Verlander not holding back. Manfred's "excuse" for this is poor just like his excuse for not extending the netting past the dugouts is poor IMO Link - ( New Window )
Compare how much bounce this season's ball has vs last season.
I hear this year after year, and I can believe the ball is inconsistent, but you never see any evidence of the changes to the ball.
Is there more or less yarn? Is the yarn different? Is it wound tighter?
Is the leather a different texture? Seams flatter or bigger?
Different materials in the center?
I mean, if they're juicing the ball, there has to be some measurable physical difference in the composition of the thing, right?
makes a huge difference too. Compare a NCAA ball with a Major League ball and you can see/feel it. NCAA ball has much higher laces for more drag = more movement.
538 had an interesting post on changes to the balls last year Â
Yeah, nothing has changed. Ketel Marte, whose previous high in HR's was 14, now has 20- in 200 fewer at bats. LeMeiheu's previous high was 15 in a season- in Coors no less- now has a dozen - in 200 fewer at bats. In the AL, there are 40 guys with a shot at 30 homers and almost 40 in the NL.
It's gotten ridiculous, and it's killing the pitchers. You wait for the spate of TJ cases, shoulder issues and forearm strains next season after most of these guys have spent the year throwing breaking balls more than 1/2 the time.
Yeah, nothing has changed. Ketel Marte, whose previous high in HR's was 14, now has 20- in 200 fewer at bats. LeMeiheu's previous high was 15 in a season- in Coors no less- now has a dozen - in 200 fewer at bats. In the AL, there are 40 guys with a shot at 30 homers and almost 40 in the NL.
It's gotten ridiculous, and it's killing the pitchers. You wait for the spate of TJ cases, shoulder issues and forearm strains next season after most of these guys have spent the year throwing breaking balls more than 1/2 the time.
Pitchers are throwing more breaking balls because the research says that's a more effective way to get batters out. If you think that's "killing the pitchers" that's fine, but it's not because of the ball. And for the record, I'm pretty sure that pitchers are still throwing fastballs more than half the time, in aggregate.
That said, there's something to be said for the ball boosting offense - the clearest evidence is the YOY offensive increases at triple-A, where they're using the MLB ball instead of the MiLB ball this year.
and their numbers have jumped too. This brings up two things to me. One, if true then this gives evidence to a juiced ball. Two, why the fuck has MiLB not used MLB baseballs? That is so dumb.
RE: I heard that MiLB is now using MLB baseballs Â
and their numbers have jumped too. This brings up two things to me. One, if true then this gives evidence to a juiced ball. Two, why the fuck has MiLB not used MLB baseballs? That is so dumb.
The ball used in MiLB uses cheaper materials and costs half as much. Performance of the two was about the same until recently.
Only AAA had switched to using MLB balls (MLB is subsidizing half the increased cost).
The biggest reason for the increased number of breaking balls is the explosion in use of the cutter (aka Cut Fasball}, which was popularized by Mariano Rivera. Whether this is a breaking ball or not is debatable.
Minor leagues are using mlb baseball and homers are up like crazy. Every jackass hits 20 plus homeruns. Gardner has 15 before all start break! On pace for 30 homers!!! Of course the balls are juiced. Kids dig the long ball
but not with the intention of changing the performance of the ball. It's possible the change was made without the knowledge of MLB. I assume everything in the ball has a spec, and that the manufacturer doesn't need to get individual approval on every component as long as everything's to spec.
So the ball could be completely to spec but still behave differently. It could be an unintended consequence of a move to cut costs or even something as simple as a change in suppliers.
To me, the tell is the frequency of opposite field home runs. Guys look like they are shanking the ball off late swings. But then the ball keeps going and going, and finds the seats. Sorry, but that's a reward that is way too generous for the offensive player.
Yeah, nothing has changed. Ketel Marte, whose previous high in HR's was 14, now has 20- in 200 fewer at bats. LeMeiheu's previous high was 15 in a season- in Coors no less- now has a dozen - in 200 fewer at bats. In the AL, there are 40 guys with a shot at 30 homers and almost 40 in the NL.
