<p>", -', \ .-" < " ':-<1 Wi th this issue, The Baseball Analyst, a.fter fOUl;'" ·:y.ea.rs of talk; 1 • .. . J. and promises, finally gets off the oouoh..An outstanding artiol~ by Paul Sohwarzenba.rt detailing the effects ot;tyarious.; ballparks on ;th~ /' 'r.: produotion of errors c.nd other fielding oocurwmes 'has,:a.nd':"Ode-serves,·.. , the distinotion of being our first artiol~,:. P~ul's -a;rtioi~ a~m-o:n;,;; :~:! 1;':1:.' stra.tes tha.t fielding statistio.s, like ba.ttin.g and 'pi tohiig;s~~iiti:-(is~'; l· but apparently even more so, ,ar.e th~ prq.ducts in :9~t"of ott~(hii'rrst~ft5es·- i as well as men.. Following that, Dallas "Adams.":exami-n,es .th~~·gt~$':: :;;;). tion of runs soored by teams aoross· a wid,,~~a~e o.~··'offe!il.t.~";;?li:tI~-:;;;;'·.'l~~··"·; ties, and emerges with a ohart that will·.~t,ell you,:' 'if yo-ci')2:itii. how"',':;:;'::" j; many runs per game your team soores,~' how 'of;~en theyt',fJhou!~"b-~~~hut ;':)~f. ' out, how often they should soore l.~~n, 2 runs "--;"0 ·:ori."g1>'!'t9:·;l.95~:r.;·: .-:. more runs. This article may be::ac li~t:tlJ~~ mQ~Et·:.d±rfioult ,¥o"~1:ij-~d>1;banil1lt .. ' the first, but make a note of i t,L as. this is Q-)le ··a.rtiole:·~;l,1~ "'~'t~~ .. :n r..'.~ in whioh is potentially of enormOU:;3~ lJ'Se'i.:n:'·~s~a·r·<thiiig anY.iW3:fltf:ziCU'~dB:·'i: , • -.' ~ I- " ' , of issues, some of whioh Dallas suggests a. t tA~ oon..olusion of ~fie.,;. , t ' I ... ""'''.',"",''''':'.,,\.- ... '~' . ar loc e.. ", .':;::. ~ ... ~::;.:.:~ ... <..:.~./:.'!. ~~~~<~ .OJ Tom Jones on page 11 puts on reoord a f,~1i' fa,c,ts"iif9rlh knowing" . about 'Nolan Ryan's fifth career no-hitter.. Taking: .. a:·:b'r~aJ.c from th~: releIJ,tless march of informationt ZlIark Pankin propoge~£f·i'~'S;gt~m:of·· :;.1.= ... ; -rlins and Losses for all players, and;.;li'E;?;·p;z:o:esent-a. 'oo;nt:f±b~tion ".. , ..... t i ll:' from the la.te Bob Kingsley seeking to examine th~ 'fnipaot,of:'player of a tti tudes on run production in var.i.Q.uf5 pa.rks.. "'.... :. ' ~ Baseball Analyst begins wi th. '38.:"r~9de,~s .~:nd;~npp:~h in,'ater-: ~, ial on hand f'or three more issues .. ,.One thing,., .. and.',.on.Ef;;t~~rl8"qnlYt.' .~ iiill determine whether or not we can cq:qtinue,·from· tfuit.rtiEit£8&i4: ~:.::. ~'::. ~.t. , beginning to provide a place where peopl~"who··:,~?iv'e,:'.:~es~~~,)·lia.t;:, .. l,tt ~' they want to do can find a place to print it .. ,-:. Reaaers?,.;;·~-re"na;li":!'::-, live :wi th vem or wi thout 'em.. This ,.i.s,.aQ.i~cus·~fo:r;~:.~6~.?f~'enct~~; '" ~. not a oommeroial opera·tion.. 'ivhat ~i·s·impQ.~ta~t ·ifi:'w~etb.ei-·Jor.';i~oi:n .~. .~ you contribute to the discussion~ . linen 'yoli.:ba.ve a'i(li~i;; ~WKenr~ .. ·~:n:iSt. , you do some research, write it up and ·send·, ft 'to- us: .. " j:i y.oii 'do .!o.t ", :,' ~' that, .the Analyst will thrive and-grqlfj. if;~,Y'Oiita:O~:"'t'~":·,:i"t,~~ji~t-b.;,."'·": Iii t her a.nd fold.. It's up to you.. "-. '. '( ,J.l.';- .J C'" a.CO :'~ .. :;.!.~ ":~)~ t·1;"·"1·"il1 .j Bill James 8allpark Effects .. August I, 1981 BALLPARK EFFECTS ON THE PRODUCTION OF INFIELD ERRORS AND DOUBLE PLAYS Since the introductiori of the morlern astroturf ballpark, th~re has been some controversy about the effects of astroturf. ThF.! rparh'?r has dOIJbtless ,been exposp.ri to many of the argumr::nts, fnr instancel' 1. Thp. ball travels faster on the astroturf, thersfore, infielders are forced to play deeper; 2. Accepti~g ·thii jiist premise. people argue ~hat astrolurf either raises, lowers, or has no net effect on batting averages (probably the most commonly accepted statement is that it raises averages 10- 20'points); 3. That because astroturf gives a "tr~e"bounce, infieiders will commit fewer errors playing ph astroturf than on natural turf. This discussion of the differences between astroturf.and natural surfaces may lead the baseball ohserver ,- . . ' to wonder if there isn't also some significant degree of variation among the playing surfaces of these ceneral classifications. After all, astroturf surfaces get harrier with age as the surface gets !ijorn' and the ground unriF.!rneath !]2ts pounded into l,!:?Llr-nt from tha l~ck of natural drainaJe and plant roots. LikR~ise, not all ~a~ural surfaces arR exactly alike. They have diff~rent soil chara~teristics; they get differing degrees of care; some ~ulti-purpose stadiums with natural surfaCES are harder to kEep in s~ooth condition. Several years ago I decided to test some of these statements by 'collectinlJ statistics from 'the box scores in the :iport.ing ~,lel!Js -in order to perform some home/road analysis. In those 'days T .. had more ·availablp. time to IIlork on the statistics col1ection and ... _/- Ballpark Effects !l.!as ahle to compile 10 team/years warth of data. This article" (;<;) stJr.1marizes my findinlJs on National League ballparks for infield errors and double plays. The statistics compiled are from the following yearsl 1. For the years 1973, 1976~ 1979 and 1980 I compiled comparative data for each team, home and away, and fbI' its 'oppbnent~ playin~ in the original team's park- and at home; 2. For the years 1972 and 1978 I compiled comparative stats. for only fbr each tea~'s performance at home and on the roarl. For example, for 1973 T have the Cubs' performaoce:at Wrigley Field compared to on the road, and the performaoce d~ Cub~' opponents at Wiigley Field compared to the totals"nf:C~hs' opponents playing at home in Cubs' road games. For 1t;172, I have only the Cuhs at ~tigley Field compared to the Cubs en the roari. The statistics which are compiled here are infield errorS; outfield errors (th~resu1ts'of which s~em intbnc1u~ive'and not worth much further discussion) and double plays. The numbers used for comparative purposes are infield eirors, outfiEd Errors and double plays per thousand plays. Plays are figured by multiplying Innings Pitched times three and suhtract~ng strikeouts. The next step in ma~ing the compariso0 o£ performance is to divide the "home-park" statistics by the"road-par~~ stats. The result is a ranking of ballparks by their amount o.f yariation from the "average" of all other ballparks other than th~~ome park. The idea is to measure the difference in production, for example, of infield errors in Wrigley Field in games between the Cubs and their opposents, as opposed to the produciio~ of infield erros in Cubs' games on the road. -. 