Frank Howard, home run hitter and a friendly giant dead at 87,

[22lcidw]

If I remember Killebrew was about 5' 11, Howard was 6' 7.

They were both strong men.

 

[Cougarbear]

They were both strong men.

Mays was 5'10", 185lbs. Two of the hardest homers he hit I saw when attending a game at Dodger Stadium in 1970 happened against Drysdale. The first was a line drive about 15-20 feet off the ground that stayed level to the dead center seats 420 feet. That ball would have gone maybe 470 feet. At least that was what was calculated using higher math. Vin Scully was dumbfounded how quickly that ball got to the seats. Then, the next time he was up to bat, he hit a high fly ball up to the lights. Vin Scully was saying as the ball was in the air, "Hi fly ball to strait away center field. Davis going back. (as if it was going to be a routine fly ball out)...Still going back... He's at the track now...to the wall....IT'S GONE! What just happened! There's no way that a ball can be hit that high and that deep!" I mean, I saw Barry Bonds hit homers there too and never like what Mays did.

 

[Harry Dresden]

It uses trig. Face it. Even today, with eyewitness evidence and the dimensions known of the old parks, we can accurately calculate those distances. Take a few high school math classes and get educated

if you say so ....after all you know more than the statisticians...

 

[Cougarbear]

if you say so ....after all you know more than the statisticians...

Statistics is always interesting as numbers can be manipulated. Easy to skew as well. However, if you know the exact location a ball started from to the exact location it landed, and the time it took to get there, you can figure out the distance.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Statistics is always interesting as numbers can be manipulated. Easy to skew as well. However, if you know the exact location a ball started from to the exact location it landed, and the time it took to get there, you can figure out the distance.

you mean nobody manipulated numbers back when?...

 

[Cougarbear]

you mean nobody manipulated numbers back when?...

Well, hard to manipulate a trig formula to come up with different answers when you have distance, rate and time. Also, tape measures are the same today as they were yesterday. But, a good blueprint can give you the accurate dimensions and the exact distance from home plate to anywhere in the ball park and parking lots. Same way with McCovey’s Cove. I can’t believe you are so confused about this. No one else is.

 

[Flash]

I never met Frank Howard but I used his bat the only time I ever took BP with the big boys , Joker Marchant Stadium, spring training 1974. I think he played for the Tigers the year before and when I got to the stadium, Davy Johnson threw me one of Frank's old bats and said, you're up rookie. It had a big barrel, medium handle but it was pretty light for a big guy like Frank. Probably 33-34 ounce. I really liked the bat and hit good with it. When I was done, the pitcher, Joe Coleman, took the bat and smashed it on a steel pole. He said he didn't like bats that hit him that good. Well, that's my story and very likely my 10 minutes of fame too. RIP Frank.

I was raised in Eastern Polk County. I married a chick that was from Indiana. Her father was a big Detroit Tiger fan. Every year he would come down and stay with us during Spring Training and go to the Tiger games at Joker Marchant Stadium in Lakeland.

We had the Boston Red Socks in Winter Haven and all the super obnoxious Boston fans flood into the city ever Spring.

 

[wamose]

I was raised in Eastern Polk County. I married a chick that was from Indiana. Her father was a big Detroit Tiger fan. Every year he would come down and stay with us during Spring Training and go to the Tiger games at Joker Marchant Stadium in Lakeland.

We had the Boston Red Socks in Winter Haven and all the super obnoxious Boston fans flood into the city ever Spring.

Hey neighbor. The thing I remember most about Winter Haven is that sliding on that red dirt was like sliding on a cheese grater. That saying 'no skin off my ass' doesn't apply at Winter Haven.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Well, hard to manipulate a trig formula to come up with different answers when you have distance, rate and time. Also, tape measures are the same today as they were yesterday. But, a good blueprint can give you the accurate dimensions and the exact distance from home plate to anywhere in the ball park and parking lots. Same way with McCovey’s Cove. I can’t believe you are so confused about this. No one else is.

read this.....

Digital Debunking: Did Babe Ruth Really Hit a 587-Foot Home Run in 1919?

altair.com

 

[Cougarbear]

read this.....

Digital Debunking: Did Babe Ruth Really Hit a 587-Foot Home Run in 1919?

altair.com

There are so many wrong things with this, where to start. The personal attack on Ruth's physical make up to start. The talk about they didn't hit home runs like they do now. They were more about getting hits and high batting averages. Not that they couldn't hit them. Then, the ball itself could have been soft. Well, it could have been new and hard as well. No proof of anything. Just a bunch of speculation. The comment about the speed of the pitches is comical at best. Just a wild guess by the author.

