Juiced Baseball Update

[raindog]

If you read The Athletic article by Meredith Wills, it's not that far-fetched that they didn't intentionally "juice" the baseball. They made process improvements that make logical sense. A more perfectly round baseball, lower laces, (this theoretically was to help decrease blisters for pitchers), smoother leather. 

 

I don't think they realized how much the smoother leather would decrease drag on the baseball. They surely knew a rounder baseball would have an effect, but it doesn't make sense to not make a perfectly round baseball. They also have a more uniform size, due to process improvements. 

 

Unfortunately, the smoother leather has also caused grip issues for pitchers. So most aren't getting blisters from the laces, but blisters under their fingernails from digging into the ball, (Like Odorizzi).

 

I think what they need to do is just make the leather rougher. This would create more drag and improve grip for pitchers. And maybe test the balls in the real-world before making changes. 

[nicksaviking]

 

I'll say this ... I much prefer a close 2-1 game than a blowout. While home runs are fun ... only when your team is hitting them ... they get boring when you see them 5-7 times/game. They are no longer 'special.'

 

 

I agree, though my top priority is for the Twins to win. They seem to be good at this juiced baseball game, so until that stops working, I'm willing to see how this all plays out.

 

It would be a totally Minnesota thing for the club to build up the system with big thumpers the last three years only for MLB to change course and pull the rug out from underneath them when it appears their plan might actually pay off.

[biggentleben]

 

I'm also wondering what impact the lesser drag has on a given pitch - particularly a fastball. How much does that aid guys hitting triple digits? How much does that impact movement of a breaking ball? 

 

Also, and I've been saying this for a few years now, but as exit velocities increase the odds of a pitcher getting killed go up. MLB is protecting fans more (with calls for even more protection) but there doesn't seem to be a lot of consideration to the one guy that is most exposed in all of this. I know there were experiments with helmets or armored/padded hats and the like a few years ago, but it seems as though a pitcher is going to have to get killed on the field by a batted ball in order to change this aspect. Batters are doing more to protect themselves, yet the pitcher is just left there with only a glove, cup and ability to react as their protection. I really hope that something far more serious doesn't need to occur in order for baseball to acknowledge this problem that they've help create.

 

From a few analytics guys that have talked with me, the big thing noted is that fastball variants are taught much more. Sliders do not break the same way. Big, looping curves don't work the same way (unless you have unbelievable command of one like Greinke), so you see much more movement to hard curves over sliders and cutters and split-fingers over sliders.

 

As far as velocity, Alan Nathan's report stated that in a pitch, there would not be enough force applied by an arm to affect a difference in drag to encourage velocity.

[jkcarew]

 

As far as velocity, Alan Nathan's report stated that in a pitch, there would not be enough force applied by an arm to affect a difference in drag to encourage velocity.

That's the correct conclusion, but wrong reason. The reason is time. The effect of drag is exponential over time (for any given 'amount' of drag). That is to say, there is not enough TIME for drag to (significantly) impact a baseball over 60 feet....the ball is only traveling in the air for about one-half second (at the most).

[jkcarew]

 

I agree, though my top priority is for the Twins to win. They seem to be good at this juiced baseball game, so until that stops working, I'm willing to see how this all plays out.

 

It would be a totally Minnesota thing for the club to build up the system with big thumpers the last three years only for MLB to change course and pull the rug out from underneath them when it appears their plan might actually pay off.

I'm torn. On the one hand, it's out of hand...gotten almost to the point of embarrassing for MLB. On the other hand, I agree, this club is probably the first club the Twins have had since the 1960's that's constructed to take advantage.

[dex8425]

 

Maybe its just me, but if baseball is juicing baseballs to increase the number of home runs, then why all the fuss about steroids doing the same thing?  Why the hypocrisy?

 

 

Uh, because steroids are an illegal performance enhancing drug. There's many reasons why they're illegal. Google for yourself. Everyone is using the same ball, so the playing field is level. But more importantly, the ball itself isn't medically and physically harmful to every single user, nor is it morally wrong. 

 

[biggentleben]

 

Uh, because steroids are an illegal performance enhancing drug. There's many reasons why they're illegal. Google for yourself. Everyone is using the same ball, so the playing field is level. But more importantly, the ball itself isn't medically and physically harmful to every single user, nor is it morally wrong. 

 

...and virtually none of those who used PEDs were using illegal supplements. That argument doesn't work in the world of baseball and substances from that era. Many of the most widely used are still very legal, albeit often banned by professional sports leagues.

[wsnydes]

 

That's the correct conclusion, but wrong reason. The reason is time. The effect of drag is exponential over time (for any given 'amount' of drag). That is to say, there is not enough TIME for drag to (significantly) impact a baseball over 60 feet....the ball is only traveling in the air for about one-half second (at the most).

If that were the case, if a softball had the same weight of a baseball, there would be no impact? When we're talking such small time frames, even a small impact can make quiet a difference.

