Mike Cameron, Richie Sexson, And The Safeco Effect
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 7, 2011 2:27 PM PST
in Seattle Mariners Stats
Email
PrintThere's not a ton going on right now, so I wanted to take this opportunity to reflect on a couple bits of conventional wisdom. Those would be:
1. Safeco Field destroyed Mike Cameron.
2. Richie Sexson was immune to the Safeco effect.
These aren't the least bit topical, since Sexson hasn't been a Mariner since July 2008 and Cameron hasn't been a Mariner since 2003, but, learning, all right!
Up first, we have Mike Cameron. I think Exhibit A of Safeco Field destroying a hitter has been and will always be Jeff Cirillo, but Cirillo only came to the plate 840 times as a Mariner, so his numbers can only tell us so much. However, Cameron is Exhibit B, and he batted 2,528 times as a Mariner before leaving for New York. What do we see in his splits?
Cameron in Seattle, 2000-2003: .223/.328/.373
Cameron on road, 2000-2003: .286/.370/.514
At home, Cameron hit about as well as Marlon Anderson. On the road, he was practically Moises Alou. Given the sample sizes and the extreme nature of the splits, Safeco's "true" effect on Cameron was probably a bit less than it seems, but even so, holy crap. Cammy does a lot of his damage to the left-center power alley and back up the middle, and that's the perfect recipe for Safeco to knock you down and fart on your face. Sorry, Mike.
And up next, Richie Sexson. From the time he was signed, a popular line of thought was that Sexson was "too powerful" to be hurt by Safeco Field. That he hit balls too hard for wind or big alleys to take their toll. Results?
Sexson in Seattle, 2005-2008: .228/.318/.453
Sexson on road, 2005-2008: .259/.351/.494
We don't see a Cameron-style extreme split, but even so, that's a 74-point OPS difference. Keep in mind that the average hitter tends to be about 30 OPS points better at home than on the road. Sexson's split was 74 points the other way. Safeco didn't end up hurting his home run rate, but it clipped his doubles, it clipped his singles, and it added to his strikeouts. In short, Sexson and Safeco Field didn't exactly get along all buddy-buddy.
This will come as news to nobody, but Safeco Field can be kind of a bitch.
65 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Jeff, could you comment on what tangible effect a park has on strikeout rates?
assuming there is any.
I understand how the same ball hit in two different parks end up with different results, but how does a park affect a batters propensity to K?
Some parks are known to increase K rates, and some parks are known to decrease K rates
We don’t know exactly why this is, but we can guess. Different backdrops. Glare, or otherwise distracting stadium features. A big outfield that gives the pitcher confidence working high. A small outfield that makes the pitcher want to work low.
Statcorner is a good place to find which stadiums have an effect on strikeout rates (and most other rates as well).
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 7, 2011 3:06 PM PST up reply actions
Air density likely has an effect, as well
Greater air density, more break on the ball. Don’t know if anyone’s looked at this to confirm it, but it does stand to reason that pitches would bite more in denser air.
by nathaniel dawson on Feb 7, 2011 4:55 PM PST up reply actions
Interesting.
They would also travel to the plate slower then. An easy way to test would be to see if average fastball speeds are lower at safeco. You would probably want to isolate 4-seam fastballs if you could.
Except I think they pick up the speed of the pitch very soon after release
So you wouldn’t see any measurable change in velocity. But, yeah, you would expect pitches at Safeco to slow down a bit more on their way to the plate. I don’t know if it’s all that much, it might be something like 1 or 2 MPH in lost velocity compared to the most extreme park, Coors Field. Only a fraction of a mile per hour compared to most of the other parks in the majors.
by nathaniel dawson on Feb 7, 2011 7:26 PM PST up reply actions
It surprises me that Safeco seems to hurt a player's BA (and OBP) much more than their SLG
Cameron’s ISO dropped from around .225 to .150 but Sexson’s only went from .235 to .225
It makes sense that Safeco causes more outs but I think of Safeco as sapping player’s power (or helping LHB power) which seems to not be the biggest effect.
And thus, probably one of the main reasons why Cammy was so incredibly underrated while in Seattle.
Thanks, Safeco designers.
The stadium was designed for a specific left-handed batting outfielder, not his eventual replacement
by seattlebruin on Feb 7, 2011 3:20 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Have the Mariners ever considered moving the fences?
Maybe they should install those breakaway plastic mesh fences you see on softball fields to take off a solid 20ft of distance in left center.
tl;dr - I just made profound statement.
They have thought about it, but obviously have never done it
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 7, 2011 4:43 PM PST up reply actions
Does anyone know the last time an organization moved their fences either in or out?
M's fan in the Bay, soon to be LA
I see that the Mets lowered centerfield fence by 8 feet last year.
The Red Sox have decided not to move the right field fence in.
Many fans in San Diego want to move in the fences too I think.
by Kenneth Arthur on Feb 7, 2011 4:55 PM PST up reply actions
This is a simple question but I'm not sure if there is an answer
Does Safeco help or hurt Ichiro?
