Naming Rights for "The K"

Analytics breakdown: @Royals stadium Naming Rights partner would've rec'd $28.1M during @mlb playoffs from signage/mentions @ (8) home games
— Front Row Analytics (@FRAnalytics) October 29, 2014

This morning Front Row Analytics posted a very interesting tweet regarding the naming rights of Kauffman Stadium. As you can see above the company estimates that a sponsor could have generated approximately $28.1 million in advertising value from having its name plastered on Kauffman throughout the postseason.

Some of you might recall past rumors about the naming rights to Kauffman Stadium. In 2011, Yahoo reported that the team had sold the rights  for $3-6 million annually over the next 21 years. Later it was reported that a deal had fallen through with US Bank to acquire the naming rights to the stadium known affectionately by Royals fans as "The K."

I come from a background in sports marketing and sales and so I realize as well as anyone that everything has a price. This is especially true when it comes to sports marketing and promotion. However, I couldn't get myself to be accepting of selling the Kauffman name for just $3-6 million per season. Roughly enough to add a utility player or middle reliever to the roster. 

What Front Row Analytics illustrates though is how quality performance can boost revenue across the board. Not only will the Royals sell more seats in 2015 than they have for twenty years, but they will also see an increase in advertising and sponsorship revenue as a result. More butts in the seats means more eyes on the field, eyes on the screens, and ears next to radios. These things equate to dollars. 

I'm not sure what it would take for me to be happy to hear that the Royals have sold the naming rights to Kauffman Stadium. Would $6-10 million be enough to get the job done? Would $10-15 million per year make it worth it? Obviously, that sort of money could be a huge boon to the payroll of the franchise and more important to me than the name of the stadium is the product on the field.

For many fans, there is no number that could make such an action acceptable. What we must remember is that no matter the name scripted on to the facade of the building it will always be "The K" for us. 

Kauffman Stadium and Fly Ball Pitchers

I set out to write a post regarding how fly ball pitchers fair better in Kauffman Stadium than other parks. Basically, I took the top six pitchers in games started from each of Dayton Moore's six seasons at the helm. In a database I then compiled the innings pitched, ERA, ground ball percentage (league average 44%), and HR/FB (league average is 9.5%) of each of the starter's seasons. Following this, I weighted each starter's inputs into a team total based off of innings pitched.

Eventually, I ran a correlation analysis, as well as created a few line graphs that I overlaid over one another in order to get a quick visual. I did this in an attempt to determine how similar the line graphs were in structure. Not surprisingly, I did not find any serious connections between the elements. Of course, the sample size was incredibly small given that I was looking at team totals over six seasons.

I then decided that instead of focusing on the team totals, I would look at all of the starters individually. For this step, I simply created a scatter plot for both ERA versus GB% and ERA versus HR/FB. Here is a look at those scatter plots.

Obviously, there is nothing groundbreaking in this 15 minutes of research. The linear line above isn't anything to crazy. If we were to actually analyze how Kauffman favors fly ball pitchers compared to other parks, we would of course have to compare the above scatter plot to that of Major League averages. One thing that I will note, is that in general we are told that pitchers are better if they can induce ground balls. However, based off of the incredibly small sample above, our linear equation is actually very level across the board. In fact, if you examine the line closely, you will notice a slight slope indicated that fly ball pitchers fair slightly better at the K. 

If we were to really look closely at these types of numbers, of course we would want to include strikeout and walk rates in our study. But if I had to make a conclusion on this quick study, the fact that the line tilts ever so slightly in favor of fly ball pitchers would lead me to believe that this type of pitcher should find Kauffman Stadium's confines friendly. 

Examining our second graph, we once again don't find anything ground breaking. It doesn't take a genius to tell you that more home runs would lead to a higher ERA. I still have to wonder how this slope would compare to the slopes of other Major League parks, but given the dimensions of the K's outfield one would guess that HR/FB are lower for Royals starters. While I would expect the data points to be lower on the Y axis, I would also expect the slope to be less steep for other team's starters. 

I would theorize that due to the higher number of hits at Kauffman Stadium, home runs would hurt more than they would at a park where there are typically less base runners. For that reason, it is ideal for Royals pitchers to have a strong combination of a high fly ball percentage, with a low home run to fly ball percentage. This recipe for success is in no way unique to Kauffman Stadium, but given the park factors of Kauffman Stadium it is likely much more pronounced than the average Major League Park. 

An excellent example of this came in 2009. Zack Greinke was excellent in many facets of his game during that season, but one aspect that was particularly incredible was his ability to limit home runs despite inducing ground balls just 40.2% of the time. Like I said, this was just one part of Greinke's success. However, given Kauffman Stadiums park effects and the manner in which Greinke was recording outs, it isn't any wonder how the Cy Young winner was able to outperform his xFIP by nearly a full run. 

Over the last six seasons, eight Royals "starters" (ERAs include their time in the bullpen), have posted ERAs under 4.00. Six of those eight starters registered below the league average of 4t% ground balls. None of those eight starters posted a HR/FB above league average (9.5%). 

Eleven out of the 36 starters studied, recorded ground ball percentages below 44% as well as limited HR/FB to under 9.5% (I am including 2008 Greinke who just missed the cut with a 42.7 GB%). Here is how those starters rank in ERA among those unqualifying starters. I have put their names in bold. 

