The Pirates’ Road Home Run Problem
At first, it looked like pitchers that play their home games in extreme parks have extreme home run splits — that pitchers in pitchers’ parks go on the road and give up more home runs than expected. But it turns out, it might just be a Pittsburgh Pirates problem.
Staffs that leave the six most pitcher-friendly parks to go on the road have a 10.5% home run per fly ball rate, we found. But if you remove the Pirates (12%), that number for other six drops to 10.3%, very much close to the 10.1% sample average.
Take a look at the road homer per fly ball rates per team over the last five years. There’s a clear outlier.
So why do the Pirates give up so many home runs per fly ball on the road? Their division isn’t full of terrible parks — by basic park factors, their divisional opponents rank 8th, 11th, 12th, and 20th on the most hitter friendly parks. When you use home run park factors, the Reds (second) and Brewers (fifth) are homer-friendly parks for sure. But the Pirates’ average home run park factor on the road (104.5) does not explain why the team has given up 20% more homers per fly ball than the average team on the road.
One part of the problem might be ground-ball rate. Pitchers in pitchers’ parks have been going for the ground-ball at a slightly higher rate over the last five years, which might make sense because ground-ball pitchers give up more home runs per fly ball than fly ball pitchers, and those home runs could be suppressed in a pitchers’ park. But this doesn’t fly with the research Mitchel Lichtman has done about ground-ball and fly ball pitchers in different parks.
Another reason for the Pirates road problem might be the fact that the park might be changing their pitchers’ approach with respect to the strike zone. It looks like pitchers in pitchers’ parks are more aggressive and pitchers in hitters’ parks nibble more. After binning the six most pitcher-friendly by our park factors, and the six most hitter-friendly, we can look at walk and strikeout factors:
| Home Park Type | Strikeout PF | Walk PF |
|---|---|---|
| Pitcher Friendly | 101 | 99 |
| Neutral | 100 | 100 |
| Batter Friendly | 99 | 102 |
Why might this be related to the Pirates’ road homer situation? Well, we know that slugging goes up on pitches inside the zone. If a pitcher in a pitchers’ park gets used to attacking hitters inside the zone, perhaps he takes that tendency on the road and pays for it in parks that are not as friendly as his home park.
Once again, though, it doesn’t seem like our theory holds water. Check out the zone rates for the different buckets.
| Home Park | Home Run Park Factor | Home Zone% | Away Zone% |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pitcher Friendly | 90 | 48.9% | 48.8% |
| Neutral | 100 | 49.2% | 49.0% |
| Hitter Friendly | 112 | 48.8% | 48.1% |
We are talking about tens of thousands of pitches here, so maybe there’s the tiniest bit of a chance that the hitter-friendly pitchers are nibbling more than the other conditions. But, considering the neutral parks, there’s no evidence that pitcher’s parks pitchers are more aggressive at throwing the ball in the zone.
But it might be time to leave the pitcher-friendly teams by the wayside and focus only on the Pirates. They are in the zone 48.5% of the time at home, and 47.4% on the road. No dice there.
There are many different ways to be aggressive, though. When I asked Ryan Vogelsong about how he’s beaten his FIP so many years, he said that, basically, he’d rather give up a base hit or a home run than a walk with runners on.
Is it possible that pitchers in pitchers’ parks act differently with three-ball counts than other pitchers? Are you more likely to come deeper into the zone on a three-ball count because a ball in play doesn’t hurt you as much in a pitcher’s park?
Well, it’s not aggressiveness at home. In Pittsburgh, the Pirates walked the batter on 22.8% of the pitches they threw with three balls, against a 21.4% league average. And pitcher park staffs showed no trends.
But there is something going on in three-ball counts. Since 2010, the Pirates have given up 41 home runs at home on three-ball counts, third-least by either raw or rate stats. But on the road? They’ve given up 67 home runs, good for seventh-worst by raw stats, or sixth-worst by rate stats (per three-ball pitch).
For comparison’s sake, the Giants have given up 42 three-ball count home runs at home, and 44 on the road. The Braves have given up 40 at home, 48 on the road. The Dodgers 42 at home, 50 on the road. It’s the biggest disparity in baseball in that direction (the Blue Jays have given up 38 more home runs at home than away on three-ball counts, but that makes more sense than this).
So maybe, especially since this isn’t paired with a change in aggressiveness with respect to zone% or walk rates, maybe this is irrelevant. We know that the Pirates give up more homers on the road. Why do we care if it’s in three-ball counts or not?
Because the disparity here is larger than it is for the Pirates overall. They’ve given up 63% more home runs on the road in three-ball counts, they’ve only given up 20% more home runs per fly ball on the road in general. In fact, if you removed 20 road home runs on three-ball counts — and basically made them the Braves — you’d make the Pirates’ road home run per fly ball rate 11.4%. They’d be right next to the Mariners (road 11.2% HR/FB) instead of way out on their own.
If the Pirates gave up fewer three-ball count home runs on the road, they’d still be an extreme homer team away from home. Just less so. Sometimes, the further you drill down, the less you know or understand.
With a phone full of pictures of pitchers' fingers, strange beers, and his two toddler sons, Eno Sarris can be found at the ballpark or a brewery most days. Read him here, writing about the A's or Giants at The Athletic, or about beer at October. Follow him on Twitter @enosarris if you can handle the sandwiches and inanity.

