Kauffman Stadium: Pitcher-Friendly, Hitter-Friendly
This October, there’s been a lot of talk about the Royals’ offense, which is a very unexpected sentence. By now everyone should be pretty familiar with the Royals’ approach: they try to hit the ball and make things happen, as opposed to sitting back and waiting for dingers. At a few points, you might’ve read remarks along these lines from Royals officials: if the team played in a different ballpark, they’d hit a lot more homers. This year the Royals were actually last in the American League in road home runs, so it’s not like dimensions have conspired to suffocate a juggernaut, but the bigger message is that the Royals have a big stadium. And Kauffman Stadium, indeed, is statistically tough on the longball.
Let’s play an assumption game for some reason. Say you’re given only one piece of information about a stadium, and from there you have to guess how the stadium plays overall. By our numbers, Kauffman Stadium has baseball’s seventh-lowest home-run factor. That means it’s probably pitcher-friendly, right? AT&T Park is pitcher-friendly. PNC Park is pitcher-friendly. Safeco, historically, has been pitcher-friendly. But this is the interesting twist, at least as far as park factors go: Kansas City’s ballpark is overall hitter-friendly. It’s just not so in the ordinary way.
You can look at this in a few places. By the FanGraphs numbers, Kauffman’s home-run factor is 94, where 100 is average. That puts it between Target Field and Angel Stadium. Yet the overall run factor is 101, equal with Great American Ball Park and just a point behind Camden Yards. Meanwhile, StatCorner offers its own park factors, broken down by handedness, and that site also sees the dinger reduction, and the overall offensive boost. Splitting parks by handedness, we can look at 60 different factors. Both of Kauffman’s home-run factors rank in the bottom 25%, but both of the run factors rank in the upper 35%. Clearly, there’s something a little unusual happening here, since there’s nothing more impactful from the offensive side than a homer.
So how does Kauffman manage to be both pitcher-friendly and hitter-friendly? The answer’s actually pretty intuitive, and it has to do with the same stuff we talked about when a few teams were bringing the fences in in the recent past. When you move in the fences, you make homers more likely, but you also shrink the outfield. When the fences are far away, the outfield’s bigger, and here’s a relevant recent excerpt from the USA Today:
But the bigger gaps – the Kauffman outfield has the most square footage in the majors – favored the Orioles early.
I don’t buy that, exactly — I’m pretty sure Coors Field is bigger. But Kauffman’s still big, seemingly the biggest yard in at least its own league. More space means fewer homers, but it also means a lower percentage of space that can be covered by defenders. Which means more baseballs reaching more grass, which means more hits, which — I don’t have to explain this to you.
Have you ever messed around on Clem’s Baseball? I’d recommend it, if you’re into this stuff, and that site backs up the idea that Kauffman Stadium has the most square footage in the outfield in the American League. The dimensions down the lines are basically average, but to left-center, Kauffman’s more than a full standard deviation deeper than average. It’s even deeper, relatively speaking, to right-center, and center’s still 410 feet away, against an average of 404. Kauffman’s a spacious place. The Royals have known this for years. It’s probably not a coincidence the team has been built as it has.
The dimensions leave a statistical signature. Over the last five years, there have been 773 home runs in Royals home games, and 910 home runs in Royals road games. However:
Runs scored
Royals home games: 4,325
Royals road games: 4,162
Batting average on balls in play
Royals home games: .307
Royals road games: .298
wOBA
Royals home games: .323
Royals road games: .318
The FanGraphs numbers show Kauffman with an above-average singles factor, an above-average doubles factor, and a well above-average triples factor. As a different way of thinking about this, we can pull a little data from Baseball Savant. This year, in Royals home games, 21% of balls in play hit at least 300 feet went for homers. On the road, that rate was 26%. However, in Royals home games, 40% of balls in play hit at least 300 feet went for singles, doubles, or triples. On the road, that rate was 32%. That’s just one year of information, but it conveys the right idea. Home runs and hits can be negatively correlated.
There’s also a little bit more. You might notice that Kauffman has a below-average pop-up factor. It’s about as far removed from average as Oakland’s pop-up factor. Kauffman Stadium has a below-average amount of foul territory, in terms of square feet, and its backstop is closer to the plate than it is in most stadiums. So, over the last five years, Royals home games have featured a pop-up rate of 9.1% on fly balls, and Royals road games have come in at 10.9%. This is a small thing, but pop-ups are automatic outs, and pop-ups that drift into the seats are just strikes.