'i ....... "' ... /:: . ., I will again use my favorite ba11team. the Cubs, as an example of how I produced the comparative statistics; 10Ye ar I ( I P X 3 ) Team Totals K DP EOF ((IPX3)-K) LUrig1ey Road :: 530 17717 21916 21740 :: 29.91 4199 4346 806 745 Road EIF 1000 M14 484 :: 17394 124 123 17717 = 27.83 29.91 27.83 The result of the comparison is that the probability of an infield error .in a Cubs v. Opponent game is about 7.5% greater if the game is in Wrigley Field than in the "~~erage opponent's home stadium." The complete final data follows: Team CHI *mON-J MON-O NY PHIL PITT SL ATL CIN HOU LA so "llSF-A SF -t·J EIF 29.91 32.17 27.49 27.91 24.08 28,43 27.61 34.q1 23.90 27.06 28.29 32.3R 35.16 35.32 Home 7.00 7.92 8.64 7.56 6.02 8.89 6.92 8.03 6.16 5.14 5.05 6.07 7.26 10.03 OP 45.49 47.44 38.49 41.39 40.88 40.30 46.35 43.28 38.58 41. 39 42.07 40.60 38.03 39.56 (per 1000) 27.83 31.57 31.06 29.16 27.92 28.33 29,84 29.73 29.30 28.94 29.82 30.09 34.48 29.95 Road EOF 7.07 -6.15 7.09 5.81 7.44 ·8.16 6.68 7.40 6.19 7.47 6.22 7.06 8.14 6.28 DP 42.83 43.42 39.62 42.70 43.83 45.05 42.01 39.33 43.32 40.51 41.65 44.27 39.71 38.72 * Stats from 1972, 1973 and 1976 are for old Parc Jarry; the MON-O stats represent those for Olympic Stadium. years 1978, 1979. 1980. ~ Candlestick Park h~d an astroturf surface in 1972 and 1973, before the city fathers decided to restore the natural surface. 4· :: 1.075 Ballpark Effects The remaining statistics will be listed in order of rank. (:\~ For purposes of the astro/natural argument, an asterisk will ". \.- follow the astroturf park figures. The comparative figures follollJ: Home IAway Rat ios Rank ,Park ErF Park EOF Park OP 1 crN .816* HOU .688* 5L 1.103* '2 PHIL .862* PHIL .809* ATL 1.100 3 ffON-O .884* LA .B12 mON-J 1.093 4 SL .925* SO .860 CHI 1.062 5 HOU .935* SF-A .892* SF -N 1.022 6 l.A .'=349 mON-O .937* HoU 1. 022* 7 NY .957 CHI .990 LA 1.010 8 PITT 1.004* cnJ .995* mON-O .971* 9 MN-J '1. 019 SL 1. 036* NY .969 10 SF-A 1. 020* ATL 1.OB5 SF-A .95B* 11 CHI 1.075 PITT 1.089* PHIL .933* 12 SO 1.076 mN-J 1.288 SO .917 13 ATL 1.174 NY 1. 301 PITT .895* 14 SF -N l.l7g SF -N 1.597 C~J" .891*' l}Avera'1es: Natural 1.061 1.133 1.025 Astroturf .921 .• 921 .968 ~ The averages are simply the means of the figures in the above tables and are not weightpn by either plays. or, in the cases of montreal and San Francisco, by the number of team/years of data. They are put out simply for purposes of discussion, and the extra work of going beyond the simple averages did not seem worth the ffort considering the fact that they are not being used for any purposes other than approximation for discussion purposes. DISCUSSION-CONCLUSIONS: The most obvious conclusion is that the statement about fielding percentages being higher on astroturf is clearly justified by the evidence. However, it is also apparent that there is some substantial variation among the ballparks in the different classes. Atlanta and San Francisco appear to be the banes of National League infielders, and any infi~lder who 5 ...... _'. - .. :1 all ["lark C::ffects expects to win a gold Q10ve while paying half of his games in ei ther place. I}Jhether justi.fied or not, infield gold gloves tend to he Bwardad mainly on fielding percentage (other factors seem to include hitting, range, and o~erall subjective evaluation). I can remember no Giant or Brave infielder winning a gold glove or Sporting News Fielding award in the past ten years, in fact, ~ave Johnson went from perennial American Gold Glove second baseman in ~l al t. imore to a 30 error man in Atlanta, resulting in his endinQ his career as a first baseman (although his deteriorRting range was probably as important a factor in that move). Although the difference between natural and astrolllrf for outfield errors is l?rger than the difference for infield errors, I am less ready to make the obvinus conclusions that the turf itself is responsible for the difference. The absolute numbers of errors are smaller for the outfield errors, so the deviation is actually less significant. IntUitively, the trueness of a bounce seems less significant after the ball hag travelled to the outfield. More likely, the difference in surface comes into play more on throws, since it is usually the player making the throw wh6 is charged with the error when thE'! hn] 1 takes C3. bad hop. For It!hat it's wort.h, it's also true that fiplding percentaQe dOGS not correllate well with the C3.lUard ing of gal d n loves for out f ie 1 ders-Lui tness Dave Parker. Finally, the differences noted in double plays are smaller, leadinQ to the likely conclusion that,whatever the effect that astroturf has on the production of double plays, the effect is le~s sig~ificant then it is for the production of errnrs. The fact that the second baseman and shortstop must play deeper on as troturf Luill prohah 1 y tenr! t C1 reduce the pr obab il i ty of a 6 Flallpark Effects double play; on the other hand, the fact that the ground ball travels faster will tend to increase the probability of a double play. These offsetting factors seem to about cancel each either out. The size of the difference in average and the distribution of results is such that I am not willing to draw any conclusions about the net effects based on this amount of data. ~al1park effects have been shown to be significant on hitters' statistics; it is sensible to expect that the same is true for fielding statistics. Certainly, playing surfacEs are one important difference amon~ the'various ballparks. Others may also he important, fof instances, the swirling winds at Candlestick Park may be as responsible for producino infield errors as the grQund (reputed to be fraught with tiny pphhlES ann clay clumps), although distinguishing among the causal factnrs is probabJy impossible with only numbers avai13hl~. Subjective comments from readers knowl~dgable about your lncal b~l]park would be appreciated, if there are any readers nf this maries tart i cle. Should thE Analyst' ~et off thF. ground, r hope to have .!