View Poll Results: Babe's single season best in the modern game?

Voters
193. You may not vote on this poll
  • Less than 50 HR

    26 13.47%
  • 50-59

    24 12.44%
  • 60-69

    36 18.65%
  • 70-73

    8 4.15%
  • 74-79

    38 19.69%
  • 80-89

    32 16.58%
  • 90-99

    9 4.66%
  • 100-103

    1 0.52%
  • 104 or more

    19 9.84%
Page 7 of 44 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 867

Thread: Would Babe Have Hit 104 Home Runs?

  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by Ubiquitous View Post
    I have to seriously doubt the whole 12% further notion for baseballs. If you stop and think about that for a second the ramifications of a liveball increasing flight distance by 12% is mindboggling.
    Ubi: Yes it is mindboggling. However, so is the absurd team home run numbers posted after introduction of the new baseball in 1996 (or possibly in the later portion of 1995). Prior to 1996 the single season team home run record was 240 set by the 61 Yankees, which was a dramatic increase over any previous season. The main factor for that dramatic increase in 61 was a then unique combination of diluted pitching due to expansion, increased schedule, exceptional personnel on the Yankess squad, along with the short right field porch.

    However, in 1996 the increase in home runs was not just dramatic it was in fact mindboggling In the American League in 1996, 3 teams broke the seemingly invulnerable Yankee team record for homeruns in one season. Baltimore hit 257, Seattle 245, and Oakland 243. Not to mention 221 from Texas, 218 from Cleveland, 209 from Boston, 204 from Detroit, etc.

    The last full season before the strike, 1993, Baltimore had hit only 157 as a team, Seattle 161 and Oakland 158.

    I think its pretty clear that balls that would have been caught for outs in seasons past were now carrying over the fences. That's likely why Brady Anderson who had hit only 16 climbed to 50.

    I know you like to express skeptism on everything, as you did the other day when you claimed to be skeptical that Hornsby would have known that he was hitting .400 going into the last game of the 1921 season. I would think that baseball's establishment and those players who cheat must love your type of skeptism, which means they can get away with anything unless they confess on national television, and even then no doubt there would still be skeptics.

    c JRB
    Last edited by JRB; 07-22-2007 at 01:08 PM.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Mt. View, CA, above San Jose
    Posts
    18,009
    Blog Entries
    1
    I think some of this discussion bears on how the owners see their jobs. I think most owners see their jobs in terms of how many fans turn out to see the games they serve them. If more fans come, they see themselves as successful in giving the fans the product/service they want.

    The only time the owners came down on the side of art over commerce was in 1931. They deadened the ball, and the fans dropped off. But it is hard to know if the falloff was due to the lessened offense, or the lack of disposable income from the Great Depression.

    Owners almost never see their jobs in terms of what is best for the game, the most artistic game possible, or anything like that.

    I think the following chart is interesting as far as trends goes. The most relevant number is the column on the far right, the fans/game figure.

