So, bottom line - I totally concur with your statement. The Scientific American article was interesting but probably short sighted. What is the effect on pitch speed? What differences occurred in the ball windings? Great questions. Only looking at one variable can lead to false conclusions.

This gets to the science of baseball as well as the ethics.


Related to ethics:
I just saw the Apple watch incident on TV between the Yankees and Redsocks. Stealing signals is legal.... bit how you do it is important and technology is changing fast

it would be interesting if they had the exit velocity and bat speed stats back in the late 90's/early 2000's as they do now.

I am sure that steroids could have helped increase bat speed for some players, but I also think there is more to bat speed than just pure muscle.

Hank Aaron is listed at 6' and 180lbs yet generated enough bat speed to hit 755 HR's at a time that ballparks were probably larger than today and for a majority of his career the pitching mound was higher than current.

And say what you will about Bonds and his 73 HR season, but his seasons between 2001 and 2004 are by far the most dominant offensive seasons I have ever seen.

2001 he hit 73 HR's in just 476 AB. I watched many of his games in those years because I am a baseball junkie and also had him on my roto team lol

But in 2001 he was lucky if he saw one hittable pitch a game, and when he did see that pitch, he rarely missed it. I haven't been able to find a HR chart of where his HR's landed, but memory says there were very few wall scrapers and a large majority of his HR's were no doubters.

Baseball Almanac lists only 3 of his 73 HR's as shorter than 360' in distance while 48 of them went at least 400' in distance.

His 2004 season might have been even more impressive as he hit 45 HR's in just 373 AB's and still managed to drive in 101 runs with that few AB's.

Steroids would not really help someone square a round ball on a round bat which you need to do to hit a HR.

Plus Jose Altuve is listed at 5'6" 165 yet generates enough bat speed to have hit 24 HR's last year and another 21 so far this year, so I think there is more to bat speed than just muscle mass. Of course it helps as you just have to look at the exit velocities generated by Stanton and Judge.

I am generally against many of the new age, fabricated sabermetric stats, but bat speed and exit velocity is something that does intrigue me.

Not into baseball myself - although it has been the most successful sport expert from GB after soccer - but there are strong parallels between a baseball swing and a golf swing.

In golf, it is club-head speed at point of impact that is the principal determinate of distance. That speed is generated not by muscle mass but by sound technique.

As a result, a slightly built but technically sound lady golfer will easily out-drive a male weekend hacker who's twice her bulk.

Dippy, that is a shockingly good comparison. So, a key takeaway could be that like the face of a golf club, there is an exact, sweetest spot on a bat that can make a 165 lbs Altuve hit a ball as fast/far as a 220 lbs Babe Ruth or Mark Maguire. It's about technique to get bat speed and nailing just the right resonant spot for maximum rebound. Intriguing. How could that, or has that, been proven?? I bet someone has looked into that.

Probably another factor, other than steroids, impacting bat speed is how players now shave down the handles of the bat making them lighter while also keeping the mass at the sweet spot.

You see footage and pics from the old days and the handles on the bats were much thicker than you see now.

Probably why there is much more broken bats as well.

Well I know almost nothing about baseball. But I do play golf, not very well, but the golf course and club is a great sanctuary from the domestic warfare with The Fire breathing MemSahib. Deeply Dippy made a comment about lady golfers. I think the average professional lady golfer has a better "golf swing" than the average professional male golfer. Simply because the men can use their generally greater height, arm length, and greater "muscle power" to compensate for flaws in their golf swing. Whereas the ladies at the elite level tend to rely on having to "hit the ball pure", of having an almost perfect golf swing to get the distance when driving / using a low number iron.
There's also the changes in clubs, most notably the drivers..bigger heads, made from metal alloys. There's been some improvements in golf balls, but the biggest changes have been in clubs..particularly drivers.
One thing..a chap has to be most careful when watching ladies play golf, there's a real danger of inadvertently seeing too many big fat asses when they retrieve their ball from the hole. This applies more so in the amatuers... Those "tartan asses".
But the point about " hitting a ball pure" as I call it is valid. Getting the swing right, hitting the ball with the "sweet spot" on the club face, etc..you can hear it, hear the difference between a "pure hit" and "not pure".
One big difference to baseball. In golf the ball is stationary when hit. In baseball the ball is moving when hit..which adds a lot more complexity to it..eg is the ball spinning as well as moving ? And I suspect they usually are..so whereas in golf the ball is more or less " in the same position.. Not moving " when hit..but in baseball there is probably an almost infinite number of variations in the ball position, movement etc when it is hit.

the answer is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcOrSWr2HLU

Thank you CAPT. That does explain some things.