\mer ican League ball parI- rlata summar i ze ri for thE m~x t r:dition. 7 THE DISTRIBUTION OF RUNS SCORED ( .' by Dallas Adams .. How often will ·a team be shutout? How often will it score exactly one run? Or ten runs, or twenty? What, in short, is the distribution of runs scored in a game? Obviously the distribution will vary between high scoring and low scoring teams; and it will vary, partly due to the "shortness" of the 162 game season, between equivalently scoring teams, although this difference will be less than that between high and low scoring teams .. The approach utilized for this study was to group together equiv- alently scoring teams in order to determine, for each group, an average distribution of runs scored. Since 1968, the Official Baseball Guide has listed, for each team, the -scores of all that team's games the previous season. This furnishes ten seasons, 1967 through 1976, of scoring data; a total of 232 team-seasons. First9 each team was grouped with equivalently scoring teams. the grouping being made on the basis of average number of runs scored per game. In all, there were 11 different groups; each having its own distinct range of average runs per game, as shown in Table 1. ' TABLE 1 Group Range ot Number of Group average number A verage Runs teams in runs per game i I per game for the group the season I 1 2.75 - 2.99 6 2 .. 912 I 2 3.00 - 3.24 14 3.183 ! 3 3.25 - 3.49 23 3.371 4 3.50 - 3.74 26 3 .. 612 i 5 3.75 - 3.99 49 3.864 I 6 4 .. 00 - 4.24 40 4.122 • 7 4.25 - 4.49 34 4.348 8 4 .. 50 - 4.74 24 4 .. 599 9 4 .. 75 - 4.99 13 4.867 10 5.00 - 5.24 2 5.157 11 5.25 - 5.49 1 5.290 For example, the 1967 Cincinnati Reds averaged3.73 runs per game t hence they belong to Group 4. The next step was to tabulate, from the Guides, the number of times each team scored each specific number of runs. Once this was completed for all teams, the totals within each group Were converted to percents. That is, for each group the percentage of times it was shutout was computed, likewise the percentage of times it scored exactly one run, etc. These percentages are shown in Table 2; this table presents the complete grouped information and forms the basic data set tor the remainder of this study .. The inherent behavior of the basic data can be easily seen on Figura 1 which presents for low scoring, average scoring and high scoring teamb the probabilities of such teams scoring an exact number of runs. Note that the solid line on this figure represents the average run scoring 8 EXACT GROUP NUMBER . 1 OF' RUNS 0 14.52 1 18.91 2 17.03 3 16.41 4 10.97 5 9.09 6 5.02 7 2.72 8 1.78 9 1 .. 36 10 1.25 11 0.31 12 0.31 13 0.21 14 0.00 15 0.00 16 0.10 17 0.00 18 0.00 19, 0.00 more T.HE DISTRIBUTION OF RUNS SCORED TABLE 2 THE PERCENTAGE OF GAMES IN WHICH EXACTLY THE GIVEN NUMBER OF RUNS ARE SCORED (ARRANGED BY GROUPS) GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . 11.42 9.79 9.98 8.11 7.21 6 .. 49 5.93 4 .. 75 16 .. 90 15 .. 35 13.72 12.90 11.54 10.32 10.00 7 .. 60 17 .. 64 17 .. 79 16.28 14.53 14.29 13.37 12 .. 10 12.11 15.81 16.79 15.13 15.73 14.69 14.58 13.34 14.68 12.22 12.99 12.28 13 .. 78 13.93 13.39 13.11 13.21 9.41 9.22 10.61 11.05 11.09 11.26 11.66 11.78 6.13 5 .. 72 8 .. 00 7.82 8.40 9.15 9 .. 66 9 .. 64 4.95 4 .. 72 5.12 5.76 6 .. 34 7 .. 00 7.69 7 .. 55 2.15 3.53 3.85 3.72 4.02 5.04 5.49 5.65 1.53 1.68 1.94 2.54 3.14 3.34 3.68 3.52 0.83 0.92 1.27 1 .. 58 2.21 2 .. 21 2.36 3.52 0.53 0.81 0.86 0.95· 1.25 1 .. 43 1.81 2.19 0.22 0.33 0.36 0.58 0.68 1.15 1.32 1.24 0.18 0.16 0.24 0.35 0.48 0 .. 53 0.73 0.71 0.00 0.08 0.17 0.25 0.23 0.31 0.54 0.95 . 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.11 0.20 0.18 .0.21 0.43 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.13 0.09 0.05 0.18· 0.05 0.00 0.00 0 .. 02 0.05 0.11 0 .. 04 0.08 0.10 OoOOi 0.00 0.05 0 .. 01 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.05 0.14 I , FIGURE 1 GROUP GROUP 10 11 4 .. 01 4 .. 94 7.41 8.02 11.42 6.17 13.58 11.11 11.11 17.90 12 .. 04 12.35 10 .. 80 9.26 8 .. 95 6 .. 17 5 .. 86 4 .. 94 3.40 7.41 2.78 2.47 3.70 3.70 1.85 1.85 1.54 2.47 0.31 1.24 0 .. 31 0.00 0 .. 62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 PROBABILITY·OF SCORING EXACTLY A GIVEN NUMBER OF RUNS (COMPOSITE MAJOR LEAGUE DATA, 1967-1976) .20 _. ~ ..... --- '--', ... !" --- !_~=lteam~ ~~Or1~- less i than J /7", ::! 3.74 runs per game .16 - 7·--'; '~ : -- .-r- . I I- all teams I PI........ \'. I tI' .. R .".- i ............... teams scoring more than o .12 7· 'II 4.25 runs per game B tI A I I B iii I .08 -: L / I T Y • 04 ~---!---_t__--t- .. -. . .... -+-----1 .ooL-__ 1-~~ __ ~ __ ~ __ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ o 2 4 6 . 