Hitter's Parks Versus Homerun Hitter's Parks

by Eric Simon on Jan 8, 2009 8:00 AM EST

Yesterday's post about Citi Field versus Shea Stadium got me thinking about homerun parks versus hitter's parks and what kind of correlation exists from one to the other. Unfortunately, my high-level math skills are, much like the clutch hitter, virtually non-existent. I barely know what a regression analysis is let alone how to run one, so if anyone out there wants to do the dirty work and report back here, we'd all be much obliged.

Anyway, the best I can offer is a relative +/- list of all big league parks in terms of run scoring versus homerun hitting. I took those park factors, courtesy of ESPN.com, and calculated the raw difference and percentage difference between runs and homeruns. For ESPN's park factors, a factor of 1.000 is neutral and a delta of 0 means the park is exactly as conducive to run scoring as to homerun hitting. The higher the delta (and delta %) the more prone the ballpark is to allowing runs versus homeruns. The lower the delta (and delta %) the more prone the ballpark is to allowing homeruns versus runs.

Park Name	Runs	HR	Delta	Delta %
Fenway Park	1.077	0.850	0.227	0.211
Progressive Field	0.995	0.824	0.171	0.172
Kauffman Stadium	0.929	0.788	0.141	0.152
Dolphin Stadium	0.954	0.844	0.110	0.115
Tropicana Field	0.955	0.850	0.105	0.110
Nationals Park	1.038	0.942	0.096	0.092
Angel Stadium	1.017	0.933	0.084	0.083
Chase Field	1.135	1.068	0.067	0.059
Yankee Stadium	1.040	0.982	0.058	0.056
Petco Park	0.796	0.743	0.053	0.067
AT&T Park	1.045	0.992	0.053	0.051
Miller Park	0.945	0.893	0.052	0.055
Turner Field	1.063	1.014	0.049	0.046
Rogers Centre	0.959	0.926	0.033	0.034
Safeco Field	0.932	0.900	0.032	0.034
PNC Park	0.898	0.869	0.029	0.032
Busch Stadium	0.943	0.915	0.028	0.030
Citizens Bank Park	1.029	1.022	0.007	0.007
Metrodome	0.887	0.896	-0.009	-0.010
Dodger Stadium	0.842	0.857	-0.015	-0.018
McAfee Coliseum	0.916	0.988	-0.072	-0.079
Rangers Ballpark	1.142	1.229	-0.087	-0.076
Wrigley Field	1.068	1.163	-0.095	-0.089
Comerica Park	1.077	1.188	-0.111	-0.103
Minute Maid Park	1.036	1.155	-0.119	-0.115
Shea Stadium	0.946	1.081	-0.135	-0.143
Great American	1.069	1.230	-0.161	-0.151
Coors Field	1.126	1.299	-0.173	-0.154
U.S. Cellular Field	1.122	1.353	-0.231	-0.206
Camden Yards	1.051	1.359	-0.308	-0.293

Fenway Park was the fifth-best park in which to score runs last season but the fifth-worst park out of which to hit homeruns. Shea was the fifth-worst run-scoring park but the ninth-best homerun park, the latter of which is a little bit surprising. Camden Yards was slightly above average for runs scored but was the most homerun-friendly park in baseball. Petco Park was the toughest place to score any type of run, homerun or otherwise.

Tweet Comment 41 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Shea has

always had a postive HR rate effect for LH and been HR depressing for RH, this was most likely due to the wind blowing from left to right. However, last year, it was probable that Shea would give up more HRs (insert cliche Heilman joke) because Citi Field acted as a wind breaker for winds blowing in from centerfield.

by Sokojoe on Jan 8, 2009 9:05 AM EST reply actions

As usual...

I am the blogs foremost authority on “not” understanding the more complex statistics in baseball. In this case I’m having a hard time understanding the reason for the comparison. Is there a correlation between a ballpark “being” a home run park versus a run scoring park? Is there a significance here? Again, not trying to be facetious, just trying to understand the reason why we’re having a comparison.

As for why a ballpark may be more a run producing ballpark, I’m willing to bet it has a lot to do with lack of foul territory.

