FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    Bad pitchers pitch badly in Fenway and some good pitchers get hammered in Fenway. Some bad pitchers pitch badly at their home parks and some of them throw gems at their home parks. John Lackey? Well, he pretty much has had a poor history in Fenway even as an Angel. It's like watching Carl Crawford play the monster when he was a Ray. Why would you want these type of guys on your team if you already know they historically have "issues" in Fenway?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    If you can all prove that Lester, Beckett, Halladay, Verlander, Sabbathia, Lee, Lincecum, and guys like that are not ace types at both home and on the road, then prove it.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    If you can find me 10 average pitchers whose stats are significantly better at home than on the road, then find me them. Average pitchers and below average pitchers are average pitchers and below average pitchers..at Fenway, at Anaheim, at Safeco, at Oakland.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    In Response to Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion:
    [QUOTE]If you can all prove that Lester, Beckett, Halladay, Verlander, Sabbathia, Lee, Lincecum, and guys like that are not ace types at both home and on the road, then prove it.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    Beckett's career ERA at Fenway is 4.28. His career ERA in all other parks is 3.60.

    My only point is that the numbers bear out that Fenway is a hitter's park and that the team's offensive and pitching stats both get inflated by it.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    In Response to Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion : Beckett's career ERA at Fenway is 4.28. His career ERA in all other parks is 3.60. My only point is that the numbers bear out that Fenway is a hitter's park and that the team's offensive and pitching stats both get inflated by it.
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut[/QUOTE]

    I agree. I think the point I tried to make on the earlier pages is that you have to take the Sox's offense in context with the other teams. The Sox offense at Fenway still is so much better than other team's offenses when they play at Fenway, and the Sox offense at road parks still is better than the offenses they're playing.

    So to me, the Sox still have an offensive juggernaut on the road, just not as potent as it is at Fenway but still potent compared to what the team they're playing can put up.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    I'm not sure what harness is really trying to prove by the distortion thread except I think we differ (and I agree with roy completely) as to the importance of the offense on the road. The home runs and runs per game are vital to the team's ability to win on the road. Fenway has always been a hitter's haven and that's always been pretty much common knowledge, so again I don't know what the "distortion" is. I'm trying to explain that I feel the Sox have been pretty consistent in producing offense at home and on the road. I think the team's pitching has been much more consistent than in previous seasons at both home and on the road. Everything is relative though so while the batting averages differ, the wins and losses are about the individual game. Not simply dictated by home v. road venue. You can have a game in which you get 7 hits and score 7 runs and you can have a game in which you score 3 runs on 14 hits. Which game would you rather have offensively?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beat-Boston. Show Beat-Boston's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    Gonsalez never hit .300 in his career prior to this year. All players averages are inflated by playing in Boston. Heck, even Cleveland hit 4 homers on Monday.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan791. Show redsoxfan791's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    In Response to FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion:
    [QUOTE]"The fab five" "Offensive juggernaut" "Best offense in baseball" "The top teams in the A.L. are the best hitting teams in the A. L.". Redsox in Fenway:      .308 BA  .376 OBP   .492 SLG  .868 OPS  1847 AB Away from Fenway: .253 BA  .333 OBP  .424 SLG  .757 OPS  1858 AB Perhaps the authors and advocates of such statements can explain how the RedSox, with a .253 road BA , 55 points less than at home , have the best road record in all of baseball - best they've had in a decade - and the key reason why they are in first place. Are the RedSox really the 'offensive juggernaut' we perceive them to be???
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    harness -

    Despite the Red Sox's lower than desired offensive stats on the road, they have a winning record because their pitching has been markedly better.  Their road ERA is 3.53 (4th best in baseball) versus a home ERA of 4.28 (23rd in baseball).

    As for the Red Sox being an offensive juggernaut, you need to adjust for era.  The run environment of 2011 is significantly different than the environment of five or ten years ago.  When adjusted, we're truly seeing a near historic offense.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    Welcome back 791. Good to see you.

