Announcement

Collapse

Updated Baseball Fever Policy

Baseball Fever Policy

I. Purpose of this announcement:

This announcement describes the policies pertaining to the operation of Baseball Fever.

Baseball Fever is a moderated baseball message board which encourages and facilitates research and information exchange among fans of our national pastime. The intent of the Baseball Fever Policy is to ensure that Baseball Fever remains an extremely high quality, extremely low "noise" environment.

Baseball Fever is administrated by three principal administrators:
webmaster - Baseball Fever Owner
The Commissioner - Baseball Fever Administrator
Macker - Baseball Fever Administrator

And a group of forum specific super moderators. The role of the moderator is to keep Baseball Fever smoothly and to screen posts for compliance with our policy. The moderators are ALL volunteer positions, so please be patient and understanding of any delays you might experience in correspondence.

II. Comments about our policy:

Any suggestions on this policy may be made directly to the webmaster.

III. Acknowledgments:

This document was based on a similar policy used by SABR.

IV. Requirements for participation on Baseball Fever:

Participation on Baseball Fever is available to all baseball fans with a valid email address, as verified by the forum's automated system, which then in turn creates a single validated account. Multiple accounts by a single user are prohibited.

By registering, you agree to adhere to the policies outlined in this document and to conduct yourself accordingly. Abuse of the forum, by repeated failure to abide by these policies, will result in your access being blocked to the forum entirely.

V. Baseball Fever Netiquette:

Participants at Baseball Fever are required to adhere to these principles, which are outlined in this section.
a. All posts to Baseball Fever should be written in clear, concise English, with proper grammar and accurate spelling. The use of abbreviations should be kept to a minimum; when abbreviation is necessary, they should be either well-known (such as etc.), or explained on their first use in your post.

b. Conciseness is a key attribute of a good post.

c. Quote only the portion of a post to which you are responding.

d. Standard capitalization and punctuation make a large difference in the readability of a post. TYPING IN ALL CAPITALS is considered to be "shouting"; it is a good practice to limit use of all capitals to words which you wish to emphasize.

e. It is our policy NOT to transmit any defamatory or illegal materials.

f. Personal attacks of any type against Baseball Fever readers will not be tolerated. In these instances the post will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the personal attack via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue personal attacks will be banned from the site.

g. It is important to remember that many contextual clues available in face-to-face discussion, such as tone of voice and facial expression, are lost in the electronic forum. As a poster, try to be alert for phrasing that might be misinterpreted by your audience to be offensive; as a reader, remember to give the benefit of the doubt and not to take umbrage too easily. There are many instances in which a particular choice of words or phrasing can come across as being a personal attack where none was intended.

h. The netiquette described above (a-g) often uses the term "posts", but applies equally to Private Messages.

VI. Baseball Fever User Signature Policy

A signature is a piece of text that some members may care to have inserted at the end of ALL of their posts, a little like the closing of a letter. You can set and / or change your signature by editing your profile in the UserCP. Since it is visible on ALL your posts, the following policy must be adhered to:

Signature Composition
Font size limit: No larger than size 2 (This policy is a size 2)
Style: Bold and italics are permissible
Character limit: No more than 500 total characters
Lines: No more than 4 lines
Colors: Most colors are permissible, but those which are hard to discern against the gray background (yellow, white, pale gray) should be avoided
Images/Graphics: Allowed, but nothing larger than 20k and Content rules must be followed

Signature Content
No advertising is permitted
Nothing political or religious
Nothing obscene, vulgar, defamatory or derogatory
Links to personal blogs/websites are permissible - with the webmaster's written consent
A Link to your Baseball Fever Blog does not require written consent and is recommended
Quotes must be attributed. Non-baseball quotes are permissible as long as they are not religious or political

Please adhere to these rules when you create your signature. Failure to do so will result in a request to comply by a moderator. If you do not comply within a reasonable amount of time, the signature will be removed and / or edited by an Administrator. Baseball Fever reserves the right to edit and / or remove any or all of your signature line at any time without contacting the account holder.

