Mid-Season Park Factor Update
Exactly two months ago, I posted my first in-season BIP-based park factor update. BIP-based, you say? Basically, I’ve taken every batted ball hit in every park, applied major league average production for its exit speed/launch angle bucket, incorporated run values, and scaled the resulting projected production to an average of 100. It’s now time for midseason update #2, as of the All Star break.
Today, we’ll take a macro, big picture look at the midseason data, comparing the results to our first 2017 update and to 2016 full-season data. Later this week, we’ll get into the specifics of individual parks, drilling down to the specific pieces of data that show whether a park is hitter or pitcher-friendly.
First, let’s go macro-macro, and see how hitters have performed on the major BIP types through the break, through our first 2017 update (May 20), and for the entire 2016 season:
| 7/9 | 5/20 | 2016 | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| # | % | OBP | SLG | # | % | OBP | SLG | # | % | OBP | SLG | |
| NULL | 7 | 0.0% | 0.143 | 0.143 | 5 | 0.0% | 0.000 | 0.000 | 18072 | 14.0% | 0.161 | 0.213 |
| POP | 6012 | 8.6% | 0.015 | 0.020 | 2863 | 8.6% | 0.014 | 0.021 | 6281 | 4.9% | 0.019 | 0.027 |
| FLY | 19751 | 28.3% | 0.327 | 0.907 | 9476 | 28.3% | 0.313 | 0.863 | 34187 | 26.5% | 0.326 | 0.887 |
| LD | 15354 | 22.0% | 0.657 | 0.880 | 7318 | 21.9% | 0.650 | 0.869 | 27026 | 21.0% | 0.658 | 0.870 |
| GB | 28682 | 41.1% | 0.224 | 0.242 | 13814 | 41.3% | 0.222 | 0.240 | 43280 | 33.6% | 0.238 | 0.260 |
| TOTAL | 69806 | 100.0% | 0.330 | 0.552 | 33476 | 100.0% | 0.324 | 0.535 | 128846 | 100.0% | 0.328 | 0.536 |
From 2016 to our first 2017 measuring point, there wasn’t much difference in production on all balls in play; .328 AVG-.536 SLG in 2016, .324 AVG-.535 SLG through May 20. You will notice the almost total disappearance of the “null” group, which constituted 14% of all batted balls last season. As I stated in my June 1 piece, the exit speed/launch angle for balls that did not generate a Statcast reading is now being estimated. For details on the process, check out Daren Willman’s Baseball Savant website.
There has been a fairly significant change in production on batted balls between May 20 and July 9. This is largely due to warming temperatures throughout that time period. Through May 20, hitters were batting .313 AVG-.863 SLG on fly balls. By the break, that had risen sharply to .327 AVG-.907 SLG. In that interim period between the two dates, hitters flexed their muscles to the tune of .340 AVG-.949 SLG on fly balls.
Interestingly enough, hitters actually hit the ball with a bit less authority in that interim 5/20-7/9 period than they did earlier in the season. As the weather warms, it takes a little less juice to get the ball over the wall.
Production on liners also ramped up from .650 AVG-.869 SLG through 5/20 to .664 AVG-.890 SLG between 5/20-7/9, for a cumulative .657 AVG-.880 SLG through the All Star break. It wasn’t an increase in homers driving this upward spike; it was a rise in doubles. A combination of faster infields and outfields and perhaps gradually fatigued fielders would seem to be driving this trend.
The faster infield/fatigued fielder concepts would also be supported by the increase in grounder production from .222 AVG-.240 SLG through 5/20 to .225 AVG-.244 SLG during the interim period leading up to the break. Overall, hitters produced at a .224 AVG-.242 SLG clip on the ground in the first half.
On all BIP types, hitters batted .324 AVG-.535 SLG through 5/20, .336 AVG-.567 SLG between 5/20-7/9, and .330 AVG-.552 SLG for the entire first half.
