Is Matt Holliday a product of Coors Field?

[GiambiJuice]

Matt Holliday's stats on the surface look like an MVP-Caliber season. But, I was looking at his home/away splits and it appears that Coors Field is giving him a HUGE adavantage.

All this talk about Coors no longer being an extreme advantage to hitters seems bogus to me.

2007 splits:

M Holliday
Home- .373/.430/.703 22 homers
Away- .303/.370/.497 11 homers

and check out some other Rockies stars....

T Helton
Home- .328/.456/.523
Away- .303/.408/.453

G Atkins
Home- .333/.394/.518
Away- .251/.323/.435

T Tulowitzki
Home- .332/.400/.558
Away- .258/.333/.391


All 4 players are MVP-caliber at home. Holliday and Helton are good but not great on the road. Atkins and Tulowitzki are awful on the road.

I believe Holliday is a very good hitter, but not the monster that people think he is. Coors Field must have A LOT to do with it, unless it's just some freaky coincidence.

[PVNICK]

That whole humidfier thing was an aberration?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Simple answer: YES

[jwkfs]

Now you've gone and gotten Old Sweater mad :D

2007 Park Factors through 9/18/2007:

Rank Park Name Runs HR H 2B 3B BB
1 Fenway Park (Boston, Massachusetts) 1.190 0.863 1.129 1.332 0.951 0.960
2 Wrigley Field (Chicago, Illinois) 1.156 1.088 1.067 1.247 0.840 1.094
3 Coors Field (Denver, Colorado) 1.154 1.241 1.117 1.228 1.463 0.913
4 Jacobs Field (Cleveland, Ohio) 1.118 1.096 1.040 0.848 0.683 1.039
5 Yankee Stadium (Bronx, New York) 1.110 1.235 1.035 0.905 0.628 1.006
6 Chase Field (Phoenix, Arizona) 1.105 1.068 1.051 1.121 2.614 1.082
7 Great American (Cincinnati, Ohio) 1.093 1.357 0.980 1.038 0.826 1.046
8 Angel Stadium (Anaheim, California) 1.090 0.912 1.066 1.239 0.757 1.101
9 U.S. Cellular Field (Chicago, Illinois) 1.080 1.237 1.038 0.982 0.477 0.951
10 Camden Yards (Baltimore, Maryland) 1.061 1.210 1.073 0.917 1.369 0.990


Well, I guess no Red Sox, Cubs, or Rockies Player can win an MVP award.
Might as well chalk A-Rod's monster season up to the PF of Yankee Stadium. I mean, it's HR numbers are almost the same as Coors!

On a serious note, a lot of players hit a lot better at home than on the road. Look at Chase Utley's splits (BAA/OPS) -- HOME: .381 / 1.102 -- AWAY: .289 / .859. And Citizens Bank isn't even in the top 10 in park factors.

Holliday is putting up monster numbers. So are a lot of other players in hitter-friendly parks. Should you penalize the player for the way that their park plays?

[skyking162]

Holliday is putting up monster numbers. So are a lot of other players in hitter-friendly parks. Should you penalize the player for the way that their park plays?

Yes! And the reason isn't just because each player has the potential to post better statistics at home. Think about it this way -- if more runs are scored in a certain ballpark, then runs in that ballpark are less valuable towards winning.

I think a discussion of park effects is awesome -- since Coors became more normal people seem to have forgotten about them.

One warning I'll throw out is that single-year park factors are dangerously variable. It's difficult to know exactly how a park plays, but an average over a few years is definitely better than one season's data.

******

I'm surprised that Phildelphia doesn't make a 2007 list of hitters' parks. It has a reputation as a homer haven.

******

On average, players hit (and pitch) better at home than on the road. It's one aspect of home field advantage.

******

Even if a Rockies hitter posts similar road/home numbers, that doesn't mean they haven't taken advantage of Coors field. Short-term, splits are flukey. Without playing home games at Coors, the home split would likely have been even worse. (Colorado just used as an example here. Same goes for pitchers in PETCO, etc.)

******

As for Coors, the humidor helped control how far the ball travels when hit, but pitches still break less in the thinner air. It's gone from a park factor of about 140 to one of about 120.

[skyking162]

I can't find any multi-year park factors, but as an example, here are the 2006 numbers from ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor?season=2006):

Rk Park Name Runs HR H 2B 3B BB
1 Great American (Cincinnati, Ohio) 1.153 1.275 1.026 0.929 0.400 1.065
2 Coors Field (Denver, Colorado) 1.149 1.167 1.141 1.006 1.224 1.067
3 Kauffman Stadium (Kansas City, Missouri) 1.147 0.982 1.088 1.195 1.207 1.124
4 Chase Field (Phoenix, Arizona) 1.141 1.343 1.101 1.096 1.636 1.084
5 Rangers Ballpark (Arlington, Texas) 1.081 1.066 1.025 1.133 0.778 1.043
6 Wrigley Field (Chicago, Illinois) 1.075 1.212 1.011 1.080 1.364 0.898
7 Rogers Centre (Toronto, Ontario) 1.067 1.272 1.031 1.016 2.000 0.954
8 Citizens Bank Park (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) 1.063 1.201 1.007 1.029 0.653 0.955
9 U.S. Cellular Field (Chicago, Illinois) 1.054 1.307 1.009 0.912 0.645 1.120
10 Dodger Stadium (Los Angeles, California) 1.046 1.194 1.024 1.019 0.517 1.160

Notice how Dodger stadium somehow made the top 10 in 2006? The parks to make both the 2006 and 2007 top 10's are Colorado, Arizona, Cincinnati, and both Chicagos. Fenway was 13th, Baltimore 17th, and Yankee Stadium 27th last year.

I'm not saying 2006 is more accurate than 2007, but considering no ballparks changed, they should play very similarly between the two years. Averaging the two seasons' park factors is more accurate than either alone.

[Westlake]

On a serious note, a lot of players hit a lot better at home than on the road. Look at Chase Utley's splits (BAA/OPS) -- HOME: .381 / 1.102 -- AWAY: .289 / .859. And Citizens Bank isn't even in the top 10 in park factors.

Holliday is putting up monster numbers. So are a lot of other players in hitter-friendly parks. Should you penalize the player for the way that their park plays?

Yeah, a lot of players do hit better at home... only difference is that every good Rockies hitter hits better at home than on the road. If you watch the games, or even the highlights, you can actually see the ball come off the bat like it would be an easy fly for the right fielder in another park, and it lands 5 rows back.

Holliday IS an MVP candidate, and a very good hitter. The park doesn't change that.

[Westlake]

I can't find any multi-year park factors, but as an example, here are the 2006 numbers from ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor?season=2006):

Rk Park Name Runs HR H 2B 3B BB
1 Great American (Cincinnati, Ohio) 1.153 1.275 1.026 0.929 0.400 1.065
2 Coors Field (Denver, Colorado) 1.149 1.167 1.141 1.006 1.224 1.067
3 Kauffman Stadium (Kansas City, Missouri) 1.147 0.982 1.088 1.195 1.207 1.124
4 Chase Field (Phoenix, Arizona) 1.141 1.343 1.101 1.096 1.636 1.084
5 Rangers Ballpark (Arlington, Texas) 1.081 1.066 1.025 1.133 0.778 1.043
6 Wrigley Field (Chicago, Illinois) 1.075 1.212 1.011 1.080 1.364 0.898
7 Rogers Centre (Toronto, Ontario) 1.067 1.272 1.031 1.016 2.000 0.954
8 Citizens Bank Park (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) 1.063 1.201 1.007 1.029 0.653 0.955
9 U.S. Cellular Field (Chicago, Illinois) 1.054 1.307 1.009 0.912 0.645 1.120
10 Dodger Stadium (Los Angeles, California) 1.046 1.194 1.024 1.019 0.517 1.160

Notice how Dodger stadium somehow made the top 10 in 2006? The parks to make both the 2006 and 2007 top 10's are Colorado, Arizona, Cincinnati, and both Chicagos. Fenway was 13th, Baltimore 17th, and Yankee Stadium 27th last year.

