I don't think there is an historical standard.  There have been hundreds of serious brawls in history from which no one was suspended.  It's pretty much like asking what the general rule is for how many people are injured when there is a traffic accident.  Each one is different.  

 No, but I remember Mike Maddux saying he could kick his brother's ass at Whiffle Ball.  

 I'm really not sure what analytics you are referring to there.  I don't know that anyone has a good general understanding of the issue.  IF there is an advantage to having your best hitter batting second, I would be that it is an advantage of less than one run a year.   

 About what?   Am I happy the Angels won the World Series in 2002?  I'm kind of indifferent about that.   

 

The rules SHOULD say that a team drawing a walk has the right to reject the walk and insist that you pitch to the batter at any time, regardless of whether it is an intentional walk or not, and then if you walk him again the cost goes up.. . .for example, batter could go to second base if he is "repeat walked", or the second walk could become a "force walk" which advanced all runners by a base even if there is an empty base between them.   

 

The reason it should say that is that the point of the walk rule is to say to the pitcher's team, "OK, you can't get him out, so he wins.   He gets to take his base."  That's the purpose of the walk:  to force the pitcher to pitch to the batter.   But sometimes, the cost of the walk is not adequate to enforce the underlying rule, not adequate to force the pitcher to pitch to the batter.   When that happens, rather than allowing the pitching team to jump down an escape hatch at what they regard as an acceptible cost, the rational thing to do is the allow the team receiving the walk to double the bet if they choose to do so.  

 Yes, I created (and published) similarity scores for teams many years ago.   I remember after the 1983 season I was on Nightline with Ted Koppel four days one week heading into or during the Playoffs, and I described the Baltimore Orioles and the Chicago White Sox, the American League division champions, as being "Twin Teams", based on having a very high similarity score.  . . .Chicago was 99-63, Baltimore 98-64, Chicago had scored 800 runs, Baltimore 799, Chicago had allowed 650 runs, Baltimore 652, similar numbers of home runs hit and home runs allowed, both teams hit in the .260s.   Tony Kubek was broadcasting the series, and he took the time to say at length that they were NOT twin teams, because Chicago stole a lot of bases and Baltimore didn't, etc.   One perception is as valid as the others; I was just suggesting that it was a way to look at them; they were alike in a lot of ways.

 

I always intended similarity scores to be a flexible concept, different for every study, re-invented for every study, and, to me, they are.   On the level of teams, one way to look at it is infield strength vs. outfield, hitting vs. pitching, bullpen stregnth.   Team age.  No two teams are going to be similar in all respects, so how similar they are depends on what it is you are trying to study.   In other words, similarity scores are not supposed to produce an absolute outcome; they are supposed to be a part of a process of enquiry.  Which is the same thing Tom says about WAR; it is supposed to adjust relative to the inputs. 

I'm sorry, but I think it is almost impossible to answer the question the way it is worded.  Terms like "success rate" and "good at bats" could have a thousand different definitions.  It isn't generally teams that count things like hard-contact at bats; it is mostly done by companies like this one, although many teams now count those kind of things, but it has always been us who have taken the lead in counting things like that, not teams.   It is just not really clear what you are asking.   If all you are asking about is that formula. . . the average hitter now has about zero sacrifice hits in a season, so that wouldn't change anything very much, but Reached on Error is also counted and published, so that wouldn't be hard to figure.  

 When they do, we'll appoint you to be commissioner.

 

 I actually don't remember that passage from Nice Guys Finish Last.  Thanks. 

 I'm sorry, but there is no way I can allow you to slander a manager in this space based on your just not liking him.   The research would be pretty easy, but I've never done any research the point of which is to make someone look like a bad person.   A bad PLAYER, maybe.  

Incorrect; I have never said that. 

Any two principles you can act, if they are in the same arena, will ALWAYS, at some point, come into conflict, absolutely 100% of the time.  You cannot create two principles that never come into conflict.   That's why Republicans can always accuse Democrats of hypocrisy, and Democrats can always accuse Republicans of hypocrisy.   The principles espoused by both parties do, in fact, create internal conflicts.   Resolving those conflicts is not a matter of absolute fealty to principles, but rather, of balancing the obligations created by the conflicting principles.  

 

I would not object to position players pitching IF IT WAS NECESSARY.   However, I question your assumption  that shrinking the roster would increase the number of those situations.   Much more likely, it would decrease them.  

 

When I became a baseball fan, teams commonly had 9-man pitching staffs, occasionally 8.   Outfielders pitching (I think) was far less common then than it is now.   As the number of pitchers on a staff increases, the roles assigned to each pitcher become more specific, more limited, and therefore more limiting. 

