Official HOME PARK helping batters thread...FENWAY, RICE, BOGGS...

Skinpinch

Lets examine some of the ideas being bantered around on whether or not it is fair to adjust a player based on his home park. FIrst off, what the heck is a home park adjustment?? Obviously, some parks are flat out easier to achieve offense, and the players who play there 81 games have an advantage over players who play in normal or tougher parks. So what happens is that the offensive results of individual players unfairly skew their offensive numbers to make them look better than they actually are. So a park adjustment is used to correct this obviously unfair advantage.

Why? A run is a run no matter which park right? Yes, a run is a run, BUT THOSE RUNS DON'T LEAD TO THE SAME AMOUNT OF WINS, AND THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT....WINNING THE GAME. For instance, scoring FOUR runs in a game at Fenway Park will not win as many games as scoring four runs in the old Astrodome. So when Jim Rice is putting up gaudy numbers at Fenway, it isn't translating into more wins, because the opposing teams are also putting up gaudy numbers when the come into Fenway, negating the extra win value of Rice's artificially inflated hitting.

It has been mentioned that Rice or Bogg's still should not get downgraded, because they tailor their game to the park and that it helps the Red Sox win more games because of this 'skill'. I must add that right off this is a tough statement to accept, because if they tailored their game to the park, why not 'un' tailor it on the road, or just hit normal? The results show that they don't 'un' tailor, hence the huge discrepency between hitting home and away.

Fenway is a unique park, so I was curious to see if the Red Sox getting certain type players to play in their park actually help them win more games than they should... you know, dead pull fly ball hitters like Rice, or opposite slap hitters like Boggs. Are guys who are tailor made for that park(or somehow tailor themself) an advantage that should negate the park adjustment that is applied to them in evaluating players? That is the question at hand right now.
Lets examine.

I looked at the Rice years '75-'89, which also includes Boggs's prime years, the two most beneficial players for that park. That era also included Fisk, Evans, Yaz, and Lynn who all benefitted from Fenway...basically a plethora of very nice hitters. So I like this fact for this minor looksie.

HOME vs. ROAD

In MLB, during that period, the average home team in the league carried a .541 winning percentage at home, and .459 WP% on the road. It is commong knowledge that you win more at home, but to what degree is what I am looking at. In this case, the league raised their WP% by 18% when playing at home, compared to the road.

So we expect a team to win 18% more at home. Now the Red Sox were a very good team, so they will win more at home AND on the road than the average team. But it is their increase that I am looking at!

If it is true that a park adjustment is not needed, because a run is a run or because of tailoring, and you can't 'take away' what somebody has done...because those extra offensive hits are aiding the team in winning more games, THEN I would expect to see the Boston Red Sox to really take their home WP% to very high levels. After all, they have players who tailor themselves to that park to win more games, and their offense should not be negated.

Remember, the league average home team raises their winnng percentage by 18% when playing at home. How does the tailor made Boston Red Sox do?

During Rice's time, the Red Sox were .584 at home, and .502 on the road...both much better than the average team, because they were a good team. But were not looking at that. We are looking to see if their 'skills' of hitting at Fenway are resulting in more wins, contrary to what the park RUNS adjustment says.

When playing at home, the Boston Red Sox raised their winning percentage by 16%! Yes, if you remember, the league average raised theirs by 18%!

Tailoring isn't helping...and in this case it is actually hurting...by 2%. I would expect Boggs's .400 averages at home during his prime, or Rice's .600 slg% at home during his prime to really ramp up their WP% at the park, but in total, they didnt', because the competitors came in and ramped up THEIR numbers too, because Fenway is easier to hit in.

In a nutshell, the offensive numbers of Fenway hitters in that era, are indeed artificially inflated above what the actual value of the players are. Tailoring doesn't seem to work at all for the Red Sox any more than a normal ballpark team would do at home vs. the road. A full explanation fo the ballpark adjustment method is at BaseballReference.com. It is long.

I can't buy the notion that these guys' Fenway numbers should be taken at face value...and I think Aro's statments about Boggs ring a little more true. A player with his skill set, in most other parks, would have been much closer to a .300 hitter(and with less power), than a .325 hitters(with more power). And Rice's extra doubles and out avoidance at Fenway, compared to the road, doesn't help the team win in any way that contradicts what the traditional ballpark adjustment does for his hitting numbers.

