All the other major sports however have taken the opposite view of standardizing everything… would you support the idea that each team can set those dimensions as they want, within a league-imposed min/max range?

My hockey knowledge is very limited, but my memory is that the playing surfaces used be different sizes, but now they're all standardized. Is that right? If so, when did the changeover occur?

Not a hockey fan but: through building new arenas, like when the Boston Garden was replaced?

I would think that more uniform field sizes also allow for more multi-level use. That is, when some other hockey team/event is considering renting your arena, they don't have to worry about how their rules/style favors or doesn't favor a given team due to particular arena configuration.

Personally I think baseball is random enough without having a flyball be an out in Safeco and three run homer in New Yankee.

Are there standardized fields in soccer? IIRC, when the Kansas City Wizards played at Arrowhead Stadium, they had trouble attracting international events because the playing surface wasn't quite large enough for international events, but it was okay for MLS I guess?

Sorry to hear that they blew up the Dev Nelson Press Box (and replaced it with the "West Stadium Centre". It reminds me of John Smith, the one who led the British Labour Party before Tony Blair. Smith would, more likely than not, have become Prime Minister: but he unexpectedly died of a heart attack at 55. So the Labour Party immediately named their HQ "John Smith House". But then, less than 3 years later, they moved to new, better, offices, and they pointedly chose not to take the name with them...it was a time when Blair was trying to move away from the party's past. And now John Smith House is a budget hotel.



Answered:
As well as the name given by 30% of the men who register there. . ...

Heh. That's actually pretty good.

The rink is different for the Olympics, and the rules are different enough that it makes for an interesting change to the game.

During the most recent lockout, a number of NHL players went to the KHL (the top Russian league -- roughly equivalent to baseball in Japan) and it was interesting to see how some stars simply weren't that good on the Russian rink under Russian rules.

Personally I think baseball is random enough without having a flyball be an out in Safeco and three run homer in New Yankee.

Even if this is your stance, having equal dimensions at all parks isn't going to solve this. You'd still have balls hit in places like Seattle, San Diego, and San Francisco that would die in the cool, damp air that would have been home runs at other parks with drier air. And there are surely other effects from weather and from other things beyond weather that you'd never be able to control for. What's the point of getting rid of the uniqueness of parks if you still have massive park effects and the "same fly ball" can be an out or a HR at different parks?

I don't know if the NHL has fully standardized but, yeah, largely when buildings are replaced. For a sport like hockey or soccer, you also have international considerations to take into account (if you ever want to host such an event or your city/country is looking to host the Olympics or World Cup).

On the LOOGY question: I suspect he's right but I suspect it's closer than he thinks. First, there aren't that many spots where it's easy to platoon -- it's mainly 1B/DH/LF/RF. You can still platoon at those spots pretty easily if you need to. But there's not a big supply of LHB for the IF and C.

The main advantage of the offensive platoon over the defensive platoon is that you platoon against the starting pitcher moreso than the relief pitcher and thereby get more PA. But if you platoon Granderson (for example), your RHB gets maybe 200 PA against a LHP but most of those are low-leverage PAs the first 3 times through the order.

Anyway, platoon pitching came along in part to combat the quite successful offensive platooning of the 70s and 80s. It's gone too far probably -- there's certainly no point in carrying 3 lefties who are relatively ineffective against RHB -- but you probably can't do much more than add one lefty masher. What teams should probably do though is stop carrying the 60 game, 40 IP LHP -- they've got to soak up some garbage time and be at least 80/60.

Even if this is your stance, having equal dimensions at all parks isn't going to solve this. You'd still have balls hit in places like Seattle, San Diego, and San Francisco that would die in the cool, damp air that would have been home runs at other parks with drier air. And there are surely other effects from weather and from other things beyond weather that you'd never be able to control for. What's the point of getting rid of the uniqueness of parks if you still have massive park effects and the "same fly ball" can be an out or a HR at different parks?

I'm never very convinced with the 'we can't fix it 100% so why bother at all' arguments. The strike zone is the same, the mount height is the same, the distance between bases is the same. It's supposed to be the same game wherever you go. Having a few parks with a little league depth fences, one with a giant wall, one with a stupid hill, etc., just make the outcome more arbitrary than it needs to be.

