Park Factors and Target Field

[jorgenswest]

Did you know that Target Field park factor for 2013 is 5th highest in baseball behind Coors Field, Wrigley Field, Rogers Centre and Comerica Park?

 

2013 MLB Park Factors - Runs - Major League Baseball - ESPN

 

This year the runs factor is 1.108 or increases run production by 10.8%.

 

Maybe it is just the partial season sample of 2013. Last year Target Field also had a park factor of over 1 at 1.044(10th). Home runs are below 1 this year but above 1 last year.

 

Is Target Field still considered a pitcher's park? Should it be?

[Nick Nelson]

Sounds like the cement has finally settled.

[jay]

Does this mean we can put the trees back?

[StormJH1]

Does this mean we can put the trees back?

 

I never get tired of this one. I even named one of my fantasy baseball teams the "Cursed Batter's Eye Pines".

 

I kid you not, every single time I see a game in Colorado, Anaheim, Detroit, or the probably dozen of ballparks that have some type of "distracting" green wavy branches in CF, my first thought is "we need an ugly black wall there WHY?"

 

Is Target Field still considered a pitcher's park? Should it be?

 

Getting back on topic, I think the perception on it is coming around to the point where it will be considered a "neutral" park. There is evidence that it is very good for RH power hitters and bad for LH power hitters (unless you're a Thome-type hitter that hits no-doubters). It doesn't have a particularly large amount of foul territory at all, which is another reason I don't consider it a pitcher's park.

[BabyJesusBuxton]

I think part of the reason for the numbers trending towards a "hitters park" in the last two seasons largely is a result of the poor starting rotation the Twins have marched onto the field.

 

With that said, I don't think Target Field is as big of a pitchers park as everyone thought in the first 2 seasons. I think it will eventually end up being in the neutral area with a slight edge towards being a pitchers park.

[jay]

I think part of the reason for the numbers trending towards a "hitters park" in the last two seasons largely is a result of the poor starting rotation the Twins have marched onto the field.

 

The rotation doesn't matter. The stat is calculated in relation to road performance for both pitching and hitting, so the bad rotation has the same effect both ways. From the bottom of the page:

 

PF: ((homeRS + homeRA)/(homeG)) / ((roadRS + roadRA)/(roadG))

[RealityBaseTwinsFan]

ESPN's methodology is just current year which is a small sample. Just look at this article about last year when the terrible starting rotation broke ESPN's park factor:

 

How bad is the Minnesota Twins rotation? - Beyond the Box Score

 

This years rotation is better, but not that much better and likely is creating a similar effect of pushing up the offensiveness of the park in the a small sample.

[jay]

ESPN's methodology is just current year which is a small sample. Just look at this article about last year when the terrible starting rotation broke ESPN's park factor:

 

How bad is the Minnesota Twins rotation? - Beyond the Box Score

 

This years rotation is better, but not that much better and likely is creating a similar effect of pushing up the offensiveness of the park in the a small sample.

 

Unfortunately, the author of that post is misusing park factors as well. Here's an example:

 

If the Twins pitching is really bad and gives up 1000 runs, you'd expect 500 at home and 500 on the road if park factors are equal. If the offense scores 800 runs (hopeful, I know), you'd again expect an even split if park factors are equal. So, the equation would look like --

(400+500)/81 as the home factor, and (400+500)/81 for the road factor.

 

It wouldn't matter if the Twins gave up 2000 runs and it was 1000 at home and 1000 on the road because the equation would give you the exact same number. Unless the Twins have some abnormal split of who pitches at home and on the road, how bad the pitching is doesn't matter in this stat.

[drjim]

If the numbers fluctuate so much how serious can we take them or can we actually draw any sort of meaningful conclusion? Shouldn't parks stay constant from year to year?

 

What would cause fluctuations? Cement? Stadium tweaks? El Nino? Global warming?

[jorgenswest]

The perception that the Twins play in a pitcher's park is probably incorrect.

 

I think the perception of the Twins pitching is that is a bigger concern than the offense. That may not be true. The Twins overall pitching/defense is not good, but it has been better than the offense.

 

From baseball reference:

 

Team ERA+ 96 (21st)

Team OPS+ 90 (25th)

 

From fangraphs

 

pitching WAR 7.5 (21st)

batting WAR 5.8 (26th)

 

The foundation of the Twins offense entering this season was mostly aging with a history of injuries. Spring projections for the Twins offense showed drops in production for several key players. The drop should have been expected. That is what happens when you sign old guys to multiyear contracts. They decline and have an increased likelihood of injury as they age.

[jay]

If the numbers fluctuate so much how serious can we take them or can we actually draw any sort of meaningful conclusion? Shouldn't parks stay constant from year to year?

 

What would cause fluctuations? Cement? Stadium tweaks? El Nino? Global warming?

 

The distribution should be subject to any normal distribution curve. There is a true mean out there somewhere, but you'll get some years that come in above that mark and some years that come in below. For example, you wouldn't think BB would vary much year to year, but the numbers do show variation since 2010 and the other factors don't jump around a ton more in comparision --

BB Factor

2010 - 1.037

2011 - 0.957

2012 - 1.082

2013 - 0.863

 

I'd be interested to know if other new ballparks saw a slow uptick the first few years as hitters and even team construction by the GM begin to account for how to take advantage of a park.