Slashdot Mirror


The Physics of Baseball

beatleadam writes "After seeing Randy Johnson of the Arizona Diamondbacks pitch a perfect game (coverage here), I searched Slashdot in the hopes of reading more about what the Slashdot readers thought of this feat of athleticism and science and to learn more about the physics of baseball (More information to be found here and here). As nothing was posted, I submit for your viewing pleasure a "course" in the Physics of Baseball and the subtle science that is pitching."

366 comments

  1. Which? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Which link is most pertinent? Must I follow them all? Must I RATFA?

    1. Re:Which? by DR+SoB · · Score: 2, Funny

      You lazy llama, there are only 12 links in this 1 paragraph article! It helps lessen the /. effect if it's balanced across all those links!!

      --
      Mod +5 Drunk
    2. Re:Which? by Tattva · · Score: 1
      Well, I'm also not interested in going down a bunch of ratholes, he links to mlb, for heavens sake.

      --
      personal attacks hurt, especially when deserved
    3. Re:Which? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I'm personally the most grateful for his link to a google search for "physics of baseball". That's something that I really couldn't have done myself, if it mattered as a pair of dingo's kidneys to me.

    4. Re:Which? by Bazman · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm worried what 'Randy' will link to...

    5. Re:Which? by jeremyp · · Score: 2, Funny

      The link to howstuffworks for seeing was particularly useful for me. I never realised what the round slippery things in the front of my head were for.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
  2. Curt? by SuperChuck69 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Patiently awaiting Curt Schilling's comment... ;)

    --
    :wq
    1. Re:Curt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, too busy playing Everquest.

      Curt.

    2. Re:Curt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I can still kick his character's ass in Everquest!"

      okay, maybe I shouldn't put quotes around that.

  3. Forget baseball. by DR+SoB · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's boring as physics 101 is..

    Instead look at the physics of HOCKEY! Now there is something interesting.. A 250lbs player moving on a surface at 45km/h with almost 0 friction, hitting another 220lbs player into the boards traveling in the opposite direction, cause X joules of energy to be transferred to the glass.. :D

    --
    Mod +5 Drunk
    1. Re:Forget baseball. by Patik · · Score: 0, Redundant

      If it were zero friction the puck would never stop moving and players would have to crash into the wall to stop.

    2. Re:Forget baseball. by mike_mgo · · Score: 5, Informative

      You might be interested then in The Physics of Hockey by Alain Hache. I bought it last year and found it interesting. he covers the basics from skating and stopping, to slapshots, chechs and saves. I think he even covered some of the thermo for making an ice rink.

    3. Re:Forget baseball. by DR+SoB · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well thanks for the insight professor.. I guess you skipped English class though, note the word "almost".. And you're wrong anyways, I was only talking about surface friction in that sentence, there are other types, such as air friction..

      Oh and BTW: The players crash into the wall all the time due to the LOW surface friction.. Man your 1 sentence is wrong on so many levels it's funny..

      --
      Mod +5 Drunk
    4. Re:Forget baseball. by Enigma_Man · · Score: 1

      Well... he said almost 0 friction. But if it were 0 friction, wouldn't the players just slide right on through the ice?

      -Jesse

      --
      Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
    5. Re:Forget baseball. by TopShelf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The most interesting physics phenomenon in hockey has got to be the slapshot. Watch one in slow motion, and you'll see the shooter strike the ice with the blade of his stick several inches before the puck. As the motion continues, the stick bends backwards, building up tension that is released on the follow-through. Together with a wrist-roll that keeps the blade in contact with the puck for a longer period of time, you get a tremendous transfer of energy that launches a 100-mph whirling dervish at the net. The most amazing thing is the aim that top snipers achieve while doing all this.

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    6. Re:Forget baseball. by DR+SoB · · Score: 1

      Pounds. (You're not American are you? Me neither!)

      --
      Mod +5 Drunk
    7. Re:Forget baseball. by espo812 · · Score: 1, Funny
      he covers the basics from skating and stopping, to slapshots, chechs and saves.
      Would that be Czechs (nationality of hockey players) or checks (the next best thing to fights)?
      --

      espo
    8. Re:Forget baseball. by ChuckleBug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is just like what happens every time there's an article about chess - a handful of numbnuts chime in with "chess sucks! Let's talk about GO! It's superior to chess in every way!"

      Why do people find it necessary to shit all over anything they don't like? Maybe submitting a story about the physics of hockey would be more constructive.

    9. Re:Forget baseball. by CodeMonkey4Hire · · Score: 1

      The ice produces a normal force equal to and in the opposite direction of the player's weight. You may have noticed that these forces are perpendicular to the direciton of motion. Friction is always parallel to the direciton of motion.

      I really hope that you were trying to be funny and I just didn't get your joke....

      --

      Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
    10. Re:Forget baseball. by Otter · · Score: 1
      What I wonder about is the notion of a "heavy" shot, that players distinguish from simple velocity. It's not clear to me whether it's simply an illusion, like ground balls "picking up speed off the turf" or Michael Jordan's "hanging in the air", or if there is something distinct about the spin on the puck. Not sufficiently interested to actually play goalie, though.

      The slap shot I find most amazing, by the way, is Sergei Fedorov's. Little wind-up, he barely looks like he's swinging hard, but he somehow generates velocity that's up there with Al MacInnis and Rob Blake. (He even won the Hardest Shot contest a few years ago, IIRC.)

    11. Re:Forget baseball. by Monkelectric · · Score: 1

      If you sandwich 1 player in between the two traveling opposite directions and add some malsicious intent and poor sportsmanship, you have the malachi crunch.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    12. Re:Forget baseball. by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      The only thing I can think of other than velocity to account for a "heavy shot" might be the amount of angular momentum imparted via the contact between the blade and the puck. A good wrist roll during the shot combined with the curve of the blade keeps contact for a longer time, creating more spin.

      Fedorov has a great slapper, which is the result of a lot of off-season work he did a couple years ago. Brett Hull is a fun one to watch, too - he uses a very whippy stick compared to his peers, but still gets plenty of velocity. Another guy who suprises me with how hard he shoots is Mathieu Schneider. Argh, I still can't believe the Wings are out!

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    13. Re:Forget baseball. by Rouven · · Score: 1

      Most of the stuff probably applies to other sports as well. A volleyball is rather light compared to its volume and very susceptible to aerodynamic effects, so you can do all kinds of variations in a serve. I have actually seen people hit "knuckleballs". They weave like crazy and are a pain in the ass to defend, because when you dig, you tend to compensate for a rotating ball. The only problem is, they don't dip, so you have to aim them straight down into the opponents field from a jump serve.

    14. Re:Forget baseball. by brarrr · · Score: 1

      >You might be interested then in The Physics of Hockey by Alain Hache

      At first I saw that to say "Anne Heche" and shuddered. Then I realized that it made sense. Then I shuddered. Then I reread the line and saw I was mistaken. Regardless, my day is starting out poorly.

      --
      to email me: take my /. handle and append .net preceded by charter.
    15. Re:Forget baseball. by Enigma_Man · · Score: 1

      No, I've always wondered about that scientifically. If something had actually 0 friction, then wouldn't the atoms and what-have-you in your body be able to just slip right through it, like it wasn't there? Also, would it just fall towards the nearest gravitational source, because there's nothing able to stop it?

      -Jesse

      --
      Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
    16. Re:Forget baseball. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fedorov has a great slapper, which is the result of a lot of off-season work he did a couple years ago.

      Do you know how amusing that sounds to English ears?

      See http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/s.htm for details.

    17. Re:Forget baseball. by jmt9581 · · Score: 1
      I bought it last year and found it interesting. he covers the basics from skating and stopping, to slapshots, chechs and saves.

      Don't you mean Czechs?

      :)

      --

      My blog

    18. Re:Forget baseball. by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      > What I wonder about is the notion of a "heavy" shot, that players distinguish from simple velocity. It's not clear to me whether it's simply an illusion, like ground balls "picking up speed off the turf"

      No, in fact a baseball DOES pick up speed after hitting the turf, at least if it was hit (or thrown) with top spin. The reason: conservation of angular momentum. The ball is spinning about its center as well as flying thru the air; contact with the ground causes the spin (angular momentum) to act around the contact point, and the net speed of the ball increases.
      Here's a simpler way to see this: hold a wheel with the axis horizontal and get it spinning. Drop it straight down; when it hits the ground it'll roll forward.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    19. Re:Forget baseball. by CodeMonkey4Hire · · Score: 1

      It's not really friction that keeps you from sliding through.

      If you want to get really deep into it, the force that causes the friction and keeps you from bursting through floors, chairs, ice is the electromagnetic. It is the strength of the chemical and molecular bonds that is keeping you on top. You can picture friction by imaging that when you magnify a surface by a large amount, you will see that the surface is irregular (try picturing sandpaper). It is all of these irregularities of the 2 surfaces that are sliding against each other that cause friction (it also explains why static friction can be a larger magnitude than kinetic - the surfaces are kind of stuck together). Some surfaces are much smoother, so they create less friction. There are undoubtedly some other effects going on in metals, etc. as well - things like electric currents and magnetic fields.

      --

      Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
    20. Re:Forget baseball. by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      Well, what do you expect after he got dumped by Anna Kournikova?

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    21. Re:Forget baseball. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he meant "cheques", as in what is the true upper limit we can possibly pay the athletes, while still having at least one fan in attendance.

    22. Re:Forget baseball. by ngoy · · Score: 1

      Warning - ranting and raving below

      I live in AZ, and went to my FIRST Major League sports event in my life last week, Diamondbacks against Expos, in which they lost (last Friday I believe).

      It was kinda sad that they lost (although they lost the whole series to the Expos, so that was pretty pathetic I guess). It was the first game for my wife and two kids also (I am 29).

      My real feelings about baseball? WHO GIVES A %@#$! Pretty much how I feel about all sports, and why I have managed to not go to anything until now (my sister's boyfried is a sportsnut and his company has season tickets, so I got them for free since they were previously engaged).

      Why is all this time wasted on sports? Does it save lives, make the world a better place, increase our knowledge of the universe, what? The stupid stadium cost the Arizona taxpayers around $300 million IIRC, and they won the world series back in 2001. I guess that is some big deal, but who cares? $300 mil could have bought 300,000 computers for classrooms, gone towards operating the county hospitals, funded police officers and fire departments, etc.. but no, we built a stadium. With a retractable roof. Now we are building a football field for the completely pathetic Cardinals, with a retractable field.

      Sports is akin to the Coleseum in Rome. Built to keep the masses occupied so they don't notice the government screwing them over on everything else. Why else does the government fund one endeavor so much more than other more deserving things? Public transportation in AZ sucks, why not more buses and drivers? Oh, I'm sorry, we are building a monorail or some shit like that, spending billions of dollars, SO PEOPLE CAN GET FROM THEIR HOUSE TO THE STADIUMS. Really pathetic.

      My mother-in-law, who bathes once in a great while and only works half the year for H&R Block during tax season, loves the Diamondbacks. While not working for the other six months, she is collecting unemployment, puffing away on cigarettes, stinking up her trailer, and feeling sorry for herself and complaining about her life to hre kids. Which nicely fits in with the stereotypical beer swilling, overweight, white trailer-trash image that is portrayed many times on tv and such. Gosh, how I wish she applied all that energy channeled into watching sports into something like her hygiene, or getting a full time job! Is there a single freaking week that there is not some professional sports game going on to engage people in yet another enormous waste of time? "But they give millions to charity". Hmmm, if the tax writeoff for giving to charities were removed, exactly how generous would they be?

      Well, now you know a little about how I feel about professional sports. Ask me about gun control or the earned income credit sometime.

      --
      --ngoy
    23. Re:Forget baseball. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, how do you feel about gun control or the earned income credit?

    24. Re:Forget baseball. by Hognoxious · · Score: 0
      No, he meant "cheques", as in what is the true upper limit we can possibly pay the athletes
      Or maybe Chechens, who like to cause explosions is Russia. Modern Russia, that is, though I've heard that it used to be the other way round.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  4. Man, you are so behind the times.. by rylin · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    People don't care about your old-style sports like baseball or basketball..
    We want BASEketball! :)

    1. Re:Man, you are so behind the times.. by krumms · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is it just me, or are irrelevant links to IMDB the New Slashdot Thing - right up there with Beowulf clusters and insensitive clods?

      Or has the GNAA changed its focus from poo coated women to just plain ol' shitty movies?

    2. Re:Man, you are so behind the times.. by no+reason+to+be+here · · Score: 1

      Or has the GNAA changed its focus from poo coated women to just plain ol' shitty movies?

      why would the GNAA be interested in women?

      (It's funny. Laugh.)

    3. Re:Man, you are so behind the times.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that movie sucked and so do you

  5. One question by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2, Funny

    Who's on first?

    1. Re:One question by garcia · · Score: 1

      Judge Wapner although he only plays in afternoon games.

    2. Re:One question by Alien+Being · · Score: 2, Funny

      That comment should be modded "informative" ;-)

    3. Re:One question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I don't know's on third.

      here's the whole Abbott & Costello skit

      Baseball Almanac

    4. Re:One question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one, obviously, since it was a perfect game...

    5. Re:One question by post_toastie · · Score: 1

      That would be 'nobody'. It was a perfect game after all.

    6. Re:One question by skiflyer · · Score: 1



      Who, not the pronoun, but rather a player with the unlikely name of who.

      </obligatory simpsons answer>

    7. Re:One question by gangien · · Score: 1

      This game was much like slashdot, no one ever even got to first base.

    8. Re:One question by donutello · · Score: 1

      Who's on first?

      No. Who's on second. What's on first.

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
    9. Re:One question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Who" is on first
      "What" is on second
      "I don't know" is on third
      "Tomorow" is pitching
      "Yesterday" is catching
      "Because", "why" and one other one are in the outfield.
      and "I don't give a darn" is the short stop

  6. Physics? by sv25 · · Score: 0

    Back in the day, we just threw/hit the ball and hoped for the best!

  7. Re:Baseball happens in the real world... by garcia · · Score: 1

    Some "nerds" have interests other than the Physics of Star Wars and the possibility that nanobacteria exists. Nevermind the fact that we might need to know the physics of women.

    Shocker, I know.

  8. oh great by millahtime · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now I can read how they do something I will be never be able to do. Maybe I can impress chicks with teh knowledge of this. Oh, wait...

    1. Re:oh great by shadowcabbit · · Score: 1

      Now I can read how they do something I will be never be able to do. Maybe I can impress chicks with teh knowledge of this. Oh, wait...

