2008-2009 Hot Stove Thread

[Tim McG]

Really Timmy? Wow. Just ... Wow.

The earthquake effected the entire area. No one disputes this. But apparently it only effected the fans and players of one team, not the other.

And I'm still waiting to hear about your claim that Ferguson Jenkins pitched in the Deadball Era.

Santa Cruz doesn't field a ML Baseball team. OK? San Francisco does. Hence the difference. Oakland suffered a freeway collapse, but the damage wasn't even close to the levels of the destruction on the Penisula. Got it, Danny?

And Jenkins was Old School.

Prove me wrong.

Edited January 16, 2009 by GoodSpeak

[Quincy]

Dodgers cut Andruw Jones (AKA "WORST FA SIGNING EVER").....

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3836749

I guess few careers ever fell apart as quickly as Steve Blass's, and other hitters have just lost it too at an early age too, but this one seems more mysterious than some of the others. Probably just because it's the latest, though recalling that baby face of his when he homered in the World Series as a kid is part of it too. I hope he figures it out, but he has so far to go just to be plain old awful right now.

[paul secor]

And Jenkins was Old School.

Just curious - what does that mean? He pitched during a lot of the years that Nolan Ryan pitched, so you can't be referring to the era he pitched in.

[tkeith]

Dodgers cut Andruw Jones (AKA "WORST FA SIGNING EVER").....

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3836749

I guess few careers ever fell apart as quickly as Steve Blass's, and other hitters have just lost it too at an early age too, but this one seems more mysterious than some of the others. Probably just because it's the latest, though recalling that baby face of his when he homered in the World Series as a kid is part of it too. I hope he figures it out, but he has so far to go just to be plain old awful right now.

Agreed. He was such a dominating force of natural talent when he arrived, you really hate to see it come to this. It'd be nice to see him figure it out.

[Matthew]

Just one observation on Jenkins: He was always a leader in giving up the most home runs, giving up 484 (in the top ten all-time) homers in his career. I thing that stat along proves he did not pitch in the "dead ball era."

[Dan Gould]

Matthew, you've fallen behind, my friend. First, Timmy said he was "Dead Ball Era". Now Timmy says he was "Old School".

God only knows what this maroon is truly saying.

Edited January 16, 2009 by Dan Gould

[Matthew]

Matthew, you've fallen behind, my friend. First, Timmy said he was "Dead Ball Era". Now Timmy says he was "Old School".

God only knows what this maroon is truly saying.

I'm sure "Old School" is not his code for pre-steriod.

[Tim McG]

And Jenkins was Old School.

Just curious - what does that mean? He pitched during a lot of the years that Nolan Ryan pitched, so you can't be referring to the era he pitched in.

At the end of his career, yes, the ball was becoming "juiced". Ryan saw a lot more of that since he played 10 years longer.

But I seriously do not believe there can be any side-by-side comparison to Ryan.

BTW, Jenkins pitched 1965-1983; Ryan pitched 1966-1993. The ball was juiced by the mid-80s. I suspect Jenkins saw very little of that.

For Dan's sake, The Dead Ball Era occurred during the same time Jenkins was pitching. His greatest successes coming in the 1970s. Hence my point.

Edited January 16, 2009 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

Matthew, you've fallen behind, my friend. First, Timmy said he was "Dead Ball Era". Now Timmy says he was "Old School".

God only knows what this maroon is truly saying.

I'm sure "Old School" is not his code for pre-steriod.

Har.

You might be interested to know that anabolic steroids have been around since the 1960s...remember those beefed-up Chech and Russian female Olympians? I seroiusly doubt they were the only ones using the stuff then.

Edited January 16, 2009 by GoodSpeak

[Dan Gould]

And Jenkins was Old School.

Just curious - what does that mean? He pitched during a lot of the years that Nolan Ryan pitched, so you can't be referring to the era he pitched in.

At the end of his career, yes.

