FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    Juggernaut: "Over-powering force that crushes anything in it's path".
    Sorry, a road BA of .254 doesn't quality. They are venue driven.
    Take them out of Fenway and put them in Oakand or Safeco: And no longer will they lead the league in hitting.

    Juggernaut offense will hit anywhere.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    In Response to Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion:
    [QUOTE]Juggernaut: "Over-powering force that crushes anything in it's path". Sorry, a road BA of .254 doesn't quality. They are venue driven. Take them out of Fenway and put them in Oakand or Safeco: And no longer will they lead the league in hitting. Juggernaut offense will hit anywhere .
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Well, they're 4th in MLB in Road Runs scored, and that's still pretty good; juggernaut term notwithstanding. (Shockingly, Mets are 3rd, without a DH, I. Davis, Wright, & Beltran gone)
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    In Response to Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion : Well, they're 4th in MLB in Road Runs scored, and that's still pretty good; juggernaut term notwithstanding. (Shockingly, Mets are 3rd, without a DH, I. Davis, Wright, & Beltran gone)
    Posted by nhsteven[/QUOTE]

    Yes, it's quite good. But we're not talking the '46 RedSox or the '27 Yankees here...


    BTW: The 1927 Yankees hit .303 on the road (.309 home) with no expansion and no unbalanced schedule! .855 road OPS
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    In Response to Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion : Yes, it's quite good. But we're not talking the '46 RedSox or the '27 Yankees here... BTW: The 1927 Yankees hit .303 on the road (.309 home) with no expansion and no unbalanced schedule! .855 road OPS
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]
     You forgot the '50 Sox and a few others ('53 Brklyn, etc)
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    It sounds like harness is dissing our offense.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    In Response to Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion:
    [QUOTE]It sounds like harness is dissing our offense.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    Go back to Ur dizzing sleep.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion




    excuse me but is dizzing a word?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    In Response to Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion:
    [QUOTE]harness, I have been distracted and busy travelling near and far recently. I've meant to address the crux of this thread. I do think Fenway has distorted many stats of individual players and the team as a whole throughout history. Changes made to the park have lessened the impact slightly, but the differentials are still significant. I remember the Sox teams of old were "built for Fenway": bif RH'd sluggers, no speed, and few LHPs. While many player benefited from Fenway and their wide differentials prove it, I do think some things should be mentioned: 1) I truly feel Fenway has ruined several player's swings and overall production, especially young RH'd hitters trying to pull everything. 2) I truly feel Fenway has hurt several pitcher's careers as well. 3) In every sport, there seems to be a significant "home field advantage". Teams tend to play better at home, and I'd guess this would be true even if every MLB was exactly the same in everyway (wind, humidity, dimensions, etc...) Certainly Sox teams tend to do much much better offensively at Fenway than on the road. It make total sense. Conversley, most pitchers do worse at Fenway: it makes sense too. I'm not sure I agree that if you swap the Angels offense (and park) with Boston's, they'd be better than ours (on paper). I also think OPS is closest to the best stat to measure offensive effectiveness, although it too is flawed. Here are some interesting numbers of eams we play a significant amount of games against this year (keep in mind how good these team's pitching staffs are and who we might have faced at these parks and vs own park with these teams):                    PAs  OPS @ Bos      2114  .871 @ NYY        248   .867 (NY's home OPS : .811/ @ Fenway: .762) @ TB           246  .630 (TB's home OPS: .665 / @ Fenway: .923 ) @ Balt        237   .793 (Balt's home OPS: .742 / @ Fenway .664) @ Toronto 227   1.001 (Tor's home OPS: .773 / @ Fenway .619) @ Cle          226  .703 ( .731 Before tonight / @ Fenway: 1.068 ) @ LAA        170   .704  (LA's home OPS: .663 / @ Fenway: 847) @ Det         154   .799  (Det's home OPS: .754 / @ Fenway: 651)  @ CWS        119   .755 (CWS's home OPS: .726 / @ Fenway: 898 ) As you can see, the Sox hit better at away parks than those teams hit at their own parks overall. The variables are many, I know, but conversely only 3 of top 8 teams in PAs have better OPS at Fenway than their overall OPS at home. TB & Cleve us at home or away. Maybe it's their pitching.  Side note: I'd like to see the same thing done with team ERA/WHIP.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    First off, thanks for a reasoned reply. I appreciate the time you put into crunching the numbers. Home advantage hasn't been discussed to any real degree but is one of the reasons I started this thread: Grey area. Teams play well at home due to the fact most are built around their venue, and the obvious enthusiasm of the crowd. Numbers can't go there. If the H/A disparity wasn't so large, it'd be a moot point, due to the variables..