    Year - ML attend.--games--per game

    1896 -- 2,900,973 - 1,306---2,221 fans/game.
    1897 -- 2,885,631 --- 809---3,566
    1898 -- 2,313,375 --- 921---2,111
    1899 -- 2,541,485 --- 921---2,759
    1900 -- 1,745,490 --- 935---1,866
    1901 -- 3,603,615 - 1,913---1,883
    1902 -- 3,889,466 - 1,115---3,488
    1903 -- 4,735,250 - 1,114---4,250
    1904 -- 5,688,299 - 1,872---3038
    1905 -- 5,855,062 - 1,237---4,733
    1906 -- 5,719,289 - 1,228---4,657
    1907 -- 6,038,984 - 1,233---4,897
    1908 -- 7,123,474 - 1,244---5,726
    1909 -- 7,236,990 - 1,221---5,927
    1910 -- 6,206,447 - 1,249---4,969
    1911 -- 6,571,282 - 1,237---5,312
    1912 -- 5,999,390 - 1,232---4,869
    1913 -- 6,358,336 - 1,234---5,152
    1914 -- 4,454,988 - 1,256---3,546
    1915 -- 4,864,826 - 1,245---3,907
    1916 -- 6,503,519 - 1,247---5,215
    1917 -- 5,219,994 - 1,247---4,186
    1918 -- 3,080,126 - 1,016---3,031
    1919 -- 6,532,439 - 1,118---5,842
    1920 -- 9,120,875 - 1,234---7,391
    1921 -- 8,607,312 - 1,229---7,003
    1926 -- 9,832,982 - 1,234---7,968
    1927 -- 9,922,868 - 1,253---7,919
    1928 -- 9,102,285 - 1,231---7,394
    1929 -- 9,588,183 - 1,229---7,801
    1930 - 10,132,262 - 1,234---8,210
    1931 -- 8,467,107 - 1,236---6,850
    1932 -- 6,974,566 - 1,233---5,556
    1933 -- 6,089,031 - 1,226---4,966
    1934 -- 6,963,711 - 1,223---5,693
    1935 -- 7,345,316 - 1,228---5,981
    1936 -- 8,082,613 - 1,238---6,528
    1937 -- 8,940,063 - 1,239---7,215
    1938 -- 9,006,511 - 1,223---7,364
    1939 -- 8,977,779 - 1,231---7,293
    1940 -- 9,823,484 - 1,236---7,947
    1941 -- 9,689,603 - 1,244---7,789
    1942 -- 8,553,569 - 1,224---6,988
    1943 -- 7,465,911 - 1,238---6,030
    1944 -- 8,772,746 - 1,242---7,063
    1945 - 10,841,123 - 1,230---8,813
    1946 - 18,523,288 - 1,242--14,914
    1947 - 19,874,540 - 1,243--15,989
    1948 - 20,920,842 - 1,237--16,912
    1949 - 20,215,364 - 1,240--16,302
    1950 - 17,462,976 - 1,238--14,105
    1951 - 16,126,676 - 1,239--13,015
    1952 - 14,633,044 - 1,235--11,848
    1953 - 14,383,797 - 1,240--11,599
    1954 - 15,935,883 - 1,237--12,882
    1955 - 16,617,383 - 1,234--13,466
    1956 - 16,543,250 - 1,239--13,352
    1957 - 17,015,820 - 1,235--13,777
    1958 - 17,460,630 - 1,235--14,138
    1959 - 19,143,980 - 1,238--15,463
    1960 - 19,911,488 - 1,236--16,109
    1970 - 28,747,332 - 1,944--14,787
    1979 - 43,550,396 - 2,099--20,748
    1990 - 54,823,768 - 2,105--26,044
    1992 - 55,872,276 - 2,106--26,530
    1993 - 70,256,456 - 2,269--30,963
    1994 - 50,010,016 - 1,600--31,543 - (strike)
    1995 - 50,469,240 - 2,017--25,021 - (strike)
    1996 - 60,097,384 - 2,267--26,509
    1998 - 70,589,504 - 2,432--29,025
    2000 - 72,748,968 - 2,592--28,066
    2003 - 67,630,052 - 2,430--27,831
    ---------------------------------------------------
    Some subjective interpretations:

    From 1900-1901, the emergence of the AL, albeit in most NL cities, encouraged a new wave of interest in fans, hence the doubling of ML attendance, but the fans/game remained constant.

    By 1909, the ML attendance doubled again, and the fans/game tripled.

    In 1918, a war year, the ML season is curtailed to only 130 games, causing total attendance to crash. But the fans/game also tumbles, reflecting the austere national mood. Detroit sports writer, EA Batchelor later wrote, "With kids being killed in the war, it suddenly didn't seem to matter if the Tigers were in 1st. place or last."

    By 1919, with the war over, even with the season still shortened to 140 games, total attendance almost doubles from the year before as does fans/game . Fans wanted to put the austerity behind them, and the introduction of the lively balls allows offensive stats to increase, to the fans' delight. Babe Ruth causes a near hysteria with his 29 HRs despite not playing OF full time yet.

