Company claims 1998 baseballs were juiced

[CuseCubFan69]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/03/D8ME57NG5.html

 

This might cause a little bit of a problem for the voters for the Hall.

[Omar]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/03/D8ME57NG5.html

 

This might cause a little bit of a problem for the voters for the Hall.

 

I dont think they'll really care whether the baseballs were juiced since the players were.

[satxcubfan]

I thought it was pretty much common knowledge that the balls were juiced in the late 90s to help bring back interest in baseball following the strike year.

[UMFan83]

Bud Selig should be fired for this. Selig was only acting comissioner, but you know that he was the headman for this.

 

What a cheap sport.

[Jon]

Who cares? The ball could have been made out of rubber. The only thing that matters in determining the rarity of hitting a HR in different seasons is average # of HRs hit per AB.

 

If hitting HRs was twice as common as it was 50 years ago, then value HRs from '98 half as much.

Edited January 4, 2007 by Jon

[Post Count Padder]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/03/D8ME57NG5.html

 

This might cause a little bit of a problem for the voters for the Hall.

 

I dont think they'll really care whether the baseballs were juiced since the players were.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[Derwood]

EVERY BALL FROM 1998 SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE HALL OF FAME!

 

 

 

ps, I heard the balls from 1987 were betting on baseball

[Wes Mantooth]

If all the balls were juiced, its no different than the NBA new ball experiment. But, sure makes it hard to look at any records as legitimate. At least the NBA announced the change, used the new ball, then changed back to the old ball without making seem as if they were hiding it.

Now I have to back to Field of Dreams and see if James Earl's speech on the constant of baseball makes sense.

[Jon]

If all the balls were juiced, its no different than the NBA new ball experiment. But, sure makes it hard to look at any records as legitimate. At least the NBA announced the change, used the new ball, then changed back to the old ball without making seem as if they were hiding it.

Now I have to back to Field of Dreams and see if James Earl's speech on the constant of baseball makes sense.

The new ball wasn't going to make it easier to score. Getting it through the basket still required the same amount of skill. And the whole change was rather public.

 

HR totals:

AL 	   NL 	    MLB    Year
1,796 	1,521 	3,317 	1990
1,953 	1,430 	3,383 	1991
1,776 	1,262 	3,038 	1992
2,074 	1,956 	4,030 	1993
1,774 	1,532 	3,306 	1994
2,164 	1,917 	4,081 	1995
2,742 	2,220 	4,962 	1996
2,477 	2,163 	4,640 	1997
2,496 	2,568 	5,064 	1998
2,635 	2,893 	5,528 	1999
2,688 	3,005 	5,693 	2000
2,506 	2,952 	5,458 	2001
2,464	 2,595 	5,059 	2002
2,499 	2,708 	5,207 	2003
2,605 	2,846 	5,451 	2004
2,437    2,580    5,017    2005

 

1998 was basically the same as 1996. And by no means was '98 the high point. If they used a "juiced ball" in '98, it didn't have much of an effect.

 

The whole thing looks pretty baseless.

[Wes Mantooth]

So does that mean that the juiced balls started an offensive era that was extended into the steroid era and we are still seeing the effects of both? It took so long to break 61, suddenly it is broken many times. Baseball has always been my favorite sport, but I sure liked it better when the players skills were the determining factors in the game.

[BigbadB]

Another study that would be interesting along with the one Jon posted, is how many more home runs were hit each year in the parks that were there all during this time, Wrigley for example.

 

A lot of the newer parks seem a lot more home run friendly. Then there is the steroid dilemma that had guys like Brady Anderson hitting 30+ more home runs more than they ever hit before during that same time frame. Well, Anderson hit his 50 HR's in 1996. Camden Yards was built in 1992.

 

Obviously, adding a tremendous power hitter or two can really offset the numbers, like Sosa. But, how much difference are we talking about in general?

[BigbadB]

So does that mean that the juiced balls started an offensive era that was extended into the steroid era and we are still seeing the effects of both? It took so long to break 61, suddenly it is broken many times. Baseball has always been my favorite sport, but I sure liked it better when the players skills were the determining factors in the game.

 

5 man rotations, specialty bullpens and smaller parks have to factor in somewhere as well, I would think.

[Warpticon]

EVERY BALL FROM 1998 SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE HALL OF FAME!

 

 

 

ps, I heard the balls from 1987 were betting on baseball

 

Wouldn't you bet on yourself?

[Wes Mantooth]

Much more complicated than my fragile mind can handle! If one of you could put all this into a thesis or even a novel I would love to read it.

[Jon]

So does that mean that the juiced balls started an offensive era that was extended into the steroid era and we are still seeing the effects of both? It took so long to break 61, suddenly it is broken many times. Baseball has always been my favorite sport, but I sure liked it better when the players skills were the determining factors in the game.

But that's just the record. What really matters is HR totals throughout the league. The most alarming jump was between 1992 and 1993, when the same player (Juan Gonzalez) lead the league in HRs both years with 43 and 46 respectively. Not much of a difference at the top, but more and more players were going from HR totals in the teens to into the 20s.

 

In addition to the factors that were already posted, power is valued more now than ever before. That means that not only will players focus more on developing that power, but those whose best skill is power are more likely to play in the majors.

[Sosa21MVP]

Even assuming the balls were "juiced" how much difference does it really make? Which is to say, how much farther does the ball really fly?

[CuseCubFan69]

Even assuming the balls were "juiced" how much difference does it really make? Which is to say, how much farther does the ball really fly?

 

Or do you mean "How far did it fly?"

[Sosa21MVP]

Even assuming the balls were "juiced" how much difference does it really make? Which is to say, how much farther does the ball really fly?

 

Or do you mean "How far did it fly?"

 

I always figured only Steve Stone knew that answer. :? :lol: