DI committee changes to flat-seamed baseballs for 2015 championship | NCAA.com

Sport Science: NCAA Baseball 

MLB HD

http://youtu.be/hYDDaFK_z4Y


According to a survey by the American Baseball Coaches Association:

The coaches were also asked questions pertaining to game excitement and home runs. Seventy-two percent thought the game needed more excitement and 69 percent believe Division I college baseball needs more home runs.

“Even the coaches of programs that have traditionally strong pitching were in favor of going to the flat-seamed baseball.”

Let that last one sink in for a moment - EVEN THE COACHES OF PROGRAMS THAT HAVE TRADITIONALLY STRONG PITCHING understand that CHICKS DIG THE LONG BALL!!!

So, we can conclude that as far as baseball goes, long-term

Offense = Excitement = Higher Ratings
Defense = Boring = Lower Ratings 

We can also conclude that small changes to the ball can produce pretty significant results. Now the NCAA is doing this as a planned process to produce more excitement to the game. I don't know why it's such a leap to speculate that MLB didn't do much the same and just implemented it surreptitiously.  They didn't want to admit that they even needed a fix. At least the NCAA took a hard look at their product and publicly admitted they were making the change so that both pitchers and hitters could make the appropriate adjustments.

• The ball will travel farther, 

• Pitches can expect a slicker feel to the ball and initially the"feel" pitches, curves and sliders, will react differently. 

• The recent changes to bats due to the BBCOR standards penalized fly balls and rewarded grounders more. That dynamic will shift back. 

And this is what TPTB want. Game Over!!!

from NCAA.com
DI committee changes to flat-seamed baseballs for 2015 championship | NCAA.com:

DI committee changes to flat-seamed baseballs for 2015 championship
Greg Johnson | NCAA.com
Last Updated - Jan 10, 2014 15:28 EST  

The Division I Baseball Committee will move to the use of a flat-seamed baseball for its championship, starting with the 2015 Division I tournament.

Currently, raised-seamed baseballs are used in the Division I Baseball Championship.

Committee members made the decision to change to a flat-seamed baseball after research conducted this fall by the Washington State University Sport Science Laboratory showed that flat-seamed baseballs launched out of a pitching machine at averages of 95 mph, a 25-degree angle and a 1,400 rpm spin rate traveled around 387 feet compared to raised-seamed baseballs that went 367 feet.

On the NCAA’s behalf, the Washington State University lab evaluates and certifies baseball bats used in NCAA competition for compliance with bat performance standards.

In the flat-, raised-seamed baseball research, the speed and angles used in the testing were chosen because they are the conditions when typical home runs occur in Division I baseball competition.

Due to variables (individual bat speed, wind direction, whether the ball is stuck on the bat’s “sweet spot,” etc.) that can impact the distance a baseball can travel, not every trajectory hit with a flat-seamed ball will travel exactly 20 feet farther than a raised-seamed ball, but a 20-foot average difference is an approximate representation of what can be expected.

The NCAA’s official supplier of championship baseballs, Rawlings, also conducted testing of the flat-seam balls in its own research lab.  That research was consistent with the findings in the WSU lab.

“We anticipate that this will moderately increase scoring but not take it back to the days where we were dealing with outrageous scores that looked more like football scores,” said Dennis Farrell, who is the committee chair and the commissioner of the Big West Conference. “We want to get the game back to what is a reasonable amount of scoring and defense.”

While the distance the baseball travels is increased due to less drag on the baseball, the health of and safety of the players will not be compromised. The core of the ball and the bat-exit speed will not change.

“We are always sensitive to student-athlete safety issues,” Farrell said. “According to the data we were presented with, those concerns are alleviated. The rationale behind making this change is hoping it will allow certain balls hit at certain trajectories to carry farther.”

Committee members were spurred to look at the research after becoming concerned with diminishing offensive numbers in the Division I Baseball Championship, particularly at the Men’s College World Series site in Omaha.

In the 2013 MCWS, there were only three home runs hit in TD Ameritrade Park Omaha, which opened in 2011. The first year of the new home of the MCWS also marked the year that the bat standards changed to make metal bats perform more like wood bats.

The bat standards were designed to protect pitchers and fielders from increasing bat-exit speeds and to bring balance to the game that was trending heavily toward the offense.

In 2011, there were nine home runs in the MCWS, and in the second year in the park, 10 homers were hit. By contrast in the last year at Rosenblatt Stadium in 2010, 32 homers left the park. Similarly, across all of Division I regular season baseball, offensive performance – batting averages, runs scored and home runs – has been on the decline in recent years.

The difference in the height of the seams between the two baseballs is small. The flatter-seamed ball has a seam height of .031 inches compared to .048 inches for a raised-seam ball. This flatter seam height is consistent with the balls used in minor league baseball, yet still higher than what is used in major league baseball.

