Yes, another baseball thread. Sometime shortly before this decade’s big strike, I heard a Major League Baseball spokesman mention on the radio that they were considering having the stitching on baseballs tightened. Supposedly, a tighter stitch leads to a more elastic baseball which leads to more home runs. Since then, I’ve heard nothing about it, and all of my fanatic baseball friends deny that it is done or that it has ever happened. I would be a fool to discount advances in training techniques and the return of the slugger, and I’m not, but it does seem unusual that home runs appear (to me) to be hit somewhat more often than they were a mere ten years ago. It also seems to me as if this has happened before. My questions, as usual, are multiple, but I thought someone out there might look into one or more of them:
Does stitch-tightening lead to more home runs? Is it in fact regulated by the Commissioner? And does he have to make the changes in the specifications of the baseballs public?
Has the baseball stitching been tightened in the past decade?
Has baseball stitching been tightened and loosened in the more distant past? I’m thinking in particular of Mickey Mantle, who along with Yogi Berra had what was considered a great year in the mid-50s with 25 HRs apiece, and then was part of the “M&M Boys’” rivalry, having 54 Hrs in 1961 to Maris’ 61–a considerable increase.
I do a lot of research, but wading my way through the wonderful world of baseball has a complexity all its own. Any cool sites you folks know would be greatly appreciated.
I don’t think there is any doubt that changes in the ball and rules have lead to increases in homeruns in the history of baseball. In the early years of baseball a guy could lead the league in homeruns with a whopping total of 10 homers.
One period in which it seems that the ball was changed is the early twenties. Baseball’s popularity had taken a big hit in 1919 thanks to the boys from the south side of town. The next thing you know, Babe Ruth smashes the all time single season record for homeruns, and then breaks his own record the next year. The longstanding National League record for homeruns in a single season set by Hack Wilson was also set during this period. The NL record has since been broken. The question is, “did they change the ball to increase homeruns?” Maybe.
Recently, there was a baseball strike. The popularity of major league baseball was once again in the crapper. Even Cal Ripken Jr. couldn’t do enough to reclaim the title of America’s pastime for baseball. Once again, they can’t seem to keep the baseballs in the park. Did they change the ball? Maybe.
In reponse to the OP, I’m not sure if they tighten the stitching to make the balls go farther, but I’m pretty sure they did something to make the balls go farther.
The baseball is most likely still the same as it ever was. However, hitters have gotten a lot bigger. As have basketball players, football players, hockey players, et al.
The big change in 1920 was not as much the adoption of a lively ball, but requiring the umpire to keep a clean ball in the game all the time and outlawing spitballs and other nasty sort of pitches.
During the war, baseball experimented with a balata-center ball. It was a failure as it was too dead and there was too little scoring.
About 5 years ago I recall reading an article about an economist who compared the “liveliness” of the baseball (as determined by homerun output) with the economy of the country where the balls are made (Dominican Republic, I believe). His results were somewhat interesting. From what I recall, the better the economy, the more lively the ball. He reasoned that when times were good the baseball core winders worked harder and wound the core tighter. I’m still searching for some documentation to back up my memory.
In the past, the powers that be in baseball have raised the mound when batters were getting ahead of the pitching. Now might be a time for them to consider a change like that, again.
Robert K. Adair’s The Physics of Baseball covers the factors that can affect the distance travelled by a batted ball in some detail. IIRC, he also treats the supposed effect of moving MLB ball production from the Dominican Republic to Haiti (or vice versa – I really can’t remember) and the supposedly greater zeal for their jobs causing the workers to wind the balls more tightly.
From a physical standpoint, tighter stitching on a baseball (i.e., having the red thread that connects the two halves of the cover toghther pulled tighter and hence lying closer to the surface of the ball) would inhibit distance, rather than enhancing it, for the same reason that the dimples on a golf ball increase distance: surface irregularities cause a zone of turbulent air around the ball, reducing the drag caused by friction. Up to a point at least, the rougher the surface the farther the ball will go.
Tighter winding on the other hand – that is, greater tension in the woolen yarn used to wrap the core of the ball and around which the cover is sewn – should increase the coefficient of restitution (the “bounce” or “springiness” of the ball) and hence the distance of a batted ball. However, balls used in professional leagues must fall within certain values for coefficient of restitution (measured by firing the balls from an air cannon at known velocity against a wall made of ash wood – the wood most commonly used for bats). So that variable has been at least theoretically constant for some time.
