Brandon Allen absolutely crushes a home run – or does he?
Posted by Andy on August 24, 2011
Brandon Allen of the Athletics launched a home run deep into the third deck of Yankee Stadium last night.
If you didn't see it, check out the video first.
When I saw it land, I thought it was absolutely crushed. But then a few things about it seemed sort of weird. First, his teammates didn't actually have a very strong reaction. Second, on the replay, it doesn't really look like he got all of it.
Enter ESPN Home Run Tracker for the explanation. The home run went only 428 feet, just the fifth longest hit on August 23, 2011. The speed off the bat was 108.7 MPH, towards the higher end but nothing particularly special. How the hell did it appear to go so far, then? The answer is in the elevation angle which, at 34.8 degrees, was the second highest of yesterday's homers.
Simply--he golfed it. At its apex it reached 139 feet, the highest of all of yesterday's homers. Basically, he hit it hard and at just the right angle to land in the upper deck, even though many other lower-angle homers would ultimately go farther.
In the same game, Eric Sogard hit his first career homer and also golfed it. It was yesterday's only homer at a higher angle than Allen's, but it was slower off the bat, had a lower apex, and just got over the wall.
Thanks to everybody's favorite blog administrator, Neil, for some helpful discussions about this post topic.
August 24th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
This Allen HR looks like it went to a somewhat similar place:
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=17075043
However, that one went 457 feet; the speed off the bat was 117 mph, and it had an apex of 129 ft. Clearly more impressive numbers, but with the naked eye you'd be hard-pressed to detect such a big gap in distance and exit velocity.
August 24th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Upper-deck home runs are almost always overestimated, because people don't realize how much horizontal velocity the ball has lost by the time it reaches the seats. So a ball that is hit at a high angle will almost be coming straight down at the end of its flight.
August 24th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
Nice research! When I saw it, I was also surprised to see it go into the upper deck. My personal explanation was that it was right field in Yankee Stadium. But I like yours better
August 24th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
I wonder what the "weakest" a ball can be hit and still go out is. Obviously, it will depend on a specific park and the distance and height of the wall. But, let's use the shortest and closest wall. I'm no physics buff, but utilizing the trajectory and all that jazz, what is the lowest speed of the bat that would get a ball over the fence?
August 24th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
@4,
you would also have to normalize the pitch speed in any calculation.
August 24th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
@4, it's not physics. It's algebra. You have a distance in mind and an acceleration to deal with. Now, if you want to factor in wind speed or air resistance it gets more complicated but it's still pretty much balistics. Rocket Science, which we all know is pretty easy stuff 😉 The real magic of it though is in the contact point between the bat and the ball. That's where the math guys start to scratch their head.
Home runs are typically at a lower angle than you would think. I speculate that the bat and ball connection is not equal at any angle. It's best hit straight on. That's why slower pitches go further, especially a dropping pitch like a curve ball. The ball has a better angle coming into the hitter to be lifted off.
It probably matters a lot on the angle of a guys swing too. Some guys, like vlad, start their swing similarly and then raise the bat as it passes through the zone if the pitch is higher. Other guys, like ichiro, adjust their swing from the start to adjust for pitch height. Bat angle has a lot to do with the trajectory angle.
August 24th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
@6, Mosc -- I can't do the math no matter what name we give it. But isn't the benefit of a flush contact between bat and ball somewhat offset by the benefit of imparting backspin via a slight "under" angle of contact?
August 24th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
I've always wondered why people get all caught up in the distance issue. A homer counts the same whether it travels 300 feet, 400 feet, or 500 feet. It's nothing like placekicking distance in football, where it's a hit or miss thing. As long as it clears the fence, the distance is meaningless.
August 24th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
Home runs are typically at a lower angle than you would think.
This is certainly true for me--I was very surprised when I saw that most HRs have an angle of only about 20 degrees. I would have guessed more like 40.
August 24th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
As long as it clears the fence, the distance is meaningless.
That would be true, if you just read the boxscore. There are other elements involved if you watch the game.
August 24th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
The distance is only meaningless if the ball was hit hard enough to make it out of all 30 parks.
August 24th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
@9 if you do pure ballistics, 45 degrees is optimum with no air resistance or wind. The more air resistance you add (it's typically proportional to the cube of the velocity), the more you would benefit from a slower hit with closer to a 45 degree angle vs a faster hit with a lower angle. The more tailwind you add, the more angle you want while the more headwind you add, the less angle you want. All that stuff doesn't matter much because nobody swings a bat at anything like a 45 degree angle. I think "golfing at it" is even only possible on a nice low ball anyway. Even then, it's probably not at a low fastball.
I think it's more about contact and bat speed than angles. The home run in question left the bat at 34.8 degrees which is unusually high to get any carry. Not getting all of it is almost required to get that kind of angle (meaning it's not usually leaving the bat with any velocity at that angle and pops out). I'd say he really got under it much more than usual. With that kind of horizontal movement in the middle of a swing, it's hard to make contact but when you do...
August 24th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
To better educate yourself about hitting a baseball. google "What If Superman Played Baseball". Despite the comical title it is a highly scientific discussion.
August 24th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
We care about who hits it farther because we are men.
August 24th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
The 40 degree angle is the one that will result in a bunch of pop-ups and lazy fly balls
August 24th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
@6,
I disagree that "slower pitches go further." If you throw a ball against a wall, the faster you throw it, the faster it will come back at you.
August 24th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
It's only the second ball to reach the upper deck at the new Yankee Stadium in three years. No Yankee player, including Teixeira or HR Derby Champ Cano, have done that, despite playing half their games there.
So, fine, it wasn't crushed. It was something else. Maybe getting that type of angle and loft while pulling a pull is more impressive and rare than "crushing" it, whatever that means.
August 24th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
@16. Ball velocity does matter but bat velocity is actually more important since the bat has far greater mass than the ball. You're not throwing the ball at a wall, you're throwing it at a freight train.
