May
29

Cash issues company line on Stadium dimensions

By

yscomparison

One day before the new Yankee Stadium opened for regular season business, I issued a warning on the stadium. Using the above graphic, I looked at the walls and the lack of foul territory and proclaimed the park a hitter’s haven. Little did I realize how true my prediction would become.

In 23 games, the Yankees and their opponents have blasted 87 home runs at new Yankee Stadium. If that pace continues, the new stadium will witness 306 home runs this year. Last year, old Yankee Stadium served as witness to 160 long balls. That big of an increase doesn’t come about due to a statistical anomaly or coincidence. Something is clearly up.

Over the first few weeks of the season, seemingly everyone has come up with their own pet theory. We blamed the unangled walls for bringing in the power alleys by a few feet. The Yankees have blamed unanticipated wind patterns brought about by the continued presence of old Yankee Stadium. The problem, they say, will be solved next year when the old park is gone. Weather experts have blamed the wind flow and claim that we will see even more home runs over the summer.

Yankee officals, meanwhile, continue to deny that much is different about the new park. It’s becoming rather comical. Yesterday, Times reporter Tyler Kepner talked with Yanks GM Brian Cashman about the outfield fences and skyrocketing home run totals. Writes Kepner:

“I don’t have any answers about wind studies,” Cashman said. When I asked if he still believed the dimensions were the same as before, as some folks have disputed with visual evidence, Cashman said, “I’ve been told they’re the same. I know they’re supposed to be the same.”

Now, we’ve been pretty steadfast Brian Cashman supporters for the last few seasons. We staunchly stood by him through the controversial winter of the 2007, but this year, he hasn’t, in our view, done a stellar job with the roster construction in light of the team’s injuries. He and the Yankees also seemingly mishandled Chien-Ming Wang’s rehab.

These comments, then, seemingly continue a pattern of odd denial by the Yanks’ GM. He may have been told that the fences would be the same, but anyone who has watched Yankee baseball for more than, oh, two weeks could tell you that they’re different. We don’t yet know the cause; we don’t know the final outcome of the offense in the Bronx. We do know that pitchers are unhappy. It’s painfully clear that the new stadium is a hitter’s paradise, and if the Yanks care to even the field, they’ll address it in November. So why is Brian Cashman going out of his way to deny the obvious?

Categories : Yankee Stadium

97 Comments»

  1. JackC says:

    Wait — I thought the consensus was it’s far too early to say the park is hitter friendly. Something about far too small a sample size for any enlightened person to think it could mean anything…

    • pat says:

      This post is about field dimensions.

    • Is this a sarcastic retort to a post about field dimensions? At this point, 23 games gives us a good indication of how the field plays and not why. Anyway, the main point is that Cashman’s denying the obvious about the field dimensions. They’re just not the same.

      • CountryClub says:

        I’m not sure what you think Cash was supposed to say there. He said they’re the same and then said I’ve been told they’re supposed to be the same. Is he supposed to take a measuring tape and measure both stadiums? Anyone who has watched their home games knows that very few hr’s have just snuck out. Most of them are at least 2 or 3 rows deep and many of them are absolute bombs. The fact that the walls arent curved has very little to do with the hr total. It sounds like this problem wont be solved until the other stadium comes down. The Yanks wont know for sure if the wind patterns are going to change until the old one is gone. Since that wont happen until next summer, I’d assume no meaningful changes will be made until after next season.

    • BklynJT says:

      Let’s stop using the damn small sample size argument for everything. Where there is smoke.. there is often fire!!!

      • Hawkins44 says:

        Seriously, it’s usually not RAB style to write an article and debate a point passionately (take Buster Only to task about not understanding math) and then come up with this….where it sounds like it’s more than a anomaly…

        Who are you crappin….??

  2. JackC says:

    Sorry if it seemed too snarky — but I have noticed when some people fretted about the park being too hitter friendly (I never posted any of these, btw), people jumped down their throats.

    • Considering the widely divergent pace of home runs this year as compared to the last few seasons, we’re pushing the bounds of natural statistical variation. It’s not definitely 100 percent a hitters park but we can probably be something along the lines of 98 percent sure it’s a hitter’s park.

      • radnom says:

        I think he is commenting on the fact that until it became “98% certain”, anyone suggesting that the new Yankee Stadium was roundly mocked (but teh homeRuns!!!11!).

        Even though, 98% statistical certainty was hardly needed. Especially considering how much evidence there was outside of the number of homeruns (player observations, etc). Once it started approaching mid may, things became pretty obvious.

      • radnom says:

        Also, I’m curious where did that image come from?

        I thought the Yankees publicly announced that the outfeild walls would no longer curve/the foul dimensions would change? Is Cash (and the Yankees) denying this?

        • The image came from a RAB reader who put a few different renderings of the two parks together. It’s generally accurate enough to see the differences in the dimensions of the two parks.

          • radnom says:

            Ok.

            So is there an official stance (that you know of) on the straight walls as opposed to curved?

            Obviously no one can be denying the change in foul territory.

            • This is not a snarky question. I’m asking it in all seriousness: Have you been to the new stadium yet?

              The walls are definitely not curved.

              • radnom says:

                I wasn’t being snarky either.
                I’m not asking if the walls are curved or not.
                Obviously they are not.
                I was just asking if the Yankees publicly admit this, and I’m actually asking because I do not know.
                The whole stadium construction was not as much interest to me (I know you covered it extensively) so I’m wondering if this was a surprise when they opened the doors, or if the Yankees let it be known before hand (like the change in foul territory and the fact that fans would be right up on the fence).

  3. Some call me...tim says:

    Hank told Cashman not to exercise his restraint…

  4. MattG says:

    I think JackC has a point. Many people were taken to task for writing similar things to this post. That doesn’t mean you can’t agree with them. I think 81 games over three seasons (real seasons, not baseball seasons) is a pretty good indication. 23, all in the same Spring, is not really any kind of sample from which to derive conclusions.

    He and the Yankees also seemingly mishandled Chien-Ming Wang’s rehab.

    Thank you for adding the word seemingly. As Wang now has a 3.60 ERA since his return, if he is to maintain that for 6 or 7 appearances, would it no longer seemingly be a mistake? Or will it be a mistake until he is pitching high-leverage innings? Or–will it forever be a mistake because he came up to pitch in a mop-up role?

    • If he maintains that for 6-7 appearances, that’s great. It still doesn’t mean activating him before they had to and basically killing a bullpen spot out of desperation over a non-injury to Joba was the right thing to do. Considering how sparingly he has been used in the last week, he could have benefitted from another AAA start.

      • MattG says:

        OK. So its a mistake because he was recalled as a reliever. I am much more tolerant, even agreeable, to such a decision (like Cashman said, his contract is baseball player, not starting pitcher). I’d like to see the 11 best pitchers on the major league roster, with the best ones getting the most and highest leverage innings.

        I am going to be sensitive about people critiquing the org’s move over his first appearance, in which he gave up 2 runs in 3 innings. That is not intelligent analysis.

        But I can just disagree with you if you think he shouldn’t have been summoned for the bullpen. If he’s there 2-3 weeks, even a month, helping the team, I like it.

    • radnom says:

      Someone brought up something interesting about maybe the Yankees feeling other teams would complain causing Wang to get called up.

      This is obviously absurd, but it got me thinking. This move was so completely irrational and panicked, maybe there was some sort of external pressure on Cashman.

      From where? I could think of two places.

      1. Commisioners office. The could have raised a stink behind the scenes. I tend not to think this one could be true, because it is unlikely this wouldn’t be leaked to the media.

      2. Wang’s agent. He could have called Cashman and said “listen man, my guy is doing well down here, he isn’t injured, if you dont bring him back I’m going to complain to someone”. Wang’s comments are certainly in line with not being happy about being sent down to start with, and it could explain why Cashman is so testy about it “his contract says baseball player”.

      • MattG says:

        But why do you believe it was irrational and panicked? It seems like after his last AAA start, the organization was split about recalling him or letting him have another. In fact, I think it had more to do with Hughes than Wang.

        If you believe that, then you understand Wang was going to be the next pitcher called up. Joba didn’t miss a start, but the team still did not have coverage after pitching 8.1 innings out of the pen.

        All they did was call up the next guy in line. Explained that way, it is not irrational or panicked.

        I think many would say Wang was the next starter to be called up, but he should not have been the next reliever. I understand that viewpoint, even if I don’t agree with it.

        • radnom says:


          All they did was call up the next guy in line. Explained that way, it is not irrational or panicked.

          Yes, but only because explaining it that was is horrifically misleading.