From 1916 to 2012, Throws LH, as Reliever, (requiring BF=1)

                                  
Rk    Tm Year            #Matching
1    SFG 2004        69 Ind. Games
                                  
2    SFG 2012        52 Ind. Games
                                  
3    STL 2009        51 Ind. Games
                                  
4    NYY 2012        49 Ind. Games
                                  
5    COL 2010        48 Ind. Games
                                  
6    TBR 2009        47 Ind. Games
7    CLE 1997        47 Ind. Games
                                  
8    STL 2005        46 Ind. Games
9    FLA 2011        46 Ind. Games
                                  
10   NYM 2008        44 Ind. Games

[9] We were so close in the 70s and 80s!

[10] BF <= 2

                                  
Rk    Tm Year            #Matching
1    NYY 2012        88 Ind. Games
                                  
2    SFG 2004        84 Ind. Games
                                  
3    COL 2010        81 Ind. Games
                                  
4    STL 2009        79 Ind. Games
                                  
5    SFG 2012        73 Ind. Games
                                  
6    STL 2005        72 Ind. Games
                                  
7    STL 2004        71 Ind. Games
                                  
8    TBR 2009        70 Ind. Games
                                  
9    TEX 2002        69 Ind. Games
                                  
10   CLE 1997        68 Ind. Games

For single seasons, From 1961 to 2012, Throws LH, (requiring IP<=40, IP<0.67*G and At least 80% games in relief), sorted by season

                   
Rk   Year #Matching
1    2012        16
2    2011        20
3    2010        24
4    2009        19
5    2008        11
6    2007        14
7    2006        19
8    2005        24
9    2004        13
10   2003        13
11   2002        14
12   2001        10
13   2000        16
14   1999        11
15   1998        20
16   1997         7
17   1996         5
18   1995         7
19   1994        11
20   1993        11
21   1992         5
22   1991         7
23   1990         8
24   1989         3
25   1988         2
26   1987         0
27   1986         4
28   1985         0
29   1984         1
30   1983         5
31   1982         0
32   1981         2
33   1980         2
34   1979         1
35   1978         1
36   1977         2
37   1976         2
38   1975         2
39   1974         2
40   1973         3
41   1972         1
42   1971         3
43   1970         1
44   1969         4
45   1968         1
46   1967         5
47   1966         4
48   1965         1
49   1964         2
50   1963         2
51   1962         0
52   1961         0

"But they always seem to me self-centered and precious."

What does he mean by that?

The strike zone is the same

Pull the other one.

It is a challenge, and I actually appreciate your asking that exact question. My audience includes many people who are brilliant, incisive and disciplined thinkers. But DISCUSSIONS, by their nature, are rambling, incoherent events that wander backward and forward. Discussions among groups of people, by their nature, tend to take sweaters and turn them into strings of yarn. The challenge of leading is a discussion is to construct the discussion in such a way that it advances our understanding of the issue; in other words, to try to take yarn and make a sweater, rather than the other way around. It’s very challenging, and I have to discipline myself, sometimes, to ignore very interesting things that people say, ignore them and not publish them, because, while the comment is interesting in itself, it unravels the discussion.

This sounds like a bunch of yarn.

It is a challenge, and I actually appreciate your asking that exact question. My audience includes many people who are brilliant, incisive and disciplined thinkers. But DISCUSSIONS, by their nature, are rambling, incoherent events that wander backward and forward. Discussions among groups of people, by their nature, tend to take sweaters and turn them into strings of yarn. The challenge of leading is a discussion is to construct the discussion in such a way that it advances our understanding of the issue; in other words, to try to take yarn and make a sweater, rather than the other way around. It’s very challenging, and I have to discipline myself, sometimes, to ignore very interesting things that people say, ignore them and not publish them, because, while the comment is interesting in itself, it unravels the discussion.

In all discussions on any topic, whether here and elsewhere, it's like a participant is held to have to know his ultimate position on an issue before the discussion is had--and he's not allowed to later qualify or modify it. If the participant displays any uncertainty that is taken as self-defeating. You got to know the answer before you do the figuring. Moreover, there are implicit strictures, even taboos, that have to do much more with norms and social mores than with reasoned analysis--discussions tend to break down over a how dare you say that, you're on the side of the Nazis or the babykillers, etc. That suggests to me, tentatively, that debate and argument is not about intellectual discovery so much as it is about jockeying for safe and comfortable position in a social pecking order.

