FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

  1. 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]The reason why you've never seen it in Boston is because Fenway masks the pitching numbers We've seen it with Clemens.  We've seen it with Pedro. . Most of us know that we finally won a ring when we finally got some more pitching. Both Clemens and Pedro (and later Schilling and Beckett) were able to put up some great numbers even before any park adjustments were made. 
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Those pitchers exemplify how great HOF arms will win anywhere, which is why saying pitching wins are more a team function is highly debateable.
     
  2. 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]On Lackey, I do think he did a good job in IP or quantity of work, yes. I was disappointed in the ERA and some of his implosions. His wins were aided a bit by offense. But he may have thrown a few gems that the team didn't score much and that would offset a loss or two.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    Lackey's ERA was the result of venue and transition to the A.L. East.
    FWIW, he admitted having to make adjustments after April/May.
    His ERA from June thru Sept. was 4.21. (I projected him around 4.25 w/o the transition factor, making adj. for all else).

    There may be something to his statement. He gave up fewer hits-per-IP in April/May than he did from then on, but his SO/BB ratio changed dramatically.
    In April/May: 35 SO/30 BB. In June to Sept: 126 SO/42 BB.

    You make a strong point about the injury factor and how it affected run support that year. In Lackey's case however, it was more on the BP.

    April 7th vs. NY:           6 IP  3 H  0 ER  3-1 loss. Fenway
    April 30th vs. O's:         7 IP  6 H  2 ER  7-3 loss. Baltimore
    June 6th vs. O's:           7 IP  7 H  2 ER  4-3 loss. Baltimore
    July 4th vs. O's:         7.3 IP  8 H  3 ER  9-4 loss. Fenway
    Aug 12th - Toronto:       8 IP  8 H  3 ER  6-5 loss. Toronto
    Sept. 4th vs. Whitesox:   7 IP  4 H  1 ER  12-9 loss. Fenway
    Sept. 11th vs. A's:          7 IP  6 H  3 ER  4-3 loss. Oakland
    Sept. 30th vs. Whitesox: 6 IP  3 H  2 ER  5-4 loss. Chicago

    Total: 55.3 IP  45 H  16 ER  2.60 ERA  1.049 WHIP

    Had the pen been better in just half those 8 losses, he'd have won 18 games...with the same 4.40 ERA.

    The injuries in 2010 affect RS, no doubt. That is why I took 8 seasons of analysis - the best offensive years: 2003-2011 to compile the data. Keep in mind, other teams get hurt also.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    Boy I was having trouble taking my afternoon nap so I decided nothing better to put me to sleep than reading 2 or 3 of harness's posts. Thanks harness....

    ZzzzzzZzzzzzZ!
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    You add sooooo much to this place. A living stupor.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    harness you pompous windbag, oh wait thats already been used by another poster on you. Why is it you can't seem to make your points effectively without posting 50 times repeating them over and over again. If you had a brain you would be able to make reasoned points on a subject, and close the argument/debate with 5 posts. But not you... you go on and on and on and when EVERYONE gets tired of it you call them rabbits, cowards, and afraid. Why is it if someone disagrees you beat them into a corner with relentless counter posts?

    Sound about right? Perhaps you have too much cement between your ears to try and hear how overbearing you are. Lots of people have tried to help you with this.

    When is the last time you changed your mind harness? I bet never, because you are always right. 
     
  6. 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]harness you pompous windbag, oh wait thats already been used by another poster on you. Why is it you can't seem to make your points effectively without posting 50 times repeating them over and over again. If you had a brain you would be able to make reasoned points on a subject, and close the argument/debate with 5 posts. But not you... you go on and on and on and when EVERYONE gets tired of it you call them rabbits, cowards, and afraid. Why is it if someone disagrees you beat them into a corner with relentless counter posts? Sound about right? Perhaps you have too much cement between your ears to try and hear how overbearing you are. Lots of people have tried to help you with this. When is the last time you changed your mind harness? I bet never, because you are always right. 
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    OH, I can think of a few posters who fit into this category.
     