    In 1920, the gloves come off. Ruth goes to a major media/fan base, destroys the old HR record, the owners had banned the spitball to all but those already using it, and the doctoring of the ball is enforced for the 1st time, allowing offensive stats to explode. The fans dance in the streets. NL attendance also reflects the new era, even without Babe goosing their gate.

    In 1921, attendance cools just a little. The fans are unable to sustain the white-hot frenzy of 1920, have gotten just a little used to the new hitting spree. Some believe that the 'Black Sox Scandal' is responsible for the slight drop off in fans attendance, but the fans/game is almost the same, making this a disputed contention. Maybe it had some effect, but the failure of steroids to dampen modern attendance seems to show that fans will put up with almost anything to get their baseball fix.

    1930. Offensive soars, attendance follows the curve.

    1948. With the war over, and the return of baseball's stars, the economy booms, along with disposable incomes, pushing BB attendance to record levels. It was the good economy putting fresh dollars into consumer's pockets which gooses the gate, along with the spreading of 'Baseball Under the Lights'.

    1953. Attendance drops across the boards. Most attribute the drop to the advent of TV. Brooklyn, with a good team, leads attendance. But some might attribute the drop to latent racism. Impossible to distinguish the effect of either. Maybe a lot to TV, and a little to racism.

    By 1960, attendance is back up and about to go higher with the addition of new teams. And teams that move also drive up the gate, as Milwaukee proved.

    The most important number is the fans/game of the last column, but even this can be deceptive. The strong brothers pulled in more fans, and the weak sisters pulled in less.
    ALATTsmall.jpg
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 07-22-2007 at 01:17 PM.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Somewhere in the Seven Valleys
    Posts
    4,055
    Quote Originally Posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
    What do we have at the Giant's home park today Tony..

    Old Yankee Stadium in deep right center was 25 feet deeper than center field at today's Giant's home park.

    Old Yankee Stadium was 80+ feet deeper in CF than CF at the Giants home park.
    Am I wrong in looking at the drawing of Old Yankee Stadium that Ruth played in and seeing that RCF is only 350 feet away? Many high schools in our league have fences 10 or 20 feet deeper in RCF.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    san francisco bay area
    Posts
    12,221
    i gave ruth the benefit of the/my/much doubt and went with 60-69.
    the only man in america who could find the middle of saturday night deserves that much.
    "you don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. just get people to stop reading them." -ray bradbury

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    25,696
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by TRfromBR View Post
    Bonds' averaged less than 40 homers a year or so before his heaviest steroid use began. That's all he was before Balco.
    More misleading statements. Come on TR I know you are better than this. Yes, Bonds averaged less than 40 early in his career. But that is completely misleading "fact". Bonds started his career in the 1986. From 1986-1992 here here are the NL HR leaders

    1986-37, 31, 31, 29, 27
    1987-49, 44, 39, 37, 36
    1988-39, 30, 29, 29, 27
    1989:47, 36, 34, 34, 30
    1990-40, 37, 35, 33, 33
    1991-38, 34, 32, 31, 31
    1992-35, 34, 33, 27, 27

    From 1986-1992 no one was hitting 40 HRs year in and year out. In those seven seasons there were just four 40 HR seasons.


    Anderson's 50 HR season was a direct result of heavy steroid use ... just as Bonds' biggest HR seasons were.
    You didn't even address my question. If Anderson did indeed use PEDs why didn't he contune to hit HRs? Also, my point about 1994 was by then Bonds had legit 40-50 HR power before he used PEDs.

    You say Carlos Lee and Travis Hafner were as good as or better than Babe Ruth? I'd better go get some coffee.
    The more I think about it Hafner is the perfect modern comp for Ruth. Hafner is a big body (6'3", 240 lb), lefty, great eye and has been the one of the top 2-3 hitters in the AL in the past four seasons. How is that a insult to Ruth?
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    25,696
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Ubiquitous View Post
    I have to seriously doubt the whole 12% further notion for baseballs. If you stop and think about that for a second the ramifications of a liveball increasing flight distance by 12% is mindboggling.
    Another thing is 12% with respect to what? The 1980s? The 1970? Certainly not the 1920s-30s. I guess people forget how they changed the ball in that era. That's what drove all those 50-60 HR, 160+ RBI, and .303 league wide averages.

