View Poll Results: Was a more lively ball introduced in 1919?

Voters
64. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I believe a livlier ball was introduced into at least one league in 1919.

    46 71.88%
  • No, I do not believe that the ball was enlivened in 1919.

    18 28.13%
Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 245

Thread: Discussion on Baseballs through the years

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Sultan_1895-1948
    Why not just look at '25 and '26. They are the closest together. Looking at anything past '26, or before '25 allows for other factors besides the ball to kick in. I think back to back years are the closest you can get in comparing years, for consistent approaches by hitters and pitchers. '26 could be just a random down year, but what are the odds that year would happen right after they add the cushioned cork center. To think the ball didn't have some type of impact..hmmm..not sure about that one.
    In my previous post I did say that there were some what could be called fluke years. Offense up and then back down the next season and not much of an explanation, or vice versa. I still believe that although there may be a reason we just can't figure why some times.
    However in this case after thinking it over I would have to believe the cushioned cork center was the reason why. Unlikely that both leagues would have this occur in the same two seasons, thats pushing it.
    Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 05-06-2006 at 06:47 PM.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    16,492
    Quote Originally Posted by Ubiquitous
    No just one year particularly the year before is just too short a time to use to measure it accurately.

    Like I said in a previous post it is possible that 1925 was a fluke year, that it was abnormally high and that the decline was not as great as it appeared to be. Or it could be that 1926 was abnormally low, more low then it really should have been. Put the two together and you get a study in which the disparity is far greater then actual real world impact.
    Lost track of what the original point of all this is. Is there any dispute that a cushioned cork center was introduced in '26? Or is it just how much impact it actually had?

    1924's low HR totals really throw things out of whack. It appears that although there was a dropoff from '25 to '26, the actual numbers weren't anything extreme when looking at other surrounding years.

    -------BA---OBP---SLG---AB/HR

    1921- .292---.356---.408---89.78

    1922- .285---.348---.398---80.53

    1923- .283---.351---.388---95.17

    1924- .290---.358---.397---106.49

    1925- .292---.360---.408---79.91

    1926- .281---.351---.392---98.49

    1927- .286---.352---.399---95.93

    1928- .281---.344---.397---87.19
    "By common consent, Ruth was the hardest hitter of history; a fine fielder, if not a finished one; an inspired base runner, seeming to do the right thing without thinking. He had the most perfect co-ordination of any human animal I ever knew." - Hugh Fullerton, 1936 (Chicago sports writer, 1893-1930's)

    ROY / ERA+ Title / Cy Young / WS MVP / HR Title / Gold Glove / Comeback POY / BA Title / MVP / All Star / HOF

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Royal Brougham Way & Occidental Avenue S
    Posts
    2,054
    Blog Entries
    1

    Lightbulb side note:

    When Mark Mcquire and Sammy Sosa had that great chase a few years back, they introduced different balls to the pitchers for identification purposes, when Mark approached the record, that appeared tighter and smaller.

    On one occasion, When I believe Mcquire came up to bat, the ump tossed one of these special balls to Randy Johnson. Upon inspection of the ball, the 'Big Unit' said to the ump, "What the F*** is this ?" On the first pitch to Mcquire, Johnson tossed a fastball in the dirt to scuff it up.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Sultan_1895-1948
    Lost track of what the original point of all this is. Is there any dispute that a cushioned cork center was introduced in '26? Or is it just how much impact it actually had?

    1924's low HR totals really throw things out of whack. It appears that although there was a dropoff from '25 to '26, the actual numbers weren't anything extreme when looking at other surrounding years.

    -------BA---OBP---SLG---AB/HR

    1921- .292---.356---.408---89.78

    1922- .285---.348---.398---80.53

    1923- .283---.351---.388---95.17

    1924- .290---.358---.397---106.49

    1925- .292---.360---.408---79.91

    1926- .281---.351---.392---98.49

    1927- .286---.352---.399---95.93

    1928- .281---.344---.397---87.19
    How do we figure it out. Look at 1923 to 1924, batting average up 7 points.
    May not seem like much but it is, very significant a rise of 7 points by the leagues in one season

    Have to begin the search again. Have not looked into it yet, 1923 to 1924 maybe I'll find a change that had some effect on that leap in the league batting average.