I'm not saying 2006 is more accurate than 2007, but considering no ballparks changed, they should play very similarly between the two years. Averaging the two seasons' park factors is more accurate than either alone.

Im guessing a big part of the Yankee thing is A-Rod huge offensive bump from last year to this one.

[slugger33]

I am tired of hearing this. Coors Field is NOT the best hitter's park. Helton should be in the HoF when he retires.

[digglahhh]

If you're going to compare Holliday's road numbers to somebody else directly, you should remove that player's road performance at Coors... and if you want to be even more specific, I guess you could remove Holliday's at the other hitter's home.

Basically, you can boil it down to "common road parks."

[GiambiJuice]

I am tired of hearing this. Coors Field is NOT the best hitter's park. Helton should be in the HoF when he retires.

No he shouldn't.

[Westlake]

I am tired of hearing this. Coors Field is NOT the best hitter's park. Helton should be in the HoF when he retires.

Actually it is.

Park Factor since 2001..

Coors Rankings... 2nd, 1st, 4th, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 3rd

No other stadium is consistently THAT high.

[PVNICK]

Im guessing a big part of the Yankee thing is A-Rod huge offensive bump from last year to this one.

I thought about that too and the pitching staff being worse.

[skyking162]

Im guessing a big part of the Yankee thing is A-Rod huge offensive bump from last year to this one.

I thought about that too and the pitching staff being worse.

Neither of those *should* matter. Park factors compare runs on the road to runs at home. More runs in even proportion would result in the same park factor.

If ARod's hitting all his extra homeruns at home, then that would inflate the Yankees Stadium park factor, but that strange split is likely a fluke and not due to a change in Yankee Stadium.

[SamtheBravesFan]

It's unfair to penalize Helton just by where he plays. I think we can all agree that he is one of the better first basemen in the game today despite playing in a notouriously good hitters park.

Yaz needs to be penalized then, too, and so does Koufax. They couldn't help where they played.

[brett]

But there are definitely fewer runs being scored in Colorado Rockies games than in the past.

I will also point out that Holliday actually is statistically one of the best baserunners in baseball in taking extra bases on the hits of others. I think he was #1 in the NL 2 years ago. He was something like 20 bases netted above the average player in that regard.
And he has come out as one of the top fielders at his position.


Coors field creates problems. I believe it actually makes hitters worse for the road because it creates bad habits. When players have left Colorado, like Ellis Burks and Andres Galarraga, their road numbers have come up.



Anyway, Holliday's OPS+ is 148 PARK ADJUSTED and with his excellent baserunning, it makes him one of the top players in the NL this year, and even possibly #1. I have him second right now and I don't like his relatively low walk rate.

[Old Sweater]

A player should not be penalized fro the home park he has to play in. If you had read any of my previous posts about Coors Field you would know that there is 20.5% more contact by Rockies hitters at home compared to the road dating to Heltons 1997 rookie year. Helton has struck out 26% more on the road and Holliday has struck out 22% more on the road. Is this because of less bite on breaking pitches? IMO sure/ great batters eye at Coors/ sure/ hit better at home/ sure/ adjustment for the hitters every single time they go on th road/ sure. This happens to about each and every Rockies hitter we have had over the years who happen to be major league hitters drafted just like every other team from the same talent out there in the world. Can't blame a player for the air in his park, the same way you can't blame Coors Field's big outfield to make up for the thinner air. No way should playing at Coors Field should hold back a player from an award or the HOF. Make 20% more contact at home and you are going to have better home stats.

Here is a list of ex Rockies and their stats the last year they played with the Rockies and the next year with another club. Feel free to look at any other players numbers and post them if you think I'm cherry picking.



Ellis Burks 290 363 571
Giants......282 344 569

Larry Walker 284 422 476
Cardinals......289 384 502

Galarraga......318 389 585
Braves.........305 397 595

Aaron Miles 281 306 355
Cardinals.....263 324 347

Bichette.....298 354 541
Reds.........295 353 466

Neifi Perez 287 314 427
Royals.......236 260 303

Todd Walker 297 349 497
Reds............295 361 418

The Great and Mighty Juan Pierre 287 332 343
Marlins.....................................305 361 373

Ronnie Belliard 277 351 409
Indians...........282 348 426

Vinny Castilla 275 331 478
Reds&Astros...260 308 467


Now why did these 10 major league players have near the same numbers and some better numbers the next year with another club? (barring Niefi he sucks) My guess is that they are major league hitters that are hitting with more even road and home stats/ are not getting 20% more contact at home/ are not striking out as much on 81 road games/ and are the same player they was after their stint with the Rockies.

All of you that think a player that was drafted by the Rockies like Helton, an All American out of Tennessee and Holliday an All American out of Oklahoma should be screwed out of the HOF or an MVP award because of their home park can go fly a kite. Coors Field is a major league ball park and the Rockies have major league players that have to make contact against major league pitching.

Like I said before I would be saying the same thing about Albert Pujols if the Rockies drafted him because more then likely he would be making about 20% more contact at home like most the players we get average here in Colorado.

BTW, Holliday when deep on Penny twice tonight and IMO their is not one player more valuable to their team then Holliday is to the Rockies this year on the road or at home in the NL.

[Old Sweater]

Why doesn't managers think that Helton or Holliday average hitters on the road?

Helton IBB 86 home/ 75 road

Holliday IBB 6 home/ 5 road

You can also see that the managers prefer to pitch to Holliday with Helton behind him.

Guess home and away stats don't hold much water for the people that get payed to make the decisions. Huh

[Westlake]

BTW, OS, Bichette, Niefi (Agreed, he sucks), and Vinny got worse...

There's examples of players getting better and worse all over the team's history... not a great way of determining park effects. (I think the Rockies consistently bad pitching has more to do with it). The park DOES help Holliday and most players... the extent which it does is debatable. But I dont think the park effects disqualify Holliday from MVP talk, the way the MVP is given out (I actually like Hanley or Peavy for the award, but thats just me.

Old Sweater, they still pitch around them because home or away they are still the best hitters on the team.

[Old Sweater]

Yeah but out of the sluggers I was surprised to find that only Bichettes slg% took a big drop. Bichettes BA and OBP were near the same and Vinny was just the opposite with just his slugging% being near the same. Juan Pierre was happy to leave Coors Field, the outfielders still played him shallow because of his lack of power and the ball hangs up a bit longer at Coors Field taking away the cheap singles that a Helton or Walker get.


I would like to know the average difference of each of the 3 stats for every Rockies player that went to another team the next year. Not real accurate but was the best I could think of for a comparison. Same player within 2 years. I know we have major league players just like the rest of the teams in the league and chose from the same pool of players that is available in the draft. I also know that the Rockies farm system is in most top 5 lists, so it is the player and not Coors Field.

Old Sweater, they still pitch around them because home or away they are still the best hitters on the team.

Yeah but as you said with Heltons numbers being league average on the road for a slugger, why give him a IBB at all? Just look at the BB's that Helton gets and you can see if not a IBB he is getting pitched around even with Atkins behind him with over 100 rbi's this year. Hawpe has 98, Helton is the key to all 3 (Holliday/Hawpe/Atkins/ on the road or at home for their numbers. Holliday is tearing up the league and still only has 11 IBB in near 4 years, just 5 IBB on the road.


