Interesting Home Run Rule
SDSportsFan
Posts: 5,136 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
I just found these two paragraphs in the Wikipedia entry for Babe Ruth:
"As a sidelight to his prominent role in changing the game to the power game, the frequency and popularity of Ruth's home runs eventually led to a rule change pertaining to those hit in sudden-death mode (bottom of the ninth or later inning). Prior to 1931, as soon as the first necessary run to win the game scored, the play was over, and the batter was credited only with the number of bases needed to drive in the winning run. Thus, if the score was 3–2 with the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth, and the batter smacked an "over the fence home run", the game would end at 4–3, with the batter only allowed a double, and the runners officially stopped on 2nd and 3rd (since they weren't needed to win the game). The new rule allowed the entire play to complete, justified on the grounds that the ball was dead and that all runners could freely advance, thus granting the full allotment of HR and RBI to the batter, as we know it today. Several players lost home runs that way, including Ruth, whose career total would have been changed to 715 if historians during the 1960s had been successful in pursuing this matter. Major League Baseball elected not to retrofit the records to the modern rules, and Ruth's total stayed at 714.
Another rules change that affected Ruth was the method used by umpires to judge potential home runs when the batted ball left the field near a foul pole. Before 1931, i.e. through most of Ruth's most productive years, the umpire called the play based on the ball's final resting place "when last seen". Thus, if a ball went over the fence fair, and curved behind the foul pole, it was ruled foul. Beginning in 1931 and continuing to the present day, the rule was changed to require the umpire to judge based on the point where the ball cleared the fence. Jenkinson's book (p. 374–375) lists 78 foul balls near the foul pole in Ruth's career, claiming that at least 50 of them were likely to have been home runs under the modern rule."
So, it would be interesting to see how many homeruns (and RBIs and runs scored) players prior to 1931 would have been credited with if the rules had allowed for their "walkoff" and "curve" homeruns to actually count as homeruns.
Steve
"As a sidelight to his prominent role in changing the game to the power game, the frequency and popularity of Ruth's home runs eventually led to a rule change pertaining to those hit in sudden-death mode (bottom of the ninth or later inning). Prior to 1931, as soon as the first necessary run to win the game scored, the play was over, and the batter was credited only with the number of bases needed to drive in the winning run. Thus, if the score was 3–2 with the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth, and the batter smacked an "over the fence home run", the game would end at 4–3, with the batter only allowed a double, and the runners officially stopped on 2nd and 3rd (since they weren't needed to win the game). The new rule allowed the entire play to complete, justified on the grounds that the ball was dead and that all runners could freely advance, thus granting the full allotment of HR and RBI to the batter, as we know it today. Several players lost home runs that way, including Ruth, whose career total would have been changed to 715 if historians during the 1960s had been successful in pursuing this matter. Major League Baseball elected not to retrofit the records to the modern rules, and Ruth's total stayed at 714.
Another rules change that affected Ruth was the method used by umpires to judge potential home runs when the batted ball left the field near a foul pole. Before 1931, i.e. through most of Ruth's most productive years, the umpire called the play based on the ball's final resting place "when last seen". Thus, if a ball went over the fence fair, and curved behind the foul pole, it was ruled foul. Beginning in 1931 and continuing to the present day, the rule was changed to require the umpire to judge based on the point where the ball cleared the fence. Jenkinson's book (p. 374–375) lists 78 foul balls near the foul pole in Ruth's career, claiming that at least 50 of them were likely to have been home runs under the modern rule."
So, it would be interesting to see how many homeruns (and RBIs and runs scored) players prior to 1931 would have been credited with if the rules had allowed for their "walkoff" and "curve" homeruns to actually count as homeruns.
Steve
0
Comments
Wonder how many other unknown rule changes are out there....
Just like the no hitters that were erased a few years back.
(Not sure if a rule was in place during the times they were thrown)
Steve
<< <i>If a HR was not a HR back in those days I see no reason why they should be added after a rule change. >>
But they were HRs, just not statistically credited.
<< <i>Just like the no hitters that were erased a few years back.
(Not sure if a rule was in place during the times they were thrown)
Steve >>
They were in the record books as no hitters but removed after the rule change 20-something years ago. Think it was the same time they removed an * from Maris' homerun record.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>I actually read Jenkinson's book "The year Babe Ruth hit 104 Home Runs" really interesting. Basically, if the same rules applied today were applied then Ruth would still have both the home run records. But then again, if Ruth played today and had to face more competitive pitching then who knows. >>
Ruth also got a fresh ball each time up . Other batters had to hit a beaten ball.
The owners realized Ruth's money making power , early on. I'm sure they ( like today) made alot of money on the Babe.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
<< <i>You're making it difficult for those who rely only on statistics to evaluate players from the past.
Wonder how many other unknown rule changes are out there....
Actually, the wise people who utilize statistics to measure baseball hitters from that era recognize that when any of those stats are taken at face value, that you are going to draw grossly inaccurate conclusions.
Unfortunately, the people who claim that their 'eyes' are a better use of judging hitters, are typically the ones who WILL take those measurements from that era at face value, and come to inaccuate conclusions from both their eyes, AND their measurement tool.
