Company Claims 1998 Baseballs Were Juiced

[redlegsfan21]

CLEVELAND (AP) -A company that uses computer imaging claims baseballs had a larger rubberized core and a synthetic rubber ring in 1998, including the ball Mark McGwire hit for his 70th homer.
Universal Medical Systems Inc. said Wednesday that with the assistance of Drs. Avrami S. Grader and Dr. Philip M. Halleck from The Center for Quantitative Imaging at Penn State, it took images of 1998 baseballs.

"Examining the CT images of Mark McGwire's 70th home run ball one can clearly see the synthetic ring around the core - or 'pill' - of the baseball," UMS president David Zavagno said. "While Mark McGwire may or may not have used illegal steroids, the evidence shows his ball - under the governing body of the league - was juiced."

But Bob DuPuy, baseball's chief operating officer, said the core of the ball has been unchanged for decades. Rawlings has been the exclusive supplier of baseballs to the major leagues since 1977.

"All of our balls are subject to rigorous quality control standards and testing conducted by Rawlings," DuPuy said. "No changes have been made to the core of the ball through the entire time they have manufactured it."

UMS specifically examined the ball McGwire hit for No. 70 - a record surpassed when Barry Bonds hit 73 homers in 2001. Zavagno said the company tested about 35 baseballs in all.

McGwire is on the Hall of Fame ballot for the first time this year, and results will be announced Tuesday by the Baseball Writers' Association of America.

"The synthetic rubber ring of the modern-day baseball, in this case that of Mark McGwire's prized 70th home run ball, acts as both a spring and a 'stop,"' Zavagno said. "Much like a sling shot pulled back 10 or 20 degrees farther than normal, the subsequent restitution or rebound allows an object to fly faster and farther."

Baseball spokesman Rich Levin said what UMS calls a rubber ring is more like a cardboard washer.

"We are satisfied that the ball comports with all major league specifications," DuPuy said. "Beginning in 2000, we have had annual independent testing done by UMass at Lowell, baseball research center, under the direction of Dr. James Sherwood, and those tests have showed full compliance with standards."

http://sports.myway.com/news/01032007/v8209.html

[Mike D.]

In retrospect, this isn't at all shocking. After he hit 58 HR in 1997, a lot of people expected McGwire to make a run at the HR mark in 1998. And that was the era of "chicks dig the long ball" ads. So, it stands to reason that MLB would spice up the balls a bit.

Of course, now they deny it, and try to push any and all blame on the power surge and steroid use to the players.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

Well, this is all well and good, but I think that someone needs to go back and find a less significant ball from '98 and cut that puppy open. At least then we would have some definitive proof one way or the other.

But I believe it. In retrospect, it is odd that two guys broke Maris' record in the same year...

[Old Sweater]

Well, this is all well and good, but I think that someone needs to go back and find a less significant ball from '98 and cut that puppy open. At least then we would have some definitive proof one way or the other.

If they found out that a $10 knife worked on the same ball from 98 they would have to throw away their million dollar imaging computer.

[Ubiquitous]

This is a bit of a scam. This company issued a press release the other day and so far that has been about it. This outer ring that they found has been on baseball for decades now. It isn't exclusive to 1998.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

If they found out that a $10 knife worked on the same ball from 98 they would have to throw away their million dollar imaging computer.Ya, but they're not gonna cut open McGwire's 70th HR ball. They need to find one that isn't valuable.


This is a bit of a scam. This company issued a press release the other day and so far that has been about it. This outer ring that they found has been on baseball for decades now. It isn't exclusive to 1998.It is a pretty vague report. Have they released anything else at all?

[Old Sweater]

Ya, but they're not gonna cut open McGwire's 70th HR ball. They need to find one that isn't valuable.

Yeah for sure. Meant to say from another ball in the 1998 season to use a knife on. They make it sound like that is the only ball left from 1998, if so there was rumors in 1998 and they had plenty of time to use a knife or saw on.

