Discussion on Baseballs through the years

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Blackout
    Circle of Bosses
    • Apr 2005
    • 4595

    #16
    Originally posted by HDH
    1901: All players, pitchers and position players alike, scuffed and blackened the Spalding ball. If the ball was hit into the stands, spectators would be thrown out of the park if they refuse to return the ball to play. The ball was used even after the cover tore completely off. Better defending position players are more valuable than better hitting players. Pitchers are the main attraction.
    you forgot the 1903 strike-count change where foul balls count as strikes

    that had a huge change in history and advantage for pitchers
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 05-06-2006, 08:47 AM.

    Comment

    • AG2004
      Registered User
      • Jun 2004
      • 1091

      #17
      As far as I can tell, there was no change in the composition of baseballs in 1919.

      As has been pointed out before, there was a change in the composition of baseballs in 1911, and this led to increased batting averages in 1911 and 1912. However, HDH, there wasn't deliberate scuffing of baseballs before 1910.

      In 1908, minor league pitcher Russ Ford threw a pitch in practice that got away and hit a cement upright. After he got the ball back, he threw another pitch which jumped about a foot. Then he noticed that the ball was roughed up by striking the upright.

      According to Ford, he didn't try to throw the scuff ball in a game until 1909, and then rapidly made the majors and became a star. However, near the end of 1912, someone figured out the secret to Ford's success, and word spread among pitchers. By 1914, everybody was using scuff balls.

      This explains why batting averages dropped from 1913 onwards. When it was decided to throw out used baseballs and make sure the ball in play was clean, batting averages rebounded.

      Here are the top three MLB batting averages for 1911-14 and 1919-22.

      1911: Cobb .420, Jackson .408, Crawford .378
      1912: Cobb .409, Jackson .395, Speaker .383
      1913: Cobb .390, Jackson .373, Speaker .363
      1914: Kauff .370 (FL), Cobb .368, Evans .348 (FL), Speaker and Jackson .338

      (1915-1918: Scuff ball paradise years.)

      1919: Cobb .384, Veach .355, Sisler .352
      1920: Sisler .407, Speaker .388, Jackson .382
      1921: Hornsby .397, Heilmann .394, Cobb .389
      1922: Sisler .420, Hornsby .401, Cobb .401

      The return to unscuffed baseballs is enough to explain the change in batting averages.

      -----

      The other main argument for the 1919 date was that home runs increased after that point. From 1919 to 1921, there's a climb in the number of home runs hit. However, Ruth set the standard, and other players start to catch up to him by 1922.

      Here's the top two in home runs hit, 1919 to 1922, by season.

      1919:
      Ruth 29
      Gavvy Cravath 12

      1920:
      Ruth 54
      George Sisler 19

      1921:
      Ruth 59
      Bob Meusel, Ken Williams 24

      1922:
      Hornsby 42
      Ken Williams 39
      (Ruth played in 110 games, but still managed 35 HRs)

      Sisler's 19 in 1920 is high, but not excessively so; Frank Schulte hit 21 HRs in 1911.

      There is an increase in home runs hit after 1919. However, IF the lively ball was the reason for the increase, then why was Babe Ruth the ONLY person hitting all those home runs from 1919 to 1921? We don't see ONLY one person hitting high batting averages during those years.

      There's one difference between Ruth and all those other hitters: Ruth came up to the major leagues as a PITCHER, not a position player. Hitters in the 1910s were taught not to hit for power, and not to uppercut the ball. The conventional wisdom was that you might get a couple more home runs, but you'll also get oodles of outs from fly balls, and that'll end up hurting the team.

      Ruth did was permitted to keep the uppercut and hit for power. He was a pitcher, and therefore working with him on his hitting wasn't considered worthwhile. Nobody told him NOT to hit for power. Then, just before the 1918 season, the Red Sox lost two regular outfielders, and they had to fill the holes. Ruth could hit, so they moved him to the outfield.

      What Ruth could now demonstrate was that, if you hit for power and uppercut the ball, you'll get oodles of home runs, but only a few more outs from fly balls, and that helps the team.

      It took some time for people to change their hitting styles. Ken Williams was a fringe major leaguer before 1920, so he had nothing to lose. But among established players, there weren't that many who became power hitters - Cy Williams, Rogers Hornsby, and Oscar Charleston (in the Negro Leagues) were about it. Once players were taught that they could hit for power and uppercut the ball, we get Gehrig, Foxx, Ott, Wilson, and others - but they all came along after Ruth had been hitting HRs for years.

