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: Doubles Yielded
April 25, 2007
In the past two weeks, we've looked at two of the bigger factors that led to how a ballpark played... home runs yielded and batting average yielded. Today, we'll change things up a bit and go with one of the factors that gets a little less publicity, but is nearly as important. While not all parks are built for power hitting teams, there are ways that players can work around that. For instance, the number one hitter's park in baseball last season in terms of runs scored played as a neutral pitcher's park in terms of home runs. However, loading up with gap hitters who rack up the doubles can still lead to a ton of runs being put on the board.

Traditionally, the top doubles park in baseball has been Fenway, which is largely due to that 37 foot monster out in left field. While the fence is incredibly short in distance, its height will keep any line drive from even coming close to leaving the yard, bouncing it back into play. This leads to a ton of runners ending up on second base out of the batter's box. It's no surprise that Fenway, which played negatively in home runs for the Red Sox in each of the past three seasons, led our survey in all three of those years.

Other parks consistently playing near the top of our rankings

PNC Park (Pittsburgh) - Like Fenway, PNC played negatively for home runs in each of the past three seasons, though it finished 2nd (2006), 5th (2005), and 9th (2004) in terms of doubles yielded in Pirate games as compared to their road games. The fences aren't particularly long down the lines or in centerfield, though they are a little longer in the power alleys than most stadiums (389 to left center and 375 to right center).

Kaufmann Stadium (Kansas City) - While Kaufmann actually played poorly for doubles in 2004, that was its first season since moving the fences back. Hitters (both Royals' hitters and their opponents) seem to have figured out that it's better not to swing for the fences so often there in the past two years. Kaufmann has held steady as the number three park in terms of doubles yielded the past two seasons, making it a fantastic plus play for the Magglio Ordonez' and Joe Mauer's of the world when they come to town.

Chase Field (Arizona) - While Chase differs from each of the three parks above because it also plays well for home runs, it's easy to figure out why it plays well for doubles. It's a pull-hitter's dream down the lines, with fairly short (both distance and height) fences in those areas. However, it's canyonous in the gaps. The power alleys run out at 413 feet, while dead center is actually a tad shorter at 407. Toss in a huge fence out in center field, and you're talking about a lot of doubles being hit in the gap. The Diamondbacks are building their team very well for the future, as Chad Tracy, Conor Jackson, Stephen Drew, and Carlos Quentin all figure as young players that love to drive the ball into the gap.

Parks that have consistently played poorly

Comerica Park (Detroit) - It's kind of baffling that Comerica hasn't played better to doubles in recent years. The dimensions (particularly in left and center field) would imply that it would play considerably better for doubles than home runs. However, it hasn't played well for much of anything in the past three seasons, as it's played 24th (2006), 21st (2005), and 27th (2004) in doubles.

Petco Park (San Diego) - Yet another park that hasn't played well in any area, Petco really isn't that deep with its dimensions. It's very shallow (322) down the right field line and fairly shallow in left (334) and left center (367). Center and right center field are actually pretty much right at the league average. This doesn't leave as much room in the gaps as you might think, and Petco has played horribly for doubles in each of its three seasons. It ranked dead last in 2006, 28th in 2005, and 22nd in 2004. On the positive side, it did start playing considerably better for home runs last season, ranking at just a -3 as compared to Padres' road games.

Tropicana Field (Tampa Bay) - Throw in 315 (left) and 322 (right) foot fences and people are gunning for the lines consistently. Toss in that the 370 in the gaps aren't remarkably long, and the Trop has played in the bottom ten in each of the past three seasons.

Yankee Stadium (New York) - People aren't lying when they talk about the short (314) right field porch, but they're completely missing that the left field porch is just 318 down the line in its own right. Hit it down the lines and you probably don't have to worry much about the fences in Yankee Stadium. The gaps play fairly deep, which would imply that it should play at least neutral for doubles, but it hasn't played better than 20th in the league in doubles in the past three seasons.

