Should MLB allow the Rockies to use different ball at Coors Field?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

In tennis they used different balls on different surfaces (hardcourt, grass, and clay). Would it make sense to allow thw Rockies to use a "softer" ball at home to reduce offense. Now before you all jump down my throught and scream about the integrity of the game and the integrity of baseball records, think about this. The balls, bats, and gloves of today are very very different from say 1910, or 1930, or 1950. I think it would be a fair idea, at least to try it What say you BBF?

[jpenrod]

Not even a close comparison to tennis. tennis has multiple tournaments and each one uses its own standard ball. Why would you allow one team to use a different ball than all other teams in the majors? the idea is just flat out silly. How would you account for the differences in stats between games played at coors field and away. In the end it really would do no one any favors. The Rockies would get use to playing with one ball and would require some amount of adjust ment when they go on the road and other teams would have to adjust to the "dead" ball at coors. In the end it would robably benefit the Rockies only because a visting team would be in town for a max of 4 games allowing them no time to adjust, when the rockies go on the road they would probably be able to adjust after a couple of games.

Geez the more I type the more this idea bothers me. It is just silly. :crazy

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Not even a close comparison to tennis. tennis has multiple tournaments and each one uses its own standard ball. Why would you allow one team to use a different ball than all other teams in the majors? the idea is just flat out silly. How would you account for the differences in stats between games played at coors field and away. In the end it really would do no one any favors. The Rockies would get use to playing with one ball and would require some amount of adjust ment when they go on the road and other teams would have to adjust to the "dead" ball at coors. In the end it would robably benefit the Rockies only because a visting team would be in town for a max of 4 games allowing them no time to adjust, when the rockies go on the road they would probably be able to adjust after a couple of games.

Geez the more I type the more this idea bothers me. It is just silly. :crazy

All you did was post assertions without evidence. Why would you have to account for the differences in stats? MLB doesn't account for differences in stats today, right? Also in tennis, every tournament does NOT use it's own standard ball as far as I know. Can you site evidence that they do? Why would a visiting team need to adjust? They don't need an adjustment period currently when they vist Coors Field. You assertion is baseless.

[jpenrod]

All you did was post assertions without evidence. Why would you have to account for the differences in stats? MLB doesn't account for differences in stats today, right? Also in tennis, every tournament does NOT use it's own standard ball as far as I know. Can you site evidence that they do? Why would a visiting team need to adjust? They don't need an adjustment period currently when they vist Coors Field. You assertion is baseless.

Seriously dude think about what you are saying, you ask if the Rockies should be allowed to use a "softer" ball as a means to reduce offense. Your whole basis is that the ball would effect the way the ball responds off the bat at the very least. Now think about it if you play 90% of your games with a tennis ball and then you go to colorado for a three game stretch and instead of a tennis ball you are now pitching, fielding, and hitting a baseball do you really think it will have no impact on your game? if is going to feel different when you make contact with the bat to the hitter. the fielder will get a different read off the ball based on what he is use to fielding. If the ball responds differently off the bat it could also respond differently on grounders in the infield. Another possibility is that it would even feel differently to the pitcher and fielder effecting pitches and throws. You say all of this is baseless but you are the one that said "use a softer ball to reduce offense". If everything I am saying is baseless, then please explain to me how a "softer" ball will in any way effect offense without effecting at least one of those areas I mentioned.

As to the tennis thing, you are the one that said they use a different ball for different surfaces not me. If that is true then I am sure they would use the same type of ball for all of the Wimbeldon matches and they would not change it up between every match depending on who was playing and if they were on the main court or a side court. In tennis a tournament is kind of a stand alone event. What I mean by that is the participates arrive before the actual tournament starts and practice on the court and using the equipment they will use for that tournament. Why do they do that? because they require an adjustment period before the tournament starts. It is not like the players are playing on the clay courts of the french open today and then traveling to wimbledon to play on a grass court tomorrow using a different ball and equipment with no practice and adjustment.

You mention in your first post thaty the equipment used today is different than that used in 1910. I do not dispute that but baseball has always been consistent about the equipment they use in a season, at least as much as technology of the time has allowed. You ask how baseball accounts for the differences in stats now and I will say that MLB does not. A HR in coors is listed as a HR just as a HR in Washington is. but they are all using the same ball and same equipment (within the rules) You do not get to use aluminum bats in D.C. just because it is a pitchers park. While MLB does not make a distinction the stat heads do, they have adjusted ERA, park factors, etc. etc. On of the reasons they can do that is because the equipment is standard. The main place this would come into play would be individual awards (and at a later date HOF induction). If you acknowledge that using a "softer" ball reduces offense you have to acknowledge that it would skew the pitchers stats positively and the hitters stats adversely (otherwise it would not reduce offense)! I really can not believe you would dispute that fact when you are the one that said it would reduce offense.

I just do not see how you can say lets introduce a ball that will only be used in one stadium to reduce offense, and then say that does not effect the integrity of the game or have any effect that would require an adjustment on the part of the player.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Seriously dude think about what you are saying, you ask if the Rockies should be allowed to use a "softer" ball as a means to reduce offense. Your whole basis is that the ball would effect the way the ball responds off the bat at the very least. Now think about it if you play 90% of your games with a tennis ball and then you go to colorado for a three game stretch and instead of a tennis ball you are now pitching, fielding, and hitting a baseball do you really think it will have no impact on your game? if is going to feel different when you make contact with the bat to the hitter. the fielder will get a different read off the ball based on what he is use to fielding. If the ball responds differently off the bat it could also respond differently on grounders in the infield. Another possibility is that it would even feel differently to the pitcher and fielder effecting pitches and throws. You say all of this is baseless but you are the one that said "use a softer ball to reduce offense". If everything I am saying is baseless, then please explain to me how a "softer" ball will in any way effect offense without effecting at least one of those areas I mentioned.
This applies to the game today. You don't think the ball off of the bat is different, say, in Colorado and Atlanta vs S.F., Oakland, L.A? I guess you think I had some sort of nerf ball in mind. Not so. The change would be so subtle I doubt any hitter will notice. Just make the say 5%-8% "deader".