This is the first year that we have had decent starting pitching (8th in league overall and a miracle after losing 4 starters) and it is somewhat of a mystery to me why their home ERA is 4.40 and the road ERA is 4.44.....Our pitchers must be a product of Coors Field also.....lol.......Think if the Rockies ever have a pitcher with a 19 win year he is going to get some consideration for pitching at Coors Field when it comes to the Cy Young award over a 21 game winner with a lower ERA with another team? I don't, should be the same for the hitters we have for any award.

How would any of you feel after being a great high school, college and minor league player then have someone credit your greatness as a player because of where you play when you do well in the majors? Yeah, put that shoe on your foot and wear it for awhile and see what you think, same go's for fans of other teams that get the privilege of their teams playing 99% of their games at sea level. Change any of your Chipper Jones and David Wrights into Rockies pin stripes and see how you like the road and away stats after awhile.


Then all you Coors Field home and away junkies answer me this.

If it is all Coors Field and not are players why doesn't opposing teams hitters do as well here?

Rockies Overall 1104-1252 = .469 ball

Rockies Home 637-541 = .540 ball

Rockies Away 467-711 = .396 ball

Rockies = 26.6% more wins at home/ Same as Heltons contact advantage at Coors Field./ within 6% of the Rockies team contact advantage

That is a .085 difference between overall record and home record/ With are awful pitching through the years why hasn't teams with better pitching and as good or better hitters came here to Denver and beat us more often. Could it be the other teams have a little harder time hitting here compared to the Rockies? Can't be all Rockies pitching even though they have a small edge on opposing staffs. IMO each and every Rockies hitter deserves his Home stats to make up for dropping to sea level every time they play a road series.

[mwb]

... the extent which it does is debatable. But I dont think the park effects disqualify Holliday from MVP talk, the way the MVP is given out (I actually like Hanley or Peavy for the award, but thats just me.

The same could be said about Peavy & Young being so successful for SD because they pitch in a larger than average park.

[Old Sweater]

Atkins and Tulowitzki are awful on the road.


Good thing they play half their games at a major league ballpark called Coors Field huh Giambi?

Some of you guys ought to be more like Pine Tar and try to find out "why" instead of copying and pasting some convenient home and away stats that show the same thing for most of the Rockies players. Atkins out of UCLA and Tulowitzki out of Long Beach State were high round draft choices that I assume had more equal home and away stats playing at sea level before making the Rockies team.

What was Tulo's and Atkins home and away stats at college or minor leagues barring the AAA Sky Sox that play at 6200 feet? Those would be harder to find then the home and away stats at BBR but it would show you how they done at sea level.

I have been on this board near a year and all I see from the guys that can do anything they want with numbers to tweak a debate their way, just post the same obvious home and away stats for the Rockies hitters. Be a pioneer and find out why it happens. Is Pine Tar the only number bender that don't take each and every stat at face value? Pine Tar even had boarders backing off in a Lofton and Ichiro debate after he done some research and no one could challenge his numbers.

[Old Sweater]

The same could be said about Peavy & Young being so successful for SD because they pitch in a larger than average park.

Just Young this year, Peavey actually has a better away ERA.

Peavey/ 2.59 home/ 2.13 away

Young/ 1.47 home/ 4.11 away

I believe that Youngs home and away is better for his career.

Pitching at the anti Coors should have no more bearing on an award then hitting at Denver or that cracker box Philly town.

[Old Sweater]

That whole humidfier thing was an aberration?

Not really. Nine other parks have more HR's this year then Coors Field with Philly having 66 more last time I checked. The Rockies hit 9hr and Holliday 4hr in a recent road trip there. Wish the Rockies would play all their road games at Philly to even up the away stats.......5 or 6 other parks lead Coors Field in runs scored per game. We just have a monster outfield with more cheap singles.

Also the pitchers can grip the ball better and according to Jeff Cirillo the Rockies pitchers get the soggy balls and the away teams get the dry ones the Rockies leave out in the sun.....been working out great for us...We actually have a lower team ERA this year at home.

[GiambiJuice]

Your argument sounded nice, but as I suspected, it really doesn't stand up. All of the below players are/were established NL players with significant sample sizes at Coors. I have listed their career averages followed by their coors field averages.


Player/Career Average/Coors Field Average

Mike Piazza
.308/.377/.546
.374/.421/.695

Barry Bonds
.298/.444/.607
.336/.468/.693

Chipper Jones
.307/.403/.546
.325/.421/.619

Andruw Jones
.263/.342/.498
.355/.441/.738

Jeff Kent
.290/.357/.504
.366/.435/.696

Sammy Sosa
.273/.344/.534
.349/.425/.758

Tony Gwynn
.338/.388/.459
.353/.400/.482

Craig biggio
.281/.363/.433
.384/.465/.626

Bobby Abreu
.301/.408/.502
.323/.428/.609

Lance Berkman
.300/.413/.558
.347/.437/.653

Miguel Cabrera
.313/.387/.541
.417/.485/.733

Ken Caminiti
.272/.347/.447
.301/.388/.634

J.D. Drew
.283/.389/.497
.368/.467/.598

I can keep on going but I think I've made my point.

[Old Sweater]

Not really Giambi if you stop and think about it I would have to be defending most of those players if they played for the Rockies and had the gawdy home and away splits. They are also major league players which means most of them wouldn't be immune to what happens to most Rockies hitters. Happened to Larry Walker when he got here and he done fine for the Expos.

I really doubt if the Monforts are going to shell the cash out to keep Holliday here so we can wait and see what happens if he gets traded.

Wish I had a list of stats for all of ex Rockies numbers the next year after they was traded. That is more accurate then the cup of coffee stats for Coors Field for some of the players you listed. Do you have the game counts for them at Coors Field? Big difference playing here 2 or 3 times a year then playing here a full year and going down to sea level every road trip.


Now show me why the Rockies with the awful pitching has a .540 637-541 home record if the opposing players crush the ball here with the superior pitching. As to opposed to our 467-711 = .396 road record.

Then after you are through with that go cherry pick out some players with worse Coors Field numbers.:D

[GiambiJuice]

In your defense, there were a few players whose numbers were worse at Coors. However...

a) Of the 15 or so players I looked up, I believe only 2 were worse at Coors (Bagwell, and possibly Shawn Green). As I said I can continue looking up more players (with at least 50 PA's) and I'd be shocked if more than 1 out of ten was worse at Coors.

b) they were not MUCH worse, only slightly worse, whereas all the other players were significantly better at Coors. In most cases, they bettered their SLG by over 100 points! and their batting average by more than 50 points!

Also most of them have very large sample sizes, especially guys like Bonds, Kent, and Piazza who played in the same division as the Rockies and have hundreds of Plate appearences. Others like the Jones brothers in ATL and Biggio (.384/.465/.626 at Coors) have been in the league a long time and have a large number of Coors PA's too.

[skyking162]

Three thoughts:

It's quite possible that there's a Coors hangover effect. Thus, even though all players hit better at Coors, Rockies players might suffer a dropoff when playing elsewhere that players from other team don't suffer. By facing so many pitches that don't break as much at Coors, it might hurt your ability to hit balls on the road. (It's like practicing against AAA pitchers and then trying to hit major league pitchers.) Definitely deserving of some research, and I'm guessing it's already been done, at least for Rockies pitchers. If the hangover effect exists, then then the average Rockies hitter doesn't deserve to be docked the full Coors park factor.

******

Parks affect different players differently. Juan Pierre cares much more about the effect Coors has on curveballs than he does on how much farther the ball will travel. He basically never hits homeruns. Contrast Pierre with a flyball machine like Griffey. To accurately "neutralize" player stats, we need a much more intricate measure of park effects.

******

Assuming you agree that players don't get to pick where they play (somewhat false in the age of free agency), then the most fair thing IS to adjust performances by ballpark. You might think it's unfair to "penalize" Helton for hitting in Colorado, but is it fair not to reward Brian Giles for hitting in PETCO?