    That means that 380 foot homer was aided by 41 feet because of the ball. That means that sluggers today on their own are only capable of getting to about the middle of the outfield on most of their drives. A 400 foot shot was aided by about 45 feet because of the ball then, meaning using a different ball it would have only traveled 355 feet! So somehow modern players have gotten weaker when it comes to hitting the ball then players 85 years ago.
    Don't you know that Ruth and company were the greatest and strongest power hitters of all time? Don't you know that it is not posssble for someone today to hit that ball as far as Ruth? That is sheer blasphemy!

    I haven't seen the study so I have no real way of rebutting it. But most of the studies are severely flawed in that they generally measure and "old" ball vs. a new ball and yes of course the newer ball travels further. What I would like to see is a university like Penn to do a 10 year study in which they measure the characteristics of the ball of say 2007 in 2007. Then do the same thing in 2008, measure the 2008 ball, then in 2009 measure the 2009 ball, so on and so on, until you get 10 years worth a data or 20 years of data or so on. Because as far as I know that is not what we are getting. We are getting people in 2000 measuring balls from 1990 or 1975 or 1995 or whatever and that has a bias in it for several reasons.
    The problem with this is we don't kow how a ball deteriorates over time. A baseball is made of organic materials that absolutely change over a time. Would a ball of say 1950 have the same springiness as it did back then? Your idea of testing old balls year after years is a great idea. It would show how a ball deteriorates over time.
    Last edited by Honus Wagner Rules; 07-22-2007 at 02:17 PM.
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    14,506
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by JRB View Post
    Ubi: Yes it is mindboggling. However, so is the absurd team home run numbers posted after introduction of the new baseball in 1996 (or possibly in the later portion of 1995). Prior to 1996 the single season team home run record was 240 set by the 61 Yankees, which was a dramatic increase over any previous season. The main factor for that dramatic increase in 61 was a then unique combination of diluted pitching due to expansion, increased schedule, exceptional personnel on the Yankess squad, along with the short right field porch.

    However, in 1996 the increase in home runs was not just dramatic it was in fact mindboggling In the American League in 1996, 3 teams broke the seemingly invulnerable Yankee team record for homeruns in one season. Baltimore hit 257, Seattle 245, and Oakland 243. Not to mention 221 from Texas, 218 from Cleveland, 209 from Boston, 204 from Detroit, etc.

    The last full season before the strike, 1993, Baltimore had hit only 157 as a team, Seattle 161 and Oakland 158.

    I think its pretty clear that balls that would have been caught for outs in seasons past were now carrying over the fences. That's likely why Brady Anderson who had hit only 16 climbed to 50.

    I know you like to express skeptism on everything, as you did the other day when you claimed to be skeptical that Hornsby would have known that he was hitting .400 going into the last game of the 1921 season. I would think that baseball's establishment and those players who cheat must love your type of skeptism, which means they can get away with anything unless they confess on national television, and even then no doubt there would still be skeptics.

    c JRB
    First off I simply asked did Rogers Hornsby know he was at .400. I didn't say I doubted he knew, it was a question I did not know the answer too. SEcondly what I did doubt was the notion that Hornsby was some sort of gamer who didn't care about his stats. Or I should say I doubted that specific example as proof that he didn't care about his stats.

    AS to the homers yeah I don't believe it because if it is indeed true that baseballs are flying 12% further then how come players are not hitting 600 foot homers? How come basically two guys on drugs are the only ones who can hit 450 ft+ homers? A guy who can hit a 450 foot homer with a different ball means that he should be hitting 500 foot bombs with the new ball. So if some slugger from 1996 had instead hit the same pitch in say 1989 instead of going 400 feet it would have gone only 355 feet? I don't buy it. Secondly I don't believe it because most studies of baseballs are flawed for reasons I stated above.

