Ball distance.

[scorekeeper]

Just a curious question. When I look at some of the documents prodigious distances ball players used to be able to hit the ball, I have to wonder why, with the perfect swings hitters supposedly have today, they can’t duplicate the same distances, even though P’s are supposedly throwing the ball with much more velocity.

I was wondering if maybe there wasn’t something going on like what happens in drag races, where the car with the winning ET doesn’t go as fast as the car it beats. Can it be that the older farts like Mantle when compared to a McGwire, could be generating more bat speed at impact with a longer swing and a heavier bat? :confused:

[Jake Patterson]

Check out this site: http://www.themick.com/
Jake

[59FIFTY]

Well the measuring is a lot more accurate now?

[hellborn]

It is likely that most players could hit longer HRs on perfect swings with heavier bats than are common now...I think that at least one physicist has guessed that mid-40s ounce bats would give maximum distance for a typical strong ballplayer, and there was a BP test done with Maris that seemed to confirm that. Gives maximum distance on a perfect swing, mind you, doesn't mean they're better hitters with the heavy bats...
I would also argue that certain special players, like Ruth and Mantle, had less controlled, higher-energy swings than any modern major leaguer...they just flung their whole bodies at the ball on their hardest swings, which you don't really see anymore.
But, I think the biggest factor is that distances are measured much more accurately now. People will still say that Kingman and Glenallen Hill hit 575-600 foot shots at Wrigley, and we know that just isn't true. We can figure out just where the ball landed with these guys, and the estimates were way too long.
A lot of the long shots from the old days were also in exhibition games, and I wonder about the balls that were used. When Babe Ruth was in town, did the organizers of the barnstorming game use a lively ball to make things more exciting?
Also, check out hittrackeronline.com !

EDIT - I should mention that my personal opinion is that Ruth was the greatest distance hitter to date...just not by 100-200' over what guys hit now.

[Jake Patterson]

Well the measuring is a lot more accurate now?
Even if it was off by10%... some of the bombs Mantle and Ruth hit were huge.
Jake

[scorekeeper]

…But, I think the biggest factor is that distances are measured much more accurately now. …

More accurate measurements, definitely! But if you look at that site Jake posted and check out the 10 longest HRs, I think what you’ll see is, even if the measuring were 20% in error, he’d still have hit balls distances no one else has.

But I don’t thing more accurate measurements have anything to do with it, but rather that so few balls can get out of most parks anymore. But it also wasn’t just The Mick. See http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_official_longest_home_runs_in_MLB

But all that aside, my question wasn’t about any of that. I was asking if it is possible that while a modern swing is better in the sense that it gets the bat to the ball in the least amount of time, thus allowing the hitters to wait longer, the older longer swing not only used bats with more mass, but generated higher speeds at impact.

This has nothing what-so-ever-to do with which era had the better or most powerful hitters.:baseball:

[ssarge]

I'm probably in the minority, but I really think that memory clouds some of these remembrances. And so does wishful thinking.

No one ever loses in Las Vegas, yet someone pays for the lights.

No one ever catches an average sized fish.

And the HRs I hit in the past probably didn't go as far as I would like to remember them, either. And absent video tape and laser measurement, I don't believe ANYBODY hit 550' HRs in the past either. At least not with anything resembling the same ball being used today.


That said, heavier bats would absolutely make a difference, assuming bat speed wasn't affected.


I also believe that swings today are tuned to be a little quicker (elapsed time) at the expense of bat speed. The "professional" SP softball players hit 7.5 oz balls almost 500 feet, against a 24mph pitch speed. Extrapolate that into a baseball setting, and the ball should be able to travel 700 feet, or more. Not as often because timing is CONSIDERABLY more difficult, but sometimes. Obviously, bat technology has something to do with it. But that isn't all of the explanation. The SP guys get more batspeed, too (about 20% more, based on the figures I've seen). Because they CAN. A swing which develops very slowly (and accelerates over a long time period) is fine in that environment. Won't make it in MLB, though.