      Hey, it worked for the jocks in high school.

      --
      "Why Subscribe?" Good question...
  9. How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    discussing the ECONOMICS of baseball? A breif list of the salaries of the overweight, corn-fed, ball-chuckers oughtta be interesting.

    1. Re:How about... by siffring · · Score: 2, Informative

      I know that was a joke, but if you're really interested, there is a pretty good book discussing the economics of baseball: Moneyball by Michael Lewis

    2. Re:How about... by BizidyDizidy · · Score: 1

      That's more of a book about Michael Lewis's affinity for Billy Beanes Jock

      --
      The safest way to approach lava is to have another person with you and he goes first.
    3. Re:How about... by Big+Nasty · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you don't want to buy a book, Doug Pappas' weblog is a good place to start. He posts a lot of interesting (to some people) articles about the money side of baseball. And if you really want the player salaries look here.

    4. Re:How about... by blackula · · Score: 1, Informative
      Check out sabernomics.

      Not exactly what you were talking about, but pretty neat nonetheless.

    5. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A breif list

      "brief".

  10. Laws of baseball physics by AtariAmarok · · Score: 5, Funny
    Don't forget these:

    "If you build it, he will come".

    The law by which Red Sox and Cubs are repelled by the World Series and especially by the prospect of each other's presence in it.

    The Goat Rule

    The Curse of the Bambino

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:Laws of baseball physics by Zerbey · · Score: 0, Troll

      The law by which Red Sox and Cubs are repelled by the World Series and especially by the prospect of each other's presence in it.

      The Red Sox, at least claim that they have broken the curse by destroying (in spectacular fashion) the offending ball that ruined their World Series chances last year.

      I'm still hedging my bets on a Yankees win this year, though.

    2. Re:Laws of baseball physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Red Sox, at least claim that they have broken the curse by destroying (in spectacular fashion) the offending ball that ruined their World Series chances last year.

      It was the Cubs that destroyed the baseball. Not the Red Sox.

      And it really wasn't to destory the original curse, which involved a man who cursed the Cubs when they would not allow him in the stadium with his goat.

      I like to think of the destruction of the Bartman ball as a preventive measure to avoid a second curse.

      Also, recently they sprinkled a womans ashes over the Bartman seat because it was her last wishes.

    3. Re:Laws of baseball physics by coyote_oww · · Score: 1
      The Red Sox, at least claim that they have broken the curse by destroying (in spectacular fashion) the offending ball that ruined their World Series chances last year.

      That was the Cubs. They blew up the foul ball that fan Bartman caught, preventing Alou from (possibly) making the catch.

      I think the Cubs still have a goat to deal with though.

      The Red Sox have done nothing, and are therefore still screwed - witness the A-Rod deal. The Yankees _may_ win, or not, but the Red Sox cannot. It just fate, man. Someone has to be the forever loser. Boston drew the black marble.

    4. Re:Laws of baseball physics by Galvatron · · Score: 1

      Isn't the Goat Rule the reason the Cubs can't win, and the Curse of the Bambino the reason the Red Sox can't win? So you've got those up twice.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
  11. You mean *half* the physics of baseball by Patik · · Score: 3, Funny

    Since it was a perfect game, it was missing the trajectory (batting) half.

    1. Re:You mean *half* the physics of baseball by no+soup+for+you · · Score: 4, Informative
      ... was missing the trajectory (batting) half.

      Actually, there was a lot of trajectory -- in perfect games the fielders are as much to congratulate as the pitcher. There are 27 outs in a game if you pitch the 9th inning. He did not have 27 strike outs; there was a majority of outs made by the batters hitting the ball

      --
      If you blog it...
    2. Re:You mean *half* the physics of baseball by CFTM · · Score: 1

      I would agree that the other eight fielders play a huge role in a perfect game, but most perfect games occur because the pitcher is on his game so well that the fielders need to make routine outs. That being said it is a nine man effort, not a one man effort ...

    3. Re:You mean *half* the physics of baseball by ElGuapoGolf · · Score: 1

      I'd agree and disagree.

      Imagine if the infield had Desi Relaford and Marlon Andersen (no offense, I think Marlon's a really nice guy), and Jason Giambia playing SS/2B/1B. Your chances of a perfect game with those infielders just disappeared.

      Conversely, if you had players like Rolen, someone simlilar to Brogna in his prime, and a Ordonez quality defensive shortstop, you'd have a better chance.

      Just my .02

    4. Re:You mean *half* the physics of baseball by joeytmann · · Score: 1

      I agree...sort of. When a pitcher is on his game he is basically controlling the hits to be grounders/flyballs..etc. Those plays are routine and should be made...even by the local high school team. Also remember a perfect game is no walks, or hits. The pitcher deserves all the credit they get...to maintain that level of control while throwing balls upwards of 100MPH over 100 times in a game is...well I can't think of a better phrase than amazing.

      --
      Insert funny smart-ass comment here.
    5. Re:You mean *half* the physics of baseball by hchaos · · Score: 1
      He did not have 27 strike outs; there was a majority of outs made by the batters hitting the ball
      To be precise, there were 13 strikeouts and 14 outs made by the fielders in this particular perfect game.
    6. Re:You mean *half* the physics of baseball by crashnbur · · Score: 1

      Even with 27 strikeouts, the catcher would have to catch 27 third strikes, not to mention the trajectories of each pitch and of each swing allowing 27 consecutive outs by the Arizona defense.

  12. Extra reading by gowen · · Score: 3, Informative
    Try Robert Adair's seminal "The Physics Of Baseball". A really good read (and it got him appointed "Physicist to the National League") Oh and someone who can write that
    Air pushed aside by the curve on top has to move fast to meet up with the air moving along the bottom
    has no business teaching physics to anyone? Why would the air race to meet up with its previous neighbour at the other side. Do they have a hot date, or something.
    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    1. Re:Extra reading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The air has to meet on the othere side it's Bernoli's Principle. How do you think airplanes work??? The air on the top of the wing has to move faster to meet the air on the bottom. This creates a low pressure above the wing that creats lift.

    2. Re:Extra reading by gr8_phk · · Score: 1
      I've seen that race used to describe how airplane wings work too. Followed by: the faster air on the top surface produces a lower pressure (bernouli) than the slower air on the bottom - this difference produces lift. Never mind that air is deflected downward and hence there is an equal and opposite force on the wing.

      I've also seen physics teachers try to explain curve balls this way: The relative air-speed on the top and bottom (with back spin) are different and this causes a pressure difference which causes a perpendicular force on the ball causing it to curve (climb). The problem there is that the claimed force would cause a curve in the opposite direction from what actually happens - i.e. backspin actually causes the ball to climb. but the airspeed on top is lower which should produce higher pressure than on the bottom.

      It's rare to see these explained correctly.

    3. Re:Extra reading by gowen · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think airplane's work due the fact that boundary layers and the trailing edges shed wing vortices. Bernoulli's principle (aka the "principle of equal transit times"), which holds only in inviscid fluids (and thus utterly invalid in the presence of a boundary layer), is a convenient lie, told to people who don't have enough maths to understand the real reason.
      Here is a pretty good explanation of the real reasons planes fly.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    4. Re:Extra reading by CodeMonkey4Hire · · Score: 1

      He is trying to describe how the low pressure caused by the Bernoulli's principle causes the baseball to curve. Sometimes you have to make your explanation less technical in order to reach a broader audience.

      Besides, what is wrong with taking the perspective that the observer is the baseball? How many physics courses have you taken/taught? You can't tel me you have never seen this in examples or problems (especially relativity).

      --

      Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
    5. Re:Extra reading by gowen · · Score: 1
      How many physics courses have you taken/taught?
      Well, I've a doctorate in applied maths; work in computational fluid dynamics and have lectured on chaos theory, differential equations and statistical mechanics.

      Planes do not fly because of Bernoulli's principle (its boundary layer effects and wing vortices)
      Curve balls do not curve because of Bernoulli's principle (its the Magnus effect, which is related to Bernoullis, but requires viscosity)
      Knuckleballs do not flutter because of Bernoulli's principle, (its due to the turbulent wake and the asymmetric shedding of vortices because of the orientation of the seams.)
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    6. Re:Extra reading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      have mod points so I'll post anonymously

      Think of it this way -

      A ball is kind of aerodynamic - you might not picture it as well

      Instead think of big vertical barn door placed vertically in a lake. Push the door in the least streamlined way possible, with the face of the door against the water. If you push fast enough you create a hole in the water behind the direction of the door.

      The water rushes to fill the hole. And regarding the "hot date", the thermal energy of the displaced water permits it to be fluid and thus respond to the pressure of the surrounding water. If you have really cold water, the situation turns into a snowplow pushing piles of snow that don't tend to rush around the plow and fill in behind. That's why people don't build roads through lakes, as they can't be plowed out.

    7. Re:Extra reading by CodeMonkey4Hire · · Score: 1

      Maybe you could describe the physics of a curveball for us. In order to not criticize yourself, you will need to be technically correct, but in order for me to not criticize you, it will need to be understandable to an average baseball fan.

      (I'm only trying to be 10% antagonistic. Part of me wants to give you a chance to strengthen your original argument. Another part wants to know more about the Magnux effect without googling or going to wikipedia.)

      --

      Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
    8. Re:Extra reading by kmac06 · · Score: 1
      Bernoulli's principle (aka the "principle of equal transit times"), which holds only in inviscid fluids (and thus utterly invalid in the presence of a boundary layer), is a convenient lie, told to people who don't have enough maths to understand the real reason.

      No, that's not correct. Bernoulli's principle IS partially the reason an airplane stays in the air, although I agree that the "principle of equal transit times" does not apply. The principle of fluids travelling faster leads to lower pressure is correct, and applys even if the air above and below the wing does not 'meet up' at the end of the wing (although you can't use the same formula obviously). The downwash, as the article you quoted states, is associated with (and proportional to) lift, but the interpretation of the article is not fully correct in what is causing what. For every force (Bernoulli's due to a pressure difference), there is an equal and opposite force (the downwash), not the other way around.

      Another way of thinking about it is how the air can possible exert any force onto the wing. Imagine having a way of viewing what the pressure is at every point of the surface of the wing. The only way for there to be a net force on the wing is for surface integral of P*A is negative (remember surface integrals? you know, the most evil sort of integral possible?). Part of this pressure is certainly from deflecting some air, but part of it is certainly due to Bernoulli's as well.

      There are scientists in the field of fluid dynamics that dispute how much of an airplane's lift is a result of Bernoulli's principle versus something else. It's something that is still not fully resolved.

    9. Re:Extra reading by gowen · · Score: 1
      Bernoulli's principle is a theorem of inviscid flow.

      The aerodynamic lift felt by a wing are modulated by, and to a certain is consequence of, Prandtl boundary layers. Sure, they're related (away from the boundary layers, the flow is almost inviscid), and the pressure drop will be a contributory factor, but the experiments I've seen, in a Hall cell, suggest that purely inviscid lift is not enough.

      But, anyway, thats not entirely relevant, since in the original article on knuckleballs they *explicitly* refer to equal transit times, which is utter rubbish.

      Additionally, for knuckleballs (as distinct from rapidly rotating pitches) the alignment of the seams, and the turbulent wake are the what determine the wake, and thats essentially chaotic. Which is why Bob Uecker said
      "The best way to catch the knuckleball is to wait for it to stop rolling, then pick it"
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    10. Re:Extra reading by kmac06 · · Score: 1
      Bernoulli's principle is a theorem of inviscid flow.

      OK, I guess I meant the principle of pressure difference due to speed in a fluid, not exactly Bernoulli's.

      Sure, they're related (away from the boundary layers, the flow is almost inviscid), and the pressure drop will be a contributory factor, but the experiments I've seen, in a Hall cell, suggest that purely inviscid lift is not enough.

      I wasn't suggesting that the force resulting from a Bernoulli-like pressure difference is all that holds a plane up, but merely that it does contribute.

    11. Re:Extra reading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why people don't build roads through lakes, as they can't be plowed out.

      Well, that explains that. :)

    12. Re:Extra reading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A curveball has mostly topspin and mostly drops, so that is probably you confusion.

  13. Red Sox Fan by _PimpDaddy7_ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ask any Red Sox fan about baseball, they will tell you laws of physics do not apply as the Bambino curse is the ONLY law in the land of Boston Red Sox :)

    As a sidenote, watch the movie Still We Believe for an inside view of how Boston fans related to the Boston Red Sox.

    And the only people who can really relate to us are Chicago Cubs fans.

    1. Re:Red Sox Fan by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Ask any Red Sox fan about baseball, they will tell you laws of physics do not apply as the Bambino curse is the ONLY law in the land of Boston Red Sox :)

      Hey now, as a disgruntled/disillusioned Mets fan (the first rule of being a Mets or Red Sox fan is that you hate the Yankees) I was rooting for you guys (and pissing a lot of people off at the local sports bar) during the ALCS. If I had an American League team it would probably be the Sox. I share some of your heartbreak.

      Sorry about 1986 though.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Red Sox Fan by therealcaf · · Score: 1

      Although, the Cubs may have it worse then us. We have atleast been to the world series.

      --

      -caf
    3. Re:Red Sox Fan by therealcaf · · Score: 1

      Sorry about 1986 though.
      haha, thanks. consider yourself forgiven.

      --

      -caf
    4. Re:Red Sox Fan by jocknerd · · Score: 1

      The question is "Is it better to almost never be a contender or to be a contender and constantly come up short?"

    5. Re:Red Sox Fan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real Red Sox fans hate the stupid Still We Believe movie. We also don't believe in curses.

      Hollywood please take notice: Still We Believe has people with AUTHENTIC BOSTON ACCENTS. Next time you wanna make a movie that takes place in/around Boston (like The Perfect Storm), please, for the love of $deity, GET THE ACCENTS RIGHT! The only actors I've ever heard get the accent right are Dennis Leary, Marky Mark, and Walter Brennan (all Massachusetts natives).

    6. Re:Red Sox Fan by CFTM · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I am so sick of listening to your Red Sox Fans and Cubs Fans bitch about your stupid "curses". Cleveland hasn't won a title in ANYTHING in fifty years, baseball/basketball/football/hockey [yeah I know no pro team anymore but when I was a wee lad we had one] and you don't hear us bitching. Quit your whining :-p

    7. Re:Red Sox Fan by bogie · · Score: 1

      Ask The Buffalo Bills. Four Super Bowls in a row and Four losses.

