Came across this chart from ESPN ranking the 2014 ballpark/ homer ratios.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor ... rder/false
Not surprising, Yankee Stadium was the most favorable followed by Coors, Roger Center and Great American.
What I found surprising was that Baltimore was more stingy than Citi Field, and Fenway was 4th least favorable park in MLB.
Am I missing something?
Homer heavy ballparks
-
Bronx Yankees
- Posts: 1241
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:16 pm
Re: Homer heavy ballparks
Two possible explanations, at least with respect to Fenway. First, Fenway is a really good hitters' park, but not necessarily a great home run park. The Green Monster makes for a very shallow fence in left field, but you need to hit the ball really high to get it over the fence. This may explain why Fenway rates so high for doubles. The Green Monster can turn a lot of fly ball outs in other parks into doubles, but it also takes away a lot of line drive homers as well. Second, that list is based only on 2014 and the Red Sox had a subpar season offensively (or so it seemed), and that may be why the homers seem lower compared, perhaps, to prior years. I should add this is all guesswork on my part - those were just the first two things that came to mind in reading your post and seeing that list. I could be way off.
Mike
Mike
Mike Mager
"Bronx Yankees"
"Bronx Yankees"
Re: Homer heavy ballparks
I don't have a better interpretation.
However, I'm under the impression that both teams were taken into account, so I'm not sure it can be blamed entirely on the Red Sox power-outage. The Green Monster/doubles explanation sounds plausible.
I'm still baffled as to Baltimore. They had some nice bats in that lineup.
Maybe Citifield isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be. Duda had a big year. Maybe Wright is just past his prime.
I dunno.
However, I'm under the impression that both teams were taken into account, so I'm not sure it can be blamed entirely on the Red Sox power-outage. The Green Monster/doubles explanation sounds plausible.
I'm still baffled as to Baltimore. They had some nice bats in that lineup.
Maybe Citifield isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be. Duda had a big year. Maybe Wright is just past his prime.
I dunno.
-
TOXIC ASSETS
- Posts: 764
- Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 6:00 pm
Re: Homer heavy ballparks
Exactly right on Fenway. Bill James did analysis on the same issue almost 30 years ago. The 'monster' takes away a lot of home runs.
-
Brian Jenner
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 6:00 pm
Re: Homer heavy ballparks
It's not really the monster that takes away homers so much as the garage in right center. Fenway is actually very stifling for homers to LHBs. For RHBs, homers are about neutral. It is extremely beneficial for singles and doubles for all batters, as not only does the CFer have a ton of room to cover, but obviously the monster turns a lot of fly outs into hits as well. Overall, Fenway is the #3 top hitters park in baseball.
And Citi Field is one of the best pitcher's parks in baseball (barely behind Petco and AT&T) despite being favourable to homeruns. It's the worst park in the majors for allowing singles. Don't know why exactly. I imagine that the foul territory is larger than most considering it is so favourable to Infield flies.
As for the Orioles, it would seem to be random variation. It looks like ESPN is using only single-season data which fluctuates a lot. That would explain Camden going from a 1.28 HR factor in 2013 to 0.94 in 2014; did it really change that much? Very unlikely. Whereas Fangraphs uses 5 year regressed park factors.
And Citi Field is one of the best pitcher's parks in baseball (barely behind Petco and AT&T) despite being favourable to homeruns. It's the worst park in the majors for allowing singles. Don't know why exactly. I imagine that the foul territory is larger than most considering it is so favourable to Infield flies.
As for the Orioles, it would seem to be random variation. It looks like ESPN is using only single-season data which fluctuates a lot. That would explain Camden going from a 1.28 HR factor in 2013 to 0.94 in 2014; did it really change that much? Very unlikely. Whereas Fangraphs uses 5 year regressed park factors.