The "second dead ball era

[JR Hart]

I've read a lot on here about the "2nd dead ball era" I'm assuming that it refers to 1963-68 when the mound was high and the strike zone was big. But looking at the power numbers, it was far from a dead ball era.

Let's compare that 6 year era, against the 70's and 80's, looking at 40 HR seasons.

63-68
66 Allen 40
63 Stuart 42
67 Killebrew 44
67 Yaz 44
63 McCovey 44
68 Howard 44
63 Aaron 44
66 Aaron 44
64 Mays 47
66 Robinson 49
64 Kiilebrew 49
65 Mays 52

1970s
70 Yaz 40
70 Perez 40
73 Aaron 40
72 Bench 40
70 Killebrew 41
73 Evans 41
70 Williams 42
73 Johnson 43
73 Stargell 44
70 Howard 44
79 Thomas 45
70 Bench 45
78 Rice 46
71 Aaron 47
71 Stargell 47
77 Foster 52

1980s
83 Schmidt 40
85 Evans 40
80 Oglivie 41
80 R Jackson 41
84 Armas 43
87 Murphy 44
89 Mitchell 47
87 Bell 47
80 Schmidt 48
87 Dawson 49
87 McGwire 49

So for that 6 year period, there were more 40 HR seasons that the 10 years of the 80s, and not many less than the 10 years of the 70s. Deadball?? hardly

[Steven Gallanter]

I've read a lot on here about the "2nd dead ball era" I'm assuming that it refers to 1963-68 when the mound was high and the strike zone was big. But looking at the power numbers, it was far from a dead ball era.

Let's compare that 6 year era, against the 70's and 80's, looking at 40 HR seasons.

63-68
66 Allen 40
63 Stuart 42
67 Killebrew 44
67 Yaz 44
63 McCovey 44
68 Howard 44
63 Aaron 44
66 Aaron 44
64 Mays 47
66 Robinson 49
64 Kiilebrew 49
65 Mays 52

1970s
70 Yaz 40
70 Perez 40
73 Aaron 40
72 Bench 40
70 Killebrew 41
73 Evans 41
70 Williams 42
73 Johnson 43
73 Stargell 44
70 Howard 44
79 Thomas 45
70 Bench 45
78 Rice 46
71 Aaron 47
71 Stargell 47
77 Foster 52

1980s
83 Schmidt 40
85 Evans 40
80 Oglivie 41
80 R Jackson 41
84 Armas 43
87 Murphy 44
89 Mitchell 47
87 Bell 47
80 Schmidt 48
87 Dawson 49
87 McGwire 49

So for that 6 year period, there were more 40 HR seasons that the 10 years of the 80s, and not many less than the 10 years of the 70s. Deadball?? hardly

Contact hitting and BBs suffered more than HRs. I often call the '2nd Deadball Era' the 'ERA Era'. The 70s saw increased aggressiveness on the base paths especially on the turf fields of 3 Rivers, Riverfront, Veterans, Candlestick, Busch and the Olympic.

The ERA era saw relief pitching become more imp[important every year. Gloves became bigger and catchers, led by Randy Hundley; adapted the 1-handed catching style. My first 2 or 3 years as a fan were in the ERA era and the lowering of the mound and the adjustment of the strike zone were big stories at the time.

Why was it ALWAYS Jim Ray Hart? Middle names are rarely used on an everyday basis. It is interesting that Hart's best years were during the ERA era.

stevegallanter.wordpress.com

[ipitch]

Runs per game were quite low. Since 1871, there have been 22 seasons in which teams averaged under 4.00 runs scored per game, and 7 of them were between 1963 and 1972. 1968 was the 2nd lowest ever.

[dgarza]

Looking at power numbers, 1963-1968 DID see HRs more often than the 70s or 80s.

But I don't think Dead Ball only relates to power. The 1st Dead Ball Era saw less HRs than the 20s, true; but it was also called the Dead Ball Era because batting averages seemed less inflated that the decades BEFORE.