The flat-seamed baseball may make it more difficult for pitchers to throw breaking pitches, but college baseball coaches feel their pitchers will be able to adjust over time.

A survey conducted by the American Baseball Coaches Association showed 87 percent of the respondents wanted to change to the flat-seamed baseball. Around 80 percent of the nearly 300 Division I baseball coaches responded to the survey.

The coaches were also asked questions pertaining to game excitement and home runs. Seventy-two percent thought the game needed more excitement and 69 percent believe Division I college baseball needs more home runs.

“The numbers from the survey means the coaches are making a strong statement,” Farrell said. “Even the coaches of programs that have traditionally strong pitching were in favor of going to the flat-seamed baseball.”

'via Blog this'

==

P.S. - Early season results from CheckSwing.com:

from College Baseball Daily:

http://www.collegebaseballdaily.com/2015/03/04/new-baseball-brings-more-home-runs-but-batting-averageruns-remain-flat/

FROM NCAA.COM
INDIANAPOLIS – The NCAA media coordination and statistics staff released today statistical trends for NCAA Division I Baseball comparing 2014 with 2015 through the first three weeks of the season.

The trends compared the use of the raised seamed baseball that was used by institutions in 2014 to the flat-seamed baseball used in 2015. The biggest statistical change from 2014 to 2015 is an increase in home runs that is up more than 40 percent from 0.33 per game in 2014 to 0.47 per game in 2015. Additional home runs have not led to more total runs. As of March 1, runs scored in a game are up only four percent, and the batting average went from .263 in 2014 to .264 in 2015. This season, strikeouts have risen from 6.81 per nine innings in 2014 to 7.66 per nine innings in 2015.

Weather has also impacted schedules more this year than last year.  On average, each team has played about one fewer game than the same point last year as weather has caused 252 fewer games played in 2015 compared to the same time last year. The complete trends report is below.

2015 NCAA DIVISION I BASEBALL EARLY SEASON TRENDS
	Through March 2, 2014	Through March 1, 2015	Final 2014
TEAMS	296	295	296
Avg. Number of Games Played Per Team	9.72	8.90	54.8
BATTING
Batting Average	.263	.264	.270
Runs Per Game	5.07	5.29	5.08
Home Runs Per Game	0.33	0.47	0.39 *
Slugging Percentage	.352	.368	.364
Stolen Bases Per Game	1.08	1.09	1.02
Sacrifice Hits Per Game	0.71	0.64	0.76
Sacrifice Flies Per Game	0.39	0.36	0.40
Percentage of RBIs from Sac Flies	8.79%	7.65%	8.74%
PITCHING
Earned-Run Average	4.06	4.36	4.22
Strikeouts Per Nine Innings	6.81	7.66	6.48
Shutouts	192	156	1034
Pct. of D1 shutouts per D1 games pitched	6.67%	5.94%	6.37%
FIELDING
Fielding Percentage	.964	.962	.966 **
Averages are per game and per team. | * — Record low for full season. | ** — Record high for full season.

Notes:
• As of March 2, 2014, there were two teams that had not played any games (Brown, Central Conn. State). The 0 games for those teams is calculated in average games per team.

• As of March 1, 2015, there are five teams that have not played any games at this point (Central Conn. State, Fairfield, Massachusetts, NYIT, and Yale). The 0 games for those teams is calculated in average games per team.

• March 1, 2015, statistics also do not include three games involving Alabama A&M and Mississippi Valley which were not reported until well after the deadline. Those numbers are not calculated into the averages.

• Statistics do not include six reclassifying members.

Sheffield: Javier Baez Needs Work on Swing

http://www.sportsgrid.com/mlb/the-javier-baez-gary-sheffield-comparison-is-uncanny/

They do have an uncanny resemblance as noted above. The size, the strength and power, the quick bat, the torquing of the bat as a timing mechanism. All very similar. You almost wish the Cubs had hired Sheffield as his batting coach rather than Manny Ramirez. You almost couldn't go wrong with either one, the two most lethal RH power bats of the era, both better hitters overall than McGwire.

from Bleacher Report:
Sheffield: Javier Baez Needs Work on Swing:

"When I saw this guy swing [in December], I knew he was going to be a big leaguer for them soon," Sheffield told ESPNChicago.com on Tuesday. "Right now when I watch his swing, he has something in his swing that can be fixed real easy. He collapses his back leg. And anytime you do that, a pitcher is going to have a field day on you. 

"When you collapse your back leg, anything over the belt line you have to uppercut. You can't stay on top of it." 

"Keeping that back foot anchored is important," Cubs hitting coach Bill Mueller said. "It's necessary for sure in keeping square. What's most important is him getting games played. It's a small sample size." 

Manager Rick Renteria added: "When we look at his film, the one thing that stands out is if he swings at strikes, he does damage. When he swings at balls, he doesn't. That has nothing to do with mechanics." 