But I seriously do not believe there can be any side-by-side comparison to Ryan.

BTW, Jenkins pitched 1965-1983; Ryan pitched 1966-1993. The ball was juiced by the mid-80s. I suspect Jenkins saw very little of that.

For Dan's sake, The Dead ball Era occured during the same time Jenkins was pitching. His greatest successes coming in the 1970s.

Does anyone else want to correct Timmy about what the term "Dead Ball era" is understood to mean?

Meantime, we can still wait on his "old school" definition. I'm sure it will be a hoot. In the meantime, let's remember some recent comments directed at Timmy:

You have a fascinating ability to reinvent history.

I lived in SF during that quake but I have to say I am pretty offended that you think it only affected people in SF, there was massive damage in Oakland and all the way down to where I grew up in Santa Cruz.

I lived in SF during that quake but I have to say I am pretty offended that you think it only affected people in SF, there was massive damage in Oakland and all the way down to where I grew up in Santa Cruz.

I was just going to say the same thing. True, SF was hit harder by the quake, but man, Tim... BOTH the Giants and the A's were touched by the quake, so it was an issue for both teams. It's not like the A's weren't affected at all.

And this:

No earthquake, Giants win.

This is just not a reflection of reality in any way. Like I said before... not a chance in hell.

I've never heard the 1960s & '70s called "dead ball" before.

Timmy may be the least-informed hard-core baseball fan in the world.

[Tim McG]

Just one observation on Jenkins: He was always a leader in giving up the most home runs, giving up 484 (in the top ten all-time) homers in his career. I thing that stat along proves he did not pitch in the "dead ball era."

Or he hung a lot of curveballs....

If guys are going yard that many times it is clearly indicative of a pitching/ball placement issue.

Ryan, OTOH, walked a lot of guys early in his career...he was pretty wild then, too. Got sent down to the minors at least once because of it. But in spite of that his SO record speaks volumes on his ability. His best numbers were later rather than earlier in his career; early success was the case with Jenkins.

Edited January 16, 2009 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

Dan,

Because you have never heard of something dosen't make it any less true.

Besides, you know as well as I do I'm speaking of the days before the ball was juiced-up.

Historically, the the Dead Ball Era would be in the early 1900s, this is true. But there again, the ball wasn't juiced until the mid-80s.

What other term could be used describe that time period before the ball was juiced?

Edited January 16, 2009 by GoodSpeak

[BERIGAN]

Dodgers cut Andruw Jones (AKA "WORST FA SIGNING EVER").....

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3836749

I guess few careers ever fell apart as quickly as Steve Blass's, and other hitters have just lost it too at an early age too, but this one seems more mysterious than some of the others. Probably just because it's the latest, though recalling that baby face of his when he homered in the World Series as a kid is part of it too. I hope he figures it out, but he has so far to go just to be plain old awful right now.

Agreed. He was such a dominating force of natural talent when he arrived, you really hate to see it come to this. It'd be nice to see him figure it out.

Braves don't even seem to want to take a flyer on him. He doesn't want to come to spring training with a minor league contract, which means dropping someone from the 40 man the braves don't want to drop now. I have heard he sucked in winter ball(Don't take this as gospel , but read earlier today he only had 16 ab's, struck out 8 times, then went home for personal reasons)

When I saw some early footage of him vs. the Yankees when he left ATL, he was more upright, and closer to the plate, wonder why he didn't try what worked for him at 19???

He and Frenchy have the same exact problem(Well, Jeff Francoeur still seems salvagable, and could hit a fat pitch down the middle still) EVERY pitcher knows they will swing at sliders or curves low and outside. Why someone can't just show them some stats, "hey Andruw, we just crunched some numbers, and when you have two strikes on ya, there is an 87.5 % chance the pitch is outside, DON'T swing with two strikes!!!" then pitchers will have throw the ball over the plate, at least once in awhile.

I think the Reds should take a flyer on him, no pressure, Dusty as the manager, just seems like the right move.....