Look at players who batted .300+ in any one season from 1963-1968 (must qual. for batting title):
In 6 seasons of 20 teams:
41 players batted .300 = .342 per team per season
83 times = .692 per team per season

70s (24-26 teams [I averaged for 25]):
121 players batted .300 = .480 per team per season
235 times = .936 per team per season

80s (26 teams [adjusted for 1981]):
128 players batted .300 = .492 per team per season
247 times = .950 per team per season

[PVNICK]

That's the league runs per game avarages from 1947-2008. To the untutored eye 1963-1972 seem to stand out. But then again perhaps I am wrong and it was the bandbox era are the OP is trying to imply.

1947 4.355
1948 4.579
1949 4.607
1950 4.852
1951 4.547
1952 4.176
1953 4.607
1954 4.376
1955 4.485
1956 4.452
1957 4.306
1958 4.283
1959 4.383
1960 4.314
1961 4.525
1962 4.461
1963 3.947
1964 4.036
1965 3.988
1966 3.994
1967 3.769
1968 3.418
1969 4.072
1970 4.342
1971 3.889
1972 3.686
1973 4.214
1974 4.125
1975 4.213
1976 3.995
1977 4.471
1978 4.103
1979 4.458
1980 4.288
1981 3.998
1982 4.298
1983 4.308
1984 4.257
1985 4.331
1986 4.409
1987 4.723
1988 4.138
1989 4.132
1990 4.256
1991 4.308
1992 4.117
1993 4.598
1994 4.923
1995 4.847
1996 5.036
1997 4.767
1998 4.79
1999 5.085
2000 5.14
2001 4.775
2002 4.618
2003 4.728
2004 4.814
2005 4.592
2006 4.858
2007 4.797
2008 4.493

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I believe the 1960's are referred to as the" Second Dead Ball Era" because of the low batting averages, low OBP, and low runs scored.

[JR Hart]

That's the league runs per game avarages from 1947-2008. To the untutored eye 1963-1972 seem to stand out. But then again perhaps I am wrong and it was the bandbox era are the OP is trying to imply.

Imply- to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated Because I showed the number of power hitters who did well, does mean that I said it was a "band box" era. I meant that it was improperly named.

You used this: A straw man argument - an attempt to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") is absurd or ridiculous, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition.

[PVNICK]

Imply- to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated Because I showed the number of power hitters who did well, does mean that I said it was a "band box" era. I meant that it was improperly named.

You used this: A straw man argument - an attempt to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") is absurd or ridiculous, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition.

whatever. You conveniently omitted commenting on the runs per game data that was the actual basis but I 'm glad you have access to the modern dictoniary of sophistry.

[Jackaroo Dave]

You used this: A straw man argument - an attempt to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") is absurd or ridiculous, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition.

And you can you can take it from a man who knows, the creator of the OPS Hall of Fame thread--and this one too, come to think of it. "The Sixties were the "Second Dead Ball Era,'" is the original proposition; the one attacked is "The Sixties were marked by a decline in the number of forty-home-run seasons."

I gotta admit, JR, you've got a pair, and they're solid brass.

[ian2813]

So JR Hart, your argument is that they shouldn't call it a "dead ball era" because the ball wasn't dead enough to prevent guys from hitting 40 homers in a season?

[PVNICK]

here is the annual HR totals from 1947 - 2007
I have made no effort to prorate based on the assorted expansions. People can draw their own conclusions.

