Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
In the Story on Cory thread, Dave Till wrote this:

I'm wondering whether pitchers traded to Toronto tend to go into shock when confronted with the SkyDome in April. Balls tend to fly out of the park when the roof is closed and the heat is on. An established pitcher, when he realizes that some of his routine fly balls are carrying over the left-field fence, may become discombobulated.

So, I thought I would investigate what I like to call the ShockDome factor.


This is a concern for new Jays Pat Hentgen, who has a bit of a predilection for the longball, and Ted Lilly, who has displayed full-blown acute gopheritis in the past.

There have been fourteen pitchers brought into Toronto during an offseason in the SkyDome era and given a rotation spot in the following season.

What you see below: PDHR is Pre-SkyDome homerun rate, CPDHR is Corrected Pre-SkyDome homerun rate (corrected to the Dome's 116 homerun factor), SDHR is homerun rate in the pitcher's first season at SkyDome, and ShDF is the ShockDome Factor (the difference between CPDHR and DHR). The ShockDome Factor is meant to account for the Dome's shock value, the rise in homerun rate experienced by new starting pitchers mysteriously unaccounted for by the Dome's 116 homerun factor.

Let's meet the discombobulated fourteen:

Pitcher    Year  PDHR  CPDHR  SDHR  ShDF 
Morris 1992 0.93 1.08 0.67 -0.40
Stewart 1993 0.81 0.95 1.28 0.33
Darwin 1995 0.85 0.99 1.80 0.81
Hanson 1996 0.70 0.82 1.09 0.27
Quantrill 1996 0.88 1.02 1.81 0.79
Clemens 1997 0.63 0.73 0.31 -0.42
Person 1997 1.50 1.75 1.33 -0.41
Wells 1999 1.06 1.23 1.24 0.01
Hamilton 1999 0.77 0.89 1.19 0.30
Castillo 2000 1.09 1.26 1.17 -0.09
Parris 2001 1.21 1.40 1.53 0.13
Prokopec 2002 1.64 1.90 2.38 0.48
Lidle 2003 0.96 1.11 1.12 0.01
Sturtze 2003 1.23 1.43 1.41 -0.02


El Artista does not have a homerun problem (and seems like a particularly well-adjusted individual), so there does not seem to be much cause for concern that he will be DomeShocked. Pat's been here before, so intuitively one would think that he would not be DomeShocked.

The ShockDome Factor seems to have affected Stewart, Darwin, Hanson, Quantrill, Hamilton and Prokopec most gravely. The average ShockDome factor is 0.12, which could be more significant than it seems. Does it mean that when projecting a pitcher's first season at SkyDome, we use a homerun factor of 128, rather than 116? That's one way to look at it. Does it mean that half the pitchers who come to SkyDome experience grave consequences from the ShockDome Factor? That's another way to look at it. Is it paranoia fueled by results obtained from a small sample? I hope so, for Ted's sake.
ShockDome | 21 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
_S.K. - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 12:38 PM EST (#79533) #
Interesting study, Leigh. I'm not sure that it means anything, because of the wide variance of effects (and small sample size which you mentioned), but I'm sure this data could be useful if read properly. I'm scared for Ted Lilly now, I hope you're happy.

Incidentally, I'm the Jays in one of my Baseball Mogul Online leagues and the HR park factor for the Dome is 91 for some reason. It's annoying to constantly have to correct my intuitions when looking at HR totals for my hitters and pitchers. (Most parks in the game are pretty realistic. I'm in Fenway in another league and my guys are slamming doubles off the Monster like crazy...)
_cade - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 01:26 PM EST (#79534) #
Mike Wilner is taking calls right now (1:20 pm) on the FAN590...thought I'd let you know.

Cade.
_Matthew E - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 01:57 PM EST (#79535) #
Mike Wilner is taking calls right now (1:20 pm) on the FAN590...thought I'd let you know.

Cripes, missed it. Did he have anything interesting to say?
Gitz - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 02:24 PM EST (#79536) #
Oh, sure, S.K., NOW you're scared for Ted Lilly. All my gloom-and-doom and supposed expert status mean nothing, eh? Well, I never!

On a serious note, I agree with Dave: I think there is something be said for the (mostly poor) mental aspect of pitching in hitter-friendly stadiums, when you pitch poorly even for the park -- I'm talking to you, Mike Hampton -- in a fit of self-fulfilling prophecy. Whether this will affect Batista and Lilly in similar ways can never be accurately measured, but remains to be seen nonetheless.
Mike Green - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 02:53 PM EST (#79537) #
Nice study, Leigh.

While Lidle's reaction to the Dome did not include a greater than expected increase in home runs, his game did deteriorate in other ways. Whether this was due to confidence or random variation is an interesting question.
_Ben NS - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 03:19 PM EST (#79538) #
Might there be a connection between the type of pitcher (i.e. ground ball/flyball) and the Shock of the Dome?
_Ryan Day - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 03:19 PM EST (#79539) #
You could probably discount Prokopec and Hamilton, since they were pitching with injuries during their short Blue Jays careers. And Danny Darwin was, like, 50 years old when he pitched for the Jays, so I'm not sure if he counts (though he did have a couple decent seasons after; by golly, I never realized that he pitched in the majors for 21 years).
_A - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 03:29 PM EST (#79540) #
I think the head games played on pitchers by the Dome, as suggested by Gitz and Dave, is a larger factor than the Dome itself (it would be an interesting question for a future BB interview). Simply coming into the Dome and being expected to understand your PDHR will rise by as much as .26 can not play well for the confidence. And if you're worried the ball won't stay in the park, would you throw it over the plate? Me neither.

