PDA

View Full Version : Mythbusters Baseball Episode



nate
08-10-2007, 09:59 AM
Did anyone catch this? It was pretty interesting. They tested the following baseball "myths":

*Whether corked bats actually hit a ball farther
*Do balls stored "dry" travel farther than balls stored in a humidor
*Can a fastball actually "rise"
*Is it faster to slide into a base you can't overrun
*Can a ball be hit so hard its cover is torn off

Actually, the testing of the myths may've been more interesting than the results. Still, a good show.

Always Red
08-10-2007, 10:12 AM
that's a fun show, but I missed this episode.

So, Nate, what were their conclusions?

Joseph
08-10-2007, 10:16 AM
Do tell indeed.

I'll still try to catch it this weekend.

Boo bad pun.

MrCinatit
08-10-2007, 10:21 AM
I love MythBusters - a great Sunday afternoon game to watch before/after a Bengals game - or when they are getting their butts kicked.
I will be on the look out for this one.

jojo
08-10-2007, 10:21 AM
Did they test the "myth" that chicks dig the long ball?

I personally think they prefer rich ballplayers more...

smith288
08-10-2007, 10:22 AM
-Humidors have a great effect in how far it travels (why that isnt cheating is beyond me)
-Corking a bat gives you exactly half the pop off the bat as a normal bat (the cork absorbs the shock)
-Sliding is faster than trying to run and stop
-A baseball can't rise as there isnt enough lift against gravity
-The cover can only come off if the ball is traveling near 400mph+

nate
08-10-2007, 10:30 AM
I didn't want to "spoil" the results for anyone who hadn't seen the show so the answers will be after this image of Bill Evans:

http://www.gluethemoose.com/graphics/bill600.jpg

*Whether corked bats actually hit a ball farther

BUSTED. Its basically a waste of time to do this because the corked section of the bat actually ABSORBS the impact and reduces momentum. They built a testing rig and found that an uncorked bat hit an incoming 80 mph pitch back out at 80 mph. The corked bat hit the same pitch back out at 40 mph.

*Do balls stored "dry" travel farther than balls stored in a humidor

PLAUSIBLE. They did a test with "humidified" balls, normal balls and then balls stored in an "arid" environment. Then they built a rig to hit the balls. The "arid" balls went farthest as a group, then the normal balls and finally the "humid" balls. The grouping was very clear.

*Can a fastball actually "rise"

BUSTED. Basically, for this to happen an inordinate amount of backspin has to be imparted on the ball. Humans just aren't capable of generating enough to make the ball actually rise. They _can_ give it enough backspin to keep it aloft _longer_ but not actually rise.

*Is it faster to slide into a base you can't overrun

PLAUSIBLE. They timed themselves sliding into 2nd several times and the result was if you didn't have to slow down to avoid overrunning the base, you would get there more quickly.

*Can a ball be hit so hard its cover is torn off

BUSTED. This was one of the coolest ones. They used the same rig they used to test the corked bats and dialed it up so that it was "pitching" at 400 mph! At _that_ speed, the cover could be torn from the ball. However, at even the best pitching speed, a human would be incapable of doing this.

Yachtzee
08-10-2007, 10:35 AM
-Humidors have a great effect in how far it travels (why that isnt cheating is beyond me)
-Corking a bat gives you exactly half the pop off the bat as a normal bat (the cork absorbs the shock)
-Sliding is faster than trying to run and stop
-A baseball can't rise as there isnt enough lift against gravity
-The cover can only come off if the ball is traveling near 400mph+

It was a pretty good episode. The batting robots were pretty cool.

The humidor question is a good one. I actually approve of the use of humidors, if only because it can aid in standardizing the effect humidity has on the ball in different regions. In addition to Coors Field's altitude effect, dry air also has an effect on the ball. The experiment showed that drier balls fly the farthest, followed by balls kept in moderate humidity, with balls kept in high humidity flying the least. If you think about it, places out west like Denver and Arizona are much drier in the summer than the humid cities of the Midwest and the South. They've supposedly approved use of humidors in all cities this season, and the reason I suspect has to do with a desire to keep balls at a consistent humidity across the country. It might help lessen the difference in park effects, at least for some cities.