AL NL total
679 886 1,565 1947
710 845 1,555 1948
769 935 1,704 1949
973 1,100 2,073 1950
839 1,024 1,863 1951
794 907 1,701 1952
879 1,197 2,076 1953
823 1,114 1,937 1954
961 1,263 2,224 1955
1,075 1,219 2,294 1956
1,024 1,178 2,202 1957
1,057 1,183 2,240 1958
1,091 1,159 2,250 1959
1,086 1,042 2,128 1960
1,534 1,196 2,730 1961
1,552 1,449 3,001 1962
1,489 1,215 2,704 1963
1,551 1,211 2,762 1964
1,370 1,318 2,688 1965
1,365 1,378 2,743 1966
1,197 1,102 2,299 1967
1,104 891 1,995 1968
1,649 1,470 3,119 1969
1,746 1,683 3,429 1970
1,484 1,379 2,863 1971
1,175 1,359 2,534 1972
1,552 1,550 3,102 1973
1,369 1,280 2,649 1974
1,465 1,233 2,698 1975
1,122 1,113 2,235 1976
2,013 1,631 3,644 1977
1,680 1,276 2,956 1978
2,006 1,427 3,433 1979
1,844 1,243 3,087 1980
1,062 719 1,781 1981
2,080 1,299 3,379 1982
1,903 1,398 3,301 1983
1,980 1,278 3,258 1984
2,178 1,424 3,602 1985
2,290 1,523 3,813 1986
2,634 1,824 4,458 1987
1,901 1,279 3,180 1988
1,718 1,365 3,083 1989
1,796 1,521 3,317 1990
1,953 1,430 3,383 1991
1,776 1,262 3,038 1992
2,074 1,956 4,030 1993
1,774 1,532 3,306 1994
2,164 1,917 4,081 1995
2,742 2,220 4,962 1996
2,477 2,163 4,640 1997
2,496 2,568 5,064 1998
2,635 2,893 5,528 1999
2,688 3,005 5,693 2000
2,506 2,952 5,458 2001
2,464
2,595 5,059 2002
2,499 2,708 5,207 2003
2,605 2,846 5,451 2004
2,437
2,580
5,017
2005

2,546
2,840
5,386
2006

2,252
2,705
4,957
2007

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

The term is also used because pitchers had a significant advantage over batters.

[brett]

I've read a lot on here about the "2nd dead ball era" I'm assuming that it refers to 1963-68 when the mound was high and the strike zone was big. But looking at the power numbers, it was far from a dead ball era.

Let's compare that 6 year era, against the 70's and 80's, looking at 40 HR seasons.

63-68
66 Allen 40
63 Stuart 42
67 Killebrew 44
67 Yaz 44
63 McCovey 44
68 Howard 44
63 Aaron 44
66 Aaron 44
64 Mays 47
66 Robinson 49
64 Kiilebrew 49
65 Mays 52

1970s
70 Yaz 40
70 Perez 40
73 Aaron 40
72 Bench 40
70 Killebrew 41
73 Evans 41
70 Williams 42
73 Johnson 43
73 Stargell 44
70 Howard 44
79 Thomas 45
70 Bench 45
78 Rice 46
71 Aaron 47
71 Stargell 47
77 Foster 52

1980s
83 Schmidt 40
85 Evans 40
80 Oglivie 41
80 R Jackson 41
84 Armas 43
87 Murphy 44
89 Mitchell 47
87 Bell 47
80 Schmidt 48
87 Dawson 49
87 McGwire 49

So for that 6 year period, there were more 40 HR seasons that the 10 years of the 80s, and not many less than the 10 years of the 70s. Deadball?? hardly

That's interesting. I always considered the time from about 1960 all the way through 1992 to be a period where pitching and defense got more and more effective at reducing offense. You see little blips in 1977 and 1987 which were both suspected of being due to a livlier ball on average, but basically the rules changes helped offense rise only slightly over the entire period because teams were using specialized relievers and fielders were at an all time high, so I consider 1960-1992 to be a big continuum, It is odd that expansion did not raise offense. Both league shot up around '93 and '94 with expansion, even if you exclude Mile high stadium. I really believe that around '93 and '94 the best hitters started to use better mechanics to drive the ball. We also got more smaller ballparks.