Ultimately, any person who uses their feelings or perception to evaluate a baseball hitter will draw completely inaccurate conclusions on a subject that is very accurately gauged with the use of objective valid measurements...because the nature of the game and baseball hitting makes it easy to do so.
<< <i>
<< <i>I actually read Jenkinson's book "The year Babe Ruth hit 104 Home Runs" really interesting. Basically, if the same rules applied today were applied then Ruth would still have both the home run records.
Where is the documentation? I do not believe it.
<< <i>
<< <i>You're making it difficult for those who rely only on statistics to evaluate players from the past.
Wonder how many other unknown rule changes are out there....
Actually, the wise people who utilize statistics to measure baseball hitters from that era recognize that when any of those stats are taken at face value, that you are going to draw grossly inaccurate conclusions.
Unfortunately, the people who claim that their 'eyes' are a better use of judging hitters, are typically the ones who WILL take those measurements from that era at face value, and come to inaccuate conclusions from both their eyes, AND their measurement tool.
Ultimately, any person who uses their feelings or perception to evaluate a baseball hitter will draw completely inaccurate conclusions on a subject that is very accurately gauged with the use of objective valid measurements...because the nature of the game and baseball hitting makes it easy to do so. >>
So then how did/does sabermetrics account for distored statistics from days gone bye?
Speaking for real, not trying to be a wise guy or to screw around and throw barbs at you guys(like I often do to make some entertainment and have a diversion).
I don't think Sabermetrics in their current form has done a good job accounting for those pre war years performances. They measure Ruth against his peers, and then measure Mike Schmidt against his peers...and then show how much more worth they were above their peers.
Main problem is, their peers aren't exactly equal to create a fair measurement. Also, the circumstances of the era are the biggest reason for those performances, creating results such as Ruth's that were only possible because of said circumstances, and not necessarily because of the players ability.
Players from other era's given the same circumstances would also enjoy some herculian performances.
I worte about this before, but to cut to the chase, how impressed would you be with a guy in this scenario:
This guy played in the early North American Cape Cod league from 1620 to 1650, he was the captain on the Bostoner Puritans, and his main rival was a strapping lad of five foot four inches who played for the New Amsterdam Beavers. The Bostoners and Beavers were among 12 teams in this early league. Four of the teams were from the Iroqouis Confederacy, the first democracy in North America. The Bostoner captain produced as many long ones as each TEAM did in their league! Because of that, the Bostoners enjoyed dominance in the early cape cod league.
OR
Since you are in Houston, maybe this can apply. If you have a 14 year old travel baseball player who batted .50 points better than the league averge with 8 home runs while playing in elite tournament baseball, and you have an In-House player(a player who plays in the more recreation type baseball league) who bats .80 points better than league average with 20 home runs(and his field doesn't have a fence), in his league, well....
One may never develop a super accurate way to compare the best player from Pre war, to the best player from 1984(though enough info is there to get an idea) so what it boils down to is...
If going to a fight, would you rather take the toughest kid in 8th grade with you, or the toughest kid in 5th grade??
As for who I would take, would need more information that just a quick blurb. Scouting reports, watching the kids play, and then making an educated decision.
Otherwise, it would be like Charley Casserly trading for Buchanon without ever seeing him in action. Yeah, that worked out just great...
If there were a good pair of eyes available who knew what to look for, to watch Ruth, and watch a guy from Schmidt's era, it would be helpful. However, inevitably bias would creep in, either from nostalgia to favor the earlier era from which the guy grew up in, or possibly in the Schmidt's era favor because of the feeling that one can't believe how good these guys are(no way a guy from 80 yrs ago could compete type feeling).
Then some detective work!
Examine the reasons why Ruth outhomered every team in the league, etc...
As for the topic posted above, there are a pair of eyes saying that Ruth lost out on 50 home runs because he lists 78 balls near the foul pole. Now we have all been immersed in baseball, and see the dynamics of balls hit near the foul pole, and right off the bat that percentage just does not seem to work. That guy is saying that 50 of those balls hit near the foul pole were home runs and curved foul, and only 28 were just straight foul balls? Come on now, that percentage is just whacked. More often than not, the ball IS foul, as opposed to curving around the pole, and then going foul. I highly suspect that number is closer to 5 than to 50.
This seems more like a guy who already has a conclusion or idea in his head and is trying to use the numbers/evidence to find a way to support it(which is the way bias works and is done on here quite often).
...as opposed to having a clear head and using the numbers/evidence to come to a conclusion.
Many of those pre war numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt in comparison to other era's. Just like many of the numbers from this recent live ball era.
<< <i>That guy is saying that 50 of those balls hit near the foul pole were home runs and curved foul, and only 28 were just straight foul balls? Come on now, that percentage is just whacked. More often than not, the ball IS foul, as opposed to curving around the pole, and then going foul. I highly suspect that number is closer to 5 than to 50. >>
That's a pretty big spread, either way, based upon assumptions and no one will ever *truly* know.
Will say that I'm very impressed you would admit there are flaws analyzing players from the early days.. You've come a long way, skin