Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

*Babe Ruth Thread*

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

  • Originally posted by drstrangelove View Post
    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.
    Does that calculator let you plug in, bat weight, swing speed, incoming pitch speed, wind factor, who is swinging the bat? Or is it generic to the point where Juan Pierre is treated like Albert Pujols?

    Comment


    • What the calculator indicates and what really takes place, could be two different figures.
      Beating heads against the wall here and nothing will be resolved, better off getting back to the game.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
        Does that calculator let you plug in, bat weight, swing speed, incoming pitch speed, wind factor, who is swinging the bat? Or is it generic to the point where Juan Pierre is treated like Albert Pujols?
        Idk what Juan Pierre and Albert Pujols have to do with this.

        I attached a link, I hope.


        Bat weight is irrelevant to the physics of a flying ball once it leaves the bat. As are swing speed and incoming pitch speed. And "who is swinging the bat?" Do bullets fly faster from a gun depending on who pulls the trigger? Is the ball supposed to know that Ruth hit it and decide to stay in the air longer because it was Ruth?


        Ball speed, angle, spin, wind speed, air density, humidity are all you need to know once the ball is struck. Of course a lot of things impact the ball speed before it's struck. Spin, angle, speed, bat weight, bat speed, etc are certainly important.

        If you want to claim that Ruth hit baseballs that traveled 300 mph, then of course, we can plug that in the calculator.
        Last edited by drstrangelove; 08-03-2014, 09:05 PM.
        "It's better to look good, than be good."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by drstrangelove View Post
          Idk what Juan Pierre and Albert Pujols have to do with this.

          I attached a link, I hope.


          Bat weight is irrelevant to the physics of a flying ball once it leaves the bat. As are swing speed and incoming pitch speed. And "who is swinging the bat?" Do bullets fly faster from a gun depending on who pulls the trigger? Is the ball supposed to know that Ruth hit it and decide to stay in the air longer because it was Ruth?


          Ball speed, angle, spin, wind speed, air density, humidity are all you need to know once the ball is struck. Of course a lot of things impact the ball speed before it's struck. Spin, angle, speed, bat weight, bat speed, etc are certainly important.
          What are you talking about. This "once it leaves the bat" nonsense? As if the actual tool being used to hit with and the speed at which it's swung has nothing to do with it? HUH?

          If a player is able to swing a heavier bat with more barrel mass at the same speed as someone who swings a lighter bat, it will produce greater launch velocity. At the same time, whatever it was about Ruth, it's clear there was something unique about his swing and chemical makeup that created longer drives. We know he wasn't a hercules so it was something deeper.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
            What are you talking about. This "once it leaves the bat" nonsense? As if the actual tool being used to hit with and the speed at which it's swung has nothing to do with it? HUH? If a player is able to swing a heavier bat with more barrel mass at the same speed as someone who swings a lighter bat, it will produce greater launch velocity.
            Are you reading my posts or am I just not writing clearly? Launch velocity = ball speed. I've already said, we need to know ball speed. And I was clearing referring to the speed of the ball after it leaves the bat.

            Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
            At the same time, whatever it was about Ruth, it's clear there was something unique about his swing and chemical makeup that created longer drives. We know he wasn't a hercules so it was something deeper.
            If you want to claim Ruth was not bound by the laws of physics, have at it. Otherwise, the laws of physics and chemistry (and every other science) apply to him like everyone else.
            Last edited by drstrangelove; 08-03-2014, 10:48 PM.
            "It's better to look good, than be good."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
              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.
              If you had meant "golf shot" colloquially then I have already tried using that variable. I put the ball being struck at about 1.2 inches off the ground and it still wasn't possible.

              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.
              Where it landed is not the issue. It isn't like if it landed 460 feet away then the shot is possible. The issue isn't also that if Babe Ruth did just a bit better than the hardest swingers of nowadays it is possible. The issue is that Babe Ruth would have to be a Greek god bending the laws of physics to pull it off. The shot isn't humanly possible, not even close. The ball most likely past the pitcher's head 15 to 20 feet off the ground.
              Last edited by Ubiquitous; 08-04-2014, 04:06 AM.

              Comment


              • The Babe's influence
                Attached Files

                Comment


                • According to what I've read the Ruth shift was an outfield shift. And Emil Meusel in your post is a left fielder! And some think extreme shifts started with Cy Williams. However, it's difficult to imagine that they played baseball for 50 years and no one moved more to the right or left based upon the hitter's tendencies. Maybe so, but I think it's unlikely.