[Williamsburg2599]

Anybody got a '98 ball laying around? we could solve this pretty quick. If there was any juice the 1998 baseball season, it was in McGwire's arms, not the ball.

[EvanAparra]

I believe TFAM has a Edgar Martinez signed HR ball, possibly from '98... Think we can get him to saw it open??

[Old Sweater]

Anybody got a '98 ball laying around? we could solve this pretty quick. If there was any juice the 1998 baseball season, it was in McGwire's arms, not the ball.

Like I said, there were rumors of the ball being juiced in 1998, announcers even would argue about it. Should have done there research then.

Just some computer imaging company trying to get their name in the paper.

[Ubiquitous]

This company actually released a report back in 2000 that supposedly looked at hundreds of balls going all the way back to 1930. What they found was pretty similar to this but the report flew under the radar. This one has some legs because they attached McGwire to it and because of the hall of fame voting.

Unfortunately in looking at everything this company has presented it looks to me like the head guy is terribly biased and is adding a lot of unproven allegations into his findings.

In otherwords he sees what he wants to see.

[Zito75]

Juiced balls, juiced players, juiced contracts. Now that's all a stretch.

I don't think I can handle the drama anymore! ;)

[west coast orange and black]

williamsburg2599: Anybody got a '98 ball laying around?
if mlb wanted to slip in some juiced balls into specific parks or even into specific games, it could have done so.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

CLEVELAND (AP) -A company that uses computer imaging claims baseballs had a larger rubberized core and a synthetic rubber ring in 1998, including the ball Mark McGwire hit for his 70th homer.
Universal Medical Systems Inc. said Wednesday that with the assistance of Drs. Avrami S. Grader and Dr. Philip M. Halleck from The Center for Quantitative Imaging at Penn State, it took images of 1998 baseballs.

"Examining the CT images of Mark McGwire's 70th home run ball one can clearly see the synthetic ring around the core - or 'pill' - of the baseball," UMS president David Zavagno said. "While Mark McGwire may or may not have used illegal steroids, the evidence shows his ball - under the governing body of the league - was juiced."

But Bob DuPuy, baseball's chief operating officer, said the core of the ball has been unchanged for decades. Rawlings has been the exclusive supplier of baseballs to the major leagues since 1977.

"All of our balls are subject to rigorous quality control standards and testing conducted by Rawlings," DuPuy said. "No changes have been made to the core of the ball through the entire time they have manufactured it."

UMS specifically examined the ball McGwire hit for No. 70 - a record surpassed when Barry Bonds hit 73 homers in 2001. Zavagno said the company tested about 35 baseballs in all.

McGwire is on the Hall of Fame ballot for the first time this year, and results will be announced Tuesday by the Baseball Writers' Association of America.

"The synthetic rubber ring of the modern-day baseball, in this case that of Mark McGwire's prized 70th home run ball, acts as both a spring and a 'stop,"' Zavagno said. "Much like a sling shot pulled back 10 or 20 degrees farther than normal, the subsequent restitution or rebound allows an object to fly faster and farther."

Baseball spokesman Rich Levin said what UMS calls a rubber ring is more like a cardboard washer.

"We are satisfied that the ball comports with all major league specifications," DuPuy said. "Beginning in 2000, we have had annual independent testing done by UMass at Lowell, baseball research center, under the direction of Dr. James Sherwood, and those tests have showed full compliance with standards."
http://sports.myway.com/news/01032007/v8209.html


Steering clear of the point that David Zavagno tries to make about McGwire and 1998, the ball has changed over the decades, not saying livelier, maybe, we don't know but there have been changes. So while Zavagno is shooting some blanks, he's not the only one. Bob Dupoy of MLB claims there has been no changes in the core of the ball. Testing at Penn State shows variations over the years. I might add that unlike Zavagno those who conducted the test do not say the core changes make the ball livelier, only point out changes in core sizes over the years.

