Add new comment

Personally, I don't think you can under-emphasize ORGANIZATIONAL changes.  In 2009, Nolan Ryan came on board, and drastically changed the entire Ranger approach to pitchers and pitching.  Additionally, the Texas DEFENSE took a quantum leap in 2009, just like Seattle. 
The unknown reality is "how much" of run allowance is pitching - how much is defense?  There is also the question of how much defense is positioning -- how much of the defensive result is contingent on the ORGANIZATIONAL decisions?
IMO, too many SABEs have arrogantly concluded they HAVE the answer - so many have stopped looking or even considering that any current part of their understanding is flawed.
There is no doubt that the Texas change in run allowance coincides with the arrival of Nolan Ryan as pitching coach - and the sudden materialization of defensive competence.  The big question is -- "how much of that is real and sustainable".
You suggest that the 106 ERA+ is the ceiling (or close to it).  But, the Stats, Inc. data can be correct - and the conclusion patently wrong.  What if the reason why hitters parks *ARE* hitters parks is more a factor of the ORGANIZATIONAL defensive mindset than the actual effect of the park on the final numbers?
I was a Braves fan when they played in the "Launching Pad" - with the likes of Aaron and Dusty Baker hitting 40 dingers a year.  I can tell you - AT THAT TIME - the club believed TRYING to get good at pitching was a waste of effort - ***SO THEY DIDN'T***.  The point here is that the self-fulfilling prophecy is the bane of analysts. 
Texas has a "hitters park".  So, what do they do?  They concentrate their resources on finding hitters that excell in that park - and they don't waste time and effort on trying to develop pitchers.  Why?  Because the stats say it would be a waste of time to do so.
Every now and then hitter/pitcher park effects reverse for no apparent reason.  The Astrodome was a known pitchers park.  When they built a new stadium - they built one INTENDED to help hitters - AND they morphed the personnel to try and take advantage of that new park. 
Texas, for the past decade, has tried to buy FA pitchers on the open market to fix their run allowance issues - and done next to nothing to remedy their defensive issues. 
The reality is not that the park *alone* skews the numbers.  Parks do have effects.  But, outside of Coors, *NO* park determines the final numbers by itself.  The personnel make that reality. 
From '96 to '02, Fenway's park impact was a hitters park ranging from 101-103.  From '03 to present day, it's climbed to 104-106, (just like back in the early 90s).  Based on my observations, teams can CHANGE their park effect by 3-4 points by TRYING to do so.  The Arlington impact is partially real -- and part of it has been the result of concentrating on building uber-offense teams.