Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: The Most Dangerous Division in Sports

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.

Star-divide

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.

Comment 65 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Only if they're truly errors
British spelling is acceptable since he's, y'know, English.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Feb 22, 2008 3:07 PM PST up reply actions  

he used vary
correctly

by SunshineMsFan on Feb 23, 2008 12:50 PM PST up reply actions  

i see
i guess i was too slow to get to this post. also didn't mean for that last one to sound so rude and blunt but i was confused.

by SunshineMsFan on Feb 25, 2008 8:39 AM PST up reply actions  

I think CENTERfield is CENTERfield
no matter what dialect you're speaking. Baseball is an American sport invented by Americans (British roots mind you), and the name is CENTER not Centre.

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

by Corco on Feb 22, 2008 10:59 PM PST up reply actions  

wrong
get a Canadian newspaper
"You know, as that was coming out of my mouth, I knew that it was wrong."

by JI on Feb 23, 2008 9:24 AM PST up reply actions  

Whereas I call it GM Place
Because it's called GM Place, not GM Centre.

by Llewdor on Feb 25, 2008 4:16 PM PST up reply actions  

I usually call it GM Plaice
but I like fish, so there's that.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Feb 25, 2008 4:17 PM PST up reply actions  

I already did so
but he's an impatient bugger. When he gets back from buggering rams I'm sure he'll update it.

by Matthew on Feb 22, 2008 3:09 PM PST up reply actions  

That's what
Awwww crap...nevermind.
You scratch our backs, we'll scratch yours. Well Jules, the funny thing about my back is that it's located on my $#%&.

by AZSEAfan on Feb 22, 2008 4:02 PM PST up reply actions  

So why
does this organization fail to start with the park and build a team around it?

Oh, never mind.

by OldFan on Feb 22, 2008 4:13 PM PST reply actions  

After Jamie Moyer's success at Safeco
the M's did draft 33 different soft-tossing lefties.  

by G_ on Feb 22, 2008 4:43 PM PST up reply actions  

And signed Washburn
to a deal that looked suspiciously above market.

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).

by marc w on Feb 22, 2008 4:50 PM PST up reply actions  

Graham
how much do stadiums' park factors vary from year to year... I know Safeco is always a safebet to surpress runs (as is Petco) but I would expect some stadiums to go up or down depending on the weather that area experiences each year.

by johnbai on Feb 22, 2008 4:53 PM PST reply actions  

It can be a fairly significant variation
Arizona's home park, according to Baseball-Reference, has ranged between 103 and 111 since 2001 (and is currently at 106). Safeco, on the other hand, is pretty steady: 94-97 in that same time period.

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?
I remember Juan Gone whining and making excuses, but now it seems to be a nice park for hrs?
http://seattlesportsmaniac.blogspot.com

by LantermanC on Feb 26, 2008 10:28 AM PST up reply actions  

Nice
piece of writing Graham.
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
Do we do a good enough job of insulating park factors from the abilities of the home team and other influences that could throw them off?

by Edgar for Pres on Feb 22, 2008 5:54 PM PST reply actions  

Good enough for a first order approximation
on run environment, yeah. But you should look at sustained trends rather than the outliers, of course.

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.
You and I have had a little tiff about this on MSN, but I guess I might as well introduce it here.

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.

Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.

by BrettJMiller on Feb 22, 2008 9:25 PM PST reply actions  

Meh
"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."

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
Why do you think that those splits would matter?

by Graham MacAree on Feb 23, 2008 10:11 AM PST up reply actions  

that is a much tougher question to answer
I guess its mostly because I don't have abetted understanding of the player's skills so rate stats are simply a quick and dirty way to look at this. I understand that not all road ballparks are the same but given the amount of parks hitters play in each year, you can logically say that the park factors the hitter hits in on the road are different than his home environment. Therefore AVG/OBP/SLG is a quick way to see how his home park effects him compared to others.

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.

Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.

by BrettJMiller on Feb 23, 2008 10:26 AM PST up reply actions  

Again
What difference would it make if a park actually affected a hitter or not? You still have to change your perception of value to adjust for the context of the ballpark as a whole.

"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
and there is an extreme where your LF porch is 100 ft and your RF porch is 500 ft then you might be doing the corrections incorrectly and these splits might be able to tell you that.  Otherwise I agree.

by Edgar for Pres on Feb 23, 2008 1:42 PM PST up reply actions  

I'm probably missing your point Brett
I'd be happy to point out where you're wrong, but I'm not sure what you're saying.
Maybe give us a concrete example like the following (my best guess at paraphrasing what you're saying):
  1. Player X's home field is a park with a supressing effect on stats (like Safeco)
  2. Player X has even splits for home/away for whatever reason (he likes home cooking, the park suits his left-handed power stroke... whatever)
  3. 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.

by johnbai on Feb 23, 2008 12:26 PM PST up reply actions  

Yeah you got it
After some discussion with Graham though I realized that while my point was technically right, the information isn't valuable in this post. Its right, but just negligible. The overall point is the value these numbers hold, not what the numbers are. So graham saying "so?" is a perfectly logical response. Despite being right my info just doesn't matter, and I can accept that
Yesterday's Pants
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
that home road splits are not only affected by park effects.