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    8. Re:Red Sox Fan by direwolf+puppy · · Score: 1

      The Red Sox won the series in 1917, but Chicago has TWO teams that haven't won it since 1918 (the White Sox in 1918 & the Cubs in 1907?). Almost exactly the same time frame, but twice the opportunities.

      Imagine how frustrating it is to have 2 choices of a team to back, and know both of them are wrong.

      --


      You rush a Miracle Man, you get rotten miracles - Miracle Max, TPB
    9. Re:Red Sox Fan by paiute · · Score: 1

      The only curse is bad ownership. Really, Yawkey was a racist incompetent who cost the Sox untold championships.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    10. Re:Red Sox Fan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the only people who can really relate to us are Chicago Cubs fans.

      Not true. Cub fans, by and large, don't give a fuck if their team wins or not. You guys, do.

      Cardinal Fan.

    11. Re:Red Sox Fan by BostonRob · · Score: 1

      As a Sox fan (check out who is posting this!) I can verify this statement. Every year is the year...and still we wait. Remember kids, celebrate while you can! You never know when they will win again...Grandma was 6 the last time they won and now she's 91!

      --
      Big Dig-ing until the money is gone...
    12. Re:Red Sox Fan by Snowdog668 · · Score: 1

      That's what I was going to bring up. I don't know a lot of people who go to the Cubs games to actually watch the game. Wrigley Field is just one big bar/social event that happens to have a game going on. White Sox fans, on the other hand are a whole other breed. I work in my company's Chicago office. A bunch of the damn fools are driving up to Minnesota this weekend because we also have an office in "Twinkie territory" as they're calling it. I've never seen a group of Cub fans making a road trip, at least not since college.

      --
      I wouldn't say I'm a bad gambler but the last time I went to Vegas I even lost a buck on the soda machine.
    13. Re:Red Sox Fan by admiralh · · Score: 1

      Here's the list of Cleveland's major league franchises, and their mostly sorry history.

      NFL - Cleveland Browns - Dominated 1950's NFL, winning 5 or 6 championships. Last championship 1964. No championship appearances since (The Drive, The Fumble, The Franchise Shift).

      MLB - Cleveland Indians - Last championship in 1948. Lost World Series in 1954 (Willie Mays), 1995 (Dave Justice and National League strike zones), and 1997 (Jose Mesa'a choke job. I don't blame Nagy).

      NBA - Cleveland Cavaliers - No championships since league entry in 1970(?). No Title series appearences either (Michael Jordan and The Shot stole the best chance, and Jim Chones's foot injury ended The Miracle of Richfield run).

      NHL - Cleveland Barons (1976-8). No championships. Formerly the California Golden Seals. Pathetic team that couldn't make the playoffs when 4 out of 5 teams in the division made the playoffs. Failed to pay players for a while and then merged with the (then) Minnesota North Stars.

      WHA - Cleveland Crusaders (1972-6) - No championships. Replaced Cleveland's longtime AHL franchise. Decent franchise, but lust for an NHL team and the disastrous move of home areana to the Richfield Coliseum killed the franchise, else it probably would have joined the NHL when the WHA folded. Moved to Minneapolis after 75-76 season.

      Cleveland had simply had the most pathetic set of professional sports teams for the last 40 years. To counter the previous post, yes, we do whine, but since Boston's much more important to the East Cost media, you never hear about it.

      Of couse I moved to St. Louis in 1988. The Cardinals last series was 1987. I fail to see a correlation.

      --
      Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
    14. Re:Red Sox Fan by Shant3030 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Red Sox suck

      - Yankee fan

      btw... its not a rivalry when one team is 26-0

      --
      100% Insightful
    15. Re:Red Sox Fan by Galvatron · · Score: 2, Interesting
      (the first rule of being a Mets or Red Sox fan is that you hate the Yankees)

      This kind of thing has always made me wonder why Giants and A's fans have such an amiable relationship.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    16. Re:Red Sox Fan by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      This kind of thing has always made me wonder why Giants and A's fans have such an amiable relationship.

      Because the West Coast doesn't take baseball (or sports in general?) as seriously as the East Coast?

      It's not just the Yankees/Red Sox or Yankees/Mets rivalries. You also have Cubs/Cardinals, Cubs/White Sox and (to a lesser extent nowadays -- but it was fun while it lasted) Braves/Mets. East Coast teams usually seem to have a bigger following and more devoted fans -- at least in my experience.

      Though I'd be remiss if I didn't point out the Dodgers/Giants rivalry. It still doesn't compare to East Coast baseball imho.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    17. Re:Red Sox Fan by Galvatron · · Score: 1

      The Dodgers/Giants "rivalry" really isn't. It's just a manifestation of the inferiority complex that San Francisco has relative to LA. Ask anyone in LA and they are unaware that any such rivalry actually exists. But yeah, maybe it's an east/west coast thing. Maybe the better weather has us less on edge :)

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    18. Re:Red Sox Fan by pyrrhonist · · Score: 1
      As a sidenote, watch the movie Still We Believe for an inside view of how Boston fans related to the Boston Red Sox.

      I just saw that movie, and I have to say that this was the first time I have ever laughed that hard in a theater. Everyone in the theater was equally amused. If you're not from Massachusetts, you probably won't think it's quite that funny, but it is still a well done documentary.

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
    19. Re:Red Sox Fan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost right. The Red Sox last won it in 1918 (come on, doesn't *everyone* know Yankees fans' derisive "19-18" chant?), the White Sox in 1917, the Cubs in 1908.

      I'm a diehard Red Sox fan but I gotta feel for the White Sox. Red Sox Nation's suffering is legendary and so is the Cubs' losing streak, but the Cubs also get to wear the mantle of the Lovable Losers, a la the Bad News Bears. But what do the White Sox have? Second billing to everyone's favorite almost-also-ran, and a longer losing streak than even the Red Sox. God bless ye White Sox fans.

      By the way, even though last year's playoffs were *almost* one for the ages (3 of 4 of the all-time classic teams making the playoffs) I kinda think there would be a bit of tragedy in the Cubs' winning it now. Everyone around the world knows about the Cubs; it's evolved into part of our national psyche. Hurrah for the Cubs when they win it again but I'll pause a moment for a generational loss of one of baseball's more hallowed traditions.

    20. Re:Red Sox Fan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And bad management. Getting rid of Roger Clemens will go down as Dan Duquette's worst decision ever.

      The guy's a six-time Cy Young winner! As far as having retired already, he's on his way to a few more years of dominance now in the NL, already off to a 7th CY-chasing 7-1 start. Not bad for a geezer of 41. Don't get me wrong, Pedro's great, but the Rocket has to be the best of the past 20-30 years.

    21. Re:Red Sox Fan by belphegore · · Score: 1

      Because the As are from Phillidelphia, and the Giants from from New York, of course. They've only been across the bay bridge from each other for a relatively short period of time.

  14. Accelerating by WhatsAProGingrass · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In one of the many links.
    "The ball is still traveling along an almost straight line, and it may even still be accelerating."

    Now I understand that when a ball slows down, its accelerating in a negative direction (Depending on your view I guess). But i'm pretty sure they are talking about the ball going faster and faster as it travels. With my limitied knowledge of physics, I don't see how a ball can just accelerate with no force applied to it.

    --
    Mark
    1. Re:Accelerating by calebb · · Score: 4, Informative

      For an object to accelerate, it's 'speed' does not need to change... only it's velocity needs to change! Velocity is a vector quantity, so it has both a direction and a rate of motion attached to it.

      Therefore, an object can be moving at a constant speed, but as long as it's 'direction' is changing, it is accelerating.

      So a satellite that's orbiting the earth at a constant speed, is constantly accelerating since it's direction is constantly changing.

      Caleb

    2. Re:Accelerating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      With my limitied knowledge of physics, I don't see how a ball can just accelerate with no force applied to it.
      Gravity. If I toss a rock slowly and horizontally, its speed will be increasing all the time until it hits the ground.
    3. Re:Accelerating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while what you posted is absolutely correct, i don't think that's what's meant in the original sentence.

      when someone in not so technical area talks about acceleration, it's almost universally meant to say speed is increasing. it's not precise and it's not correct, but it's the way the word is commonly used.

      in the original sentence, i think the tone is such that the author meant to suggest that the speed is increasing. which, of course, is unphysical as you and others have pointed out.

    4. Re:Accelerating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but the author implies linear acceleration, which is incorrect.

    5. Re:Accelerating by CodeMonkey4Hire · · Score: 1

      His word choice was a little poor in that sentence. I'm sure he knows what he's talking about, and didn't mean to imply that it could possible be speeding up.

      The baseball gets most of its energy from the impulse caused by the bat striking it (it may keep some from the initial pitch). After that, the baseball is being slowed down by air resistance and its speed will be decreased by gravity as it climbs, but after it reaches its maximum height, gravity will start to speed it up again. However, since he was talking about line drives, I don't think that either of these make a very important difference to its speed.

      He would have been better off with only the first half. All he did was confuse the issue.

      --

      Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
    6. Re:Accelerating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes,we know, but the author did say it was travelling in a "straight line", not in an earth orbit.

    7. Re:Accelerating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. But, the author said the ball was accelerating travelling in a "straight line" and implied that the acceleration is in the direction of this "straight line", which gravity would not be.

    8. Re:Accelerating by Deaden · · Score: 0

      Not being a physics guy I could be wrong, but why couldn't it still be accelerating from the bat hit? It takes time for it to reach top speed does it not? If I hit a ball, it is not going full speed the moment of contact, or am I wrong?

    9. Re:Accelerating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said "almost straight", and didn't imply that acceleration is in that direction at all. (Though you may have inferred that).

    10. Re:Accelerating by calebb · · Score: 1

      > Yes,we know, but the author did say it was travelling in a "straight line", not in an earth orbit.

      True, but due to gravity, nothing travels in a 'straight line...' (Even if you're looking at the instantaneous velocity, i.e., the tangent line to the arc - that's not a straight line - it's just a point)

      So, as the ball is travelling, it is definitely accelerating in a couple ways: It's vertical (downward) speed is increasing and it's direction is changing (both due to gravity).

      However, if the author was saying that the ball's horizontal speed was increasing, then obviously we would all disagree with him - without an on-ball propulsion system or a really strong wind (heh), a baseball cannot 'speed up.' Actually, now that I think about it, the moment you hit a baseball, the ball momentarily compresses - could it's decompression (which happens in the milliseconds after it loses contact with the bat) cause it's 'speed' to increase?

    11. Re:Accelerating by WhatsAProGingrass · · Score: 1

      "Actually, now that I think about it, the moment you hit a baseball, the ball momentarily compresses - could it's decompression (which happens in the milliseconds after it loses contact with the bat) cause it's 'speed' to increase?"

      Never thought of the compression, but the author also said it could be accelerating when the person catches the ball, and I doubt that the person that catches the ball is nanoseconds away or however long it takes to decompress.
      wee need this in order to make our games more realistic.

      --
      Mark
    12. Re:Accelerating by jazeeb · · Score: 1

      I think the answer to this is to consider conservation of momentum, ie: change in momentum = Force.
      After the ball has left the bat, (and still compressed) the only external forces acting on the ball is gravity and air resistance. The ball will not accelerate in the horizontal direction due to the effect of compression/decompression because there is no external horizontal force acting on it.
      The decompression will make the ball undulate like a water droplet in space, but not change it's velocity.
      Air resistance will change based on the shape of the ball, but that is another matter.

  15. Re:A perfect game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Technically, it would be 27 pitches. 3 batters per inning, 1 pitch per batter. So long as each person swings at the first pitch, and either pops up or grounds out.

  16. Re:A perfect game? by BoomerSooner · · Score: 4, Informative

    Perfect game means no one reached base. You could actually pitch a perfect game in 27 pitches, all first pitch hits. This is why pitch count doesn't matter.

  17. Knuckleballers by kalidasa · · Score: 5, Informative

    Less on the physics than the effects of that physics, from the New Yorker last week; here's a general audience article on knuckleball physics, an interview with Robert K. Adair, and finally, another physicist, Joel Hollander, who works on baseball: if you look at the master's theses list, you'll see one on the physics of pitching.

    1. Re:Knuckleballers by gowen · · Score: 1

      Nice Adair article. I like the fact his notional player plays for the Mammoths, presumably with Henry 'Author' Wiggen, 'Sad' Sam Yale, the late Bruce Pearson et al.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  18. a book by elrod · · Score: 2, Informative

    Robert K. Adair's book "The Physics of Baseball" is a good source of information on this. Both the physics-geek and physics-neophyte can find interesting tidbits in it.

  19. Baseball and nerds? by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1

    Has anyone else here read the old "Brains Benton" series of juvenile mysteries? Sort of like "Hardy Boys" and "The 3 Investigators", but vastly superior to the former. Brains Benton himself is a prototype stereotypical nerd genius (in a pre-computer era), except that he is good at baseball.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:Baseball and nerds? by XanC · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think I read some of those. Is that the one with a girl who's a ventriloquist too? Those were fun.

  20. How to catch a fly ball by kidgenius · · Score: 4, Informative

    I read a newspaper article once about how outfielders catch fly-balls. Basically, the ball follows an arc in the air. It's parabolic (which is fairly obvious). The way a fielder judges how far or back they need to be to catch the ball is what is interesting. The fielder will move so the ball will always appear to stay in one spot (and just get larger), even while it is on its descent. As long as this apparent motion is kept, the ball should go right into the glove. If the ball appears to move down, the fielder must move forward. If the ball appears to move up, then the fielder needs to go back. If the fielder sees any curve to the path, then he/she needs to move to the sides to "straighten" out the path. A really interesting read, wish I could find a URL w/ it.

    1. Re:How to catch a fly ball by Jonny+Royale · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://www.public.asu.edu/~mmcbeath/mcbeath.resear ch/CatchFly/CatchFly.html

      or

      http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_10_14_02.ht ml

    2. Re:How to catch a fly ball by Kaliken · · Score: 1

      as I have taken this from prior experience this isn't quite complete as of the the most difficult balls to judge are the ones hit right to you. The reason for this is that lack of ability to determine the parabolic arc and the approximate location to position oneself. This is why sometimes you see a pro player take a step in only to realize that the ball will sail over his head. The ability to see the arc in perspctive is huge in the determining where the ball will land.

    3. Re:How to catch a fly ball by Inda · · Score: 1

      So basically: Keep your eye on the ball and stick that huge glove in the way. It's not rocket science.