So for the Fenway hitters, a park adjustment is a very fair practice. A LH dead pull hitter may not benefit to the same degree, but guys like Rice and Boggs certainly did.

Skinpinch

The biggest thing at Fenway that helps hitters is that a lot of fly ball outs are turned into doubles. That more than anything else is the reason for increased offense. No foul terriritory is also of great benefit, as are the few extra home runs too. But to take a would be out and have it be a double, is quite the turnaround.

Yaz Splits.
HOME BA .306 .OB% 402 SLG%.503......382 doubles
ROAC BA .264 OB%.357 SLG% .422.....264 doubles

I don't have Williams's on hand, maybe later.

Skinpinch

To stick up for Yaz a bit, that is over a looong career, so those percentages are not representative of his prime years.

The situational batter runs has him at 510, which includes the ballpark factor already. Certain Hall of Famer and most worthy.

ctsoxfan

<< <i>WOW! Like night and day. I've never thought much of Yaz but looking at those numbers, I think even less of him now. >>



Wow, these threads are just fantastic. First, Jim Rice sucks. Now, Carl Yastrzemski sucks. Next - I will hear how Ted Williams really wasn't all that great of a hitter.

Can you tell I'm not impressed by all of this home park advantage stuff?

gregmo32

Here is a question. Is it true that Barry Bonds" home field in San Fran is actually a pitcher's park?

Skinpinch

Nobody says Rice sucks, he just isn't quite as good as his Fenway influenced numbers indicate. Yaz too. Though Yaz actually had true HOF merit, as did Fisk.

Ted Williams is still probably #2 all time, and that already iincludes any ballpark adjustment. The thing holding him back is the missing war years.

Skinpinch

Baseball,

I've never attempted to put down a list of top 20 of all time, or such. But yeah, if Williams is #2, Ruth would be #1. Anyway you slice it those guys will pretty much be there.

The problem with a list is the same thing we always run into, and that is, how are you going to account for Peak vs. Career? Also, there still needs to be some cross era adjustments that need to be done...even within the best measurements.

dallasactuary

Considering that everyone who does put out lists is unanimous as to their choice for #1, I think it's amazing how little agreement there is on #2. Bill James says it's Honus Wagner, Total Baseball and TSN say it's Willie Mays, SABR says it's Lou Gehrig. And they may all be right. As skinpich mentioned, it just depends on so many things that can't be measured: how important peak value is vs. career value, how you account or if you account for war years, how you adjust between eras. And how you account for fielding and baserunning; if we're just talking about hitting then Williams makes a much stronger candidate for #2 than he does as a comlpete package. As complete packages, Mays and Wagner and Cobb are strong contenders, too.

reiny81

Since we have already had one Yankee fan call out Ted Williams for playing in Fenway. I would point out that Ruth hit to a short right field porch in Yankee Stadium especially designed for him for a good portion of his career. Truthfully though, it is stupid to cheapen either of these guys by saying their home stadium makes them somehow not as good. That being said, there is no question home park adjustments are necessary. I have just two words for you, COORS FIELD. Also, nobody ever answered GregMo32's question as to whether or not Bonds' home field is a pitchers park.

Skinpinch

San Fran has been more of a pitchers park....and without looking, my hunch is that it didn't hurt Bonds to the same degree, as his swing at that point in his career was a big time pull hitter(I don't have actual facts to back it up, just going by memory of seeing where the HR's were hit). And RF pull isn't as big a hinderance as other parts of the park. THis can be a case where he is getting extra benefit for park factor, when it really isn't hurting him as much...kind of the opposite Boggs case.

aro13

gregmo - To answer your question between 2000 and 2002 PacBell Park was a huge Pitcher's park. Probably the #1 pitcher's park in the league. In 2003 it was neutral, in 2004 it was an advantage for the hitters. In 2005 and 2006 it was fairly neutral. Not certain why that has changed over the years unless it has become milder and less windy in San Fran during the summers.

fandango

lets not forget Yaz was the last player to hit for the TRIPLE crown, one of the most difficult feats in all of sports............

