Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

The Store

Recent Blogs

Photo

FSN: Worley Looking Forward To Target Field

  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 John Bonnes

John Bonnes

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 210 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 05:09 PM

Twins' Worley excited to pitch at Target Field

With the Phillies, Worley played his home games at Citizens Bank Park, one of the more hitter-friendly stadiums in baseball. Still, he gave up an average of 0.8 home runs per nine innings, which would have been tops on the Twins' staff in 2012. Now, Worley is making the transition to pitcher-friendly Target Field, so it's possible his home runs allowed could go down even further.


I really am looking forward to seeing this guy. I just hope he's healthy.

#2 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 05:19 PM

Take this for what it's worth...probably nothing...but ESPN park factors rated Target Field as the 10th best hitter's park in baseball last year. Philly's park was 19th

#3 mcrow

mcrow

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 275 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 05:41 PM

I think he's the biggest upside player they picked up this year and could be the best pitcher on the roster. I could see him improving his numbers with the Twins but I guess we'll have to see.

#4 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,400 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 05:50 PM

Take this for what it's worth...probably nothing...but ESPN park factors rated Target Field as the 10th best hitter's park in baseball last year. Philly's park was 19th


The Philadelphia pitching staff gave up 210 less runs than the Twins and I don't think much of that was from the "help" provided by Citizen's Bank Park.

#5 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Moderators
  • 9 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 05:52 PM

Take this for what it's worth...probably nothing...but ESPN park factors rated Target Field as the 10th best hitter's park in baseball last year. Philly's park was 19th


The quoted article seemed to equate "pitcher-friendly" with "home runs". The ESPN park factors page does show Target Field to be less of a home run park than Citizens Bank Park, but both are above average in that metric so any projected improvement in HR/9 just on account of the home park for Worley is pretty close to statistical noise.

#6 BrentMpls

BrentMpls

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 175 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 08:30 PM

Still excited?

ESPN Home Run Tracker :: Player and Field Detail

ESPN Home Run Tracker :: Player and Field Detail

#7 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 09:14 PM

The Philadelphia pitching staff gave up 210 less runs than the Twins and I don't think much of that was from the "help" provided by Citizen's Bank Park.


2012 MLB Park Factors - Runs - Major League Baseball - ESPN

#8 PseudoSABR

PseudoSABR

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 1,955 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 09:21 PM

The Philadelphia pitching staff gave up 210 less runs than the Twins and I don't think much of that was from the "help" provided by Citizen's Bank Park.

And we all know how good the Twins pitching was last year.

It's difficult to measure the effect because there's always one pitching staff and one lineup that stays constant at every stadium. It'd take years of data to get around that, methinks.

#9 mcrow

mcrow

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 275 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 09:39 PM

2012 MLB Park Factors - Runs - Major League Baseball - ESPN


Well, looking at the info Citizen's Bank Park had a higher Park Factor tow of the last three years. So, I'd say that the PF thing doesn't really mean a lot.

#10 Oldgoat_MN

Oldgoat_MN

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 666 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 09:54 PM

I like his attitude. He will be fun to watch, and we may have him around for years.

#11 snepp

snepp

    Speediest Moderator

  • Twins Moderators
  • 4,117 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 09:57 PM

Single season park factors are troublesome on their own, the simplicity of the ESPN park factors makes it even worse.
"Maybe you could go grab a bat and ball… and learn something. Maybe you will get it."
- Strib commenter educating the elitists on the value of RBI's

#12 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:30 PM

Single season park factors are troublesome on their own, the simplicity of the ESPN park factors makes it even worse.


When I first posted it, I wrote 'Take this for what it's worth...probably nothing...'

#13 mcrow

mcrow

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 275 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:42 PM

I like his attitude. He will be fun to watch, and we may have him around for years.

Yeah, he seems pretty cool from what I've seen and I think he has potential to be better than he was with the Philis. I think he's probably the player I look forward to seeing the most going into the season.

#14 snepp

snepp

    Speediest Moderator

  • Twins Moderators
  • 4,117 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:51 PM

When I first posted it, I wrote 'Take this for what it's worth...probably nothing...'


I was addressing the crowd in general, not you specifically.
"Maybe you could go grab a bat and ball… and learn something. Maybe you will get it."
- Strib commenter educating the elitists on the value of RBI's

#15 glunn

glunn

    Head Moderator

  • Twins Moderators
  • 5,094 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 11:12 PM

I hope that his positive attitude and work ethic are contagious.

#16 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,400 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 07:45 AM

2012 MLB Park Factors - Runs - Major League Baseball - ESPN


Park factor based on runs is nearly useless. You can have the 94 Braves pitching half their games in Minute Maid Park versus the 2003 Tigers pitching in Dodger Stadium with no accounting for the wild variance in pitching quality, only that the 94 Braves gave up 300 less runs in Minute Maid than the Tigers did in Dodger Stadium. Therefore, Minute Maid Park is a pitching haven.

