THE BOOK cover
The Unwritten Book is Finally Written!
An in-depth analysis of: The sacrifice bunt, batter/pitcher matchups, the intentional base on balls, optimizing a batting lineup, hot and cold streaks, clutch performance, platooning strategies, and much more.
Read Excerpts & Customer Reviews

Buy The Book from Amazon


SABR101 required reading if you enter this site. Check out the Sabermetric Wiki. And interesting baseball books.
MOST RECENT ARTICLES
MAIL : You ask | We say

Advanced


THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

<< Back to main

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Should high HR pitchers pitch in low HR parks?

By , 01:03 AM

Buster Olney wrote this the other day (on ESPN.com):

“Livan Hernandez,” said a talent evaluator Saturday evening. “I’m surprised that nobody’s talking about him, because he’s out there [on the trade market].”

O.K., let’s fortget about the fact that this “talent evaluator” should probably be evaluating HIS talent as an evaluator, and that no one is talking about Livan because Livan sucks at this point in his career.

“The light bulb goes on: great postseason experience, minimal financial obligation (he’s making $7 million this season, and his contract runs out at the end of this year), a guy who has always taken the ball (nine straight seasons of 30 or more starts, and he’s got 20 starts so far this year). He is not an ace, he gives up a lot of hits, but he will generally keep a good offensive team in games.”

Let’s also forget about Olney writing that “he will generally keep a good offensive team in games.” (Isn’t that true about any bad pitcher?)

“The D-backs are fading, have the minor league arms to take his spot in the rotation for the last two months—and Livan is not really a good fit for them now, anyway, because he is not a shut-down kind of pitcher and they are struggling to score runs. The cost of trading for Hernandez would presumably not be that high.”

More garbage from Olney.  Fading?  Last time I looked, they were 1.5 games out of first!  Struggling to score runs and he is not a shut-down pitcher?  I don’t have to tell anyone on this blog that a good pitcher is good for any team and a bad pitcher is bad for any team, regardless of their ofense, although I suspect that there are minor differences in the value (above or below replacement) of a pitcher depending upon his team’s offense.

“He makes a lot of sense for a team like Atlanta, or a team like the Mets (where he could team with his brother, Orlando), or maybe the Phillies, although he would give up a lot of homers in their park.”

More garbage, but what I want to talk about is the last part of this sentence.  Do pitchers who give up a lot of home runs do worse in a home run park (than other pitchers or as compared to a neutral or low HR park)? 


I think it is conventional wisdom that if your team’s home park is a “HR park” like Philly was (they moved the fences out a little this year) and several other parks are and have been, that you should not acquire a pitcher who gives up a lot of HR’s.  I also think that most analysts would agree with this.  I am not sure that I have ever seen any research on this point, and if I am overlooking someone’s work, I apologize.  This is a blog and not a venue for publishing formal research.

For batters, we (many analysts) don’t think that this is necessarily the case.  What I mean is that we don’t think that a high HR batter will do particularly well in a high HR park or particularly poor in a low HR park (and vicer versa for low HR batters).  The reason is that for batters who hit lots of HR, it is because they tend to hit the ball far when they hit a fly ball but don’t necessarily hit a lot more fly balls than a low HR batter.  For pitchers, high HR pitchers tend to give up lots of fly balls and low HR pitchers don’t.  The average distance of each group’s fly balls are not all that different.

Imagine a park whose fences were 450 feet all the way around.  Only the “big hitters” (the ones who hit a lot of HR’s) would hit home runs.  No one else would.  Therefore you would want a big hitter in that kind of park, assuming everything else were the same.  Now imagine a park where the fences were only 200 feet around.  Who would you want hitting in that park?  Just about any hitter who hits a lot of fly balls.  Not necessarily the big hitters.

Anyway, let’s get back to the pitchers.  Oh, and BTW, Livan Hernandez is NOT much of a high HR pitcher, despite the fact that he may have let up a lot of HR so far this year.  Further proof that Olney is a dumpkoff, with all due respect, as I hear that he is a nice man.  The presumption because of the dynamics of low and high HR pitchers is that a high HR park is not good for high HR pitchers because they allow lots of fly balls which turn into HR’s in parks that have high HR park factors.  IOW, the presumption is that HR park factors tend to be multiplicative for pitcher HR rates (a linear relationship), whereas for batters that is not the case, again, because of the dynamics of what makes for a high or low HR batter, as opposed to pitcher.

