Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mammoth Home Runs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by csh19792001 View Post
    Yet Babe Ruth hit over fifty 500 hundred foot home runs from 1918-35? What's more likely, that he did something 50 times that hasn't happened once in 1.4 million plate appearances since 2004, or that most of Jenkinson's research is, at best, based on totally unscientific (read: extremely unreliable) methods, and that his conclusions, ipso facto, are mostly erroneous?
    The home run Shoeless refers to in all reports is stated to have cleared or struck the roof of the
    Roesinks Pants Store. The ball passed over the wall at a point 6 wall panels from the corner 460'
    from home plate. This defined trajectory carries the ball a mean distance of 515' to the lowest point
    of the store roof. The farthest point of the roof on this trajectory is 30' past the near point. the building
    was 24 feet wide - two stories high and on the far side of Cherry street.


    Bill Jenkinson's father observed the home run Ruth hit into Opal street. Another boy witnessed the ball
    fly through the upstairs window of 2735 Opal St. The distance, can be determined closely on Google Earth
    at 540'.

    The second home run of the game Babe hit against the Newark Bears in April of 1935 flew over the deep RC corner of the park
    460' from home plate. It can be seen on Ken Burns Baseball Documentary or here-
    http://www.thoughtequity.com/video/s...words=&filter=
    Attached Files
    Last edited by elmer; 01-30-2012, 07:34 PM.

    Comment


    • Joe Jackson hit a home run about 9 days prior to Ruth's at Navin, this was widely publicized as
      610' and longer than Ruth's longest. Bill Jenkinson's depth of research showed that far from 610'. The ball flew over the CF wall
      at a point 10 panels from the corner. The ball striking a garage door across Cherry St.
      4 feet above the ground. The park superintendent MEASURED it -- 515' from home plate.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by elmer View Post
        The home run Shoeless refers to in all reports is stated to have cleared or struck the roof of the
        Roesinks Pants Store.
        The ball passed over the wall at a point 6 wall panels from the corner 460'
        from home plate. This defined trajectory carries the ball a mean distance of 515' to the lowest point
        of the store roof. The farthest point of the roof on this trajectory is 30' past the near point. the building
        was 24 feet wide - two stories high and on the far side of Cherry street.

        Here is that one. Again, what is so difficult about making a fair estimate of a ball clearing a wall that is marked off in feet and then knowing about where the ball landed. But I'm supposed to believe that in todays parks where balls seldom leave parks where footage if marked off.............I have to believe that it can be measured with accuracy by math. Use common sense, whats easier, what I can see or what Hit Tracker tells me would have been...........this is where the ball would have landed. It may have some accuracy but it can't be proven.
        Attached Files

        Comment


        • Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
          Not buying it.
          Not buying it? This coming from a cadre of people who think it's accurate and scientific to base an entire series of books purporting Ruth's exact (or basically exact) home run distances based on second and third hand accounts, fraught with tremendous bias and hype? No film, no physics, no speed off bat, no atmospheric conditions, nothing scientific about it. Some kid points to the spot in the street where he says he saw it land (exactly), and you guys take THAT as accurate?

          Second, the entire premise is ridiculous. If over 7 years and 1.4 MILLION plate appearances...in a an era dominated by home runs and home run hitting....with rampant steroid use, guys VASTLY bigger, stronger, and more athletic, that NOBODY can hit a ball 500 feet, yet Ruth did it regularly? It's the fisherman parable, Joe. The reason you VOCIFEROUSLY believe it is becaues you WANT to believe it, as does Jenkinson, because he's your hero. Ruth worshippers will jump through every hoop and ignore even the most basic logic about massive athletic improvements, equipment performance, etc. etc.

          Hell, I'm biased on Cobb. But at least I admit it.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by elmer View Post
            The home run Shoeless refers to in all reports is stated to have cleared or struck the roof of the
            Roesinks Pants Store.