******

Keep in mind there are (at least) two reasons to use park effects -- to determine actual value towards winning in any season and to determine a player's true skill. They're not the same. For example, let's say you believe there's a Coors hangover effect. Helton's lack of performance on the road is REAL. It's might not be his fault, but his road performances caused the Rockies to win fewer games. If you want to analyze his skill as a ballplayer, however, you might fairly decide to bump up his skill, because he would hit better on the road if he didn't play home games in Coors. This type of analysis is quite useful for other general managers looking to sign free agents and probably the more fair judgment for a Hall of Fame case.

[brett]

Your argument sounded nice, but as I suspected, it really doesn't stand up. All of the below players are/were established NL players with significant sample sizes at Coors. I have listed their career averages followed by their coors field averages.


Player/Career Average/Coors Field Average

Mike Piazza
.308/.377/.546
.374/.421/.695

Barry Bonds
.298/.444/.607
.336/.468/.693

Chipper Jones
.307/.403/.546
.325/.421/.619

Andruw Jones
.263/.342/.498
.355/.441/.738

Jeff Kent
.290/.357/.504
.366/.435/.696

Sammy Sosa
.273/.344/.534
.349/.425/.758

Tony Gwynn
.338/.388/.459
.353/.400/.482

Craig biggio
.281/.363/.433
.384/.465/.626

Bobby Abreu
.301/.408/.502
.323/.428/.609

Lance Berkman
.300/.413/.558
.347/.437/.653

Miguel Cabrera
.313/.387/.541
.417/.485/.733

Ken Caminiti
.272/.347/.447
.301/.388/.634

J.D. Drew
.283/.389/.497
.368/.467/.598

I can keep on going but I think I've made my point.


But those are prior to the last 4-5 years where the gap has closed

[538280]

Old Sweater, sorry, but your argument doesn't hold up at all, even now. Picking out a few selected Rockies who did better or about the same after leaving the team does not even compare to the analysis done with park factors-which simply takes how all players playing in Coors do between there and on the road (runs scored at Coors vs. runs scored on the road by the same players). Coors' effect has lessened in the last few years-but it's still there. It still plays as a pretty significant hitters park. It's park factor (and park factors are halved to account that players only play half of their games at home, so the percentage run inflation a park has is double the increase the park factor shows. It also finds the numbers based on multiple years of data with weight on the focus year-to try to take out flukish differences that might be there in one year) is still 107. 107 is still a park that significantly favors the hitter. It's not at like 120 like it used to be, but it still definitely plays as a hitter's park, and any player who plays there's stats should be adjusted accordingly. You are correct that other parks are just as favorable to the hitter now as Coors is. The ballpark in Arizona (now Chase Field, used to be Bank One Ballpark) has always been nearly as extreme a hitter's park and Coors and this year also has a PF of 107, for example.

What you are doing is essentially just picking out a few selected players that didn't do a lot better at Coors. But the park factors clearly show that as a whole players still do quite a bit better at Coors Field. Considering all players is the only way your study can have any validity.

[brett]

Just to be clear here, in the early days of Colorado Rockies baseball, the home/road variations were absolutely immense.

Through about 2001 or 2002, an average hitter who played half of his games in Coors field would have his TOTAL HOME AND ROAD numbers boosted about 10% in batting average, 15% in doubles, 20% in home runs and 25% in RBI.

A .275 hitter with 20 doubles and 15 home runs and 75 RBI would go .303, with 23 doubles, 18 home runs, and 93 RBI if he played half his games in Colorado. It actually helped visiting players even more, because Colorado players tended to show their road numbers drop as a result of the "shock" of going on the road and facing breaking pitches that moved more.

Around 2002 or 2003, the numbers started to shift. Colorado player's STILL struggle when they go back on the road after 2-3 home series, and they struggle more than a typical amount.

Holliday has about a 125 OPS+ on the road and a 175 at home.

A player SHOULD be a little better anyway, and again my position is that when you play in a park with different KINDS of effects (such as on breaking balls) then it forces an even greater discrepancy because players have to change their approach.

In 1978 Jim Rice was about 135 on the road and 181 at home.

When ballpark is considered, Holliday is the 3rd or 4th best hitter in the NL this year.

[Old Sweater]

Old Sweater, sorry, but your argument doesn't hold up at all, even now. Picking out a few selected Rockies who did better or about the same after leaving the team does not even compare to the analysis done with park factors-which simply takes how all players playing in Coors do between there and on the road (runs scored at Coors vs. runs scored on the road by the same players). Coors' effect has lessened in the last few years-but it's still there. It still plays as a pretty significant hitters park. It's park factor (and park factors are halved to account that players only play half of their games at home, so the percentage run inflation a park has is double the increase the park factor shows. It also finds the numbers based on multiple years of data with weight on the focus year-to try to take out flukish differences that might be there in one year) is still 107. 107 is still a park that significantly favors the hitter. It's not at like 120 like it used to be, but it still definitely plays as a hitter's park, and any player who plays there's stats should be adjusted accordingly. You are correct that other parks are just as favorable to the hitter now as Coors is. The ballpark in Arizona (now Chase Field, used to be Bank One Ballpark) has always been nearly as extreme a hitter's park and Coors and this year also has a PF of 107, for example.

What you are doing is essentially just picking out a few selected players that didn't do a lot better at Coors. But the park factors clearly show that as a whole players still do quite a bit better at Coors Field. Considering all players is the only way your study can have any validity.


The players came off the top of my head, who the hell would use Neifi when they cherry picked? And there can be no closer comparision for Coors Field then the same player within 2 years. Stop and think about it.

If you want to do the reseach of all the ex Rockies and how that done the next year with another club in BA OBP and SLG I'd be more then happy to look if you think I was cherry picking. I don't really care about park factors which can change every year, I would like to see the results of the same horse in a different stable within 2 years. Should equal out with the park factors since there are ex Rockies all through the MLB.

Also if you can explain why the Rockies hitters have 20% more contact at home this year and the Rockies pitchers ERA is the same on the road and at Coors I'd take a gander of your explanation.

Then try to find out why the Rockies strike out a 20% more on the road about every year. Or if another club is even close to this. There is always some logic you have to use besides just numbers that have a mythic theory behind it. You guys always try to create a punch card that can be fed into a computer and it just can't happen in baseball. You have fell so in love with the numbers you don't even think that Holliday an All American out of Oklahoma should be eligible for the MVP, that is a crock of you know what.

[Old Sweater]

It's quite possible that there's a Coors hangover effect. Thus, even though all players hit better at Coors, Rockies players might suffer a dropoff when playing elsewhere that players from other team don't suffer. By facing so many pitches that don't break as much at Coors, it might hurt your ability to hit balls on the road. (It's like practicing against AAA pitchers and then trying to hit major league pitchers.) Definitely deserving of some research, and I'm guessing it's already been done, at least for Rockies pitchers. If the hangover effect exists, then then the average Rockies hitter doesn't deserve to be docked the full Coors park factor.

It happens to about every Rockies hitter that has played here. Even with the humidor which has helped our pitchers(and the fact we have better pitchers this year) are hitters are still striking out 20% more on the road. It's starting to look like Coors Field is hurting the hitters more on the road then the pitchers throwing at home.


Parks affect different players differently. Juan Pierre cares much more about the effect Coors has on curveballs than he does on how much farther the ball will travel. He basically never hits homeruns. Contrast Pierre with a flyball machine like Griffey. To accurately "neutralize" player stats, we need a much more intricate measure of park effects.

What I said about Juan Pierre, Juan said himself when interviewed. He said all his singles were being caught at Coors Field that he was getting in Florida the next year.



