Registered User
Could it be that the cushion cork center did not do that much to change the ball. This other change may be a stretch and it may not have had any effect on the hitters. Also in 1926 pitchers were now allowed to use resin bags.Originally Posted by william_burgess@usa.net
Registered User
I have no sources to quote but, I have only my own undrestanding from my own ovbservations:
1- The strike zone: I can vividly testify that it is much shorter, about 75% the height of the 70s zone. It has also shifted to the outside. Inside pitches, even borderline strikes, seem to be rewarded by stares by the batter and warnings from the umpire. Pitches farther and farther away from the plate are getting called strikes.
2- Defense: The pitchers best friend is much worse and even overlooked by managers. Fundamentals are history. MLB level players can't be given 4 strikes and good teams can't be given 4 outs. This is a constant. Pitchers work much slower now which also works against the defense. Improvements in field grooming and equipment as well as different offensive philosophies make it difficult to evaluate statistically between eras.
3- Offense: Cutting down on the swing after strike 2 dissapeared in the early 70s as did choking up on the bat. The strike out, once a crime for a batter to commit, was gradually overlooked and even accepted. Pitchers coming up during and after the 70s routinely broke Walter Johnson's, once unbreakable, SO record. The batter regularly steps out of the batting box, further slowing the pace.
4- Player Conditioning: Players are more toned, but, not necessarily conditioned to be better players. Injuries are MORE frequent and Tommy John surgery is a standard for young pitchers.
5- The equipment: The ball is definitely more lively. Technology has improved in every other walk of life and its unrealistic to think Baseball is exempt. I can testify that I never heard of a ball hit over a fence on a bad or a check swing until the 1990s (Bo Jackson 1989 All Star Game). Many baseballs react like golf balls after being hit. That is either because of "improvements" of the bat or the ball or both.
In short, equipment, sloppy play, and offense oriented rule enforcement has aided offense since the 1990s.
Last edited by HDH; 07-14-2005 at 09:39 AM.
This is the first thread about baseballs
As you can see the tighter wound balls were not put into play until 1920 (or if you want to be picky sometime near the end of the 1919 season), so looking at the 1919 AL as proof that the ball was enlivened holds no water. The offense in 1919 increased not because of some tighter wound ball but in all probability a shift in thinking while over in the NL they stuck to their ways for a couple of more years.In April 1917, the U.S. entered World War One. As with all wars, there is always a shortage of materials. When it came to baseball, this was no exception. Since the standard yarn that was used for baseball winding was now being put to use to help the "Dough Boys keep the world safe for democracy" Baseball manufacturers had no choice but to use an inferior, cheaper yarn for the standard National and American League spheres. It was found that the inferior yarn made the baseballs even more loosely wound than before.
To make up the difference, the machines that wound the baseballs were set so that the yarn would be wound tighter making up the difference. Here's where it starts to get interesting. The Great War ended on November 11th, 1918, but the flow of high quality raw materials back into the private sector was a slow process. High quality yarn was not made available for the 1919 season. When the baseballs made with the old, high quality yarn were finally manufactured again, there was a noticeable difference in the feel of the ball. The baseball winding machines continued to wind the yarn with the new, tighter settings. Why no one ever decided to go back to the old settings remains a mystery! But when the new "lively ball" first was shown at the end of the '19 season many pitchers became very nervous at the thought of serving up the new product!
Cy Young commented "When I had a chance to take a gander at that lively ball shortly before the '20 season began, my first thoughts were that I was sure glad I was retired."
Prince of Pounders
Joe, the reason you don't see a difference there, is because you're looking at too large of windows from the two control groups. If you just take 1925, and just take 1926, you'll find that :
BA in the AL dropped 11 points
BA in the NL dropped 12 points
Homers in the NL fell by 31 %
Homers in the AL fell by 20 %
AL OBP fell from .360 to .351
NL OBP fell from .348 to .338
AL SLG fell from .408 to .392
NL SLG fell from .414 to .386
The cushioned cork center definately had an impact.
As far as I know, nothing was done to the ball after '26 (until '30 NL) and the offenses stormed right back. '26 was the beginning of Babe's second reformation. Coincidence, I think not
Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 05-06-2006 at 02:27 AM.
“…Ruth would be a valuable asset if he could be fitted in somewhere as a regular. This pitcher is the most natural batsman who has broken into the game since Ty Cobb.” ----------------------------------------------- The Sporting Life 8/14/15
"Ruth's homers are the longest that I have ever seen. Others hit home runs, too, but we must wait for them to drop before we are sure of them. When Ruth's hits leave the bat, there is no doubt of their mileage." - Connie Mack
Registered User
The reason I used that stretch of years was to see if the cork center in 1926 had a lasting effect for some years after 1926.Joe, the reason you don't see a difference there, is because you're looking at too large of windows from the two control groups. If you just take 1925, and just take 1926, you'll find that :
BA in the AL dropped 11 points
BA in the NL dropped 12 points
Homers in the NL fell by 31 %
Homers in the AL fell by 20 %
AL OBP fell from .360 to .351
NL OBP fell from .348 to .338
AL SLG fell from .408 to .392
NL SLG fell from .414 to .386
The cushioned cork center definately had an impact.
As far as I know, nothing was done to the ball after '26 (until '30 NL) and the offenses stormed right back. '26 was the beginning of Babe's second reformation. Coincidence, I think not
I think what you post does give a more accurate picture from the year 1925 to 1926, offense down with the cork center in 1926. Something else I did when I posted those numbers a while back that I believe was in error. The numbers from 1926 to 1930 may be skewed a bit with the ball change in the NL in 1930 when the offense went off the charts in that season. That one season probably brought up the all around numbers when included in the years 1926 to 1930. It was also rumored that the NL snuck in that livelier ball late in the 1929 season in the NL. There was a significant increase in NL offense from 1928 to 1929 but not as great as 1930.
Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 05-06-2006 at 05:00 AM.
Prince of Pounders
Yeah, I think if you want to see the true impact of ball changes, you have to just look at two years. The before year, and the after year. Otherwise you leave yourself open to the numbers balancing back out and pitchers making adjustments.
If we look at the changes from 1910 to 1911 for instance, we'll see that:
AL - BA jumped 30 points
NL - BA jumped 4 points
AL - OBP jumped 30 points
NL - OBP jumped 7 points
AL - SLG jumped 45 points
NL - SLG jumped 18 points
AL - 278.4 AB/HR to 207.8AB/HR
NL - 189.7AB/HR to 130.0AB/HR
AL
-------BA-----OBP----SA
1906 .249----.303-----.318
1907 .247----.302-----.309
1908 .239----.294-----.304
1909 .244----.303-----.309
1910 .243----.308-----.313
1911 .273----.338-----.358
1912 .265----.333-----.348
1913 .256----.325-----.336
1914 .248----.319-----.323
1915 .248----.325-----.326
“…Ruth would be a valuable asset if he could be fitted in somewhere as a regular. This pitcher is the most natural batsman who has broken into the game since Ty Cobb.” ----------------------------------------------- The Sporting Life 8/14/15
"Ruth's homers are the longest that I have ever seen. Others hit home runs, too, but we must wait for them to drop before we are sure of them. When Ruth's hits leave the bat, there is no doubt of their mileage." - Connie Mack
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.
Registered User
The only change that I am aware of in the 1926 season was the core change of the ball and it was also the year that allowed pitchers the use of a rosin bag. I believe this was adopted by the NL in that year and the AL later.
Registered User
Don't know if it was a fluke year but it could have been. This is a problem when using a comparison of only two seasons. In the history of the game there have been up and down seasons with no apparent changes in the ball, rules or equipment, unexplainable.
Prince of Pounders
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.
“…Ruth would be a valuable asset if he could be fitted in somewhere as a regular. This pitcher is the most natural batsman who has broken into the game since Ty Cobb.” ----------------------------------------------- The Sporting Life 8/14/15
"Ruth's homers are the longest that I have ever seen. Others hit home runs, too, but we must wait for them to drop before we are sure of them. When Ruth's hits leave the bat, there is no doubt of their mileage." - Connie Mack
Registered User
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.
Prince of Pounders
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
“…Ruth would be a valuable asset if he could be fitted in somewhere as a regular. This pitcher is the most natural batsman who has broken into the game since Ty Cobb.” ----------------------------------------------- The Sporting Life 8/14/15
"Ruth's homers are the longest that I have ever seen. Others hit home runs, too, but we must wait for them to drop before we are sure of them. When Ruth's hits leave the bat, there is no doubt of their mileage." - Connie Mack
7-for-7
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.
Registered User
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.
Registered User
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.
Prince of Pounders
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?
“…Ruth would be a valuable asset if he could be fitted in somewhere as a regular. This pitcher is the most natural batsman who has broken into the game since Ty Cobb.” ----------------------------------------------- The Sporting Life 8/14/15
"Ruth's homers are the longest that I have ever seen. Others hit home runs, too, but we must wait for them to drop before we are sure of them. When Ruth's hits leave the bat, there is no doubt of their mileage." - Connie Mack
Lummox in LF
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...???
Registered User
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.
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?
Probably quite a few more over the years, lots of wooden stuctures years ago.
Registered User
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.
Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 05-07-2006 at 06:47 PM.
Prince of Pounders
Joe, email me the original, and I'll make sure the words are readable.
sultan_of_swat_714@juno.com
“…Ruth would be a valuable asset if he could be fitted in somewhere as a regular. This pitcher is the most natural batsman who has broken into the game since Ty Cobb.” ----------------------------------------------- The Sporting Life 8/14/15
"Ruth's homers are the longest that I have ever seen. Others hit home runs, too, but we must wait for them to drop before we are sure of them. When Ruth's hits leave the bat, there is no doubt of their mileage." - Connie Mack
Prince of Pounders
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.
Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 05-07-2006 at 07:54 PM.
“…Ruth would be a valuable asset if he could be fitted in somewhere as a regular. This pitcher is the most natural batsman who has broken into the game since Ty Cobb.” ----------------------------------------------- The Sporting Life 8/14/15
"Ruth's homers are the longest that I have ever seen. Others hit home runs, too, but we must wait for them to drop before we are sure of them. When Ruth's hits leave the bat, there is no doubt of their mileage." - Connie Mack
Registered User
Thanks Randy, I'm sure this one was a real work out on your end. I filled in the blanks.
Prince of Pounders
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.
“…Ruth would be a valuable asset if he could be fitted in somewhere as a regular. This pitcher is the most natural batsman who has broken into the game since Ty Cobb.” ----------------------------------------------- The Sporting Life 8/14/15
"Ruth's homers are the longest that I have ever seen. Others hit home runs, too, but we must wait for them to drop before we are sure of them. When Ruth's hits leave the bat, there is no doubt of their mileage." - Connie Mack
Registered User
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.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.
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.
Prince of Pounders
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.
“…Ruth would be a valuable asset if he could be fitted in somewhere as a regular. This pitcher is the most natural batsman who has broken into the game since Ty Cobb.” ----------------------------------------------- The Sporting Life 8/14/15
"Ruth's homers are the longest that I have ever seen. Others hit home runs, too, but we must wait for them to drop before we are sure of them. When Ruth's hits leave the bat, there is no doubt of their mileage." - Connie Mack
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks