Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The "second dead ball era

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

  • #16
    Here is comparisons between the Dead Ball Era (1901-1919) and the "1960s" (1963-1972) from lowest BA to highest BA.

    Batting Average
    1968 AL- .230
    1967 AL- .236

    1908 AL- .239
    1908 NL- .239
    1972 AL- .239
    1966 AL- .240

    1905 AL- .241
    1965 AL- .242
    1907 NL- .243
    1910 AL- .243
    1968 NL- .243
    1904 AL- .244
    1906 NL- .244
    1909 AL- .244
    1909 NL- .244
    1969 AL- .246
    1963 AL- .247
    1963 NL- .247
    1964 AL- .247
    1971 AL- .247

    1907 AL- .247
    1916 NL- .247
    1914 AL- .248
    1915 AL- .248
    1915 NL- .248
    1916 AL- .248
    1917 AL- .248
    1972 NL- .248
    1904 NL- .249
    1906 AL- .249
    1917 NL- .249
    1965 NL- .249
    1967 NL- .249
    1969 NL- .250
    1970 AL- .250

    1914 NL- .251
    1971 NL- .252
    1918 AL- .254
    1918 NL- .254
    1964 NL- .254
    1903 AL- .255
    1905 NL- .255
    1910 NL- .256
    1913 AL- .256
    1966 NL- .256
    1919 NL- .258
    1970 NL- .258
    1902 NL- .259
    1911 NL- .260
    1913 NL- .262
    1912 AL- .265
    1901 NL- .267
    1919 AL- .268
    1903 NL- .269
    1912 NL- .272
    1911 AL- .273
    1902 AL- .275
    1901 AL- .277

    I'll add some more stats soon.
    Last edited by Honus Wagner Rules; 09-11-2012, 01:19 PM.
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

    Comment


    • #17
      On-Base Percentage

      1908 AL- .294
      1904 AL- .295
      1968 AL- .297
      1908 NL- .299
      1905 AL- .299
      1968 NL- .300
      1907 AL- .302
      1967 AL- .303
      1909 AL- .303
      1916 NL- .303
      1906 AL- .303
      1903 AL- .303
      1917 NL- .305
      1972 AL- .306
      1966 AL- .306

      1904 NL- .306
      1907 NL- .308
      1910 AL- .308
      1915 NL- .309
      1906 NL- .310
      1909 NL- .310
      1967 NL- .310
      1965 AL- .311
      1964 NL- .311
      1965 NL- .311

      1918 NL- .311
      1919 NL- .311
      1963 AL- .312
      1966 NL- .313

      1902 NL- .313
      1963 NL- .315
      1964 AL- .315
      1972 NL- .315

      1905 NL- .315
      1971 NL- .316
      1971 AL- .317

      1914 NL- .317
      1917 AL- .318
      1914 AL- .319
      1969 NL- .319
      1969 AL- .321

      1916 AL- .321
      1901 NL- .321
      1970 AL- .322
      1918 AL- .323
      1915 AL- .325
      1913 AL- .325
      1913 NL- .325
      1910 NL- .328
      1970 NL- .329
      1903 NL- .331
      1902 AL- .331
      1912 AL- .333
      1919 AL- .333
      1901 AL- .333
      1911 NL- .335
      1911 AL- .338
      1912 NL- .340
      Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

      Comment


      • #18
        The league slugging percentages is where you see the major difference between the Dead Ball Era and the 1960's with all those home runs being hit. Even the 1968 season is way down the list.

        1908 AL- .304
        1908 NL- .306
        1907 AL- .309
        1909 AL- .309
        1907 NL- .309
        1906 NL- .310
        1910 AL- .313
        1905 AL- .314
        1909 NL- .314
        1906 AL- .318
        1902 NL- .318
        1917 AL- .320
        1904 AL- .321
        1904 NL- .322
        1918 AL- .322
        1914 AL- .323
        1916 AL- .324
        1915 AL- .326
        1916 NL- .328
        1917 NL- .328
        1918 NL- .328
        1915 NL- .331
        1905 NL- .332
        1914 NL- .334
        1913 AL- .336
        1919 NL- .337
        1910 NL- .338
        1968 AL- .339
        1968 NL- .341
        1972 AL- .343