      Catching a harder, heavier ball, from a larger distance using your bare hands is far more impressive. Cricket is what I'm talking about.

      I know I always sound like a troll but it's the mods that need kicking most of the time.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    4. Re:How to catch a fly ball by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      Allow me to sum up:

      "Place yourself under the ball."

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    5. Re:How to catch a fly ball by davidescott · · Score: 1

      Original article in science: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7725104&dopt=Abstract However google for "catching a fly ball" brings up an explanation as the first listing. Can't say it is the best explanation. I think the article you are refering to was either in the Times and therefore unavailable or was in SciAm although I can't find it. An ABC article has more to say http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s42501.ht m Practically everybody has thrown and caught some kind of a ball. Balls are essential to so many sports - but the weird thing is, we still don't understand exactly how we catch a ball. Once a ball has been launched, any physicist can solve the equations that will predict exactly where the ball will land. But in a game of baseball, once we hear the crack of the ball on the bat, we don't sit down and start solving a few differential equations - no, we immediately start moving on a path that takes us to where the ball will land. How do we do it? Well, according to one of the scientists who has tried to solve this deceptively-simple problem, catching a ball involves "physics, engineering control theory, physiology, kinaesthesiology, ethology, perception, and the study of expertise" - and I reckon the list could go on longer. Scientists have been trying to solve this problem for a long time. Some of them have been looking to the World of Nature for solutions. For example, the teleost fish catches its dinner by keeping constant the angle between its direction of travel, and its dinner. This method is actually used in air-to-air missiles, but works only when the chaser can move quite a bit faster that its target. The housefly is a bit more sophisticated. It actually varies the angle between its direction of travel and its target according to how fast it's going, and how sharp a curve it's flying through. But getting back to humans catching a ball, back in 1968, Seville Chapman from the Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory Inc. in Buffalo, New York proposed his particular theory. He claimed that somebody trying to catch a ball would move in such a way that the image of the ball on their retina would appear to go straight up, and at a constant rate. The trouble with this theory is that in real life, somebody trying to catch a ball will move a few steps off to one side, to get a slightly side-on view of the ball. Scientists didn't try too hard to solve this problem, because even if they didn't really understand how we catch a ball, sportspeople still caught balls perfectly well. But in the early 1990s, NASA realised that they didn't know what was really going on when an astronaut tried to dock the multi-billion dollar Space Shuttle onto a satellite or Space Station. So NASA funded two psychologists from Kent State University in Ohio, Michael McBeath and Dennis Shaffer, and Mary Kaiser from NASA's Ames Research Center in California to look into this little problem - but from the angle of trying to catch a ball. The maths is pretty complicated, but in plain English, they reckoned that the catcher would run in a curving path, trying to keep the "apparent" path of the ball, a straight line. They published their report in 1995, and soon, lots of other scientists started disagreeing with them. For example, Robert K. Adair from the Physics Department at Yale University pointed out that their strategy gave the catcher an infinite number of solutions - which was probably more than the catcher needed. Lewis A. Chodosh from the Department of Molecular and Cellular Engineering at the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center and the Jansport HBs Baseball Club pointed out that many expert catchers in baseball simply didn't follow the mathematical strategy proposed by the NASA-funded scientists. Soon after, Nicholas Hatsopoulos from the Biology Division at the California Institute of Technology at Pasadena, threw some different maths into the mix. He worked out that a locust in a swarm avoided collisions

    6. Re:How to catch a fly ball by CodeMonkey4Hire · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's not quite parabolic, but close. If there was no air, it would be parabolic, but the air resistance creates complications to such a degree that you can't* even exactly solve for the path of the ball. You need to compute it numerically.

      * - I culd be wrong. But if you can solve for it, it's not easy. It doesn't yield such a nice shape either.

      --

      Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
    7. Re:How to catch a fly ball by Q+Who · · Score: 1

      No.

    8. Re:How to catch a fly ball by ImpTech · · Score: 1

      Makes sense. Thats the same basic metric you use to determine if you're on a collision course while boating. Of course, the goal in that case is usually to make sure the other boat *doesn't* always appear in the same spot.

    9. Re:How to catch a fly ball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    10. Re:How to catch a fly ball by ChrisCampbell47 · · Score: 1
      > The reason for this is that lack of ability to
      > determine the parabolic arc and the approximate
      > location to position oneself.

      You have perfectly missed the point of the explanation.

      The visual tracking model allows the player to focus exclusively on his relationship with the ball, not on predicting where it will land.

      RTFA. It's actually really interesting, what with all the Greek symbols and such.

    11. Re:How to catch a fly ball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, nimrod. Where were you when I was 7 years old???

      I still get the shakes when I see a little league game.

    12. Re:How to catch a fly ball by bakeman · · Score: 1

      True, unless there is a runner trying to tag.

      The outfielder will then adjust by stepping back as much as 20 feet. The ball will appear to land ~15 feet short in front of the player. Then just as the ball is ending it's downward curve, he will sprint toward the ball throw in one motion.

      The reason this is done is that by the time the ball is released out of the players hand, he will already be a few feet closer to the infield; thus giving him an advantage.

      This motion takes pratice to make perfect, because the player needs to time the stepping of his feet with the windmill motion of the throw. Kinda like a long-jumper.

      Any Major League centerfielder should have this mastered. Watch Steve Finley of the Arizona Diamondbacks. His motion is near flawless.

    13. Re:How to catch a fly ball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

    14. Re:How to catch a fly ball by BigBadBri · · Score: 1
      Larger distance?

      Do you have especially huge cricket grounds where you come from? I can throw a cricket ball around 100 yards (300 feet for the USians) fairly accurately, and could always reach the wicket from 3rd man, no matter which ground I played at. Baseball grounds, OTOH, are regularly 130 yards from home plate to the boundary - an extra 100 feet or so.

      And the idea of trying to catch a ball with one of those silly mitts on fills me with horror.

      Good slip fielding is impressive - fielding in the deep is comparatively easy.

      --
      oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
    15. Re:How to catch a fly ball by Ossur · · Score: 1

      Not to nitpick, but the reason for the forward momentum is not to put the player a few feet closer to the infield. It's so he can use it to throw the ball harder/faster.

    16. Re:How to catch a fly ball by bakeman · · Score: 1

      Not a nitpick, but an obvious overlook on my side.

      Yes, that does make sense. Because of the already created momentum by the short sprint or hop, the player is able to pass this momentum to the ball. Thus it moves faster earlier.

      But a player can create this momentum before or after the catch (though after is a waste of time). I was just trying state that there is an advantage of doing it in a before in a single motion, rather than just catching it straight-up then creating momentum through a short-hop or a skip. And ultimately that a player does not always follow the ball like the kidgenious mentioned.

      In fact, I -think- most players do not follow the ball. But rather, they step back and predict where it will land based on little more than instinct, and then they move toward the ball at the last second. This is Baseball 101. It is taught early on that it is more important to let a ball drop in front of you than to let a ball fly over your head. The same logic goes for ground balls. Instead of always knowing where or how the ball will bounce, the player will put a knee down and/or angle his body to create a wall as to stop the ball if it does roll or bounce in the wrong direction. A ball though the legs is very embarrassing (just ask Bill Buckner).

    17. Re:How to catch a fly ball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a ridiculous post. Some more retarded "insight" from a date-less loser.

    18. Re:How to catch a fly ball by Foolishwit · · Score: 1

      You're right, it's not quite parabolic. That's why, in the flash simulator found here:
      http://www.exploratorium.edu/baseball/scientificsl ugger.html
      the optimum angle for distance is 35 degrees, not 45. The natural backspin on the ball imparted by hitting the top half of the bat causes the lopsided-ness of the arc.
      Fun stuff.

    19. Re:How to catch a fly ball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is also approximately how a pilot determines if he is on the correct glide path to land the plane "on the numbers" -- that is, at the end of the runway, instead of halfway down it or, worse, before the pavement starts. If the numbers (the runway designator) are moving up in your field of vision, your glide path is too steep and you'll hit the ground before you get to the beginning of the runway. If the numbers are moving down, your glide path is too shallow and you're going to overshoot the runway or land "long", considerably shortening the amount of pavement you have left to bring the plane to a stop and turn off onto a taxiway.

  21. Re:A perfect game? by Xoder · · Score: 1

    Not necessarily. Each batter could hit the first pitch and have it caught by a fielder. Then there would be 27 pitches. And a perfect game can have "balls" thrown, as long as no one reaches base.

    IOW, "perfect game" tells you nothing about the number of pitches thrown.

    --
    The previous sig has been removed due to /. protecting your best interests
  22. Re:Baseball by Mateito · · Score: 4, Funny

    > God, baseball. The most mind-numbing sport in the world.

    You must come from a part of the world where they don't have Cricket.

    (Note to Mods. I used to like Cricket, then the SCG banned full strength beer and installed seats in Bay 13. What were they thinking?)

  23. Science of link naming by Looke · · Score: 1

    What about the subtle science of proper link naming? (With links like those in the article, the box of "related links" isn't really helpful...)

    1. Re:Science of link naming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank god I'm not the only one. I saw all those links, knew I didn't care to read all of the articles and chose not to read any of them due to my inability to find the one most interesting.

  24. Re:A perfect game? by kalidasa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Nope. That would be a sort of Sidd Finch Zen ultra-perfect game. In The Curious Case of Sidd Finch, the title character, an American brought up on a Buddhist monastery who pitches 130 mph fast balls, pitches one game: 80 strikes. He walks off the mound before throwing the last strike to complete the game, as a kind of Zen gesture.

  25. Re:Baseball happens in the real world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Ron Jeremy's ejaculate travels in a parabola.

    Remember that its only a partial parabola. Allowing something as valuable as The Hedgehogs wad to hit the floor is outside the budget of most porn flicks.

    I can't believe I'm posting this to Slashdot.

  26. Re:Baseball by dumeinst · · Score: 1

    Yes, true, I am. Note the similarities however

  27. Re:Baseball happens in the real world... by strictnein · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Baseball is the "geekiest" of the 4 major (US) sports. The statistics tracked in baseball dwarf any other sport. Stat analysis is a integral part of baseball.

    What other sport do you have stats like: Batting average with runners in scoring position, two outs, late innings, versus a right handed pitcher.

    Baseball stats scream "geek".

  28. Re:Author of article is an id10t. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thought about it and the ball could be accelerating as a curve ball accelerates off of its linear trajectory.

    Still, author is an id10t.

  29. Wait there is an actual book! by Kaliken · · Score: 2

    there is an book called the Physics of Baseball written by Robert Adair that wonderfully talks about the things you are always have wondered. some things such as how does a curveball curve. the difference between pitches. Its a great read and since I still play baseball its obviously holds interest to me. plus for the physics geek it actually gets into some of the areodynamic effects on the ball and the stitching. very cool!

  30. Re:A perfect game? by nelsonal · · Score: 1

    Is there a name for 27k? Has anyone ever thrown one (even if someone reached base).

    --
    Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
  31. This is great... by Mz6 · · Score: 4, Funny
    A definition of what "baseball" is...

    "baseball, baseball game, ball - a ball game played with a bat and ball between two teams of 9 players; teams take turns at bat trying to score run; "he played baseball in high school"; "there was a baseball game on every empy lot"; "there was a desire for National League ball in the area"; "play ball!"

    Ok.. If you don't know what baseball is, raise your hand and Tommy will come over and hit you on the head with a tackhammer because you are a RETARD!

    --
    Hmmm.
    1. Re:This is great... by yarisbandit · · Score: 1

      I'm from europe you insensitive clod!

      Ah crap, I made an insensitive clod joke. I'll get me coat...

    2. Re:This is great... by yarisbandit · · Score: 1

      "play ball!"

      Here in good aul Eireann, that passes as the last line of our national anthem ;)

    3. Re:This is great... by 3fingers · · Score: 0

      It's not so much that I don't know what baseball is - its just that I don't really care. Seems like rounders for men, or as we saw in Eire hurling for women

      --
      There are 10 different kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who do not
    4. Re:This is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      baseball = cricket - skill

    5. Re:This is great... by Zerbey · · Score: 1

      Ok.. If you don't know what baseball is, raise your hand and Tommy will come over and hit you on the head with a tackhammer because you are a RETARD!

      Actually, coming from Europe to the USA I only had a vague idea that Baseball was something like the sport of Rounders and was beloved of Charlie Brown. Aside from a few other countries it's not really well known outside of the US, which is a great shame since it's a sport I've come to love since moving here.

      Here's a good introduction to the sport courtesy of Wikipedia. Or, better still just watch a few games. Warning: addictive!

      Go Yankees!

    6. Re:This is great... by reddawnman · · Score: 1

      Booooo.... Yankees suck. I can't stand a team with management and fans that believe that every player should rightfully be theirs, at whatever cost. Get a farm system and build up like the rest of the teams... Too bad teh Sox are just about dead even with you right now. Yah, troll.... sorry, but I just got back from the Angels - Yanks game last night and the Yankee fans were drunk and obnoxious to anyone they could see.

    7. Re:This is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cricket = (baseball x 3 days) + wimpy guys in white shorts serving you tea

    8. Re:This is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3 days? Shows you know nothing about cricket.

    9. Re:This is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      test cricket = baseball/5 + fat unfit guys - stamina - strategy

    10. Re:This is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lemme try that again (lol!)

      baseball = cricket + fat unfit guys - stamina - strategy

    11. Re:This is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Test Cricket is about 5 days. First class cricket is about 3 days. The rest are bastard crickets.

  32. Re:A perfect game? by gowen · · Score: 0
    the title character, an American brought up on a Buddhist monastery who pitches 130 mph fast balls
    Actually Hayden "Sidd" Finch is British born, and throws at 168 mph.
    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  33. Curt Quotes by XanC · · Score: 1
    From the Sports Illustrated article:
    Former teammate Curt Schilling, who teamed with Johnson to lead the Diamondbacks to the World Series championship in 2001, watched the final two innings on a television at Tropicana Field in St. Petersburg, Fla.

    Schilling now plays for the Boston Red Sox, who had a game against the Tampa Bay Devil Rays.

    "Guys that play the game at that level ... do things other people don't dream of doing," Schilling said. "They push themselves. That's what he's done."

    Johnson is back on his game after enduring an injury plagued, 6-8 season in 2003.

    "He's been pitching great," Schilling said. "I just want to find all those people that were talking about the end of his career last winter."

