Michael Cuddyer and Citi Field: A Park Factor Story

There are a couple of general time frames in the baseball calendar that are particularly difficult to write about in an analytical fashion – that May-June period when the season is young, and sample sizes are still small, and right about now. The postseason has recently ended, and hot stove season is imminent. I could simply write an article speculating about the destination of free agents and potential blockbuster trades, only for 95% of the contents to be blown to bits in a matter of days, or I could create a somewhat esoteric diversion. I choose the latter. It is said that a picture is worth 1000 words. How many, then, is a table of granular batted ball data worth?

Each year I calculate my own park factors utilizing granular batted ball data. Basically, I compare the actual results of each batted ball hit in each park to what each batted ball of that approximate exit speed and angle would have produced in a neutral environment. Give each actual and projected event a run value, and divide the actual average run value per 27 outs to the projected average run value per 27 outs, and voila, you have your park factors, adjusted for exit speed and angle.

Below is one relatively simple table within this body of work – the fly ball park factors for the LCF sector of the field. It is based upon one year’s worth of data. Since you are on the Fangraphs site, it stands to reason that you have an interest not only in baseball, but in the data behind the game. Data, standing alone, is quite limited in value. For it to truly be valuable, there must be practical applications that help explain nuances of the game that might be otherwise difficult to explain. I would submit that this one unassuming table can help tell many stories within the numbers, and within the game. Context is a word used quite often around here. This one simple piece of information can help define the context within which our game is played, within which some very expensive, influential decisions will be made in the coming days.

LCF FLY BALL PARK FACTORS
TEAM ACT AVG ACT SLG PRJ AVG PRJ SLG MULTIPLY
BOS 0.403 0.870 0.232 0.540 277.1
CUB 0.295 0.745 0.230 0.541 179.3
LAD 0.288 0.752 0.232 0.538 177.1
NYM 0.242 0.611 0.202 0.449 166.9
MIN 0.256 0.598 0.215 0.501 142.3
HOU 0.303 0.711 0.261 0.591 140.5
COL 0.336 0.820 0.281 0.710 137.2
MIL 0.268 0.752 0.250 0.609 136.5
TOR 0.262 0.679 0.241 0.578 129.9
CIN 0.240 0.576 0.240 0.544 106.9
OAK 0.224 0.536 0.227 0.544 97.2
MIA 0.268 0.618 0.268 0.638 96.3
DET 0.244 0.616 0.261 0.630 92.2
PHL 0.301 0.783 0.307 0.845 89.7
LAA 0.275 0.773 0.290 0.816 89.6
CLE 0.216 0.525 0.232 0.570 85.5
ATL 0.246 0.703 0.276 0.751 84.3
AZ 0.281 0.694 0.290 0.791 83.3
TB 0.183 0.428 0.200 0.474 82.6
TEX 0.243 0.534 0.256 0.616 81.2
CWS 0.184 0.460 0.229 0.483 78.4
NYY 0.178 0.400 0.194 0.467 77.8
WAS 0.195 0.486 0.227 0.545 77.0
KC 0.220 0.439 0.245 0.538 72.5
SD 0.173 0.395 0.204 0.477 69.7
BAL 0.203 0.557 0.257 0.649 69.0
STL 0.215 0.539 0.257 0.673 66.5
SF 0.220 0.544 0.275 0.702 61.6
PIT 0.217 0.460 0.255 0.623 61.5
SEA 0.161 0.367 0.250 0.642 36.1
MLB 0.245 0.600 0.245 0.600 100.0
STDEV 0.053 0.139 0.028 0.105 48.6

The average MLB fly ball produced a .275 AVG-.703 SLG in 2014, but the average fly ball to the LCF sector of the field produced a bit less offense, at .245 AVG-.600 SLG. This one table sparks a number of potential areas for study, which I will narrow down to three for our purposes.

1 – CITI-FIELD – A CAVERNOUS PITCHERS’ PARK?

Ever since the Mets moved into Citi Field, the assumption has been that the park was very pitcher-friendly. After the 2011 season, the fences were brought in and lowered in multiple areas to address the issue. Seemingly still unhappy with the results, another round of fence-shortening is underway, this time limited to RCF and RF. What to make of the information in the above table, then?

Citi-Field has the 4th-highest LCF fly ball park factor for 2014, a whopping 166.9. If you simply go by the actual offensive output on fly balls to that sector, however, you don’t see a whole lot of damage taking the place. The actual .242 AVG-.611 SLG on fly balls hit to that area of Citi Field in 2014 is almost exactly equal to the MLB average. Once you take into account the actual authority of those fly balls, however, a much different picture emerges.

