Hanley, Panda and the Monster
No, this is not the title of a new children’s book, or a remake of Kukla, Fran and Ollie. I’m dating myself with that one. After a relatively quiet weekend baseball-wise, it’s the big story of Thanksgiving week. The Boston Red Sox made a huge splash, diving hard into the position-player end of the free-agent pool, remaking a significant portion of their offense in the process. Hanley Ramirez and Pablo Sandoval are now set to move into the most distinctive offensive environment in the game, one defined by the presence of a large man-made structure in left field: the Green Monster. What does the Monster hold in store for the two newest members of the Red Sox?
As a backdrop for our analysis, I’m going to post a fairly simple table. Each year, I calculate my own set of park factors utilizing granular batted-ball data. Basically, I compare the actual results of each batted ball hit in each park to what each batted ball of that approximate speed and angle would have produced in a neutral environment. Give each actual and projected event a run value, and divide the actual average run value per 27 outs to the projected average run value per 27 outs, and voila, you have your park factors, adjusted for batted ball quality. Below are the 2014 park factors for all BIP and for fly balls specifically for Fenway Park, Dodger Stadium and AT&T Park:
| 14 OVERALL | LF | LCF | CF | RCF | RF | ALL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BOS | 116.5 | 149.7 | 105.7 | 92.6 | 84.3 | 110.2 |
| LAD | 93.3 | 121.5 | 110.4 | 126.8 | 86.1 | 104.8 |
| SF | 81.4 | 77.5 | 92.4 | 81.3 | 102.3 | 84.7 |
| —————- | ———- | ———– | ———- | ———- | ———- | ———- |
| 14 FLYBALL | LF | LCF | CF | RCF | RF | ALL |
| BOS | 163.0 | 277.1 | 112.0 | 85.8 | 81.9 | 146.6 |
| LAD | 108.4 | 177.1 | 163.8 | 163.6 | 71.8 | 125.1 |
| SF | 75.0 | 61.6 | 75.6 | 63.8 | 92.5 | 67.3 |
There are a few quick take-aways here. Secondarily, you’ll notice Dodger Stadium was quite hitter-friendly last season, especially in the air to the middle of the field, and that AT&T Park simply stifles offense — especially in the air to the gaps. Primarily, however, the uniqueness of Fenway Park jumps off of the page. (For reference, the overall park factors for 2013-2014 had a correlation coefficient of .65; the fly ball park factors had a .70 correlation coefficient.)
Based on overall park factor, Fenway wasn’t much more hitter-friendly than Dodger Stadium last year. Once you zone in on fly balls — and fly balls to LF and LCF more specifically — the Fenway effect is quite stark. Fenway’s 2014 LF and LCF fly ball park factors of 163.0 and 277.1, respectively, were by far the highest in the game. It’s no one-year phenomenon, either, as they also paced the majors in both field sectors in 2013.
As I explained in a recent article that discussed a variety of park factor-related topics, including Michael Cuddyer’s move to Citi Field, it’s all about the doubles in Fenway. Scores of routine fly balls in almost any other park become doubles when hit in the direction of the Monster. For instance, MLB hitters batted .071 AVG/.142 SLG on fly balls hit between 87.5 mph to 90 mph to LCF in 2014. They batted .444 AVG/.917 SLG on such fly balls at Fenway in 2014. Thirty-six such fly balls and 15 doubles. That is simply staggering. At 12 other MLB parks — including Coors Field — hitters garnered zero hits on those fly balls in 2014.
Fenway’s RCF and RF are actually fairly difficult for hitters, as suggested by the park factors listed above. The Pesky Pole might be inviting, but it gets real deep real quick as you gravitate away from the RF line. If you get a chance to visit Fenway, locate the red seat in deep RF that marks a particularly long Ted Williams homer. Do so from a home plate vantage point, if possible. The sheer distance speaks volumes not only about Williams’ greatness, but about the challenges lefty pull hitters face in Fenway. It’s a long way beyond a fence that’s a long way away. There aren’t many cheap homers to that part of Fenway.
