The "second dead ball era

[JR Hart]

I've read a lot on here about the "2nd dead ball era" I'm assuming that it refers to 1963-68 when the mound was high and the strike zone was big. But looking at the power numbers, it was far from a dead ball era.

Let's compare that 6 year era, against the 70's and 80's, looking at 40 HR seasons.

63-68
66 Allen 40
63 Stuart 42
67 Killebrew 44
67 Yaz 44
63 McCovey 44
68 Howard 44
63 Aaron 44
66 Aaron 44
64 Mays 47
66 Robinson 49
64 Kiilebrew 49
65 Mays 52

1970s
70 Yaz 40
70 Perez 40
73 Aaron 40
72 Bench 40
70 Killebrew 41
73 Evans 41
70 Williams 42
73 Johnson 43
73 Stargell 44
70 Howard 44
79 Thomas 45
70 Bench 45
78 Rice 46
71 Aaron 47
71 Stargell 47
77 Foster 52

1980s
83 Schmidt 40
85 Evans 40
80 Oglivie 41
80 R Jackson 41
84 Armas 43
87 Murphy 44
89 Mitchell 47
87 Bell 47
80 Schmidt 48
87 Dawson 49
87 McGwire 49

So for that 6 year period, there were more 40 HR seasons that the 10 years of the 80s, and not many less than the 10 years of the 70s. Deadball?? hardly

[Steven Gallanter]

I've read a lot on here about the "2nd dead ball era" I'm assuming that it refers to 1963-68 when the mound was high and the strike zone was big. But looking at the power numbers, it was far from a dead ball era.

Let's compare that 6 year era, against the 70's and 80's, looking at 40 HR seasons.

63-68
66 Allen 40
63 Stuart 42
67 Killebrew 44
67 Yaz 44
63 McCovey 44
68 Howard 44
63 Aaron 44
66 Aaron 44
64 Mays 47
66 Robinson 49
64 Kiilebrew 49
65 Mays 52

1970s
70 Yaz 40
70 Perez 40
73 Aaron 40
72 Bench 40
70 Killebrew 41
73 Evans 41
70 Williams 42
73 Johnson 43
73 Stargell 44
70 Howard 44
79 Thomas 45
70 Bench 45
78 Rice 46
71 Aaron 47
71 Stargell 47
77 Foster 52

1980s
83 Schmidt 40
85 Evans 40
80 Oglivie 41
80 R Jackson 41
84 Armas 43
87 Murphy 44
89 Mitchell 47
87 Bell 47
80 Schmidt 48
87 Dawson 49
87 McGwire 49

So for that 6 year period, there were more 40 HR seasons that the 10 years of the 80s, and not many less than the 10 years of the 70s. Deadball?? hardly

Contact hitting and BBs suffered more than HRs. I often call the '2nd Deadball Era' the 'ERA Era'. The 70s saw increased aggressiveness on the base paths especially on the turf fields of 3 Rivers, Riverfront, Veterans, Candlestick, Busch and the Olympic.

The ERA era saw relief pitching become more imp[important every year. Gloves became bigger and catchers, led by Randy Hundley; adapted the 1-handed catching style. My first 2 or 3 years as a fan were in the ERA era and the lowering of the mound and the adjustment of the strike zone were big stories at the time.

Why was it ALWAYS Jim Ray Hart? Middle names are rarely used on an everyday basis. It is interesting that Hart's best years were during the ERA era.

stevegallanter.wordpress.com

[ipitch]

Runs per game were quite low. Since 1871, there have been 22 seasons in which teams averaged under 4.00 runs scored per game, and 7 of them were between 1963 and 1972. 1968 was the 2nd lowest ever.

[dgarza]

Looking at power numbers, 1963-1968 DID see HRs more often than the 70s or 80s.

But I don't think Dead Ball only relates to power. The 1st Dead Ball Era saw less HRs than the 20s, true; but it was also called the Dead Ball Era because batting averages seemed less inflated that the decades BEFORE.

Look at players who batted .300+ in any one season from 1963-1968 (must qual. for batting title):
In 6 seasons of 20 teams:
41 players batted .300 = .342 per team per season
83 times = .692 per team per season

70s (24-26 teams [I averaged for 25]):
121 players batted .300 = .480 per team per season
235 times = .936 per team per season

80s (26 teams [adjusted for 1981]):
128 players batted .300 = .492 per team per season
247 times = .950 per team per season

[PVNICK]

That's the league runs per game avarages from 1947-2008. To the untutored eye 1963-1972 seem to stand out. But then again perhaps I am wrong and it was the bandbox era are the OP is trying to imply.