  34. Re:Baseball happens in the real world... by hopemafia · · Score: 2, Funny

    For the physics of women click here

    --
    If God had had a computer it would have taken him 7 months to create the earth...if he even bothered to do it at all.
  35. physics of martial arts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Reminds me of several other physics of martial arts articles I've read, particularly this one on Aikido.

  36. nope by therealcaf · · Score: 1

    Most Strike-Outs in a regular 9-inning game is 20, shared by Roger Clemens, for Boston (04/29/1986 and 09/18/1996) and Kerry Wood, for Chicago(05/06/1998) http://baseball-almanac.com/recbooks/rb_strik.shtm l

    --

    -caf
  37. Chemistry Study by baldcamel · · Score: 1

    From what I read about the lax drug testing in US sports maybe a chemical analysis of the player would be more interest?

    1. Re:Chemistry Study by megarich · · Score: 1

      yea man, the study of phsyics of baseball after the athlete is pumped up on steriods...ooops i'm sorry "performance enhancement drugs"

    2. Re:Chemistry Study by Quill_28 · · Score: 1

      I know of no drugs that would help a pitcher like Johnson.

      Pin-point accuracy is so important along with control of the pitches(change-ups, slider, curve ball) that drugs may allow him to pitch faster but not better.

      Most players in the major leagues can rock a 95 MPH fast ball if they know it's coming and where.

  38. Re:A perfect game? by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > Perfect game means no one reached base. You could actually pitch a perfect game in 27 pitches, all first pitch hits.

    Quite right. And, you could also have a non-perfect game known as "facing the minimum" with 27 pitches. On the first pitch to a batter, the ball hits the batter, and he gets first base. Next pitch is grounded into a double play. This is also a no hitter. You could also face the minimum throwing 27 pitches without it being a no hitter if one or more first pitches are hit for singles followed by first pitch double plays.

    Imagine being the 27th batter. Do you swing at the first pitch no matter what?
    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  39. Baseball's BARELY a sport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any game in which fatasses can lumber around the field, sleep DURING the game while not playing, and smoke heaters in their off-time is hardly a sport.

  40. You came to /. looking for what? by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 2, Funny

    {funny = on}
    I'm sorry did I miss something, you searched /. for sports information? Did you forget we are nerds not nuts(as in sports nut). Is there a News for Nuts site, I don't know and quite frankly I don't care.

    Remember we are nerds we Hate:

    Outside - Unless we are looking at our older sisters best friend sitting by the pool.

    Sports - Unless it includes something with the word Bot in the little.

    Athletic triumphs - Unless is the college cheerleading championship on ESPN

    {funny = off}

    --
    500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
  41. Re:A perfect game? by joggle · · Score: 1
    IOW, "perfect game" tells you nothing about the number of pitches thrown.

    Technically, it tells you that the same pitcher pitched the entire game, so he must have pitched at least 27 times (not that that tells you much).

  42. The pitcher is not alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    A perfect game or a no hitter is great for a pitcher, but what people fail to realize is that for the pitcher to do either of those, requires all of his teammates help as well. How many pitches were hit only to be caught for the out, or thrown to first for the out? To me, a perfect game for a pitcher would be to strike out every player he pitched too.
    The pitcher gets too much praise for when most of the work is actually done by his teammates.

    1. Re:The pitcher is not alone by megarich · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was actually just thinking about that topic myself. For a perfect game this is so very true. After all, it is given you are not going to get 27 strike outs so you need your teammates help to prevent the runner getting to first.... As for a regular no hitter, the case don't hold so much because say the shortstop makes a throwing error to first, you're no hitter is still going beause its an error... just you're perfect game went bye bye... regardless, pitching is stil very HARD to do, especially when you have pumped up "kreatine" batters ready to blast anything out of the park coming his way. --coicidence that no one hit 50 homers last year when the steroid scandal started to come up? i think not!

    2. Re:The pitcher is not alone by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Funny
      The pitcher gets too much praise for when most of the work is actually done by his teammates.

      And don't forget the invaluable contribution make by the opposing team. Without their lack of skill, the perfect game would not be possible.

    3. Re:The pitcher is not alone by dpille · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The pitcher gets too much praise for when most of the work is actually done by his teammates.

      I'll agree with this in principle, but in this particular game, it didn't really look like the Diamondbacks needed anybody besides the local high school's 8 to secure the perfect game. See the 27 outs if you're skeptical, but I'll summarize:
      13 strikeouts
      7 routine fly balls (one was basket-caught, of all things)
      4 routine ground ball outs
      a close out on a leadoff drag bunt
      and a couple of decent plays by the shortstop. Nothing a big leaguer would take any credit for.

      So in this case, while you certainly needed a AA-level first baseman and maybe a AAA-level shortstop, I don't think there was much else going on.

      But if you're arguing that you needed warm bodies in the outfield and a third baseman to stand there and do nothing, I guess everybody did contribute.

    4. Re:The pitcher is not alone by Quill_28 · · Score: 1

      You obviously haven't played much baseball.

      Like saying a car driver gets too much praise and not the car, or a programmer gets too much praise and not the computer.
      If a fielder went a whole season without an error they wouldn't be praising the pitching staff.
      Only when the fielder much a great play do they also get talked aobut.

      The fielders are there to field.
      If you didn't have your fielder(including catcher) you could never get a guy out.

    5. Re:The pitcher is not alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To me, a perfect game for a pitcher would be to strike out every player he pitched too.


      Actually, a pitcher can strike out a batter on a wild pitch, the batter can run to first and if he makes it, there goes the perfect game.
      In this way it's also possible for a pitcher to lose a no-hitter(and has happened in the majors) by way of walks, errors, sacrifice hits, etc. etc.

    6. Re:The pitcher is not alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strikeouts are fascist. Throw some groundballs.

      - Crash Davis

    7. Re:The pitcher is not alone by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I remember a game pitched by Orel Hershiser when the Dodgers' infield defense was not merely weak, but entirely absent. Now, Orel is normally a ground-ball pitcher, meaning the infielders are responsible for fielding the ball and throwing the batter out. But that day the infielders couldn't do their job to save their lives. So after a couple innings of this ineptitude, Orel changed his pitching style so as to create fly balls to the outfield, which at least were getting caught.

      It changed my whole perspective on pitching, from "getting the ball past the batter" to something more like billiards -- IOW, getting the batter to make the out in the pocket (ie. fielder's glove) that the pitcher *wants* him to make.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    8. Re:The pitcher is not alone by thoth · · Score: 1
      third baseman to stand there and do nothing

      Well, the 3rd baseman had 1 RBI, so he did contribute vital runs towards the victory. Otherwise Johnson might have been screwed out of his perfect game like Harvey Haddix was. But, somebody else on the Diamondbacks also had an RBI, so maybe 3rd baseman could have just stood around ;)

    9. Re:The pitcher is not alone by Quill_28 · · Score: 1

      Like most things their is alot more to pitching than people see.

      Changing of speeds and similiar arm motion when doing so is a big thing.

      And then location, location location.

      Big really changing speeds is such a big deal, and hard to understand until you experience trying to hit a 70 MPH change up when you are expecting a 90 MPH fastball.

    10. Re:The pitcher is not alone by skifreak87 · · Score: 1

      My biggest gripe w/ baseball (aside from often finding it boring due to the immense amounts of downtime) is how inaccurate their "stats" are (esp. pitcher related one). perfect games are attributed to the pitcher yet unless it's 27 or near-27 strikeouts, rely a good deal on the other fielders. same w/ no-hitters. also ERA, while somewhat decent, has the issue that a pitcher can give up a hit w/ one set of a fielders, and it'd not be a hit w/ another set and therefore i find the stat stupid. I don't have better solutions but I know they exist, my dad read a book about a scout who's picked some amazing pro teams and how he did it (hint: he didn't use any conventional statistics for determining worth).

      Also in batting, batting avg/hrs is crap since your position in the batting order has a huge affect on how you're pitched to.

    11. Re:The pitcher is not alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      even with 27 strikeouts, the catcher should still get credit for pitch calling. the best pitches in the world won't amount for anything if not properly mixed.

    12. Re:The pitcher is not alone by sc00p18 · · Score: 1

      The third baseman did make one play in the field =)

      Also, I would actually argue that the play the shortstop made where he charged the ball hard and made the throw on the run was more difficult than the bunt.

      Other than that, I fully agree.

    13. Re:The pitcher is not alone by Zebbers · · Score: 1

      steroids or not
      try making contact with a 95mph fastball

    14. Re:The pitcher is not alone by megarich · · Score: 1

      i have, or should i rephrase it as i tried but failed miserably. sometimes announcers say hitting a baseball is the hardest thing to do in all sports and i do believe that....

    15. Re:The pitcher is not alone by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, pitching is exceedingly complex, as you say little things like change of speed and motion. (Nothing's funnier than the look on a player's face after he swings hard, then watches the ball float lazily by :) As to arm motion, stance, etc. I could always tell whether Orel was "on" or not by whether he did one little followthru motion involving his leading foot.

      "Location" works for the batter too -- as one sage hitter said, "Hit it where they ain't" :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  43. It's simple really by hotspur_fan · · Score: 1

    From Tim Keown of ESPN: When high-brow attempts middle-brow, hilarity ensues: As just part of what you can learn by reading the sports stories in The New Yorker, there's this description of a knuckleball from Robert K. Adair, professor emeritus at Yale and the author of "The Physics of Baseball" -- "To understand how a knuckleball works, it helps to have a basic familiarity with Bernoulli's principle, the Magnus effect, and the Prandtl boundary-layer theory, for a start."

    1. Re:It's simple really by Gunnery+Sgt.+Hartman · · Score: 1

      Simple because I'm reading /. instead of studying for my Transport Phenomena final.....I knew there was a reason I wasn't studying.

      --
      [ ]
  44. Cameron judges balls differently by sabernar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Mike Cameron on the Mets does it differently. He's trained himself since a very early age to see the ball off the bat and then estimate where it will land. He then runs as fast as he can to that spot, and lo and behold the ball is there for him. He doesn't actually watch the ball in flight, but he knows where it will land quicker than other outfielders. That's why he's far and away the best centerfielder (and outfielder in general) in baseball.

    1. Re:Cameron judges balls differently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why the Mariners should never have let him go... Asshats.

    2. Re:Cameron judges balls differently by Altus · · Score: 1


      thats pretty much what all the godlike centerfielders do. its an amazing gift to be able to read so much info out of such a small porton of the balls flight. these guys probably have a giant brain stem or something.

      you dont have to do this to be a good centerfielder but you do have to do this to be a god in the field

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    3. Re:Cameron judges balls differently by nicedream · · Score: 1

      Best in baseball? Better than Andruw Jones, Tori Hunter? Don't think so.

    4. Re:Cameron judges balls differently by Bob+C.+Cock · · Score: 1

      I'd have to disagree that Cameron is the best center fielder in the game. It's a rare gift to be able to instantly know where a ball will land but that doesn't do any good if it's out of the park. Now Torii Hunter on the other hand gets the routine fly balls and steals home runs on a regular basis due to that vertical leap at the wall of his.

      Just my .02

    5. Re:Cameron judges balls differently by Shant3030 · · Score: 1

      That's why he's far and away the best centerfielder (and outfielder in general) in baseball.

      This has to be a pre-2004 season statement.
      Andruw Jones, Jim Edmonds, and Ichiro are probably better...

      --
      100% Insightful
    6. Re:Cameron judges balls differently by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      Garret Anderson (before his back problems).

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    7. Re:Cameron judges balls differently by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Devon White.

      In the few years he was with the Diamondbacks, I don't think I ever once saw him running after a ball on the TV. The ball would be hit, they'd cut to the flight, then they'd cut to Devo, holding his mitt open, and the ball would plop into it.

      He had the skill (all successful outfielders have it, btw) and he had the legs to make it look as easy as playing catch in the backyard.

    8. Re:Cameron judges balls differently by markh100 · · Score: 1

      I second the nod for Devo. He was a huge part of the World Champion Toronto Blue Jays of the early 90s. I don't really watch baseball anymore, but I will always remember the way Devon made specatular plays look routine. He actually once initiated an apprent triple play during the world series against Atlanta one year, by making an unbelievable catch at the wall. The play was mis-called by the umpire, but I believe it may have otherwise been the only triple play in world series history.

  45. What about Hockey? by redragon · · Score: 1
    http://www.exploratorium.edu/hockey/

    Hockey has some pretty sweet physics too.

    --
    - Sighuh?
  46. Re:A perfect game? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    Way to screw up a perfect Zen game! A pitch isn't legal unless the pitcher is on the mound.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  47. Re:Baseball happens in the real world... by aliens · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ugh they're also the most highly addicting!

    Me: "Sure I'll join your little fantasy league, I don't know baseball all that much but I like stats"

    Me (2 months later): "Oh dear god who do I start? This batter is better under windy conditions against this pitcher when the announcer has more barritone voice, but the other is batting .400!"

    --
    -- taking over the world, we are.
  48. Re:Baseball by Inda · · Score: 1

    Used to like it?

    Man, it's gotten so much better over the years. These new 20-20 matches are great.

    I find watching it on TV in the pub to be just as enjoyable. The replays and computer rendered ball paths are top... and the choice of beer is better than good.

    --
    This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
  49. I saw one of these by gregarican · · Score: 1

    In high school I lived the next town over from Tom Gordon. Tom (Flash) Gordon is still in the big leagues. Here's his bio. He threw a perfect game of strikeouts against our high school. Folks were bragging about even fouling a ball off on him! It was amazing to see someone that young throw like that.

  50. Re:Author of article is an id10t. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah, acceleration is a change in velocity, so changing direction is technically acceleration. b4k4 author

  51. I was there ... by Fulton+Green · · Score: 1

    And I gotta say, it was pretty surreal to watch the Atlanta crowd cheering for the "Big Unit". 'Course, some might argue that they had to have someone to cheer for. The game was so dull that I didn't even realize RJ was gunning for the perfect game until I overheard some of my coworkers mentioning it in the bottom of the 7th.

  52. Diving for a ball by krygny · · Score: 1

    I grew up playing (mostly) softball on city playgrounds of asphalt or concrete. So, I never acquired the skill of diving for a ball. When I got older, moved to the 'burbs and played mostly on grass, I'd get ragged about not diving for balls that were just barely out of reach. I began to practice it and while I became fairly proficient and overcame the initial fear of the simple maneuver, I couldn't bring myself to actually use it in a game; I still had the sense I my chances were better if I stayed on my feet and kept running.