Ramirez and Sandoval are veteran MLB hitters with fairly defined strengths, weaknesses and overall tendencies at this stage in their respective careers. Let’s see how those traits fit in with their new home environment, and estimate what type of performance effects might be in store for both players moving forward. To do so, let’s take a look at their 2014 plate-appearance outcome frequency and production by BIP type data. First, the frequency info:
| FREQ – 2014 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| H.Ramirez | % | REL | PCT |
| K | 16.4% | 80 | 33 |
| BB | 10.9% | 143 | 87 |
| POP | 7.8% | 101 | 50 |
| FLY | 26.8% | 96 | 39 |
| LD | 20.7% | 99 | 47 |
| GB | 44.7% | 103 | 66 |
| ————– | ———- | ———- | ———- |
| Sandoval | % | REL | PCT |
| K | 13.3% | 65 | 13 |
| BB | 6.1% | 80 | 27 |
| POP | 7.2% | 94 | 43 |
| FLY | 32.1% | 115 | 83 |
| LD | 20.0% | 96 | 34 |
| GB | 40.6% | 94 | 36 |
The single most important piece of information in each player’s frequency profile is the low K rate. If I’m working for a club that inflates offensive production on balls in play, I want players that put the ball in play very often. Ramirez and Sandoval had 2014 K rate percentile ranks of 33 and 13, respectively, which is especially good for players possessing at least a modicum of power potential. This is a career best K rate percentile for Ramirez, though his K rate has been better than the average of his league’s regulars in four of the past six seasons. This also was a career best K rate percentile rank for Sandoval, but he has always been better than league average, and he’s never posted a K rate percentile rank over 30.
Their BB rates are starkly different — Ramirez’ BB rate percentile rank of 87 is his second best ever, and best since 2008. Sandoval’s 27 mark is his career worst, and his first time below his league’s average since 2011.
Ramirez has been a ground ball-oriented hitter throughout his MLB career — his 2014 grounder percentile rank of 66 is actually his second lowest over the past five seasons. His 2014 liner percentile rank of 47 is actually a tad high compared to his career norms — he posted an outlier liner percentile rank of 86 in his outlandish but shortened 2013 campaign.
This year was the first time in five seasons that Sandoval posted a better than league average popup rate (43 percentile rank). Despite this decline, he did post a career high — by far — 83 fly ball percentile rank. Maintaining such a high fly ball rate would serve him extremely well in Fenway Park in light of the park factors highlighted above. Sandoval can also expect some positive regression in his liner rate moving forward. His 2014 34 liner percentile rank is his second lowest over the past six seasons, well below his 2011 and 2013 marks of 74 and 62, respectively.
One can only learn so much about a player’s true talent level by examining his frequency data — batted-ball authority drives production, and inferences about both players’ ability in that area can be made by analyzing their production by BIP data:
| PROD — 2014 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H.Ramirez | AVG | OBP | SLG | REL PRD | ADJ PRD | BOS PRD |
| FLY | 0.301 | 0.763 | 119 | 158 | 181 | |
| LD | 0.750 | 1.125 | 145 | 126 | 129 | |
| GB | 0.265 | 0.290 | 117 | 107 | 107 | |
| ALL BIP | 0.350 | 0.557 | 122 | 123 | 130 | |
| ALL PA | 0.283 | 0.364 | 0.451 | 135 | 137 | 143 |
| —————- | ———- | ———– | ———- | ———- | ———- | ———- |
| Sandoval | AVG | OBP | SLG | REL PRD | ADJ PRD | BOS PRD |
| FLY | 0.258 | 0.609 | 80 | 103 | 126 | |
| LD | 0.606 | 0.723 | 77 | 101 | 107 | |
| GB | 0.309 | 0.335 | 158 | 122 | 117 | |
| ALL BIP | 0.324 | 0.483 | 98 | 108 | 117 | |
| ALL PA | 0.277 | 0.322 | 0.412 | 109 | 120 | 128 |
Both players’ actual production on each BIP type is indicated in the AVG and SLG columns, and is converted to run values and compared to MLB average in the REL PRD column. That figure then is adjusted for context, such as home park, luck, etc., in the ADJ PRD column. For the purposes of this exercise, SH and SF are included as outs and HBP are excluded from the OBP calculation. Also for the purposes of this exercise, another column, BOS PRD, is included which estimates each player’s true talent 2014 production if half of their games were played in Fenway Park.
