*Babe Ruth Thread*

[brett]

I have no doubt that Babe hit balls back up the box and that the ball came off his bat like a rocket. There is no dispute in that. The disagreement I have with the story is that the ball past the pitchers head and then went 470 feet on the fly. That simply isn't humanly possible. And yes that includes Babe Ruth. Hitting the ball at 117 to 123 mph is hitting the ball extremely hard and no pitcher wants to get hit with a ball going that fast and a ball traveling that fast can kill a human being. The ball that killed Chapman was probably traveling at 80 to 85 mph by the time it struck his head. A ball struck off a bat at the speeds I'm estimating for Babe's blast would be traveling around 110 to 115 mph by the time they got to the pitcher. Those are speeds that are many times more lethal than the speeds of a pitched ball.

Do you think that a lot of backspin could do something like that though? If a pitch was hit 1 foot off the ground and was 5 feet off the ground at 60 feet, it could peak 20 feet up, and with backspin could carry a long way. I used to hit outfield practice by dropping a lot of backspin on the ball, and just watched it carry. Maybe not a good idea in retrospect as it didn't replicate a high percentage of actual hits.

[Ubiquitous]

Do you think that a lot of backspin could do something like that though? If a pitch was hit 1 foot off the ground and was 5 feet off the ground at 60 feet, it could peak 20 feet up, and with backspin could carry a long way. I used to hit outfield practice by dropping a lot of backspin on the ball, and just watched it carry. Maybe not a good idea in retrospect as it didn't replicate a high percentage of actual hits.

A flat trajectory doesn't really impart a lot of back spin and to get it to buzz the pitcher's head you need a ton of backspin and a ton of speed. The 137 mph speed is with a back spin that is tremendously faster than a typical rpm for a home run ball.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

A flat trajectory doesn't really impart a lot of back spin and to get it to buzz the pitcher's head you need a ton of backspin and a ton of speed. The 137 mph speed is with a back spin that is tremendously faster than a typical rpm for a home run ball.

For whose home run ball? A middle infielder in today's game? Or the documented longest hitter in history? Just wonderin'.

[Ubiquitous]

For whose home run ball? A middle infielder in today's game? Or the documented longest hitter in history? Just wonderin'.

A ball with a typical trajectory to make it over the wall spins at around 2,000 rpm. You're not going to see balls spinning at 3,500 rpm and a ball with a flatter trajectory is going to have less spin than the typical trajectory for a home run ball.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Recently spoke with Bill Jenkinson. Done with his soon to be released E-book, which is sure to be something great. Elaborates on his first two books and hits on key points in responding to critics and non-believers of Ruth's power.

Anyway, now with some time for ancillary reseach, he is diving into Ruth vs Grove and Ruth vs Walter complete numbers. Good stuff.

Well right off the top Babe has 10 home runs off of Johnson, the most off of Walter, not sure who was second.

Most home runs of off "Lefty" Grove, stressing the "Lefty". All with 9, Babe, Gehrig and Greenberg. 1930, Shibe, Babe's drive clears wall in deep RCF, strikes speaker support. Babe sent back to second base, only a double.
If not for that fluke he would have 10 off of Lefty, the most. The most off off one of the greatest RH Johnson and one of the greatest LH Grove.

Consider this, making that 9 off of Lefty even more impressive. Babe never faced Lefty until his (Babe) 11th or 12th season.
He hit them all, the best in MLB, some of the best in black baseball.
The man was just some kind of a freak.

[drstrangelove]

Do you think that a lot of backspin could do something like that though? If a pitch was hit 1 foot off the ground and was 5 feet off the ground at 60 feet, it could peak 20 feet up, and with backspin could carry a long way. I used to hit outfield practice by dropping a lot of backspin on the ball, and just watched it carry. Maybe not a good idea in retrospect as it didn't replicate a high percentage of actual hits.

A ball that travels from 1 foot off the ground at home plate to 5 feet off the ground to the pitcher's mound has a 6.7% angle of ascent. (4 feet up /60 distance).

1) Let's assume for the sake of argument that it could do that, although in reality the ball instantly begins losing the backspin and thrust it was given at home plate.

2) To reach 20 feet off the ground, it needs to rise 15 more feet than where it was at the pitcher's mound. a) it doesn't get more backspin while it flies, so it can't ascend at a higher rate like planes do by changing angle b) it can't increase velocity like planes do by increasing thrust. It can't raise angle of ascent while it also submits to the dynamics of gravitation and faces air friction. So it has to lose angle of ascent because it has to lose backspin and lose thrust. It can't maintain it's flight path unpowered, because no matter what, it's facing friction and the laws of thermodynamics means it's losing power. And....to reach 20 feet off the ground, at 6.8% angle of ascent, it needs another 220 feet of flight time. To reach it at a lower angle of ascent it needs a lot more space.

