A DRAG

Yahoo Sports reports:

A group of scientists tasked with finding the reason home runs flew at a record rate in Major League Baseball last season believe the ball’s aerodynamic properties – and particularly the drag on its surface – are the culprit and not changes to the core that would cause extra bounciness, according to a report the league released this week.

In the midst of a season in which players hit a record 6,105 home runs and emboldened juiced-ball theorists, MLB commissioned 10 scientists to study the source of the spike. Using a combination of Statcast data and laboratory testing, the group found that balls in 2016 and 2017 had lower drag coefficients than their predecessors.

What they didn’t find was why.

“It was something of an unsatisfying result,” said Dr. Alan Nathan, a physicist who has studied the game for decades and chaired the group that wrote the 84-page research paper. “We had a set of baseballs that had a much higher than average drag. We had a set of baseballs that had a much lower average drag. We asked ourselves: ‘What’s the difference between these baseballs?’ ”
Nathan’s conclusion: “We cannot find a single property that we can actually measure other than the drag itself that would account for it. … We do admit that we do not understand this.”

Fans had thought the baseball were juiced, i.e. have a tampered inner core which would give the ball farther distance. Getting more out of a sphere's core is the heart, no business model, in the golf ball manufacturing industry.

When experts cannot find out what the difference between two baseballs, that is very strange.

Some pitchers had indicated that they could not get a good grip on the old ball. There could have been two reasons for this: the height of the seams, or the slickness/texture of the leather.  Umpires still use Mississippi mud to rub up the baseballs to take off the factory sheen and add grip. It could be possible that the balls are fundamentally the same components, but there is a change in either the manufacturing or assembly processes. 

In aerodynamics, a lower drag indicates that an object has less air resistance. This could mean that the baseball may stay "airborne" longer, i.e. less dip or drop in the strike zone. A ball in the strike zone is more likely to get hit. In addition, if there is an issue with the grip, there could be less baseball pitch spin rate which would affect the movement and direction of the baseball.

There is another factor in play: the human pitcher. The way games are now called, pitchers are nibbling at the corners to try to get strike outs instead of "pitching to contact."  By pitchers falling behind in the count, batters can hunt their pitch better. Any advantage to the batter could lead to more contact and home runs.

The home run rate is a puzzle that may have many different elements to solve.

PERFECTION

This was a first: the best part of last night's Cubs game was the Rain Delay. WGN played highlights from its 70 year baseball broadcast history.

One of the usual Cub historical highlight was Milt Pappas' 1972 "near" perfect game. He walked the next-to-last batter with two outs in the 9th inning on what he believed was a questionable call. The camera angle was behind home plate so the viewer cannot tell, but Pappas reaction on the mound to the call was nuclear.

Pappas was bitter for the rest of his life because of that ball four call.

A perfect game is baseball is defined as pitching a complete game where no runner gets on base by any means (walk, drop third strike, error). But is that definition of perfection really perfect?

Perfect is defined in the dictionary as having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be;  free from any flaw or defect in condition or quality; faultless;  precisely accurate;  and exact.

If you are a starter, what would you classify as the perfect, perfect game?

Pat Hughes continues to say that Kerry Wood's 20 strikeout game was the greatest pitching performance he has ever seen. That may be some biased Cub-homer opinion for Wood's accomplishment. But for an old school, power pitcher, the strike out was the goal against every batter. "You can't hit my stuff." "Take you bat between your legs and get some bench!" That is the mentality.

The "perfect" perfect game would be a pitcher striking out 27 batters in a row. The most strikeouts in a perfect game was 14 by Sandy Koufax (1965) and Matt Cain (2012). 

But we live today in an era of pitch count on starters.  It would be more difficult to have this kind of perfect game: 27 outs in 27 pitches. This improbable rarity would mean that every batter would be swinging on the first pitch. In order to be enticing, the starter would have to throw batting practice speed to the plate and hope his fielders can make every play. But that would mean every pitch was a strike and an out - - - it would be as good as it could get with no flaws (balls).

Baseball has its own language, but when we hear a pitcher is in the midst of a perfect game, is it really "perfect" or just "greater" than a plain no-hitter?

CENSOR SHIP

After Cubs relief pitcher Carl Edwards Jr. gave up three runs to the White Sox, a frustrated Cub fan tweeted that the for love of God, send Edwards to Iowa.

The fan reaction was not profane. It was normal. The Cubs have not met fan expectations. This was a championship year in spring training. A solid rotation, a rebuilt bullpen with a live arm closer, and a core of young players who would only get better. But all facets of the club have been disappointing this season. The rotation is hit and miss (more towards miss). The offense has gone into hibernation for most of the season. The defense has been really bad. The bullpen has had its moments.

The Cub fan tweeter was just saying Edwards appearance was not up to major league standards, or the standard the Cubs have set for themselves.

The Cubs responded to the tweet saying that in Edwards last 14 appearances, he had only given up two earned runs. Then the Cubs said that they expected the fan to delete the ("offensive?") tweet. In response, the fan deleted his tweeter account. The Cubs then responded again, trolling the fan with a remark that deleting the account would do.

What is clear is that the "troll" in this tweet volley was the Cubs.

How hypersensitive is the front office to troll its fans after a player has a bad performance?

The fans have invested a great deal of time, money and emotion to follow the franchise. And since the Cubs have been advertising non-stop for ticket sales to games to fill empty seats, one would think it would be bad marketing to criticize an invested fan.

The Cubs sit in third place in a crowded NL Central. The Cardinals and Pirates are surprisingly better than expected while the Brewers improved from last year's good squad. Fans have a right to complain if their team is disappointing them.

That is the big picture. Fans have a right to their opinion. The team has more important things to worry about than trolling their fans: like righting their own listing ship. In this instance, it turns into a form of bullied censorship.