PDA

View Full Version : Comiskey As A "Hitter's Park" - Overrated


mikehuff
03-25-2005, 02:57 PM
I'm sick of this continuous talk of how Comiskey is a "hitter's park" and this new team won't be able to compete at this park.
First of all, the reason the reason for the high homerun totals is because the Sox play half of their games there. The Sox have been in about the top 5 in homerun totals for the last five years. That's why the totals are up so much. If the Sox played at another park, those numbers would go up too. This whole idea of ranking fields as "hitter friendly" isn't real scientific. Each team doesn't play the same number of games at each stadium.

If a team full of Barry Bonds's played at Detroit and a team full of Ozzie Guillen's played at Coors Field, then they would consider Detroit a "hitters park."
I'm sick of it.

Iwritecode
03-25-2005, 03:01 PM
<Devils advocate>Did the Sox players hit a lot of homeruns at home because it's a "hitter's park" or are they just good at hitting homeruns?</Devils advocate>

I guess a quick look at their splits would tell me but I'm lazy... :D:

CubsfansareDRUNK
03-25-2005, 03:11 PM
Wrigley has a net that extends out and catches the balls

mikehuff
03-25-2005, 03:17 PM
<Devils advocate>Did the Sox players hit a lot of homeruns at home because it's a "hitter's park" or are they just good at hitting homeruns?</Devils advocate>

I guess a quick look at their splits would tell me but I'm lazy... :D:

I thought of that too, but look at the guys they had. We all know their style of play over the last 5 years - homerun or nothing. If they do the same thing this year, then you call it a "hitters park."

Ol' No. 2
03-25-2005, 03:22 PM
I'm sick of this continuous talk of how Comiskey is a "hitter's park" and this new team won't be able to compete at this park.
First of all, the reason the reason for the high homerun totals is because the Sox play half of their games there. The Sox have been in about the top 5 in homerun totals for the last five years. That's why the totals are up so much. If the Sox played at another park, those numbers would go up too. This whole idea of ranking fields as "hitter friendly" isn't real scientific. Each team doesn't play the same number of games at each stadium.

If a team full of Barry Bonds's played at Detroit and a team full of Ozzie Guillen's played at Coors Field, then they would consider Detroit a "hitters park."
I'm sick of it.That's not how they're done.
Linky (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor?season=2004)

Iwritecode
03-25-2005, 03:28 PM
It's not exactly the most scientific study in the world but I checked out the homerun numbers for a handful of players. For the pitchers its the number they gave up.

Name - Home - Away
Thomas - 14 - 4
Konerko - 29 - 12 :o:
Lee - 17 - 14
Maggs - 4 - 5
Rowand - 12 - 12
Crede - 12 - 9
Everett - 2 - 3
Uribe - 16 - 7
Valentin - 16 - 14
TOTALS - 122 - 80

Burly - 22 - 11 :o:
Garcia - 9 - 5
Garland - 16 - 18
Contreras - 3 - 6
Politte - 3 - 3
Marte - 8 - 2
Shingo - 3 - 3
Adkins - 5 - 8
Loiaza - 16 - 7
Scott S - 11 - 6
Diaz - 11 - 2
TOTALS - 107 - 71

Strictly looking at the numbers, it looks like a lot more homeruns fly out when the Sox play at home than when they are on the road. Certainly a lot of other factors could come into play but it's interesting...

mccombe_35
03-25-2005, 03:33 PM
The Cell is a hitters park, only because of all the changes to the park over the past 5 years or so. But I agree the whole idea of actually ranking the parks as hitters or pitchers parks is flawed. Your Ozzie Guillen / Barry Bonds line was right on. Not only with the hitters, but the pitchers have just as much to do with it also.