So, MM and KB, as we have both golf and baseball here now, here is another question for you both: One could say that major league baseball is the least changed sport of most professional ones in that the technology has remained fairly constant. Shoes, hats, gloves, and wooden bats (maybe some shaving and tar) are about the same as 100 years ago, so statistics are fairly comparable across the century Whereas the tennis and golf of today (think graphite, titanium, kevlar) are drastically different now even than the Jimmy Connors/McEnroe of the 70s and Arnold Palmer heydays. True or false?

It does mean MLB is better, just less changed from a technology point of view. MLB could have gone aluminum, but chose not too.

(*doesn't mean)

False. Baseball is fundamentally changed by better medical science and statistical analysis now. Everyone throws harder, all the teams are shifting, the game is more about strikeouts and homeruns now, etc. The physical tools have an effect, but they're not that impactful on gameplay.

In terms of equipment, true; in terms of sports science and athletic development, false.

Gotta go, this fence is giving me splinters.

Great point ghug.

Okay, so I think we then agree baseball is different now, but fundamentally only the human element has changed (sports medicine, training, pitching science and technique, statistical analysis, etc [Moneyball: "He gets on base."] But we agree the equipment (bats and gloves, like a soccer ball) remains fairly constant.

I guess it's like Usain Bolt, the Olymic record holder, amazing speed. Its just feet in shoes. It's about the fine tuning of the human now, all other things being almost equal. Hence the start if this - artificial improvement via steroids or doping vis-a-vi Lance Armstong.

Someone made the comment once we should have a no holds barred Olympics with everything legal. We'd have Cyborgs and Roid-Ranger competitons..... I think that would sell tickets. UFC might be the start of that.

I equipment aspect that has changed the game significantly IMO is all the protective gear hitters wear when batting. It has also come with a philosophical change in attitude in regards to pitching inside.

Back in the 60's players wouldn't dream of crowding the plate or god forbid digging in, in the batters box if they were facing pitchers like Bob Gibson or Don Drysdale. (BTW I am not THAT old that I remember watching these pitchers, just spent my youth reading, I am old enough that I read books pre internet LOL!) Hitters knew back then that if they did those things there was a very good chance that they would wear the next pitch in the ribs. There was an intimidation factor with these pitchers that is gone today. It seems like anytime a pitch comes halfway inside the hitters throw a fit, benches empty and the pitcher ends up getting suspended.

With Gibson, the hitter would take one in the ribs and wince his way to first base and tell his teammates not to do what he did.

Barry Bonds had that big elbow pad on and would stand right on top of the plate. His front elbow would literally be hanging over the plate, that is how close he stood. It allowed him to use a small bat, still cover the outside of the plate and generate more bat speed with the smaller bat and he had the skill to consistently center the ball on the sweet spot.

Batters now are practically bringing a back hoe with them to home plate to dig in while in the batters box.

Another smaller change in the use of equipment is the frequency that they change out the game ball. Just about anytime the ball hits the dirt they throw it out of play. In the 70's and 80's the ball would be kept in play pretty much till it was fouled out of play or the pitcher requested a new ball. That would allow the ball to get scuffed up and the pitchers could use those scuffs on the ball to make it move more.

I would also say that the ballparks now have better lighting for the night games than certainly back in the 60's and 70's. Not sure if that is equipment or not.

Others have mentioned the better techniques, defensive shifts etc. I would also add in better information on the opposing players to that. Teams now have tablets/iPads in the dugout with video of the opposing pitchers. So when a relief pitcher is brought in hitters can watch his delivery on video and see how his pitches break and the timing of his delivery.