As to the tennis thing, you are the one that said they use a different ball for different surfaces not me. If that is true then I am sure they would use the same type of ball for all of the Wimbeldon matches and they would not change it up between every match depending on who was playing and if they were on the main court or a side court. In tennis a tournament is kind of a stand alone event. What I mean by that is the participates arrive before the actual tournament starts and practice on the court and using the equipment they will use for that tournament. Why do they do that? because they require an adjustment period before the tournament starts. It is not like the players are playing on the clay courts of the french open today and then traveling to wimbledon to play on a grass court tomorrow using a different ball and equipment with no practice and adjustment.

Have you ever heard of batting practice? There's a reason hitters take batting practice, not just to warm up, but to gage how the ball is carrying, wind, etc, position of the sun, etc.


You mention in your first post thaty the equipment used today is different than that used in 1910. I do not dispute that but baseball has always been consistent about the equipment they use in a season, at least as much as technology of the time has allowed. You ask how baseball accounts for the differences in stats now and I will say that MLB does not. A HR in coors is listed as a HR just as a HR in Washington is. but they are all using the same ball and same equipment (within the rules).

Staying within the rules allows for great diversity of equipment. Players use different mitts, bats with different types of wood, and different lengths and weights for bats. If baseball was so concerned with using equal equipment then every player would use the exact same size bat and glove.



You do not get to use aluminum bats in D.C. just because it is a pitchers park. While MLB does not make a distinction the stat heads do, they have adjusted ERA, park factors, etc. etc. On of the reasons they can do that is because the equipment is standard. The main place this would come into play would be individual awards (and at a later date HOF induction). If you acknowledge that using a "softer" ball reduces offense you have to acknowledge that it would skew the pitchers stats positively and the hitters stats adversely (otherwise it would not reduce offense)! I really can not believe you would dispute that fact when you are the one that said it would reduce offense.
What are you talking about? I made no such statement. The hitters stats at Coors are already skewed! Hello! Again, I'm not talking about an extreme change like aluminum bats. That's just a strawman argument.


I just do not see how you can say lets introduce a ball that will only be used in one stadium to reduce offense, and then say that does not effect the integrity of the game or have any effect that would require an adjustment on the part of the player.
Yes, and Coors Field, the Baker Bowl, and old Wrigley Field didn't effect the integrity of the game when these ballparks allowed average players to put up monster numbers and make them look like they were better players than they actually were (see Hack Wilson, Todd Helton, Larry Walker, Chuck Klein, etc).

[jpenrod]

Would it make sense to allow thw Rockies to use a "softer" ball at home to reduce offense.

Please explain this in further detail as you seem to think I have absolutely no concept of what you are talking about.

what exactly do you mean by softer ball?
Exactly how much do you expect this to reduce offense?
Can you explain to me in detail how this "softer" ball is going to reduce offense?
Can you explain how implementing something to directly impact offensive production in only one park does not effect the integrity of the game?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Please explain this in further detail as you seem to think I have absolutely no concept of what you are talking about.

what exactly do you mean by softer ball?
Exactly how much do you expect this to reduce offense?
Can you explain to me in detail how this "softer" ball is going to reduce offense?
Can you explain how implementing something to directly impact offensive production in only one park does not effect the integrity of the game?
Ok. I was thinking of having a ball that would not go as far when batted as the current ball. Remember how the ball was changed from the Dead Ball era to the Live Ball era? Just do it in reverse but not as extreme. Maybe alter the core of the ball slighty so it's not as springy.

[jpenrod]

Ok. I was thinking of having a ball that would not go as far when batted as the current ball. Remember how the ball was changed from the Dead Ball era to the Live Ball era? Just do it in reverse but not as extreme. Maybe alter the core of the ball slighty so it's not as springy.

Okay this answers the first question, sort of answrs the second question and implies an answer to the third quest, but I am still not seeing an answer to the fiourth question.

I do not see this in the same light as you in regards to ballparks effecting the inegrity of the game. ball parks are ball parks everyone is different and everyone is going to have its own impact on the game it is a simple reality. Unless you want to force every club to design their park the exact same way as each other, restrict clubs to be located withing the same geographic region and employ the same grounds crews to maintain the field the ballparks are always going to be different it is an excepted fact. What you are talking about is altering the baseball in ine ballpark with the express purpose of effecting the offense of the game, To me that steps over the line of damaging the integrity of the game.

[sopclod]

My problem with this is that all parks have more or less hitter or pitcher friendliness. Should we alter the balls a little bit for each and every park?

[baseball junkie]

One thing seems certain, the Rockies are not going to field a Championship caliber team if something isn't done to offset the effects of playing baseball at such a high altitude.

Since opening day 1993, the Rockies have 1,001 wins and 1,149 loses. The franchise has made it into post-season play once -- as the wildcard in the strike shortened 1995 season. Some years the Rockies can score enough runs to to get the team's record slighty over .500.

I think we can be relatively certain that we will never see a World Series game or even an NLCS game played in Colorado. I think we can also be certain that no pitcher will ever win a Cy Young Award while being a member of the Rockies.

If I was a Rockies' fan, which I'm not, that would really annoy me. It seems to really be annoying Rockies' ownership and management too. In 1993, attendance was 4,483,350. For most of the 1990s the franchise's attendance hovered around 3.5 million per season. In 2005 the Rockies attendance was 1,914,389! If that trend continues then soon there will not be MLB in Colorado.