    While this team is helped by the numbers in playing 81 games at Fenway, it doesn't take away from the fact that they are a great offensive team.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    In Response to Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion:
    [QUOTE]Since hitting and pitching numbers are greatly effected by things like park dimensions and more specifically home park dimensions and related factors, distortions do occur. However, even though there are distortions (major ones in some cases like Boston or Oakland/Seattle/SD) and a team's "numbers" may go down if they were moved to another home park, it doesn't mean they are any better or worse than before: just their numbers change not their skill level. I get your point: if Boston played 81 games in Seattle, their offensive numbers would not be leading the league anymore, and their pitching numbers would be much better. The overall +/- differental might not change much, so wins and losses might be pretty close. I seem to recall past years where the Sox home and road differentials were even greater than this year. There are some metrics that supposdly take venue into consdieration, but I am not sure they "do enough". There are certainly many Sox hitters who have "pumped up" numbers due to home field wonders. There are also many Sox pitchers who are passed over due to their "high" (unadjsted) ERA / WHIP, etc... This year our pitching staff has a very significant differential: Home: 4.28 / 1.355 (Opp's OPS: .730) Away:  3.53 / 1.172 (Opp's OPS: .663) Our "worst/best" pitchers at home (70+ PAs) are: 1) Miller 1.070 Opps's OPS 2) Lackey .869 3) Lester  .777 4) Wake   .769 5) Dice     .743 6) Buch    .718 7) Wheel  .677 8) Albers  .634 9) Aceves .631 10) Paps   .623 11) Beck   .560 12) Bard   .467 Our worst/best away are: 1) Lackey  .829 2) Wake     .808 3) Miller     .754 4) Wheel    .745 5) Buch      .698 6) Acev     .651 7) Lest      .632 8) Paps     .601 9) Bard     .594 10) Beck  .521 11) Dice   .491 12) Albers .479 Only 3 pitchers have done better on the road ( in red ). Our starters' ERA/WHIP home/away: Beckett 1.99 /1.011    2.38/0.846 Lester    3.86/1.449   2.75/ 1.030 Buch      3.94/1.469    3.20/1.184 Wake     5.29/ 1.235    4.81/1.397 Lackey  6.56/2.250     5.77/1.511 Miller     6.91/2.163    4.81/1.731  Dice-K   7.03/1.726    2.08/1.000 Only Wake has a better WHIP at home. Only Beckett has a better ERA. It is no wonder the lefty differentials are usually near the greatest. Some hitters and pitchers will be hurt or helped more than others by the dimensions of Fenway. It is hard to quantify and "adjust" the numbers accordingly. It's interesting to look at Wake's career home/awy splits (including his numbers with Pitt): Home: .744 OPS (4.31 ERA/1.325 WHIP) Away:  .745 OPS (4.50 ERA/ 1.374 WHIP) Fenway: .750 (4.43/1.315) He's a flyball pitcher who has done pretty close to the same at Fenway or away. Josh Beckett: Home (Bos/Fla)/Away OPS: home: .681/ away .708 ERA/WHIP  3.84/3.78 &  1.207/1.228 Overall: (.694 OPS against) AL: 4.01/1.207 NL: 3.46/1.235 Fenway: .702 (4.28/1.207) Florida:   .649 (3.15/1.214) Josh's OPS against and WHIP are pretty close at Fenway and AL overall. His ERA is 0.27 higher at Fenway than his overall AL ERA.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Precisely my point, Moon. Wins/losses playing in another park would likely equal out, which is why Lackey, for ex, will win the same avg. number of games in Boston as he did in CA. More RA, but better support. Now, if he'd pitched for a losing franchise in CA, he would have a higher ceiling in Boston because he isn't a dominant pitcher. Poor defense could compromise him. Think how much Belanger/Robinson helped Cuellar and Dobson once they came from their respective teams.

    I, too, don't buy into stat site venue adj. because places like Fenway or Wrigley defy the norm. The RedSox are the RedSox where ever they play. But the numbers they post reflect venue over personnel. Boston fans see AGONE as a .350+ hitter. That's Fenway induced. He wasn't anything close to that in SD, where his BA in Petco was between .265-.272 I think. Thus, fan perception was different.