  7. 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]Yes. It's all relative to venue overall. AGONE is who he was Yes, and that is one of the reasons I projected huge gains for AGon this year, because I looked at his road numbers while he played with SD and knew he'd  . So is Lackey. The park plays into both. I gave Boston a .265 on a reach in Safeco because like you I don't trust 3-game samplers. Their.243 BA in Safeco over the last 8 years is a truer indicator, but variables like home crowd/ travel/etc. play into it. I don't think Boston would be leading the league in hitting though. NY/TX playing in hitter's venues would be likely eclipse us No, they wouldn't, but that doesn't mean they still would not be the best hitting team in MLB (after adjustments). It's all relative. The difference is that you are trying to adjust Lackey's numbers betond what is reasonable. If you adjust Lackey from 6.20 to 4.70 ( a reasonable expectation for what Lackey should have given us), then you are saying playing half your games in Fenway makes a 1.50 difference in your overall ERA. If you apply the same rational to all Sox pitchers, then Beckett's adjusted ERA would be 0.70 and Lester 1.67. Sorry, I think those two are great, but not that great.  . . Especially if our current road numbers hold true. If they do, statistically, Boston would be mid-pack in hitting (.265 home/.250 away) but would have the #1 pitching staff. And I guarantee you, there's be no talk of "juggernaut offense". True, people don't do mental adjustments in their heads for park influences. Nobody would be calling the Sox a great offensive team if they played 81 games in Seattle. I agree with that, but that doesn't mean they aren't still the best or near the best. If they are hitting .265 in Safeco for 81 games, but the opponents are hitting .225, the .040 point differential is about the same as it would be in Boston (.295 to .255) . The Sox would be better than their opps wherever they play, and that is what counts.  ..
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    This gets to the crux, Moon. The RedSox playing in Safeco would not be perceived as the best hitting team in the game. We agree on this. Question is, where do they really stand? Playing in Fenway, they are the best hitting team...because of Fenway. Playing in Safeco, they are not the same hitting team...because of Safeco.

    It's venue driven either way. Which means productivity is more venue related than personal related. Thus, it can easily be argued that they really aren't the hitters we think they are. And at the same time, their pitching is far better than we think.

    Fenway is but one venue. Boston has played in 13 other venues this year.
    They have not hit well in over half of them. Overall, there's a 100+ disparity in OPS and .53 points in BA compared to playing in Boston.

    A true juggernaut offense will hit most everywhere. They don't. If AGONE, for example, is considered to be a .305-.310 hitter overall, and his BA is boosted 40 points in Fenway, what does that say about the other hitters?

    Career H/A batting splits    H/A OPS
    Pedey: .324 H/.287 A  .894 H/.786 A
    Youk:  .309 H/.275 A  .927 H/.854 A
    (LH hitters have a lesser disparity).

    Rice/Rico/Fisk...on and on. Huge disparity
    .

    Where does the truth lie? Perhaps somewhere in the middle? 
    Look at the last time Boston was in the PO's. One run in a pitcher's venue over two games. 6 runs in Fenway in one game.

    2009: Team batting @ Fenway:             .284 BA  .862 OPS
    2009: Team batting away from Fenway  .257 BA  .753 OPS
    2009: Team batting in CA:                    .245 BA  .715 OPS

    I say it's venue. 2011 offensive numbers are venue related.
     
  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 you pompous windbag, oh wait thats already been used by another poster on you. Why is it you can't seem to make your points effectively without posting 50 times repeating them over and over again. If you had a brain you would be able to make reasoned points on a subject, and close the argument/debate with 5 posts. But not you... you go on and on and on and when EVERYONE gets tired of it you call them rabbits, cowards, and afraid. Why is it if someone disagrees you beat them into a corner with relentless counter posts? Sound about right? Perhaps you have too much cement between your ears to try and hear how overbearing you are. Lots of people have tried to help you with this. When is the last time you changed your mind harness? I bet never, because you are always right. 
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    Temper. Temper.