2006:

Rank Team Home All. Home Total Home Road All. Road Total Road Difference
                 
1 Boston 186 204 390 141 144 285 105
2 Pittsburgh 161 166 327 125 134 259 68
3 Kansas City 177 191 368 158 150 308 60
4 Texas 191 149 340 166 134 300 40
5 Arizona 182 161 343 149 164 313 30
6 San Francisco 162 143 305 135 144 279 26
7 Chicago Cubs 150 134 284 121 142 263 21
8 Oakland 128 159 287 138 130 268 19
9 Philadelphia 151 168 319 143 167 310 9
10 Los Angeles 159 159 318 148 164 312 6
11 Toronto 187 135 322 161 156 317 5
12 Colorado 162 167 329 163 164 327 2
13 Houston 143 156 299 132 165 297 2
14 New York Mets 157 142 299 166 132 298 1
15 Atlanta 157 150 307 155 154 309 -2
16 Milwaukee 155 170 325 146 185 331 -6
17 Cleveland 179 140 319 172 153 325 -6
18 Florida 146 138 284 163 130 293 -9
19 Minnesota 132 138 270 143 142 285 -15
20 New York Yankees 155 147 302 172 147 319 -17
21 Anaheim 148 147 295 161 153 314 -19
22 Tampa Bay 129 161 290 138 173 311 -21
23 Cincinnati 129 171 300 162 161 323 -23
24 Detroit 132 135 267 162 128 290 -23
25 Chicago White Sox 136 144 280 155 152 307 -27
26 Seattle 123 160 283 143 167 310 -27
27 Baltimore 137 131 268 151 155 306 -38
28 St. Louis 140 141 281 152 169 321 -40
29 Washington 143 147 290 179 158 337 -47
30 San Diego 118 126 244 180 138 318 -74


2005:

Rank Team Home All. Home Total Home Road All. Road Total Road Difference
                 
1 Boston 191 203 394 148 151 299 95
2 Cincinnati 172 210 382 163 156 319 63
3 Kansas City 156 185 341 133 162 295 46
4 Colorado 155 184 339 125 173 298 41
5 Pittsburgh 162 163 325 130 159 289 36
6 Atlanta 168 145 313 140 140 280 33
7 Oakland 170 130 300 140 127 267 33
8 Philadelphia 144 172 316 138 147 285 31
9 Arizona 132 196 328 159 145 304 24
10 Toronto 166 129 295 141 134 275 20
11 Chicago Cubs 159 140 299 164 118 282 17
12 Cleveland 172 137 309 165 132 297 12
13 Texas 152 170 322 159 155 314 8
14 Anaheim 131 149 280 147 136 283 -3
15 Los Angeles 139 145 284 145 146 291 -7
16 Minnesota 131 127 258 138 130 268 -10
17 Seattle 141 132 273 148 135 283 -10
18 New York Mets 131 140 271 148 137 285 -14
19 Chicago White Sox 124 131 255 129 147 276 -21
20 Washington 145 135 280 166 144 310 -30
21 Detroit 127 128 255 156 130 286 -31
22 San Francisco 143 135 278 156 153 309 -31
23 Tampa Bay 142 144 286 147 171 318 -32
24 New York Yankees 125 135 260 134 160 294 -34
25 Milwaukee 152 141 293 175 159 334 -41
26 Florida 135 148 283 171 158 329 -46
27 Baltimore 131 121 252 165 139 304 -52
28 San Diego 116 151 267 153 167 320 -53
29 Houston 123 116 239 158 143 301 -62


2004:

Rank Team Home All. Home Total Home Road All. Road Total Road Difference
                 
1 Boston 218 177 395 155 141 296 99
2 Colorado 191 188 379 140 148 288 91
3 Milwaukee 161 174 335 134 151 285 50
4 San Francisco 168 163 331 146 147 293 38
5 Cleveland 184 176 360 161 162 323 37
6 Arizona 155 153 308 140 136 276 32
7 Texas 166 150 316 157 134 291 25
8 Toronto 148 156 304 142 137 279 25
9 Pittsburgh 130 160 290 137 135 272 18
10 Seattle 130 175 305 146 142 288 17
11 Baltimore 158 133 291 161 120 281 10
12 Chicago Cubs 148 132 280 160 113 273 7
13 Oakland 153 158 311 183 133 316 -5
14 Chicago White Sox 136 141 277 148 135 283 -6
15 New York Mets 142 143 285 147 145 292 -7
16 Minnesota 156 118 274 154 129 283 -9
17 Atlanta 146 122 268 158 128 286 -18
18 Kansas City 115 184 299 146 177 323 -24
19 Florida 131 133 264 142 147 289 -25
20 Houston 139 133 272 155 150 305 -33
21 Tampa Bay 130 154 284 148 170 318 -34
22 San Diego 135 154 289 169 154 323 -34
23 New York Yankees 126 149 275 155 155 310 -35
24 Anaheim 119 145 264 153 153 306 -42
25 Philadelphia 144 144 288 159 174 333 -45
26 Cincinnati 130 176 306 157 197 354 -48
27 Detroit 117 142 259 167 149 316 -57
28 Los Angeles 101 107 208 125 148 273 -65


