A CITIZEN'S BLOG

I always try to read the Sunday Inquirer but I rarely get the opportunity these days. I hadn’t read Sunday’s missive from the Inquirer’s Todd Zolecki until it was brought to my attention by Philling Station’s Brian Peoples yesterday.

Buried in Zolecki’s column about how much the Phillies should enjoy life under Charlie Manuel was a bit about Citizens Bank’s reputation as a hitters park. As many of you know, I recently argued that Citizen’s reputation as a hitters park is over-blown. Imagine my surprise when I saw Zolecki write:

But is [Citizen’s Bank’s] reputation as a hitter's park
overblown?

Mathematically inclined Phillies fans point out that the Phillies
had a better ERA at home (4.31 ERA) than on the road (4.61 ERA). They also hit better on the road (.268) than at home (.266).

Hmmm … “mathematically inclined Phillies fans”? I can only assume this is a reference to the Phillies blogging community. Brian assumed this was a reference to my recent Season In Review series and I have the sneaking suspicion he’s correct. Zolecki continues:

Of course, those mathematically inclined Phillies fans also have heard of Bill James, whose numbers in his 2005 handbook show that the Bank is a hitter's park.

To prove his point, Zolecki cites James' 2005 Handbook, which rates Citizen’s Bank as a hitter’s park with a 123 rating (100 is considered average) for home runs and a 109 in runs.

Well, I’ve heard of this Bill James guy too, and what reading James work on baseball stats has taught me is that the truth is rarely as clear-cut as it first appears. Here are a few points of note:

-Park factors take a long time to shake out. I’d like to refer Zolecki to a piece that ran in Hardball Times on July 27 by Studes entitled “A Random Walk in San Juan”. Studes’ article made the point that park factors take time to work out, so the initial first impressions we have about parks are often wrong. So the conventional wisdom, and the statistics Zolecki points out to prove his point, are premature.

To prove how conventional wisdom can be wrong, Studes examined Great American Ballpark in Cincinnati. When it opened there was a lot of hype and hand-wringing about the Reds sudden ability to send pop-flies screaming into the Ohio River. Initially Great American looked like a power hitters park, with a home-run factor of 122 compared with a run factor of just 99. Well, Great American’s home-run factor dropped dramatically in 2004: 98. The run factor dropped as well: 85.

So what happened? Did the Red management move out the fences in the off-season? Put a massive fan in the outfield to blow the ball back in? No, it was just that the initial data on Great American was incomplete. One year doesn't tell you a whole lot about a ballpark.

Today Great American has to be seen as a pitcher’s park, a conclusion that would be shocking to fans watching home runs sail out in 2003. They wouldn't believe it then, which is why we shouldn't believe the hype now. Let’s give it a year or two before we anoint Citizen’s Bank as a hitters paradise ...

-Let’s also be careful about how we define the phrase “hitters park”. I argued that Citizen’s wasn’t so much a hitters park as it was a power hitter park. ESPN’s Park Factors page has some data on this:

In 2004 Citizens had a home run factor of 1.134 (average: 1.000), which ranked it fifth of the thirty MLB ballparks. (Great American, by the way, was a stingy 13th at 1.048.) Open-and-shut case? Not so fast … When you switch to Run Factor the Phillies drop to 12th: 1.024. In other words, Citizens Bank is 2.4% more likely to have runs scored at. 2.4%? Yawn.

Now things get interesting: switch to hits factor and the Phillies drop to 18th: 0.981. Switch to doubles factor and the Phillies drop to 26th: 0.865. Remember: 1.000 is considered average. Citizens is actually harder to get a hit in than most other MLB stadiums. Easier to get a home run, maybe. Hitters park?

Now I'd like to juxtapose these stats with those for Coors Field:

HR: 1.235 (4th)
Runs: 1.412 (1st)
Hits: 1.240 (1st)
2B: 1.316 (2nd)

Coors Field is a hitters park because the ball carries and the field is so massive that ordinary pop-flies drop in for singles and doubles. Citizens Park doesn't have those sorts of dimensions.

-Why the jump in home runs in 2004? I can offer two likely culprits: improved hitting by the Phillies, and specifically Pat Burrell and David Bell's return to form, and a dramatic decline in the quality of pitching from the Phillies in 2004.

I think once we get data from the 2005 season with we will have a more complete view of what Citizen's Bank is. My gut feeling is that the hype around Citizen's will, like Great American, be proven to be meaningless words. So I'd like to reallege my argument again: the ball has carried so far at Citizen's but it isn't any easier to get a hit there. Thus all of those solo home runs teams are hitting at Citizens aren't making that much of a difference.

I like Zolecki's use of non-traditional stats in his newspaper column: I think it shows he's got a keen mind and a willingness to think outside of the box. I just think he's a little off here, but I'm willing to leave open the (significant) possibility I'm wrong. If runs are being scored by the bushel at Citizens Bank next year I'll owe Zolecki an apology. But from where I stand: ain't no hitters park.