Applying MLB average production for the average speed/exit angle of the fly balls actually hit in Citi Field yields .202 AVG-.449 SLG, easily the lowest among the 30 MLB ballparks. This speaks very highly of the Mets’ pitching staff, but very poorly of their hitters. Here’s a brief example showing how relatively easy it is to do damage to LCF in Citi Field. In 2014, MLB hitters batted .143 AVG-.317 SLG on fly balls hit between 90-92.5 MPH to LCF. In Citi Field, they batted .278 AVG-.722 SLG on such fly balls. There were seven fly ball homers (out of only 68 fly balls) to LCF that left the bat at under 95 MPH in Citi Field. 10 MLB parks had zero such homers in 2014, and six more parks had one.

It would seemingly be very simple for the Mets to identify hitters, predominantly righties, capable of elevating the baseball at 95 MPH to the power alley to their pull side. The club has already done the hard part – accumulating a group of starting pitchers, like Jon Niese, Dillon Gee, Jacob deGrom, and the returning Matt Harvey, who are capable of preventing opposing righty hitters from doing so very often.

Instead, the Mets are once again bringing the fences to the relatively neutral RCF and RF sectors, which had fly ball park factors of 84.1 and 102.1, respectively, in 2014. And for those of you clamoring for multi-year data, the Mets’ LCF fly ball park factor for 2013 was 170.8, utilizing the same method. This is not a one-year phenomenon. When you get down to it, given the emergence of some of their young pitchers, the Mets just might have a surprisingly quick road to contention – get David Wright healthy, and lock in a couple of competent righty bats to join him. In this light, Monday’s two-year, $21M signing of Michael Cuddyer – which also costs the Mets the 15th overall pick in next June’s draft – makes just a little more sense, provided they can keep him physically intact.

2 – THE MARINERS, SAFECO FIELD AND RIGHTY POWER

Speaking of righty power and outfield fence adjustments, let’s take a moment to discuss the Mariners and Safeco Field. The club has publicly stated their need for righty middle-of-the-order bats, and has already been connected to the likes of Hanley Ramirez and switch-hitter Victor Martinez via the free agent rumor mill. The club made a massive outfield fence adjustment prior to the 2013 season, with the most drastic changes taking place in LCF and CF. The table above tells us that it is still incredibly difficult to do damage to the LCF sector in Safeco.

By a large margin, Safeco yielded the least amount of LCF fly ball damage among the 30 MLB ball parks, at .161 AVG-.367 SLG. Now a cynic might say that this might partially be due to the fact that the Mariner hitters make up the lion’s share of the sample. Looking at the projected production columns, however, tells a different story. Hitters made better than MLB average fly ball contact to LCF at Safeco in 2014, with projected production of .250 AVG-.642 SLG. Mariner hitters strike the ball a bit harder than you think.

Not only is it still very difficult to hit the ball out of this part of the yard at Safeco, the shortening of the fences has also made the gaps smaller, and has cut into the number of doubles hit to this area of the field. Safeco had a home run park factor of 50 and a doubles park factor of 73 to LCF in 2014. That would be the lowest LCF homer park factor in the game, and the 8th lowest doubles LCF park factor. Of the seven parks with a lower doubles factor, six had homer park factors above 100. They are small parks that give you the homer at the expense of the double. Only a truly extreme environment severely limits doubles and homers to the same sector of a park.

It is true that the Mariner lineup lists to the left and could use some righthanded counterweight. Enlisting pull-hitting fly ball guys to fill that void is an organizational strategy that has failed many times over. Going back to Richie Sexson, and most recently in the form of Corey Hart, there are plenty of examples of the wrong way to go about balancing the lineup.

There were exactly three 2014 Safeco LCF homers hit under 100 MPH in 2014. There were 21 such homers hit at Citi Field last season. That kind of puts it into perspective. Any righty power hitter the Mariners target needs to hit the ball at 100 MPH to his pull power alley as a matter of course. Hanley Ramirez hit exactly two such fly balls last season. New Met Cuddyer hit one, albeit in limited duty. They might be better served spending less money on the return of Michael Morse to Safeco, provided they take his gloves away at the Oregon border. Morse hits the ball HARD, and uses the opposite field well, a necessity for a righty hitter in Safeco.

3 – THE FENWAY EFFECT

The table above captures all of the majesty of the effect of the Green Monster in Fenway Park. That 277.1 LCF fly ball park factor sure is an eye-opener, and is the primary driver behind the park’s overall park factor. The run-inflating effect of Citi Field and run-deflating effect of Safeco Field to LCF are primarily driven by those parks’ respective impacts on home runs. With Fenway, it’s all about the doubles.

Fenway had below average overall singles, triples and homers park factors of 99, 67, and 98, respectively, to LCF in 2014. It had an overall LCF doubles park factor of 205. That is not a misprint. Once you drill the sample down to just the fly balls, it’s an even more extreme situation, with a 304 doubles park factor. There were 76 fly ball doubles hit to LCF at Fenway in 2014; based on MLB average production at various exit speed/angle levels, there “should have been” 25. No other park yielded more than 31 fly ball doubles to LCF in 2014, and no two MLB parks combined came closer than 15 doubles of Fenway’s total.

The thing about the vast majority of these doubles is…..they’re routine fly outs almost anywhere else. MLB hitters batted .071 AVG-.142 SLG on fly balls hit at 87.5-90 MPH to LCF in 2014. They batted .444 AVG-.917 SLG on such fly balls at Fenway last season. 36 such fly balls – and 15 doubles. That is simply staggering. At 12 other MLB parks – including Coors Field – hitters garnered exactly zero hits on such fly balls in 2014.

This is a big reason that the Red Sox historically have had high team batting averages and doubles totals. A declining Jonny Gomes? Perfect. A thoroughly adequate Cody Ross? Ditto. If Ryan Ludwick finds his way there as his career trails off, expect a revival. Fenway can make great hitters immortal, good hitters great, and Safeco Field Mike Carp into Fenway Park Mike Carp, provided they hit enough routine fly balls to LCF, of course. To put this all into a nutshell – fly balls to LCF at Safeco in 2014 were hit much harder than they were at Fenway. The actual production? .403 AVG-.870 SLG in Fenway, .161 AVG-.367 SLG in Safeco.

Putting together a major league baseball club, not to mention a minor league system, is tricky business. It goes way, way beyond the numbers. Still, within the reams and reams of bundles and terabytes of information, there are some truly actionable pieces of intelligence whose importance cannot be overstated. Above are just a few examples, from one humble table. Obviously, mistakes are going to be made by all clubs – they key is to minimize their frequency and impact. Good process doesn’t always lead to good results, but it does help carve out those few extra percentage points that can truly make an on-field difference.



Print This Post





Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Adrian Beltre
Guest
Adrian Beltre
1 year 6 months ago

THERE!!

Orsulakfan
Guest
Orsulakfan
1 year 6 months ago

This article made me think of Jody Reed.

I wonder if playing in parks with such extreme effects “ruins” hitters once they leave the park. I am sure research on this has been done, but I wonder if it has been done with this more granular park effect data.

Cicero
Guest
Cicero
1 year 6 months ago

It might, look at a guy like Jeff Cirillo, very very good in MIL, good in COL, awful SEA, Good again in MIL

Brian
Guest
1 year 6 months ago

> Applying MLB average production for the average speed/exit angle of the fly balls actually hit in Citi Field yields .202 AVG-.449 SLG, easily the lowest among the 30 MLB ballparks. This speaks very highly of the Mets’ pitching staff, but very poorly of their hitters.

Does this control for defense? The first thing I would think of is the mess of terrible left fielders the Mets trotted out there in 2014.

Thomas Scherrer
Guest
Thomas Scherrer
1 year 6 months ago

On balls hit to LEFTcenter??? May I introduce you to Juan Lagares…???

Autograph Seller on Ebay
Guest
Autograph Seller on Ebay
1 year 6 months ago

I would very much like if you would introduce me to Juan Lagares. Perhaps you could also introduce me to dozens of Juan Lagares signed baseballs?

Todd Gurley
Guest
Todd Gurley
1 year 6 months ago

I got some balls for you…

Carson's Johnny
Guest
Carson's Johnny
1 year 6 months ago

For whatever reason this tinkering with the fences stuff just drives me insane. It is not rational, but it just reeks of cheating/chiseling whatever to my gut. The teams should have to get a design approved and then live with it for a minimum 10 years. I realize there is no reason they would like that rule.

Spa City
Member
Member
Spa City
1 year 6 months ago

I love it. The ability of teams to decide unilaterally about the dimensions of the playing field is unique (among major sports) to baseball.