    Some years later I read in an article (by some scholar who probably never played the game) that diving for a ball is pure spectacle and is not the best chance to reach a fly ball. Basically, the moment you leave your feet, you begin to slow down. Your best chance is to take the last step or two maintain your speed, and perhaps catch the ball knee high rather than at the shoe-tops.

    Maybe it was just affirmation of my belief, but it made sense to me.

    Oh, BTW, I don't think Willie Mays or Joe DiMaggio ever dove for a ball.

    --
    Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
    1. Re:Diving for a ball by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but once you dive for a ball, you have no way to recover from a mistake, or quickly get to a ball that you missed. You're flat on your face and the ball is bounding along somewhere to your rear.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:Diving for a ball by cens0r · · Score: 1

      I don't think this in necessairly true. I grew up playing short stop and second base, and diving for ground balls proved extremely useful. While I may be able to run to the spot where the groundball is faster then diving there, I would never be able to stop myself into the correct position to field and get my glove in the right place, diving makes this easier. There are also to added bonuses. If I'm playing second base, and the ball is hit towards the middle, and I don't dive, I have to throw against the momentum of my body towards first base. If I dive, I can use the friction of the ground to slow me quicker and get me back into throwing position. It's the same principal that players use to slide into the base. The second benifit is that if I over compensate or it takes a bad hop, my whole body can be used to block the groundball. I've many times dove for a ball and had it bounce into my chest. If I keep my feet, I only have the small area of my glove to block it.

      In the outfield it's a little different, but diving can still be usefull, while it is true that you begin to slow down as soon as you dive, it is also true that you encounter the same slowdown between steps. If you're dive is at the last possible second you may be able to stretch yourself into a position to make a catch that you couldn't have made if you hadn't dove.

      There are also other times when you leave your feet to make a catch. The one I used most was to slide (just like I was sliding to a base), so I could run full speed to the place where the ball would drop, and then slow myself quickly enough to make the catch.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    3. Re:Diving for a ball by cens0r · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course, if you're ozzie smith you just reach behind your body in mid dive with your bare hand and grab the ball on a weird hop, land, bounce up, and throw the guy out. Still the greatest thing I've ever seen in baseball.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    4. Re:Diving for a ball by krygny · · Score: 1

      I think we generally agree. I played mostly outfield and infield w/ground balls is totaly different. The most extreme example is third base. Sometimes you don't have the time to take a single step. You have to just lunge for the ball; goalie mentality. I think everything between that and playing outfield is just a matter of degree.

      --
      Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
    5. Re:Diving for a ball by Reziac · · Score: 1

      LOL! Yeah, ain't that the truth -- once in a while some great player just flat defies every law of physics, including the weird ones that normally apply to baseball :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  53. Re:A perfect game? by LeonardShelby · · Score: 1

    Perfect game means no one reached base. You could actually pitch a perfect game in 27 pitches, all first pitch hits. This is why pitch count doesn't matter.

    I think you mean all first pitch outs.

    --
    remember Sammy Jankis
  54. Re:Eh ? by hoofie · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Whatever wanker is moderating today needs his head examined. Look at the original post. Look at my post. Is it just possible I might be making a valid point. The original post has absolutely no reason to be put up on Slashdot.

  55. TEH SPOKE == ON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    definitely brush off ya shouldas yun' playa.

  56. George Costanza knew the answer by elid · · Score: 4, Funny
    % George and Yankees Derek Jeter and Bernie Williams are at the ballpark.

    George: Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant. (Hits a home run) It's not complicated.

    Jeter: Now who are you again?

    George: George Costanza, assistant to the traveling secretary.

    Williams: Are you the guy who put us in that Ramada in Milwaukee?

    George: Do you wanna talk about hotels, or do you wanna win some ball games?

    Jeter: We won the World Series.

    George: In six games.

  57. The ultimate physics calculation by dougman · · Score: 3, Funny

    Try to understand the math involved to do this.

    (Link goes to footage of Randy Johnson hitting a bird on a fastball).

    This isn't math - this is Chaos Theory!

    1. Re:The ultimate physics calculation by veddermatic · · Score: 1

      radnyJohnsonFastball + badTiming = deadBird

      --
      Department of Homeland Security: Removing the rights real patriots fought and died for since 2001
    2. Re:The ultimate physics calculation by Jedi1USA · · Score: 4, Funny

      Now that's what I call a Fowl Ball!!

      --
      My old sig was REALLY stoopid.
    3. Re:The ultimate physics calculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod funny? YES!

    4. Re:The ultimate physics calculation by Bob+C.+Cock · · Score: 1

      That's the great thing about baseball. Watch enough games and you'll eventually see something that you've never seen before.

    5. Re:The ultimate physics calculation by Shant3030 · · Score: 1

      "radnyJohnsonFastball + badTiming = deadBird"

      Or a scared John Kruk.

      --
      100% Insightful
    6. Re:The ultimate physics calculation by timcrews · · Score: 1

      Seriously, how is that counted? Was it a ball?

    7. Re:The ultimate physics calculation by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Try to understand the math involved to do this.
      (Link goes to footage of Randy Johnson hitting a bird on a fastball).


      That's the sort of thing that's holding up Quake III.

    8. Re:The ultimate physics calculation by omission9 · · Score: 1

      From what I found on the web it seems to have been declared a "no pitch".

  58. Re:Baseball happens in the real world... by Fearless+Freep · · Score: 1

    I'm there this year. Just a small Roto league n yahoo but man can it be addictive...and time consuming..pouring over stats to get an edge

  59. Perfect games more common now than before by call+-151 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    There is an interesting NYT op-ed today noting that perfect games seem to be more common now.
    From 1900-1960, there were four; since then, there have been 11. Michael Coffey attributes the increase to:
    • More emphasis on individual performance in the post-1975 free-agency era and greater media coverage overall
    • The expansion of the number of teams to thin out hitting talent.

    Apparently, when Cy Young pitched his perfect game in 1904, he wasn't even aware until the last out that he had a perfect game going (the term in fact did not even exist at the time.) These days, if someone takes a perfect game into the sixth inning, it's mentioned on all the broadcasts of the other games and on any of the "sports news" programs that are on at the time.


    It's not clear if these are the most important contributing factors but I think these are some reasonable points.

    --
    It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
    1. Re:Perfect games more common now than before by Fearless+Freep · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The expansion of the number of teams to thin out hitting talent.

      I keep hearing expansion being used to explain why there are more homeruns and less complete games due to thinning pitching talent

      From 1900-1960, there were four; since then, there have been 11. Michael Coffey attributes the increase to:

      And Nolan Ryan got seven of those eleven, so I don't think it really says anything

    2. Re:Perfect games more common now than before by XanC · · Score: 3, Insightful
      With twice as many teams, there are many more games being played. I think that's probably all it takes.

      I don't see any way that media coverage affects a perfect game. And hitting talent being thinned should be canceled by the increase in population.

      By the way, Nolan Ryan pitched seven no-hitters, which is an unmatched feat, but he never threw a perfect game. A perfect game has no walks as well as no hits.

    3. Re:Perfect games more common now than before by gowen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Interesting. My opinion is slight contrary. In the past, before the advent of specialist relief pitchers and muscled up middle infielders, pitchers knew they were supposed to go 9 innings. Thus, when faced with weaker hitters, they'd coast. (Don't believe me? Read Christy Mathewson's "Pitching In A Pinch").

      Since genuine home run hitters were few and far between, having a guy on first just meant you'd bear down on the next guy that much harder, as the run would only score on a long double or a triple. So, you could complete the game, but at the cost of a few extra base runners.

      These days, nearly everyone fancies themselves as a home run threat, so you've got to get everyone out.

      Just a thought.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    4. Re:Perfect games more common now than before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Nah. Ryan had seven no-hitters, not seven perfect games. Nolan never had a perfecto (he walked too many -- 2795 in a very long career)

    5. Re:Perfect games more common now than before by Fearless+Freep · · Score: 1

      Ooops, sorry, misread.

    6. Re:Perfect games more common now than before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's clarify that a little:

      No-hitter: a pitcher throws a complete game where the opposing team has no hits, however, there can be batters getting on base from walks, intentional walks, errors, hit-by-pitch, catcher inference, or passed-ball strikeout.

      Perfect game: The pitchers throw a complete game and retires all 27 batters, none of which reach base at all.

      A perfect game qualifies as a no-hitter but is the holy grail of no-hitters. All pitchers dream of pitching one but only 17 perfect games have been achieved, while there's been several dozen who've thrown no-hitters or multiple no-hitters.

    7. Re:Perfect games more common now than before by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      These days, if someone takes a perfect game into the sixth inning, it's mentioned on all the broadcasts of the other games and on any of the "sports news" programs that are on at the time.

      Yeah, but the pitcher doesn't watch those. He knows he's got a perfect game (or just a simple no-hitter) going because nobody will talk to him in the dugout.

      Side note: I was an assistant coach for my daughter's softball team. In the playoffs, one of the girls threw a no-hitter (not a perfect -- 2 walks, one error), and nobody realized it but me (not even the official scorer at first).

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    8. Re:Perfect games more common now than before by MojoStan · · Score: 1
      And hitting talent being thinned should be canceled by the increase in population.
      Also:
      • Non-white players were not allowed in the league until Jackie Robinson in 1947. It took several more years for all teams to consider/accept non-white players.
      • International talent was hardly utilized before 1960.
      • MLB did not reach the West Coast until the Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Giants moved west in 1958. Scouting Western US talent by train was not an easy task.
      So not only is the supposed "thinning out" of hitting talent (due to more teams) canceled out by the increase in population -- the available population is much more fully utilized. Cy Young's feats seem a little less impressive when you consider that he did not have to face the best Negro League hitters, foreign hitters, or even all of the talented West Coast hitters.
      --
      TO START
      PRESS ANY KEY

      Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...

    9. Re:Perfect games more common now than before by burns210 · · Score: 1

      In the 'old days,' however, Baseball pitchers pitched much more often... Cy Young, had as many as 50+ games pitched a season, and topped at 35 wins in his career... Stats Page... A 20 win season is a big deal now, Cy almost had twice that...

    10. Re:Perfect games more common now than before by Galvatron · · Score: 1
      Non-white players were not allowed in the league until Jackie Robinson in 1947. It took several more years for all teams to consider/accept non-white players.

      Minor note: non-white players were not banned until around 1900. During the 19th century some teams did have black players. Worth noting, I think, because it's another sign of how race relations actually deteriorated in the late 19th/early 20th century in America.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    11. Re:Perfect games more common now than before by matt_morgan · · Score: 1

      I think in the long term, maybe, but expansion happens all at once, while population increases are gradual. So for a short time after expansion, the difference between the elite players (who are as amazing as they ever were) and the average players (average in a relative sense!) is greater.

      Stephen Jay Gould used to talk about this. You can google for some related articles. He often mentioned how, as the population increased and everybody in baseball got better, the variation between the poorer players, the average players, and the elite players would be smaller. So you should see fewer .400 hitters, fewer perfect games. BUT, after an expansion the opposite would be true, in force, at least temporarily. You'd have these great pitchers whose greatness would be tremendously apparent as they faced suddenly weaker hitters.

      What I don't know is, did these perfect games all happen in the years after an expansion? And did they happen against weaker teams? I had the great good fortune to witness, in person, David Cone's perfect game and it was clear he was facing a team on a bad day, on one of his best days. But I have to tell you, it takes nothing away from the accomplishment. He was completely unhittable that day, it may not have mattered much who he was facing.

    12. Re:Perfect games more common now than before by Matt · · Score: 1
      They pitched a lot longer, too. A while back the sportscasters were talking about former Angels pitcher Nolan Ryan was known for pitching over 200 pitches per game.

      As the sportscasters said, the pitching coach would be fired nowdays.

  60. Wow, by Run4yourlives · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    So it actually is possible to have something more boring than baseball.

  61. Re:A perfect game? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
    an American brought up on a Buddhist monastery who pitches 130 mph fast balls

    Which reminds me of something: Johnson's last pitch of the game was a 98mph fastball. He threw an entire game, and could still hurl a ball at a speed that many pitchers would sacrifice their weak arm for.

    Side note: I bet he thanks the guy who nicknamed him "Big Unit". How'd you like to use that one in a bar? "Hi! My friends call me 'Big Unit'", and all of your friends would back you up ("Yeah, that's really what everyone calls him.").

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  62. Re:A perfect game? by Fearless+Freep · · Score: 1

    Although there's probably some bizarre way a batter could be out without getting a pitch.

  63. Science funding by LuxFX · · Score: 1

    And they say that the sciences don't have enough funding! Pitchers get millions of dollars every year to work on their "subtle science." Maybe if cancer and AIDS researchers organized into teams and wore uniforms....

    --
    Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
  64. There's a book on this subject by mkoby · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here's a book on the subject.

    When my father and I were playing (softball and little leauge respectivly) he bought an earlier copy of this book.

  65. Ouch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fielder will move so the ball will always appear to stay in one spot (and just get larger), even while it is on its descent.

    Ummm, wouldn't that mean that the ball will eventually hit the player's face? :)

  66. Re:baseball by Eyeke · · Score: 1

    You're kidding me..
    All this science is involved in getting me to fall asleep in front of my TV?
    wow
    at least MLB2004 is fun on my ps2
    hooray for geekgames!

    --
    --- Something must be done about Vengeance, a badge and a gun.
  67. Re:A perfect game? by d474 · · Score: 0

    Perfect Game = Pitcher strikes all batters out.

    A Perfect Game means 27 batters struck out and non got a hit or walked.

    No Hitter = No one makes it on to base (ie. other players catch fly balls or throw runners out).

    And I hate baseball.

    --
    Authority questions you. Return the favor.
  68. Re:Baseball happens in the real world... by hackstraw · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I'm not sure if I agree. Basketball has lots of stats as well. So does football, and tennis has gotten pretty cool with the overlay plots of serves and points won.

