Park Effects
Note: I'm helping entertain while Jeff is away, so, uh... have a post?
CRACK!
The baseball leaps off Jermaine Dye's bat 10 mph faster than it left Jarrod Washburn's left hand. Dye absolutely killed the pitch - it's a sure home run to left-centre field.
Then the baseball meets the cold breeze wandering into Safeco left-to-right from Puget Sound, drops like Jose Lopez attempting to slide into second base, and finds itself nestled in Ichiro's glove. Two outs, two runners stranded. Washburn and the Ms are saved by Safeco Field once again.
Every baseball fan over the age of 10 is at least dimly aware of the fact that different stadia can have a significant effect on the way the game is played. Coors Field in the early 2000s played extraordinarily well for hitters (less so now, but it's still an extreme hitters' park). Petco Park is death on hitters (especially Khalil Greene), and Safeco Field isn't exactly the most friendly place to bat either. We take offensive performance in High Desert (our A+ affiliate) with a grain of salt, and we know that Tacoma's pitchers are helped out by making their home in Cheney.
The differences caused by ballpark vary from the fairly mundane (Petco suppressing runs) to the strange (batters in Safeco hit more fly balls than expected) to the downright weird (RFK Stadium decreases the run expectancy of line drives). We don't have logical explanations for some of these differences, but we don't need to in order to measure them (the details of which would be a whole different post). Mostly, we aren't terribly concerned with the fine details, because what we're after (generally) is a representation of the run environment that a specific stadium creates compared to its league. There are essentially two uses for park factors as applied to individual players: assessing how valuable he is in a given park and attempting to determine how he would perform in another. These are two very different questions (and mixing them up is a great way of getting yourself confused). Let's address the first.
A player who creates x runs is more valuable in a lower run environment than a higher one. This much should be fairly obvious - less runs are being scored and therefore the impact of those x runs is comparitively bigger (it works like this with pitchers as well, obviously, except backwards). The important point to take away from this is that it doesn't matter whether the player in question is actually affected by whatever's causing the change in run environment. Raul Ibanez value is higher due to the low run environment he plays in despite Safeco actually helping left-handed pull hitters. You'll see far too many arguments saying park effects shouldn't apply to a player because [insert something about home-road splits/something similar here]. These sorts of arguments are completely meaningless - the value a player provides has nothing to do with whether he's affected by his park or not and everything to do with the context in which he plays. This really is the key idea to take away when thinking about park effects: When measuring a player's value, everyone should be subjected to a blanket park effect, because you're just looking at their comparative contribution in a certain environment.
Ok, so that question answered. On to the next - projection. Remember when I said we weren't terribly concerned with the fine details? Well, that's not entirely true...
The really basic example to consider here is why our front office is so obessed with finding left handed sock (note to FO: Teixeira and Griffey for '09 please). In essence, our park doesn't play the same for lefties and righties. Specifically, it's much, much easier to hit a home run to right field than it is to left or left centre. This means that any left handed pull hitter should be expected to do much better in Safeco than a right handed clone of said player would - unsurprising, considering who the park was built to accomodate. This also means that lefty flyball pitchers (i.e. Jarrod Washburn) will find life much easier in Seattle, since most of the home runs hit against them will be into left field. So when you're trying to predict how a player would perform in a different park, you would have to park neutralise their stats (i.e. correct for every stat affected by their home park) and then apply a correction for their new park. This sort of analysis is pretty time consuming, especially it you're attempting to go about it by hand, but it illustrates exactly why it's of paramount importance to have accurate park effects (for LHBs and RHBs both) for as many stats as you possibly can. Which we don't, as far as I'm aware. If someone wants to get on that, that'd be pretty awesome...
There are many, many reasons why parks play differently to one another - shape, altitude, humidity, prevailing wind, and the ever-popular 'we don't have a goddamn clue'. For the most part, however, we can condense all of this information into one number (essentially representing runs per game/league average R/G) which can be found in the teams section of Baseball-Reference. Armed with that number, you can do a good bit of meaningful analysis on player value (and, in leiu of more advanced data, make a decent stab at predictions too).
Parks matter, often far more than we give them credit for. Ignore their effects at your own peril.
65 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Only if they're truly errors
i see
by SunshineMsFan on Feb 25, 2008 8:39 AM PST up reply actions
I think CENTERfield is CENTERfield
For instance, when referring to the GM Centre in Vancouver I call it the GM Centre not the GM Center because it's in Canada
Centerfield is similarly a proper location noun
I usually call it GM Plaice
I already did so
I bet the ram doesn't feel anything
That's what
So why
Oh, never mind.