  8. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by TonyK View Post
    Am I wrong in looking at the drawing of Old Yankee Stadium that Ruth played in and seeing that RCF is only 350 feet away? Many high schools in our league have fences 10 or 20 feet deeper in RCF.
    Nothing wrong at all, I'm looking not only at the whole Yankee Stadium but all the other AL parks in the time Ruth played. Thats what was brought up, the parks at that time and in recent years and what part they might play in home run hitting.

    I don't see an accurate evaluation without looking at all parks. I've stuck mostly with the right side since Ruth the lefty is included in the discussion.

    It's the distances in CF that have the biggest gap. Those NL parks in 1998 were almost 40 feet shorter on average. Ruth did hit a good number to RF and the power alley but it stands to reason he hit a good number to CF that would have been home runs in most of todays parks.

    Unfortunately many on the board (there were some who did) did not go over hundreds of game recaps from the news archives. I did and I think if some others did they would see that Ruth was hitting balls out of sight routinely, balls that would be home runs in just about any park, that includes a good number to right field.

    I never said Ruth, Foxx and some of the other great sluggers from the past did not have some conditions favorable to them but it's a two way street todays hitters have somethings going for them in the home run discussion.

  9. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by Westlake View Post
    I'd agree with that.

    Today's fields are easier to hit out of, but not to the extend that many here think IMO.

    "Ruth lost FAR more home runs to the cavernous fields he played in than he ever gained on short porches." - I really don't think I can agree with this. Any reading or study on this you could point me to where I could get a better understanding of this point of view?

    I'd say the best and most current study substantiating this position, Westlake, is Bill Jenkinson's book. Chapter 11 on Ruth's Home Run Spray Charts shows "the approximate landing points of every official home run hit by Babe Ruth, plus, the landing points of extra base hits, fly outs, and foul homers, that would result in home runs under modern conditions."

    In summary:

    Ruth gained no homers at all from any "porch shots" at Fenway, but lost about 37 homers due to the historically longer fences. (Please note that the diagram of Fenway I provided above is not entirely accurate in its reflection of the right field dimensions Ruth faced - in his day Fenway's right field was actually about 25 feet further, or 400ft.)

    At the Polo Grounds, he gained 6 total homers at the porch, and lost 30 elsewhere inside the park.

    At Yankee Stadium, he gained 32 total (over 12 years) and lost 120.

    At Away games, he gained a total of 13, and lost 195.

    *This is my counting of the spray locations, Westlake, and may or may not be off a bit, but it's a good approximation of how Ruth fared at the old ballparks.

  10. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by Gee Walker View Post
    I wish I had the stadium shapes and a good drawing program... this seems a lot easier to do than the area calculation.

    This is one sight that has shapes, not photos and also has a feature that gives different park configurations in different years with a simple cursor click on the time period desired. As for the drawing program no help on that one. I have ADOBE and can do quite a bit but not an overlay of one park over another. One of the members may be able to help.


    Going to try and insert this sightas a hyperlink but have never done this, not with a website. In case it does not come through in hyperlink the site is called
    CLEMS BASEBALL~HOME PLATE

  11. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by JRB View Post

    The powers who run Major League Baseball had already rigged the game to produce more home runs.

    The juiced baseball that travels 12% further, the new condensced strike zone, etc. were obviously all done with the connivance of the owners. Homeruns are exciting. They no doubt reckoned that more home runs would bring more fans and generate more revenue for themselves, and they were right.

    However, they made these changes surreptitiously without telling the fans that they were doing it. I think a lot of fans were duped into believing that what they were seeing was for real. The Baseball owners, like a bunch of slick grifters, basically perpetrated a hoax on a large segment of the American public. I believe that all those new team home run records that suddenly emerged in 1996, and the the unexpected power surgees of non sluggers such as Brady Anderson are directly attributable to these calculated manipulations of the owners, and have little or nothing to do with steroids.

