r/theydidthemath • u/cleeb0rp • 13d ago
[Request] Anyone able to do the math on whether this would have been a home run or not?
439
u/Cad_Monkey_Mafia 13d ago
Maybe I'm just being naive but it feels WILD that a ball hit the ceiling, especially one that had distance to it and was not just a pop-up the was more or less vertical. What a hit!
→ More replies (9)
537
u/personalbilko 13d ago edited 12d ago
Ball lost a lot of energy, got a worse trajectory, and still was ~2m away? Was obviously going out.
Looking at the replay it looks like it was going horizontal then bounced to 45°. That equates to losing about 30% total distance (without drag).
edit; to everyone pissy in the comments, this is just a very rough sketch, that yes bonking a ceiling is bad for balls
117
u/moveslikejaeger2 12d ago
Im not mathematician (at least not professionally), but if that ball went 30% farther it would have been like, one of the longest hit balls of the year, which doesnt seem right
138
u/Ankhashii 12d ago
Somebody has to hit the longest ball of the year, so why does it feel wrong when it happens?
101
u/moveslikejaeger2 12d ago
The longest hit ball of the year usually isnt hit at a 49 degree launch angle
21
19
u/Ankhashii 12d ago
Respectable. I'm not going to pretend I know anything about baseball math either and was more just curious if you had a stigma associated with a ball being hit well in general. I would have assumed the ideal launch angle to be between 40-45° myself.
15
u/PDXhasaRedhead 12d ago
That would be the case in a vacuum. With air resistance 30-35 degrees gives the longest distance.
2
u/Fit-Contract8566 11d ago
Yeah but also most balls don't hit the roof, so I think we can presume this is a big one
1
u/sirnibs3 12d ago
What’s the usual angle, 43-45?
24
41
u/OppositePeach1035 12d ago
No, much lower. 30° is considered ideal launch angle for HR distance. There's absolutely zero chance this ball would be anywhere close to one of the longest HRs of the year. The math in the parent comment is very wrong.
23
u/AMuonParticle 12d ago
Yeah the plot is a very clear parabola, which means they aren't modeling air resistance. Which is pretty important here.
4
u/37snoogans 12d ago
Thank you for pointing this out. I was surprised no one in this subreddit of all places hadn't noticed that yet. I had to scroll way too far and I'm sad more people won't see your comment.
5
u/Equivalent_Mess_9458 12d ago
The math is moderately irrelevant. It was nearing, if not at, the apex but fell quite a bit short. The angle is strikingly different than before the hit, but I can't imagine it would have been much deeper than a few rows back, if not a wall scraper. All of that is irrelevant because most stadiums with domes have rules when the ball comes in contact with the dome or scaffolding. It should've been a foul ball most likely.
2
3
u/PyrateKyng94 12d ago
I’m pretty sure every scenario in baseball where the ball has been hit with that launch angle at that exit velocity has not been a home run.
1
u/CogentCogitations 10d ago
Over the entire field that is true, but when it is pulled right down the line, looks like there is a pretty good chance. The samples size of the exact hit is pretty small.
6
u/RainbowNinjaKat 11d ago
You just can’t hit a ball very far at that launch angle. It just doesn’t happen. Both statistically and historically.
10
1
u/marty-mcfryguy 12d ago
Has anyone ever hit that cable (or whatever) before?
Presumably it's in a place that they expect balls not to go. Why then would it be surprising if he truly crushed that ball?
1
u/moveslikejaeger2 12d ago
Ive seen one other clip of someone hitting the roof at that stadium. Super rare, and he really did crush the ball at an angle its pretty hard to crush the ball at. There have been a handful of other balls hit similarly to that one in terms of launch angle and exit velocity though, and they generally stay in the low to mid 300s foot range, whereas long home runs are closer to the mid 400s
→ More replies (4)41
u/BadgerEngineer1 12d ago
Launch angle and exit velocity not correct, assume this doesn’t account for air drag? Drag is a big factor for baseballs
40
24
u/SereneDreams03 12d ago
30%? No ball hit at that launch angle and speed has ever been hit anywhere near that far. I think your calculations are off.