          It isn’t like Wang is the 6th best pitcher who was just waiting for an opportunity to get in the game. He arguably should be their number 2 starter, and was down there specifically to regain his form and build his strength. Minor league results were not of real concern, he could build strength/mechanics back up against little leaguers, it isn’t like he had to relearn how to pitch to major league hitters.

          There is no way you can tell me that brining him up and not pitching him helps him return to form.

          It also hurts the bullpen overall, especially that week when he couldn’t be trusted without an 8 run lead.

          Given those two points, i was a pretty dumb move.

          • MattG says:

            It seems like after his last AAA start, the organization was split about recalling him or letting him have another. In fact, I think it had more to do with Hughes than Wang

            Response:

            Yes, but only because explaining it that way was horrifically misleading

            You quoted the wrong sentence. If you don’t agree with the premise, than refute it. If the Yankees were set to recall Wang as the next pitcher, then recall him they did.

  5. A.D. says:

    Cashman didn’t deny anything in those comments.

    • This is what Kepner wrote, as quotes above:

      When I asked if he still believed the dimensions were the same as before, as some folks have disputed with visual evidence, Cashman said, “I’ve been told they’re the same. I know they’re supposed to be the same.”

      Isn’t that a denial?

      • radnom says:

        Technically no.

        Everything he said can easily be true and the dimensions can also be different. Heck, everything he said can be true and he can personally still believe that the dimensions are different.

        He side-stepped the question, yes, but I mentioned below why I think that is perfectly appropriate.

      • MattG says:

        Yes, bet he denied something said by “some folks.” That might mean Benjamin Kabak and his nifty visual aid on RAB.

        • radnom says:

          No he didn’t.

          Its not that hard.

          He was asked if he believed the dimensions were the same.

          He never answered that.

          Instead he said that someone told him they were.

          And that they were supposed to be (leaving open the door that maybe they are not).

          It was a total non-answer.

          • Far enough. Non-answer. That’s a fine assessment. The Yankees sure are sensitive about their new stadium though. This is something that can easily be fixed.

            • radnom says:

              I wonder if the amount of public money that went into it has any effect on this sensitivity.

              This whole stadium has been one big PR nightmare for them, in every possible way.

            • jsbrendog says:

              but that isnt cashman’s game. his job is the team on the field so a non answer to something like this is saying why dont you take this up with trost and levine and nto me without saying why dont you take this up with trost and levine

          • MattG says:

            Reporter: Some folks have said that the dimensions are not the same as before.

            Cashman: I’ve been told they’re the same.

            Inference-”some folks” are wrong. That is a denial. It may be a crafty denial that he can later retract, but it is a denial.

            • MattG says:

              You know what, this is legal speak. Until you know who and exactly what you are responding to, you deny with plausibility. For now, he bought the organization time, but if it turns out NASA uses a satellite to study the issue, Cashman’s hasn’t hung himself.

            • Chris says:

              The alternate inference is that the people who told him they were the same are idiots. Either one is equally plausible.

    • radnom says:

      I agree actually.

      And I specifically think he was referring to the marked distances and not necessarily the shape of the wall.

      Probably sidestepping what the interviewer was going after, but why would Cashman speculate on the homerun issue and give the media something to fap over? Who really cares what he thinks anyway, is he some sort of meteorlogicsl/engineering expert?

      I really don’t see this as a story.

      • Zack says:

        Exactly, what positive comes out of Cashman saying Yankee stadium is a bandbox?

        • I’m not saying he should come out and call the new home a bandbox. But what does he gain in denying — side-stepping, whatever term of art we want to use — something we can all see by watching the games? The dimensions are not the same.

          • Zack says:

            Cashman has 3 options.
            1. Yeah it’s a bandbox
            2. No the entire wall is the same as the original Yankee Stadium
            3. I’ve been told it’s the same

            And #3 is the best option

          • radnom says:


            denying — side-stepping, whatever term of art we want to use

            There is a huge difference between not answering a question and straight up denying it, do not pretend they are the same.

            What he has to gain, is that now there is no chance that the New York Post back page tommorow reads
            “CASHMAN CONFIRMS MAJOR STADIUM ERROR, DETAILS ON HOW THIS IS ARODS FAULT ON PAGE 65″

            • “There is a huge difference between not answering a question and straight up denying it, do not pretend they are the same.”