8 10 12 16 18 20 EXACT NUMBER OF RUNS 9 "THE DISTRIBUTION OF RUNS SCORED diltribution for all major league teams in the ten year period 1967 through 1976. On Figure It the abscissa represents the exact number of"" runs in a game, while the ordinate represents the probability of scoring - exactly that number of runs. . The general trends are apparent. As scoring increases (scoring being measured by the average number of runs scored per game over a full season- or other period of time), the peak percentage decreases and shifts to the right. After the peak, the tailing-off portion of the curves show that the lower ~coring the team, the faster the tail-off. The regular behavior of the curves makes it a simple matter to obtain empirical equations expressing, for a team with a known average rate of scoring (R/G), the probability of occurance of each individual run total. If N is the number of runs and PN is the probability of scoring exactly N - runs in a game, then: (l) When N is S runs or fewer: PN = A + B(N) + C(N)2 where A = .38498 - .10839 (R/G) + .00800SS(R/G)2 B = .0010306 + .024139 (R/G) - .002943(R/G)2 C = -.01879 + .002Sl4(R/G) - .0000lS06(R/G)2 (2) When N is 6 runs or more: PN : D(EN) where D = 6.6210 - 2.496S(R/G) + .27Sl8(R/G)2 E : .058479 + .24022(R/G) - .02229l(R/G)2 As mentioned, R/G is the average number of runs scored per game over tht.,-. full season or other period of time. Possible applications of the runs scoring distribution described above- include: (l ) (2 ) The determination of whether a given pitcher on a team received above average or below average batting support. The determination of whether the batters on a team had a tendency to get hot simultaneously (and/or to slump Simultaneously). For if so, the number of high (and/or low) scoring games for ·the team ought to be more than theoretically expected. Whereas if the batters on the team got hott or slumped, independently of each other, then some would be hot while others were slumping, thus tending to cancel out the effects on the team's overall offense; the probable result being that the number of high and low scoring games would·· be close to the theoretically expected values. (3) An examination of. the records of the teams involved in close pennant races might reveal that the ultimate winners were consistently closer to (or perhaps consistently farther away from) their theoretically expected runs distribution than were the non-winning teams. (4) The data from Table 2 can be utilized to obtain an equation relating won/lOSS percentage as a function of runs scored and opponents' runs. (This item will be the subject of a future report). ._ L __ NOLAN RYAN'S FIFTH NO-HITTER On September 26, 1981, Nolan Ryan pitched his fifth career no-hitter, as the Astros defeated the Dodgers 5-0. While these comments are not analytical, they include a few things that readers may not have found in news articles. Ryan had a lot of control trouble in the first three innings and was constantly behind the batters. He threw so many pitches that I commented to a friend that it would be tough for Ryan to get a complete game. We estimated that he had thrown 70-75 pitches through the third; it turned out he threw 65 pitches through 3, another 16 in the fourth, and a total of 129 for the game. He threw 77 strikes and 52 balls, for 3 walks and 11 strikeouts. The control problem was blamed on overstriding; if so, a conference in v the fourth with the pitching coach straightened that out. "r recorded Ryan1s motion (1981 Abstract) the first two innings as ACGHL PS UY 150 -+ C FHM Q This is a composite of a number of pitches. In the sixth or seventh inning r recorded his motion as ACGIL PS TY 150 -- B FKM Q . At this time I noticed that his .motion, particularly the follow-through, varied from pitch to pitch (e.g., FHM). I couldn't determine the pitches t but expect he crosses over more on the fast ball. An A~count Form box score (1979 Abstract) summarizes the game. LOS ANGELES HOUSTON 4LOPES 63 k k 9PUHL 3u 3 s 43 W SMITH k 4GARNER ws sc *1 k s' 8LANOREAUX k w 43 3u 8SCOTT k E6 13 '4 9 7BAKER 43 43 k 53 7CRUZ w 0 ss 13 s'a 3GARVEY WSWK l3 2ASHBY 4 S" 7 w 7 5GUERRERO k 9 63 5HOWE b3 9 63 *2 2SCIOSCIA k k 9 3SPILLMAN 43 8 9ROENICKE 5 9 7' PITTMAN s 6THOMAS ws 53 43 3WALLING Ww 1 POWER k 6REYNOLOS t 43 63 0' 1 GOLTZ 1 RYAN w s K sacf PERCONTE k 1 FORSTER *1 FChoice 54 JOHNSTONE 43 *2 FChoice 56 1 STEWART 1 HOWE 9 9 9 3 RYAN POWER 9 9 1 GOLTZ 2 FORSTER 6 6 STEWART 3 2 HOWE 3 LOS ANGELES o 0 0 000 000 T- 2:46 HOUSTON 002 o 0 0 o 3 x A- 32115 ---- Tom Jones 11 1:- f .... ~~ \.' . -; ';:,:- WINS AND IJOSSES FOR ALL PLAYERS Mark D. Pankin With the exception of wins, losses, and saves for pitchers, the baseball statistics which are kept do not provide information about whether a player's contributions helped his team win games. Instead they focus on some aspect of play which is presumed to be part of the winning or losing of games. An attempt is made here to provide a method for evaluating player efforts with regard to whether they contributed to a victory or defeat. The basic idea is that when a team wins a game, many of its players made a significant contribution to that win, and when a team loses, most players can share the blame. Four basic "credits" can be awarded: a Team Pitching Win(TPW) which can be given to individual pitchers on the winning team, a Team Batting Win(TBW) which may be earned by some batters on the winning team, a Team Pitching Loss (TPL) , and a Team Batting Loss{TBL). Corresponding categories for fielding are not established because it is usually almost impossible to assess whether or not better fielding could have turned a loss into a win or the other way around. Team Pitching Win(TPW) Every pitcher on the winni~g team receives a TPW except those who (a) pitch "briefly and ineffectively" in the scorer's opinion; or (b) enter the game when their team is so far shead it "can't possibly lose. II Both call for the scorer's judgement, but specific standards could be established. The "briefly' and ineffectively" provision is used when awarding a (regular) win to a pitcher, and it has not caused problems to leave this to the judgement of the official scorer. A minimum number of innings might be required of the starting pitcher (I suggest two) unless he leaves due to injury. Standards for being ahead would depend on the inning and the size of the lead, but are not discussed here for the sake of brevity. However, any pitcher with at least two innings should get a TPW. Team Pitching Loss {TPL} Every pitcher on the losing team receives a TPL except those who (a) have no runs (earned or unearned) charged to them in the usual sensei or (b) enter the game when their team is "hopelessly behind." The usual way of charging runs (to the pitcher who put the men on base) is used because it is as good as any and easy to use. Unearned runs are counted because it is rare that a pitcher makes no contri- bution to an unearned run. Judgement is needed for IIhopelessly behind" and this could depend on the future scoring in the game. For example, if a pitcher comes in trailing 10-2 and gives up two runs, if the final is 12-5 he would not get a TPL, b~t if the final score is 12-11,12-10,12-9 (or even 12-8 depending on how early the losers scored the eighth run) then he would get a TPL. Alternatively, specific standards could be established. 12 Team Batting Win(TBW) This is somewhat more complicated and involves calculating the "Run Participationll(RP) of each player. For each batter in an inning in which his team scores (a) if the batter gets on base, except when a runner is out on a fielder's choice, his RP is the number of runs scored in the part of the inning beginning with his plate appearance (except for runs which score on a wild pitch, passed ball or balk while he is batting); but (b) ~f the batter makes an out (including when he reaches base on a fielder~s choice out play and all sacrifices), his RP is the sum of (i) the number of runs that score on the play when he makes his out, and (ii) the number of runners who advance on the play and score later in that inning. The RP of a player is adjusted for being caught stealing or being out in a double play after reaching base by using (b) instead of (a) to figure his RP. For example, if the first batter singles, the second hits into a DP, and then some runs score, the first man's RP is o. Another example to illustrate the general process: A singles to start the inning, B walks, C forces A at third, D forces C at second while advancing B to third, E singles scoring B, F hits a three run homer, G also homers, and H makes the third out for a total of five runs. The RP is A-5 , B-S, c-o (his out didn't accomplish anything), D-I (he advanced a runner who scored), E-S, F-4 (one run had already scored when he came up), G-I, H-O. Even- though F had the "big blow" in the inning, A, B, and E have higher RP because by not making outs they kept the inning going and made all the scoring possible. A ba~ter who hits more than once in an inning is assigned RP according to (a) if he reaches his first time up regardless of what he does on his second appearance. If he makes an out his first time up, he is assigned RP according to (b) for that time up and according to either (a) or (b) for his second appearance depending on whether or not he makes another out. A player's RP for the game is obtained by adding the RP's for each scoring inning. If the team's margin of victory is three runs or less, then all batters with at least one RP receive a TBW. If the margin is four or more runs, then a TBW is given to all batters with an RP of at least the margin minus two (so in ·a 9-3 win, an RP of at least 4 is needed to get a TBW). The idea is that after a certain point extra runs are not vital or even particularly helpful. Since RP's "come in bunches" in big innings, it is likely that even in a "laugher" several players will get TBW's. Team Batting Loss (TBL) Every batter on the losing team receives a TBL except those who (a) reach base safely, excepting fielder's choice outs, at each plate appearance (have a "perfect day"); or (b) enter the game when their team is "hopelessly behind." If a player makes no outs, then he has done nothing to diminish his team's scoring chances and should not be given a TBL which would indicate that he contributed to his team's offense being insufficient. 13 c//) . :.J It may seem unfair that in a 12-11 game some players would get TPW's and others would get TBL's. The fact is, however, the object is to score more than the other team, and a pitching staff which allows the opposition fewer runs than its own team scores is deserving of some credit while the batters who did not produce enough runs deserve some blame. This points out that these statistics are very much team dependent as their names suggest, and as such they must be used with care. They could be used to compare players, both hitters and pitchers, on the same team or on teams with similar records. However, it would be unfair to use this device tq compare a player on a good team with one on a bad team. By using a winning percentage or wins minus losses divided by games played, it might be possible to get some insight for MVP evaluation (assuming the players in contention were on top teams). The Guidry vs. Rice debate would be a perfect setting. The major drawback to this ·system is that TBW and, in some cases, TBL can't be determined from an ordinary box score. A play-by-play description, an account form box score (1979 Baseball Abstract, p. 52), or something similar is needed. For this reason I can't provide any nice lists or comparisons. My dream is that something along these lines would become an "official" statistic would could easily be kept by the official scorers and league offices. What appears here is essentially a proposal in need of refining and more precise definition. The few standards given are open to discussion, and if any circumstances have been omitted, they should be able to be handled using the general guidlines presented here. ·AII comments and suggestions are welcomed. 