I allways see people posting about myths that they've heard or read about so I decided to set up this thread so that these myths can be gathered and and scrutinized by our fellow baseball fans. And maybe in the end some of these myths can be buried in a tomb of logic and scientific analysis (wow that sounded dorky).
It's basically Mythbusters except solely about baseball and without Buster or Jamies mustache.
Greystones Mariners Baseball Club. The oldest baseball club in Ireland. 16 years and still going strong.
www.greystonesbaseball.org
Posted by Tony K. in the Trivia Fourm:
Also this, about "keeping your eye on the ball"According to one yarn, Mike King Kelly reportedly broke the last baseball bat that either team had, so he chose to use an axe he found in a nearby shed. When he swung at the next pitch, the axe chopped the ball in two, and one half went over the grandstand, and the other half landed out in left field.
Kelly rounded third, and slid into home just as the ball arrived. The umpire called him out, and that started a rhubarb. Kelly insisted he was only half out (he had been tagged by only half of the ball). Tim Hurst, the umpire, reversed his call and ruled that Kelly had scored half a run.
I know this was true because the story was told on the old Ripley's Believe It Or Not radio show!
Busting Baseball Myths: Scientist Throws Big Curveballs
By Bjorn Carey
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 20 April 2006
09:06 am ET
Your Little League coach probably didn't know it, but every time he sent you to the plate with the instructions "keep your eye on the ball," he was giving you an impossible task.
And if you followed the coach's advice of positioning yourself directly under a popup, you probably struggled to catch balls in the outfield, too.
Ken Fuld, a baseball enthusiast and visual psychophysicist at the University of New Hampshire, has pored over numerous baseball studies and suggests that neither of these approaches produce optimal results.
Instead, much to your coach’s chagrin, you should try mimicking the quirks of the best Major League players.
Major League heat
At the Major League level, pitchers sling fastballs between 90 and 100 mph and sometimes a tweak faster. The ball moves far too swiftly for a batter to watch for its entire journey to home plate.
"In the last few feet before the plate, the ball reaches an angular velocity that exceeds the ability of the eye to track the ball," Fuld told LiveScience. "The best hitters can track the ball to within 5 or 6 feet of the plate."
Sometimes players will abandon eye contact mid-way through the pitch and move their line of sight to where they anticipate the ball will cross the plate. Batters often "take" the first couple pitches of an "at bat" in this manner to try and calibrate the movement and speed of a pitcher's offerings.
Killer curve
But a hitter is at the mercy of what the pitch does in those last few feet. That's when their eyes have left the ball and a nasty 12-to-6 curveball—a pitch named after the face of a clock and which drops top to bottom—can make even the best hitters swing out of their shoes. The pitch looks innocent enough, but during the instant the hitter is blind to the ball, a good curveball will have dropped a foot or more, and the batter will likely swing over the pitch.
Because of its straight trajectory, many hitters have an easier time hitting a four-seam, 100-mph fastball than a lively curveball. Forkballs, sinkers, and split-fingered fastballs, all of which have tough-to-judge spin and dart around the strike zone, are similarly tough to hit.
On the flipside are knuckleballs. Even though they're slow-moving and have little to no spin, they flutter erratically, making them one of the most difficult pitches to connect with. As legendary hitting coach Charlie Lau once said, "There are two theories on hitting a knuckleball. Unfortunately, neither of them works."
The myth of the rising fastball
Fuld has pondered other aspects of hitting that will interest any fan.
When a hitter swings under the ball and misses, baseball announcers sometimes say the pitcher got him with a "rising fastball." But technically, this pitch cannot exist if thrown overhand—it's impossible for a pitch thrown downward to buck gravity and achieve upward lift.
The rising fastball deceives the hitter in almost the opposite way a good curve does. A 90-mph fastball will drop significantly less than one thrown at 80 mph. So instead of dropping a few inches in the last few feet, a fastball with some serious zip will maintain a nearly straight trajectory.
"If he thinks it's an 80-mph fastball, but it's really 90 mph, since it didn't drop it will appear to rise in that last instant," Fuld said. "It looks like it hops up, and that's the illusion of a rising fastball."
See the ball, catch the ball
Perceptions mess with minds in the field, too.
Any pro would tell you that the hardest ball to catch is a line drive smoked right at them. Sure, there's the fear that it might put a dent in your forehead, but it's the lack of visual information that makes the ball difficult to judge.