Ramirez was unlucky on fly balls in 2014 — despite the fact that his home park inflated fly ball production quite significantly, he batted just .301 AVG/763 SLG in the air, for 119 REL PRD. After adjusting for context, primarily his hard/soft fly ball rates, his ADJ PRD figure climbs significantly to 158. When adjusted specifically for the context of Fenway Park, that mark climbs still further to 181. Fenway’s impact on Ramirez’ fly balls is not that straightforward. Sure, he pulls the ball in the air quite a bit, and a good number of would-be fly outs to LF/LCF will now become doubles. However, he will lose some CF homers — Dodger Stadium is one of the easiest straightway homer parks in the game — and some of his would-be homers to LF/LCF will now be intercepted by the Monster. This is a hard liner guy, not a high towering drive guy, on balance, who could hit 50 doubles if he stays healthy.
Ramirez’ crushes his liners — even after some downward contextual adjustment, his superior REL PRD of 145 slides down to a slightly less superior 126 ADJ PRD, and 129 BOS PRD. On all BIP his REL PRD (122) an ADJ PRD (123) are almost identical — Fenway-specific contextual adjustments inflate that mark to 130. Add back his strong K/BB data, and his 135 REL PRD is adjusted to a 137 true talent level, and a 143 Fenway-adjusted figure.
How about the Panda? Sandoval hit a relatively puny .258 AVG/.609 SLG on fly balls last season, adjusted only up to 103 for general context. He hits an awful lot of garden-variety fly balls that are routine outs in most parks. In Fenway, a bunch of those are going to hit the Monster, as his 126 BOS PRD on fly balls attests. While the switch-hitter obviously logs more at-bats from the left side, he hits more fly balls to LF/LCF by a fairly sizeable margin — in 2014, he hit 75 fly balls to LF/LCF and only 57 to RCF/RF.
He was extremely unlucky on line drives last season, with a lowly 77 REL PRD, adjusted upward to virtually MLB average for general context (101 ADJ PRD) and higher still to a 107 BOS PRD. Interestingly, Sandoval posted an extremely high 158 REL PRD on grounders — while that is in large part due to random chance, he does have quite a knack for grounding the ball up the middle from both sides of the plate, doing so at a much higher than MLB average rate in both 2013 and 2014.
On all BIP, Sandoval’s REL PRD is a slightly below average 98. General contextual adjustments boost that figure to 108, but the Fenway effect ramps it up substantially higher to 117. Add back the K and BB data, and Sandoval’s 2014 REL PRD is 109, his true talent level is 120, and his Fenway-adjusted mark is 128. Moving Pablo Sandoval from AT&T to Fenway makes him an entirely different, happy Panda. He’s likely destined to lose at least a couple RF homers from the left side, but that will be more than offset by impact of the Monster to LF-LCF, and to a lesser extent, the relative reachability of the deeper RCF stands in Boston compared to that particularly cavernous sector of his former home.
No doubt, the Red Sox did an awful lot of research — with regard to traditional scouting, makeup, etc., in addition to analytics — before making such substantial investments in these two players. How they will deploy Ramirez defensively remains to be seen, though my somewhat educated guess has him destined for left field. Both of these players make plenty of contact — the largest, and likely most underrated factor of all — and, on balance, make the types of contact that should be favored by their new home park.
Ramirez is the more talented offensive player, but Sandoval is younger, more well rounded and stands to be helped a good bit more by his new environs. Averages of .300 are within reach for both (though my gut is more .290-ish), with scads of doubles. And one parting prop bet: Sandoval, he of the 19 triples in the past six seasons, will go triple-less as he exits the most three-bagger-friendly park in the game.
Thanks, Tony, for doing what I tried to do here (http://www.faketeams.com/2014/11/22/7251613/the-panda-in-beantown-pablo-sandoval-in-boston) only with much more detail and better use of batted ball data.
Hanley, Panda, and the Monster – This fall on NBC!
Although I guess the Sox are hoping it’s shown this fall on TBS & Fox
That’s even funnier because World Series played during this approximate period of time on this channels!
Kukla, Fran & Ollie were HUGE in their first run of 11 years, 1947-1957.
Assuming synergy here, consider the Red Sox during that run of KF&O 1.0:
zero pennants, so zero World Series appearances;
2nd twice (’48 to Veeck’s wreckers, ’49 to Stengel’s Yankees in his first year there and, uncoincidentally, Berra first as their first line catcher);
3rd 4 times;
4th 4 times;
and 7th once.
So: 10/11 seasons in the top half, average finish 3.6, average GBL of 12.8.
They could HIT! Led the AL in RS 4 seasons, 10/11 in the top half;
but … not so good at pitching and defense.
All in all, if it’s a harbinger, it’s not all bad, given the current reality that it’s only necessary to make the post-season.