VII. Appropriate and inappropriate topics for Baseball Fever:

Most concisely, the test for whether a post is appropriate for Baseball Fever is: "Does this message discuss our national pastime in an interesting manner?" This post can be direct or indirect: posing a question, asking for assistance, providing raw data or citations, or discussing and constructively critiquing existing posts. In general, a broad interpretation of "baseball related" is used.

Baseball Fever is not a promotional environment. Advertising of products, web sites, etc., whether for profit or not-for-profit, is not permitted. At the webmaster's discretion, brief one-time announcements for products or services of legitimate baseball interest and usefulness may be allowed. If advertising is posted to the site it will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the post via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue advertising will be banned from the site. If the advertising is spam-related, pornography-based, or a "visit-my-site" type post / private message, no warning at all will be provided, and the member will be banned immediately without a warning.

It is considered appropriate to post a URL to a page which specifically and directly answers a question posted on the list (for example, it would be permissible to post a link to a page containing home-road splits, even on a site which has advertising or other commercial content; however, it would not be appropriate to post the URL of the main page of the site). The site reserves the right to limit the frequency of such announcements by any individual or group.

In keeping with our test for a proper topic, posting to Baseball Fever should be treated as if you truly do care. This includes posting information that is, to the best of your knowledge, complete and accurate at the time you post. Any errors or ambiguities you catch later should be acknowledged and corrected in the thread, since Baseball Fever is sometimes considered to be a valuable reference for research information.

VIII. Role of the moderator:

When a post is submitted to Baseball Fever, it is forwarded by the server automatically and seen immediately. The moderator may:
a. Leave the thread exactly like it was submitted. This is the case 95% of the time.

b. Immediately delete the thread as inappropriate for Baseball Fever. Examples include advertising, personal attacks, or spam. This is the case 1% of the time.

c. Move the thread. If a member makes a post about the Marlins in the Yankees forum it will be moved to the appropriate forum. This is the case 3% of the time.

d. Edit the message due to an inappropriate item. This is the case 1% of the time. There have been new users who will make a wonderful post, then add to their signature line (where your name / handle appears) a tagline that is a pure advertisement. This tagline will be removed, a note will be left in the message so he/she is aware of the edit, and personal contact will be made to the poster telling them what has been edited and what actions need to be taken to prevent further edits.

The moderators perform no checks on posts to verify factual or logical accuracy. While he/she may point out gross errors in factual data in replies to the thread, the moderator does not act as an "accuracy" editor. Also moderation is not a vehicle for censorship of individuals and/or opinions, and the moderator's decisions should not be taken personally.

IX. Legal aspects of participation in Baseball Fever:

By submitting a post to Baseball Fever, you grant Baseball Fever permission to distribute your message to the forum. Other rights pertaining to the post remain with the ORIGINAL author, and you may not redistribute or retransmit any posts by any others, in whole or in part, without the express consent of the original author.

The messages appearing on Baseball Fever contain the opinions and views of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of Baseball Fever, or of the Baseball Almanac family of sites.

Sincerely,

Sean Holtz, Webmaster of Baseball Almanac & Baseball Fever
www.baseball-almanac.com | www.baseball-fever.com
"Baseball Almanac: Sharing Baseball. Sharing History."
See more
See less

Discussion on Baseballs through the years

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • That equates to a COR of .567 for the 1953 balls and a COR of .548 for the 1952 balls. This article mentions the difference in compression as a factor too.
    "Batting slumps? I never had one. When a guy hits .358, he doesn't have slumps."

    Rogers Hornsby, 1961

    Comment


    • From 1977:

      Comment


      • Here is a little blurb about the 1987 ball which again says the change could very well be the stitching. The leagues did a test midway through the season for COR and found no change. I haven't found that study yet.:

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Bench 5 View Post
          This is very interesting stuff!! One thing I wanted to add about the liveliness of the balls is that in softball there are two components that are used to test the liveliness of the ball: COR and Compression. Balls with a higher compression are livelier than low compression balls. ASA tests indicate that compression appears to impact the liveliness of the ball more than COR.

          I don't know if the ball compression varies much in regards to baseballs but if they do, that's something else to consider.