[Tim McG]

Dusty Baker is with the Reds now?

I didn't know that.

[Quincy]

Just one observation on Jenkins: He was always a leader in giving up the most home runs, giving up 484 (in the top ten all-time) homers in his career. I thing that stat along proves he did not pitch in the "dead ball era."

Or he hung a lot of curveballs....

If guys are going yard that many times it is clearly indicative of a pitching/ball placement issue.

He was a control pitcher who pitched a lot of games at Wrigley. If you go to Retrosheet you'll find his home run allowed totals were twice as high at Wrigley compared to other parks for his first stint with the Cubs through 1973. After that like Hunter & Blyleven the park didn't seem to matter as much (though the old Ranger park may have helped him some.) Takes guts to be a control pitcher at Wrigley & Fenway. Had he retired a Phillie his career would have been a palindrome.

Phillies>Cubs>Rangers>Red Sox>Rangers>Cubs>_____

[Quincy]

He and Frenchy have the same exact problem(Well, Jeff Francoeur still seems salvagable, and could hit a fat pitch down the middle still) EVERY pitcher knows they will swing at sliders or curves low and outside. Why someone can't just show them some stats, "hey Andruw, we just crunched some numbers, and when you have two strikes on ya, there is an 87.5 % chance the pitch is outside, DON'T swing with two strikes!!!" then pitchers will have throw the ball over the plate, at least once in awhile.

I think someone needs to develop the invisible fence technology that gives a mild shock to dogs to keep them in yard. If you extend your bat too far in the low & away zone you get a little zap. Such a thing wouldn't be used on all players mind you. If Vlad Guerrero wants to swing at a ball one inch off the ground in the opposite batter's box, let him. A few mild jolts vould discipline zee hitter, no?

Invisible dog fence technology seem to be the solution for everything in sports nowadays. Some think the NFL should use it to determine if the plane of the endzone has been breached.

[Soulstation1]

Mount Gould and Goodspeak = BFF

[BERIGAN]

Dusty Baker is with the Reds now?

I didn't know that.

Yeah, was their manager last year as well. Being in the same division as the Cubs, and after the Reds traded Griffey(Admittedly not the Griffey of old) and Dunn, he might have wondered why he signed with them.

[Dan Gould]

BTW, Jenkins pitched 1965-1983; Ryan pitched 1966-1993. The ball was juiced by the mid-80s. I suspect Jenkins saw very little of that.

If the ball was juiced by the mid-80s, why was it that the first and only time that MLB studied the question of a "juiced" ball was in 2000, when it commissioned a study of 1999 vs 2000 balls?

http://webusers.npl.uiuc.edu/~a-nathan/pob/UML2000.pdf

If the ball was juiced by the mid-80s, why do the league HR leaders look like this (NL listed first)

85: 37/40

86: 37/40

87: 49/49 (this would be Dawson in Wrigley, and McGuire's rookie season)

88: 39/42

89: 47/36

90: 40/51

91: 38/44

92: 35/43

93: 46/46

It is from 1993 until 2007 that the leader in both leagues hit a minimum of 40 home runs, which is a stretch never before seen in baseball history (its kind of interesting to see that the closest was a nine year stretch from '56 to '64 in which there were mashers in both leagues exceeding 39 homers every year).

Wish I had the league home run totals handy but there is no question in my mind that the idea of a "juiced" ball (or more likely, increasingly juiced bodies) was even suggested before the early to mid 90s.

[BERIGAN]

He and Frenchy have the same exact problem(Well, Jeff Francoeur still seems salvagable, and could hit a fat pitch down the middle still) EVERY pitcher knows they will swing at sliders or curves low and outside. Why someone can't just show them some stats, "hey Andruw, we just crunched some numbers, and when you have two strikes on ya, there is an 87.5 % chance the pitch is outside, DON'T swing with two strikes!!!" then pitchers will have throw the ball over the plate, at least once in awhile.