Thing is, I can’t figure out if Big Papi is Ollie or Mme Oglepuss; if he’s Ollie, the Panda has to be Dolores!
Great analysis. I’d always wondered if you could convert a player’s numbers from one park to another using park factors. This has been very informative.
Also, “Sandoval is…more well rounded…”
Heh.
Teams do that conversion all the time. Last year, the Yankees did that with Brian McCann, figuring he’d be a 30+ HR hitter based on his fly-ball tendencies in Atlanta and how that would convert to Yankee Stadium. It didn’t quite work out, at least the first year, because it doesn’t take into account changing pitching patterns. The Red Sox went to great lengths to show how JD Drew would be a monster at Fenway based on his past hitting patterns. That also didn’t work.
That’s not to say there isn’t value, because there is. It’s just not as easy as it sounds.
“Interestingly, Sandoval posted an extremely high 158 REL PRD on grounders — while that is in large part due to random chance, he does have quite a knack for grounding the ball up the middle from both sides of the plate, doing so at a much higher than MLB average rate in both 2013 and 2014.”
How often do the other teams in the NL West put on shifts? I know all the teams in the AL East frequently shift, so that could negatively effect the groundball numbers
No team is going to shift vs. Sandoval. If you didn’t watch the World Series just look at his spray charts and you’ll understand why.
If you did watch the world series, you should still look at Pablo’s spray charts because only an idiot would make player evaluations based on a 7 game series.
Actually I pointed to the WS only because they represent games that even an AL fan was more likely to have watched (MLB being the local/regional market game that it is) and noticed Sandoval’s very obvious all-field tendencies even on ground balls.
Or to put more succinctly, small sample or not, anyone who could have watced the WS and still not understand why it would be a bad idea to shift vs. Sandoval would indeed have to know northing about baseball, or be an idiot.
I’m not usually a fan of ESPN articles but this particular article is very interesting:
http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/11933221/boston-red-sox-return-their-big-spending-ways
Well, I guess last place – and further last place in two of the past three years – causes you to reconsider your position and mindset in respect of various matters.
Despite annoying public statements by Lucchino etc and despite media-driven paranoia, the Sox have been a high-payroll team every year under the current ownership. Remaining a high-payroll team isn’t really a change in mindset.
Perhaps, but we’re talking a total outlay of $183M between two guys. Neither are getting paid like superstars, despite both being arguably the best two positional players in this year’s FA class.
This isn’t a case where the Red Sox are recalibrating market expectations similar to what the Tigers did with Fielder, Reds did with Votto, etc.
They’re flexing their financial might with a more cautious approach, unlike 2011 when they made huge commitments to Crawford and Gonzalez.
Arguably #2 and #3 obviously. Martin was #1.
What a bizarrely pissy article. Tabloid content.
I wouldn’t characterize it as a pissy article: the author is simply pointing out that Henry and Lucchino argued recently against contracts similar to those which the Red Sox just agreed.
There is considerable risk associated with Hanley’s attitude / injury history and Panda’s weight (correctly pointed out in a previous post by a SF Giants fan that he ate his way out of the lineup in 2010), but I think the total value and the fact that the years don’t go beyond five make these contracts a reasonable gamble.
I just thought these statement by both Lucchino and Henry (not just Lucchino) in the article were interesting.
I think the Red Sox tried that not quite exclusive but very strong focus on development route, but after two last places finishes in three years they decided to ramp up the talent base quickly with free agents and (upcoming) trades for pitchers.
I think the Red Sox will land Lester or Hamels, plus a 2/3 starter to slot behind Lester or Hamels. Cameron wrote a nice article on potential trade partners; we’ll find out soon enough.
Don’t interpret me as ‘defending’ either of those individuals or their quotes. Their relentless antagonism of the Yankees and the pretense that they are not just like them is weird and tedious.
I just found the article a total waste of time. Didn’t dig at all into baseball ideas, just baseball people.
Both of these guys seem like the type to adjust their game to take shots at that monster. Do RHB going to Boston tend toward suffering the same fate as LHB in Yankee Stadium (e.g., become so enthralled with the short porch that they lose their balanced hitting approach, like Giambi/Teixeira and a plethora of others)? It tends to work out for a boost in production early on, then a precipitous drop as their skills erode and plaws are exploited by the opposition.