1947 4.355
1948 4.579
1949 4.607
1950 4.852
1951 4.547
1952 4.176
1953 4.607
1954 4.376
1955 4.485
1956 4.452
1957 4.306
1958 4.283
1959 4.383
1960 4.314
1961 4.525
1962 4.461
1963 3.947
1964 4.036
1965 3.988
1966 3.994
1967 3.769
1968 3.418
1969 4.072
1970 4.342
1971 3.889
1972 3.686
1973 4.214
1974 4.125
1975 4.213
1976 3.995
1977 4.471
1978 4.103
1979 4.458
1980 4.288
1981 3.998
1982 4.298
1983 4.308
1984 4.257
1985 4.331
1986 4.409
1987 4.723
1988 4.138
1989 4.132
1990 4.256
1991 4.308
1992 4.117
1993 4.598
1994 4.923
1995 4.847
1996 5.036
1997 4.767
1998 4.79
1999 5.085
2000 5.14
2001 4.775
2002 4.618
2003 4.728
2004 4.814
2005 4.592
2006 4.858
2007 4.797
2008 4.493

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I believe the 1960's are referred to as the" Second Dead Ball Era" because of the low batting averages, low OBP, and low runs scored.

[JR Hart]

That's the league runs per game avarages from 1947-2008. To the untutored eye 1963-1972 seem to stand out. But then again perhaps I am wrong and it was the bandbox era are the OP is trying to imply.

Imply- to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated Because I showed the number of power hitters who did well, does mean that I said it was a "band box" era. I meant that it was improperly named.

You used this: A straw man argument - an attempt to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") is absurd or ridiculous, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition.

[PVNICK]

Imply- to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated Because I showed the number of power hitters who did well, does mean that I said it was a "band box" era. I meant that it was improperly named.

You used this: A straw man argument - an attempt to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") is absurd or ridiculous, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition.

whatever. You conveniently omitted commenting on the runs per game data that was the actual basis but I 'm glad you have access to the modern dictoniary of sophistry.

[Jackaroo Dave]

You used this: A straw man argument - an attempt to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") is absurd or ridiculous, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition.

And you can you can take it from a man who knows, the creator of the OPS Hall of Fame thread--and this one too, come to think of it. "The Sixties were the "Second Dead Ball Era,'" is the original proposition; the one attacked is "The Sixties were marked by a decline in the number of forty-home-run seasons."

I gotta admit, JR, you've got a pair, and they're solid brass.

[ian2813]

So JR Hart, your argument is that they shouldn't call it a "dead ball era" because the ball wasn't dead enough to prevent guys from hitting 40 homers in a season?

[PVNICK]

here is the annual HR totals from 1947 - 2007
I have made no effort to prorate based on the assorted expansions. People can draw their own conclusions.

AL NL total
679 886 1,565 1947
710 845 1,555 1948
769 935 1,704 1949
973 1,100 2,073 1950
839 1,024 1,863 1951
794 907 1,701 1952
879 1,197 2,076 1953
823 1,114 1,937 1954
961 1,263 2,224 1955
1,075 1,219 2,294 1956
1,024 1,178 2,202 1957
1,057 1,183 2,240 1958
1,091 1,159 2,250 1959
1,086 1,042 2,128 1960
1,534 1,196 2,730 1961
1,552 1,449 3,001 1962
1,489 1,215 2,704 1963
1,551 1,211 2,762 1964
1,370 1,318 2,688 1965
1,365 1,378 2,743 1966
1,197 1,102 2,299 1967
1,104 891 1,995 1968
1,649 1,470 3,119 1969
1,746 1,683 3,429 1970
1,484 1,379 2,863 1971
1,175 1,359 2,534 1972
1,552 1,550 3,102 1973
1,369 1,280 2,649 1974
1,465 1,233 2,698 1975
1,122 1,113 2,235 1976
2,013 1,631 3,644 1977
1,680 1,276 2,956 1978
2,006 1,427 3,433 1979
1,844 1,243 3,087 1980
1,062 719 1,781 1981
2,080 1,299 3,379 1982
1,903 1,398 3,301 1983
1,980 1,278 3,258 1984
2,178 1,424 3,602 1985
2,290 1,523 3,813 1986
2,634 1,824 4,458 1987
1,901 1,279 3,180 1988
1,718 1,365 3,083 1989
1,796 1,521 3,317 1990
1,953 1,430 3,383 1991
1,776 1,262 3,038 1992
2,074 1,956 4,030 1993
1,774 1,532 3,306 1994
2,164 1,917 4,081 1995
2,742 2,220 4,962 1996
2,477 2,163 4,640 1997
2,496 2,568 5,064 1998
2,635 2,893 5,528 1999
2,688 3,005 5,693 2000
2,506 2,952 5,458 2001
2,464
2,595 5,059 2002
2,499 2,708 5,207 2003
2,605 2,846 5,451 2004
2,437
2,580
5,017
2005