          That equates to a COR of .567 for the 1953 balls and a COR of .548 for the 1952 balls. This article mentions the difference in compression as a factor too.
          It probably does play a role. Sherwood found that when he more closely simulated a real world ball-bat collision that the COR was lower then if you were to simply fling a ball at a piece of ash. So a ball that is "stiff" might just rebound rebound off a bat differently then a ball that was "mush" and yet still have the same COR number in the basic tests.

          Another thing I have seen so far is that the seams also play a role in this, in terms of distance traveled and not just on the pitchers ability to control the ball.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 4N6Science View Post
            Shoelessjoe3,

            First I want to thank you for contacting me about this discussion and giving me the link to register and welcoming me to the discussion along with the others.

            The Sherwood comment about additional research was in the Discover Magazine article by Curtis Rist, who did a lot of research of his own to put together a balanced article. The quote is at the end of the second to last paragraph of the article, May 2001, Vol. 22, No. 5, "The Physics of Baseballs", p. 26-27.

            "For his part, Sherwood has run a battery of tests on balls dating back to the 60s, but he won't say when he will release the results. "That's privileged information," he says."

            Shoelessjoe3, maybe you should track down Dr. Sherwood and see if he will join the discussion.

            Will do Dennis. Away from home at this time but will be home soon and will then do my best to contact and invite Dr. Sherwood .

            Again thanks for joining in, hope you can stay a while or at the least check out the board once in a while.
            Joe

            Comment


            • Great articles, Ubi. Things just keep getting more curiouser and curiouser ... and livelier and livelier.

              With respect to the compression issue, I do believe it can play as significant role, for both balls and bats. Somewhat related may be the "trampoline effect," prominently demonstrated [more extremely] by longer hits off aluminum bats.

              What appears to have happened over the years is an ever-changing admixture of both deliberate and inadvertant changes in ball manufacture. One thing's for sure, the Leagues have long known how to tweak the ball, if they were so inclined.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by 4N6Science View Post
                Shoelessjoe3,

                First I want to thank you for contacting me about this discussion and giving me the link to register and welcoming me to the discussion along with the others.

                The Sherwood comment about additional research was in the Discover Magazine article by Curtis Rist, who did a lot of research of his own to put together a balanced article. The quote is at the end of the second to last paragraph of the article, May 2001, Vol. 22, No. 5, "The Physics of Baseballs", p. 26-27.

                "For his part, Sherwood has run a battery of tests on balls dating back to the 60s, but he won't say when he will release the results. "That's privileged information," he says."

                Shoelessjoe3, maybe you should track down Dr. Sherwood and see if he will join the discussion.
                Took you up on that one Dennis. That would be a treat, you and possibly James Sherwood visiting this board .

                Just emailed James Sherwood, told him you dropped in and asked him to join in.
                Attached Files

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Ubiquitous View Post
                  Here is a little blurb about the 1987 ball which again says the change could very well be the stitching. The leagues did a test midway through the season for COR and found no change. I haven't found that study yet.:
                  Something certainly took place in 1987. MLB hits 645 more home runs in 1987 than in 1986 when there was supposedly no rule changes or ball change.

                  Some numbers from all of MLB, AL and NL, a couple of years before and after that 1987 explosion.

                  ----------------Ba.----------Home runs------Slugging.
                  1985----------.257------------3602-----------.391
                  1986----------.258------------3813-----------.395
                  1987----------.263------------4458-----------.415
                  1988----------.254------------3180-----------.378
                  1989----------.254------------3083-----------.375

                  1987 we see 645 more home runs than in 1986.
                  1988 we see 1278 less home runs than 1987.

                  I can't say it was the ball, all kinds of theories over the years even the weather and the atmosphere.


                  The drop, the coming back to the real world 1278 less home runs hit in 1988 compared to 1987, a correction or change in the strike zone. OK I'll give MLB that one. But how do they explain the leap from 1986 with 3813 to 4458 home run in 1987.

