Questions...

"Tom MacIntyre" <tom__macintyre RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:89b4729nej11rbrcsegr7maaoqq77f761q@4ax.com...
> Was there really an asterisk (literally) in conjunction with Maris' 61
> HR in 1961?

No.
 >> Stay informed about: Questions... 

"Tom MacIntyre" <tom__macintyre.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:89b4729nej11rbrcsegr7maaoqq77f761q@4ax.com...
> Was there really an asterisk (literally) in conjunction with Maris' 61
> HR in 1961?
>
> How did so many scrawny (not only by steroid-bloated body standards)
> guys hit so many home runs in the past, and how did they hit them as
> far as they did?
>
> Just curious if anyone has any thoughts...

I think some of the distance explanation can be traced to the huge bats some
of the sluggers used prior to the 70's. Most current players have switched
to lighter bats with very thin handles(to increase bat speed). But some of
the old time hitters used monster sized bats that virtually no one
would/could swing today during a game. Ruth regularly used bats that
weighed 4-6 ounces more than modern bats. If you can catch up with the
pitch, a bigger heavier bat will make the ball go farther upon contact than
a lighter bat...

--
"They tease me now, telling me it was only a dream. But does it matter
whether it was a dream or reality, if the dream made known to me the
truth?" - Dostoevsky
 >> Stay informed about: Questions... 

Tom MacIntyre wrote:
> Was there really an asterisk (literally) in conjunction with Maris' 61
> HR in 1961?
>
> How did so many scrawny (not only by steroid-bloated body standards)
> guys hit so many home runs in the past, and how did they hit them as
> far as they did?

"Quick Wrists"
(Somewhere I saw something on how Aaron was able to hit so many homers.
"Quick wrists" was not the reason, though a few have suggested it was.
Maybe this was an article by Bill James...
 >> Stay informed about: Questions... 

"Chris Zabel" <alephnull.DeleteThis@earthlink.net> writes:

>"Tom MacIntyre" <tom__macintyre.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>> How did so many scrawny (not only by steroid-bloated body standards)
>> guys hit so many home runs in the past, and how did they hit them as
>> far as they did?

It's worth considering the possibility that bulking up beyond a certain
point has sharply diminishing returns. There's obviously some connection
between size and power, which is why there aren't any players David
Eckstein's size in the top 100 HR hitters, but it's possible that past
some critical point a batter has enough power that HR hitting becomes more
a matter of skill and technique than brute force. Remember that for many
years the conventional wisdom in baseball was that excessive bulk was
detrimental for hitting because it hurt range of motion. While that
probably isn't the whole story, we should still consider whether the top
HR hitters today are getting more benefit from their bigger bulk or from a
smaller strike zone and smaller ballparks.

>I think some of the distance explanation can be traced to the huge bats some
>of the sluggers used prior to the 70's. Most current players have switched
>to lighter bats with very thin handles(to increase bat speed). But some of
>the old time hitters used monster sized bats that virtually no one
>would/could swing today during a game. Ruth regularly used bats that
>weighed 4-6 ounces more than modern bats. If you can catch up with the
>pitch, a bigger heavier bat will make the ball go farther upon contact than
>a lighter bat...

Ruth's bats were bigger than that. My understanding is that most
contemporary hitters use bats that are somewhere in the 31-34 ounce range,
with anything heavier than that a real exception. In _Babe Ruth's Own
Book of Baseball_, Ruth mentioned that he used a 47 ounce bat when he set
the mark of 60 HR in 1927*. That's a full pound heavier than what some
contemporary sluggers use, and at least 12 ounces more than what I've
heard quoted as a weight for any contemporary batter.

Again, though, there's a question about whether batters are pursuing
marginal benefits by trying to shave off so much weight. My impression is
that a lot of the weight savings on modern bats comes from going to a
thinner handle, which has less effect on bat speed than weight that comes
off the barrel of the bat. That's supposed to produce "whip action", but
the physicists I've heard commenting on batting doubt whether you can get
any useful whip action from a bat. At the same time, thin handles
increase the risk of the bat breaking, and a broken bat pretty much kills
the chance of hitting a homerun. I wonder if contemporary hitters would
be better served by going with slightly heavier, thicker handled bats that
were less prone to breakage and choking up a fraction of an inch to make
up for the increased weight. It's worth noting that Bonds keeps his
bottom hand about an inch above the knob of the bat, and that obviously
hasn't hurt his power too much. I'm surprised that other sluggers haven't
tried doing the same thing.

