Exit velocity vs distance

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

For me, the issue is the overreliance on new data points during broadcasts. Was watching a Fox broadcast of the Mets vs. Padres (the Musgrove ear-check game) a week ago, and found it pretty unbearable. Every other word was about how many feet someone had covered to catch a ball, how many feet on average Brandon Nimmo has stood from home plate in the outfield, etc.

I usually like David Cone as a broadcaster, but it was tough to listen to his comments on spinrates. He was throwing out spinrate numbers without giving any context. If he had just said "Musgrove's spinrate is 20% higher today) that would have been fine. But saying his spinrate is 300 means nothing by itself.

However, in defense of the spinrate comments--it did prove influential, as that is probably why Buck Showalter had the umps check Joe Musgrove's ears. He couldn't believe the increased spinrate was natural.

I tend to agree with this. I think these metrics do actually matter and make a big difference in what we see on the field. But it’s also a little boring and doesn’t mesh with the pastoral mystique.

[BobC]

What I've always found interesting is that people often tout these exit velocities by some hitters, but they never seem to discuss them in conjunction with, nor really take it into consideration with, the type of pitch they hit and its velocity, as a significant contributing factor. One would think Newton's 3rd Law of Motion would be an integral part and factor into the determination of exit velocities, no?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by BobC

What I've always found interesting is that people often tout these exit velocities by some hitters, but they never seem to discuss them in conjunction with, nor really take it into consideration with, the type of pitch they hit and its velocity, as a significant contributing factor. One would think Newton's 3rd Law of Motion would be an integral part and factor into the determination of exit velocities, no?

Perhaps that will become a new metric called the redirection velocity: How much faster exit velocity is than the entrance velocity (pitch).

Hitting a 75 mph curveball 100 MPH may be more impressive than hitting a 100 MPH fastball 110 MPH.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Perhaps that will become a new metric: How much faster exit velocity is than the entrance velocity (pitch).

Hitting a 75 mph curveball 100 MPH may be more impressive than hitting a 100 MPH fastball 110 MPH.

Based on Newton's 3rd Law, that's apparently not even a question, but more of an absolute truth. Helps explain how smaller guys, like a Jose Ramirez, can hit out a fair amount of homers. But put someone Ramirez's size in a slo-pitch softball game, and home runs don't come so easy or often, if at all. Virtually all the force/energy has to be generated by the batter in softball. Not the case in baseball. LOL

[packs]

Exit velocity just seems like a dumb stat because it’s only discussed when someone hits a home run. I’m sure there are balls hit into the ground at over a hundred miles an hour all the time. It just seems try hard to me and like the art of conversation is being lost. Analysts don’t know how to talk about power any other way anymore.

One thing I like about David Cone is his ability to use both metrics and his personality to talk about baseball. Too often it’s someone reading a string of numbers in place of any insight.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Based on Newton's 3rd Law, that's apparently not even a question, but more of an absolute truth. Helps explain how smaller guys, like a Jose Ramirez, can hit out a fair amount of homers. But put someone Ramirez's size in a slo-pitch softball game, and home runs don't come so easy or often, if at all. Virtually all the force/energy has to be generated by the batter in softball. Not the case in baseball. LOL

I've never understood the physics. It seems to me it would take more force to make an object coming at you change direction than to hit it from a stationary place where it has no momentum that has to be overcome. I know that's wrong but not sure why.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I've never understood the physics. It seems to me it would take more force to make an object coming at you change direction than to hit it from a stationary place where it has no momentum that has to be overcome. I know that's wrong but not sure why.

Can't explain it either, but it is part of physics.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Can't explain it either, but it is part of physics.

If you think about it, if you threw a ball against a stationary bat the ball would bounce back at you, which is inconsistent with the way I am conceptualizing it.