Options
Joe Morgan the Home Park effect and my ultimate quest...
Skinpinch
Posts: 1,531
in Sports Talk
I poke and probe and research...and ultimately my quest is to put baseball players into their proper historical context. Many analysts try to do it, but they often fail miserably at it and end up with the 'best' players residing unproportionately from certain era's.
Many analysts/fans simply judge players within the context of their own era and feel it is impossible to judge cross era players. I don't give up so easily on this, and my ultimate goal is to judge players not only within their own era, but within the context of the history of baseball. To do this, there are sooo many facets to cover...or uncover!
I'm not necessarily saying that "this guy would do this in that era," or "this guy couldn't do that in this era." While that may be a part of it, I am more interested in seeing how the environment of the era affected a player's record...and then judging that to the extent of how other era's simply would not provide such an environment for that to happen.
For example, Babe Ruth outhomered every team one year...a feat that was part ability and part product of his environment, and something that environments from other players era's simply would not allow to occur. This unfairly gives Ruth a greater historical context than he really should...say compared to a Mike Schmidt.
I have an interest in how players are judged based on their home park, and how that particular environment can skew his true value/ability. There is no question certain players benefit to a great deal simply because they were fortunate enough to play in a home park condusive to certain statistical attainments...and on the flip side parks that supress certain attainments.
Many analysts give a park factor and paint a wide brush to every player who played there. The astrodome supressed offense, so every player who played in the old dome was give a statistical boost because of this. The only problem is that park factors don't affect every player to the same degree. It may hurt one, and help another. Take Joe Morgan.
He is typically given a big park adjustment from his days in the dome. The only problem is that Joe Morgan's game was 'made' for artificial turf.
His lifetime home OPS is .839 and his road is .800. Basically every year at the dome, he hit much better there than on neutral road parks....yet he was given a boost to his performance...an unfair one I believe.
But what does that mean for historical context for Joe Morgan?
Look at Morgan's lifetime numbers on grass fields vs. artificial. Artificial turf greatly enhances doubles and triples, and also average to a lesser degree. Morgan played in an era that had stadiums loaded with artificial turf! When viewing Morgan in a historical context, that would be the only era to give him such an advantage tailor made to his skills.
Morgan BA. /OB%/ SLG%/.... OPS
GRASS..259/ .373 / .399/....772
TURF....281/ .406/ .449/.....855
He had 4,800+ and 6,400+ Plate apperances respectively for each.
Of course within any SPLIT there is the possibility of randomness sneaking in...but knowing Morgan's style and abilities, and knowing for pure fact that artificial turf greatly enhances doubles and triples, I don't think it is a leap at all to figure that playing on the turf was a historical benefit to Morgan.
NOW, in a historical context this puts a down arrow for Morgan. But he would also receive an UP arrow in historical context for playing in the highest competitive era. There are other considerations to figure as well that could affect historical value.
So what does that mean? Well, measured against a guy from another era, those two factors for Morgan may cancel each other out(depending on the factors they enjoyed or not enjoyed).
But if Joe Morgan is battling Mike Schmidt as the best player from their era, it is a fair comparison for era context between the two...but what about a historical context?
Knowing that Morgan benefitted from a factor inherent to that era...that was not even available in the very nearby era's, and that Mike Schmidt didn't(so far), Mike Schmidt would be given a higher historical value.
So if Schmidt and Morgan were viewed equally among their own era, Mike Schmidt would be viewed as the better player because of the higher historical context.
Many people live to see multiple era's, and when they view players they view them with a mix of within the era, and within the era of their lifetime, and because Morgan enjoyed an ability boost from factors that were not as prevelant in other nearby era's, it isn't a hard deduction to figure that his value in those other era's would be less, while Schmidt's not affected as much with playing in other era's.
Many analysts/fans simply judge players within the context of their own era and feel it is impossible to judge cross era players. I don't give up so easily on this, and my ultimate goal is to judge players not only within their own era, but within the context of the history of baseball. To do this, there are sooo many facets to cover...or uncover!
I'm not necessarily saying that "this guy would do this in that era," or "this guy couldn't do that in this era." While that may be a part of it, I am more interested in seeing how the environment of the era affected a player's record...and then judging that to the extent of how other era's simply would not provide such an environment for that to happen.
For example, Babe Ruth outhomered every team one year...a feat that was part ability and part product of his environment, and something that environments from other players era's simply would not allow to occur. This unfairly gives Ruth a greater historical context than he really should...say compared to a Mike Schmidt.
I have an interest in how players are judged based on their home park, and how that particular environment can skew his true value/ability. There is no question certain players benefit to a great deal simply because they were fortunate enough to play in a home park condusive to certain statistical attainments...and on the flip side parks that supress certain attainments.