Standing by for keyboard lashing…

" Well isn't this place a geographical oddity? Two weeks from everywhere! "

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Jan 8, 2009 9:22 AM EST reply actions

foul territory

I recently saw it pointed out (maybe in one of the recent comment threads here but I can’t remember for sure) that a reconfiguration to add seats and reduce the amount of foul territory was one reason why Dodger Stadium was playing more hitter-friendly of late.

by JoshNY on Jan 8, 2009 11:25 AM EST up reply actions

i was going to inquire yesterday's discussion

about the dimensions of foul territory at Citi.

the pic of the area near right field “foul” pole got me wondering.

I.M. Forme
"When you get yourself into trouble is when you feel you have to do something, and then you get yourself in trouble." --Omar Minaya

by itsmetsforme on Jan 8, 2009 11:56 AM EST up reply actions

interestingly enough

i saw/heard the same thing a couple of days ago.

" Well isn't this place a geographical oddity? Two weeks from everywhere! "

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Jan 8, 2009 12:47 PM EST up reply actions

I'll be the math nerd of the day.

With just 2 variables, the r-squared should be determined, basically, how close does one number compare to the other number. In this case, the r-squared is .54. Which basically states that 54% of the run scoring ability of a park comes the ability to hit HRs in that park. The is attributed to other factors.

I finally completed the comps of all parks and have it posted at Beyond the BoxScore here at SB Nation.

Some of the other factors that might matter for runs, but not HR:
Toughness of stadium (i.e. swirling winds, white roof of Metrodome)
Foul Area
Surface type (turf).
Depth of CF — futher back it is means more area for people to cover to chase balls down

by Jeff Zimmerman on Jan 8, 2009 10:29 AM EST reply actions 4 recs

Now I'm "squaring" 'r's'?

Oh man! I just wanted to cheer for my team! :-)

" Well isn't this place a geographical oddity? Two weeks from everywhere! "

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Jan 8, 2009 10:34 AM EST up reply actions

Rec'd

Awesome, thank you for doing this. So homerun hitting is highly correlative to run scoring, but not so much as to make Fenway v.2008 a colossal improbability.

by Eric Simon on Jan 8, 2009 11:50 AM EST up reply actions

Second

by Sokojoe on Jan 8, 2009 11:58 AM EST up reply actions

doesn't depth of CF also influence HR?

by JoshNY on Jan 8, 2009 3:34 PM EST up reply actions

Not many HRs actually hit to CF to begin with

…so area to cover is more important.

by Jeff Zimmerman on Jan 8, 2009 3:38 PM EST up reply actions

I guess that makes sense

by JoshNY on Jan 9, 2009 9:08 AM EST up reply actions

Ideal Park

Forgive me if this has already been discussed, but how do people want Taxpayer Field to play? My personal pref is for it to play similarly to Shea – a pitcher’s park that supports our team history, but with a slight boost to HRs for the excitement factor.

by metsjetsnets on Jan 8, 2009 1:36 PM EST reply actions

I want a neutral-ish park

Nothing at the extreme like too many HRs in Philly or death to HRs like Petco. I never did like teams when teams made their park for a specific player, such as Yanks having a short porch for the Babe. I think the Mets did that with their right field, figuring Reyes’ triples will see a dramatic increase with the new config.

by Sokojoe on Jan 8, 2009 2:00 PM EST up reply actions

i would prefer its dimensions be engineered

for the bat of Manny Ramirez. As a bonus, the size of left field could be arranged for the defense of Manny Ramirez, and with a special hill to facilitate the occasional fan-hand-slapping double play.

I.M. Forme
"When you get yourself into trouble is when you feel you have to do something, and then you get yourself in trouble." --Omar Minaya

by itsmetsforme on Jan 8, 2009 2:46 PM EST up reply actions

LOL!

One can dream.

" Well isn't this place a geographical oddity? Two weeks from everywhere! "

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Jan 8, 2009 3:25 PM EST up reply actions

Don't forget a battery charging station--

—for Manny’s Oakley stereo/sunglasses.

by madisonmetsfan on Jan 8, 2009 6:20 PM EST up reply actions

How about an obstacle course for Manny?

