Two weeks
ago, during the Twins’ Winter Caravan stop in Mason City, Iowa, pitcher Glen
Perkins addressed the crowd on his thoughts about Target Field. Said the left-hander:
“I would say it’s leaning toward a pitcher’s park, but you never know. Yankee Stadium the first year was a hitter’s park and then it swung the other way last year.”
Yesterday,
during his lunchtime live chat at StarTribune.com beat writer Joe
Christensen also alluded to this phenomenon in response to an inquisition regarding
the team’s chances of hitting more home runs in 2011 at Target Field:
“I have my doubts, but the Twins believe it's important to give it another year before going overboard with any changes. They correctly point to Yankee Stadium, which wasn't as much of a hitter's park in 2010 as it was in 2009.”
Christensen’s use of the word “they” suggests that members of the front
office are the ones circulating that tidbit. After all, Perkins spent very
little time at the major league level in 2010 and did not pitch a single inning
in New York. He couldn’t have been privy to this first-hand. With all of the
criticism emerging from the clubhouse, including calls for the walls to be
moved in (ostensibly, an expensive task), the organization had to communicate
something to the team. Regardless of the source or background, the fact is that
the statement is almost patently false.
Superficially, there was some decline in the numbers at home in New
York. For instance, in 2010 hitters posted an OPS of 783 at the new Yankee
Stadium, the second-highest in baseball and the highest in the American League,
but experienced a ten-point drop in OPS from the previous year (793) when it
was regarded as an offensive Mecca. Yet, ten points is hardly a resounding
affirmation of a transition from a hitter-friendly park to a pitcher-friendly
one.
Similarly, while the ballpark paced the majors in home runs hit in
’09 with 237, when the season ended this past year 14 fewer home runs had been
hit. Still, that 223 in 2010 was the second-highest total in baseball.
Based on those two facts alone, I’d hardly be inclined to calling
Yankee Stadium anything but a hitter’s paradise. What’s more is that according
to ESPN.com’s Park Factors,
despite the decrease in total bombs launched in its confines all things
considered, Yankee Stadium actually became a place that was easier to hit home
runs over the previous season. In 2009, the Bronx ballpark posted a HR Park
Factor of 1.201, the highest in baseball. Although it lost the long ball title
to USCellular Field and surpassed by Coors Field in Denver, the Yankees’ home
field had a HR Park Factor of 1.420.
Likewise, in terms of total offense, Yankee Stadium’s 1.177 Runs Park
Factor was far superior in comparison to ‘09’s 0.965 Runs Park Factor it listed
after the stadium’s inaugural season. To summarize, it was found to be easier
to score runs and hit home runs at Yankee Stadium in 2010 versus its first
year.
Simply put, despite the Twins' claims to the contrary, Yankee Stadium did not revert towards a pitcher's park.
In the end, there is no need to repeat a misleading message in
hopes of enticing players or fans to think of Target Field somehow emerging as
a Yankee Stadium-like venue in 2011. Rather, focus on the number of home runs
that aren’t leaving the park courtesy
of the visiting team as opposed to the number of home runs you are missing out
on. Target Field may not do anyone any favors in the home run department but
it served the team extremely well in 2010 and some members of the offense should
embrace that concept.
11 comments:
I am curious as to what these park factors would be if they only considered the road team. NY usually has an offense that is in the upper echelon in the league. That could certainly play a huge factor in all the runs scored in that stadium.
Considering what Toronto did at Target field the last weekend of the season, I think the Twins should be looking at their own man muscles rather than the ballpark when considering the dearth of TF home runs.
Where did the Twins say that Yankee stadium was now a "pitcher's park"? The comments I've read say that it was less friendly to hitters in the 2nd year. You've now quantified it and, it did in fact give up less home runs in its 2nd year (and the Twins f.o. seems more likely to consider something like raw HRs than ESPN's ballpark factors). As for not making wholesale changes to TF, I find that to be common sense. They are changing the "batter's eye". In addition, there was speculation early on about "drying concrete" -- has that factor now gone away? Should Twins batters not have to make any adjustments? Your analysis is usually very good -- this post just looks sensationalistic without much supporting proof. If the Twins are really spreading misleading information, you need to be a lot more specific than just the two quotes above.
@Ben - Valid points. Thing is, visiting teams hit 108 HRs at Yankee Stadium in 2010. That's a big number compared to the 64 hit by Target Field's guests the same year. Also, the 108 HRs is 7 more hit by visitors over the 2009 season.
@jbiowa - Alright. Boxed. No one said "pitcher's park". Perkins's comment when he said "swung the other way" certainly implied that it was a pitcher's park, not just less of a hitter's park. On the other hand, Joe C's comment was less suggestive of an all-out turnaround.