Many analysts give a park factor and paint a wide brush to every player who played there. The astrodome supressed offense, so every player who played in the old dome was give a statistical boost because of this. The only problem is that park factors don't affect every player to the same degree. It may hurt one, and help another. Take Joe Morgan.
He is typically given a big park adjustment from his days in the dome. The only problem is that Joe Morgan's game was 'made' for artificial turf.
His lifetime home OPS is .839 and his road is .800. Basically every year at the dome, he hit much better there than on neutral road parks....yet he was given a boost to his performance...an unfair one I believe.
But what does that mean for historical context for Joe Morgan?
Look at Morgan's lifetime numbers on grass fields vs. artificial. Artificial turf greatly enhances doubles and triples, and also average to a lesser degree. Morgan played in an era that had stadiums loaded with artificial turf! When viewing Morgan in a historical context, that would be the only era to give him such an advantage tailor made to his skills.
Morgan BA. /OB%/ SLG%/.... OPS
GRASS..259/ .373 / .399/....772
TURF....281/ .406/ .449/.....855
He had 4,800+ and 6,400+ Plate apperances respectively for each.
Of course within any SPLIT there is the possibility of randomness sneaking in...but knowing Morgan's style and abilities, and knowing for pure fact that artificial turf greatly enhances doubles and triples, I don't think it is a leap at all to figure that playing on the turf was a historical benefit to Morgan.
NOW, in a historical context this puts a down arrow for Morgan. But he would also receive an UP arrow in historical context for playing in the highest competitive era. There are other considerations to figure as well that could affect historical value.
So what does that mean? Well, measured against a guy from another era, those two factors for Morgan may cancel each other out(depending on the factors they enjoyed or not enjoyed).
But if Joe Morgan is battling Mike Schmidt as the best player from their era, it is a fair comparison for era context between the two...but what about a historical context?
Knowing that Morgan benefitted from a factor inherent to that era...that was not even available in the very nearby era's, and that Mike Schmidt didn't(so far), Mike Schmidt would be given a higher historical value.
So if Schmidt and Morgan were viewed equally among their own era, Mike Schmidt would be viewed as the better player because of the higher historical context.
Many people live to see multiple era's, and when they view players they view them with a mix of within the era, and within the era of their lifetime, and because Morgan enjoyed an ability boost from factors that were not as prevelant in other nearby era's, it isn't a hard deduction to figure that his value in those other era's would be less, while Schmidt's not affected as much with playing in other era's.
0
Comments
Many people live to see multiple era's, and when they view players they view them with a mix of within the era, and within the era of their lifetime, and because Morgan enjoyed an ability boost from factors that were not as prevelant in other nearby era's, it isn't a hard deduction to figure that his value in those other era's would be less, while Schmidt's not affected as much with playing in other era's.
You hittin' the bottle again, skin? That sentence is longer and more convuluted than a freight train.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Fans sort of view players within a historical context already, partly because the game is basically the same from all the years they watched. What has changed are the factors that enhance certain players who are fortunate enough to belong in that era, or ballpark etc... Some players are affected by this more than others.
In this case, Joe Morgan is enhanced because of the prevelance of turf. It is a factor that others like him from other eras did not have the luxury of enjoying. It puts Morgan in a higher light compared to his era peers, and his historical peers.
On the other hand, Mike Schmidt didn't need this same luxury to enhance his play...and all other factors from the era that they both played in would basically help or hurt both of them equally.
Joe Morgan as a baseball player should be viewed in the circumstances not only from what his era was, but from how the circumstances affected players from other eras as well. I am pretty confident to say that in an all grass stadium league, Joe Morgan is simply not able to do what he did to the same degree, while Mike Schmidt could. That is the difference.
The hardest thing about this is that every player has to be looked at individually, as well as every viable factor. It isn't impossible, but a lot of work. The result is baseball truth to the highest degree.
take care,
jp morgan
<< <i>Wouldn't it also effect Pete Rose as well (who was already overrated in my opinion to begin with)? >>
You would think, but the numbers don't agree per se.
Rose's grass/turf splits are:
Grass: .303/.369/.421
Turf: .303/.381/.397
Rose's OPS was slightly higher on grass (.790) than on turf (.778). He was almost strictly a singles hitter on turf and hit 114 of his 160 HR on grass (despite slightly more ABs on turf). Of course, much of Rose's HR production on grass came in old Crosley Field. It would be interesting to see the split without that. As he went .317/.380/.463 at Crosley in 2525 PAs, Rose's grass numbers would be considerably lower if you looked at all grass fields other than that one.
<< <i>I don't think dallasactuary is going to agree with your Morgan park advantage, skin. >>
On the one hand, I have learned not to flat out disagree with anything skinpinch says - even if I don't see it at first I know there's something worth considering in everything he posts.