                  Of course, the confusing part for me is that if they were using the shift for 20 years, then why did they call it the "Ted Williams" shift.
                  Last edited by drstrangelove; 08-04-2014, 05:49 PM.
                  "It's better to look good, than be good."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by drstrangelove View Post
                    According to what I've read the Ruth shift was an outfield shift. And Emil Meusel in your post is a left fielder! And some think extreme shifts started with Cy Williams. However, it's difficult to imagine that they played baseball for 50 years and no one moved more to the right or left based upon the hitter's tendencies. Maybe so, but I think it's unlikely.

                    Of course, the confusing part for me is that if they were using the shift for 20 years, then why did they call it the "Ted Williams" shift.
                    I forget the team, maybe Philadelphia in a couple of games.
                    Not the type shift we have seen. One of the infielders, probably the third baseman moved to the outfield.
                    Not a short fielder in the outfield in right but 4 outfielders playing abreast deep.
                    Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 08-05-2014, 05:50 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Did Ruth give up the opportunity to break his own record in 1928.
                      Attached Files

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by drstrangelove View Post
                        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.
                        I am not sure of this. Backspin does not produce "lift" technically. It produces a force perpendicular to the tangent of the ball path, so as a ball rises, the backspin force will actually point slightly backwards (one component) and that could (I believe would) raise the angle of ascent. (because the force is acting over time not distance, and the forward speed is lowered). Also, on descent, the ball will gain velocity on the vertical componenet, and as the angle becomes negative the backspin force will point slightly forward. If backspin could not increase the angle while the ball was in flight, then how do you get a hook when a right handed hitter hits a ball to the right fielder.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Ubiquitous View Post



                          Where it landed is not the issue. It isn't like if it landed 460 feet away then the shot is possible. The issue isn't also that if Babe Ruth did just a bit better than the hardest swingers of nowadays it is possible. The issue is that Babe Ruth would have to be a Greek god bending the laws of physics to pull it off. The shot isn't humanly possible, not even close. The ball most likely past the pitcher's head 15 to 20 feet off the ground.
                          I'd like to see the numbers here. I can say that without knowing the coefficients for the ball and air to get a magnus force, you can not say that it is not possible, so if you are saying that it is not possible, you must be using those coefficients. How fast does a frisbee have to be thrown to fly 400 feet? Magnus is not lift. In theory, Magnus will turn a ball in vertical spiral path given enough speed and spin.

                          Comment


                          • As I said the blast is not humanly possible. Babe would need to hit the ball so hard that it travels at speeds faster than 200 mph for it to travel past the pitchers head and then rise.

                            Baseballs and frisbees are not really directly comparable other than to say they are both ruled by physics.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Ubiquitous View Post
                              As I said the blast is not humanly possible. Babe would need to hit the ball so hard that it travels at speeds faster than 200 mph for it to travel past the pitchers head and then rise.
                              You mean increase its angle of ascent? Of course it can pass the pitcher's head and continue to rise, unless I'm missing something. I still don't know where the 200 mph is coming from though. If you hit a line drive from a foot of the ground to 6 feet off the ground as it travelled 60 feet, that says nothing to me about what the magnus force would be on the ball at 60 feet. I get that we have an angle of about only about 5 degrees leaving the bat and I see how that would require an extreme bat speed to send it over 450 feet. The Magnus effect though absolutely can raise the angle of inclination because as the ball slows down the magnus has progressively more effect over the next 60 feet and so on, and the ball does slow down faster than the rotational velocity slows down because the Magnus is not straight up. I have read account of the longest golf drive in history, at least one that was actually in a golf competition and the ball was reported by many to have not cleared 20 feet, and stayed horizontal for most of the distance which is (practically) possible with a magnus effect. The rpms are not the only thing that determines the magnus either. The deformation of the ball can have a big effect.

                              Comment


                              • golf, frisbee, and baseballs all act differently. Golf balls travel in excess of 150 mph and if you step outside of the rules you can get speed much faster than that.

                                You can't launch a baseball at human speeds at that low of angle and get it to travel 460 feet on the fly.

                                Think about your own experiences with baseball. Both in playing it and watching it. You've never ever seen anyone hit a ball back to the pitcher and seen it travel 350 feet or 400 feet or 450 feet. Comebackers don't travel that far. Most of the time they hit the ground somewhere around second base if they get past the pitcher.

                                Here is the Dan Jenning comebacker from the other day. The ball was traveling at about 101 mph and it was at head height. There was no way that ball was going to travel anywhere close to 460 feet. The 25 second mark gives probably the best view.
                                http://m.mlb.com/video/v35169321/mia...video_35169321

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X