FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    I really think we're overanalyzing this "Fenway Factor" business.  Here's the story as I see it:

    You can throw all the numbers out there that you want to in order to prove that some teams hit better on the road or at home but the bottom line is that a well built team WILL hit better at home than on the road!

    Why?  Because a smart FO will first look at the park the players will be playing 81 games in and will then tailor the team to fit the park.  The fact that Gonzales is having an MVP year isn't a coincidence.  Everyone knew AGon would be a hitter in Fenway because of his ability to go to the opposite field.  To assume otherwise would also assume that he'd have the same numbers in Petco this year that he has in Fenway and that's a ridiculous assumption. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    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...

    "Jugernaut"? I guess we might all have a differing view of what that means, but we should look at the runs scored in the context of the league average. Runs are way down this year overall in MLB. 890 runs scored this year, might be better than 1,000 runs scored 10-15 years ago.

    Also, when projecting 890 runs, you are including the April numbers. While it is possible we slump again like that, I don't see it happening for 26 games.
    April 107 runs/26 games 
    May  156/29
    June 152/25
    July  171/26
    Aug   13/3
    We might end up with over 900.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from PawsoxPhil. Show PawsoxPhil's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    Juggernaut may have been an overstatement but Boston does lead MLB on all of these statistics for total games ( home and away)
    BA    .280
    OBP  .353
    SLG  .457
    OPS  .809
    R       602
    H     1086
    2B     235

    HR   2nd  135

    One could call it a juggernaut relative to the other 29 teams and perhaps some of the above stats aided by the Fenway Park dimensions.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    They might be 1st in HR if they didn't play in Fenway.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    Again, there are some things we can infer from this thread regarding why it matters. Except since the Sox offense on the road has done fine, it's really not a big deal. The Sox score 5 a game and hit a bushel full of homers on the road. Offensive juggernaut or pedestrian .253, however you want to peg it, it's a productive offense. It's an offense that has certainly helped the Sox win on the road.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz'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 : 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...
    Posted by Beantowne[/QUOTE]Any comparison to all-time teams should require two things.

    First, the season has to play out so there is a complete sample set.

    Second, the comparison would have to be adjusted for league averages in the years the offenses played. Scoring 890 runs in 2011 when the MLB ERA 3.88 is a little more impressive than doing it in 2006 when the MLB ERA was 4.58.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59'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 : Any comparison to all-time teams should require two things. First, the season has to play out so there is a complete sample set. Second, the comparison would have to be adjusted for league averages in the years the offenses played. Scoring 890 runs in 2011 when the MLB ERA 3.88 is a little more impressive than doing it in 2006 when the MLB ERA was 4.58.
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]

    Yes. This is also one reason why I think Pedro's 2 years here in Boston were even more amazing than they appear. They were during the "hitting era".

     
  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]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]

    Nice post, Bean.
    Venue has a distorting affect, and with Boston, the hitting extreme has it's fans duped into thinking this or several other "supposed offensive hitting juggernauts" were what the numbers stated they were, instead of what they truly were: 
    A bi-product of the park itself.

    For example: The 1977 team:
    Home: .291 BA  .836 OPS They hit below .250 in 7 of 13 venues.
    Away: .244 BA  .685 OPS They had a .725 OPS or less in 9 of 13.

    The 1978 team, which resonates still as a "juggernaut":
    Home: .300 BA  .882 OPS They hit below .255 in 6 of 13 venues.
    Away: .264 BA  .741 OPS  A .710 OPS or less in 6 of 13 venues

    When inter-league play began...2003 team:
    Home: .316 BA  .919 OPS They hit under .256 in 7 of 16 venues.
    Away: .263 BA  .783 OPS  A .700 OPS or less in 6 of 16 venues.

    2004 ring team:
    Home: .304 BA  .883 OPS They hit .255 or les in 8 of 16 venues.
    Away: .260 BA  .783 OPS  A .710 OPS or less in 2 of 16 venues. This is very noteworthy, as is the Home BA for the 2003/4 teams. Whether or not they were influenced by PED use is for another discussion. 

    As Youk alluded, most teams will hit better at home, but most teams won't have this glaring disparity.
    Not sure any do...
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    Does anybody know the league average split differentials between home and away? (I'd like to see the pitching home and away as well.)

    Perhaps the "distortion" measurement should then be figured on the Sox differential minus the league average. It would still be significant, for sure, but maybe not so mind-boggling.

    Also, some of those Sox teams in the past were "built fo Fenway", meaning that management stacked the team with RH'd pull hitters and lefties who could hit to LF. This fact could actually skew the actual park's influence. Today's management seems to be building a more balanced team. A team that can win on the road, win with speed, win with defense, and win with pitching, and not just brute strength.

    The Yankees have an odd-shaped park as well, and they seem to be building their offensive team to hit well there. However, they are no longer stacked with LHPs like they used to do.

    They have a 43 point higher OPS at home this year and 90 points last year. 

