a hard time attracting FA pitchers due to the park? My recollection is that the difficulty attracting FA pitchers stemmed from Angelos' policy of not signing pitchers to longer than four year deals and his infamous scrutiny of their physicals. What FA pitchers has Elias even attempted to sign, other than Lyles? I'd be shocked to learn that the O's had the best offer on the table for a big-name pitcher and he walked away because of the park. As far as reducing the number of home runs allowed, would that effect not even out and impact both home and visiting teams equally over the long term? How would the new wall provide any significant in-game advantage just for the O's? Maybe if they went the route of the old Yankees teams and tried to stock the line-up with mostly LHH, I guess. In general though, I wouldn't expect there to be any W/L impact from the park dimensions.

Looked like it

I don't believe that the stadium has ever had an impact on the team's ability to sign free agent pitchers. They have to be willing to make the top offer on the market if they want to sign a major free agent pitcher. When they do (Alex Cobb, Ubaldo Jiminez), pitchers were always willing to sign here. If they don't, then wall isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference. There isn't going to be a wall discount.

It would make sense that more balls would fall in with more ground to cover, but that has yet to manifest itself in the results. You're right that we can't track that ball by ball, but team batting is roughly the same home vs away (.227 home vs .223 away) and runs aren't much different (3.5 rpg home vs 3.2 rpg away). Significantly more doubles on the road so far (27 vs 15, not including today).

This is the 14th home game. So far, the new dimensions have cost the Orioles 5-6 HR (one is borderline), and cost opponents 2 HR. SSS, of course, but a significant impact over the games that have taken place to this point. Intuitively, it makes sense that the change would be quite detrimental the O's current, RH-heavy lineup.

I doubt it gets changed as long as Elias is still in charge.

No, it was more exciting this way. Didn't you see that action when they had to field the ball off the wall and Mountcastle had to run full speed to 2nd base? That's way more fun than a boring home run would have been. This is what people wanted.

Just cost Mountcastle a game-tying home run.

If those are the only options, maybe. My ideal preference would be team C, that hits 280 home runs, maybe hits .270, AND plays strong defense. I don't care if they steal bases.

Screw it, let's just remove all the outfield seats. Remove the flag court and make those bums have to hit the ball on Eutaw St if they want a home run. Make them have to clear the batters eye in center. Make them have to get it in the second deck in left. And make the wall angle every 10 ft. Nothing but corners, as far as the eye can see!

I doubt it's going to add more triples than home runs it takes away.

On a related note, I hope Would it dong? keeps the old park outline all year, that makes it so much easier to figure out the impact.

Looks like that one was borderline with the old dimensions.

I enjoy home runs, personally.

Agreed, that one came down on the old fence. Whether the corner messed with the outfielders enough to prevent one of them from catching it is a matter of debate, I suppose. Edit - I didn't think the angle had anything to do with the carom, either. It looked to me like it hit off the old wall facing.

I'm certainly enjoying this purer, more aesthetically pleasing form of baseball. I don't need to see grand slams against hated rivals to have a good time, warning track fly balls are good enough for me, yes sir.