But, to even things out, I also believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.
In any case, I think that nothing -- not steroid use, not harder bats, not higher mounds, not widened strike zones -- can so clearly and overwhelmingly impact offense like changes in the baseball. I believe that's how the home run year of 1987 happened. I believe that was an important part of the offensive spike after the 1994 strike. There are numerous other smaller examples. I'm not saying -- and, in all seriousness, do not really think -- that this was always a masterminded plot. But whatever the reasons, I think that in baseball if you want to explain a rather sudden and shocking shift ... check the baseball first.
So, naturally when Brilliant Reader Chuck sent along a theory about how he thinks 1968 might not have been the year of the pitcher as much as it was the year of the mushy baseball, well, it was like sending a hare-brained plot to Oliver Stone.
And so, I reprint it here. Please discuss:
* * *
I think I found something remarkable in looking through the split data from the late 1960’s. What got me interested was this quote from a Sports Illustrated article in early 1969:
“Last week Pitcher Jim Hannan of the Senators revealed yet another facet of this strange spring training. "In 1968," he said, "the balls were softer than they had been before. Ken McMullen ... used to sit on the bench and squeeze the horsehide up into a lump on the outside of the ball. Nine of every 10 balls I picked up seemed to be soft. Heck, one day an umpire pushed on a ball and the horsehide came up so that he could hold it between his fingers like a pendant on a chain. This year the balls feel much, much harder."
In compiling home run data for the NL in 1967 I noticed this strange split in the percentage of homers per batted ball:
1st half: 2.77%
2nd half: 2.03%
That’s a pretty sizable drop. In 1966, it was 3.10% in the 1st half, 2.82% in the 2nd.
Digging a little further revealed a turning point for this NL homer rate in ’67:
April 2.56%
May 2.64%
June 2.99%
July 2.60%
August 1.82%
Sept/Oct 1.89%
Wow. That looks to me like something happened to dramatically reduce homers either at the beginning of August that season or somewhere in the back end of July.
In 1968, that low rate resumed:
1st half: 1.94%
2nd half: 1.95%
April 2.37%
May 1.69%
June 2.04%
July 1.72%
August 2.03%
Sept/Oct 2.00%
Were 1967-1968 the Years of the Deadball, rather than the Year of the Pitcher?
In the NL, the drop in the homer rate from the first 4 months of 1967 (2.72%) to that of the last two months (1.86%) was an enormous 32% drop.
The average rate from 1966 through July of 1967: 2.87%
The average rate from August 1967 through 1968: 1.92%
Again, that is a drop of 33%, and it seems to me it did not happen gradually, from pitchers just becoming more dominant on their tall mounds and with their big strike zone, but from a change in the quality of the baseball that appeared in July or August of 1967.
Here is the rate of doubles and triples per batted ball over those periods:
1966-July, 1967: 5.70%
August 1967 - 1968: 5.18%
A drop of 9% in doubles+triples.
But the rate of singles was not affected like that:
1966 - July, 1967: 21.44%
August 1967 - 1968: 22.08%.
The singles rate rose just a bit, by 3%. It was the extra bases, particularly the homers, that dropped off the table.
In 1969, things snapped back to their former shape for homers.
Per batted ball:
1st half: 2.77%
2nd half: 2.58%
April and September were low that season, but the middle four months of 1969 were in line with the previous NL rate, around 2.90%.
* * *
What about the AL homer rate?
1966: 3.04%
1967: 2.68%
1967
1st half: 2.92%
2nd half: 2.45%
April 2.71%
May 3.08%
June 2.95%
July 2.78%
August 2.40%
Sept/Oct 2.27%
Again, a sizable drop occurred either in August or partway through July, 1967.
April - July: 2.90%
August-Oct: 2.34%
A drop of 19.3%. Somewhat lower than in the NL, but noticeable.
The AL in 1968 had a home run rate of 2.48% overall.