    However, just as the owners were greedy, there were also a number of players who were not willing to simply count their blessings at all the new gift home runs generated by the surreptitious changes put in place by the owners. These players sought an even further edge by use of steroids, corked bats, etc. Hence the onslaught of McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, et al. In some ways, I think the owners are actually grateful for the distraction of these steroid allegations. It appears to shift the blame for all the absurd inceases in home run numbers on some cheating players, when in reality it was the "cheating owners" who instigated this mess. Steroids are almost a red herring. The investigations should have begun with the owners and the commissioner, before getting around to individual players.

    How would the most talented hitter in baseball, Babe Ruth, have faired in this environment? Face it, if a rather ordinary hitter like Brady Anderson can hit 50 homeruns under the new set of circustances created by the owners, I don't see how anybody can rationally believe that a talent of Ruth's magnitude would not have been able to hit at least 70 or more home runs In short, I believe he would have more than likely been able to best the current record of 73 without resort to steroids.

    There has been some talk about Ruth's 60 homeruns being the touchstone. Actually, I am even more impressed by the 29 home runs that Ruth hit in 1919 with Boston. It was done in the dead ball era. It was accomplished in a shortened season (The Red Sox played only 137 games that season). Ruth didn't play a full season as a regular as he was a pitcher for a portion of the season. Ruth hit almost three times as many home runs as anybody else in the he league, as the next highest player had only 10.

    Since Ruth's emergence as a slugger over 80 years, the history of many of the changes in baseball's rules and equipment might be best summed up as one prolonged attempt to alter conditions so as to artifically enable other players to be able to emulate what only Babe Ruth was able to do naturally.

    c JRB
    I wholeheartedly agree, JRB, though we may differ on the exact impact of PED's. I do think they impact performance and longevity significantly.

    With concern to the new balls, they have not only been "juiced" in a manner that creates more resiliency and longer hits, they also significantly restrict a pitcher's grip and ability to get more movement. Yet another factor that has fueled the offensive explosion. I've heard that, since the URI Forensic Science study, and ensuing Lively Ball Colloquium, there have some changes, but MLB's heavy secrecy on these matters make that difficult to determine.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  12. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by Westlake View Post
    I'd agree with that.

    Today's fields are easier to hit out of, but not to the extend that many here think IMO.

    "Ruth lost FAR more home runs to the cavernous fields he played in than he ever gained on short porches." - I really don't think I can agree with this. Any reading or study on this you could point me to where I could get a better understanding of this point of view?

    I'd say the best and most current study substantiating this position, Westlake, is Bill Jenkinson's book. Chapter 11 on Ruth's Home Run Spray Charts shows "the approximate landing points of every official home run hit by Babe Ruth, plus, the landing points of extra base hits, fly outs, and foul homers, that would result in home runs under modern conditions."

    In summary:

    Ruth gained no homers at all from any "porch shots" at Fenway, but lost about 37 homers due to the historically longer fences. (Please note that the diagram of Fenway I provided above is not entirely accurate in its reflection of the right field dimensions Ruth faced - in his day Fenway's right field was actually about 25 feet further, or 400ft.)

    At the Polo Grounds, he gained 6 total homers at the porch, and lost 30.

    At Yankee Stadium, he gained 32 total (over 12 years) and lost 120.

    At Away games, he gained a total of 13, and lost 195.

    *This is my counting of the spray locations, Westlake, and may or may not be off a bit, but it's a good approximation of how Ruth fared at the old ballparks.

  13. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by TRfromBR View Post

    With concern to the new balls, they have not only been "juiced" in a manner that creates more resiliency and longer hits, they also significantly restrict a pitcher's grip and ability to get more movement. Yet another factor that has fueled the offensive explosion. I've heard that, since the URI Forensic Science study, and ensuing Lively Ball Colloquium, there have some changes, but MLB's heavy secrecy on these matters make that difficult to determine.

    The ball, always a touchy subject, difficult to prove any point. I did see some results from some testing at Rhode Island University that showed balls from balls from the 1990s had an over the limit amount of synthetic material in the wool windings, compared to some 1970s balls. No way to tell if that made the 1990s balls any livelier.
    It's speculated that this was not by design. More synthetic materials in recent years has been used in making carpets where some of the wool is gathered from.