    Yankee 2010 Home (52-29)/Away (43-38)
    Home ERA: 4.22 (.734 OPS against)
    Away ERA:  3.90 (.707 OPS)

    Yankee 2011 Home (37-22)/Away (31-20)
    Home ERA: 3.65 (.698)
    Away ERA:  3.22 (.681)

    An argument could be made that the players chosen by the GM help inflate the home-away differential by a significant amount.

    When opponents come into an odd-shaped or abnormal sized park, they have not had time to "adjust" or try too hard to "adjust" and so that effects the pitcher's differentials. 

    There are lots of variables thatgo into these differentials.
     
  10. 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 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... "Jugernaut"? I guess we might all have a differing view of what that means, but we should look at the runs scored in the context of the league average. Runs are way down this year overall in MLB. 890 runs scored this year, might be better than 1,000 runs scored 10-15 years ago. Also, when projecting 890 runs, you are including the April numbers. While it is possible we slump again like that, I don't see it happening for 26 games. April 107 runs/26 games  May  156/29 June 152/25 July  171/26 Aug   13/3 We might end up with over 900.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    The problem with this is that measuring Boston's Run production against the rest of the league doesn't include the Fenway factor.
    Our runs scored in a pitching venue puts the team at mid-pack over-all.

    OPS
    RS
    ERA
    It all has to be seen by venue. League averages are extremely vague.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    Yes, and also the Sox don't face the Sox pitchers, the Yanks don't face the Yankee pitchers, etc... 

    The Sox pitchers never face the Sox hitters...
     
  12. 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 : Nice post, Bean . Venue has a distorting affect, and with Boston, the hitting extreme has it's fans duped into thinking this or several other "supposed offensive hitting juggernauts" were what the numbers stated they were, instead of what they truly were:  A bi-product of the park itself. For example: The 1977 team: Home: .291 BA  .836 OPS They hit below .250 in 7 of 13 venues. Away: .244 BA  .685 OPS They had a .725 OPS or less in 9 of 13. The 1978 team, which resonates still as a "juggernaut": Home: .300 BA  .882 OPS They hit below .255 in 6 of 13 venues. Away: .264 BA  .741 OPS  A .710 OPS or less in 6 of 13 venues When inter-league play began...2003 team: Home: .316 BA  .919 OPS They hit under .256 in 7 of 16 venues. Away: .263 BA  .783 OPS  A .700 OPS or less in 6 of 16 venues. 2004 ring team: Home: .304 BA  .883 OPS They hit .255 or les in 8 of 16 venues. Away: .260 BA  .783 OPS  A .710 OPS or less in 2 of 16 venues. This is very noteworthy, as is the Home BA for the 2003/4 teams. Whether or not they were influenced by PED use is for another discussion.  As Youk alluded, most teams will hit better at home, but most teams won't have this glaring disparity. Not sure any do...
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Hey Harness,

    Home park can have both positive and negetive effects on individual hitters numbers. Bottom line is that all of the teams above had one thing in common...All of them were deep lineups with power in the 3-4-5 holes. Fenway can cause righthanded hitters to get too pull happy, and drop thier back shoulders trying to elevate the ball, which causes them to roll over on balls on the outer half vs hitting the inside of the ball and driving it up the middle to the power alleys or taking it to right...

    The same is true with lefthanded hitters at Yankee Stadium. Which I think is why Texiera's BA has seen a steady decline since signing on in 2009. Once you get in the habit of pulling the ball (trying to hit the outside of the ball), you take that swing on the road with you. Arod is an example of righthanded hitter that uses the whole field, and hits the inside of the ball driving it to right center in yankee stadium vs trying to pull it into the leftcenter gap. Fenway allows Adrian Gonzalez (who's having a monster year as expected), the luxary of using the whole field, and because he didn't have to change his approach, is reaping the rewards...I also think he's helped Papi get back to hitting the inside of the ball.

    Adrain Beltre is an example of a guy who's overall numbers suffered because he played in a couple of very spacious parks (Chavez Ravine & Safeco Field), but turned that around last year playing in Fenway and this year in Arlington. I've alway felt that Drew's power numbers suffered becasue he's dead pull hitter and I think he tried early on to change the way he hit and sufferd becasue of it...

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

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    Great points, bean
     
  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]Yes, and also the Sox don't face the Sox pitchers, the Yanks don't face the Yankee pitchers, etc...  The Sox pitchers never face the Sox hitters...
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Well, FWIW, Lackey did. His numbers against the RedSox:
    In CA: 5 starts        32.2 IP  16 ER  36 H  4.46 ERA
    In Fenway: 8 starts: 45 IP  31 ER  67 H  6.20 ERA

    He never pitched less than 6 innings in any of the 5 starts in CA.
    He pitched fewer than 6 innings in half of his Fenway starts.

    In a limited window, we see RedSox hitters hitting Lackey in CA to a .65 differential from Lackey's 3.81 norm, or .95 from his prime.

    In Boston, it's 2.4 runs from his CA norm, or 2.7 off his CA prime.
    Yet another glaring example of Fenway park's affect. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    good point, harness. The statistic of 8 starts in Fenway shows me beyond a shadow of a doubt that you just proved Theo to be a complete knucklehead. He spent 82 million on a guy whose career numbers in Fenway PRIOR TO BECOMING A SOX are now matching his season ERA in 2011.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    Again with the distortion. Not from the Fenway factor, but from you.
    I said it's a limited window. It's just one more indicator.