"Self-centered & precious" definitely needs to be someone's BTF handle.

"Self-centered & precious" definitely needs to be someone's BTF handle.

Thinking about it. This one might get traded.

"Self-centered & precious" definitely needs to be someone's BTF handle.

Done.

I'm self-precious and centered

That suggests to me, tentatively, that debate and argument is not about intellectual discovery so much as it is about jockeying for safe and comfortable position in a social pecking order.

Ppft. If that's true why be so tentative about it!

I'm not a huge believer in the adversarial system of accumulating knowledge. I'm much more inclined to trust someone who presents a range of perspectives, some of which may contradict his/her ultimate argument, than someone who is absolutely sure of their opinion and only sees confirmation in everything around them.

Of course, that approach doesn't really work as well when people are debating what 2+2 equals, but in the humanities I find it a good rule of thumb in general.

EDIT:
Or to quote the great Joel Plaskett

Are you with me or are you leavin?
Are you argumentative?
You all want some true believin'
Why'd you act so tentative?

"But they always seem to me self-centered and precious."

What does he mean by that?

That he's not interested in purported baseball books in which the author, not baseball, is the subject?

Right or wrong, it is my opinion, until somebody can show me where I’m wrong, that carrying left-handers in the bullpen is a complete waste of time and resources. You not only don’t need THREE left-handers in the bullpen; you don’t need one…

If James is wrong, and I don't know that he is, it would be because you'd be bringing in your lefty particularly against guys who crunch righties but can't hit lefties at all. The advantage you get against the 200 hitters James mentions that the lefty faces isn't going to be the average platoon difference in the majors, but the difference for guys who are particularly susceptible to failing versus LHP.

A lefty hitter would typically hit. . .what, 30 points higher against a right-handed pitcher? That’s six hits…

That's his problem, right there. You're not always or even often bringing in your lefty specialist to face hitters who have "typical" platoon splits.

It's supposed to be the same game wherever you go.

Why? I find the differences between parks charming, adding interest to the game as played, and to the history of the game.

Having a few parks with a little league depth fences, one with a giant wall, one with a stupid hill, etc., just make the outcome more arbitrary than it needs to be.

I think that's the difference. I don't see it as making the outcome arbitary, but rather more interesting, and requiring more skill from the players. LF in Boston versus CF in Detroit for example.

@17: Yup. And for some reason a perfect example comes to mind.

Have you read My Baseball Diary by James T. Farrell? He wrote a ton of books, most notably the Studs Lonigan trilogy. His baseball memoir has a lot of great reminisces about baseball during the teens. Apparently one of his first literature essays was a high school paper called The Fall of Prince Hal, written in 1920 after finding out that Hal Chase, one of his favorite players ,had been involved in fixing ball games.

I generally dislike the genre. . ..personal reflections on my history of being a baseball fan. There are a hundred books like that, and my friends often recommend them to me, but they always seem to me self-centered and precious.

Man, talk about a self-centered and precious comment. There are times when James sounds like the tiredest old fart on Earth.

Not to mention that My Baseball Diary is a terrific book. He should just admit that he hadn't read it and leave it at that.

Disagree if you like--and I'm sure it's a fine book, whatever. But I hardly think preferring baseball books to be about baseball rather than "my life experiencing baseball" makes you "old fartish" or "precious." Then again, dude writes for Simmons sometimes, so...whatever

I'm not a huge believer in the adversarial system of accumulating knowledge.

It seems to me that most advancement is through a adversarial system, whether that be science, applied science, lit and art, as well as philosophy and other scholarly pursuits. The game of baseball is adversarial, I believe. If it weren't, few would be interested, and there would be little change or adaptation.

I find that those who wax mythopoeic about baseball are tired something or others, but I have to admit I once thrilled to the godlike exploit stories of Cobb, Ruth, Williams, etc., when I was much younger. There's a reason Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings and Batman comics enthrall the young. We like a religious, or quasi-religious, certainty, but you should outgrow that. Now, meh.

it was okay for MLS I guess?