 

In 1960, although there was SOME left/right switching and although there was very common pinch hitting for pitchers, every pitcher took the mound with the INTENTION of finishing the game.  Whether he started the game or came in in the 4th inning or the 7th inning, every pitcher was hoping to reach the 27th out, if he could be effective enough to stay in the game and if it was not necessary to pinch hit for him.  

 

Now, if your starting pitcher is knocked out of the game int he 4th inning, that starts a parade of relievers, each of whom is only going to pitch one or at most two innings--even though, with the universal DH, there is never a need to remove him for a pinch hitter.  This guy can't pitch two innings at a time; that guy can't pitch on consecutive days, so you run out of pitchers.   If you shrink the roster, that mindset goes away (because it is massively unsustainable)  and we revert to the world in which each pitcher hopes and expects to pitch until the seagulls cover the field.   Which is a much, much better game FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE FAN.  

 

 

********

 

Expanding a little more, a little later, on what may already be an overlong answer.   

 

"Athleticism" has a very, very broad definition.  If you ask "what is an athlete", athleticism involves strength, speed, quickness, agility, co-ordination, endurance, balance, determination, and other qualities.  "Strength" implies arm strength (the ability to throw), core strength, leg strength, shoulder strength.  Co-ordination means hand/eye co-ordination, but also footwork, upper body/lower boy co-ordination, and other things.  

 

Any sport involves all of these things to some extent, with the balance in each sport being different than any other sport.  However, as you expand the roster, you narrow the range of athleticism demanded from each player.  A football lineman needs STRENGTH, immense strength, but not great running speed, and he doesn't need to be able to throw.  

 

Strategy in all sports, I suppose, but certainly in baseball. . . .evolving strategy depends on finding more efficient ways to USE the roster, which in effect expands the roster.   Moving players constantly up and down between majors and minors, as is done now, in effect expands the roster.   

 

In adding more pitchers to the staff, we have demanded more arm strength, but have dismissed almost entirely the concept of endurance.  A pitcher doesn't need to run fast, necessarily (although many do or can). . .but a pitcher doesn't need to run fast, he doesn't need to hit.  He just needs to throw really hard, have two or three release grips that make the ball move in different directions, and he needs to be able to hit his target.  

 

But is this optimal from the standpoint of the fan?   I would argue that it is not; further, I would argue that it is NEVER optimal, from the standpoint of the fan, to narrow the range of athleticism demanded of the athlete.  The more you narrow the range of athleticism demanded of the athlete, the less of an athletic contest it becomes.  

 The context in which the comment was made.  

 Thanks.  Guessing you meant very FEW times?  

 

I remember when instant replay started, before it was actually used, the umpires were all against it because it was somehow going to undermine the prestige and respect of umpires.  And within a half-season of it being in use, the umpires spun around and became its biggest backers.  No umpires wants to be Don Denkinger, haunted to his grave by a call that becomes infamous.  

 

You do see games occasionally that turn on an umpire blowing a strike call. .  .I know the Red Sox have lost at least 2-3 games this year because umpires missed a strike call, and I am sure that we have won as many as we lost, but I just don't remember those.   I remember a game in that horrible April period when we were blowing leads in the 8th and 9th inning almost every day, there was an obvious strike three (by our pitcher) that would have ended the inning, but it was called Ball Four, the inning continued and the inning blew up on us, cost us the game.   Things like that are "part of the game" in the same sense that an unsightly rash is part of your body.  You get rid of it if you can.  

 Sure.

 

I have a very short leash on Twitter, because Twitter can turn so nasty so quickly, so suddenly, that you just can't let things go that would ordinarily be . . . .well, no worse than stuff that I say here or that others say to me here.  

 

I always feel bad about blocking people, and I always wish there was some way to ask or inform people that this is a no-insults-allowed account, but I've never figured out how to do that.  When I have tried to give people a little bit of space to back off of offensive comments, what has always happened--literally 100% of the time in my experience--is that instead of recognizing my limits, they always get their back up and double down on whatever the offensive material was.   I don't want to block people, but even more than that I don't want to engage in a nasty back-and- forth with them BEFORE I block them.   So my rule is, if you say something offensive, I immediately block you   If more people would follow that practice, twitter would not be what it is.  

 

Anyway, send me his Twitter handle (here) and I'll un-block him.  

 I don't have a stance on the issue.  There is no one in history truly comparable to Maranville, so it is hard to say he doesn't belong.