4/23 - 5/6 Game Discussion Thread

[Speedy]

Re: 4/23 - 5/6 Game Discussion Thread

Atlanta had a great April and it seems like it will continue...I'm loving how the lineup doesn't rely on one guy to make it go. Markakis is RED HOT while Albies and Dansby start to cool off a bit. It's just up and down 1-9. This is why I would love to see the DH...let's get Preston in on the action too.

I suspect Atlanta to trade for a SP or RP at the deadline...I hope they don't go for a bat or give away a ton of prospects. I think a pitcher like Hamels would be a good fit in Atlanta.

[Sportsforever]

Re: 4/23 - 5/6 Game Discussion Thread

This Atlanta offense...just...insane.

[Speedy]

Re: 4/23 - 5/6 Game Discussion Thread

Meanwhile, Coppy is in baseball exile while his efforts start to come to fruition.

[bkrich83]

Re: 4/23 - 5/6 Game Discussion Thread

I don't even know how it got this one wrong either...it didn't hit anything that shortened it's flight, so it wasn't estimated anything. I watched that highlight expecting to see something incredible and was like...meh, that just looks like a deep homer, but no way it was even 500'.

I said this on twitter. I’ve been to maybe a hundred games there. Watch countless on tv. I’ve never seen a ball hit anywhere near that area before. He almost got it to the concourse. I’ve stood right there. The 500 feet thing isn’t as out of he question as some people who’ve never been there think.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[Watson]

Re: 4/23 - 5/6 Game Discussion Thread

21 runs scored on 41 hits against 2 runs scored on 14 hits.

I will absolutely take that.

I said this on twitter. I’ve been to maybe a hundred games there. Watch countless on tv. I’ve never seen a ball hit anywhere near that area before. He almost got it to the concourse. I’ve stood right there. The 500 feet thing isn’t as out of he question as some people who’ve never been there think.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

Yeah I doubted the number until I saw the shot from the camera out in LF. It had to zoom all the way out to track the ball's landing, and usually those cameras never pull back past about 25%. That convinced me that 500 feet may not be as BS as people think.

[bkrich83]

Re: 4/23 - 5/6 Game Discussion Thread

21 runs scored on 41 hits against 2 runs scored on 14 hits.



I will absolutely take that.







Yeah I doubted the number until I saw the shot from the camera out in LF. It had to zoom all the way out to track the ball's landing, and usually those cameras never pull back past about 25%. That convinced me that 500 feet may not be as BS as people think.

Yeah and I don’t know if it was or wasn’t. But it’s nowhere near as far fetched as some claim.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[Sportsforever]

Re: 4/23 - 5/6 Game Discussion Thread

I said this on twitter. I’ve been to maybe a hundred games there. Watch countless on tv. I’ve never seen a ball hit anywhere near that area before. He almost got it to the concourse. I’ve stood right there. The 500 feet thing isn’t as out of he question as some people who’ve never been there think.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

I hear you...but I watched it again and if it landed where I think it did, it was only around 30 rows back from the field. Let's assume each row is between 3-4'...let's say it was 100' beyond the field. If I saw the dimensions correctly, that part of the field is roughly 350', so we're looking at 450-475...which I'd buy. To be 500' I'd expect it to be up on the concourse or beyond.

[bkrich83]

4/23 - 5/6 Game Discussion Thread

I hear you...but I watched it again and if it landed where I think it did, it was only around 30 rows back from the field. Let's assume each row is between 3-4'...let's say it was 100' beyond the field. If I saw the dimensions correctly, that part of the field is roughly 350', so we're looking at 450-475...which I'd buy. To be 500' I'd expect it to be up on the concourse or beyond.

Like is said. I’ve been right there. How far it went exactly I could not tell you. But 500 feet is not out of the question. That’s a long way from the plate and elevated.

The home run win a house can is like 480 or something and it was at least that deep if not deeper.




Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[19]

Re: 4/23 - 5/6 Game Discussion Thread

Houston bullpen gives another lead away.