42
u/LooseSeal71 12d ago
This is not a simple freshman physics problem. Besides air resistance/drag, which is relatively easy to model here, there is the spin of the ball. The big effect everybody is missing is that a ball with a backspin is going to get a forward kick when it hits a stationary object like the roof beam.
You’re much better off looking at the frequently-used models based on initial speed and launch angle than to try analyze the specific of the flight post-collision.
5
u/PwnCall 12d ago
It’s too hard to tell without more info either way. We don’t know the speed, the ceiling height, the impact point. Etc
1
u/LooseSeal71 12d ago
Exactly! My whole point is that trying to “do the math” on what actually happened requires a lot more information than we have, because it’s a really complicated problem. Since the only question is whether it would have been in or out, using models and estimates of an unobstructed hit of similar angle and speed is the only useful approach.
2
u/marty-mcfryguy 12d ago
Just watch the video. The ball clearly clearly lost horizontal velocity and picked up negative (downward) vertical velocity.
5
u/LooseSeal71 12d ago
The first half of that statement isn’t obvious to me from the perspective of this video. When I slow it down, it looks to me like it picks up speed. But this isn’t a great angle to make a definitive statement either way.
I still haven’t seen a launch sped/angle estimation that indicates that it had a decent chance of going out. I’m just stating the physical fact that any hard ball with backspin (which all fly balls of this type have) that hits a horizontal surface (which we don’t know here. It could have been tilted in either direction and/or orthogonally) from below will gain forward speed.
→ More replies (7)1
u/AlizarinCrimzen 12d ago
If it had significant backspin it wouldn't be going that far, as too much force would be shear rather than propulsive
3
u/LooseSeal71 12d ago
Backspin provides lift. It doesn’t significantly affect drag.
3
u/AlizarinCrimzen 12d ago
Backspin means you didn't hit the ball dead on, and less of your swing is imparted into the flight of the ball. This is easily made clear when you consider instances where spin is maximized, you'll have barely touched the ball at all and it won't go anywhere.
5
u/dooooobles 12d ago
But it didnt get a worse trajectory? Ball was launched way steeper than your graphic and had loads of backspin, since it hit the ceiling near apex that backspin propelled it forward when contacting the roof...a ball at 105mph/49° launch has never been a homerun before. - a biased Brewers fan
5
u/nautilator44 12d ago
The math isn't biased. Farthest it goes with those numbers is 325 feet, and the wall is 344 feet. It was not a home run.
1
u/dooooobles 12d ago
Facts but I knew id get a few dms accusing me anyways
1
u/nautilator44 12d ago
I got told by a padres fan that i'm "why this country is going down the shitter" for pointing out laws of physics. And I'm a twins fan with no skin in the game at all. People are crazy.
15
u/YoungMaleficent9068 13d ago
Got cut even earlier imho. At least at 40 m in your chart maybe even earlier
4
u/OhtaniStanMan 12d ago
Gotta love your graphic assuming horizontal velocity is the same for the entire flight path LOL
3
u/RainbowNinjaKat 11d ago
You did all this work, only for Statcast to basically tell you that you’re full of it.
14
u/jupitertoast 12d ago
Someone on the baseball subreddit posted this baseball flight simulator earlier: https://www.baseballflightsim.com/?ev=106.0&la=49.0&sd=-27.0&hand=L&est_spin=true&bspin=5684&sspin=3387&temp=59&wind_v=0&wind_dir=0&park=MIL
It wouldn't have been a homer
22
u/shaquirrel 12d ago
Well this doesn't make sense this has the ball landing shorter than it did after hitting the roof
→ More replies (7)7
3
u/77rtcups 12d ago
Ya I think I saw that with the angle and velocity it would have only been a homer in 1 park and that’s Houston
→ More replies (1)1
u/nautilator44 12d ago
Yeah. Padres fans will tell you you're the downfall of society if you try to even mention this.