              If there was any question as to the answer, then yeah, maybe. But when there is a clear, obvious answer to a question (i.e. the answer is clear and obvious based on evidence readily available to the public), and that question is asked of a person who is in the best possible position to know that clear, obvious answer (i.e. even though the answer is clear to the public, this guy is in even better position to know the answer and should be the authority on the subject), then that person’s evasion of that question can reasonably be termed a dishonest evasion of, and at worst an attempt to deny, the truth.

              Evading an indisputable answer isn’t too far off from flat-out denying the truth, is it?

              • Chris says:

                Let’s say your boss screws up and some reporter comes and asks, “Hey, everyone can see your boss screwed up, do you believe he screwed up?” I doubt your answer would be to point out what an idiot he is.

  6. JimM says:

    What is interesting to me is that:
    1. The graph seems to imply that the 399′ sign should be 394′ or something like that.
    2. A significant part of right to right center is about 10′ shorter in the new park, along with the shorter fence. However,
    while some of the 50 or so home runs hit to right certainly did “fall” into that newly created space, most were long gone beyond the boundaries of the old park. Which would indicate that there are other forces at work.

    • MattG says:

      Yes, the outfield walls are not responsible for a 100% increase in home runs. There may be 5-10 balls, out of the 87 hit, that were within that 10 foot window. Something else is afoot: architecure of the new stadium, presence of the old stadium, unusual atmospheric conditions, unusually bad pitching, random variance, etc. Too early to say.

  7. mustang says:

    A rebuff of an old thread and admitting that the new Yankees stadium is a hitter’s park plus taking Cashman to task.
    Hold on a minute just wanted to check and see if I was still on the right site. Yes I’m RAB my god the world is coming to an end. LOL

    Well done by the way.

  8. jsbrendog says:

    brian cashman’s job = player personnel, player development, talent evaluation. IE no matter if the stadium is coors east or petco east his job is what plays within said stadium. He’s just doing the PR thing and not saying it is and not saying it isn’t. he cant come out and be like,well, trost and levine and the guys in hardhats said it was the same but come on an idiot could see it not.

    when talking about all this cashman may be involved or sit in in a meetnig where it is discussed but i doubt highly that cashman has any part of the building, construction, modifications or fences, foul territory, concessions, etc at the stadium

    • radnom says:

      Are you kidding me? I know for a fact that Cashman is directly responsible for the soggyness of the garlic fries.

      -Steve Lombardi

    • Zack says:

      It’s all about PR, ot’s no different then when they ask Girardi about a guy in the bullpen and he says he has good stuff’ instead of saying ‘his ERA is 6+ and he walks everyone,’ you stay positive and dont get the media any headlines

    • “brian cashman’s job = player personnel, player development, talent evaluation.”

      This is just not true. GMs have many more responsibilities than on-field evaluation/transactions. I don’t know how much responsibility he has for execution of stadium construction, but he certainly has enough knowledge of the situation and enough responsibility as a public face/leader of the organization to have an informed opinion on the matter.

      • jsbrendog says:

        well of course, everyone in the organization should have and more than likely has an informed opinion on the matter. what would you say the extra responsibilities you describe are? Because i would be willing to wager that they are not pertaining to staidum construction or maintenance, the depth of the fences, the p[lacement of the seats, the security policies or enforcement by the personlle, the public funding debacle, or anything for that matter.

        just because he has or should have an opinion on it doesnt mean he should share it.

        I work IT, it is my job to make sure the computers, servers, etc work and run smoothly.. if someone comes to me and goes, hey man, the way they built those cubicles in the new office is so shitty youre right on top of everyone man what the hell, even fi i am the IT manager at that location and in charge of eveyr technical asset it is only my job to comment on issues with those assets and not cubicle construction or layout which is handled by facilities even if i am the face of the IT department there and known to be in charge.

        • jsbrendog says:

          even tho i know the new cubes suck ass and have an informed (have seen them and have bene in them when handling equipment issues)opinion via first hand knowledge

        • “well of course, everyone in the organization should have and more than likely has an informed opinion on the matter. what would you say the extra responsibilities you describe are?”

          Beyond certain day-to-day operations of the organization, I think he has one very relevant responsibility here: he’s a PR representative of the organization.

          “just because he has or should have an opinion on it doesnt mean he should share it.”