Back to the first point: I saw the softball pitcher Eddie Feigner in exhibitions a couple of times as a kid. GREAT! I have had several people tell me that he threw 118mph. Pretty challenging, from 46 feet. People swore it was true. Just on the surface, this sounded wrong to me, but I DID see him strike out guys from 2B (blindfolded). Maybe it was right? And I researched it, and traced back the 118mph to a newspaper article which actually said that he threw in the 80s, but that it was the equivalent OF 118MPH IN baseball, because of the closer pitching distance.


Anyway, always a great conversation. But I am decidedly in the camp that says ballplayers in the past did not hit the ball further than today, and weren't better athletes, either. I recognize it is a minority camp - I think the antecedent desire for memories to be fond and the opposite to be true is the primary reason for that. The heros of our youth will always be our heros, and that is not unhealthy. Regardless, for whatever reason, the majority of people believe the players in the past were better. And I get that.


SOME of those people may believe Jesse Owens was a better runner than Hussain Bolt, too. In that case, the stopwatch settles the argument. No stopwatches in baseball. So it will always be an argument. But in ANY athletic endeavor where time can be recorded, or distances can be compared, today's athletes are so much superior to those in the past that there isn't even a discussion.

Still team sports are viewed differently. There seems to be some belief that Cousy would take away Kobe's jam by dribbling behind his back or something. because baseball is primarily a battle between the pitcher and the hitter - the aggregate groups of which have BOTH improved, roughly equally over the decades, the delta between yesterday's greats and today's seems less clear. But it is absolutely a matter of faith to assume it must be true, because it is demonstrably NOT true in just about any other athletic endeavor.

All world-class athletes today - are bigger, faster, stronger, etc. Whether through more training, better training methods, supplements (legal and otherwise), diet and nutrition, and just plain evolution. And probably a combination of all of these factors.


That is why I think the greatest measure of historical athletic greatness is how much etter the player was than his peers. By that measure, Ruth was clearly the best baseball player ever. Probably Jordan, Gretzky, and Woods make the same claims in their sports. Football is less clear to me, but I'd probably say Rice. he scored over 200 career TDs, and the prvious record was what? 108?

[hellborn]

Well, Mantle didn't use a heavy bat...Ruth sure did. I would guess that a grooved, not-fooled swing by Babe with his heavy bat might have had equivalent or even higher bat speed at impact than those of the top "quick" swings by the best distance hitters today.
Even factoring in the light bats they tend to use, elite slow pitch hitters must be generating higher bat speeds than baseball players, to hit a large (not heavier) softball with next to zero incoming speed 400 feet or more. This is because their swings don't have to be quick at all, just fast when they actually hit the ball.
Ruth sure had to be quicker than a slow pitch hitter, but, for whatever reasons, he was often able to gear his swing more for max bat speed than any modern hitter, sometimes to the point of even taking a shuffle step into the ball (the "Canadian shuffle" in slow pitch). His basic mechanics weren't different from any top hitter, just higher energy.

EDIT: Ssarge made some of the same points, with more detail. I probably wouldn't have posted if I had seen his first!

[ipitch]

Even factoring in the light bats they tend to use, elite slow pitch hitters must be generating higher bat speeds than baseball players, to hit a large (not heavier) softball with next to zero incoming speed 400 feet or more.

Softballs are from about 1 to 1.75 ounces heavier than baseballs.

[Dirtberry]

Until you factor in exit spin all guesses are off. Today they put in an arbitrary parabola calculation to guess distance that will always be wrong. With the old school, they had to get out and measure the distance the same way the young Rod Dedeaux did when Mantle blasted one from the left side and the right side at USC.

I believe distances on average are less because of the proliferation of the all or nothing “Rotational swing” that robs you of hand extension the cause of correct back exit spin. This is why I teach (the Classic power swing) my batting students to understand judge their exit spin first, and then we work on mechanics that produce this affect. When batting was taught then the emphasis was mainly on getting level so that there would a slight vectoral difference in ball to barrel flight path so that it caused back spin on the ball at exit. Slight backspin will cause lift and carry.

The upper cut swings many people are clamoring about today lead batters into more and more uppercut trajectory destroying contact and power ratio.