            Bill Jenkinson's father observed
            the home run Ruth hit into Opal street. Another boy witnessed the ball
            fly through the upstairs window of 2735 Opal St.
            This is third hand information. It can't be corroborated by any actual physical evidence (film of the ball landing, pictures of the ball landing, or anything else). It's like the first four authors of the new testament, who never met Jesus, utilizng the words of the Paul, nothing was written until forty years after the Messiah was gone, and they were basing their beliefs on what they heard other people saw and took as fact. It's more faith than this, obviously, but this is mainly faith, too.

            This is all very endearing and sentimental, but it's completely unscientific and the confounding variables invalidate the findings. It wouldn't pass muster in any scientific journal, say, something published at the SABR Convention or The Hardball Times.

            Ruth was the best player of his time, possibly the greatest ever. And people wanted him to be totally superhuman. Unfortunately, that consists of almost everything Jenkinson espouses as "facts" in his work. They aren't facts, guys. I'm sorry. They're two to three degrees separated from verifiable facts.

            I LOVE Babe Ruth. He IS the hero, heart, and soul of the greatest sport in the history of the world, IMHO. That doesn't mean he completely destroys everyone else in home runs distance that ever lived.
            Last edited by csh19792001; 01-30-2012, 08:20 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by csh19792001 View Post
              Not buying it? This coming from a cadre of people who think it's accurate and scientific to base an entire series of books purporting Ruth's exact (or basically exact) home run distances based on second and third hand accounts, fraught with tremendous bias and hype? No film, no physics, no speed off bat, no atmospheric conditions, nothing scientific about it. Some kid points to the spot in the street where he says he saw it land (exactly), and you guys take THAT as accurate?

              Second, the entire premise is ridiculous. If over 7 years and 1.4 MILLION plate appearances...in a an era dominated by home runs and home run hitting....with rampant steroid use, guys VASTLY bigger, stronger, and more athletic, that NOBODY can hit a ball 500 feet, yet Ruth did it regularly? It's the fisherman parable, Joe. The reason you VOCIFEROUSLY believe it is becaues you WANT to believe it, as does Jenkinson, because he's your hero. Ruth worshippers will jump through every hoop and ignore even the most basic logic about massive athletic improvements, equipment performance, etc. etc.

              Hell, I'm biased on Cobb. But at least I admit it.
              Let me try it one more time CSH. I'm not speaking about balls that hit houses or went over buildings, I have no idea what distances those balls traveled. I'm speaking about some of Ruth's home runs that left the park and may have landed only 20 or 30 feet, or even 15 feet past a marker that we know the distance of. I gave one example, how difficult could it be to conclude a ball leaving the park at 467 feet probably traveled 470-480 or a bit more. This is simple math and not second or third hand stories. You don't see me telling anything about all the 500 foot home runs Babe supposedly hit.

              I get my info from the most accurate source available, Proquest, game recaps the day after the game. I might add I don't always believe all the 500 foot stories. But I do know the dimensions and where the ball left the park and try to come to my own conclusion. I don't live by hand me down stories.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
                Let me try it one more time CSH. I'm not speaking about balls that hit houses or went over buildings, I have no idea what distances those balls traveled. I'm speaking about some of Ruth's home runs that left the park and may have landed only 20 or 30 feet, or even 15 feet past a marker that we know the distance of. I gave one example, how difficult could it be to conclude a ball leaving the park at 467 feet probably traveled 470-480 or a bit more. This is simple math and not second or third hand stories. You don't see me telling anything about all the 500 foot home runs Babe supposedly hit.