14 Home Runs -- A Matter of Attitude Robert H. Kingsley, August 1979 Atlanta is an easy home run stadium -- Busch Memorial in St. Louis is a pitcher's park -- L.A. Stadium is not easy for home runs. Fans, players, sports writers and announcers, all have viewpoints on how the stadiums compare for home runs. But there are ways to put a yardstick on these stadiums. Let's divide the factors affecting home runs in three broad categories -- first, the physical dimensions of the stadium; second, the weather or climate factors; and third, the attitude factor -- what do hitters and managers think about the stadium for home runs. The first two factors are generally accepted and will be treated briefly; emphasis given to the attitude factor. Distances from home plate and height of the fences all around the outfield are the most important physical dimension factors. But slope of the field, frequently about two feet downward from home plate to the outfield acts just like a lower fence height. Further, foul ball areas make a difference as more pop-ups are caught in the larger foul ball areas affecting both batting average and home runs. For the weather or climate factors sometimes referred to as "carry of the ball", air density is perhaps the most important. The thinner, or less dense the air, the lesser the resistance to the flight of the ball. Altitude above sea level and tempera- ture of the air determine air density. Dry air is just slightly more dense than air with water vapor in it, so we shouldn't expect high humidity air (short of rain, hail, etc.) to slow down the flight of the ball. Winds, even on a season average basis must be evaluated everywhere except in domed stadiums. The famed winds at Candlestick made home runs tough for right handers and easy for left handers, but the stadium encircle- ment completed a few years ago has greatly reduced the impact. Winds have been a major negative factor in hitting home runs at Arlington Stadium. Resiliency of the baseball is affected by both temperature and absolute humidity (water vapor in the air). Tests show that baseballs that 'ar~ dry, or warm go farther than those that are cold or damp. Resiliency is not easy to harness because of many variables, including baseball storage and handling practices. Baseballs, relatively dry in storage tend to gradually absorb moisture from damp air with the result that the ball gains weight, the cover becomes softer and the ball just won't go so far. Among many stadiums, the impact of weather factors is minor, but if Shea Stadium in New York were exactly the same as Royals Stadium in Kansas City, weather factors would cause 35 percent more home runs in Kansas City. Attitude, viewpoint, or emphasis on hitting home runs by the individual hitters is the third, but a different kind of factor affecting stadium home runs. Since intent to hit home runs is a human and emotional factor, it does not lend itself to the engineer- ing and scientific approach necessary to handle the other broad factors of physical dimensions and weather factors. Perhaps the best way to come to grips with this factor is by an actual example. Atlanta Stadium has been considered an easy home run stadium and Busch Memorial in St. Louis a difficult home run stadium. Let's take a look at all three broad factors in both places by the little table below -- (all numbers in feet unless otherwise marked): Physical Dimensions Fence distances Foul lines Power alleys Center field Fence height Slope - home plate Foul ball area Atlanta 330 385 402· 6 to fence 1 1% easier for HRs Busch Memorial 330 386 414 10 1/2 1 Atlanta Busch Memot:ial () :. ... Weather Factors Stadium elevation Temperature - game time Humidity - game time Winds - game time 960 77 .5° 65% same at airport at airport Bat Right Bat Left 2 1/2% easier for HRs 460 76° 61% same -- Using all the data above and our standard method of determining stadium home run .,otential, Atlanta Stadium comes out 33% easier for home runs than Busch Memorial for the average Major League home run hitter. All of the differences in the table can be '--.sed individually to reach the 33% figure. Busch Memorial is longer by 1 foot at the ,ower zone and 12 feet at centerfield, but the 12 foot difference over 400 feet in centerfield is not very significant; accordinglYt Atlanta ,is only 3% easier because of "~ence distances. The 4 1/2 foot difference in fence height all along the fence is much lore significant and results in 11% more home runs at Atlanta Stadium. Including the ~% for foul ball areas, the total difference for physical dimensions is 15%. For ,~eather or climate factors, the altitude of Atlanta Stadium of 960 feet above sea level .s the most significant. Using the 500 foot difference and 1.5° of temperature, the ~ir density factor favors Atlanta by 13%. The resiliency factor appears to favor St. Louis but the fact that Busch Memorial is so near the Mississippi River, higher "tbsolute humidity exists compared to the airport at Lambert. Field. Considering the ligher temperature at Atlanta as well, Atlanta is considered to be favored by approxi- mately 2%. Atlanta is favored by 1% over Busch Memorial for winds primarily because of ~he in-blowing winds from right field at Busch Memorial, mostly affecting left handed >tters. Combining individual factors, Atlanta is favored by 16% for weather factors. mUltiplying 1.16 x 1.15 = 1.33 or 33% more home runs at Atlanta. This 33% advantage _figure assumes all of the hitters have the same attitude toward hitting home runs at $usch Memorial as at Atlanta, which of course is not the case as we will see la~er on. Actual home runs hit can be used in a couple of ways to actually express how the :wo stadiums have compared for home runs, considering all factors. Comparing the Braves It home and away is one method; another is relating how the Braves' opponents compared at Atlanta versus how they did at home against Atlanta. These approaches assume consis- -~ency in home and away pitching by visitors and Braves pitching respectively. The same nethods can be used for the Cardinals and the past three years should be enough for a good comparison. Here are the home run data: Braves Braves Opponents Home Away At Atlanta At home against Braves 1976 43 39 1976 56 30 1977 97 42 1977 111 58 1978 87 36 1978 89 43 227 117 256 131 227 256 ... 1.96 117 ... 1.94 Avg ... 1.95 131 (. Cardinals Cardinal Opponents (.~:.)