The Twins pitching staff was awful last season. The Phillies pitching staff, while not overpowering, was still quite good. Both teams had similarly mediocre offenses. You don't think that huge disparity in pitching had something to do with the park factor and runs scored in each ballpark?

#17 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 08:19 AM

I look forward to him pitching well. He has a good chance to be good.

#18 Ultima Ratio

Ultima Ratio

    Super friend

  • Members
  • 1,743 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 08:27 AM

I look forward to him pitching well. He has a good chance to be good.


He'll be out there early on his day to pitch, watering the concrete.
Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.

#19 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 09:15 AM

Park factor based on runs is nearly useless. You can have the 94 Braves pitching half their games in Minute Maid Park versus the 2003 Tigers pitching in Dodger Stadium with no accounting for the wild variance in pitching quality, only that the 94 Braves gave up 300 less runs in Minute Maid than the Tigers did in Dodger Stadium. Therefore, Minute Maid Park is a pitching haven.

The Twins pitching staff was awful last season. The Phillies pitching staff, while not overpowering, was still quite good. Both teams had similarly mediocre offenses. You don't think that huge disparity in pitching had something to do with the park factor and runs scored in each ballpark?


Did you catch this part...that I posted twice: ' Take this for what it's worth...probably nothing...' I was just giving some info...this particular one is fairly new to me, so I haven't really given it too much of a look. People can do with it what they will. Like most stats, if it backs their opinion, it's helpful to them. If not, it's worthless and can be torn apart.

#20 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,400 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 09:26 AM

Did you catch this part...that I posted twice: ' Take this for what it's worth...probably nothing...' I was just giving some info...this particular one is fairly new to me, so I haven't really given it too much of a look. People can do with it what they will. Like most stats, if it backs their opinion, it's helpful to them. If not, it's worthless and can be torn apart.


It has nothing to do with backing my opinion or not. Park Factor is nearly useless, period. It's too easily influenced by the home team's pitching staff and offense to be of any real value. I ignore it the same way I ignore wins or RBI. There are too many unbalanced team variables that influence the number and the metric does absolutely nothing to compensate for the fact that Roy Halladay >>>>>>>>> Sam Deduno.

#21 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 09:45 AM

It has nothing to do with backing my opinion or not. Park Factor is nearly useless, period. It's too easily influenced by the home team's pitching staff and offense to be of any real value. I ignore it the same way I ignore wins or RBI. There are too many unbalanced team variables that influence the number and the metric does absolutely nothing to compensate for the fact that Roy Halladay >>>>>>>>> Sam Deduno.


Okay

#22 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Moderators
  • 9 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 06:26 PM

Park Factor is nearly useless, period.... the fact that Roy Halladay >>>>>>>>> Sam Deduno.


I must not understand the form of park factor you're referring to. What I've seen is that if Halladay posts a 2.50 ERA at home and a 2.00 on the road, and if his staffmates have similar experiences and the batters likewise have inflated stats at home, and taking into account that there usually is some advantage to the team playing at home, then the computation should come out that the Phillies' park has a higher park factor than somewhere like Dodger Stadium. Halladay and the others are being compared to themselves, not to AAAA pitchers like Deduno. How does having a good pitching staff skew a park's factor? (Feel free to point to a link that explains rather than invest much time reinventing some wheel.)

#23 Willihammer

Willihammer

    ice cream correspondent

  • Members
  • 2,796 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 01 February 2013 - 09:38 PM

Still excited?

ESPN Home Run Tracker :: Player and Field Detail

ESPN Home Run Tracker :: Player and Field Detail


If you pull up the first link, do a Target Field overlay, you can see that there are a fair number of balls that wouldn't be gone at TF that were HRs at CBP, esp. in left field.

Now pull up the 2nd link, and do a PNC overlay.

Left field is not too pitcher friendly compared to PNC.

#24 Alex

Alex

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 978 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 09:52 PM

I must not understand the form of park factor you're referring to. What I've seen is that if Halladay posts a 2.50 ERA at home and a 2.00 on the road, and if his staffmates have similar experiences and the batters likewise have inflated stats at home, and taking into account that there usually is some advantage to the team playing at home, then the computation should come out that the Phillies' park has a higher park factor than somewhere like Dodger Stadium. Halladay and the others are being compared to themselves, not to AAAA pitchers like Deduno. How does having a good pitching staff skew a park's factor? (Feel free to point to a link that explains rather than invest much time reinventing some wheel.)


Thank you. It doesn't mean it's perfect, but people did seem to have a big misunderstanding of how it is calculated.

One season isn't a great sample size for a few reasons (Josh Willingham and Trevor Plouffe, for example, are much better at Target Field) but it's more well thought out than simply comparing pitching staffs.