Skinpinch

fandango, and he had some of his best seasons when offense was suppressed, and they are only best when you look at them in the context of that period...hence why he is fantastic in the batter runs measurement. This measurement recognizes that.

gregmo32

I wonder if PacBell would appear to be a pitcher's park still if you remove Barry otherworldly stats from the years that it became "neutral" . Has anyone ever tried that - removing Bonds 73 and .360 or whatever it was and seeing if the rest of the league thought it was a pitcher's park?

dallasactuary

gregmo- oddly enough, the year Bonds hit his 73 was one of the year's the park shows up as most favoring pitchers. Bonds was about the same on the road as at home that year, so removing him would make it even more of a pitcher's park.

Skinpinch

How about Coors? If you look on baseballreference, the ballpark adjustment is expressed with 100 being average....over 100 favorable towards hitters, below towards pitchers. THe farther from 100, the more extreme. Most parks are within a couple of 100, and Fenway was usually in the area of 105, with high marks of 112, and 111 in the RIce era. Look at the Coors effect...

128, 129, 123,119, 129,131,122,121,112, 120, 113, 107.

Helton?
HOME BA .342, OB% .440, SLG%. 631, OPS 1.071
AWAY.BA .309, OB% .404, SLG% .497, OPS .901

Still a very nice hitter on the road, even by todays standards. THat is a very nice road OB%! But look at that SLG% difference! It also looks like that humidor they put the balls in has had a little affect.

TheVon

<< <i>The biggest thing at Fenway that helps hitters is that a lot of fly ball outs are turned into doubles. That more than anything else is the reason for increased offense. No foul terriritory is also of great benefit, as are the few extra home runs too. But to take a would be out and have it be a double, is quite the turnaround. >>



First a disclaimer: I love Jim Rice. That said, I'd like to say at least this much in defense of all Red Sox hitters . . . it's true that there are a lot of fly ball outs that are turned into doubles at Fenway, but it's also true that there are a lot of home run balls that are turned into long singles when they hit 25 feet up on the monster. There's also a lot of balls that are hit 418 feet to straight away center that end up being outs when they would be home runs elsewhere.

I guess this all just seems a little unfair to me. If we're going to talk about hitters stats being watered down because of where they played we should also be talking about how Nolan Ryan's stats shouldn't be considered as great as they look because he pitched in the Astrodome.

One last thought: I don't dispute that Fenway is built for hitters, but couldn't some of the discrepancy between home and away numbers be based on the fact that when you play half your games in one park you get used to it? After all, you're looking at the same back drop every day, you have people supporting you rather than yelling at you, you should have slept better the night before because you were in your own bed, you have the more comfortable club house . . . in addition to knowing the dimensions of the field and even having them tailored to you, I think there are a whole lot of other factors that contribute to producing more at home than away.

I'd be interested to see if there are some good or great hitters that performed better during away games over their careers. I'd venture to guess that few ever have.

Skinpinch

Von, for some of the reasons you stated(as well as other reasons), hitters do tend to hit a bit better at home...but just by a bit. The ones in the hitters park surpass that number by quite a bit. Yes, there are other players who have lower career home numbers, and keep in mind that players tend to hit better at home, and these guys are lower overall...so their parks are supressing them.

And like I pointed out, Fenway's tailoring did NOT benefit them more at home than other teams. So it does nothing towards winning more games...the only difference is that the scores are higher because of the park(and the resulting offensive events in general).

dallasactuary

<< <i>I guess this all just seems a little unfair to me. If we're going to talk about hitters stats being watered down because of where they played we should also be talking about how Nolan Ryan's stats shouldn't be considered as great as they look because he pitched in the Astrodome. >>



Nolan Ryan is one of my favorite players of all time, and on any given day he could be the greatest pitcher who ever lived. I once stood outside (to get better reception) during a storm listening on the radio to a game he was pitching and throwing a no-hitter because we had lost power and I couldn't watch it on TV. His poster was on my bedroom wall growing up; his rookie card was the first "big" card I ever owned. Anyway, my point is that I was and remain a huge fan of Nolan Ryan.

Nolan Ryan shouldn't be considered as great as many people consider him to be. You mention the Astrodome, and you're right, but when he pitched for the Angels they had every bit as difficult a park to hit in as the Astrodome. Ryan's career ERA at home is almost a full run lower than his road ERA. It's not as dramatic a boost as Koufax got from Dodger Stadium, but it's still enormous.