*Actually, he mentioned that he used a 46 ounce bat in 1928, but that he
had been having his bat's weight reduced by 1 ounce every year, so the 47
ounces is an extrapolation. When Lousiville Slugger produces
reproductions of Ruth's record setting bats, they say that they're 47
ounces, which confirms that interpretation.

--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (raj@alumni.caltech.edu)
There's no point in questioning authority if you don't listen to the answers.
 >> Stay informed about: Questions... 

"Roger Moore" <raj.DeleteThis@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:e51r9h$oma$1@naig.caltech.edu...
> I wonder if contemporary hitters would
> be better served by going with slightly heavier, thicker handled bats that
> were less prone to breakage and choking up a fraction of an inch to make
> up for the increased weight.

If a batter needs to choke up, he needs a shorter bat to begin with. Choking
is overrated. In fact, I think it does more harm than good.
 >> Stay informed about: Questions... 

On Wed, 24 May 2006 05:59:05 GMT, "Chris Zabel"
<alephnull.DeleteThis@earthlink.net> wrote:

>"Tom MacIntyre" <tom__macintyre.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:89b4729nej11rbrcsegr7maaoqq77f761q@4ax.com...
>> Was there really an asterisk (literally) in conjunction with Maris' 61
>> HR in 1961?
>>
>> How did so many scrawny (not only by steroid-bloated body standards)
>> guys hit so many home runs in the past, and how did they hit them as
>> far as they did?
>>
>> Just curious if anyone has any thoughts...
>
>I think some of the distance explanation can be traced to the huge bats some
>of the sluggers used prior to the 70's. Most current players have switched
>to lighter bats with very thin handles(to increase bat speed). But some of
>the old time hitters used monster sized bats that virtually no one
>would/could swing today during a game. Ruth regularly used bats that
>weighed 4-6 ounces more than modern bats. If you can catch up with the
>pitch, a bigger heavier bat will make the ball go farther upon contact than
>a lighter bat...

Okay then, how did the scrawny guys swing the heavier bats quickly
enough? Again, just curious, interested...

Tom
 >> Stay informed about: Questions... 

"James Kahn" <kahn.TakeThisOut@nospam.panix.com> wrote in message
news:e535pb$8oj$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In <f0m9725n0shqjvca9ngulgc1gqd7l7vgb0.TakeThisOut@4ax.com> Tom MacIntyre
> <tom__macintyre.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>On Wed, 24 May 2006 05:59:05 GMT, "Chris Zabel"
>><alephnull.TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>>I think some of the distance explanation can be traced to the huge bats
>>>some
>>>of the sluggers used prior to the 70's. Most current players have
>>>switched
>>>to lighter bats with very thin handles(to increase bat speed). But some
>>>of
>>>the old time hitters used monster sized bats that virtually no one
>>>would/could swing today during a game. Ruth regularly used bats that
>>>weighed 4-6 ounces more than modern bats. If you can catch up with the
>>>pitch, a bigger heavier bat will make the ball go farther upon contact
>>>than
>>>a lighter bat...
>
>>Okay then, how did the scrawny guys swing the heavier bats quickly
>>enough? Again, just curious, interested...
>
> No one's mentioned the possibility that the pitchers weren't as
> good. So these 180 lh "scrawny" players got more fat pitches to
> hit out. Just a theory, I have no evidence to offer, other than
> a recollection that pitches like the slider and splitter really
> became more widespread in the 1970s and 80s, and a sense that more
> pitchers today throw in the mid-90s (that's MPH, not the decade)
> than did a generation ago.

I think there is something to the better pitchers theory, especially when
you consider pre-integration baseball vs now. Your bottom pitchers rom that
era were pushed out by the influx of black pitchers.

I'm not so sure though about the 90 mph comment though. It almost seems to
me that *fewer* pitchers throw that hard than before. Maybe it's simply a
dilution factor(same number of pitchers who reach that speed, but they are a
smaller percentage of a larger pool). Just seems that with the babying of
arms today all the way up the chain, it almost seems to discourage throwing
too hard, if that makes any sense.