I had a thought after I'd made the lost about golfers. One big difference.. In golf, the player is trying to hit the ball to a fairly precise slot. There are obviously occasions in baseball when a batter will try to hit the ball in a defined area, I'm thinking of the strategically placed hit in the infield. But with the home run hit, the long hit, it probably doesn't matter as much as exactly where the ball lands in the stands..ten metres to the left or right is OK.
Interesting comment about the modern tendency to keep changing the ball for a new one in baseball. I suppose a comparable sport in that regard is Cricket, where there are rules about having to use the same ball for about sixty odd "overs" of six "legal" deliveries per over ( I think its 65 overs before a new ball can be taken. So minimum 390 deliveries) In Cricket managing the state of the ball is important, when it's new it's hard and shiny, as it gets hit about it loses some hardness, but it's the scuffing that's important to manage, and the stitched seam around the ball has it's uses for a bowler. But as a general rule, the idea is to keep one half shiny, using the stitched seam around the ball as the "dividing line" and get the other half scuffed up. So for the first 15 overs it's usual to have the "fast" bowlers going while the ball is hard and shiny on both sides & they rely on the positioning of the seam to get sideways movement from the bounce on the pitch.
Then it's about using a difference between smooth half and scuffed half to get "movement sideways" through the air, in combination with a bit of "seam on pitch in the bounce".
There's also in the last twenty years been the development of "reverse swing through the air" usually associated with the ball being "well used".. So in the last 15 overs of the 65 overs approximately. There have been some "ball tampering" scandals in Cricket.
I have a vague idea that in them good old days of baseball, pitchers engaged in quite a bit of "ball enhancements" such as using Vaseline to shine up one half of the ball and sandpaper stuck inside their Cap to rough up the other half, etc.
At Test Cricket level, some teams are obsessive about managing the ball, eg not letting sweaty hands hold the ball to keep it as dry and hard as possible, so gripping it only with finger tips at certain stages in fielding as an example. It's all part of the modern trend of maximising any possible benefit from as many of the "controllable variables" as is possible in elite sports. Because they are in many cases, a multi million dollar business as well as a sport, and winning has huge financial rewards

Good info.

It indeed sounds like what you describe about the cricket ball is very relatable towards a baseball.

Well the really obvious difference between a baseball pitced towards the batter, and a cricket ball bowled towards a batter is that a cricket ball is most often bounced on the pitch, a "full toss" is allowed in cricket, but the bounce gives opportunity for variable height of bounce and using the stitched seam to get sideways movement. There's several rows of stitching, and they are most prominent when the ball is new, but get worn down / compressed with use. However, with the way sports teams at the elite level are always looking for an "edge" or something new, I wouldn't be surprised if some smartypants baseball pitcher or pitching coach consulted an experienced professional Cricket fast bowler, just to discuss finer points of techniques... Or vice versa. The other difference between the two sports is the size and shape of the bats. That's where in Cricket the development of bats has, some say, given batsmen an advantage over bowlers in recent times. The cricket balls have changed a little, but that's been mainly in colour for use at night with artificial lighting. But bat construction has changed significantly, use of, first fibreglass laminate in the core, but now including carbon fibre etc, and bats are often much heavier now, and variations in "weight distribution". But even with the changes in bats, that essential " hit the ball in the sweet spot on the bat with perfect timing" remains. Plus in Cricket, there's a much wider range of "ways to hit the ball" and choices of where to hit it in the field, of out of the field for a batsman.

Fact 1: the average US MLB baseball last 4 pitches. Seriously. I read that and never forgot it.

So, being the skeptic, I counted and averaged (roughly) in two separate Washington Nationals games (between beers And Cracker Jacks, which is apparently the equivalent of Pims and crumpets for MajorMitchel because oh-my-god anyone who knows THAT much about Cricket (which 87% of the planet doesn't even understand) must be a Pims expert - and I don't even know what Pims really is) and found this to be 100% true. 4 pitches is the average life of an MLB baseball.

It's America.... we apparently can afford to play with unscuffed balls. The Brits and Cricket, 390 deliveries?? Wow! I had NO idea. Thats an amazing part of the game - and really a key part of the bowler's strategy. I just might have to see a match. I'm intrigued now.

Fact 2 (but I could use some professional backup here KansasBoyd or ghug,) the MLB bats must be a specific wood - birch, hickory or maple (I forgot which), but recently maybe switched because we were running out. Housing industry or a blight was reducing the supply. I read that somewhere in Kansas City Royals Stadium I think.