--- Home Away At Busch Mem. At home against Cardinals 1976 27 36 1977 41 55 1978 29 50 97 141 97 = 141 .69 1976 1977 1978 Avg = .66 40 53 32 125 125 199 = .63 51 86 62 199 Because "away" for the Cardinals includes Atlanta and not Busch Memorial, and because "away" for the Braves includes Busch Memorial and not Atlanta, the averages of .66 and 1.95 should be adjusted on a comparable basis. Also, adjustment needs to be made for the temporary fence at Busch Memorial for 1976 which was removed for 1977. The surprising results are that 34% less home runs were hit at Busch Memorial, and 80% more home runs . were hit at Atlanta stadium when compared to the average National League stadium for 1976, 1977 and 1978. Earlier, we arrived at a factor of 33% more home runs at Atlanta because of factors of physical dimensions and weather or climate factors. Relating the 33% difference to the 1976, 1977, and 1978 average park, Atlanta is 14% above this average and Busch Memorial is 14% below the average. (1.14 ~ .86 = 1.33) We can now solve for the attitude, or emphasis factors by dividing the percentage value for all three factors by the combined physical dimensions and weather factors, i.e., for Atlanta 1.80 ~ 1.14 = 1.62. Results are summarized below: Atlanta Stadium compared for home runs to 1976-1978 National League Average Park All factors - 80% easier Physical dimension and weather data factor - 14% easier Attitude 7 or emphasis factor - 62% easier Busch Memorial Stadium compared for home runs to 1976-1978 National League Average Park-- All factors - 34% more difficult Physical dimension and weather data factor - 14% more difficult Attitude, or emphasis factor - 23% more difficult Surely, the startling attitude factors are much larger than might be expected. How can attitude or emphasis be broken down or described. Characteristically, long - ball hitters have a peaking distance from home plate where their long drives land more frequently, falling off somewhat closer in, and of course falling off farther out. - .- mgest hitters could be peaking at 430 feet, while sho.rt· hitters could be peaking at (,::1 feet. Generally, long hitters peaking beyond most of the outfield fence are think- : . .':·~6 home run most of the time anyway. However, average home run hitters, and particularly -lort home run hitters are faced with choices. Hitters peaking at, or short of the fence 1 their most usual hitting directions can help the team more by forgetting about home runs, meeting the ball, hitting the ball where it is pitched and otherwise get on base ~qich is negative home run emphasis. Hitters peaking at. or just beyond the fence could ~ hitting 2 to 3 times as many home runs if they take a positive rather than a negative viewpoint on hitting home runs; the positive attitude means more strike outs, pop-ups, and lpng fly balls, but a lot more home runs, too. It is not just a case of individual judg- ~nt about home run emphasis. The fans, manager and hitting coach all have something to _3Y about home runs. The home team's attitude about home runs is usually adopted by visiting teams. artainly, that has been the case at both Atlanta and St. Louis as the earlier home run totals have indicated. Could be a lot of reasons for this -- but likely a major one . .t...,;. that the visiting team feels that the home team would have adopted the most appropriate Jme run emphasis game in view of the current hitters and distances to fences -- so they play the same kind of home run emphasis game. Very few exceptions occur to this same -kind of game strategy. Stadiums have a way of gaining a reputation by one way or another. Atlanta Stadium has a reputation as the easiest home run stadium -- thousands of people have been there --hen the balls "just flew right out of therell • That can happen on a warm, dry day, with .lenty of positive home run emphasis and usually a fast ball pitcher. After all, the most National League home runs have been hit in Atlanta almost every year. On the other -~nd, Busch Memorial is known as a pitcher's park -- tough on home runs. A common view- Jnt is that the fences seem' a long way out and the ball doesn't carry very well. They are farther out, but only in centerfield: but another factor is the damp air moving in -2t night as a breeze from the South, or right field direction;without much home run itting prowess in recent years, and plenty of negative home run emphasisJ few home 4uns have been hit in Busch Memorial up to 1979. One or two big hitters on a team has a way of motivating others on a team toward .ositive home run emphasis (if he can do it, why can't I7). This kind of emphasis frequently earns the stadium. a reputation. Certainly,this was the case with Henry Aaron ~n Atlanta; also big hitters at Veterans and 3 Rivers stadiums to a lesser extent. We onsider Fenway not so easy for home runs as the reputation it has gained over the years. Attitude about home runs, or home run emphasis is very ephemeral. The manager by (irection to the hitters can change overnight the way the game is played. 50% more home runs, or 50% less home runs are obtainable in many instances. On the way to Spring training, the past two years we have gone by Atlanta to look .n on the scene of all these home runs. Our thought that the fences might be 15 to 20 feet shorter than the indicated distances was met by considerable bristles from the very ~-~olid Robert Johnson, grounds superintendent. He assured us the fences were right within 1 matter of inches and we woul~ be welcome to check the measurements. He mentioned that some days the balls did seem to fly out of there, but a lot of days they'didntt, but one _Mayor another the stadium was looked on as an easy home run stadium. Further, with Joe ;hirley, Stadium Operations Director, he mentioned that the many home runs had' caused ~uestions but he also wanted me to know the fences were right all along. In discussing i~ titude and emphasis, he felt that the outlook of the Braves toward hitting home runs" lad to do with the big season totals. 