[PhilliesPhan22]

Anyone consider that ballparks are built differently today. Many stadiums have a back to them, so players homeruns hit the back will still in flight. Consider Jose Canseco's homerun at Skydome during the 1989 ALCS.

[TG Coach]

I'm probably in the minority, but I really think that memory clouds some of these remembrances. And so does wishful thinking.

No one ever loses in Las Vegas, yet someone pays for the lights.

No one ever catches an average sized fish.

And the HRs I hit in the past probably didn't go as far as I would like to remember them, either. And absent video tape and laser measurement, I don't believe ANYBODY hit 550' HRs in the past either. At least not with anything resembling the same ball being used today.


That said, heavier bats would absolutely make a difference, assuming bat speed wasn't affected.


I also believe that swings today are tuned to be a little quicker (elapsed time) at the expense of bat speed. The "professional" SP softball players hit 7.5 oz balls almost 500 feet, against a 24mph pitch speed. Extrapolate that into a baseball setting, and the ball should be able to travel 700 feet, or more. Not as often because timing is CONSIDERABLY more difficult, but sometimes. Obviously, bat technology has something to do with it. But that isn't all of the explanation. The SP guys get more batspeed, too (about 20% more, based on the figures I've seen). Because they CAN. A swing which develops very slowly (and accelerates over a long time period) is fine in that environment. Won't make it in MLB, though.



Back to the first point: I saw the softball pitcher Eddie Feigner in exhibitions a couple of times as a kid. GREAT! I have had several people tell me that he threw 118mph. Pretty challenging, from 46 feet. People swore it was true. Just on the surface, this sounded wrong to me, but I DID see him strike out guys from 2B (blindfolded). Maybe it was right? And I researched it, and traced back the 118mph to a newspaper article which actually said that he threw in the 80s, but that it was the equivalent OF 118MPH IN baseball, because of the closer pitching distance.


Anyway, always a great conversation. But I am decidedly in the camp that says ballplayers in the past did not hit the ball further than today, and weren't better athletes, either. I recognize it is a minority camp - I think the antecedent desire for memories to be fond and the opposite to be true is the primary reason for that. The heros of our youth will always be our heros, and that is not unhealthy. Regardless, for whatever reason, the majority of people believe the players in the past were better. And I get that.


SOME of those people may believe Jesse Owens was a better runner than Hussain Bolt, too. In that case, the stopwatch settles the argument. No stopwatches in baseball. So it will always be an argument. But in ANY athletic endeavor where time can be recorded, or distances can be compared, today's athletes are so much superior to those in the past that there isn't even a discussion.

Still team sports are viewed differently. There seems to be some belief that Cousy would take away Kobe's jam by dribbling behind his back or something. because baseball is primarily a battle between the pitcher and the hitter - the aggregate groups of which have BOTH improved, roughly equally over the decades, the delta between yesterday's greats and today's seems less clear. But it is absolutely a matter of faith to assume it must be true, because it is demonstrably NOT true in just about any other athletic endeavor.

All world-class athletes today - are bigger, faster, stronger, etc. Whether through more training, better training methods, supplements (legal and otherwise), diet and nutrition, and just plain evolution. And probably a combination of all of these factors.


That is why I think the greatest measure of historical athletic greatness is how much etter the player was than his peers. By that measure, Ruth was clearly the best baseball player ever. Probably Jordan, Gretzky, and Woods make the same claims in their sports. Football is less clear to me, but I'd probably say Rice. he scored over 200 career TDs, and the prvious record was what? 108?

Best football player ever: Jim Brown. He was way ahead of his era.

[hellborn]

Softballs are from about 1 to 1.75 ounces heavier than baseballs.

For some reason, I have believed for 25 years that softballs and baseballs were all about 5 ounces...I stand corrected, thanks!

[scorekeeper]

I'm probably in the minority, but I really think that memory clouds some of these remembrances. And so does wishful thinking.

I don’t think you’re in a minority at all, and if you are, its isn’t much of minority. Also, there definitely is a lot of wishful thinking, but that in no way means at least some of the prodigious HRs didn’t take place. After all, its not like anyone’s claiming that someone hit a ball 500’+ every game.