Sheffield disagrees, to an extent. 

"I see all the ability," said Sheffield, who hit 509 home runs in 22 seasons. "And I see someone has to get with him real quick and fix that little mechanical issue that he has before it gets worse. When you're trying to create that much torque with your lower half collapsing, that's a lot of moving parts. People would ask me, 'How could you do that with all that wiggling the bat like that?' Because it's not how you start it's how you finish. I was always focused on my finish, not how I start." 

'via Blog this'

It looks like, from the motion picture of Baez (shown below), that Baez lunges or almost leaps forward at the pitch rather than staying back as well as he should. The back leg will collapse like that when you stride out too far and miss.

That may just be his youthful exuberance rather than a purely mechanical mistake. He will learn pretty soon that you get the same credit for the HR's that go 325 feet as you do for the 450 footers. But what do I know, I still think chicks dig the long ball, so maybe longer is better.

Also, agree with Renetria on the plate discipline issue. He can be a guy who hits 25 HR's with a .230 average or a 35-40 HR guy hitting .280 - .300 if he corrects that because this yard will not hold him, and once they get Bryant and Rizzo surrounding him or behind him, watch out. He has to fix the ball / strike discipline issue or he'll be hitting lower in the order, behind those other power guys.

Number Of Sluggers Is Again On The Rise [SPORTS CHART OF THE DAY] - Business Insider

UH-OH!!

Number Of Sluggers Is Again On The Rise [SPORTS CHART OF THE DAY] - Business Insider:

 "There are already four players that have hit 40 home runs this season in Major League Baseball. And there are two more players knocking on the door with 39. That is a far cry from the 2010 and 2011 seasons when only two players reached that plateau each year.

If all six players hit 40 home runs, that would be the most in a single season since 2006, when 11 players reached the mark. That was also the first season of MLB's drug testing program.

Data via Baseball-Reference.com"

'via Blog this'

DOES SIZE REALLY MATTER? Today's major leaguers are bigger and stronger than those of earlier eras - physical size of baseball players | Baseball Digest | Find Articles at BNET

The debate surfaces periodically and revolves around the "is today's player better than players from other eras", whether it be the 70's and 80's -- the WWI era -- or the Ruth / Cobb era.

For certain, I believe the quality of the athlete that baseball is recruiting is better now than ever before. Whether that always translates into better players centers around my belief that coaching, especially at the major league level -- but in the minors as well -- has not kept up.

Coaching may be as good or better than ever at the collegiate and HS level. The youth level, IMO still leaves something to be desired. Generally speaking the level of coaching is improving there, if only sporadically.

Putting aside for a moment the segue arguments
- "Do bigger players equal better players?"
and the pejorative fallback argument
- "How did they get bigger and stronger?"

clearly the trend toward bigger, stronger, faster equaling "more productive" players has pretty much been settled. "Better" is in the eye of the beholder and is dependent on many variables that can not be extracted or accounted for through statistical analysis or the dreaded "eyeball" test.

Some fans will prefer 1-0, 2-0 pitching duels and some will continue to prefer the "chicks dig the long ball" era. The pendulum tends to swing from one extreme to another and back again.

The following article touches on many of the relevant areas of discussion.

DOES SIZE REALLY MATTER? Today's major leaguers are bigger and stronger than those of earlier eras - physical size of baseball players | Baseball Digest | Find Articles at BNET:

"Current baseball scouts generally focus their attention on larger prospects, particularly pitchers

BABE RUTH STILL STANDS AS ONE of the legendary giants of baseball, but if he were alive today, he would stand taller than only 48 percent of the players who were on major-league 40-man rosters at the start of spring training.

The Bambino was listed at 6-2 and 195 pounds before his weight became a major problem during the second half of his career. He is remembered as a much larger man because most newsreel footage of him was taken during his last few seasons-- and because he was always much bigger than the average player of his time.

But if the young, strapping Ruth were magically transported into the 21st century, he would not stand out in the team picture of any major-league club. His wonderful baseball skills aside, he would be--in terms of vital statistics--a very average guy."

The 1927 "Murderers' Row" New York Yankees were one of the most dominating, intimidating teams in history, yet the average height and weight of a member of that storied group, even with such big bruisers as Ruth, Lou Gehrig and Bob Meusel at the heart of the lineup, was just 5-11 and 176 pounds.

The 1975 world champion Cincinnati Reds--immortalized as "The Big Red Machine"--illustrated what a difference a half-century can make. The players on that Reds club averaged 6-1 and 188 pounds.

The 2001 three-time defending world champion Yankees are not really known as one of the most physically imposing teams on the planet, but they weigh in with an average height and weight of 6-2 and 204 pounds.

Changes.....through the years. Sometimes, it's difficult to see the forest for the trees and remember how things used to be in the 'good old days'. Then you see an old ESPN classic and you realize that "Hey, Jennie Finch actually looks more athletic than some major leaguers from the 70's appeared.