      -----

      It seems that the increase in offense was after 1919 was due to:
      (a) the end of the scuff ball, and
      (b) Babe Ruth.

      Furthermore, early in the 1921 season, NL president John Heydler decided to check if the league was being sold "rabbit balls." At the end of the investigation, he concluded that there was no change in the composition of baseballs. He also determined that the changes in offense were due to the abolition of freak pitches and Babe Ruth's demonstration that it was possible to hit all those home runs.

      Since Heydler could check the actual balls - something I couldn't do - and he reached the same conclusions I did, that strengthens the argument that the offensive explosion of the 1920s had nothing to do with a change in the composition of baseballs.

      Comment

      • Bill Burgess
        Registered User
        • Oct 2003
        • 13122

        #18
        HDH,

        Nice list, nice job. But other significant changes that affected offensive productivity were the enlarged strike zone in 1962, from the letters to the tops of the shoulders, and back to the letters for 1969, and the shrunken strike-zone, from, I believe, 1993 to present. True, some umps resisted it, but peer pressure eventually made them conform.

        Comment

        • SHOELESSJOE3
          Registered User
          • Jan 2000
          • 16054

          #19
          Originally posted by HDH
          1901: 1962: Pitching mounds were raised to give the pitcher more of an advantage
          1969: Pitching mounds are reduced and expansion again dilutes pitching.
          Not to doubt your word but what source stated that mounds were raised in 1962, I don't recall that. Was it done officially, by the rules commitee or MLB.

          I do recall the one official change you post, lowering the mound from 15" to 10" in 1969.

          Comment

          • SHOELESSJOE3
            Registered User
            • Jan 2000
            • 16054

            #20
            One thing for sure, lots of interesting input on the history of the ball. Some we can be sure took place but some we can never be sure of.

            I did find this one, seems to be legit because it was announced by MLB. In 1926 the cushioned cork center ball was introduced. A quick glance at stats hitting and pitching a few years before and after 1926 do not show any dramatic changes brought about by this change.

            Also in 1926, pitchers allowed to use resin bags.

            Comment

            • SHOELESSJOE3
              Registered User
              • Jan 2000
              • 16054

              #21
              Another article I saved complete with a photo of the device used in this case.

              From USA TODAY: Universal Systems of Solon Ohio used a CATscanner to view the cores of some balls going back to 1930 up to the present,1999.
              Those who performed the tests were amazed at the great number of variations, quality and size that was displayed over the years.

              No oipinion on what effect it may have had on the liveleness of the ball over the years, only the changes.

              Comment

              • cubbieinexile
                The Real McCoy
                • Jan 2000
                • 459

                #22
                Here is another article:
                An oft-told baseball story is that sometime around 1920, major league executives acted in concert with baseball manufacturers to "liven up" the ball. Their supposed aim was to increase flagging attendance in the wake of the Black Sox scandal. With this new ball, Babe ruth slammed 54 then 59 home runs, shattering the major league record, and for the rest of the decade, batters went wild and, more importantly, attendance soared.

                It's almost impossible to find a baseball history book that does not tell this story as if it were undisputed truth. There's only one thing wrong: It's just not true!

                No writer who espouses this theory has any evidence to prove it. That's because the ball used from 1920 to 1926 was not in any substantial way different from that used from 1911from 1919. The Reach Company, which manufactured balls for both leagues (although Spalding put its name on the NL's balls), did use a higher-quality yarn after World War I, but it had little, if anything, to do with the inflated averages; and even if it did have an effect, it was not done intentionally to fatten batting averages and boost attendance.

                This "rabbit ball" gets blamed simply based on the fact that offensive totals increased. But that's like accusing somebody of murder when the only evidence you have is the dead body.

                What proof is there that no lively ball was introduced? A lot more than the proof that a lively ball was introduced. Throughout the 1920s, journalists and league offices launched any number of investigations into the alleged "rabbit ball" theories, and all of them came to the same conclusion: that the balls used after 1920 had the same weight and size and bounce and used the same materials (except for the yarn, which didn't make much of a difference) as the ball that had been used in the past decade.

                In addition, the manufacturer and league officials gave sworn depositions to that effect. Much-respected NL president John Heydler said, "At no time have the club owners ordered the manufacturer to make the ball livelier. The only stipulation the club owners have made about the ball is that it be the very best that could be made."

                The Reach Baseball Guide ran a full-page ad announcing, "We never experiment with our patrons. There has been no change in the construction of the CORK CENTER BALL since we introduced it in 1910." And the United States Bureau of Standards conducted extensive tests that came to the same conclusion.



                Comment

                • SHOELESSJOE3
                  Registered User
                  • Jan 2000
                  • 16054

                  #23
                  Originally posted by [email protected]
                  the shrunken strike-zone, from, I believe, 1993 to present. True, some umps resisted it, but peer pressure eventually made them conform.
                  Bill, in my view this is a big one, seems to have gotten lost after it was given much attention in the late 199Os.

                  Yes there was expansion, smaller parks and the 1990s ball was proven to be out of specs in a test at the University of Rhode Island in 2000. The ball contained an over the limit amount of synthetic material in the wool windings. Dennis Hilliard and others surmised that the synthetic material would resist moisture during hot damp weather. Balls from the 1960s-70s-80s were also tested and found to be within specs. Many pitchers began complaining in the early 1990s about the lower seams on the ball.

                  So expansion, park size and the ball contributed to the home run derby but lets not forget that lower strike zone. Hitters are no longer concerned with what was once borderline high strikes, they know it will be called a ball almost all the time. Thats the same pitch that in the past tied up big strong guys, Mantle Killebrew, Frank Howard and others because it was hard to get around on, "get on top of the ball."

                  Today's hitters are not bothered by that one anymore because the strike zone is so much lower, hitters delight.

                  I recall when Selig and Sandy Alderson sent out a memo to the umps to start calling the high strike, the rule book strike for the 2001 season. I watched the very first Yankee game that season. Don't recall the hitter but a pitch a few inches above the belt was called a ball. Bobby Murcer and Jim Katt commented on that one pitch. Murcer said that he thought the umps were supposed to start calling that pitch a strike citing Selig's memo to the umps and what he called the "new strike zone". Katt replied, "Well if thats the new strike zone somebody may hit 80 home runs this year, Bonds hit 73.

                  I have seen changes in the strike zone over the many years that I have watched this game. All those changes came about after the rules commitee and MLB decared it would be so. That strike zone of the early 1990s was as drastic as any I jave ever seen and is not even close to the rule book (verticle) strike zone.
                  Last edited by Bill Burgess; 05-06-2006, 08:49 AM.

                  Comment

                  • cubbieinexile
                    The Real McCoy
                    • Jan 2000
                    • 459

                    #24
                    I remember reading about the the study done on the modern ball, and I believe there is a link around here on this forum. What they found was that there was more synthetic material in the windings then allowed. It wasn't done on purpose and it wasn't a huge amount. It happened because they were using recycled wool to make the ball. Nor do they have any real idea of what those fibers would do to a ball. There conclusions that it would make it more lively was just a guess on their part. Secondly they only looked at 5 baseballs from a 30 year period. Baseballs that were donated by people, not really a controlled experiment by any means. Thirdly they did bounce tests on these balls and cores as if these items had all shared they same experiences. In fact they did not and they have no way of knowing what environments these balls were in before they got a hold of them.

                    If this was a trial these findings would probably be thrown out of court, if this was research for a drug it would probably get denied. In otherwords it holds no water.

                    Now that doesn't mean they are wrong, they could very well have come to the right conclusion despite using a flawed analysis. But I'm wouldn't use their evidence as proof of anything.

                    Comment

                    • Imapotato
                      Cynic Philly Phan
                      • Oct 2003
                      • 1204

                      #25
                      Originally posted by cubbieinexile
                      Also I believe there is a coffee table book about baseballs, I wonder what it says.

                      Rare time Cubbie and I see eye to eye

                      But he is right, you can see the influx of average, walks, K's and yes HRs 1912 and on (1911 was the learning curve period)

                      It went down in 1914-1915, not because of the ball but talent to the Federal League. Then 1918 was a war shortened year

                      so let's look at the other years


                      1912-- middle of 'deadball' 10 players hit over .340
                      6 players slug over .500
                      3 players have an OPS over 1.000 4 over .950
                      Zimmerman hiots 14 HRS
                      Chief Wilson hits hio record 32 triples
                      Schulte hits 12
                      Cravath, Merkle and Wilson hit 11, 4 hit 10
                      Speaker has 53 doubles
                      Sheckard had 112 walks, probably due to tighter ball less control, but faster pitch speed, 10 layers had 80 or more walks...unheard of before
                      ERA went down for the power pitchers, as Johnson had his best year, and K'd 303