        1903 AL- .344
        1901 NL- .348
        1912 AL- .348
        1903 NL- .349
        1967 AL- .351
        1913 NL- .354
        1911 NL- .356
        1911 AL- .358
        1919 AL- .359
        1967 NL- .363
        1971 AL- .364
        1972 NL- .365
        1971 NL- .366
        1966 AL- .369
        1965 AL- .369
        1969 NL- .369
        1969 AL- .369

        1902 AL- .369
        1912 NL- .369
        1901 AL- .371
        1965 NL- .374
        1964 NL- .374
        1970 AL- .379
        1963 AL- .380
        1963 NL- .382
        1964 AL- .382
        1966 NL- .384
        1970 NL- .392
        Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

        Comment


        • #19
          Here are the league runs/game comparison.


          1908 NL 3.33
          1907 NL 3.40
          1968 AL 3.41
          1968 NL 3.43

          1908 AL 3.44
          1909 AL 3.44
          1916 NL 3.45
          1972 AL 3.47
          1917 NL 3.53
          1904 AL 3.54
          1906 NL 3.57
          1918 NL 3.62
          1915 NL 3.62
          1910 AL 3.64
          1918 AL 3.64
          1907 AL 3.65
          1909 NL 3.65
          1917 AL 3.65
          1914 AL 3.65
          1919 NL 3.65
          1906 AL 3.66
          1905 AL 3.68
          1916 AL 3.68
          1967 AL 3.70
          1963 NL 3.81

          1914 NL 3.84
          1967 NL 3.84
          1971 AL 3.87
          1966 AL 3.89
          1972 NL 3.91
          1971 NL 3.91

          1904 NL 3.91
          1913 AL 3.92
          1965 AL 3.94
          1915 AL 3.96
          1902 NL 3.98
          1964 NL 4.01
          1910 NL 4.03
          1965 NL 4.03
          1969 NL 4.05
          1964 AL 4.06
          1963 AL 4.08
          1969 AL 4.09
          1966 NL 4.09

          1905 NL 4.10
          1903 AL 4.10
          1919 AL 4.10
          1913 NL 4.15
          1970 AL 4.17
          1911 NL 4.42
          1912 AL 4.45
          1970 NL 4.52
          1911 AL 4.60
          1912 NL 4.62
          1901 NL 4.63
          1903 NL 4.77
          1902 AL 4.89
          1901 AL 5.35
          Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

          Comment


          • #20
            Have not looked, checked numbers but I would think offense overall dropped because of the bigger, higher strike zone coming in 1963.

            BB per game down and strikeouts per game up would have to follow. Thats what usually takes place, bigger strike zone offense, down smaller strike zone offense up.

            We know from watching games how important some calls are, couple or few inches mean the difference, ball or strike.
            Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 09-11-2012, 01:36 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Saying 'second dead ball era' is a bit misleading, because, while scoring was down, it was for reasons not related to a 'dead ball'. I think what separates the 'dead ball' era and the 1960s era from other eras is the general lack of top level, and near top level talent. if you look at the leadership the triple crown stats each year, it's still pretty impressive, except maybe for 1968. Were averages down from 1900-1919? Somebody must have forgot to tell Cobb, Speaker, Jackson, Collins, etc. Was scoring down in the 60s? Then how do you explain Aaron, Yaz, Killebrew, Robinson, etc. Overall hitting was down, but the top guys were still putting up impressive numbers...in fact it was during these eras when most of the 500 home run guys and 3000 hit guys were racking up their numbers. Seems kind of odd to me.
              Last edited by willshad; 09-11-2012, 01:50 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by willshad View Post
                Saying 'second dead ball era' is a bit misleading, because, while scoring was down, it was for reasons not related to a 'dead ball'. I think what separates the 'dead ball' era and the 1960s era from other eras is the general lack of top level, and near top level talent. if you look at the leadership the triple crown stats each year, it's still pretty impressive, except maybe for 1968. Were averages down from 1900-1919? Somebody must have forgot to tell Cobb, Speaker, Jackson, Collins, etc. Was scoring down in the 60s? Then how do you explain Aaron, Yaz, Killebrew, Robinson, etc. Overall hitting was down, but the top guys were still putting up impressive numbers...in fact it was during these eras when most of the 500 home run guys and 3000 hit guys were racking up their numbers. Seems kind of odd to me.
                yeah it was not the ball. ted williams commented on this in his book written in the late 60s or so:

