The Fallacy of Park Factors and the AL West
As Ranger Fans, we are constantly beaten over our heads with the fact that TBPIA is a decisive advantage for our offense and a hindrance to our pitching staff. Even with Park Factor Data, at first glance Texas has a few major concerns.
Well, contrary to the initial glance, TBPIA is actually fairly consistent with the rest of MLB parks in baseball. There are very few areas that are a concern, such as triples and sacrifices, but as a whole we fall into the "norms" of the rest of baseball.
Now before I get chased out of town as a lunatic spouting gibberish, let me explain how I derived these numbers and more importantly what I learned about the AL West.
Let’s start with getting the Data. I used the 3 year park factor data from 2006-2008. This is available here in Excel 2007 format. I then used some very basic statistical approaches. First derive the mean or average of all the categories. I then derived the standard deviation of each category in the spread sheet as well.
I then subtracted the Park Factor of whatever team I was sampling from the MLB average. Let’s call this that particular team’s distance from the mean At this point it is a simple "IF" function with Excel. If the absolute value of a team’s distance from the mean is greater than or equal to the standard deviation, it fell into the "Fail" category, if not it was "Good".
At one Standard Deviation, this if we assume with our 30 samples that the data is a normal curve, encompasses roughly 68% of all the ballparks In the MLB or 20 ballparks. Texas fell within 1 standard deviation in all but 3 of the 26 categories in the test data. Out of those 3, triples, at bats, and sacrifices, only at bats and triples would have a large effect on the offensive output. Needless to say, runs, RBI's and home runs fell within the "norms" of baseball.
Now it is time for the fun part. Let’s compare that to the rest of the AL West. The Angels home park "Fails" the at bats, hits and walks categories, which is a nice plus to the pitching staff. The Mariners home park "Fails" the games criteria, walks, strike outs, stolen bases, caught stealing, and hit by pitch categories. And then there is Oakland.
McAfee Coliseum is a major advantage, regardless how you break up the numbers. It "Fails" in the at bats, runs, total bases, extra base hits, RBI’s, strike outs, caught stealing, stolen base percentage, batting average, on base percentage, slugging percentage, OPS, ground outs and air outs. In any case of how you slice it, that is a huge factor in offensive performance.

Is the BPIA the major problem with the pitching, No. Is the BPIA the reason for the Ranger's offensive success, No. Is our park comparative to most parks in the league, Yes.
All these snide remarks we Rangers fans get beat down with now have a better answer than "No, our pitching really is that bad" or "No, our offense is really pretty damn good". Next time just say that the BPIA falls within one standard deviation of all the major offensive categories, and is easily within the ranges that would be classified as the "norms" of the MLB. If they look at you funny, tell them to go look it up.
If you want the excel file with the formulas or the charts that would be associated with this, email me at laxtonto@hotmail.com and leave a note in the thread to check my email.
7 recs |
26 comments
Comments
Your chart
has pretty colors.
Purgatory's kind of like the in-betweeny one. You weren't really shit, but you weren't all that great either. Like Tottenham.
by TheJeezus on Mar 18, 2009 4:08 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I can't get it to sharpen up...
It annoys me that what I can do in Excel, I can’t get posted onto the wed
by laxtonto on Mar 18, 2009 4:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We've visited this topic before
the park favors lefty hitters and pitchers, and is a triples beasticon. My favorite Ranger myth to debunk, lately:
The Rangers can’t develop pitching. They’ve had their issues, but the lack of enough talented arms has been a bigger problem, by far. At times, the Rangers have been too impatient (Davis), rushed guys (Volquez), traded away very good arms (Young, Danks), or drafted like idiots (Drew Meyer). Like every other team, they’ve lost guys to injury attrition. But the lack of enough talent meant that injuries and some guys naturally not panning out equalled nothing but fringy guys left to call up most years.
Now, though, Hurley goes down and the system hardly skips a beat. An injury or two won’t devastate the system and force the organization into uncomfortable choices on the market. They might still make bad choices, but they are a lot less likely to be forced to do so just because they have no internal options.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Mar 18, 2009 4:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
I was about to say that you were all over the park factor mystification last season, even successfully challenging some sites/authors to update their info if I remember correctly.
As for the second canard, please beat all of the A’s fans over the head with as much counter-info as possible so they can finally let go of this unnatural obsession (“…but, but, isn’t it true that TX can’t develop pitching…”) in their desultory LSB posts.
by Goyogringo on Mar 18, 2009 6:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good stuff
All the more reason to make sure we maintain and optimize our offense now and in the future, I guess.
Now blogging again (temporarily) at "Hello Win Column".
by lonestarJon on Mar 18, 2009 6:33 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
hmm
do you think the triples tendency is ballpark related or something that has been exacerbated by poor outfield defense? I wasnt quite clear on if your analysis controls for that or not, but it seems like a possibility at least.
by Smoakin in the Boys Room on Mar 18, 2009 8:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
All it is using park factor data
so it could be anything form not being able to judge the ballpark to bad outfield defense to design.
