If you have not seen the home run he hit off of former Red Josh Roenicke tonight in Colorado, go watch it here, right now.
Apparently it was 474-feet, which if memory serves me correctly, was the exact distance of Frazier's straight-away bomb to center the other night.
BBTN just said that Stanton's home run was into a 10 MPH wind.... blowing toward home and that it was actually a 494 footer even with the wind. I will be checking Hittrackeronline in the morning to see what it was when adjusted for the weather/altitude.
I think in this case, 474 feet is much more probable. Both are total estimates based on trajectory, so neither explanation is going to be definitive. I trust the ballpark's estimate more though because they had a much better view of the trajectory. The guy even admits the camera angle isn't very good, so that has to leave a lot of issue with his estimation. I don't think it's prudent to believe an estimation where the trajectory of the ball can't be seen on the video he used to estimate it.
Last edited by Brutus; 08-18-2012 at 01:22 AM.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
By his own admission, the lone view of the homer he has cannot know the trajectory of the ball. So his explanation only makes sense if he ignores that the person in the ballpark that did the estimation had a better view of that than he could possibly know off the camera angle. But I say based on the same view he had that there's no way it only would have traveled just over 36 feet further. I'm not challenging him on his rationale for the math, I'm saying the math is wrong because it's based on a terribly big assumption.
Last edited by Brutus; 08-18-2012 at 03:35 PM.
Yes, identical to Frazier's. Giancarlo has a much cooler new name though.
I used to hit 300+ yd drives with ease when I lived in Colorado and that was with much older club technology in the late 90s. Good times.
That there can be such a vast difference itself tells me that the whole thing is completely bogus - meaning estimated only and liable to big error. Seems to be really true they'd need three cameras and a triangulation method.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."