Since we know the higher altitude and lower density air has an effect on the ball when it is hit, why not change the ball for this particular park? And no this would not lead to every park wanting their own specialized ball because MLB has a legit reason for doing this in Colorado -- one it lacks elsewhere.

I'm not a fan of this statistic but park factor clearly shows proves this last point. In case anyone is not familiar with the stat, a park factor value above 100 favors hitters, a park value below 100 favors pitchers. Park factor values at Coors Field have varied from as "low" as 112 to as high as 131.

As for all of you making the argument that all MLB games should be played with the exact same equipment and at the same standard -- then why aren't you upset that not all teams have the same exact field dimensions? Why aren't you upset that some teams play on grass and some on turf? Why aren't you upset that some play in open-air stadiums and some play in closed in colliseums? The argument that everything should always be exactly the same is spurious.

[jpenrod]

As for all of you making the argument that all MLB games should be played with the exact same equipment and at the same standard -- then why aren't you upset that not all teams have the same exact field dimensions? Why aren't you upset that some teams play on grass and some on turf? Why aren't you upset that some play in open-air stadiums and some play in closed in colliseums? The argument that everything should always be exactly the same is spurious.

with that argument maybe MLB should introduce a "dead" ball, a "live" ball, and a standard ball and leave it up to each team to choose which they want to use in thier own stadium.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

with that argument maybe MLB should introduce a "dead" ball, a "live" ball, and a standard ball and leave it up to each team to choose which they want to use in thier own stadium.
That's not what he's trying to say. We are talking about Coors Field, and Coors Field only. I don't understand why you don't understand that?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

One thing seems certain, the Rockies are not going to field a Championship caliber team if something isn't done to offset the effects of playing baseball at such a high altitude.

Since opening day 1993, the Rockies have 1,001 wins and 1,149 loses. The franchise has made it into post-season play once -- as the wildcard in the strike shortened 1995 season. Some years the Rockies can score enough runs to to get the team's record slighty over .500.

I think we can be relatively certain that we will never see a World Series game or even an NLCS game played in Colorado. I think we can also be certain that no pitcher will ever win a Cy Young Award while being a member of the Rockies.

If I was a Rockies' fan, which I'm not, that would really annoy me. It seems to really be annoying Rockies' ownership and management too. In 1993, attendance was 4,483,350. For most of the 1990s the franchise's attendance hovered around 3.5 million per season. In 2005 the Rockies attendance was 1,914,389! If that trend continues then soon there will not be MLB in Colorado.

Since we know the higher altitude and lower density air has an effect on the ball when it is hit, why not change the ball for this particular park? And no this would not lead to every park wanting their own specialized ball because MLB has a legit reason for doing this in Colorado -- one it lacks elsewhere.

I'm not a fan of this statistic but park factor clearly shows proves this last point. In case anyone is not familiar with the stat, a park factor value above 100 favors hitters, a park value below 100 favors pitchers. Park factor values at Coors Field have varied from as "low" as 112 to as high as 131.

As for all of you making the argument that all MLB games should be played with the exact same equipment and at the same standard -- then why aren't you upset that not all teams have the same exact field dimensions? Why aren't you upset that some teams play on grass and some on turf? Why aren't you upset that some play in open-air stadiums and some play in closed in colliseums? The argument that everything should always be exactly the same is spurious.

Great post! :clapping

The Rockies are at a huge disadvantage. On average, the Rockies give up over 900 runs a year. To win, say 88 game, and contend for a playoff spot, they would need to score 990 runs based on Bill James' Pythagorian expected wins formula:

winning % = (runs scored^1.83)/((runs scored^1.83)+(runs allowed^1.83))

For the Rockies to win 100 games would basically impossible. If they allowed 750 runs they would need about 975 runs to win 100 games.

[Williamsburg2599]

Great post! :clapping

The Rockies are at a huge disadvantage. On average, the Rockies give up over 900 runs a year. To win, say 88 game, and contend for a playoff spot, they would need to score 990 runs based on Bill James' Pythagorian expected wins formula:

winning % = (runs scored^1.83)/((runs scored^1.83)+(runs allowed^1.83))

For the Rockies to win 100 games would basically impossible. If they allowed 750 runs they would need about 975 runs to win 100 games.
Maybe the rockies should of thought of the altitude before they put a team up at 5,000+ feet,no:noidea :confused: ? They should play half there games in death valley, would help even the whole altitude thing out:laugh

[jpenrod]

That's not what he's trying to say. We are talking about Coors Field, and Coors Field only. I don't understand why you don't understand that?

I do and thatt is my problem with it. I have said that introducing a ball designed to directly influence the offensive production in one park and one park only is not consistent with maintaining the integrity of the game. I do not understand why you do not understand that?

both of you make the argument that each stadium has differing dimensions, turf and other external factors effecting the game. As a said in an earlier post that has always been part of the game. What you are proposing is to introduce a ball in only one stadium to conteract these natural variances. You take this further and equate it to having differing dimensions in various ballparks and allowing different types and sizes of bats and gloves according to each players preference. If in fact providing a "dead" ball is the same as having different size stadiums, turf vs grass, etc. then why not introduce 3 different balls a dead ball for those hitter parks, a live ball for those pitchers parks, and a "standard" ball for those parks that are more neutral. Of course for this to be on the same level you would then have to allow each club choose what ball they want to use in thier home park.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I do and thatt is my problem with it. I have said that introducing a ball designed to directly influence the offensive production in one park and one park only is not consistent with maintaining the integrity of the game. I do not understand why you do not understand that?
I don't undstand it because it doesn't make any sense. What does "maintaining the integrity of the game" mean? You mean reducing the offense at Coors Field to more normal major league level and giving the Rockies a realistic shot at winning a division title is not maintaining the integrity of the game? :o


both of you make the argument that each stadium has differing dimensions, turf and other external factors effecting the game. As a said in an earlier post that has always been part of the game. What you are proposing is to introduce a ball in only one stadium to conteract these natural variances.
Coors Field skews the game towards offense to such an extreme that it resembles bear league softball more than major league baseball. As it is now the Rockies will never win a division title given the hitting environment of Coors Field. That's the biggest reason for using a "dead" ball, to give the Rockies a realistic chance to compete for a division title.