  5. #65
    Well I did find something not connected to this subject, but amusing or just plain silly.

    1914, rule 9.04.

    In case of fire, panic or storm the umpire does not have to wait until the pitcher has the ball on the mound to call time out.
    Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 05-07-2006 at 06:07 PM.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    16,492
    Quote Originally Posted by SHOELESSJOE3
    Well I did find something not connected to this subject, but amusing or just plain silly.

    1914 rule amendment 9.04.

    In case of fire, panic or storm the umpire does not have to wait until the pitcher has the ball on the mound to call time out.
    That's brilliant !!

    Actually fires were quite common back then weren't they. Seem to remember a few entire stadiums or parts of stadiums being burned. Do you know how many there were?
    "By common consent, Ruth was the hardest hitter of history; a fine fielder, if not a finished one; an inspired base runner, seeming to do the right thing without thinking. He had the most perfect co-ordination of any human animal I ever knew." - Hugh Fullerton, 1936 (Chicago sports writer, 1893-1930's)

    ROY / ERA+ Title / Cy Young / WS MVP / HR Title / Gold Glove / Comeback POY / BA Title / MVP / All Star / HOF

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Northern NE
    Posts
    3,411
    This may have already been touched on, but I think that nothing about the ball was changed in '19...but, in '20, discoloring or applying any substance to the ball were generally not allowed, and new balls were introduced into play regularly. I had thought that this was just a reaction to the Chapman beaning, but the Boston Globe today claimed that it was also because of the flu epidemic!! Everybody was much more conscious of hygiene after the millions of dead...???

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Sultan_1895-1948
    That's brilliant !!

    Actually fires were quite common back then weren't they. Seem to remember a few entire stadiums or parts of stadiums being burned. Do you know how many there were?
    Over the years I can recall seeing a number of parks partially and completely destroyed by fire. I think one at the Polo Grounds, the left field wall at Fenway before it was the Green Monster, the left field bleachers at Fenway both sometime in the 1920s'and 1930's. Some minor league parks, Baltimore in the 1940's, Sick Stadium home of the minor league Seattle Indians.

    Probably quite a few more over the years, lots of wooden stuctures years ago.

  9. #69
    This article appeared some time in the 1990's. What effect it had over the years, who can say. Don't know what happened here, appears that some area outside the picture came in with he attachment and the text appeared smaller. It was just under the limit 98KB, should have appeared larger. Any help with this one Randy.

    In the mean time this was an article that stated that a CATscan showed a great variation in the core size of the ball since 1930.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 05-07-2006 at 06:47 PM.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    16,492
    Joe, email me the original, and I'll make sure the words are readable.

    sultan_of_swat_714@juno.com
    "By common consent, Ruth was the hardest hitter of history; a fine fielder, if not a finished one; an inspired base runner, seeming to do the right thing without thinking. He had the most perfect co-ordination of any human animal I ever knew." - Hugh Fullerton, 1936 (Chicago sports writer, 1893-1930's)

    ROY / ERA+ Title / Cy Young / WS MVP / HR Title / Gold Glove / Comeback POY / BA Title / MVP / All Star / HOF

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    16,492
    Wow Joe, that gave me a headache. Ok, the original was much too small. I was able to enlarge the words big enough to make out shapes of letters, to nearly determine what it says. Maybe someone can help fill in the words I couldn't place.

    Universal Systems of ____ Ohio, in _____with Penn State University's energy labaratory, has determined the core of the baseball has significantly changed in size and quality since the ____.

    The researchers however, refused to say that is why home runs are increasing so dramatically.

    "What we know is there has been enough of a change that there has to have been some effect." Penn Staate physicist F.M. Hadreck? says "There is most likely some scientific conclusions, but I can't say these changes are going to make the ball fly out of the park."

    A University Systems CAT scanner designed to see ____ in the _____ industry was used.
    Ted _____ _____ vice president of Rawlings which makes major league baseballs, ____ the core hasn't changed since _____ (1931?)