I think someone needs to develop the invisible fence technology that gives a mild shock to dogs to keep them in yard. If you extend your bat too far in the low & away zone you get a little zap. Such a thing wouldn't be used on all players mind you. If Vlad Guerrero wants to swing at a ball one inch off the ground in the opposite batter's box, let him. A few mild jolts vould discipline zee hitter, no?

Invisible dog fence technology seem to be the solution for everything in sports nowadays. Some think the NFL should use it to determine if the plane of the endzone has been breached.

Sounds like a plan! Some other players, like Alfonso Soriano have periods of that problem, but they seem to find a way not to control themselves sometimes...

Edited January 16, 2009 by BERIGAN

[Tim McG]

Just one observation on Jenkins: He was always a leader in giving up the most home runs, giving up 484 (in the top ten all-time) homers in his career. I thing that stat along proves he did not pitch in the "dead ball era."

Or he hung a lot of curveballs....

If guys are going yard that many times it is clearly indicative of a pitching/ball placement issue.

He was a control pitcher who pitched a lot of games at Wrigley. If you go to Retrosheet you'll find his home run allowed totals were twice as high at Wrigley compared to other parks for his first stint with the Cubs through 1973. After that like Hunter & Blyleven the park didn't seem to matter as much (though the old Ranger park may have helped him some.) Takes guts to be a control pitcher at Wrigley & Fenway. Had he retired a Phillie his career would have been a palindrome.

Phillies>Cubs>Rangers>Red Sox>Rangers>Cubs>_____

That makes sense.

I understand when the wind blows out at Wrigley, the balls are just zooming out of the park. And if a control pitcher doesn't have it, seems guys would be sending several balls over the fence.

[Tim McG]

BTW, Jenkins pitched 1965-1983; Ryan pitched 1966-1993. The ball was juiced by the mid-80s. I suspect Jenkins saw very little of that.

If the ball was juiced by the mid-80s, why was it that the first and only time that MLB studied the question of a "juiced" ball was in 2000, when it commissioned a study of 1999 vs 2000 balls?

http://webusers.npl.uiuc.edu/~a-nathan/pob/UML2000.pdf

If the ball was juiced by the mid-80s, why do the league HR leaders look like this (NL listed first)

85: 37/40

86: 37/40

87: 49/49 (this would be Dawson in Wrigley, and McGuire's rookie season)

88: 39/42

89: 47/36

90: 40/51

91: 38/44

92: 35/43

93: 46/46

It is from 1993 until 2007 that the leader in both leagues hit a minimum of 40 home runs, which is a stretch never before seen in baseball history (its kind of interesting to see that the closest was a nine year stretch from '56 to '64 in which there were mashers in both leagues exceeding 39 homers every year).

Wish I had the league home run totals handy but there is no question in my mind that the idea of a "juiced" ball (or more likely, increasingly juiced bodies) was even suggested before the early to mid 90s.

I think the stat which might be most telling is the increase in HRs and hits overall, not just by the leaders, but the entire league.

The correaltion would be a pitcher has to throwing gas or be in complete command of his pitches or he is going to get lit up. A juiced ball is going to get to the holes a lot quicker than a "dead ball."

Edited January 16, 2009 by GoodSpeak

[Dan Gould]

I think the stat which might be most telling is the increase in HRs and hits overall, not just by the leaders, but the entire league.

Well then let's take a look, shall we? For simplicity sake, let's just consider the NL, whose stats are found on this page:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL.shtml

Hits:

From 1969 to 1992, the total number of hits in the NL varies consistently between 16000 and 17275 at the very highest. There is no discernable pattern, and absolutely no uptick in the "mid-80s".

In 1993, total number of hits first exceeded 20,000, and that became the new "floor" for every non-strike season except 1995, when the hits reached 18184, well in excess of the totals of the prior period.