After Jamie Moyer's success at Safeco
by G_ on Feb 22, 2008 4:43 PM PST up reply actions
And signed Washburn
It's odd; at times the team is quite conscious of the park and who might perform well. Bedard might be an example here.
At other times, the team looks more at building around specific players or philosophies.
I keep thinking that the big push for GB pitchers was at least in part due to the scouting reports on Yuniesky Betancourt (and Beltre's awesomeness).
Not sure if the 2000-2003 staff/outfield was a case of successfully building around the park, or dumb luck (bunch of journeymen flyball pitchers + mike cameron = RAD).
Graham
It can be a fairly significant variation
In general, though, you'll see neutral parks stay neutral, hitter-friendly ones stay hitter friendly, etc. You also want to look at 3-year park factors (which b-ref calculates for you, I think) to try to get rid of any noise.
by Graham MacAree on Feb 23, 2008 1:17 AM PST up reply actions
What happened to Detroit?
Nice
The opening was especially nice. The Safe strikes again!
And I remember that game where Feirabend started against the BoSox and was getting hammered good, but almost everything that got up in the air, Ichiro was snagging out there. Sweet.
by Tom C on Feb 22, 2008 5:10 PM PST reply actions
I've wondered this for a while
Good enough for a first order approximation
Good enough to get into the details... probably not. The smaller your sample the more skewed things are going to be.
by Graham MacAree on Feb 23, 2008 1:19 AM PST up reply actions
Home/Road splits.
Okay, so let's use this as an example...
Random Player 1
Overall: .300/.400/.550
Home: .300/.400/.550
Road: .300/.400/.550
Random Player 2
Overall: .300/.400/.550
Home: .280/.380/.530
Road: .320/.420/.570
Random Player
Overall: .300/.400/.550
Home: .320/.420/.570
Road: .280/.380/.530
Now what you would normally infer is that Player 1 plays in a neutral park, player 2 in a pitcher's park, and player 3 in a hitter's park, and you'd probably right. So you could argue that a .300/.400/.550 line in Player 2's ballpark is more valuable than one at player 1's ballpark, and less valuable than that same line at player 3's ballpark.
Here's the thing though. What if it's player 1 that hits in the pitcher's ballpark? Yes, I will agree with you that the runs he creates in the pitcher's park are more valuable however, couldn't it be possible that he is the same hitter in either park? The park boosts his value, it doesn't change his skills. So if this player is unaffected by any park--that he out hits the pitcher's park and under-hits what you'd expect the non-pitcher's park to give him, it could indeed be possible that he could be immune to park factors whether they may be helpful or hurtful. Like ballparks, instead of taking his skills into account to reach this conclusion, it could be "We don't have a goddamn clue"...
All I'm saying is it's possible to post the same home/road numbers and have those numbers be a result of the same skills. Yes, the runs are more valuable in the pitcher's park, but if he hits the same in pitcher's or hitter's park, it's possible to say he's the same hitter in any stadium, even if the impact of those same results vary.
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
Meh
This isn't how you would do it at all. Analysis based on home-road splits should always always always take a backseat to actually looking at the park factor. The splits themselves are more or less irrelevant unless a player is switching stadiums.
by Graham MacAree on Feb 23, 2008 1:11 AM PST up reply actions
Or, let's try this from another angle
by Graham MacAree on Feb 23, 2008 10:11 AM PST up reply actions
that is a much tougher question to answer
If his rate stats don't differ from park to park we can infer that the value of the runs he's creating are different, but the amount of runs he creates depends not on park but on his abilities and the strange happening that parks may not effect him. It doesn't make sense that parks could have no effect on someone, but I'm sure there have been hitters that have managed not to have a park factor split before. I'm sure I'm probably wrong, however I'd like to hear a good reason why I'm wrong. The goal of analysis is to know why things are the way they are. Help me out, I'm willing to admit I'm wrong.
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Feb 23, 2008 10:26 AM PST up reply actions
Again
"Therefore AVG/OBP/SLG is a quick way to see how his home park effects him compared to others."
Does it matter? If Micheal Young hit .100/.100/.100 at Arlington and .500/.500/.500 away he'd still need to be penalised for his home park.
by Graham MacAree on Feb 23, 2008 11:04 AM PST up reply actions
If your park factors suck
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 23, 2008 1:42 PM PST up reply actions
I'm probably missing your point Brett
Maybe give us a concrete example like the following (my best guess at paraphrasing what you're saying):
- Player X's home field is a park with a supressing effect on stats (like Safeco)
- Player X has even splits for home/away for whatever reason (he likes home cooking, the park suits his left-handed power stroke... whatever)
- When we measure Player X's offensive production, we should give him extra points for his home production because it happened at a run-supressing park... and less value on his road production because runs are less meaningful in high production parks like Coors.
