Cincinnati’s Fly-Ball Rotation

A couple weeks ago Dave C. — in the followup to his call for questions — talked the effect one teammate can have on the value or performance of another. The idea being if the skill sets of players A and B are complementary maybe the value of player A and B together could be greater than the value of player A alone plus the value of player B alone. The value of a player could be context dependent. Similarly the value of a player could change based on his home park.

Some examples: the Seattle’s big ball park and good outfield defenders make fly-ball pitchers not as much of a liability for them as they would be for the average team; Cleveland’s infield defense is even more important to them than to an average team because of their ground-ball heavy rotation; ground-ball pitchers are worth even more to the Colorado Rockies because of their home park; and, most importantly, how Carson tried to construct his Rob Neyer-league team around the peculiarities of circa-1915 Fenway (not that it has worked out for him).

In each case you have a synergy in which the value of a player is enhanced by the context (his teammates or ballpark) he plays in. What got me thinking about this was yesterday’s current talent post about the Reds, where it seems there might be a synergy in the opposite direction. They Reds play in a tiny park that inflates home run rates by 12%, one of the highest in the league. In such a context fly-ball pitchers would be even worse than in an average context. But the Reds’s rotation is stocked with such pitchers. Aaron Harang and Micah Owings are extreme fly-ball pitchers, while Johnny Cueto and Bronson Arroyo have above-average fly-ball rates (although Arroyo was a little better last year). Homer Bailey has about average fly-ball rates. These fly-ball pitchers would be more valuable to the average team than they are to Cincinnati because of the additional HRs they should give up on their fly balls there.

Obviously you want the most talented players on your team and these synergistic concerns should be secondary, but it would be interesting to see whether one could quantify their effect. How many additional runs is each Harang fly ball worth in Cincinnati compared to if he were playing in the average ball park, or better yet in Trop in front of a Carl Crawford and B.J. Upton?




Print This Post



Dave Allen's other baseball work can be found at Baseball Analysts.

5 Responses to “Cincinnati’s Fly-Ball Rotation”

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
  1. Billy says:

    I asked the same thing yesterday upon reading about the Reds. It seems to me that a savvy front office can better maximize the productivity of their talent by playing to their strengths. The Reds are a great example. They’ve got pretty good defense (especially when Janish plays over Cabrera) up the middle, they have a somewhat weak offense, and they’ve got some at least intriguing pitchers who tend to give up the long ball a bit more than average. Shouldn’t the front office be doing everything they can to make that ballpark play as big as possible? The pitching staff would benefit in the form of fewer home runs allowed, and it would take better advantage of their good defensive talent. A run prevented is as good as a run scored, but when your team is more talented at preventing runs than scoring them, shouldn’t you try to put them in an environment that puts a premium on run prevention?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  2. ToddM says:

    Chicks dig the long ball, and apparently chicks buy tickets, too.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  3. Rick says:

    Park effects aside, when Dickerson is in LF, the Reds OF defense is second only to the Mariners, which, I would think, should offset the impact of GABP while being a significant asset on the road.

    Has anybody looked at HR/FB rates park-by-park rather than using the standard home/away method? I wonder what the scale of the impact of OF defense is compared to the impact of the park itself…

    GABP’s 3-year HR factor is in the +20-25% range. But it’s overall run factor is less than half that, suggesting that balls that stay in the yard are more easily caught. It’s an interesting question — when it comes to fly ball pitchers, which has a greater impact, park or fielders? And to what degree?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Nathaniel Dawson says:

      I’m with you, Rick. With what appears to be a strong outfield defense, the effects of the park are likely to be negated by the excellent fly-catching skills of the outfielders. Fly ball pitchers in Cincinatti are likely as good there as they would be in most other parks.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  4. Joe R says:

    This also applies to hitting, IMO.

    Seattle is a perfect example. Beltre, good player, decent career AVG, good power, doesn’t really walk. But Safeco eats this approach up.

    Figgins? Not a ton of power, but walks. He’ll barely be affected by Safeco. Beltre, on the other hand, will like Fenway even more than the average hitter due to his approach and skill set.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current day month ye@r *