If the Celtics could raise the basketball hoop half an inch and fill their roster with slightly taller players, it would make basketball more interesting for me.

It would not improve anything to lock teams in to decisions about their ballpark. The decisions they make this year might be bad ones. Why not let them adjust as they see fit?

Doug Lampert
Guest
Doug Lampert
1 year 6 months ago

Well, the Celtics did have the parquet floor for 47 or so years.

So there are some “park differences” in the NBA.

J
Guest
J
1 year 6 months ago

Well, the Citi Field fences were way too far away, and I’m not sure that Mets fans should be forced to suffer for a decade over an obvious architectural error. That said, New Commish would do well to set some hard min. and max. outfield fence distances prior to the next wave of stadium construction.

Matt
Guest
Matt
1 year 6 months ago

I don’t really see it as much different than teams cutting their grass shorter or longer, or having more dirt in the infield. If they are so inclined to do so, a team can adjust their home ballpark to suit their needs.

I actually think it’s really interesting seeing the differences in ballparks, besides their aesthetics, so long as it doesn’t negatively impact a player’s health. Could you imagine a baseball equivalent to tennis, with a clay, grass, cement, et cetera, ballparks? Obviously you don’t want a player diving on cement, but it’d be fascinating to see the effect on groundballs.

Anon
Guest
Anon
1 year 6 months ago

Could you imagine a baseball equivalent to tennis, with a clay, grass, cement, et cetera, ballparks?

The World Series had that effect. KC had dry and hard dirt to benefit groundballs and baserunning. SF watered their infield extra to do the opposite.

ZenMadman
Guest
1 year 6 months ago

Well, there’s carpet and natural grass, sort of like US Open v Wimbledon.

ZenMadman
Guest
1 year 6 months ago

Well, the US Open used to be played on carpet, anyway. And they say some of the baseball turf is basically like concrete. Ball bounces differently in Toronto than it does in New York.

TR
Guest
TR
1 year 6 months ago

You’re right, that’s not rational.

Basil Ganglia
Guest
Basil Ganglia
1 year 6 months ago

This is the kind of analysis that can get one fired from the Seattle Mariners front office.

Nathaniel Dawson
Guest
Nathaniel Dawson
1 year 6 months ago

What the?

Byrnesies Bicycle
Guest
Byrnesies Bicycle
1 year 6 months ago

“It’s something you have to talk about. It’s something I had in a discussion in the last 24 hours. You like Michael. You like a lot of things about Michael. I think Michael brings a lot of things to the table. But 230 at-bats through the course of the year for a young man is pretty challenging. I think Michael’s history of injury here. Some were freak injuries – a collarbone issues, a rib cage muscle, some things like that. They just happen. Other ones are maybe, well, should there be things that Michael should be doing in the offseason to prepare himself a little better to play 162 games.”

When asked if he could see why Saunders and his representatives might be upset with his comments- particularly his use of the phrase – “It’s up to Michael” – Zduriencik tried to be diplomatic.

“It wasn’t meant to be like that,” Zduriencik said. “I would say the same thing for Mike Zunino. ‘How good is Mike Zunino going to be? Well it’s up to Mike Zunino. How good is James Jones going to be? Well, It’s up to James Jones.’”

How good is Tony Blengino going to be? Well, it’s up to Tony Blengino.

(Thanks for the insightful article)

evo34
Guest
evo34
1 year 6 months ago

Probably so, if one takes a single-season of data and assumes it is 100% predictive… I suspect the 2013 LCF factor for Citi Field was just a wee bit lower, and that the overall y2y correl. of his numbers is not so hot. The bottom line: most of this guy’s articles present new metrics without any evidence they are better than (or even as good as) existing ones.

hjrrockies
Guest
hjrrockies
1 year 6 months ago

Evidently, the table of granular batted-ball data is worth 1904 words. Nearly double a picture!

Dave
Guest
Dave
1 year 6 months ago

Outstanding work Tony. Articles like this are why I love sabrmetrics. Thanks for writing it, and posting it.

Baltar
Guest
Baltar
1 year 6 months ago

Really interesting, Tony. Is there a chance we could get all your park factor tables on FanGraphs?

Noah Baron
Guest
1 year 6 months ago

Great work. Just one question. Where do you get the exit velocity data from? To my knowledge it’s not available to the public.

