[HarryLime]

Originally Posted by pewe

I realize you feel we are beating a dead horse, but my arm is still fresh, and the horse is still bouncing with every whack.

All I'm trying to suss out is what benefits we think he got from Buffalo. Your analogy to Tevor Story is an example of where we recognize several things that benefit batters from Coors, and thus when they bat in other locations they tend to have muted numbers.

Benefits of Coors? Mostly the lower atmospheric pressure... which results in:
-- balls carry further / faster (less drag) so more HR, and more line drives that the field can't get to
-- fielders may lose a step because of more limited O2, thus balls in play are more likely to sneak by players
-- pitchers find their "stuff" moves less (drag on stiches is more modest) and thus batters can handle it better

Benefits from Buffalo vs. Rogers Centre? https://www.milb.com/news/toolshed-w...-for-bats-arms
-- slightly shorter HR distance vs. Rogers: down the lines -3', right center -8', center +3', left center -4'
-- beneficial wind to left field (prevailing wind off the lake blows right to left), harms hits to right
-- tight foul field, means more balls hit foul end up in the stands vs. becoming outs

Are there other benefits?

I'm not a fan of injecting unmeasurable aspects into this type of analysis but I think, after 17 years off stats and people talking about the Coors effect, I think there's a psychological difference between the two. Pitchers expect to get lit up or it could at least enter their mindset if things start bad. "Here we go again. Effin Coors."

The opposite could be true as well, providing batters with increased confidence at the plate.

It takes years for park factors to normalize. We have that data on Coors, we don't on wherever the Jays play. So, for the third time I'll mention small sample size.

Arthur