          Look… I get why some people here are defending/rationalizing Cashman’s statements by pointing out that he probably doesn’t want to say something “negative” about the organization or stadium, and I also don’t think Cashman’s statements are the biggest deal in the world. But in a situation in which the truth is clear and obvious (we have visual evidence like the chart above… and please don’t tell me I can’t see with my own eyes that the right field wall is straighter and shorter than the curved and taller wall at the old stadium), evading that obvious truth is just kind of petty. Nobody’s saying he has to say “yeah, somebody F’d up,” but a simple “yeah, the walls are different, we’re monitoring the situation and will reevaluate after the season” would be much more reasonable than the path they’ve chosen.

          Nobody’s asking the guy to go out on a limb and say something controversial. The truth is obvious and undeniable/inarguable. The walls exist, we all see them, we can all look at pictures and renderings of the dimensions. Evading/denying the truth just seems tacky when the truth is obvious to everyone.

          • jsbrendog says:

            well since you saw it with your own eyes….

            • Dude… I’m assuming you’re kidding… But are you telling me you’re not sure the wall in right field isn’t straighter/shorter than its counterpart in the old stadium?

              • Dude… I’m assuming you’re kidding… But are you telling me you’re not sure the wall in right field isn’t straighter/shorter than its counterpart in the old stadium?

                (my bad)

                • jsbrendog says:

                  no im not telling you that at all. that, actually is irrelevant compleyely. the wall has absolutely NOTING to do with this. it has to do with cashman not having anything to do with the stadium construction and how terribly wrong it went but not wanting to rufflew any feathers with the people who do by saying something. it doesnt matter if it is obvious as all hell or not, wha matters is that cashman did the right thing by saying, wll, someone told me it was, so i would think it is. which to me is, you know i dont really care cause that doesnt concern me and asking me is pointless because im not going to give you a soundbyte for an article. i am concerned with our team on the field and that is what i am here to talk about and what i am looking at. we play in many other parks and i could care less about them too.

                  my example from above still stands with the cubicle reference. that is not hsi concern so he should not comment other than bs. someone told him, he guesses, hes too busy with his job to notice. or care.

                • Meh. I disagree. For one thing, the size/location of the wall is certainly relevant, I really don’t understand how the very thing the organization is being asked about could be irrelevant. I also think it’s silly to deny the blatantly obvious. To me, that’s not good PR. I get that it’s the company line, but I think the company line is dumb. If someone says 2+2=5, that doesn’t make it so. But, in the end… whatever. I know Cash means well and this isn’t really a big deal.

                  And about the “seeing it with my eyes” thing… Look, I’m not saying I see something that statistical evidence tells me is inaccurate and refusing to believe the empirical evidence over my own impression. I’m saying I can see, as can the rest of the world, that one fence has a different height and shape than another fence (and I’ll note that other visual evidence, like the graph in the post above, shows the same thing). I’m not saying Darin Erstad is the man because he looks like a scrappy, gritty ballplayer, despite the statistical evidence to the contrary. There’s certainly a difference there.

  9. steve s says:

    I think if it wasn’t clear before, Tex’s broken bat homer against the Phils is pretty serious evidence that balls are leaving the New Stadium that would not have been leaving the Old Stadium (be it wind or distance or whatever). I think the Yankee management sensitivity to the issue is the implication that they intentioanlly or negligently caused the design of the New Stadium to yield this result. I think it’s fair to say that they intended to replicate the Old Stadium dimensions in the New Stadium and the homers flying out was a totally unanticipated consequence that will need to be fixed somehow next year.

    • A.D. says:

      Except Manny hit a broken bat HR in the old stadium and there wasn’t a problem, they happen, they’re just rare. Additionally Tex’s was tagged and was quite deep, deep enough to probably leave most parks.

      • steve s says:

        Of course now we know that it was Manny, not the Stadium, that was juiced. On the Tex HR, Werth came in a few steps and the ball still travelled far and every Phil out in the field were shaking their heads after that one. I was sitting in short left field and it looked like a routine fly ball and then flew out.

        • A.D. says:

          Well Manny may have juiced his whole career, but this was back in the Indians days, so if there was a time he wasn’t it was then.

          More likely Manny’s bat was corked.

    • pat says:

      Papi broke his bat on a swing and a miss last night, andruw jones is another guy who hit a broken bat homerun. A bat breaking isn’t really any sort of indicator of anything.

    • Sweet Lou says:

      Joe Buck was saying on the FOX game last week vs. the Phillies that the upper deck is much more windy than the OYS. He was blaming it on the open field layout where you can see the field when you get food, beer, etc. However, in my opinion, that’s the best quality of the NYS. The three games that I’ve been to I haven’t sat in the upper deck so I don’t know if it’s true about the wind.

