US Cellular Field's low BABIP

[joeynach]

From Ranking the Ballparks article on ESPN

 

7. U.S. Cellular Field (Chicago White Sox): If you're looking for homer heaven, look no further. Since the White Sox's decision to bring in their outfield fences following the 2000 season, most notably shrinking the distance to the left-field foul pole from 347 to 330 feet and the right-field foul pole from 347 to 335 feet, U.S. Cellular has ranked no lower than 11th in Park Factor calculations in home runs, or registered a number beneath 1.193, which happened in 2009 yet still ranked the ballpark fourth in the category. If there's any knock on this park, it's that it tends to curtail doubles and triples and has a BABIP of .288 the past five seasons combined, the third-lowest mark in baseball.

 

My question is this, in a stadium where routine fly balls or at least deep fly balls turn into HRs probably more than any other park why do we see a trend of low BABIP in our ballpark. Its it our hitters, too all or nothing, lack of line drive hitters? Is it our dimensions? Does the rather cozy dimensions, short fences, small outfield, create extra difficulty in generating hits and allowing line drives to fall? But all that being said, can anything be done to improve the BABIP at our park

[Pale Sox]

From Ranking the Ballparks article on ESPN

Does the rather cozy dimensions, short fences, small outfield, create extra difficulty in generating hits and allowing line drives to fall?

I think this has a lot to do with it. I also think our pitchers have something to do with it. Guys like Buehrle and Danks don't necessarily K a ton of guys, but they get a lot of weak contact.

[3E8]

The larger percentage of hits which are home runs, the lower the BABIP will be. Pretty simple explanation.

[chw42]

Home runs aren't used in calculating BABIP. So those doubles that turn into homers aren't accounted for at all when BABIP is calculated.

 

Plus, since the fences are in closer, outfielders tend to play closer to the infield, meaning less squib hits and duck snorts and maybe even less line drives for hits.

 

That, or it's because our hitters love to hit fly balls due to the park, which I can say is somewhat true.

[southsider2k5]

There is no foul territory, and there is no gaps for balls to drop into. The outfield is short, so you also don't get a lot of cheap singles.

[3E8]

There is no foul territory

Less foul ground would only lead to a higher BABIP over time.

[southsider2k5]

Less foul ground would only lead to a higher BABIP over time.

 

less foul territory means players cover more of the regular field.

[3E8]

less foul territory means players cover more of the regular field.

Less foul territory means more balls end up in the stands. This lowers potential ABs (denominator of BABIP calculation) while at the same time gives hitter another chance at a hit (numerator of BABIP calculation) or a BB. Players are not positioned to try and make extra outs in foul ground for stadiums with more of it.

[southsider2k5]

Less foul territory means more balls end up in the stands. This lowers potential ABs (denominator of BABIP calculation) while at the same time gives hitter another chance at a hit (numerator of BABIP calculation) or a BB. Players are not positioned to try and make extra outs in foul ground for stadiums with more of it.

 

I don't believe that for a second.

[3E8]

[/b]

 

I don't believe that for a second.

It doesn't make any sense. You would be giving up fair ground to cover area where the batter is not attempting to hit the ball.

[IlliniKrush]

It doesn't make any sense. You would be giving up fair ground to cover area where the batter is not attempting to hit the ball.

You are correct. You will factor in the outfield walls, but the amount of foul ground doesn't matter. You prepare for balls that will be put in play between the lines.

Edited December 20, 2010 by IlliniKrush

[kev211]

You are correct. You will factor in the outfield walls, but the amount of foul ground doesn't matter. You prepare for balls that will be put in play between the lines.

Yep because if a ball falls in fair territory its a hit, its just a strike if it's foul so no reason to give up fair ground to cover it.

[Jerksticks]

I think his argument would only hold up against truly one-dimensional, pull-hitters like Thome, but only in a park like Oakland would you even consider it. In his case, the 1B would hug the line and same with RF. But again, I think you'd only consider it for the ultra-predictable guys like Thome who, for whatever reason, won't try to help the team and hit it the other way.

[Eminor3rd]

Less foul territory means more balls end up in the stands. This lowers potential ABs (denominator of BABIP calculation) while at the same time gives hitter another chance at a hit (numerator of BABIP calculation) or a BB. Players are not positioned to try and make extra outs in foul ground for stadiums with more of it.