Interesting. I have no idea if this is at all related, but the Pirates hitters led the NL in road home runs last season.
For the last three seasons, their hitters have been top three in hr/fb on the road, too. I can’t wrap my head around this not being a result of park factors.
RH HR Splits:
Reds: 114
Brewers: 109
Cubs: 105
Cards: 92
If it’s this simple, why don’t the Cardinals have the same issue?
The cardinals have better pitchers, for one, but that still wouldn’t explain that the pirates hitters and pitchers both have crazy high hr/fb numbers on the road. It really is perplexing.
Eno, since you used five years, I was wondering, is there any significant difference between the Pirates numbers from 2010-2011 and the more recent years? The team was putrid in 2010 and just a regular kind of awful in 2011.
Yes, I wonder the same thing as well
Do the numbers for other teams include games pitched in PNC? It seems to me that if you want to really compare how Pirates pitchers performed compared to the rest of the league outside of their park you shouldn’t be including games those pitchers pitched in PNC. I would assume that would bring the rest of the league a little bit closer to the Pirates if those games are in the data currently.
Interesting.
If 2010 was the starting year for the data, I know the Pirates were just dreadful against Milwaukee and Cincinnati.
11-23 and a -75 run differential (Yes, you read that correctly)
I’m not sure how much HRs account for that, and I know that’s only a small slice out of a 5 year sample, but I know sometimes it seems like a routine pop-up to shallow left field ends up in the stands in both Cincinnati and Milwaukee.
*shrugs*
“If 2010 was the starting year for the data, I know the Pirates were just dreadful against MLB”
They did go 10-5 against the Cubs that season!!
2010 was also the year of the “Milwaukee Series”
Milwakuee 8 Pittsburgh 1
Milwaukee 8 Pittsburgh 0
Milwaukee 20 Pittsburgh 0
* 4 days later*
Milwaukee 17 Pittsburgh 3
4 games: 53-4
*sobs into Ross Ohlendorf jersey*
Away Home Runs Allowed
2014 72
2013 64
2012 95
2011 86
2010 101
The “problem” appears to have been solved.
Disagree.
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=0&type=2&season=2014&month=16&season1=2014&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=8,d
Their road HR/FB last year was still 12%.
Just a quick note – you may want to tweak your chart title to “Road home runs ALLOWED per fly ball”.
At first glance I thought, “gee the Pirates hit more road HR than any other team per fly ball, why is that a problem?”
I am admittedly dense, but the chart title could be a little clearer.
Thanks and good article!
Beep boop beep.
I’ll disagree too. The rate is immaterial. What matters is scoring more runs than you allow. The Pirates were tied for seventh in away runs allowed (with the Mets and Brewers). Improvement is possible, to be sure. But focusing on the HR/FB rate suggests that the Cubs, who gave up 46 more runs than the Pirates but had a much better HR/FB rate, did not have a problem.
BTW this was a reply to Eno
Whenever the Pirates play on the road, the bat boy brings out juiced baseballs to the umpire when the home team is batting.
But the pirates hitters road hr/fb percentage on the road was really high last year! And the year before that, and the one before that too!
I made a post in your last thread, but I had internet connectivity issues, so I’m going to re-post here.
The generalized finding you made in your last thread was that HR/FB rates on the road were higher for pitchers who pitched in a HR pitcher-friendly home park. And vice versa.
Doesn’t this relationship have to be true by definition? As I understand it, HR park factors should be calculated off two sets of data for each park: All PA with a home team pitcher and all PA with a road team pitcher. For the first half of the dataset, all PA with a home team pitcher get compared to how that same pitcher does on the road. So, the calculation uses road HR/FB rate and home HR/FB rate for the home teams whole pitching staff. Thus, isn’t this one of the inputs that determines park factor, and so when we have a finding that this delta is high for pitchers who pitch in a extreme HR park, aren’t we doing the same thing as when we say HR/PA and wOBA are correlated? One goes into the other, so of course they’re correlated. Same with HR/FB and HR park factors.
Not to say any of this analysis is wrong. It looks right. But when I see the various analyses, it makes me think “Multiple comparisons”! In other words, the more different ways you slice and dice Pirates results in different ways, the more likely it is that at least *one* of those ways will show a pattern, just by chance. So, given this many analyses, we should be extra cautious about thinking that we’ve found something real.
Exactly. There’s almost no chance what’s being highlighted in this article is a real/predictive effect.
The answer might have something to do with the fact that Pittsburgh’s pitchers were not just ground-ball pitchers, but bad ground-ball pitchers.
that may be a factor, but it still doesn’t explain why the pirates hitters have also been putting up very high hr/fb rates on the road in recent seasons.
Have the Pirates had the same pitching coach for the past 5 yrs? This may well have nothing to do with the park and everything to do with some part of the pitching coach’s philosophy and/or methods. The Pirates (and their pitching coach) have become famous in recent years for rehabilitating the careers of pitchers who nobody else wanted anymore. What does this have to do with giving up dingers on the road? Beats me but Eno doesn’t seem to be getting any closer with his park effects theory. How about ask the pitching coach? Maybe he says something like “I like our guys to be a little more aggressive on the road because….”