Ball velocity helps, but I think angle actually helps more. You ever seen a guy request a 95mph hurler for a home run derby? Nevermind accuracy of swing, it's actually harder to generate loft on those balls than on a nice easy changeup.
August 24th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
Concerning my post #13 an embedded report in that article concluded that the optimum launch angle of the ball varies from 24.3 to 26.3 degrees and that a batted curve ball can travel farther than a batted fastball due to the effect of beneficial backspin.
August 24th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
I have often wondered why they have not tried to have a home run hitting contest on an Olympic-like field. Where you could measure precisely how far each ball is hit instead of speculating based on trajectory when it lands in the upper deck.
Also, when the All-Star game was in Boston, I remember distinctly hearing on the HR contest broadcast that they use different baseballs. Balls that are more tightly wrapped so that they will travel farther. That seemed to make sense to me given how far the balls were flying out of Fenway. But I have not heard any mention of this since. Has anyone else?
August 24th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
@18,
I was only disagreeing with the "slower pitches go further" part. When the bat is swung the same, that's not true.
As for the HR Derby, no one requests a 95 mph pitch primarily because HR distance isn't important. It's easier to hit HRs off of a 60 mph pitch than a 95 mph pitch.
August 24th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
@8/ Stu B -
Because watching a real long home run with a nice arc on it is pretty awesome, and discussing "who hit the longest home run that you've ever seen at...?" is a good conversation starter.
August 24th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
We care about the length of home runs because it's an indicator of likelihood of hitting future home runs. Which of the two guys whose videos I linked to do you think will hit more career homers?
August 24th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
As I understand it, much of the force of a batter's swing is taken up in reversing the topspin of a hard-thrown pitch. Hence the great distance of a José Canseco home run off a Tom Candiotti knuckleball.
August 24th, 2011 at 5:11 pm
In my post #19 the word backspin should be replaced with topspin.
August 24th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Completely off-topic, but I see that Adrian Gonzalez is leading the league in BABiP this year. Does BABiP consider wall-balls as "in play"? It would seem like this could skew numbers in Fenway park a bit. Lots of balls that are hit off the wall are "in play" in the sense that they aren't homeruns, strikeouts, or walks; but they are far from playable.
August 24th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
I think it even counts ground rule doubles as in play let alone balls of the wall. Most walls are playable in the MLB and not all balls that hit the monster are unplayable either...
August 24th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Well, my understanding of BABiP is that it is supposed to measure how frequently a "playable" ball is a hit, with the idea being that, theoretically, every playable ball is a potential out, however remote the odds. So, a screamer ripped down the line that kicks up chalk and one hops the wall is technically "playable" even though only the most extreme defensive alignment might make it so. A ground rule double is, by the same definition, technically playable. But, in Fenway and some other parks, there are balls (not all, but some) hit off the wall that are unplayable. A ball that hits 25 feet up on the wall is unplayable. No defensive alignment would make it playable, unlike the screamer down the line. Now, Fenway obviously has a greater propensity for such types of hits. Other parks do as well, but Fenway is probably the most extreme outlier. I just wonder if it is extreme enough to impact BABiP. I wonder if Sox players tend to have higher-than-normal BABiP because of the wall.
August 24th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
BSK, yes, and I think BABIPs are higher at Fenway than most other parks. This season, the Sox and their opponents are BIPping about .320 in Fenway, and about .275 on the road.
August 24th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Andy - breaking out the algebra and geometry...
I've watched hundreds of Yankee games before and since YES. It was so weird to hear the game through different voices.
Kinda surreal. Who was the second announcer? Radio guy from Oakland?
I'm just glad it wasn't a Yankee who hit that. For those of you living out of the NYC area, Michael Kay is one of the worst announcers and is so biased. He redefines hyperbole. He calls a routine grounder by Jeter - "a scorched shot snared by_____" blah blah blah.
I guess when the team owns the Network, you have a tad of conflict of interest, especially when the owners are named Steinbrenner.
Kinda like the fair and balanced reporting from North Korea's state run media, only worse...
August 24th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Just an update, the Giants grabbed Bell from the Padres. How about two insane closers with huge egos. Has anyone ever seen a more impatient hyper pitcher than Bell? He walks half way to home plate to get the ball back from the catcher. I wonder if they will go by committee or will Bell be the set-up guy?
Also, is it just me, but does it seem closers are, for good and bad, usually the most colorful guys on the club.
Dibble
Rocker
Beck
Wilson
Wendell
Myers
August 24th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
I heard the majority of Michael Kay's radio broadcasts in his early days with the Yankees. At first he made me miss Jay Johnstone. Over time, I grew to like him. Once he really got his confidence, though, he became an unbearable homer. John Sterling was actually the tame, balanced one. Now both of those guys have completely lost control of their egos. For Sterling it happened when his buddy Joe Torre left the team.
And as for Suzyn Waldman, I think it's wonderful to see women begin to be afforded the same opportunities as men and I look forward to the days when there is gender equality in all roles, including broadcasters and front-office people, etc. But for now, it's nice that she's setting the bar so incredibly low such that the women who will follow in her footsteps are guaranteed to look better by comparison.
August 24th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Kay works for YES...he's *supposed* to be a little biased since 90%(?) of his audience roots for the Yankees. He is still far less biased than many announcers that I've heard. He never says things like "WE need a hit here", like some announcers do. All he does is "cheer" a little louder for the Yankees. He even says "See ya!" for opponent HRs.
Does that Chicago announcer say "you can put it on the board....YES!" for opponent HRs?
August 24th, 2011 at 8:17 pm
Andy-
Suzyn Waldman has always been a tricky thorn in my side. On the one hand, she has a voice that only a mother can love that goes from bad to worse when she gets emotional (need we revisit the conniption she went in when Clemens came out of retirement mid-game for the Yanks?) that reminds me of getting yelled at by my friend's mom as a kid. So, yea, she is grating, which is to put it nicely. And a homer to boot.