This sets the stage for the first half park factors:
| OVERALL | 7/9 | 5/20 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATL | 104.1 | 110.9 | 92.2 | 97.5 | 93.7 | 90.3 |
| AZ | 100.6 | 109.4 | 109.7 | 100.7 | 95.1 | 95.4 |
| BAL | 93.3 | 82.5 | 101.2 | 101.6 | 92.3 | 103.4 |
| BOS | 94.2 | 96.7 | 109.5 | 112.0 | 110.2 | 113.0 |
| CIN | 115.4 | 115.8 | 110.5 | 106.0 | 100.8 | 105.3 |
| CLE | 101.5 | 103.8 | 104.1 | 101.2 | 100.9 | 97.2 |
| COL | 131.1 | 133.6 | 124.5 | 122.7 | 126.0 | 127.8 |
| CUB | 98.6 | 110.6 | 90.2 | 103.8 | 105.0 | 102.1 |
| CWS | 104.6 | 97.2 | 108.5 | 102.6 | 123.4 | 104.3 |
| DET | 86.8 | 80.2 | 94.7 | 97.1 | 100.7 | 101.7 |
| HOU | 108.5 | 107.1 | 101.8 | 115.4 | 102.8 | 100.2 |
| KC | 91.7 | 87.7 | 96.9 | 98.6 | 99.7 | 90.7 |
| LAA | 86.8 | 91.5 | 92.5 | 94.2 | 93.5 | 98.2 |
| LAD | 97.0 | 103.1 | 96.5 | 96.3 | 104.8 | 102.1 |
| MIA | 96.8 | 93.6 | 95.9 | 81.0 | 97.9 | 90.2 |
| MIL | 115.3 | 122.6 | 104.5 | 106.1 | 101.9 | 111.8 |
| MIN | 101.7 | 95.3 | 102.6 | 100.5 | 110.4 | 104.0 |
| NYM | 101.3 | 92.7 | 98.0 | 96.1 | 98.9 | 102.8 |
| NYY | 97.7 | 105.1 | 105.7 | 111.8 | 106.7 | 110.0 |
| OAK | 90.2 | 88.4 | 84.7 | 85.8 | 93.4 | 95.8 |
| PHL | 98.4 | 104.5 | 102.3 | 97.5 | 91.4 | 97.6 |
| PIT | 97.6 | 95.7 | 102.5 | 90.1 | 97.8 | 88.1 |
| SD | 114.1 | 112.9 | 100.1 | 116.9 | 85.3 | 105.8 |
| SEA | 95.6 | 99.7 | 95.9 | 96.7 | 82.8 | 88.2 |
| SF | 82.0 | 72.3 | 95.5 | 89.2 | 84.7 | 93.2 |
| STL | 91.6 | 92.8 | 93.8 | 101.3 | 90.8 | 94.1 |
| TB | 107.7 | 110.1 | 95.7 | 95.3 | 101.8 | 95.1 |
| TEX | 100.4 | 92.6 | 103.2 | 104.6 | 101.3 | 99.1 |
| TOR | 103.9 | 101.4 | 93.7 | 97.3 | 114.7 | 101.9 |
| WAS | 103.8 | 105.2 | 93.6 | 92.3 | 95.4 | 96.2 |
Color-coding is used above to note significant divergence from league average. Red cells indicate values that are over two full standard deviations above league average. Orange cells are over one STD above, yellow cells over one-half-STD above, blue cells over one-half STD below, and black cells over one STD below league average. Ran out of colors at that point. Variation of over two full STD below league average will be addressed as necessary in the text below.
This table lists the overall single-season park factors for each club going back to 2013, with partial-year data through July 9 and May 20 included for 2017. One might opine that single-season factors don’t tell you much and might be too volatile. Well, the average year-to-year correlation coefficient for the 2013-16 annual sets of date above is 0.59, indicating a strong correlation. That occurred despite significant modifications of multiple venues over that time frame.
The correlation between the 7/9/2017 and 2016 park factors is a strong 0.62, up from 0.50 as of 5/20. Take Atlanta and their stadium change out of the mix, and the correlation jumps to 0.65.
Let’s look at some long and short-term trends uncovered in the above table. The Coors Field effect is alive, well, and perennial. There is only one red cell outside of the Rockies’ row of data. All of their cells are red. Their full-season park factors sit in a narrow band between 124.5 and 127.8; thus far in 2017, they are breaking out even further to the upside.