It's gotten ridiculous, and it's killing the pitchers. You wait for the spate of TJ cases, shoulder issues and forearm strains next season after most of these guys have spent the year throwing breaking balls more than 1/2 the time.
Where did I say nothings changed?
All I said was he sounds like a whiny little bitch. Which, is completely accurate.
let players take some of the banned substances that are designed to help keep them healthy or recover faster. Both pitchers and hitters benefit.
I want no part of juiced baseballs. It's Brady Anderson all over again.
Oh c’mon. Brady Anderson’s season had to do with roids. Not a juiced ball.
Obviously. My point is in the 90s the owners hung the players out to dry and now they are "launching" their improved version that also, conveniently, keeps players from continuing to play and make serious money into their 30s. This is the 2.0 model of the same BS game the owners have been playing.
Yeah, nothing has changed. Ketel Marte, whose previous high in HR's was 14, now has 20- in 200 fewer at bats. LeMeiheu's previous high was 15 in a season- in Coors no less- now has a dozen - in 200 fewer at bats. In the AL, there are 40 guys with a shot at 30 homers and almost 40 in the NL.
It's gotten ridiculous, and it's killing the pitchers. You wait for the spate of TJ cases, shoulder issues and forearm strains next season after most of these guys have spent the year throwing breaking balls more than 1/2 the time.
Where did I say nothings changed?
All I said was he sounds like a whiny little bitch. Which, is completely accurate.
Can Verlander speak without sounding like a whiny bitch? I don't think so. I just so happens that quite often he is saying what alot of others won't say and he gets my respect more often than i'd like.
The ball is different. Its been scientifically proven already and the commish has not argued otherwise. The argument that they have nothing to do with it is the weak one.
RE: RE: RE: RE: He sounds like a whiny little bitch Â
Yeah, nothing has changed. Ketel Marte, whose previous high in HR's was 14, now has 20- in 200 fewer at bats. LeMeiheu's previous high was 15 in a season- in Coors no less- now has a dozen - in 200 fewer at bats. In the AL, there are 40 guys with a shot at 30 homers and almost 40 in the NL.
It's gotten ridiculous, and it's killing the pitchers. You wait for the spate of TJ cases, shoulder issues and forearm strains next season after most of these guys have spent the year throwing breaking balls more than 1/2 the time.
Where did I say nothings changed?
All I said was he sounds like a whiny little bitch. Which, is completely accurate.
Can Verlander speak without sounding like a whiny bitch? I don't think so. I just so happens that quite often he is saying what alot of others won't say and he gets my respect more often than i'd like.
m
Speaking out is fine. No problem with that. He can also choose to speak out and not act like an indignant cunt.
So, for those keeping score, whiny indignant cunt bitch.
RE: Y'know, you can test for this kind of thing. Â
Compare how much bounce this season's ball has vs last season.
I hear this year after year, and I can believe the ball is inconsistent, but you never see any evidence of the changes to the ball.
Is there more or less yarn? Is the yarn different? Is it wound tighter?
Is the leather a different texture? Seams flatter or bigger?
Different materials in the center?
I mean, if they're juicing the ball, there has to be some measurable physical difference in the composition of the thing, right?
There have been studiez that have noted pbysical differences in the ball. Manfred even admitted the balls are different this year.
For all the talk this season about the balls being juiced, it should be noted that the balls were also juiced during the steroids era and help explain the massive home run totals.
It's also why the idea of comparing raw numbers across eras has always been a murky, futile exercise. The balls have changed, the bats have changed, the field dimensions have changed (and vary drastically), the strike zones have changed, the mound heights have changed, the player pools have changed, and the use of pitchers have changed.
There is a great site, steroids-and-baseball.com, which makes a comprehensive argument/analysis as to why the impact of PEDs on offense in baseball has been overblown due to a confluence of other factors. One of those factors is the changing baseball
Quote:
Summing What the Labs Tell Us
Two respectable groups of well-credentialled scientists, using state-of-the-art tools and investing substantial amounts of time, have come to pretty much the same conclusions after examining actual baseball from different seasons. And their conclusions are also pretty much in line with each other and with what the actual statistics of major-league baseball strongly suggest.