First, I took all low and high HR pitchers in terms of their park neutral projection going into 2004, 2005, and 2006.  The projections were based on their last 4 years HR rates (regressed and age adjusted), so that an 06 projection was based on data from 02-05, etc.  I used only pitchers who had at least 400 IP in the last 4 years, so they were mainly starters.  I took around the top and bottom 25 pitchers (with the 400 IP minimum) for each projection year, for a total of around 75 high HR pitchers and 75 low HR pitchers.

The HR rate for the low HR pitchers was 79% of average and for the high HR pitchers, it was 132% of average.  Remember that these are projections and not actual historical HR rates.

I then looked at each group’s HR rate in the year of the projection (04-06) as well as their normalized ERC (NERC), where the average pitcher is defined as 4.00.  Obviously the low HR pitchers were much better pitchers than the high HR pitchers and they got a lot more IP in the year of the projection than did the high HR pitchers.

I then looked at each group’s performance in high HR parks and low HR parks only.  I used my own park factors to determine which parks were high HR and which were low HR.  I just picked a few with the highest HR PF and a few with the lowest HR PF. 

UPDATE!

I addes some years to the pitcher data and did a similar study with batters for 04-06 only.  The results are in posts 19, 36, and 37.

#1    Rally      (see all posts) 2007/07/26 (Thu) @ 09:58

I disagree that Livan is a pitcher who sucks.  4.59 ERA in a hitter’s park - ERA+ of 99. The 3 years before that 94, 100, 115.

I wouldn’t want him longterm, as the deterioration of his strikeout/walk rate is not a good sign, but for the rest of this year there are plenty of teams that could use an average pitcher - like the Angels, where he’d be an improvement on Bartolo Colon.

Looking at this data makes you wonder, Livan might pitch much better in a low HR park, without the constant threat of the homerun he might cut his walk rate back to his normal figures.

Interesting results for the low homerun pitchers.  I guess it doesn’t matter where the fences are if you can keep the ball on the ground.


#2    tangotiger      (see all posts) 2007/07/26 (Thu) @ 10:35

ERA?  What’s that?

His OPS+ is 125 this year.  The previous two years it was 109 and 107.

A true talent OPS+ replacement-level pitcher is 125-130.  So, Livan’s performance is that of a replacement-level pitcher, but we certainly cannot say yet that he is one.

The reason his ERA is so good compared to his OPS is that he’s been (relatively) fantastic with men on base this year.

Whether this is a true skill for him or not, I don’t know.


#3    tangotiger      (see all posts) 2007/07/26 (Thu) @ 10:43

Livan has also become a FB pitcher in the last two years:
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1116&position=P

Typically, your GB and FB rates are fairly static, so they are great indicators for what kind of pitcher you are.

And, just a guess, I would say that a pitcher who becomes a FB pitcher after he turns 30 is not a good thing.  I would see it as a sign that he can’t control his pitches, or is losing something.

***

Back to MGL’s piece, I’d like to see the hitter’s first, as they have much less control with whether they can “become” FB hiters.

As I’ve stated many times, it’s impossible that Juan Pierre and Todd Helton can be affected to the same degree (or even in the same direction) if they hit at Coors or Fenway or Petco.  As I’ve shown, Pierre has zero HR advantage when he hits at Coors.

And, if you look at LH not named Bonds, the SF home park kills them.

What MGL is doing is what all researchers should be doing when it comes to parks.


#4    MGL      (see all posts) 2007/07/26 (Thu) @ 11:20

Livan’s projection is not that bad.  I watch a lot of pitchers and “tweak” their projections for various reasons (such as Andrew Miller and Fausto Carmona, among many).  Livan is one whom I would tweak to the extent that I think he is done.