Whats to be expected from MLB and Dupoy. He speaks of tests at UMass at the Lowell baseball research center showing the ball to be within specs, OK that fine. Other testing done at the University of Rhode Island Island show the 1990 ball to be out of specs, over the limit in synthetic material in the wool windings. Popular Science editors made a number of calls to Bud Selig's office to discuss the wool windings issue, he never answered he never returned the calls.

Both tests have some flaws. Rhode Island testing used a very small number of balls from 1960s-70s-80s-90s and 2000, too small of a sample.

UMass testing to my knowledge used balls from only two years, 1999 and 2000, what can that prove about changes over the years, they should have used balls going back some seasons.


If there is a choice as to who do I believe on the issue of varying sizes in the core size.... Bob DuPoy of MLB or Rawlings who say there have been no changes in core sizes or the CT scan which shows a difference in core sizes I choose the scanner.

Again not to say these changes have given a livlier ball in recent years, only saying the ball is not the same. Hard to believe MLB on any issue of the ball.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Hope this can be read. As we can see the only comment is on the fact that core has changed over the years. No claim that it makes the ball any livelier.

[Old Sweater]

Hope this can be read. As we can see the only comment is on the fact that core has changed over the years. No claim that it makes the ball any livelier.

Yeah, if they were going to test to see if the ball was any livelier they would have to do something fancy like drop it off a table and measure how far it bounces compared to other 98 balls. In 1998 of course.

Like i said, I just think the company that owns the computer imaging machine is just opening a can of worms to get their name in the papers.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Yeah, if they were going to test to see if the ball was any livelier they would have to do something fancy like drop it off a table and measure how far it bounces compared to other 98 balls. In 1998 of course.

Like i said, I just think the company that owns the computer imaging machine is just opening a can of worms to get their name in the papers.


That could be, but thats just Universal president David Zavagnos and he singling out the year 1998. The testers made no such claim, spoke in general terms.

I have a problem with Rawlings Exec Ted Simmons and MLB telling us don't believe what the test showed, believe us. Who do I believe those who conducted the test and gave their honest opinon only reported what the saw, that cores did vary in size over the years or MLB who has been suspect over the years when the truth is an issue. You will note that they, the testers do not claim the ball to be livelier only changes over the years.

To me the issue here is not David Zavagnos and his comment but, has the core changed over the years and testing shows it has. Don't know why Rawlings and MLB can't accept the fact, what can be visibly seen.

[2Chance]

In this undated image released by Universal Medical Systems, Inc. of Ohio, a computed tomography (CT) image of the "pill" or core of St. Louis Cardinals slugger Mark McGwire's 70th home run baseball from 1998 is shown. According to UMS, the baseball had a larger rubberized core and a synthetic rubber ring not outlined by Major League Baseball's specifications. But Bob DuPuy, baseball's chief operating officer, said the core of the ball has been unchanged for decades.
(AP Photo/Universal Medical Systems, Inc., of Ohio)

(I was just surprised that nobody had yet shown the pic of the actual scan.)

[cosmo34]

The ball has been juiced several times over the years. I don't get why this was news. It's been goin on for years, and shouldn't be a shock to anyone

[cubsfan1073]

I have always suspected the balls during the late 90s had something wrong with them.

[FrenchyLefebvre]

[QUOTE=nascarfn5]CLEVELAND (AP) -. "We are satisfied that the ball comports with all major league specifications," DuPuy said. "Beginning in 2000, we have had annual independent testing done by UMass at Lowell, baseball research center, under the direction of Dr. James Sherwood, and those tests have showed full compliance with standards.QUOTE]

Isn't 1998 the year in topic here? Am more inclined to believe the Co. anyway.
Honestly hard to believe anything MLB dishes out anymore.

[cardsfanatic]

I don't think it's unique to the MLB, either. I was playing HS and college ball in the late 90's and especially at HS, we had some old ratty balls they've been using since the 80's in our soft-toss and batting cages. If you hit one of them it felt like you just connected with a stone and it took a lot of pop to get one to laser off the bat. Meanwhile, the newer balls at the time (97-98) felt like you were smashing tennis balls in comparison.