                I get my info from the most accurate source available, Proquest, game recaps the day after the game. I might add I don't always believe all the 500 foot stories. But I do know the dimensions and where the ball left the park and try to come to my own conclusion. I don't live by hand me down stories.
                Understood. As you should, as an intellectually honest researcher and fan. Kudos to you, Joe.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by csh19792001 View Post
                  This is third hand information. It can't be corroborated by any actual physical evidence (film of the ball landing, pictures of the ball landing, or anything else). It's like the first four authors of the new testament, who never met Jesus, utilizng the words of the Paul, nothing was written until forty years after the Messiah was gone, and they were basing their beliefs on what they heard other people saw and took as fact. It's more faith than this, obviously, but this is mainly faith, too.

                  This is all very endearing and sentimental, but it's completely unscientific and the confounding variables invalidate the findings. It wouldn't pass muster in any scientific journal, say, something published at the SABR Convention or The Hardball Times.

                  Ruth was the best player of his time, possibly the greatest ever. And people wanted him to be totally superhuman. Unfortunately, that consists of almost everything Jenkinson espouses as "facts" in his work. They aren't facts, guys. I'm sorry. They're two to three degrees separated from verifiable facts.

                  I LOVE Babe Ruth. He IS the hero, heart, and soul of the greatest sport in the history of the world, IMHO. That doesn't mean he completely destroys everyone else in home runs distance that ever lived.
                  Mr. Jenkinson would be happy to speak with you by phone, let me know PM
                  and I will send you his number!

                  Ruth stated more than once in print that it went across the street and over a
                  building.
                  Atlanta Daily World
                  Attached Files

                  Comment


                  • Who ya gonna believe, Babe Ruth or some global warming scientist? Think I'll take the Babe's word for it.

                    Comment


                    • Babe Ruth home run
                      Dunsmuir CA 1924
                      Attached Files

                      Comment


                      • Babe Ruth home run
                        April, 1919 Plant Field Tampa Fl.
                        Attached Files

                        Comment


                        • Something to keep in mind about comparisons of eras: the conditions are not really the same, so you can't necessarily look at an across the board physical difference and assume that it must result in an across the board distance difference. Some possible differences:
                          - bat weight (actually this is not just a possibility, Ruth did swing a much heavier bat than most do today)
                          - baseball variation; I can't prove it, but I suspect that the coefficient of restitution for the baseballs varied more in the past than it does today, with much more closely monitored, standardized processes for ball manufacture. More variation would give you more extra-bouncy balls and more extra-dead balls, and thus more opportunity for longer homers.
                          - wind; in the 1920's and 1930's, all games were played in the afternoon, which is a windier time of day, on average, than night. Furthermore, city areas were less built up back then, which means the prevalence of tall buildings near the parks would have been less likely to break up and impede the flow of wind near the park. Lots of old homers were hit with the assistance of strong winds, while it's very uncommon to see strong winds impact the game nowadays outside of Wrigley Field. Taller ballparks shield the field from what wind does make it into the city centers to a much greater degree today as well.

                          Even if you're skeptical of Ruth's distances, you ought to concede that some factors present in his time were conducive for long homers.

                          I do agree with the general comment about unreliability of witnesses, and I generally refrain from trying to "measure" homers where the landing point was hidden from the fans at the game, or where the landing point is in an open area without landmarks, while not claiming to know the truth myself. This isn't strictly a past vs. present thing, though, as I have never tried to analyze the Dunn homer that was estimated at 535 feet in Cincinnati; you can't see it on video, and the landing point report I consider unreliable. Some homers (and a lot from the distant past)we're never going to be sure of.
                          ESPN Home Run Tracker
                          Home run distances for every home run hit in MLB

                          http://www.hittrackeronline.com

                          Comment


                          • On the subject of HR distances, I let myself be guided by Dr. Adair's book on the physics of baseball. I am no physicist, nor am I a math expert. However, I was pretty good at math through introduction to calculus and took some notes from Adair's book.