    Penn State scientists disagree. "It's ____ to see change to the core from the ___ to today," says ____ associate ____ of ____ engineering. "It's conclusively? ______.

    Says ____ ______ David ___, "when seeing a dozen balls from the same box manufactured in ___ there was a wide variety in the ____, _____ and ____ of the ball."

    Small caption just below picture...

    The object of ____. ______ associate professor and director for the center of ______ imaging at Penn State, sets up an experiment to capture part of a baseball in a CAT scanner.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 05-07-2006 at 07:54 PM.
    "By common consent, Ruth was the hardest hitter of history; a fine fielder, if not a finished one; an inspired base runner, seeming to do the right thing without thinking. He had the most perfect co-ordination of any human animal I ever knew." - Hugh Fullerton, 1936 (Chicago sports writer, 1893-1930's)

    ROY / ERA+ Title / Cy Young / WS MVP / HR Title / Gold Glove / Comeback POY / BA Title / MVP / All Star / HOF

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Sultan_1895-1948
    Wow Joe, that gave me a headache. Ok, the original was much too small. I was able to enlarge the words big enough to make out shapes of letters, to nearly determine what it says. Maybe someone can help fill in the words I couldn't place.

    Universal Systems of Solon Ohio, in collaboration with Penn State University's energy labaratory, has determined the core of the baseball has significantly changed in size and quality since the 1930's.

    The researchers however, refused to say that is why home runs are increasing so dramatically.

    "What we know is there has been enough of a change that there has to have been some effect." Penn Staate physicist F.M. Hadreck? says "There is most likely some scientific conclusions, but I can't say these changes are going to make the ball fly out of the park."

    A University Systems CAT scanner designed to test cores in the petroleum industry was used.
    Ted Sizemore vice president of Rawlings which makes major league baseballs, insists the core hasn't changed since 1931.

    Penn State scientists disagree. "It's amazing to see change to the core from the 1930's to today," says Avrami Grader associate professor of petroleum engineering. "It's completely different.

    Says university president David Zavangno "when testing a dozen balls from the same box manufactured in 1998 there was a wide variety in the orientation balance and centers of the ball.


    Small caption just below picture. Nothing of importance in that caption...
    Thanks Randy, I'm sure this one was a real work out on your end. I filled in the blanks.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    16,492
    Quote Originally Posted by SHOELESSJOE3
    Thanks Randy, I'm sure this one was a real work out on your end. I filled in the blanks.
    No prob Joe. Wasn't too bad

    Just watched a press conference with Bonds. They asked him if he ever considered Babe the best HR hitter while he was growing up. Bonds said NO NEVER. He said he always considered Hank the greatest HR hitter ever. Then he said that if you pass someone, that means you're better. I wonder if Barry is aware that Hank has nearly 4,000 more AB. This guy should do some homework. Or maybe he has and its a black/white thing. That would be a shame.
    "By common consent, Ruth was the hardest hitter of history; a fine fielder, if not a finished one; an inspired base runner, seeming to do the right thing without thinking. He had the most perfect co-ordination of any human animal I ever knew." - Hugh Fullerton, 1936 (Chicago sports writer, 1893-1930's)

    ROY / ERA+ Title / Cy Young / WS MVP / HR Title / Gold Glove / Comeback POY / BA Title / MVP / All Star / HOF

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Sultan_1895-1948
    No prob Joe. Wasn't too bad

    Just watched a press conference with Bonds. They asked him if he ever considered Babe the best HR hitter while he was growing up. Bonds said NO NEVER. He said he always considered Hank the greatest HR hitter ever. Then he said that if you pass someone, that means you're better. I wonder if Barry is aware that Hank has nearly 4,000 more AB. This guy should do some homework. Or maybe he has and its a black/white thing. That would be a shame.
    Fire away guys, I can take the heat. Besides that I won't have to apologize or lose my job ( I'm retired) because I think Barry does have a problem with color, I can say what ever I want. In the past he hinted at the fact that he did not care about passing Mays ( almost with regret) but it was Ruth's number he was after. Then spoke of wiping out Ruth's numbers and referred to Ruth and him being left handed hitters, that meant something to him. My opinion, he put up a smoke screen, had nothing to do with Ruth being left handed like him, it was probably skin color.