Assuming you agree that players don't get to pick where they play (somewhat false in the age of free agency), then the most fair thing IS to adjust performances by ballpark. You might think it's unfair to "penalize" Helton for hitting in Colorado, but is it fair not to reward Brian Giles for hitting in PETCO?

Holliday is just in his 4th year, so no FA, and what hitter, if the Monforts pay him good is going to leave Coors Field? Giles did chose the Padres and PETCO. Coors Field hitters should not be penalized and the same go's for the Padres pitchers at PETCO. You have to play where your MAJOR LEAGUE BALL PARK IS, no way around it for the player. As for Giles he should be doing better this year, big park for a doubles hitter. I can see Bonds case about PETCO but not Giles.


Keep in mind there are (at least) two reasons to use park effects -- to determine actual value towards winning in any season and to determine a player's true skill. They're not the same. For example, let's say you believe there's a Coors hangover effect. Helton's lack of performance on the road is REAL. It's might not be his fault, but his road performances caused the Rockies to win fewer games. If you want to analyze his skill as a ballplayer, however, you might fairly decide to bump up his skill, because he would hit better on the road if he didn't play home games in Coors. This type of analysis is quite useful for other general managers looking to sign free agents and probably the more fair judgment for a Hall of Fame case.



Plenty of teams were interested in Helton this last off year and 4 years ago any team would have took Helton no matter what the road and away stats say. They had seen the man swing a bat at their home field all through the league. I don't think the writers that vote don't even consider ball park factor because it's just in the ball park, good name for that stat that can change every year.

[BoofBonser26]

Most emphatically no.

[Old Sweater]

In your defense, there were a few players whose numbers were worse at Coors. However...

a) Of the 15 or so players I looked up, I believe only 2 were worse at Coors (Bagwell, and possibly Shawn Green). As I said I can continue looking up more players (with at least 50 PA's) and I'd be shocked if more than 1 out of ten was worse at Coors.

b) they were not MUCH worse, only slightly worse, whereas all the other players were significantly better at Coors. In most cases, they bettered their SLG by over 100 points! and their batting average by more than 50 points!

Also most of them have very large sample sizes, especially guys like Bonds, Kent, and Piazza who played in the same division as the Rockies and have hundreds of Plate appearances. Others like the Jones brothers in ATL and Biggio (.384/.465/.626 at Coors) have been in the league a long time and have a large number of Coors PA's too.

a/ I wouldn't be. With the .540 winning percentage at home for the Rockies there should be a fair amount of players with worse Coors Field stats. With most teams coming in here with better pitching it is their hitters accountable for the Rockies home record.

b/ that we don't know like in "a"

c/ like I said before there is a big difference between coming to Denver 2 or 3 times a year then playing here for the full season and going on the road. Everything you mention about Coors Field just proves my point of any player that plays here is going to have the exaggerated home and away stats.

If David Wright played here everyone would be crying Coors Field and you see how well he's done the last 2 years. If Bonds had came to Denver instead of San Francisco when he left Pittsburgh everyone would be crying Coors Field and steroids. What makes you think that any MLB slugger is immune to the same crap that Holliday or Helton have went through? Every slugger is going to hit better at Coors Field, not just the one's we draft. It's ridiculous to me to even think that Holliday or Helton wouldn't have same average of stats if they played at sea level just like the 10 players I listed(Neifi sucks) with their next years club.


So my answer to your question " Is Holliday a product of Coors Field" The answer is no and he would be an all star no matter where he played and would have numbers just a little above the middle of his home and away stats, and he definitely wouldn't be striking out 20% more on the road.

[GiambiJuice]

But there were SO many players who had career years by far when they were on the Rockies and none of their other seasons even came close.

Without looking anything up. Off the top of my head I'm thinking of Gallarahga, Walker, E. Burks, Preston Wilson, Jay Payton.

Do you honestly believe Holliday would have a .340 average and 36 homers playing for any other team?

[skyking162]

It's not a black and white issue. Players like Todd Helton can be both great AND overrated. Matt Holliday can be an MVP candidate AND benefit from playing in Coors. People who dismiss these guys out of hand are short-sighted, as are people who dismiss park factors out of hand.

This is the same problem that ticks me off about MVP debates. Just because someone is not the single best player in the league doesn't make him any less of a ballplayer. If you're a Josh Beckett fan and somebody argues that he was "merely" the third-best pitcher in the AL this season, it's not a personal attack against you and your Josh Beckett fan club, and it's not saying Beckett was a crappy player. If I think CC was better, it's not by much. Maybe half a win? A full win? Is that something to get so worked up about, from either side of the debate? In fact, is that something even worth giving out an award for? AJ Burnett was half a win more valuable than Dustin McGowan this year, but why aren't hours spent debating that? (Unrelate aside: it's the methodology we should really be debating -- WHY should a certain pitcher be considered better than another? What things matter, which ones don't? By debating methodology, we can tackle every single pitcher at once instead of one by one.)

******

Then try to find out why the Rockies strike out a 20% more on the road about every year. Or if another club is even close to this. There is always some logic you have to use besides just numbers that have a mythic theory behind it. You guys always try to create a punch card that can be fed into a computer and it just can't happen in baseball. You have fell so in love with the numbers you don't even think that Holliday an All American out of Oklahoma should be eligible for the MVP, that is a crock of you know what.

Logic without numbers only gets you so far, and is open to bias (both personal and statistical). Take the logic and crunch the numbers. It's not that hard to show if there's a pattern of deflated performance for Rockies hitters on the road. Do it. Do the same calculation for other ballclubs. Do the Rockies tend to have an unusually high road losing percentage year after year compared with home winning percentage? Did it change with the use of the humidor, which correct for ball flight distance but not pitch break? If the effect of a Coors hangover is real it will show up in the numbers. Even if you believe beyond a shadow of a doubt it's real, you're not going to convince other people because of a pet theory. Prove it. I'm going to find it fascinating if you prove it to me.

(Sorry to pick this quote specifically -- there are many along the same lines I could have picked.)

[brett]

But there were SO many players who had career years by far when they were on the Rockies and none of their other seasons even came close.

Without looking anything up. Off the top of my head I'm thinking of Gallarahga, Walker, E. Burks, Preston Wilson, Jay Payton.

Do you honestly believe Holliday would have a .340 average and 36 homers playing for any other team?


Everyone has home/road variations though, and when you have to adjust your style to take advantage of a place like Coors, it becomes more pronounced.

Holliday's stats in a neutral setting (or rather his ballpark neutralized value) is very easy to determine.

His stats are AS VALUABLE as someone going about .328, with 45 doubles, 34 home runs and 122 RBI for a team with an average ballpark.

His home/road splits are large but at home he still produces at 175% what an average hitter does at Coors, and that is value, any way you look at it.

[brett]

Logic without numbers only gets you so far, and is open to bias (both personal and statistical). Take the logic and crunch the numbers. It's not that hard to show if there's a pattern of deflated performance for Rockies hitters on the road. Do it. Do the same calculation for other ballclubs. Do the Rockies tend to have an unusually high road losing percentage year after year compared with home winning percentage? Did it change with the use of the humidor, which correct for ball flight distance but not pitch break? If the effect of a Coors hangover is real it will show up in the numbers. Even if you believe beyond a shadow of a doubt it's real, you're not going to convince other people because of a pet theory. Prove it. I'm going to find it fascinating if you prove it to me.

(Sorry to pick this quote specifically -- there are many along the same lines I could have picked.)

I will look to see on Retrosheet, but I believe that over a 3 year period from '99-'01 it was shown that the Rockies batted .205 and had a .275 on base percentage on the first game of a road stretch which were both the worst rates in all of baseball.

Also, look at players road numbers in their first year in Colorado.