    Tee Hee.
     
  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]In Response to Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion : OH, I can think of a few posters who fit into this category.
    Posted by nhsteven[/QUOTE]

    This thread is waaaaaaaaaaay over Burrito's head. As is most everything.
    So he posts cartoons, baits, and goes after the thread author.
    True to form.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

      Two reasons why most teams hit better at home. On the road, there is no escaping 27 outs, each game will extract three outs per inning for a full nine innings. The offense will always be diminished by these three extra outs. Home teams have the luxury of sometimes only having 24 outs charged to them. The second reason is home cooking. Time at home, family and friends is good for the player. The preponderence of the evidence is so overwhelming, there can be no logical rebuttal, teams hit better at home, period.
     
  11. 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]  Two reasons why most teams hit better at home. On the road, there is no escaping 27 outs, each game will extract three outs per inning for a full nine innings. The offense will always be diminished by these three extra outs. Home teams have the luxury of sometimes only having 24 outs charged to them. The second reason is home cooking. Time at home, family and friends is good for the player. The preponderence of the evidence is so overwhelming, there can be no logical rebuttal, teams hit better at home, period.
    Posted by YOUKILLUS20[/QUOTE]

    No they don't Youk. Teams in pitching venues often hit better on the road.
    Examples: Home/Away
    2007 A's: .240/.271
    2006 and 2009 A's also, with less differential.
    Seattle this year: .224/.247 Also in 2010, 2009, 2007, 2006...
    The 2004 team: .255/.284

    I went back 4 years for the Padres, perhaps the worst hitting park in the game. Every year they hit better away. 30 point disparity this year. .45 in 2009.

    I don't buy into the extra 3outs scenario. Anything can play out in an extra inning. That frame is no different than any other.

    I do agree with you in the general home advantage reference and reasons why, although I might put the crowd at the top of the reasons. But when discussing extreme pitching/hitting venues, it's the over-riding factor.
    You'd be amazed how many teams hit better in Fenway than they do their own home venue.
     
  12. 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]  Two reasons why most teams hit better at home. On the road, there is no escaping 27 outs, each game will extract three outs per inning for a full nine innings. The offense will always be diminished by these three extra outs. Home teams have the luxury of sometimes only having 24 outs charged to them. The second reason is home cooking. Time at home, family and friends is good for the player. The preponderence of the evidence is so overwhelming, there can be no logical rebuttal, teams hit better at home, period.
    Posted by YOUKILLUS20[/QUOTE]

    OK, not disputing any of that, but it doesn't alter the fact that Fenway is a hitter's park.  Baseball-Reference doesn't pull their Park Factor calculations out of the air.

    Adrian Gonzalez hit 279/383/438 at Petco last year.
    He's hitting 395/449/586 at Fenway this year.

    That is a Monster Difference.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    Actually, Fenway is a hitter's park only because of the green monster and the Pesky pole (cheap dinger down the line in RF).  There's plenty of room in right, right center, and CF.  And guess what?  Three starting outfielders, the first baseman and the DH are all lefty hitters. 

    Now put that lineup in Yankee Stadium where RF seems to have some kind of suction effect--thus explaining why the Yankees lefty heavy lineup leads MLB in dingers--and you might have something. 

    As it is, the Sox have the best road record in MLB, which suggests that the hitting is good enough on the road. 

    In fact, Harness, didn't someone point out that the Sox score 5.1 runs per game on the road and 5.9 at home?  You make it sound as though Francona should be playing small ball on the road when it's really not that bad.  I mean, in most circles 5.1 road runs per game is considered almost decent. 
     