3) Let's assume it reached 20 feet off the ground and has traveled 280 feet despite starting at 6.7% angle of ascent and despite the laws of physics. Starting at a presumed 137 mph, it's flight time has already been at least 1.4 seconds, although logically it's been longer. Unless it's in a vacuum in zero gravity, it has to have lost speed due to friction and therefore it's traveled a while longer than 137 mph would predict. It still has 190 feet to go to a 7 foot fence 470 feet from home plate. To cross a 7 foot fence, it can only descend 13 feet over the next 190 feet. Now consider that it rose 19 feet in the first 280 feet. That means it's rate of descent (280 feet to the fence +6.8%) can be no faster than the rate of it's ascent (home plate to 280 feet -6.8%.)

Unpowered objects don't travel that way. Planes do, missiles do. Bullets, artillery shells, baseballs don't. Rate of descent is always faster and shorter than ascent from the point maximum height is reached due to friction and loss of aerodynamics (if any was imparted) of backspin.


This isn't to say that you can't hit a baseball with backspin and have it travel farther than a ball without backspin. Of course one can do that. You can throw a baseball with even more backspin as well. But you can't make the ball change it's angle of ascent up or make it maintain an angle of ascent. It begins to lose force the moment it leaves the pitcher's hand or loses contact with the bat. With enough backspin it might take longer to do what it would do without backspin, but it can't stop it altogether or for very long.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

No one in particular, looks like some are putting their own spin on the subject of spin.
Different opinions, so which do we accept.
I doubt there has been much research on ball spin and conlusions.
Do we really know that much with certainty.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

A ball that travels from 1 foot off the ground at home plate to 5 feet off the ground to the pitcher's mound has a 6.7% angle of ascent. (4 feet up /60 distance).

1) Let's assume for the sake of argument that it could do that, although in reality the ball instantly begins losing the backspin and thrust it was given at home plate.

2) To reach 20 feet off the ground, it needs to rise 15 more feet than where it was at the pitcher's mound. a) it doesn't get more backspin while it flies, so it can't ascend at a higher rate like planes do by changing angle b) it can't increase velocity like planes do by increasing thrust. It can't raise angle of ascent while it also submits to the dynamics of gravitation and faces air friction. So it has to lose angle of ascent because it has to lose backspin and lose thrust. It can't maintain it's flight path unpowered, because no matter what, it's facing friction and the laws of thermodynamics means it's losing power. And....to reach 20 feet off the ground, at 6.8% angle of ascent, it needs another 220 feet of flight time. To reach it at a lower angle of ascent it needs a lot more space.

3) Let's assume it reached 20 feet off the ground and has traveled 280 feet despite starting at 6.7% angle of ascent and despite the laws of physics. Starting at a presumed 137 mph, it's flight time has already been at least 1.4 seconds, although logically it's been longer. Unless it's in a vacuum in zero gravity, it has to have lost speed due to friction and therefore it's traveled a while longer than 137 mph would predict. It still has 190 feet to go to a 7 foot fence 470 feet from home plate. To cross a 7 foot fence, it can only descend 13 feet over the next 190 feet. Now consider that it rose 19 feet in the first 280 feet. That means it's rate of descent (280 feet to the fence +6.8%) can be no faster than the rate of it's ascent (home plate to 280 feet -6.8%.)

Unpowered objects don't travel that way. Planes do, missiles do. Bullets, artillery shells, baseballs don't. Rate of descent is always faster and shorter than ascent from the point maximum height is reached due to friction and loss of aerodynamics (if any was imparted) of backspin.


This isn't to say that you can't hit a baseball with backspin and have it travel farther than a ball without backspin. Of course one can do that. You can throw a baseball with even more backspin as well. But you can't make the ball change it's angle of ascent up or make it maintain an angle of ascent. It begins to lose force the moment it leaves the pitcher's hand or loses contact with the bat. With enough backspin it might take longer to do what it would do without backspin, but it can't stop it altogether or for very long.

I appreciate your input but just to clarify. Nobody is talking about a seven foot high fence 470 feet away. Multiple professional witnesses stated that it went over Speakers head, landed at the flag-pole, and ricocheted off the wall which was 490 feet. Speaking of a ball hit this low, height means all the world. So if it landed at approximately 470 feet, it probably would have only "cleared" a 450 foot fence (just guessing). That's only ten feet further than Tiger Stadium used to be. And this is Ruth we're talking about. We don't know what the wind was like so dismissing this out of hand is silly. He was known to actually do crap that seemed virtually impossible.