I don't claim to be as smart as some super imaging computer or anything but that's just from my own personal experience.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

The fact that the balls were old would most likely contribute to what you describe, I'm sure. But you may be right with your assumption. Does anyone have a CAT scanner around?

[J W]

I distinctly remember a story roughly a decade ago stating Mike Mussina declared MLB balls "juiced" through a simple expirement...

he took two sanctioned balls, one current (aka mid-90s) and one about a decade old (aka mid-80s), held them arms length in front of him and let them go on a flat surface. The more recent one bounced higher. He repeated several times and the same thing happened.

I don't quite understand what is wrong with winding the balls tighter, other than the fact that the governing body has denied doing it. Sometimes I get the feeling that if they paint over the right-field wall somewhere they'd deny that ever took place. :confused:

Why not just say, "we're changing the ball". If there's a big problem, they can go back to the old one. The NBA just did this--more players didn't like it than did, so they went back. No big deal.

[Ubiquitous]

I distinctly remember a story roughly a decade ago stating Mike Mussina declared MLB balls "juiced" through a simple expirement...

he took two sanctioned balls, one current (aka mid-90s) and one about a decade old (aka mid-80s), held them arms length in front of him and let them go on a flat surface. The more recent one bounced higher. He repeated several times and the same thing happened.

I don't quite understand what is wrong with winding the balls tighter, other than the fact that the governing body has denied doing it. Sometimes I get the feeling that if they paint over the right-field wall somewhere they'd deny that ever took place. :confused:

Why not just say, "we're changing the ball". If there's a big problem, they can go back to the old one. The NBA just did this--more players didn't like it than did, so they went back. No big deal.

you can do that experiment too. Go into your basement or garage or wherever you keep some old baseballs then go and buy a brand new ball. I'm almost positive that the brand new ball is going to bounce back better then the old one, regardless of whether or not the two were identical at one point.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I distinctly remember a story roughly a decade ago stating Mike Mussina declared MLB balls "juiced" through a simple expirement...

he took two sanctioned balls, one current (aka mid-90s) and one about a decade old (aka mid-80s), held them arms length in front of him and let them go on a flat surface. The more recent one bounced higher. He repeated several times and the same thing happened.
I don't quite understand what is wrong with winding the balls tighter, other than the fact that the governing body has denied doing it. Sometimes I get the feeling that if they paint over the right-field wall somewhere they'd deny that ever took place. :confused:

Why not just say, "we're changing the ball". If there's a big problem, they can go back to the old one. The NBA just did this--more players didn't like it than did, so they went back. No big deal.

The bounce test is not the best way to determine changes in the ball. There could be changes that effect the ball in flight that do not show up in a simple bounce test.

A good number of pitchers have noticed and commented on the cover of the ball, they believe a change in the early 1990s. The cover is tighter and the seams lower. This was the same comments voiced by NL pitchers in 1930. With the tighter cover and lower seams the ball was harder to grip, more difficult to get "stuff" on the ball. Looks Looks like the NL pitchers knew what they were talking about. Owners admitted that these changes were made, tighter cover and lower seams in the NL 1930 ball.

One look at the leap in offense in the NL in 1930 shows what these external changes did for the offense.

NL---------Ba.----------HRs
1930------.303---------892
1931------.277---------493

The difference the NL went back to the old ball in the 1931 season, higher seams and looser cover.

I don't say any changes in the 1990s were by design by MLB. Could just be improvements in the manufacture of the ball. The wool windings were found to be out of MLB specs and Cat-scan showed variations in the core size of the ball over the last 60 years.

Who can say with certainty if the above makes the ball livelier, the wool windings, core size variations, the external changes what effect of the ball in flight. We just don't know but it's unlikely the ball in todays game is the same as the 1920s or 1960s ball.