2,546
2,840
5,386
2006

2,252
2,705
4,957
2007

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

The term is also used because pitchers had a significant advantage over batters.

[brett]

I've read a lot on here about the "2nd dead ball era" I'm assuming that it refers to 1963-68 when the mound was high and the strike zone was big. But looking at the power numbers, it was far from a dead ball era.

Let's compare that 6 year era, against the 70's and 80's, looking at 40 HR seasons.

63-68
66 Allen 40
63 Stuart 42
67 Killebrew 44
67 Yaz 44
63 McCovey 44
68 Howard 44
63 Aaron 44
66 Aaron 44
64 Mays 47
66 Robinson 49
64 Kiilebrew 49
65 Mays 52

1970s
70 Yaz 40
70 Perez 40
73 Aaron 40
72 Bench 40
70 Killebrew 41
73 Evans 41
70 Williams 42
73 Johnson 43
73 Stargell 44
70 Howard 44
79 Thomas 45
70 Bench 45
78 Rice 46
71 Aaron 47
71 Stargell 47
77 Foster 52

1980s
83 Schmidt 40
85 Evans 40
80 Oglivie 41
80 R Jackson 41
84 Armas 43
87 Murphy 44
89 Mitchell 47
87 Bell 47
80 Schmidt 48
87 Dawson 49
87 McGwire 49

So for that 6 year period, there were more 40 HR seasons that the 10 years of the 80s, and not many less than the 10 years of the 70s. Deadball?? hardly

That's interesting. I always considered the time from about 1960 all the way through 1992 to be a period where pitching and defense got more and more effective at reducing offense. You see little blips in 1977 and 1987 which were both suspected of being due to a livlier ball on average, but basically the rules changes helped offense rise only slightly over the entire period because teams were using specialized relievers and fielders were at an all time high, so I consider 1960-1992 to be a big continuum, It is odd that expansion did not raise offense. Both league shot up around '93 and '94 with expansion, even if you exclude Mile high stadium. I really believe that around '93 and '94 the best hitters started to use better mechanics to drive the ball. We also got more smaller ballparks.


Now I have always felt that hitters actually got worse on the whole over this period! not because of their stats which could be explained by pitching and defense, but because of their mechanics. I see all star game footage of Joe Morgan and Cesar Cedeno, and they are swinging the bat around with their arms but barely using their lower bodies to drive it. The swings on the 70s and 80s in general look weak, and disconnected. Maybe it is because of the high strike and hitters not being able to set up their mechanics to just drive the low pitch. To drive a high strike requires a swing that does look different and more like those swings I described from the 70s. The best power hitters drove the ball well, but the real question is if you took the good contact guys who also hit with solid power, and could have concentrated on the low stike, could they have hit big time home run totals. I think so.

I think the biggest issue with plate approach was that with the high and low strike, hitters could guess half the time, and the quality of breaking balls and fastballs were note great enough that hitters HAD to look for one or the other. When breaking balls got better, hitters had to guess high-low and fast or breaking (or changeup).

I do think that the low offensive setting resulted in hitters being willing to just put the ball in play though rather than drive it optimally, but we never really have seen great hitting numbers in a league with a high strike, and pitchers with modern stuff.


But no one ever suggested that the ball was actually deader during that period.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

That's interesting. I always considered the time from about 1960 all the way through 1992 to be a period where pitching and defense got more and more effective at reducing offense. You see little blips in 1977 and 1987 which were both suspected of being due to a livlier ball on average, but basically the rules changes helped offense rise only slightly over the entire period because teams were using specialized relievers and fielders were at an all time high, so I consider 1960-1992 to be a big continuum, It is odd that expansion did not raise offense. Both league shot up around '93 and '94 with expansion, even if you exclude Mile high stadium. I really believe that around '93 and '94 the best hitters started to use better mechanics to drive the ball. We also got more smaller ballparks.


