uhh...snap?

Hmm, haven't the dimensions of the average MLB ballpark gone down as well? I know some of the new parks have been fairly large(SD, DET, SEA, maybe RFK should count) but overall I think the trend has been the other way.

consider the most dedicated baseball researcher alive regarding the home run, Greg Rybarcyzk

So Tattersall is dead?

He ate him, with fava beans and a nice Chianti. That's dedication.

Hmm, haven't the dimensions of the average MLB ballpark gone down as well? I know some of the new parks have been fairly large(SD, DET, SEA, maybe RFK should count) but overall I think the trend has been the other way.

As the article states, home run rates didn't just increase in a few cities that built new ballparks in the early nineties - they increased everywhere, in both leagues, and they did it over the space of about two years. This was no slow and gradual increase - this was a pronounced jump in 1993 and 1994, and the rates stayed high throughout the mid-to-late '90s, decreasing slightly in the early part of the 21st century.

Parks and expansion played a role in the increase in offense, but it was a pretty small role.

was brian macnamee in costa rica in or around 1993? Moreover, I don't buy the excuse by base ball that the cork taught hormone was to help his wife soft ball prepare for the 96 olympics.

When I ran this same study ten years ago, I reached one conclusion - that the increase in offense in 1987 was the result of the same factors linked to the increase in offense in 1993 and 1994. I wasn't able to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, but I was convinced and remain convinced of that conclusion. However, the total lack of evidence as to what those factors were has lead me to refer to whatever happened as the X factor. Juicing the ball has always been a possible explanation, but I think I've researched 20 different tests of balls over the last fifteen years and found that there's no convincing evidence in the public domain. The umpire explanation doesn't really make much sense except perhaps for 1988; there's no way MLB could pull off an orchestrated change in the strike zone without anyone knowing. I remember claims that the 1987 offensive jump was due to hotter weather, and there was indeed hotter weather across the US for much of the summer, but that theory got blown to bits as far as I'm concerned when 1988 proved to be even hotter. Still, climate change cannot be completely dismissed.

The study posted didn't cover this, but for anyone interested, no, expansion didn't cause the rise in offense in 93-94 either. Yes, expansion can cause an increase in the spread of home run totals, but not in average home run totals. There were other factors at work here. Despite the AL's much more minor participation in the expansion draft, the increase in offense the AL and the NL was about the same once Mile High was taken into account. (Testing the expansion factor was the raison d'etre of the studies, which I'm sure are somewhere on the net)

Steroids are also an unsatisfying answer. The 1993 Phillies notwithstanding, major league baseball players did not start all at once to take steroids.

Juicing the ball remains the best explanation I can come up with, and yet I really don't buy that explanation either - baseball's ability to manipulate the game in that way in secret seems mighty unlikely to me, as does the explanation that it was all an accident.

So I continue to call it the X-Factor. I believe it's real, but I don't know what it is.

rdfc (#7):

Terrific post. You just about exactly sum up my sense of the situation.

The only thing I would add is that when multiple independent variables interact simultaneously -- in this case ballparks, weight-training (with or without steroids), teams' increasing willingness to deploy power-oriented players, the strike zone, as well as the ball (and anything else I might be forgetting) -- they can have powerful effects that aren't explainable by any one operating in isolation.

So I continue to call it the X-Factor. I believe it's real, but I don't know what it is.

Unfortunately, the data is pretty fragmentary, so we may never have conclusive evidence. All we can pretty much do is speculate.

FWIW, I don't believe that MLB deliberately juiced the balls, either. I just think that they so happened to start being made tighter, and MLB didn't see any reason to go back.

I just think that they so happened to start being made tighter, and MLB didn't see any reason to go back.

bingo

I firmly believe this, even though there's not a shred of evidence to support it

from TFA:
That’s part of what frustrates Sherwood… “Their testing window is this big,” he says, his hands a foot apart. “I don’t know why it was ever set that wide.” A ball testing at the high end could travel as much as 50 feet farther than one falling on the low end, he says. That’s the difference between a lot of home runs and a whole lot of home runs.

what I'm wondering is, did the spread of ball bouncing during the testing start to narrow and narrow more towards the high end of the allowed range?

all MLB will say is that the balls are in the "same range" that they've always been

but it's an awfully BIG range

full disclosure (well, it's not a disclosure, just a fact): my Dad worked for BF Goodrich, and, in the 50s and early 60s, the AL used to test their baseballs at the facility where he worked

in those days, they shot them out of a cannon against a concrete wall and measured how high they bounced (then they would throw them away, so my dad would always collect a few)

so my brother & I always had bright brandy-new AL baseballs, signed by Joe Cronin; the stitching was much tighter than the little league balls we were used to

the downside was, all the tested balls had a big dent on one side where they had smacked against the wall, so they were way out of round

