Target Field ranked the most difficult to hit homers

[wrveres]

The “Bill James Handbook 2011” calculates ballpark categories for a number of statistics, including home runs. The stats isolate the effect of a ballpark – dimensions, wall heights, etc. – to determine if a ballpark favors hitters or pitchers.

A ballpark with a rating of 100 is neutral. A park with a rating of 120 would favor hitters while a rating of 80 favors pitchers. James’ research rates Petco Park as the major leagues’ second most pitcher-friendly park with a home-run rating of 78. The Twins’ new Target Field ranked at the most difficult to hit homers with a rating of 65.

Following are James’ ratings for the five most difficult home-run hitting parks:

1) Target Field (Twins) 65
2) Petco Park (Padres) 78
3) Progressive Field (Indians) 80
4) Kauffman Stadium (Royals) 81
5) Busch Stadium (Cardinals) and Safeco Field (Mariners) 82.

The five best parks for blasting homers were:

1) U.S. Cellular Field (White Sox) 135
2) Yankee Stadium (Yankees) 134
3) Coors Field (Rockies) 124
4) Camden Yards (Orioles) 123
5) Great American Ballpark (Reds) 119

[kimchi_chigae]

Edwin Encarnacion disagrees.

[AquaMan2342]

With roids becoming more regulated and prosecuted or whatever, I would imagine teams building new parks will make them more pitcher friendly.

[thejusman1]

Downgrade all Twins next year!!

[dAnzac]

I read about this early in the season, and when setting my line ups if I couldn't decide between two hitters and one was playing @MIN... he was benched.
The opposite for Yankee Stadium, I always loved my hitters having @NYY next to them.

[Art Vandelay]

With roids becoming more regulated and prosecuted or whatever, I would imagine teams building new parks will make them more pitcher friendly.

Or maybe the opposite: chicks still dig the longball, and without steroids they'll have to come up with other ways to inflate power numbers.

[AquaMan2342]

With roids becoming more regulated and prosecuted or whatever, I would imagine teams building new parks will make them more pitcher friendly.

Or maybe the opposite: chicks still dig the longball, and without steroids they'll have to come up with other ways to inflate power numbers.

Agreed. The more I thought about this the more I see the flaws in my statement. I remember they immediately talked about moving the fences in at Citi Field once they realized the power numbers were down. Given that new Yankee Stadium is a launchpad, I suppose Minnesota would be more likely to follow suit and alter their park to suit power hitters.

[lastingsgriller]

With roids becoming more regulated and prosecuted or whatever, I would imagine teams building new parks will make them more pitcher friendly.

Or maybe the opposite: chicks still dig the longball, and without steroids they'll have to come up with other ways to inflate power numbers.

Agreed. The more I thought about this the more I see the flaws in my statement. I remember they immediately talked about moving the fences in at Citi Field once they realized the power numbers were down. Given that new Yankee Stadium is a launchpad, I suppose Minnesota would be more likely to follow suit and alter their park to suit power hitters.

what power hitters?

[wrveres]

what power hitters?

don't be hating on Punto. Dudes a gamer.

[wrveres]

anybody have a reason for this? The weather maybe?
I remember looking into this this past winter, and if i remember correctly the left field wall was in a bit closer. i was thinking it would be a good year to own Cuddyer. meh.