1st half: 2.64%
2nd half: 2.34%
April 2.58%
May 2.75%
June 2.39%
July 2.69%
August 2.31%
Sept/Oct 2.24%
The AL in those same time frames as the NL:
1966-July 1967: 2.98%
Aug.1967 - 1968: 2.44%
The AL had a drop of 18% during the same period, less than the NL drop of 33%, but still a good-sized one.
In 1969, again, things went right back to the previous AL homer rate:
1st half: 3.11%
2nd half: 2.82%
* * *
So what might have happened in 1967?
From the following link to Rawlings’ history:
“Rawlings had ... six manufacturing plants--four in Missouri and two in Puerto Rico--when it was sold in 1967 to Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of America. This conglomerate made the company a division under its prior Rawlings Sporting Goods name.”
It seems a remarkable coincidence that a change in home run rates should come in the same year that the ball manufacturer changes ownership. As yet, I’ve found no smoking gun for if or why there may have been a lapse in quality control. But I do think that MLB's changes to the strike zone and mound height in 1969 may not have come about had the power rates not plummeted in 1967-68.
The rate of strikeouts had only gone up marginally in the NL over these years.
1966: 16.7% ( K / (ab+sf) )
1967: 17.1%
1968: 17.2%
1969: 17.6%
They actually ROSE in 1969, after the lowering of the mounds and return of the old strike zone.
In the AL the K rate went up in ’67, but actually much more so in the 1st half of the year, not the 2nd.
1966: 17.4%
1967: 18.2%
1968: 17.8%
1969: 16.4%
From 1966 through July, 1967, the AL strikeout rate was virtually the same as for the end of ’67 through 1968.
In case you’re wondering about parks changing during this time, I looked at data on ballpark fence changes.
In the NL the average right field foul pole distance went out by just a foot in 1967. In ’68 it went out another foot in both the left and right foul poles, but not the alleys. 1969 was when some parks brought distances in, shaving a few feet off the power alleys and center field. From 1963 through 1967, distances had actually DEcreased substantially. The average NL power alleys had come in by 7 feet in left and 4 feet in right.
In the AL, a foot was shaved OFF the power alleys in 1967, and each moved in a couple more in 1968. Home runs SHOULD have been getting more plentiful. In 1969 4 feet more came off the alleys and center field.
The “year of the pitcher” wasn’t about pitchers increasing their domination with strikeouts. It was a sudden drop in power in both leagues, much more so in the National League, that led to so many fewer runs being scored in the back end of 1967 and through 1968.
Circle me first.
ReplyDeleteOutstanding.
ReplyDeleteWhat about HR per balls put in play rates? I'm assuming these must have gone down.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, you seem to be saying that K rates did not change. What are they?
If K rates stayed the same and HR/batted ball fell dramatically I think you are on to something but if the K rates rose and the HR/batted ball was similar I would guess you are wrong.
I too believe that Oswald probably acted alone, but it is a case where: (1) it is reasonable to conclude (like me) that Osawald probably acted alone in an extraordinarily bizarre and highly improbably scenario (including a bullet shot trajectory that was like a one in a million shot), especially since no one has come up with determinative proof otherwise; and (2) it is also reasonable to conclude that there probably was a conspiracy in view of the highly improbable nature of the official story and all the evidence casting doubt on it.
ReplyDeleteIn a court of law, I don't think either side could carry a burden of proof, and certainly not a beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof.
By the way, great column on the 1967-69 period. I'm convinced that there was a change in the ball. Probably not beyond a reasonable doubt, but certainly by a preponderance of the evidence and, I suspect, plenty of proof for the typical baseball fan. I'd be interested in what real knowledgeable stat people say about it.
ReplyDeleteInteresting data. But, given that there were six plants, it might have had to have been company-wide policy to create that shift. True "dead balls", systemically produced, would have been noticed, so the would have had to be complicity with MLB. And episodic "dead balls" wouldn't have meant that you couldn't hit home runs-just that you could hit fewer of them. So, one plant producing balls at 75% of the previous "quality" couldn't account for a 33% drop.
