It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Slower Pitches Would Cause Less Homeruns

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 12:35 PM
According to a physicist from the 1940's, for every 5 miles an hour slower a ball was pitched, would shorten the flight of the ball after being hit by batter by 3 1/2 feet. So a pitcher in the 1940's applied this science to his pitching speed with the following results.

Baseball and the Physicists

Consider the story of Rip Sewell’s “eephus” pitch. A physicist told him that a ball that travels 400 feet in normal conditions would go an extra 3 ½ feet farther if the pitch is five miles per hour faster. So, pitcher Sewell lobbed the ball twenty-five feet in the air, with so little speed (ie: energy) that the batter had to provide all the power. Only one major leaguer ever hit a home run off Sewell’s pitch; Hall of Fame hitter Ted Williams did it in the 1946 All-Star game, and he gave his swing a running start by charging at the ball.

Makes you wonder if we'd have all these home run records being challenged or broken now if the pitchers slowed their pitches down?

[edit on 17/7/07 by Keyhole]

posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 01:23 PM
you would have less homeruns until people adjusted. You'd also have a lot more walks because the only way to get the plate into the strike zone with accuracy is to ensure a certain amount of speed on the throw. El Duque uses the eephus from time to time. I watched him walk in a run as he tried throwing it twice to a guy with the bases loaded.

Like golf, the bat and the ball have sweet spots. I once saw Hubie Brooks hit a check swing grand slam. The ball hit the bat in just the right spot and took off for the fence. Of course there is the chance that the bat was filled with sosa balls or cork or some other substance.

Lastly, players today are stronger than they were back in the 40's. They work out and keep themselves (most of them) in excellent physical condition. Players in the 40's were heavier, they drank, they smoked, they destroyed their bodies. Today's players crush the ball in batting practice and in home run derbies as a result of their strength.

Imagine how players like Ruth, Mantle, DiMaggio, Williams, Cobb, Killebrew etc would have been had they worried about their bodies and the longevity of their careers.

posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 01:36 PM
There's a great account of Williams hitting that dinger off Sewell in the '46 all Star game in Jim Bouton's Ball Four. In fact, a lot of the funniest stuff in there revolves around Williams.

The whole physics discussion reminds me of the controversy about lowering the pitcher's mound. Supposedly, it was done to give the batters an advantage (pitcher not throwing as much "down hill"). There was a pitcher who's name escapes me, who "proved" that lowering the mound actually helped him because it brought him closer to the plate.

posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 11:56 PM
I think it's easier to hit a slower pitch. If you have the strength you can get under it an still get it out. If I played in Houstons park, I could sit on a curveball and just jack it out.

posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 03:55 PM
Well Slower pitch, like home run derby slow?

Honestly slower pitches are easier, unless they have funky rotation, then that just becomes a mess...

new topics

top topics

log in