When did the "Modern Era" actually begin?

[milladrive]

Most folks hold the belief that the modern era of Major League Baseball occurred at or around the turn of the 20th Century. I think differently. I believe the "modern era" began about twenty years later.

Before 1920, gambling ran rampant throughout the Major Leagues, so there's no telling how many games were either thrown or won with that corruption during the previous 50 years.

Before 1920, the baseball was regularly and purposefully doctored by the pitcher with the sole intent to deceive the batter. By the time the ball left the pitcher's hand, it was nearly always a dark, muddy, clay, spit-ridden, stitches-missing, egg-shaped mess that the batter could barely see. It's the sole reason Ray Chapman was clocked in the head and died.

After 1920, thanks to Judge Landis, gambling was outlawed and white baseballs became law, thus changing the game forever. At no other time has the game changed so dramatically as it did at that time.

[brett]

I think it is reasonable to say that Ty Cobb was the quintessence of the old tyme game of baseball. He would probably agree it changed around that time.

[theAmazingMet]

A compelling argument for sure. It may not be right, but I base my own idea of modern baseball on when the leagues met for the first series in 1903. I'm a history buff and work off of hard facts and dates. Your theory is sound but the dates aren't set in stone. I can appreciate the idea though.

[BondsOverBabe]

1947 when the "color line" was broke

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I think it was around 1900 because before that there were so many, many changes. Also both leagues by 1903 changed the foul strike rule, the NL in 1901 and the AL in 1903.
Imagine a batter fouling off a half dozen or more pitches and having no strikes in the count.
Keeler and McGraw loved that one, both known for deliberately fouling of pitches till they get a pitch they could drive.
Fouling off a dozen was nothing for these two. Imagine Carew or Boggs playing under that rule_______________.400.

[leewileyfan]

For me, the modern era started with the 1901 season. First, it's tidy, historically speaking, to start with an '01. Moreover, MOST rules changes that differentiated the "old" game to the game we follow had been resolved, although the foul-strike rule was still in dispute. Then, too, we are reminded that the "game" is truly a hard-as-nails business venture, as we are treated to cross-town bitter roster raids in the '-01 - '03 adjustment period with the foul-strike rule resolved and the vision of a World Series being realized.

I can't mark the entire game by a single player coming on the scene and dramatizing things. For me, it's a matter of time, circumstance and conflict resolution, in which case 1901 simplifies things.

[brett]

Another thing, I believe is that when the hall of fame was started there was a separate election for 19th century players indicating that there was already some tradition about the issue.

[brett]

1947 when the "color line" was broke

In many ways integration was the completion of a developemental period that began with the live ball. The live ball changed strategy and a lot of stats flew out of whack that favored the top sluggers such as the top ones getting more walks, and the average guys hitting a relatively smaller share of home runs than after expansion. The wars may have kept league quality (think of the average player) down somewhat until the mid 50s and integration finally led to the average guy getting a proportional share of value from walks and extra bases. Then almost immediately expansion started to thin out the level again.

[Steven Gallanter]

The "modern era" began in 1994 with the 3 division alignment and wild cards.

stevegallanter.wordpress.com

[dgarza]

There is a difference between the "Modern Era" of baseball the game and the "Modern Era" of MLB the organization.

[GiambiJuice]

April 28th, 2012. The day that Bryce Harper made his Major League debut.

[milladrive]

April 28th, 2012. The day that Bryce Harper made his Major League debut.

lol

A compelling argument for sure. It may not be right, but I base my own idea of modern baseball on when the leagues met for the first series in 1903. I'm a history buff and work off of hard facts and dates. Your theory is sound but the dates aren't set in stone. I can appreciate the idea though.

I think it was around 1900 because before that there were so many, many changes. Also both leagues by 1903 changed the foul strike rule, the NL in 1901 and the AL in 1903.
Imagine a batter fouling off a half dozen or more pitches and having no strikes in the count.
Keeler and McGraw loved that one, both known for deliberately fouling of pitches till they get a pitch they could drive.
Fouling off a dozen was nothing for these two. Imagine Carew or Boggs playing under that rule_______________.400.

For me, the modern era started with the 1901 season. First, it's tidy, historically speaking, to start with an '01. Moreover, MOST rules changes that differentiated the "old" game to the game we follow had been resolved, although the foul-strike rule was still in dispute. Then, too, we are reminded that the "game" is truly a hard-as-nails business venture, as we are treated to cross-town bitter roster raids in the '-01 - '03 adjustment period with the foul-strike rule resolved and the vision of a World Series being realized.

I can't mark the entire game by a single player coming on the scene and dramatizing things. For me, it's a matter of time, circumstance and conflict resolution, in which case 1901 simplifies things.

Personally, I can't trust the outcome or stats of any game that took place before 1920, including World Series, for gambling was an institution that was infused in the game like water in a swimming pool. There are no hard facts, and nothing was tidy before gambling was outlawed.

[EdTarbusz]

Personally, I can't trust the outcome or stats of any game that took place before 1920, including World Series, for gambling was an institution that was infused in the game like water in a swimming pool. There are no hard facts, and nothing was tidy before gambling was outlawed.