On the other hand, I do think she is actually quite knowledgeable and tuned in to what is going on. She is often the one who does the behind-the-scenes research, meeting with players and coaches and front-office types and generally seems to get baseball (not necessarily the way people here get it but better than many broadcasters). However, I think she falls into the trap that many female "pioneers" do, which is to try too hard to prove herself. Some of that may be my own bias, which may be more sensitive to such efforts by a woman than a man, but it is pretty evident at time. I'm fully aware of why she has adopted that tact, as I'm sure it was necessary for her to get where she is today. Ideally, as women become more commonplace in the booth, such approaches won't be necessary.
She is in a tough position and, on the whole, handles herself better than many folks out there. But when she gets screechy... Christ almighty! I also hate how she refers to everyone on a first-name-only-basis. Again, this may be a function of her trying to show how "in" she is, but she'll launch into a rant on ARod and refer to him simply as "Alex" the whole time, which is annoying to me and probably puzzling to more casual fans or half-attentive listeners.
August 24th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
JT-
Thanks! Suspicion confirmed! I don't know why I never thought of it before, but I got to thinking about it today upon noticing Gonzalez on top of the BABiP list. Even without Fenway, he's probably having a an above-average season in that regard. BUT, it makes sense that the numbers there, for all players, are inflated. I'm sure the limited foul ground also plays a part. I think that is something that many people underrate or completely ignore when looking at park effects. More foul = better for pitchers.
August 24th, 2011 at 8:40 pm
BSK, good points about Waldman. I have a fairly famous female sports broadcaster in my family, and FWIW my impression from her is that broadcasters like her are worth more as pioneers than the Erin Andrews of the world who get more attention due to looks than performance (which is not to say that Andrews doesn't have talent--just that her looks get her a lot more intention.) I'm not sure I even know what Waldman looks like, but certainly for sure most of the attention she gets is due to her performance.
August 24th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
BSK
Definitely the foul ground at Fenway is advantageous. I think from 1935 on, they won like 20% of BA crowns. And I know they had some big guys win quite a few, like Ted Williams and Boggs, but also a few not so well known guys. Billy Goodman (1950) Pete Runnels (1960 &62), Fred Lynn (1979) Carney Lansford (1981) Bill Mueller!! (2003) Manny (2002) & Williams 6 times, Boggs 5 times, Yaz 3 times, Nomar 2 times.
August 24th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
@31
Duke, you could add Mitch Williams and, if you're old enough, Al Hrabosky to the list of offbeat closers.
@30
"I guess when the team owns the Network, you have a tad of conflict of interest,---"
Duke, the Blue Jays' television crew of Buck Martinez and Pat Tabler are pretty objective working for Rogers telemedia who own Sportsnet, the televising network and the ball team. I guess we're lucky in that sense.
And Greg Zahn, one of the Jays' studio analysts is nobody's toady .... he calls like he sees it.
August 24th, 2011 at 10:59 pm
@23, Andy -- Is that connection clearly established? I don't remember hearing about any 500-footers off the bat of Henry Aaron....
Anyway, speaking of golf shots, Alex Avila blasted one in the Trop tonight:
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2011_08_22_detmlb_tbamlb_1&mode=recap_away&c_id=det&partnerId=rss_mlb
August 24th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
~20 years ago Suzyn Waldman had a good reputation as a beat reporter on WFAN for the Yankees and Knicks. I remember liking her at the time, though I certainly wasn't listening to her in the same way then as I would now. I still have a distinct memory of her reporting on Brien Taylor's minor league progress and saying "How does 1996 Opening Day starter sound?"
Anyway, as a game broadcaster she's been awful. I didn't have cable the first season she came on, so I listened to her a lot, and she was bad in just about every way. I don't hear her enough anymore to know if she's improved much, but on the occasions I do tune in I have trouble taking the whole Wald-ling team seriously.
August 24th, 2011 at 11:09 pm
Duke-
Makes sense. Though, Mueller was a bit of a bizarre win. He hit .326 that year, the lowest for a winner since 1972 and one of only three in that span to hit under .330, with the other two guys (Mauer and Brett) having won other crowns with much higher averages. Given the era in which it happened, that always strikes me as just a weird win. But, yea, it makes sense that Fenway has produced a ton of champs for the reasons cited. I'm sure there are also a decent number of hits gained by the home team from outfielders who aren't exactly sure how to play the quirky dimensions. All three OF areas are weird and I'm sure a handful of hits drop in for the home team that might not for the opposition when the more experienced fielders are at work.
August 24th, 2011 at 11:14 pm
Neil L
I wanted to add Al Hrabosky but couldn't spell it. HA!
I remember Nolan Ryan imitating Hrabosky one game, quite funny.
About objectivity and sports casting. I'm lucky to live in NYC and get to watch both NL and AL games. But the broadcasts are night and day. I usually watch the Yankees on mute and set my Ipod to shuffle.Tonight Michael Kay actually said this:
"This guy can throw hard-"
(pitch)
radar gun shows 96mph very clearly
"Yep, very fast, 96mph-"
silence for 10 seconds.
Pitcher throws next pitch.
Radar shows 97mph.
"Yep, 97mph, real fast."
Then the reciprocal; The Mets. Granted, they are my team, but Ron Darling went to Yale, Keith Hernandez is cultured, cool, was on Seinfeld and is never afraid to rag on his own team for not hustling or even critisizes management. Gary, the only non jock in the booth, is sharp, funny, informed and just fun to listen to.
If you ever get to watch NY games, switch between the Mets and Yanks, its like Chess and Checkers.
August 24th, 2011 at 11:15 pm
Andy-
At the risk of being catty, Waldman looks exactly like she sounds. I'll say this... if you put Waldman's brain in Kay's head, she'd make a very impressive color guy/man/woman/whatever. She deserves a lot more credit than she gets and a lot less criticism than she receives. Reading more about the odds she's faced, I'm even questioning my own responses. I'm not saying we should cave to the tendency of lowering expectations because of her path, as that serves no one, least of all her. But putting her work in context is important. Good luck to your family member. We rarely give the credit due to pioneers.