#5    HarryAbles      (see all posts) 2007/07/26 (Thu) @ 11:25

Before the season started, I threw a spreadsheet together to illustrate park effects on players, whose true talent levels I had already estimated.  Fascinating results - as mentioned in #3, a blanket adjustment for everyone is close to useless.  Using component factors, it’s clear that:

- Reyes, Pierre, Chone, and the rest of the singles hitters/speedsters would gain about 10 points of OPS if they were Giants, while Barry, Papi, Howard, and the best LH sluggers lose 25 to 30 points.  (An average player would gain about 2 points.)

- HOU probably has the widest spread, being the best park for RH HR and below average for lefties.  Albert would gain 50 POINTS, a Coors-level impact.  25-30 points lost again for the lefty sluggers, and Averageman gains 5.

- Bandboxes like CIN are the opposite of SF; the elite HR hitters gain 20 to 25 points, Pierre et al lose 10 to 15, average gains 3.

I can upload the sheet if anyone wants to mess around.


#6    Rally      (see all posts) 2007/07/26 (Thu) @ 11:26

How did you come up with park neutral projections?

I’m wondering if park neutral projections could be somewhat misleading considering the results - low HR/ groundball pitchers not being affected by HR park characteristics.


#7    tangotiger      (see all posts) 2007/07/26 (Thu) @ 11:33

I share Rally’s point here.  I’d rather the untouched data be used, because after all the various adjustments are made, I really have no idea what it is that I’m looking at, what was altered, and how it was altered.

Barry Bonds, to name one, I would likely not touch his HR “skill” even though he plays in a park that kills LH hitters.  At some point, actual single performance trumps overall “similar population” performance (i.e., r>.50).  I don’t know how many PAs it takes, but I would guess that Bonds has far surpassed that (playing at that park since 2000, hits 300 total HR, half in that park).


#8    Rally      (see all posts) 2007/07/26 (Thu) @ 13:42

To expand on #6, perhaps we should select pitchers based on somethingless park-dependent, such as flyball%.

MGL, what about Livan makes you not trust his projection?  Is it his 85 MPH “fastball”? Or something more?  He has rarely topped 85 for at least the last 6 years, yet has been an average or so pitcher for most of that time.


#9    MGL      (see all posts) 2007/07/26 (Thu) @ 13:55

Rally, honestly, I forgot as I have not watched Livan in a while.

Whether I use park adjusted projections or not will not make a difference.  Low HR pitchers will still be low HR pitchers and high HR pitchers will still be high HR pitchers.

The problem with using non-park adjusted numbers to create the two groups is that the high HR pitchers will tend to play for teams in high HR parks and vice versa for low HR pitchers.  This will create H/R problems when looking at the performances in the projection year.

Harry (#5), yes, of course it is true that using component PF will affect different players differently than using a run factor for all players, but…

The other issue is that we don’t want to even use the same component factors for all players either.  For example, if Jason Tyner played in the “old” (pre-humidor) Coors Field, he would probably hit 5 HR a year.  If he played in Detroit, he would hit none.  If you just used HR PF to adjust his HR projection, you might get like 1.3 in Coors and .8 in Detroit (assuming he projects at 1 HR a year in a neutral park).


#10    Rally      (see all posts) 2007/07/26 (Thu) @ 14:19

MGL, I’m saying don’t look at homeruns allowed at all to select your pitchers.  Just pick low flyball% and high FB% guys.


#11    Guy      (see all posts) 2007/07/26 (Thu) @ 14:26

"Whether I use park adjusted projections or not will not make a difference.  Low HR pitchers will still be low HR pitchers and high HR pitchers will still be high HR pitchers.”

“The problem with using non-park adjusted numbers to create the two groups is that the high HR pitchers will tend to play for teams in high HR parks and vice versa for low HR pitchers.”

I don’t think these statements can both be right.


#12    Rally      (see all posts) 2007/07/26 (Thu) @ 14:28

Actually, for Tyner using the standard HR PF might be the best approach.  As Tango said in #3, Coors did not affect Pierre’s power at all.

And Jason Tyner (1200+ AB and still 0 homers) is Juan Pierre without as much power.

Coors isn’t going to help you if you aren’t strong enough to hit the ball out there, and going elsewhere isn’t going to hurt you since you can’t hit negative homers.

