Talk:Juiced ball theory
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 4 January 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 3 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Micase.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Rename[edit]
Suggest getting rid of the quotation marks. –Pomte 02:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- When I do a quick search engine check, most references have "juiced ball" in quotes. Naming conventions do not really cover this, but I could not easily find any other WP articles in sports or conspiracy theories using quotes. Maybe Major League Baseball juiced ball theory would be a better title. Regards.--12 Noon 2¢ 14:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Dubious Assertion[edit]
The statement that "the theory has been discredited" applies only, if at all, to the single 1999/2000 tests. The crucial claims focus on 1977, when the Rawlings ball was introduced, and 1993 and 1994, when many believe a "juiced" ball was introduced. There is some feeling that the 1999/2000 tests at UMass were a straw man, to deflect attention from the longer-term issues.
Not addressed here at all are the two sets of examinations that came to very different conclusions, one ("URI research team finds compelling evidence of livelier balls in Major League Baseball") at the University of Rhode Island and the other ("Looking Inside Baseballs for Home Run Secrets") with the assistance of Penn State's CQI Imaging Lab.
And there is the evidence of baseball's stats themselves (see, for example, my own page, "Actual Baseball Effects of PEDs"), which show sharp, sudden discontinuities in batting power at those points.
I don't want to just bull in and insert stuff on the article page, but these things need to be recognized somewhere there.
Eric Walker (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, add other views with those reliable sources. When I did the search I found only news around 1999-2000, and did not think at all that it was comprehensive. –Pomte 06:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)