    As for the outside the cover and the seams, in the early 1990s a number of pitchers said the seams were lower and the cover felt tighter, slicker making it more difficult to get "stuff" on the balls. Two former pitchers Jim Palmer and Dave Stewart commented on the balls. Both agreed the seams did feel lower than when they were active. Palmer said he noticed the cover seemed tighter. He did say that there seemed to be more uniformity in the ball after examining a dozen or more. He said when he was pitching he would ask the ump for another ball until he got one that he felt had a looser cover, one that he could almost put a wrinkle in, that one he could grip better.

    So it could be MLB did nothing to the ball deliberately. Could be a change in the material used in the wool and improvements in the manufacturing of the ball, more uniform cover.

    I notiice I don't see pitchers tossing balls to the ump asking for a different ball, not as often as years ago. I can recall going back some years pitchers at times tossing a couple of few balls back to the ump until they got one that felt good to them.
    Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 07-22-2007 at 04:01 PM.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Somewhere in the Seven Valleys
    Posts
    4,055
    Quote Originally Posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
    Nothing wrong at all, I'm looking not only at the whole Yankee Stadium but all the other AL parks in the time Ruth played. Thats what was brought up, the parks at that time and in recent years and what part they might play in home run hitting.

    I don't see an accurate evaluation without looking at all parks. I've stuck mostly with the right side since Ruth the lefty is included in the discussion.

    It's the distances in CF that have the biggest gap. Those NL parks in 1998 were almost 40 feet shorter on average. Ruth did hit a good number to RF and the power alley but it stands to reason he hit a good number to CF that would have been home runs in most of todays parks.

    Unfortunately many on the board (there were some who did) did not go over hundreds of game recaps from the news archives. I did and I think if some others did they would see that Ruth was hitting balls out of sight routinely, balls that would be home runs in just about any park, that includes a good number to right field.

    I never said Ruth, Foxx and some of the other great sluggers from the past did not have some conditions favorable to them but it's a two way street todays hitters have somethings going for them in the home run discussion.
    Ruth played in up to 77 games a season in the Old Yankee Stadium with the short RF porch, short RCF fence, and the out of sight distances in deep RCF and CF. Without viewing where his Yankee Stadium HR's landed, my guess is quite a few cleared the fence from the RF foul pole to RCF.

    TR mentions a study that shows Ruth gained 32 home runs playing in Old Yankee Stadium, but lost 120 home runs due to the longer fence distances. This means that Ruth's power was to all fields and in Old Yankee Stadium he hit over a hundred EBH's to LF and CF that would now be home runs. So instead of 25 or 28 home runs a season in Old Yankee Stadium, Ruth should have hit 35 or 38 home runs had the park's dimensions been what they are today.

    Do we really know exactly where his EBH's landed and what are we basing it on?

  15. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by TonyK View Post
    Ruth played in up to 77 games a season in the Old Yankee Stadium with the short RF porch, short RCF fence, and the out of sight distances in deep RCF and CF. Without viewing where his Yankee Stadium HR's landed, my guess is quite a few cleared the fence from the RF foul pole to RCF.

    TR mentions a study that shows Ruth gained 32 home runs playing in Old Yankee Stadium, but lost 120 home runs due to the longer fence distances. This means that Ruth's power was to all fields and in Old Yankee Stadium he hit over a hundred EBH's to LF and CF that would now be home runs. So instead of 25 or 28 home runs a season in Old Yankee Stadium, Ruth should have hit 35 or 38 home runs had the park's dimensions been what they are today.

    Do we really know exactly where his EBH's landed and what are we basing it on?

    There's some approximation, Tony, but Jenkinson's book provides multiple sources for every 1921 HR and projected HR. These primary sources are provided within the body of the book, at all relevant locations, and in an addendum entitled "Sources." In all cases where he approximates the landing locations of Ruth's hits, he has based that determination on multiple contemporaneous sources, from major, reputable sports journalists. His work appears to be meticuluous.

