Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The "second dead ball era

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
    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.
    There was never an asterisk in the record book. That was just talk, while Maris pursued the record.
    This week's Giant

    #5 in games played as a Giant with 1721 , Bill Terry

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by JR Hart View Post
      There was never an asterisk in the record book. That was just talk, while Maris pursued the record.
      Ford did place an asterisk after Maris' total of 61.

      It did appear with the asterisk in "some" record books.
      I don't believe it was ever entered in the Official Record Book.

      In September 1991 the Committee For Statistical Accuracy headed by Fay Vincent declared that the asterisk not be entered in all further publications and void in those already in print.
      SHOELESSJOE3
      Registered User
      Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 09-12-2012, 11:52 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
        Ford did place an asterisk after Maris' total of 61.

        It did appear with the asterisk in "some" record books.
        I don't believe it was ever entered in the Offficial Record Book.

        In September 1991 the Committee For Statistical Accuracy headed by Fay Vincent declared that the asterisk not be entered in all further publications and void in those already in print.
        Personally, I always felt the 60 and 61 should both be considered records. I didn't like a guy getting 5% more games, unless he had broken it in 154.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
          Ford did place an asterisk after Maris' total of 61.
          On a piece of scrap paper on his desk? Where?

          Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
          It did appear with the asterisk in "some" record books.
          I don't believe it was ever entered in the Offficial Record Book.
          There was no asterisk. Not then. Not now. Not ever. The myth that an asterisk was used to denote that Roger Maris needed expansion and a longer schedule of games to exceed Ruth's single season home run record has been perpetuated in story on and film. But it's not true. It never was. There never was an asterisk. What there was for almost 50 years, however, were two entries in baseball's official record books, as such:

          Most Home Runs, Season.
          61 Roger E. Maris, AL: NY, 1961 (162 G/S)
          60 George H. Ruth, AL. NY, 1927.
          So there was no asterisk on the books.

          http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runnin..._maris_and.php

          Comment


          • #35
            The 60's did turn in some incredible pitching performances and I'm more impressed with those than with the numerous excellent pitching feats of the dead ball era,{DBA} because guys were still hitting HR's in the 60's. But here's an educated guess as to why run production was lousy-I'm certain that there were many more strikeouts during the 60's than in the DBA. Too many hitters were trying to hit the long ball instead of just making contact. Also in the 60's few teams tried to manufacture runs as they did in the DBA. Not using the sacrifice, stolen base or hit and run. If you can't get on base and have guys who can consistently hit with power, you'd better be able to manufacture runs or the scoreboard is going to have a lot of goose eggs.

            Still not sure what happened in 1968 though. That season was just so off the charts with low scoring and a lot of guys who had been consistently goood hitters who all seemed to have their worst season ever. They not only took the rabbit out of the ball but must have added some snail to it.
            It Might Be? It Could Be?? It Is!

            Comment


            • #36
              i Don't think the Strike Zone got higher in 60s. It was always high but the problem is that the pitchers always got better. Hitters cannot really improve since the eye and reaction time is limited. So every few years the mlb changes the rule to help the hitters.
              19th century: move the mound back
              1920s: new ball and of fences
              1960s: lower mound
              1990s: lower zone and no inside pitch called also smaller parks

              Currently the pitchers again are getting the edge back. We will see what the mlb does next to help hitters.

              I also don't think the umps changed the rules on their own. Why should they? After all they are not paid per minute and a smaller zone means crouching longer. Offense sells and mlb knows that but they couldn't change the official rules since that would have alienated the traditionalists
              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


              • #37
                Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
                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.
                What about the guys who played before the 154 game season?
                They got screwed!!!
                "If I drink whiskey, I'll never get worms!" - Hack Wilson

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by dominik View Post
                  i Don't think the Strike Zone got higher in 60s. It was always high but the problem is that the pitchers always got better. Hitters cannot really improve since the eye and reaction time is limited. So every few years the mlb changes the rule to help the hitters.
                  19th century: move the mound back
                  1920s: new ball and of fences
                  1960s: lower mound
                  1990s: lower zone and no inside pitch called also smaller parks

                  Currently the pitchers again are getting the edge back. We will see what the mlb does next to help hitters.