August 24th, 2011 at 11:16 pm
Speaking of Kay's head, anyone see the dome on that guy? Christ almighty! Even without hearing a word from his mouth, you can tell that guy is a blowhard full of hot air.
August 24th, 2011 at 11:23 pm
Back to HR distance. I challenge folks to help with at least informed speculation here, but do qualify if you have the scientific chops to know with any certainty. Because some of the seemingly simplest matters of physics are puzzling, & answering them is fun & enlightening.
The preeminent historian of tape measure HRs is Bill Jenkinson, whose poretty defiunitive book on the subject is ":Basebal;;'s Ultimate Power". He uses microfilm, aerial photos, on site investigation & intewviews to seemingly very accurately show who hit the furthest blasts where.
So much I would like to ask the man. Start with this: he is convincing that the best players could develop distance ability commensurate with modern training with farm or industrial labor. What is unspoken is that there is a law of diminishing returns for strength: many players today are stronger than the greatest sluggers before, but that does not necessarily directly translate into greater distance.
But if so, then this is very unusual amongst measurable physical skills, where most all else gets much better over decades. He has Ruth hitting CLEARLY the longest few HRs even, & the most over 500 feet, then Foxx edges out Mantle, due to more 450'-500 ' blasts. Then Hondo, Allen, drug fueled Big Mac, next clustered is Stargell, Jackson, Killer, McCovey, Gibson (not enough evidence).
But this troubles me. I am delighted if there is one talent that science/training cannot necessarily trump the charm of random genetic chance & other factors. But older players, particularly Ruth, used heavier, less efficient lumber. From what I have read, generally the real extra distance added by greater bat mass CANNOT be make up for the inevitable lost bat velocity.
How could Ruth do it? Or any of the top old guys, including the surge of historic sluggers in the '60's. I read that Ruth once borrowed a 32 ounce "toothpick" from a teammate & hit 2 HRs, one 525', huge even for him. Could he have done even better with said toothpicks used today?
I see no atmospheric or other conditions, nor any of accuracy of measurement, that account for someone like Ruth. I have not heard that he had a more lively ball. So how could he drive the ball historically far with bats heavy for even then?
Is there another factor where the body's mass is used more efficiently, so you could theoretically be a Ruth without modern day trained/drugged strength?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bUvU4gH1GI. Doing so absent any scientific/video analysis is of course a kind of athletic genius.
Thanks for the interest guys!
August 24th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
@4
BSK, do you remember the upper-deck, right-field overhang at the old Tiger Stadium? It was 325 down the line but a high fly would reach the upper deck and turn a warning track fly ball into a home run.
I don't know how many feet the upper deck shortened home runs but presumably less than 325 feet.
Wasn't it the Polo Grounds, during part of its life, that had a left field overhang partly in fair territory that created pop fly home runs?
August 24th, 2011 at 11:35 pm
Duke/42, agreed. I hate most broadcasters but the Mets' troika is very good. Maybe if I listened to them more often I'd start finding foibles which would drive me crazy. There's no doubt they pick up on things which others do not, and they present it well (it ain't just about the mind, you gotta have the voice and delivery and personality as well).
Kay, on top of his myriad other faults, just strikes me as someone who is not very bright. But he doesn't present himself as your average blowhard announcer, who feigns fright every time someone uses a 3-syllable word. He tries to come across as a thinking man, but it's apparent to me he has very little insight. The mph and pitch count are now on the screen all the time, so he's in love with them. Talks about them over and over. I'm sure if YES started showing players' WAR along with their BA-HR-RBI-OBP, after a few months he'd start blabbing about that and bringing it up all the time, without any real understanding of what he was talking about.
August 24th, 2011 at 11:38 pm
Neil/46, I remember the overhang, and I always wondered if it *really* stole HR. Even if it did hang past the outfield wall a bit (is that true? I'll assume it did), even high fly balls don't come down absolutely vertically. There's still some horizontal, forward movement. No way we can ever know for sure but I have my doubts that overhang ever caught any balls which really would have been caught.
August 25th, 2011 at 12:33 am
@42, Duke -- Though I am a big fan of the Mets' TV trio, two points:
(1) They don't have all 3 for anything like every game, and they're much better as a group.
(2) Keith, bless him, is entertaining and knowledgeable, and I love that he mentions Strat-O-Matic as often as possible. But he is not the best immediate observer of the play as it happens live.
August 25th, 2011 at 12:35 am
Re: the Tiger Stadium overhang -- As a longtime Tigers fan, I always thought its presumed effects were greatly exaggerated. A ball would have to be coming down at a severe angle to be affected.
I just found the following; don't even have time to read it myself, but FWIW:
http://www.motownsports.com/forums/detroit-tigers/45787-mythbustin-tiger-stadium-overhang.html
August 25th, 2011 at 3:11 am
I would love to see the phenomenon of outfielders "robbing homeruns" put to the mythbusting test. I still say it is a nearly impossible feat to pull off with a standard height Major League outfield fence (not those short fences in Boston, Pittsburgh, etc.), and there are a lot of misunderstandings involved that make it seem believable to the masses who see these plays on ESPN seemingly every night.....
1. An outfielder's only going to make it back to the wall on a fly ball homer, meaning for the ball is going to be traveling downward with very little horizontal momentum (I'm not a physics geek, excuse me if I mangle terminology here). The padding on most walls is much thicker than it appears to those not sitting up close in the outfield seats, and for a ball that is going to completely clear that padding, it's probably going to be well out of the outfielder's reach at the point on the horizontal when it crosses the front of the wall. For example, I'd say for a ball to clear an 8 foot wall that is 2 feet thick, it would probably have to still be 10 feet in the air when it gets to the wall... out of the range of most people not playing in the NBA. And it is very difficult for a player to catch a ball once it goes past the front of wall unless they have time to jump and cling onto the top of the wall and set themselves up to reach over (I think there's a famous play where Kenny Lofton once did this)
2. Balls that hit off the top of the wall are just as likely to bounce back into play as they are to continue on over the wall. I've seen this time and time again, especially in all my years of watching batting practice. It's not definitely going to clear the wall unless it is also going to clear the top padding.