I agree with you about the World Series. I don't know how actual Series were thrown (I suspect that at least three were) but I would bet that there were several Series games thrown, probably to change the odds on Series outcomes and to keep Series's going to increase players and owners shares. I don't think it's a coincidence that there was only one four game sweep in the Deadball era World Series.

[RUKen]

Before 1920, the baseball was regularly and purposefully doctored by the pitcher with the sole intent to deceive the batter. By the time the ball left the pitcher's hand, it was nearly always a dark, muddy, clay, spit-ridden, stitches-missing, egg-shaped mess that the batter could barely see. It's the sole reason Ray Chapman was clocked in the head and died.

This doesn't contradict your conclusion, but to provide more information for the discussion I'd like to point out that the pitchers' practice of doctoring the baseball did not become commonplace until sometime after 1900, and even then not all pitchers chose to do so. Regardless of whether spitballs were being thrown, the ball was discolored by the end of the game because the same ball was used throughout; if it was fouled into the stands, the person who retrieved it was expected to throw it back. I doubt that it ever became egg-shaped; if it did the wobbling that would have occurred when it was pitched would have made it more, not less, visible. (I've probably taken your post too literally...)

In my opinion, it's not fair to say that the use of discolored balls was the sole reason that Ray Chapman was fatally hit in the head; it's not as if batters after 1920 were never again beaned by pitches.

With all that out of the way, I would say that major league baseball has continuously evolved. The changes were rapid during the 19th century, but even in the 20th century there have been important changes that have had a huge impact on the game--the two-strike rule, the use of a cork-centered ball (1911), the banning of spitballs and the crackdown on gambling, the end of the color line, the introduction of the designated hitter, and the influx of foreign players. We could also consider the impact of the introduction of amphetamines (1960s?) and later steroids. The Modern Era is the present.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

lol







Personally, I can't trust the outcome or stats of any game that took place before 1920, including World Series, for gambling was an institution that was infused in the game like water in a swimming pool. There are no hard facts, and nothing was tidy before gambling was outlawed.

As long as there are no hard facts, why should we follow your lead. Yes we do know one WS was fixed, suspicion of others with no proof is just that suspicion.
Add to that, I assume were speaking of the overall game, not just the World Sreies.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Most folks hold the belief that the modern era of Major League Baseball occurred at or around the turn of the 20th Century. I think differently. I believe the "modern era" began about twenty years later.

Before 1920, gambling ran rampant throughout the Major Leagues, so there's no telling how many games were either thrown or won with that corruption during the previous 50 years.

Before 1920, the baseball was regularly and purposefully doctored by the pitcher with the sole intent to deceive the batter. By the time the ball left the pitcher's hand, it was nearly always a dark, muddy, clay, spit-ridden, stitches-missing, egg-shaped mess that the batter could barely see. It's the sole reason Ray Chapman was clocked in the head and died.
After 1920, thanks to Judge Landis, gambling was outlawed and white baseballs became law, thus changing the game forever. At no other time has the game changed so dramatically as it did at that time.

Mill, I assume your speaking of all the factors that were the cause of that dirty ball.
Pitcher's were hardly responsible for that ball. As we know the ball was left in the game for many innings. Pitcher's contributing very little to that dirty ball. It was banged around for innings, dirt and grass stained and some tobacco stains.

Baseball did do the right thing in mid season 1920 by having the umps toss out dirty balls and replace them with a clean white ball.
As for Chapman, sure that dirty ball made it more difficult for him to "pick up" the ball from the pitchers hand.
But add to that the day was dark, cloudy and at times some light rain.
Some of his own teammates said he may even have been leaning over the plate and the ball may have even been in the strike zone.
A real tragedy, Chapman at that time was one of the more popular players in the game.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

April 28th, 2012. The day that Bryce Harper made his Major League debut.

Yes, from now on baseball will be divided into two eras: B.B.H. (Before Bryce Harper) and A.B.H. (After Bryce Harper). 2012 is no officially changed to 1 A.B.H.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

The way things are going on the board, looks like we may have to look at today as the modern era.............I'm speaking of today as the beginning. Thats should please all.

[PVNICK]

Yes, from now on baseball will be divided into two eras: B.B.H. (Before Bryce Harper) and A.B.H. (After Bryce Harper). 2012 is no officially changed to 1 A.B.H.

where does b.m.w. fit into this hagiography?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Matt Weiters has been shown to be a false prophet. Harper is the real deal.

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

By 1901, the MLB was essentially the game it is today in terms of rules. However, I agree with milladrive that the modern era began in 1920. Baseball began resembling (and eventually became) "modern" because of its gameplay. Some pitches were outlawed, the power game arrived, players were becoming superstars, and managers increased their interests in prospects.

[milladrive]

I probably should've left Chapman out of the original post. It wasn't my intent to make him a large part of the topic. My mistake. Live'n'learn.

