On-Deck: Ballpark Analysis: Batting Average Yielded

Posts: 4543 · Posted: Apr 18, 2007 2:00 am

On Deck: Ballpark Analysis: Batting Average Yielded

Last week, we took a look at how each park in MLB has affected home runs hit in the past...

Posts: 2302 · Posted: Apr 18, 2007 2:46 pm

Quote:

Grass vs. Turf

This is becoming less and less of a factor each season, as there are now just a handful of parks that still use turf for their fields. You would think that the turf would play better for hitters in terms of average, as more ground balls would get through the infield. However, last year (at least) that simply wasn't the case. The top turf batting park in terms of average was Rogers Centre (Toronto), which finished twelfth in the league. The other two turf stadiums of note (The Metrodome [Minnesota] and Tropicana Field [Tampa Bay]) both finished outside of the top twenty.

I think the averaqes has a lot to do with what home team plays their games there. But either way I dont see your point here because teams that play their home games on turf are still producing some of the highest averages in the MLB. Minnesota and Toronto were ranked one and two respectively for home batting average in 2006. They were also ranked 1 and 3 for overall batting average in 2006. While, Tampa Bay was consistently in the bottom of the league in batting averages regardless of where they played because, simply, they arent a good team.
When you look at the splits. Seven teams batted above .285 on turf surfaces in 2006 , while only 1 team had a team average over .285 on grass surfaces. I think its pretty safe to say that all teams can hit well on natural grass surfaces because thats the norm, but when it comes to turf, the mean batting average is higher.

Posts: 14619 · Posted: Apr 18, 2007 3:51 pm

Knew2Know wrote:

Quote:

Grass vs. Turf

This is becoming less and less of a factor each season, as there are now just a handful of parks that still use turf for their fields. You would think that the turf would play better for hitters in terms of average, as more ground balls would get through the infield. However, last year (at least) that simply wasn't the case. The top turf batting park in terms of average was Rogers Centre (Toronto), which finished twelfth in the league. The other two turf stadiums of note (The Metrodome [Minnesota] and Tropicana Field [Tampa Bay]) both finished outside of the top twenty.

I think the averaqes has a lot to do with what home team plays their games there. But either way I dont see your point here because teams that play their home games on turf are still producing some of the highest averages in the MLB. Minnesota and Toronto were ranked one and two respectively for home batting average in 2006. They were also ranked 1 and 3 for overall batting average in 2006. While, Tampa Bay was consistently in the bottom of the league in batting averages regardless of where they played because, simply, they arent a good team.
When you look at the splits. Seven teams batted above .285 on turf surfaces in 2006 , while only 1 team had a team average over .285 on grass surfaces. I think its pretty safe to say that all teams can hit well on natural grass surfaces because thats the norm, but when it comes to turf, the mean batting average is higher.

Minnesota and Toronto hit for high averages because they are good not because of the turf. Also, I dont think it's safe at all to say that all teams can hit on grass because the teams at the bottom of the list can't hit period....... in comparison. Finally he is not making standardizations based off those factors, he is merely stating the factors that play into the numbers.

Posts: 1704 · Posted: Apr 18, 2007 3:53 pm

Knew2Know wrote:

Quote:

Grass vs. Turf

This is becoming less and less of a factor each season, as there are now just a handful of parks that still use turf for their fields. You would think that the turf would play better for hitters in terms of average, as more ground balls would get through the infield. However, last year (at least) that simply wasn't the case. The top turf batting park in terms of average was Rogers Centre (Toronto), which finished twelfth in the league. The other two turf stadiums of note (The Metrodome [Minnesota] and Tropicana Field [Tampa Bay]) both finished outside of the top twenty.

I think the averaqes has a lot to do with what home team plays their games there. But either way I dont see your point here because teams that play their home games on turf are still producing some of the highest averages in the MLB. Minnesota and Toronto were ranked one and two respectively for home batting average in 2006. They were also ranked 1 and 3 for overall batting average in 2006. While, Tampa Bay was consistently in the bottom of the league in batting averages regardless of where they played because, simply, they arent a good team.
When you look at the splits. Seven teams batted above .285 on turf surfaces in 2006 , while only 1 team had a team average over .285 on grass surfaces. I think its pretty safe to say that all teams can hit well on natural grass surfaces because thats the norm, but when it comes to turf, the mean batting average is higher.

I think you missed the point of how we're looking at these teams' performance. What we're looking at is their performance at home vs. their performance on the road. So, sure... the Blue Jays hit particularly well at home, finishing second in the league (.295). They also hit pretty well on the road at .274. The primary difference was with their opposition when they came into Rogers Centre. The Jays allowed a .271 batting average on the road, which is ~ league average. At home, they managed to hold their opponents to a ridiculous .252 batting average.... on turf.

The same could be said for the Twins, who finished tops in the league in home batting average in 2006 (.298), but were slightly above the league average on the road (.276). Again, where the difference came in was that their pitchers and their defense thrived at home in the dome (and on turf). While hitting for the highest home batting average in baseball, just short of .300, the Twins pitchers allowed just a .251 average at home... good for fourth in the league. When they took their act on the road, however, they were below league average, allowing a .283 average.

As for the Devil Rays, your assessment that their offense was poor no matter where they were playing was correct. They hit .259 at home and just .250 on the road. Both were extraordinarily low. However, part of the reason that they managed to actually finish above .500 (41-40) at home last season was because their pitchers threw well (err... maybe not well, but considerably better) at home on the turf. The Rays allowed a .275 (again, league average range) average at home, but allowed almost a .300 average (.297) on the road in 2006.

The entire reason for this survey was to take the teams that play the most games in a particular stadium (I.e., the team that plays there at home) and show their home performance vs. their road performance. Obviously, as the sport continues to evolve, many teams (particularly small market teams, who don't always have the luxury of signing superstars who will perform well anywhere) try and build their roster around that home park. As one glaring example, the Rockies always try and go after guys who put a lot of sink on the ball and throw a lot of ground balls (Hampton, Cook, Francis) because the elevation there tends to help the ball fly. That alone can distort the survey just a tad, though it doesn't completely discount it.

The simple fact of the matter is that the teams that play on turf (a look around Ballparks.com says that there are just three teams that play on true artificial turf, though I would assume that a handful of the "grass" stadiums, such as Miller Park, Minute Maid, and a few others that are essentially domed stadiums listed as playing on grass are actually on grassy turf) managed to do well in this survey primarily because their pitchers were considerably better at home than they were on the road. The Jays (19 points), the Twins (32), and the Rays (22) all pitched particularly better at home than they did on the road, which essentially canceled out the fact that they all hit better at home as well.

By the way, those three teams combined to go 145-98 at home and 99-144 on the road. The Rays (41-40 at home and 20-61 on the road) played a major part in that, but all three teams were at least twelve games better at home than they were on the road.