Ltlabner
08-10-2007, 10:45 AM
Wasnt there a massive thread debating sliding v running through a base a ways back? I tink someone called it the Redszoniest thread ever.

Who was on the wrong side of that debate ? :)

smith288
08-10-2007, 10:49 AM
Wasnt there a massive thread debating sliding v running through a base a ways back? I tink someone called it the Redszoniest thread ever.

Who was on the wrong side of that debate ? :)
Was it about sliding into 1st instead of running through though? That's a totally different argument and worthy of RedsZonia...

Redsland
08-10-2007, 11:41 AM
I didn't see the episode, so maybe they addressed the following nit, but the corked bat myth has another component to it that doesn't appear to have been tackled.

Yes, the cork interior would absorb impact forces and reduce the speed of the ball off the bat, all things being equal. I think we'd agree that this is intuitive. But the reasoning for putting the cork in there in the first place is to make the bat lighter in weight, and therefore allow a batter with a given amount of strength to swing the lighter bat faster than he could a heavier bat. The faster bat speed is supposed to allow the batter an extra split-second to make his swing/no swing decision, and allow more time to square up the ball. Also, the faster bat speed is supposed to compensate for the reduced weight of the bat, since F=ma.

If the Mythbusters' rig swung the two bats at the same speed, then of course the corked one would hit the ball less far. The rig needed to be built in a such a way as to be able to take advantage of the weight difference between the two bats and swing one harder than the other in order to truly test this myth. If that didn't happen, then this myth really hasn't been busted or confirmed.

nate
08-10-2007, 12:03 PM
I didn't see the episode, so maybe they addressed the following nit, but the corked bat myth has another component to it that doesn't appear to have been tackled.

Yes, the cork interior would absorb impact forces and reduce the speed of the ball off the bat, all things being equal. I think we'd agree that this is intuitive. But the reasoning for putting the cork in there in the first place is to make the bat lighter in weight, and therefore allow a batter with a given amount of strength to swing the lighter bat faster than he could a heavier bat. The faster bat speed is supposed to allow the batter an extra split-second to make his swing/no swing decision, and allow more time to square up the ball. Also, the faster bat speed is supposed to compensate for the reduced weight of the bat, since F=ma.

If the Mythbusters' rig swung the two bats at the same speed, then of course the corked one would hit the ball less far. The rig needed to be built in a such a way as to be able to take advantage of the weight difference between the two bats and swing one harder than the other in order to truly test this myth. If that didn't happen, then this myth really hasn't been busted or confirmed.

I understand your argument and no, they didn't make a rig that used the same force to swing the two different bats. However, do you think the the faster swing of a lighter bat would make up for and exceed ('cos that's the point, really) the absorption of the cork?

Caseyfan21
08-10-2007, 12:15 PM
However, do you think the the faster swing of a lighter bat would make up for and exceed ('cos that's the point, really) the absorption of the cork?

I haven't seen the show or anything but bat speed is really the number one trait in a good swing. How do you think KGJ hit so many homers early in his career when he really didn't have too much upper body muscle? He had exceptional bat speed.

I'm not really sure either how much weight it takes off but just from personal experience a 26 oz bat vs a 30 oz bat feels like a huge difference. I'm willing to bet that it exceeds the absorption of the cork pretty easily (but nothing scientific to back that up).

Redsland
08-10-2007, 12:15 PM
However, do you think the the faster swing of a lighter bat would make up for and exceed ('cos that's the point, really) the absorption of the cork?
I would think that the ball would come off the corked bat "softer," but that the batter may be able to hit the ball more squarely/more accurately, due to the increased reaction time. Maybe. If that's the case, then a corked bat might help a Hal Morris-type hitter. Maybe.