    Regarding the individual pitching splits, pitchers over time can learn to get the most out of Fenway. If you look at Wake's first 7or so years in Boston, his away numbers were clearly better than his home ones (take note DC).
    But he eventually improved his command and had hitters hitting to the more specious parts of the park. That's a big reason why switch hitters hit righty against him.

    Beckett is another good example. In 2007, his home ERA was almost double his road ERA. And his record was reflective (9-5 at home/11-2 away).
    What would CC's numbers have been pitching half his games in Fenway???
    That CY YOUNG was Beckett's. It was a travesty. I think CC faced Boston/NY once that whole year. When the playoffs began, CC took a dump against better comp. He was compromised by venue. But Josh took his game up a notch. Result? Egg on the voter's faces...

    Since then, Beckett has learned to use the park's dimensions in better fashion.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    In Response to Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion:
    [QUOTE]In Response to FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion : harness - Despite the Red Sox's lower than desired offensive stats on the road, they have a winning record because their pitching has been markedly better.  Their road ERA is 3.53 (4th best in baseball) versus a home ERA of 4.28 (23rd in baseball). As for the Red Sox being an offensive juggernaut, you need to adjust for era.  The run environment of 2011 is significantly different than the environment of five or ten years ago.  When adjusted, we're truly seeing a near historic offense.
    Posted by redsoxfan791[/QUOTE]

    I started this thread to address the posters who feel hitting from Boston/NY/TX was the main reason for their standing.
    As you said, pitching has been better, (but masked by venue induced H/A splits).

    I don't agree with UR "near historic" offense. Even with the adj. to current era.
    This "historic offense" in Safeco for 81 games would drop significantly.
    Even in the more profound hitting/juicing era, they barely hit. 250 in Safeco.
    Similar in Oakland, slightly better in CA.
    Are you just dropping by? Will you be posting for a while?
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Your-Echo. Show Your-Echo's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    So the reason for the Red Sox success on the road is pitchers ERA. It took 791 to figure it out. Thanks to the other posters for supplying the other stats. Now I can sleep tonight.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    In Response to Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion:
    [QUOTE]So the reason for the Red Sox success on the road is pitchers ERA. It took 791 to figure it out. Thanks to the other posters for supplying the other stats. Now I can sleep tonight.
    Posted by Your-Echo[/QUOTE]

    Better wake up.
    The point isn't pitching on the road, it's masked pitching at home.
    The park affects pitchers/hitters.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

     If you look at Wake's first 7or so years in Boston, his away numbers were clearly better than his home ones (take note DC).

    Not exactly true (ERA/WHIP):

    Year   Home         Away
    1995  2.90/1.204  2.99/1.163  (ERA & WHIP was almost the same)
    1996  5.42/1.565  4.86/1.534  (WHIP almost the same)
    1997  4.18/1.402  4.31/1.380  (Pretty even this year)
    1998  4.63/1.282  4.54/1.398  (Almost identcial home & away)
    1999  4.04/1.464  6.08/1.648 (Way better at home)
    2000  5.92/1.578  5.00/1.361 (Way better away)
    2001  3.63/1.311  4.13/1.399 (Better at home)

    First 7 years:
    Wake better in ERA at home 4 times, better in WHIP just 2 times. Looks pretty close.
    Looking at opponents OPS, he did better at home his first 7 years in Fenway (4/7).

    Opponent's OPS (Home/Away)
    1995 .657/.683
    1996 .875/.765
    1997 .798/.738
    1998 .692/.823
    1999 .766/.802
    2000 .869/.783 
    2001 .694/.719 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    Actually Moon, I should have said the first half+ of Wake's career. It goes thru 2004. I looked at this months ago - forgive the memory.
    To extend your data:
    2002: Wake in Fenway/Away:
    ERA 3.55/1.88 WHIP: 1.084/1.014  OPS .653/.550 H/IP 76-91/45-72.

    2003:
    ERA 4.23/3.90  WHIP: 1.291/1.322 OPS .722/.692 H/IP 114-112/
    79-90

    2004:
    ERA: 4.99/4.70 WHIP: 1.346/1.433 OPS .755/.806 H/IP 121-113/
    76-74

    6 of 10 years road favored ERA/WHIP.  OPS even.