 

Not trying to argue, that's an honest question. I understand that it's an exponential force, so that part makes perfect sense. I realize that this example isn't truly apples to apples given we're talking very small change versus relatively larger change. 

 

Also, I think you can both be correct. Ben's talking about impact on the arm and you're referring to the ball in flight. I'd imagine that both are probably correct assessments. 

[dex8425]

 

I'm also wondering what impact the lesser drag has on a given pitch - particularly a fastball. How much does that aid guys hitting triple digits? How much does that impact movement of a breaking ball? 

 

Those in the cycling, airline and auto industries know the importance of aerodynamics. How aero a bike is is way more important than how much it weighs. The easiest way to get faster on a bike is to wear tighter clothing and get lower. No doubt the aero drag has an impact on baseballs flying in as well as out, though the aero drag becomes more noticeable on a ball flying 400 ft vs 60.5 feet. If there's a 2 percent change, that's a 1-2 mph difference in pitch velo but could very well be the difference between hitting the cf wall and going out. 

 

The changes to the ball in and of themselves aren't making the pitcher less safe, since the core of the ball reportedly is the same. I'd venture that the increased exit velo is mostly just dudes swinging harder to take advantage of the improved aerodynamics of the ball, combined with more pitching velo. 

[dex8425]

 

...and virtually none of those who used PEDs were using illegal supplements. That argument doesn't work in the world of baseball and substances from that era. Many of the most widely used are still very legal, albeit often banned by professional sports leagues.

 

You know what I mean. Banned=illegal. Just because EPO is legal to buy over the counter in Kenya doesn't mean it's legal to use for training for the NYC marathon. Whatever is banned by USADA or WADA is illegal to use in sports. They were using banned substances.  

[jkcarew]

If that were the case, if a softball had the same weight of a baseball, there would be no impact? When we're talking such small time frames, even a small impact can make quiet a difference.

 

Not trying to argue, that's an honest question. I understand that it's an exponential force, so that part makes perfect sense. I realize that this example isn't truly apples to apples given we're talking very small change versus relatively larger change.

 

Also, I think you can both be correct. Ben's talking about impact on the arm and you're referring to the ball in flight. I'd imagine that both are probably correct assessments.

My point is that there is no "impact to the arm" or impact from the arm, for that matter. Hard fastballs and well-hit balls are both initially traveling at close to 100 mph on the horizontal vector. So, once the ball is off the hand or off the bat, nothing matters except the 'coefficient of friction' (physics term for 'drag'). The ball is decelerating the instant the ball leaves the hand just as it is decelerating the instance it leaves the bat. And that rate of deceleration is determined entirely by the 'drag' inherent in the ball design plus other factors like net wind, barometric pressure (altitude), and humidity. All of those factors have an exponential impact on the velocity of the ball over time. A pitch that leaves a pitchers hand going 95 mph, is still going (close to) 95 when it crosses the plate less than one-half second later. A change in the 'coefficient of friction' of the baseball isn't going to have much impact...negligible. A guess: probably significantly less than an inch if you wanted to think of it in terms of position of the baseball at the same point in time after release.

 

Another way of looking at the difference in impact the new ball would have on hitting vs pitching....

 

How often do you hear hitters complain about hitting into the wind, vs pitcher complaining about pitching into the wind? (even at lower levels before huge wind-altering grandstands come into play, etc.) Think of the 'new' baseball as having a built-in steady 10 MPH wind at it's back no matter to which field it is hit. That's going to materially lengthen distance traveled on balls hit at a decent launch angle. Meanwhile, a 10 mph wind at a pitchers back, or into his face...either way...is not going to have a material impact on the velocity of the pitch as it crosses home plate...it's so negligible, you never hear it discussed.

 

edit: there are other non-velocity impacts that the new ball could have on pitching. I think some of these have been reported and/or mention in posts here: harder time gripping the ball, more walks/pitches, harder time spinning the ball and/or getting it to break, etc., etc.

[biggentleben]

 

You know what I mean. Banned=illegal. Just because EPO is legal to buy over the counter in Kenya doesn't mean it's legal to use for training for the NYC marathon. Whatever is banned by USADA or WADA is illegal to use in sports. They were using banned substances.  

 

No, many substances banned by MLB are available at your local GNC, not by going to Kenya. 

[Squirrel]

 

No, many substances banned by MLB are available at your local GNC, not by going to Kenya. 

Let's table the PED/juiced player talk as this is not the topic of this thread.

[Vanimal46]

New Fangraphs post that discusses how AAA teams are trying to adjust to the MLB (juiced) baseball.

 

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/when-every-park-is-a-bandbox-how-teams-are-adapting-to-the-new-ball/

[Vanimal46]

 

Using the MLB ball in AAA has certainly helped prospects get off to a hot start in their MLB careers.

[Vanimal46]

 

A 57% increase in HRs at AAA this year using the juiced baseball.

[notoriousgod71]

 

A 57% increase in HRs at AAA this year using the juiced baseball.

 

That's disgusting.

 

You really can't even claim it's an anomaly when the numbers are that egregious.