      • I’ve sat up there two times this year. It is kinda breezy, but it wasn’t that crazy.

      • In early April, it was VERY windy up there, and the same happened two weeks ago. When it’s windy outside, the Upper Deck seems to exacerbate the wind. I’m not really sure what impact that would have on home runs out to right.

      • Mattingly's Love Child says:

        When I sat up there for the Twins’ game on Sunday the 17th it was crazy windy in the right field corner. I just figured it was that game. I had terribly chapped lips.
        But the people I was with said that it was generally breezy in the upper deck, not heavy wind like we had.

      • JP says:

        This is my “window” analogy. Open a window on one wall of your house, and stand near it. Chances are, you won’t feel a breeze. Maybe you do feel a slight breeze. Now, open a window on the opposite wall of the house, and all of a sudden you feel a brisk breeze coming through the window.

        Those open concourses could be setting up a jet stream with the big opening at the end of the spectator grandstand.

        Thing is, I can’t explain why the jet stream couldn’t also be set up, but blowing IN, rather than out.

  10. JP says:

    He was giving the non-answer, because if he says anything which can be construed as negative about the new stadium, he probably gets flogged by Hank.

    Who cares, or what good is it for us to have Cashman on record on the stadium dimensions? We know the truth.

    Has anyone done a correlation study on park factors and winning percentage? Is it better to be in a hitters’ park or a pitchers’ park, or does it not matter?

    • MattG says:

      Bill James has an essay on how Fenway Park was in one large part responsible for an 86 year title drought (along with some rotten luck, of course).

      Teams in extreme hitter’s parks have a disadvantage to cope with. They’ve got to cover their innings with pitchers. That’s easier to do when you keep the runs down.

      • JP says:

        Not being snarky, but do you have data to back that up? I read the same James essay…in the original Historical Abstract, I think.

        My question, specifically, was whether anyone had studied this and concluded that it’s true, and to what degree the park effects influence a team’s success.

        Having to cover more innings…sounds intuitive. But if you have good hitters, and a hitter’s park, and you have lots of 6 and 7 run leads, doesn’t that offset the pitching problem a little?

        This is why I’m interested whether it’s been studied.

        • Chris says:

          Having a hitter friendly park means that fewer batter will get out, your pitchers will face more batters, and ultimately they will throw more pitches. In a single game, there really isn’t an advantage to one side or the other, but when you’re playing every day in a hitters park those extra batters add up.

          Also, just because it’s a hitter’s park doesn’t mean that any leads you have will be safer. The leads may be slightly more runs than average, but the team you’re playing against will be scoring more runs than average and balance it out.

  11. Ellis says:

    I’m amazed by this post on RAB! Really, no acknowledgment of the constant cries of “Small sample size!!”? This seems like a different website. Apparently we were all reasoned thinkers a few days ago when we criticized Buster Olney for calling it a bandbox, but now everyone else is “continues to deny that much is different about the new park. It’s becoming rather comical.”

    • Ugh. Can we stop with the “I can’t believe this is on RAB” stuff? Just because an argument gets shouted down in the comments section doesn’t mean one of the authors can’t disagree with the dissenting commenters.

    • Assuming it to be true and continuing to deny it are two sides to the spectrum. The stadium so far plays like a hitter’s park, and as I said, the home run pace is astronomical. There’s nothing inconsistent with waiting until the end of the season to pass final judgment while acknowledging that the first 23 games have been quite remarkable.

      Why are people so intent on trying to play the “Gotcha!” Game with us anyway? Does it make you feel good?

    • JP says:

      Sample size and magnitude of effect are inter-related.

      I swear, some dork like Rob Neyer introduces everyone to the concept of “sample size” in statistics and people apply it without any thought or knowledge.

      An adequate sample size is needed to ensure that an observed difference is indeed reflective of “reality.” The bigger the difference you observe, the smaller sample you need in order to conclude that the difference is a real phenomenon, and not random chance.

      I’m NOT saying we have enough data yet to conclude anything about the HR rate at NYS. But you can’t just dismiss the available data because we have a small sample size. My God, we’re talking about DOUBLE the homerun rate, in a park that has roughly the same outfield dimensions. I would be very happy, and not terribly surprised, if this trend turned around, but I agree with the RAB guys that we are rapidly approaching the point where the only logical conclusion will be that it’s a launching pad.

