From: g_waugaman@nac.enet.dec.com (Glenn R. Waugaman)
Subject: Re: ARTIFICIAL TURF: EMBARRASSMENT TO THE GAME
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:54:39 GMT


In article <9207272126.AA25496@sumac09.cray.com>, jjd@TEAK.CRAY.COM (Jeff Drummond) writes...
> 
> 
>>In article <1992Jul24.181113.21821@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> g_waugaman@nac.enet.dec.com (Glenn R. Waugaman) writes:
> 
>Well Glenn, your `experience' watching televised games from the
>MetroMuffin does not coincide with my experience watching televised and
>in-person games in the MetroMuffin.  The human mind and memory can be
>very selective when it wants to be.  This is precisely why personal
>observations of players, teams and ballparks can be so variable.  It's
>even worse if we bring our preconceived notions to game.

I'll admit that I don't get to see how every other team performs in the 
Metrodome, but there is no subjectivity to my statement that the Boston 
Red Sox have had a terrible time playing the roof at the Metrodome, a 
problem compounded by the turf because more often than not lost fly balls
bounce away or 20 feet in the air, resulting in extra bases.  Request all
the studies that you wish, but I know what I see, at least this one time.
It's an observation shared by the team's radio and television announcers,
the players, management, everyone.  Excuses or value judgments
notwithstanding (the players know they have to deal with it, and like I
said, the Twins are an outstanding team right now, any time, anywhere),
the problems with the roof for at least this one ballclub are a reality. 

>I hope you saw the play on Sunday when Kirby Puckett hit a ball that
>bounced in front of home plate and went over Wade Boggs' head?  When
>that happens in the MetroMuffin, Usenet threads like this one get
>started.  When it happens in Fenway, it's quickly forgotten.  

I was at the game; I saw the play.  The ball was hit fairly hard, Boggs 
was playing in, and the ball took a flat hop over his head.  A clean hit, 
absolutely no complaints all the way around.  Far different from Chili 
Davis getting a small piece of the top of the baseball and getting a hit
only because the damned thing took so long to come down (it didn't leave
the infield). 

In any case, plays like this don't explain the Metrodome's advantage; I
admit that.  It's mainly the roof, in my opinion.  There are other turf
parks, and high infield choppers and other turf hits are no worse at the
Metrodome than at these other parks (I still don't like artificial turf,
but that's a separate issue). 

>Glenn, this is the second post where you've asserted that the Twins
>have a home/road differential far in excess of any other team.  Can
>you (or anyone else for that matter) post the numbers to prove or
>disprove that?  I know that the Twins enjoy a home/away differential
>that is above the League average, but is it the best in the League?
>the best in Baseball?  And if so, is it _significantly_ better?

Stats posted; have at it.  The differential is the best in the league, the
best in baseball, and significantly better than that of any other team. 

>Mr. Waugaman has proposed a "transmission vector" for the Voodoo
>Effect: he has suggested that the turf and the roof, in particular,
>are sufficiently different from conditions in other ballparks, and
>that the Twins `learn' how to play in the Dome and that other teams
>just don't have sufficient playing time in the Dome to adjust.  Mr.
>Waugaman's transmission vector seems plausible with respect to the
>first two characteristics outlined above (it can explain a Twins bias
>with sufficient potency).  However, it fails the third characteristic.

Funny stuff, I must admit.  I think my Voodoo Effect passes the third 
characteristic, though.  There is no substitute for playing and practicing 
somewhere every day.  The fact that Wade Boggs has played more games in 
the Metrodome, at a rate of six games a year, than many of the Twins is 
virtually meaningless.  What about retention?  How many of us learn that
way?  How long would it take one to learn, say, calculus, a week at a
time, one week a year?  Forever, I think... 

>Mr. Waugaman asks if there could be any other scientific [sic]
>explanation for the Twins' home success, other than the roof/turf
>combination.  I can think of a simple one, that probably applies in
>this situation:
> 
>Suppose a team moved into a new ballpark 10 years ago, and that this
>ballpark is a hitter's park, at least compared to most of the other
>parks in the league.  Let us further suppose that team has had above-
>average hitting for most of the 10 years they've been in their new
>ballpark.  How would this team's home/away differential be expected
>to compare with the League average over that 10-year period?

It would be positive, if and only if the Twins have built their hitting 
ballclub to their hitters' park better than most other teams have built 
their clubs to their parks.  But can you explain the magnitude of the 
difference, the fact that the marginal Metrodome advantage is almost 
twice that of the next highest team?  There are other hitters' parks in
the league.  Why haven't the Twins taken advantage of those parks over the
past ten years?  What's the explanation for that large difference between
home and road performance over that time period? 

Another statistic, following from above: from 1982-89 (I can update this
if necessary), the Twins scored 3145 runs at home to 2625 on the road, and
their opponents 3103 in the Metrodome to 3050 away.  That's +19.8% for the
Twins in the Metrodome, and +1.7% for their opponents, a huge difference
in run-scoring for a below-average ballclub over that time period.  The
Metrodome sure looks like a *great* hitters' park *FOR THE TWINS*, and
that good-hitting Twins' team you spoke of scored a below-average number
of runs on the road! 

---
Glenn Waugaman
Digital Equipment Corporation
Littleton, MA
g_waugaman@nac.enet.dec.com
---
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball