Bring in the fences?

[powrwrap]

Which means only that the differences between the Twins on the road and at home are evening out, and the Twins don't hit many HRs, home or away, which is factor #1 on why TF doesn't give up many HRs.

 

 

No, it means that Target Field is not a HR park. It means that Target Field has the 3rd lowest HR rate in the AL. The Twins project to hit about 52 HRs at home, 60 on the road. Looks a lot like last year's numbers, except with Willingham in the lineup this year.

[Alex]

Parker did a good analysis some time back that showed Target field rewards pull hitters more than power alley hitters with regard to home runs. The Twins hitters in the past have not been pull hitters.

 

The fences aren't the answer, IMO because any change made for your hitters negatively impacts your hitters.

[nicksaviking]

All these numbers are fairly vague for a reason. Two years is too small of a sample size. Let's wait five years and see what kind of patterns emerge. Turning Target Field into a hitters park when your 2013 opening day pitching staff may have less than 100 career starts may not be great for confidence building either.

[Ultima Ratio]

I don't see the wisdom in bringing in the fences because we have a light hitting team. Would you lower the basket to 9 feet if you only have a couple guys over 6 ft.? I love being able to dunk, but when playing against guys that are taller than me... it's all the easier for them -- not pretty.

[stringer bell]

It looks like the Twins will have some speedy, rangy guys playing OF in the near future. They would probably be well served to keep the outfield large.

[CDog]

Not that it matters all that much, but it would really bum me out if they moved the fences at Target Field.

[powrwrap]

any change made for your hitters negatively impacts your hitters.

Could you elaborate?

[powrwrap]

All these numbers are fairly vague for a reason. Two years is too small of a sample size.

 

Why is it too small? The stat is HR/game. We have over 175 data points. Thousands of at bats, at least 16 visiting teams, various different batters and pitchers. The trend is clear--Target Field is not a HR park.

 

Turning Target Field into a hitters park when your 2013 opening day pitching staff may have less than 100 career starts may not be great for confidence building either.

 

As the subject of the oringinal post the goal is to improve the Twins' offense. These pitchers have to pitch in smaller parks all over the league, they better simply buckle up and deal with it. If the worry is pitcher's performance with a smaller park, loosen the wallet and go out and get some groundball out type of pitchers.

[powrwrap]

It looks like the Twins will have some speedy, rangy guys playing OF in the near future. They would probably be well served to keep the outfield large.

And that improves the offense....how?

[Boom Boom]

Bring 'em in. Add more seats.

 

In 2010 Target Field was 3rd lowest in HR/game in the AL (Seattle, Oakland) Twins hit 52 HR at home, 90 on the road.

In 2011 Target Field was 3rd lowest in HR/game in the AL (Oakland, KC). Twins hit 46 HR at home, hit 57 HR on the road.

In 2012 Target Field is 4th lowest in HR/game in the AL (Seattle, Cleveland, Anaheim, Pujols choking otherwise Target Field would again be 3rd). Twins have hit 13 at home, 15 on the road.

 

http://www.hittrackeronline.com/stadiums.php

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/batting/split/33/sort/homeRuns/order/true

Again, it's the players, not the park.

 

The Twins as a team don't hit many home runs anywhere. And the Twins have played in every Major League baseball game at Target Field.

 

The stats you should really be looking at is road teams at Target Field and how it affects them.

[Curt]

Again, it's the players, not the park.

 

The Twins as a team don't hit many home runs anywhere. And the Twins have played in every Major League baseball game at Target Field.

 

The stats you should really be looking at is road teams at Target Field and how it affects them.

Agreed. As I noted earlier, in 2011, Twins' opponents hit (or Twins' pitchers gave up) about the same number of home runs at Target Field as they did away from TF. Here are the AL stats for home runs allowed per game, comparing home and away:

 

[TABLE]

[TD=width: 152]Team[/TD]

[TD=width: 66]Away[/TD]

[TD=width: 66]Home[/TD]

[TD=width: 66]Home /Away[/TD]

Kansas City Royals

1.173

0.840

0.716

Detroit Tigers

1.049

0.790

0.753

Oakland Athletics

0.938

0.741

0.789

Cleveland Indians

1.037

0.852

0.821

Tampa Bay Rays

1.037

0.951

0.917

Los Angeles Angels

0.901

0.852

0.945

Boston Red Sox

0.975

0.951

0.975

Minnesota Twins

1.000

0.988

0.988

Seattle Mariners

0.872

0.917

1.051

Baltimore Orioles

1.259

1.333

1.059

Toronto Blue Jays

1.037

1.173

1.131

Chicago White Sox

0.827

0.988

1.194

New York Yankees

0.802

1.074

1.338

Texas Rangers

0.840

1.259

1.500

Average

0.982

0.979

1.013

[/TABLE]

 

You can see Minnesota is extremely average.