3. Anyone who closely looks at replays of such events will notice that about 99% of the time (Sorry to be making up stats on a baseball stat blog, but hey...) the ball enters the outfielder's glove in front of the wall... while the player's momentum carries his glove over the wall. Following the flight of the ball rather than the outfielder's arm is the key. And of course, those replays from the camera behind home plate can easily give the mistaken appearance when they are the only shots on SportsCenter....
4. Speaking of, sportscasters live to hype up anything. I get to where I cringe any time I hear an announcer utter the words "he ROBBED him of a HOMER!!!!"
Since this is somewhat related to the topic of this post, anyone want to back me up or tell me I'm full of it? I take a lot of heat when I try to rationalize with others over this. Maybe I'm just a killjoy.....
August 25th, 2011 at 5:06 am
Lots of great posts!
First off, the only flaw with the analogy of Mets/Yankees to Chess/Checkers is I'm pretty sure Kay would be confused by Checkers. JT's comment regarding his faux-intellectualism is spot on and especially damning when he mocks others who are actually intelligent.
Mike F, I've seen "research" that seems to demonstrate Mantle hitting an 800-foot HR once. I've seen others that reach the same conclusions that you offered, that prior hitters, with inferior bats, balls, training techniques, and slower pitches somehow hit the ball the furthest. I'm not sure if it is the guy you mentioned or now, but I have real trouble accepting it. I know the guy who did the Mantle research (which I think was on a Geocities site, so take that for what it's worth) based his numbers on the ball going up and down with equal trajectory, completing ignoring the typical flight of a ball and how it is impacted by back spin, air resistance, etc. So that was clearly a bunch of hooey. There are other issues, too, including different stadiums using different criteria for measurement. Obviously, more advanced methods allow us to correct for this, but I'm not sure how much of the historical data is subject to this. But, yea, I'd love to see something more definitive on this one way or another and, if the trend is as suggested and completely counter intuitive, a rigorous scientific analysis of just why that is.
Neil-
I'm too young to remember the Tiger overhang personally, but I do remember hearing about it. My hunch is similar to what others suggested, namely that the overhang would need to be pretty extreme, coupled with a stiff inward wind and a steeply declining ball for anything to be truly "robbed".
Evil Squirrel-
I agree that the "robbed HR" description gets thrown around too often, but not as often as you think. First off, I think estimating wall thickness at 2 feet is very generous. It is possible that the thickness is greater towards the base, but it is pretty clear that it is only a few inches at the top and, more importantly, most stadiums have a line on top that if the ball hits, it is a HR, regardless of how it bounces (the rules vary by stadium, obviously). Now, many robbed HRs are just as you indicated, great catches near the wall that wouldn't be HRs but are more dramatically described as potentially having been. But, you do see examples of guys reaching over and bringing a ball back. I did it once playing on a Little League field (though I was far from a Little Leaguer) and had the scars on my arm to prove it for some time afterward from my elbow landing on top of the chain link fence (which was a mere 4-feet high). My hunch is the ones that are most commonly truly "robbed" are the ones where the OF has the time to position himself at the wall, time his jump, and extend his arm/hand/glove up and over the wall. The ones where a guy is raising back sometimes result in robs, because the ball usually has more horizontal velocity, but also sometimes show the guy to catch the mall short of the wall and carry in to it. If I remember correctly, Endy Chavez had one of the latter varieties in a playoff game vs the Cardinals a few years back that was truly remarkable. Hunter, Lofton, and Otis Nixon are others I remember truly robbing some HRs. Jose Canseco, of course... not so much. So, yea, it is probably overstated, but I would argue not as greatly as you offer.
August 25th, 2011 at 5:27 am
Evil Squirrel-
Can't find video, but pictures might be even better. See the Chavez catch here: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20061019&content_id=1718403&vkey=ps2006news&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
I should also note that, even if your estimate of requiring 10 feet of height is accurate, this is actually far more achievable than you may realize, necessitating far less than a basketball player's leaping ability to achieve. Yes, a basketball hoop is 10 feet of the ground. But dunking a basketball requires far more height than that, because you have to get the ball and your hand over the rim. You probably need closer to 11 feet of vertical height, assuming you can palm the ball; even more if you need two hands because you can't consort the body for some extra inches. I'm 27-years-old, 5-10, and pretty athletic, and on my best day can probably graze the rim with my finger tips. Throw a glove on my hand and I can probably catch a baseball that would otherwise go through the hoop. Now, not every ball player is an elite athlete in terms of running and jumping (if David Ortiz could jump over the foul line, I'd be dumbstruck), but most OFers (particularly CFs, where you often seen the robs) are probably on the higher end of the curve. They are likely taller than I am, more coordinated, and can probably jump higher. It wouldn't shock me if they could easily pluck a ball 10, 11, maybe even 12 feet high out of the air. I mean, look at the Chavez catch. My amateur research shows the fence height to be 8'. Chavez's head is nearly that high. His arm reaches up quite a bit above that, plus the glove, and the snowcone catch to boot! I'd peg that at least 10 1/2' off the ground (Chavez is listed at 6'; wingspan is usually a bit longer than height, so let's give him 6'6"; subtract about 1'6" for his torso, leaving us with 5'; that is 2'6" per arm; his body is contorted such that his shoulder is just about at the top of the wall, meaning the tips of his fingers are at about 10'6"; a few more inches for the glove and he's pushing 11'; I was probably a bit generous here, so I'm comfortable saying 10'6").