You take this further and equate it to having differing dimensions in various ballparks and allowing different types and sizes of bats and gloves according to each players preference. If in fact providing a "dead" ball is the same as having different size stadiums, turf vs grass, etc. then why not introduce 3 different balls a dead ball for those hitter parks, a live ball for those pitchers parks, and a "standard" ball for those parks that are more neutral. Of course for this to be on the same level you would then have to allow each club choose what ball they want to use in thier home park.
Agian, Coors Field is a unique instance. We don't need to have three different balls just one for Coors Field. It's as simple as that.

[Seattle1]

I guess I think the humidor thing they're using now is probably sufficient.

[sopclod]

One thing seems certain, the Rockies are not going to field a Championship caliber team if something isn't done to offset the effects of playing baseball at such a high altitude.

They have to do what every other baseball team has to do: pitch, field and hit.

Since opening day 1993, the Rockies have 1,001 wins and 1,149 loses. The franchise has made it into post-season play once -- as the wildcard in the strike shortened 1995 season. Some years the Rockies can score enough runs to to get the team's record slighty over .500.

I think we can be relatively certain that we will never see a World Series game or even an NLCS game played in Colorado. I think we can also be certain that no pitcher will ever win a Cy Young Award while being a member of the Rockies.

If I was a Rockies' fan, which I'm not, that would really annoy me. It seems to really be annoying Rockies' ownership and management too. In 1993, attendance was 4,483,350. For most of the 1990s the franchise's attendance hovered around 3.5 million per season. In 2005 the Rockies attendance was 1,914,389! If that trend continues then soon there will not be MLB in Colorado.

Since we know the higher altitude and lower density air has an effect on the ball when it is hit, why not change the ball for this particular park? And no this would not lead to every park wanting their own specialized ball because MLB has a legit reason for doing this in Colorado -- one it lacks elsewhere.

I'm not a fan of this statistic but park factor clearly shows proves this last point. In case anyone is not familiar with the stat, a park factor value above 100 favors hitters, a park value below 100 favors pitchers. Park factor values at Coors Field have varied from as "low" as 112 to as high as 131.


I think this proves the opposite of your point; every park has a park factor, one way or the other. If you correct for Coor's high numbers, then some other park will have the highest numbers, and will need to be corrected.

As for all of you making the argument that all MLB games should be played with the exact same equipment and at the same standard -- then why aren't you upset that not all teams have the same exact field dimensions? Why aren't you upset that some teams play on grass and some on turf? Why aren't you upset that some play in open-air stadiums and some play in closed in colliseums? The argument that everything should always be exactly the same is spurious.

Why then correct one factor, with doctored baseballs, and not correct all the other factors that you just mentioned?

Colorado only needs to score more runs than the other team. Yes it's easier to score runs in Coors and therefore harder to prevent them, but their opponents have the same disadvantage.

If you want to make a real argument about this, talk about whether or not Rockies players have to adjust for home vs road games, and whether or not that is detrimental. E.g. a breaking ball pitcher has to use a totally different strategy at home as on the road.

[jpenrod]

I don't undstand it because it doesn't make any sense. What does "maintaining the integrity of the game" mean? You mean reducing the offense at Coors Field to more normal major league level and giving the Rockies a realistic shot at winning a division title is not maintaining the integrity of the game? :o


Coors Field skews the game towards offense to such an extreme that it resembles bear league softball more than major league baseball. As it is now the Rockies will never win a division title given the hitting environment of Coors Field. That's the biggest reason for using a "dead" ball, to give the Rockies a realistic chance to compete for a division title.


Agian, Coors Field is a unique instance. We don't need to have three different balls just one for Coors Field. It's as simple as that.


Oh I see it has to do with giving the Rockies a "fair" chance at winning thier division. Well that clears everything up.

I am sorry I must have misunderstood the way you won the division, all this time I thought it was by winning more games than the other teams in your division. It was further my understanding that the teams that the Rockies were playing in Colorado had to contend with the same conditions giving the Rockies equal opportunity to score more runs than the visiting team. Now I understand that somehow the Rockies have been playing all of their home games at a disadvantage to the visiting teams and this "dead" ball is designed to give the rockies the true home field advantage they deserve.

By the way, did you know that in 14 years the Rockies have been a team they have had a better home record than away all but once, and that was in 1994?
Year Home Road
Wpct Wpct
2006 0.519 0.453
2005 0.494 0.333
2004 0.469 0.370
2003 0.605 0.309
2002 0.580 0.321
2001 0.506 0.395
2000 0.593 0.420
1999 0.481 0.407
1998 0.519 0.432
1997 0.580 0.444
1996 0.679 0.346
1996 0.611 0.458
1994 0.439 0.467
1993 0.481 0.346

I bring this up because you seem to indicate that they are at a severe disadvantage at home, when the fact may be they are just not that good regardless of where they play. You believe that by introducing a dead ball at home would give them a "fair" chance of winning the division, but their road record does not seem to indicate it would make any difference. heare is another way of looking at it. following is the road record of the team that has won the division every year the rockies have existed and the road record of the Rockies:

Rockies Winner
Year Wpct Wpct
2005 0.333 0.444
2004 0.370 0.543
2003 0.309 0.538
2002 0.321 0.531
2001 0.395 0.543
2000 0.420 0.519
1999 0.407 0.593
1998 0.432 0.543
1997 0.444 0.519
1996 0.346 0.556
1996 0.458 0.542
1994 0.467 0.424
1993 0.346 0.654

Again the Rockies have had a worse road record than the team that won their division often much worse. In fact the rockies have never had a road record over .500 something the divisional winner has had all but twice. So if this is all about giving the Rockies a "fair" chance at winning the division how do you propose to balance things for them on the road.