Coors (pre-humidor) will be the most help to a guy with maybe 15-20 homer power somewhere else who hits a lot of warning track flyballs.  Someone like that might jump from 15-20 to 30-35, where an Adam Dunn might just go from 40-45 to 50.


#13    tangotiger      (see all posts) 2007/07/26 (Thu) @ 14:30

I guess it’s not so much a “high HR” pitcher, but a “lotsa FB” pitcher who doesn’t have a decent sinker to use disproportionately in a HR-friendly park.


#14    MGL      (see all posts) 2007/07/26 (Thu) @ 16:06

Rally, if I use high and low fly ball rate pitchers, I am looking at a different question.  Guy, I am not sure what you mean.

The reason I am using park adjusted HR rates to identify high and low HR pitchers is obvious.  I want to answer a question pertaining to pitchers who have “true” high and low HR rates.  The only way to do that is to use park adjusted HR rates, even if they are not perfect.

Obviously both ways will still identify “most” of the high and low HR pitchers (using non-park adjusted numbers will include some pitchers who are not really high and low HR pitchers - their home park makes them look as such).  However, if I don’t use park adjusted stats, the high HR pitchers will tend to come from high HR parks and the low HR pitchers will tend to come from low HR parks.  So when I look at their performances in the projection year and I look at high HR pitchers in the high HR parks, they will probably have more home TBF, and the low HR pitchers in low HR parks will also tend to have more home TBF.  Consequently, I will have to control for H/R in HR rate and in NERC.  That is all I am saying.

Both of my statements are true.  My first statement is simply that “most” of the high HR pitchers even if we don’t park adjust will tend to be true high HR pitchers and ditto for the low HR pitchers.

Anyway, I am going to look at more years to get a larger sample size and I am going to double check my parks to make sure that all of my low HR parks are indeed low HR parks in the years looked at.  Same for high HR parks.  I did this “study” quickly at 2 in the AM.


#15    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2007/07/26 (Thu) @ 16:17

MGL, why not just stick with high FB pitchers?

In 2006 for example:
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=y&type=2&season=2006

The leaders in most FB% are (with HR in parens): Chris Young (28), Cliff Lee (29), Matt Cain (18), Orlando (22), Zito (27). 

The leaders in most GB% are (with HR in parens): Lowe (14), Webb (15), Wang (12), Westbrook (15), Cook (17).

So, instead of spending the time to adjust HR (in a fashion that itself is questionable), why not stick to (FB-GB)/BIP?

You will undoubtedly find anyway that your “neutralaized HR” per FB will be pretty close to the same for all pitchers anyway.

Our point is that there’s little to the claim of being a “HR pitcher” and far more to the claim of being a “FB pitcher”.  HR numbers need to be adjusted.  FB numbers don’t.


#16    Rally      (see all posts) 2007/07/26 (Thu) @ 16:24

I understand completely about doing a quick study at 2 AM.  I take a lot of shortcuts in my research as well.  If I thought I had to think things out, review, revise, and prepare everything like an academic dissertation, I might as well quite, I’d never write anything.

I agree with Guy’s #11, but I don’t know how you are doing the park adjustments.  Lets say you have two pitchers who allow 15 homeruns in 200 innings, one in Cincinnati and one in Detroit.  You park adjust, and the Red now looks like a 13 homer pitcher and makes the low HR group.  The Tiger adjusts to 17 HR, and just misses the cutoff.  After park adjustments he appears to have a higher true talent for allowing homers, but the results of your study say that low HR pitchers are not affected by park.

This confuses me.

Do you believe pitchers have large differences in ability as far as HR/FB?  I think research has shown there isn’t much, but I could be wrong.  That’s why I would suggest using flyballs as a percentage of at bats (not balls in play) instead of doing park adjusted homerun rates, especially since the results of the study (so far) indicate that standard park adjustments don’t work very well for pitchers.


#17    Rally      (see all posts) 2007/07/26 (Thu) @ 23:00

I tried what I described above, using retrosheet data.  I looked at pitchers from 2003-2006 and totaled their at bats against, homeruns allowed, and flyballs allowed.  I selected by pitcher and ballpark, so the Livan Hernandez/ AZ line will include not only his starts at home for the Diamondbacks, but also any games he pitched for Washington on the road against the DBacks.  Then, I looked at only pitchers with at least 400 at bats against in a particular ballpark.  High flyball pitchers allowed flyballs in at least 25% of their at bats, low fb were less than 21%.  The average was 23%.  I used the same low HR and high HR parks that MGL did in his study.

