OC Register: Angels’ Joe Maddon hopes new baseballs bring back ‘1985’ style

[Angel Oracle]

39 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

Losers.

It fell apart the next to last Saturday of the 1985 season, when they led in Cleveland 5-0 in the 8th and lost the game.

Edited March 27, 2021 by Angel Oracle

[tdawg87]

Just now, Angel Oracle said:

It fell apart the next to last Saturday of the season, when they led in Cleveland 5-0 in the 8th and lost the game.

Typical Angels pen.

[Angel Oracle]

5 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

Typical Angels pen.

Ironic that Donnie Moore was having one of the best seasons in franchise history for a reliever (1.50s ERA and 30+ Saves), but gave up 5 runs in the 8th inning that day in Cleveland.

Edited March 27, 2021 by Angel Oracle

[tdawg87]

Just now, Angel Oracle said:

Ironic that Donnie Moore was having one of the best seasons in franchise history for a reliever (1.50s ERA and 30+ Saves), but gave up all of those runs that day in Cleveland.

Dammit. Now I can't joke about it.

[Justin]

45 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

Ronald Reagan? The actor?!

My first thought when I read the thread title was I'm sure in 1985, plutonium is available in every corner drug store...

[HaloBronco]

5 hours ago, PattyD22 said:

That 1985 Cardinals team was amazing, and I specifically referenced them in my post for a reason.  They had Coleman, Jack Clark, Andy Van Slyke, Ozzie Smith, Willie McGee, Tommie Herr, Terry Pendleton, etc.

Aside from Jack Clark’s team leading 22 HR’s, the nearest player was Van Slyke who had 13.  Tommie Herr led the team with 110 RBI’s but only had 8 HR’s.  Herzog had them play small ball, and they won 101 games and Damn near won the World Series but lost in 7 games.  As a baseball fan, that team was pretty amazing to watch.

I'm with you on this. Loved that style of Baseball the cardinal teams played under Herzog and would love to see baseball played like that today.

That's why I appreciate Fletcher so much he brings back some of that style that's been lost in todays game.

Pretty sad that it's unique to see a player like him in todays game.  

[Angelsjunky]

6 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

To be fair, i think coleman was being offensive. (Sorry, Im gonna keep this dumb joking as long as i can)

Good call on the top end though. With so many guys sporting 25 HR power, going back roughly 25 or so years now, youd figure there would be "lots" of 45-50 guys now.

Guess it shows that steroids, muscles, swing angles or not, the actual skill of hitting a ball 400 feet in the opposite direction is harder than you think. 

Baseball will always be underrated as far as skill to non fans. Theres the old stereotype that ballplayers arent athletes. To be fair, plenty of examples they arent. (Then again theres plenty who are in far better shape than people realize, but cant tell under baggy jerseys). 

But the actual skill.... hitting a ball. From a pro pitcher. Throwing a pitch that moves at 90 MPH. Throwing the ball with accuracy. Etc etc. 

Plenty of stories out there of start nba players who didnt play until high school. Same with the NFL. No way in hell that happens in baseball. Its one of the few sports being blessed with size wont help you very much at all.

Yes, agreed. Baseball is very, very hard, with a far more refined skill set that most other big sports.

Back to HR. I did a bit of research to get my numbers down. As I'm sure you know, the baseball of the first couple decades of the two major leagues (beginning in 1901) was very different, based on speed and line-drives. From 1901-19, only three players hit more than 20 HR: Babe Ruth (29 in 1919), Gavvy Cravath (24 in 1915), and Frank Schulte (21 in 1911). One could argue that it was Cravath who was the first true power-hitter, leading the majors three years in a row from 1913 to 1915 with 19, 19, 24. Only 12 players hit 15 or more HR in a season in those first 19 years of the two leagues.

Then in 1919 Ruth broke Cravath's record by hitting 29 (although Ned Williamson had hit 27 in 1884, but that was before the "major league era" of 1901 on). But that 29 just seemed like a high but not impossible total. Ruth demolished his own record a year later with 54, utterly changing baseball. What was so shocking is that no one else hit even 20 (Sisler was second with 19).

Contrary to popular opinion it wasn't only the "dead ball," but Ruth's upper-cut swing which began to catch on in 1921. Ruth led the majors again with 59, but five other players hit over 20 HR, with Ken Williams and Bob Meusel hitting 24 each, George Kelly and Tilly Walker 23 each, and Rogers Hornsby hitting 21.

But it wasn't like everyone started hitting tons of HR right after Ruth did - the 20s were really a transition era. Rogers Hornsby was the first non-Ruthian to hit over 40 HR, taking the crown from Ruth with 42 HR in 1922 (Ruth was injured, playing only 110 games), following by Ken Williams with 39, Tilly Walker with 37, then Ruth with 35.