On the other hand, no, at first glance I don't agree that Morgan should not get a park advantage for playing in the Dome. I haven't had time to consider this as completely as I maybe I should but I was struck by two things:
1. The data posted has been compressed down to "Grass" and "Turf", as if there are not enormous differences between parks within each of those categories. Morgan played the bulk of his career in two parks - Riverfront and the Dome - that both had Turf. At the Dome he hit a double every 21.5 ABs, a HR every 64.6 ABs and had an OPS of 815; at Riverfront, he hit a double every 16.5 ABs, a HR every 26 ABs and had an OPS of 878. All of his Dome stats, compiled mostly in his younger, speedier, stronger days are worse than his career averages which include his old man years. If the argument is that Morgan shouldn't get a boost for playing in Riverfront then I agree, but since Riverfront rates as a hitter's park he doesn't get a boost so that argument is moot.
2. In his prime, he was playing nearly all of his games on turf, while the number of games he played on grass was higher in his very early years and as he aged and his skills decreased. That ought to, and I see no reason to think that it doesn't, have a significantly misleading impact on his career Grass/Turf splits.
In the end, though, I'm not sure where we might be headed with this analysis. Joe Morgan, however you choose to adjust or not adjust this or that stat in this or that year, was the best player in baseball for a significant period of time and one of the greatest baseball players ever. Whether or not he was better than Mike Schmidt gets us close to a "how many angels fit on the head of a pin" question - they were both tremendous, both the best ever at their position and had very different skills. I'm much less concerned with which player is thought of as better than that both players are recognized for how great they were.
Here are Morgan's home/road OPS during his Astrodome days...
HOME/ROAD
.839/.800
.836/.782
.868/.707
.796/.681
.818/.742
.686/.718
One thing that is a pure given is that astroturf enahances doubles and triples to a very high degree(and batting average to a lesser degree).
Joe Morgan gets a big stat boost for playing in a pitchers park, yet he excelled there because it was tailor made for his play.
One other thing we must remember is that baseball players are at their fastest running speed in the first part of their career. I am talking about pure running speed and not base stealing ability. THe reason I am concerned with this is that this is a factor in stretching balls into doubles, triples, or inside the park homers.
As you can see in the consistent home/road splits in Morgan's astrodome years, he simply wasn't as effective on the road where the environment was not as condusive to his gap hitting and superior speed, as the dome's turf was.
Morgan should not be getting a ballpark boost in his stats.
Ozzie Smith is also a player who gets a boost for playing in Busch, yet he shouldn't either.
He is .678 at home and .654 on the road, yet he gets an offensive boost even though the main reasons for Busch hurting hitting does not really apply towards his style.
Smith is also a turf type guy....696/.617
I'm looking to see how much the circumstances of an era impacted or enhanced certain players above what they really should be viewed as...as compared to other players who didn't enjoy certain aspects to enhance their value.
Dallas is correct in that it may be splitting hairs between Morgan and Schmidt, but they are interesting hairs, and it gets closer to the truth.
The Vet turf was viewed as one of the hardest and worst in the league for both baseball and football.
Morgan played just before the onset of turf throughout the league, except that his home park(the astrodome) was where he got half of his at bats when most fields were grass. This why he was actually helped by the astrodome, instead of being hurt by it as the ballpark factoring suggests.
Additionally, his home OPS generally declined each year. From skin's numbers:
HOME/ROAD
.839/.800
.836/.782
.868/.707
.796/.681
.818/.742
.686/.718
How do those numbers compare to his years as a Red (again, he had no say where he played at the time)?
Let me make a disclaimer: I'm not a huge supporter of Morgan, so that makes no bearing on my opinion of your numbers, Skin.
<< <i>PhillyFan, the turf in regard to Schmidt is negligible(though if you are talking about creating injuries etc...then I don't know).
Morgan played just before the onset of turf throughout the league, except that his home park(the astrodome) was where he got half of his at bats when most fields were grass. This why he was actually helped by the astrodome, instead of being hurt by it as the ballpark factoring suggests. >>
Negligible.
Of course I should have known.
<< <i>One thing that is a pure given is that astroturf enahances doubles and triples to a very high degree(and batting average to a lesser degree).
Joe Morgan gets a big stat boost for playing in a pitchers park, yet he excelled there because it was tailor made for his play. >>
At the risk of getting in too deep before I think this through enough, here's the problem I have with this:
If you look at Morgan's Dome years - 1965-1971 - you see the clear OPS advantage that Morgan has at home vs. on the road. But, if you look one layer deeper at what causes that advantage you see that the benefit of the additional doubles and triples he hit at home (19 total over that period) is entirely wiped out by the fewer homers (13). The difference in Morgan's home and road OPS in his Dome years is entirely due to the extra singles and walks he got at home.