August 25th, 2011 at 6:57 am
@51
Myth BUSTED by Mike Devereaux:
http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A0PDoTBbKlZOziUAZe.JzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBlMTQ4cGxyBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1n?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dmike%2Bdevereaux%2Bphoto%26n%3D30%26ei%3Dutf-8%26fr%3Dslv8-msgr%26b%3D1%26tab%3Dorganic&w=424&h=533&imgurl=www.gasolinealleyantiques.com%2Fsports%2Fbaseball%2Fimages%2Fmariners%2Foriolesprogram.JPG&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.democraticunderground.com%2Fdiscuss%2Fduboard.php%3Faz%3Dview_all%26amp%3Baddress%3D105x7695988&size=27.9+KB&name=week+i+would+anticipate+whether+orioles+outfielder+mike+devereaux+...&p=mike+devereaux+photo&oid=29fbe6c8e89a60134448a5a0ee2880bb&fr2=&fr=slv8-msgr&tt=week+i+would+anticipate+whether+orioles+outfielder+mike+devereaux+...&b=0&ni=28&no=8&tab=organic&sigr=12sh1cebl&sigb=13eodv431&sigi=12g0sdri9&.crumb=vZETfCdGJk3
sorry for the size of the link.
August 25th, 2011 at 7:07 am
BSK is right. I'm 6'3' and have been fairly athletic, but certainly not as much as a decent major league OF. I played a fair bit of intramural and club basketball in college, and I could just barely dunk when I was in great shape and playing regularly. As in, I never did it in a game, only in practice, because I wasn't sure enough of it. Touching the rim however, I could do easily and consistently from a standstill, and I've touched on the run it in my late 30s at 270+ lbs and out of shape. To be able to dunk, you need to be able to get your wrist to rim height at minimum, and to be able to do it consistently and forcefully, you need another 3-4 inches past that.
look at it another way. The average NBA player has a 28" vertical leap, the highest guys are 40"+. Most male top athletes can do at least 20-24" even if they aren't natural leapers. My fingertips reach 8'6 standing on flat feet. add a 24" leap and that's 10'6'. 28-30" and that's just barely enough to dunk, about where I was at 21, and I was hardly a top athlete. I never did any serious strength, power or speed training, just game practice.
Getting a ball at 11 ft+ with a baseball glove would be difficult, but hardly impossible for the kind of guys who make these catches.
August 25th, 2011 at 7:27 am
#51 Evil Squirrel, excellent stuff there--I totally agree. Probably 3 out of 4 times when I see a highlight that is called "HR-saving" it looks to me as if the ball would not have cleared the fence, for exactly the reasons you cite. It just slays me when a broadcaster says something like "he makes a potentially HR-saving catch!" for a ball that clearly would have hit the top of the wall--they are desperately trying to inject hype into what is otherwise a really good, but not massively meaningful, defensive play. It bugs the hell out of me when people try to make something out to be more than it is just to artificially increase excitement. This site partners with ESPN.com so I probably should be quiet, but to call it like I see it I will say that ESPN is the worst offender here and it is why I never watch their network--ever--at all anymore. This from a guy who used to view Baseball Tonight as daily must-see TV.
August 25th, 2011 at 7:29 am
#54 That Mike Devereaux catch is what started this whole damn thing. That catch was legit.
Before Orioles games, they used to hit fungoes just over the wall so he could practice his HR-saving catches (seriously).
August 25th, 2011 at 7:34 am
45 Mike Felber - it has long been my belief that Ruth was an incredible, exceptional, once-in-a-generation athlete, at least in terms of baseball skills. I was talking to Neil about this the other day--we need to remember that when Bonds hit 73 HRs, there were a slew of other players over 50. But when Ruth had some of his league-leading HR seasons, he was out-homering other teams. He was much further above the rest of the league than any other player today (at least in terms of HR-hitting.)
Unless there's anybody who witnessed Ruth's swings first-hand, I am not buying anything about what he couldn't do with the bat, what acceleration he could or couldn't achieve, etc. I therefore have no trouble believing that Ruth hit the longest homers (although I have my suspicions that Gibson may in fact be the leader, but there's just not enough data.)
August 25th, 2011 at 8:15 am
Andy-
I take the opposite viewpoint. There is no doubt that Ruth was a phenomenal athlete. But the scale of his achievements is skewed by the competition around him. If Ruth played now, with all of today's benefits, would he still out-homer teams? Would he hit 150-200 HRs a year? I think we can fairly conclude he wouldn't. Let's assume there is an upper limit to human ability; this limit is absolute, not relative. Ruth likely was at or very near that upper limit. Some of today's players are as well. But in Ruth's day, the rest of the players were at a 30 (on a 0-100) scale whereas today they are around 70 or 80. So Ruth and Bonds might have both been a 100 out of 100, but Ruth looks a lot better because he had a 200% advantage on his contemporaries and Bonds had only a 20 or 30% advantage. (Of course, all these numbers are very sloppily fudged and the gap may not be nearly as much, but I hope my point is understood.) Relative to his peers, there is no doubt that Ruth was the most valuable player of all time. But we can't use relative strength when attempting to ascertain absolute strength. And I think the context indicates that, as impressive as he was, it is unlikely that Ruth was the best baseball talent ever on an absolute scale.
August 25th, 2011 at 8:58 am
BSK & Michael: thanks for the insight. I guess I lean towards impossibility more than I should just because it aggravates me so much when I see it applied in clearly bogus situations. I will now downgrade to very difficult, but not nearly impossible. Maybe a handful of legitimate HR saving catches (not counting the short, short fences) per year, but nowhere near the nightly occurrence sportscasters like us to think....
The Devereaux pic: I think the walls at Camden Yards are somewhat shorter than the average, aren't they? The picture seems to confirm that, so HR nabbing would actually be more likely there.
Andy: I long for the days when the most outrageous thing on Baseball Tonight was Chris Berman's nicknames. I'm glad MLB Network came along for my nightly highlight fix, although they have their moments that make me want to chuck the remote as well....
August 25th, 2011 at 9:51 am
Evil-
Indeed, the ratio of bogus to legit is certainly above 1. I think announcers tend to think that if they call a great play, they are somehow a part of it. By making the call greater, they make the play greater and, thus, increase the odds of their being linked to a truly historic moment. For highlight shows like Sportscenter, well, going overboard I suppose helps generate ratings. You are more likely to stay tuned through a commercial break if they tell you a stupendous highlight is coming than if they said a difficult catch is coming. Of course, they lose hardcore viewers, but it's been obvious for a long time that the major media outlets are more interested in the casual fan than the hardcore fan.