                  To my knowledge the rule book strike zone was the same in 1986 and 1987.
                  Add to that all of MLB in one season 1987 (.263) hits for five points higher than just the previous season 1986 with .258.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
                    Something certainly took place in 1987. MLB hits 645 more home runs in 1987 than in 1986 when there was supposedly no rule changes or ball change.

                    Some numbers from all of MLB, AL and NL, a couple of years before and after that 1987 explosion.

                    ----------------Ba.----------Home runs------Slugging.
                    1985----------.257------------3602-----------.391
                    1986----------.258------------3813-----------.395
                    1987----------.263------------4458-----------.415
                    1988----------.254------------3180-----------.378
                    1989----------.254------------3083-----------.375

                    1987 we see 645 more home runs than in 1986.
                    1988 we see 1278 less home runs than 1987.

                    I can't say it was the ball, all kinds of theories over the years even the weather and the atmosphere.


                    The drop, the coming back to the real world 1278 less home runs hit in 1988 compared to 1987, a correction or change in the strike zone. OK I'll give MLB that one. But how do they explain the leap from 1986 with 3813 to 4458 home run in 1987.

                    To my knowledge the rule book strike zone was the same in 1986 and 1987.
                    Add to that all of MLB in one season 1987 (.263) hits for five points higher than just the previous season 1986 with .258.
                    We might have to call Al Gore into this discussion, too, Shoeless Joe.(Too bad Global Warming didn't start earlier, Ruth would have really been banging them out.)

                    Comment


                    • Basball destructive Project @ URI

                      Sorry it has been awhile, but the posts tended to die down and I got a bit sidetracked IRL

                      Ubi had asked about the weight of the pills and I had tried to get additional information. It was brought back to the forefront when i received an email from Eric Walker, who is the webmaster for the following sites:
                      Steroids and Baseball: http://steroids-and-baseball.com/
                      The High Boskage Baseball Web Site: http://highboskage.com/

                      His correspondence reminded me about the converssation started here.

                      I suspect that James Sherwood did not come along for a visit.

                      Here is the study as written for publication by Dr. Chris Brown of the URI chemistry Department. Eric is interested in extending the experiment and he will also publish the paper at his website. Unfortunately the images in the report cannot be inserted, so you may have to go the Eric's website to view it or I can send it as an attachment to an email. My email: dch@uri.edu

                      The Changing Anatomy of
                      Major League Baseballs


                      Chris W. Brown, Scott W. Huffman, and Kara Lukasiewicz , Department of Chemistry
                      Dennis C. Hilliard, R.I. State Crime Laboratory
                      Linda M. Welters and Margaret Ordoñez, Department of Textiles, Fashion Merchandising and Design
                      Otto J. Gregory and Michael J.Platek, Department of Chemical Engineering
                      University of Rhode Island
                      Kingston, RI 02881


                      America’s pastime sport of baseball has always held a certain mystique. The infamous spitballs or grease balls often bring objections from the home plate umpire. The secret hand signals from the manager to the third base coach to the second base runner appear to be a bit of wizardry. These signals are not much different than the one-, two-, three- and four-finger signals from the catcher to the pitcher, who keeps shaking his head until he receives the desired number of fingers. The current craze is batters who tug at and re-adjust their batting gloves after every pitch or simply jump out of the batter’s box as soon as the pitcher is ready to deliver.

                      Although much of the mystique still exists in baseball, considerable change has taken place during the century or so since the sport's introduction. The most notable development in recent years has been the smashing of homerun records several times in as many years. The record-breaking number of homeruns accompanies an increase in extra base hits relative to the number of single base hits. In the early 1900s, the "power factor" --the average number of bases per hit over a season--was about 1.30.1 After World War I, the average moved up to about 1.4 during the Babe Ruth era and stayed there until it decreased during World War II. After this war, the power rating increased to about 1.45 and stayed close to this average until the 1990s. Since 1994, the power rating has been greater than 1.55. The average number of runs scored per major league baseball game during the eight-year span from 1994 to 2001 increased by 15% over the same average for the years 1985 to 1992.1 These types of statistics lead baseball enthusiasts and commentators to speculate on possible causes.