Mike Lansing: .225/.281/.338
Jeff Cirillo: .239/.299/.329
Howard Johnson .168/.277/.350

In '04 when Vinnie Castilla returned, he batted .218 on the road after being a .274 road hitter the year before.

Larry Walker's road numbers went down in his first year in CO


Most Colorado hitters would hit 15% worse at home and 7% better on the road if they played for another team.

But it doesn't matter. We know that Holliday has outproduced the AVERAGE hitter ADJUSTED TO THE SAME CONTEXT by 50% this year.

[skyking162]

But it doesn't matter. We know that Holliday has outproduced the AVERAGE hitter ADJUSTED TO THE SAME CONTEXT by 50% this year.

Yes, VALUE-wise, a Coors-hangover effect is irrelevant. But because it's a park factor that only affects one team*, you'd need to account for it when assessing player ABILITY going forward. Does your "adjusted to the same context" include penalizing players when the go on the road? If not, some would argue you haven't actually put Holliday and Utley in the same context.

*Any full scale research into a hangover effect should probably look to see if visiting teams perform worse when they leave Coors for any period of time -- a game or a series.

[Baseball Guru]

I realize that he is hitting .370-.380 at home well guess what, how many players are hitting .370-.380 anywhere? I think the Coors effect is a bunch of crap! Holliday is a great hitter and deserves to be the MVP or at the very least, in the running, although I dont think there is enough time left for the Rox to make it... I think they are close enough and his #'s are so gaudy, he's the MVP!

How many other Rockies are hitting what he is hitting at home? Also, he's still a .300 hitter on the road...

Do you honestly believe Holliday would have a .340 average and 36 homers playing for any other team?

I think he benefits mostly on average from hitting in Coors.. I still think he's a .320 hitter anywhere he plays with 30+ hr power...

[538280]

The players came off the top of my head, who the hell would use Neifi when they cherry picked? And there can be no closer comparision for Coors Field then the same player within 2 years. Stop and think about it.

Your list of players is clearly just a random list of players who came to the top of your head. Mabye they're not cherry picked, but that really isn't the point. The point is just that they are a totally arbitrary list of players. Why look at something like that when you have a totally accessible method that looks at ALL players (park factor)? It's really as simple of whether or not a park inflates run scoring, with a team's home and road games, the team (in this case the Rockies) and their opponents. The park has increased run scoring, that's all that matters.

If you want to do the reseach of all the ex Rockies and how that done the next year with another club in BA OBP and SLG I'd be more then happy to look if you think I was cherry picking. I don't really care about park factors which can change every year,

It doesn't make any sense to not care about park factors in this case. How can you possibly say that how much a park inflates run scoring (which is exactly what park factor is) is not a relevant question of how much it helps hitters? Park factors can change from year to year, but as long use the method of using multiple years to determine the PF (probably with some weight on the focus year), you'll just about eliminate the issue of small sample sizes, and that's what the PFs on BBRef do.

I would like to see the results of the same horse in a different stable within 2 years.

Again, that doesn't really make any sense though. There's no way that that's an objectively better way of evaluating park's tendencies than park factors. Each individual player is an individual, parks can effect different players in different ways. There will only be a small amount of players who move from the Rockies to other teams in a given year. The parks may have vastly differnt effects on those certain players than it will on players in general. Also, and this is an even bigger problem, is just sample size. You can't base your conclusions and such small numbers of players, there are far too many variables that can go into a given player's performance. When you have a huge group of players, those things even out, but with just 5-10 players they don't.

Again, park factor solves all those problems. It doesn't rely on a small sample at all because it uses multiple seasons of data as I said. It relies on a huge number of players, basically every one in the league because it includes a team's opponents. It is simply a measure of how much a park inflates run scoring-by using runs per game scored in home and away games.

Also if you can explain why the Rockies hitters have 20% more contact at home this year and the Rockies pitchers ERA is the same on the road and at Coors I'd take a gander of your explanation.

I'm not even sure what you mean by "20% more contact", but that really isn't a relevent point, because in sum (even if it isn't because of contact) a lot more runs have been scored in Rockies home games than road games-about 14% more as park factor shows (could be a little different because like I said PF considers previous years' data as well).

As for the ERA, that has to be the only area in which Coors is not dramatically increasing run scoring this year-runs allowed by the Rockies. Given the about 14% increase in Rockies road games, the Rockies must be scoring a lot more at home (and the opponents allowing a lot more).

Then try to find out why the Rockies strike out a 20% more on the road about every year.

Again, an irrelevent piece of information, if you're trying to figure a park's TOTAL run tendency. Despite those strikeouts, the Rockies and their opponents still manage to score far more RUNS at Coors every year. And runs are the goal of the offense-so it is inflating offense.

Or if another club is even close to this. There is always some logic you have to use besides just numbers that have a mythic theory behind it. You guys always try to create a punch card that can be fed into a computer and it just can't happen in baseball. You have fell so in love with the numbers you don't even think that Holliday an All American out of Oklahoma should be eligible for the MVP, that is a crock of you know what.

I think Holliday should be absolutely be eligible for the MVP-it's just that his production deserves the 7% reduction that his park's tendencies indicate. It's totally possible for a player from a hitter's park to still be totally deserving of the MVP.

[MyDogSparty]

I think Holliday should be absolutely be eligible for the MVP-it's just that his production deserves the 7% reduction that his park's tendencies indicate.

To implement that, are you saying that one should take away 7% of his HITS, DO, TR, HR, R, RBI, AVG, OBP, SLG, BB? Basically all his numbers? Is that the same as clicking "Neutralize Stats" on the Baseball Reference web site?

[brett]

To implement that, are you saying that one should take away 7% of his HITS, DO, TR, HR, R, RBI, AVG, OBP, SLG, BB? Basically all his numbers? Is that the same as clicking "Neutralize Stats" on the Baseball Reference web site?


It affects different stats differently. It means, 7% less "offensive production" which would be typically only about 3% batting average (10 points), 5-6% of home runs (only about -2), and about 7% of his runs and RBI. Yes, this is what the neutralize stats should do (aong with adjusting for the league offense), and one can see that the Coors field effect is not that great anymore.

He comes out .318, with 33 home runs (in a neutral setting).

It does not account for the fact that a player may get more plate appearances at home, but suprisingly, Holliday has fewer at home (because his team has to bat in the 9th less often at home.)

In contrast, in 2000, Helton's neutralized stats were 15% lower batting average, 24% fewer home runs and 33% fewer RBI.

In other words, some is due to Coors field changes and some to league offensive dropoff in the last few years.

[538280]

To implement that, are you saying that one should take away 7% of his HITS, DO, TR, HR, R, RBI, AVG, OBP, SLG, BB? Basically all his numbers? Is that the same as clicking "Neutralize Stats" on the Baseball Reference web site?

No. His OVERALL production, in runs, should be reduced by 7%. If you reduce all of those categories by 7% the overall production increase will be much more than 7%.

[Imapotato]

Now you've gone and gotten Old Sweater mad :D

2007 Park Factors through 9/18/2007:

Rank Park Name Runs HR H 2B 3B BB
1 Fenway Park (Boston, Massachusetts) 1.190 0.863 1.129 1.332 0.951 0.960
2 Wrigley Field (Chicago, Illinois) 1.156 1.088 1.067 1.247 0.840 1.094
3 Coors Field (Denver, Colorado) 1.154 1.241 1.117 1.228 1.463 0.913
4 Jacobs Field (Cleveland, Ohio) 1.118 1.096 1.040 0.848 0.683 1.039
5 Yankee Stadium (Bronx, New York) 1.110 1.235 1.035 0.905 0.628 1.006
6 Chase Field (Phoenix, Arizona) 1.105 1.068 1.051 1.121 2.614 1.082
7 Great American (Cincinnati, Ohio) 1.093 1.357 0.980 1.038 0.826 1.046
8 Angel Stadium (Anaheim, California) 1.090 0.912 1.066 1.239 0.757 1.101
9 U.S. Cellular Field (Chicago, Illinois) 1.080 1.237 1.038 0.982 0.477 0.951
10 Camden Yards (Baltimore, Maryland) 1.061 1.210 1.073 0.917 1.369 0.990


Well, I guess no Red Sox, Cubs, or Rockies Player can win an MVP award.
Might as well chalk A-Rod's monster season up to the PF of Yankee Stadium. I mean, it's HR numbers are almost the same as Coors!