MWM
08-10-2007, 12:36 PM
I can't wait for one of the "I played the game" commentators to come in and say they're wrong about one of the things they tested.

Coffeybro
08-10-2007, 12:48 PM
I would think that the ball would come off the corked bat "softer," but that the batter may be able to hit the ball more squarely/more accurately, due to the increased reaction time. Maybe. If that's the case, then a corked bat might help a Hal Morris-type hitter. Maybe.

Here is the thing that doesn't make since for me. If the only help a corked bat confers is to cause the bat to weigh less then why not just use a bat that weighs less to begin with. That way you bypass the issue of cork absorbing the impact. Since there are no rules in that regard then it would make the most since.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/objectives_1.jsp (http://http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/objectives_1.jsp)
1.10
(a) The bat shall be a smooth, round stick not more than 23/4 inches in diameter at the thickest part and not more than 42 inches in length. The bat shall be one piece of solid wood.
NOTE: No laminated or experimental bats shall be used in a professional game (either championship season or exhibition games) until the manufacturer has secured approval from the Rules Committee of his design and methods of manufacture.
(b) Cupped Bats. An indentation in the end of the bat up to one inch in depth is permitted and may be no wider than two inches and no less than one inch in diameter. The indentation must be curved with no foreign substance added.
(c) The bat handle, for not more than 18 inches from its end, may be covered or treated with any material or substance to improve the grip. Any such material or substance, which extends past the 18 inch limitation, shall cause the bat to be removed from the game.
NOTE: If the umpire discovers that the bat does not conform to (c) above until a time during or after which the bat has been used in play, it shall not be grounds for declaring the batter out, or ejected from the game.
(d) No colored bat may be used in a professional game unless approved by the Rules Committee.

Yachtzee
08-10-2007, 12:59 PM
Here is the thing that doesn't make since for me. If the only help a corked bat confers is to cause the bat to weigh less then why not just use a bat that weighs less to begin with. That way you bypass the issue of cork absorbing the impact. Since there are no rules in that regard then it would make the most since.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/objectives_1.jsp (http://http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/objectives_1.jsp)
1.10
(a) The bat shall be a smooth, round stick not more than 23/4 inches in diameter at the thickest part and not more than 42 inches in length. The bat shall be one piece of solid wood.
NOTE: No laminated or experimental bats shall be used in a professional game (either championship season or exhibition games) until the manufacturer has secured approval from the Rules Committee of his design and methods of manufacture.
(b) Cupped Bats. An indentation in the end of the bat up to one inch in depth is permitted and may be no wider than two inches and no less than one inch in diameter. The indentation must be curved with no foreign substance added.
(c) The bat handle, for not more than 18 inches from its end, may be covered or treated with any material or substance to improve the grip. Any such material or substance, which extends past the 18 inch limitation, shall cause the bat to be removed from the game.
NOTE: If the umpire discovers that the bat does not conform to (c) above until a time during or after which the bat has been used in play, it shall not be grounds for declaring the batter out, or ejected from the game.
(d) No colored bat may be used in a professional game unless approved by the Rules Committee.

The Mythbusters mentioned it briefly. The cork dampens the impact of the ball on the bat, with the ball coming off the bat at half the speed of a ball coming off a bat that hadn't been tampered with. That's a significant drop in speed. So you'd really have to make up that force in bat speed just to compensate for the dampening effect of the cork. If that's so, it really would be better not to tamper with the bat at all, but rather to just hit with a lighter bat.

nate
08-10-2007, 01:03 PM
I always thought the argument for using a corked bat was that it was lighter with the same mass. That's why dudes corked as opposed to simply using a lighter bat.

I'm not sure I buy that reasoning, but that's what they said.

I'll ask Sammy Sosa next time I see him.

Dom Heffner
08-10-2007, 01:35 PM
Was it about sliding into 1st instead of running through though? That's a totally different argument and worthy of RedsZonia...

This came to mind as well for me. My feeling based on absolutely nothing is that it is better to run to first and not slide, or sliding doesn't get you there quicker.