According to your earlier posts than the "dead" ball is going to effect both teams equally so it really should not have any effect on who wins the gam therefore not altering the Rockies record and not helping them win their division. In the end I believe the Rockies inability to win the division has a lot more to do with the quality of the team than with the altitude or park diminsions or liveliness of the ball.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

You simply are missing the point. The Rockies give up well over 900 runs a season on average. Has there ever been in the history of baseball a playoff team that allowed over 900 runs? The answer is no! So how can the Rockies ever compete for a division title? What is wrong with make the hitting environment more in line with a normal major league park? The extreme environment has been a real burden to the development of Rockies' pitchers. How can they ever develop a superstar pitcher like Halladay, Santana, Oswalt, Schmidt in that enviroment? The simple answer is that they can't. They will never have that kind of elite pitching needed to win a division title.

You charts prove my point. In 2003 they had a .605 winning percentage at home and a .309 winning percentage on the road. Don't you find that strange? How can a team be so good at home and so lowsy on the road. Many players talked about the Coors Field "hang over" effect. The Rockies do hit well at home but when they try the same swings on the road they fail. Just check out the home/roads splits of their hitters. Most have splits. I believe that by reducing the offensive levels at hoem the Rockies hitter would improve on the road because the "hang over" effect would be nullified.

[jpenrod]

You simply are missing the point. The Rockies give up well over 900 runs a season on average. Has there ever been in the history of baseball a playoff team that allowed over 900 runs? The answer is no! So how can the Rockies ever compete for a division title? What is wrong with make the hitting environment more in line with a normal major league park? The extreme environment has been a real burden to the development of Rockies' pitchers. How can they ever develop a superstar pitcher like Halladay, Santana, Oswalt, Schmidt in that enviroment? The simple answer is that they can't. They will never have that kind of elite pitching needed to win a division title.

You charts prove my point. In 2003 they had a .605 winning percentage at home and a .309 winning percentage on the road. Don't you find that strange? How can a team be so good at home and so lowsy on the road. Many players talked about the Coors Field "hang over" effect. The Rockies do hit well at home but when they try the same swings on the road they fail. Just check out the home/roads splits of their hitters. Most have splits. I believe that by reducing the offensive levels at hoem the Rockies hitter would improve on the road because the "hang over" effect would be nullified.

I thought that was the point of batting practice, at least according you your earlier post. It is to figure out your swing, how the ball comes off the bat, etc. You can not have it both ways, either changing this ball is going to effect they way the hitter feels the ball or its not. You said earlier that you were talking about such a subtle change that a hitter would not even notice, so if that is the case it would have no effect on the way the rockies htters approach the ball and therefore have no effect on the "hang over" if it is going to have an effect to the point that it will change the hitters approach, then logically it will put visiting teams at an unfair disadvantage to have to adjust to a different ball when coming to colorado. Seriously man you have more flip flops than a miami beach.

[PopTop]

If the question is to allow them to keep up with what they're doing presently, that is experimenting with trying to offset the altitude, then I vote yes. The alternatives are some kind of renovation to the stadium, generally far more expensive than a little room that tries to recreate Houston's humidity for ease of explanation, or go back to the old 9-7 Coors Field pitching duels. The technology is there to try and keep the ball as close to the same in Denver as it is in most other stadiums being used. Why not use it?

[Padday]

There are a lot more disadvantages that come with high altidudes other than just the flight of the ball like less oxygen. Anyway, it's just another ballpark quirk like the Green Giant and what would people be saying if somebody sugested that right handers should be thrown softer balls so it would be easier for them to hit it over the Green Giant.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I thought that was the point of batting practice, at least according you your earlier post. It is to figure out your swing, how the ball comes off the bat, etc. You can not have it both ways, either changing this ball is going to effect they way the hitter feels the ball or its not. You said earlier that you were talking about such a subtle change that a hitter would not even notice, so if that is the case it would have no effect on the way the rockies htters approach the ball and therefore have no effect on the "hang over" if it is going to have an effect to the point that it will change the hitters approach, then logically it will put visiting teams at an unfair disadvantage to have to adjust to a different ball when coming to colorado. Seriously man you have more flip flops than a miami beach.
Man, you got no clue, huh? I'm talking about subtle changes at Coors using the dead ball at Coors. I was simply describing the effects of the Rockies hitters road performance based on their personal observations using a regular ball now. Besides you are trying to misdirect the discussion. I'll ask you a third time.


1. What is wrong with trying to create an offensive environment more in line with an average major league park?

2. How can the Rockies ever win a division title if they give up over 900 runs a year?

[jpenrod]

Man, you got no clue, huh? I'm talking about subtle changes at Coors using the dead ball at Coors. I was simply describing the effects of the Rockies hitters road performance based on their personal observations using a regular ball now. Besides you are trying to misdirect the discussion. I'll ask you a third time.


1. What is wrong with trying to create an offensive environment more in line with an average major league park?

2. How can the Rockies ever win a division title if they give up over 900 runs a year?

1. There is nothing wrong with creating an environment to make the conditions in coors field more in line with "average
" major league parks. My problem as I have stated numerous times is that you are proposing to do it by introducing a special ball in one park to reduce offense. That is different than say just making the park larger.