On a serious note, a lot of players hit a lot better at home than on the road. Look at Chase Utley's splits (BAA/OPS) -- HOME: .381 / 1.102 -- AWAY: .289 / .859. And Citizens Bank isn't even in the top 10 in park factors.

Holliday is putting up monster numbers. So are a lot of other players in hitter-friendly parks. Should you penalize the player for the way that their park plays?


Ballpark factors are bogus...and there are too many variables in regards to talent. You don't need numbers to tell you RH hitters love Fenway, LH hitters love Yankee Stadium and Petco is actually the only decent park in the whole league

If there was any truth to ballpark factors...they would remain fairly consistent, but they don't

As you stated, Citizen's Bank Park was not in the top 10 this year but 2 years ago IIRC, it was #1...the reason? Flyball pitchers in a park that LIED about its dimensions...the fences were shorter then advertised on the wall

This year, they have 2 guys in the bullpen and 2 starters whose main pitches are the circle change and sinker...both which are hard to get under and drive

[skyking162]

Ballpark factors are bogus...and there are too many variables in regards to talent. You don't need numbers to tell you RH hitters love Fenway, LH hitters love Yankee Stadium and Petco is actually the only decent park in the whole league.

If there was any truth to ballpark factors...they would remain fairly consistent, but they don't.

That's crap. Some park effects are obvious, but not all. Minute Maid is a good example. People assume it's a hitters' park, but it's pretty neutral even though it gives up extra homeruns.

Park factors aren't very consistent year to year, but that's why you pool consecutive seasons together. ERA isn't very consistent for a lot of pitchers, does that mean there's no truth to ERA?

Yes, park factors can be done better. But they're very important.

[538280]

Park factors aren't very consistent year to year, but that's why you pool consecutive seasons together.

The thing is that actual Park factors, such as the ones shown on BBRef, DO take into account multiple years of data and ARE consistent from year to year. Besides, people often speak as if Park factors should always be the exact same for a park, but that isn't really the case. There are variables to how run scoring than just the park. It could be that one year the temperatures were warmer or colder than usual in that city. This is a real effect that changes the conditions of the park and how much it favors certain players.

[NickU]

To implement that, are you saying that one should take away 7% of his HITS, DO, TR, HR, R, RBI, AVG, OBP, SLG, BB? Basically all his numbers? Is that the same as clicking "Neutralize Stats" on the Baseball Reference web site?

It affects different stats differently. It means, 7% less "offensive production" which would be typically only about 3% batting average (10 points), 5-6% of home runs (only about -2), and about 7% of his runs and RBI. Yes, this is what the neutralize stats should do (aong with adjusting for the league offense), and one can see that the Coors field effect is not that great anymore.

He comes out .318, with 33 home runs (in a neutral setting).

It does not account for the fact that a player may get more plate appearances at home, but suprisingly, Holliday has fewer at home (because his team has to bat in the 9th less often at home.)

In contrast, in 2000, Helton's neutralized stats were 15% lower batting average, 24% fewer home runs and 33% fewer RBI.

In other words, some is due to Coors field changes and some to league offensive dropoff in the last few years.


no you are absoluetly wrong, the br neutralizer doens't account for field, all it does it puts every player in teh same amount of games in a an offense that scores the same amount of runs. this doesn't account for something such as a field a mile above sealevel. why isn't anyone stating the obvious... Holliday is a great hitter with 20 home run power that turns into a monster at coors field.
.374 .433 .726 25 homers at home
301 .374 .485 11 homers on the road


that's all i need to see

[brett]

no you are absoluetly wrong, the br neutralizer doens't account for field, all it does it puts every player in teh same amount of games in a an offense that scores the same amount of runs.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that in a run environment of say 110%, the neutralizer does not add 10% to each separate stat: hits, doubles, triples, home runs etc. rather it uses a "best fit" equation for the combination of these stats. A 10% boost to offense will produce about a 4-5% boost in neutralized batting average, a 6-7% boost to doubles and about an 8% boost to home runs.

You are correct that it does not rate home runs versus home runs in that particular stadium etc.

Also, a .374 and .485 on base and slugging percentage on the road is pretty good. Players typically produce about 4% lower on the road anyway so its comparable to .389/.503 which is a high 130s OPS+.

[538280]

Also, a .374 and .485 on base and slugging percentage on the road is pretty good. Players typically produce about 4% lower on the road anyway so its comparable to .389/.503 which is a high 130s OPS+.

I think it's a 129 OPS+. In an average park (100 park factor) BBRef shows the league average OBP/SLG (for OPS+, so with the pitchers taken out) at .342/.436. So .389/.503 would be a 129 OPS+.

[brett]

I think it's a 129 OPS+. In an average park (100 park factor) BBRef shows the league average OBP/SLG (for OPS+, so with the pitchers taken out) at .342/.436. So .389/.503 would be a 129 OPS+.

Thanks. I personally don't like the concept of taking pitchers out for OPS+. It fails to treat it as a "predictor" of relative run production which is what its best for. Granted if you want to compare players from different leagues it is important. Also, notice that a lot of LQ calculations give the AL more LQ because pitchers don't bat. I think that it can be done one way of the other, but not both.

[NickU]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that in a run environment of say 110%, the neutralizer does not add 10% to each separate stat: hits, doubles, triples, home runs etc. rather it uses a "best fit" equation for the combination of these stats. A 10% boost to offense will produce about a 4-5% boost in neutralized batting average, a 6-7% boost to doubles and about an 8% boost to home runs.

You are correct that it does not rate home runs versus home runs in that particular stadium etc.

Also, a .374 and .485 on base and slugging percentage on the road is pretty good. Players typically produce about 4% lower on the road anyway so its comparable to .389/.503 which is a high 130s OPS+.

He's hitting 301 on the road, a four percent drop from his home average of 374 would be .360, the drop he has seen now is around 19.5%

[brett]

He's hitting 301 on the road, a four percent drop from his home average of 374 would be .360, the drop he has seen now is around 19.5%

Batting average has no correlation to run production. Slugging and on-base% have high correlations to run production. I am not saying that he doesn't have significant home road differentials, just that his road OPS+ is still about 130 adjusted up by 4% for normal road variations.

[philkid3]

Batting average has no correlation to run production.
Hm? It doesn't? Maybe I've been reading the wrong places, but I've always read that BA actually has fairly good correllation to run production, OBP is just better and BA is therefor unimportant.

[AznInvasion]

Just give the guy the props and move on. He deserves all the credit. I hate when people take away the glory from someone. It's not like he's taking steroids or something. Also, BA is definitely important. I agree with you PK3.

[plask_stirlac]

I think people are giving him credit for a job well done and are impressed, but why do we have to take his numbers at face value? Are AAA numbers the same as ML numbers? We don't have to glorify his raw numbers, are they divine? Did they serve in combat? If we want to find value, then why must we "move on"? Plus it's a stick and ball game, we can play with the numbers... why take any stats at all besides team runs and wins-losses? And it isn't personal.

If he's the top dog and most valuable his numbers should be able to stand up to scrutiny.

