Hi all,

Back in the day, when EO was created by schwarze, there was no rule concerning ballparks. After I took over as commissioner, I got annoyed with having 5 teams playing in . I thought this violated the spirit of the league, which is exclusivity. Thus, the ballpark rule was born. This rule includes the ‘same physical structure’ clause, which reads:

Ballparks with differing names are considered the same if it is the same physical structure, such as Pacific Bell and SBC. Thus, if one owner submits PacBell and another submits SBC, then PacBell/SBC/AT&T is blacklisted.

Two things have happened since this rule went into effect. First, WIS has been adding ballparks, both historical and new. A quick run through the list seems to show about 100 parks now.

Second, it used to be that all ‘same physical structure’ situations had identical park effects across each name i.e. Wrigley (Chicago)/Cubs/Weeghman are all +2/0/-1/+2/+2. So it could be said that same park effects was implicitly a part of same physical structure. But that’s not the case anymore. For instance, Anaheim Stadium/Edison is listed as 0/-2/-2/0/0 but Angel Stadium is listed as -1/-1/-2/-1/-1. This is the same park, right?

I am hoping for some feedback and discussion among ourselves. This is NOT a formal vote. I would like to know what you think. The options as I see them are…

1.) Keep the rule exactly as is. Ex. Anaheim/Edison is the same as Angel, so it should only be available to one owner.

2.) Different park effects within the same park should be separated. Ex. Anaheim and Edison are the same (because of same effects) but Angel is counted by itself.

3.) All parks should be counted separately. Do away with the ‘same physical structure’ altogether. Ex. Anaheim, Edison, and Angel could all be in the league once each.

4.) You have way too much time on your hands, Don. What are you even talking about?

5.) I have a much better idea. How about…

I hope this clear enough. If it’s not, please choose option 4 and I’ll try to explain.

I don't think "same physical structure" applies anymore in all cases. Therefore,if the park effects are different,than I think it ought be considered a different park and,
therefore,eligible when it is not at this time. Is that clear as mud?
I deliberately left this post as it is with the odd spacing to ask a question. I am trying to start a newsletter seperate altogether from baseball and have also had this
problem. "Print Preview" will look OK but when I print it out,it looks awful. I waste a lot of expensive ink on that crap. What's the problem and what can I do about it. Please keep it simple as I am obviously a simple person and no technical whiz of any kind. Thanks.

I would think a combination of effects and dimensions would be needed to differentiate the structures. Conceivably the outfield fence could have been moved back 10 feet but the overall park effects remained the same. Does this constitute a different structure within the spirit of the rule? I don't know which should take precedence.

Personally I like the idea of the current rule. Unless there's a radical change in the layout of field I'd have to assume the changes to park ratings are negligible.

You could keep the "same physical structure" rule, just with an exception for cases where ballpark effects are different.  Just allow the same structure with different effects as if it were a different park entirely.

Looks like this falls under option #2.

If the park effect doesn't change,I think we should leave that alone. Doesn't make any difference if the fence was moved a little because Dykstra ran into it. Reminds me
of Frank Thomas' first at bat;I saw it. He moved the fence with a line drive. I would think substantial changes in dimensions would cause the park effect to change so I
say leave it alone unless the park effect changes. I would think the park effect would change when they do things like they did in Texas so Juan Gonzalez could have a
party there.

I personally have no problem with the way the rule is now but I would have no qualms if the 2nd option were to become the rule.

Posted by halo23 on 7/12/2010 5:37:00 PM (view original):
I personally have no problem with the way the rule is now but I would have no qualms if the 2nd option were to become the rule.

What he said, but I lean more towards #1.

I vote for #1.  Anaheim/Edison IS the same as Angel.  (Check out the field dimensions.)

As I understand it, the ballpark effects are based on the average results over the time that the ballpark was used.  Therefore, the ballparks produced different results in Anaheim/Edison (1966-2003) than Angel (2004-2009), but the field dimensions did not change.

Or, maybe I don't even know what I'm talking about, and Don does.

I'd say #1, but that's because I hate change. I don't even have a cell phone for crying out loud.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  There are plenty of choices out there.

Posted by dolphinsfan on 7/12/2010 9:01:00 PM (view original):
I'd say #1, but that's because I hate change. I don't even have a cell phone for crying out loud.

I don't have a cell phone and never will. My girlfriend has one but I don't to use it and don't want to. She has to do that for me if I need it. Back in the day, I said I'd never
have anything to with computers,either. I don't know what I'm doing but,obviously,I have one.

Posted by EasyE7273 on 7/12/2010 9:11:00 PM (view original):
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  There are plenty of choices out there.

Agreed............

I vote #2. I think it's the easiest to understand, and it gives us a single source to check for disputes. there's no need to argue over how much of a change is needed for it to count as a different park if all we have to do is look at the WIS effects.