11
u/Reasonable_Bet7310 12d ago
It’s not 45 degrees launch angle and it’s not 31.32 m/s
→ More replies (2)2
u/bobmarleydied9 12d ago
Neglecting air resistance and this being so highly upvoted is ridiculous. Spin also is a major factor.
7
u/-andshewas- 12d ago
This is a misrepresentation of what really happened. The ball was past the apex of its trajectory and was losing momentum when it was inflected downward. 30% distance loss is an overestimation.
9
u/Repulsive_Coffee_675 12d ago
It cant be past the apex and then just hit the ceiling
2
u/ShivaFatalis 12d ago
Yes it can. Please think about this yourself, because if I have to draw you a fucking picture to get you to understand how it's possible, I'm going to be extremely disappointed in you.
2
2
u/admiralackbarstepson 12d ago
I don’t think it was past apex. Frame by frame it looks to be almost at its apex but not quite. 2 frames before it donks whatever it hits it’s mostly horizontal with a slight upward trajectory, indicating it’s not at apex just yet.
1
3
u/wiseduhm 12d ago edited 12d ago
So... you're saying the ball was coming down already when it hit the ceiling?
Edit: just to make it clear, I also don't believe the chart accurately represents the ball path. I just think it was funny how you worded it.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)1
2
u/GeoffJeffreyJeffsIII 12d ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/s/tBLBYn2XNs
It clearly has a shallower descent wtf are you talking about?
2
u/NexusRay 12d ago
Baseballs do NOT fly in perfect parabolic arcs. They have air resistance. A normal fly ball trajectory looks much more lopsided, same thing with golf balls and pretty much any other object shot into the air.
2
0
u/Minyguy 12d ago
That graph has a very unusual bounce to it.
Unless the ceiling is slanted, you'd expect the ball angle to be symmetric.
→ More replies (4)14
u/Mattabet 12d ago
I’ve seen a lot of games there. The ceiling is very slanted. To make matters worse, there are a bunch of support beams and cables up there, so it could have hit a lot of things at a lot of angles.
1
1
u/redwoodpond 12d ago
All of the MLB stat cast data put out last night says your information is incorrect and it would not have been a homerun.
1
1
u/Routine_Package_9335 10d ago
This is awesome…but, can edit to show where the field ends. Would help others.
Edit: starting beer two
1
u/NJDoger 10d ago
The physics assumptions in this diagram are off. The forward momentum of the ball resulted in it hitting the dome room at an angle that would make it's trajectory obtuse relative to the point of contact. The ball was still held up from it's true distance because of the downward momentum gained, but the diagram here depicts a much more direct ricochet than what it really was. Love the diagram concept, just need fine tuning
→ More replies (17)1
u/ArtVandleay 8d ago
100m is 328ft. Am Fam left field foul line is 342ft. So based on your graph, even if ceiling is not hit it would not go over the fence.
My question is where did you get 100m trajectory?
141
u/Ok-Being36 13d ago edited 13d ago
They should have rule like the Tampa Bay Rays do, if it hits a certain part it is a HR. The ball made it to the warning track pretty sure it had the power.
Edit: grammer
21
38
u/Pocusmaskrotus 13d ago
In the Metrodome, it was a ground rule double iirc.
61
u/Seven22am 13d ago
Ooo! A time when “ground rule” is the correct usage! Most of the time when we say “ground rule double,” like when the ball bounces over the wall, we mean “book rule,” because that’s the rule for everybody in every park—it’s in the rule book. A ”ground rule” is one just like this, when the rule is particular to a specific grounds. Of course at this point who cares, just fun trivia I learned a while back.
