I need some lateral thinking. Why would single-year park factors for doubles not become more predictive as they got more recent?

That is, I ran multi-year regressions on 1B, 2B, 3B, and HR park factors, and the only odd result was the doubles. The other three had standard weights, getting more significant year by year, but for doubles, the third year back was clearly more important than the second year (not at that computer right now, but it was something like 10/10/30/20/30.) But don't think about the numbers, just try to come up with reasons why this might happen.

That is, I ran multi-year regressions on 1B, 2B, 3B, and HR park factors, and the only odd result was the doubles. The other three had standard weights, getting more significant year by year, but for doubles, the third year back was clearly more important than the second year (not at that computer right now, but it was something like 10/10/30/20/30.) But don't think about the numbers, just try to come up with reasons why this might happen.

## Comment