[steelerfan]

Re: 4/23 - 5/6 Game Discussion Thread

Houston bullpen gives another lead away.

How's that possible? What with the pine tar and all. [emoji848]

[Blzer]

Re: 4/23 - 5/6 Game Discussion Thread

I hear you...but I watched it again and if it landed where I think it did, it was only around 30 rows back from the field. Let's assume each row is between 3-4'...let's say it was 100' beyond the field. If I saw the dimensions correctly, that part of the field is roughly 350', so we're looking at 450-475...which I'd buy. To be 500' I'd expect it to be up on the concourse or beyond.

Like is said. I’ve been right there. How far it went exactly I could not tell you. But 500 feet is not out of the question. That’s a long way from the plate and elevated.

The home run win a house can is like 480 or something and it was at least that deep if not deeper.

Okay... first of all, you may know that I'm a math teacher and you know that I'm Blzer, so don't call me out too much for what I'm about to post. After all, the people who made Statcast real and do sabermetrics are much bigger nerds than I am to begin with lol.

I did some calculations using the initial velocity of 116.8 MPH, the launch angle of 31 degrees, and the landing spot from home plate of 448 feet, and gave Mike Trout the benefit of the doubt in several ways. For starters:

- I used a quadratic equation simulating gravity on Earth (taking into account a coefficient for the backspin that allowed the ball to reach its landing target), but did not include a coefficient for air drag. This is the big one, and should have reduced the velocity and angle prior to landing tremendously (combining that with the back spin of the ball that would have done the same). I'm also not considering things like the air temperature and wind speed.

- I assumed the contact point with the stands was about 25 feet above ground level of the playing field, which to me is fairly accurate.

- I placed the contact point three feet above the ground, when it appeared closer to maybe 2' (this shouldn't affect things too much though).

Taking all of those things into account, the flight of the ball still would have only gone 493 feet. That is the absolute farthest it could have gone.




My estimation of 470-475 feet is what I am sticking to. And does this matter? Yes. It invalidates Statcast's credibility when it is off by 30-50 feet on a home run. How can we trust it then?

[TripleCrown9]

Re: 4/23 - 5/6 Game Discussion Thread

Lol the dude hit a 500 ft. home run. Why is it so damn important to discredit that? This is why people are starting to hate baseball.

[Blzer]

Re: 4/23 - 5/6 Game Discussion Thread

Lol the dude hit a 500 ft. home run. Why is it so damn important to discredit that?

People on here know I've done it at least twice before.

And no, I gave him the benefit of the doubt in a lot of ways. 480 has to be the max. 524 is so very far off. If we are okay with +/-9% error on home runs, then so be it. That would mean that people who hit 440 foot shots might as well have them called 480 feet, or 402 foot home runs be called 440 feet. It never ends.

The real problem is that this enters my domain. I can't let that kind of thing slide. I'm reading the OT thread and I'm watching the OS members who are officers throwing jargon and laws around left and right like it's their profession... go figure, right? Our favorite baseball numbers in the world are determined by somebody who had enough passion to see it through. I can't believe something like this would be stricken upon so quickly.

I called something 493 feet at best (and that literally means with certainty that it wasn't above it, when realistically it could not have even been that), and then you rounded it up to 500, and felt like that's no big deal when the real tale of the tape according to Statcast was 524 feet. Yeah, there's a big difference there. If a cop pulls me over for going 93 MPH and he says: "That's 100," there is something wrong with that there, no matter whether I was driving recklessly or not.

And no, I'm not discrediting the guy. You can't blame him for Statcast's mistake. Dude hit a bomb, perhaps the longest or second longest all year. I would kill to hit a baseball regularly even 60% of that distance. It just wasn't 524 feet... or 500 feet... or 493 feet. Math wins.

This is why people are starting to hate baseball.

I wasn't even going to respond to any of it until I read this part of the post, though. Sarcastic or not, this doesn't need to be said.

I would like to ignore this comment for many reasons, but mainly because this is about the exact opposite from what baseball has become. Everything in this sport is quantified and calculated, even down to teams computing when is the best rest day to have a player keep his optimal performance. The fans eat it up, too. Everything now is about exit velocity this and distance that.

