Examing Claims Of The "Metrodome Advantage"

**DaYooperASBDT** · 10-10-2009, 05:09 PM

Interesting, my perceived Twins home-field advantage does not appear to exist,
at last looking at the past five seasons of data:

2009 - league averaged 46 home wins, while 49 of Twins' 87 wins were at home.
2008 - league averaged 45.9 home wins, Twins won 53 of 88 at home
2007 - league average 44.6 home wins, Twins won 41 of 79 at home
2006 - league average 45.2 home wins, Twins won 54 of 96 at home
2005 - league average 43.6 home wins, Twins won 45 of 83 at home

When you add those past five seasons together, here's the result:
League averaged 55.6% of its wins at home, Twins averaged 55.9%.

In other words, the Twins' home field advantage appears to be almost
exactly league average. I suspect that's not the case versus the Tigers, but
against the league as a whole, there appears to be no "Metrodome Advantage".

**DaYooperASBDT** · 10-10-2009, 05:10 PM

In addition, I can't freaking spell.

**redpage01** · 10-10-2009, 05:28 PM

that doesn't take into account the fact that if they were in fact a sub-par team to begin with...then with their "advantage" they are able to gain par performance...i don't believe that the advantage is significant, but there certainly exists one for the twinkies...playing on turf/dome vs. grass/outdoors takes some adjustments which the twins are able to make more easily, playing half their games there...i have no science, no stats, only rationale, but i'm always open for a discussion...there's my two cents

**sabretooth** · 10-10-2009, 05:30 PM

If you were going to look at the advantage in the aggregate sense, you should examine home v. road and compare it to the league average split.

**Lousluggage** · 10-10-2009, 05:34 PM

We might get part of the answer next year. I say part because it will take a while for the Twins, as well as their opponents to adjust to any quirks the new stadium will have.

I suspect that the Metrodome gave them a slight advantage, enough to give them a game or two, and I can think of two recent seasons where that number of games was enough. :(

**Ingefanclub** · 10-10-2009, 05:35 PM

I think you need to go back to 1982 and look at the entire 27 years to see what the
entire numbers are....
In 1987 the Twins were 56-25 at home and 29-52 on the road.

**IdahoBert** · 10-10-2009, 05:40 PM

The league averages 45.06 wins per team at home while the Twins average 48.4. In the aggregate, the Twins win more at home than the league average. I think the Twins are a little better on the road than the league average though. Maybe a better than average team should win more at home and on the road than an average team. I'm not sure if this proves or disproves anything.

**DaYooperASBDT** · 10-10-2009, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by IdahoBert

The league averages 45.06 wins per team at home while the Twins average 48.4. In the aggregate, the Twins win more at home than the league average.

Right, I'll revisit but I think the Twins also won more than league average, so the percentages, matched up. And if we are claiming a Metrodome advantage, then the average should be higher than league average - which it isn't? (I'll take one more look below).

**DaYooperASBDT** · 10-10-2009, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by Ingefanclub

I think you need to go back to 1982 and look at the entire 27 years to see what the
entire numbers are....
In 1987 the Twins were 56-25 at home and 29-52 on the road.

But there are also seasons where they were only .500 at home. We could certainly pull a larger data set, but I wanted to look at their recent successful seasons first. Five years is actually not a bad sample, I'm thinking?

**DaYooperASBDT** · 10-10-2009, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by sabretooth

If you were going to look at the advantage in the aggregate sense, you should examine home v. road and compare it to the league average split.

I'll do that, that makes sense. I'll start with five years and update this post as I add more years:

2009: Twins 49-33 at home, 38-43 on road (87-76) === .598 vs. .469
2008: Twins 53-28 at home, 35-47 on road (88-75) === .654 vs. .427
2007: Twins 41-40 at home, 38-43 on road (79-83) === .506 vs. .469
2006: Twins 54-27 at home, 42-39 on road (96-66) === .667 vs. .519
2005: Twins 45-36 at home, 38-43 on road (83-79) === .556 vs. .469

Aggregate home record: 242-164 (.596)
Aggregate road record: 191-215 (.470) ....... differential of .126

League Aggregate home record % is .556
League Aggregate road record % is .458 ....... differential of .098

Twins aggregate winning %: .533
League aggregate winning % is of course .500

Therefore if the Twins had a league average "home field advantage",
their aggregate home record should have been .593 (241-164), and they went (242-164),
which suggests an almost exactly league average performance given their above .533 overall record.

Thanks now my head hurts LOL.

**DET Mr Malefic** · 10-10-2009, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by Ingefanclub

I think you need to go back to 1982 and look at the entire 27 years to see what the
entire numbers are....
In 1987 the Twins were 56-25 at home and 29-52 on the road.

About a week and a half ago I took a look at the differential between a team's home winning pct. and away winning pct. since 1982. The results were as follows:

1. Colorado - 152 (Home - .552, Road - .400)
2. Tampa Bay - 124
3. Texas - 105
4. Houston - 102
T5. Minnesota - 100 (Home - .541, Road - .441)
T5. Florida - 100
7. San Francisco - 93
8. Boston - 89
9. Oakland - 88
10. Yankees - 86
T11. White Sox - 84
T11. Seattle - 84
13. Detroit - 83 (Home - .517, Road - .434)
14. Pittsburgh - 82
15. St. Louis - 81
16. Mets - 79
17. Milwaukee - 77
T18. Philadelphia - 75
T18. San Diego - 75
20. Kansas City - 74
T21. Cleveland - 73
T21. Washington/Montreal - 73
23. Toronto - 72
T24. Dodgers - 71
T24. Arizona - 71
26. Cubs - 67
27. Angels - 59
28. Atlanta - 47
29. Baltimore - 44
30. Cincinnati - 42 (Home - .510, Road - .468)

It's worth noting that of the teams ahead of Minnesota, three of them have had two home parks since 1982 (Colorado, Texas, and Houston). I did not go through the trouble of splitting up each team's performance per park in that time (and in Colorado's case, their numbers from Mile High Stadium would probably be statistically insignificant, as they only played there two seasons), I just used the total aggregate numbers and moved on. I didn't split them up mostly out of laziness, so if someone wants to take the time to do it, feel free.

EDIT: It's also worth noting that Tampa Bay is the only team with a losing overall record at home since 1982 (.488 wPct., although Baltimore is almost there) and yet they're still second on this list.

**sabretooth** · 10-10-2009, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by DET Mr Malefic

T24. Dodgers - 71
T24. Arizona - 71
27. Angels - 59

I'm surprised to see that two West Coast teams (including Arizona) near the bottom in tersm of positive home differential.

It would intuitively seem that a west coast team gets a bit of an advantage that would accumulate over time, due to playing non-divisional teams that are playing in the middle of the night from a sleep-clock perspective.

**Titus Tiger** · 10-10-2009, 08:17 PM

I think more needs to be added to those stats

Those winning percentages for the twins assume that the Twins were an average.

I don't know if they were or not, but --- for the sake of examining --- they were a mediocre team, then winning at home at the league average would point to an advantage to da dome.

For the sake of an opposite examination --- they were a great team, then the dome really hurt them.

I don't know how to configure if they were a great team or not...

Probably goes without saying, I would like for the Dodgers to do well, just so I can listen to Vinn Scully

Nate Steamroller Gif

**baseball3** · 10-10-2009, 08:23 PM

All you had to do was to watch the game ending double play ball Polanco was set up to catch late in the game on Tuesday night turn into a game tying single to know about the Metrodome Magic or whatever term you call it.

99% of the time, that ball stays down, Polanco turns the double play and we're playing the Yankees in NY.................however, the ball took a huge overspin, evaded Polanco's glove and turned into another nightmare. Over and over again, but, THIS example is all we need....case closed !!

**DaYooperASBDT** · 10-10-2009, 08:26 PM

I took that into account, over the last five years the Twins won 53.3% of their games. A perfectly average team would of course win 50% of their games, so the Twins were a slightly above average team. An average team would go 405-405 over five years, while over the last 5 years the Twins went 433-379.

So over five years they were 27 games ahead of an "average" team, so they should have had more home wins, simply by virtue of being an above average team.