2. Gee, I do not know, maybe by doing a better job of scouting and developing the players necessary to play in that park.:rolleyes: You make a big deal about this 900 runs thing but then dismiss the fact that the Rockies have never played above .500 on the road which equally impacts their ability to make the playoffs. Oh thats right this miracle ball at coors is suppose to improve thier road record too. I forgot about that.

So now answer a couple of questions for me.

This new miracle ball how is it going to reduce offense in Coors, impact the Rockies players so they play better on the road and at the same time be so subtle of a difference that nobody is going to notice so as to not effect other players swings coming into colorado?

If other players are able to come into coors and so effectively adjust to the atmosphere there why does the atmosphere effect the Rockies players in such away that they can not adjust on the road?

[DodgerBlue81]

NO WAY. They shouldn't be using the humidor either. If they want less HRs they can move the fences back, but don't mess with the balls.

[baseball_in_hel*]

If the Rockies win the most games in their division, they automatically win the division title no matter how many runs they give up.

[tigers527]

Should Coors be using less "juiced" balls?

I have looked at the posts on here and seen the sides of the argument, and in my opinion, everyones overthinking it. If not "juicing" the ball is something you want, but allowing the Rockies to somehow make a humidor of a stadium is ok. Someone's missing the point. Rather you want to see it or not, the place the game is played is "equipment". Baseball is at its core subtle, that's the beauty of the sport more so then all the other sports. The effect of longer infield grass v turf might not be seen in one game, but over a season can be the difference between winning and losing.

Maybe the Rockies need to move their fences? I thought, for the time, the Rockies already had one of the larger outfields in baseball? I actually like the idea of a huge outfield, maybe even going so far as to remove the walls altogether. In the days of yore (Ty Cobbs heyday), the outfield had fans just milling around and if a ball went out there people just cleared to let the OFer do his job. That is part of the reason there were many fewer HRs (aside from the dead ball).

If not remove the walls altogether, make it so large that the SS gets replaced by a rover? That would be a HOME FIELD advantage. And the pitcher would have to keep his head spinning, as his duties might also include cutoff man, as well as much more back up? Would that be better then a less juiced ball? I mean the shift is one thing, but a whole different position? Sure you could play a SS if you wanted, but you'd be playing with a handicap.

After all my stellar thinking on the subject...I say make the balls less "juiced" for everyone. I know, not the solution that will help the Rockies in any way, cause as a percentage they will still give up the same amount of more runs. It just bothers me that the old 80s era players I grew up with, all comment on how smooth the baseball has become. The seams no longer raised as much and the hardness (see Rick Sutcliff, Jack Morris etc).

I always thought, aside from not "demanding" people be born again, that the Rockies would be well served to go after the 1993ish Tigers as the template for their team (Fielder, Tettleton, Deer, etc). Have nothing but homerun hitters in the whole lineup. See how that does?

ps does this mean on pigskin fever, we will have the same argument over Jason Elams 63 yard FG?

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I voted "no" instantly and have no reason to reconsider. But for those who vote "yes," I would point this out:

If they are able to figure out exactly what they must do to the ball in order to make it identical in that air to what regular baseballs are in normal locations, that park will become a real pitchers' park and the Rockies will need uncommonly fast outfielders, because the park actually has DEEP dimensions. We're just not used to thinking of it that way, for obvious reasons.

BHN

[leecemark]

--I'd like to see the ball deadened a little in ALL parks. Fewer HR's would make for a more interesting game.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

No argument here. Last night, Sultan and I went over the Atlanta Braves' HR totals over the past 20 years. They went from having 3 guys in double figures annually to having 8. It's just preposterous and I'm really sick of seeing small middle infielders hit long opposite field HR's. (And I'm by no means suggesting the Braves are any more culpable than anyone else.)

[SHOELESSJOE3]

In tennis they used different balls on different surfaces (hardcourt, grass, and clay). Would it make sense to allow thw Rockies to use a "softer" ball at home to reduce offense. Now before you all jump down my throught and scream about the integrity of the game and the integrity of baseball records, think about this. The balls, bats, and gloves of today are very very different from say 1910, or 1930, or 1950. I think it would be a fair idea, at least to try it What say you BBF?

The difference is that all teams played with the same ball, under the same conditions at home or away in those years you mention.

I find it hard to believe that MLB allows a team to do such as the Rockies have done, alter the condition of the ball when at home, absurd.

[PopTop]

Moving fences back is NOT going to reduce the number of runs scored at Coors Field. It should reduce the number of home runs, but not runs. Increasing the amount of fair territory for outfielders to cover will NOT reduce the offense.

I've been to several games over the years at Coors, beginning when it opened in 1993. Listening to some of the people who attend a lot of games there, I think they make a good point that moving the fences in a bit and increasing the height of those walls would reduce offense more than moving them back. With the outfielders already playing back, there were more singles being dunked in front of them. If you move the fences back, the outfielders will also move back increasing the ground in front of them as well as increasing the gap territories.

Something like a Green Monster in RF at Coors might be an answer, though it would be an expensive one to basically redesign that portion of the stadium.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Not only do balls that are hit at Coors go into orbit but supposedly a breaking ball will break a couple or few inches less due to the thinner air.

I use the word supposedly because I do not know if those in the know believe that this will take place in theory or if they have run experiments (difficult in my view) that display this.

Again, MLB is sitting on thier hands, can't believe they would allow a team or organization to change a quality of a ball. This is a joke. Maybe not a joke, nothing funny about this.

[FatAngel]

1908 Spalding Horse Leather Professional Dead Balls (gum-centered, of course) ;), and somebody throws a perfect game up there.

[tigers527]

1908 Spalding Horse Leather Professional Dead Balls (gum-centered, of course) ;), and somebody throws a perfect game up there.

Why not koosh balls and wiffle ball bats? No hitters would be as common as 6-4 contests.

