ARO!.....Jim Rice & The Fenway Factor of limiting LH pitchers to face
Skinpinch
Posts: 1,531
in Sports Talk
Aro,
I found the information you were seeking in regard to how Fenway park made opposing managers decide not to have their LH starters pitch there. This has an affect on RIce being that he didn't get to face as many LHers as he should have. This is thought to negate some of the Fenway park effect that detracts Rice's true ability.
The question is how many LHers did he miss, and how much did it affect him.
Here is the chart of LHers the Red SOx faced at home, and on the road.
..........................1960's.......1970's.........1980's
At FENWAY.........188............171.............214
On Road.............229............244.............236
During the 70's, the Red Sox faced an average of 7.3 LESS Left Handers per season at Fenway than on the road. So it is true that managers avoided starting their left handers at Fenway. I would assume that during the RIce years in the 70's that the figure was a little higher, and closer to 8 per season.
During the 1980's, managers didn't do that nearly as much, as the Red Sox only faced TWO less LHers per season on Fenway, compared to road games.
What does that mean?
Rice averaged appx 4 at bats per game. Simple math would show that he lost appx 32 at bats per season in the 1970's vs. Left Handers because of Fenway Park. He lost appx 8 at bats per season in the 1980's vs. Left Handers. Here are the total at bats vs. Left handers he lost.
1970's he lost appx 160 at bats vs LHers
1980's he lost appx 70 at bats vs LHers
This does not account for relievers. No manager would bring in a lefty to face Rice regardless of where he is playing, so I believe this would be a limited factor. However, for some middle relievers, he may have missed a few at bats. Looking at the total of starters at bats, this can't be more than a handful of at bats. So if we estimate, here are the possible new totals.
1970's he lost appx 175 at bats vs LHers
1980's he lost appx 80 at bats vs LHers.
Grand total of 255. I will add another 20 for margin of error to make it 275.
Now, what does this mean to his hitting stats. Looking at his unadjusted Fenway per at bat totals vs. RHers and VS LHers, we can figure how facing more righties becaue of Fenway, affected his stats.
HOME RUNS
Vs LH = 1 HR every 20.7 At bats
Vs RH = 1 HR every 21.8 At bats
Over 275 at bats, it would add appx 1 HR to his career totals had he had an extra 275 at bats vs. LHers as opposed to RHers. Being that those extra at bats would have come at Fenway, it may be 2 or possibly 3 HR...but then that is Fenway aided.
HITS
Vs LH = 1 H every 3.19 at bats
Vs RH = 1 H every 3.41 at bats
Over 275 at bats, it would add appx 6 hits to his career total....maybe 10 since all those extra at bats come from Fenway. 10 hits would push his career average to .299 from .298.
I would say that based on these figures that this had a very limited effect on Rice's hitting stats. It does little to offset the positive benefits he received from having the privlege/luck to play half his games at Fenway(the best hitters park of that era).
I found the information you were seeking in regard to how Fenway park made opposing managers decide not to have their LH starters pitch there. This has an affect on RIce being that he didn't get to face as many LHers as he should have. This is thought to negate some of the Fenway park effect that detracts Rice's true ability.
The question is how many LHers did he miss, and how much did it affect him.
Here is the chart of LHers the Red SOx faced at home, and on the road.
..........................1960's.......1970's.........1980's
At FENWAY.........188............171.............214
On Road.............229............244.............236
During the 70's, the Red Sox faced an average of 7.3 LESS Left Handers per season at Fenway than on the road. So it is true that managers avoided starting their left handers at Fenway. I would assume that during the RIce years in the 70's that the figure was a little higher, and closer to 8 per season.
During the 1980's, managers didn't do that nearly as much, as the Red Sox only faced TWO less LHers per season on Fenway, compared to road games.
What does that mean?
Rice averaged appx 4 at bats per game. Simple math would show that he lost appx 32 at bats per season in the 1970's vs. Left Handers because of Fenway Park. He lost appx 8 at bats per season in the 1980's vs. Left Handers. Here are the total at bats vs. Left handers he lost.
1970's he lost appx 160 at bats vs LHers
1980's he lost appx 70 at bats vs LHers
This does not account for relievers. No manager would bring in a lefty to face Rice regardless of where he is playing, so I believe this would be a limited factor. However, for some middle relievers, he may have missed a few at bats. Looking at the total of starters at bats, this can't be more than a handful of at bats. So if we estimate, here are the possible new totals.
1970's he lost appx 175 at bats vs LHers
1980's he lost appx 80 at bats vs LHers.
Grand total of 255. I will add another 20 for margin of error to make it 275.
Now, what does this mean to his hitting stats. Looking at his unadjusted Fenway per at bat totals vs. RHers and VS LHers, we can figure how facing more righties becaue of Fenway, affected his stats.
HOME RUNS
Vs LH = 1 HR every 20.7 At bats
Vs RH = 1 HR every 21.8 At bats
Over 275 at bats, it would add appx 1 HR to his career totals had he had an extra 275 at bats vs. LHers as opposed to RHers. Being that those extra at bats would have come at Fenway, it may be 2 or possibly 3 HR...but then that is Fenway aided.
HITS
Vs LH = 1 H every 3.19 at bats
Vs RH = 1 H every 3.41 at bats
Over 275 at bats, it would add appx 6 hits to his career total....maybe 10 since all those extra at bats come from Fenway. 10 hits would push his career average to .299 from .298.
I would say that based on these figures that this had a very limited effect on Rice's hitting stats. It does little to offset the positive benefits he received from having the privlege/luck to play half his games at Fenway(the best hitters park of that era).
0
Comments
Bosox1976
Interesting extrapolation on Jim Rice's batting.
You mention Fenway is (best hitters park of that era). Perhaps true, but perhaps not. What time frame encompasses that era, and are both leagues included ?
Are there any stats easily available which show how the other teams, (exclude the home team, Redsox in this case), batted in Fenway and in all the other road/away parks ? Almost all teams hit a little better at home, probably more due to familar surroundings and comfort/rest, rather than the actual dimensions of the park.
Do the Yanks, White Sox, Tigers, and A's all hit better at Fenway than at any other away ballpark ?
How road teams do at various away parks might be a good indicator of how tough or easy a park is to hit in. Of course if the visitors had to face Clemens or Pedro more often,, the results might change.
Unfortunately for the numbers guys, all AL road teams do not play the same amount of games in each away park, therfore some proration must be used also. Now the AL-NL games make it more perplexing.
All of this can additionally be made more informative, if the road teams show the RH and LH batter stats in Fenway, and other parks, as well
Any suggestions/advice on where this might be looked up ? Thanks.
Fenway was the best in the AL. I didn't check completely, but Wrigley was probably best overall. The era is the late 70's/early 80's.
One can check how each team hit at Fenway, compared to other parks. When figuring out a park factor, the entire league is looked at like you are referring to.
For that era, the AL played a pretty balanced schedule between the divisions...I believe one game difference. The NL had it different if I remember.
Jaxxr, keep in mind that this information took me a long time to locate. Aro had asked for it over a year ago, and I just happened to stumble across it in an old essay/article. The only other way to find all that info like this, is to go to retrosheet.org and go game by game....obviously a painstaking process! I wasn't ready to commit the time to find this info, so I let it go all this time.
The cool part is, depending how your life situation is, it can be a great hobby to find all that info. I will say, that any info that you find regarding what you are looking for will most likely only change the already published park effects by less than 10%. In other words, it may be a whole lot of work with results that won't vary much from the already painstaking research that has been done.