August 25th, 2011 at 10:19 am
BSK, there are merits to your argument in #59, but there are some unanswerable questions that make it tough to know. Ruth hit some home runs that traveled further than any home runs being hit today--we know that because of some of the parks he homered in and the distance to the wall in those parks. Today's parks are all much smaller. I feel quite comfortable in saying that Ruth hit further home runs than any player in the last 30 years. However, as you point out, he also faced much easier competition on average. If Ruth played today I have no doubt he'd bomb the occasional 550-footer, but I'd be inclined to think he'd have a harder overall time against all the fast throwers and specialty relievers than he had in his day. But I'm not sure that's the argument here--he might not be the greatest player or most prolific HR hitter today, but I still think he'd hit them the furthest when he did hit them.
August 25th, 2011 at 10:26 am
Can't take too much time off this blog or you fall way behind!
Re JA's link at #50 -- the photo and discussion make me think that the Tiger Stadium overhang probably *did* steal a few potential catches away.
Of course some home-run-saving-catches really are just that.
August 25th, 2011 at 10:41 am
Back to the #4, without any math, can someone find the slowest estimated speed of an HR just from hit tracker data? Then maybe filter for all with a "true distance" increments, e.g. slowest with a 330, 370, 400 and show what the angle was. Or the furthest "true distance" of a HR under 100.
I would guess someone has one in the 80s with a bit of wind that just hits the RF pole in Fenway.
August 25th, 2011 at 11:42 am
@51,
That's also a pet-peeve of mine. It seems like every batter is "robbed of a home run" whenever there's a leaping catch near the wall.
Here's a good one from a couple of days ago. Listen to the 2nd announcer at about the :40 mark ("takes a home run away").
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmAMWLYkY6A
August 25th, 2011 at 11:45 am
Excellent example, statboy. It could not be more obvious that that was NOT going to be a home run. That announcer is insulting his entire audience.
August 25th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
Re: Tiger Stadium overhang... If the ball bounced off the front of the overhang, was it a HR? Or in play? My guess is the former, because presumably all areas of the stands besides the outfield wall itself are supposed to be out of play, but I don't know. If that is the case, it adds to the possibility of a ball hitting the overhang that might have otherwise been caught.
August 25th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Great link, statboy. And by engaging in hyperbole, the announcer takes away from what truly was a phenomenal catch by Revere, by attempting to make it seem like more than it was when a simple accounting of what actually happened should have sufficed (though he might have made it unnecessarily phenomenal by taking what looks to be a circuitous route to the ball).
August 25th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Andy-
Do you have links on data regarding Ruth's HR distances? I found mention of his 575 footer, but not much else that was verified. I have no doubt that Ruth hit some true bombs and have no reason to doubt the veracity of the 575 footer (or any others that are rigorously documented). I guess I just struggle to wrap my head around the idea of a guy who seemingly had everything working against him when compared to modern day players hit the furthest HRs. The bat, the balls, the pitchers, the training regimen... What are we missing? Or was Ruth just that much of an aberration? Photos don't do much to help his case either.
The only thing I can think of is that a bigger bat might have had a larger sweet spot. Coupled with a slower moving pitch, which he might have been better able to square up, he might have hit the ball "truer" than modern guys are capable of with thinner bats and faster pitches. I might be grabbing at straws here, but I can't think of anything else unless we accept that a guy who looked like him and trained like him simply hit the ball further than the physical gods of today.
August 25th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
GDC-
This might help a bit. It only has data back to '05 and you can only go one season at a time, but seems to get at what we're both curious at. Lowest speed of the bat for this year was 90.7 by Xavier Nady, ironically hit at Petco Park, one of the hardest places to hit HRs (I'm obviously leaving aside the inside-the-park ones). In terms of distance, Asdrubal Cabrera hit one a mere 320 feet in Fenway. I actually watched that game and the ball hit the top of the wall just to the left of the Pesky Pole. They actually had to use video replay to confirm the HR as the call on the field was that the ball was in play.
Not surprisingly, many of the shortest HRs are hit down the right field lines in Fenway and New Yankee, two very short porches. The lowest (as judged by apex) HR was a mere 39 feet of the ground, a liner hit by Seattle's Carlos Pequero that just got over the fence down the line (he actually has the two lowest, with both appearing to take the same basic path). A few others had slightly lower vertical angles but were hit harder and farther. That site is fun to play with and has historical data on a few famous HRs. It'd be amazing if they had every HR ever.
August 25th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
I can't find video of it, but this catch by Curtis Granderson on July 8th, 2007 definitely took a home run away. I was watching on TV and freaked out. Insane catch.
August 25th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
You may be underestimating Ruth's physique a bit. It's true he put on too much weight at the end of his career. Before that, he certainly wasn't svelte, and he wasn't cut, but he was a very solidly built guy. Here he is in 1923 with Jack Dempsey.
And of course, one can be a great hitter without being in top shape.
August 25th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Forgot the link:
http://i29.tinypic.com/rs8ob5.jpg
August 25th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Forgot my link, too: http://www.hittrackeronline.com/
JT-
Nice link. Still, it just stands out to me that that body hit the farthest HRs ever over 80 years ago. Baseball never does cease to surprise...
August 25th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
@69,
There is some evidence that baseballs from Babe Ruth's days could be hit further than today's baseballs.
There's some a good info here...
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?31016-Discussion-on-Baseballs-through-the-years
Here are a couple of quotes from it:
"Astrosfan just posted a wonderful article from about 1925 in which they list the COR of baseballs from 1914, 1923, and 1925. The COR for those balls were .56, .57, .56. The 1999 and 2000 ball COR were .506 and .503."
"According to the Sherwood tests the COR was actually .554 in 1999 and .548 in 2000. Which means that the 80 and 90 year old balls actually bounced back with more of their energy intact then balls from 1999 and 2000."