I wonder what effect this has on a batter? Is he more liable to make a habit of swinging for the fences but in so doing compromise his K rate?
_SportsmanTO - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 04:46 PM EST (#79541) #
First time posting in the new look BB (nice re-design!)

Anyway I think the whole shockdome factor thing is a bunch of hooey. Yes Skydome does tend to be more of a hitters park but it wasn't so gaudily in favour of the hitters til about a couple or so years ago when it seemed any team can smack the covering off the ball and the stadium was being hailed as Coors Field North.

I do think that the ball tends to fly out more when the dome is closed and that happens a lot more during the first half of the season. Actually I wonder what the HR numbers are like compared to open and closed roof games. My suspicion (and I think I read somewhere) that the ball travels farther when it's closed. So really it's not that big of a deal if you're willing to have flyball pitchers looking a little shaky in the first half of the year.
Leigh - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 05:04 PM EST (#79542) #
Anyway I think the whole shockdome factor thing is a bunch of hooey. Yes Skydome does tend to be more of a hitters park but it wasn't so gaudily in favour of the hitters til about a couple or so years ago when it seemed any team can smack the covering off the ball and the stadium was being hailed as Coors Field North.

SportsmanTO, I am merely pointing out that new pitchers seem to give up more homeruns during their first year at SkyDome than would be suggested by their career homerun rate and the Dome's homerun factor (116, in 2003 according to the Bill James Handbook).

Are you saying that the homerun factors for SkyDome are too high? Fair enough; I am saying that for new pitchers there seems to be a degree of rise in homerun rate beyond what is accounted for by moving to SkyDome.

What I am saying could certainly be hooey; but what you are calling hooey is some position other than my own.
_SportsmanTO - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 06:17 PM EST (#79543) #
Don't worry it wasn't an attack on you and while there is some merit to the idea I still think it's a bit of a crock since the Dome IS slightly more geared for hitters so of course new pitchers are going to have some time to adjust. I'm merely attacking the general wisdom behind it. I think the sudden boom in the Skydome's HR rate will go down in the next few yrs tho and it won't be nearly as gaudy as it has been the last couple or so years.
_S.K. - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 06:32 PM EST (#79544) #
Sportsman - Leigh's point is that new pitchers to the Dome are possibly affected more than they should be, EVEN GIVEN THE HIGHER HOME RUN RATE. Saying "oh yeah, it's a hitter's park, of course they give up more homers" is completely ignoring the entire premise of the study.
_JohnL - Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 08:30 PM EST (#79545) #
The biggest shock factor was for Paul Quantrill. That explains the nickname I remember someone had given him his first year in Toronto, "The Canadian Cape Canaveral".
_coliver - Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 07:48 AM EST (#79546) #
The ball may carry in April...so what!!!

The constant complaints about the SkyDome over the past few years are just silly. The idea of playing indoor baseball during the early spring and playing outdoor baseball summer still appeals to be. Ok, we have the last of the artifical surface cookie-cutter type stadiums--get over it!

As much as I loved Exhibition Stadium (I have a seat in my office), the SkyDome is a fine place to watch watch and to play baseball.

We don't have Camden Yards---big deal!
Craig B - Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 08:28 AM EST (#79547) #
Um, no one was complaining about the Dome, coliver. Leigh was pointing out a factor that we should keep in mind when projecting the Jays' newly acquired pitchers.
_coliver - Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 09:14 AM EST (#79548) #
I know I digressed, but I Just had to vent about it:

As much as like Bob McCown on the Fan590 (he was like Mr. SkyDome when it opened--hosting many of his shows at Sightlines), he complains about it way too much these days.

I agree with Sportman TO. The numbers are not gaudy.
Leigh - Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 10:53 AM EST (#79549) #
The numbers are not gaudy.

They may or may not have the meaning that I am ascribing them, but they most certainly are gaudy. Taking the homerun rate from 116 to 128 for first year Jays' starters at the Dome is significant.
Pistol - Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 01:03 PM EST (#79550) #
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=1727200
You want concern about Lilly? He's second in balks since the beginning of the 2000 season!! COMN for some useless info.

Skydome is a cookie cutter stadium? Who knew?
_A - Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 01:15 PM EST (#79551) #
I've never watched Lily balk but it's likely a boarderline move to first that some upmires give him hell for.
_FJM - Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 01:22 PM EST (#79552) #
Out of 14 pitchers, 5 show a change under 10% (3 up, 2 down), which could easily be attributed to chance. Two others fall into the 20-25% range (1 up, 1 down), so they cancel each other out.

That leaves us with 7. Of these, 5 are up, only 2 down. There might be something significant here. However, from 1997 on, the tally is one moderately significant increase (Hamilton 1999, +34%) and one very significant decrease (Clemens 1997, -58%). At worst you could call that a wash.

Conclusion: It's hard to conclude anything from just 5 pitchers. But if there was a Shockdome Effect, it seems to have disappeared after 1996.
_coliver - Friday, February 06 2004 @ 09:41 AM EST (#79553) #
Sarcasm runs rampant.
ShockDome | 21 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.