                      1913-HRs still climbing...Cravath 19, 10 players with 9 or more

                      1914-1915 goes down slightly, due to spread out talent

                      Now why it stayed down after the fold of the Federal League is beyond me...maybe just like when segregation was done away with...more talented players took the place of lesser talented players...and those players that stuck around from the FL were mainly Pitchers...only 2 FL position players stuck...Roush and Kauff

                      But no 1919 was not the point of no return, Cravath showed in 1911-1915 that HRs were easier to get, before 1911 he hit 3 in 350 ABs...then hits 11 in 1911 in 436, Gavvy if 10 years younger would have been the NL version of Ruth...he was just Ruth in deadball era who started at 27 instead of 18

                      Now later on in the 20's the NL admitted to a tighter wound ball, and fans and writers turned on them, they told the truth

                      After the strike of 1994, the league did it again, but will never fess up, instead pointing the arrow at Steroids...for once Bonds is right, he is a scapegoat of sorts, he is wrong that its because he is black though

                      They have been 3 studies I have seen from noted experts that have stated the ball of 1994 on average travelled 40 feet further and had a higher arc on impact, a google search might find those long ago articles
                      Last edited by Imapotato; 07-10-2005, 04:18 PM.

                      Comment

                      • cubbieinexile
                        The Real McCoy
                        • Jan 2000
                        • 459

                        #26
                        Look at Home Run Baker. In 1909 and 1910 he has a little over 1100 at bats and has a grand total of 6 home runs. In 1911 the new ball is used and he has 11 home runs in about 600 at bats. Increases his rate by over 3 times what it was the last two years combined, and of course he goes to the World Series hits 2 home runs in 24 at bats and becomes known as Home Run Baker.

                        Comment

                        • Imapotato
                          Cynic Philly Phan
                          • Oct 2003
                          • 1204

                          #27
                          Originally posted by AG2004
                          As far as I can tell, there was no change in the composition of baseballs in 1919.

                          As has been pointed out before, there was a change in the composition of baseballs in 1911, and this led to increased batting averages in 1911 and 1912. However, HDH, there wasn't deliberate scuffing of baseballs before 1910.

                          Actually that is not true, the legend of the scuff/spit/mudball flucuates, but the best believable story is...
                          George Hildebrand, an Minor League OFer who had some MLB AB's and then became an umpire, learned of the spitball when dew got on the ball and he noticed how it broke differently.

                          He showed it to teammate Elmer "Spitball" Stricklett, who taught it to Ed Walsh, who taught it to Doc White, and it spread like wildfire in 1904
                          Jack Chesbro won 40 games the year he learned the spitter, and taught it to Al Orth...who won 27, Russ Ford learned it from Orth...and so and so forth

                          Scuffing and the mudball, Clark Griffith was notorius for doing that back in 1898, as was Deacon Phillippe

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by HDH
                            1901: All players, pitchers and position players alike, scuffed and blackened the Spalding ball. If the ball was hit into the stands, spectators would be thrown out of the park if they refuse to return the ball to play. The ball was used even after the cover tore completely off. Better defending position players are more valuable than better hitting players. Pitchers are the main attraction.
                            1911: With the Reach ball, offense increased. Hitters become the main attraction. Base runnning and daring is the philosophy. Runs can now be manufactured. Players still scuffed and blackened the ball. Pitchers routinely throw at batters and many batters take advantage of this and try to get hit. The umpires will rule them out for not attempting to move away from the pitch. The game was so popular and so profitable at this period. Its hard to judge the effect in comparison to other decades; the Federal League was introduced which somewhat diluted the competition. The profitability was lost which likely introduced gimmicks. A year later, WWI diluted the talent on the field.
                            1919: The war was over, the ball is said to be would better from improved manufacturing techniques developed during and immediately after the war. The hitting pilosophy was changed when Babe Ruth hit 29 HR for the Red Sox. He also started 15 games and completed 12.
                            1920: Babe hit 54 HR, he is drawing crowds like never before. New philosphy. The slugger is born. Ray Chapman is killed with a pitch to the skull.
                            1921: Balls are removed regularily for batters better vision and the newer balls retain their resiliancy. Pitchers throw at batters but, it is an unspoken rule not to throw at their head unless your team is hit in the head first. Hitters are searched for who have more power. Although runners are fast, they don't take the chance stealing. Manufacturing runs are reserved for the bottom half of the order. The slugger becomes the main attraction. They cut down on their swing to avoid a SO and BA are higher.
                            1929: The depression brings down attendance so, just as in 1911 and 1920, it is thought that increasing offense would improve attendance. The Rabbit ball has less texture and the skin is less absorbant. The pitches are straighter, it comes off the bat faster, and bounced on the field faster. BA climb to 1893 levels.
                            1931: The ball is changed again, likely not to what it was before 1929 but, remains relatively stable until 1961.
                            1952: The high strike is being phased out and not called as it once was. The batter now has another advantage.
                            1961: With expansion, pitching is diluted. Offense explodes to levels which concerns traditionalists. The Babe's HR record is broken. Teams score 100 runs more than the previous season.
                            1962: Pitching mounds were raised to give the pitcher more of an advantage
                            1969: Pitching mounds are reduced and expansion again dilutes pitching.
                            1987: The ball is again changed but, noone seems to know what has changed just that it is more lively.
                            1995: Baseball is barely regulated. Steroids chane baseall once again.
                            This was well stated, except that the Stock Market crashed on October 24, 1929 a little over a week after the season ended. The 1930 season doesn't look like it was hit by the deperession yet. Half of the 16 teams outdrew 1929 and a ninth nearly did. In fact both leauges had higher attendence in 1930 than in 1929. After that the AL didn't draw at 1929-30 levelas until 1937. The NL didn't outdraw 1930 until 1946. Attendence wise the worst year of the depression was 1933.