ReplyDeleteAs to the change in the strike-out rates, I think that the change in the strike zone and a possible dead-ball might have had a counter-intuitive result. The deeper you go in the count, the more likely you are to shorten up your stroke. And the less likely you are to hit the ball a long distance, the more likely you are to focus on making contact.
Joe, love the guest post idea. Great to see you giving someone a chance to share their views.
ReplyDeleteChuck, very interesting theory, especially with respect to the Rawlings sale. It was well thought out with some good numbers to illustrate. Although it isn't an airtight argument, I kind of like that.
A good article in my opinion is one that makes me think and gets my creative juices flowing. This one certainly did that, though nothing springs to mind in terms of alternate theory that is worth putting down here.
Very interesting. As someone who plays a lot of simulation fantasy baseball, I often try to avoid 1968 pitchers because their stats don't normalize very well.
ReplyDeleteMike, I think it could have been a company wide policy. Maybe they weren't saying, "Let's made dead balls." But they could have said, "We can save 2 cents a yard if we switch from cowhide to kangaroo hide..."
ReplyDeleteAwesome! Kudos to brilliant reader Chuck!
ReplyDeleteNow I'd be very interested in how the rates were per ballpark from July '67 - Oct '68, to see if we can find that certain parks got softer balls than others.
What about FIP during this period? Seems to me that would be a pretty good indication as to whether it was the pitchers, or what happened after the ball was struck.
ReplyDeleteI agree with 1982 Topps blog. Since there were 6 plants, it might be possible to determine geographically where some teams were more likely to receive the baseballs from. It might also help determine why the NL saw a greater decline than the AL. For example, in the late 60's there were no AL teams in the South and the Angels were the only AL team in the West. If all the shipments to the South & West were inferior, it would've impacted the NL much more so than the AL.
ReplyDeleteI would have thought that BABIP might be affected by the change in balls. Presumably mushy balls would be less likely to be hit hard resulting in fewer base hits. But MLB BABIP went from .276 in '66 to .273 in '67 to .269 in '68 - only about a 3% difference from the seemingly normal year to the full-mushy year.
ReplyDeleteMaybe mushier balls also meant that fly balls that would otherwise be easy outs were more likely to fall for bloop singles? Someone smarter than me might figure out a connection.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSomething happened to the ball after 1987 too. I just found an old newspaper article from '88 where Wade Boggs says there's a softer ball that season (Jul/12/1988; The Daily Union; page 11) and Paul Molitor agrees.
ReplyDeleteLooking at individual teams is pretty interesting too. Having 1968's MLB-average HR rate (2.18%) would have given you the third-worst rate in "normal" 1966.
ReplyDeleteThe '68 Tigers still would have had the 2nd best rate in '66, but 1968's 2nd place Orioles (3.03%) would have found themselves with the 11th-best (out of 20 teams) HR Rate in '66.
I wonder if anyone still has a game-used ball from 1968 that they would donate for analysis? It should be possible to measure the elasticity and physical properties of balls from various years if we can find them.
ReplyDeleteAs I recall, sometime in the late 70's/early 80's there was a Sports Illustrated story where Rawlings and others were dropping baseballs onto steel plates and measuring the bounceback ... Found it. I love SI Vault:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1092513/1/index.htm
and what the players thought:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1092514/index.htm
Anyway, that kind of testing is not unprecedented, and it's even possible that someone, somewhere has a 1968 game-used ball in an airtight display case somewhere.
With regard to possible MLB complicity in liveness or deadness of the ball (either in 1967-68, or 1987, or other years): I have always been struck by the enormous range allowed in MLB's official specifications for the balls' coefficient of restitution, i.e. resilience. (The balls are tested against this spec by being shot from an air cannon at a velocity of 85 feet per second against a wood surface eight feet away. The rebound speed is divided by the delivery velocity to calculate the COR.) The spec is that the baseballs must register a rebound 54.6% of the original velocity, plus or minus 3.2 percent.