If he’s going to clown around, we might as well make it as enjoyable as possible.

by BobbyV_Incognito on Jan 8, 2009 7:48 PM EST up reply actions

Since my understanding of advanced math is roughly equal to Lou's I'll just say this:

I honestly have a lot of trouble remembering which teams play in about half of these stadiums because of their stupid corporate names. I’m pretty certain I’ve never heard of ‘Progressive Field’.

by BobbyV_Incognito on Jan 8, 2009 7:50 PM EST reply actions

good point

i couldn’t figure out which team played at progressive field either (until i googled it). same goes for chase field.

at least there are no logos on the uniforms yet, a la the English Premier League

by englishgrey on Jan 8, 2009 8:01 PM EST up reply actions

And if we go the way of the EPL

half of the teams will be sponsored by dodging gambling operations. Awesome!

'Oh yes, I know all about that duty-of-a-citizen stuff. It doesn't go. There are exceptions to every rule, and this was one of them. When a man risks his liberty to come and root at a ball-game, you've got to hand it to him. He isn't a crook. He's a fan.'

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Jan 8, 2009 8:27 PM EST up reply actions

+1

it is futile to even attempt to remember any of these stadium names. I hate to say it, but the Yankees got it right.

by SQUAD on Jan 9, 2009 2:17 AM EST up reply actions

Except the Stadium looks like

a federal building. Full of granite, cold in every sense of the word. Although, I guess they were going for that look, which is sad, because if I was designing a stadium to mock the yankees, the New Yankees stadium would be exactly what I would do, a federal bank look a like.

by Sokojoe on Jan 9, 2009 9:25 AM EST up reply actions

it looks exactly like the original Yankee Stadium

before it was renovated. As someone who loves baseball history and detested that abomination in the Bronx, I love the look of their new stadium.

by cjmulrain on Jan 10, 2009 12:13 AM EST up reply actions

Wow

Apparently I need to pay more attention to the Indians. I assumed they just renamed the Jake Progressive Field, but it’s actually been called that for a year.

"When the little children start to speak they once said 'Mama' and 'Papa', but with the fans we got they say the first thing, 'Metsie, Metsie, Metsie'." - Casey Stengel

by Prince on Jan 8, 2009 9:26 PM EST reply actions

I was commenting the other day

that i will refer to whatever stadium the White Sox play in for the rest of time as “Comiskey” (and I’m not even very old, 27. it just sounds right)

by HotChipWillBreakYourLegs on Jan 8, 2009 11:16 PM EST up reply actions

Hell

I been referring to my home arena by its original name even tho it’s been through two name changes since then. Like you say, it just sounds right.

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Jan 8, 2009 11:44 PM EST up reply actions

Amen.

by SQUAD on Jan 9, 2009 2:16 AM EST up reply actions

sounds good

rather than trying to come up with a clever name for the Mets’ new stadium on the basis of the bailout or whatever, we could just continue to call it “Shea Stadium”.

by JoshNY on Jan 9, 2009 9:10 AM EST up reply actions

I disagree

this isn’t a simple name change, this is an entire new building. If they renamed Shea, Citi, I would call it Shea but this new stadium is not Shea, to point out the obvious.

by Sokojoe on Jan 9, 2009 9:27 AM EST up reply actions

fine

call it “New Shea” then, problem solved!

by JoshNY on Jan 9, 2009 11:46 AM EST up reply actions

I'm down w/that

“New Shea”.

Why not? There’s New Yankee stadium, New New Meadowlands stadium.

Hell! It’s “New” York isn’t it? “New Shea” sounds just about right.

" Well isn't this place a geographical oddity? Two weeks from everywhere! "

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Jan 9, 2009 3:28 PM EST up reply actions

Word, I'm down.

by Sokojoe on Jan 9, 2009 10:10 PM EST up reply actions

but

Shea Stadium is a crappy name if you really think about it…it was named after a lawyer for crying out loud. I’d rather call it Metropolitan Park or something. If the old stadium had been called Flushing Meadows Park like it was originally supposed to, and they tried to call the new one Shea Stadium, we’d all be complaining about what a terrible name it is.

by cjmulrain on Jan 10, 2009 12:15 AM EST up reply actions