                The longer season is blamed for the decline in hitting, and the pitching over-all is supposed to
                be better. Logistics are definitely a factor—the increase in night games, the size of the new
                parks (Chavez Ravine in Los Angeles is a pasture compared to cozy old Ebbets Field), the
                disturbed routine of cross-country travel that forces you to eat different hours, sleep
                differently. Certainly a week should be cut off both ends of the season for no other reason than
                to get away from some of that lousy cold weather. It’s hard to hit in cold weather. But I
                wonder. If it were the longer season you would expect a few of the better hitters to average
                higher—.360, .370 or better—for at least 100 games, and they don’t. When the season’s only a
                couple months old neither league will have ten guys hitting .300.
                How, too, can the pitching be better when there are fewer pitchers in organized baseball (fewer
                leagues, fewer everything, actually)? When expansion has made starters out of fifty or more
                who would otherwise still be in the minor leagues?
                After two years of managing the Washington Senators, the one big impression I got was that
                the game hasn’t changed. It’s the same as it was when I played. I see the same type pitchers,
                the same type hitters. I am a little more convinced than ever that there aren’t as many good
                hitters in the game, guys who can whack the ball around when it’s over the plate, guys like
                Aaron and Clemente and Frank Robinson. There are plenty of guys with power, guys who hit
                the ball a long way, but I see so many who lack finesse, who should hit for average but don’t.
                The answers are not all that hard to figure. They talked for years about the ball being dead.
                The ball isn’t dead, the hitters are, from the neck up. Everybody’s trying to pull the ball, to
                begin with. Almost everybody from the left fielder to the utility shortstop is trying to hit home
                runs, which is folly, and I will tell you why as we go along—and how Ted Williams, that
                notorious pull hitter, learned for himself.
                I will probably get carried away and sound like Al Simmons and Ty Cobb sounded to me when
                they used to cart their criticism of my hitting into print. I don’t mean to criticize individuals
                here. Not at all. I do criticize these trends.
                I think hitting can be improved at almost any level, and my intention is to show how, and what
                I think it takes to be a good hitter, even a .400 hitter if the conditions are ever right again—
                from the theory to the mechanics to the application.
                I now have my own non commercial blog about training for batspeed and power using my training experience in baseball and track and field.

                Comment


                • #23
                  "Dead ball was just a term used, of course it was not the ball during the 1960's.

                  I don't see any mystery here. Is it a coincidence that the strike zone is both lowered from the top of the knees to the knees and also raised from the armpits to the top of the shoulders in 1963 and at that time BB per game dropped and strike outs per game went up and it started in 1963. Check out those BB and strike out stats, so obvious, look at 1963 and before.
                  Offense had to drop. Not dismissing some of what Ted Williams had to say but the strike zone change played a big part.
                  Attached Files

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    The top of the shoulders? Wow, that is a HUGE difference. That's about a 4-5 inch difference.
                    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I want to add something. Its not just that a big strike zone decreases offense and a small one increases offense but that a LOW strike zone favors a particular type of mechanics which you couldn't get away with all the time when there was a high strike.
                      You have guys today who can hit home runs off pitches at their ankles. Its still the same basic mechanics as driving one at the belt, but when you get above about the level of the elbow (in the anatomical position) the mechanics become different. Its almost like hitting to the opposite field versus pulling the ball.

                      Also wondering, did the rule change in 1963 have anything to do with the big offensive seasons in 1961?
                      Last edited by brett; 09-11-2012, 05:13 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Blame the strike zone if you want, but when I look at the stats from 1963, I notice one thing: offense overall was down, but the top guys all had pretty typical seasons by their standards. Aaron, Mays, Clemente, Mccovey, Pinson in the NL....Kaline, Killebrew, Yaz in the Al.. Mantle managed a 1.063 OPS in an injury shortened season. Frank Robinson had an off year in 1963, but to say he had good seasons in the next few years is an understatement. it appears that maybe you and Williams were both correct. I think that the new strike zone may have affected the lesser hitters moreso than the good ones, and this certainly would cause overall offense to decrease, while widening the gap between the good hitters and the rest of the league. One thing is clear, however: good hitters are going to adjust and hit no matter what the circumstances are; so you can blame it on the rule change OR on the fact that there just were not a lot of good hitters around.
                        Last edited by willshad; 09-11-2012, 05:41 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I would say that as with the beginning of the live ball, a sudden change in the rules/environment should give the best suited a relative advantage, until the league rebalances with those best at the new environment. I have always felt that 1963-1992 was an period where hitters used a less than optimally effective approach. I guess the most competitive "peaks" in my book would be 1917 deadball, and the NL around 1960.