When a ball is hit to the left or right of a fielder, the player can observe the ball's velocity, acceleration, and angle to figure out where it might land. Some people might consider baseball players to be dumb jocks, but they're constantly doing geometry on the fly.
"Good players do not run to a place where the ball will land and then wait for it, but rather catch the ball while running," Fuld said. "This is contrary to what many coaches prescribe, which is to 'get under the ball and not drift on it.'"
When the ball is hit directly at a player, the most of the available visual information is in the form of angular velocity, the rate at which the ball appears to enlarge as it approaches. But a lack of linear velocity makes it difficult to determine the ball's path or how long it will take to get there.
So the next time you see a player taking a lazy, jogging approach to catch a fly ball, you should praise him for his math skills rather than blasting him for not hustling.
Assuming he catches it, of course.
And this, about wiether or not better hitters see the ball as being bigger
Baseball Science: Better Hitters See Ball as Bigger
By Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience Managing Editor
posted: 15 December 2005
09:37 am ET
After hitting a 565-foot home run, Mickey Mantle once said, "I just saw the ball as big as a grapefruit." During a slump, Joe "Ducky" Medwick of the St. Louis Cardinals said he was "swinging at aspirins."
A new study puts some science behind those perceptions.
Researchers found a correlation between batting averages of softball players and how big or small they perceived the ball to be.
After games at several softball fields in Charlottesville, Va., the researchers asked 47 players to pick from eight different-sized circles the one that best represented the size of the ball they had been trying to hit.
"Only people who hit .500 or above pointed at the big circle," said Jessica Witt, a cognitive psychology doctoral candidate at the University of Virginia.
A real thing
The softball players literally see the ball as larger, the study concludes. "It's not in their minds. It's in perception," Witt told LiveScience.
Witt was not surprised. She competed last July for the gold medal-winning U.S. Ultimate Frisbee team at the 2005 World Games in Duisburg, Germany. She has experienced a similar effect.
"The player I'm throwing to seems so far away when I'm throwing against the wind, but when I'm throwing with the wind it seems to be a short toss even if it's far," she said.
It's not entirely clear what's going on, however.
The study did not reveal whether the participants saw the ball as bigger and therefore hit better, or if they were having a good day and therefore recall perceiving the ball as being bigger. But Witt speculates it's all about being ready to hit well.
"The body is in synch and ready to be a good batter," she said. "That affects perception."
Can we trick perception?
Witt figures the concept applies to life outside sports, too.
A study last year by other researchers found similar perception differences in successful dart throwers. Another study found that destinations are perceived as being farther away when study participants wear heavier backpacks.
"Perspective and perception play a big role in what we do and how well we do it," she said.
The new study's results might be related to the reason many athletes visualize their performance beforehand. "If you visualize yourself hitting better, maybe you'll see the ball as bigger," Witt said. In further research, she hopes to investigate whether we can trick the perception system into thinking the ball is bigger.
The findings are detailed in the December issue of the journal Psychological Science.
And this about throwing a ball to a toddler slower makes it easier to hit
2 myths busted, 1 yet to be, and 1 solved.Study Finds Kids Can't Hit Slow Pitches
By LiveScience Staff
posted: 04 May 2005
05:26 pm ET
You're throwing a ball for a toddler to smack with a plastic bat. You toss it gently, slowly, to make it easier. He just can't hit it.
It's because you throw too slowly, a new study finds.
Kids' brains aren't wired for slow motion.
"When you throw something slowly to a child, you think you're doing them a favor by trying to be helpful," said Terri Lewis, professor of psychology at McMaster University. "Slow balls actually appear stationary to a child."
Add a little speed to the pitch, Lewis and her colleagues suggest, and the child is able to judge its speed more accurately.
"Our brain has very few neurons that deal specifically with slow motion and many neurons that deal with faster motion," Lewis said. "Even adults are worse at slow speeds than they are at faster speeds."
Kids' neurons are immature, making the task even more challenging for them.
The study will be detailed in the July issue of Vision Research.
1) Abner Doubleday invented baseball
2) Ruth called his shot in the '32 Series
3) Pete Rose agreed to a ban
4) Joe Jackson knew about the '19 WS fix
5) Josh Gibson hit a fair ball out of Yankee Stadium
Good luck on this one
6) Candy Cummings invented the curveball (at least they busted the myth that it was an optical illusion)
Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge
One myth that gets a lot of play here is about Eddie Cicotte's bonus in 1919.
RMB beat me to the Josh Gibson myth.