  14. 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 : OK, not disputing any of that, but it doesn't alter the fact that Fenway is a hitter's park.  Baseball-Reference doesn't pull their Park Factor calculations out of the air. Adrian Gonzalez hit 279/383/438 at Petco last year. He's hitting 395/449/586 at Fenway this year. That is a Monster Difference.
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut[/QUOTE]

    I am disputing Youk's claim. (See my last post).
    The AGONE numbers are startling.
    Now we know why Theo wanted him so badly since 2006.
     
  15. 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]Actually, Fenway is a hitter's park only because of the green monster and the Pesky pole (cheap dinger down the line in RF).  There's plenty of room in right, right center, and CF.  And guess what?  Three starting outfielders, the first baseman and the DH are all lefty hitters.  Now put that lineup in Yankee Stadium where RF seems to have some kind of suction effect--thus explaining why the Yankees lefty heavy lineup leads MLB in dingers--and you might have something.  As it is, the Sox have the best road record in MLB, which suggests that the hitting is good enough on the road.  In fact, Harness, didn't someone point out that the Sox score 5.1 runs per game on the road and 5.9 at home?  You make it sound as though Francona should be playing small ball on the road when it's really not that bad.  I mean, in most circles 5.1 road runs per game is considered almost decent. 
    Posted by maxbialystock[/QUOTE]

    Max, that extra run is huge. As DC posted, the 2010 team, riddled with injuries, lost close to a run a game in the 2nd half. (May be closer to .80).
    It was impactual.

    Given the .254 BA on the road, an inducement of small ball now and then isn't such a bad idea. Either way, UR assessment of this league-leading offense has to be
    re-evaluated.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    I think it's also an objective fact that the road record of the Sox this year is tremendous.  A +80 differential in 54 road games is amazing.
     
  17. 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]Yes. It's all relative to venue overall. AGONE is who he was Yes, and that is one of the reasons I projected huge gains for AGon this year, because I looked at his road numbers while he played with SD and knew he'd  . So is Lackey. The park plays into both. I gave Boston a .265 on a reach in Safeco because like you I don't trust 3-game samplers. Their.243 BA in Safeco over the last 8 years is a truer indicator, but variables like home crowd/ travel/etc. play into it. I don't think Boston would be leading the league in hitting though. NY/TX playing in hitter's venues would be likely eclipse us No, they wouldn't, but that doesn't mean they still would not be the best hitting team in MLB (after adjustments). It's all relative. The difference is that you are trying to adjust Lackey's numbers betond what is reasonable. If you adjust Lackey from 6.20 to 4.70 ( a reasonable expectation for what Lackey should have given us), thenyou are saying playing half your games in Fenway makes a 1.50 difference in your overall ERA. If you apply the same rational to all Sox pitchers, then Beckett's adjusted ERA would be 0.70 and Lester 1.67. Sorry, I think those two are great, but not that great.  . . Especially if our current road numbers hold true. If they do, statistically, Boston would be mid-pack in hitting (.265 home/.250 away) but would have the #1 pitching staff. And I guarantee you, there's be no talk of "juggernaut offense". True, people don't do mental adjustments in their heads for park influences. Nobody would be calling the Sox a great offensive team if they played 81 games in Seattle. I agree with that, but that doesn't mean they aren't still the best or near the best. If they are hitting .265 in Safeco for 81 games, but the opponents are hitting .225, the .040 point differential is about the same as it would be in Boston (.295 to .255) . The Sox would be better than their opps wherever they play, and that is what counts.  ..
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    I meant to address this point.
    No, I do not think 6.20 to 4.7 for Lackey is a reasonable expectation.
    His 6.2 is reflective of injury. Just as Josh's 7+ was in the first half of last year.
    I'd say 3.81 in CA easily translates to 4.25 to 4.35 in Boston.

    Since WHIP is your stat of choice, his 1.399 WHIP since his DL this year isn't a stretch from his 1.3 in CA...
     