My guess would be design. There is such large gaps out there in the OF, if a ball hits right it can easily be a triple.
by laxtonto on Mar 18, 2009 8:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
most triples in the Ballpark
seem to be on balls hit down the line into the right field corner that seem to pinball around then die right in the corner. It takes a long time for a RF to get all the way into the corner, then dig it out, then make that really long throw.
I wonder if the way the OF padding stops around 6" from the ground contributes to those balls staying in the corner, rather than bounce back towards the field of play.
Doctor please. Some more of these.
by tricer on Mar 18, 2009 8:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
most triples are partly because of bad defense
by Telegraph on Mar 18, 2009 9:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ok, thanks
but that doesn’t really have anything to do with park factors.
Doctor please. Some more of these.
by tricer on Mar 18, 2009 10:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Triples
I’d be interested to see how those numbers would change if the Rangers had the same outfielders on most nights. Were there less triples when, say, Rusty and Jaundo were getting the lion’s share of the playing time? Look here at how many different outfielders they’ve had in their opening day lineups.
My guess is that right field at TBPIA is no more or less quirky than other ballparks like Fenway or Minute Maid. Now, someone who isn’t me do the work to answer that, please.
Free Frank Catalanotto
by egriffey on Mar 20, 2009 3:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I vaguely recall a radio interview with Doug Melvin
back when the ball park opened. He said something like “the first thing I thought when I saw the field was ‘there are going to be a lot of triples’”.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Mar 19, 2009 12:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Triples accounted for approximately 0.5% of all plate-appearance outcomes last year...
…and approximately 2.2% of all hits.
I don’t think you can draw a firm conclusion from something that happens so infrequently.
by jwiscarson on Mar 19, 2009 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, did I ever screw that up.
Nevertheless, there were 49 triples hit in RBiA last season, and some amount of PAs that I can’t figure out because I’m logy due to a heavy lunch at an Italian restaurant.
by jwiscarson on Mar 19, 2009 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
sure, small sample season to season
but they’ve been in the park now for 15 years. I just glanced at the park factors at ESPN. The RBIA was well above average for triples every year from 2001-2008 except 2006, usually in the top 5. It’s a triples friendly park.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Mar 19, 2009 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I was being stupid
and just looked at Rangers season totals for triples in that first post. I then realized that this was an incredibly idiotic thing as it also included road triples and didn’t include road team’s triples when we play at home.
Nevertheless, I think the Rangers had something like 24 triples at home and about six elsewhere. That is a pretty absurd split, even for such a small sample size.
by jwiscarson on Mar 20, 2009 9:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
according to Bill James handbook (last year's edition, and going from memory)
RBiA is fairly neutral to RHB and very friendly to LHB.
Which seems to jive perfectly well with the eyeball test. Building a team to fit the ballpark seems a good idea, and for Texas that would include power hitting lefties, southpaw starters, and RHB that can go the other way with authority.
Doctor please. Some more of these.
by tricer on Mar 18, 2009 8:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
From the 2009 handbook
1st number is 2008 index, second is for 2006-2008
LHB BA: 105 Index__100 Index
LHB HR: 121 Index__109 index
RHB BA: 106 Index___104 Index
RHB HR: 122 Index___107 Index
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Mar 18, 2009 10:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
?
According to that the ballpark was much more homer friendly to both RH and LH batters last season than it has been over the last 3 seasons?
Am I interpreting that correctly? I’m thinking that the 121 and 122 should be the 1 yr and 3 yr marks for LH.
Doctor please. Some more of these.
by tricer on Mar 19, 2009 10:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And here goes the skewing:
Hammy, CD, and Bradley having good years had to have driven the ’08 numbers up.
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008
by Rodney on Mar 19, 2009 11:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've often wondered how much steroids
affected the RBiA’s numbers. When right handers are going opposite field on their homeruns more often than not, it skews the numbers of a right handed batter. If RBiA is favorable towards lefties but not righties, then perhaps steroids allowed the righties to hit like lefties in the ballpark making it seem favorable for all hitters instead of just lefties.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
by DerekSTheRed on Mar 19, 2009 9:32 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
How is stolen base percentage affected by park?
I guess there are a few very minor factors – quality of dirt in base paths/home plate, batters eye, fans behind the pitcher when viewed from 1st. But that seems like something that should be relatively independent of ball park. If so, that gives you an estimation of what the precision of the park factor metric really is.
I guess the same is for stolen bases and caught stealings themsleves, but those absolute stats at least can be affected by the decision to run.
by JBImaknee on Mar 19, 2009 10:09 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
lots of "Noise" in all of these.
There are several categories that are pretty much noise. Games and at-bats had a standard dev of 1.1% and .56% respectively. So it is not like you are looking at a very large spread as is. The next smallest is 3.71% to give a comparison with and average deviation of 9.26
by laxtonto on Mar 19, 2009 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

