BUD HARRELSON - 1969 METS 5'11", 165 POUNDS (MAYBE)

JENNIE FINCH - USA!!! USA!!! - 6'1", 170 POUNDS

Advantage Finch!!!!

My money is on Finch even if it goes this far...

Specialization and AAU-ization...always a factor. Participation in other sports, in conjunction with or to the exclusion of other sports has changed the landscape somewhat.

If it were totally a matter of evolution, the process presumably would take place at a much slower rate. It appears, in this case, that the Darwinian notion of natural selection has been replaced with just plain selection. Baseball players are taller because scouts are out looking for taller baseball players.

"In our industry, as far as evaluating talent, you're driven to larger bodies," said Cardinals director of baseball operations John Mozeliak. "When you go to the Dominican Republic, for instance, you get all these kids at the tryouts. The first thing you look at is how a guy looks in the uniform. You're very unlikely to give any money to a guy who's 5-9 and 170 pounds."

This isn't necessarily a new concept, but several other factors may contribution to the greater availability of tall athletes during the past decade or so--most notably a vast increase in the number and diversity of youth sports programs.

The average 1960s kid played Little League and maybe Pop Warner football. The 1980s kid also had soccer, basketball and other team and individual sports to keep them active year-round.

"I think one thing that's happening is that participation is at its highest level as far as youth sports, so the pool of talent to choose from has grown," said Cardinals trainer Barry Weinstein. "And you're developing a more well-rounded athlete, so a kid doesn't have to like basketball just because he's 6-9."

And the generational shift from sandlot sports to highly organized youth programs probably has the added effect of weeding out kids with less natural athletic ability much earlier--creating a better youth talent pool at the expense of some of the young people they were supposed to benefit.

You can see from the following table that HR champs have been getting bigger over the course of the last few decades. The typical HR slugger from the good old days would be average sized today.

BIG LEAGUE SLUGGERS ARE GETTING BIGGER--Despite the fact that league home run champions have had little change in size over the last 80 years, the most dramatic change has been the number of power hitters. From 1921 through 1940, hitting 40 or more homers in a season was accomplished 32 times by 12 different players. From 1941 through 1960, it was accomplished 44 times by 17 different sluggers. From 1961 through 1980, the number rose to 54 times that a player hit 40 homers in a season, reached by 30 different players. And during the last 20 years (1981-2000), the number of 40-homer hitters jumped to 98 times accomplished by 49 different players. Below is a chart of the average size of league home run champions dating back to 1921.

Total Avg. Avg. Avg.
ERA HR Champs Height Weight HR Output

1991-2000 15 6-3 218 48
1981-1990 20 6-3 208 40
1971-1980 13 6-2 201 40
1961-1970 11 6-1 202 46
1951-1960 15 6-1 194 42
1941-1950 13 6-0 195 36
1931-1940 11 6-0 194 40
1921-1930 10 6-0 187 41

Largest HR Smallest HR
ERA Champion Champion

1991-2000 Mark McGwire (6-5, 250) Howard Johnson (5-11, 178)
1981-1990 Jose Canseco (6-4, 240) Kevin Mitchell (5-11, 210)
1971-1980 Dave Kingman (6-6, 210) Dick Allen (5-11, 190)
1961-1970 Frank Howard (6-7, 255) Willie Mays (5-11, 180)
1951-1960 Hank Sauer (6-4, 200) Al Rosen (5-10, 180)
1941-1950 Hank Greenberg (6-3-210) Mel Ott (5-9, 170)
1931-1940 Hank Greenberg (6-3, 210) Ripper Collins (5-9, 165)
1921-1930 Babe Ruth (6-2, 215) Hack Wilson (5-6, 190)

COPYRIGHT 2001 Century Publishing
COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group

From the table in this article, the player of today has to compete against more potential players today than ever before, even with expansion. Although they do accommodate for the exclusion of black and Hispanic players in the past, the pre-war major leaguer did not see the diversity of talent culled from around the globe that today's player competes against.



Another factor, to be considered but not readily apparent from the table above is the effect of the various wars on the availability of 18 - 30 year old males, a crucial variable at times.

Think of how much that talent pool was diluted during the war years -- a time during which "One-armed" Pete Gray played.

Pete Gray, Universal Newsreels, 1945.ogv
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pete_Gray,_Universal_Newsreels,_1945.ogv

Other current stars gave up years of their career to the war effort, as illustrated in the following two articles.

Baseball in Wartime
http://www.baseballinwartime.com/

Baseball in Wartime is dedicated to preserving the memories of all baseball players (major league, negro league, minor league, semi-pro, college, amateur and high school), who served with the military between 1940 and 1946.