Now I have always felt that hitters actually got worse on the whole over this period! not because of their stats which could be explained by pitching and defense, but because of their mechanics. I see all star game footage of Joe Morgan and Cesar Cedeno, and they are swinging the bat around with their arms but barely using their lower bodies to drive it. The swings on the 70s and 80s in general look weak, and disconnected. Maybe it is because of the high strike and hitters not being able to set up their mechanics to just drive the low pitch. To drive a high strike requires a swing that does look different and more like those swings I described from the 70s. The best power hitters drove the ball well, but the real question is if you took the good contact guys who also hit with solid power, and could have concentrated on the low stike, could they have hit big time home run totals. I think so.

I think the biggest issue with plate approach was that with the high and low strike, hitters could guess half the time, and the quality of breaking balls and fastballs were note great enough that hitters HAD to look for one or the other. When breaking balls got better, hitters had to guess high-low and fast or breaking (or changeup).

I do think that the low offensive setting resulted in hitters being willing to just put the ball in play though rather than drive it optimally, but we never really have seen great hitting numbers in a league with a high strike, and pitchers with modern stuff.


But no one ever suggested that the ball was actually deader during that period.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

That's interesting. I always considered the time from about 1960 all the way through 1992 to be a period where pitching and defense got more and more effective at reducing offense. You see little blips in 1977 and 1987 which were both suspected of being due to a livlier ball on average, but basically the rules changes helped offense rise only slightly over the entire period because teams were using specialized relievers and fielders were at an all time high, so I consider 1960-1992 to be a big continuum, It is odd that expansion did not raise offense. Both league shot up around '93 and '94 with expansion, even if you exclude Mile high stadium. I really believe that around '93 and '94 the best hitters started to use better mechanics to drive the ball. We also got more smaller ballparks.


Now I have always felt that hitters actually got worse on the whole over this period! not because of their stats which could be explained by pitching and defense, but because of their mechanics. I see all star game footage of Joe Morgan and Cesar Cedeno, and they are swinging the bat around with their arms but barely using their lower bodies to drive it. The swings on the 70s and 80s in general look weak, and disconnected. Maybe it is because of the high strike and hitters not being able to set up their mechanics to just drive the low pitch. To drive a high strike requires a swing that does look different and more like those swings I described from the 70s. The best power hitters drove the ball well, but the real question is if you took the good contact guys who also hit with solid power, and could have concentrated on the low stike, could they have hit big time home run totals. I think so.

I think the biggest issue with plate approach was that with the high and low strike, hitters could guess half the time, and the quality of breaking balls and fastballs were note great enough that hitters HAD to look for one or the other. When breaking balls got better, hitters had to guess high-low and fast or breaking (or changeup).

I do think that the low offensive setting resulted in hitters being willing to just put the ball in play though rather than drive it optimally, but we never really have seen great hitting numbers in a league with a high strike, and pitchers with modern stuff.


But no one ever suggested that the ball was actually deader during that period.

This is just one of the reasons among a few others that played a part in the home run derby that began in the early to mid 1990s. the umps not calling the high "rule book" strike, a joke. In the book it was and still is a point midway between the belt and the shoulders, the 1990's saw the high strike brought down around the belt by the umps not by the rule book, hitters delight.

Years ago the batter would swing more often at the "borderline high" strike, because at that time it might be called a strike, a batter in the count with two strikes could not take a chance. Today, hitter almost always watch it go by, almost always called a ball.

I saw Mantle Killebrew and some other past strong hitters have some difficulty "driving getting on top of that high pitch." Now and then today you will see some batters missing, fouling back or pop up on that high pitch.

If you watched Mariano Rivera, almost always using the cutter to get two strikes and then he goes upstairs and it worked for him, the high borderline pitch.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Jeter and 4000, you just never can tell in this game, about the player, late career.
Remember Ken Griffey Jr, then Arod with the home run totals.
Looks great this year but who can say how he performs in a couple of years.
Not writing him off...................just saying, you never can tell what may take place down the road.