Well, MLS (historically) had to make do with whatever size field the football/baseball stadium could handle without causing major problems for getting it ready for football/baseball again. When the World Cup was in the US, many of the football stadiums weren't big enough to hold a World Cup sized field and special measures had to be taken. Sometimes rows of seats were lost as they brought in a raised platform and put sod on top of that.

A number of MLS teams now have their own stadiums but I'm not sure if they've all gotten international size fields when they did. I assume the ones that have hosted US qualifiers have full-sized fields.

A number of MLS teams now have their own stadiums but I'm not sure if they've all gotten international size fields when they did. I assume the ones that have hosted US qualifiers have full-sized fields.

When the Rapids built their stadium they made a point of making it the maximum allowable size, which I believe is 120 x 75 yds., figuring that it would maximize their advantage being accustomed to playing at altitude. But the World Cup qualifier next month is at the Broncos stadium.

Disagree if you like--and I'm sure it's a fine book, whatever. But I hardly think preferring baseball books to be about baseball rather than "my life experiencing baseball" makes you "old fartish" or "precious." Then again, dude writes for Simmons sometimes, so...whatever

Of course My Baseball Diary is "about baseball" from the first page to the last. Perhaps Farrell's next "whatever" critic will actually have read the book before dismissing it.

What's old fartish about James's stupid comment isn't his preference for one genre over another. It's that the smallminded tone of his complaint makes him sound more like Murray Chass talking about sabermetrics than the Bill James of the Historic Abstracts.

DISCUSSIONS, by their nature, are rambling, incoherent events that wander backward and forward.

I was for rambling, before Bill James was against it. But that was Barry Bonds' fault.

I wonder who James is having all those rambling, incoherent discussions with? He needs some new codgers, I mean friends.

Back when he wrote his first Baseball Abstract, Bill James was only 71% as old as Murray Chass. But now he is 85% as old as Murray Chass.

Another way to state my essential thesis is that you can control the platoon advantage much more effectively if you control it from the offensive side than if you try to control it from the pitching side. But. ...I can’t convince anybody.

With DMB I've been playing a 162-game season against a league of computer managers and have been toying around with:

1. Putting a RH reliever on the mound and when I bring in the LH reliever, stashing the RH reliever at 1B or in RF and swapping the two batter by batter. Yes, I think this is overkill and would never really advocate it for a real team, but it's something I've been experimenting with.

I do generally agree with James that managers platoon with their relievers far too often. You shouldn't need fourteen relievers to get through the 7th inning. This is probably also one reason why relievers' stats are on average better than starters'.

2. I don't use a closer and have no set roles for relievers. I try to use my better ones in any 'high' leverage situation from the 5th through the 9th depending on situation and rest.

3. I don't have a set rotation. My 1-3 starters tend to pitch every turn but I have no set 4-5 slots. Also, all of my starters will relieve if they are rested and the situation calls for it. Even sometimes if they are not rested but I need a batter out of them.

4. I have only 11 pitchers on my active roster.

5. I platoon with my lineup heavily, and will pinch hit for my non 3-5 hitters at any time in the game if there are men on base and I can get a better hitter or platoon situation. I tend to run through most of my offensive players in a game. I will absolutely pinch hit for the pitcher in the early innings with men in scoring position or bases loaded.

I can agree with James that you don't necessarily need 3 lefty relievers, but not carrying even one is folly. Certain hitters (Ryan Howard comes to mind) are absolutely incompetent when it comes to hitting left-handed pitching, and not having the ability to take advantage of that fact at least once per game when you're playing the Phillies is taking a very valuable tool out of your toolbox as a manager. Does every Howard AB after the 6th inning need to be against a LHRP? Probably not, but if he's coming up in a big spot in the 7th or 8th inning, having a decent lefty available in your bullpen can basically completely neutralize him as a threat at the plate. Howard is obviously an extreme example, but there really isn't a shortage of left-handed hitters in MLB who really can't hit LHP.

With DMB I've been playing a 162-game season against a league of computer managers and have been toying around with:

1. Putting a RH reliever on the mound and when I bring in the LH reliever, stashing the RH reliever at 1B or in RF and swapping the two batter by batter. Yes, I think this is overkill and would never really advocate it for a real team, but it's something I've been experimenting with.

How does this comply with MLB rule 3.03? (Who are the "two" you mean? LHRP and RHRP or RHRP and 1B/RF?)