    The difference is that baseball is much slower and they have time to spit out a bunch of numbers at you to fill time. Also, baseball is a _very_ superstitious behavior from a psychological point of view. The stats can be viewed as part of the superstition. From this link:
    B.F. Skinner, a famous psychologist, demonstrated that you can create superstitious behavior in animals. When an animal is placed in a Skinner box, that contains a device which can automatically dispense food and food is given to the animal every five minutes regardless what the animal does; the animal will typically develop a superstitious behavior. This will occur when for example the animal happens to pick up its right foot just as food is delivered: the animal will then repeat this behavior, which will be intermittently reinforced. In this manner the superstitious behavior will become well established.
    Baseball is filled with random reinforcers which contributes to the superstitious behaviour. You have ppl, doing all of these nervous ticks, spitting, scratching, hand signals, random fights, wiggling around at the plate and mound, and apparently the numbers at the bottom of the screen have affected you and others as well.
  69. Excellent idea! by X86Daddy · · Score: 4, Funny

    "After seeing Randy Johnson of the Arizona Diamondbacks pitch a perfect game (coverage here), I searched Slashdot in the hopes of reading more about what the Slashdot readers thought of this feat of athleticism...

    Whenever I'm curious about sports, I head straight to Slashdot too. :-)

  70. Re:Baseball happens in the real world... by Fearless+Freep · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure if I agree. Basketball has lots of stats as well. So does football, and tennis has gotten pretty cool with the overlay plots of serves and points won.

    Baseball plays 162 games a year (and has been around over a 100 years) which gets the stats up into areas that you can start really treating..well..statistically. There's enough sample data to do analysis at levels not possible in other sports

  71. Question: by Paulrothrock · · Score: 2, Funny
    Baseball involves being outside under the Death Ball and away from the soothing radioactive glow of flourescent lights and my CRT, right? Remind me why I care again?

    It's a joke. Laugh.

    --
    I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    1. Re:Question: by Reziac · · Score: 1

      [inspecting "Death Ball" image] Son, that's a Nolan Ryan fastball, as seen from the batter's box.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:Question: by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

      Nylon Roan? Who's he?

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    3. Re:Question: by Reziac · · Score: 1

      [reads][blink][rereads] I think that's the sizzling red part of a rope burn :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  72. Re:Baseball happens in the real world... by Noofus · · Score: 1

    Women? Come on now, we all know THAT is impossible.

  73. the science of baseball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An interesting article has recently appeared on the page of Natural History (the offical magazine of the American Museum of Natural History) I suspect the aricle may be available online at the museum website!

  74. Forget Hockey by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

    Check out Hurling. A player running on a large grass pitch has to be able to catch a small ball in his weak hand (no big mitt to help him), sprint like a 100 metres champion, avoid getting shoulder-charged into the ground, twist and turn like a basketball player, and strike the ball in mid-air whilst on the move and be able to do so with a forehanded or backhanded swing of his stick. If he wants to take more than three steps while in posession of the ball, he has to balance it on the end of his stick, and he can't have the ball in his hand more than twice while in posession of it. And he has to be able to hit it on the ground as well. And he can't pick it up off the ground by hand, he has to scoop it up with his stick. And if someone blocks his stick then it'll shatter. And if someone gets in his way while he's swinging then they'll get their head taken off. See also here.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
    1. Re:Forget Hockey by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      Gee. And I thought "hurling" was just a euphemism for vomiting.

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    2. Re:Forget Hockey by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was surprised when I discovered that the name of our national game was used in the US to refer to vomiting. Elsewhere it is just used to mean 'throwing' something with great force.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    3. Re:Forget Hockey by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      I was aware of the 'throwing' (actually I'd heard of the sport as well but don't know much about it). I suspect that hurling in relation to vomiting is because it's also called "throwing up" and can sometimes be accomplished with great force....

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

  75. Simple! by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 1

    There's a little guy inside the baseball, after it is thrown he jumps out (in the opposite direction the baseball is travelling), and due to the conservation of momentum the ball must speed up.

  76. Baseball - ultimate nerd sport? by Spatula+Sam · · Score: 1

    What is it about baseball that makes it the ultimate nerd sport? I see so many articles about the physics of baseball, or the statistics of baseball, but nothing for basketball (arguably a more popular sport in the world these days). Is it that it can be devided into small statistic-friendly chunks? Football has chunks. Is it because the parabolic flight of a homerun makes it an obvious physics problem? Basketball works too for those. What gives?

    1. Re:Baseball - ultimate nerd sport? by cens0r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's because there are so many different numbers to compare, and that these numbers compare very well from generation to generation. You have BA, ERA, OBS, OPS, RBI, Wins, Saves, WHIP, Home Runs, etc. You can also use these individual statistics to predict victories for a team. It's harder to do such a statistical anaylisis on the other sports. Plus, baseball has such a long season and has been around for so long most of the statistical oddities have been worked out.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
  77. Newton at the Bat by dspyder · · Score: 1

    My dad got me a while ago a book called Newton at the Bat. It dealt with the physics involved in a lot of different sports including baseball.

    It's probably dated now (early 90s?), due to the technological advances of sensors, imaging, and athletic study.

    Might be worth checking out [no amazon affiliate link to be provided] :)

    --D

  78. Re:Baseball happens in the real world... by strictnein · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure if I agree. Basketball has lots of stats as well. So does football, and tennis has gotten pretty cool with the overlay plots of serves and points won.

    Yes, they all have lots of stats, but baseball has by far the most. There's really no comparison.

    Basketball has field goal percentage, but they don't break it down into: FG % vs 6ft 5in point guards on maple floors at night, on the road.

    Football has more stats than basketball, such as yards per run on grass vs turf, yards per pass indoors vs outdoors, pass percentage, but they don't break it down into: Yards per run on grass at home, at night, vs 4-3 defense, vs AFC teams.

    Stats are part of baseball history. There is no other sport that statistics plays such a big part in. Managers routinely base many of their decisions in games based solely on stats.

    Baseball is filled with random reinforcers which contributes to the superstitious behaviour. You have ppl, doing all of these nervous ticks, spitting, scratching, hand signals, random fights, wiggling around at the plate and mound, and apparently the numbers at the bottom of the screen have affected you and others as well.

    I'm unsure what your point is here. This paragraph really doesn't make any sense. I think superstitions in baseball are interesting, but many times really annoying. And I really don't see how the superstitions correlate with statistics.

  79. Psychology by 3Suns · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Pitching has a lot to do with physics, true. But I'd say it has much more to do with psychology. It is, after all, the most difficult task of a pitcher to second-guess what the batter is expecting the pitch to be.

    --

    -3Suns

    ~~~~
    The Revolution will be Slashdotted
    1. Re:Psychology by tcgroat · · Score: 1

      That's the catcher's job. The pitcher reads the signs, nods, scratches, spits, kicks the dirt, and eventually throws the ball. Sometimes the pitcher shakes off the sign, but it's the catcher's job to read the batter and order the right pitch and placement.

  80. Re:Baseball by lazn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Similarities how? Cricket has 5 DAY games. At least Baseball dosesn't last longer than a few hours at most. You hear the announcer say "Here we are bottom of the 8th" not "Here we are day 4."

    ==>Lazn

  81. Cricket Bowling by pavon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    On a realated note the economist recently had an interesting article about cricket and recent controversy over one of the more important rules - the bowler (pitcher) is not allowed to straighten his arm when delivering the ball. Some are claiming that new bowlers are breaking this rule and other question whether the rule itself might actually contradict physics. Being an American who didn't know much about cricket I found the article to be thouroughly amusing. That game could never exist here in the states.

    1. Re:Cricket Bowling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They had to dumb it down for Americans, hence baseball.

  82. Link to Slashdot? by phishtrader · · Score: 1

    Is it really necessary to have a link to Slashdot in a Slashdot article?

  83. Re:A perfect game? by CFTM · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If my memory serves me, I believe SI actually published an article about Sidd Finch 15-20 years ago. It was right around April Fools Day so its authenticity is up for speculation but he has become something of an American Folk Legend ... even if he is a brit :)

  84. Drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe pitching the perfect game now requires a healthy dose of steroids, HGH and greenies.

    Baseball is dead.

  85. Re:Baseball happens in the real world... by CFTM · · Score: 1

    I think baseball is also the only sport that has every at bat recorded going back to the 1960's and maybe even earlier. Every game can be recreated, almost at a pitch by pitch basis ... no other sport has done that ...

  86. Re:A perfect game? by Mike+Hawk · · Score: 1

    Maybe he was so disgusted with his team's performance to that point, and so frustrated with the pitcher's dominance, that he steps into the box and immediately hurls his bat at the pitcher?

  87. "Interception math" by Reziac · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A few people, and some dogs (most individuals of the Retriever breeds) have an innate talent for being able to intercept an object on the fly. Others (most people, and most dogs outside of the Retrievers) have to learn the skill, and may or may not be able to learn it to a useful degree. It's as if some brains process the "interception math" (essentially trigonometry) automagically, others don't have the talent but can learn it as a skill, and still others can't see the math at all.

    I've noticed that having this skill is very much true with the best outfielders -- they don't have to stand there eyeballing the descending ball, they just run to the spot and there it is. Same with wide receivers in football, perhaps even more so since the QB often throws on the run, whereas the batted baseball comes from a known position (as Satchel Paige said, "Home plate don't move").

    In fact, one could apply this to anything in sports that involves intercepting moving objects of variable trajectories, and distinguish the good from the great by their ability to use it. Positions like shortstop, where the batted ball can be on you in a fraction of a second, likely need even more of an innate talent for "interception math".

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  88. Re:Baseball happens in the real world... by slackerboy · · Score: 1
    Baseball is filled with random reinforcers which contributes to the superstitious behaviour. You have ppl, doing all of these nervous ticks, spitting, scratching, hand signals, random fights, wiggling around at the plate and mound, and apparently the numbers at the bottom of the screen have affected you and others as well.


    Well, to quote from Bull Durham : "If you believe you're playing well because you're getting laid, or because you're not getting laid, or because you wear women's underwear, then you ARE!"

    As much as we may want to get down to the hard science of a sport, there's still a lot of soft psychology involved with the players...
    --
    Things to do today: See list of things to do yesterday
  89. Athleticism? by sunderland56 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Exactly what is athletic about baseball? Stand around in a field for two hours, occasionally catching and throwing a ball.... kinda like playing with a three-year-old. Not exactly an Olympic event.

    Pitching is just as athletic as darts, or bowling, or archery. It's an accuracy thing, a skill, not an athletic event.

    Randy Johnson is probably in fairly good shape. But look at some of the stars of the game: Mark McGuire is listed as being 6' 5" and weighing 250 pounds when he played - a BMI of 29.6. Than's officially "overweight", and just a tiny hair below "obese", by government standards. That's probably why he used to hit home runs - then he can trot around the bases, instead of actually having to run.

    1. Re:Athleticism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are totally right !

  90. Re:Baseball by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 1
    There are several formats of cricket, the official ones being:

    a one day game with a 50 overs (300 balls) innings per side

    a test match with two innings per side and of an indeterminate length (with a five day maximum)

    Skills and tactics used in the different formats can be very different. IMHO the test format places a greater emphasis on stamina and strategy, but one day games are more fun to watch since the scoring rates are much higher.

    I have seen and played quite a few baseball games and spoken to USian friends about the game, and I can only conclude that cricket is a far more complex game. Baseball is two-dimensional by comparison. The level of intelligence, skill and fitness required to play international-level cricket is far higher than that needed by baseball.

  91. Even if you put einstein's face on it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Baseball still sucks!
    Go cricket!!!

  92. Re:A perfect game? by Maniakes · · Score: 1

    The fewest pitches you can through and still pitch a complete game is 25. Playing at another team's ballpark, you pitch 8 innings of all first pitch groundouts/lineouts/flyouts. The opposing pitcher throws a shutout. Bottom of the ninth, your first pitch is hit for a walkout home run.

    --
    A legparnasom tele van angolnaval.
  93. Re:Baseball happens in the real world... by lpangelrob2 · · Score: 1
    True. Is it also the most easily summarized?

    "Hit the damn ball!"

  94. Re:A perfect game? by BizidyDizidy · · Score: 1

    This post is also completely bullshit.

    --
    The safest way to approach lava is to have another person with you and he goes first.
  95. George Plimpton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was written by George Plimpton and was wholly false aided in part by the Reds, who at their spring training put up sheets to obscure part of the field as if there was someone to obscure.

    George Plimpton was the greatest sports writer ever and popularized participatory journalism (he fought a pro boxer, pitched at an All-Star baseball game, played in a symphony orchestra, and was friend of many presidents). Everyone should read his work.

  96. Re:A perfect game? by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

    > The fewest pitches you can through and still pitch a complete game is 25

    Hadn't thought of that. You can face the minimum and not only not have a no-hitter but be the losing pitcher. Bummer. Still helps out the ERA though.
    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  97. Power of the Ball off the Bat by lordmage · · Score: 1

    In softball, a pretty close cousin to baseball, the object is to hit a slow pitch (underhand, with arc) ball.

    The current Associations starting banning certain Bats and Balls as too powerfull. (www.asasoftball.com)

    So.. last year the Miken Ultra ][ was legal and boy was it fun. I hit several out, and enjoyed life. It was 300 bucks.

    This year? I purchased a Miken Freak for 300..

    Can anyone safely tell me the way these bats are truely banned? Is it not for economical reasons?

    If safety was a concern, then Wooden bats would be the only thing allowed.

    --
    I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
    1. Re:Power of the Ball off the Bat by Sabotage · · Score: 1

      Most leagues that I've had experience with will ban based on a few factors. One is the BPF (bat performance factor). Most rec softball leagues will ban any bat that has a BPF greater than 1.2, which has something to do with measuring the coefficient of restitution in the bat/ball collision.

      Next, there are certain bats that will provide greater ball velocity off of the barrel than others, even with the same swing speed. Examples include those Mikens, and many other composite and non-composite bats (Miken Ultra 1, Ultra 2, Demarini F2, Rawlings Silverback, Mizuno Orange Crush, Worth's PST, etc.). From what I understand, and I don't have a link to back this up, seven people were killed (mostly pitchers) in 2002 from being struck by batted balls off of composite bats. Consequently, any bat that has the potential to drive the ball at a higher velocity than what is deemed "safe" is a potential to ban.

      Granted, I'm talking recreational leagues, at the D or E level. You'll see fewer bans at the C level, and I don't think you'll see much banned at A or B.

      Another thing that some leagues do (for safety, I suppose) is use a softer ball. One of the leagues I used to play in recently switched from a .47 core ball to a .44 core. The .44 felt totally different, like hitting a wet dishrag tied in a knot. Softer ball, less elastic collision between the bat and ball, slower return velocity, less chance for injuries.

      As for your wooden bat idea, there are softball leagues that use strictly wooden bats. There's no rule that says you can't use a wooden softball bat in any other league, but most people use an aluminum, alloy, or composite bat because of the obvious advantages.