Munchkin
Guest
Munchkin
1 year 6 months ago

A few things I didn’t understand:
1)”exit speed and angle would have produced in a neutral environment”
What set of data was used? All flyballs with 90-92 exit speed to LCF? Was there a loft (or hang time) control restriction used too to make it an “average flyball”?

2) With speed/loft/pull angle subset of flyballs, then the quality of hitters or pitchers wouldn’t matter anymore, right? And if the difference was in the HR factor, defense wouldn’t matter as much (except for HR saving catch)? Then the difference between actual and projected results would be because of something else (combination of wall distance/height, wind, temperature, humidity, month of the season, total foul area etc).

Telly
Guest
Telly
1 year 6 months ago

How are the home defenders controlled for?

Steve
Guest
Steve
1 year 6 months ago

“The average MLB fly ball produced a .275 AVG-.703 SLG in 2014…”

Where does this number come from? The league hit .212 on fly balls, according to the League Stats on the FG leaderboard. I’m not questioning it, I’m just wondering what I’m missing.

ZenMadman
Guest
1 year 6 months ago

Is your lower figure including infield flies?

Steve
Guest
Steve
1 year 6 months ago

Ah, probably. Is there a way to isolate outfield flies within the confines of Fangraphs splits/leaderboards?

Brooks
Guest
Brooks
1 year 6 months ago

That still seems a bit high. Applying league averages, infield flies account for only roughly 11% of all fly balls.

This is a simple way of looking at it – which means I may be screwing something up – but if (league average) 21 of 99 fly balls go for hits (.212 batting average), and we subtract 11 infield flies (11%) and assume that no infield flies result in base hits, then we are left with 21 hits in 88 at bats, which is about a .240 batting average. And that seems more reasonable.

Granted, great power hitters like Jose Abreu and Mike Trout put up ridiculous numbers on fly balls. But the league has more guys like Elvis Andrus (.127 BA and -22 RC+ on fly balls) than guys like Abreu and Trout.

PackBob
Guest
PackBob
1 year 6 months ago

Little things add up.

Dag Gummit
Guest
Dag Gummit
1 year 6 months ago

It is true that the Mariner lineup lists to the left and could use some righthanded counterweight. Enlisting pull-hitting fly ball guys to fill that void is an organizational strategy that has failed many times over. Going back to Richie Sexson, and most recently in the form of Corey Hart, there are plenty of examples of the wrong way to go about balancing the lineup.

Haven’t most of the major RHB FA by the Mariners (in the SafeCo Field era) been of guys with dominant opposite field power (prior to joining the M’s). I’m certain that Sexson definitely was (it was one of those “untold stories why it’s such a great signing” from the time) and that the 2004 incarnation Beltre was as well, in addition to the more recent Morse and Hart.

Whatever happened to that after joining the M’s is different, of course. I would really be interested in seeing more complete data about this since everything I’m recalling contradicts the claim.

Miguel Cabrera
Guest
Miguel Cabrera
1 year 6 months ago

Please answer where you got the Exit Speed and Angles from…

ElJimador
Guest
ElJimador
1 year 6 months ago

Anyone who doesn’t understand why the Red Sox appear to be more interested in Sandoval than Headley only needs to read the data above on Fenway and then look at both players spray charts, especially vs. RHP. Sandoval is an all fields hitter who goes to LF vs RHP more often than he pulls because he’s usually pitched outside. I’m sure the Sox see him peppering the Green Monster from the left side with great regularity and my guess is they’re right that he’d have a lot more value for them because of that.

It’s a perfect example of where the analytics that teams are engaged in way ahead of one-size-fits-all WAR projections.

Jimbo
Guest
Jimbo
1 year 6 months ago

I don’t understand the following analysis:

“The actual .242 AVG-.611 SLG on fly balls hit to that area of Citi Field in 2014 is almost exactly equal to the MLB average. Once you take into account the actual authority of those fly balls, however, a much different picture emerges.

Applying MLB average production for the average speed/exit angle of the fly balls actually hit in Citi Field yields .202 AVG-.449 SLG, easily the lowest among the 30 MLB ballparks. This speaks very highly of the Mets’ pitching staff, but very poorly of their hitters.”

If you apply MLB average production on the balls actually hit there, and the numbers drop to .202 and .449, why is that an indictment on the Mets’ hitters?

I know the offense struggled mightily. I just don’t understand this analysis. I feel like the actual numbers are better than the MLB average projections so that means players over-performed.

Help please :)

wpDiscuz