And finally, you’ll notice that Kauffman Stadium appears to reduce strikeouts, without reducing walks. It’s not quite Coors Field in that regard, but Coors is a freak, and the Kauffman note is interesting. Again, over the last five years, the home-game walk rate and the road-game walk rate have been even, around 8%. But Royals home games have had a strikeout rate under 17%, and Royals road games have had a strikeout rate over 18%. Strikeouts are also automatic outs, so Kauffman has for whatever reason encouraged more balls in play, and those balls in play have also been more likely to find the ground than they have been in other places. In one way, one very significant way, Kauffman has played difficult for hitters. In a variety of other ways, it’s more than balanced that out.
Kauffman isn’t alone like this. Target Field seems overall fine for offense, but bad for homers. The same goes for Marlins Park. Both seem like pretty good environmental comparisons, with Marlins Park in particular offering more square footage to compensate for the deep fences. When you think about it in depth, it makes all the sense in the world. But when you just consider it briefly, it’s odd. Not a lot of homers hit in Kansas City. Still plenty of runs, though, at least relative to the games played elsewhere. In large part because of all this, Dayton Moore assembled a rangey group of outfielders. In large part because of all this, the Royals’ defense looks worse by raw BABIP than it would if you adjusted it. Ballparks are complicated things, in the ways that they play, and Kauffman Stadium is one environment where pitchers might feel comfortable, while hitters feel comfortable too. Damage still gets done. It’s just relatively gentle.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.
Excellent stuff, Jeff. As usual.
It’s pretty amazing that a major league sport (other than golf) was ever developed without requiring a standard size for all playing fields.
On a related note, why did Baseball decide that all infields should be the same size without also deciding that all outfields should be the same size?
Or put another way, why did Baseball decide that outfields could be different sizes without also deciding that infields could be different sizes?
That’s not unusual for old leagues. European soccer leagues don’t have a standard size for fields either.
It’s pretty obvious why infields could be standardized when outfields couldn’t. Infields always can be standard size, regardless of your stadium size.
Why should all the outfields be the same sizes? Obviously the nature of historic professional fields — wedged into urban and suburban street grids — dictated the necessity of differing outfields. That may be an accident of history, but the experience of the cookie-cutter symmetric outfields of 70s stadiums (people hated them) suggests that quirkiness was accidentally correct.
It may be odd, but it’s one of the best things about baseball. In fact, I’d say that and the importance of handedness are the most unique things about baseball relative to the other sports, and give it much of its essential character. (Every sport has something — hockey has the regularity of play with uneven team sizes, for example, and football its endless byzantine rulebook).
Hockey also has skates. And ice.
They had no choice. Most stadiums in the early days were built in cities and teams had to live within the available lot sizes for which to build a stadium. MLB fields use more square feet than any of the major sports.
Today it would be possible to standardize new stadiums, but it would take some 40-100 years before all stadiums would be the same size, so why bother
Pretty interesting stuff. It would make sense that this is why they snagged some more range-y outfielders, but could this also be why they have brought in guys like Guthrie, Shields and Bruce Chen who have particular homer issues? Chen is particularly interesting because he actually limited hits/BABIP before he came to Kansas City (See: 2001, 2005, 2007) and has a decently low career BABIP (.284) but before he came to the Royals had a super severe homer issue, playing HR parks. Could putting him in a stadium which still hits well but has a negative HR factor have helped him?
Shields is also interesting, because his HR/FB basically dropped by 2% or so when he came to Kansas City and then stabilized. Combined with the really good OF defense, perhaps this is a recipe for flyball pitchers to come to the Royals? Since while for pure pitcher evaluation you want to strip defense away, but when constructing a team obviously you consider your defense.
Chen was a great fit for the stadium though he didn’t always have a great Royals outfield behind him (see: Guillen, Jose). Did also get a lot of infield pop-ups so that probably helped his babip quite a bit.
I’ve said this before: There is NOT evidence that rangy outfielders are leveraged in large OF dimensions. I have done extensive work on this and if anything I find a very small advantage to having good OF’ers in a small OF and NOT the other way around.
As far as small foul territory and K rate, all other things being equal, of course the smaller the FT the larger the K rate.
Let’s turn that around:
Large outfields therefore don’t penalize bad outfields.
Yeah, I don’t believe that.