* 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 25 at 12:46 AM

 Comment on Ballpark Analysis: Doubles Yieldedforum

» Log in or register to comment and for free site-wide access.
Questions and Comments
[1] by Ollo on 04/25/2007 11:33 amreply
Very enjoyable and informative read! Thanks Jim!
[2] by Knew2Know on 04/25/2007 11:38 amreply
Ive been waiting for this article ever since we talked about it briefly a few weeks ago. Nice job, Thanks!
[3] by Jim Meyerriecks on 04/25/2007 11:48 amreply
No problem. I'm going to try and stick with something like this once a week throughout the year. We'll obviously run out of some of the "Ballpark Factors" that we're covering, such as how a park plays to, well, just about anything. However, I'll find something else that I can try and throw in that's going to be unique in this slot. Expect these articles every Tuesday or Wednesday throughout the year as part of On Deck.... we're also running our breakdowns of the upcoming weekly schedules, positional updates (cycling with different positions), and I have some other ideas on the way. They're all going to be broken down categorically in the side menu so that you can easily access the information you're after.

Great to hear that some of you are enjoying this, and feel free to spread the word!
[4] by Knew2Know on 04/25/2007 12:22 pmreply
Yea, Im pretty excited with everything thats going on. Its all pretty interesting. Im sure you guys have plenty of ideas to keep this going. One unique topic I was thinking about would be discussing weather, but that would take some extensive research...
[5] by DOH!!! on 04/25/2007 12:24 pmreply
Knew2Know wrote:
Yea, Im pretty excited with everything thats going on. Its all pretty interesting. Im sure you guys have plenty of ideas to keep this going. One unique topic I was thinking about would be discussing weather, but that would take some extensive research...


You mean dome vs. open games?
[6] by Jim Meyerriecks on 04/25/2007 12:31 pmreply
I'm thinking he means wind patterns, cold vs. warm (a big key in how some parks, such as Wrigley Field, for example, play), things like that.

That would be a lot more difficult, though I'll consider seeing how much I can look into it. At the very least, it would be interesting as hell to put together. The big problem (at least comparatively with how I do the rest of the rankings) would be making sure that we're looking at equal home/road games and equal (or at least similar) competition when breaking it down by month, etc.

Part of what makes the system (based on the whole season) work is that teams generally (with the exception of their interleague opponents) will play the same competition at home as they will on the road. In other words, their pitchers will face the same (general) lineups at home and on the road and they'll usually face similar pitching. By using their home and road numbers vs. the same opposition, we're seeing how the park plays in comparison with how it plays against the same competition in other parks.
[7] by Knew2Know on 04/25/2007 12:56 pmreply
Jim Meyerriecks wrote:
I'm thinking he means wind patterns, cold vs. warm (a big key in how some parks, such as Wrigley Field, for example, play), things like that.

That would be a lot more difficult, though I'll consider seeing how much I can look into it. At the very least, it would be interesting as hell to put together. The big problem (at least comparatively with how I do the rest of the rankings) would be making sure that we're looking at equal home/road games and equal (or at least similar) competition when breaking it down by month, etc.

Part of what makes the system (based on the whole season) work is that teams generally (with the exception of their interleague opponents) will play the same competition at home as they will on the road. In other words, their pitchers will face the same (general) lineups at home and on the road and they'll usually face similar pitching. By using their home and road numbers vs. the same opposition, we're seeing how the park plays in comparison with how it plays against the same competition in other parks.


Thats exactly what I mean... I wouldnt be surprised if you dug deep enough into MLB stats that you might stumble across some information regarding this topic.. With all the press towards the thin-air in Coors, one would start to think that teams have scouting reports on weather conditions all around the country and not just one stadium. Example: Like you mentioned, other parks have unique weather conce