Based solely on career average performance Ryan is a very borderline HOFer; on that basis he was not nearly as good as Phil Niekro, Bert Blyleven, Gaylord Perry or several other of his contemporaries. On almost ANY basis, there is just no way to compare him favorably to Tom Seaver or Jim Palmer, the very best pitchers from that time. He's much more comparable to Jim Bunning or Don Sutton than the top-tier HOFers. But the HOF does, and should, also honor players who break half the records in the book and become household names. On that basis, Ryan is topped only by Babe Ruth and even if I had to reduce the HOF to only 20 pitchers I would still find a place for Ryan.

Skinpinch

I am going through all the red sox hitters during the time in question, and it is with great consistency the large Home/road hitting difference that occured at Fenway. I haven't found a good hitter on Boston to show otherwise.

From Petrocelli to George Scott, Yaz, Rice, Lynn, Evans, Fisk, Boggs, Armas etc...

Petrocelli's Home SLG% went from .489 at home to a mere .354 on the road.
Scott .477 to .359.
Geman .412 to .331
Fisk .532 to .467
Armas .524 to .454
R. Smith .508 to .454

I love Fred Lynn, but his career Fenway numbers look more like Babe Ruth's line: BA .347 OB%.420 SLG%.601

We already went over the large difference of the others.

With all the information known, and with what I posted on how it didn't help the Red Sox more at home, there is a certainty that a home ballpark adjustment is needed for Fenway hittters, and for some probably even more of one.

I can't imagine why this facet is discounted by many...with a total refusal to even acknowledge it.

aro13

Of note is the case of Tony Armas. I remember when the Sox acquired Armas and there was talk because of Fenway he might hit 50 homers. At the same time there was a study showing all of the flyballs hit by Armas during his time with Oakland. The study concluded that while Armas would receive an overall benefit playing in Fenway (his doubles would significantly increase) his homerun production would not be affected as a great deal of his homeruns were to right and right center. The study was right on. During Armas time in Boston he actually homered more on the road than at Fenway but his other numbers were vastly inflated by Fenway Park.

TheVon

<< <i>
It has been mentioned that Rice or Bogg's still should not get downgraded, because they tailor their game to the park and that it helps the Red Sox win more games because of this 'skill'. I must add that right off this is a tough statement to accept, because if they tailored their game to the park, why not 'un' tailor it on the road, or just hit normal? The results show that they don't 'un' tailor, hence the huge discrepency between hitting home and away.

HOME vs. ROAD

In MLB, during that period, the average home team in the league carried a .541 winning percentage at home, and .459 WP% on the road. It is commong knowledge that you win more at home, but to what degree is what I am looking at. In this case, the league raised their WP% by 18% when playing at home, compared to the road.

So we expect a team to win 18% more at home. Now the Red Sox were a very good team, so they will win more at home AND on the road than the average team. But it is their increase that I am looking at!

Remember, the league average home team raises their winnng percentage by 18% when playing at home. How does the tailor made Boston Red Sox do?

During Rice's time, the Red Sox were .584 at home, and .502 on the road...both much better than the average team, because they were a good team. But were not looking at that. We are looking to see if their 'skills' of hitting at Fenway are resulting in more wins, contrary to what the park RUNS adjustment says.

When playing at home, the Boston Red Sox raised their winning percentage by 16%! Yes, if you remember, the league average raised theirs by 18%!
>>



Skinpinch, help me understand a few things here . . . I think I get what you're saying about how this formula shows that Rice didn't help his team win more games at Fenway, but how does this formula take into account the peformance of Red Sox pitchers and Rice's teammates? If the Red Sox lost 2% more games than the average, how can that 2% be blamed on Rice and not Rice and the 8 other guys in the field and the guy on the mound?

Also, realistically speaking, is it fair to expect a player to "untailor" the way they hit when they're not at home? When a guy plays his entire career for one team as Rice did it seems natural that he would grow accustomed to batting in such a way that would benefit him during the vast majority of his games. If Rice decided that he needed to be a pull hitter in order to be successful at Fenway is it even realistic to expect him to change who he is as a hitter when he's playing in a different stadium? I can see the argument that a better hitter would be able to do just that, but I look at a lot of guys, (Bobby Abreu comes to mind) who do something to change their swing and it negatively alters their performance. This is more anecdotal evidence than anything else, but it seemed to me that after Abreu won the Home Run Derby his stats plummetted in the second half of the season. Didn't he manage to only hit 6 home runs the rest of the way and didn't his batting average and OBP drop nearly 50 points each?