  18. 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]I think it's also an objective fact that the road record of the Sox this year is tremendous.  A +80 differential in 54 road games is amazing.
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut[/QUOTE]

    It sure is. What in your opinion is the predominant reason for this difference? Pitching or hitting?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20'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 : No they don't Youk. Teams in pitching venues often hit better on the road. Examples: Home/ Away 2007 A's: .240/. 271 2006 and 2009 A's also, with less differential. Seattle this year: .224/.247 Also in 2010, 2009, 2007, 2006... The 2004 team: .255/ .284 I went back 4 years for the Padres, perhaps the worst hitting park in the game. Every year they hit better away. 30 point disparity this year. .45 in 2009. I don't buy into the extra 3outs scenario. Anything can play out in an extra inning. That frame is no different than any other. I do agree with you in the general home advantage reference and reasons why, although I might put the crowd at the top of the reasons. But when discussing extreme pitching/hitting venues, it's the over-riding factor. You'd be amazed how many teams hit better in Fenway than they do their own home venue.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

     The H/A splits this year show only eight teams hitting better on the road, then at home. Of those, only three show any marked difference, Sea .220/237, Tampa .228/.256, LAD .266/.237. Two of those teams have losing records, which means they're needing their last at bats more often. While it's true as a saying, "anything can happen" the fact is a team needs at least two hits in the ninth inning to raise it's home batting average, one single hit won't do it.  Hitting in the ninth is always harder because of facing the closer, the ninth is so unlike any other innining, it can't be lumped up against the others. Think about facing Detroit's lights out closer in the ninth, or their number 5 starter in the first! No comparison. If the math didn't matter, the splits would be even, but they're not even close.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

     From a casual observance, back in my softball days, my team always had better numbers as the home team, even though the games were played on the same two city fields, without regard to which diamond was our "home" field. Making less outs, will raise your average. That's probably the first time I noticed the effect.
     
  21. 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]In Response to Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion : It sure is. What in your opinion is the predominant reason for this difference? Pitching or hitting?
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    It's differential, it's both.  To reduce to a simplistic statement I would say about 60% pitching and 40% hitting.
     
  22. 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 :  The H/A splits this year show only eight teams hitting better on the road, then at home.Of those, only three show any marked difference, Sea .220/237, Tampa .228/.256, LAD .266/.237. Two of those teams have losing records, which means they're needing their last at bats more often. While it's true as a saying, "anything can happen" the fact is a team needs at least two hits in the ninth inning to raise it's home batting average, one single hit won't do it.  Hitting in the ninth is always harder because of facing the closer, the ninth is so unlike any other innining, it can't be lumped up against the others. Think about facing Detroit's lights out closer in the ninth, or their number 5 starter in the first! No comparison. If the math didn't matter, the splits would be even, but they're not even close.
    Posted by YOUKILLUS20[/QUOTE]

    This statement is different from "teams hit better at home, period".
    You think it's a coincidence that these 8 teams play in pitcher venues?

    Your extra three outs premise is ambiguous, Youk.
    These 8 teams hit better on the road, right?
    If your theory holds true, then that would detract from the road BA of these 8 teams.

    BTW: Could you explain your last statement. If math didn't matter, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    The Fenway Factor is the wall, though it gives and takes away it's share of homers, it yields a ton of doubles on balls that in almost every other park would be cans of corn. Conversely, while RF and CF play big, it also affords hitters a larger area to find grass...

    Yankee Stadium's short porch in right, is much the same and rewards hitters , from both sides of the plate with homers to right and right center that would be cans of corn in any other park and much like Fenway, becasue of the expanse of left and center and the depth the ofer's have to play allows balls to find grass that would be caught in smaller parks.

    Aside from the talant that both team's posses, the parks they play in do in fact have a great deal to do with the numbers they post as individual and as a collective. We build our lineup to take advantage of 81 games played at home and so too do the Yanks and both have actually constructed lineups to play in the others park too...