(you could throw a hellavu breaking ball with them suckers)

Juicing the ball has always been a possible explanation, but I think I've researched 20 different tests of balls over the last fifteen years and found that there's no convincing evidence in the public domain

Sure, but "juiced" indicates out of spec. they don't have to be.

what I'm wondering is, did the spread of ball bouncing during the testing start to narrow and narrow more towards the high end of the allowed range?

all MLB will say is that the balls are in the "same range" that they've always been

Pretty much exactly what has happened.

Chris and I have had this discussion a few times. If you have the same range of acceptable values and the balls (for whatever reason) tend towards the higher end of acceptable then you'll get the same overall effect as a slight juicing of the balls.

Come to think of it, I seem to recall you doing a back of the envelope calculation a few years back and coming up with something pretty close to what this articles did.

Come to think of it, I seem to recall you doing a back of the envelope calculation a few years back and coming up with something pretty close to what this articles did.

Yes. It's around this site somewhere.

Chris,

AFAIK, Tattersall died in 1981, and SABR bought his logs. Regardless, it's a matter of opinion as to who is the most dedicated researcher alive on the HR. I was giving Greg his deserved props.

Some would argue that Willie Mays is the greatest living ballplayer, and others would point out that Willie Bloomquist is better than he is, today.

Tom

Tattersall is indeed dead. Pete Palmer mentions that here.

Some would argue that Willie Mays is the greatest living ballplayer, and others would point out that Willie Bloomquist is better than he is, today.

I'd take Mays at 77 over Bloomquist.

A change in the baseballs is the only explanation that _seems_ to fit the data, I think I agree on that. I'm just not sure everything that theoretically could have happened can be ruled out. There were definite directives from the league after 1987 that said they wanted to bring back the letter high strike, but I have no idea to what extent that resulted in the plummeting offense in 1988.

It seems like 'steroids' is a poor fit to the data. But 'steroids' in conjunction with a bunch of other possible factors isn't necessarily out of the realm of possibility. It's an awfully hard thing to know, though. What's funny is that 'steroids' is actually a better fit for the data from around 1983-1987 then it is for 1989-1994.

There were definite directives from the league after 1987 that said they wanted to bring back the letter high strike, but I have no idea to what extent that resulted in the plummeting offense in 1988.

Obviously it's impossible to know for sure. But the plummet in offense that took place between 1962 and 1963 in conjunction with the strike zone redefinition of that year -- a year in which there were no ballpark changes, and none of the other elements in play the way they would be in the 1980s/90s -- provides a vivid illustration of just how powerful a strike zone change can be all by itself.

As I noted on my blog:

The weather could certainly be a culprit. I don’t think I discounted that as a possibility. I only concluded that expansion, parks, and conditioning of the players were not responsible.

The climate, the umps, the bats, and the balls are still in play. The others are not.

You might be able to determine if the climate is in play if you looked at minor league data as well.

You can also look at each park. Reasonably speaking, it’s not like every city in the country will be affected to the exact same degree by the temperature and wind. So, you can look at it from that aspect.

As well, in cities where minor leagues and major league share facilities in close proximity, you would expect similar effects.

So, all I did was move this discussion away from players, parks, expansion, and now, someone else can hopefully pick up the pieces.

What's interesting is that the spike begins in 93 and is in full force in 1994. A number of people have suggested that the spike resulted from the strike and its effects, i.e. that the lords of the realm juiced the ball, or turned a blind eye to PED abuse, in order to recapture fans. It is an inference that you could draw from "Juicing the Game", for instance. I suppose one could argue that the lords allowed it to continue for longer than otherwise had it not been for fan dissatisfaction.

For myself, having watched Ben Johnson in 1984 and in 1988, I have a hard time believing that PEDs aren't most of the story.

what I don't understand is why MLB is so loathe to admit that the balls could possibly have ANYTHING to do with it

I mean, they could couch in terms of "tightening up the specs" or some such to make it sound reasonable and fair

I assume it's because

1. that accusation was made loudly in 1987

2. and was just as vehemently denied

so that

3. they can't bring themselves to even discuss it

what I don't understand is why MLB is so loathe to admit that the balls could possibly have ANYTHING to do with it

I mean, they could couch in terms of "tightening up the specs" or some such to make it sound reasonable and fair

You're assuming that MLB knowingly enacted some change in ball construction, and did so in secret. That's one scenario I find extremely implausible.

well, then, what exactly is reported to MLB by the testing facility? do they just say "yeah, all the balls are within specs", or do they provide actual data about the bounce distribution?