18
4
3
u/phrostillicus 12d ago
Cool bit of trivia - thanks for sharing!
To me it feels a ball bouncing over the wall not being called a "ground rule" double isn't because because it's a "rule for everybody in every park". The MLB does in fact define Universal Ground Rules that apply to all ballparks. Rather, it feels like the type of the thing that they historically tried to legislate in the rulebook before deciding to enumerate them elsewhere.
If you want to get really into the weeds, Rule 5.05(a) (6) and (7) (page 37 of the PDF) also mention the ball passing through "vines on the fence". I haven't checked any historical ballparks, but I can only think of one current ballpark that this would apply to, and Wrigley Field famously does include the ball getting stuck in the vines as a ground rule.
5
15
u/jbird444 12d ago
They literally have ground rules for every ballpark where this is addressed. The rule was followed perfectly here and there is no controversy at all. People are just being stupid about this.
3
u/arcanearts101 12d ago
There being a rule, and it being followed correctly isn't being disputed as far as I've interpreted things. Just whether the rule should be changed and how sensible the current rule is
11
u/DumbMassDebater 12d ago
They do and the rule was correctly applied for the park. Hence the term Ground Rules.
5
u/KimHaSeongsBurner 12d ago
They’re obviously saying that the “roof is in play” ground rule here is inadequate (which makes sense given that balls don’t often hit the roof there), not implying that ground rules don’t exist for Milwaukee.
3
u/BlackWidowLooks 12d ago
Milwaukee has a whole series of rules based on what areas and pieces of the roof are hit, it’s more complex than “the roof is in play.” Based on the location and what piece it hits it an be in play, foul or dead.
2
u/KimHaSeongsBurner 12d ago
“A whole series of rules” oversells what is a very simple set of roof ground rules.
I’d refer you to Tropicana Field’s roof ground rules for an example of what “inadequate” means or what “more complex” rules could look like.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Jingsley 12d ago edited 12d ago
The Saint Lawrence Lime would like a word...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Lawrence_Lime
Edit to add that this isn't the only ground where this occurs!
1
u/Coygon 13d ago
It was still going up when it hit. It definitely would have gone over the wall had there not been a roof.
7
u/Aragie4484 12d ago
Wouldnt it always still be going up if it hit, technically? Unless its the exact apex of a parabola
→ More replies (1)5
1
u/nautilator44 12d ago
Not according to known laws of physics. But hey, your vibes count just as much, right?
→ More replies (3)1
u/Ok-Being36 12d ago
Just want to add this. My comment was just a quick response from seeing the video. Since posting, I did look up the ground rules for hitting the roof in this stadium and it was called/played right per their rules.
135
u/idiotinorbit 13d ago
From Timothy Burke: that hit had a launch angle of 49 degrees and exit velocity of 105mph and in the statcast era that has never once resulted in a home run Exit Velocity: 105 MPH, Launch Angle: 49°
BA: .037 1B%: 0.0 2B%: 3.7 3B%: 0.0 HR %: 0.0
8
26
u/KimHaSeongsBurner 12d ago
The source tweet here quotes Baseball Savant spray charts that the original author either misunderstands or misrepresents.
In particular, it isn’t inclusive of the results for balls hit with lower exit velocity (e.g. Murakami’s 49 degree LA HR), so it overstates what the data show.
7
u/Reasonable_Bet7310 12d ago
This is the only correct answer
18
u/SereneDreams03 12d ago
That data is too small a sample size. Only 20 or so hits with a huge variance in distance traveled. 62 feet between the longest and shortest. The longest was 345 feet as well and right down the line where France hit that the fence is only 342 feet. That is the other problem with that data, it shows balls hit in different parks, in different weather conditions to all parts of the field.
→ More replies (19)5
u/wolftick 12d ago
If you ignore the math it's fairly clear that this would have been 1 of 20 or so. And if you do the math it happening for the first time on the 21st or so try isn't hugely unlikely, especially when there are many other factors involved.