Low flyball pitchers:
Pitchers parks: FB% .183 HR/850 AB: 20
Hitters parks:  FB% .182 HR/850: 26

Neutral pitchers:
Pitchers parks: FB% .231 HR/850: 23
Hitters parks:  FB% .225 HR/850: 29

Flyball pitchers:
Pitchers parks: FB% .277 Hr/850: 28
Hitters parks:  FB% .263 HR/850: 33


#18    MGL      (see all posts) 2007/07/26 (Thu) @ 23:32

I don’t like using the same year to classify the pitchers and then to look at how they did in low and high HR parks.  I did not do that. My classification was based on years prior to the year in which I looked at how each group did inb high and low HR parks.  When you use the same year, you run into problems.  Plus when you only use one year to classify pitchers, you are not really isolating true talent.  OK, you are, but to a far less degree than using several years and regressing.

Anyway, in Rally’s study it appears that flyball pitchers have a much smaller percentage increase in HR rate than neutral or ground ball pitchers.  Not sure that the differences are statistically significant though.

Plus, as I did in my “study,” you really want to look at overall performance (like ERC or FIP or whatever) since it is possible that certain types of pitchers change their approach in certain types of parks, such that a fly ball pitcher may try and keep his fly balls to a minimum in a high HR park, be successful at that, but screw the rest of his game up, consequently giving up a lot more runs in a high HR park than an equivalent low fly ball pitcher would.


#19    MGL      (see all posts) 2007/07/27 (Fri) @ 02:27

First of all, I made a gigantic error in reporting the results.  The HR normalized rates for each group of pitchers in the high and low HR parks are relative to all pitchers in the league IN THOSE PARKS.  So if all parks affected all pitchers the same, we would see the same normalized HR rate for each group in each set of parks.  For the low HR pitchers, the fact that we see around the same HR rate in the low HR and the high HR parks, suggests that all parks do in fact affect them the same.  For the high HR pitchers, however, we see that their normalized HR rates were 1.31 in high HR parks and 1.19 in low HR parks, and 1.23 in ALL parks, suggesting that they indeed are harmed by high HR parks and helped by low HR parks, at least in terms of their HR rate, relative to all pitchers (this is a normalized HR rate).

Anyway, I redid all of the calcs, using better parks for each year, and using more pitchers and more years (02-06).  Here are the new results:

Also, this time I used wOBA against for overall pitcher performance.  Also remember that the normalized HR rates (NHR) are relative to all pitchers in those parks.

Low HR pitchers

All parks: Norm. HR rate=.84 wOBA=.326 TBF=79,173
Low HR Parks: NHR rate=.86 wOBA=.324 TBF=19,961
High HR Parks: NHR rate=.82 wOBA=.327 TBF=14,201
Neutral Parks: NHR rate=.83 wOBA=.327 TBF=45,061

High HR pitchers

All parks: Norm. HR rate=1.27 wOBA=.360 TBF=39,856
Low HR Parks: NHR rate=1.22 wOBA=.346 TBF=12,442
High HR Parks: NHR rate=1.27 wOBA=.366 TBF=7,645
Neutral Parks: NHR rate=1.28 wOBA=.367 TBF=19,861

Also, the average wOBA for all parks in all years is .339.  For the lo HR parks, it is .331 (.985), for the high HR parks, it is .346 (1.02), and for the neutral parks, it is .341 (1.006).

So what does this data suggest to us?  Exactly what we suspected but not to a large degree.  The low HR parks had a beneficial affect on the high HR pitchers.  In all parks, their HR rate was 1.27 times the HR rate for all pitchers.  In the low HR parks, it was only 1.22 times that of all pitchers.  The wOBA of high HR pitchers in all parks was .360.  In low HR parks, we expect it to be .360 * .985, or .355.  Instead, it was .347.  So again, they are benefiting (by 8 points in wOBA) from pitching in low HR parks. That is a benefit of around .27 runs in ERA (8 points in wOBA=.27 runs in ERA).  In high HR parks, we expect the high HR pitchers to have a wOBA of .360 * 1.02 or .367, which is around what they had (.366).  Also, you can see that their NHR rate in high HR parks is the same as in all parks.  So high HR parks do not seem to be a problem for high HR pitchers.  Again, more data is needed to reduce sample error.