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.

visiting A's fan.

by rfloh @ Lookout Landing on Feb 23, 2008 4:25 AM PST up reply actions  

Doesn't the breeze......
blow left-to-right through Safeco field? Hence, why fly balls to left field get knocked-down.

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  

As a random note
I think it would be interesting to see a study looking at how average age of players correlates to stuff or can be used to classify teams a rebuilding or precict future sucess or something.  I'm not sure what but I think it could be an interesting little piece.

by Edgar for Pres on Feb 24, 2008 5:22 PM PST reply actions  

Gambling and park effects
This doesn't really have much to do with the Mariners, but park effects are a good way to make money if you like to gamble on baseball. Baseball in general is a terrible sport to predict specific outcomes accurately, but the one thing you can predict is that there will be a lot of runs if you put two cruddy starting pitchers in a hitter's park (and vice versa).

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
I'd like to second Edgar for Pres' comment.  It seems to me like it would be incredibly hard to distinguish "park factors" from "playing a particular team in that park" factors.  The Ballpark at Arlington is a bandbox.  All kinds of runs are scored there. Of course, it doesn't hurt that over the past 10-15 years, Texas' pitchers have pretty much sucked, and their hitters have been good.

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?
Park factors change from park to park, but the player quality does also.  The data on park factors are biased by the fact that one team is involved in (essentially) every game that is played there.  Teams within the division are also over-represented because of the unbalanced schedule.

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
don't account for change in player quality, your park factors suck.

Good factors take it into account.

by Matthew on Feb 25, 2008 12:45 PM PST up reply actions  

Great, take the player quality into account
But how would one do this?  Players play in parks, each of which has their own park factors (and factors caused by their opposition).  Players play half their games in their home parks, and their road games are not equally represented among other parks.  So players stats will be affected by their opposition and the conditions where they play games.  An additional problem is the huge uncertainty involved in assessing players' defense.  

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
who do statistics for a living, they know how to handle this stuff.

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.

by Matthew on Feb 25, 2008 1:11 PM PST up reply actions  

Sounds great, but the problem still exists
If you focus on how away teams perform in one park compared to all the others, how do you separate that from how away teams perform against one team compared to all the others?

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
I suspect you may be confusing 'statistical analysis' with 'people making stuff up'

by Graham MacAree on Feb 25, 2008 1:57 PM PST up reply actions  

That's why you'd factor how the home team
plays against all other away teams as well.

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.

by Matthew on Feb 25, 2008 2:01 PM PST up reply actions  

I don't think they attempt to distinguish...
I just read through the formula for park factors at baseball reference.com.  I could not find anything in there that attempts to distinguish differences in scoring caused by the environment from differences in scoring caused by the players that always play in that environment.  It appears to be entirely based on the number of runs scored in home and away games of the teams involved and the comparison to league average.

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
for the entire statistical community?

by Matthew on Feb 25, 2008 3:58 PM PST up reply actions  

It was just an example
I'm not sure what this has to do with the entire statistical community.  I was just looking for an example of park factors and the formulas used to generate them.  Baseball Reference.com was that was the second one that came up.  The first was BP, which had some crude comparison in their non-subscriber section, but no detailed explanation.

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
all the angels SP outperforming at home.  I think Jeff brought up the fact that they get a big bump when pitching at home but the away team does not.

by Edgar for Pres on Feb 25, 2008 4:11 PM PST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

By reading a game thread of your own volition you agree to accept all liability for any and all damage done to your delicate sensibilities.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Small
Starlin Castro's fit with Seattle
Kawasaki80_small
Lists! So many lists!
M_s_hat_copy_small
OT -- May 22nd In Memoriam
Ichiro_small
Why do managers and media members hate walks?
Wbc_029_small
Friday Morning Music Thread
Small
Dustin Ackley BP swing vs game swing
Beastquakerwallpaper_small
More on the Struggles of Smoak
Randy2_for_sbn_small
Albert Pujols 2012: Three Retrospectives
Small
On Batting Orders
Niehaus_small
More on Dustin Ackley and the strikezone

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Sexy People

Wbc_029_small Jeff Sullivan

Small Matthew

Claw_small JY