Fantasy Football and Fantasy Baseball News [Inquire here for advertising information]
    Fantasy Baseball and Football News Center    
Add FantasyInfoCentral.com to My Yahoo! FantasyInfoCentral.com XML FeedBookmark FantasyInfoCentral.com
Quick Links
Fantasy Sports Search Search
 

FREE Dish Network Satellite TV!
[Support our sponsors]
Password:
Auto Log-in:
Not a member?
Register here

Fantasy Info Central General



FIC Newsletter
Stay ahead of the curve with our FREE fantasy sports newsletter!
» Exclusive articles
» Pre-launch features

Emails are always kept strictly confidential.


On-Deck

Columnist: James Meyerriecks

Ballpark Analysis: Batting Average Yielded
April 17, 2007
Last week, we took a look at how each park in MLB has affected home runs hit in the past three seasons. However, as mentioned in that article, home runs yielded aren't the only thing that can make a park favorable (or unfavorable) for hitters. This week, we're going to take a look at how each team performed both at home and on the road in terms of their batting average and the batting average that their pitchers allowed.

It should be assumed that pitchers will be able to adjust a bit to their home park, which is why we're going to find that just five teams allowed a higher batting average at home than they did on the road last season. However, we're also going to notice exactly why some of the parks that are notorious for being hitter havens find their way to the top despite not yielding a ton of home runs. For example, Coors Field yielded the sixteenth most home runs in baseball last season, yet it played as the number two park for hitters.

Factors Affecting Average

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.

Foul Territory

Different parks have different amounts of space in foul territory where the ball remains playable for a fielder. Obviously, the first instinct is that the parks with the most foul territory (such as Oakland's McAfee Coliseum) should play better for pitchers in these terms than they would for hitters. Surprisingly, McAfee hasn't played extremely poorly overall in terms of batting average (19th last season), but it certainly hasn't played well either.

Each time a foul ball remains playable, it's more likely to be an out recorded in the scoresheet, and hits can never result from a ball that drops harmlessly in foul territory. However, while this is typically the case, the Dodgers didn't find it all that helpful in 2005 when they added seating and cut down on the ground along the foul lines. What happened next made little sense. Dodger Stadium dropped significantly from 12th in 2004 to 27th in 2005. However, there was certainly a major adjustment in this area last season, as Dodger Stadium yielded an average that was six full points higher than the Dodgers' road games did, good for fifth in the league.

Outfield Dimensions

This can be both a good thing and a bad thing in terms of playing for average. The theory is that parks that have longer fences to hit to will leave more ground for the outfielders to have to cover, thus leading to more singles and doubles for hitters. The best example of parks that thrive based on their dimensions is our overwhelming top hitter's park in terms of average in each of the past three seasons, Coors Field. Why do so many balls drop in at Coors?

In truth, the dimensions in Coors play a little longer than most parks do in the majors, with the exception of a slightly short fence in right center. However, the way that the ball can fly in Denver is a major factor. A ball hit at the mile high altitude can travel up to 8% longer in the air before it drops as it will at sea level. Therefore, the solution that most big league managers and outfielders will use is to almost always play exceptionally deep. If you're thinking that this may mean a lot of flares that wouldn't ordinarily drop are going to, you deserve a gold star.

Without further adieu, let's take a look at how each of the ballparks in the majors have played in terms of batting average from 2004 through 2006. We're going to show you pretty much everything here. The first two columns will be how each team hit both at home and on the road, followed by the difference. Following that, we'll show that same team's pitchers' performance both at home on the road. Finally, we'll come to our conclusion about just how well each park played for average by finding the overall difference.

2006 Batting Average Differential

Rank Team Avg. - Home Avg. - Road Team Diff. BAA - Home BAA - Road Opp. Diff. Overall Avg. Diff.
                 
1 Colorado 294 247 47 282 271 11 14.5
2 Arizona 283 251 32 273 260 13 11.25
3 Kansas City 289 254 35 294 291 3 9.5
4 Pittsburgh 283 243 40 275 287 -12 7
5 Los Angeles 293 260 33 265 274 -9 6
6 Boston 285 253 32 274 283 -9 5.75
7 Cincinnati 271 244 27 273 282 -9 4.5
8 Atlanta 280 261 19 271 275 -4 3.75
9 Philadelphia 274 260 14 275 275 0 3.5
10 Anaheim 279 270 9 257 252 5 3.5
11 Baltimore 290 265 25 277 291 -14 2.75
12 Toronto 295 274 21 252 271 -19 0.5
13 Chicago Cubs 279 256 23 244 265 -21 0.5
14 Detroit 273 276 -3 259 254 5 0.5
15 Texas 283 272 11 273 284 -11 0
16 Houston 254 256 -2 255 256 -1 -0.75
17 Chicago White Sox 281 280 1 268 274 -6 -1.25
18 San Francisco 264 254 10 253 270 -17 -1.75
19 Oakland 259 261 -2 268 275 -7 -2.25
20 Minnesota 298 276 22 251 283 -32 -2.5
21 Tampa Bay 259 250 9 275 297 -22 -3.25
22 New York Yankees 284 285 -1 253 271 -18 -4.75
23 Cleveland 280 281 -1 273 291 -18 -4.75
24 Washington 262 261 1 263 286 -23 -5.5
25 St. Louis 273 265 8 253 284 -31 -5.75
26 Milwaukee 260 256 4 251 279 -28 -6
27 Florida 254 270 -16 262 272 -10 -6.5
28 New York Mets 256 272 -16 245 262 -17 -8.25
29 Seattle 265 277 -12 255 280 -25 -9.25
30 San Diego 245 279 -34 244 255 -11 -11.25


2005 Batting Average Differential

Rank Team Avg. - Home Avg. - Road Team Diff. BAA - Home BAA - Road Opp. Diff. Overall Avg. Diff.
                 