**DaYooperASBDT** · 10-10-2009, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by DET Mr Malefic

About a week and a half ago I took a look at the differential between a team's home winning pct. and away winning pct. since 1982. The results were as follows:

1. Colorado - 152 (Home - .552, Road - .400)
2. Tampa Bay - 124
3. Texas - 105
4. Houston - 102
T5. Minnesota - 100 (Home - .541, Road - .441)
T5. Florida - 100
7. San Francisco - 93
8. Boston - 89
9. Oakland - 88
10. Yankees - 86
T11. White Sox - 84
T11. Seattle - 84
13. Detroit - 83 (Home - .517, Road - .434)
14. Pittsburgh - 82
15. St. Louis - 81
16. Mets - 79
17. Milwaukee - 77
T18. Philadelphia - 75
T18. San Diego - 75
20. Kansas City - 74
T21. Cleveland - 73
T21. Washington/Montreal - 73
23. Toronto - 72
T24. Dodgers - 71
T24. Arizona - 71
26. Cubs - 67
27. Angels - 59
28. Atlanta - 47
29. Baltimore - 44
30. Cincinnati - 42 (Home - .510, Road - .468)

It's worth noting that of the teams ahead of Minnesota, three of them have had two home parks since 1982 (Colorado, Texas, and Houston). I did not go through the trouble of splitting up each team's performance per park in that time (and in Colorado's case, their numbers from Mile High Stadium would probably be statistically insignificant, as they only played there two seasons), I just used the total aggregate numbers and moved on. I didn't split them up mostly out of laziness, so if someone wants to take the time to do it, feel free.

EDIT: It's also worth noting that Tampa Bay is the only team with a losing overall record at home since 1982 (.488 wPct., although Baltimore is almost there) and yet they're still second on this list.

This is very interesting, but without the context of each teams' overall winning % during the period, it's hard for me to judge the other percentages above?

**Titus Tiger** · 10-10-2009, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by DaYooperASBDT

I took that into account, over the last five years the Twins won 53.3% of their games. A perfectly average team would of course win 50% of their games, so the Twins were a slightly above average team. An average team would go 405-405 over five years, while over the last 5 years the Twins went 433-379.

So over five years they were 27 games ahead of an "average" team, so they should have had more home wins, simply by virtue of being an above average team.

but were they average (in the standings) because of some bonus metrodome wins?

**DaYooperASBDT** · 10-10-2009, 08:42 PM

No, the Twins were just an above average team in general, and performed as league average would predict, both on the road and at home. Maybe going back more years I'll find something different.

Over the last five years, the average A.L. team went roughly 45-36 at home, and the Twins went roughly 48-33. But since the Twins won about 86 games per year (about 5 above league average), then they should be expected to have 3 more home wins each year, because they won 5 more games overall. 3 extra home wins + 2 extra road wins = 5 extra wins.

**sabretooth** · 10-10-2009, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by DaYooperASBDT

This is very interesting, but without the context of each teams' overall winning % during the period, it's hard for me to judge the other percentages above?

I think the spread over 25 years would be very indicative regardless of the quality of the team at any given point in time. Even if a team was 10 points better/worse than another overall, their home/road splits should theoretically be the same unless they had an inherent home advantage beyond the normal home advantage.

**asindc** · 10-10-2009, 09:52 PM

Originally Posted by DET Mr Malefic

About a week and a half ago I took a look at the differential between a team's home winning pct. and away winning pct. since 1982. The results were as follows:

1. Colorado - 152 (Home - .552, Road - .400)
2. Tampa Bay - 124
3. Texas - 105
4. Houston - 102
T5. Minnesota - 100 (Home - .541, Road - .441)
T5. Florida - 100
7. San Francisco - 93
8. Boston - 89
9. Oakland - 88
10. Yankees - 86
T11. White Sox - 84
T11. Seattle - 84
13. Detroit - 83 (Home - .517, Road - .434)
14. Pittsburgh - 82
15. St. Louis - 81
16. Mets - 79
17. Milwaukee - 77
T18. Philadelphia - 75
T18. San Diego - 75
20. Kansas City - 74
T21. Cleveland - 73
T21. Washington/Montreal - 73
23. Toronto - 72
T24. Dodgers - 71
T24. Arizona - 71
26. Cubs - 67
27. Angels - 59
28. Atlanta - 47
29. Baltimore - 44
30. Cincinnati - 42 (Home - .510, Road - .468)

Looking at the top eight on this list:

1. Colorado - High altitude.
2. Tampa Bay - Dome.
3. Texas - Hot, humid, bugs as big as choppers.
4. Houston - Dome from 1965 to 1999.
T5. Minnesota - Dome from 1982 to this year.
T5. Florida - Football stadium, hot as all get out.
7. San Francisco - Candlestick from 1960 to 1999.
8. Boston - Fenway.