I don't have the foggiest idea

I don't have the foggiest idea

Nor do any of the rest of us.

I just think that whatever happened, the notion that it was a willful, intentional master secret plan conceived of and enacted by MLB, with the ball manufacturer engaged as a co-conspirator, and not one soul involved has uttered a peep about it after all these years, is just about the least likely scenario.

I firmly believe this, even though there's not a shred of evidence to support it

The BTF Credo!

I just think that whatever happened, the notion that it was a willful, intentional master secret plan conceived of and enacted by MLB, with the ball manufacturer engaged as a co-conspirator, and not one soul involved has uttered a peep about it after all these years, is just about the least likely scenario.

I think most people agree on that. I'm pretty sure the balls are different now than they were in 1992, but I'm also pretty sure that MLB didn't do it on purpose.

Whatever the reason for the increased offense, though, it's suited MLB quite well, so there's not a whole lot of impetus behind an effort to find the culprit.

I firmly believe this, even though there's not a shred of evidence to support it

The BTF Credo!

This is wrong, by the way. There is evidence to support it, it's just not dispositive.

If we're looking for proof that the balls are different, I don't think we'll ever see that.

I'm pretty sure the balls are different now than they were in 1992, but I'm also pretty sure that MLB didn't do it on purpose.

I'd say I'm fairly sure the ball are different now than they were in 1992, and I'm quite confident that MLB didn't do it on purpose.

At any rate there is no reason to wonder why MLB is "loathe to admit" anything. There's almost certainly nothing for them to admit.

Moreover, if they were to say that apparently the ball resiliency meaningfully changed while still being within spec, it comes across as:

1) MLB's ball vendor's quality control is crapola

and

2) MLB's spec range is so wide as to be useless

It isn't surprising that MLB isn't rushing to get that message out.

AFAIK, Tattersall died in 1981, and SABR bought his logs. Regardless, it's a matter of opinion as to who is the most dedicated researcher alive on the HR. I was giving Greg his deserved props.

I was pretty sure he was dead. I was joking.

Moreover, if they were to say that apparently the ball resiliency meaningfully changed while still being within spec, it comes across as:

1) MLB's ball vendor's quality control is crapola

and

2) MLB's spec range is so wide as to be useless

It isn't surprising that MLB isn't rushing to get that message out.

Quality Control is completely about within spec. As long as the balls are in spec, QC isn't crapola. The spec range isn't useless. It just allows for a difference in "eras".

Quality Control is completely about within spec. As long as the balls are in spec, QC isn't crapola.

In my many years of working with the Quality function in a manufacturing company, QC was about a hell of lot more than simply being within spec. That was a minimal requirement, not their endpoint.

I always wondered what the stats would look like if they used baseball sized superballs.

Actually that's a lie. I just now started wondering what the stats would look like.

I've always felt that the '87 season was a "live ball testing" year for MLB...something they could possible use in the future to lure back fans (union strikes) or bump up the fan base (losing out to basketball/soccer/NASCAR).

And unless ALL the players decided to start using steroids ALL at the same time...I get to live through a liveball era (#### Hal Lanier!) and not a steroid era.

But then again I've always felt that aliens stole my grandmother and returned her with blue hair.

what I don't understand is why MLB is so loathe to admit that the balls could possibly have ANYTHING to do with it


Because they fear that will call into question the integrity of the game. ;)

Today...From the Doolittle brothers.

Without having the wherewithal or the ambition to tackle the issue empirically, I’ve always suspected there was something different about the ball. This sentiment is rooted in my remembrances of the 1987 season, when home run rates inexplicably jumped until it pretty much became common knowledge that the ball was juiced. Baseball, realizing its faux paus in trying to slip that one in under our noses, started mixing back in the old ball at some point in the season and, thus, home-run rates fell, though they didn’t go back to normal until the 1988 season. Anyway, that’s my theory of the 1987 season. And after realizing the sudden shift towards offense that occurred in 1993 and thinking about the various explanations, I always come back to the ball.

I wonder if it would be possible for a pitcher to determine an extreme hitters ball from this range and get it tossed from play?

Also, has anyone ever tested the COR variances of a ball put into play from its original COR?