Yeah you got it
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Feb 23, 2008 1:28 PM PST up reply actions
You need to keep in mind
Most players have a better home split: they do better at home. Thing is, the split is not universally the same. Some benefit more, some benefit less.
That's just one factor.
by rfloh @ Lookout Landing on Feb 23, 2008 4:25 AM PST up reply actions
Doesn't the breeze......
I know, that's nothing but a bit of a quibble to what otherwise was an excellent article. I'd also add that it would be excellent if people worked out how parks affect left and right-handed pitchers differently. We have a bit of work for the hitters, but the pitchers seem to get left out of this kind of work.
by nathaniel dawson on Feb 24, 2008 3:40 PM PST reply actions
Well you're the one who wanted the
Well it can't eminate from the Sound
This is why you'd never want to trust
Mmmmm.
by PositivePaul on Feb 25, 2008 11:56 AM PST up reply actions
As a random note
Gambling and park effects
A lot of bookmakers have over/under bets on the amount of runs scored in a game or, even better, in the first 5 innings. Moreover, the way the odds are calculated are often quite primitive and don't take into account park effects. That's not much use if it's illegal to gamble on sports where you live, but when you know something about park effects some of the odds almost constitute handing out free money (Horam against Millwood in Texas springs to mind from last year).
by anunderwaterguy on Feb 25, 2008 9:47 AM PST reply actions
park factors vs. team factors
This issue is likely magnified when looking at small sample sizes (like 1-3 years) when the roster of the home team doesn't vary a whole lot. Long term weather patterns probably affect this a fair amount as well. El Nino anyone?
When we see behaviors that appear odd on the surface (such as RFK Stadium decreasing the run value of line drives) I think we should be very skeptical. I don't know enough about the Nationals or the opposing teams to know whether or not the NL East has an unusually large population of outfielders with plus arms, but that is one place I'd start looking.
It seems like it would behoove teams to try to separate true "park" factors from factors that are caused by the people playing in the park. If the personnel on the field have changed, It is probably not appropriate to use the old park factor in projecting future performance.
by hans @ Lookout Landing on Feb 25, 2008 11:31 AM PST reply actions
Maybe, but how do we know this?
The trick is distinguish park factors like crosswinds, humidity, dimensions, "hitter's eye", shadows, etc. from factors caused by the players involved in the games.
by hans @ Lookout Landing on Feb 25, 2008 12:30 PM PST reply actions
if your park factors
Good factors take it into account.
Great, take the player quality into account
How much is related to the player, and how much to the parks where they play?
by hans @ Lookout Landing on Feb 25, 2008 1:06 PM PST up reply actions
This is where you rely on people
In a nutshell; you focus mostly on how away teams perform in a park compared to how they perform in all other away parks because you will have close to a normal distribution that way.
There's a lot more involved, but that's the basic thrust.
Sounds great, but the problem still exists
I guess my point is that parks and park factors are inextricably linked to the home teams that play there. It's unavoidable. Trying to separate the factors that are truly a result of the park from the factors that are a result of the team will inherently involve a good deal of judgement. I would like to rely on people who do statistics for a living and also have good judgement.
by hans @ Lookout Landing on Feb 25, 2008 1:55 PM PST up reply actions
Huh
by Graham MacAree on Feb 25, 2008 1:57 PM PST up reply actions
That's why you'd factor how the home team
Lets say there's 2 teams, Team H is home, Team A is away. You'd look at how A's pitchers fare against H's hitters as compared to how H's hitters fared against all other pitchers (excluding A's) in park H. Plus other control factors.
Repeat across all teams and all parks and for multiple years.
I don't think they attempt to distinguish...
It seems like the park factors are less "park factors" than "playing the home team at the park" factors.
by hans @ Lookout Landing on Feb 25, 2008 3:42 PM PST up reply actions
And you confused Sean Forman
It was just an example
Can you point me somewhere with a formula/explanation that does attempt to distinguish true environmental factors from effects caused by playing the home team?
by hans @ Lookout Landing on Feb 25, 2008 4:07 PM PST up reply actions
Can park factors account for
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 25, 2008 4:11 PM PST up reply actions


