Rule 3.03 Comment: A pitcher may change to another position only once during the same inning; e.g. the pitcher will not be allowed to assume a position other than a pitcher more than once in the same inning. Any player other than a pitcher substituted for an injured player shall be allowed five warm-up throws. (See Rule 8.03 for pitchers.)

Tribute to James T. Farrell by Roger Ebert--I love those guys who have all the answers. I love and I leave 'em. The dateline on that piece is September 1968 and his man for President is Bobby Kennedy. ????

#31:

Whether I or James has read the book that you love is beside the point. Someone described it as a "baseball memoir". Forgive him for not assuming that it transcends the genre, will you? Baseball memoirs are awful. You're right--I haven't read this particular one, and perhaps it's exceptional, but it's hardly old fartish to say to someone who asks if you have read a book that he identifies as belonging to a terrible genre "I don't like that genre." Because that genre, on average, is like the worst thing ever. Bill Simmons at 400+ pages, which...puke

Bill James is certainly old enough (63) and literate enough to be aware of James T. Farrell, and My Baseball Diary has long had a reputation that transcends the genre in question. And being smugly comfortable in one's ignorance is one of the surest signs of creeping old fartism, no matter what your chronological age. Perhaps I'm guilty of holding James to a higher standard than he deserves, but there's a dismissive ignorance of tone in that response of his that calls to mind a hack like Murray Chass, much more than it does the Bill James whose writings take up nearly an entire bookcase shelf by themselves.

Whether I or James has read the book that you love is beside the point. Someone described it as a "baseball memoir". Forgive him for not assuming that it transcends the genre, will you? Baseball memoirs are awful. You're right--I haven't read this particular one, and perhaps it's exceptional, but it's hardly old fartish to say to someone who asks if you have read a book that he identifies as belonging to a terrible genre "I don't like that genre."

Bill Simmons ought to know whether the characterization is correct, or if he doesn't know, shouldn't pretend like he does know. He could say: "I don't know about that book in particular, but I find most baseball memoirs rather uncompelling...etc."

Otherwise I don't see how it rises above the level of "Billy Beane should never have written that book."

Bill Simmons ought to know whether the characterization is correct, or if he doesn't know, shouldn't pretend like he does know. He could say: "I don't know about that book in particular, but I find most baseball memoirs rather uncompelling...etc."

You mean Bill James, not Bill Simmons, but otherwise your point is spot on.

That's his problem, right there. You're not always or even often bringing in your lefty specialist to face hitters who have "typical" platoon splits.

A) It wouldn't make that much difference to the calculation. There aren't that many hits at stake.
B) If you're platooning you can get the Lowenstein out of there (Lowenstein rarely faced a lefty under Weaver) and your lefty has to stay and face the batter. A lot of the loogies have butt-ugly splits against righties.

Now one member of the platoon has to take platoon busting from time to time. With Roenickstein it was (generally) Roenicke (In other words, if Lowenstein started and a lefty was brought into the game, generally Weaver reacted by bringing in Roenicke but he didn't always lift Roenicke if the manager switched to a RHP) while with Mullinorg, it was basically react once and that's it (So if Mulliniks started and the other team brought in a lefty Iorg would normally come into the game and finish it. Reverse applied if Iorg started)

With today's smaller benches, a manager often has limited options, but that's the point that James (and others) have been making for some time. Managers are choosing to accept that they can't pinch-hit at will.

In a Scoresheet forum, I mentioned Jose Altuve and Robbie Alomar in the same sentence (they both happened to be N.L. all-star second-basemen shortly after turning 22, then became Americans Leaguers the next year.) . . . and I get thrashed for saying Altuve is going to the Hall of Fame. I guess my question is, how do you keep yourself from getting totally discouraged with your public?

Hah! I'm a moderator for the mailing list/forum and definitely know about the discussion he's talking about.
He originally said that Altuve should be the first player selected by keeper teams among the "crossovers" (NL players moving to the AL in the off-season), ahead of Dickey, Buerhle, Reyes, Johnson, etc.

His explanation:
Well, I was just going by the Bill James projection for this 22 year old
secondbaseman: .347 OBA and .417 slugging. It reminds me of my first
pick in a continuing league ever: a 22 year old Robbie Alomar with the
8th overall pick in 1991. Altuve has several years of growth to go, so
he has a decent chance of being an incredible stud at a scarce position.
...
I'm not militant about Altuve, but I don't see a distinctly better
choice.

