Juiced Balls... Intentional?

[Snodgrass'Muff]

We CT-scanned and chemically analyzed baseballs from the last few years. Starting in 2015, the inside of the baseball looks different.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/juiced-baseballs/

I'm not going to pull choice quotes from the article, it's worth reading the entire thing. It makes a very compelling case that up to half of the increase in home runs we've seen since the all star break in 2015 can be attributed to various small changes to the ball (the core, lower seams, etc).

 

[Doug Beerabelli]

Good article.

I wonder to what extent the lower/tighter seams have adversely affected the quality of certain pitches, thus increasing the likeliness of harder hit balls due to a) less effective pitches (ex, curve ball curving less more likely to get tattoed), and b) pitchers using those less effective pitches during at bats, and throwing more types of pitches that are easier to hit hard (curve ball no longer effective, so throw FB instead).

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

There certainly doesn't seem to be a noticeable difference in seam height in the pictures of the two foursomes of balls. But a lower seam definitely has affected pitchers' performance in the past. Decades ago, Diamond pioneered raised seam balls, and really focused on colleges. They were the official ball of the College World Series. There were many stories of pitchers who lost their stuff, transitioning from those balls to flat seam Minor/Major League balls, not unlike some players never adjusting to wood bats.

 

[Jim Ed Rice in HOF]

The core change struck me. I work in the med device industry where suppliers changing materials without authorization is, to put it mildly, frowned upon. I wonder if that same rigor applies to MLB - if the core manufacturer changes up the polymers/materials but is still meeting whatever specs they have would MLB even be informed.

 

[charlieoscar]

From the fivethirtyeight article:
"According to Alan Nathan, one of the physicists on the commission, the task force found that all the characteristics that MLB regularly measures, including the weight, circumference, seam height and bounciness of the ball, were within ranges that meant variations in the baseballs were unlikely to significantly affect home run rates."

All of the measurements are based on plus/minus from their mean. You can get baseballs that are "juicier" by selecting the ones that have characteristics that within the specified ranges but lean towards allowing the ball to come off the bat at higher speeds. The balls used in the HR hitting contest during the All-Star break are "juiced." Are they specifically manufactured that way or do they just select balls that come in on the high side of "juiciness?"

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

The core change struck me. I work in the med device industry where suppliers changing materials without authorization is, to put it mildly, frowned upon. I wonder if that same rigor applies to MLB - if the core manufacturer changes up the polymers/materials but is still meeting whatever specs they have would MLB even be informed.

Rawlings knows exactly what they're putting in their MLB baseballs and there is no way they'd mess around with the specs on their own. They'd have no reason to. MLB is absolutely involved in the spec change.

 

[Sampo Gida]

. MLB, assuming they are like any other buyer provides Rawlings with a specification on their purchase orders. This would be a spec with much lower tolerances (closer to manufacturing tolerances) than their overly broad spec in MLB rules

While manufacturers are free to make changes, such changes must be consistent with the purchase order specifications.

MLB does frequent testing to ensure balls they purchase meet their purchase order specifications, like any buyer.

Deviation from the spec would be known right away and give MLB the right to cancel orders or renegotiate price. That the ball continues to be enhanced for almost 2 1/2 years now means MLB has knowingly accepted the changes, or perhaps even requested the changes

Yet despite knowing the ball has changed, MLB has continued to deny there has been any change

On a related subject MLB is now requiring teams not using a humidor to store balls in an a/c room. This would serve to lower humidity in the room and reduce the balls moisture content. A lower moisture content (drier ball) means the balls will travel even further.

Or could there be another ball change coming?

 

[75cent bleacher seat]

FWIW, while working in the electronics mfg. industry customers would specify which material types were to be used as well as specify how a specific manufacturing process was to be performed. No deviation was allowed without prior approval.

 

[shaggydog2000]

FWIW, while working in the electronics mfg. industry customers would specify which material types were to be used as well as specify how a specific manufacturing process was to be performed. No deviation was allowed without prior approval.

Sure. But I've been involved in changes in materials that were within spec and caused us huge nightmares. One was something we traced to a shift in the characteristics in a material at a supplier 3-4 levels down the chain. And we were tracking all this because I worked in semiconductor manufacturing. Sports equipment suppliers might not be as exact in how they track materials or create specs. Because the people who make up specs often just go by what is available without figuring out the real impact of them.

