Building a team with DD catering to PF

Building a team with a DD catering to PF

 

This is a continuation of my recent studies on Dependent Differential. In this study I will look at how a team’s success is affected by their DD in relation to BPF.

While going through the history of teams DD I found that many teams that played in a hitters park would always have a DD on hitting and a team playing in a pitchers park would always have a DD on pitching/fielding.

Mathematically, I changed my DD shown as a percentage into a ‘DD Factor’. DD was originally had a median or average of ‘0’ and ranged from 20.00 to –23.00. DD factor (DDF) makes 100 the median so teams above 100 are hitting dependant and teams below 100 are pitching dependent. I needed to do this so I could use the numbers to get meaningful results from calculations with PF. PF is represented in the same way as DDF.

 

 

 

 

Here is how I get ‘Comparative Dependence Differential in a Ballpark Factor’ (CDDPF)

DDF - (BPF+PPF) + 100 = CDDPF

      2

Now we can see how teams have done when their team type does not fit within the ballpark. If you are familiar with Major League ballparks some examples of this would be the Red Sox not having right-handed power, the Rockies having ground ball hitters and pitchers that give up a lot of fly balls. Both these situations don’t take advantage of the natural benefits that a home park presents. 

Let’s look at some success that teams have had in ballparks, and how important DDF is in relation to a team’s home park. Not including 2006, 112 of 323 playoff teams have had a team within 2 CDDPF points of a perfect team for their ballpark.

I always like to look at the extremes. Three teams with a CDDPF of 87 have made the playoffs, the 1995 Rockies, 1991 Blue Jays and 1969 Mets. The worst mismatch ever was only 83. These teams should have had better hitting to take advantage of their park factor.

In 1982 Harvey’s Wallbangers played in a pitchers park but had a DDF of 109 for a CDDPF of 115 and won the AL pennant. The 1930 Yankees had the worst ever mismatch at 120 CDDPF. These teams should have had better pitching to take advantage of their home park.

Surprisingly there are only 5 World Series winners and only 7 teams in the Series with a perfect ballpark for their team. There have been 21 teams in the playoffs. There have been 120 team in the history of baseball to have a perfect fit!!! 

  Total teams Playoff teams WS Winners
Perfect CDDPF 120 18% 4%
1 CDDPF off 279 19% 7%
2 CDDPF off 262 16% 4%
3 CDDPF off 255 15% 4%
4 CDDPF off 228 18% 6%
5+ CDDPF off 962 13% 5%

*These are rough calculations and may be inaccurate to some degree but not affect the overall trend

We see there is no discernable correlation between a team built for a certain stadium and their chances of making the playoffs and winning the World Series.

This fact actually shocked me, I was sure there would be a fit saying that great pitching teams will win in pitching parks. And hitting teams win in hitting parks. Lets look at some example since 1998 on how many runs that having a team that is a fit in its park can find or lose.

yr tm DD Factor BPF BPF CBPDD R diff if PF100 Actual run diff
2005 COL 119 113 112 107 1.0 4
2004 COL 128 120 117 110 -15.5 -42
2003 COL 123 112 111 112 15.4 67
2002 COL 128 121 119 108 2.8 7
2001 COL 130 122 119 109 9.4 23
2000 COL 131 131 128 102 60.2 102
1999 COL 135 129 126 107 -29.7 -54
1998 COL 129 119 120 109 8.2 21
2005 BOS 111 101 101 110 1.8 91
2004 BOS 109 106 105 104 14.0 127
2003 BOS 113 105 104 109 12.3 137
2002 BOS 97 98 99 98 -1.3 43
2001 BOS 98 101 101 97 0.3 13
2000 BOS 91 101 101 90 0.3 14
1999 BOS 96 105 104 92 8.3 92
1998 BOS 99 100 99 99 -0.8 75
2005 LAN 95 95 96 99 -0.1 1
2004 LAN 92 95 96 96 -3.4 38
2003 LAN 69 93 94 75 -2.2 17
2002 LAN 85 91 92 94 -2.6 15
2001 LAN 87 90 92 96 2.2 -12
2000 LAN 86 92 93 94 -2.6 17
1999 LAN 95 96 97 98 0.6 -9
1998 LAN 89 93 92 96 -15.9 106
2005 TB 113 99 99 114 1.0 -50
2004 TB 94 96 96 98 2.0 -25
2003 TB 98 100 100 98 0.0 -62
2002 TB 101 100 100 101 0.0 -98
2001 TB 99 100 100 99 0.0 -81
2000 TB 95 100 100 95 0.0 -84
1999 TB 99 100 100 99 0.0 -104
1998 TB 87 104 105 82 -7.1 -79

Here are examples of a pitcher’s park in LA, a hitter’s park in Bos an extreme hitters park in Col and a virtually neutral TB park. We can see that Colorado in 2000 did not depend enough on hitting. The thin air in Denver hurt their pitching more than it helped their hitting. In 2000 Coors Field should have expected to produce almost 30% more scoring than an average park. This would have meant that that Coors Field should have had almost 1100 runs cross the plate. If Colorado had played in a neutral park in 2000 they would have expected to increase their RF/RA differential by 60 runs because they did not take full advantage of their ballpark. However, Colorado is an extreme example and the amount of runs scored there. We see in most seasons even a team mismatched gains or loses between 0 and 15 runs.

In conclusion, while a general manager may build their team around a ballpark there is no evidence here that a team that is dependant on pitching has better chance of making the playoffs if they play in a pitchers park. The same is true for hitting teams in hitting parks. Having a team built around a park might grab you a couple runs at home. A couple of runs here and there at home materialize into one run a month as we have seen in some of my other studies. So while a team like the Dodgers have had a DDF leaning toward pitching for most of 40 years we see that they are not turning a 75 win campaigns into a 95 win campaign while they may turn a 75 win campaign into a 77 win season or even 77 wins into 75. While it would be in their best interest, as we see the Dodger’s stellar record in 40 years at Dodger Stadium it will not, over the long run, win them any more or less championships.

Written By
More from Early
Book Review – Juicing the Game
Book Review – Juicing the Game by Howard Bryant While this book...
Read More
2 replies on “Building a team with DD catering to PF”
  1. says: Kman

    So, your conclusion supports not building a team for a ballpark. But what would you do, in say Peteco? As a closet Padres fan, I like how they build around outfield speed– cover the large surface–, starting pitching, and a strong bullpen. Most of their hitters are gap style hitters. Could park factor numbers be effected by this type of roster? By this, I mean that the pitching will effect the overall BPF, and the gap hitters will lower the total HR, which will factor in SLG and RS.

    Second part. With the Padres would you take into account the ballpark dimesions, factors, or would you focus on building a squad, regardless of these factors?

  2. says: Early

    My last sentence says, “While it would be in their best interest, as we see the Dodger’s stellar record in 40 years at Dodger Stadium it will not, over the long run, win them any more or less championships.” I think the key here is on championships, I would advise a GM that wants to make the playoffs to take advantage his 81 games in his ballpark, but let it be known if won’t win you a championship. A team might find 1/3 of a run at home in the playoffs if they are a good fit.

    A teams wants their Home DDF and their CBPDD to be as close as possible. I beleive this study shows that a team need to perfectly balance the BPF so that your hitters make the most of it and it is not hurting your pitchers. If a team is only going to benefit 5-10 runs per year for that sake, I would recommend building a team around your park, but like I said, a great pitching team in a pitcher ballpark are not winning 20 games that they shouldn’t, they may win 2 or 3, which in some years is the difference between October baseball and October golf or the Tigers losing 119 instead of 121. Likewise, a great hitting team playing in a pitchers park that wins 104 games and would have won 107 if the fences were closer are still studs. Baseball is a game of inches and take an advantage where you can.

    In response to your questions, good questions, I do think that the type of squad playing in the park scews BPF alot, Tropicana Field hasn’t changed in 10 years and it has a swing of 10 BPF. Mangers, GMS have known these things for a long time, right handed power in Fenway, fly ball hitters and ground ball pitchers at Coors, maybe gap hitters at Petco. But what do you do with a park that offers no clear advantage or a slight advantage? 2002 Fenway was slightly favoured pitching, should the Sox have gone after all the pitching studs, draft all pitchers to exploit that slight advantage? No, they go after right handed power and win.

    We see sometimes, like at Coors Field, there is noway in 2000 the Rockies offense to be able to take full advantage of the offensive benefits. They scored 600+ runs at home and took advantage of less than 10% of the Coors’ built in advantage. They needed to have a team capable of scoring 9+ R/G to meet the parks expectatation. Similarly, if the Padres hit 300 doubles next year, the BPF will be hitter friendly but that is probably an unreachable goal. If you don’t reach the goal, the PF hurts the other side of your team ie, if Rockies don’t score 9 R/G the other team is making up for the slack at the expense of the Rockies pitchers. Likewise if Padres don’t hit as many gaps as it would take to make thier HDDF and CBPDDF close, their pitchers will give up the extra gappers.

Comments are closed.