Now I have always felt that hitters actually got worse on the whole over this period! not because of their stats which could be explained by pitching and defense, but because of their mechanics. I see all star game footage of Joe Morgan and Cesar Cedeno, and they are swinging the bat around with their arms but barely using their lower bodies to drive it. The swings on the 70s and 80s in general look weak, and disconnected. Maybe it is because of the high strike and hitters not being able to set up their mechanics to just drive the low pitch. To drive a high strike requires a swing that does look different and more like those swings I described from the 70s. The best power hitters drove the ball well, but the real question is if you took the good contact guys who also hit with solid power, and could have concentrated on the low stike, could they have hit big time home run totals. I think so.

I think the biggest issue with plate approach was that with the high and low strike, hitters could guess half the time, and the quality of breaking balls and fastballs were note great enough that hitters HAD to look for one or the other. When breaking balls got better, hitters had to guess high-low and fast or breaking (or changeup).

I do think that the low offensive setting resulted in hitters being willing to just put the ball in play though rather than drive it optimally, but we never really have seen great hitting numbers in a league with a high strike, and pitchers with modern stuff.


But no one ever suggested that the ball was actually deader during that period.

This is just one of the reasons among a few others that played a part in the home run derby that began in the early to mid 1990s. the umps not calling the high "rule book" strike, a joke. In the book it was and still is a point midway between the belt and the shoulders, the 1990's saw the high strike brought down around the belt by the umps not by the rule book, hitters delight.

Years ago the batter would swing more often at the "borderline high" strike, because at that time it might be called a strike, a batter in the count with two strikes could not take a chance. Today, hitter almost always watch it go by, almost always called a ball.

I saw Mantle Killebrew and some other past strong hitters have some difficulty "driving getting on top of that high pitch." Now and then today you will see some batters missing, fouling back or pop up on that high pitch.

If you watched Mariano Rivera, almost always using the cutter to get two strikes and then he goes upstairs and it worked for him, the high borderline pitch.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Jeter and 4000, you just never can tell in this game, about the player, late career.
Remember Ken Griffey Jr, then Arod with the home run totals.
Looks great this year but who can say how he performs in a couple of years.
Not writing him off...................just saying, you never can tell what may take place down the road.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Here is comparisons between the Dead Ball Era (1901-1919) and the "1960s" (1963-1972) from lowest BA to highest BA.

Batting Average
1968 AL- .230
1967 AL- .236
1908 AL- .239
1908 NL- .239
1972 AL- .239
1966 AL- .240
1905 AL- .241
1965 AL- .242
1907 NL- .243
1910 AL- .243
1968 NL- .243
1904 AL- .244
1906 NL- .244
1909 AL- .244
1909 NL- .244
1969 AL- .246
1963 AL- .247
1963 NL- .247
1964 AL- .247
1971 AL- .247
1907 AL- .247
1916 NL- .247
1914 AL- .248
1915 AL- .248
1915 NL- .248
1916 AL- .248
1917 AL- .248
1972 NL- .248
1904 NL- .249
1906 AL- .249
1917 NL- .249
1965 NL- .249
1967 NL- .249
1969 NL- .250
1970 AL- .250
1914 NL- .251
1971 NL- .252
1918 AL- .254
1918 NL- .254
1964 NL- .254
1903 AL- .255
1905 NL- .255
1910 NL- .256
1913 AL- .256
1966 NL- .256
1919 NL- .258
1970 NL- .258
1902 NL- .259
1911 NL- .260
1913 NL- .262
1912 AL- .265
1901 NL- .267
1919 AL- .268
1903 NL- .269
1912 NL- .272
1911 AL- .273
1902 AL- .275
1901 AL- .277

I'll add some more stats soon.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