      I appreciate the safety concerns, since I'm ususally camped out at shortstop... :)

  98. Re:A perfect game? by paiute · · Score: 2, Informative

    You can pitch a perfect game with no pitches thrown, for there are ways that the batter can be called out without a pitch being thrown: if he steps from one batter's box to the other when the pitcher is in position to pitch or if he attempts to use an illegal bat. 27 of those, and the pitcher is credited with a perfect game.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  99. Re:A perfect game? by The+Vulture · · Score: 1

    Not quite.

    Perfect Game: No batter makes it on base at all. No hits, no walks, no errors. The pitcher does not have to strike everybody out, put-outs (by fielders) are acceptable.

    Perfect games are still pretty rare, because a lot of pitchers tend to walk a batter or two, leading us to...

    No Hitter: No batter is credited with a hit (but there may be be base runners due to walks or errors). Runs can also score in a no-hitter (again, via walks and/or errors)

    -- Joe

  100. Re:Baseball happens in the real world... by Reziac · · Score: 1

    You might want to cultivate a taste for women's softball ;)

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  101. Re:A perfect game? by Reziac · · Score: 1

    "Imagine being the 27th batter. Do you swing at the first pitch no matter what?"

    Hell no -- your manager would have your ass!!

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  102. Re:Offtopic!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I watch baseball, you insensitive clod!

    I even have an autographed ball from the Big Unit himself from when he was a Mariner.

  103. How many pitches did it take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone happen to spot the number of pitches Randy had to throw? What would they call a game with only 27 pitches? I think there was a game once with only 54 pitches. To win in less than 81 pitches takes some help from your teammates.

  104. More on baseball physics by mjheil · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here at the American Institute of Physics, we love baseball. More specifically, our science writer Ben Stein loves the game, and has written several articles on it, including a statistical analysis of the chance of going to seven games, why AL batters get beaned more often, and a new way to determine under- and over-achieving teams.

  105. Sliding by blair1q · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One of the links says:

    "Does sliding help a runner to get to second base any faster? Of course not."

    And then goes on to almost figure out that yes, it does.

    Sliding allows the runner to run faster until he's very near the base. But he's going so fast he'll go past it if he doesn't slide. The steeper his deceleration, the longer he was going at full speed, and the shorter his total time getting to the base. That's the part the link forgot.

    If he could reliably collide with the fielder to shed his inertia, he'd do that, instead, because it'd allow him full speed until he's right on the base.

    1. Re:Sliding by Jardine · · Score: 1

      If he could reliably collide with the fielder to shed his inertia, he'd do that, instead, because it'd allow him full speed until he's right on the base.

      Do that in most leagues around here and the umpire will toss you (if they follow the rules). It usually only comes up at home plate though.

  106. Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I was him I'd ignore the Big Unit nickname and just say, "Hi, I'm Randy Johnson, a professional baseball player. I make millions of dollars a year. You wanna come back to my place?"

  107. Little know fact by Castaa · · Score: 1

    Pitching a baseball is the fastest physical human movement. Which tops out at around 100 MPH for professional baseball players.

    --
    Chew: You Nexus, huh? I design your eyes.
    Roy: Chew, if only you could see what I've seen with your eyes.
    1. Re:Little know fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Pitching a baseball is the fastest physical human movement. Which tops out at around 100 MPH for professional baseball players.
      Very interesting, given that underhand fast-pitch softball pitchers often exceed 100MPH.
  108. Physics of pool by Pee-Wee · · Score: 1

    For those who are interested in the physics of sports, here's a pretty in depth one on billiards:
    http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~penningt/262/ps /apapp.pdf

  109. Re:Baseball happens in the real world... by halofan_sd · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure if I agree. Basketball has lots of stats as well. So does football, and tennis has gotten pretty cool with the overlay plots of serves and points won. But basketball is a sport that stats don't mean very much. Is a player averaging 30 pts a game better than a player averaging 25 pts a game? The former might just be in a really bad team and have way more shot attempts. Another example is that a team that leads the league in offensive rebounds is almost always a bad shooting team, which leads to more offensive rebound oppurtunities, and not because the team is actually any good at getting offensive rebounds.

  110. Perfect game vs. No-Hitter by swb · · Score: 1

    I always thought a perfect game was 27 strike outs, and a no-hitter covered other variants where players may have gotten to the base (walks, hit by pitches, balks, etc).

    I guess I'm wrong, as a quick google suggests that Roger Clemens and Kerry Wood share the record of 20 in a 9 inning game.

    1. Re:Perfect game vs. No-Hitter by mlh1996 · · Score: 1

      A perfect game is 27 batters up, 27 batters out. No hits, no walks, no errors, nobody on base.


      A no-hitter is a complete game with no hits. Runners may still reach base on a walk or error in a no-hitter.


      In fact, it is quite possible to pitch a no-hitter and lose

      --
      Lack of creativity is no excuse for not having a .sig
  111. Re:ANLTC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AN really Ls TC, but does TC L AN?

  112. Any big fat ass can play baseball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Baseball's not a sport.

    No strategy

    No need to be in good shape

    Supersize me !

  113. Re:A perfect game? by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

    I dunno. The guy has only thrown 26 pitches. I'm looking for his best pitch down but still a strike or close. He's going to give me something I can hit, cause he wants the 27 pitch game. I just need to get it between the infielders. A single wrecks the whole thing and I'm giving him a legitimate shot at it. OTOH, in a 0-0 tie in a game that matters, I'm taking all the way.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  114. Re:A perfect game? by Sabotage · · Score: 1

    Um, in this example the pitcher pitched a one-hitter and lost.

    However, you can (and I believe it's happened) pitch a no-hitter and lose. In fact, to make the example valid, instead of a walkoff home run, call it a ball hit down the right field line... The right fielder drops the ball (error, not a hit) and, for whatever reason, the batter-runner is able to circle the bases and score the winning run. The pitcher has faced the minimum, thrown only 25 pitches, threw a no-hitter, and still lost. It's not a perfect game though, because of the error. There's no way to throw a perfect game and lose, as far as I know.

  115. Re:Baseball by goss · · Score: 1

    I dunno about fitness... i think it's about equal there. Can't conceivably call David Boon fit :)

  116. Re:A perfect game? by cellocgw · · Score: 1

    > The fewest pitches you can through and still pitch a complete game is 25

    More on this at the rec.puzzles archive. IIRC, it takes one pitch per inning: first guy up triples.
    Then the pitcher throws a pitch, but the guy tries to steal and the batter steps in the way. It's ruled no pitch and he's out on interference. Do this three times per inning and you've finished the game with 9 pitches.

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  117. Re:A perfect game? by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

    >However, you can (and I believe it's happened) pitch a no-hitter and lose

    Yes it has, and more than once. Usually it involves a walk or two followed by an error. I don't see how you could throw a perfect game and lose. You could retire 27 straight batters and lose in extra innings. You could retire 27 straight, get relieved at the start of the tenth (injury?) and get no decision. Both of those would suck. I don't think there has ever been a perfect game of more than 9 innings in MLB.
    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  118. A much more interesting /. question: by holzp · · Score: 1

    Howabout the databases (or sysadmins) behind baseball? How the heck do they come up with those obscure statistics so fast? The last left-hander to pitch a 4 hitter in the city of new york....

  119. Just keep your damn eye on the ball... by tbedolla · · Score: 1

    The feat of the no-hitter is indeed special, but you do truly have to be a sports fanatic to really be moved by the act. Ironically, the act of hitting a baseball is statistically one of the most difficult feats to perform (a 90 mph fastball crosses the plate approximately 0.4 seconds after it leaves the pitcher's hand (for those who need perspective, try this test Reaction Time) as the hitter must determine location (strike or ball), spin on the ball (curve, slider, fastball, splitter) and then swing a round bat to hit the round ball providing for a small margin of error for effective contact...not to mention that there are 9 guys on the field trying to catch the ball too...surprising that there aren't more perfect games. Thus, it is no surprise that those people that are considered "Hall of Famers" that have .300 batting averages failed roughly 7 out of 10 times. Or was that software projects?

    --

    "Everything in the universe is clouded by the impositions of the mind"
  120. how about ZERO pitches! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your scenario was off still, but here's another one.

    It's not impossible, but let's just say EVERY batter on one team bats out of order. When each batter initially steps into the batter's box, the opposing team confers with the home plate umpire, who sees the batter is out of order and calls him out. If each batter does this, and the other team scores at least one run, then the pitcher can complete a win while not throwing any pitches at all! Of course it would take an incredibly stupid manager let this happen.

  121. Re:A perfect game? by kalidasa · · Score: 1

    Ah, yes, thanks for the correction. (Are you sure it was 168 mph though? Are you talking about the SI article or the book?)

  122. Incredulous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pitching a baseball is the fastest physical human movement.

    Hrmmm, I would think faster movements occur in martial arts... or maybe on the PWAMT (Professional Whack-a-Mole Tour :).

  123. Re:A perfect game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    enumerated in another thread, but this is my 'out-there' game:
    Visiting team's batters are all out of order. Home team has ump call each one "OUT!" before first pitch is thrown. Repeat for nine innings and you can have a pitcher throw a complete game with no pitches.

  124. Re:Baseball by BigBadBri · · Score: 1
    Cricket needs rule changes to bring it in line with the true game, Krikkit.

    White robots, programmable bats, exploding balls - even Kerry Packer would be on to a winner with that sort of sport!

    --
    oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
  125. Willie Mays also did this for another reason... by MojoStan · · Score: 1
    He's trained himself since a very early age to see the ball off the bat and then estimate where it will land. He then runs as fast as he can to that spot, and lo and behold the ball is there for him.
    Willie Mays also immediately estimated where the ball would land and ran as fast as he could to that spot. But in the strong, swirling winds of Candlestick Park (before they enclosed it), the ball would not always land at that first estimated spot. By getting to the first spot early, Mays would have time to make another estimation.
    --
    TO START
    PRESS ANY KEY

    Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...

  126. Re:A perfect game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the reason he's called 'Big Unit' would be quite apparent at first sight, he's 6'10" after all...

  127. Re:Baseball happens in the real world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, except cricket of course. Back to the mid 1800's.

  128. Quantum Baseball by Macblaster · · Score: 1

    My old chemistry professor wrote an extremely funny article on the subject of quantum baseball. Okay, so extremely funny is a relative term, but at least I enjoyed it...

    http://www.aps.org/apsnews/0100/010008.cfm

  129. Re:Baseball happens in the real world... by CFTM · · Score: 1

    Cricket doesn't count ... we don't play it in the US and afterall only the United States REALLY matters :)

  130. You left out: by crashnbur · · Score: 1

    "There's no crying in baseball."

  131. Almost as amazing as Johnson's perfect game... by crashnbur · · Score: 1

    ...is Ben Sheets' near-perfect game just two days earlier against the same Braves team. Such a miserable offensive performance by the Braves against Sheets should have left them eager to pound the ball against Johnson on Tuesday. And, in comparison, they did.

    Sunday: Ben Sheets of the Milwaukee Brewers allowed three hits and struck out 18 Braves in a complete game win over Atlanta. With 18 strikeouts, one walk, three hits, and one sacrifice bunt, Braves batters retreated to the dugout without putting the ball in play or reaching base 18 out of 31 times (58.1%).

    Tuesday: Randy Johnson's game may have been perfect (meaning no Braves reached first base safely for any reason), but his 13 strikeouts mean that the Braves retreated to the dugout without putting the ball in play or reaching base only 13 out of 27 times (48.1%).

    So while Johnson's game is defined as "perfect" by MLB, it was slightly more reliant on the Braves hitting the ball directly at the defense, while Sheets' near-perfection was betrayed by a couple of lucky hits.

    So the subject of this comment is misleading. Sheets was actually more dominant, but he won't be remembered in the record books for his more dominant performance because the ball managed to find holes in the Brewers' defense. Then again, Sheets walked a batter, so no perfection for him!

    Either way, this is not good for team looking for it's 13th consecutive division title (not counting the unfinished 1994 season). Over two days, they managed three hits in 56 at-bats (58 total times at the plate). Ouch!

  132. Great one! by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1

    Great one! There's likely 50 or so good Yogi quotes too.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  133. Re:Baseball happens in the real world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, but you obviously haven't watched much cricket over there

    Having been exposed to both cricket and baseball, I can tell you without doubt that cricket has the most mind-boggling number of statistics that you can imagine.

  134. Another Science of Pitching Link by m_evanchik · · Score: 1

    From the New York Times:

    http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2004/04/04 /s ports/20040404_PITCH_GRAPHIC.html

  135. Adair has the slider wrong by andykuan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I love the Adair book except that he got the slider wrong. A slider is thrown like a football -- it should have a tight spiral the axis of rotation of which is down and away from batters (assuming righty on righty). Hitters are told to look for a "red dot" (seen at the near end of the rotational axis) in order to spot an incoming slider.

  136. I'm annoyed. by Chr1s-Cr0ss · · Score: 1
    --

    68.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
  137. My definition of Baseball physics is ... by pilsner.urquell · · Score: 1

    Listening to Vin Scully explain his first physics lesson learned in the Brooklyn Dodgers' Stadium. This lesson was conveyed to him after the young Mr. Scully asked the person next to him why the bat struck the ball before the sound of the crack was heard. I believe he said that his age at the time was 8.

  138. Re:A perfect game? by Reziac · · Score: 1

    Or do like Bill Buckner -- foul off 27 pitches in a row (or whatever ridiculous number it was back in the '86 Series) til you make the poor exasperated pitcher give you the one you want :)

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  139. don't forget the math side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Discussion of baseball physics would be incomplete without a serious treatment of modeling team performance through (useful) statistics. Bill James (literally) wrote the book on the subject.


  140. Re:A perfect game? by gowen · · Score: 1

    Thats from the book (which, bizarrely, I have on my desk because I bought it on Ebay three days ago)

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  141. I thought this link might be of interest..... by 1iar_parad0x · · Score: 1

    There's quite a bit of those "the physics of X" articles here.

    --
    What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....
  142. Re:Eh ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Whatever wanker is moderating today needs his head examined.
    That's unfair: why single today out?

    Seriously, if you slag the moderators off it triggers a kind of herd defence instinct and every little ponce with inexplicably obtained mod points will pile on you, particularly if they've modded something OT which was a joke that went over their flat empty heads.
  143. Missing the batting half can be rather disasterous by kevinatilusa · · Score: 1

    ask Harvey Haddix, who pitched a perfect 12 innings, only to lose in #13.