Career OPS 9 points higher at home than on the road
Ichiro seems to make the best of it.
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 7, 2011 5:06 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah I saw that. Seems like a pretty insignificant difference.
For a player that doesn’t rely on hitting home runs, would Safeco be considered a fairly neutral park? I feel like I’ve seen somebody out there try this but instead of breaking up players by LHB/RHB, could we make park splits for contact hitters vs power hitters vs speedy players vs slow….
Then use an approach to build personal hitter splits by quantifying which group a player falls into to come up with custom weights we use to adjust his stats. I’m sure this is not an original idea but has it been done before?
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 7, 2011 5:24 PM PST up reply actions
You could use StatCorner's factors covering the wide range of outcomes
and see that Ichiro’s wOBA vs wOBA* is essentially the same.
What I was trying to say was
Hitters have different approaches. The best we have are park factors for LHB/RHB but we can classify hitters in more ways than just that. I appreciate all the good park factor stuff you have done but the park factor applied to Ichiro and Jim Thome shouldn’t be the same. By classifying hitters in other ways, we might be able to understand/predict why some players do so poorly and why some aren’t impacted as much as we would think.
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 7, 2011 8:44 PM PST up reply actions
They have the same park factors applied to each outcome
unless I’m not understanding how they are applied.
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 8, 2011 10:01 AM PST up reply actions
And the two have vastly different outcome profiles
If you’re saying you believe that Safeco induces an Ichiro to hit groundballs more/less frequently than a Jim Thome compared to their “park neutral” hitting philosophy, then that’s pretty unsolvable and, I think, a fruitless approach.
I'm not saying we need to figure out how a hitter's philosophy would change in a park
I doubt it does and it would be pretty tough to actually figure out.
My major issue is that LHB/RHB splits are a pretty rough tool for park factors. Why is LHB/RHB the best classification to apply park factors? Its a logical grouping because if you are a LHB, you will probably hit it to right field more often but this is a pretty roundabout way to figure out a player’s batted ball distribution. If we already know the player’s batted ball distribution then why not use that to calculate splits? Another grouping that might make sense would be speedy vs. slow players because some parks would increase the value of fast players who were able to produce more 2B or 3B than you’d expect.
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 8, 2011 11:09 AM PST up reply actions
Just move em in already
it sure seems like the perennial contenders(other than the kingdome era Mariners) have hitters parks while the perennial losers are playing in pitchers parks. Has anyone done any real research on this?
The Seattle Mariners played in a ridiculous hitter's park for the first 22 years of their existence
and they were playoff-caliber good for two of those years. Is this research? Nope, but it’s one hell of a pile of anecdotal evidence.
by pdb on Feb 7, 2011 6:07 PM PST up reply actions
Hitters park by my numbers actually
Better examples to the contrary are Colorado, Arizona, Baltimore, Texas, Cubs, White Sox, Reds and Royals all play in hitter friendly parks.
Meanwhile the Rays, Cardinals, Twins, Braves, Padres and Athletics play in pitcher parks.
So if anything, on a guesstimate level, the perennial contenders play in pitcher parks.
And on a tangentially related point, GMZ has spent the better part of the last two years making the Mariners a better team for Safeco
you can’t undo all of that in one day like you can the fences
by seattlebruin on Feb 7, 2011 7:13 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
We've heard that quite a bit about several Mariner players
Certainly could be true, but I wonder if we aren’t projecting our thoughts onto the player.
by nathaniel dawson on Feb 7, 2011 6:21 PM PST up reply actions
Everyone who plays in Safeco suffers the same park effect.
And we never play in Safeco while our opponents are playing in a different stadium.
Perhaps the point is just the park effects matter a lot, but I get the feeling that the under current is that somehow Safeco hurts us. That makes no sense at all, because it can’t possibly be hurting us more than our opponents.
The problem with M’s RHB is that we’ve only had three that consistently put up BB% greater than 8% in the last ten years (Edgar, Cameron, Sexson.)
by philosofool on Feb 7, 2011 7:14 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
There you go
Get right-handers in here that can draw a walk, (which Safeco favors), and you probably get an advantage on your opponent.
by nathaniel dawson on Feb 7, 2011 7:25 PM PST up reply actions
There's the factor of attractiveness to free agents.
There’s a reason Seattle was never considered a candidate to bring Adrian Beltre back. But the Jarrod Washburns of the world love the place, that’s for sure.
I’d say the ideal is to build a neutral park where you don’t have to worry about who is and isn’t a good fit. That allows you to pursue the best players, period. Being in contention to sign a right-handed power hitter enhances flexibility all around and even gives you more leverage with all the rest of the players.
by Suburban Shocker on Feb 8, 2011 8:35 AM PST up reply actions
Every ballpark that isn't an absolute cookie-cutter is going to play differently for right-handed and left-handed players.
I think it would be borderline impossible to build a perfectly neutral park anyway, so why not go with something that gives you a homefield advantage?
Wherever you are, here you go.
by thehemogoblin on Feb 8, 2011 9:04 AM PST up reply actions
And also
it’s hard to know how a park will behave until games are played in it.
by pdb on Feb 8, 2011 9:27 AM PST up reply actions
The biggest factor with Safeco as it turned out was the proximity to sea level.
Especially the way the Kingdome played like a neutral to hitter friendly park, I don’t think people were 100% sure it was going to do that. I mean, people saw what happened in Colorado and could extrapolate something like the opposite for the Safe but other parks built near the sea don’t necessarily play this pitcher-friendly.
The Kingdome was indoors.
The effect of the sea level air is negligible in comparison to the fact that there was never any wind.
And as far as other parks near the sea not playing pitcher-friendly, I present to you Pac Bell Park, the Oakland Coliseum, Dodger Stadium and Petco Park, pitchers’ parks all.
Wherever you are, here you go.
by thehemogoblin on Feb 8, 2011 9:42 AM PST up reply actions
As it turned out, yes, that was the big factor in the Kingdome vs the Safe.
I’m not sure people knew that it was going to work out that way at the time. I think there were some learned hypotheses in ’98 but nothing that fit a working theory until Safeco helped confirm these.
And as for the other parks, you also have got places like Fenway and Ebbets Field – not that far from the sea, really, in terms of either distance or elevation. Or the Baker Bowl in Philadelphia. There is a very strong correlation between altitude and hitter-friendliness, no doubt, but it’s not 1:1.
by Johnny Slick on Feb 8, 2011 10:21 AM PST up reply actions
I always forget that. I was going off perception and I shouldn't have.
Wherever you are, here you go.
by thehemogoblin on Feb 8, 2011 2:09 PM PST up reply actions
I can see the point of homefield advantage
It’s just that it also hems you in when building the team. What if there’s a year when players who are well-suited to your park aren’t widely available, or are generally overpriced? Will you have to overpay, or set back your plans for a few years until the market changes? I’d prefer being able to win in a lot of different ways, depending on who comes and goes. Win with power hitting and on-base ability like the 2001 Athletics, or win with pitching and defense like the 2011 Athletics. Or a mix of both, in every year. In the meantime, develop minor leaguers with all different skillsets and be confident that they can help your future in all different ways.
And I realize that “perfectly neutral” is impossible, but some parks have bigger effects than others.
by Suburban Shocker on Feb 8, 2011 12:27 PM PST up reply actions
I don't recall the Yankees ever losing sleep
over the question of “will you have to overpay”?
by Suburban Shocker on Feb 8, 2011 2:09 PM PST up reply actions
Thanks to the lack of free agency, they really didn't have to worry about overpaying or paying anything close to market value at all for the life of old pre-renovation Yankee Stadium.
That stadium was renovated in 1975 and turned into the slightly-favoring-lefties park we know from the recent past instead of the massive black hole to right-handed hitters that it was back when the monuments were in play (left center was almost 500 feet away at its deepest point).
Oh, you mean OLD old Yankee Stadium.
But that cuts the other way: the park didn’t scare off free agents because there were no free agents to scare off, and there was no market inefficiency to use to their advantage or disadvantage. They had the reserve clause and it worked great for them. (And of course they only had to be the best of 8 or so teams in the AL — until expansion, whereupon they declined until the free agent era brought them back.)
I suppose they did make the occasional trade for someone better suited to their park than others would be (e.g. Roger Maris).
by Suburban Shocker on Feb 8, 2011 2:36 PM PST up reply actions
I'd say there was still ineffficiency in the baseball talent market, it just wasn't so easy to go out and grab free agents.
OTOH it was pretty easy in the 20s and 30s to go out and grab minor league talent like Joe DiMaggio (although as a righty he wasn’t particularly suited for Yankee Stadium, which is why there were rumors throughout the 40s of the Yanks trading him to the Red Sox for Teddy Ballgame).
Anyway, of course times were different. Times are always different. However, even with the differences there is good evidence that teams with lopsided parks and pitching-happy parks can create great teams and maybe even have a better chance of doing so than cookie-cutter parks and hitting-happy parks. I just don’t think things are as dire as Dave Cameron would lead you to believe.
So who is helped by Safeco?
And why aren’t the Mariners stocking up on these players?
Or are they and I missed it?
Left-handed pull-hitters and because they are hard to find
by Aaron Campeau on Feb 7, 2011 8:36 PM PST up reply actions 6 recs
Pitchers.
All pitchers do better in Safeco than a neutral park. LHP benefit especially, since they tend to neutralize LHB while their biggest weakness, RHB, are neutralized by the park.
Flyball pitchers are less of a liability in Safeco than in other parks.
The Safe also puts a larger premium on speed in the outfield, particularly in left and center.
Of course, the flip side is that a lot of teams can hide someone with lowered range in left (i.e. Raul Ibanez) but the Mariners do so at their own peril. It’s still a difference in realized value compared to the rest of the league and therefore something the M’s can exploit.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Lookout Landing
Related FanShots on Lookout Landing
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