[Boom Boom]

Thanks for doing the footwork on that, it's Friday so I didn't feel like it.

[powrwrap]

Again, it's the players, not the park.

 

It's both, but it's mostly the park. If it's the players explain the home/away split of 2010. For that matter explain the home/away split every year.

 

The stats you should really be looking at is road teams at Target Field and how it affects them.

 

That data is a part of HR/game at Target Field. Target Field has the 3rd lowest HR rate in the AL. That's with 15 other teams coming in there to play.

[Boom Boom]

It's both, but it's mostly the park. If it's the players explain the home/away split of 2010. For that matter explain the home/away split every year.

 

 

That data is a part of HR/game at Target Field. Target Field has the 3rd lowest HR rate in the AL. That's with 15 other teams coming in there to play.

When I say it's the players, it's also the pitchers. Did you know that despite playing half their games at Target Field, the Twins pitching staff led the league in home runs allowed in 2011?

 

And I don't see how moving in the fences is going to significantly increase Twins home run hitting when 56% of their lineup is Mauer, Carroll, Span, Revere, and Casilla.

[powrwrap]

Agreed. As I noted earlier, in 2011, Twins' opponents hit (or Twins' pitchers gave up) about the same number of home runs at Target Field as they did away from TF. Here are the AL stats for home runs allowed per game, comparing home and away:

 

 

The number of HR's Twins pitchers allow at home vs. on the road is not the stat we are looking for. We're looking for the HR's hit per game by individual teams at Target Field vs. all other parks.

 

Examples:

 

Kansas City hit 4 HR at Target Field in 9 games for a HR rate of .444 per game. They hit 125 HRs everywhere else in 152 games for a rate of .822 per game.

Chicago hit 8 HR at Target Field in 9 games for a HR rate of .888 per game. They hit 146 HRs everywhere else in 152 games for a rate of .960 per game.

Cleveland, at Target Field, 1.000 per game; elsewhere .953.

Detroit, at Target Field, 1.000 per game, elsewhere 1.052.

[Boom Boom]

Those stats are too limited to tell me anything over a 9-game sample size. Even if they were significant, Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit's home run totals look awfully similar at TF versus all other parks.

[Boom Boom]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

In my opinion, the first two years of Twins baseball at Target Field had many carryovers from the Metrodome years. They were built to hit at the Metrodome, with gap-to-gap power and a mostly left-handed lineup.

 

Other teams who had played in outdoor parks forever have loaded up on pull-hitters and a more balanced righty/lefty ratio. That style plays better in any outdoor park. That's where the Twins lagged behind in home run hitting.

[powrwrap]

Those stats are too limited to tell me anything over a 9-game sample size. Even if they were significant, Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit's home run totals look awfully similar at TF versus all other parks.

Yes, it is a small sample size and the data is not easily compiled. I used the AL Central because they played 9 games at TF. I would have liked to have done all teams and to have done 2010 as well. My main point is that tracking how many HRs that Twins pitchers give up on the home and road is not the stat that we should be concerned about. It is HRs/game at Target Field vs. HR/game elsewhere.

[James]

The number of HR's Twins pitchers allow at home vs. on the road is not the stat we are looking for. We're looking for the HR's hit per game by individual teams at Target Field vs. all other parks.

 

Examples:

 

Kansas City hit 4 HR at Target Field in 9 games for a HR rate of .444 per game. They hit 125 HRs everywhere else in 152 games for a rate of .822 per game.

Chicago hit 8 HR at Target Field in 9 games for a HR rate of .888 per game. They hit 146 HRs everywhere else in 152 games for a rate of .960 per game.

Cleveland, at Target Field, 1.000 per game; elsewhere .953.

Detroit, at Target Field, 1.000 per game, elsewhere 1.052.

That's not completely accurate either. If you're going to compare HRs at Target Field vs. every other park, you need to break out every park. Because now you're comparing one hitters park to the average of all other parks. But hitter friendly parks (as well as other pitcher's parks) will skew the data. The only way that the data won't get skewed is if the park factors equaled out, which they don't. So, say a team like the Yankees play in a division where they see a lot more hitter's parks (which I don't know off of the top of my head, but I believe this is true), their HRs are going to be greatly skewed to show they hit way more HRs in other parks besides TF. I know you're trying to average it out per game, but it doesn't really matter. Your data is getting confounded.

 

Sorry for the rant. This is just a statistics issue for me. They are a wonderful thing, but if you look at them incorrectly, they can lead you to the wrong conclusion. I'm probably not conveying my message very clearly either. This might be a good blog post though...