Then, there is the technology of the computer. Uggg...Well, here is an interesting article about McCovey and others: The book “Baseball’s Ultimate Power: Ranking the All-Time Greatest Distance Home Run” had this description of McCovey’s St. Louis home run: “The ball was struck on a line drive trajectory that resulted in a 515-foot journey.” - Willie McCovey and his legendary St. Louis home run

And, in the article, is the 545 foot homer by McGuire. When they could actually get out there and measure the actual distance. Imagine if McCovey would have hit the ball with the same force as the 515 foot homer just 3% higher. That foul ball of McCovey's went over the right field third deck to the car lot. Whatever you want to think is up to you. All I know is people can still measure and add today as well. I'm sorry that the fat lazy players of yesteryear could hit and pitch better, longer and fast than today. Go figure.

 

[Harry Dresden]

There are so many wrong things with this, where to start. The personal attack on Ruth's physical make up to start. The talk about they didn't hit home runs like they do now. They were more about getting hits and high batting averages. Not that they couldn't hit them. Then, the ball itself could have been soft. Well, it could have been new and hard as well. No proof of anything. Just a bunch of speculation. The comment about the speed of the pitches is comical at best. Just a wild guess by the author.

Then, there is the technology of the computer. Uggg...Well, here is an interesting article about McCovey and others: The book “Baseball’s Ultimate Power: Ranking the All-Time Greatest Distance Home Run” had this description of McCovey’s St. Louis home run: “The ball was struck on a line drive trajectory that resulted in a 515-foot journey.” - Willie McCovey and his legendary St. Louis home run

And, in the article, is the 545 foot homer by McGuire. When they could actually get out there and measure the actual distance. Imagine if McCovey would have hit the ball with the same force as the 515 foot homer just 3% higher. That foul ball of McCovey's went over the right field third deck to the car lot. Whatever you want to think is up to you. All I know is people can still measure and add today as well. I'm sorry that the fat lazy players of yesteryear could hit and pitch better, longer and fast than today. Go figure.

.why dont you prove this wrong....your opinion is just that....an opinion.....

 

[Cougarbear]

.why dont you prove this wrong....your opinion is just that....an opinion.....

Simple tape measures and having the blueprints with dimensions answers better than suppose this and suppose that with technology not in the real world.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Simple tape measures and having the blueprints with dimensions answers better than suppose this and suppose that with technology not in the real world.

technology not in the real world?......lol....you probably think there is no rover on Mars...

 

[Cougarbear]

technology not in the real world?......lol....you probably think there is no rover on Mars...

Yes, there are dogs on Mars. The simulations are just that. Inaccurate. The ball that Ruth hit could have been extremely solid, more than today's baseballs. Who know. And, we don't know the real velocity of Ruth's swing and follow through to impact the force on the ball. Nor, do we know how the bad was made that he used. Definately heavier. We don't now how strong Ruth actually was. His balance, use of his legs for power and so on. Same with McCovey. Both left handed hitters. The wind, climate at the time and other factors. What if the ball was made just right for long distance hitting and made for it better than what we have today? You don't know those things.

What we do know is the distance from the plate to the right field wall. We know the distance from the right field wall to where the ball landed. And, they measured it by one who can measure by walking with 3 foot strides. It won't be completely accurate but pretty darn close. And, they may have gotten out a tape measure and measured it. That's way more accurate than your machine.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Yes, there are dogs on Mars. The simulations are just that. Inaccurate. The ball that Ruth hit could have been extremely solid, more than today's baseballs. Who know. And, we don't know the real velocity of Ruth's swing and follow through to impact the force on the ball. Nor, do we know how the bad was made that he used. Definately heavier. We don't now how strong Ruth actually was. His balance, use of his legs for power and so on. Same with McCovey. Both left handed hitters. The wind, climate at the time and other factors. What if the ball was made just right for long distance hitting and made for it better than what we have today? You don't know those things.

What we do know is the distance from the plate to the right field wall. We know the distance from the right field wall to where the ball landed. And, they measured it by one who can measure by walking with 3 foot strides. It won't be completely accurate but pretty darn close. And, they may have gotten out a tape measure and measured it. That's way more accurate than your machine.

yea im sure they got a tape measure and measured it....when you prove those guys from stat wrong ill give you a serious listen...until then all you have is your opinion...

 

[Cougarbear]

yea im sure they got a tape measure and measured it....when you prove those guys from stat wrong ill give you a serious listen...until then all you have is your opinion...