“outfielders”
“All other things being equal, of course the smaller the FT the larger the K Rate” Did you read the article? It says the exact opposite of this. K rate for Royals home games: 17 % K rate for Royal Road games: 18%
“All other things being equal, of course the smaller the FT the larger the K Rate” Did you read the article? It says the exact opposite of this. K rate for Royals home games: 17 % K rate for Royal Road games: 18%
I find this response a little counterintuitive. Rangy OFs are not leveraged in a large OF? Perhaps you are making a distinction between “rangy” and “good”? Certainly there are guys who are fast but take bad routes and hence might be “rangy” but not “good”. Maybe I am unclear on what you mean by leveraged? Is it that the best OFs are equally above average no matter the dimensions of the OF?
I ask this because it is hard to imagine that a player like Jarrod Dyson (rangy) is not leveraged in large OF dimensions compared to, say, Shin-soo Choo (not rangy).
I would like to see the methodology of your work because it sounds very counter intuitive.
Any time you have a flyball that could be caught by more than one fielder (say centerfield-leftfield, or leftfield-shortstop) then you will have wasted the resource of range by having them positioned too closely. So a smaller field would be quicker to waste this talent. To illustrate, there would not be much noticeable difference between Alex Gordon and Manny Ramirez if they were each playing on a little league field because they can both cover the entire outfield on an average fly ball.
That’s giving a lot of credit to Manny, but I like the example otherwise.
Also it IS true that the larger the dimensions of the park the lower the HR rate and the lower the scoring, all other things being equal. However, there is a point at which a stadium can be so large that a ball hit over the OF’er head would go for an inside the park HR in many cases, so at some point the larger the park the MORE runs are scored.
You also failed to mention the most important reason for the neutral park even with a large OF and low HR rate, other than the foul territory, which is also important. The average temperature in KC is one of the highest of all the venues AND it is one of he highest in altitude other than Colorado (KC is about the same as Pheonix). That means that balls travel further and HARDER. That is what makes the BABIP so high other than the small foul territory (which also helps).
Please run an analysis on the Inside-the-park-homer rate at Kaufmann compared to the rest of the league. We are all patiently waiting for the results.
20 years ago my dad and I visited Leeman Field in Pennington Gap, Virginia, which had been a minor league park in the late 1930s. The dimensions: 600 feet to right, 900 feet to left, 1200 feet to center. Basically, for all practical purposes, it was baseball without fences. Which I think would actually be a beautiful form of the game. I bet the Royals would love to play in that field too. Leeman Field, of course, was a massive hitter’s park.
Just a quick question–how much of an influence does the home team have when determining park factors? For instance, take a really really bad hitting team and put them in XYZ Park. Are the park factors for XYZ Park going to have been influenced strongly by the fact that a really really bad hitting team played 81 games there?
I remember one of the Dave’s in a chat explicitly saying that shorter fences = more hits because they turn would-be fly ball outs into hits (home runs).
I can buy that the less foul territory, plus the downplay in strikeouts (beacause pitchers are comfortable pitching up in the zone due to fences?) work to the hitter’s advantage, but I just can’t wrap my head around the idea that the larger outfield is good for offense as well.
Higher strikeout rates are likely affected heavily by higher elevations and hotter temperatures. This creates lighter air, reducing pitch movement, which would make it easier for hitters to make contact. Foul ground also plays a major role, and there could be several other things that influence it as well. It’s possible that pitchers pitch up more in the zone when playing in a big park, but I doubt that overall it’s much of a factor.
While Kauffman stadium has less foul ground than most major league parks, which would reduce the number of strikeouts, it is one of the highest ballparks in the majors, and typically very hot as well. It appears there are more things working to decrease strikeouts in Kauffman than to increase them.
Aww, crap.
While Kauffman stadium has less foul ground than most major league parks, which would reduce the number of strikeouts
That should read: “which would increase the number of strikeouts”
This is great stuff, and very similar to a series of blog posts I started last week trying to calculate “in the park power”, or IPISO (ISO minus non in the park home runs). I found that Lorenzo Cain and Nori Aoki were both in the top 25 in terms of hitting doubles and triples most frequently (min 400 PA). I looked at fly ball rates minus pop ups, line drives, and UBR. None of the three correlated all that well with “IPISO”, and I was having a tough time finding stat(s) I wanted to use for park factors (Aoki was particularly odd, as his line drive rate was average, his outfield flyball rate below average, and he ranked dead last in UBR… for all of MLB). I think I will try home run factor, and maybe outfield square footage as well, as Jeff did for this piece. Here’s a link if anyone’s interested: http://screwballbaseball.blogspot.com/2014/10/who-has-most-in-park-power-in-baseball.html