The orthodox line goes something like "Last season, Gonzales' home ERA was 3.56 while his away ERA was 4.32 and because Y is so much higher than X, he'll get exposed as soon as he leaves Oakland." The equally non-valid counterargument being "Yeah, but he's an xtreme groundballer so he'll be ok in a small park." Neither of these are of any consequence which we'll see as we go over his game logs after the jump....
Warning: SDSSS (Super-Duper Small Sample Size). After all the statement was only in the context of last season further limited by his road starts, hardly a population worth judging a pitcher by but here we go nonetheless:
Below is his away game log from FanGraphs sorted by ESPN's ((homeRS + homeRA)/(homeG)) / ((roadRS + roadRA)/(roadG)) formula.
Date | Opp | Park Factor | Factor Rank | IP | H | HR | R | ER | SO | BB | FB | GB | Pit |
22-May | @SFG | 0.737 | 30 | 6.2 | 8 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 2 | 7 | 9 | 113 |
25-Apr | @LAA | 0.836 | 27 | 5 | 8 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 95 |
23-Sep | @LAA | 0.836 | 27 | 7.1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 9 | 8 | 101 |
3-Aug | @SEA | 0.855 | 26 | 6.1 | 10 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 9 | 4 | 2 | 9 | 118 |
28-Sep | @SEA | 0.855 | 26 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 109 |
22-Jun | @NYM | 0.908 | 24 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 102 |
9-Apr | @MIN | 0.944 | 21 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 7 | 9 | 106 |
1-Sep | @CLE | 0.96 | 16 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 114 |
11-Jun | @CHW | 0.991 | 14 | 5.1 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 9 | 115 |
6-May | @KCR | 0.992 | 13 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 11 | 110 |
6-Jun | @BAL | 0.995 | 12 | 7 | 9 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 10 | 103 |
24-Jul | @NYY | 1.131 | 6 | 4.2 | 7 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 111 |
10-Aug | @TOR | 1.152 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 4 | 108 |
26-Aug | @BOS | 1.173 | 3 | 5.2 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 9 | 9 | 105 |
8-Jul | @TEX | 1.409 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 3 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 9 | 94 |
Good for a 1.47 WHIP (ouch considering the talent that just went out the door to get him but that's another story). Anyway, other than April 25th and August 3rd which buck the trend, there seems to be a pretty good direct relation between park factor and earned runs. What do I think this means for Gio as he heads east? Simply what makes sense for any player; of course they're going to give up more runs playing at NY, Toronto, Boston and Texas. That's just common sense.
For the curious, Nat's Park comes in a 0.955 (marginally favoring the pitcher) coincidentally very close to Oakland's 0.947. I can't personally verify the practicality of this formula especially since Nat's Park North comes in at <1 but as long as it is equally applied to all fields, it should be a reasonable comparison.
I also threw in there his pitch counts since they were handy and I found them pretty encouraging. It's not a tell-all story since he had a negative WPA in many of these and may be more an indictment of Oakland's pen (I don't know anything about theirs to say either way) but it at least shows that he has the ability to stretch out some innings. Something about the bragging that we now have someone who has thrown 200 innings X number of times and won 15 games Y number of times gives me the shivers....
UPDATE: Here's his 09-11 road starts:
I think the principle remains sound that a lot of his ERs were at hitter friendly parks but without a linear trend attached to ER, the direct correlation is not as evident. Looks to me that he will live by the WHIP and die by the WHIP
Date | Team | Opp | Park Factor | Factor Rank | IP | TBF | H | HR | R | ER | SO | BB | IBB | FB | GB | LD | Stk | Bal | Pit | |
2011 | 22-May | OAK | @SFG | 0.737 | 30 | 6.2 | 32 | 8 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 9 | 4 | 70 | 43 | 113 |
2010 | 14-Apr | OAK | @SEA | 0.813 | 29 | 4.2 | 23 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 55 | 43 | 98 |
2010 | 30-Sep | OAK | @SEA | 0.813 | 29 | 7 | 30 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 8 | 5 | 73 | 45 | 118 |
2011 | 25-Apr | OAK | @LAA | 0.836 | 27 | 5 | 23 | 8 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 7 | 5 | 58 | 37 | 95 |
2011 | 23-Sep | OAK | @LAA | 0.836 | 27 | 7.1 | 27 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 9 | 8 | 3 | 60 | 41 | 101 |