Maybe one of our physics experts can give us a momentum lesson.

The other question the myth busters posed was never an issue as far as I'm concerned. You slide because you don't want to go past the bag, don't you? Otherwise you would just run as hard as you can and into center field if you were attempting second base. Sliding may give you a better chance to avoid a tag or avoid hurting the fielder, I guess, but it also gives you more control at not overrunning the base, as "proven" by the Mythbusters.

smith288
08-10-2007, 02:04 PM
I didn't see the episode, so maybe they addressed the following nit, but the corked bat myth has another component to it that doesn't appear to have been tackled.

Yes, the cork interior would absorb impact forces and reduce the speed of the ball off the bat, all things being equal. I think we'd agree that this is intuitive. But the reasoning for putting the cork in there in the first place is to make the bat lighter in weight, and therefore allow a batter with a given amount of strength to swing the lighter bat faster than he could a heavier bat. The faster bat speed is supposed to allow the batter an extra split-second to make his swing/no swing decision, and allow more time to square up the ball. Also, the faster bat speed is supposed to compensate for the reduced weight of the bat, since F=ma.

If the Mythbusters' rig swung the two bats at the same speed, then of course the corked one would hit the ball less far. The rig needed to be built in a such a way as to be able to take advantage of the weight difference between the two bats and swing one harder than the other in order to truly test this myth. If that didn't happen, then this myth really hasn't been busted or confirmed.
I dont think so. You can't make for half the loss of speed off the bat. I think you would need to swing the bat considerably faster in order to make up for the loss in speed.

In the end, the process of corking a bat just isnt worth it. Both technically and morally.

knuckler
08-10-2007, 02:06 PM
Here is the thing that doesn't make since for me. If the only help a corked bat confers is to cause the bat to weigh less then why not just use a bat that weighs less to begin with. That way you bypass the issue of cork absorbing the impact. Since there are no rules in that regard then it would make the most since.



In fact, this has happened - players today use MUCH lighter bats than the old-timers. If you find yourself in the Reds' FanZone you can compare a few bats in one of the displays. Or if you're in the Baseball Hall of Fame you can tell just by looking at some of the old bats.

Basically I think of four elements of hitting a ball a long, long way:

1. Getting lots of momentum into the moving bat. Regardless of the hitter's biomechanics, bat momentum = bat speed * bat mass. As mentioned above for a given amount of player strength there is a tradeoff between speed and mass of the bat. There's also a biomechanical limit to how fast a human can get their body moving regardless of how little weight they are pushing.

Modern hitters tend to favor speed because it enables them to wait longer to start their swing, hence the motivation to use lighter bats. But if you get too light, like a wiffle ball bat, no athlete can generate enough speed to offset the loss of mass.

2. Getting a high coefficient of restitution between the ball and bat. Coefficient of restitution is just a fancy way of saying "what goes in ain't what comes out" -- some of the energy at contact is absorbed and lost, but the less is lost the better. If you hit a whiffle ball and dent it, that dent absorbs energy. Soggy baseballs have lower coefficients of restitution - that's precisely what the Mythbusters guys demonstrated. Superballs and (believe it or not) steel balls have high coefficients on the ball side, while harder bats have high coefficients.

Modern hitters tend to favor harder bats for their high coefficient of restitution. Dunn and I believe Griffey use maple bats because the wood is harder than ash. And those pretty black bats? Multiple coats of lacquer harden the surface to get the same effect. Corking a bat moves it in the wrong direction here.

3. Getting backspin on the batted ball. A ball shot out of a cannon with no spin follows basically an elliptical arc path (minus drag). If a baseball is hit "square" it comes off the bat in a straight line or at a slight upward angle if the hitter has an upward plane in his swing, and gravity pulls it down; the proverbial "frozen rope". However, if the hitter gets it slightly BELOW center (about 1/8 to 1/4 inch) it'll have backspin that actually has an aerodynamic lifting effect. It's the same effect as a spinning curveball, but unlike what the Mythbusters proved on a thrown ball, a batted ball CAN have enough velocity and spin to actually rise in flight. If you see Dunn hit a ball that seems to carry a little longer than if it was shot out of a cannon, or Griffey hit a liner that doesn't seem to sink as it approaches the outfield wall, that's why. It's also why humid air makes the ball carry farther, because the spin generates additional lift in the denser air.