    To me the most telling stat to arrive at and evaluate a park is the amount of HR and doubles a park yields...The dimensions and climate play a large role, but so too does the makeup of a teams lineup. I'd contend that if the Sox or Yanks moved into Safeco we'd see a drop in the power numbers, but they'd still be formitable lineup...If the M's moved into Fenway or Yankee Stadium they'd still be a horrid offensive team...

    In the end I'd contend that niether the Yank's nor the Sox of 2011 are offensive jugernauts, both are on pace to score less than 850 runs, rather both are very good offensive teams with deep lineups that kill mediocre pitching...

     
  24. 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]The Fenway Factor is the wall , though it gives and takes away it's share of homers, it yields a ton of doubles on balls that in almost every other park would be cans of corn. Conversely, while RF and CF play big, it also affords hitters a larger area to find grass... Yankee Stadium's short porch in right, is much the same and rewards hitters , from both sides of the plate with homers to right and right center that would be cans of corn in any other park and much like Fenway, becasue of the expanse of left and center and the depth the ofer's have to play allows balls to find grass that would be caught in smaller parks. Aside from the talant that both team's posses, the parks they play in do in fact have a great deal to do with the numbers they post as individual and as a collective. We build our lineup to take advantage of 81 games played at home and so too do the Yanks and both have actually constructed lineups to play in the others park too... To me the most telling stat to arrive at and evaluate a park is the amount of HR and doubles a park yields...The dimensions and climate play a large role, but so too does the makeup of a teams lineup. I'd contend that if the Sox or Yanks moved into Safeco we'd see a drop in the power numbers, but they'd still be formitable lineup...If the M's moved into Fenway or Yankee Stadium they'd still be a horrid offensive team... In the end I'd contend that niether the Yank's nor the Sox of 2011 are offensive jugernauts, both are on pace to score less than 850 runs, rather both are very good offensive teams with deep lineups that kill mediocre pitching...
    Posted by Beantowne[/QUOTE]

    Good post, Beantowne.  But I have to correct a few things in your numbers.

    The Sox are at 5.50 runs per game which puts them on pace for 891 runs.

    If you compare the 2011 numbers to the 2003 numbers, we are on pace to score 70 runs less than we did that year.  However, if you look at numbers relative to league averages, the 2011 numbers are just as impressive.

    The 2003 team scored 5.93 runs per game vs. league average of 4.86, so +1.07.
    The 2011 team is scoring 5.50 runs per game vs. league average of 4.36, so +1.14.

    2003 OPS+118
    2011 OPS+119
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne'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 : Good post, Beantowne.  But I have to correct a few things in your numbers. The Sox are at 5.50 runs per game which puts them on pace for 891 runs. If you compare the 2011 numbers to the 2003 numbers, we are on pace to score 70 runs less than we did that year.  However, if you look at numbers relative to league averages, the 2011 numbers are just as impressive. The 2003 team scored 5.93 runs per game vs. league average of 4.86, so +1.07. The 2011 team is scoring 5.50 runs per game vs. league average of 4.36, so +1.14. 2003 OPS+118 2011 OPS+119
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut[/QUOTE]

    HFX,
    Thanks for pointing out my error...I typed the wrong number, my math from yesterday has the Sox projected at 890 RS and 679 RA (plus 211). The Yanks are on pace to score 872 with 623 RA (plus 249) both are impressive paces and a among the reason why both have separated from the pack in the AL East...

    In my previuos post I didn't want to imply the Sox didn't have a very good offense. It doesn't take rocket scientist to arrive at that conclusion since they lead the entire league in RS...While I appreciate the math above. I guess I just have a differing defenition of "offensive jugernaut", even with the adjusted math 890 runs scored, pales when compared to the top all time run scoring teams. Semantic? Too me your not even in the conversation of offensive Jugernauts, until you threaten the 1000 run threshold...What prevents us from eclipsing that mark IMHO is the bottom of our lineup and the obviuos trend of better pitching league wide...
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share