  16. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
    The ball, always a touchy subject, difficult to prove any point. I did see some results from some testing at Rhode Island University that showed balls from balls from the 1990s had an over the limit amount of synthetic material in the wool windings, compared to some 1970s balls. No way to tell if that made the 1990s balls any livelier.
    It's speculated that this was not by design. More synthetic materials in recent years has been used in making carpets where some of the wool is gathered from.

    As for the outside the cover and the seams, in the early 1990s a number of pitchers said the seams were lower and the cover felt tighter, slicker making it more difficult to get "stuff" on the balls. Two former pitchers Jim Palmer and Dave Stewart commented on the balls. Both agreed the seams did feel lower than when they were active. Palmer said he noticed the cover seemed tighter. He did say that there seemed to be more uniformity in the ball after examining a dozen or more. He said when he was pitching he would ask the ump for another ball until he got one that he felt had a looser cover, one that he could almost put a wrinkle in, that one he could grip better.

    So it could be MLB did nothing to the ball deliberately. Could be a change in the material used in the wool and improvements in the manufacturing of the ball, more uniform cover.

    I notiice I don't see pitchers tossing balls to the ump asking for a different ball, not as often as years ago. I can recall going back some years pitchers at times tossing a couple of few balls back to the ump until they got one that felt good to them.

    I agree, Shoeless Joe, that the offensively-enhanced properties of the original prototype balls could have possibly been accidental. But choosing those new action-packed balls over traditionally less-offensive balls was definitely no accident. Don't you think the MLB rejected "deader" balls in favor of the most batter-friendly balls they could produce, within reason. They'd never go to the Superball level - much too obvious. But, something more incrementally juiced for the batter would be just the thing. And what average fan is going to pick up on the tighter windings, high-tech materials, and flatter, tighter stitching? All the average fan sees is a batting bonanza..
    Last edited by TRfromBR; 07-22-2007 at 06:38 PM.

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Somewhere in the Seven Valleys
    Posts
    4,055
    Quote Originally Posted by TRfromBR View Post

    There's some approximation, Tony, but Jenkinson's book provides multiple sources for every 1921 HR and projected HR. These primary sources are provided within the body of the book, at all relevant locations, and in an addendum entitled "Sources." In all cases where he approximates the landing locations of Ruth's hits, he has based that determination on multiple contemporaneous sources, from major, reputable sports journalists. His work appears to be meticuluous.
    Thanks TR. With all the newspaper coverage back then I'm sure every home run he hit or long hit he made in Yankee Stadium were noted by someone. Just as Barry Bonds' home runs will be analyzed once he retires and all sorts of conclusions made.

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Magrathea
    Posts
    6,172
    Blog Entries
    2
    Actually, TR, and this has been brought up before, we are not necessarily seeing a batting bonanza, but rather a home run bonanza. A batting bonanza would mean that run scoring is at an all-time high, and it's actually lower than it was in Ruth's day.

  19. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by AstrosFan View Post
    Actually, TR, and this has been brought up before, we are not necessarily seeing a batting bonanza, but rather a home run bonanza. A batting bonanza would mean that run scoring is at an all-time high, and it's actually lower than it was in Ruth's day.

    Semantics, perhaps, AF. It's a batting bonanza, where a large majority of the hits happen to go over the fence - because the fences have been moved in. So, it's a home run bonanza within a batting bonanza. Besides, batting bonanza is so much more alliterative.

    P.S. Don't ask me how the Cartwrights, all mounted and ready to ride, got down on the infield. I just don't know.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by TRfromBR; 07-22-2007 at 07:10 PM.

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Anywhere, but here
    Posts
    4,959
    Quote Originally Posted by TRfromBR View Post
    Let's just put it this way: How many home runs did Brady Anderson hit? Was that 50, I heard?
    I sure hope Anderson doesn't read this.
    "I think about baseball when I wake up in the morning. I think about it all day and I dream about it at night. The only time I don't think about it is when I'm playing it."
    Carl Yastrzemski

Page 7 of 44 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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