Originally posted by cubbieinexile
Discussion on Baseballs through the years
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by [email protected]Alright.
I somehow remember the leagues admitting the ball was juiced around mid-decade and announcing that it would stay. I will see if I can find that announcement for everyone.
Bill Burgess
I looked at some stats from both leagues and devided the decade to see if there was a leap in 1926 or after. I did not see any in 1926 and for that matter did not see any significant leap in the 1920s. There was a bit of an upswing around 1928 but that could be attributed to a growing number of hitters who were jumping on the home run bandwagon. I would think that Ruth's brand of long ball was catching on in the late 1920s.
--------------BA.-------Slg-------OBA-------HR%------AB/HR Ratio
1920-1925---.286------.395------.347-------1.37-------89.99
1926-1930---.286------.406------.349-------1.36-------73.28
Not much of a difference first 6 years of the decade 1920-25 compared to the last 4 years of the decade1926-1930. Actually that 1930 was from the next decade but should be no problem.
The margin of difference would probably be even closer if not for that wild 1930 season of inflated stats in the NL when the owners admitted to juicing the 1930 NL ball, thinner cover and lower seams.
Bottom line, if there was any juicing in the mid 1920s there seems to be no significant leap in the second half of the decade.Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 07-11-2005, 09:16 PM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3Cub, are you speaking of the introduction of the cushion cork center that came in 1926. I did look at some stats a few years before and after 1926 and that change did not seem to make much difference in league offense.
Its hard to say if it is random chance or not but offense in both leagues went down in 1926 and stayed down through 1927
Comment
-
-
Here is a break down by year of the two leagues.
Code:Year R/G ERA H H/G BB BB/G HR HR/G SO SO/G 1930 5.68 4.97 13261 10.7 3687 3 892 0.72 3850 3.11 1929 5.36 4.71 12670 10.3 3945 3.2 754 0.61 3472 2.82 1928 4.7 3.99 11879 9.7 3835 3.1 610 0.5 3390 2.76 1927 4.58 3.91 11941 9.7 3412 2.8 483 0.39 3496 2.83 1926 4.54 3.83 11746 9.5 3470 2.8 439 0.36 3359 2.72 1925 5.06 4.27 12488 10.2 3453 2.8 636 0.52 3372 2.75 1924 4.54 3.87 11974 9.8 3206 2.6 499 0.41 3381 2.75 1923 4.85 3.99 12342 10 3495 2.8 538 0.44 3406 2.76 Year R/G AB 2B 3B HR BB SO BA OBP SLG 1930 5.68 43693 2386 625 892 3691 3848 0.303 0.358 0.448 1929 5.36 43030 2253 569 754 3961 3465 0.294 0.354 0.426 1928 4.7 42336 2021 518 610 3848 3410 0.281 0.341 0.397 1927 4.58 42344 1888 540 483 3413 3491 0.282 0.335 0.386 1926 4.54 42009 1948 589 439 3473 3359 0.28 0.335 0.386 1925 5.06 42859 2120 614 636 3460 3373 0.292 0.344 0.414 1924 4.54 42445 1881 622 499 3216 3408 0.283 0.333 0.392 1923 4.85 43216 1912 588 538 3494 3408 0.286 0.339 0.395 Year R/G ERA H H/G BB BB/G HR HR/G SO SO/G 1930 5.41 4.64 12343 10 3958 3.2 673 0.55 4080 3.31 1929 5.01 4.24 11973 9.8 4065 3.3 595 0.49 3566 2.91 1928 4.76 4.04 11828 9.6 3827 3.1 483 0.39 3704 3 1927 4.92 4.14 12050 9.7 4029 3.3 439 0.35 3399 2.75 1926 4.73 4.02 11770 9.6 4206 3.4 424 0.34 3456 2.81 1925 5.2 4.4 12430 10.1 4315 3.5 533 0.43 3317 2.69 1924 4.98 4.23 12237 9.9 4146 3.4 397 0.32 3243 2.63 1923 4.78 3.98 11852 9.6 4100 3.3 442 0.36 3601 2.92 Year R/G AB 2B 3B HR BB SO BA OBP SLG 1930 5.41 42882 2375 656 673 3975 4088 0.288 0.348 0.421 1929 5.01 42181 2229 599 595 4054 3578 0.284 0.347 0.407 1928 4.76 42117 2200 620 483 3828 3719 0.281 0.341 0.397 1927 4.92 42117 2261 610 439 4018 3341 0.285 0.348 0.399 1926 4.73 41762 2195 568 424 4232 3452 0.281 0.347 0.392 1925 5.2 42595 2218 557 533 4289 3308 0.292 0.356 0.407 1924 4.98 42280 2197 551 397 4136 3249 0.29 0.353 0.396 1923 4.78 42068 2010 553 442 4092 3611 0.282 0.346 0.388
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by [email protected]Joe,
Nice posting. So if the leagues admit introducing that ball in 1926, and there is minimal increase of offense in either league for 1926-27, that would seem odd. Any interpretations, anyone? Strange.
BB
Comment
-
-
Today Vs. the early 1970s
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, 09:39 AM.In the 1920's, Harry Heilmann led the AL with a .364 average. In addition, he averaged 220 hits, 45 doubles, 12 triples, 16 homers, 110 runs, and 130 RBI.
Comment
-
-
This is the first thread about baseballs
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."
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3
--------------BA.-------Slg-------OBA-------HR%------AB/HR Ratio
1920-1925---.286------.395------.347-------1.37-------89.99
1926-1930---.286------.406------.349-------1.36-------73.28
Not much of a difference first 6 years of the decade 1920-25 compared to the last 4 years of the decade1926-1930.
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 notLast edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 05-06-2006, 02:27 AM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948Joe, 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, 05:00 AM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3The 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.
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.
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
Comment
-
-
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.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by UbiquitousNo 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.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by UbiquitousNo 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.
Comment
-
Ad Widget
Collapse
Comment