Ballpark Effects - By Type of Player (June 26, 2003)
Ahhh... Dave "Studes" takes a look at how different profiles of players are impacted by their park. Unaccounting for this is one of the reasons that I hate the way current park factors are used. I've never liked the idea that Coleman, McGee and Jack Clark get the same park factor. Breaking by LH/RH is on attribute, but the quality and profile of player are more things to consider.
In this article, Dave looks at Shea only. His study does suffer from sample size issues, and perhaps other things. But, this is a great launching point. I hope others will pick up on this as well.
--posted by TangoTiger at 06:52 AM EDT
Posted 7:21 a.m.,
June 26, 2003
(#1) -
Andrew Edwards
I liked this too - it seems to make sense that different parks have stronger effects on different kinds of hitters. I wonder whether runs created is the right measure, though....
More generally, I'd expect, for instance, huge domes with fast turf to help speedy groundball hitters (Ichiro!) and hurt the Mo Vaughns of the world, for instance.
And we've already been talking about types of hitters who flourish in Coors.
The best part is that this data is obviously and immediately applicable to understanding how teams should be built. Wanna bet Keith Law already knows the answers for SkyDome?
Posted 12:00 p.m.,
June 27, 2003
(#2) -
MAH
Important first step. I'm very much in agreement with Dave, Tango and MGL on the need to disaggregate park factors. With regard to Shea, I seem to recall reading something during the '80s about how Shea hurt averages, but not power. If there *has* been a "switch", it might be attributable to two causes.
1) The new ballparks built since the '80s by and large have favored homerun hitting, so Shea's *relative* impact on homeruns might have changed from being neutral or slightly favorable to negative.
2) Shea used to have possibly the largest foul territory in the majors. Recently (I don't know when), the Mets owners installed new box seats in front of the old field level boxes, which significantly shrunk the amount of foul territory to something closer to average.
In general, the track lighting and high humidity at Shea probably has harmed visibility, thus probably causing higher-than-normal strikeouts. The foul territory used to permit *many* more foul pop-ups to be caught. The low altitude and high humidity probably keeps the ball from carrying (sorta like an anti-Coors). Finally, there are no "short" fences: its almost 340' down the lines, 396' in the power alleys and 410' to straight center.
Posted 1:18 p.m.,
June 27, 2003
(#3) -
Dave Studenmund
(homepage)
MAH, I remember that Bill James did this sort of analysis in one of his Abstracts. He came to the conclusion that you mention: Shea didn't hurt home run hitters as much as other type of hitters. I'll try and find it in one of his old Abstracts. Your take on the evolution of Shea sounds right on.
Got to admit, at this point I'm just as fascinated by the idea that ballpark effects in general may impact good hitters more than bad ones. I want to run a better study of Shea effects, then add in other ballparks, to see if this hypothesis holds up. I'm trying to set up a larger, slightly more valid study, following Tango's suggestions. This will take me a little while, but I'll let you know how I do.