Whether they recognize it or not, power hitters practice hitting the ball slightly below center in batting practice. A lighter bat might allow them to make minute adjustments mid-swing to improve the backspin and carry.

4. Making contact at the bat's center of gravity (c.g.), also known as the "sweet spot". The location of the bat's center of gravity is a function of the shape of the bat -- skinny handles and a big barrel push it farther out from the hitter, where they have more leverage and hence more speed. Balls hit off the end of the bat lose energy rotating the bat around the bat's c.g., and end up weakly struck. Balls hit off the bat handle (aka "jam jobs") don't get the full momentum transfer of the moving bat and also end up weakly struck.

This has been a long way of saying that reason #4 is the main reason why hitters don't just use lighter bats. If you make the bat lighter by shortening it the bat center of gravity moves in toward the hitter, where you have less leverage to get bat speed and less plate coverage. In order to keep the bat center of gravity out over the plate where you want it, you can reduce the handle size (too small and they break), reduce the barrel diameter (too skinny and it's tough to hit the ball "square" so it's not a popup or grounder), or use a corked bat which keeps the c.g. in the same spot while reducing the mass of the barrel.

Got all that? "see the ball, hit the ball", huh?

With a corked bat you get better bat speed, better bat control, and a nice big, well-located sweet spot. All told in the hands of the right hitter it should be enough to offset the reduced coefficient of restitution. But it's more than Mythbusters can measure in one episode and it can't be measured on a batting rig.

gonelong
08-10-2007, 02:09 PM
Chris Sabo thinks they should have tested superballs.

GL

knuckler
08-10-2007, 02:17 PM
This came to mind as well for me. My feeling based on absolutely nothing is that it is better to run to first and not slide, or sliding doesn't get you there quicker.



Think of it this way -- every time a runner's foot touches the ground it adds energy pushing him forward. When it's not touching the ground, his body can only keep going at the same speed or slow down due to aerodynamic drag (which is small on a runner). Sliding is clearly slowing down a runner. By sliding into a base he can overrun the runner is giving up that last 1 or 2 opportunities to push his body forward, and actively slowing himself down during the slide.

The only reason to ever slide into first base is to avoid a tag, say if the first baseman picked up a grounder and is trying to tag the runner approaching first base before he gets there.

Except for that rare occasion, sliding into first base is the dumbest play in baseball.

smith288
08-10-2007, 02:19 PM
Except for that rare occasion, sliding into first base is the dumbest play in baseball.
Is it sliding into first or is it diving (lack of contact to the ground which eliminates any friction)?

gonelong
08-10-2007, 02:26 PM
Think of it this way -- every time a runner's foot touches the ground it adds energy pushing him forward. When it's not touching the ground, his body can only keep going at the same speed or slow down due to aerodynamic drag (which is small on a runner). Sliding is clearly slowing down a runner. By sliding into a base he can overrun the runner is giving up that last 1 or 2 opportunities to push his body forward, and actively slowing himself down during the slide.


I'd agree if a player were to slid into 1B. I think is much more difficult to say that with any certainty if a player were to dive to 1B, contacting it with his hand before ever touching the ground. I think this might be just a bit quicker, but it would be so close I am not sure it could be accurately recored ... and even if it could I don't know that it would make a difference. Umps are pretty versed at conventional bang-bang plays at 1B, with a player diving at the bag this makes the call a bit more difficult.

A player in the field will dive for a ball in order to catch it. If it was just as fast to get to it by running then they could catch it off the top of their foot.