For the low HR pitchers, they are hurt by the low HR parks and benefited by the high HR parks.  In all parks, their NHR rate is .84.  In the low HR parks, it is .86 and in the high HR parks, it is .82 (remember, if it didn’t matter what park they pitched in, those numbers would all be .84).  Their overall wOBA was .326.  In the low HR parks, it was expected to be .326 * .985, or .321.  Instead, it was .324, or .13 runs in ERA worse than expected.  In the high HR parks, it was expected to be .326 * 1.02, or .333. Instead, it was .327, which is a benefit of .26 runs in ERA.

So, with the caveat that I did not compute the confidence intervals for the numbers, it appears that indeed conventional wisdom is correct.  If you live in a high HR park, you should look to get a low HR pitcher, and if you live in a low HR park, you should look to get a high HR pitcher, all other things being equal.  Obviously, you would like to have low HR pitchers no matter what park what you are in.  It is a matter of which pitchers might be more cost effective.  If a high HR pitcher pitches in a high HR park, and you are in a low HR park, you might be able to pick him up below market value (for your park of course).  If you are in a high HR park, you want to look to pick up a low HR pitcher who pitches in a low HR park.  Even though he is likely to be expensive, again, you can leverage his HR rate and get him for below market value in your park.  Again, these differences do not appear to be that large.  It looks like you can leverage a reasonably high or low HR pitchers if your home park is a high or low HR park to the tune of only .1 to .3 runs in ERA (in your home park), which is maybe 1/4 of a win or so.  In the FA market, that is around a mil.


#20    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2007/07/27 (Fri) @ 11:58

MGL/18

Anyway, in Rally’s study it appears that flyball pitchers have a much smaller percentage increase in HR rate than neutral or ground ball pitchers.  Not sure that the differences are statistically significant though.

I’m not sure we need to talk about “percentage” change.  Why not a simple difference?  And, in Rally’s study, they were all 5 or 6 HR in difference.


#21    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2007/07/27 (Fri) @ 12:04

MGL/19: 0.2 runs per 9 IP means 5 runs per 25 full starts (225 IP), or 0.5 wins.  At over free agent 4MM (now 4.4MM) per win, that’d be 2 MM in over/under spending.

***

Rally did his “flyball” list as per AB, thereby excluding walks.  I had said using FB-GB per BIP.  Now that I think about it, for this study, it should be FB per PA, since we are trying to proxy HR per PA.


#22    Guy      (see all posts) 2007/07/27 (Fri) @ 12:20

Rally or Tango:  why is the retrosheet FB% (23) so low compared to BIS (over 30%)?  Also, calling 21% “low” and 25% “high” may not identify classic GB and FB pitchers very well.

Side note:  the high-FB pitchers do allow fewer HR/FB than low-FB pitchers:
Low-FB Pitcher/Pit Pk:  .129 HR/FB
Hi-FB Pitcher/Pit Pk:  .119
Low-FB Pitcher/hit Pk:  .168
Hi-FB pitcher/hit Pk:  .148


#23    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2007/07/27 (Fri) @ 13:06

It depends what you have on the denominator (BIP, AB, PA).


#24    Rally      (see all posts) 2007/07/27 (Fri) @ 13:42

Its per at bat, THT is using per BIP.  Perhaps I should have used per PA instead.  I didn’t use FB per BIP because a pitcher can prevent homeruns two ways:  1) Keep the batter from hitting the ball or 2) If he hits it, keep him from hitting it in the air.  I still think AB is the right denominator, as a walk doesn’t prevent flyballs/homeruns, it just brings another batter to the plate, unlike a strikeout, or a BIP, which is more often than not turned into an out.

The 21 vs 25% are just cutoff points, the pitchers in the low category gave up about 18% flyballs, the high group averaged about 28%.


