NEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRDDDDDD! No, this is really great -- I'm not saying I fully understand all of it, and certainly my replicating even the basic math would take more time than for a smart person, but I do love what amounts to the debunking of this as simply a "they are doctoring the balls again!" argument.
All I can say by way of sporting analogy is that I spent four years long and triple jumping in college dying for a gust of wind at my back that hit my back the second my foot hit the board. It never happened, reaffirming my loathing of meteorology AND physics AND my own physical limitations.
FWIW, the weather station at Pittsburgh International Airport from June 4 at 8:51 pm (shortly after the play, judging by the time on the original tweet) recorded 5 mph wind out of the southeast. PNC Park is oriented so that a ball hit to center is traveling SSE. It seems plausible that, with all the vagaries of local airflow traveling around a stadium, that this was due to wind. But I'd expect to see that in the data - what's the spread of those distances that average 420 feet? And with the variation in MLB stadiums, how many of those would *not* have been homers if they'd been hit at PNC in this particular direction? (Although, for what it's worth, PNC is a little shallower in center field than other parks.)
Other things that come into play - the wind isn't necessarily horizontal. A downward vertical component could be significant. And the speed and direction of spin is going to have an effect, too. Top spin will cause the ball to curve down, just like in tennis. (And less back spin will cause it to lift less.) Spin left or right will cause the track to curve, which will make the landing point closer to home plate. And that will be somewhat dependent on the pitch.
I was thinking about the spin. Baseball fans are well aware of how it can change a ball trajectory on the pitch. I have no idea if the spin can vary much off of the bat but it might be a factor.
I think it can definitely make a difference, but my guess is that any ball hit well enough to go 400-ish feet is probably hit pretty squarely, so you wouldn't be introducing that much spin. I'm not sure about pitches that are coming in with crazy amounts of spin, though.
I belatedly realized that I didn't put numbers to the shortfall in throwing, but it's pretty similar to the fly balls: If you look at a slightly lower speed and launch angle, as appropriate for a fielder throwing the ball in, a throw that goes 270 feet with the lower drag coefficient from the model described would go about 255 in the higher-drag case. Players would definitely notice.
The Oracle Park "glove" in San Francisco is 501 ft from home plate. A target for everyone, including your guy Judge.
NEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRDDDDDD! No, this is really great -- I'm not saying I fully understand all of it, and certainly my replicating even the basic math would take more time than for a smart person, but I do love what amounts to the debunking of this as simply a "they are doctoring the balls again!" argument.
All I can say by way of sporting analogy is that I spent four years long and triple jumping in college dying for a gust of wind at my back that hit my back the second my foot hit the board. It never happened, reaffirming my loathing of meteorology AND physics AND my own physical limitations.
Welcome back, physics content!
FWIW, the weather station at Pittsburgh International Airport from June 4 at 8:51 pm (shortly after the play, judging by the time on the original tweet) recorded 5 mph wind out of the southeast. PNC Park is oriented so that a ball hit to center is traveling SSE. It seems plausible that, with all the vagaries of local airflow traveling around a stadium, that this was due to wind. But I'd expect to see that in the data - what's the spread of those distances that average 420 feet? And with the variation in MLB stadiums, how many of those would *not* have been homers if they'd been hit at PNC in this particular direction? (Although, for what it's worth, PNC is a little shallower in center field than other parks.)
Other things that come into play - the wind isn't necessarily horizontal. A downward vertical component could be significant. And the speed and direction of spin is going to have an effect, too. Top spin will cause the ball to curve down, just like in tennis. (And less back spin will cause it to lift less.) Spin left or right will cause the track to curve, which will make the landing point closer to home plate. And that will be somewhat dependent on the pitch.
I was thinking about the spin. Baseball fans are well aware of how it can change a ball trajectory on the pitch. I have no idea if the spin can vary much off of the bat but it might be a factor.
I think it can definitely make a difference, but my guess is that any ball hit well enough to go 400-ish feet is probably hit pretty squarely, so you wouldn't be introducing that much spin. I'm not sure about pitches that are coming in with crazy amounts of spin, though.
It can definitely make a pretty noticeable effect on a mis-timed swing; you'll often see what looks like a fair ball curve foul.
I belatedly realized that I didn't put numbers to the shortfall in throwing, but it's pretty similar to the fly balls: If you look at a slightly lower speed and launch angle, as appropriate for a fielder throwing the ball in, a throw that goes 270 feet with the lower drag coefficient from the model described would go about 255 in the higher-drag case. Players would definitely notice.
Thanks! This is a perfect mix of sports and physics. More interesting (to me) than politics (academic, local, or otherwise).