GL

BCubb2003
08-10-2007, 02:32 PM
Is it sliding into first or is it diving (lack of contact to the ground which eliminates any friction)?

It sounds like the RedsZoniest thread ever is making a comeback.

The key issue in diving into first base is that you have to touch the bag somehow. You're not just running through the plane. As you approach the bag, you have to adjust your steps to touch the bag. The question is whether one last diving "step" is faster than two stutter steps.

bucksfan2
08-10-2007, 02:34 PM
I'd agree if a player were to slid into 1B. I think is much more difficult to say that with any certainty if a player were to dive to 1B, contacting it with his hand before ever touching the ground. I think this might be just a bit quicker, but it would be so close I am not sure it could be accurately recored ... and even if it could I don't know that it would make a difference. Umps are pretty versed at conventional bang-bang plays at 1B, with a player diving at the bag this makes the call a bit more difficult.

A player in the field will dive for a ball in order to catch it. If it was just as fast to get to it by running then they could catch it off the top of their foot.

GL

Here is what I assume. It is always quicker to run into first base. However when you are running to 2nd and 3rd it is quicker to slide. Basically when your run to first base you dont have to slow down and your can run as far as you want past the bag as long as you stay in foul territory. When you run to second or third you can't run full out the entire way or you would run past the bag and essentially be an out waiting to happen. Slideing allows your to run full bore into the base, slide, and stay safely on the base. When you slide your are using friction created by the ground to stop your speed. If you go in standing up you essentially have to slow down as your are approaching the base in rode to stop on the bag.

smith288
08-10-2007, 03:05 PM
It sounds like the RedsZoniest thread ever is making a comeback.


Isn't that the goal here?



The key issue in diving into first base is that you have to touch the bag somehow. You're not just running through the plane. As you approach the bag, you have to adjust your steps to touch the bag. The question is whether one last diving "step" is faster than two stutter steps.

Depends on the ability of said diver. If he is an accomplished 1st base diver, no stutter stepping is necessary. I do think its lunacy to think diving into first will grant you any quicker time.

gonelong
08-10-2007, 03:15 PM
Here is what I assume. It is always quicker to run into first base.

I am not willing to assume that, if my "slide" is really a dive (no friction).


Basically when your run to first base you dont have to slow down and your can run as far as you want past the bag as long as you stay in foul territory.

Diving into 1B allows you to end up in foul territory as well. I know some people will tell me this is impossible to do, but back in the day I did it with a good deal of success. Granted I was doing it playing softball with the final decision being umpires that were less than MLB quality.

As I stated before ... a player in the field will dive for a ball in order to catch it. If it was just as fast to get to it by running then they could catch it off the top of their foot. I would suspect that it would be more advantagous to remain on your feet in order to throw the ball, yet the players often dive.

GL

BCubb2003
08-10-2007, 03:18 PM
Isn't that the goal here?



Depends on the ability of said diver. If he is an accomplished 1st base diver, no stutter stepping is necessary. I do think its lunacy to think diving into first will grant you any quicker time.

The non-diver is the one who is doing the stutter steps. He's running full out toward the base, then has to slow down slightly to hit his target. The diver takes a six-foot-long step that might cover two or more little steps. I can understand why a player who is two steps away from the bag might try to turn it into one big last step, but I don't think it's been determined which is the faster way to actually touch the bag, as opposed to making it through the plane.

gonelong
08-10-2007, 03:20 PM
Isn't that the goal here?
Depends on the ability of said diver. If he is an accomplished 1st base diver, no stutter stepping is necessary. I do think its lunacy to think diving into first will grant you any quicker time.

I guess I am a lunatic.


...but I don't think it's been determined which is the faster way to actually touch the bag, as opposed to making it through the plane.

Exactly.

GL

jojo
08-10-2007, 03:57 PM
I always thought the argument for using a corked bat was that it was lighter with the same mass. That's why dudes corked as opposed to simply using a lighter bat.

I'm not sure I buy that reasoning, but that's what they said.

I'll ask Sammy Sosa next time I see him.