But it wasn't until 1929 that home runs really exploded - even before that, only a handful of guys were hitting 20+ HR a year, but in '29 fully ten players hit 30 or more, and sixteen hit 20+. From that point on, power hitters have been a plentiful.

What I find interesting is that while the major league leader has fluctuated over time--usually in the 40s, but sometimes in the 30s and occasionally jumping into the 50s--the median has gradually risen. As I said, in the Dead Ball Era the median (meaning, the typical regular) hit about 2-3 HR a year, and oftentimes inside the park homers. This went up slowly in the 20s, but was still below 10, finally reaching that number in 1930. It continued to rise slowly, reaching around 15 by the mid-50s and, while fluctuating a bit, holding around that range until the mid-90s when it jumped to around 20 in the Roid Era. It fell back a bit post-Roid to the 17-19 range from 2010-13 down to 14 in 2014. But in 2016 it jumped to a historical high of 22, 23 in 2017, 20 in 2018, and another high of 25 in 2019.

Anyhow, who knows what 2021 will bring, but I imagine the goal is to bring it back down to the 15-19 range. But if history tells us anything, we'll still be seeing guys lead the lead regularly with 45+ HR. My hope is that Trout sneaks in a 50 HR season in the next few years.

 

[AngelsLakersFan]

15 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Yes, agreed. Baseball is very, very hard, with a far more refined skill set that most other big sports.

Back to HR. I did a bit of research to get my numbers down. As I'm sure you know, the baseball of the first couple decades of the two major leagues (beginning in 1901) was very different, based on speed and line-drives. From 1901-19, only three players hit more than 20 HR: Babe Ruth (29 in 1919), Gavvy Cravath (24 in 1915), and Frank Schulte (21 in 1911). One could argue that it was Cravath who was the first true power-hitter, leading the majors three years in a row from 1913 to 1915 with 19, 19, 24. Only 12 players hit 15 or more HR in a season in those first 19 years of the two leagues.

Then in 1919 Ruth broke Cravath's record by hitting 29 (although Ned Williamson had hit 27 in 1884, but that was before the "major league era" of 1901 on). But that 29 just seemed like a high but not impossible total. Ruth demolished his own record a year later with 54, utterly changing baseball. What was so shocking is that no one else hit even 20 (Sisler was second with 19).

Contrary to popular opinion it wasn't only the "dead ball," but Ruth's upper-cut swing which began to catch on in 1921. Ruth led the majors again with 59, but five other players hit over 20 HR, with Ken Williams and Bob Meusel hitting 24 each, George Kelly and Tilly Walker 23 each, and Rogers Hornsby hitting 21.

But it wasn't like everyone started hitting tons of HR right after Ruth did - the 20s were really a transition era. Rogers Hornsby was the first non-Ruthian to hit over 40 HR, taking the crown from Ruth with 42 HR in 1922 (Ruth was injured, playing only 110 games), following by Ken Williams with 39, Tilly Walker with 37, then Ruth with 35.

But it wasn't until 1929 that home runs really exploded - even before that, only a handful of guys were hitting 20+ HR a year, but in '29 fully ten players hit 30 or more, and sixteen hit 20+. From that point on, power hitters have been a plentiful.

What I find interesting is that while the major league leader has fluctuated over time--usually in the 40s, but sometimes in the 30s and occasionally jumping into the 50s--the median has gradually risen. As I said, in the Dead Ball Era the median (meaning, the typical regular) hit about 2-3 HR a year, and oftentimes inside the park homers. This went up slowly in the 20s, but was still below 10, finally reaching that number in 1930. It continued to rise slowly, reaching around 15 by the mid-50s and, while fluctuating a bit, holding around that range until the mid-90s when it jumped to around 20 in the Roid Era. It fell back a bit post-Roid to the 17-19 range from 2010-13 down to 14 in 2014. But in 2016 it jumped to a historical high of 22, 23 in 2017, 20 in 2018, and another high of 25 in 2019.

Anyhow, who knows what 2021 will bring, but I imagine the goal is to bring it back down to the 15-19 range. But if history tells us anything, we'll still be seeing guys lead the lead regularly with 45+ HR. My hope is that Trout sneaks in a 50 HR season in the next few years.

 

You gotta think that the parks played a major role in this. Obviously Yankee stadium was built for Ruth's swing after he showed what a weapon homeruns could be. Similar to how the Angels put the line up on the wall to jump on the launch angle bandwagon, I bet there were a lot of changes to field dimensions across the league over the period you reference.