ReplyDeleteWell, that's a huge variation. A 57.8% COR ball would be super-live. A 51.2% COR ball would be super-dead. Perhaps I don't understand the formula, but it seems to me that with all else equal, one would result in a 395-foot fly ball (long HR) and the other in a 350-foot fly ball (easy out). And yet, both are within the specifications.
In every year, whenever anyone asks MLB whether the balls have been livened or deadened, the answer is always the same: "No, we have checked them for resilience, and they are within the specifications, just like last year."
But, WHAT IF, by conspiracy, MLB had instructed the manufacturer to make all the balls this year at the high end (or the low end) of the COR spec range?? Then the ball would indeed have been livened or deadened, and the statement that the ball was still within the spec range would, despite being technically correct and providing "deniability," hide the deeper truth.
I'm combing thru old newspapers now, and finding an awesome article of Hank Aaron in 3/69 saying the ball was deader in '68 AND that they were currently doing experiments to liven up the ball in spring '69. He also mentions the Puerto Rico made balls.
ReplyDeleteIn January 1938, they were testing new balls for 1938 and determined they were deader than what had been used in previous seasons. The testing wasn't very scientific, sounds more like a media event, so I'm not entirely sure what to make of it.
@ Hayden ... that's very very interesting.
According to Wikipedia Spalding made all the balls for MLB until 1976 - that's when Rawlings took over.
ReplyDeleteThis is just sad:
ReplyDelete"Very interesting. As someone who plays a lot of simulation fantasy baseball, I often try to avoid 1968 pitchers because their stats don't normalize very well."
For Chrissake, go and get yourself laid.
— Graphite
Yep, Spalding was the ball maker at the time. Interesting article I found from '60, says Spalding was losing money from providing MLB with baseballs and their contract ran through the 1967 season.
ReplyDeleteIt makes me wonder if they decided to deaden the balls in the mid to late 60's, in order to lessen the HR's. That would save money for the company since the teams wouldn't need to replace as many balls, and that would make a lot of sense to a company then to make deader balls.
Related, a March 1969 article says a new ball was being produced by Spalding with an all rubber core, and it was being tried out in some spring training games.
In every article I find on this subject that quotes a major league official or Spalding official, they always claim no change to the ball and no change had been requested. Actually, a 1970 article said no change had been requested in 45 years, which would be 1925, but that flies in the face of articles in the late 30's that talk about the owners wanting different balls for each league and not wanting different balls, etc, etc (see 'Rabbit Ball' Splits Majors; Dec 1937). So that immediately casts doubt on anything the Spalding folks & owners said in '70 about no requests to change the ball in the previous 45 years.
Great read, Chuck. Thanks for posting this, Joe.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the fact that Spalding was the official supplier of baseballs at the time does anything to damper your observations. The numbers speak for themselves that SOMETHING happened at that time, your Rawlings hypothesis just isn't it.
Anyone have any luck finding out about the composition of the baseball around that time?
Found an interesting Popular Science article from 1950 about the manufacturing of baseballs http://bit.ly/hn5VP0.
The article, correctly linked: Inside Story of Baseballs
ReplyDeleteThe plot thickens...
ReplyDeleteTurns out Rawling DID make the official MLB balls in 1968.
Rawlings was purchased by Spalding in 1955 and was contracted to produce baseballs for them ("Rawlings" written on AL balls, "Spalding" written on NL) until 1968, when an antitrust laws forced Spalding to sell their interest in the company.
This site says that Spalding kept their contract with Rawlings until 1973, but that doesn't necessarily rule out that they didn't run into a hiccup in manufacturing in '68 when they initially got hit with the antitrust verdict.
Spalding sold Rawlings in 1963 to a group of investors. Whoever wrote the article you found, must've mistaken the 3 for an 8.