Hm? It doesn't? Maybe I've been reading the wrong places, but I've always read that BA actually has fairly good correllation to run production, OBP is just better and BA is therefor unimportant.

For a team, probably. But look at Juan Pierre, hitting .292/.330/.351. .292 is well above .275, but is he an above average batter not including steals? He's actually below average, only 23 doubles and 8 triples. He should have more than 31 doubles, let alone combined. I suppose an entire team could have an empty batting average as well, the Dodgers did compared to better offensive teams last year (like Philly). That said the Dodgers did score 5.06 runs/game last year so BA still correlated.

And as 538 has said, a .275/.400/.600 hitter like Carlos Pena is probably more productive than a .333/.400/.600 hitter, more extra-base hits, or we can probably agree that they're equal since the .275 guy will have more HR, 2B, and 3B which people dig.

[AznInvasion]

For a team, probably. But look at Juan Pierre, hitting .292/.330/.351. .292 is well above .275, but is he an above average batter not including steals? He's actually below average, only 23 doubles and 8 triples. He should have more than 31 doubles, let alone combined.

And as 538 has said, a .275/.400/.600 hitter like Carlos Pena is probably more productive than a .333/.400/.600 hitter, more extra-base hits, or we can probably agree that they're equal since the .275 guy will have more HR, 2B, and 3B which people dig.

Well sure...batting average along with OPS and XBH are good stats to look at. Pierre hits too many singles to be honest.

[philkid3]

Just give the guy the props and move on. He deserves all the credit. I hate when people take away the glory from someone. It's not like he's taking steroids or something. Also, BA is definitely important. I agree with you PK3.

Why do people have to ignore what analysis can determine about a player? Why is that "taking away his glory?" Who's said Holliday isn't awesome? They just say, at the face value of his numbers, he's not quite as good as advertised. That's not saying he isn't great.

[philkid3]

I think people are giving him credit for a job well done and are impressed, but why do we have to take his numbers at face value? Are AAA numbers the same as ML numbers? We don't have to glorify his raw numbers, are they divine? Did they serve in combat? If we want to find value, then why must we "move on"? Plus it's a stick and ball game, we can play with the numbers... why take any stats at all besides team runs and wins-losses? And it isn't personal.

If he's the top dog and most valuable his numbers should be able to stand up to scrutiny.



For a team, probably. But look at Juan Pierre, hitting .292/.330/.351. .292 is well above .275, but is he an above average batter not including steals? He's actually below average, only 23 doubles and 8 triples. He should have more than 31 doubles, let alone combined. I suppose an entire team could have an empty batting average as well, the Dodgers did compared to better offensive teams last year (like Philly). That said the Dodgers did score 5.06 runs/game last year so BA still correlated.

And as 538 has said, a .275/.400/.600 hitter like Carlos Pena is probably more productive than a .333/.400/.600 hitter, more extra-base hits, or we can probably agree that they're equal since the .275 guy will have more HR, 2B, and 3B which people dig.

I may be misunderstanding your point, but you really seem to be saying just that there are better numbers than batting average, which correllate better to runs and that batting average is pretty useless as a result, which I agree with. I'm just saying that I've only read that batting average does correllate pretty well with run production.

Well sure...batting average along with OPS and XBH are good stats to look at. Pierre hits too many singles to be honest.

Now, that I disagree with. I don't think batting average is a good stat to look at at all.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Batting average has its usefulness. It's not a very informative statistic, but it has a very basic value: a sort of percentage of hits in at-bats. It's okay. Just don't use it as a be all, end all. I think that it does work better in the BA/OBP/SLG scheme.

[Old Sweater]

I think that Matt Holliday is a product of Citizens Ballpark.

6 HR's in his last 6 games there. Just think if he played in that cracker box a full season.

[plask_stirlac]

I think that Matt Holliday is a product of Citizens Ballpark.

6 HR's in his last 6 games there. Just think if he played in that cracker box a full season.

He would have 40 or so HR. Things don't really bear out like that, and he wouldn't always be facing Phillies pitching. Remember Chris Shelton's 10 HR in a month?

[brett]

Hm? It doesn't? Maybe I've been reading the wrong places, but I've always read that BA actually has fairly good correllation to run production, OBP is just better and BA is therefor unimportant.

Batting average with the cofactors of Slugging and OBP removed has zero, or a negative correlation.

[Old Sweater]

He would have 40 or so HR. Things don't really bear out like that, and he wouldn't always be facing Phillies pitching. Remember Chris Shelton's 10 HR in a month?

Yeah I know. I was just redirecting some of the same crap we always get here in Colorado. The whole Rockies team has some very nice stats in 6 games at Citizens Bank Park though against that Phillies pitching. That Kendrick was also the victim of the 12-0 that the Rockies put on the Phillies a month ago and then the Phillies pitchers started treating the Rockies hitters like ducks in a shooting galley.

[Old Sweater]

In the 4 regular season games at Citizens Bank Park the Rockies as a team hit.

.313/ .401/ .576 with 9 HR's and 11 doubles.

[Avg_Hr_Rbi]

lets look at his career stats:

04': 121gms/ .290 avg/ 14hr/ 57rbi

05': 125gms/ .307avg/ 19hr/ 87rbi

06' 155gms/ .326avg/ 34hr/ 114rbi

07' 158gms/ .340avg/ 36hr/ 137rbi

it appears that with his playing more games every season that he is becoming a better player.....

but geez it couldn't be that though...it has to be he plays for the Rockies :eek: his #'s are only getting better because of that I forgot

[Old Sweater]

lets look at his career stats:

04': 121gms/ .290 avg/ 14hr/ 57rbi

05': 125gms/ .307avg/ 19hr/ 87rbi

06' 155gms/ .326avg/ 34hr/ 114rbi

07' 158gms/ .340avg/ 36hr/ 137rbi

it appears that with his playing more games every season that he is becoming a better player.....

but geez it couldn't be that though...it has to be he plays for the Rockies :eek: his #'s are only getting better because of that I forgot


Yes that has to be it. That is why I was so shocked that he hit 6 hr's in 6 games this year at Philly.

[GiambiJuice]

Surprise, surprise - he was traded out of COL and he's a so-so hitter now.

[Berkman#17]

Yes, playing in a new league, a notorious pitchers park, and a very bad lineup surrounding him proves he's a so-so hitter.

The A's are hitting .242 as a team......bah, nevermind. Stats just clutter the conversation.

Going from one extreme to another doesn't prove much.

I wonder what his numbers would be if he played in a fair ballpark, or actually had a league average lineup surrounding him.

[Domenic]

After a poor April, Holliday is batting .287/.398/.435 since May 1.

While I'm loath to say how much more Holliday will improve, I do think he is better than he has demonstrated this year. Making a transition from a solid line-up in a great hitter's park to a poor line-up in a great pitcher's park cannot be terribly easy, and I believe that we have to give him the remainder of the season to make a fair judgment.

I will say, though, that much of his power stemmed from Coors - he's more of a line-drive, groundball hitter than a traditional power hitter, and that won't lead to as many home runs away from Coor.s

[Berkman#17]

He is, and always has been, a line drive hitter with power. Too many made him out to be a pure power hitter like a Howard or Fielder. I think that affected some views on what he actually is as a player.

[baseball junkie]

It will only matter for a few more months. Holliday has a one-year contract with the A's and is likely to sign with one of the usual suspects at the end of the year: Angels, Cubs, Mets, Red Sox, Yankees.

I think after next season we'll know for sure.

[Berkman#17]

Surprise, surprise - he was traded out of COL and he's a so-so hitter now.

Bump.

.426/.462/.714 since joining St. Louis.
.350/.418/.571 since May 31st.
.383/.436/.633 since June 26th.

Yup, those look like "so-so" numbers to me.