Of course, maybe the best pitchers are also the best quarterbacks or some
other sport's athletes of the day.
 >> Stay informed about: Questions... 

Pat McLean wrote:
> "James Kahn" <kahn RemoveThis @nospam.panix.com> wrote in message
> news:e535pb$8oj$1@reader1.panix.com...
> > In <f0m9725n0shqjvca9ngulgc1gqd7l7vgb0 RemoveThis @4ax.com> Tom MacIntyre
> > <tom__macintyre RemoveThis @hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> >>On Wed, 24 May 2006 05:59:05 GMT, "Chris Zabel"
> >><alephnull RemoveThis @earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>I think some of the distance explanation can be traced to the huge bats
> >>>some
> >>>of the sluggers used prior to the 70's. Most current players have
> >>>switched
> >>>to lighter bats with very thin handles(to increase bat speed). But some
> >>>of
> >>>the old time hitters used monster sized bats that virtually no one
> >>>would/could swing today during a game. Ruth regularly used bats that
> >>>weighed 4-6 ounces more than modern bats. If you can catch up with the
> >>>pitch, a bigger heavier bat will make the ball go farther upon contact
> >>>than
> >>>a lighter bat...
> >
> >>Okay then, how did the scrawny guys swing the heavier bats quickly
> >>enough? Again, just curious, interested...
> >
> > No one's mentioned the possibility that the pitchers weren't as
> > good. So these 180 lh "scrawny" players got more fat pitches to
> > hit out. Just a theory, I have no evidence to offer, other than
> > a recollection that pitches like the slider and splitter really
> > became more widespread in the 1970s and 80s, and a sense that more
> > pitchers today throw in the mid-90s (that's MPH, not the decade)
> > than did a generation ago.
>
> I think there is something to the better pitchers theory, especially when
> you consider pre-integration baseball vs now. Your bottom pitchers rom that
> era were pushed out by the influx of black pitchers.
>
> I'm not so sure though about the 90 mph comment though. It almost seems to
> me that *fewer* pitchers throw that hard than before. Maybe it's simply a
> dilution factor(same number of pitchers who reach that speed, but they are a
> smaller percentage of a larger pool). Just seems that with the babying of
> arms today all the way up the chain, it almost seems to discourage throwing
> too hard, if that makes any sense.

I'm inclined to agree with the other poster - when I started following
baseball in the 1970s, as best as I can remember a mid-80s fastball was
considered average. A guy who could bring it at 90+ was something
special. Now, we have more guys than not throwing at 90+, and anybody
who has an 85 MPH fastball is considered a junkballer.
 >> Stay informed about: Questions... 

In article <qt1dg.1484$au4.1234@trndny08>,
"Ryan Robbins" <redbird007 DeleteThis @verizon.net> wrote:

>
> If a batter needs to choke up, he needs a shorter bat to begin with. Choking
> is overrated. In fact, I think it does more harm than good.

Just think what Barry Bonds could have accomplished had he listened to
you.

For the record, Ty Cobb was also an advocate of choking up on the bat.

--
Hank Gillette

"I think liberalism lives - the notion that we don't have to stay where we
are as a society, we have promises to keep, and it is liberalism, whether
people like it or not, which has animated all the years of my life. What
on Earth did conservatism ever accomplish for our country? -- Charles Kuralt
 >> Stay informed about: Questions... 

On Sat, 27 May 2006 15:33:23 -0400, DJH <djhammond.DeleteThis@ssl-mail.com>
wrote:

>On 25 May 2006 20:16:39 -0700, Seapig wrote:
>
>> I'm inclined to agree with the other poster - when I started following
>> baseball in the 1970s, as best as I can remember a mid-80s fastball was
>> considered average.
>
>Considering they had no reliable timing devices, no one knew what
>velocities were being reached.
>
>Having seen 1 million fastballs, 90s was thrown in my HS days no doubt
>about it.

Greetings, yourself...

One million fastballs? Your vision and perception was/is more accurate
than the timing devices of the 70's (Nolan Ryan was supposedly
accurately timed in 1973 (?) at 100.9 MPH)?

One million fastballs? Are you Tut?

Tom
 >> Stay informed about: Questions... 

On Sat, 27 May 2006 21:06:46 GMT, Tom MacIntyre
<tom__macintyre.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 27 May 2006 15:33:23 -0400, DJH <djhammond.RemoveThis@ssl-mail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 25 May 2006 20:16:39 -0700, Seapig wrote:
>>
>>> I'm inclined to agree with the other poster - when I started following
>>> baseball in the 1970s, as best as I can remember a mid-80s fastball was
>>> considered average.
>>
>>Considering they had no reliable timing devices, no one knew what
>>velocities were being reached.
>>
>>Having seen 1 million fastballs, 90s was thrown in my HS days no doubt
>>about it.
>
>Greetings, yourself...
>
>One million fastballs? Your vision and perception was/is more accurate
>than the timing devices of the 70's (Nolan Ryan was supposedly
>accurately timed in 1973 (?) at 100.9 MPH)?
>
>One million fastballs? Are you Tut?

Assume the average pitcher (and over a million fastballs, that's a big
enough sample size to assume average) throws 70% fastballs. Assume
150 pitches per team per game. That's 210 fastballs per game. DJH
would have hit a million in his 4,762nd game. Assuming he watches a
full game every day for the entire reasonable baseball season (call it
200 playable days), it takes less than 24 years to see a million
fastballs.

I thought, at the start of this post, that this myth was busted
(tangent: if I'm busting myths, why isn't Kari Byron somewhere
nearby?). But I'm forced to conclude that it's plausible. DJH might
be in his fifties and either someone who works in the business
(player, executive, or longtime scout - or some combination of the
three), or an obsessive-compulsive fan in his late seventies or
eighties. Not likely, mind you - the average fan hasn't seen anything
approaching a million fastballs. But there are some people out there
who have.

--Craig

--
"It's great to be known, but it's better to be known as strange."
- Chairman Kaga
 >> Stay informed about: Questions... 

DJH <djhammond.DeleteThis@ssl-mail.com> trolled:

[deletia]

Don't forget - ALL headers in your complaint to abuse.DeleteThis@bellsouth.net
 >> Stay informed about: Questions... 

On Sat, 27 May 2006 19:10:28 -0700, Craig Richardson
<crichard-tacoma.RemoveThis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 27 May 2006 21:06:46 GMT, Tom MacIntyre
><tom__macintyre.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 27 May 2006 15:33:23 -0400, DJH <djhammond.RemoveThis@ssl-mail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 25 May 2006 20:16:39 -0700, Seapig wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm inclined to agree with the other poster - when I started following
>>>> baseball in the 1970s, as best as I can remember a mid-80s fastball was
>>>> considered average.
>>>
>>>Considering they had no reliable timing devices, no one knew what
>>>velocities were being reached.
>>>
>>>Having seen 1 million fastballs, 90s was thrown in my HS days no doubt
>>>about it.
>>
>>Greetings, yourself...
>>
>>One million fastballs? Your vision and perception was/is more accurate
>>than the timing devices of the 70's (Nolan Ryan was supposedly
>>accurately timed in 1973 (?) at 100.9 MPH)?
>>
>>One million fastballs? Are you Tut?
>
>Assume the average pitcher (and over a million fastballs, that's a big
>enough sample size to assume average) throws 70% fastballs. Assume
>150 pitches per team per game. That's 210 fastballs per game. DJH
>would have hit a million in his 4,762nd game. Assuming he watches a
>full game every day for the entire reasonable baseball season (call it
>200 playable days), it takes less than 24 years to see a million
>fastballs.

Thanks Craig...I knew it was "possible", but am still somewhat
doubtful (I am aptly named, I suppose). The scenario you present above
is pretty much for clear sailing in all variables, but yes...it is
possible.

The "Tut" question was related to demeanor as well.

Tom
>
>I thought, at the start of this post, that this myth was busted
>(tangent: if I'm busting myths, why isn't Kari Byron somewhere
>nearby?). But I'm forced to conclude that it's plausible. DJH might
>be in his fifties and either someone who works in the business
>(player, executive, or longtime scout - or some combination of the
>three), or an obsessive-compulsive fan in his late seventies or
>eighties. Not likely, mind you - the average fan hasn't seen anything
>approaching a million fastballs. But there are some people out there
>who have.
>
>--Craig
 >> Stay informed about: Questions...