    IMO, the biggest flaw at Fenway is the fact that a Bucky Dent can come in and bust our balls. He can do what a Rice or Evans can do: Pop one over the Monstah.

    Regarding the Angels, they are hitting .321 at the Fens this year. Only .246 in CA, so far. Historically, or at least going back 8 years, we don't hit well there. Only .246 since '03.

    When I have time, I'm gonna post the OPS/SLG/BA etc. of every A.L. team, H/A splits. Hitting and pitching. This will give us a better idea of statistical black & white hitting/pitching venues. The RedSox have a better OPS than many team OPS in their own venue, as you mentioned. This is the key area looking to the playoffs. What interests me is that of the top teams. The last time Boston was in the PO's, the differential, in BA anyway, favored the Angels in CA. The series played out accordingly, with help from some questionable managerial decisions going in...
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    In Response to Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion:
    [QUOTE]excuse me but is dizzing a word?
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    No.

    Dizzying is.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    m
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    Since hitting and pitching numbers are greatly effected by things like park dimensions and more specifically home park dimensions and related factors, distortions do occur. However, even though there are distortions (major ones in some cases like Boston or Oakland/Seattle/SD) and a team's "numbers" may go down if they were moved to another home park, it doesn't mean they are any better or worse than before: just their numbers change not their skill level.

    I get your point: if Boston played 81 games in Seattle, their offensive numbers would not be leading the league anymore, and their pitching numbers would be much better. The overall +/- differental might not change much, so wins and losses might be pretty close.

    I seem to recall past years where the Sox home and road differentials were even greater than this year. There are some metrics that supposdly take venue into consdieration, but I am not sure they "do enough". There are certainly many Sox hitters who have "pumped up" numbers due to home field wonders. There are also many Sox pitchers who are passed over due to their "high" (unadjsted) ERA / WHIP, etc...

    This year our pitching staff has a very significant differential:
    Home: 4.28 / 1.355 (Opp's OPS: .730)
    Away:  3.53 / 1.172 (Opp's OPS: .663)

    Our "worst/best" pitchers at home (70+ PAs) are:
    1) Miller 1.070 Opps's OPS
    2) Lackey .869
    3) Lester  .777
    4) Wake   .769
    5) Dice     .743
    6) Buch    .718
    7) Wheel  .677
    8) Albers  .634
    9) Aceves .631
    10) Paps   .623
    11) Beck   .560
    12) Bard   .467

    Our worst/best away are:
    1) Lackey  .829
    2) Wake     .808
    3) Miller     .754
    4) Wheel    .745
    5) Buch      .698
    6) Acev     .651
    7) Lest      .632
    8) Paps     .601
    9) Bard     .594
    10) Beck  .521
    11) Dice   .491
    12) Albers .479

    Only 3 pitchers have done better on the road (in red).

    Our starters' ERA/WHIP home/away:
    Beckett 1.99/1.011    2.38/0.846
    Lester    3.86/1.449   2.75/ 1.030
    Buch      3.94/1.469    3.20/1.184
    Wake     5.29/1.235    4.81/1.397
    Lackey  6.56/2.250     5.77/1.511
    Miller     6.91/2.163    4.81/1.731 
    Dice-K   7.03/1.726    2.08/1.000

    Only Wake has a better WHIP at home. Only Beckett has a better ERA. It is no wonder the lefty differentials are usually near the greatest.

    Some hitters and pitchers will be hurt or helped more than others by the dimensions of Fenway. It is hard to quantify and "adjust" the numbers accordingly.

    It's interesting to look at Wake's career home/awy splits (including his numbers with Pitt):

    Home: .744 OPS (4.31 ERA/1.325 WHIP)
    Away:  .745 OPS (4.50 ERA/ 1.374 WHIP)

    Fenway: .750 (4.43/1.315)

    He's a flyball pitcher who has done pretty close to the same at Fenway or away.

    Josh Beckett:
    Home (Bos/Fla)/Away OPS: home: .681/ away .708
    ERA/WHIP  3.84/3.78 &  1.207/1.228

    Overall: (.694 OPS against)
    AL: 4.01/1.207
    NL: 3.46/1.235
    Fenway: .702 (4.28/1.207)
    Florida:   .649 (3.15/1.214)

    Josh's OPS against and WHIP are pretty close at Fenway and AL overall. His ERA is 0.27 higher at Fenway than his overall AL ERA.