[Ubiquitous]

No one in particular, looks like some are putting their own spin on the subject of spin.
Different opinions, so which do we accept.
I doubt there has been much research on ball spin and conlusions.
Do we really know that much with certainty.

Your doubt would be wrong. There has been a good amount of research of ball flight, the rotation of the ball, and so forth. Both at the academic level and at the research level.

[Ubiquitous]

I appreciate your input but just to clarify. Nobody is talking about a seven foot high fence 470 feet away. Multiple professional witnesses stated that it went over Speakers head, landed at the flag-pole, and ricocheted off the wall which was 490 feet. Speaking of a ball hit this low, height means all the world. So if it landed at approximately 470 feet, it probably would have only "cleared" a 450 foot fence (just guessing). That's only ten feet further than Tiger Stadium used to be. And this is Ruth we're talking about.

The laws of physics apply to all humans. Unless factors are entered into the equation. The documented longest hitter in history to go with a strong wind, could have

No he really couldn't have. Not as described. He most certainly could hit a line drive that traveled 470 feet on the fly but he most certainly could not have hit a ball that buzzed the pitcher and traveled 470 feet.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

By the time the pitcher releases the ball, and if the batter is up in the batters, box, your'e talking about the ball passing "near" the pitcher's head at 52 feet. It's completely possible that a low golf shot could have buzzed the tower and BOUNCED AT 470 feet.

[drstrangelove]

http://baseball.physics.illinois.edu...alculator.html

I believe the Trajectory Calculator will show this point. I used it with the parameters suggested and it calculates as:

1) 1 foot off the ground at the plate
2) 5 feet off the ground at the pitcher
3) hit at 137 mph

Landing spot is 379 feet.

[drstrangelove]

I appreciate your input but just to clarify. Nobody is talking about a seven foot high fence 470 feet away. Multiple professional witnesses stated that it went over Speakers head, landed at the flag-pole, and ricocheted off the wall which was 490 feet. Speaking of a ball hit this low, height means all the world. So if it landed at approximately 470 feet, it probably would have only "cleared" a 450 foot fence (just guessing). That's only ten feet further than Tiger Stadium used to be.

I was responding to Brett's query. He said 470 feet on the fly. Regardless, I found a site that has a calculator and it says it could do 379 feet on the fly. If your point was that it bounced another 111 feet, well I find that implausible since from all my experience baseballs don't bounce that way on grass.

I don't think we are on the same page. No one is saying Ruth could not hit a ball 470 feet. No one is saying he could not hit a line drive for a home run. I'm saying he could not hit a ball that was 5 feet off the ground at the pitcher's mound that landed 470 feet away. Baseballs that Ruth hit obey the same physics as everyone else's. Witnesses do not trump physics.

And this is Ruth we're talking about. We don't know what the wind was like so dismissing this out of hand is silly. He was known to actually do crap that seemed virtually impossible.

Ruth was on the same Earth we live on with the same atmosphere, physics, space-time conditions. Does he have to obey the laws of thermodynamics or do his home runs not have drag? Does he have to obey the law of relativity of do his baseballs not fall at the same rate as all objects fall on earth?

[Ubiquitous]

By the time the pitcher releases the ball, and if the batter is up in the batters, box, your'e talking about the ball passing "near" the pitcher's head at 52 feet. It's completely possible that a low golf shot could have buzzed the tower and BOUNCED AT 470 feet.

I would think you would stick with baseball examples and not golf balls. Golf balls react differently and have different speeds after being struck than a baseball. I'm not really sure why you are so strongly sticking to this myth. It simply isn't possible.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I would think you would stick with baseball examples and not golf balls. Golf balls react differently and have different speeds after being struck than a baseball. I'm not really sure why you are so strongly sticking to this myth. It simply isn't possible.

If you had played baseball, you would understand why I used "golf shot" as an example. For anyone that has played ball it immediately evokes a distinct memory and we can see it happening in our heads.

My point is this.

You have the known heaviest hitter in history hitting a ball near the ground, and after the pitcher has released the ball, he is probably just over 50 feet from home plate. I'm not saying for a fact it went right by his head...maybe it went just over it. I just know that multiple eye-witness accounts refer to him buzzing the tower and are specific where it landed. Could they be off by 5-10 feet in terms of where it landed in relation to the flagpole? Who knows.