You've now quantified it and, it did in fact give up less home runs in its 2nd year (and the Twins f.o. seems more likely to consider something like raw HRs than ESPN's ballpark factors)
Which is the fallacy I was disproving. Despite the fact that there were several fewer HRs - it doesn't mean that it was no less of a hitter's park than it was the previous season. The fact is, by the gauge of park factors, Yankee Stadium was MORE of a hitter's park.
Your analysis is usually very good -- this post just looks sensationalistic without much supporting proof. If the Twins are really spreading misleading information, you need to be a lot more specific than just the two quotes above.
Admittedly, the title was labeled as such to draw readers in, not to outright accuse the Twins of maliciously spreading misinformation. Their attempted message is false and I believe there is ample evidence to the contrary, if you care to re-read it, in the 9th and 10th paragraph of the post there is plenty of supporting facts.
What you have demonstrated is that you don't understand the statistics you use. Park factors are comparitive to other parks. So if you have a park that allows fewer home runs, such as Target Field, added to the mix everyone elses park factor for home runs will go up. That appears to be what happened at Yankee Stadium.
My comment on supporting your position wasn't directed at the statistics for Yankee Stadium being a hitter's park or TF being a pitcher's park ... I think you muster the statistics admirably.
It was the use of the words "spreading misleading information". There is something about that phrase that implies some kind of deliberate attempt to mislead fans so if you are going to make that accusation, I think you need some stronger proof that is what the Twins are doing than just the 2 quotes in the article.
But I'm really not sure what they are misleading fans about or what they would gain by misleading them. Is there really a fear that attendance is going to drop off in the 2nd year of TF unless fans think that there will be a lot of Twins HR? Is there some thought that they are laying the groundwork for future years? By that point, fans should know how the field plays. Are they trying to defuse or prevent the "no-power Mauer" complaints?
I guess I just don't see why this is a big issue (to anyone). It seems to me that over a span of time, clubs tailor their roster to play well in their home park. The Twins seem to have started down this path with their attempts to add speed. Presumably down the road, they might look for pull hitters who can drive the ball (I think that was your analysis of where home runs were hit at TF and it was a great analysis). And if there is one player that I think can adjust to any ball park, it is Joe Mauer.
It'll be interesting to see how this year plays out -- whether the change in the "batter's eye" makes a difference; whether some players have made adjustments; how this summer's weather plays out, etc. It seems to me that discovering how a new stadium plays (including any quirks) is part of the fun.
@TT - Yes, yes, yes, adding Target Field dilutes the pool of PF and raises all ships and that should have been mentioned or at least discussed.
Independent of Target Field, another reason why NY's PF went up as much as it did was because league-wide, HRs went down - partly because of a new stadium but also because of other factors. HRs were down significantly at Camden, Citizen Bank, and others. Yankee Stadium on the other hand, remained almost the same. The HR clout within the park was almost static in New York. Despite the loss of 14 HRs, Yankee Stadium's PA/HR only went went from 26.9 per HR to 27.8 per HR. Hardly an indication of the stadium swinging the other way.
However, I wasn't trying to say the the 0.2 increase in HR PF was that particularly significant or the focus of the post. The point was that it remained at a level that was clearly favorable to hitters and in no way did it shift towards the pitcher's favor.
Thanks for highlight that so we could discuss it further.
It was the use of the words "spreading misleading information". There is something about that phrase that implies some kind of deliberate attempt to mislead fans so if you are going to make that accusation, I think you need some stronger proof that is what the Twins are doing than just the 2 quotes in the article.
Again, as I mentioned before, it was titled as such to draw readers in rather than to accuse the Twins of actually attempting to pass along information. I appreciate the feedback on how that looks to readers...
The fact is, what they are suggesting to the media and their players is not true. Yankee Stadium played almost the same as it did the year before.
Is it that significant? No, not really. Personally, I think the FO's perception of Yankee Stadium somehow becoming less of a hitter's park is fascinating. Is their claims based on some observations from their handful of games there last year? Are they really thinking 14 fewer HRs is an affirmation that the ballpark is less hitter friendly?
As Christensen wrote, the FO has been mentioning Yankee Stadium, most likely to the media when the discussion of moving walls or making any changes comes up. I just don't get where they are basing that on. 14 HRs?
In the end, I hope they don't kowtow to the complaints and change anything. I like the way the stadium plays and (personally) prefer watching doubles and triples to home runs.
Appreciation for this valuable publish! Remember to keep it popping up. Cheers.
"Again, as I mentioned before, it was titled as such to draw readers in rather than to accuse the Twins of actually attempting to pass along information. I appreciate the feedback on how that looks to readers...
The fact is, what they are suggesting to the media and their players is not true. Yankee Stadium played almost the same as it did the year before."
There is no reason to defend the title of this piece. The twins are spreading misleading information.
Post a Comment