Home Runs:

Almost every season in the 70s and 80s saw home runs total between the 1200 and 1500 range, with a single spike over 1800 in 1987. Once again, it was 1993 that saw a jump up above 1900 home runs hit, and afterwards, only the non-strike year of 1995 sees a similar number, and from 1996 on, well over 2000 homers were hit every season.

There is absolutely no statistical support for your claim of a mid-80s "juiced" ball. Yet 1969 and 1993 seems to be turning points, and there are clear reasons why they would be:

1969 saw the lowering of the mound

1993 saw Colorado and Florida come into the league, and I think we all know that Colorado was an insane hitter's park and furthermore, the addition of two new teams diluted the pitching skills of the league as a whole.

Q.E.D., which in this case is Latin for Goodie, get a clue.

[Tim McG]

I think the stat which might be most telling is the increase in HRs and hits overall, not just by the leaders, but the entire league.

Well then let's take a look, shall we? For simplicity sake, let's just consider the NL, whose stats are found on this page:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL.shtml

Hits:

From 1969 to 1992, the total number of hits in the NL varies consistently between 16000 and 17275 at the very highest. There is no discernable pattern, and absolutely no uptick in the "mid-80s".

In 1993, total number of hits first exceeded 20,000, and that became the new "floor" for every non-strike season except 1995, when the hits reached 18184, well in excess of the totals of the prior period.

Home Runs:

Almost every season in the 70s and 80s saw home runs total between the 1200 and 1500 range, with a single spike over 1800 in 1987. Once again, it was 1993 that saw a jump up above 1900 home runs hit, and afterwards, only the non-strike year of 1995 sees a similar number, and from 1996 on, well over 2000 homers were hit every season.

There is absolutely no statistical support for your claim of a mid-80s "juiced" ball. Yet 1969 and 1993 seems to be turning points, and there are clear reasons why they would be:

1969 saw the lowering of the mound

1993 saw Colorado and Florida come into the league, and I think we all know that Colorado was an insane hitter's park and furthermore, the addition of two new teams diluted the pitching skills of the league as a whole.

Q.E.D., which in this case is Latin for Goodie, get a clue.

Well, that HR spike in 1987 would be after 1985, yes? Secondly, what are the numbers after that time [1987-93]; same or higher than before 1987?

Would the increase after 1993 suggest the ball had been juiced even more? I seem to remember the sporting news making juiced ball claims with inceased frequency beginning in the mid-80s. Your stats prove as much.

What do the stats say about the AL...where the DH is?

[Dan Gould]

Well, that HR spike in 1987 would be after 1985, yes? Secondly, what are the numbers after that time [1987-93]; same or higher than before 1987?

It was without question an isolated spike in the data. Here are the NL home run totals for 1988 to 1992:

1279

1365

1521

1430

1262

AVG: 1371

Here are the NL home run totals for 1986 to 1982:

1523

1424

1278

1398

1299

AVG: 1384

See Goodie? In between that isolated spike to 1824 home runs in 1987, there were MORE home runs hit in the prior five years than there were in the following five years. And remember that the data shows that in 1993, with two new teams in the league, hits and home runs jumped.

Would the increase after 1993 suggest the ball had been juiced even mo

re? I seem to remember the sporting news making juiced ball claims with inceased frequency beginning in the mid-80s. Your stats prove as much.

My stats prove nothing of the kind. There is no statistical evidence of a juiced ball outside of the isolated case of 1987. Had the ball been juiced and stayed juiced, then the five years after 1987 would not have seen FEWER home runs hit than in the five years prior to 1987.

What do the stats say about the AL...where the DH is?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL.shtml

Same spike in home runs in 1987 but of a distinctly lesser magnitude. No spike in hits in 1987, no spike in the mid 80s at all (there goes your other claim). But here is the astounding data:

AVG home runs in the AL, 1988 to 1992: 1829

AVG home runs in the AL, 1982 to 1986: 2086

In short, no evidence whatsoever for a "juiced" ball in the "mid-80s".