                      One of the possible causes is changes in the ball. As a consequence of the record pace at which home runs were being hit in the Major Leagues during the early part of the 2000 season, a local radio station (AM 790 The SCORE) in Providence, RI solicited its listening audience to donate baseballs recovered from major league games at any time since 1960. Baseballs--purportedly obtained from major league games in 1963, 1970, 1989, 1995 and 2000 -- were donated to the radio station for testing. Subsequently, the radio station transferred the balls to the University of Rhode Island Forensic Science Partnership for evaluation and analysis.

                      Major League Baseball Specifications2,3
                      The components of a major league baseball are shown schematically in Figure 1. The center of a ball is called a “pill” and consists of a cork core surrounded by a layer of black rubber and a layer of red rubber. The pill is wrapped in 4-ply gray wool yarn followed by layers of 3-ply white wool yarn, 3-ply gray wool yarn and finally a cotton yarn. This outer layer of cotton yarn is enclosed in a full-grain cowhide leather cover, which is hand stitched together with 108 stitches. Finally, the specifications state that the weight of each ball is to be within 5 and 5 ¼ ounces and have a circumference between 9 and 9 ¼ inches.

                      The specifications were established in 18724 and according to Major League Baseball (MLB) the ball has not changed significantly since that time. The original rubber center was replaced with cork in 1910, and the cork was cushioned with rubber as of 1926. Synthetic rubber was used during the 2nd World War, and since 1974 cowhide as well as horsehide was authorized for the covers. The A.G. Spalding Company made baseballs from 1877 to 1976, when the Rawlings Sporting Goods Company3 became the supplier of the 700,000 plus balls needed by the major leagues each year.

                      Fallon and Sherwood5 at the Baseball Research Center Performances evaluated baseballs from the years 1999 and 2000. Investigations into the physics and activities of baseballs can be found in other reports.6,7

                      Our investigations into the anatomy of the five baseballs obtained by the local radio station focused on the materials used in the windings and in the pills. In both cases, the use of synthetic materials is an obvious source for changing the performance of the baseball.

                      Windings
                      According to Major League Baseball specifications, the wool windings may contain 15%  3% non-wool fibers. Windings from the oldest and newest balls are shown in Figure 2. As the five balls were dissected, the windings were separated into the four categories consisting of 4-ply gray, 3-ply white, 3-ply gray wools and cotton yarns by color. In all cases, the windings and the pills were handled with surgical gloves to avoid any contamination.

                      Initial investigation involved taking 5 cm cuttings of each of the three wool windings. Each of the cuttings was dried, weighed, treated chemically to remove the wool and weighed again. Results showed that the three recent balls contained significant proportions of non-wool fibers in all three of the wool windings. The percentages of non-wool fiber for each of the three windings for the five balls are shown in Figure 3. Not only did the synthetic fibers in the windings increase between the 2 early balls and the 3 more recent balls, the percentages in the three windings of the newer balls in some cases exceeded the tolerance levels for non-wool fibers

                      How would synthetic fibers in percentages of nearly 20% change the performance of the ball? Before we try to answer that question, we must consider the types of synthetic fibers used in the balls. Several types of synthetic materials could be added to the windings and each has different properties. Textiles are often blends of natural and synthetic fibers. Each type of fiber, whether it is natural or synthetic, has specific physical properties. By blending synthetic fibers with natural fibers, it is possible to obtain materials with a desired set of properties for specific end uses: for example, carpets.

                      We decided to conduct additional tests to determine the fiber content of the non-wool fibers from the 1989, 1995 and 2000 balls. Because the windings are made from recycled carpet fibers, we focused on tests for acrylic, nylon and polyester since these are the major synthetic carpet fibers. Using a modification of AATCC test method 20A-1955, we homogenized 3 mm cuttings from each of the wool windings. Figure 4 shows the percentages of acrylic, nylon and polyester in the non-wool fibers in the three newer balls. The percentage of acrylic fibers was fairly constant, ranging from 40 to 55%. The percentage of nylon and polyester varied considerably between the three balls.