[stringer bell]

And that improves the offense....how?

It improves the team. If they have speedy, rangy guys that cover a lot of ground they will be well-served to have a big outfield since, compared to their opponents, they would be able to get to more balls in the outfield. Also, compared to their opponents, it would appear likely that the Twins wouldn't have much power, so keeping the fences where they are would make sense. Of the Twins near ready for regular play in the middle of this decade, you would include Hicks, Benson, Revere, Span--all speedy and only Benson has ever hit for plus power.

[StormJH1]

I would say no, for the time being. We went through this in Detroit with Comerica...the team paid a bunch of money for Juan Gonzalez in the early 2000's and absolutely sucked while McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds were breaking records. Plus, even when the Tigers were terrible in the 90's, they usually could hit a bunch of homers at Tiger Stadium (Cecil, Tettleton, Higginson, etc.). So they basically drew a straight line from the 345' LF foul pole to an area in CF, whereas it used to jut out even deeper, extending to 432' at one area of the power alley.

 

But Comerica did not change the right field fencing at all, and it's right field where the problem allegedly lies with Target Field. Just off the top of my head, I recall right handed hitters like Willingham, Delmon, GoGoMez (for the Brewers), Plouffe, Dozier, etc. hitting absolute BOMBS to LF. And Thome obviously had no trouble at all going to RF because Thome is a beast. I still do not consider Target Field to be a "pitcher's park". I think the Dome was definitely a slight hitter's park, and fans and players were accustomed to that. Target Field doesn't have massive foul territory like Oakland's park, and the dimensions are reasonable.

 

Before Morneau got wrecked, he did have 14 HR's away versus 4 at home in 2010. But just like with evergreen trees, I hate doing anything remotely permanent to a facility that can hopefully serve us for another 30 to 100 years because a couple of headcases like Mauer and Morneau have issues with it. The idea that Mauer would have 20+ HR's in a different home park, or that he routinely hits these moon-shots that land just short on the warning track is patently absurd. And even if the park were to blame, I can't even imagine that a park deterring home runs would have done anything but HELP this Twins team that routinely gives away outs with bunts and slap-and-run strategy, and pitches to contact more than any other team in baseball right now.

[Curt]

The number of HR's Twins pitchers allow at home vs. on the road is not the stat we are looking for. We're looking for the HR's hit per game by individual teams at Target Field vs. all other parks.

 

Examples:

 

Kansas City hit 4 HR at Target Field in 9 games for a HR rate of .444 per game. They hit 125 HRs everywhere else in 152 games for a rate of .822 per game.

Chicago hit 8 HR at Target Field in 9 games for a HR rate of .888 per game. They hit 146 HRs everywhere else in 152 games for a rate of .960 per game.

Cleveland, at Target Field, 1.000 per game; elsewhere .953.

Detroit, at Target Field, 1.000 per game, elsewhere 1.052.

As the table I posted earlier points out, ALL teams that played at Target Field hit .988 home runs per game there. The entire league average was .981. That indicates that, at least in 2011, any deficit in home runs at TF was due to Twins hitters. Twins hitters were inept at hitting home runs at TF (.568 hr/g) but were almost as inept on the road (.704). You can cherry pick the teams you want but that indicates that other teams off set those that you chose.

 

It is obvious it takes some mighty pokes to get the ball out of the park at the gaps but it is too early to tell what the impact of the park will be in the long run.

[nicksaviking]

Why is it too small? The stat is HR/game. We have over 175 data points. Thousands of at bats, at least 16 visiting teams, various different batters and pitchers. The trend is clear--Target Field is not a HR park.

 

As the subject of the oringinal post the goal is to improve the Twins' offense. These pitchers have to pitch in smaller parks all over the league, they better simply buckle up and deal with it. If the worry is pitcher's performance with a smaller park, loosen the wallet and go out and get some groundball out type of pitchers.

As soon as Comerica Park opened, Tigers fans cried about it being imposible to hit out of. Everyone agreed with this and only after two years they moved the fences in for the 2003 season. Although 2002 saw the Tigers with a poor total of ony 124 HR, only 63 were hit on the road while a similar 61 were hit at home. When 2003 came around the Tigers increased their HR total by 29. Unfortunately for the fence moving crowd, they still only hit 67 HR at home while they hit 86 on the road.

 

On the flip side, the pitching was actually worse. 2002 saw a terrible Tigers staff with a team ERA of 4.92 who gave up 61 HR at home. The 2003 version with the fences in moved in, had a team ERA of 5.30 and they gave up 95 HR at home. The 2003 team was the historic club that lost 119 games.