18 At the Braves training camp at West Palm Beach, talks with Paul Snyder~ Minor League Administrator, confirmed the outlook toward hitting home runs."I think attitude is the ( biggest factor in home run hitting," he said, with Atlanta primarily in mind. With the \,' power zone distances pretty much the same in the National League, and the emphasis figures we developed for Atlanta Stadium in this article, he couldn't be more right. There was a chance to contact Henry Aaron, now Vice President, Player Development. It would have been silly to ask him if he emphasized home runs -- instead he was gracious to let us take his picture. From our viewpoint, he was hitting the ball frequently (3 t 771 hits) and'hard (755 home runs) and was emphasizing the home run everywhere -- his long hit drives peaking beyond the fences almost everywhere. This year the Cardinals broke from the starting gate hitting many more home runs than previous years. Simmons, the star catcher, has taken a more positive view about home runs. He has adapted his swing to pull the ball down the line toward the shorter fence in Busch Memorial Stadium. The Cards and visitors alike were hitting more home runs and hitting them well up in the stands. Last year the Cardinals hit 79 homers and only 29 were hit at Busch Memorial. This year the Cards have hit a total of 75 through Friday August 17. The Cards have tailed off on home run hitting since Simmons was hurt and haven't got going again since he returned. A recent check with Jim Toomey, Public Relations Director, indicates "hitting the ball better" accounts for quite a lot more home runs, as the Cardinals continue to lead the league in hitting. For a long time, in fact since Musial retired, the Cardinals haven't had much home run hitting power so the limit.ed negative emphasis which they have been doing, has made sense in relatively large Busch Memorial. However, there are indications the home fans would like to see more home runs. Apart, of course, from the varying hitting capabilities and pitching capabilities against the home run: of Major League teams, we have named three broad factors affecting . stadium home runs: 1) physical dimensions; 2) weather or climate factors; and 3) home run attitude or emphasis. But perhaps there is even a fourth, plus improvements in the three factors we have cited. There is room for improvement in anything that has a scientific, engineering side to it so we never know precisely that everything is properly indicated. However, in our 25 years of·experience in determining stadium home run potentials, we have discarded such factors as variations in baseball bats, sun angle, night games versus day games, travel and some others, as usually impractical and of relatively small effect. It could be asked why we prepared this article by some who are familiar with our work. But there have been many who have thought our home run potential values, embracing physical dimensions and weather factors, for the average Major League team, were much too low for Atlanta Stadium and somewhat high for Busch Memorial. But since the measurements to the fences and the weather data are so much alike, it would be very unlikely there could be a greatly different home run potential. The really significant differences are the 4 1/2 foot higher fence, and the 500 foot hig~er altitude at Atlanta. Further, the attitude or emphasis factor will be recognized as the same emphasis factor we developed earlier and was introduced in Sports Illustrated in July 1973. Since then, we have annually furnished baseball activities emphasis factors solved for mathematically, for both the home team and the visiting team at each Major League stadium. .. The Atlanta-Busch Memorial stadium comparison was a good opportunity to relate stadiums where the home run potential could not be vastly different but where there was a vast difference in total home runs and would highlight the emphasis factor. 19 ."," . "'···1"'-'-'-",:~ .. ·.:;·.ru >.' ~ .... -:- ....... _:-,. _~.~- '-~~nz.',,",-:'.'"'-.: ._,., v- ".-~ -,,' ~- •• - . - ;--- Through the courtesy of the Elias Sports Bureau in New York and the Weather Service (..~'·Atlanta, we have accumulated the number of home runs and the. temperature and humidity .... :,,: each day or night home runs were hit at Atlanta last year. We plan to determine to -lat extent more home runs are hit on warm, dry days. Perhaps there will be examples lat will illustrate the emphasis that will show how the Atlanta Stadium earned its reputation as a home run stadium. In the way of affiliated information. Atlanta is 9% easier and Busch Memorial Stadium 1S 18% more difficult in home run potential than the average Major League stadium for J~79 (1.09 ~ .82 =·1.33).· We have noted no changes in outfield fence distances and aights in the Major Leagues from 1978 to 1979. So» home run potentials for Major _~ague stadiums remain the same as provided in our letter of August 17, 1978. In the National League, batting right handed in Wrigley Field and batting left handed in . mdlestick (very slightly) are considered easier home run situations than Atlanta )r the average Major League home run hitter. Similarly, the Astrodome and Olympic Stadium are more difficult than Busch Memorial t where batting left handed is more ~~fficult than right handed. Similarly, counting either batting right or batting left ; a specific example,our information showed seven instances where home runs in the American League are easier than Atlanta, and eight instances in the American League where home runs are more difficult than Busch Memorial Stadium. However, as this article meant to prove, it'"is not just home ru~ potentials that are important for stadium home runs; with home run emphasis a very big factor at Atlanta --ld others, too, it is "the way they play the game". 20 </p>