                      Two fiber properties that are important in baseballs are resiliency and moisture regain. Resiliency is the ability of a fiber to spring back to a natural position after folding, creasing or other deformation, whereas moisture regain is the ability of a bone-dry fiber to absorb moisture at 70 F and 65% relative humidity. Wool, nylon and polyester have excellent resiliency, while acrylic has good resiliency. The property that varies the most between wool and the synthetic fibers is moisture regain, as seen in Figure 5. Wool regains 15% of its weight in moisture under standard conditions, while nylon, acrylic and polyester regain significantly less moisture. In humid conditions (> 65% relative humidity) wool can absorb up to a third of its weight in moisture. Thus, an all-wool ball will be heavier and slower than a ball with 16-20% synthetic fibers in the windings. In other words, the balls from 1989, 1995 and 2000 would be lighter than the 1963 and 1970 balls under any conditions except bone dry air.

                      Pills
                      The pills were removed from each of the baseballs and were tested individually for resilience and bounce. To insure that the pills were not damaged during removal, the individual windings were simply unraveled. The mechanical properties of the pills would prove to be very insightful since the pills were protected by layers of windings and the rawhide cover, making this part of the baseball the least exposed to the elements that could possibly degrade the materials; i.e. UV light, heat and humidity.

                      Mechanical Testing of Pills. Given that the mechanical properties of the central pill differ from the mechanical properties of the entire baseball, a relative study of the mechanical properties of the pills was undertaken. These tests included a bounce test for rebound and a uniaxial compression test to evaluate elastic modulus and stiffness. Since the windings and leather covers have different mechanical properties than the pill itself, the overall performance of the baseball including resilience and elastic/plastic deformation will be different. However, we believe that the pills offered the best opportunity to evaluate the mechanical properties of aged baseballs and the nature of the materials used to assemble the balls over the past 40 years, since the premise that balls are indeed livelier is based on changes in the materials of construction.

                      The rebound test consisted of dropping the pills from the different major league baseballs from a height of 182 in onto a concrete floor and measuring the rebound distance with a tape measure. A total of 10 measurements were made on each pill and the rebound distances were averaged. The results of the drop test are presented in Figure 6. It should be noted that wind resistance was minimal due to the relatively low terminal velocity of the pills falling from that height and that there was little plastic (permanent) deformation as a result of the pill impacting the concrete surface. The pills were checked for any plastic deformation after the bounce test and there appeared to be little if any permanent distortion.

                      The pills were also tested in compression using an MTS tensile testing machine8. The crossheads of the tensile testing instrument were adjusted such that the pills were placed in between the crossheads and an extensometer (strain gage) was placed between the crossheads to determine displacement as the crossheads traveled towards one another as the pill was placed into compression. The load and corresponding displacements were recorded. The slope of the linear portion of the resulting stress-strain curve is related to the elastic modulus or stiffness of the material comprising the pill. The elastic modulus was established for each pill. Since there was considerable plastic deformation of the pills at higher loads, each pill was tested only once in compression. The pills experienced considerable permanent deformation as a result of the testing and took the form of plats on either end of the pill i.e. the pills were no longer round. Since the modulus of resilience is inversely proportional to the elastic modulus or stiffness of the material, only the elastic modulus was presented in Figure 7. The modulus of resilience can be inferred from the elastic modulus in each case. The experimental results showed that the pills taken from the earlier three baseballs had the least rebound distance averaging only 60 inches, whereas those pills taken from baseballs in 1995 and 2000 had substantially larger rebound distances, averaging more than 80 inches. This represents a 33% increase in rebound distance and, if the rest of the materials comprising the baseball were considered perfectly elastic for purposes of discussion (which of course they are not), this would translate into a baseball that would be 33% livelier than the baseballs used decades earlier.

                      The experimental results from the compression tests were consistent with those established from the drop tests, i.e. the pills that exhibited the largest rebound distances had the lowest elastic modulus (highest modulus of resilience) and those that exhibited the least rebound distance had the largest elastic modulus (lowest modulus of resilience). The experimental results also showed that the pills taken from the earlier three baseballs had the largest moduli of elasticity ranging from 700 to 1000 psi, whereas those pills taken from newer baseballs had substantially smaller moduli of elasticity, ranging from 500 to 575 psi. From Figure 6, it was shown that the rebound distance for the pills taken from the earlier baseballs were very consistent with one another suggesting that the materials of construction did not change much over that time period. The rebound distances for the pills taken from the newer baseballs were also consistent with one another, suggesting that the materials of construction did not change after that time. A similar result was obtained from the compression tests, which provides further support for the case that the balls were juiced between 1989 and 1995.