[baseball junkie]

They have to do what every other baseball team has to do: pitch, field and hit....

I think this proves the opposite of your point; every park has a park factor, one way or the other. If you correct for Coor's high numbers, then some other park will have the highest numbers, and will need to be corrected.

Show me another ball park with a 131 park factor and I'll buy your argument.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

IColorado.

Since we know the higher altitude and lower density air has an effect on the ball when it is hit, why not change the ball for this particular park?

As for all of you making the argument that all MLB games should be played with the exact same equipment and at the same standard -- then why aren't you upset that not all teams have the same exact field dimensions? Why aren't you upset that some teams play on grass and some on turf? Why aren't you upset that some play in open-air stadiums and some play in closed in colliseums? The argument that everything should always be exactly the same is spurious.

This is the way the game has always been played. At times teams have changed dimensions to fit the type team they had on the field.

Changing the quality of the ball is completely different. I don't recall any time in the history of the game when a team made a change in the ball to fit thier needs.

[baseball junkie]

The ball is just a piece of equipment you play the game with, just like all of those other things I listed. There's nothing sacred about it.

And as for the ball be changed, I think MLB has a long, long history of doing that.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

The ball is just a piece of equipment you play the game with, just like all of those other things I listed. There's nothing sacred about it.

And as for the ball be changed, I think MLB has a long, long history of doing that.

I don't see it that way, just a piece of equipment I guess thats where we differ. As far as I know a team is not allowed to change the ball, compromise the quality of the ball. Obviously, there may not be such a rule worded to not allow that or the lords of the game are just looking the other way, nothing new there.

Yes there has been changes in the ball over the years but that was made by MLB and all teams played with the same ball. There was a period in the 1930's when the AL and NL used different balls but each team in the leagues used the same ball as the rest of the league.

[sopclod]

Show me another ball park with a 131 park factor and I'll buy your argument.

What difference does it make? What if they build some crazy bandbox tomorrow with a park factor of 200? If you "correct" Coors, then some other park will have the highest park factor. It's just a number. Next year maybe it will be 125, or 135, it doesn't matter. You still have to play well.

[Williamsburg2599]

Anybody else think that the Rockies should of thought of this before building a team a mile up in the sky????

[econmists]

As for the humidor I read its been in use since 2002...so that isn't the answer. Furthermore, those who argue against changing the 'ball' have to deal with the fact that the ball is being changed by the conditions at Coors field. Supposedly the balls shrink and lose weight.

Anyhow neither seems to be an issue now since:


Top Ten ERA in MLB

1. Detroit Tigers
3.68

2. New York Mets
4.03

3. Los Angeles Angels
4.04

4. San Diego Padres
4.14

5. Colorado Rockies
4.15

6. Oakland Athletics
4.16

7. Minnesota Twins
4.28

8. Los Angeles Dodgers
4.30

9. New York Yankees
4.30

10. Seattle Mariners
4.32



ERA at Coors Field

1. A Cook
3.81

2. J Jennings
3.00

3. J Francis
3.02

4. B Kim
2.75

5. J Fogg
5.46

If you look at BK's last few homestands, the numbers are impressive in any ballpark.

[bluezebra]

This applies to the game today. You don't think the ball off of the bat is different, say, in Colorado and Atlanta vs S.F., Oakland, L.A? I guess you think I had some sort of nerf ball in mind. Not so. The change would be so subtle I doubt any hitter will notice. Just make the say 5%-8% "deader".



Have you ever heard of batting practice? There's a reason hitters take batting practice, not just to warm up, but to gage how the ball is carrying, wind, etc, position of the sun, etc.


Staying within the rules allows for great diversity of equipment. Players use different mitts, bats with different types of wood, and different lengths and weights for bats. If baseball was so concerned with using equal equipment then every player would use the exact same size bat and glove.



What are you talking about? I made no such statement. The hitters stats at Coors are already skewed! Hello! Again, I'm not talking about an extreme change like aluminum bats. That's just a strawman argument.


Yes, and Coors Field, the Baker Bowl, and old Wrigley Field didn't effect the integrity of the game when these ballparks allowed average players to put up monster numbers and make them look like they were better players than they actually were (see Hank Wilson, Todd Helton, Larry Walker, Chuck Klein, etc).

Where's 'Old Wrigley Field'? And the 'New' one? And who is 'Hank' Wilson?

Bob

[DodgerBlue8188]

Didn't they already do something to the stadium that has reduced home runs?

[bluezebra]

I don't see it that way, just a piece of equipment I guess thats where we differ. As far as I know a team is not allowed to change the ball, compromise the quality of the ball. Obviously, there may not be such a rule worded to not allow that or the lords of the game are just looking the other way, nothing new there.

Yes there has been changes in the ball over the years but that was made by MLB and all teams played with the same ball. There was a period in the 1930's when the AL and NL used different balls but each team in the leagues used the same ball as the rest of the league.

Where did you read that the AL and NL used different baseballs. I remembr when they both used the same ball, but were stamped with different names, logos, and the leagues' presidents signatures.

Bob

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Where's 'Old Wrigley Field'? And the 'New' one? And who is 'Hank' Wilson?

Bob
You know who I am talking about. I fixed the typo. Stop being silly. :p By "OLD" Wrigly Field I meant Wrigly Field circa 1930.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Where did you read that the AL and NL used different baseballs. I remembr when they both used the same ball, but were stamped with different names, logos, and the leagues' presidents signatures.

Bob

Bob, I''ll get back to you later on this one. I'm away from home at this time, don't have all the info at hand. I can tell you this much from memory. The changes, the difference in the AL and NL ball were not internal. One or the other league used a ball with a thicker cover and lower or higher seams. This took place for a period in the 1930s decade and I am hoping I can find a copy of this info that I took from the N.Y.Times.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

As for the humidor I read its been in use since 2002...so that isn't the answer. Furthermore, those who argue against changing the 'ball' have to deal with the fact that the ball is being changed by the conditions at Coors field. Supposedly the balls shrink and lose weight.