 

Even if 'balls in play' went up at a higher rate than ABs, that wouldn't have any effect on how many of those 'balls in play' became hits. There would be just as many additional outs on balls in play as there were additional hits.

 

The effect of fewer foul ball outs would be a larger sample size, not a change in ratio.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Eminor3rd

[3E8]

Even if 'balls in play' went up at a higher rate than ABs, that wouldn't have any effect on how many of those 'balls in play' became hits. There would be just as many additional outs on balls in play as there were additional hits.

 

The effect of fewer foul ball outs would be a larger sample size, not a change in ratio.

You have to consider which part of the park is in question. In a ballpark with very little foul ground, you are likely eliminating a certain amount of pop-ups which are in-play around the infield and short outfield for other stadiums. These areas for pop-ups and some short flies are zones which have a very high degree of turning balls into outs. By decreasing the size of these areas that tend to lower BABIP, the ball then instead must head to an area of higher expected BABIP, or a walk could be issued. It's no coincidence that Oakland, stadium with the most foul ground, has had the lowest BABIP in baseball two of the last four seasons.

Edited December 20, 2010 by 3E8

[Dick Allen]

Its the smaller field, so less "ducksnorts", and and easier OF to cover. There are very few triples at USCF as well.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Dick Allen

[Disco72]

I think his argument would only hold up against truly one-dimensional, pull-hitters like Thome, but only in a park like Oakland would you even consider it. In his case, the 1B would hug the line and same with RF. But again, I think you'd only consider it for the ultra-predictable guys like Thome who, for whatever reason, won't try to help the team and hit it the other way.

 

Sorry for not staying on topic, but on the bolded...really?

[Dick Allen]

I think his argument would only hold up against truly one-dimensional, pull-hitters like Thome, but only in a park like Oakland would you even consider it. In his case, the 1B would hug the line and same with RF. But again, I think you'd only consider it for the ultra-predictable guys like Thome who, for whatever reason, won't try to help the team and hit it the other way.

How many of Thome's HR were hit to CF or LC? Ted Williams never hit the ball the other way.

[chw42]

Thome hit a lot of opposite field home runs with the White Sox.

 

I don't know why everybody thought he always pulled the ball.

 

2006

 

2007

 

2008

 

2009

 

2010

 

Thome hit at least 1/3 of his home runs to the opposite field and at least half of them weren't pulled from 2006 to 2010. You can tell by just staring at the charts.

 

Part of this was probably because his bat speed was declining, but I don't think you can say he was selfish by saying he always pulled the ball. Especially when a good amount of home runs he hit were to the opposite field, more so in the past few years.

Edited December 21, 2010 by chw42

[witesoxfan]

Thome pulls his ground balls to the right side, but he's pretty much a spray hitter any time he can get good wood on the ball.

[Jerksticks]

Yea but you don't count on him hitting it the other way. Defenses don't respect his ability to hit it the other way at all. My point was that only with "shift" guys would you ever even consider defending foul territory. I could only think of Thome as an example of a hitter who defense's completely disrespect like clockwork. Ortiz gets a shift too, right?

[NorthSideSox72]

Yea but you don't count on him hitting it the other way. Defenses don't respect his ability to hit it the other way at all. My point was that only with "shift" guys would you ever even consider defending foul territory. I could only think of Thome as an example of a hitter who defense's completely disrespect like clockwork. Ortiz gets a shift too, right?

This is only true on the infield. Thome is in fact a guy who reliably goes to all fields when the balls is in the outfield.

 

And even then, a few times a season, he does smack one towards where the SS usually stands for righties, just for funsies. He's also usually good for exactly 1 bunt attempt a year.

 

 

[Jerksticks]

Remember that trickling little double down the third base line near the end of 09? That was awesome, and I wished so bad he would continually do that.

[witesoxfan]

Remember that trickling little double down the third base line near the end of 09? That was awesome, and I wished so bad he would continually do that.

 

He doesn't do that on a regular basis because not only does it take a great amount of bat control, which Thome does not possess, but it also eliminates any power. Teams can use the shift all they want, but when he hits it 450 feet to right center, no shift is going to catch it.