Of these eight teams, three of them have played in a dome for many years since 1982, three have (or had) climate issues, and the remaining two play or played in quirky parks. Whether any of the these factors translated into quantifiable advantages for the home teams, I don't know. It does seem worth noting, however.

**DaYooperASBDT** · 10-10-2009, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by sabretooth

I think the spread over 25 years would be very indicative regardless of the quality of the team at any given point in time. Even if a team was 10 points better/worse than another overall, their home/road splits should theoretically be the same unless they had an inherent home advantage beyond the normal home advantage.

OK just looked at the data set of 1982-2009 for the Twinkies.

Minnesota went 2196-2273 during that period (.491 record).
Mr. Mal gave their splits as (Home - .541, Road - .441)
(roughly 44-37 versus 36-45 on average)

If the league split was, say, .555 home (don't know this yet),
then I would expect the Twins to go .545 at home then?

Guess I'll have to calculate the league splits from 1982-2009 next so I can make sense of this.
My head still hurts, BTW.

**Oblong** · 10-12-2009, 03:00 PM

I plugged some numbers into a spreadsheet and came away with the belief that the Metrodome advantage is a myth, at least in regards to the Tigers.

In 14 seasons the Tigers had a better winning percentage at the Metrodome than they did the rest of the season on the road (Subtracting the metrome games from their road records) In 13 seasons they had a worse percentage. In 1 season they were tied. (1994. 1-2 at Metrodome, and 18-36 everywhere else.)

The perception comes from their performance there since 2001. In that time span they are 25-58 (.301) at the Metrodome vs. 273-374 (.422) everywhere else. Oddly, in 2007 they were 8-1. Remove that year and it's 17-57 (.229) vs 238-337 (.414) everywhere else.

2001 is also the year they went to an unbalanced schedule, right? At least that's when the games at the metrodome went from 6 per year to 9. Until then the record there was pretty average. Lots of 4-2, 3-3, 2-4. In 1988 they were 0-6 and in 1997 they were 1-5. So I don't know if you can really draw any conclusions one way or another. It could simply be the bad Tiger teams of the early 2000's were also not conducive to indoor baseball.

**diamondhead** · 10-12-2009, 03:13 PM

I think there's a significant advantage when you play your home games in a place that isn't quite the norm... being it a silly dome, the Texas heat or a thin atmosphere. Those type of things are an adjustment that visitors have to deal with and the home team is simply used to.

I don't think the Twins will become a bad franchise just because they're moving to an open air facility. That being said, the liklihood of a 1987 type of season ever happening for them again has probably left town.

**Charlie1** · 10-12-2009, 04:22 PM

All I care about is that the Yankees finished their SWEEP of the Twinks in that joke of a ballpark! Of course the Twinks helped, with Span and the rest of the CHOKERS doing a classic fold against New York.

**Antrat** · 10-12-2009, 04:26 PM

Unfortunately, as I've said before, the Twins didn't choke. They got their butt's beat by a vastly superior team.
If anybody choked, it was the team with the 3 game lead with 4 to go.
I think the Tigers would have put up a much better fight than the Twinks.
What a shame.

**whitesox901** · 10-12-2009, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Antrat

Unfortunately, as I've said before, the Twins didn't choke. They got their butt's beat by a vastly superior team.
If anybody choked, it was the team with the 3 game lead with 4 to go.
I think the Tigers would have put up a much better fight than the Twinks.
What a shame.

Antrat...is that you?

**toadhunter911** · 10-12-2009, 04:37 PM

I wonder what blueadams thinks about this...

**Antrat** · 10-12-2009, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by whitesox901

Antrat...is that you?

LOL

**FRM710** · 10-12-2009, 05:56 PM

I'd be more interested in how many balls were lost in the white roof by the Twins vs how many balls were lost in the white roof by their opponents? Of those games; how many were Twin wins and how many were Twin losses.

I also want to know how many games the there was an AC shortage during opponents AB's and did it happen all season or was it just during critical series? Has to be a Saber stat for this right?