ReplyDelete@1982 Topps
ReplyDeleteThanks for the correction. I thought the timeline seemed a little off.
No prob. Love the other info you found.
ReplyDeleteAs Nathan pointed out (at March 17, 2011 5:55 PM), until semi-recently the AL and NL balls were marked differently, and thus it's likely that the AL and NL balls weren't being supplied from each factory in the same quantities. In fact, I'd wager that some factories only made NL balls and others only made AL balls.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'd be extremely skeptical about a Puerto Rican factory checking the coefficient of restitution of the baseballs it produced in the late 1960's.
The Oliver Stone in me is always wondering whether MLB's mad scientists are doctoring the All-Star HR Derby baseballs (to favor the batters) and are doing the same whenever those specially-marked baseballs are put into play when a star player is on the cusp of reaching a historic HR milestone (there they could be conceivably altering the baseball in whichever direction they consider best for stadium revenues, MLB, etc.).
While you can't always trust former players with 100% truthful information, I'd love to hear what Bob Gibson, Tom Seaver, Luis Tiant, Sam McDowell, Jim Palmer etc have to say about the baseballs from that era and if they have any anecdotal comments similar to those cited by Jim Hannan and Ken McMullen.
ReplyDeleteI hope I didn't mention any deceased players....Is Sudden Sam still alive?
This post also brings to mind the Coors Field humidor conspiracy theory of 2010.
ReplyDeleteIf I recall correctly, apparently the umpires had no control or possession of the game-ready baseballs during the games other than when the home plate umpire had them in his ball bag, and until then the Rockies' ball boys were deciding which baseballs went to the home plate umpire in-game and perhaps even selectively introducing a few non-humidored balls in collusion with the Rockies' field staff. MLB's "solution" was to have the stadium's umpire attendant or some other MLB official possess the baseballs during the games at Coors Field.
My first reactions were:
1. Why aren't the umpires keeping all the humidored balls on the field somewhere (in a bag, cabinet, etc.)?
2. Who exactly is monitoring the game-ready baseballs in the other 29 stadiums during play?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. And whoever fired the shot that actually killed Kennedy probably also acted alone.
ReplyDeleteI not sure why nobody has mentioned the change in bat diameter in both the barrel and the handle last year as one of the reasons why there was an increase in pitching dominance
ReplyDeleteSeems pretty obvious if you decrease the diameter of the barrel and increase the diameter of the handle there surely will be a change in whip (power generated) and in balls hit squarely
Oswalt did NOT act alone. The whole Phillies staff is culpable.
ReplyDeleteI SAW Lee Hamels Oswalt on the grassy Lidge in Dallas (Arlington)
We need a House Select Committee on Baseball Composition. My guess is that such a committee, just like the committee on assassinations in the 1970's, would find probable evidence of a conspiracy. Instead, we're being subjected to Bud Selig's Select Committee investigating the origins of baseball. You know, because the Abner Doubleday hoax is just now becoming common knowledge.
ReplyDelete-3rd Period Points
You know what would be an interesting study for the baseball researchers out there?
ReplyDeleteSee if you can organize a mass donation of fly balls or home runs caught in the stands and saved over the last two or three decades. The people who send them in could provide the date of when the ball was caught, and then the balls could be dissected to see if there were any differences.
Seems simple enough. Would be fascinating to see what the results were.
It makes you wonder what Sandy Koufax might have achieved had he been able to hang on another couple seasons instead of retiring after 1966. He seemed to manage OK while the baseballs were hard.
ReplyDeletegreat post as usual!
ReplyDeleteonline pharmacy cialis
keep posting like this it’s really very good idea, you are awesome!
ReplyDeletepaxil
excellent articles, useful for me. keep writing and happy blogging.
ReplyDeletepaxil
IĆ¢ve been into blogging for quite some time and this is definitely a great post.Cheers!
ReplyDeletegeneric paxil