#25 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,400 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:20 PM

I must not understand the form of park factor you're referring to. What I've seen is that if Halladay posts a 2.50 ERA at home and a 2.00 on the road, and if his staffmates have similar experiences and the batters likewise have inflated stats at home, and taking into account that there usually is some advantage to the team playing at home, then the computation should come out that the Phillies' park has a higher park factor than somewhere like Dodger Stadium. Halladay and the others are being compared to themselves, not to AAAA pitchers like Deduno. How does having a good pitching staff skew a park's factor? (Feel free to point to a link that explains rather than invest much time reinventing some wheel.)


I'm well aware of how it is calculated. Did it occur to you that, for example, teams tend to customize their rosters based on home park? Or that individual players often play much better at home than on the road? And that given an unbalanced schedule, the same better (or worse) teams play more often in the same ballparks? Or that weather can impact a ballpark when you're looking at a single season? And that, in the case of a rotation, any kind of skewing of statistics like that over a single season can drastically alter the outcome?

I could keep going all day with reasons why park factor sucks. There are simply too many variables that are completely untracked, rendering the metric virtually useless. It's really no different than RBI or wins. I suppose the number tells you something but given how many things it flat-out ignores, there's just as good a chance it's feeding you bad information.

#26 Alex

Alex

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 978 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 11:45 PM

I'm well aware of how it is calculated. Did it occur to you that, for example, teams tend to customize their rosters based on home park? Or that individual players often play much better at home than on the road? And that given an unbalanced schedule, the same better (or worse) teams play more often in the same ballparks? Or that weather can impact a ballpark when you're looking at a single season? And that, in the case of a rotation, any kind of skewing of statistics like that over a single season can drastically alter the outcome?

I could keep going all day with reasons why park factor sucks. There are simply too many variables that are completely untracked, rendering the metric virtually useless. It's really no different than RBI or wins. I suppose the number tells you something but given how many things it flat-out ignores, there's just as good a chance it's feeding you bad information.


All good points (and why I agreed with the post that single season doesn't tell you much and cited Willingham and Plouffe); however, to be fair, I read your initial posts the same way as ashburyjohn.

#27 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Moderators
  • 9 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 12:20 PM

I'm well aware of how it is calculated. Did it occur to you


I'm not sure why my straightforward attempt to make sure we're talking about the same thing earned condescension. And if you had actually read my paragraph, you'd have had the answer to whether it had occurred to me that individual players often play better at home, because I said that. If weather is enough of a factor one year that it skews the calculation of a park factor, then maybe that is data worth having when evaluating the players' numbers for that season, rather than discard it. As for it being no different than RBI or wins, we understand that these depend on teammates setting things up for each other, and I don't see anything analogous in trying to determine how much effect Coors Field has on a game.

This seems awfully similar in spirit to the debate about measuring clutch performance. Do you believe that park effects basically don't exist and thus shouldn't be measured? Or that the ways of measuring park effects aren't getting to the core of the matter?

I'm sure there exists a good point-counterpoint discussion on the topic somewhere else on teh internets, and I guess I'll go search.

#28 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,400 posts

Posted 02 February 2013 - 01:16 PM

I'm not sure why my straightforward attempt to make sure we're talking about the same thing earned condescension. And if you had actually read my paragraph, you'd have had the answer to whether it had occurred to me that individual players often play better at home, because I said that. If weather is enough of a factor one year that it skews the calculation of a park factor, then maybe that is data worth having when evaluating the players' numbers for that season, rather than discard it. As for it being no different than RBI or wins, we understand that these depend on teammates setting things up for each other, and I don't see anything analogous in trying to determine how much effect Coors Field has on a game.

This seems awfully similar in spirit to the debate about measuring clutch performance. Do you believe that park effects basically don't exist and thus shouldn't be measured? Or that the ways of measuring park effects aren't getting to the core of the matter?

I'm sure there exists a good point-counterpoint discussion on the topic somewhere else on teh internets, and I guess I'll go search.


I didn't mean to be condescending about it.

It's the same as RBI or wins because it fails to track influences on the metric that drastically alter outcomes. The same way RBI doesn't mention whether you have Drew Butera or Joe Mauer hitting in front of a player, Park Factor doesn't take into account that Willingham might hit 20 homers in a year at home and 10 on the road while the rest of his team hits a 50/50 split. It doesn't try to factor in whether the median temperature was 3 degrees warmer that summer. It also doesn't properly factor if you play in, say, Fenway Park, and face Miguel Cabrera and Prince Fielder 19 times a year, two guys who could absolutely mash at that park. Or vice versa, where you face the Houston Astros 19 times a year while facing the Yankees three times in interleague.

Attempting to compensate for park is a very valid goal and I'd love to see it happen. My only point is that the current tools we have available (particularly ESPN's awful Park Factor) are so half-assed that they are unusable and should be used sparingly (if at all) and never be quoted as definitive truth. You could just as easily be getting information that is completely wrong from the statistic as you are getting something insightful. And when that happens, the metric becomes useless.