World War II was a trying time for the United States and equally so for baseball. More than 4,500 professional players swapped flannels for military uniforms to serve their nation and future Hall of Famers like Bob Feller, Hank Greenberg, Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams lost vital playing time in the prime of their careers. What is far less commonly known is that at least 130 minor league players lost their lives while serving their country.

Major League Baseball's Popularity During WWII by Joey Corso
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/161265-major-league-baseballs-popularity-during-wwii

Before WWII began, Major League Baseball enjoyed record popularity. Ted Williams batted a record-setting .406, Joe DiMaggio, set a record with hits in 56 consecutive games, 41-year-old Lefty Grove won his 300th career win, and the New York Yankees collected an unprecedented ninth World Series championship.(Baseball in Wartime)

Following Pearl Harbor, overwhelming patriotism spread throughout the nation, causing many young men to enlist including future Hall of Fame players Hank Greenburg and Bob Feller who gave up the prime their careers to be a part of the war effort.

Greenburg summed up what all players at the time were feeling, telling the Sporting News that “If there's any last message to be given to the public, let it be that I'm going to be a good soldier.”

Although a small minority of Americans expressed displeasure towards apparently fit men participating in sports and shirking military duties, Private John E Stevenson, expressed the more widely held view that, "baseball is part of the American way of life. Remove it and you remove something from the lives of American citizens, soldiers and sailors."

Along with future Hall of Famers, many other quality major league players enlisted or were drafted, significantly lowering the quality of play. Average players were now stars, and scrubs who were destined to be career minor leaguers received opportunities to play significant roles on big league clubs.

Using David Finoli’s highly embraced statistical formula, as seen in For the Good of the Country: World War II Baseball in the Major and Minor Leagues, a list of the top 64 ball players during the war seasons (1942-1945) was developed, headed by a Roy Sanders.

Although a fine player, it was clear a somewhat obscure player today, benefited playing against lesser competition. This can be seen by comparing his statistics during and after the war.

The list contains several other fine players, but does not include a future Hall of Fame player until the 14th player on the list, Cleveland Indians shortstop Lou Boudreau. Four highly productive seasons along with six to eight above average ones can usually make a player’s case for entry into the Hall of Fame.

Yet none of the top 13 players during the war made the Hall, proving that these players were unable to perform at the same level when up against the best and that statistically speaking the level of play during the time was lower.

Over time, we have seen baseball players, and the game at large, adapt to many significant changes that have collided to bring about many of the observed changes to the perceived caliber of play.

- The mound was lowered in 1969 from 15 inches to 10 inches in height after the dominance of pitching ( think Bob Gibson's 1.12 ERA ). As a result, scouts and coaches preferred to select taller pitchers to make up the lost difference in leverage the lower mound provided. The short (under 6-foot) RHP became an endangered species in baseball as a result IMO.

- Free agency and guaranteed contracts resulting from the Curt Flood battle against the Reserve Clause has resulted in players beginning treated as more valuable commodities. Prior to 1969, even star players were considered expendable if productivity diminished even slightly. Players were on year to year contracts, security was day to day. Pitch Counts and increased use of bullpen specialists has been the slow, but inevitable outgrowth.

Structural changes such as Astroturf, Questec and increased use of PED's have brought about both observed and statistical changes and anomalies that can never be fully accounted for and so the debate will continue forever.

If you don't think that Questec was a huge and underrated development in the offense / defense equilibrium, take a look at the "strikes" called in some of those Braves - Twins World Series highlights or the infamous Eric Gregg / Livan Hernandez playoff game. There's a reason why Curt Schilling took a bat to an early version of Questec machinery that was in the Diamondbacks dugout. The handwriting was on the wall that a subtle but important pitching advantage was about to be lost.

It's one reason why I like to look to the Olympic sports, specifically track and field or swimming events, to observe and evaluate macro changes in athletes over different eras. The skill sports are too complex to assess causes and effects. The Olympic sports are ideal for statistical analysis because of their inherent simplicity: Running is a universal and fundamental athletic event. Distances don't change, gravity and friction are constants. Even in swimming, the resistance that water provides doesn't change materially over time.

----

In swimming, the 1924 Men's Olympic champion and symbol of virility for machismo for the era, Johnny Weismuller of Tarzan fame, swam a 59.0 sec. 100 meter freestyle.

USA'S JOHNNY WEISMULLER - 1924 PARIS OLYMPICS CHAMPION

In the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Germany's Britta Steffen swam the same event in 53.12 seconds. American Natalie Coughlin swan it in 53.39 seconds for an American record. Both times would have obliterated Weismuller's time.