                      FTIR Spectra and Images of Pills. Once the physical testing of the pills was completed, the pills were bisected. The two halves of the five pills are shown in Figure 8. There are obvious visual differences between the 2 early balls and the 3 more recent balls; the center core of the older balls looks like cork, whereas the same sections of the newer balls are much darker. In addition, the outer red (pink) layer of rubber is darker in the three newer balls; this difference can be seen on the outer surface of this layer and in the cross-sectional view.

                      The visual differences suggest that there might be chemical differences between the materials used to make the pills. Thus, we subjected the pills to infrared spectroscopic analysis. FTIR spectra can be used to identify chemicals present in a sample, whether the sample be pure or a mixture. Each pure chemical absorbs different
                      amounts of infrared radiation at different wavelengths. The intensities of light absorbed at different wavelengths is plotted as a function of the wavelength and this gives the infrared spectral fingerprint of the material. Thus, each pure chemical has an individual infrared fingerprint consisting of a graph showing a number of peaks and valleys. This fingerprint can be matched with known fingerprints stored in a library. In the case of chemical mixtures, the infrared pattern is a composite of the patterns for the pure components. There are mathematical methods for extracting patterns of the pure components from the composite pattern.

                      Infrared spectral fingerprints of each layer in the pills were measured and are shown in Figure 9. For the two early balls (1963 and 1970), spectra and therefore the chemical components are very similar within each of the three layers. As can be seen on the right side of the figure, the spectra of the cork cores for the early two balls are very similar to the spectrum of a laboratory cork. The spectra of the black layers are nearly identical for the early two balls, although the relative intensities of the bands vary slightly. This is probably due to variations in the ratios of the chemical components in this layer. The same is true for the red rubber of the early two balls, and again, there are some variations in the ratios of bands.

                      Major spectroscopic differences are observed for the cork core and the red rubber, when comparing spectra for the 3 newer balls with the 2 older balls. The spectra of the cork core no longer resembles the spectrum of the laboratory cork Spectra of the red layers are similar in the new 3 balls, but they differ considerably from spectra of the early 2 balls. Spectra of the black layer are similar for the 2 early balls, but there is a noticeably change with the 1989 ball and another change with the 1995 ball; the two recent balls are very similar.

                      The most significant changes between the 2 early balls and the 3 newer balls are in the cork cores and the red rubber layers. The spectra of the red rubber in the 3 newer balls are very similar to the spectra of the “cork” cores in the same 3 balls. Thus, it appears that the cork cores may not be cork. To understand this better, we measure infrared hyperspectral images of the cork areas. These measurements were performed with a 64x64 pixel infrared sensitive camera attached to an Fourier Transform infrared spectrometer9. Microscopic images of areas ~0.5 x 0.5 mm were obtained. Two spectral images of a cork area from the 1963 ball and one spectral image of the cork area of the 2000 ball are shown in Figure 10. The small 0.5x0.5 mm spot on the 1963 ball consists of two different materials; the spectra and the images are for these two materials. The top spectrum is that of cork and the image shows the location of the cork in the false color image (red color indicates high and blue low concentrations). The second spectrum for the 1963 ball is that of a mixture of butadiene-styrene copolymer and calcium carbonate. The image corresponding to this spectrum is for the same location as the first image, but it shows the location of the butadiene-styrene copolymer / calcium carbonate. The images of the 1963 ball indicate that the cork core was mainly cork surrounded by the butadiene-styrene / calcium carbonate mixture.