And the HRs I hit in the past probably didn't go as far as I would like to remember them, either. And absent video tape and laser measurement, I don't believe ANYBODY hit 550' HRs in the past either. At least not with anything resembling the same ball being used today.

Well, I’ll only present the following two items.

The 1st was in old Municipal stadium in Cleveland. I was sitting in the CF bleachers behind the old 470’ sign, toward LCF, and at least 20-25 rows back from the 1st row, and watched a ball Mantle hit, not only go over my head, but at least another 10 rows. I don’t know how far it went, and I don’t know how accurate that sign was, but that ball was moving!

The other one was in HS. I was playing 3rd base when a fellow named Jamie Rivers, who would later play 8 years in the NFL, mostly as a Middle LB came up. He’d already hit a HR and a triple that game, and would later put me out for the year by hitting me so hard while I was covering 3rd, I was knocked out and had my shoulder separated.

Jamie was the epitome of the dream athlete. He lettered in every sport I can think of, and at 6’2”/230, was truly a freak in 1963. The reason I remember this particular HR is because I had just come from getting my arm taped in the gym, and saw where the bus was that he hit.

The SB field went from where the busses parked to pick up kids after school, and merged with LF on the V baseball field. This guy hit a ball completely out of the baseball field and over the entire SB field, then hit a bus on the fly. Even assuming the baseball field was only 300’, and the SB field another 200’ and the bus 20’ past that, that ball had to travel close to 500’ at a minimum.

…A swing which develops very slowly (and accelerates over a long time period) is fine in that environment. Won't make it in MLB, though.

That’s sure what’s intuitively obvious to the casual observer, but there’s just no way to say that’s something carved in stone. ;)

[ipitch]

For some reason, I have believed for 25 years that softballs and baseballs were all about 5 ounces...I stand corrected, thanks!

No problem. I heard that when I was young too. Maybe it was even true back then?

[Chadbradfordwannabe]

Until you factor in exit spin all guesses are off. Today they put in an arbitrary parabola calculation to guess distance that will always be wrong. With the old school, they had to get out and measure the distance the same way the young Rod Dedeaux did when Mantle blasted one from the left side and the right side at USC.

I believe distances on average are less because of the proliferation of the all or nothing “Rotational swing” that robs you of hand extension the cause of correct back exit spin. This is why I teach (the Classic power swing) my batting students to understand judge their exit spin first, and then we work on mechanics that produce this affect. When batting was taught then the emphasis was mainly on getting level so that there would a slight vectoral difference in ball to barrel flight path so that it caused back spin on the ball at exit. Slight backspin will cause lift and carry.

The upper cut swings many people are clamoring about today lead batters into more and more uppercut trajectory destroying contact and power ratio.

So Ruth, Mantle, Williams.....they had level swings? I think not.

I'm a big believer in the "right" backspin to be applied to a baseball. I find it hard to believe that a pitch coming in at a what, 10 degree downangle?...let me explain.

Pitch coming in at that angle, swung level to produce ideal launch angle at say 22 degrees....that's a lot of backspin, too much in my book.

Same guy takes a 9 degree "uppercut" swing (perfect rotational in my book) to produce the same launch angle and I know which ball is going further.

[korp]

I would assume there has been changes in the makeup of bats and balls that restrict the distance. Like changing the drop used in metal bats it helps make the game safer.

[scorekeeper]

I would assume there has been changes in the makeup of bats and balls that restrict the distance. Like changing the drop used in metal bats it helps make the game safer.

:confused: Metal bats?

Yes, balls have been changed many many times over the years, but I’d say its generally thought that the more modern the ball, the “hotter” it is.