1. 2009 Greinke 2.16
2. 2012 Guthrie 3.16
3. 2008 Greinke 3.47
4. 2007 Meche 3.67
5. 2007 Greinke 3.69
6. 2011 Chen 3.77
7. 2007 Bannister 3.87
8. 2008 Meche 3.98
9. 2008 Davies 4.06
10. 2011 Paulino 4.11
11. 2010 Chen 4.17

The two unranked seasons that met the criteria were 2010 Davies (5.34) and 2011 Davies (6.75). Outside of a couple of Davies anomalies (leave it to Kyle Davies to screw something up), it seems pretty certain that the recipe for success at Kauffman Stadium is to keep the balls in the park, while inducing a large number of air outs. (Again this is a good recipe for success anywhere, I just suspect that it is more pronounced for Royals starters. More work would undoubtedly need to be done in order to confirm or refute this belief.)

What does this mean moving forward?

Whether the Royals intended to or not, they acquired several fly ball pitchers this offseason. Ervin Santana's career ground ball percentage is 38.9%, Jeremy Guthrie's is 40.6% and Wade Davis's is 37.9%. (James Shields's is 45.1%.) Davis is the only one of the first three that fall below 10% HR/FB threshold. However, Santana's career mark is 10.8% and Guthrie's is 10.6%. It doesn't feel too crazy to ask they cut just 1% off of their career marks.

I've long felt as though fly ball pitchers can really thrive in Kauffman Stadium. I've wondered many times whether Kauffman's postive affects on fly ball pitchers have been undervalued. Let's hope that this proves to be true. Let's hope that the rotation can keep the ball in the yard and the outfielders busy. If I'm right, we could be pleasantly surprised by the rotation's results in 2013. 

Is Kauffman Stadium too Neutral?

While watching the Oakland A's pull off one of the most magical seasons in recent memory, I thought back to a discussion I had with a friend of mine over the summer. The discussion began simply on the premise of what has Billy Beane figured out that has allowed his team to be so damn good. Eventually, what I started to realize was that the A's had simply developed a supreme understanding for what it takes to win at the Coliseum.

Of course, this thought got me to wondering how other team's have taken advantage of their home field advantages in the 2012 season. The Coliseum with its batting average and offensive suppressed environment. Yankee stadium with its distinctive jet stream blowing out to right field. The launching pads of Cincinnati, Texas, and Baltimore. The spacious outfields in Detroit and San Francisco. The more I thought about it, the more obvious it became.

As a Royals fan, this of course left me wondering one of two things. First, are the Royals not taking advantage of Kauffman like they could be? Or, is Kauffman Stadium too neutral?

Here's a snapshot of the percentage of home games won (out of total wins) by each of the 2012 playoff teams and the Kansas City Royals:

Detroit: .568 (t5th)

St. Louis: .568 (t5th)

Texas: .538 (12th)

New York: .537 (13th)

Oakland: .532 (15th)

Cincinnati: .515 (19th)

Kansas City: .514 (20th)

Atlanta: .511 (t21st)

San Francisco: .511 (t21st)

Washington: .510 (24th)

Baltimore: .505 (26th)

Interestingly enough these teams are incredibly, evenly dispersed. Obviously, my initial hypothesis that the 2012 playoff teams took advantage of their home fields more than other teams is not valid. However, that doesn't mean that improvement in the Royals' home field advantage is any less important.

Just think, if Kansas City would have managed to be average in home field advantage and win .53% of their total 2012 wins, they would have won three additional games. This would have made their home record 40-41 and their final record 75-87 for the year. Keep in mind that is only asking the Royals to be average in terms of home field advantage. 

What if the Royals could proficiently take advantage of the confines of Kauffman Stadium. For fun let's look at where they would have wound up if they would have been as dominate at home as Detroit and St. Louis. If the Royals would have recorded 56.8% of their wins at home in 2012, their final record would have been even at 81-81. 

Consider that number for a second.  The Royals, without improving their talent level at all and simply taking advantage of a strong home field advantage, could have finished the 2012 season with eight more wins. This leads us to the obvious question: does Kauffman Stadium offer a uniqueness that the Royals could exploit for more wins?

Below is a radar displaying the park factors of every Major League stadium. The farther away from the midpoint, the more extreme the park factor.

And here is that information in table form. Keep in mind that each park factor has been converted into a number displaying how far the factor is from zero. The cells are then color coded (green = neutral, red = extreme). The teams are organized based off of which teams won the highest percentage of their games at home, or if you'd prefer, which teams most took advantage of their home field.

Unfortunately, based on the park factors, there aren't any specific characteristics of Kauffman Stadium that stand out for being incredibly unique compared to other parks around the league. The only factor that even comes being close to not being league average is triples, where Kauffman Stadium boosts triple numbers to 25.7% above the league average.

For a team that is trying to increase their win total by about 15 games from 2012 to 2013, every win is crucial. One thing the Royals have to improve on is their home field advantage. In 2013, in order for the Royals to really start to close the gap, it would be a huge help to have at least an average home field advantage, even if that was only worth three additional wins in the standings.

Unfortunately, looking at the numbers it is hard to imagine the Royals building a team around Kauffman Stadium. Based off the above information, it would appear that Kauffman Stadium is simply too neutral. With that being said, there is another stadium whose park factors very closely resemble those to Kauffman.

As you can see, based off the extremity of the park factors (bottom two rows, displaying how far the park factor is from average), Kauffman Stadium and Busch Stadium are very similar to one another. However, when you look at straight up park factors, they are virtually mirror images over each other when straddling the league average marks.

Either way, both are very close to playing neutral and despite that the 2012 Cardinals were able to win the fifth highest percentage of their total wins at home. If the Royals can replicate that feat at Kauffman Stadium in 2013, it would only take marginal improvement from the roster for Kauffman to get to host its first playoff game since 1985.