I can agree with James that you don't necessarily need 3 lefty relievers, but not carrying even one is folly. Certain hitters (Ryan Howard comes to mind) are absolutely incompetent when it comes to hitting left-handed pitching, and not having the ability to take advantage of that fact at least once per game when you're playing the Phillies is taking a very valuable tool out of your toolbox as a manager.

Also, a 12 man pitching staff has 7 relief spots. A long reliever, a closer, a setup man -- you've still got four relievers to go. If you're carrying that many relievers anyway, why not make one a lefty specialist?

The thing that's driving up the size of relief corps isn't a proliferation of roles. It's the need for relief innings.

Putting a RH reliever on the mound and when I bring in the LH reliever, stashing the RH reliever at 1B or in RF and swapping the two batter by batter.

I think you're allowed to do this once per inning. It's not unlimited.

The thing that's driving up the size of relief corps isn't a proliferation of roles. It's the need for relief innings.

That's the thing. If there is a need for "relief innings", carrying someone who, at best, will give you a third of an inning per outing is a huge penalty.

I think, rather than three "lefty specialists" who, let's face it, generally suck overall, teams should work to identify and sign a good left-handed pitcher - someone who has some capability to get right handers out as well and who can go an inning or two at a time. In other words, sign good pitchers, with an eye to having some balance between lefty and righty. But signing a shitty lefty just so you can bring him in against guys who can't hit left-handers is a waste.

The thing that's driving up the size of relief corps isn't a proliferation of roles. It's the need for relief innings.

This. The alternative to carrying a LH reliever is mainly a RH reliever, not a 6th OF. Maybe teams that carry 13 pitchers would be better off with 12, but we're talking about an advantage on the margin here.

I also suspect James' outlook is shaped here by his work for a rich team. In his mind, the worst LHR on the staff is probably being replaced by a contemporary version of Gary Roenicke. But a guy who is a 110 OPS+ hitter and a league-average OF is a long way from a replacement player. I would guess you have to pay him quite a bit more than you do a LOOGY. Moreover, such hitters are good enough to be in MLB, they are already serving as 4th and 5th OF. Why don't we see more platooning as it is? I suspect that there just aren't that many LHH OF/1B who are worth replacing with the available pool of RHH bench OF/1B, even against a LHP.

With today's smaller benches, a manager often has limited options, but that's the point that James (and others) have been making for some time. Managers are choosing to accept that they can't pinch-hit at will.

Yes. I really think platoons should be used for at least half the lineups and thus the ideal number of PAs for most non-great hitters is 400. A manager should immediately check to see that every starter in his lineup is a better option vs each handed pitcher. Very good hitters can hit both LHP and RHP, but most hitters have significant platoon splits and are significantly worse vs one hand of pitcher such that their backups are a better option. I wouldn't ruin a young hitter this way -- I'd give him a chance to see what he can do against both hands -- but for established players where you know what you're getting I would definitely platoon half the lineup. This seems worlds better than carrying eleventy thousand relievers.

On the Ryan Howard situation, a manager who is aware would PH for Howard when you bring in a lefty reliever, but, well, sadly that is not most managers.

There are real gains to be had with liberal platooning.

There are a helluva lot of books/movies/TV shows/etc. etc. etc. in the world to potentially consume. As one way of making that manageable, I think many of us have decided that certain genres are not for us. I'm sure it's often an overgeneralization in the sense that there's probably something in the genre that the person writing off the genre would in fact enjoy. But all the same, it's a thought process that I think most of us utilize. James comes off grouchy in this quote because he phrases it in a way that's derogatory to the author, rather than the work. If you don't like horror movies, chances are you would say something like "I think horror movies tend to be poorly written." But if you instead said "I think the writers who write horror movies usually can't write", you'd really be making the same point, and I'd like to think that's what James is doing here.

I didn't know about the pitcher-switching rule. Is that relatively recent? I think many of us remember Davey Johnson and Whitey Herzog shuttling pitchers between the mound and a fielding position in the mid-'80s, and at least according to my bad memory, it was more than one switch in an inning.