So the statement that Morgan excelled in the Astrodome because it was tailor made for his play is not obviously true. That he excelled there is undeniable, but the cause/effect relationship doesn't seem firmly established. The argument has been that turf enhances doubles and triples (while maybe not completely recognizing that, in the Dome, the loss of HRs entirely offsets that advantage); if the argument is being expanded to say that the Dome also enhanced singles and walks and that this is also tailor made for Morgan, then it must be the case that the Dome was a hitter's park for absolutely everyone except Dave Kingman and a few like him. But if that's the argument, then I'm not buying it.
We've discussed a few other players like this before, and maybe it's a philosophical argument more than a statisitical argument. Joe Morgan was better at the Dome than on the road, but he was better in ways that could not possibly have been predicted. That is to say, he accomplished things playing in the Dome that other players - even those with similar skill sets - were not able to accomplish; he excelled there despite the conditions, not because of them. And, therefore, he deserves the same "boost" that anyone else deserves for playing there, plus or minus the random noise you can't do anything about.
Conceding for the sake of the discussion that Morgan just may be getting a bigger boost than he should, I still don't see that we are going to end up anyplace very different than we already are. Was Morgan 4 times better or only 3 times better than the next best second baseman of his era? Did he deserve 40 of 48 1st place votes for his two MVP's, or should he have only gotten 38? Was the fact that he lost the Rookie of the Year the dumbest vote in sports history, or maybe only the second dumbest? Unlike Stown, I am a big supporter of Joe Morgan and I'd hate to see his already underrated accomplishments knocked down any further.
Interesting analysis with the doubles/triples/HR. I didn't notice that the doubles were the same on home/road. You are correct, the extra triples value the dome gave him are indeed wiped out by the HR it cost him.
I would have to agree that unless the dome is creating extra singles for him(possible), and extra walks(highly doubtful), then randomness could be at work.
The only thing that bothers me is that he was better six out of seven years at the dome, and much better overall at the dome than on the road. That is a pretty consitent trend, and a pretty big overall difference to completely put randomness as the factor. Though randomness it seems is playing a big role nonetheless.
I would have to say that this factor may not be a big deal at all for Morgan, excpet for maybe getting a 10% less park boost or something...and as you said before it probably doesn't amount to a whole lot in comparison sake.
<< <i>Unlike Stown, I am a big supporter of Joe Morgan >>
It's only because, in my opinion, he makes unnecessary pokes and snooty comments towards the Astros.
Having said that, he's a great commentator and certainly had a HOF career. Complete respect in that regard, yo.
"Randomness" may be the best word for it, but it happens so often - that a player is better at home than on the road, even after adjusting for park factors - that I think it has to be at least partly something else. As an extreme example, consider Sandy Koufax; he was just an above-average pitcher on the road and absolutely scary great at home. If we decide that 100% of his home/road difference is his own personal "park factor" then we have to conclude that he was just an above-average pitcher. I think that's similar to where your analysis of Morgan was heading, maybe not to the same conclusion, but similar in that his entire home/road (or turf/grass) difference was going to be washed away.
Like Morgan to the extreme, Koufax accomplished things in Dodger Stadium that nobody else in the league was able to accomplish and he has to be given credit - a lot of credit - for that. He was 100% better at home, but he deserves the same 10%-20% adjustment that everybody else gets: the extra 80%-90% is odd but I don't think it can be called "random" and I don't think we can brush it off when analyzing Koufax. Whatever it was that made Koufax super-human in Dodger Stadium, it was something within Koufax.
stown,
Don't get me wrong, Joe Morgan is not one of my favorite people; sometimes he annoys the hell out of me, in fact. But it was a privelege to have seen him play baseball. My father's generation can talk about how lucky they were to have seen Duke Snider or Yogi Berra or my generation can lionize Yaz or Rose or Bench without raising an eyebrow; Morgan was a better baseball player than every one of them but that fact seems shocking to most people today and in serious danger of being lost to history.
<< <i>stown,
Don't get me wrong, Joe Morgan is not one of my favorite people; sometimes he annoys the hell out of me, in fact. But it was a privelege to have seen him play baseball. My father's generation can talk about how lucky they were to have seen Duke Snider or Yogi Berra or my generation can lionize Yaz or Rose or Bench without raising an eyebrow; Morgan was a better baseball player than every one of them but that fact seems shocking to most people today and in serious danger of being lost to history. >>
And with that, I think you should add "Official Defender of Joe Morgan" to your sig line
Well done, Dallas. You made skin do a 180 from his original point and go on to other mindless debates
Passan Column