2009 | 5-Jul | OAK | @CLE | 0.838 | 29 | 6 | 25 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 7 | 3 | 56 | 36 | 92 |
2011 | 3-Aug | OAK | @SEA | 0.855 | 26 | 6.1 | 31 | 10 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 9 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 9 | 5 | 72 | 46 | 118 |
2011 | 28-Sep | OAK | @SEA | 0.855 | 26 | 8 | 29 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 3 | 0 | 6 | 7 | 1 | 67 | 42 | 109 |
2010 | 9-Apr | OAK | @LAA | 0.864 | 27 | 6 | 24 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 66 | 29 | 95 |
2011 | 22-Jun | OAK | @NYM | 0.908 | 24 | 7 | 26 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 7 | 8 | 2 | 69 | 33 | 102 |
2010 | 11-Jun | OAK | @SFG | 0.942 | 22 | 5.1 | 24 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 60 | 45 | 105 |
2011 | 9-Apr | OAK | @MIN | 0.944 | 21 | 6 | 24 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 9 | 2 | 61 | 45 | 106 |
2010 | 2-Jul | OAK | @CLE | 0.947 | 21 | 6.2 | 29 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 66 | 42 | 108 |
2010 | 24-Aug | OAK | @CLE | 0.947 | 21 | 7 | 30 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 15 | 4 | 66 | 43 | 109 |
2009 | 3-May | OAK | @SEA | 0.947 | 21 | 5 | 23 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 11 | 6 | 1 | 66 | 42 | 108 |
2009 | 26-Aug | OAK | @SEA | 0.947 | 21 | 5 | 24 | 7 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 63 | 44 | 107 |
2011 | 6-Jun | OAK | @BAL | 0.955 | 12 | 7 | 30 | 9 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 10 | 9 | 68 | 35 | 103 |
2011 | 1-Sep | OAK | @CLE | 0.96 | 16 | 7 | 30 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 64 | 50 | 114 |
2010 | 13-Aug | OAK | @MIN | 0.962 | 19 | 6 | 25 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 60 | 50 | 110 |
2009 | 25-Jul | OAK | @NYY | 0.965 | 20 | 6.2 | 25 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 9 | 2 | 60 | 42 | 102 |
2011 | 11-Jun | OAK | @CHW | 0.991 | 14 | 5.1 | 28 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 6 | 61 | 54 | 115 |
2011 | 6-May | OAK | @KCR | 0.992 | 13 | 7 | 28 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 7 | 11 | 0 | 67 | 43 | 110 |
2009 | 18-May | OAK | @TBR | 0.996 | 17 | 3.2 | 19 | 6 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 3 | 54 | 37 | 91 |
2009 | 10-Jul | OAK | @TBR | 0.996 | 17 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 12 | 25 |
2010 | 16-Jul | OAK | @KCR | 1.007 | 12 | 7 | 29 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 14 | 6 | 62 | 37 | 99 |
2010 | 14-Sep | OAK | @KCR | 1.007 | 12 | 2 | 16 | 7 | 1 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 8 | 0 | 33 | 22 | 55 |
2009 | 25-Sep | OAK | @LAA | 1.02 | 15 | 6.1 | 24 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 9 | 3 | 58 | 38 | 96 |
2009 | 10-Aug | OAK | @BAL | 1.037 | 11 | 6 | 26 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 7 | 11 | 1 | 57 | 28 | 85 |
2010 | 1-May | OAK | @TOR | 1.058 | 8 | 6.2 | 26 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 12 | 1 | 71 | 32 | 103 |
2009 | 30-Jul | OAK | @BOS | 1.072 | 8 | 5.1 | 24 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 66 | 41 | 107 |
2010 | 1-Jun | OAK | @BOS | 1.083 | 7 | 5 | 25 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 7 | 6 | 3 | 60 | 48 | 108 |
2009 | 13-Sep | OAK | @MIN | 1.09 | 6 | 3 | 19 | 8 | 1 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 44 | 34 | 78 |
2010 | 12-May | OAK | @TEX | 1.091 | 6 | 4 | 21 | 9 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 7 | 3 | 62 | 35 | 97 |
2010 | 27-Jul | OAK | @TEX | 1.091 | 6 | 6 | 26 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 11 | 3 | 68 | 43 | 111 |
2010 | 29-Aug | OAK | @TEX | 1.091 | 6 | 6 | 23 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 6 | 0 | 65 | 30 | 95 |
2010 | 27-May | OAK | @BAL | 1.112 | 5 | 6.1 | 28 | 6 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 11 | 3 | 66 | 42 | 108 |
2011 | 24-Jul | OAK | @NYY | 1.131 | 1 | 4.2 | 25 | 7 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 7 | 7 | 2 | 68 | 43 | 111 |
2010 | 1-Aug | OAK | @CHW | 1.135 | 4 | 8 | 31 | 6 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 70 | 29 | 99 |
2011 | 10-Aug | OAK | @TOR | 1.152 | 4 | 5 | 24 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 9 | 4 | 2 | 54 | 54 | 108 |
2010 | 16-Jun | OAK | @CHC | 1.17 | 3 | 5 | 24 | 8 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 8 | 6 | 3 | 54 | 35 | 89 |
2011 | 26-Aug | OAK | @BOS | 1.173 | 3 | 5.2 | 27 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 9 | 9 | 1 | 64 | 41 | 105 |
2011 | 8-Jul | OAK | @TEX | 1.409 | 1 | 4 | 23 | 7 | 3 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 9 | 2 | 53 | 41 | 94 |