If BRob can't return next season.....??

[brianod]

MacPhail is NOT a failure. He has done some good things, in his mindset... And that's EXACTLY the mindset PETER ANGELOS hired! AM made some great trades, signed a few affordable FAs (nothing too expensive or risky (Atkins just being one glaring mistake...) ) and he stays away from those scary things like international players and high $ pitchers. That's Andy's m.o. and that's EXACTLY why Big Peter hired him and gave him "free reign".

What they need to do:

1. Angelos not the owner anymore.

2. If you think it's something else, see 1.

3. PROFIT!

I get the gist of this (I think). I agree about Angelos, but there is nothing we can do about that. Gillick won with Peter, it's not impossible.

[CA-ORIOLE]

The fact that you omit the only change in the ball that MLB acknowledges, the change from dead ball to rabbitt ball around 1920, makes me wonder about your sources. MLB and their associates are never going to acknowledge ball cahnges officially, so any source using info coming from them has to be suspect. Even uisng the most conservative estimation of the COR % margin of error, the difference in distance for a ball can be as much as 25 ft. and still be within specs. Here are some interesting sites:

http://steroids-and-baseball.com/changing-baseball.shtml

http://highboskage.com/juiced-ball.shtml

Well thanks for providing something. The first one is pretty compelling even though he's an electrical engineer and only used 5 balls over the course of 48 years (1963-2000). Also, none of the consulants were physisists or even mechanical engineers. That being said, I won't completely dismiss it. The second reference doesn't really provide anything of any substance other than what we already know and some pure speculation on the authors part.

The additional referenced study (UMS/PA) from your first link is actually pretty interesting.

Even using the most conservative estimation of the COR % margin of error, the difference in distance for a ball can be as much as 25 ft. and still be within specs

.

What does your above statement actually mean in terms that I can apply to run production?

The author of the previous study (baseballs having an above mean standard of conformance in 1998-2000) that Can of Corn provided a similar statement but still dismisses any effect as marginal. The first link you provided acknowledges some changes to the core in 1977 (which baseball has acknowledged), so why didn't the explosion in offense occur then? Why 21 years later and why the decline now from 2009-2011? Because of the variation of the ball?

MLB and their associates are never going to acknowledge ball changes officially, so any source using info coming from them has to be suspect

Even the author of your first link states that any difference is not purposeful and likely due to quality control issues with the material and/or manufacturing improvements.

The fact that you omit the only change in the ball that MLB acknowledges the change from dead ball to rabbitt ball around 1920

I'd be interested to see this referenced. All of the stuff I've read was that deadball era had little or nothing to do with the ball from the factory and the ball was not changed from 1910 to 1930/31. I do believe the yarn was changed around 1920 or so but subsequent testing showed no change to the physical properties of the baseball. There were many greater and far more compelling factors for the end of the dead ball era.