1 Colorado 300 232 68 295 279 16 21
2 Philadelphia 281 259 22 265 240 25 11.75
3 New York Yankees 290 263 27 272 266 6 8.25
4 Atlanta 284 247 37 262 274 -12 6.25
5 Cincinnati 268 254 14 294 286 8 5.5
6 Toronto 275 256 19 264 265 -1 4.5
7 Texas 278 258 20 277 280 -3 4.25
8 Pittsburgh 265 254 11 269 264 5 4
9 Arizona 255 254 1 284 272 12 3.25
10 Detroit 277 266 11 270 274 -4 1.75
11 Oakland 268 257 11 239 244 -5 1.5
12 Houston 271 242 29 233 259 -26 0.75
13 New York Mets 261 256 5 253 256 -3 0.5
14 Chicago White Sox 257 267 -10 254 244 10 0
15 Kansas City 269 256 13 285 298 -13 0
16 Chicago Cubs 271 268 3 247 253 -6 -0.75
17 Tampa Bay 279 268 11 272 289 -17 -1.5
18 Minnesota 264 254 10 252 269 -17 -1.75
19 Seattle 260 252 8 261 276 -15 -1.75
20 San Francisco 260 262 -2 259 268 -9 -2.75
21 Boston 280 281 -1 269 282 -13 -3.5
22 Anaheim 268 273 -5 247 261 -14 -4.75
23 Cleveland 267 276 -9 240 254 -14 -5.75
24 Florida 269 276 -7 257 275 -18 -6.25
25 Baltimore 263 274 -11 256 270 -14 -6.25
26 Milwaukee 259 260 -1 235 267 -32 -8.25
27 Los Angeles 248 258 -10 250 277 -27 -9.25
28 San Diego 255 259 -4 241 277 -36 -10
29 Washington 236 266 -30 247 278 -31 -15.25


2004 Batting Average Differential

Rank Team Avg. - Home Avg. - Road Team Diff. BAA - Home BAA - Road Opp. Diff. Overall Avg. Diff.
                 
1 Colorado 303 246 57 307 271 36 23.25
2 San Francisco 284 257 27 273 256 17 11
3 Boston 304 260 44 255 256 -1 10.75
4 Texas 285 246 39 272 276 -4 8.75
5 Chicago White Sox 276 260 16 281 263 18 8.5
6 Toronto 264 256 8 279 266 13 5.25
7 Arizona 266 240 26 262 271 -9 4.25
8 Chicago Cubs 274 262 12 248 246 2 3.5
9 New York Mets 254 244 10 260 261 -1 2.25
10 Baltimore 280 283 -3 269 258 11 2
11 Anaheim 282 283 -1 265 261 4 0.75
12 Houston 277 257 20 249 266 -17 0.75
13 Minnesota 268 263 5 266 268 -2 0.75
14 Detroit 273 272 1 273 276 -3 -0.5
15 Pittsburgh 263 258 5 262 272 -10 -1.25
16 Oakland 272 268 4 255 268 -13 -2.25
17 Kansas City 259 258 1 285 295 -10 -2.25
18 Philadelphia 266 268 -2 260 269 -9 -2.75
19 Cleveland 270 281 -11 271 272 -1 -3
20 Los Angeles 260 263 -3 249 260 -11 -3.5
21 Atlanta 265 274 -9 263 268 -5 -3.5
22 Milwaukee 249 247 2 251 267 -16 -3.5
23 New York Yankees 270 267 3 262 281 -19 -4
24 Florida 262 265 -3 246 266 -20 -5.75
25 Tampa Bay 254 262 -8 251 279 -28 -9
26 San Diego 256 288 -32 260 266 -6 -9.5
27 Cincinnati 242 258 -16 264 297 -33 -12.25
28 Seattle 255 284 -29 251 281 -30 -14.75


* The Washington Nationals moved into RFK Stadium prior to the 2005 season
** The St. Louis Cardinals moved into the new Busch Stadium prior to the 2006 season



Posted by James Meyerriecks: Apr 17 at 11:53 PM

 Comment on Ballpark Analysis: Batting Average Yieldedforum

» Log in or register to comment and for free site-wide access.
Questions and Comments
[1] by Knew2Know on 04/18/2007 04:46 amreply
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.
[2] by hessshaun on 04/18/2007 05:51 amreply
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.
[3] by Jim Meyerriecks on 04/18/2007 05:53 amreply
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.