On-Base Percentage

1908 AL- .294
1904 AL- .295
1968 AL- .297
1908 NL- .299
1905 AL- .299
1968 NL- .300
1907 AL- .302
1967 AL- .303
1909 AL- .303
1916 NL- .303
1906 AL- .303
1903 AL- .303
1917 NL- .305
1972 AL- .306
1966 AL- .306
1904 NL- .306
1907 NL- .308
1910 AL- .308
1915 NL- .309
1906 NL- .310
1909 NL- .310
1967 NL- .310
1965 AL- .311
1964 NL- .311
1965 NL- .311
1918 NL- .311
1919 NL- .311
1963 AL- .312
1966 NL- .313
1902 NL- .313
1963 NL- .315
1964 AL- .315
1972 NL- .315
1905 NL- .315
1971 NL- .316
1971 AL- .317
1914 NL- .317
1917 AL- .318
1914 AL- .319
1969 NL- .319
1969 AL- .321
1916 AL- .321
1901 NL- .321
1970 AL- .322
1918 AL- .323
1915 AL- .325
1913 AL- .325
1913 NL- .325
1910 NL- .328
1970 NL- .329
1903 NL- .331
1902 AL- .331
1912 AL- .333
1919 AL- .333
1901 AL- .333
1911 NL- .335
1911 AL- .338
1912 NL- .340

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The league slugging percentages is where you see the major difference between the Dead Ball Era and the 1960's with all those home runs being hit. Even the 1968 season is way down the list.

1908 AL- .304
1908 NL- .306
1907 AL- .309
1909 AL- .309
1907 NL- .309
1906 NL- .310
1910 AL- .313
1905 AL- .314
1909 NL- .314
1906 AL- .318
1902 NL- .318
1917 AL- .320
1904 AL- .321
1904 NL- .322
1918 AL- .322
1914 AL- .323
1916 AL- .324
1915 AL- .326
1916 NL- .328
1917 NL- .328
1918 NL- .328
1915 NL- .331
1905 NL- .332
1914 NL- .334
1913 AL- .336
1919 NL- .337
1910 NL- .338
1968 AL- .339
1968 NL- .341
1972 AL- .343
1903 AL- .344
1901 NL- .348
1912 AL- .348
1903 NL- .349
1967 AL- .351
1913 NL- .354
1911 NL- .356
1911 AL- .358
1919 AL- .359
1967 NL- .363
1971 AL- .364
1972 NL- .365
1971 NL- .366
1966 AL- .369
1965 AL- .369
1969 NL- .369
1969 AL- .369
1902 AL- .369
1912 NL- .369
1901 AL- .371
1965 NL- .374
1964 NL- .374
1970 AL- .379
1963 AL- .380
1963 NL- .382
1964 AL- .382
1966 NL- .384
1970 NL- .392

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Here are the league runs/game comparison.


1908 NL 3.33
1907 NL 3.40
1968 AL 3.41
1968 NL 3.43
1908 AL 3.44
1909 AL 3.44
1916 NL 3.45
1972 AL 3.47
1917 NL 3.53
1904 AL 3.54
1906 NL 3.57
1918 NL 3.62
1915 NL 3.62
1910 AL 3.64
1918 AL 3.64
1907 AL 3.65
1909 NL 3.65
1917 AL 3.65
1914 AL 3.65
1919 NL 3.65
1906 AL 3.66
1905 AL 3.68
1916 AL 3.68
1967 AL 3.70
1963 NL 3.81
1914 NL 3.84
1967 NL 3.84
1971 AL 3.87
1966 AL 3.89
1972 NL 3.91
1971 NL 3.91
1904 NL 3.91
1913 AL 3.92
1965 AL 3.94
1915 AL 3.96
1902 NL 3.98
1964 NL 4.01
1910 NL 4.03
1965 NL 4.03
1969 NL 4.05
1964 AL 4.06
1963 AL 4.08
1969 AL 4.09
1966 NL 4.09
1905 NL 4.10
1903 AL 4.10
1919 AL 4.10
1913 NL 4.15
1970 AL 4.17
1911 NL 4.42
1912 AL 4.45
1970 NL 4.52
1911 AL 4.60
1912 NL 4.62
1901 NL 4.63
1903 NL 4.77
1902 AL 4.89
1901 AL 5.35

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Have not looked, checked numbers but I would think offense overall dropped because of the bigger, higher strike zone coming in 1963.

BB per game down and strikeouts per game up would have to follow. Thats what usually takes place, bigger strike zone offense, down smaller strike zone offense up.

We know from watching games how important some calls are, couple or few inches mean the difference, ball or strike.