And MajorMitchel, thanks for the notes on Cricket. You have really opened my eyes to new aspects of strategy in that game. I know little about it, other than I learned from "Shaun of the Dead" that a Cricket bat is excellent for disposing of zombies.

I thought it was bats used to be made out of ash and now most are maple?

Ash, yep, that is correct. And now it has switched to maple I believe. That is what I recall - Thank you, Jeff

Here is the wiki page for baseball bats. Figure that's easier than typing it out lol

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_bat

I have actually watched a bit of cricket. I have a coworker that used to fly jets for the Pakistan Air Force who is a huge cricket fan. So I did see a bit of the recent big tournament they won when they destroyed India.

I am certainly no Cricket expert. The comments I made were about bowling in a traditional five day Test Cricket match, or five day matches played at "Shield" level in Australia.. traditional games between State Cricket teams, the competition that developes the players for our Test Cricket team. In these five day games, both teams usually bat twice, and for as long as they can, that is, the bowling side has to get ten batsmen out..by bowling them..knocking the bails off the stumps with the ball, by getting the batsman out "leg before wicket".. the ball hits the batsman's legs..protected by lads, there are conditions to satisfy.. The ball would have hit the stumps is a key condition. The batsman is caught..a fielder catches the ball that a batsman has hit, edged or nicked with his bat or gloved hand. A batsman can also be stumped.. Typically the batsman has stepped forward out of his batting crease to have a swipe at the ball, misses it, the wicket keeper, like a baseball catcher, catches the ball, and uses it to knock off the bails before the batsman can ground a foot or his bat back inside his batting crease. A batsman can also be run out..that is when the batsmen are running between the wickets and the ball is thrown quickly by the fielders back to either wicket, either hitting the wicket directly and knocking off the bails, or a fielding/bowling team member collects the ball and uses it to knock the bails off. It is a very complicated game with a lot of rules and traditions.
There are modern shorter games of Cricket, the fifty over game..so each side can only BAT for a maximum of fifty overs, or the twenty over game..each side can only BAT for twenty overs. The twenty over game is a more circus like television product for short attention spanned millennials of the fifty over game. The fifty over a side game was introduced as a "one day" or day/evening game and as a television product as part of the "Kerry Packer Cricket revolution" in the 1970's.
An Australian media billionaire had tried to get the broadcast rights for Test Cricket in Australia, was blocked, and at the time the professional cricketers were very poorly paid..So he literally bought up the best players from Australia, the UK and the West Indies and put on his own Cricket competition that his television stations broadcast.
There's also the incredibly complicated Australian "backyard" Cricket game, a social game played around a barbecue gathering in a backyard garden. With lots and lots of "local rules". Such as hitting the ball out of the yard is "six and out"..the batter gets six runs but is also out. Certain obstacles can be like dummy fielders, eg The Fire breathing MemSahib's rose bushes..if a batsman hits a ball into a rose bush on the full ( it hasn't made contact with the ground ) then he's regarded as being caught out by a fielder. There's the "one hand one bounce" caught out rule. Sometimes restricted to children fielders...So if a kid is fielding, they can catch a batsman out the "regular way".. catching the ball "on the full" and employing one or both hands if they want to. Or they can go for a one handed catch if the ball has bounced once on the ground. Other backyard rules might be that a batsman cannot be out on their first ball at the crease. There can be exotic local variations. Eg. There is a whining troublemaker neighbour, Mr Vinegarpuss ..so there is an exemption to the six and out rule..all balls hit out of the nominated "yard" are six and out, unless the ball strikes one of Mr Vinegarpuss's garden gnomes causing damage to one said gnome in which case it's "ten and still in"..the batsman scores ten and is not out. Backyard Cricket is often played using a tennis ball.

Wow. Just wow.

This is a baseball thread, right?

Unless I'm mistaken, the Minnesota Twins homered in each of the first 7 innings tonight of their game against the Padres. Yeah, that's 7, spelled S E V E N. A larger number than 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

I think they'll be seeing some random pee tests pretty soon.

And now the Cleveland Indians have the longest winning streak in MLB history.

No.

They have the second longest.

The 1916 New York Giants won 26 in a row.

The Indians were tied with the Chicago Cubs for second with 21 straight. The Indians are now 2nd with an AL best 22 straight.