Question about the Dead Ball Era

[Darkslide820]

I was wondering: The era between 1900 and 1920 was known as the dead ball era. This was because the same ball was used over and over again, causing limited power for batters. Expectedly, ERA's during this period are as low as ever (see Ed Walsh, Addie Joss, and Three Finger Brown). Stolen base totals are also extremely high during this period, perhaps out of necessity.

However, what does not seem consistent to me is that this era was also known for:

1) High 2B totals

2) High 3B totals

3) High batting averages

Does that seem strange to anyone else here? .400 averages were commonplace and extra-base hits were, as well. Yet the lowest ERA's in history were recorded here. Anyone with some historical insight care to explain why?

[kgbaseball]

How big were the ballparks?

[Darkslide820]

They were big, but if the rate of getting hits (ie, batting average) was higher, it seems like that would balance out in a way.

[kgbaseball]

Well the big size of the ballparks would explain the high XBH totals and high averages, but the fact that ERAs were low doesn't make sense then.

[tywiggins]

I was wondering: The era between 1900 and 1920 was known as the dead ball era. This was because the same ball was used over and over again, causing limited power for batters. Expectedly, ERA's during this period are as low as ever (see Ed Walsh, Addie Joss, and Three Finger Brown). Stolen base totals are also extremely high during this period, perhaps out of necessity.

However, what does not seem consistent to me is that this era was also known for:

1) High 2B totals

2) High 3B totals

3) High batting averages

Does that seem strange to anyone else here? .400 averages were commonplace and extra-base hits were, as well. Yet the lowest ERA's in history were recorded here. Anyone with some historical insight care to explain why?

According to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead-ball_era

The dead ball era was from 1903 - 1918.

In that time only two players had averages that were higher than .400.

Ty Cobb, and Joe Jackson. Cobb in 1911 and 1912. Jackson in 1911.

[medric822]

Pitchers pitched complete games most of the time, because each team was consisted of 17 players. And this ws a time where there was a three man rotation. I cant remember his name, but he pitched with Christy Mathewson on the Giants, he once started and completed both games of a double header. There's 18 innings right there.

[tywiggins]

And actually, if you compare the League averages for Runs per Game, ERA, and Batting Average, you will see they're not that much different in 1911, 1912 and 2006.

NL 1911 - Batting Average - .260

- Runs/Game - 4.42 Runs/Game

- ERA - 3.39

NL 1912 - Batting Average - .272

- Runs/Game - 4.62 Runs/Game

- ERA - 3.40

NL 2006 - Batting Average - .265

- Runs/Game - 4.76 Runs/Game

- ERA - 4.49

AL 1911 - Batting Average - .273

- Runs/Game - 4.61 Runs/Game

- ERA - 3.34

AL 1912 - Batting Average - .272

- Runs/Game - 4.62 Runs/Game

- ERA - 3.34

AL 2006 - Batting Average - .275

- Runs/Game - 4.76 Runs/Game

- ERA - 4.56

Note: There was a much bigger difference between Runs/Game and ERA back then than there is today.

[Darkslide820]

Well, Nap Lajoie did it in 1901 and George Sisler did it in 1920, but I guess it's still not as commonplace as I thought. I know that it's outside of that article's boundaries, but I've always learned about the Dead Ball Era as being around 1900 to 1920.

Also, you seem to have picked the 2 years with the highest ERA. I just checked through the Lg. ERA's for years in the 1900s and other years in the 1910s and they all have ERA's under 3.00.

By Runs/Game, do you mean Runs Created per Game (the sabremetric thing) or just runs scored per game?

[TwentySeven]

A few main factors:

1. Batters taking pitches

2. the gloves

-The gloves were much smaller, fielding was much much more difficult. This likely contributed to low earned-run totals and high run totals. This relates to what TyWiggins said.

-Batters took much fewer pitches as a result of the contactball philosophy. This was a different era when players saw very few pitches, got lots of singles, and didn't walk or strike out much. Look at the Angels as a similar team comparatively. Because people took fewer pitches, the pitchers who were most efficient could throw many more innings.

[medric822]

Well, techincaly, Darkslide820 is right about the 1920 part. Around that time, baseball started using tighter wound balls, causing the ball to be thown harder and faster, and , like physics teaches, for every action, there's an equal opposite reaction.

[tywiggins]

Well, Nap Lajoie did it in 1901 and George Sisler did it in 1920, but I guess it's still not as commonplace as I thought. I know that it's outside of that article's boundaries, but I've always learned about the Dead Ball Era as being around 1900 to 1920.

Also, you seem to have picked the 2 years with the highest ERA. I just checked through the Lg. ERA's for years in the 1900s and other years in the 1910s and they all have ERA's under 3.00.

By Runs/Game, do you mean Runs Created per Game (the sabremetric thing) or just runs scored per game?