 

We can't go about solving a problem without having a firm understanding of the cause. The actual dimensions are fair, so is the problem caused by the wind current? Is it due to the game-time humidity or temperature? Or is it due to the fact that Mauer and Morneau are line drive hitters and the RF wall is higher than the trajectory of the balls they hit regardless of how hard they stroked it?

 

For the Tigers, moving the fences in didn't have much affect on the offense until they got better players like Maglio Ordonez, Carlos Guillen, Placido Polanco and Curtis Granderson, while the already poor pitching got rocked on historic levels. The fences at Target Field may need to be moved, but two years is not a long enough time to evaluate the situation. At this point there is no way we can even think of every factor that could be affecting offensive output, but we can be reasonably sure that soft tossing flyball pitchers will not benefit from a change.

[Thrylos]

How has the new configuration fared in Flushings? So far, the returns have not been that favorable as the Mets have hit just 8 home runs at Citi Field, the second-lowest home total in baseball. Clearly, simply moving the fences in is not a cure all for offensive woes.

 

So the Twins wouldn’t be alone in bringing the fences in. However, as we see with the Mets, just moving the fences in is not necessary a boost to the bats.

Well... based on the Mets' record, compared to their record in 2011, I'd say it has worked for them

 

I don't think that the Twins should bring in the fences, unless they bring in a totally different pitching staff...

[twinswon1991]

If Gardy preaches hitting it the other way with piranahs and preahes pitch to contact closer fences would make this team even less competitive than they are. Power hitters can hit it out anywhere. Mauer, Carroll, Casilla, Butera, Span, Revere, Parmelee, etc couldnt hit homers in most high school parks because they have zero power.

 

The Twins shouldnt move the fences in until they sign and develop more power prospects or bring back the HGH Mauer was on when he had his Brady Anderson season.

[Guest USAFChief]

Yes, it is a small sample size and the data is not easily compiled. I used the AL Central because they played 9 games at TF. I would have liked to have done all teams and to have done 2010 as well. My main point is that tracking how many HRs that Twins pitchers give up on the home and road is not the stat that we should be concerned about. It is HRs/game at Target Field vs. HR/game elsewhere.

HRs/game at Target Field includes, for every game, a home team that doesn't hit many HRs. Is it so difficult to understand that having half the data coming from a team with little power is going to result in fewer HRs?

 

Again...TF isn't the biggest issue. The dimensions aren't outrageous. There is no reason to think TF is unfair, that there is any reason to move the fences, or that a lineup with more power would have any real trouble hitting HRs there.

 

Its a nonissue hiding, for some, what has been a pretty punch less lineup over the short history of the park.

[Alex]

Could you elaborate?

Heh. Mistype there. Meant changes that help your hitters hurt your pitchers.

[CDog]

Just a crazy thought here...Is it possible that the Twins have been a team that doesn't have a lot of home run power the last two years AND at the same time that the park is more difficult than the average to hit home runs in? Maybe? Being overweight is still bad for you even if you're a smoker (half-baked analogy alert).

 

Curt, I'm wondering why you decided to use only 2011 in your "home runs given up road vs home" instead of 2010 and 2011 together? Also, I had someone much smarter than me once warn me to always make sure if I'm interested in a count or a rate. Pretty certain we're talking about a rate here and in 2010 the opponents had nearly 200 extra at-bats at Target Field compared to their own parks. Using your metric (home runs by Twins' opponents), at Target Field there's 40.4 AB/HR. Away from Target Field is 31.7. That's leaving out 2012 since the opponents haven't had a chance to even out.

 

In general...I don't get how "remember that time so-and-so hit one in the upper deck" has anything to do with the discussion. Those extreme bombs are out everywhere and don't really have anything to do with this topic. It would be like going the other way and pointing out the time Revere tapped out to the pitcher as an example of how big the park plays.

[Alex]

Just a crazy thought here...Is it possible that the Twins have been a team that doesn't have a lot of home run power the last two years AND at the same time that the park is more difficult than the average to hit home runs in? Maybe? Being overweight is still bad for you even if you're a smoker (half-baked analogy alert).

 

 

Are people really arguing it's not a pitcher's park? Based on the data so far, I think it's clear it is. How much of one is debatable. Now, the question is, would moving the fences in help anything? I really don't see how, and I don't know why such a big deal is being made of it, as if it would solve this team's problems.

[powrwrap]

Just a crazy thought here...Is it possible that the Twins have been a team that doesn't have a lot of home run power the last two years AND at the same time that the park is more difficult than the average to hit home runs in? Maybe?

That is my contention. One needs only look at the HRs hit by the Twins at Target Field vs. HRs hit by the Twins away from Target Field. There's a huge gap, especially in 2010.