    Maybe he forgot. A few months ago he proclaimed Josh Gibson as the home run champ. A hitter with no stats to back that up, skin color again. Let me not give the wrong impression. Josh Gibson, a crime that skin color alone kept this great hitter out of MLB. But thats not the point, Barry regrets passing Mays, but not Ruth. Did not see that interview but if the question was the greatest home run hitter and he chose Hank, having the most does not make one the greatest.

    Last, Barry says about Ruth, "don't talk about him no more" a real classy guy that Barry. Then he wonders why he turns of many fans and even many that are not even fans of the game. I think Barry already knows passing Ruth will not put him up there with Ruth. It will always be Ruth that others are measured against when the greatest sluggers is the subject, especially with that dark cloud over Barry.
    Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 05-08-2006 at 04:03 AM.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    16,492
    Quote Originally Posted by SHOELESSJOE3
    Fire away guys, I can take the heat. Besides that I won't have to apologize or lose my job ( I'm retired) because I think Barry does have a problem with color, I can say what ever I want. In the past he hinted at the fact that he did not care about passing Mays ( almost with regret) but it was Ruth's number he was after. Then spoke of wiping out Ruth's numbers and referred to Ruth and him being left handed hitters, that meant something to him. My opinion, he put up a smoke screen, had nothing to do with Ruth being left handed like him, it was probably skin color.

    Maybe he forgot. A few months ago he proclaimed Josh Gibson as the home run champ. A hitter with no stats to back that up, skin color again. Let me not give the wrong impression. Josh Gibson, a crime that skin color alone kept this great hitter out of MLB. But thats not the point, Barry regrets passing Mays, but not Ruth. Did not see that interview but if the question was the greatest home run hitter and he chose Hank, having the most does not make one the greatest.

    Last, Barry says about Ruth, "don't talk about him no more" a real classy guy that Barry. Then he wonders why he turns of many fans and even many that are not even fans of the game. I think Barry already knows passing Ruth will not put him up there with Ruth. It will always be Ruth that others are measured against when the greatest sluggers is the subject, especially with that dark cloud over Barry. Get used to it Barry.
    Of course some might say that he was reluctant to celebrate passing Mays, because Mays is his Godfather. I'm not saying that doesn't play a part at all, for any human it's got to be a factor, but I think when comparing white Ruth to black Mays, there's something else at work there. I think Barry loves the fact that there's gonna be 3/4 black guys atop the career HR list. He doesn't care that Aaron took over 7 seasons worth of AB (based on 550) to get only 41 more homers than Ruth. He still sees Hank as the better HR hitters. Shows some bias there. And he doesn't care that he himself wouldn't be anywhere near, forget Aaron, Ruth, or Mays, he'd be behind Frank Robinson imo, without steroids and a natural decline. He doesn't care. Of course even he would never say this to the press.
    "By common consent, Ruth was the hardest hitter of history; a fine fielder, if not a finished one; an inspired base runner, seeming to do the right thing without thinking. He had the most perfect co-ordination of any human animal I ever knew." - Hugh Fullerton, 1936 (Chicago sports writer, 1893-1930's)

    ROY / ERA+ Title / Cy Young / WS MVP / HR Title / Gold Glove / Comeback POY / BA Title / MVP / All Star / HOF

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Sultan_1895-1948
    Of course some might say that he was reluctant to celebrate passing Mays, because Mays is his Godfather. I'm not saying that doesn't play a part at all, for any human it's got to be a factor, but I think when comparing white Ruth to black Mays, there's something else at work there. I think Barry loves the fact that there's gonna be 3/4 black guys atop the career HR list. He doesn't care that Aaron took over 7 seasons worth of AB (based on 550) to get only 41 more homers than Ruth. He still sees Hank as the better HR hitters. Shows some bias there. And he doesn't care that he himself wouldn't be anywhere near, forget Aaron, Ruth, or Mays, he'd be behind Frank Robinson imo, without steroids and a natural decline. He doesn't care. Of course even he would never say this to the press.
    I did consider but did not mention that in my post and I believe it played into Barry's feeling on passing Mays. However I think that played a small part, a very small part, skin color was a bigger factor. A while back when asked about how he thought he would be viewed compared to Ruth when he leaves the game Barry gave some words but ended with, "don't forget I'm black and Ruth was white. Many times he has brought skin color into his statements over the years.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    14,506
    Blog Entries
    2
    An article from the Sporting News. March 10th, 1938
    Attached Images Attached Images

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Ubiquitous View Post
    Except if you read the articles of the time the ball was not changed. The leagues stated publicly that the ball was not altered. Studies came out that stated the ball was not changed. So if indeed the ball was changed they either knew and lied or found out and covered it up.