    Since 2004, Wake has had his ERA better at home in 4 of 6 years (2011 looks about even so far). His WHIP has been better in 6 of 7 years at home. OPS 3 of 7.

    The reason I included hits/IP with Wake is because he's a flyball pitcher. So, any real disparity H/A means the park's dimensions are at play. Hitters generally don't square him up, but when they do, he gets hit hard.

    This is what drew me to his H/A splits in the first place.
    From 1995 to 2004: His H/IP ratio 9 of 10 years favored the road.
    That, my friend, is a 90 percentile, and a handi-capper's bias in racing terms!
    Total numbers: 978 Hits in Fenway over 948 IP. Road #'s: 812 H in 883 IP!

    However, from 2005 to the present:
    Fenway: 569 Hits in 583 IP. Road: 528 Hits in 523 IP.
    5 of the 7 years favored Home!

    Knuckle ball pitchers refine their difficult art in later years, and Wake eventually figured out how to make the park work in his favor.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    Fair enough, harness.

    I haven't seen Wake's charts, but it seems like he lets up a lot of deep fly balls to CF and RF-CF, so Fenway may help him with those hits. 

    I think Fenway does not hurt him as much as others partly because of his skill but also because of way hitters approach hitting his knuckleballs. 


     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    In Response to Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion:
    [QUOTE]Fair enough, harness. I haven't seen Wake's charts, but it seems like he lets up a lot of deep fly balls to CF and RF-CF, so Fenway may help him with those hits.  I think Fenway does not hurt him as much as others partly because of his skill but also because of way hitters approach hitting his knuckleballs. 
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    I really don't think hitters approach his dancer differently over the last 7 years as opposed to his first 10 years in Boston.
    He got smart with age and refined his command. The hit/Ip variance between 1995-2004 and 2005-2011 is really stark.

    Same with conventional hurlers. Once they refine their command and aren't over-whelmed by the park's dimensions, they should eventually improve in Fenway.

    But as you said, it's a difficult park for pitchers. Limited margin for error.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    And he continues to throw well, now a 5 hitter over 7 IP, so at what point will all of you say he's not a good SP option. Oh, and that was at Fenway.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    Yes, harness, and that gets to the crux of my Wakefield position and several fans on this board. Simply put: it is as follows:

    Most fans feel Wake has had somewhere between a decent to very good career in Boston, yet they want him to retire soon, or wished he had retired 1-4 years ago. No matter how many times I have posted numbers after numbers, angle after angle, and more how Wake's best 2 1/2 years of his career (79 starts) were from 2007 to July 8, 2009. 

    His age at the time?  40-42.

    He hurt his back in 2009 and had back surgery. He recovered in 2010 while being jerked from starter to relief 10 times. His numbers suffered, yet he still had 10 out of 19 starts with 3 or less ERS and 12/19 with 4 or less.

    This year his ERA is inflated, but his WHIP is OK, and 9 out of 15 starts have been with 3 or less ERs (10/15 with 4 or less). 

    He's not an ace. He wasn't ever an ace. He wasn't even supposed to be in the starting rotation this year. He was our 6th starter forced into the rotation by injuries. The team is 10-5 in his starts with one loss (I believe) coming from 4 runs allowed in the 9th by the pen.

    His starter numbers place him as our 4th best starter behind Beckett, Lester, and Buchholtz. With Buch out, he has the 3rd best (not counting Bedard). I'm not saying he is the 3rd best, but he has been a big asset.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    In Response to Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion:
    [QUOTE]Do you think maybe the reason why there were only 15 hits combined had something to do with the pitchers happening to be good pitchers if you look at the overall numbers to the right? I think so. I think Fenway is a hitter's haven, but good pitchers often pitch well here. Why? They are good pitchers, the venue doesn't make that big of a difference, certainly not to what Sir Har of Ness is alluding to. You can't defend bad pitching. If you are a bad pitcher or throwing poorly, you can play in the Grand Canyon and give up 8 ER and vice versa you can play in a phone booth and throw a no hitter.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    One game sampler is just that. But it does lend credence to my stance that pitching is the over-riding factor. A great pitched game will be that anywhere. Mediocre/decent/good pitching will be compromised by venue/level of comp.