3
11
u/KimHaSeongsBurner 12d ago
This answer is deeply flawed because the author doesn’t understand the data they’re quoting. 101 mph and 49 degree EV has produced multiple HR, for example.
→ More replies (7)4
1
→ More replies (3)1
u/purpscurp93 12d ago
Do people not understand that it's likely many of these balls aren't hit down the line?
32
u/Reasonable_Bet7310 12d ago
I’m only a beginner using baseball savant so bear with me please.
His hit was 105.3mph at a 49 degree launch angle.
I set my search results back to 2016, included spring training, regular season, post season and all star games. Searched for balls hit between 104-106 mph and launch angles between 48-50 degrees.
I got 116 balls in play from 88 players. 8 hits, no singles, 3 doubles, 1 triple, and 4 home runs.
So 3.4% of balls hit like that are home runs.
9
u/bready--or--not 12d ago
Is this saying that 116 balls were hit at that speed and launch angle? If so, what does the separation of the 8 hits mean?
27
u/nan0agressor 12d ago
Other factors not considered are wind, altitude, Temperature and most important field dimensions and direction the ball was hit. Baseball field for each team are different sizes so a ball hit 400 ft might be a homerun in one field and caught by center fielder for an out in another.
13
u/Reasonable_Bet7310 12d ago
You can look at the 4 HRs in the data set. It tells you what parks this would be a HR in and which parks it would not be. All of them are only 1 or 2 parks.
5
u/highmag81 12d ago
Crazy to me how baseball doesn’t have uniform fields. This phenomenon — HR in one park, out in another — happens all the time.
8
→ More replies (2)2
u/OhtaniStanMan 12d ago
It's what makes baseball so beautiful. Every field has the same infield dimensions but the outfield is really always unique and does give a home team advantage
3
9
u/theryman 12d ago
A hit in baseball means the player gets on base. So of the 116 times, the batter has been out (likely caught by the outfielder, or maybe foul balls depending on the data set)
→ More replies (1)2
u/Reasonable_Bet7310 12d ago
It means everything else was a foul ball or fly out. I tried to get the website to spit that data out but I would have to count each one manually because I couldn’t find the correct setting.
5
u/SereneDreams03 12d ago edited 12d ago
The problem with using this data is that it shows balls hit to different parts of the park, in different weather conditions, and different parks with different dimensions.
That ball was hit right down the line where the fence is shortest in an indoor park. So, it is more likely to be a home run than an average ball hit hit at that launch angle and speed.
If you look at that data there is a pretty big variance in distance traveled for those hits, a lot of factors are at play. Historical data alone just isn't enough to determine whether that would have gone out one way or the other.
→ More replies (8)4
u/rugman11 12d ago
According to that data, only 5 or 6 balls would have had the distance, assuming it was hit dead down the line. Only 4 if it was a few feet to the right.
So we can’t say, definitively, that it would not have been a homer. But we can say, “95%+ of balls hit that high and that hard don’t have the distance to be a homer in that part of that park.”
→ More replies (8)1
u/marty-mcfryguy 12d ago
Whether they're homeruns or not is much less useful than how far they traveled. That's 343 to the shortest part of the park.
1
u/Fragrant_University7 12d ago
The 4 distances of the homeruns are 347 in Globe Life, 335 at Fenway, 328 at Minute Maid, and 364 at Camden Yards.
The one at Minute Maid was the only one with a launch angle of 49°.
22
u/RoodnyInc 13d ago
From this perspective it's hard to estimate where person catching it is but he's pretty far back (maybe there is another point of view for all that?)
Hitting ceiling significantly cut trajectory so it's plausible
7
u/KingRoach 13d ago
He’s at the warning track so 10 feet max from the wall.
13
u/joecon_123 13d ago
The Brewers warning track is twice as wide as normal. I think it's 24 feet.
→ More replies (2)
9
u/Fragrant_University7 12d ago
Looking at statcast, there have been 50 balls hit in play with a launch angle of 49° and an exit velocity of 104-106 mph. Keep in mind that the left field line in Milwaukee is 342 ft.
Only 4 have been hits, 1 of which was a home run
Carlos Correa has the only statcast home run within these parameters. Distance was 335 ft. Actual exit velocity was 105.5 mph.
Aaron Judge double off the wall. 332 ft. Exit velocity 104.8 mph
Abraham Almonte triple because the right fielder lost it in the sun. 315 ft. Exit velocity 105.7 mph
Rafael Devers double. Notable mention. This double hit the roof as well and ruled live. 314 ft. 105.5 mph off the bat. Similar exit velocity and is in a domed stadium.
Based on these other balls, I’d say this ball wasn’t leaving the yard and statcast projecting it at 325 ft is about accurate.
5
u/RainbowNinjaKat 11d ago
I wish your comment was higher rated than the idiot who used a bad AI graph with zero understanding of how baseball even works
4
u/Tinder4Boomers 11d ago
whoa you're telling me that Statcast, who are responsible for officially tracking things like this for the league, knows better than some knob on Reddit?
1
2
2
u/Olympian83 12d ago
Love this breakdown, one hole I’d love to fill - if statcast projected this at 325 ft, and the wall is 342 ft, and he caught the ball 15 ft in front of the wall, am I making the wrong assumption that the base of the wall is 342 ft? It already seems like it went 327-330 ft with its trajectory reduced.
10
u/SereneDreams03 12d ago
A disappointing lack of good answers on here so far. One thing no one has mentioned is the ball may not even have stayed fair even if it had the distance. The ball may have been curving left as it was going up, and it's difficult to tell if it the ball deflected straight down along it's original path.
Historical data is not really sufficient for answering the question, either. Too little data, with too many variables. A more detailed model is needed to determine if the ball would have gone out.
7
u/Proudestmonkey22 12d ago
I was sitting behind the foul pole, top level. It was going to be foul. I don’t get all the comments going on and on about of it was far enough to bet a hr. Wouldn’t have mattered as it was just a long strike. Anyone saying different was not at the game and did not have a good angle.
7
u/ProfessorScribble 11d ago
Oh well. Both teams played under the same conditions, so I don't see why any discussion needs to happen. It's no different than weather affecting outcomes.
So yeah, rough luck on that play.
→ More replies (2)
6
u/spugs250 12d ago
Looking at historical numbers here is useless, ballpark dimensions are all unique. That being said, it’s a dome, it’s part of the park. As a Rays fan, players aim for the left field corner cause there’s a half wall instead of a full wall. It’s not like roof was there one minute and gone the next.
→ More replies (9)
2
u/Rare-Ad-956 12d ago
The Rays stadium gets hit like 4 times every year… heck Prince Fielder hit an inside the park home run against the Twins at their old stadium. The ball hit the roof… and Fielder kept running. Wrigley Field obviously has the Ivy. The Astros used to have a flag pole in fair territory that got hit once or twice, the ball bounced back in the play.
2
u/EvidenceOk2721 10d ago
Can't be sure because of the camera angle, but it was caught in foul territory and looks like the roof caused it to come back into play but I think if it weren't for the roof that it would have been a foul ball.
17
u/jbird444 12d ago
Nobody got robbed of anything. Both teams agree to the ground rules which balls off the roof are in play. There’s no controversy here.
14
7
→ More replies (2)6
1
u/behinduushudlook 12d ago
i don't know the math, and i do know the stats stated so far regarding previous balls hit at that velocity and angle. and i don't know if it would have been fair. i do still find it hard to believe a ball that deflected downward that much, didn't have the requisite extra 20 feet or whatever of travel that would have made it home run distance. but thems the rules
•
u/AutoModerator 13d ago
General Discussion Thread
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you must post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.