GERMANY'S BRITTE STEFFEN - 2008 BEJING OLYMPIC CHAMPION

In fact, Weismuller's time would have finished 47th in the world in the 2008 100 meter freestyle qualifying heats. In the women's qualifying heats.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swimming_at_the_1924_Summer_Olympics_-_Men%27s_100_metre_freestyle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swimming_at_the_2008_Summer_Olympics_-_Women%27s_100_metre_freestyle


---

In track and field, the 1936 Olympic champion Jesse Owens would be challenged to beat the current women's 100 meter champion, Jamaica's Shelly-Ann Fraser. Owens won the 1936 event with a 10.3 sec. time. Fraser's 2008 100 meter time of 10.78 would have placed her sixth in the 1936 men's 100 meter championship heat and made her the fourth fastest American at the time.

Jesse Owens was 5'10" and 165. Fraser tips in at 5'3" and 115. A shorter version, pound for pound of Owens. Looking at some of these comparisons, I am with David Wells -- a Babe Ruth fan -- when he says "15-70-.270" to state what he believes Babe Ruth's stat line would be today.

No night games, no sliders, he may have been exaggerating a little bit, but not by much.

The pre-war American athlete, in many instances, can only compare favorably to female athletes today. Once again demonstrating that the Nixon-era Title IX legislation may have been one of the most underrated pieces of legislation of all time in this country.

There are simply too many factors to consider to make a definitive answer to the underlying question we started with, which is why this question will continue to be fuel for debate for many generations to come.

Did Ichiro sound the death knell to "Chicks dig the long ball"?

Ichiro's quote in a New York Times article, back in September:

"Chicks who dig the long ball aren't the ones who appeal to me. I think there's sexiness in infield hits because they require technique. I'd rather impress the chicks with my technique than with my brute strength. Every now and then, just to show that I can do that, too, I might flirt a little by hitting one out."

WOW, who knew? I wish I knew back when I played that chicks dig the infield hit and maybe the occasional drag bunt for a hit. I would have been a SCORING MACHINE!!!

JIMMY ROLLINS / DICKS SPORTING GOODS COMMERCIAL

This may be the SECOND best baseball commercial of all-time.

Second only to the "Chicks dig the long ball" commercial. I know, I know. That one is forever stained by the subsequent steroid allegations, but in the context of the time and based on what we knew and believed to be true at the time, CDTLB is still #1.

But this one is pretty good too.

P.S. - I love the "Do not attempt" disclaimer that flashes ever so briefly on the screen. This is for the more "intellectually challenged" among us. Can't say the "R-" word anymore, but if you try this at home you have definitely earned a lifetime free pass on the short bus.

Chicks Dig the Long Ball.........Go To Hell Chicks

CONGRATULATIONS TO TOM GLAVINE: 300 WINS!!!

And yet, strangely enough, I still think appearing in a commercial with Heather Locklear is the highlight of his career.

You watch this and you get the sense of how far we've gone with the issue of performance enhancement. To the point where (unfortunately I think) the term performance enhancement, which in isolation seems like it should be a positive term, has been given a dirty name in sports.


Anyway, I think we'll look back and find this was when baseball was reaching its apex in popularity, although in spite of the noise from the MSM (mainstream media), attendance figures are through the roof.

Nobody is staying away from the Barry Bonds Home Run Tour, even on the road, sellouts abound.

Gotta love the protest moves as well, the eye shades that nobody wears while Bonds is hitting. The boos when he comes to bat, that turn to cheers when he hits home runs on the road. And booing your own pitcher for trying to win the game and pitch around the baddest hitter on the planet, and maybe in the history of the game.

Anyway, chicks dig the long ball seems so quaint now. And I have a bad feeling in another 10 or 20 years we're going to realize that the so-called steroid era is going to seem like child's play in our rear-view mirror, once we enter, maybe the genetic engineering era. Or the Yankee cloning of A-Rod and Derek Jeter era.

Enjoy it now, because if the purists have their way, we'll go back to boring ass baseball games like in the 70's. 25% capacity attendance like it was in "the good old days" instead of 75% capacity like we have now. We have teams that can score only when the defense commits gross incompetence due to fatigue and/or lethargy since their team is out of the pennant race in mid-May. Because the level playing field we should have been more concerned about was the salary disparity, not this made up "crisis" of performance enhancement.

Remember when Uncle Bud "Pocket Hockey" Selig told us how baseball was in such a financial crisis that teams would have to be folded. Like the Devil Rays and Marlins and Twins and Expos. Whatever happened to that crisis? It wasn't fixed, that's for sure. It was papered over. But it wasn't fixed.

Just my opinion. But they want to change the product that clearly the consumers (the fans) are telling them doesn't need to be fixed (if it ain't broke....). And they continue to ignore the problem that needs fixing the most. They buy the owners silence in the small-markets with hush-money and those owners pass along a false message of hope to their fans while pocketing the hush-money instead of improving the team and making it competitive. Which, I have to admit, given the system in place, spending the money to become competitive is almost certainly an exercise in futility.