So maybe something changed in the batch of of one of the materials Rawlings uses to make baseballs. It's probably still within their specs so they don't care. The final product is within the MLB specs (which aren't an exact number, but a certain sized window), so they don't care. And nobody in the MLB offices really did the math, or maybe even the testing to figure out what impact that within spec change would have. Maybe it is making a difference. Or maybe it's the launch angles that are causing more home runs. Or maybe it's a dozen other things. In the end I don't even see why it's a big deal, the game changes in lots of ways over many years, and the baseballs change in small ways too.

 

[Sampo Gida]

Sure. But I've been involved in changes in materials that were within spec and caused us huge nightmares. One was something we traced to a shift in the characteristics in a material at a supplier 3-4 levels down the chain. And we were tracking all this because I worked in semiconductor manufacturing. Sports equipment suppliers might not be as exact in how they track materials or create specs. Because the people who make up specs often just go by what is available without figuring out the real impact of them.

So maybe something changed in the batch of of one of the materials Rawlings uses to make baseballs. It's probably still within their specs so they don't care. The final product is within the MLB specs (which aren't an exact number, but a certain sized window), so they don't care. And nobody in the MLB offices really did the math, or maybe even the testing to figure out what impact that within spec change would have. Maybe it is making a difference. Or maybe it's the launch angles that are causing more home runs. Or maybe it's a dozen other things. In the end I don't even see why it's a big deal, the game changes in lots of ways over many years, and the baseballs change in small ways too.

MLB themselves say they do regular testing on their balls.

Their specs are not just material or dimensional, they have performance specs which can point out how far a ball travels in what is called their 400 ft test. According to a Test Report released by MLB in 2002 the difference in balls at the extreme ends of their spec would differ in travel distance by 50 ft.

Certainly MLB specs provided to the manufacture are not the specs in MLB rule books. MLB knows very well how slight changes can impact the game and they want to be in control of any changes and not some 3rd rate supplier in a 3rd world country. They have been working with Rawlings for 40 years as its exclusive supplier and have a good idea of manufacturing tolerances and their specs for Rawlings likely follow that. Even assuming a supplier glitch 2 1/2 years ago that resulted in a bad batch of balls this would have been corrected by now

In 1987 when Rawlings moved production to Costa Rica from Haiti this resulted in a HR explosion . This was solved by 1988 and HR plummeted and were stable until Bud likely juiced the balls again in 1994 to bolster attendance.

So not buying the argument MLB is ignorant and careless. Its a 10 billion dollar industry with some real smart people working in these offices. If the ball changed they knew about it and after 2 1/2 years obviously support it

 

[Bowhemian]

The core change struck me. I work in the med device industry where suppliers changing materials without authorization is, to put it mildly, frowned upon. I wonder if that same rigor applies to MLB - if the core manufacturer changes up the polymers/materials but is still meeting whatever specs they have would MLB even be informed.

I doubt MLB would require an investigation with full root cause analysis and impact assessment like you would in your industry. And the corrective actions would consist of MLB telling Rawlings to fix it, or else

 

[Oil Can Dan]

MLB themselves say they do regular testing on their balls.

Their specs are not just material or dimensional, they have performance specs which can point out how far a ball travels in what is called their 400 ft test. According to a Test Report released by MLB in 2002 the difference in balls at the extreme ends of their spec would differ in travel distance by 50 ft.

Certainly MLB specs provided to the manufacture are not the specs in MLB rule books. MLB knows very well how slight changes can impact the game and they want to be in control of any changes and not some 3rd rate supplier in a 3rd world country. They have been working with Rawlings for 40 years as its exclusive supplier and have a good idea of manufacturing tolerances and their specs for Rawlings likely follow that. Even assuming a supplier glitch 2 1/2 years ago that resulted in a bad batch of balls this would have been corrected by now

In 1987 when Rawlings moved production to Costa Rica from Haiti this resulted in a HR explosion . This was solved by 1988 and HR plummeted and were stable until Bud likely juiced the balls again in 1994 to bolster attendance.

So not buying the argument MLB is ignorant and careless. Its a 10 billion dollar industry with some real smart people working in these offices. If the ball changed they knew about it and after 2 1/2 years obviously support it

+1 or whatever it is the kids do these days.

I hadn’t ever heard about the facility move in ‘87 before. Could 538 take an ‘86 ball and test it against an ‘87 ball today? Or does long periods of time impact some of the key ‘ingredients’ that would then affect the results?

 

[barbed wire Bob]

The manufacturing process isn't exactly high tech.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

The manufacturing process isn't exactly high tech.

The sewing certainly isn't. I've been in several baseball factories.
But the component specs are clear, and everyone in the business/League knows that replacing some cork with more rubber will make the balls more lively. Rawlings is making a product for their customer. They're going to make it how they want them to make it. This is 100% MLB.