#25    Guy      (see all posts) 2007/07/27 (Fri) @ 13:54

Got it. Thanks.


#26    MGL      (see all posts) 2007/07/27 (Fri) @ 13:58

If you are going to use “per AB” then your HR should be per AB also.  If you are looking at HR per PA then you should start out with fly balls per PA.  Just make sure they are the same, otherwise you are introducing a lot of noise and bias (for lack of better words).  For example, if a pitcher is a high fly ball pitcher per AB he might end up being a low HR per PA just because he walks a ton of batters, but not for any reason associated with low or high HR parks.


#27    MGL      (see all posts) 2007/07/27 (Fri) @ 14:00

Tango, #21, remember that we only care about their starts at home (you can only leverage a pitcher’s HR propensity in your home park), so I am assuming 100 IP or so per season.


#28    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2007/07/27 (Fri) @ 14:03

I suppose Rally is right.  What we really want is FB per 9IP (which is the same FB per out times 27).  Of course, that’s a problem, since you get different out rates for different pitchers for different BIP and parks, which is the problem we are trying to avoid.

Assuming a K is a K, regardless if you are in a HR park or not, then you want to do:
FB per (K + (AB-K)*.7))
which is FB per expected out


#29    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2007/07/27 (Fri) @ 14:07

MGL/27 re Tango/21: good point!


#30    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2007/07/27 (Fri) @ 14:11

Actually, let me take back Tango/28: we are trying to figure out how much the HR park affects a FB pitcher.  I really don’t care how many K or BB he gives up for me to determine if Zito is a FB pitcher or not.  He may have tons of K, but that doesn’t remove him as being a FB pitcher.

So, the first step is to figure out if the extreme FB pitchers are affected by HR parks.  Once that is determined, then, on a per out basis (like I have in Tango/28), you would figure out the impact in HR per game.

That is, Zito may be severely affected by pitching in a HR park.  But, if he has tons of strikeouts, then even though he is hurt on a per FB basis, he won’t be hurt on a per game basis, because he’d have (illustratively) 15 K per game.


#31    Rally      (see all posts) 2007/07/27 (Fri) @ 14:27

MGL:  In #17 I used FB/AB and HR/AB.  I expressed it as HR per 850 AB, but the units are the same.


#32    MGL      (see all posts) 2007/07/27 (Fri) @ 15:09

Rally, O.K. that is fine then (my bad). We mostly care about FB and HR per game or per out, as Tango says, although, since the AB or PA per out varies among parks, it gets tricky.  I’m not sure these nuances really matter though.

Anyway, I am going to do the same thing for batters.  I expect to get different, and perhaps opposite (that you want a high HR hitter in a low HR park and vice versa), results.  We’ll see.


#33    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2007/07/27 (Fri) @ 15:30

Please control for batter hand…


#34    MGL      (see all posts) 2007/07/27 (Fri) @ 16:48

#33, In what sense? In terms of the high and low HR parks?


#35    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2007/07/27 (Fri) @ 17:17

In the sense that Fenway affects LH/RH hitters differently, and that a third of the parks are like that.  You’d be better off making two studies.


#36    MGL      (see all posts) 2007/07/27 (Fri) @ 23:19

I looked at batters’ projections for 04, 05, and 06, and then their performance in their projection year, just like the pitchers.  I did NOT control for handedness to save time.

The high HR hitters had HR rates around 1.8 and the low ones around .3 (obviously there is more of a spread in HR rate for batters than for pitchers).  The results seem pretty inconclusive.

High HR hitters:

All parks

1.74 HR rate .384 wOBA

Low HR parks

1.68 HR rate .372 wOBA

High HR parks

1.67 HR rate .391 wOBA

Neutral parks

1.78 HR rate .385 wOBA

Low or high HR parks do not seem to have much of an affect on high HR batters either in HR rate or wOBA.

Low HR hitters:

All parks

.29 HR rate .326 wOBA

Low HR parks

.28 HR rate .332 wOBA

High HR parks

.31 HR rate .317 wOBA

Neutral parks

.31 HR rate .325 wOBA

For the low HR hitters, they do seem to hit more HR in high HR parks.  I don’t know if the difference is statistically significant off the top of my head (I don’t think it is - even close).  We are talking about 32,000 PA in all parks, 10,000 PA in low HR parks, and 4,500 PA in high HR parks for the low HR hitters.