[QUOTE=RuthMayBond]3) Pete Rose agreed to a ban
Sure about that? I may have been asleep at the wheel on this one, but my memory from reading too much on this is that he did. You have a cite that doesn't rely on Pete's word?
Well he DID call it, but not in the fashion Hollywood would have us believe.Originally Posted by RuthMayBond
There are several myths about Ruth that could be put on here.
Hitting the ball through the legs of a pitcher for a home-run to center field. Not true. It was a line drive up the middle, pitcher jumped up and it went through his legs and hit just behind second base where it took a wicked hop and bounced over Speaker's head for a triple.
Hit an infield pop-up for an inside-the-park homer. Not true. He reached second on an error by Jimmy Dykes once, and got a few triples on towering pop-ups to the outfield. He did once hit a pop fly to the left fielder in Yankee Stadium during a strong wind. It landed over his head and Ruth got a homer. My guess is he had to be just past second when it landed.
Held Huggins of the back of a train. Not true. During a train celebration, him and some teammates banged on Huggins' locked cabin door and said they would throw him off the train if he didn't come out. Nothing more.
Baby Ruth candy bar named after Grover Cleveland's daughter Ruth. Not true. http://www.snopes.com/business/names/babyruth.asp
Yankee pinstripes myth.
Saved baseball. Not true. Baseball never had a chance to need saving, because Ruth's homers in '20 distracted the fans from details of the case. He acted as a smokescreen to protect the game more than anything.
Used a 54 ounce bat for his career. Not true. Tried that weight for only a short time in '20 when he ordered a batch. Never repeated the order. Used a 52 ouncer here and there with Boston but his heaviest useful bat after '19 was from 44-47.
Johnny Sylvester incident. No promise of a homer directly from Ruth. No personal visit from Ruth until after the '26 Series. He asked for a Ruth autographed baseball and his dad wired Babe. The next day two autographed baseballs (signed by players from both WS teams) showed up either at Johnny's house or the hospital. The boy was holding the ball(s) while listening to Ruth's three homer display in game four. The announcer mentioned a homer promise, kid got better, and myth is born.
Babe used a corked bat. Not true. Not going to get into this.
Barrow was responsible for switching Ruth to the outfield. Hooper deserves the credit imo.
No No Nanette is to blame for Ruth becoming a Yankee. Well, No No Nanette first opened in Chicago in 1924. It didn't hit broadway until 1925. However the sale of Babe allowed Frazee to continue his theater productions. In 1920 he produced a theatrical performance called My Fair Lady. In 1924 he put it to music and changed its name to No No Nanette. So true.
Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 08-07-2006 at 11:00 PM.
"Baseball brains are not put into everyone’s head. Babe Ruth…had baseball brains…" - Eddie Collins
"Ruth was great too, but he was different. Totally different – easygoing, friendly. There was only one Babe Ruth. He went on the ball field like he was playing in a cow pasture, with cows for an audience. He never knew what fear or nervousness was. He played by instinct, sheer instinct." - Rube Bressler
"In the matter of runs, Cobb was a retailer, Ruth a wholesaler." - Fred Lieb
I looked into this one by doing a bit of research on the web but found nothing about it. Looked at Mike King Kelly's profiles' on several websites including Wickipedia but none of them mentioned anyhting about this. Neither could I find out about it being on the old Ripley's Believe It Or Not radio show.
Unless anybody has any phisical evidence that can prove this, I think the circumstances of this myth seem just a bit too unrealistic.
Greystones Mariners Baseball Club. The oldest baseball club in Ireland. 16 years and still going strong.
www.greystonesbaseball.org
Moderator/Systems Analyst
A lot of people (and we see this question a bit in trivia) are under the impression Jackie Robinson was the first African-American to play Major League Baseball. It's a favorite question for non-scholars, while most who have studied the history of baseball or played trivial pursuit know of the handful, including the Walker Brothers, of African-American players in the 19th Century.
RIP Tom Tresh. Detroiter. Chippewa. Yankee. Good man.
RIP George Kell. Batting Champ. Champ Broadcaster. HOFer. Good man.
RIP Mark Fidrych. The first player I actively followed.
RIP Ernie Harwell. A pure joy.
RIP Soupy Sales. There was none better.
RIP Alex Chilton. Children by the millions sang for him when he came around.
Pigskin Fever, though, lives. http://www.pigskin-fever.com/ Come help make it as good as its sister site.
Dock Ellis pitched a no-hitter under the influence of LSD - tenatively true.