August 25th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Statboy, great example! Of course, I wonder if the play by play announcer took the time to actually look at the replay before he made that call.... I can give benefit of the doubt there since he's viewing the play in real time fro 400+ feet away, but not after it's been replayed on the highlights shows 100 times...
Alex, I won't argue with you on the Granderson catch because that seems to be another example of a shorter than average wall, as Grandy doesn't appear to be that far off the ground in his leap...
August 25th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
The wall in the right field of fenway is so short in places that a flat footed fly ball catch at the edge probably would have been a home run...
August 25th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Another example of a home run definitely being taken away is a leaping catch at the old Yankee Stadium low RF wall by Carl Furillo in the 11th inning of game 5 of the 1952 World Series.He took away a game-tying HR by Johnny Mize.
August 25th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Mosc-
Indeed! I remember a game (I think against the Angels) where a Red Sox opponent made a RUNNING catch that did or came very close to robbing a HR. He never left his feet and caught the ball mid-stride, reaching over the wall (he was actually reaching a bit down and backhanding it, if memory serves) before crashing into it. I'll see if I can dig it up, but Fenway is pretty extreme in that way.
August 25th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
Here's a famous one, from Al Gionfriddo's Wiki page.
"Gionfriddo raced across the field and caught the ball several steps before crashing into the bullpen gate. In one of the most famous images in baseball history, the taciturn DiMaggio shook his head and kicked at the dirt in frustration. At the time, there was no instant replay, and Gionfriddo was widely believed to have robbed DiMaggio of a home run. However, the game film, when developed later, clearly showed Gionfriddo catching the ball several steps shy of the wall, and thus actually robbing DiMaggio of a double or triple instead of a home run. Still photos of the catch contributed to the misconception that it was a potential home run, since the images showed Gionfriddo with his glove behind the bullpen gate, and the ball inside the glove. However, these photos were taken several seconds after the play, when Gionfriddo's momentum had carried his arm over the gate."
August 25th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Can't find it, but I DID find this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElcpE4q97vk
Surprisingly, the internet seems full of these...
August 25th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
LOL @ BSK. When I first started watching that I thought you had been hitting the crack pipe.
August 25th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
BSK wins the thread.
QED.
August 25th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
For all the talk about announcers overplaying HR saving catches, that guy seemed strangely underwhelmed by Bay's catch.
August 25th, 2011 at 10:26 pm
Interesting Statboy. It took me a while to read the 1at page, & there are 10. Everything I read thus far seems to say that it was the rubber core that made the difference in '11: I did not get to a reason that earlier "live" balls were more lively.
But even if they were, how much could that compensate for using much heavier, less efficient bats? Completely & more? Less than fully? This seems unknown.
August 25th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
Ruth had a remarkable swing, keeping a very large Area of Impact, potential energy preserved with the bent inside arm, & his great way of leading with the hip as his body just "walked away" from his arms before contact. That must be a big part of his prowess. Jenkinson wrote ""The Year Babe Ruth hHit 104 Home Runs" about his /21, if played in avergae modern stadiums & rules. He lost many to the "last seen foul" rule.
He is credited with the longest uninterrupted hit at 585', where Jenkinson says the fence was then at 575', maybe 10 less. But his shot in Wilkes-Barre PA in '26, postseason barnstorming, was clearly the furthest ever, only one Ruth ever asked measured. http://www.wilkes.edu/pages/1636.asp
August 25th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
Re Ruth's swing, the late great Bullpen Mechanics blog tried breaking it down once. I don't remember the conclusions but I'll dig it up and read them along with you.
Ahhh, here 'tis:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-four-greatest-home-run-hitters-of-alltime-a-video-analysis/
August 25th, 2011 at 11:07 pm
Re the clips in #87:
I'm not a scout and not in the practice of analyzing slow-mo video. So my opinions are very possibly skewed by the fact that I know I'm watching BABE EFFIN RUTH, so I know he must be doing something right.
Anyway, watching that little replaying clip a few dozen times, I'm really struck by how his body comes forward, while his hands are staying back, and then suddenly the hips rotate as the hands explode through the strike zone. There just seems to be a lot of torque with the entire body as he swings. It reminds me of a pitcher's motion. And after I thought that, I read "I would bet that you would see the same aggressive hip move in Ruth's pitching motion," which makes me feel like I have half a clue about what I'm looking at.
Basically, if Ruth could summon up bat speed somewhere close to what guys today do, with a 40+ oz bat, that ball's gonna fly. Of course, who can know what kind of bat speed he really had. 70-80-year old clips are tricky to analyze in that way.
Unfortunately, it appears to me that videos of A-Rod and Aaron have vanished from that post. The problems with 4-year-old links....
August 26th, 2011 at 12:34 am
I got a kick out of the Revere catch by watching what happened afterwards. Sure, great grab, very athletic, staying with the ball a *long* way after, ahem, making the mid-course adjustment. But grandstanding the whole way back to the infield? Purposely wearing the hat just slightly off-center to "send a message", whatever? How about "acting as if". Guy's hitting .255 with one walk every fifth game, maybe the worst lead-off hitter in the "lig", perhaps batting first solely because he's on a terrible, terrible team. Get a grip, dude.
August 26th, 2011 at 1:08 am
@81
ok BSK... that video made me laugh out loud. So did Johnny Twisto's follow-up comment (#84).
August 26th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
@86/ Mike Felber says: "... But his shot in Wilkes-Barre PA in '26, postseason barnstorming, was clearly the furthest ever, only one Ruth ever asked measured.."
Mike, the longest home run ever hit was by Ernie Lombardi in Crosley Field - he hit it out of the park and the ball landed in a coal train that went all the way to Florida: total distance traveled, over 900 miles. Take that, Babe Ruth!!
August 26th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
Well that seals it then Lawrence! Lombardi was the best ever.
August 27th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
@89, Chief -- Seeing a baseball cap askew on a big-league ballfield is one of my pet peeves. There's a reason it's called a "uniform"....