I haven't delved too far into the numbers yet, but I am initially surprised that the basic numbers on the offensive side of the ball don't appear to explain too much. Apologies for formatting

 

 

              BA  OBP   SLG   OPS

Home: .250  .339   .416   .755

 

Road:  .259  .330   .422   .752

 

 

Pitching is another story. I assume we can guess which is home and which is away.

 

 

 BAA  OPB  SLG   OPS

.272   .348   .467   .815

 

.225   .299   .385   .684

 

Does anyone have any theory on this discrepancy? The Dickbert narrative has been "putting too much pressure on themselves trying to please the fans," but that has mainly applied to any offensive struggles. I know that the numbers are slightly skewed by the blowout games at home, but numbers are numbers. 

 

Thoughts?

 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/team/stats/splits/_/name/min/minnesota-twins

 

It kinda defies logic, as Target Field usually plays as pitcher friendly. Could be the cold of April factor. Could be the Twins pitchers are tighter when they have to take the mound first. That is before the team has batted.

It is just one of those "thangs" that cannot necessarily be explained and will probably level out by the end of the season. As painful as it is to admit, the dickbert theory of the young guys putting too much pressure on themselves at home has a sliver of validity.

It kinda defies logic, as Target Field usually plays as pitcher friendly. Could be the cold of April factor. Could be the Twins pitchers are tighter when they have to take the mound first. That is before the team has batted.

It's still Small Sample Size territory, I think, when it comes to splits like this. I took a look at the 7 pitchers who have started a game this season. Maybe a bunch of little skews have combined.

 

• Tepesch - his 1 start was at Target Field - that can't help the numbers there, right?
• Berrios - split his 4 starts - his 1 bad start out of 4 was at TF
• Mejia - 4 starts at TF, 2 on the road - he's been surprisingly decent, but his one best game did come on the road
• Gibson - 5 starts at TF, 4 on the road - only his last start, at LAA, was above par, so if he's turned the corner (ha!) a 5-3 split is going to skew toward bad home numbers, badly
• Hughes - 4 starts at TF, 5 on the road - he has gone from shaky to putrid in his last three starts, two of which were at home, so the apparent skew toward hurting road numbers actually works against TF a bit if there's a new/renewed physical problem that emerged
• Santiago - 8 out of his 12 starts were at TF, so whatever he does skews TF numbers, and sometimes he's given up a lot of runs compared to what you'd expect from hits and walks
• Santana - 7 of his 11 starts were at TF, but his only 2 bad starts were at home - fluke or something about the park, I don't know.

Bottom line, I don't have a specific explanation, except that when you break it down by the pitchers it's kind of hard for me to avoid saying to give it some more time.

 

It could be simply random variation that comes with data. No decision or conclusion should be made. Santana has given up 7 home runs at home and 1 on the road. Random.

Have our expectations for Gibson fallen so far that a start in which he failed to complete even 6 innings, despite a 7-0 lead against a severely depleted offense qualifies as "above par"?

It kinda defies logic, as Target Field usually plays as pitcher friendly. Could be the cold of April factor. Could be the Twins pitchers are tighter when they have to take the mound first. That is before the team has batted.

Target Field has been hitter friendly every year since 2012 ranking between 3rd and 13th in park factor for runs.

Target Field has been hitter friendly every year since 2012 ranking between 3rd and 13th in park factor for runs.

I guess I was thinking more along the lines of homerun factor. It isn't Petco by any stretch of the imagination, but it plays fair to difficult as a HR park. It usually plays pretty big for right handed pull hitters. Of course, Miguel could hit it out of Yosemite.

Have our expectations for Gibson fallen so far that a start in which he failed to complete even 6 innings, despite a 7-0 lead against a severely depleted offense qualifies as "above par"?

Fuzzy terms like "par" can lead to disagreement, and I certainly wasn't trying to imply excellence.

 

I was glancing through the Bill James-style game scores on bb-ref.com as a pretty good QnD proxy for actual game-by-game analysis, and it was his only game of the year that ranked just above average at 53. Par's at 50.

 

I was being nice.

 

Had he gotten 1 more out, a 6 inning 2 ER 6 SO outting would have been pretty good - one run better than the Quality Start standard that people love to hate. Needing help for that last out still seems like something to give him credit for.

 

So yes, expectations have fallen that low.

Home.

 

 

Road.

 

I guess I was thinking more along the lines of homerun factor. It isn't Petco by any stretch of the imagination, but it plays fair to difficult as a HR park. It usually plays pretty big for right handed pull hitters. Of course, Miguel could hit it out of Yosemite.

The myth of Target Field established in 2010 lives on. Did you know that in 2016, it led the majors in homers and home run rate from right-handed hitters (152 and 4.2 percent)? It does decrease left handed home runs though.

The myth of Target Field established in 2010 lives on. Did you know that in 2016, it led the majors in homers and home run rate from right-handed hitters (152 and 4.2 percent)? It does decrease left handed home runs though.

I'm not debating the legitimacy of your point but park factors are so nebulous.

 

Combine 2016 Brian Dozier and the 2016 Twins pitching staff and it's not hard to see how Target Field led the league in RH power last season.

 

My problem with park effects is that one offense and one pitching staff plays every game in the stadium. I've long wanted to see someone try a correlation park effect: judge the Yankees not only by how they play in Target Field but adjust that by how they play elsewhere and create one giant matrix that webs into all teams and all stadiums. Then try to isolate overall play in a single stadium, using all other stadiums as comparison.

The raw number isn't helpful but the rate at which more home runs are hit by right handed batters in Twin games at home than Twin games on the road does matter.

 

Target Field has been a good place for right handed hitters to hit home runs and a poor place for left handed hitters.

The raw number isn't helpful but the rate at which more home runs are hit by right handed batters in Twin games at home than Twin games on the road does matter.

 

Target Field has been a good place for right handed hitters to hit home runs and a poor place for left handed hitters.

Which really makes no sense.

 

It's 10 feet further down the left field line and to left center.

Which really makes no sense.

 

It's 10 feet further down the left field line and to left center.

Have you noticed the height of the walls?

The raw number isn't helpful but the rate at which more home runs are hit by right handed batters in Twin games at home than Twin games on the road does matter.

 

Target Field has been a good place for right handed hitters to hit home runs and a poor place for left handed hitters.

I don't disagree with your point, I'm only saying that it's hard to judge without context, and right now the context is "the Twins pitching staff is terrible and Brian Dozier is a pull monster".

 

Stabilize those two things and Target Field might be neutral to righties, not best in baseball.

Have you noticed the height of the walls?

Never mind the wind tunnel that tends to form when you have a long plaza leading all the way down the block.

 

I don't know if that causes problems for lefties but not having a crowd barrier between the seats and the plate has an impact, either positive or negative.

I don't disagree with your point, I'm only saying that it's hard to judge without context, and right now the context is "the Twins pitching staff is terrible and Brian Dozier is a pull monster".

Stabilize those two things and Target Field might be neutral to righties, not best in baseball.

Dozier was 21 and 21. It was the he same pitchers on the road. I don't think last year's data would support an argument that Target Field is the best place for a right handed hitter but over time it has shown to help right handed hitters and be a hitter's park.