You use a corked bat to please the crowd during batting practice. :cool:

bucksfan2
08-10-2007, 04:04 PM
I am not willing to assume that, if my "slide" is really a dive (no friction).



Diving into 1B allows you to end up in foul territory as well. I know some people will tell me this is impossible to do, but back in the day I did it with a good deal of success. Granted I was doing it playing softball with the final decision being umpires that were less than MLB quality.

As I stated before ... a player in the field will dive for a ball in order to catch it. If it was just as fast to get to it by running then they could catch it off the top of their foot. I would suspect that it would be more advantagous to remain on your feet in order to throw the ball, yet the players often dive.

GL

Ok lets look at it this way. If you are running to first base and you enter the spot where you need to decide whether to dive or run through the base you have to consider this. You need to touch the base. You can lunge at the base with your foot and touch the bag. If you dive at the bag not using friction you need to touch the base at some point. Unless you do it perfectly you are not going to touch the base without having any kind of friction. If you do it perfectly you still have to land and you will land akwardly on the base.

As for diving in the outfield the dive puts you in the best position to catch the ball. You have to catch the ball whereas while running to first you dont have to catch the ball rather just touch a base. I think that the dive puts your glove at the proper place to catch the ball in the quickest fashion.

smith288
08-10-2007, 04:24 PM
I guess I am a lunatic.

You'd likely wind up getting hurt... I dont think .01th of a second is worth it.

BCubb2003
08-10-2007, 04:27 PM
You'd likely wind up getting hurt... I dont think .01th of a second is worth it.

Is one step worth it? I'm not convinced, but I understand why they do it.

Johnny Footstool
08-10-2007, 06:09 PM
The main reason to dive into first is to avoid a tag on an errant throw.

The main reason you don't dive into first is because it doesn't make sense to risk getting hurt for a lousy single.

smith288
08-10-2007, 06:37 PM
The main reason to dive into first is to avoid a tag on an errant throw.

The main reason you don't dive into first is because it doesn't make sense to risk getting hurt for a lousy single.
Its better than a walk! ;)

wheels
08-10-2007, 06:52 PM
Its better than a walk! ;)

Oh...No he didnt! :p:

RFS62
08-10-2007, 06:55 PM
Wasnt there a massive thread debating sliding v running through a base a ways back? I tink someone called it the Redszoniest thread ever.

Who was on the wrong side of that debate ? :)


Ahem.

I called it the Redszoniest thread ever.

And I was on the right side of the argument. Sliding into first base is the wrong side. As is diving and reaching out as you go by.

That's just crazy talk.




I didn't see the episode, so maybe they addressed the following nit, but the corked bat myth has another component to it that doesn't appear to have been tackled.

Yes, the cork interior would absorb impact forces and reduce the speed of the ball off the bat, all things being equal. I think we'd agree that this is intuitive. But the reasoning for putting the cork in there in the first place is to make the bat lighter in weight, and therefore allow a batter with a given amount of strength to swing the lighter bat faster than he could a heavier bat. The faster bat speed is supposed to allow the batter an extra split-second to make his swing/no swing decision, and allow more time to square up the ball. Also, the faster bat speed is supposed to compensate for the reduced weight of the bat, since F=ma.

If the Mythbusters' rig swung the two bats at the same speed, then of course the corked one would hit the ball less far. The rig needed to be built in a such a way as to be able to take advantage of the weight difference between the two bats and swing one harder than the other in order to truly test this myth. If that didn't happen, then this myth really hasn't been busted or confirmed.



You are completely correct, Redsland. We need a stamp that says that, I believe.

The only way to determine if it truly helps would be to increase the swing speed by whatever they determined the increase would be from the hitting robot using a lighter bat.

I think their conclusions were correct though, as we now see very hard wood used in bats all the time.

And they really blew it by having the runners trying to stop on the base. Who cares about that? It's running through first base that would have been interesting.

Those geeks need to get their nose out of the FX lab and see a game.