[willshad]

Saying 'second dead ball era' is a bit misleading, because, while scoring was down, it was for reasons not related to a 'dead ball'. I think what separates the 'dead ball' era and the 1960s era from other eras is the general lack of top level, and near top level talent. if you look at the leadership the triple crown stats each year, it's still pretty impressive, except maybe for 1968. Were averages down from 1900-1919? Somebody must have forgot to tell Cobb, Speaker, Jackson, Collins, etc. Was scoring down in the 60s? Then how do you explain Aaron, Yaz, Killebrew, Robinson, etc. Overall hitting was down, but the top guys were still putting up impressive numbers...in fact it was during these eras when most of the 500 home run guys and 3000 hit guys were racking up their numbers. Seems kind of odd to me.

[dominik]

Saying 'second dead ball era' is a bit misleading, because, while scoring was down, it was for reasons not related to a 'dead ball'. I think what separates the 'dead ball' era and the 1960s era from other eras is the general lack of top level, and near top level talent. if you look at the leadership the triple crown stats each year, it's still pretty impressive, except maybe for 1968. Were averages down from 1900-1919? Somebody must have forgot to tell Cobb, Speaker, Jackson, Collins, etc. Was scoring down in the 60s? Then how do you explain Aaron, Yaz, Killebrew, Robinson, etc. Overall hitting was down, but the top guys were still putting up impressive numbers...in fact it was during these eras when most of the 500 home run guys and 3000 hit guys were racking up their numbers. Seems kind of odd to me.

yeah it was not the ball. ted williams commented on this in his book written in the late 60s or so:

The longer season is blamed for the decline in hitting, and the pitching over-all is supposed to
be better. Logistics are definitely a factor—the increase in night games, the size of the new
parks (Chavez Ravine in Los Angeles is a pasture compared to cozy old Ebbets Field), the
disturbed routine of cross-country travel that forces you to eat different hours, sleep
differently. Certainly a week should be cut off both ends of the season for no other reason than
to get away from some of that lousy cold weather. It’s hard to hit in cold weather. But I
wonder. If it were the longer season you would expect a few of the better hitters to average
higher—.360, .370 or better—for at least 100 games, and they don’t. When the season’s only a
couple months old neither league will have ten guys hitting .300.
How, too, can the pitching be better when there are fewer pitchers in organized baseball (fewer
leagues, fewer everything, actually)? When expansion has made starters out of fifty or more
who would otherwise still be in the minor leagues?
After two years of managing the Washington Senators, the one big impression I got was that
the game hasn’t changed. It’s the same as it was when I played. I see the same type pitchers,
the same type hitters. I am a little more convinced than ever that there aren’t as many good
hitters in the game, guys who can whack the ball around when it’s over the plate, guys like
Aaron and Clemente and Frank Robinson. There are plenty of guys with power, guys who hit
the ball a long way, but I see so many who lack finesse, who should hit for average but don’t.
The answers are not all that hard to figure. They talked for years about the ball being dead.
The ball isn’t dead, the hitters are, from the neck up. Everybody’s trying to pull the ball, to
begin with. Almost everybody from the left fielder to the utility shortstop is trying to hit home
runs, which is folly, and I will tell you why as we go along—and how Ted Williams, that
notorious pull hitter, learned for himself.
I will probably get carried away and sound like Al Simmons and Ty Cobb sounded to me when
they used to cart their criticism of my hitting into print. I don’t mean to criticize individuals
here. Not at all. I do criticize these trends.
I think hitting can be improved at almost any level, and my intention is to show how, and what
I think it takes to be a good hitter, even a .400 hitter if the conditions are ever right again—
from the theory to the mechanics to the application.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

"Dead ball was just a term used, of course it was not the ball during the 1960's.

I don't see any mystery here. Is it a coincidence that the strike zone is both lowered from the top of the knees to the knees and also raised from the armpits to the top of the shoulders in 1963 and at that time BB per game dropped and strike outs per game went up and it started in 1963. Check out those BB and strike out stats, so obvious, look at 1963 and before.
Offense had to drop. Not dismissing some of what Ted Williams had to say but the strike zone change played a big part.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The top of the shoulders? Wow, that is a HUGE difference. That's about a 4-5 inch difference.

[brett]

I want to add something. Its not just that a big strike zone decreases offense and a small one increases offense but that a LOW strike zone favors a particular type of mechanics which you couldn't get away with all the time when there was a high strike.
You have guys today who can hit home runs off pitches at their ankles. Its still the same basic mechanics as driving one at the belt, but when you get above about the level of the elbow (in the anatomical position) the mechanics become different. Its almost like hitting to the opposite field versus pulling the ball.

Also wondering, did the rule change in 1963 have anything to do with the big offensive seasons in 1961?