      A statistician once drowned by crossing a river with an average depth of 3 feet.

  12. Bo says:

    You know somethings wrong when RAB trashes Cashman who they give a pass to for just about every move hes made the past decade.

  13. Axl says:

    A lot of the hitters, not just on the Yankees, are backing up the stadium as well…just the other day after the game where Jimmy Rollins led off with a home run…he stated how he didn’t see anything different with the way balls were hit out in the new stadiium. In fact, he said it was very similar to the old one.

    I don’t necessarily think the wind patterns have as much to do with the old Yankee Stadium still being there as they hope. Parks all over have big and/or small buildings surrounding them and it doesn’t seem to have such drastic effects as this excuse theory seems to have.

    I do believe the shape and curvature of the new grandstand and seating areas are playing a role with the wind along with the dimensions being (overall) smaller than before.

    Not to mention, home runs in general have been WAY up this year than in previous years. All of this plays a role in the extreme increase of HR in the new Stadium. And if the Old Stadium’s existence plays ANY role at all…it would be very minimum and the LAST on the list of things that should be investigated.

  14. Rich M says:

    Steve over at waswatching had a conversation with Greg Rybarczyk from hit tracker, his graph looks a little different. His shows left center might be slightly deeper than the old park.

    http://waswatching.com/2009/04.....mer-haven/

  15. Doug says:

    The lack of accountability has become beyond comical. The HR rate in the new ballpark is the highest in the league and is more than 10% more than 2nd place.

  16. anonymous says:

    Are you saying the stadium construction was Cashmans responsibility?

  17. Will says:

    I posted this elswhere, but it seems appropriate here as well:

    If you pro-rate the runs the Yankees have scored at home so far, it would amount to 454. That would place it below the teams output in 2005-2007, in line with 2004 and above 2008. The OPS level is also inline with 2005 and 2007.

    Also, compared to the their 2009 road totals, the Yankees do have a higher OPS, but have actually scored fewer runs per game.

    So, if YSIII is not inflating run production, but only HR levels, why is everyone getting so bent out of shape. Are we back to everything revolving around the sanctity of the HR record? Also, can you call YSIII a band box even if run production isn’t boosted significantly?

    Instead of trying to come up with conspiracies and wringing our hands, maybe we are seeing the perfect storm of a stadium somewhat more conducive to hitting HRs colliding with a lineup that is a lot more prone to hitting them?

    Year Runs OPS
    2009 454* 0.858
    2008 412 0.789
    2007 520 0.854
    2006 479 0.805
    2005 477 0.846
    2004 446 0.816
    *prorated

    2009 Runs/G OPS
    Home 5.6 0.858
    Away 5.7 0.831

    • JP says:

      I can’t back this up, but I do think there is a good reason why you worry about homers, and not run production.

      Overall runs are based on many things, including quality of pitching, walks, etc. So, there are many, many reasons why the current number of runs being scored in NYS is not representative of some aspect of the stadium. It’s more reflective of the quality of pitching and hitting.

      Homers, though, are probably different. Again, not saying I’m sure, but I think so. Why? Well, although there is lots of variance in baseball games, over time, there are a certain number of fly balls hit, and the number tends to be pretty constant over time. Some pitchers get more or less, but over the course of a season, every season, there is a relatively regular number of fly balls. The number of homers is dependent on how many of these fly balls are long enough…and the park can influence that tremendously with wind, fence distances, etc.

      So maybe overall runs are normal, compared with 05-07, because, to date, pitching in the stadium has been better than in those years. However, homers are up, because more of the fly balls are making it out.

      Am I making any sense?

  18. Bryan W says:

    First time i saw the stadium watching the exhitbition games on tv I could tell it was smaller to the gaps. How can they fix it or do we all just have to live with Yankee Stadium being a bandbox? Fenway Park is a hitter’s paradise as well. It doesn’t give up home runs at this ridiculous rate but runs scored there are always up so if the Red Sox can manage to win those types of games so the Yankees should be able to as well. The big difference is that you need strong pitching especially in the bullpen late in games to negate the ballpark factor.

  19. [...] As the Yankees return home today, attention once again turns to the home run haven that is the new Yankee Stadium. While overall offensive numbers are not showing a marked increase at the new home, the total number of balls leaving the yard has skyrocketed. [...]

Leave a Reply

You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

If this is your first time commenting on River Ave. Blues, please review the RAB Commenter Guidelines. Login for commenting features. Register for RAB.