Thats mother nature, they have to live with that.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

As for the humidor I read its been in use since 2002...so that isn't the answer. Furthermore, those who argue against changing the 'ball' have to deal with the fact that the ball is being changed by the conditions at Coors field. Supposedly the balls shrink and lose weight.

Anyhow neither seems to be an issue now since:


Top Ten ERA in MLB

1. Detroit Tigers
3.68

2. New York Mets
4.03

3. Los Angeles Angels
4.04

4. San Diego Padres
4.14

5. Colorado Rockies
4.15

6. Oakland Athletics
4.16

7. Minnesota Twins
4.28

8. Los Angeles Dodgers
4.30

9. New York Yankees
4.30

10. Seattle Mariners
4.32



ERA at Coors Field

1. A Cook
3.81

2. J Jennings
3.00

3. J Francis
3.02

4. B Kim
2.75

5. J Fogg
5.46


Most of that is because what of what they are now doing with the balls at Coors. It has brought down their numbers in that park. Thats what the debate is about, should any team alter the condition of the ball.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Where did you read that the AL and NL used different baseballs. I remembr when they both used the same ball, but were stamped with different names, logos, and the leagues' presidents signatures.
Bob

Bob, this is not the original article that appeared in the N.Y.Times that I mentioned in post #48. This is from a baseball book that I read in the public library that I read some years ago. It confirms what was printed in the Times. If there is still any doubt I can and will post the original copy from the N.T.Times which I have on CD.

[econmists]

Most of that is because what of what they are now doing with the balls at Coors. It has brought down their numbers in that park. Thats what the debate is about, should any team alter the condition of the ball.


My point was at the start of my post: "As for the humidor I read its been in use since 2002."

How do you explain the 2006 numbers in comparison to the 02-05 numbers?

[econmists]

Thats mother nature, they have to live with that.

Then what about stadiums that are enclosed? They're blocking out mother nature.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Then what about stadiums that are enclosed? They're blocking out mother nature.

I don't see the comparison, the Rockies are changing the quality of the ball, the heart of the game.

Maybe some one can convince me that they are the same, dome stadiums and tampering with the ball. I'm open.

[EvanAparra]

i dont get why this is not fair for the rockies. The visiting team pitches in the same park that they do, if they give up the most runs, they should score the same runs. i think the reason they lose is because they have bad teams.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

My point was at the start of my post: "As for the humidor I read its been in use since 2002."

How do you explain the 2006 numbers in comparison to the 02-05 numbers?

If your asking why the team ERA (.415) is so much lower in 2006 than it was for the average ERA (.528) over the years 2002 to 2005, I have no answer. Of course we are comparing a 4 year period 2002-2005 to one season 2006. I do get your point, I doubt by years end that the .415 will be much closer to that .528 over the years 2002-2005.

The humidor did not seem to effect the team ERA before and after.
ERA 1997-2001------5.37
-----2002-2005------5.28

Team hitting a bigger difference.
Team batting------1997-2001----.291
------------------2002-2005----.270

I would like to point out that I can't put too much into these numbers because I ran short on time and did not check the home/ away ERA or the home/away batting average. I did not check or give home/away splits which would be the more accurate measure.

What ever the case, I stand by my view, the ball should never be compromised, by a team in one park only.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

My point was at the start of my post: "As for the humidor I read its been in use since 2002."

How do you explain the 2006 numbers in comparison to the 02-05 numbers?

It appears that there is more than the home park and the ball at play here. I think that explains some of what you ask, the Rockie's pitching is much better in 2006, not only at home but away.
Team ERA home and away.

----------2002-----2003-----2004----2005-----2006
home-----.547------.507-----.627-----.518-----.403
Away-----.492------.535-----.477-----.507-----.421

I have to check these numbers, hard to believe that the pitching improved that much. Have to admit, I don't follow the Rockies that close, trades, injury report just some factors that could explain that drastic drop in ERA in 2006.

[Rounding Home]

I say keep it the way it is. Both teams use the same balls-it's fair. Both teams deal with the same challenges, so it's not like there's some added advantage for the either team. Sure, the Rockies might know how well it carries but that's standard homefield advantage, no matter the stadium. They both deal with the same ball, so I say don't go around changing it. Sure there may be more offense, but good pitching can damper that, as evidenced by this year's Rockies staff.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I say keep it the way it is. Both teams use the same balls-it's fair. Both teams deal with the same challenges, so it's not like there's some added advantage for the either team. Sure, the Rockies might know how well it carries but that's standard homefield advantage, no matter the stadium. They both deal with the same ball, so I say don't go around changing it. Sure there may be more offense, but good pitching can damper that, as evidenced by this year's Rockies staff.

The fact that neither the Rockies or visiting team has an advantage is not the point. The fact is, the only thing that matters is that a team is changing the quality of the ball. I think the voting results show how most feel about the situation, don't tamper with the ball.

[Rounding Home]

The fact that neither the Rockies or visiting team has an advantage is not the point. The fact is, the only thing that matters is that a team is changing the quality of the ball. I think the voting results show how most feel about the situation, don't tamper with the ball.

I'm not in support of a "dead ball" for Coors Field. That's why I said keep it the way it is. I'm saying no matter the ball, both teams have to use the same one, so keep it the same way and don't go changing to a different ball. That causes an uproar (as we've seen) and really pushes the envelope.

[sandlot]

I have no objection to the use of a special ball at Coors Field, so long as the management remains faithful to its theologically inspired approach to signing players, and uses only those dead balls that have miraculously returned to life. :)