                            Comment

                            • SHOELESSJOE3
                              Registered User
                              • Jan 2000
                              • 16054

                              #29
                              Originally posted by cubbieinexile
                              I remember reading about the the study done on the modern ball, and I believe there is a link around here on this forum. What they found was that there was more synthetic material in the windings then allowed. It wasn't done on purpose and it wasn't a huge amount. It happened because they were using recycled wool to make the ball. Nor do they have any real idea of what those fibers would do to a ball. There conclusions that it would make it more lively was just a guess on their part. If this was a trial these findings would probably be thrown out of court, if this was research for a drug it would probably get denied. In otherwords it holds no water.
                              I posted info on that article in great detail some months ago on this board. Your correct when you say that the over the limit amount of synthetic material in the wool winding was not done by design, not deliberate. If I recall the wool was supplied by some distributors who gathered the wool from recycled carpets and rugs. It was believed that in recent years rugs and carpets contained more synthetic material than years ago. So thats the story, not a plan just something that took place, possibly MLB was not even aware of the change in the composition of rugs and carpets over the years.

                              The article appeared in Discover Magazine and Popular Science. What miffed some was the fact that the editors of Popular Science made a number of calls to Bud Selig's office to discuss the out of specs 1990s balls and to this day he has not answered those phone calls. Now that is not to say he has something to hide, did not care to discuss the issue, who can say.

                              You say that they have no idea what that synthetic material does for the ball and thats correct. They never declared anything only theorized that synthetic material would keep the ball more firm in damp weather by resisting moisture more than the porous wool material.

                              In the end I agree with your post, there is no proof that this would result in a livelier ball, they never made that claim, only what they thought might result.

                              Comment

                              • mordeci
                                Registered User
                                • Apr 2005
                                • 1118

                                #30
                                For what it's worth; if the offensive increase in the 20's was due to a juiced ball HRs and BAs would go up, but strikeouts wouldn't be affected. If it was due to no more scuffed balls and other forms of pitcher "cheating" then strikeouts would go down while BA and HR went up.

                                BA ab/hr ab/so
                                1916: .248 213 8.59
                                1917: .249 244 9.45
                                1918: .254 286 11.36
                                1919: .263 167 10.90
                                1920: .277 133 11.62
                                1921: .291 90 12.24
                                1922: .288 80 12.28
                                1923: .284 86 12.14
                                1924: .286 94 12.76
                                1925: .291 73 12.82

                                Obviously stikeouts went down, which I would say points to a change in pitches/fewer scuffs rather than a juiced ball. Just my opinion, I'm sure someone will point out the flaw in my theory.

                                HOWEVER (if I may contradict myself), that's only if the change was to the structure/materials of the ball. Strikeouts would go down if the change was to the seams. The seams are what "catch" the air to create movement. If the seams were tighter then breaking balls wouldn't break as much and fastballs would have a lot less movement (try throwing a slider with a pool ball). Essentially, tighter seams would have the same effect as not using scuffed balls. But I've never heard anything about tighter seams so I would assume it was the scuffed-ball thing. I just thought I'd throw that in to further confuse the issue.

                                for the record, in the 30's SO's went back up to 1 every 10-11 ABs. They've been rising steadily since. Batters have struck out about once every 5+ ABs every year since 1990.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X