Great American Ballpark is a "BandBox"?

[GullyFoyle]

Hi All! Thanks for letting me post here, I hope this is true even after this long winded rant. I've been lurking here for awhile (and for years over at Sosh, even though I'm a diehard Reds fan) and I finally decided to join the fray. So...

I suspect this has come up before, but I am constantly amazed by the fact that Great American Ballpark is referred to as a "BandBox" by commentators and other journalist. I know I'm expecting too much from them, but what evidence is there for this? According to Baseball-reference.com, GAB has tended to be more of a pitchers park. Granted they usually use three year averages to avoid the statistically uncharacteristic years (which last year could have been), but regardless it is definitely not showing up as a hitters paradise i.e. Coors East.

Could it be that lots of home runs are hit here because:
A: Great power hitting!

B: Really bad pitching!

and not because of the inherit characteristics of the ballpark.

I thought everyone might be interested in the numbers for both Riverfront and GAB, so I've included information all the way back to 1970. Some interesting areas of note: Riverfront's modifications for GAB construction looks to have made a very friendly place to hit, but any ideas about the high numbers for 2000? Strange weather that summer? drought?

(FYI - if you go to ESPN.com there is something wrong with their Park Factor tables. If you switch the categories all the numbers change so your not sure which is right (if any), so I wasn't able to get midseason numbers for 2005. They also don't do the heavy corrections that Baseball-Reference does, see below)

Hope you find this interesting!


PARK FACTOR (over 100 in either category favors batter)

Park Factor at its simplest is ((Home Runs Scored + Home Runs Allowed)/ Home Games) / (Road Runs Scored + Road Runs Allowed)/ Away Games). At Baseball Reference they adjust these numbers in a number of complicated ways including: using a three year average when available, adjust for innings pitched at home and on road (since the home team might not bat in the ninth), and corrections for other ballparks. Also the Batting Factor and Pitching Factor is adjusted since you don't face your own pitchers and hitters. All this is to say that the formula is very complicated

Great American Ballpark
2004 Batting - 92 / Pitching - 93
2003 Batting - 100 / Pitching - 100

Riverfront
2002 Batting - 108 / Pitching - 107
2001 Batting - 99 / Pitching - 99
2000 Batting - 107 / Pitching - 106

1999 Batting - 99 / Pitching - 99
1998 Batting - 102 / Pitching - 102
1997 Batting - 101 / Pitching - 102
1996 Batting - 99 / Pitching - 99
1995 Batting - 99 / Pitching - 98
1994 Batting - 99 / Pitching - 98
1993 Batting - 100 / Pitching - 100
1992 Batting - 103 / Pitching - 103
1991 Batting - 104 / Pitching - 103
1990 Batting -104 / Pitching - 104

1989 Batting -103 / Pitching - 103
1988 Batting -104 / Pitching - 104
1987 Batting -104 / Pitching - 104
1986 Batting -104 / Pitching - 104
1985 Batting -105 / Pitching - 105
1984 Batting -105 / Pitching - 105
1983 Batting -104 / Pitching - 105
1982 Batting -102 / Pitching - 103
1981 Batting -102 / Pitching - 102
1980 Batting -100 / Pitching - 99

1979 Batting -101 / Pitching - 100
1978 Batting -100 / Pitching - 99
1977 Batting -102 / Pitching - 101
1976 Batting -102 / Pitching - 100
1975 Batting -102 / Pitching - 99
1974 Batting -99 / Pitching - 96
1973 Batting -95 / Pitching - 93
1972 Batting -94 / Pitching - 93
1971 Batting -98 / Pitching - 97
1970 Batting -100 / Pitching - 100

[Big Klu]

Originally Posted by GullyFoyle

Could it be that lots of home runs are hit here because:
A: Great power hitting!

B: Really bad pitching!

and not because of the inherit characteristics of the ballpark.

Excellent first post! I have also wondered if the reputation of GAB as a launching pad is skewed because the Reds' hitters can mash the ball, and the Reds' pitchers are terrible.

[OldRightHander]

I do tend to agree that poor pitching and a homer heavy lineup have possibly skewed the numbers somewhat, but it's nice to see that someone not as lazy as me has taken the time to do a bit more research on the topic. Welcome.

[westofyou]

Park Factor for HR's in 2004 = 110, for 2003 = 118

[GullyFoyle]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Park Factor for HR's in 2004 = 110, for 2003 = 118

Westofyou, can I asked where did you find these? The only place I saw was ESPN.com and as I mentioned above there is something wrong with their numbers. They tend to change if you select a different column to order them by. So I'm never sure which numbers are right. Of course, they shouldn't change at all unless you change the year.

It would be great if there was another place to go.

Gully

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by GullyFoyle

Westofyou, can I asked where did you find these? The only place I saw was ESPN.com and as I mentioned above there is something wrong with their numbers. They tend to change if you select a different column to order them by. So I'm never sure which numbers are right. Of course, they shouldn't change at all unless you change the year.

It would be great if there was another place to go.

Gully

That's from the breakdown in The Bill James Handbook, which is compiled by Baseball Infosolutions.

Here's what they had for last year

Runs - 88
Hits - 89
2b - 91
3b - 53 (small alley's)
HR - 110 (lh 113, RH 107)
E - 133
BA - 92

Other Ratings

Total Baseball rated it at a 92 last year and a 116 the year before.

BP said this a week or so ago

NL Central

Sample-size issues with the Great American Ballpark notwithstanding, the NL Central looks a lot like the AL West--some nice home-run boosts, but a general drag on batting averages. Minute Maid Park is one of only three stadiums in the NL to boost both home run and batting average (although it has the least impact among the three) while Busch Stadium's recent factors would make it right at home in the NL East. And Wrigley is still the best NL home run park east of the Rockies, although it's not the launching pad it once was or, indeed, that its cross-town rival U.S. Cellular is now.

[GullyFoyle]

Originally Posted by westofyou

That's from the breakdown in The Bill James Handbook, which is compiled by Baseball Infosolutions.

Here's what they had for last year

Runs - 88
Hits - 89
2b - 91
3b - 53 (small alley's)
HR - 110 (lh 113, RH 107)
E - 133
BA - 92

Other Ratings

Total Baseball rated it at a 92 last year and a 116 the year before.


NL Central

Great, just the kind of info I was interested in.

And I would agree with you Heath that the optics can be strange. I lived in Boston for a couple of years and sat in a number of places in Fenway, and always had a hard time getting an overall feel for the field. Sitting along the first baseline and thne in the bleachers was very different experiences.

[Chip R]

I don't think it's that extreme of a hitters park either. Luke Hudson (and company) and Doug Davis pitched a 3-2 game on Sunday. Granted all of the Reds runs came off of home runs but Hudson is one of the last guys you expect to be involved in a pitcher's duel. The media doesn't want to go into much depth on this because they don't want to take the time to do research. They see all the HRs and say it must be a hitter's park. Ask Roger Clemens and Roy Oswalt if they think GAB is a hitter's park.

[GullyFoyle]

For a comparison I grabbed these:

Coors Field

2004 Batting -120 / Pitching - 117
2003 Batting -112 / Pitching - 111
2002 Batting -121 / Pitching - 119
2001 Batting -122 / Pitching - 119
2000 Batting -131 / Pitching - 128

1999 Batting -129 / Pitching - 126
1998 Batting -119 / Pitching - 120
1997 Batting -123 / Pitching - 123
1996 Batting -129 / Pitching - 129
1995 Batting -128 / Pitching - 128
1994 Batting -116 / Pitching - 118
1993 Batting -120 / Pitching - 122

[traderumor]

Pitchers that can keep the ball in the ballpark will excel in GABP, ala Aaron Harang. I don't think that is an oversimplification statement. It should go without saying that good pitchers tend to keep the ball in the ballpark. Of course, there are exceptions to that rule, say a Curt Schilling or the old standby to justify signing Eric Milton, Robin Roberts. In fact, if you have a staff that is stingy on home runs, they could do some great things because of the virtually non-existent gaps. Far be it from the Reds to ever figure that out, but that would seem to be a no-brainer direction for a rudderless franchise when it comes to constructing a prototype pitcher.

[redsfan30]

Has anyone ever had a more productive first 2 posts than this guy?

73 rep points on just 2 points? That's a pretty good average my man.

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by redsfan30

Has anyone ever had a more productive first 2 posts than this guy?

73 rep points on just 2 points? That's a pretty good average my man.

He's trying to bust into the Redszone 10.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by redsfan30

Has anyone ever had a more productive first 2 posts than this guy?

73 rep points on just 2 points? That's a pretty good average my man.

Or he's RBA in cognito attempting to prove, once and for all, that the reputation system is inherently flawed

[GullyFoyle]

Originally Posted by redsfan30

Has anyone ever had a more productive first 2 posts than this guy?

73 rep points on just 2 points? That's a pretty good average my man.

Y'know, I'm just happy to be here and hope I can help the ballclub and good lord willing, things'll work out...

Taking them one post at a time...

[OldRightHander]

Originally Posted by GullyFoyle

Y'know, I'm just happy to be here and hope I can help the ballclub and good lord willing, things'll work out...

Taking them one post at a time...

Well, 89 rep points on only 4 posts. That's a pretty good slugging percentage.