I just went with the two years that had .400 hitters.

Here are the other years where the ERA was greater than 3 between 1903-1918 in the NL. (There weren't any others in the AL)

1903 NL ERA - 3.26

1910 NL ERA - 3.02

1913 NL ERA - 3.19

Runs/Game is runs scored per game.

[tywiggins]

Well, techincaly, Darkslide820 is right about the 1920 part. Around that time, baseball started using tighter wound balls, causing the ball to be thown harder and faster, and , like physics teaches, for every action, there's an equal opposite reaction.

Baseball almanac says 1901 - 1919

deadball.com says 1903 - 1919

as I said earlier wiki says 1903 - 1918

So it doesn't look like the beginning and end of the dead ball era are clearly defined.

[medric822]

Well, I would say that it ended when Ruth started wacking them out all over, wouldn't you?

[Darkslide820]

As with any era, it's difficult to set a specific beginning and end date. Hell, if it were up to me, I'd set the era as 1893 to 1920. I don't think there were any major rule/equipment changes made between 1893 and 1900. People just use it because it's a nice round number.

See what I'm saying about the Lg. ERA's, though? For all but 5 seasons within a 20 year span the ERA was less than 3.00, as compared to last year's ~4.50. That's what I meant by being low as can be.

The gloves were much smaller, fielding was much much more difficult. This likely contributed to low earned-run totals and high run totals

Damn, 27. That may be the best reason I've heard yet. It would match up with what Ty said about the runs/game total, but it would also match up with the creation of UNearned runs, which means lower EARNED run averages. Good stuff.

Also factor in that in the early 1900s you had unkempt fields, harsher scoring judges, and slicker balls (spit, other substances from the pitcher), and this may solve the puzzle. Sort of.

Another thing about 1920: Ray Chapman got beaned and killed. This lead to mandatory disposal of dirty balls that are too hard to see. This also was a cause for the offensive explosion.

[medric822]

I use to have an old glove, they were about the same size as todays infield gloves. Kinda larger though, with loads of padding. Maybe it was because of all the errors from using those pillows.

[Darkslide820]

Do you know what year the glove is from? Here's what some 1900s gloves looked like:

http://www.leaptoad.com/raindelay/matty/portrait.jpg

http://www.fsu.edu/~crimdo/images/pirates/h-wagner.jpg

The poofy gloves that are sized like today's are from, I believe, the 1930s, 1940s, or even 1950s. Here's a Joe DiMaggio glove, according to Google:

https://www.redshift.com/~gloveman/gdimaggio.JPG

And a Phil Rizzuto glove:

http://www.waswatching.com/scooterglove.jpg

[stecropper]

Perhaps the lack of Home Runs during that time contributed to lower ERAs even though batting averages; doubles & triples rates were supposively high.

Don't know if unearned runs were scored the same in those days either.

I actually know nothing about the so called Dead Ball ERA but it sounds to me that the lack of Home Runs might be why it was called that.

[medric822]

I had an old first base glove, and I've seen many old timers gloves too. I was retarted enough to sell the glove at a yard sale for $1. I was 11.

[Cash #25]

And actually, if you compare the League averages for Runs per Game, ERA, and Batting Average, you will see they're not that much different in 1911, 1912 and 2006.

NL 1911 - Batting Average - .260

- Runs/Game - 4.42 Runs/Game

- ERA - 3.39

NL 1912 - Batting Average - .272

- Runs/Game - 4.62 Runs/Game

- ERA - 3.40

NL 2006 - Batting Average - .265

- Runs/Game - 4.76 Runs/Game

- ERA - 4.49

AL 1911 - Batting Average - .273

- Runs/Game - 4.61 Runs/Game

- ERA - 3.34

AL 1912 - Batting Average - .272

- Runs/Game - 4.62 Runs/Game

- ERA - 3.34

AL 2006 - Batting Average - .275

- Runs/Game - 4.76 Runs/Game

- ERA - 4.56

Note: There was a much bigger difference between Runs/Game and ERA back then than there is today.

Was the dead ball always the dead ball? I've read that there was a new, livelier ball introduced in about 1911, which may explain the sudden emergence of two .400 hitters in the same year. I have no idea if that ball remained in use in subsequent years. Another event was the abolition of the "spitball" in 1920. Active pitchers at the time were permitted to use it, but the pitch died out as those hurlers retired. I would think the lower ERA is a direct result of low homerun totals. Very few three-run jacks.

[Darkslide820]

I would think the lower ERA is a direct result of low homerun totals. Very few three-run jacks.

I know there were little HRs during this era. My question is based on the assumption that very high batting averages and high amounts of doubles and triples would help to balance out the power shortage. Twentyseven's explanation with the smaller gloves makes sense, IMO.