Off topic, but Kelly Gruber actually did that once--the famous "fog" homer, before the Blue Jays moved to the dome.
You got the date on that one?
Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge
Ah, the joys of the internet...I found a list of all Blue Jays inside-the-park homers. Gruber's fog-up was June 12, 1986. The game was called immediately afterward (presumbably because the next ball hit in the air could kill someone).
I would kill to see the replay again...it played over and over at the time. You never saw nine guys (well, six--you can't actually see the outfielders) look so befuddled. Then the ball drops out of nowhere, and you realize Gruber's still running.
Not sure it was an infield pop
http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B06120TOR1986.htm
Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge
2) Ruth called his shot in the '32 Series
There is photographic evidence that Ruth pointed toward the outfield wall. Whether he was 'calling his shot', or demonstrating that he had one strike left, depends on who you believe. By the way, he did not point to the bleachers, as many believe, because the bleachers weren't added to Wrigley Field until 1937.
Bob
Not sure about that one, but I'm 100% sure that one happend May 17th, 1971 in a game between the Senators and the Indians at RFK. Tom Mcgraw was the batter. Jack Heidemann, Vada Piston and John Lowenstein all violently collided in shallow Left moments before the ball dropped. Eddie Leon (the second basemen) ran out, picked up the ball and fired it home, but McGraw slid under the tag. All three Indian players left the game. John Lowenstien later remarked " That was no ball McGraw hit, that was a bomb!"
Well, I don't remember it being an infield pop if you count "infield" strictly as in within the lines, but it was certainly shallow; I haven't seen the clip in years, but I would have said that it landed a few yards behind the infielders at normal depth.
How about this: Christy Mathewson never pitched on Sunday, on a promise to his mother. Not really true, especially after his first couple of years. First of all, NY was one of the last cities to allow Sunday ball, so it wasn't even an issue much of the time. And on the road, while McGraw would try to accomodate him when possible, eventually the priorities of pennant races necessitated that Christy take the ball when needed.
Myth: Mantle and Maris, during the homer race of '61, did not get along. Wrong. In fact, they even decided to live together that year. Usually, Mantle enjoyed fancy hotel life during the season (often the Plaza), since Merlyn always stayed in Dallas with the kids. Apparently, when they returned from Florida to begin the season, the strait-laced rog witnessed firsthand a couple of messy drunken nights by the Mick, and read him the riot act, not from a moral standpoint, but merely to impress upon him how much the fortunes of the team rode on a healthy, effective Mantle. He suggested the two of them bunk up in a modest place in Queens (with Bob Cerv). At first, Mantle laughed--the idea of him having roommates! But he respected Maris so much that he did it, and ended up having probably his second greatest season. And together, behind closed doors, they were able to laugh off the incredible tension of that homer race.
Myth: Sandy Koufax sat out the '65 WS opener, on Yom Kippur, out of religious devotion. Far from it. As he himself admitted much later, he could count on one hand the number of times he was anywhere near Temple during his career. But he acknowledged his status as a Jewish cultural icon and felt it was expected of him.
Myth: The beaning death of ray Chapman in 1920 brought upon an immediate rule change mandating batting helmets. Unfortuantely, not. It wasn't until 1954 that the rule became effective.
Myth: The early days of the Astrodome were plagued by blinding glare from the clear ceiling panels, dying grass, and homeruns turned into singles because of the low-slung roof. The humidity controls malfunctioned in '65 causing precipitation to fall; the first and only rainout of a baseball game in Astrodome history.
Facts: Glare was corrected by painting the outer ceiling panels white, but that did indeed reduce the amount of sunlight causing the grass to die. Monsanto invented the now-notorious "Astroturf" artificial playing surface for this venue. The roof of the Astrodome at 208' in height is well above the reach of fly balls, however on June 10, 1974 Mike Schmidt hit a speaker that hung 117' up, and 300' from the plate; perhaps the furthest hit single in history. Early tests on the climate control system proved they could make it rain indoors in Houston, and after a rodeo load-in on a hot, humid morning they tried to cool the place too quickly for the de-humidifiers to keep up, and they made artificial clouds near the roof. They then kept the temperature at 72, and the humidity extremely low to prevent the possibility, as well as modifying the loading areas to dampen the impact of the outdoor air. On June 15, 1976 the game between the Pirates and Astros was cancelled because of rain, but it was torrential downpours outside in Houston that caused severe flooding. Neither the visiting team nor the umpires were able to reach the Dome, and the game was "rained" out. ~ info from The Peoples' Almanac and Baseball Library website.