     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that the esteemed expert sir har of ness said that Wakefield was helped by ChiTown's park and that greatly contributed to his 3-hitter over 7 IP. If I look at these stats right, then how come he has a better WHIP at home? Shouldn't he better on the road? WHIP wise? He should be terrible at home because it's a hitter's venue, no? Wakefield's worst park on the road is Anaheim (he's had some dreadful starts there). Is that because why? Do you ever think that one of the reasons why teams play 81 games on the road and 81 games at home is because MLB is trying to even the playing field. And moon, in all honesty, you are guessing on Lackey "will do better" as is Shaughnessy conceding he thinks Lackey will do better. I think we all want him to do better, but statistically he is so-so since coming off the DL and his WHIP is still approaching 14-15 baserunners per 9 IP.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    Again if Lackey never had 2007 to live off of, I don't think anyone would have signed him for 82 million for 5 years. The rest of his career has been ok at best, middle of the road. His Sox career has been weak.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    Thats a good point. People here made a big deal about his play-off performances. Lackey was 1-2 vs. Boston and 1-4 his last 5 post-season appearances with the Angels.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    At the end of 2009 when he was signed, Lackey's career numbers were almost identical to Beckett's.

    A J Burnett's contract with the Yankees set the bar for pitchers with this calibre of numbers. 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    If you look at the batting averages below for the pitchers in last night's Fenway game,
    you will notice that there was a reason 15 hits were combined total in a 3-2
    game yesterday. Where is the FENWAY DISTORTION HERE??


    Cleveland Indians
    PlayerIPHRERBBKHRBFPPitB-SERAOpBA
    D. Huff5.03102602110238 - 640.51.197
    R. Perez, (BS 2)0.21110113124 - 82.25.241
    J. Smith1.11000105154 - 111.06.205
    T. Sipp1.000011041710 - 73.05.185
    V. Pestano, (L 1-1)0.13110004103 - 73.12.197
    Boston Red Sox
    PlayerIPHRERBBKHRBFPPitB-SERAOpBA
    J. Beckett6.0622072248525 - 602.20.187
    F. Morales2.01000307226 - 163.94.233
    J. Papelbon, (W 3-0)1.00000103101 - 93.43 .198



     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    Do you think maybe the reason why there were only 15 hits combined had something to do with the pitchers happening to be good pitchers if you look at the overall numbers to the right? I think so. I think Fenway is a hitter's haven, but good pitchers often pitch well here. Why? They are good pitchers, the venue doesn't make that big of a difference, certainly not to what Sir Har of Ness is alluding to. You can't defend bad pitching. If you are a bad pitcher or throwing poorly, you can play in the Grand Canyon and give up 8 ER and vice versa you can play in a phone booth and throw a no hitter.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    good let's trade Lackey for Burnett
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    In Response to Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion:
    [QUOTE]Do you think maybe the reason why there were only 15 hits combined had something to do with the pitchers happening to be good pitchers if you look at the overall numbers to the right? I think so. I think Fenway is a hitter's haven, but good pitchers often pitch well here. Why? They are good pitchers, the venue doesn't make that big of a difference, certainly not to what Sir Har of Ness is alluding to. You can't defend bad pitching. If you are a bad pitcher or throwing poorly, you can play in the Grand Canyon and give up 8 ER and vice versa you can play in a phone booth and throw a no hitter.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    OK danny, so what's your explanation for why the Sox have given up 257 runs in 54 games at Fenway and 197 runs in 54 games on the road?  That's a difference of more than a run per game.


     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    m
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    15 Fenway games have produced 5 runs or less combined between the 2 teams. 
    16 Road games have produce 5 runs or less combined between the 2 teams.
    9 times at home the Sox have scored 10 runs or more
    8 times on the road the Sox have scored 10 runs or more 

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    54 games at Fenway have produced 575 total runs.
    54 road games have produced 474 total runs.

    The multi-year hitting Park Factor for Fenway is 106.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    what's your point?
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    my point was the Sox hit on the road and they hit at home. They have had big offensive explosions on the road and they have had some big ones at home. They hit for a higher average at home, but they hit for more power on the road. The offense is solid and it's averaging 5 runs a game on the road, good enough for the Sox pitching in general to win games. 
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    My point also was that the great pitchers who pitch at Fenway often do just fine at Fenway, just as they do at home and just as the best Sox pitchers can do well on the road. There is no distortion. 
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share