The other teams with typically hitter-friendly parks over the last few years are Boston, Cincinnati, Milwaukee and the New York Yankees. Of that group, the Reds and Brewers are playing in even more hitter-friendly home conditions than ever this season, while the Red Sox and Yankees have seen fairly significant slips in their home park factors in 2017. We’ll talk quite a bit about Fenway later this week.
You might say, Aaron Judge! Homers! Well, if park factors are being calculated correctly, Aaron Judge shouldn’t influence them at all. When he gets all of one, it’s a homer in Yellowstone. This method treats 105+ mph flies and 110+ mph liners differently than their more weakly hit counterparts. Traditional calculation methods do not.
Then there’s the perennially pitcher-friendly ball parks. The Angels, Marlins, Athletics, Mariners, Giants and Cardinals have consistently played their home games in pitcher-friendly conditions over recent seasons. It must be said that after some reconfiguration, Marlins Park and Safeco Field aren’t nearly the fly ball graveyards they once were; they’ve been creeping toward the run-neutral group of late.
San Francisco is now the home of the single most pitcher-friendly park in the game. 2017 will mark the third time in the last four years that AT&T Park will have a factor over a full standard deviation lower than MLB average. Oakland is going for three years in a row with that distinction.
Most unpredictable/misunderstood park award goes to Petco Park. Everything assumes it’s a pitchers’ park…..but, noooooo. It was extremely hitter-friendly in both 2013 and 2015 and is on track to be so again this season. In 2014, it was extremely pitcher-friendly, and in 2016 it was neutral. It’s all about the marine layer in San Diego; that and relatively hard field conditions, which consistently allow higher than projected production on both liners and grounders.
Take a moment to look at the difference between the 7/9 and 5/20 columns in the table above. You’ll note that the teams at both extremes regressed a bit toward the middle as the season has progressed, as you might expect.
In addition, you’ll see that the park factors for a few clubs in geographic regions with more variable temperatures shot upward. Baltimore, Kansas City and Texas would be three prime examples.
Lastly, as a supplement, here are the single-season fly-ball park factors for each club from 2013 through 2016 and as of May 20th and July 9th of this year. Again, there’s a strong correlation: an average of 0.64 from 2013 to -16 (including Atlanta, 0.66 excluding Atlanta) and 0.77 from 2016 to the 2017 data as of the All Star break:
| FLY | 7/9 | 5/20 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATL | 117.8 | 137.9 | 73.2 | 74.1 | 78.5 | 77.7 |
| AZ | 99.5 | 112.8 | 103.9 | 68.7 | 76.2 | 83.2 |
| BAL | 86.6 | 71.4 | 99.8 | 99.8 | 91.5 | 124.9 |
| BOS | 102.8 | 114.5 | 127.1 | 146.1 | 146.6 | 151.1 |
| CIN | 145.7 | 144.9 | 133.1 | 122.7 | 111.6 | 109.6 |
| CLE | 104.8 | 116.3 | 116.0 | 71.8 | 114.6 | 92.4 |
| COL | 172.3 | 201.0 | 161.2 | 151.5 | 152.2 | 176.4 |
| CUB | 108.5 | 131.8 | 89.7 | 123.2 | 115.9 | 108.2 |
| CWS | 100.2 | 98.4 | 112.9 | 110.0 | 135.7 | 114.3 |
| DET | 64.6 | 57.3 | 75.0 | 70.3 | 92.0 | 102.3 |
| HOU | 132.8 | 136.7 | 114.7 | 149.3 | 109.7 | 99.8 |
| KC | 72.6 | 71.4 | 74.4 | 85.3 | 81.3 | 70.0 |
| LAA | 92.5 | 105.8 | 91.6 | 77.4 | 74.6 | 84.9 |
| LAD | 98.8 | 97.4 | 98.3 | 107.8 | 125.1 | 102.7 |
| MIA | 83.2 | 74.7 | 91.9 | 55.6 | 82.8 | 76.1 |
| MIL | 129.3 | 134.5 | 115.1 | 146.2 | 112.5 | 129.3 |
| MIN | 99.7 | 88.4 | 104.5 | 150.8 | 130.2 | 116.3 |
| NYM | 93.0 | 80.8 | 104.9 | 120.2 | 104.5 | 114.7 |
| NYY | 94.8 | 105.4 | 127.5 | 136.8 | 129.3 | 116.5 |
| OAK | 96.2 | 90.5 | 77.0 | 48.5 | 99.7 | 92.9 |
| PHL | 97.7 | 94.6 | 108.5 | 102.3 | 86.5 | 91.9 |
| PIT | 108.3 | 114.5 | 120.1 | 73.8 | 96.9 | 76.1 |
| SD | 100.7 | 108.7 | 86.3 | 151.2 | 75.1 | 136.7 |