     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    In Response to Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion : I agree. I think the point I tried to make on the earlier pages is that you have to take the Sox's offense in context with the other teams. The Sox offense at Fenway still is so much better than other team's offenses when they play at Fenway, and the Sox offense at road parks still is better than the offenses they're playing. So to me, the Sox still have an offensive juggernaut on the road, just not as potent as it is at Fenway but still potent compared to what the team they're playing can put up.
    Posted by royf19[/QUOTE]

    How much of that is a reflection of the RedSox pitching staff?

    As for Juggernaut offense, it's a matter of perception and context.
    The '27 Yanks were a true juggernaut offense.
    .300+ on the road. No expansion. Balanced schedule.

    Boston's offense hits .253 on the road with a 100 point disparity in OPS vs. this real Juggernaut offense. Hitting .246 since 2003 in Anaheim, or .243 in Safeco, or .251 in Oakland tells me the home offense is extremely venue enhanced.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    In Response to Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion:
    [QUOTE]I'm not sure what harness is really trying to prove by the distortion thread except I think we differ (and I agree with roy completely) as to the importance of the offense on the road. The home runs and runs per game are vital to the team's ability to win on the road. Fenway has always been a hitter's haven and that's always been pretty much common knowledge, so again I don't know what the "distortion" is. I'm trying to explain that I feel the Sox have been pretty consistent in producing offense at home and on the road. I think the team's pitching has been much more consistent than in previous seasons at both home and on the road. Everything is relative though so while the batting averages differ, the wins and losses are about the individual game. Not simply dictated by home v. road venue. You can have a game in which you get 7 hits and score 7 runs and you can have a game in which you score 3 runs on 14 hits. Which game would you rather have offensively?
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    Exactly. Wins/losses aren't reflective of venue as it is of the game itself.
    Batting averages are. Which is why this perceived "juggernaut offense"
    would be luckyto hit .265 in Safeco as a home venue.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    In Response to Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion : Exactly. Wins/losses aren't reflective of venue as it is of the game itself. Batting averages are. Which is why this perceived "juggernaut offense" would be lucky to hit .265 in Safeco as a home venue.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    My guess is they would hit about .275-.280 overall, but it's all relative. They could still be the best hitting team in MLB after venue adjustements were made. Let's say for argument's sake, the Sox pitching was exactly equal to every opponent they play: If the Sox went on to hit .245 in "the new homefield" of SAFECO" and .295 on the road (.275 overall), but their opponents hit .250 overall, then the .025 differential would prove the Sox were among one of the best hitting teams in MLB, even though their overall BA might be mediocre. 

    Playing in a park for 3 games a year is not a large enough sample size to determine that is what they would hit there over 81 games. I think they would make adjustments. Their pitching would be no better, but their pitching numbers would put them near the top.

    Venue adjustments to stats have always been a tricky venture. AGon's .808 OPS in PetCo doesn't make him any less of a great hitter. .808 is great for PetCo. It probably ranks as one of the best alltime OPS in that park with a large enough sample size to be definitive.

    It's all relative.

    It's all relative.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    how funny, it is all relative, so if we all agree on that, what is the point of calling Fenway a "great distortion" and what is the point of arguing that Lackey is doing his job by winning 4 straight starts when in reality he pitched well enough to win 2 of those 4 starts. harness, open question and let's stop the teet for tat, is your point that pitching is predominant in winning games and that hitting is not? What is it? What is your point? If things are relative, and an ace is an ace, then how come a good hitting lineup isn't a good hitting lineup from one park to another. If the Sox played 81 games at Safeco Field, I agree that the averages would be lower, but in a combined 162-game season, my educated guess is Youkilis, Pedroia, AGON, Ellsbury, and Ortiz would all put up big numbers in homers, RBI, OPS with lower batting averages. They are good hitters and good hitters can hit in any park.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: FENWAY FACTOR - The Great Distortion

    My guess is they would hit about .275-.280 overall, but it's all relative. They could still be the best hitting team in MLB after venue adjustements were made. - Moon

    Very true, but the thing we're overlooking is that this team is built for this venue.  If JH's & Theo's team played 81 games in Safeco my guess is that the team would look much different. 
     

Share