                            Last time I shared this [my arithmetic-based approach] I got challenged by a physicist who wanted to introduce all sorts of vectors and torque considerations into the discussion. I concluded that, so long as the results were close, heated debate was useless. So, for what it's worth, here's he arithmetic, as I apply it, for HR "limitations" and possibilities:

                            1. The first factor is the pitched ball at the moment of contact with the bat. Much of this is guess work, with "gun speeds" measured at the instant of release from the pitcher's hand. Say a pitcher cuts loose a pitch that leaves his hand at 100 mph. Most studies I've read figure it comes into the bat contact zone 7- mph reduced in speed over the 50'+ from the release point. As I recall, the pitched ball is a .25 factor of the bat-ball collision charge.

                            2. Bat speed is the second factor. It is the product of player imparted torque, bat speed [a factor of player torque and bat elements like weight and girth]. As I recall, the bat speed is a 1.2 factor in the bat-ball collision instant.

                            3. If a pitch, released at 90 mph by the pitcher, enters the contact zone at a reduced speed of 82 mph and is a .25 factor, then [82 * .25 = 20.5 mph of collision force].

                            4. If the bat speed at contact is 80 mph of torque at a factor of 1.2, then [80 * 1.2 = 96 mph of collision force].

                            5. What follows may be sandbox stuff [but I like simplicity]. Pitch [20.5] + Bat [96] = 116.5 mph of impact speed at the instant the ball leaves the bat. However, that is quickly dissipated; and the simple way to judge final distance of a batted ball is to average its impact speed + its terminal speed [when caught, or entering the stands, or exiting the ball park and landing].

                            6. Long ball limitations are usually debated over long, high drives. The longer the trip and the higher the drive, the slower the terminal speed. A decent example of measuring distance is "The Catch" by Willie Mays of a long drive hit by Vic Wertz in the 1954 World Series.

                            -Using an 80 mph pitch and 80 mph bat speed we have impact speed at 116.5 mph.
                            -Willie Mays ran down the high drive and caught it; so the terminal speed was no more than 12 mph, probably more like 10 mph.
                            -Average at 10 mph terminal speed = 116.5 + 10 = 126.5 ... average = 63.25 mph.
                            -63.25 mph * 5,280 ft/mi] = 333,960' in an hour [rate]
                            -333,960/60 = 5,566 feet/minute [rate]
                            -flight time, 5 seconds = .0833 of a minute
                            -5,566'*.0833 = 463.6'.

                            To check this, I viewed "The Catch" too many times to count. Then I checked the filmed records of "The Catch." In 1954, the Polo Grounds CF measurement to the visible base in front of the clubhouse had been moved in from 505' to 483'. Mays appears to have made the catch at a point 12-15' in front of that base, or 468' to 471' from home plate. For me, 464' is close enough.

                            As far as potential distance, I am guessing that a pitched ball entering the contact zone at 96 mph [released at 104 mph] and hit by a bat speed of 90 mph is about as good as it can get. Such a blast with impact at 132 mph and terminal speed as high as 35-40 mph [38 mph] would be awesome. It would probably be lower in trajectory and have a flight time no higher than the Wertz blast, about 5 seconds [.0833 of a minute].

                            Doing the arithmetic, such a shot would measure 623'. If I recall correctly, Dr. Adair capped potential distance at about 600 feet or something a bit less. I don't believe that he went as low as 545' as some sites suggest; but I might be wrong. He did allow for tailing winds and elevation atmospherics extending the potential distance; but even a tailing wind might not add up to the input elements in my last example, which are extreme. [600' with great wind conditions looks like a reasonable cap].

                            Then too, how many times might we expect a pitch released at 104 mph to be hit right on the screws with a bat generating 90 mph?

                            [Signed: an amateur, with a pencil and some paper].


                            -
                            Last edited by leewileyfan; 01-31-2012, 10:09 PM.

                            Comment


                            • I still remember Cody Webster's mammoth 280 ft blast to dead center in the 1982 Little League World Series!
                              Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
                                I still remember Cody Webster's mammoth 280 ft blast to dead center in the 1982 Little League World Series!
                                Yeah. But he used an aluminum bat. Right?

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X