Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The "second dead ball era

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    SHOELESSJOE3
    Registered User

  • SHOELESSJOE3
    replied
    Here it is from that book. I had it wrong in my previous post, it was his last "three" at bats and the his first "two" at bats in the second game..
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:

  • SHOELESSJOE3
    Registered User

  • SHOELESSJOE3
    replied
    Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
    Where IBB tracked during Ruth's time?
    I think IBB were first recorded in the mid 1950's.

    There are a number that Babe received, not all of them early in his career in the book, "The Babe In Red Stockings."
    One list of 5 consecutive over a two game period. Two in his last two at bats in one game and three in his first three at bats in the next game.
    Trying to contact the authors for some confirmation.

    Leave a comment:

  • Honus Wagner Rules
    xFIP?! I laugh at you!

  • Honus Wagner Rules
    replied
    Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
    Not plate appearances, it has to be at bats.Your tossing in walks when you use PA's.
    Would not be fair to feared sluggers who are often pitched around and walked intentionally.

    Who knows how many times Ruth was given nothing to hit. We saw what took place with Bonds because IBB are recorded today. How could it be fair to Barry, every IBB is like he never came to bat, impossible to hit a home run.
    BTW, Ruth probably had some IBB in 1927, Maris had none in 161.

    They got it right with the stat AB/HR ratio to show the proficiency the hitter displayed in hitting home runs.
    Where IBB tracked during Ruth's time?

    Leave a comment:

  • SHOELESSJOE3
    Registered User

  • SHOELESSJOE3
    replied
    Originally posted by Steven Gallanter View Post
    It depends on how many Plate Appearances the hitter has. Plate Appearances show how many opportunities the hitter has. Maris had fewer Plate Appearances than Ruth. On the other hand Ichiro had more Plate Appearance than Sisler.
    Not plate appearances, it has to be at bats.Your tossing in walks when you use PA's.
    Would not be fair to feared sluggers who are often pitched around and walked intentionally.

    Who knows how many times Ruth was given nothing to hit. We saw what took place with Bonds because IBB are recorded today. How could it be fair to Barry, every IBB is like he never came to bat, impossible to hit a home run.
    BTW, Ruth probably had some IBB in 1927, Maris had none in 161.

    They got it right with the stat AB/HR ratio to show the proficiency the hitter displayed in hitting home runs.

    Leave a comment:

  • SHOELESSJOE3
    Registered User

  • SHOELESSJOE3
    replied
    Originally posted by Steven Gallanter View Post
    It depends on how many Plate Appearances the hitter has. Plate Appearances show how many opportunities the hitter has. Maris had fewer Plate Appearances than Ruth. On the other hand Ichiro had more Plate Appearance than Sisler.
    First. we can never go by plate appearances, the home run record has to go by the season.

    I understand that some can actually accomplish more than others in hitting stats. Because, say two players hit 60 in the 154 game season but one had for example more plate appearances or more at bats. The player with less at bats or less PA's would be more impressive but we go by seasons.

    How many 200 hit seasons would Cobb have playing the 162 game schedule.
    Seasons with 200 hits Rose 10--------Ichiro 10---------Cobb 9.

    I was basing Cobb on the 154 game schedule and surprised at how many games he missed in some seasons with a shot at a 200 hit season. Probably some injuries, missed lots of games.

    ---------Hits-----Games
    1908----188------150----150 not bad
    1910----194------140
    1919----191------124
    1921----197------128
    1923----189------145
    SHOELESSJOE3
    Registered User
    Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 09-13-2012, 01:22 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • ipitch
    Registered User

  • ipitch
    replied
    Originally posted by Steven Gallanter View Post
    It depends on how many Plate Appearances the hitter has. Plate Appearances show how many opportunities the hitter has. Maris had fewer Plate Appearances than Ruth.
    Ruth had 691 PA when he hit 60 HRs.
    Maris had 698 PA when he hit 61 HRs.

    Maris did have 50 more AB though.

    Leave a comment:

  • Steven Gallanter
    Registered User

  • Steven Gallanter
    replied
    Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
    I always thought the very same thing, seemed to make sense to me.
    It depends on how many Plate Appearances the hitter has. Plate Appearances show how many opportunities the hitter has. Maris had fewer Plate Appearances than Ruth. On the other hand Ichiro had more Plate Appearance than Sisler.

    Leave a comment:

  • brett
    Registered User

  • brett
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • brett
    Registered User

  • brett
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

  • dominik
    Registered User

  • dominik
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

  • SHOELESSJOE3
    Registered User

  • SHOELESSJOE3
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • SHOELESSJOE3
    Registered User

  • SHOELESSJOE3
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • SHOELESSJOE3
    Registered User

  • SHOELESSJOE3
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • SHOELESSJOE3
    Registered User

  • SHOELESSJOE3
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • leecemark
    History Mod

  • leecemark
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X