The articles on Ruth’s home run say people with 3 foot strides walked it off. That’s not my opinion. Maybe they did actually measure it. They could have. It was at an exhibition game during spring training where they didn’t have stands. Just a long field.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The articles on Ruth’s home run say people with 3 foot strides walked it off. That’s not my opinion. Maybe they did actually measure it. They could have. It was at an exhibition game during spring training where they didn’t have stands. Just a long field.

here is something else for you to read

In the 1920s, measuring how far a baseball was hit was a less precise process compared to the advanced technology used in modern baseball. Several methods were employed to estimate the distance a baseball traveled:

1. Eyeballing: Umpires, players, and spectators often relied on their judgment to estimate how far a baseball was hit. This method was highly subjective and prone to inaccuracies.
2. Marker Buoys: Some ballparks used marker buoys placed in the outfield to give a general sense of the distance a ball was hit. If a ball cleared a certain buoy, it was considered a home run or a particularly long hit.
3. Outfield Fences: Ballparks with fences in the outfield sometimes featured markers or signs on the fences at different distances. If a ball cleared a specific distance marker, it was considered a home run or a particularly long hit.
4. Newspaper Reports: Newspapers often reported the estimated distance of home runs and long hits based on the judgment of observers and players. These reports were subjective and could vary from one source to another.
5. Personal Accounts: Players, especially those who hit long home runs, sometimes provided their own estimates of how far they hit the ball. These estimates were not always accurate and may have been exaggerated for dramatic effect.
6. Hit Distance Contests: Some ballparks held contests in which fans could participate in guessing the distance of a home run or long hit. These contests often had prizes for the fans who made the closest estimates.

It's important to note that the measurement of a baseball's distance in the 1920s was far less precise and scientific compared to today's methods. With the advent of modern technology, such as radar guns and Statcast, which uses advanced tracking systems, the measurement of a baseball's distance and other parameters (e.g., exit velocity, launch angle) has become highly accurate and reliable in contemporary baseball.

 

[Cougarbear]

here is something else for you to read

In the 1920s, measuring how far a baseball was hit was a less precise process compared to the advanced technology used in modern baseball. Several methods were employed to estimate the distance a baseball traveled:

1. Eyeballing: Umpires, players, and spectators often relied on their judgment to estimate how far a baseball was hit. This method was highly subjective and prone to inaccuracies.
2. Marker Buoys: Some ballparks used marker buoys placed in the outfield to give a general sense of the distance a ball was hit. If a ball cleared a certain buoy, it was considered a home run or a particularly long hit.
3. Outfield Fences: Ballparks with fences in the outfield sometimes featured markers or signs on the fences at different distances. If a ball cleared a specific distance marker, it was considered a home run or a particularly long hit.
4. Newspaper Reports: Newspapers often reported the estimated distance of home runs and long hits based on the judgment of observers and players. These reports were subjective and could vary from one source to another.
5. Personal Accounts: Players, especially those who hit long home runs, sometimes provided their own estimates of how far they hit the ball. These estimates were not always accurate and may have been exaggerated for dramatic effect.
6. Hit Distance Contests: Some ballparks held contests in which fans could participate in guessing the distance of a home run or long hit. These contests often had prizes for the fans who made the closest estimates.

It's important to note that the measurement of a baseball's distance in the 1920s was far less precise and scientific compared to today's methods. With the advent of modern technology, such as radar guns and Statcast, which uses advanced tracking systems, the measurement of a baseball's distance and other parameters (e.g., exit velocity, launch angle) has become highly accurate and reliable in contemporary baseball.

So, that was garbage. Could have been written by you. Sounds like it. See, the distance a home run is the “ground distance.” Not the arc distance. On the spring training fields back then, where were no stands out in right field. So, to measure the ground distance was quite easy. Just walk from home plate to where the ball landed. Measure your stride which is left foot to right foot touching at the same time on the ground. If it’s 3 feet between the two feet, then count the number of steps from home plate to where the ball landed. The newspaper man took 190 and two-thirds steps. Multiply that times 3 and you get 572 feet.
An other way to be accurate is to get the longest tape measure they had back then and start measuring.
Another way is using Boy Scout geometry with similar triangles and solve the distance with proportions. Corresponding sides of similar triangles are proportional. Solve the equation.
All you need to do is find the distance between 2 points on a plane which is a straight line.

 

[Harry Dresden]

So, that was garbage. Could have been written by you. Sounds like it. See, the distance a home run is the “ground distance.” Not the arc distance. On the spring training fields back then, where were no stands out in right field. So, to measure the ground distance was quite easy. Just walk from home plate to where the ball landed. Measure your stride which is left foot to right foot touching at the same time on the ground. If it’s 3 feet between the two feet, then count the number of steps from home plate to where the ball landed. The newspaper man took 190 and two-thirds steps. Multiply that times 3 and you get 572 feet.
An other way to be accurate is to get the longest tape measure they had back then and start measuring.
Another way is using Boy Scout geometry with similar triangles and solve the distance with proportions. Corresponding sides of similar triangles are proportional. Solve the equation.
All you need to do is find the distance between 2 points on a plane which is a straight line.

prove any of those things wrong something you havent done yet......how come?....

 

[Cougarbear]

prove any of those things wrong something you havent done yet......how come?....

I don’t have to. They didn’t have that technology in 1919. They weren’t there. What they had was way better. They knew the starting point and ending point. They could physically measure which is the most accurate.