Excellent question. I grew up watching the Astros and I saw the same thing happen with Biggio when they moved from the Astrodome to Minute Maid. It was like he took one look at the Crawford boxes and decided he was going to become a dead pull hitter for the rest of his career.
It’s not clear hitters in Yankee Stadium suffered the fate you describe. I get why you would think so. Giambi and Teixeira’s batting averages dropped precipitously after joining the Yankees, and Curtis Granderson popped into my head as another example. The thing is, it’s a small group, and the changes for each people are confounded by order effects – most obviously age, but also shifting and injury (and for Giambi possibly changes in PED regimen).
But the bigger problem is that these players succeeded as hitters at Yankee Stadium. Giambi put up several terrific seasons (wRC+ 175, 149, 165, 147). Teixeira had a terrific season followed by good ones (142, 128, 124, 116). Granderson’s OPS+ was higher in his first three seasons with the Yankees than in the preceding three with the Tigers (123 vs. 120).
We may just be seeing aging of skillset rather than park-related diminishing returns.
Damn those exploited plaws
Ask Adrian Beltre.
Thanks for this analysis Tony. I’m wondering if you see any trends in Sandoval’s BIP data that would make you worried about him over a longer term investment like this? A lot of people who have pointed to his stats over the past 3 seasons as evidence that Sandoval is perhaps on the fat player aging curve and clearly in decline already. Is that assumption reinforced or contradicted at all by the BIP data? You expressed some pretty strong opinions about Chase Headley’s trajectory in the piece you wrote when the Yankees acquired him and I’d like to know if you see any of the same red flags with Sandoval at least for the out years of the deal.
Having watched Pablo for a long time through the good and bad, the part missing here is in 2010 and 2013 he could not leg out doubles. Fenway might yield some bounty, but I wouldn’t bank them as two baggers. And that’s the rub with what you’re paying for: if he’s a good singles hitter who runs station to station, is this a good use of FA moneys? The stated desire to DH doesn’t really give any comfort of more camp panda’s or best shape of my life type stories. But the stadium should yield a lot more forgiveness than Pac Bell, that’s for sure.
Not to let stats get in the way of your scouting report but Sandoval has posted 25+ doubles in every one of his full seasons in the majors (including the ones shortened by the broken hamates in ’11 and ’12).
Indeed. Like clockwork. I’ll include 2010 as well, because it contradicts my scouting report.
2010: 616 PAs, 34 2Bs, 13 HRs (benched at end of season)
2011: 466 PAs, 26 2Bs, 23 HRs (hammate 1)
2012: 442 PAs, 25 2Bs, 12 HRs (hammate 2)
2013: 584 PAs, 27 2Bs, 14 HRs (benched at end of games for defensive replacement)
2014: 638 PAs, 26 2Bs, 16 HRs
Notice the same # of 2B/HR, roughly, and the increase in PAs? Singles hitter trends.
In 2010, he hit roughly 230/300/340 for 3 months – then had a hot August, then he cratered. He actually hit very well at home though. Most of his extra base damage was done at PacBell. There aren’t any absolutes, and Panda is as streaky as they come. When he gets large (and ages), taking the extra base gets hard.
I dispute that Bochy’s pattern of replacing Sandoval during the last two regular seasons (mostly with Arias but more recently as often with Duffy) aimed at ‘defensive improvement’.
The impression was it derived from complimentary goals: giving him respite from the field while providing some field time to Arias and Duffy. Also, admitted or not, I suspect at least sometimes it was done to lessen chance injury to Sandoval when it appeared likely the game’s outcome was not in issue.
On reflection, Imma softening this: it’s POSSIBLE SOME was owing to Panda’s problems on defense in 2013. Around that time, last quarter of so of 2013, his waistline blew up so bad he relented to management pressure to ‘hire’ his brother to cook for him.
You’d dispute wrong. Panda was absolutely horrible in the field in 2013. He was out of breath running to 1B. It was miserable. For him to throw around “disrespect” when Bochy has been nothing but nice things to say while he benched him for various youthful indiscretions is a pretty good slap in the face. I’ve got fond memories of Panda but I’m also a long memory Gigante fan, and he has screwed the pooch plenty. This was a good pass by the Greybeards.
Fine, your impression; so, now I’m disputing your premise – the one in your first post in this sub-thread that claims you’ve watched the Giants at all closely or faithfully.
“Having watched Pablo for a long time” means “I think you have to trust my opinion because I am a gatekeeper to the information used herein, and you cannot argue against it.”