                  I also don't think the umps changed the rules on their own. Why should they? After all they are not paid per minute and a smaller zone means crouching longer. Offense sells and mlb knows that but they couldn't change the official rules since that would have alienated the traditionalists
                  --The umps did not change the rules on their own. The strike zone was officially changed in 1963 and changed again in 1969 (along with lower the mound height).

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by brett View Post
                    Personally, I always felt the 60 and 61 should both be considered records. I didn't like a guy getting 5% more games, unless he had broken it in 154.
                    I always thought the very same thing, seemed to make sense to me.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by ipitch View Post
                      On a piece of scrap paper on his desk? Where?
                      Not sure what all the debate is about. I did say the astrisk did appear in some books, but not the one book that realy mattered, The Official Baseball Record Book. There are not as many books today as there was at that time. Every season at least a dozen or more baseball books would come out at the seasons end with stats for the season and career baseball records and I can tell you in at least a few, the asterisk was there. Some had no asterisk but had both records, one under 154 game schedule and the other 162 game schedule.

                      I'm not going to beat this one to death. The reason I mentioned Frick "declaring" that the asterisk would be next to the record was my reply to Brett who asked if the high offensive 1961 season had anything to do with the rule change in 1963, I answered yes and only brought up the asterisk to illustrate the mind set of Ford Frick, that offense had to be brought down and so we had the strike zone change in 1963.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by dominik View Post
                        i Don't think the Strike Zone got higher in 60s. It was always high but the problem is that the pitchers always got better. Hitters cannot really improve since the eye and reaction time is limited. So every few years the mlb changes the rule to help the hitters.
                        19th century: move the mound back
                        1920s: new ball and of fences
                        1960s: lower mound
                        1990s: lower zone and no inside pitch called also smaller parks

                        Currently the pitchers again are getting the edge back. We will see what the mlb does next to help hitters.

                        I also don't think the umps changed the rules on their own. Why should they? After all they are not paid per minute and a smaller zone means crouching longer. Offense sells and mlb knows that but they couldn't change the official rules since that would have alienated the traditionalists
                        How do you come to that conclusion Dom. Officially in 1963 the top of the strike zone was raised to the top of the shoulders and the bottom half lowered from the top of the knees to the knee, how could that not effect hitting overall.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          For some that don't believe the stretching the strike zone at both ends in 1963 was not the biggest reason for the drop in "overall" offense, looks obvious to me.

                          Lets go back some years before the change in 1963 and from 1963 on a few years.

                          Stats "per game"

                          -------- BB-------SO--------OBP
                          1959-----3.31-----5.09------.324
                          1960-----3.39-----5.18------.324
                          1961-----3.46-----5.23------.328--Expansion year AL playing some part, possible
                          1962-----3.37-----5.24------.326
                          1963-----2.96-----5.80------.309 first season enlarged verticle strike zone
                          1964-----2.96-----5.91------.313
                          1965-----3.09-----5.94------.311

                          This one is easy, is it a fluke the batter is now facing a bigger strike zone in 1963 and that very year and some years after BB are down, SO are up and overall offense is down, I don't think so. That was Frick's purpose for the change in 1963, he thought offense was way out of hand, starting in 1961.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
                            How do you come to that conclusion Dom. Officially in 1963 the top of the strike zone was raised to the top of the shoulders and the bottom half lowered from the top of the knees to the knee, how could that not effect hitting overall.
                            Originally posted by leecemark View Post
                            --The umps did not change the rules on their own. The strike zone was officially changed in 1963 and changed again in 1969 (along with lower the mound height).
                            I did not know that. when was that "midpoint" rule invented? I thought it was always the rule but differently interpreted by umpires
                            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


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by dominik View Post
                              I did not know that. when was that "midpoint" rule invented? I thought it was always the rule but differently interpreted by umpires
                              No it was armpits until '63, then top of shoulders until '69, then back to the armpits, and not to the "midpoint" between the belt and top of the shoulders until '88-though it started getting called only about 1 balls diameter above the belt. In '96 the bottom was moved to the bottom of the knees, but the top of course still only got called a little above the belt.

                              http://www.baseball-almanac.com/arti..._history.shtml

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
                                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.
                                I get this, but my point is that the zone came down to the point where really all swings in the strike zone follow the same mechanical pattern so hitters didn't have to shift there mechanics between 2 different types of swings.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X