Last edited by trosmok; 08-25-2006 at 07:36 AM.
Baseball is a ballet without music. Drama without words ~Ernie Harwell
June 12th, 1986. I remember it well, because we had booked a schooner for an after-work party. We cruised Toronto harbour (apparently, but who knows?) in a pea-soup fog. My buddy brought a portable radio because the Tigers-Jays rivalry at the time was so intense.
I got it from retrosheet. It says the home run was to centerfield, but it fell just behind second base.
http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B06120TOR1986.htm
i dont get why people dont believe that babe ruth called his shot?
I was watching the yankeeogrophy(spelled it wrong) and they showed a video where babe ruth said he called the shot.
"It's deja vu all over again!"
-Yogi Berra-
As is the case with most things about him, the truth is more impressive than the myth imo.
Well, do tell
Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge
Not true Bob. The CURRENT bleachers were built in 1938. Before that, there were also bleachers, just in a different configuration:
Actually, from everything I've read, Babe himself was ultimately responsible for the move to the outfield. After 1917, his last year as a fulltime pitcher, his hitting improved so steadily that, beginning in 1918, the Sox were compelled to use him in the field on his off-days, thinking this would quiet his griping. But here, even as a young, invincible elephant in baseball's living room, ruth displayed an underappreciated, cerebral side of his talent, and insisted that any man who should attempt this double duty compromised both sides of his talent. He called ever louder for a move to fulltime OF duty. In 1919, he got his wish, and it paid off, as he set the one-season Hr record of 29.
But Babe found new beefs to take up with Frazee--this time, for a new contract with a huge raise. At this point, history's opinion about his motives become divided, the only consensus being that, each of the prevailing theories came into play to some degree.
What's not true is that he was broke--his Broadway career was quite successful, and he died in '29 comfortably wealthy. He did, however, have a short-term cash problem--he was in arrears on his Fenway mortage to Lannin (his predecessor as Boston owner). Hence, his $300K loan from Col. uppert as part of the ruth deal, not because he wasn't solvent, but because at the time of the deal, he was in the process of buying a new theatre on West 42nd St, and his cash was tied up. This did not speak well of him as a baseball owner, since in his fiscal priorities he always placed Broadway over the Sox. Babe was by far his most valuable asset, and given his low threshold for Babe's demanding nature, he viewed the deal as ridding himself of a headache, and he said as much publicly.
His greatest failing, in retrospect, was that, as a non-baseball man (rare among owners back then, he had no understanding of a baseball team's essential, visceral importance to its community, and nowhere more true than in ed Sox Nation. His showbiz approach to business--if a show is a dog, cut your losses, close it, and move on. Baseball is a show that never (or rarely) closes, and must be nursed back to health.
He also was quite used to dealing with acting divas, who were simply told, this is your contract, take it as is, or you will be replaced. He was sadly mistaken to assume that the fans would back him on this regarding the uth problem. In fact, he was never forgiven, but for 86 years, he held the claim as the last Bosox owner to bring home the WS title.
Yankee management, on the other hand, began to show the nimble, winning-first flexibility that would forge an unprecedented level of dominance. Their very first sit-down with Babe that winter (in California, with Huggins), was turn-key and problem-free, as they were on board with the outfield-only plan, and immediately agreed to a new contract. A new era--and baseball's new monster--was born.
Unfortunately, a much less flattering management trend would take hold in the '20s, and become full-blown with the Babe: A penchant for showing even its biggest stars the door in a rather brusque, unsentimental fashion. (They did get Gehrig's right, however.)
Before I sign off, I have a question for this crowd, most of whom, like me, have an insatiable appetite for baseball books, especially. There is an unmistakable trend among modern BB books NOT to post a player's career record. When did that very practical touch somehow become uncool? I always found it very helpful and convenient, as I would periodically flip back to refresh my memory of his numbers as the narrative moved forward.
Now, for reasons that elude me, you almost never this essential feature in books (the latest for me is Montville's "The Big Bam", whose career numbers are so sick they demand constant review.
Any theories out there? I'm assuming I'm not imagening this trend, but you never know. Thanks for listening!
freak
One of my all-time favorite movie quotes, from The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, is applicable here...
Jimmy Stewart: "Then you're not going to use the story?"
Editor: "This is the West, Sir - When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
Posting Permissions
View Profile
View Forum Posts
View Blog Entries
View Articles
Reply With Quote
Visit Homepage
