Ball Four, in the dirt

[RPatrino]

I can't say when it became standard practice, but I suspect a major league pitcher worth his salt can do nasty things with a dirty baseball. Besides, they have 100 of them to use, why not use them all.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

I can't say when it became standard practice, but I suspect a major league pitcher worth his salt can do nasty things with a dirty baseball. Besides, they have 100 of them to use, why not use them all.

You just KNOW the ball cannot possibly be all scuffed up in most of the instances when they replace it.

[RPatrino]

All it takes is one small blemish, scuff or cut. Those dastardly pitchers don't need any more help, they will use any advantage they can get...

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

All it takes is one small blemish, scuff or cut. Those dastardly pitchers don't need any more help, they will use any advantage they can get...

Ohhhh - so that explains the greatness of Bob Gibson and Sandy Koufax. They had the advantage of scuffed baseballs. Because I know they didn't swap baseballs out like that in those days.

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Ohhhh - so that explains the greatness of Bob Gibson and Sandy Koufax. They had the advantage of scuffed baseballs. Because I know they didn't swap baseballs out like that in those days.

Perhaps a higher mound explains it a heck of alot better.
---------------------

On a side note, some basic math. 12 dozen balls X $120 per dozen X 162 games a year X (32 teams / 2) = about 3.7 million a year for balls based on open market price.

MLB just contracts Rawlings, correct? It's not up to each team to buy balls for the year, is it?

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Perhaps a higher mound explains it a heck of alot better.

That's an old baseball physics myth.

Robert K. Adair, Ph.D., in his excellent book, The Physics of Baseball, addresses many of these baseball myths - the "advantage" of the higher mound being one of them.

When the mound was lowered, the slope remained the same. In other words, the higher mounds were not any steeper than the lower mounds.

The height of the pitcher's plate has been changed at times. If the slope in front is retained at 1 inch to 1 foot, the height is almost irrelevant to the pitcher-batter competition. A decrease (or increase) in height of 2 inches is then precisely equivalent to an increase (or decrease) in the height of the plate - and the strike zone - by 2 inches, and the effect is that of making the pitcher throw each pitch 2 inches higher (or lower). However, if the slope is changed and the pitcher's foot lands at a different height, the leverage of the pitcher will change, and that can affect the delivery.

It's all explained - just like the myth of the "rising" fastball.

On the other hand, the advantage of a scuffed baseball is real.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

That's an old baseball physics myth.

Robert K. Adair, Ph.D., in his excellent book, The Physics of Baseball, addresses many of these baseball myths - the "advantage" of the higher mound being one of them.

When the mound was lowered, the slope remained the same. In other words, the higher mounds were not any steeper than than the lower mounds.

The height of the pitcher's plate has been changed at times. If the slope in front is retained at 1 inch to 1 foot, the height is almost irrelevant to the pitcher-batter competition. A decrease (or increase) in height of 2 inches is then precisely equivalent to an increase (or decrease) in the height of the plate - and the strike zone - by 2 inches, and the effect is that of making the pitcher throw each pitch 2 inches higher (or lower). However, if the slope is changed and the pitcher's foot lands at a different height, the leverage of the pitcher will change, and that can affect the delivery.

It's all explained - just like the myth of the "rising" fastball.

On the other hand, the advantage of a scuffed baseball is real.

Oh-oooooo! The rising fastball has surfaced again!