| SEA | 87.1 | 93.5 | 96.8 | 97.5 | 66.2 | 71.8 |
| SF | 68.2 | 67.5 | 79.7 | 92.9 | 67.3 | 76.0 |
| STL | 82.4 | 76.2 | 91.3 | 70.5 | 76.4 | 76.5 |
| TB | 103.1 | 97.0 | 83.2 | 80.3 | 95.2 | 95.9 |
| TEX | 109.1 | 83.7 | 104.1 | 82.1 | 98.1 | 103.7 |
| TOR | 109.4 | 98.6 | 88.0 | 112.3 | 134.8 | 99.8 |
| WAS | 95.9 | 95.8 | 90.9 | 83.1 | 86.7 | 88.8 |
I think anyone who’s been paying attention would know that Petco hasn’t really been a pitcher’s park for a while. It just feels that way because Padres hitters still suck as much as ever.
http://www.espn.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor
LOL you’re a idiot, anything else you want to say out of your ass? and that is with a “hodgepadre” pitching staff!
an idiot*
Oh, I don’t know, the article that you’re posting on?
Great stuff. Maybe this could help explain why a healthy 26 year old Julio Teheran is posting his worst season ever — FB are getting crushed in ATL’s new park.
…or is Teheran part of the reason fly balls are getting crushed in his home park?
How much more incredible is Bonds, now that we know just how difficult it is to hit at AT&T?
AT&T is much harsher on LHHs too.
I’m sure Bonds falls into the Aaron Judge category. Not a lot of cheap shots from that guy.
So Bonds never hit any off the wall in San Fran?
So keep in mind, Candlestick had a much more neutral park factor, although so did 3 Rivers Stadium…so it’s weird that Bonds’ power numbers jumped a little bit from 1993 through 1998. The Giants moved to AT&T Park in 2000, which should have vacuumed up his power a bit…but we have explanations for that.
Or how amazing Mike Trout is right now. Angels stadium is pretty rough.
Steroids..?
Yeah, I try not to say it out loud here unless it is directly relevant. People seem to get offended by it.
Love your articles Tony. Something I found really interesting- Miggy has underperformed Statcast numbers consistently because of that DET flyball number.
Are the differences in LD/GB production even meaningful? You’re ascribing in the overall section to weather/field conditions/fielder fatigue what to me (differences of thousandths) looks like expected variability. Is someone measuring the water content of infields? Or lactic acid levels in outfielder hammies?
Fun Barry Bonds HR Facts:
Bonds hit 37 home runs at AT&T Park in 2001.
No other Giant has hit more than 37 (home and away) since (Aurilia and Kent equaled 37 total in 2001 and 2002).
Pablo Sandoval has the second most home runs, career, at AT&T, with 52.
Bonds’ 37 home HR and 36 away HR in 2001 are both the most in a single season since at least 2000 (Arod: 34 and Ortiz: 32)
The Orioles top 5 HR hitters in 2001 (including Cal Ripken) had 70 HR combined.
Ichiro Suzuki, who was the other MVP that year, hit 73 HR in his first 8 seasons combined. Bonds had six more HR in 2000-2001 than Ichiro has in his career.
Bonds hit more home runs at AT&T park (37) in 2001 than all other left handers combined (27)
Five of the six NL ballparks with the smallest differences (>18) between left handed home runs and right handed home runs were in the NL West.
Never change, Colorado.
Actually that ‘never change’ – always just over two SD’s from average – is imo why park factors are off for Coors and why the park factor adjustments don’t work well there.
By definition, two SD’s in a normally distributed sample size of 30 will always produce one outlier. 29/30 (96.6% within) is basically the 95% expected for a normal distribution. Statistically, the function of Coors data is to define the deviation – but Coors is an outlier for known/unmodelled/fixed (ie altitude) reasons not random variation. If the actual data varies each year (which it does – and THAT variation is a direct consequence of player outcomes), it doesn’t matter because that years data will simply force the deviation to be larger or smaller so that Coors always ends up just over 2 SD away.