Should be an interesting next few years in baseball. At least we don't have to worry about soccer taking over as the next great spectator sport. Funny too, the experts back in the day were so worried about soccer surpassing baseball, I don't remember anybody mentioning the threat from NASCAR?

Tough to rely on these experts nowadays.

Aaron vs. Bonds Career Statistics

To pick up the conversation, so to speak, from my previous post dated February 24,2007 and titled "Steroids? And the HR King? Say it isn't so Hank!":

Around the time that Barry Bonds passed Babe Ruth and starting making his move towards Hank Aaron, I wanted to take a look at both men's home run path throughout their careers and put it into the context of both the era in which each man performed , as well as historically. Were Bonds career numbers or career path or trajectory similar to Aaron's or were they significantly different in some way?

The method I thought would be the fairest to answer the most relevant questions was to compare the rate at which each man slugged home-runs (HR Rate or HR/AB) vs. the League Average (Total League HR's/ Total League AB's). In this way, we would see how well each man performed vs. the "average" player in his league that year. Pretty simple, right? This is basically how your IQ score is computed, your score is compared to the entire population of scores to determine a mean-adjusted score.

I took each year's statistics (from Baseball_Reference.com) and charted the results.
What I expected to see was Aaron being the better home-run hitter from age 25-32 and Bonds overtaking him in the latter stages from age 35-40.

First, I took a detour and wanted to get a look at how other "great" players and home-run hitters performed to see what the "normal" path should look like. This is similar to what some of the SABR guys are referring to as "career trajectory" and is used to find out at what age most players peak and when skills decline. Some of the work I've seen here indicates that players generally peak statistically around age 27 and their skills begin to decline around age 32-33. This is a generalization for the entire population of players. I wanted to see if the same thing applies to the smaller population of elite home-run hitters.

When we charted the data, we looked at what age did a player showed his best years (peak) and when did he show his last improvement (decline) and I also looked at when the player had the best two year periods in his career to look for when they were able to put long-term sustained excellence together. Looking at some of the SABR career trajectory graphs of the great sluggers of the past, we did see quite a few different looking career trajectories. In other words, there isn't a clearly defined "norm" for elite players, who by their very nature are not normal. They are freaks of nature, superstars. That's why we watch them.

Recall that Willie Mays power hitting skills diminished around age 34-35 and seemingly fell of a cliff thereafter, whereas Henry Aarom seemed to continue on strong even after age 35. McGwire's career seems to mimic Mays (partly due to injuries) whereas Bonds appears to look more like Aaron and Ted Williams. Small sample by definition, but you clearly have to start somewhere.

Here's a look at some of the all-time elite home-run hitters and when they peaked in their respective careers: (click to enlarge)



Not much in the way of surprises, although its interesting that both Bonds and Aaron had "peak" years in the early stages of their careers (25-28 age) and then a resurgence of sorts late career (35-38 age).

Next, we looked at the Average players and the Elite players home-run rate to see what changed from the 70's to 90's. Clearly, the rate of home-runs changed (chicks dig the long-ball) for a variety of reason that are noted. Those changes seem to have occurred across the board, indicating that they were the result of changes that would effect virtually all players somewhat equally.

Comparison of "Average" Players and "Elite" Players from the 70's vs. the 90's with factors which could contribute to the change in rate of HR's: (click to enlarge)



If you notice the comparison of players with 500 AB's, the Average players fly under the radar going from:
5 to 6 HR's for your basic banjo-hitter
10 to 13 HR's for your slap-hitting middle infielder
15-20 HR's for your decent hitters
20-26 HR's for your lower tier sluggers
and 25 to 33 HR's for your budding superstars.
Not very noticable differences and certainly not "hallowed record" threatening numbers.

But the guy from the 70's who was
hitting 30 HR's jumps to 40 HR's in the 90's,
the 40 HR guy becomes a 50 HR guy,
and the career year guy who hits 50 HR's in the 70's,
jumps right up to 66 HR's in the 90's.

So it seems as if, at least perceptually, the effect was more pronounced among the upper-tier sluggers. If a guy has a career year in the 90's (as Maris did in the 60's
and certainly Ruth did in the 20's when he socked 60 HR's) that guy is going to challenge history.

This is based on comparing the Mean League HR Rate throughout Aaron's career (2.225%)
to the Mean League HR Rate throughout Bonds' career (2.835%). An increase of approximately 27% on Average. In other words, the AVERAGE player hit home-runs at a 27% higher rate during Bonds years than during Aaron's years.

And if the AVERAGE player increased 27%, how much would you expect the superstar sluggers HR rate to increase? I'm not sure that the approximately 40% higher rate that Bonds stroked HR's throughout his career than Aaron (9.436% Bonds vs. 6.473% Aaron) is totally unexpected or unrealistic under the circumstances.