                          I'd like to clarify one other thing I mentioned about LQ. The live ball eventually raised LQ because it provided for more ways for more diverse talents to contribute a share of value in the game. It is only the immediate effect (maybe for 1 generation at most) that there would be players who developed in part under the old circumstances). Had WWII not occurred, I think LQ would have rebounded and balance would have been attained just about by that time.
                          Last edited by brett; 09-11-2012, 07:53 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by brett View Post
                            I want to add something. Its not just that a big strike zone decreases offense and a small one increases offense but that a LOW strike zone favors a particular type of mechanics which you couldn't get away with all the time when there was a high strike.
                            You have guys today who can hit home runs off pitches at their ankles. Its still the same basic mechanics as driving one at the belt, but when you get above about the level of the elbow (in the anatomical position) the mechanics become different. Its almost like hitting to the opposite field versus pulling the ball.

                            Also wondering, did the rule change in 1963 have anything to do with the big offensive seasons in 1961?
                            Brett, they could have swung at that low pitch even before the change in the strike zone in 1963, wasn't that much difference before and after 1963, top of knees before and to the knees in 1963. I think the hitters that liked the low pitch were swinging at the low pitches even before 1963.
                            So that was probably a small number but overall the enlarging the verticle of the strike zone had to hurt offense and it's plain to see. Checked the league stats, BB up and strike outs up, from the very first year of the change 1963.

                            I do agree today a good number of low ball hitters, more than I can ever recall. David Ortiz, he could hit a ball a mile, pitches down around the ankles. Very common today, lots of low ball hitters.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by willshad View Post
                              Blame the strike zone if you want, but when I look at the stats from 1963, I notice one thing: offense overall was down, but the top guys all had pretty typical seasons by their standards. Aaron, Mays, Clemente, Mccovey, Pinson in the NL....Kaline, Killebrew, Yaz in the Al.. Mantle managed a 1.063 OPS in an injury shortened season. Frank Robinson had an off year in 1963, but to say he had good seasons in the next few years is an understatement. it appears that maybe you and Williams were both correct. I think that the new strike zone may have affected the lesser hitters moreso than the good ones, and this certainly would cause overall offense to decrease, while widening the gap between the good hitters and the rest of the league. One thing is clear, however: good hitters are going to adjust and hit no matter what the circumstances are; so you can blame it on the rule change OR on the fact that there just were not a lot of good hitters around.
                              I don't lay it all on the strike zone, I did say that in my earlier post.
                              Your probably correct, the top hitters were not effected that much, but we're looking at the whole game and the numbers show the decline from 1963 on, until the old strike zone returned and the mound was lowered.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by brett View Post
                                I want to add something. Its not just that a big strike zone decreases offense and a small one increases offense but that a LOW strike zone favors a particular type of mechanics which you couldn't get away with all the time when there was a high strike.
                                You have guys today who can hit home runs off pitches at their ankles. Its still the same basic mechanics as driving one at the belt, but when you get above about the level of the elbow (in the anatomical position) the mechanics become different. Its almost like hitting to the opposite field versus pulling the ball.

                                Also wondering, did the rule change in 1963 have anything to do with the big offensive seasons in 1961?
                                For sure it did and it wasn't the overall offense alone, it was also about Maris breaking Babe Ruth's record.
                                Commissioner Ford Frick was a life long friend and fan of Babe Ruth. Even before Maris broke the record Frick stated that the record would have to be broken within 154 games, not in the extended 162 game schedule. It was obvious that Frick believed Maris was not deserving of the record, remember the asterisk placed on Roger's 61 homers.

                                My view, there was a connection with overall offense and Maris breaking the record in 1961, followed by the strike zone change in 1963, put a damper on offense.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X