However, their wOBA is very low for some reason in the high HR parks.  In 04-06, high HR parks increased wOBA by almost 1.5% or +5 points, yet the low HR hitters lost some wOBA points rather than gain some.  Again, we would have to see if the difference between actual and expected is statistically significant (again, I doubt it).  Maybe in the high HR parks, the low HR hitters try and hit too many HR’s and screw up their overall production, like I previously hypothesized with the high HR pitchers in high HR parks (that they try and keep the ball in the park and end up screwing themselves).

Anyway, more work needs to be done I think.  Next I will control for handednes, I guess, basically by looking at RH and LH hitters separately and using parks that are high or low HR for LH or RH batters only.  Many, if not most, of the parks are assymetrical or the wind makes them quite assymetrical (like Wrigley) as far as HR factors are concerned.


#37    MGL      (see all posts) 2007/07/28 (Sat) @ 02:39

OK, I broke everything up into LH and RH hitters and high HR parks by LH HR PF and RH HR PF.  Basically, if a park had a high HR PF to LF (and not too low a HR PF to RF), I assumed it was a high HR park for RHB, and vice versa.

Even though batters hit around the same number of fly balls to the pull and opp fields, the field that counts the most for HR’s is the pull field.

Anyway, here is the data:

LH Low HR hitters

Low HR park

HR rate=.211 wOBA=.326

High HR park

HR rate=.342 wOBA=.327

All parks

HR rate=.281 wOBA=.327

RH Low HR hitters

Low HR park

HR rate=.344 wOBA=.314

High HR park

HR rate=.501 wOBA=.322

All parks

HR rate=.310 wOBA=.325

So for both RH and LH batters, they indeed hit a lot more HR in high HR parks than in low HR parks, at least as compared to all other same side batters in those parks.  So our intuition seems to be right about that.

However, their wOBA does NOT go up as much as it should given that the high HR parks increase all players wOBA by anywhere from 10 to 15 points or 2 to 5%.  This suggests that, again, they may be trying to hit too many home runs in high HR parks or that there is something about these parks that hurt their games even though they hit comparatively more HR’s.  I am not sure that you want these low HR guys in a high HR park, which is probably conventional wisdom (hooray for conventional wisdom for a change), that you want a speedy non-power guy in a large ballpark.

Now let’s look at the high HR guys:

LH High HR hitters

Low HR park

HR rate=1.89 wOBA=.379

High HR park

HR rate=1.78 wOBA=.401

All parks

HR rate=1.84 wOBA=.388

RH High HR hitters

Low HR park

HR rate=.171 wOBA=.377

High HR park

HR rate=1.60 wOBA=.384

All parks

HR rate=1.67 wOBA=.383

There seems to be the reverse effect with regard to the HR rate, also, as we expected, with these guys.  In a high HR park, their HR advantage over all players goes down.  Not as much though as it goes up for the low HR guys in a high HR park though.

With these guys, their wOBA does not seem to be hurt too much in a high HR park (for RHB it is, but not for LHB, and overall, not too much) even though their HR advantage is less than in a low HR park. Perhaps their game is otherwise suited to a small park.


#38    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2008/07/28 (Mon) @ 12:13

Bumping…


Page 1 of 1 pages


Name (required)
E-Mail (optional)
Website (optional)

<< Back to main


Latest...

COMMENTS

Aug 31 15:28
Fans Scouting Report: Update

Sep 02 15:38
The two uncertainties of UZR

Sep 02 15:17
Mail: rWAR v fWAR

Sep 02 14:59
Roger Federer

Sep 02 14:59
It’s hard to beat the crowd (Vegas in this case) no matter how smart you think you are

Sep 02 14:57
Could Rob Dibble have been a comp for Strasburg?

Sep 02 14:15
WOWY Teachers

Sep 02 13:37
Who’s Waldo?

Sep 02 08:36
Team Elin

Sep 02 01:19
Can someone tell me why Trevor Hoffman is still allowed to pitch?