If you're saying fans are starting to not like baseball because it's not okay to pimp a 480 foot home run as a 524 foot home run, then I don't really know what to say.

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: 4/23 - 5/6 Game Discussion Thread

Okay... first of all, you may know that I'm a math teacher and you know that I'm Blzer, so don't call me out too much for what I'm about to post. After all, the people who made Statcast real and do sabermetrics are much bigger nerds than I am to begin with lol.

I did some calculations using the initial velocity of 116.8 MPH, the launch angle of 31 degrees, and the landing spot from home plate of 448 feet, and gave Mike Trout the benefit of the doubt in several ways. For starters:

- I used a quadratic equation simulating gravity on Earth (taking into account a coefficient for the backspin that allowed the ball to reach its landing target), but did not include a coefficient for air drag. This is the big one, and should have reduced the velocity and angle prior to landing tremendously (combining that with the back spin of the ball that would have done the same). I'm also not considering things like the air temperature and wind speed.

- I assumed the contact point with the stands was about 25 feet above ground level of the playing field, which to me is fairly accurate.

- I placed the contact point three feet above the ground, when it appeared closer to maybe 2' (this shouldn't affect things too much though).

Taking all of those things into account, the flight of the ball still would have only gone 493 feet. That is the absolute farthest it could have gone.




My estimation of 470-475 feet is what I am sticking to. And does this matter? Yes. It invalidates Statcast's credibility when it is off by 30-50 feet on a home run. How can we trust it then?

This is awesome.

[TripleCrown9]

Re: 4/23 - 5/6 Game Discussion Thread

People on here know I've done it at least twice before.

And no, I gave him the benefit of the doubt in a lot of ways. 480 has to be the max. 524 is so very far off. If we are okay with +/-9% error on home runs, then so be it. That would mean that people who hit 440 foot shots might as well have them called 480 feet, or 402 foot home runs be called 440 feet. It never ends.

The real problem is that this enters my domain. I can't let that kind of thing slide. I'm reading the OT thread and I'm watching the OS members who are officers throwing jargon and laws around left and right like it's their profession... go figure, right? Our favorite baseball numbers in the world are determined by somebody who had enough passion to see it through. I can't believe something like this would be stricken upon so quickly.

I called something 493 feet at best (and that literally means with certainty that it wasn't above it, when realistically it could not have even been that), and then you rounded it up to 500, and felt like that's no big deal when the real tale of the tape according to Statcast was 524 feet. Yeah, there's a big difference there. If a cop pulls me over for going 93 MPH and he says: "That's 100," there is something wrong with that there, no matter whether I was driving recklessly or not.

And no, I'm not discrediting the guy. You can't blame him for Statcast's mistake. Dude hit a bomb, perhaps the longest or second longest all year. I would kill to hit a baseball regularly even 60% of that distance. It just wasn't 524 feet... or 500 feet... or 493 feet. Math wins.



I wasn't even going to respond to any of it until I read this part of the post, though. Sarcastic or not, this doesn't need to be said.

I would like to ignore this comment for many reasons, but mainly because this is about the exact opposite from what baseball has become. Everything in this sport is quantified and calculated, even down to teams computing when is the best rest day to have a player keep his optimal performance. The fans eat it up, too. Everything now is about exit velocity this and distance that.

If you're saying fans are starting to not like baseball because it's not okay to pimp a 480 foot home run as a 524 foot home run, then I don't really know what to say.

BK said he's never seen a home run hit to that area before in his experience of HUNDREDS of games seen (whether in person or on TV). I'm sure he's seen enough bombs to know the difference between 470 and 500 feet.

I completely agree that it wasn't 524 feet, but until I see an actual measurement I am 100% convinced it was 500 feet. I don't care how many mathematical formulas you throw at it. If you do, cool. I'm a fan that would rather be in awe at the best baseball player in the world hitting a ball that far, than say "Now wait a minute, let's take a look at some quadratic functions".