                      The lowest spectrum and image in Figure 10 were obtained for the 2000 ball. The infrared spectrum corresponds to a mixture of latex rubber and clay. The entire 64x64 image corresponded to this mixture. We could not find any evidence of cork on the cross-sectional surface of the 2000 ball. The “cork” cores of the 1989 and 1995 balls also consist of a latex rubber / clay mixture and cork could not be found. The core of the 1970 ball had a similar distribution of cork and butadiene-styrene copolymer / calcium carbonate as the 1963 ball. The infrared spectral analysis shows that there are major differences between the features and compositions of the early 2 balls and the 3 recent balls


                      Conclusions

                      The analyses of components from the five baseballs in this study clearly show that there were material differences between the 2 early balls and the 3 newer balls. From the analysis of the windings, we conclude that the increase in amount of synthetic fibers used in the baseballs from 1989, 1995 and 2000 could make the balls go further than balls with higher wool content. Furthermore, infrared analysis of the pills from the five balls showed that the materials used in making the pills also changed from the 2 early balls to the 3 newer balls. The minor changes in the compositions of the pills during the 1990s most probably accounts for increase in rebounds (bounce) of pills for the 2 newer balls.

                      To confirm the observations reported herein more documented baseballs are needed. Questions do arise as to the age of the balls and the effects of degradation with time. The aging effects could account for the reduced bounce in the older balls, but they cannot account for the compositional changes in the windings and pills. It would be very useful to examine documented balls from the last four decades at 5-year increments. In this way the mechanical and chemical properties could be correlated with each other and possibly with baseball “power factor.”



                      References

                      1) High Boskage House Baseball-Analysis Web Site http://www.highboskage.com/THEBALL.htm

                      2) Rawlings Sporting Goods Company, St. Louis, Mo (2000).

                      3) Muscel Shoals Rubber Company, Batesville, Mississippi, June 1, 2000, MajorLeagueBaseball.com.

                      4) Spitters, Beanballs and the Incredible Shrinking Strike Zone, G. Waggoner, K. Moloney and H. Howard, Triumph Books, Chicago (2000).

                      5) L. P. Fallon and J. A. Sherwood, Baseball Research Center, University of Mass-Lowell, “Performance Comparison of the 1999 and 2000 Major League Baseballs” submitted to MBL on June 27, 2000.

                      6) “The Physics of Baseball” Alan M. Nathan, University of Illinois (http://www.npl.uiuc.edu/~a-nathan/pob/) (2003).

                      7) “Bouncing Balls”http://www.exploratorium.edu/basebal...ing_balls.html (2003).

                      8) Materials Science and Engineering:An Introduction, 5th Edition by William D. Callister,Jr., Wiley,1999, p. 130

                      9) Stingray 7000 FTIR Imaging Spectrometer, Digilab, Randolph, MA.

                      Comment


                      • Thanks for posting that.

                        Comment


                        • Ubi had asked about the weight of each pill from the URI project. I asked Dr. Brown to weigh the pills and he provided the following data, which is a little suprising in the difference. Just in case you are metrically challenged 1 ounce equals 28 grams.

                          The weights of the pills are as follows:

                          1963 24.89 grams
                          1970 22.44 grams
                          1989 26.53 grams
                          1995 27.57 grams
                          2000 26.32 grams

                          Comment


                          • That is a pretty big difference.

                            I would think a weight difference would alter the tests would it not?

                            I don't do physics real well but I do believe that would impact the bounce test.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by 4N6Science View Post
                              Ubi had asked about the weight of each pill from the URI project. I asked Dr. Brown to weigh the pills and he provided the following data, which is a little suprising in the difference. Just in case you are metrically challenged 1 ounce equals 28 grams.

                              The weights of the pills are as follows:

                              1963 24.89 grams
                              1970 22.44 grams
                              1989 26.53 grams
                              1995 27.57 grams
                              2000 26.32 grams
                              Hi Dennis glad to see your return to the board. I posted this pic a while back, for those who did not see it, here it is again. Are was speaking of the same part of the ball, you say pill, they use the term core. Would this fit in, you list variations in weight, they speak of size differences. Obvious different sizes would change weight. I assume you did no measurements just weights.
                              Attached Files

                              Comment


                              • My mistake this is what I meant to illustrate in post #179.
                                Attached Files

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X