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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.