Doubles Machine 2.0

[tinamodotti]

Double #26 tonight in team game 58.

Team game 58 for the '31 Red Sox was on June 24th. Earl Webb went 3 for 4 with 3 singles and a walk, staying put at 27 doubles.

[tinamodotti]

Double #27 today in team game 63.

Thru 63 Red Sox games in 1931, Earl Webb had 30 doubles. Doubles 28, 29, & 30 of that year came against "us", during a 5 game series in late June against the Browns in St. Louis.

Manny is still on pace to break the record due to the different season lengths. I'll continue to update as long as MM is on pace for a 60 double season. After all, a 60 double season is rarer than a 60 homer season.

[scOtt]

Double #27 today in team game 63.

Thru 63 Red Sox games in 1931, Earl Webb had 30 doubles. Doubles 28, 29, & 30 of that year came against "us", during a 5 game series in late June against the Browns in St. Louis.

Manny is still on pace to break the record due to the different season lengths. I'll continue to update as long as MM is on pace for a 60 double season. After all, a 60 double season is rarer than a 60 homer season.

No thanks to illegal drugs!

...

[DrungoHazewood]

No thanks to illegal drugs!

...

Actually, doubles shot up from about 1.5 per game to almost 1.9 per game in the early-to-mid 90s, and peaked in 2007, before slightly dropping off the last few seasons. The 1930s were the only time in baseball history that approached the "steroid era" in frequency of doubles.

[Sanfran327]

Actually, doubles shot up from about 1.5 per game to almost 1.9 per game in the early-to-mid 90s, and peaked in 2007, before slightly dropping off the last few seasons. The 1930s were the only time in baseball history that approached the "steroid era" in frequency of doubles.

Do you have any way of knowing whether the '30s were a result of poor defense or good hitting? Just curious, as that seems somewhat random, but then again, baseball tends to be somewhat random to begin with.

[El Gordo]

Do you have any way of knowing whether the '30s were a result of poor defense or good hitting? Just curious, as that seems somewhat random, but then again, baseball tends to be somewhat random to begin with.

My guess would be that after Babe Ruth, the change in approach to hitting in general lead to more 2BH as well as HR. Think Ichiro switching from being a slap hitting speedster to the HR guy he can be in BP.

[DrungoHazewood]

Do you have any way of knowing whether the '30s were a result of poor defense or good hitting? Just curious, as that seems somewhat random, but then again, baseball tends to be somewhat random to begin with.

My guess is that the general increase in offense due to a) no more soggy, wet, dark balls after the spitball ban and b) Ruth showing that driving the ball wasn't a fool's errand led to more extra base hits of all types. The better players did take advantage of poorer quality of play, and larger outfields than today. Primitive equipment and groundkeeping probably helped, too.

So you know people sometimes still say "you better get to the starter early or you'll never get to him"? I'm pretty sure this comes from the spitball era, when they used one ball all game and it got progressively harder to hit as the fielders and pitcher rubbed tobacco juice and licorice spit and dirt and crap all over the ball for nine innings. You have to figure that by the 5th or 6th inning it was near impossible to hit a ball like that 300 feet. You had to get lucky and have the ball bust open or get stolen by a kid to get a fresh ball in the game. Just stopping that and putting fresh balls constantly in the game had to have been the driving factor in increasing offense in the 20s and beyond.

[Can_of_corn]

So you know people sometimes still say "you better get to the starter early or you'll never get to him"? I'm pretty sure this comes from the spitball era, when they used one ball all game and it got progressively harder to hit as the fielders and pitcher rubbed tobacco juice and licorice spit and dirt and crap all over the ball for nine innings. You have to figure that by the 5th or 6th inning it was near impossible to hit a ball like that 300 feet. You had to get lucky and have the ball bust open or get stolen by a kid to get a fresh ball in the game. Just stopping that and putting fresh balls constantly in the game had to have been the driving factor in increasing offense in the 20s and beyond.

Do the scoring records from that era show a noticeable decline in scoring as games progressed?

[DrungoHazewood]

Do the scoring records from that era show a noticeable decline in scoring as games progressed?

I don't know, but it would be interesting to see. They have some splits going back to 1916 now, but all of that data is spotty pre-WWII.

[Can_of_corn]

I don't know, but it would be interesting to see. They have some splits going back to 1916 now, but all of that data is spotty pre-WWII.

Dang, I was hoping you could pull that up.

[tinamodotti]

Just stopping that and putting fresh balls constantly in the game had to have been the driving factor in increasing offense in the 20s and beyond.

I wonder if there is a similar history in tennis...

[DrungoHazewood]

I wonder if there is a similar history in tennis...

Besides short skirts all I know about tennis could fit in a thimble.

[DrungoHazewood]

Dang, I was hoping you could pull that up.

I thought they might have inning-by-inning splits going back to 1916, but, alas, they don't. It looks like WWII is the current dividing line for that info.

[NickM21]

You could probably email BBR or someone they could probably tell you.

[DrungoHazewood]

You could probably email BBR or someone they could probably tell you.

Maybe, maybe not. Retrosheet doesn't have the complete play-by-play data prior to WWII, and that's who feeds the bb-ref data. You would think inning-by-inning league/team splits wouldn't be that hard to come by, but it's not available at either Retrosheet or bb-ref right now.

What I will do is send a message to Bill James on his site. He might have some insight, he's done a ton of research into stuff like this.