MeanFish
03-25-2005, 03:49 PM
I've always suspected that divisional park makeup can also come into play in a big way on this. For instance, if you look at the following home run ratio data for each AL Central Ballpark:

1. Jacobs Field = 2.031
6. U.S. Cellular Field = 1.257
12. Kauffman Stadium = 1.075
24. Metrodome = .864
28. Comerica Park = .679

you will notice two things. Firstly, we're not number one. The Indians are, at least based on Ol' No. 2's link. Secondly, look at the somewhat correllated spread between The Jake and The Cell and harder to hit out of ballparks The Met and Comerica. By virtue of the fact that the Indians and the Sox have to play 20 games a year at those two fields, it stands to reason that they're going to have a higher ratio of home runs at home vs. away than a similar team in a division with more park balance. Furthermore, last year it would have been accented because the Tigers finally can hit and even the Twins experienced a small power surge last year. Since they play in notoriously pitcher-friendly parks, they're going to hit more away than at home, and we're going to hit more at home than away. Of course, Kauffman is in the middle because for HR ratios by park to matter, your team has to be able to hit in the first place.

So what we can conclude from this is that maybe, just maybe there are no cosmic wind changes. Perhaps the real reason that US Cellular Field skyrocketed on that list is because the Tigers offense exploded last year, and Minnesota's offense even improved marginally, and neither of those two teams can hit at home because Comerica is huge and the Metrodome is the Metrodome.

I suspect Coors and Bank One gain a similar statistical boost because of Dodger Stadium, Petco Park, and SBC Park.

This statement is fairly unorganized, so if something doesn't make sense lemme know :)

Iwritecode
03-25-2005, 03:51 PM
That's not how they're done.
Linky (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor?season=2004)

Interesting. The Cell went from 15th in runs in 2003 to 11th in 2004. For some reason it wouldn't let me sort on HR for 2003 but they were 6th in 2004.

IMO, the biggest thing is not so much how many homeruns they hit but how many runs they drive in when they do hit them.

Let's face it, this team is still going to hit homeruns. Maybe not as many as last year, but they will come. If they can hit more 2 or 3 run shots instead of all the solo shots they seemed to rack up last year, they might be ok. Hopefully the addition of Pods and Gooch will help that.

On the other hand, the pitching staff is going to have to try and limit 2 or 3 run homers as well. Solo homeruns I can usually deal with.

If the other team hits 5 solo shots and the Sox hit 2 3-run shots, guess who's going to win? :wink:

Iwritecode
03-25-2005, 03:57 PM
By virtue of the fact that the Indians and the Sox have to play 20 games a year at those two fields

I hope you meant 20 games a year between those two fields. They only play 8 - 10 games (I don't have my schedule handy) at each field.

:)

Ol' No. 2
03-25-2005, 04:02 PM
Interesting. The Cell went from 15th in runs in 2003 to 11th in 2004. For some reason it wouldn't let me sort on HR for 2003 but they were 6th in 2004.

IMO, the biggest thing is not so much how many homeruns they hit but how many runs they drive in when they do hit them.

Let's face it, this team is still going to hit homeruns. Maybe not as many as last year, but they will come. If they can hit more 2 or 3 run shots instead of all the solo shots they seemed to rack up last year, they might be ok. Hopefully the addition of Pods and Gooch will help that.

On the other hand, the pitching staff is going to have to try and limit 2 or 3 run homers as well. Solo homeruns I can usually deal with.

If the other team hits 5 solo shots and the Sox hit 2 3-run shots, guess who's going to win? :wink:Do a Google search and you'll be amazed at how many different ways there are of calculating park factor, so depending on where you get the numbers, they may vary. Here (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/parkadjust.shtml) is the propellerhead version. If you can make it to the bottom without your eyes glazing over, you have more patience than I.

MeanFish
03-25-2005, 04:03 PM
I hope you meant 20 games a year between those two fields. They only play 8 - 10 games (I don't have my schedule handy) at each field.

:)

Yeah that's what I meant. It wasn't the most organized post, I was just thinking into a text box :)