That’s why IMO – the Coors data sample should be ignored (or alternatively winsorized) when calculating the deviation. 28/29 is effectively the same as 29/30 in producing that one outlier – and if that xCoors calc also produces a predictable and perpetual outlier, then that too should be excluded and go to 27/28. Once you find a calc that produces a truly random 2SD outlier from year to year rather than parks with known/unmodelled/fixed factors – THEN you can stop – and backfill the previously excluded parks back in.
I’m not sure what normality assumptions have to do with park factors “working well”. It’s impossible to know without seeing Tony’s underlying methodology, but there are lots of ways to calculate them without making ANY distributional assumptions.
For example, you could just take the ratio of SLG% for LD hit at 110+ mph at park X versus the league average production on such hits. So if that’s .900 in Coors vs a league average of .720, then you have a park factor of 125.0 without any mention of standard deviations or normal distributions.
I completely agree with you that dropping/adjusting Coors would significantly reduce the SD and it would probably change some of the colors in the table, especially for parks that are extreme relative to the average but tame relative to Coors. But as long as Tony isn’t imposing that the data follow some specific distribution, I don’t see how this adjustment would change the park factors themselves.
These numbers are awful screwy. Eapecially for YS3 IMO. Judge has 23 HR at YS3 vs 11 on the road and his H-A OPS splits are 1220-890.
You cant exclude high EV from calculations as there are PF that contribute to higher EV such as background and perhaps stealing location/signs at home .
As a team they hit 50% more HR at home and their pitchers allow 30% More HR. Maybe HR are given less weight in the calculations than they should
Does anyone know if there has been research done on which website’s Park Factors are rooted in the best math? For example, Fangraphs PF are very stagnet and regressed so the year to year corolation is almost 1.00. ESPN uses a simple runs scored/runs allowed. Baseball Reference uses a 3 year average and adjusts runs scored/allowed to a 27 out basis. And Mr. Blengino uses a BIP to create a PF which omits how a larger park may effect base runner advancement. For example, I find FG and BR differences in park factors between Progressive Field (102/107) and Minute Maid (98/90) to be extremely worrisome when evaluating players.
I think that there is something not being considered here. In many ballparks, depending on the air quality, it is easier or harder to simply hit the ball with high velocity. Coors Field isn’t just a great hitter’s park because low exit velocity batted balls go for hits and even home runs. It’s also a great hitters park because it is easier to barrel up the baseball. In that thin dry air pitches just don’t have the movement on them that they do elsewhere. There’s just certain environments where the pitched baseball is going to be easier of harder to hit. Maybe I’m missing something here and that is being calculated.
Coors is everything. Pitches don’t move right, the ball travels farther, the outfield is huge so it’s hard to get to everything, and in that huge outfield you have to run more which is difficult at altitude (at least for visiting teams, although some of that is probably counterbalanced on the basepaths). I’m not sure if any projection / park factor systems account for this or if it is even necessary (haven’t thought about it much), but BABIP runs high there for a lot of reasons.
I thought the comment on soil conditions at San Diego was interesting. Park factor discussions tend to focus on fly balls and how the atmospheric conditions affect outfield play, but what about how the infield affects grounders?
Designing teams around home field conditions isn’t anything new, look at the Whiteyball teams from the mid-80s playing on the concrete/Astroturf at Busch II.
Just a casual question. I wonder if global climate change has any demonstrable effect on park factors.
I think you should remove the batted balls hit by the home teams when calculating these park factors. That way, the numbers won’t be artificially inflated or deflated just because the home team had a really good or really lousy lineup in any given year.
On second thought, I guess that wouldn’t work, since the numbers would still be dependent on the quality of the home team’s pitching staff and defense. Perhaps there’s some way create a modifier based on the home team’s runs scored and runs allowed?
Seeing these numbers and combined with all of their heavy fly-ball pitchers (verlander, norris, boyd, zimmermann), it’s shocking the Tigers don’t focus a lot more of their attention on building a team with good defensive outfielders. Instead it has been and looks to continue to be a major problem going forward.