Not a valid way to start an assertion.
Your wallets fat and out of shape, just like the Panda.
Apparently shankbone is what’s exposed when a troll’s in need of a meal.
Great stuff. Does either of them foul out a lot? Fenway’s tiny foul territory is another gift to hitters.
“…but Sandoval is younger, more well rounded and…”
Avoiding unfortunate puns would be beneficial to an argument in support of someone. My natural inclination for a response was, ‘yes, but he’s way more well-rounded!’
Im sure I read a childrens fictional story with the same name as a child lol.
Very good piece, does look like Panda will like his new habitat the most. Think he’s an especially good target next year.
The bomb which Williams hit to the seat painted red in his honor back in the day he couldn’t hit today, both because he’s dead, and due to the Fenway effect. The higher configuration of luxury boxes behind home plate pulls the breeze back. That is how Epstein sold Shilling on coming to Fenway.
There’s a lot of stupid in your brief comment. Even assuming that a small structure like Fenway Park would be a demonstrable obstacle to atmospheric winds, Williams hit his famous home run in 1946, the same year that Fenway Park built its press box, complete with – yup – luxury seats, because Fenway hosted the All Star game that same year. In 1949, that press box was reinforced with steel, and structurally it’s the same today as it was back then.
But more importantly, launch angle, backspin, and launch velocity affect a fly ball’s distance far more than drag, wind, and temperature. We know that Williams’s home run was measured accurately at 502 feet from home plate, but the ball would have traveled approximately 30 feet further, because the imapact point of the ball was approximately 30 feet above the field level.
Wind or no wind, for a ball to travel that far would require an optimal launch angle of 30 degrees, an optimal amount of backspin, and a launch velocity of about 120 miles per hour. And that has nothing to do with luxury suites. Williams hit a baseball with perfection, and there probably haven’t been more than five or so other human beings that have hit a ball as well.
In any event, Alan Nathan in 2009 analyzed every ball park to measure the “carry” effect on fly balls and determined that after Coors Field, Fenway Park was the easiest park in which to hit a home run. If Theo Epstein really had that conversation with Curt Schilling in the 2003 offseason, and that’s how he “sold” Schilling on accepting the trade between Boston and the D-Backs, then it further explains how Schilling is now broke and his decision-making nearly bankrupted an entire state. Given Schilling’s numerous other idiotic public comments, particularly with regard to evolution, one can deduce that Schilling is most certainly not a man of science or reason.
Speaking of science and reason, you may be even less well acquainted with either than Shilling is, asshole. 1989.
Boggs: ‘I was right’
The wind has been an issue at Fenway Park since the Red Sox added the .406 Club (nee 600 Club) in 1989. Former Red Sox third baseman Wade Boggs was adamant that it kept down his home run total.
Epstein went to Schilling with the data. More high rise building around the park since that time may have increased the effect as well.
Yup. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1992-07-17/sports/9202190992_1_vortex-wind-ball
While I appreciate the plug for my “carry” analysis, I have to disagree with your statement that “launch angle, backspin, and launch velocity affect a fly ball’s distance far more than drag, wind, and temperature.” While I don’t discount the importance of launch angle and velocity, it certainly is the case that drag and wind are very important. To appreciate the relative importance of the different factors, you can play around with my “trajectory calculator”: http://baseball.physics.illinois.edu/trajectory-calculator.html.
“Basically, I compare the actual results of each batted ball hit in each park to what each batted ball of that approximate speed and angle would have produced in a neutral environment.”
How do arrive at the measurement of a “neutral environment?” How do you account for the relatively minuscule amount of data in newer ballparks, some of which have undergone facelifts since their recent groundbreaking?
Someone pointed out that Sandoval’s introduction to the press as a Red Sox was conducted in front of a Duncan Donuts backdrop. Make what you will of that.
Here are some pictures of Ryan Dempster in front of a Dunkin’ Donuts backdrop. Therefore I predict Sandoval will become a pitcher. He’ll then save the Red Sox some money by taking a year off.
http://www.usatodaysportsimages.com/setImages/142886
I bet the same analysis is somewhere in Ben Cherington’s office, having been done by Bill James or one of James’ assistants. There are probably similar studies on Chase Headley and a few other guys, that don’t show such promising projections for Fenway.
Cherington looked over the numbers, then filled in numbers on contracts and sent them to Hanley’s and Panda’s agents.