[elmer]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0605040
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=520
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html
http://www.pdas.com/bb1.htm
http://www2.trincoll.edu/~pbrown/baseball2/HomeRun%20Simulation%20Page%202.htm
http://curvebank.calstatela.edu/baseball/baseball.htm
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/jun99/928860654.Ph.r.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/pirates/20010415pncriver9.asp
http://www.nettally.com/jcarr/Baseball/homer.html
http://www.psadna.com/articles/article_view.chtml?artid=2174&type=1&universeid=353http://www.thefreelibrary.com/ESPN+SERIES+GOES+DEEP+INTO+THE+PAST%3B+REVIVES+HOM E+RUN+DERBY-a083421136
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070203&content_id=169805&vkey=news_milb&fext=.jsp

[scorekeeper]

http://www.stevetheump.com/HR_physics.htm
Excluding meteorologically strange conditions, a batted ball cannot travel longer than 545 feet.

Elmer,

Methinks you better find a better place to get expert advice. ;)

[korp]

:confused: Metal bats?

Yes, balls have been changed many many times over the years, but I’d say its generally thought that the more modern the ball, the “hotter” it is.
I am aware I said metal bats, but I was saying the makeup of a wood bat has probably changed over time to make the game safer. Generally the players playing now are stronger than the past so unless the hitters are not as functional then something is different in the bat or ball reducing the distance.

[scorekeeper]

I am aware I said metal bats, but I was saying the makeup of a wood bat has probably changed over time to make the game safer. Generally the players playing now are stronger than the past so unless the hitters are not as functional then something is different in the bat or ball reducing the distance.

Since wood is a living thing, no two pieces will ever be the same, but unless I’m way off base, the way bat companies prep the wood hasn’t changed much in the last 100 years. Although there are many factors influencing the distance a ball will travel, including the Bernoulli effect, temperature, barometric pressure, wind, the way the ball is manufactured, where on the bat the ball is hit, where on the ball the bat hits it, and likely many others, the 2 factors having the most to do with it are the velocity of the bat and the velocity of the ball.

If you look the link, you’ll see several parts that contain information. Be sure to look at and run the Applet, and you’ll see that disregarding everything but the velocity of the ball off the bat and the angle, its pretty easy to see the effect velocity has.

Assuming that the combination of a ML pitch and velocity of a ML bat produces some velocity, and that that velocity is greater than 68MPH which is 99,7 FPS, think about what some pitch velocities around 100MPH and bat velocities at least in the 80MPH range produce. For comparison, 80MPH is 117 FPS, 90MPH is 132 FPS, and 100 MPH is almost 147FPS.

http://library.thinkquest.org/11902/physics/batting.html

But the original question doesn’t care about any of that! All I was trying to find out, was if a bat can produce the same kind of velocities and times as a car at a drag strip, and I can’t see why not. It is not uncommon for the car going the fastest speed to get beat by one having a lowest ET with less speed.

That’s why I was asking about a “short” swing directly to the ball might be the quickest in terms of time, but possibly not in terms of velocity.

[stevebogus]

Since wood is a living thing, no two pieces will ever be the same, but unless I’m way off base, the way bat companies prep the wood hasn’t changed much in the last 100 years. Although there are many factors influencing the distance a ball will travel, including the Bernoulli effect, temperature, barometric pressure, wind, the way the ball is manufactured, where on the bat the ball is hit, where on the ball the bat hits it, and likely many others, the 2 factors having the most to do with it are the velocity of the bat and the velocity of the ball.

Don't forget aerodynamics. Wind is a much larger factor than most people realize. Baseballs fly about 10% farther in Colorado due to the thin air at 5000 ft. elevation. That is roughly the same as a 10 MPH helping breeze at sea level. Aerodynamic drag plays a huge role in the flight of a baseball and anything that reduces drag will result in longer flyballs.

I'm not so sure we can assume that the baseballs of Ruth's or Mantle's day had the exact same properties as today. Little things like the height of the seams, the exact size and weight of the ball, and roughness/smoothness of the surface all contribute to the flight characteristics. Baseballs stored in a humid environment gain weight and size, the same ball in a dry environment will shrink and lose weight. If an eyewitness claimed that a flyball landed 550' away from home there *may* have been circumstances that allowed it. Highly unlikely perhaps, but we cannot be certain.

[scorekeeper]

Don't forget aerodynamics. Wind is a much larger factor than most people realize. Baseballs fly about 10% farther in Colorado due to the thin air at 5000 ft. elevation. That is roughly the same as a 10 MPH helping breeze at sea level. Aerodynamic drag plays a huge role in the flight of a baseball and anything that reduces drag will result in longer flyballs.

I'm not so sure we can assume that the baseballs of Ruth's or Mantle's day had the exact same properties as today. Little things like the height of the seams, the exact size and weight of the ball, and roughness/smoothness of the surface all contribute to the flight characteristics. Baseballs stored in a humid environment gain weight and size, the same ball in a dry environment will shrink and lose weight. If an eyewitness claimed that a flyball landed 550' away from home there *may* have been circumstances that allowed it. Highly unlikely perhaps, but we cannot be certain.

Wind is a huge factor, but its effects pretty much average out because in park “A” there may be a helping wind while in park “B” it may be a hurting wind, then again, there are domed stadiums where there’s absolutely no wind effect but there is a barometric effect. That’s why although I recognize that there are many factors that can and do affect the travel of a ball, to me the only ones players can effectively control are bat and ball velocity.

Who said the balls haven’t changed? Of course they have, and that’s because they are manufactured basically by hand, which means they too are subject to many factors. Here’s a neat little article on balls.

http://webusers.npl.uiuc.edu/~a-nathan/pob/evolution.html

[elmer]

I don’t think you’re in a minority at all, and if you are, its isn’t much of minority. Also, there definitely is a lot of wishful thinking, but that in no way means at least some of the prodigious HRs didn’t take place. After all, its not like anyone’s claiming that someone hit a ball 500’+ every game.



Well, I’ll only present the following two items.

The 1st was in old Municipal stadium in Cleveland. I was sitting in the CF bleachers behind the old 470’ sign, toward LCF, and at least 20-25 rows back from the 1st row, and watched a ball Mantle hit, not only go over my head, but at least another 10 rows. I don’t know how far it went, and I don’t know how accurate that sign was, but that ball was moving!

The other one was in HS. I was playing 3rd base when a fellow named Jamie Rivers, who would later play 8 years in the NFL, mostly as a Middle LB came up. He’d already hit a HR and a triple that game, and would later put me out for the year by hitting me so hard while I was covering 3rd, I was knocked out and had my shoulder separated.

Jamie was the epitome of the dream athlete. He lettered in every sport I can think of, and at 6’2”/230, was truly a freak in 1963. The reason I remember this particular HR is because I had just come from getting my arm taped in the gym, and saw where the bus was that he hit.

The SB field went from where the busses parked to pick up kids after school, and merged with LF on the V baseball field. This guy hit a ball completely out of the baseball field and over the entire SB field, then hit a bus on the fly. Even assuming the baseball field was only 300’, and the SB field another 200’ and the bus 20’ past that, that ball had to travel close to 500’ at a minimum.



That’s sure what’s intuitively obvious to the casual observer, but there’s just no way to say that’s something carved in stone. ;)

there were 53 rows in the CF bleachers

20-25 rows up is 44'-54' 10 rows behind is another 20 feet.

totaling 64-74 feet. The 470 sign was exact, from the backstop to
the 470 sign was 527 feet.
From your description it sounds like a line drive???

[scorekeeper]

there were 53 rows in the CF bleachers

20-25 rows up is 44'-54' 10 rows behind is another 20 feet.

totaling 64-74 feet. The 470 sign was exact, from the backstop to
the 470 sign was 527 feet.
From your description it sounds like a line drive???

Thanx for the figures. To tell the truth, as a 61 YO looking back about 50 years, I can’t honestly say if it was more on a line than a rainmaker. I do remember though how mad I was that that damn Mantle got us again!

Its such a shame that as children we run so much on pure emotions and don’t have the capacity to really appreciate the true talent of all the players. My friends and I used to do the damndest things to show our complete disdain for those players who would dare to cause our team injury or pain. Mantle, Berra, Ford, and other similar hated enemy baseball cards were definitely headed for being burned, torn up, or otherwise destroyed. I guarantee that I could send both of my kids to the very best colleges, including post graduate degrees if I could somehow get back every one of those cards I destroyed. :(