The URI study showed that baseballs from two well-separated years in the post-1993 era (1995 and 2000) were very like each other, yet very different from balls from pre-1993 years; it also showed significant categorical differences between the older Spalding and newer Rawlings balls. The Penn State study showed a marked increase in zip from 1977 on. All that agrees with the stats-indicated and common-sense indicated belief in a big jump when the ball maker was changed between 1976 and 1977, as well as the belief that there was a subsequent jump starting in 1993 and in full force in 1994.
The UMass-Lowell studies at MLB's lab of the 1999/2000 balls signifies, as expected, nothing, since there was never any indication that the ball has changed since the 1994 season began. Those much-hyped results were, whether by design or ineptitude, simply a meaningless straw-man exercise.
I hear this year after year, and I can believe the ball is inconsistent, but you never see any evidence of the changes to the ball.
Is there more or less yarn? Is the yarn different? Is it wound tighter?
Is the leather a different texture? Seams flatter or bigger?
Different materials in the center?
I mean, if they're juicing the ball, there has to be some measurable physical difference in the composition of the thing, right?
Link - ( New Window )
It's gotten ridiculous, and it's killing the pitchers. You wait for the spate of TJ cases, shoulder issues and forearm strains next season after most of these guys have spent the year throwing breaking balls more than 1/2 the time.
Quote:
...
Yeah, nothing has changed. Ketel Marte, whose previous high in HR's was 14, now has 20- in 200 fewer at bats. LeMeiheu's previous high was 15 in a season- in Coors no less- now has a dozen - in 200 fewer at bats. In the AL, there are 40 guys with a shot at 30 homers and almost 40 in the NL.
It's gotten ridiculous, and it's killing the pitchers. You wait for the spate of TJ cases, shoulder issues and forearm strains next season after most of these guys have spent the year throwing breaking balls more than 1/2 the time.
Pitchers are throwing more breaking balls because the research says that's a more effective way to get batters out. If you think that's "killing the pitchers" that's fine, but it's not because of the ball. And for the record, I'm pretty sure that pitchers are still throwing fastballs more than half the time, in aggregate.
That said, there's something to be said for the ball boosting offense - the clearest evidence is the YOY offensive increases at triple-A, where they're using the MLB ball instead of the MiLB ball this year.
[SMALL SAMPLE SIZE ALERT] - ( New Window )
The ball used in MiLB uses cheaper materials and costs half as much. Performance of the two was about the same until recently.
Only AAA had switched to using MLB balls (MLB is subsidizing half the increased cost).
Empty seats because those teams suck and are not even trying.
So the ball could be completely to spec but still behave differently. It could be an unintended consequence of a move to cut costs or even something as simple as a change in suppliers.
I want no part of juiced baseballs. It's Brady Anderson all over again.
To me, the tell is the frequency of opposite field home runs. Guys look like they are shanking the ball off late swings. But then the ball keeps going and going, and finds the seats. Sorry, but that's a reward that is way too generous for the offensive player.
Quote:
...
Yeah, nothing has changed. Ketel Marte, whose previous high in HR's was 14, now has 20- in 200 fewer at bats. LeMeiheu's previous high was 15 in a season- in Coors no less- now has a dozen - in 200 fewer at bats. In the AL, there are 40 guys with a shot at 30 homers and almost 40 in the NL.
It's gotten ridiculous, and it's killing the pitchers. You wait for the spate of TJ cases, shoulder issues and forearm strains next season after most of these guys have spent the year throwing breaking balls more than 1/2 the time.
Where did I say nothings changed?
All I said was he sounds like a whiny little bitch. Which, is completely accurate.
I want no part of juiced baseballs. It's Brady Anderson all over again.
Oh c’mon. Brady Anderson’s season had to do with roids. Not a juiced ball.
Quote:
let players take some of the banned substances that are designed to help keep them healthy or recover faster. Both pitchers and hitters benefit.
I want no part of juiced baseballs. It's Brady Anderson all over again.
Oh c’mon. Brady Anderson’s season had to do with roids. Not a juiced ball.