    For me though the funny thing is that we sit here and discount what players did today based on balls, bats, stadiums, healthcare, etc, etc. But look at what I just quoted. You don't think people were doing the same thing in 1921? You honestly think "traditionalist" baseball fans saw the changes that took place in the early 20's as needed and beneficial?

    Basically no one point in baseball is the true moment, the real moment when everything was authentic. There is no one era in baseball where one can point at and base everything else on how it compares to that one moment. There is no golden moment, there is opinions and choices but no Holy Grail.
    I would say and I have read that the new brand of baseball that came on to the scene in the early 20's in some minds was not needed or beneficial. In fact it was looked upon with disdain by many. The fans loved it just as many of todays fans loved the surge that took place in the early 1990's.

    I gave some reasons, some changes as to why it took place, in reply to a post that asked why we didn't look down on that change as some did the change in recent years. That was long ago and perhaps that makes no difference, the change then and the change now. It's possible had I been around at that time, had some of us been living in that time we may have reacted the same as some did in recent years.

    No way to tell what my reaction would have been had I lived back in that time.

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Ubiquitous View Post
    Except if you read the articles of the time the ball was not changed. The leagues stated publicly that the ball was not altered. Studies came out that stated the ball was not changed. So if indeed the ball was changed they either knew and lied or found out and covered it up.
    All of that could be true. Different stories from MLB. A better grade of yarn was now available (1919) and improvements in the manufacture of the ball. This is old stuff, for sure you and most on this board have heard this one. Maybe some new posters have not.

    Hard to believe anything MLB ever said about the ball in the long history of the game. Would they admit they changed the ball, I doubt it in all cases but one time they did reveal a change in the ball.

    In the NL winter meeting in 1929 the owners did decide to go to a different ball for the 1930 season. Lower seams, thinner cover and the NL exploded that season. Right from the start pitchers complaining about the lower seams and the thinner tighter cover, harder to grip and harder to get "stuff' on the ball. This was also the same complaints a number of pitchers made in the 1990's.

    One look at the NL league batting average and total home runs in 1930 and 1931 tells the story. In 1931 the owners went back to the old ball and the NL came back to the real world.

    The owners knew it then and they know it now, chicks are not the only ones that dig the long ball. It's a game but as we know it's also a busine$$.
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 07-23-2007 at 05:38 AM.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    14,506
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by JRB View Post
    As far as Babe Ruth is concerned, he didn't need any of those changes. He was alread head and shoulders above the other hitters in the league, and he would have continued to dominate without any changes. I think an interesting question is how many home runs in one season do you think Ruth would have eventually hit with the dead ball (he had just hit 29 in a partial season). Would he have eventually set the record at around 40, 45, or 50?

    c JRB
    Babe Ruth never played a major league game with a dead ball. Now having said that I will say that he most certainly did play with scuffed balls, beat up balls, discolored balls, lopsided balls, and pretty much anything else one can do to the ball due to wear and tear or on purpose.

    The "new" ball, the "live" ball that would fuel the boom of the 1920's was introduced in 1910 and it had an amazing effect on the game. So much so that the leagues allowed players to "cheat" and made it allowable for a pitcher to basically do anything they wanted to a baseball in order to get around the live ball.

    At best we can say that post war machinery improved thus the consistency of the ball improved, but the ball and its characteristics were created and introduced into the league in 1910. What we saw post WWI is what replacing baseballs and not allowing pitchers to alter the ball will do to the 1910 ball.
    Last edited by Ubiquitous; 07-22-2007 at 10:01 PM.

Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •