Baseball Graphs - FIP and DER (January 24, 2004)
I think what is interesting is how much easier it is to get a hit, given that a ball is in park, these past few years. It's possible that the newer parks are responsible for this.
--posted by TangoTiger at 06:13 PM EDT
Posted 11:22 a.m.,
January 25, 2004
(#1) -
studes
(homepage)
Thanks for the link, Tango. It seems highly likely that the new parks are responsible for a large portion of the increase in BABIP in the 1990's.
However, I think the 1940 transition is the most amazing thing. DER climbed from the mid seven-teens to the mid seven-thirties in the course of three or four years and stayed there for several decades after. There were apparently no park factors involved, and it happened to both leagues. I have never read anything about this before, have you?
I've got to say, it looks like one of the most fundamental, profound changes in the history of the game, and I had never heard of it before.
Posted 12:44 p.m.,
January 25, 2004
(#2) -
mathteamcoach
Very interesting.
Could the advent of playing at night under the lights have anything to do with the increase of DER around 1940? I don't think I have the tools to investigate this question, but maybe fielding is easier at night than during the day. IIRC, all ML ballparks had lights by 1940, except for Wrigley. It seems counter-intuitive, I know, but a flyball at night might be eaiser to track with the eyes given the fact that of having a white object against a black background.
Posted 4:51 p.m.,
January 25, 2004
(#3) -
mathteamcoach
I have begun to answer my own question:
Taking the day/night pitching data from yahoo! for the 2003 American League season, the BABIP during the day was 0.298. At night the BABIP was 0.302. When I removed the "dome" teams, the difference only shrunk by a point (0.299 during the day, 0.302 at night). So, for the 2003 AL at least, it is slightly easier to get a hit at night.
Posted 10:52 a.m.,
January 26, 2004
(#4) -
Chris Dial
It's the gloves.
Posted 11:07 a.m.,
January 26, 2004
(#5) -
mathteamcoach
Studes: where exactly is that peak in DER? Is it 1941? According to
Posted 11:08 a.m.,
January 26, 2004
(#6) -
mathteamcoach
Studes: where exactly is that peak in DER? Is it 1941? According to Rawlings this is when they "invented" a deep-well pocket glove. The "web" of the glove was invented in the 1920.
Posted 11:09 a.m.,
January 26, 2004
(#7) -
mathteamcoach
Sorry. That's what happen when you forget a ".
Posted 12:11 p.m.,
January 26, 2004
(#8) -
studes
(homepage)
Interesting. I don't have the source file with me, but I believe the increase occurred from about 1938 to 1941. Straight up, and stayed up.
It makes sense that the gloves would have a big impact, but I didn't realize that they were adopted that quickly. Is there a "history of baseball gloves" anywhere? A chronology would be cool.
Posted 12:12 p.m.,
January 26, 2004
(#9) -
studes
(homepage)
Never mind. Just went to coach's link.
Still, I'm sure there's a more detailed history of baseball gloves somewhere.
Posted 2:01 p.m.,
January 26, 2004
(#10) -
mathteamcoach
Here's a basic article on glove history and design at, of all places, Popular Mechanics. It mentions the 1920 web invention, the fact that plastic inserts were first used in 1941, and the fact that most OFs use a glove that is longer than the rulebook allows:
Major League Baseball rules state that a player's glove cannot be longer than 12 in., measured from the heel to the tip of the index finger. Still, most manufacturers make a 13-in.-long glove, which is used by most major-league outfielders, including All-Star Barry Bonds of the San Francisco Giants.
Posted 2:19 p.m.,
January 26, 2004
(#11) -
studes
(homepage)
This article puts the development of the new glove at 1935, with the introduction of the official Rawlings version at 1941. This fits well with the DER record.
https://customglove.securelook.com/extras_gloveevolution.html
Fascinating stuff.
Posted 3:59 p.m.,
January 29, 2004
(#12) -
Chris Dial
So, it's the gloves?
Posted 4:11 p.m.,
January 29, 2004
(#13) -
studes
(homepage)
Sure sounds like it, doesn't it?