    Now answer this: What does 85 mil bring on the open FA market regarding starting pitching? What is your frame of reference regarding Theo's expectations?
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    I don't know what 85 mil brings anymore, but if it is performances like Lackey has done, then it's buying mediocrity. I think Theo did expect more, but I will concede that most of RSN would take 2010 Lackey in a heartbeat right now. Still, I will stand by my assessment that Lackey didn't pitch to expectations in 2010.
     
  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 don't know what 85 mil brings anymore, but if it is performances like Lackey has done, then it's buying mediocrity. I think Theo did expect more, but I will concede that most of RSN would take 2010 Lackey in a heartbeat right now. Still, I will stand by my assessment that Lackey didn't pitch to expectations in 2010.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    Are you referring to UR expectations? Or Theo's?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    my expectations were a guy who could throw 220 IP, 3.75 ERA or lower, and someone you could rely on to win a game in the postseason. I have no idea what Theo's expectations were, but I noticed someone posted his quotes at the time of his signing in 2010, and it seems that he expected a top-of-the-line pitcher. Did you see those quotes, harness?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    I use the word "win" carefully. I don't want to imply that a good postseason start that doesn't result in a win isn't a good postseason start. So I expect a good postseason start or 2 from Lackey. Or I did expect that if the team makes the playoffs.
     
  21. 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]my expectations were a guy who could throw 220 IP, 3.75 ERA or lower, and someone you could rely on to win a game in the postseason. I have no idea what Theo's expectations were, but I noticed someone posted his quotes at the time of his signing in 2010, and it seems that he expected a top-of-the-line pitcher. Did you see those quotes, harness?
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    Yes. Katz posted it. If that's an indication of the thought process that went into the Lackey signing, they blew it. Asking for 220 IP every year is really a stretch, as pitchers, especially those who pitch under his restraints, aren't likely to give ya 1000 frames over the 5-year deal.

    As for a 3.75 ERA, that's completely unrealistic. Hell, it was an avg of 3.8 in a pitcher's park. When it's all said and done, I think you'll find he'll give us about 70 wins in his Boston tenure, depending on half decent health. If he ages out his last year, ala Drew, then we may only get 60-65 wins.

    We can argue ERA/WHIP/run support/lack of run support/etc. all night long.
    But the evening-out effect will still come down to wins-per-start ratio.
    Over time, that tends to be more a constant.
     
  22. 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]Does anybody know the league average split differentials between home and away? (I'd like to see the pitching home and away as well.) Perhaps the "distortion" measurement should then be figured on the Sox differential minus the league average. It would still be significant, for sure, but maybe not...
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

      The Home Team batting is a high of .303 (BSN) to a low of .215 (SanDiego) with a mean of .258.
     The Away team batting has a high of .274(StL) and a low of .227(WSH), with a mean of .249.
     This is indicative of my earlier statement that most home teams hit better than the visitor, and as an aside to HARNESS; of course there will always be exceptions in the particular, but not in the general, so pardon my previous foray into the hyperbole.
     We can infer a few things from this data, Boston is best suited to its own park, San Diego is the absolute worst place to hit, and that StL players have miserable home lives.
     
  23. 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 :  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]

      Team batting in the first inning, high of .318, low of .205, mean of .261.
     Team batting in the ninth, high of .276, low of .183, mean of .242. The ninth is not like other innings, and while anything "could" happen, less is likely.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

     Home teams have a .258 league average on 14,417 hits and 55,798 AB's making 41,381 outs, meanwhile Away teams have a .249 league average on 14,610 hits and 58,441 AB's, making 43,831 outs. The ninth inning's extra outs for the visitors means fewer hits, and a lower average. Look at it this way; the visitors have 3,357 more AB's, but only 193 more hits! (.057).
     
  25. 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 Home Teambatting is a high of .303 (BSN) to a low of .215 (SanDiego) with a mean of .258.  The Away teambatting has a high of .274(StL) and a low of .227(WSH), with a mean of .249. This is indicative of my earlier statement that most home teams hit better than the visitor, and as an aside to HARNESS; of course there will always be exceptions in the particular, but not in the general, so pardon my previous foray into the hyperbole.  We can infer a few things from this data, Boston is best suited to its own park, San Diego is the absolute worst place to hit, and that StL players have miserable home lives.
    Posted by YOUKILLUS20[/QUOTE]

    Excellent research, Youk! 

    League Away avg. jives with Boston's .254 road mark. The home mean of .258puts Fenway at a differential of 45 batting points, minus the actual skill level of RedSox hitters over that of "league avg. skill set". Since the road variance to the league mean is 5 points, it could mean the Fenway factor equals 40 points for both the RedSox and the opposition at Fenway.

    So, Pedey, for example, who's a perceived .306 LT hitter would really be a .285 to .290 hitter given his Fenway average is .323. Road BA of .287.

    Youk, a perceived .292 career hitter, would be .265 -.280.

    UR ST.Louis comment cracked me up.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share