Obviously. My point is in the 90s the owners hung the players out to dry and now they are "launching" their improved version that also, conveniently, keeps players from continuing to play and make serious money into their 30s. This is the 2.0 model of the same BS game the owners have been playing.
Quote:
In comment 14494683 Hsilwek92 said:
Quote:
...
Yeah, nothing has changed. Ketel Marte, whose previous high in HR's was 14, now has 20- in 200 fewer at bats. LeMeiheu's previous high was 15 in a season- in Coors no less- now has a dozen - in 200 fewer at bats. In the AL, there are 40 guys with a shot at 30 homers and almost 40 in the NL.
It's gotten ridiculous, and it's killing the pitchers. You wait for the spate of TJ cases, shoulder issues and forearm strains next season after most of these guys have spent the year throwing breaking balls more than 1/2 the time.
Where did I say nothings changed?
All I said was he sounds like a whiny little bitch. Which, is completely accurate.
Can Verlander speak without sounding like a whiny bitch? I don't think so. I just so happens that quite often he is saying what alot of others won't say and he gets my respect more often than i'd like.
Quote:
In comment 14494720 HomerJones45 said:
Quote:
In comment 14494683 Hsilwek92 said:
Quote:
...
Yeah, nothing has changed. Ketel Marte, whose previous high in HR's was 14, now has 20- in 200 fewer at bats. LeMeiheu's previous high was 15 in a season- in Coors no less- now has a dozen - in 200 fewer at bats. In the AL, there are 40 guys with a shot at 30 homers and almost 40 in the NL.
It's gotten ridiculous, and it's killing the pitchers. You wait for the spate of TJ cases, shoulder issues and forearm strains next season after most of these guys have spent the year throwing breaking balls more than 1/2 the time.
Where did I say nothings changed?
All I said was he sounds like a whiny little bitch. Which, is completely accurate.
Can Verlander speak without sounding like a whiny bitch? I don't think so. I just so happens that quite often he is saying what alot of others won't say and he gets my respect more often than i'd like.
Speaking out is fine. No problem with that. He can also choose to speak out and not act like an indignant cunt.
So, for those keeping score, whiny indignant cunt bitch.
I hear this year after year, and I can believe the ball is inconsistent, but you never see any evidence of the changes to the ball.
Is there more or less yarn? Is the yarn different? Is it wound tighter?
Is the leather a different texture? Seams flatter or bigger?
Different materials in the center?
I mean, if they're juicing the ball, there has to be some measurable physical difference in the composition of the thing, right?
It's also why the idea of comparing raw numbers across eras has always been a murky, futile exercise. The balls have changed, the bats have changed, the field dimensions have changed (and vary drastically), the strike zones have changed, the mound heights have changed, the player pools have changed, and the use of pitchers have changed.
There is a great site, steroids-and-baseball.com, which makes a comprehensive argument/analysis as to why the impact of PEDs on offense in baseball has been overblown due to a confluence of other factors. One of those factors is the changing baseball
Two respectable groups of well-credentialled scientists, using state-of-the-art tools and investing substantial amounts of time, have come to pretty much the same conclusions after examining actual baseball from different seasons. And their conclusions are also pretty much in line with each other and with what the actual statistics of major-league baseball strongly suggest.
The URI study showed that baseballs from two well-separated years in the post-1993 era (1995 and 2000) were very like each other, yet very different from balls from pre-1993 years; it also showed significant categorical differences between the older Spalding and newer Rawlings balls. The Penn State study showed a marked increase in zip from 1977 on. All that agrees with the stats-indicated and common-sense indicated belief in a big jump when the ball maker was changed between 1976 and 1977, as well as the belief that there was a subsequent jump starting in 1993 and in full force in 1994.
The UMass-Lowell studies at MLB's lab of the 1999/2000 balls signifies, as expected, nothing, since there was never any indication that the ball has changed since the 1994 season began. Those much-hyped results were, whether by design or ineptitude, simply a meaningless straw-man exercise.
I recommend reading the entire thing
http://steroids-and-baseball.com/changing-baseball.shtml - ( New Window )
http://steroids-and-baseball.com/ - ( New Window )