Home Cookin': NL Style

Dave Paisley

A couple of days ago, I gave you the rundown on this year's park factors in the American League. I also showed you how park effects don't necessarily affect the home and road teams in the same way. In the AL, the effects are really quite benign compared to the National League, a point I'm sure will be clear by the time you're done reading this.

Oh, and just in case you're still captivated by the playoffs, isn't it weird how Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux and Pedro Martinez couldn't muster up a win for their teams between them?

But on to park effects. The NL houses Coors Field, probably the main reason anyone's given a rat's rear end about park effects in decades. Coors has made a superstar (or close anyway) out of the likes of Dante Bichette, so it obviously has a lot to answer for. On the other hand, we have places like the now (not so sadly) defunct 3CandleStickCom Park in San Francisco that have traditionally been tough to score in, but not as tough as they have this year.

This table follows the same format as the AL table. The four RPG columns show the runs per game scored by the home team at home, the same team in its road games, its opponents in its home games and its opponents in its road games. The classical Park Factor (grey column in the middle) is the relative ease of scoring runs in that park relative to the rest of the league. A Park Factor of 1.0 represents the average.

Based on that, Coors is obviously huge again. For comparison, last year it was a 1.60, and the last three years it averaged 1.55.

Team	Team RPG At Home	Team RPG On Road	Opp RPG At Home	Opp RPG On Road	Park Factor	Team Park Factor	Opp Park Factor	TPF/OPF
Col	7.06	4.12	7.73	4.96	1.628	1.713	1.557	1.100
Chi	4.88	4.35	6.06	5.30	1.134	1.122	1.145	.980
Mon	4.72	4.15	5.35	5.19	1.078	1.137	1.031	1.103
Phi	5.44	4.94	5.12	5.32	1.030	1.103	.963	1.145
Mil	4.74	5.38	5.85	5.16	1.004	.880	1.134	.776
Pitt	4.99	4.64	4.68	5.04	.999	1.076	.929	1.158
StL	4.79	5.26	5.41	5.00	.994	.910	1.083	.841
Cin	4.99	5.69	4.67	4.11	.985	.876	1.135	.772
Az	5.42	5.79	4.06	4.28	.941	.936	.948	.987
LA	4.64	5.15	4.75	4.96	.929	.902	.958	.941
SD	4.51	4.26	4.28	5.36	.914	1.058	.800	1.323
NY	4.85	5.68	4.30	4.48	.900	.854	.959	.891
Hou	4.88	5.29	3.83	4.51	.889	.923	.849	1.087
Atl	5.02	5.35	3.64	4.52	.879	.940	.806	1.166
Fla	4.18	4.35	4.68	5.83	.869	.959	.802	1.196
SF	4.81	5.95	4.40	5.86	.780	.809	.749	1.080
Average	5.00	5.02	4.92	4.99	.991	.995	.986	1.009

3Com Park (which had a .960 average from 1996-98), Pro Player Stadium (.890), the Astrodome (.900), Shea Stadium (.920), Qualcomm Stadium (.850), Dodger Stadium (.820) and Turner Field (.980 from 97-98) were all relatively difficult to score in. However, it's difficult to know where to draw the line for "pitcher's parks" because of the huge skew due to Coors.

On the high side, as noted Coors has always been a huge hitter's park, while Wrigley Field, despite the hype, is only moderately favorable to hitters (1.050 from 1996-98). Olympic Stadium is a Jekyll-and-Hyde place, being favorable to hitters this year, death on hitters last year (.790) but about average from '96 to '98 (.980).

However, just as I did with the AL, I'll break it down for you by home and road teams and see what falls out. The last three table columns tell the story here, showing home team park factor, opposition park factor and then the ratio of those two to get a relative home park advantage (or disadvantage).

Let's start with the Cubs. They score 12% better at home than on the road while their opponents score 14% better, leaving the Cubs 2% relatively worse off at home than on the road. The Diamondbacks score 6% less at the BOB, while their opponents score 5% less, leaving the Snakes only 1% worse off at home. However, those are the only two clubs that is remotely close to even with their opponents.

Take the Rockies (please!). They score 71% better at home, while their opponents only score 56% better, leaving the Rockies 10% better off at home. The bad news is that their opponents beat the tar out of them wherever they go, so it's not much of a consolation.

Next, take a closer look at the curious case of the Padres. Lousy offense (second in runs per game at home only to Florida), but they score almost as well on the road as at home. Not difficult, you might tell yourself, and you'd be right. However, opponents coming into Qualcomm just get killed, losing more than a run per game. Could it be that the park isn't the cause, but that Padres pitchers love that home cookin' and cuddling up tight with their significant others when they're at home? Lest you think it's a fluke year, the same happened last year, too. Just one more thing that makes you go hmmmmmm...

On the flip side of that, take a look at Cinergy Field. The Reds score 4.99 runs per game at home, but 5.69 on the road. Great, so Cinergy is a pitcher's paradise, right? However, their opponents come in and score 4.67 at Cinergy, but a measly 4.11 in their own parks. Go figure. Altogether, six parks have opposite park effects for the home team and their opposition (Philly, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Cincinnati and San Diego). That's six out of sixteen, or 38%.

And if I were Cincinnati, I'd make darn sure that I fixed things next year so I got some home advantage out of that park. Either that or start feeding my pitching staff whatever the Padres' staff is getting.

about the author

Dave Paisley is the sole heir of his family's batting doughnut fortune. Offer help in gaining pine tar rag market share at drdjp@strikethree.com.