You ask me, I still say the barrage of homers is partially a result of the dilution of pitching caused by expansion (not that that won’t eventually even out as it did in the mid sixties after the first round of expansion), but mostly of the greater strength, athleticism, and ability of the average hitter (which is only going to continue to increase). Add in the effect of aluminum bats on pitching in the amateur game (unwillingness to pitch inside) and a certain shrinking of the strike zone over the years, and you have a recipe for the sort of 15-10 games we see way too many of these days.
Twice in baseball history the homerun record was smashed. Not just broken, but smashed. Babe Ruth hit 54 homers in 1920 breaking the previous record of 29. (Babe Ruth 1919) And McGuire hit 70 to break Maris’s record of 61. Both of these things happened when the popularity of baseball was extemely low. This seems suspicious to me, but is not proof that there have been changes made to the ball.
However, there has been a recent surge of power in the league since the strike. I think it is too great an increase to be attributed to the players being bigger and stronger these days. Let’s look at the Cubs for instance. Everyone knows that Sammy Sosa has hit a lot of homers in the last two years, but a lot of other Cubs have found a little power lately as well. Mark Grace has been in the league 13 years (give or take). He has had his two seasons with the most home runs in the last two years. Glen Allen Hill has been in the league about 12 years. He has hit twenty or more home runs three times since the strike. He accomplished this zero times before the strike. Henry Rodriguez has hit twenty or more home runs every year since the strike. He never did that before the strike. Former Cub Jose Hernandez has hit more homers in the last two seasons than in the seven seasons that make up the rest of his career. Former Cub Mickey Morandini had his most homers the same year Sammy hit 66. Sosa, Grace, Hernandez, and Morandini, four players in different stages of their careers, all had career highs in home runs in 1998. Tyler Houston, Brant Brown, and Glenallen Hill all had their second best season for homerun hitting in 1998. What does this mean? 1998 was a great year for the Cubs. Many players on other teams around the league have had their best year for power in the last couple years. This seems to indicate that something has changed besides the players.
I’ve just read Whitey Herzog’s book (with Jonathan Pitts)
‘You’re Missing a Great Game’ and Whitey makes a claim
that I’ve never read elsewhere. He says for years the
only thing holding on the cover was the stitching and that
a smart pitcher could find a place with a little give in
it and before you could say ‘Strike 3’, he had that thing
dancing. Nowadays, according to Whitey, the whole cover
is glued down with the result being the ball is hard as a
rock.
It’s been a long time since I examined a baseball and even
longer since I looked under the cover and I wonder about
this. Does anyone have any corroboration for Whitey’s
statements? If true, would this make the ball go
farther without an increase in bat speed?
BTW, his is a hell of a book. It’s part review of his
career and players he’s managed, and part a cold look at
where baseball is going and where it is going wrong.
Highly recommended for all fans of the game.
I believe that all the homeruns are due to several factors. First of all, hitters are more conditioned and are bigger and stronger than ever before, as previously mentioned. This means warning track power is now a homerun.
Another factor is smaller parks. The new fields in Houston and San Francisco are way too small–so small they actually are against the rules.
A third factor is that hitters are looking for bombs with every pitch. Even with an 0-2 count, they are taking a homerun cut.
I believe it was Bob Costas who said that in the past few years, hitters have bulked up and increased their homerun capabilities whereas pitchers have done nothing–and can’t do anything for that matter–to counter. Pitchers cannot lift weights, it won’t help them. These homeruns are beginning a different brand of baseball until something is done. “Something” would be raising the mound, softening up the ball, or making bigger parks.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but I think the example you use below doesn’t quite work.
You’re playing with the stats a bit here to support your argument. Not that that’s such a bad thing. Grace’s HR output in the last two years, 16 and 17, is not really very different from numbers he put up in two pre-strike years- 13 in 1989 (another good year for the Cubs) and 14 in 1993. Henry Rodriguez has put up bigger numbers since 1995, sure, but this is chiefly because he never got more than 306 at-bats in a season before then. In addition, he was then playing in Dodger Stadium, a notoriously pitcher-friendly park, and is now at Wrigley, where your mom could hit one out if the wind’s blowing right. Same deal with Glenallen Hill: he’s never really been a full-time player, but in the one pre-strike year when he got a decent number of ABs (Cleveland, 1992), he hit 18 homers. The Wrigley factor should probably be considered here, too. And Jose Hernandez, too: the last two years were the first time he had played anything approximating a full season (primarily because he’s terrible). So these examples you’ve provided aren’t particularly convincing at all. Now, if you’ll excuse me, the White Sox game is about to start…