This doesn't contradict your conclusion, but to provide more information for the discussion I'd like to point out that the pitchers' practice of doctoring the baseball did not become commonplace until sometime after 1900, and even then not all pitchers chose to do so. Regardless of whether spitballs were being thrown, the ball was discolored by the end of the game because the same ball was used throughout; if it was fouled into the stands, the person who retrieved it was expected to throw it back. I doubt that it ever became egg-shaped; if it did the wobbling that would have occurred when it was pitched would have made it more, not less, visible. (I've probably taken your post too literally...)

In my opinion, it's not fair to say that the use of discolored balls was the sole reason that Ray Chapman was fatally hit in the head; it's not as if batters after 1920 were never again beaned by pitches.

With all that out of the way, I would say that major league baseball has continuously evolved. The changes were rapid during the 19th century, but even in the 20th century there have been important changes that have had a huge impact on the game--the two-strike rule, the use of a cork-centered ball (1911), the banning of spitballs and the crackdown on gambling, the end of the color line, the introduction of the designated hitter, and the influx of foreign players. We could also consider the impact of the introduction of amphetamines (1960s?) and later steroids. The Modern Era is the present.

Good post. I do have a habit of speaking partly in hyperbole, so I do recognize that one ball was, for the most part, used for an entire game pre-1920. At the same time, though, since the pitcher holds the ball more than any other player and delivers it to the batter, it's no secret that many (if not most) were notorious for doctoring the ball as much as possible in an effort to deceive the batter. Tobacco juice is another good example I overlooked in the OP.

And, of course, it's duly noted that the game has evolved since Lewis and Clark helped spread "Town Ball" across the continent. My initial point was that the overall consensus considers the beginning of the "modern era" as the time when the American League became the legitimate counterpart to the National League, and began facing each other at the end of each season. This is where I disagree with the consensus.

Primarily for the reasons I mentioned in the OP, I believe professional baseball most entered the "modern era" when gambling was eliminated and when the baseball was required to be white (i.e., no mud nor tobacco juice). The former is especially poignant, for no one knows how accurate and/or legit the scorekeeping, gameplay, outcomes, and stats were before 1920, since it's anyone's guess how many plays were made at the point of a dollar or a gun. For instance, I cannot be convinced that the Spiders were as bad as their 1899 record indicates. And that's merely one bold example. Sure, we all know about the 1919 World Series, but there's no way of knowing how many plays/games were made or broken in the name of a gambler for 50 years prior to that. It makes every single pre-1920 game suspect in my eyes. This is not to say every play or every game was fixed before Landis made an example of the White Sox. It simply means we can't be certain which were and which weren't on the level before 1920, for gambling was, pardon the pun, a fixture in professional baseball for decades.

The virtually simultaneous change in the rules dictating the baseball remain white and unadulterated (certainly influenced by Chapman's 1920 incident) only serves to make the change in "era" more acute. If we add reasons Tyrus4189Cobb mentioned, some of which I hadn't even considered, and it's why I consider the "modern era" beginning post-1920 and not post-1900.

[dominik]

was there baseball before Bryce harper?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I probably should've left Chapman out of the original post. It wasn't my intent to make him a large part of the topic. My mistake. Live'n'learn.



Good post. I do have a habit of speaking partly in hyperbole, so I do recognize that one ball was, for the most part, used for an entire game pre-1920. At the same time, though, since the pitcher holds the ball more than any other player and delivers it to the batter, it's no secret that many (if not most) were notorious for doctoring the ball as much as possible in an effort to deceive the batter. Tobacco juice is another good example I overlooked in the OP.

And, of course, it's duly noted that the game has evolved since Lewis and Clark helped spread "Town Ball" across the continent. My initial point was that the overall consensus considers the beginning of the "modern era" as the time when the American League became the legitimate counterpart to the National League, and began facing each other at the end of each season. This is where I disagree with the consensus.

Primarily for the reasons I mentioned in the OP, I believe professional baseball most entered the "modern era" when gambling was eliminated and when the baseball was required to be white (i.e., no mud nor tobacco juice). The former is especially poignant, for no one knows how accurate and/or legit the scorekeeping, gameplay, outcomes, and stats were before 1920, since it's anyone's guess how many plays were made at the point of a dollar or a gun. For instance, I cannot be convinced that the Spiders were as bad as their 1899 record indicates. And that's merely one bold example. Sure, we all know about the 1919 World Series, but there's no way of knowing how many plays/games were made or broken in the name of a gambler for 50 years prior to that. It makes every single pre-1920 game suspect in my eyes. This is not to say every play or every game was fixed before Landis made an example of the White Sox. It simply means we can't be certain which were and which weren't on the level before 1920, for gambling was, pardon the pun, a fixture in professional baseball for decades.

The virtually simultaneous change in the rules dictating the baseball remain white and unadulterated (certainly influenced by Chapman's 1920 incident) only serves to make the change in "era" more acute. If we add reasons Tyrus4189Cobb mentioned, some of which I hadn't even considered, and it's why I consider the "modern era" beginning post-1920 and not post-1900.

If we can't be certain why use gambling as a reason to stall the beginning of modern baseball.

[milladrive]

If we can't be certain why use gambling as a reason to stall the beginning of modern baseball.

What?