I'm not sure why my straightforward attempt to make sure we're talking about the same thing earned condescension. And if you had actually read my paragraph, you'd have had the answer to whether it had occurred to me that individual players often play better at home, because I said that. If weather is enough of a factor one year that it skews the calculation of a park factor, then maybe that is data worth having when evaluating the players' numbers for that season, rather than discard it. As for it being no different than RBI or wins, we understand that these depend on teammates setting things up for each other, and I don't see anything analogous in trying to determine how much effect Coors Field has on a game.
This seems awfully similar in spirit to the debate about measuring clutch performance. Do you believe that park effects basically don't exist and thus shouldn't be measured? Or that the ways of measuring park effects aren't getting to the core of the matter?
I'm sure there exists a good point-counterpoint discussion on the topic somewhere else on teh internets, and I guess I'll go search.
I didn't mean to be condescending about it.
It's the same as RBI or wins because it fails to track influences on the metric that drastically alter outcomes. The same way RBI doesn't mention whether you have Drew Butera or Joe Mauer hitting in front of a player, Park Factor doesn't take into account that Willingham might hit 20 homers in a year at home and 10 on the road while the rest of his team hits a 50/50 split. It doesn't try to factor in whether the median temperature was 3 degrees warmer that summer. It also doesn't properly factor if you play in, say, Fenway Park, and face Miguel Cabrera and Prince Fielder 19 times a year, two guys who could absolutely mash at that park. Or vice versa, where you face the Houston Astros 19 times a year while facing the Yankees three times in interleague.
Attempting to compensate for park is a very valid goal and I'd love to see it happen. My only point is that the current tools we have available (particularly ESPN's awful Park Factor) are so half-assed that they are unusable and should be used sparingly (if at all) and never be quoted as definitive truth. You could just as easily be getting information that is completely wrong from the statistic as you are getting something insightful. And when that happens, the metric becomes useless.