According to ESPN's MLB Park Factors Yankee Stadium was 20th easiest stadium to hit in. Citi Field was 22nd. Yankee Stadium was 1st in homers but last in triples; Citi Field was actually 12th in homers.
What??!?!?! New Yankee Stadium is a fucking AA diamond!!!! How dare you provide us with statistics that tell the truth about what really went down!
This wouldn't happen to have anything to do with the fact that you guys had a pretty good pitching staff last year would it? And the lack of triples is probably a direct result of having a very old team
You could say the same thing about the Yankees being a power hitting team accounting for a high number of home runs.
Lord knows I got nothing but love for you, but I have to say I find it laughable when a Red Sox fan talks about any other team's stadium. Mets fans I can see complaining. I'd be pissed off too if my team were playing in the Grand Canyon.
It's cool man. I probably should have included a :wink: at the end of that to emphasize that I was just taking a dig at you. I just don't understand why anyone cares how any other park performs. That's one of the novelties of baseball. All other sports (except golf I guess) occur on areas that are identical across their leagues. I don't see anyone complain about "pitcher's parks." Why is that more acceptable than a "hitter's park?" It's all silly. During any given game neither team has any advantage over their opponent. If people are worried about records breaking, they should definitely have more outrage at the steroid scandal than short fences or wind tunnels.
I know you weren't taking a dig at me. I was just letting you know I wasn't taking a shot at Yankee Stadium
Kudos on the stats... People are fucking idiots.. the stadium gave up alot of HR's becuz we had the best lineup in the league
Ummm, if you think Park Factor works like that (it just measures homers hit in a park), then why would it be ranked 20th offensively with the best lineup in the league? Here's a hint: it doesn't.
No doubt it allowed a lot of home runs. I was going to laugh at it until I saw that it at least admitted that.
How's this for a stunning stat: the Yankees hit more than 70% of the homers in the new Stadium after June 1st.
Not really all that stunning, if you consider that the season was only a quarter of the way through, and Alex was just returning to the lineup.
Really, though, it was HR suppression by the Yankee staff more than a greater HR rate among Yankee hitters. The team actually hit fewer HRs in the first half of the season. But Yankee pitchers cut their HR totals by almost 40% in the second half (112 to 69). May was particularly bad for the Yankee staff; they gave up 42 HRs that month. The average for the other months was about 28. (These are just 1st/2nd half splits. Can't do the 1st/2nd and home/road splits, but the trend is the same.)
That's interesting. Any idea where those early HRs were coming from? I have a feeling they were more from the pen than the rotation. I don't recall the rotation ever being that hittable (a couple AJ Burnett debacles aside.) And actually, I misread what KH posted. I read it as "70% of the homers hit in the new Stadium came after June 1st." It is actually that the Yankees hit 70% of the homers that occurred after June 1st. Meaning that they outhomered their competition by a huge margin. That actually is a stunning stat, now that I actually understand it. (Though obviously ARod's return still had a big effect on the number of HRs hit.)
1st Half Starters: 65 Relievers: 47 2nd Half Starters: 44 Relievers: 25 So the pen and rotation decreased by the same number, almost. The pen's % went down quite a bit more, though. Seeing as how Tomko, Veras, and Edwar were shown the door, that shouldn't be surprising.