Matt700wlw
08-10-2007, 07:49 PM
-The cover can only come off if the ball is traveling near 400mph+

So Jay Bruce isn't as good as we thought...;)

gm
08-10-2007, 08:50 PM
I can understand why a player who is two steps away from the bag might try to turn it into one big last step.

That's where pulled hammies come from, at least for older runners like Mike Stanton and yours truly.


it doesn't make sense to risk getting hurt for a lousy single

If it's the difference between a 3rd out and an RBI there's all kinds of incentive to beat that $%^*&# ball

gonelong
08-11-2007, 12:37 AM
Ahem.

I called it the Redszoniest thread ever.

And I was on the right side of the argument. Sliding into first base is the wrong side. As is diving and reaching out as you go by.

That's just crazy talk.



Nope, I distincly remember you coming out a 1/4 step behind as I dove past you. :D

GL

HumnHilghtFreel
08-11-2007, 01:29 AM
Not sure if anyone has mentioned it in here, but given the results of the tests, would corked bats not be better for bunting? Someone check Norris Hopper.

RFS62
08-11-2007, 09:37 AM
Nope, I distincly remember you coming out a 1/4 step behind as I dove past you. :D

GL



Which, of course, explains why so many of the top athletes in the world dive at the finish line and dive into first base.

Oh, wait....

:p:

Chip R
08-11-2007, 09:46 AM
Not sure if anyone has mentioned it in here, but given the results of the tests, would corked bats not be better for bunting? Someone check Norris Hopper.


You know, I always thought a hollow bat would be good for that. But I suppose a regular bat is just as good since the main problem doesn't seem to be deadening the ball but actually making contact in a way that makes the ball not travel very far.

RFS62
08-11-2007, 09:47 AM
Let's go to the videotape....


http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47918&highlight=redzoniest+thread

919191
08-11-2007, 09:58 AM
I have no problem with humodors- I see it as fair as long as the same balls are used for both teams. I think I would actually prefer it.

paintmered
08-11-2007, 11:25 AM
I didn't see the episode, so maybe they addressed the following nit, but the corked bat myth has another component to it that doesn't appear to have been tackled.

Yes, the cork interior would absorb impact forces and reduce the speed of the ball off the bat, all things being equal. I think we'd agree that this is intuitive. But the reasoning for putting the cork in there in the first place is to make the bat lighter in weight, and therefore allow a batter with a given amount of strength to swing the lighter bat faster than he could a heavier bat. The faster bat speed is supposed to allow the batter an extra split-second to make his swing/no swing decision, and allow more time to square up the ball. Also, the faster bat speed is supposed to compensate for the reduced weight of the bat, since F=ma.

If the Mythbusters' rig swung the two bats at the same speed, then of course the corked one would hit the ball less far. The rig needed to be built in a such a way as to be able to take advantage of the weight difference between the two bats and swing one harder than the other in order to truly test this myth. If that didn't happen, then this myth really hasn't been busted or confirmed.

If you email the show, many times they will go back and revisit a myth.

4256 Hits
08-11-2007, 11:27 AM
Chris Sabo thinks they should have tested superballs.

GL


As I watched the show this was exactly what I was thinking and was hoping they would test this myth.

For those that have not seen the show I would recomend you try to watch it one of the 50 times they replay it over the next two years.

smith288
08-11-2007, 11:56 AM
As I watched the show this was exactly what I was thinking and was hoping they would test this myth.

For those that have not seen the show I would recomend you try to watch it one of the 50 times they replay it over the next two years.
I had my dvr to record only new episodes. Needless to say, it hasnt been very busy.

Redsland
08-11-2007, 01:34 PM
If you email the show, many times they will go back and revisit a myth.
True, but if you ever want to receive a response to an e-mail, be sure to send it to Jamie. Adam seems to delight in ignoring his e-mail.

(Brush with fame: I worked with them on a project briefly.)

redsrule2500
08-11-2007, 04:25 PM
Cool, Downloading it now :)