The 90's became the "chicks dig the long ball era" and attendance rose accordingly. And it had to after various labor pissing matches and a cancelled World Series. SO more than anyhting else, Home Runs saved baseball, not Sosa and McGwire exclusively, but HR's throughout baseball. Sosa and MGwire would only change attendance at Wrigley and Busch, for the most part. But attendance increased throughout baseball with some minor exceptions.

And so not only did chicks dig the long-ball, but owners did too, because when attendance rises, revenue rises. And when revenue rises, profits rise and when profits rise, owners bank accounts rise. And when owners bank accounts rise, that makes something else rise for owners faster than when they take those little-blue pills and without any of the nasty side-effects. Just a little Economics 101 for you, on the house.

If you don't believe me, go to BaseballGraphs.com and look at the graphs for Home Runs and attendance and see if you don't notice a close correlation between the two.
It's how baseball pulled itself out of the Black Sox scandal and it's how they did it again after the scandalous and ill-advised World Series cancellation.

Is this conclusive proof of owners hands in manufacturing higher home-run rates to increase attendance? NO. Is it the equivalent of a positive steroid test? NO. But does it meet the same rough equivalent, circumstantial evidence that has been used to convict many current players i the court of public opinion? YES. So, I would have to say, if you're willing to live by the sword of innuendo, you should be willing to die by the same sword.

Here is the graph comparing Aaron vs. Bonds career numbers by age: (click to enlarge)



You can see from the graph that the two players career paths move in fairly close lock-step. Some years Aaron jumps up and overtakes Bonds, other years Bonds is ahead, never by too much. In fact, if you look at the mean-adjusted HR Rate and compared each guy at 25, 26,27, etc, throughout until age 40, Aaron wins the competition 8-7. He was a better HR hitter on a relative basis for more years in his career than Bonds.

So maybe, it's time for Aaron to be the classy gentleman he is alleged to be and understand that the old saw "records were made to be broken" applies to all records, including this one.

Also, maybe it's time for any jackass who refers to this record as "hallowed", almost as if it were some sort of religious shrine or icon that's never to be disturbed, needs to either get a life at best or a better understanding of religion at worst.

These records are not a deity and neither are the person(s) who set them or break them. And neither are they the devil personified.

And maybe it's time for the owners to start stepping up and taking some of the heat, some of the tar and feathering, some of the public lynching for this so-called scandal. As I recall, our current President was at the epicenter of some of the most egregious "alleged" usage. And most, if not all of them profited from the popularity of the efforts of guys like McGwire and Sosa. Now, they want to publicly run away from them as if they didn't know what was going on. Scattering like kids caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar.

For these scumbags to remain silent on the sidelines, letting the players twist slowly in the wind in this public lynching is beyond repugnant, in my opinion. Where are the beer-baron Busch's, who pocketed gate receipts from fans eager to see McGwire perform? Or the corporate giants like the Wrigley's and the Tribune Company in Chicago, who benefit ted immensely by having Sosa as the marquee player for the lovable losers known as the Cubs? They sure knew how to cash the checks when the money was flowing their way.

There's always been a symbiotic relationship between owners and the press in baseball. The press (local or national) has often been used as a tool by the owners to whip up a public frenzy against individual players or the entire union when it suits ownership, either individually or en masse. That's been true throughout the history of baseball. Anyone who denies it or is either naive or lying.

I don't know why it's so hard to see the fingerprints on the smoking gun on this one.
But the issue gets clouded more and more each day by some of the willing co-conspirators in the media in my opinion.

It's high time for people to stop banging the drum against the game of baseball. Baseball hasn't been as popular as it is now in quite some time, certainly not in my lifetime. I think it's time to get off the issue or at the least give it the same relative importance that is attached to football players who cheat. Cheating is cheating. And the effect on our nation's youth is the same regardless of the sport. Can't have it both ways. You can't have the hypocrisy of crucifying one sport and letting the other one have a pass. And save the lame excuses about the strength of each sports respective drug policies being a factor, that's insulting people's intelligence.

Just look at the recent Orlando case. Gary Matthews gets whipped publicly every day and by proxy baseball does also. The Pittsburgh Steeler team doctor puts enough HGH on a personal credit card to juice an army and says it's for his nursing home patients and weekend warriors, not the football team. And the media is like Sgt. Schultz in Hogan's Heroes, "I see nothing, nothing".

As the kids say today, whatever. I guess the nations youth aren't influenced by football after all, even though we constantly hear that it, and not baseball, is the new national pastime. And that the participation numbers are higher in youth football than any other sport. And we don't see HS offensive and defensive lineman weighing 300+ pounds and running sub 5.0 40 yard dashes. Not sure I need much testing to you what's going on there.

These are Bonds career numbers: (click to enlarge)



These are Aaron's career numbers: (click to enlarge)



Many thanks for all the help in providing the stunning visual effects (charts, graphs) have to go to my wife, who by the way, is my personal favorite stunning, visual effect. Thanks, honey.