These are exactly the responses I was hoping to get. This would actually be a great interview question.
A 77 mph pitch is travelling 77 mph.
A 100 mph pitch is travelling 100 mph.
Would you rather get hit by a bus travelling at 15 mph assuming constant velocity or 100 mph at constant velocity assuming you have the exact same reaction time and assuming you can not move? Because this is your argument and it is false.
There are also many other factors in play:
A baseball does not travel at constant velocity (LBriscoe this is your argment and it is false)
It is harder to see the movement of a ball travelling 100 mph vs 77 mph
Your assumption to start off the whole point doesn’t seem right. I am by no means an expert, so other than borrowing some calculations from above showing both pitches would take roughly 0.4s to get to plate, and the average reaction time statistic, I’m just conjecturing. You also seem to be saying that the fact that getting hit by a 100 mph pitch would hurt more is the differing factor. Doesn’t seem like sound reasoning.
Reaction time is not null. Ball in both scenarios takes ~.4 seconds to reach plate (slightly less for little leagues). Average human reaction time is 0.2-0.25 seconds (lets call it 0.225). Now when the ball immediately leaves the hand, you still need a little more than a tenth of a second (lets say 0.1) to establish an estimated trajectory since you need a brief flight history rather than a static point to establish trajectory & estimated velocity (is it a ball/strike, where do I swing, etc). What’s left over is the time for the bat to swing around in front of the plate. So:
0.4s - 0.1s - 0.225s = 0.075s for bat to physically swing into position
Read my argument, I stated 77 mph does not equal 100 mph.
That’s quite the assumption, again proving to me that you’ve never played baseball. Since we’re making assumptions, I made the natural assumption that ESPN’s statement is based on reaction time since we’re dealing with slower speeds and shorter distances to get on a (somewhat) equal playing field. I don’t think anyone takes ESPN to mean the same 77 mph pitch in little league would be a 100 mph pitch off a major league mound.
Again, this is based on reaction times, not force. The difficulty in hitting a baseball is hand-eye coordination combined with reaction time. Yes bat speed is important but bat speed alone won’t get you anywhere if you can’t put the bat on the ball. Getting hit by a 100 mph fastball will hurt more than a 77 mph one like in your bus example, but that’s not the argument. You have a better chance of getting out of the way of a bus coming at 100 mph when you see it 100 feet away than one coming at 10 mph that’s 2 feet from hitting you. Personally I’d rather be in the former situation.
Great observation, so I guess everytime we see a radar gun at a major league game we should force them to put an asterisk that says where in the path from the mound to home the reading was taken…
You caught ESPN, they didn’t qualify their statement by saying equivalency in terms of reaction time or difficulty. I guess they assume the bulk of their viewers will understand since it’s a sports network not a math network.
How about this Blake? Aroldis Chapman is going to throw a fastball at you with the intention of hitting you. You are not permitted to wear any protective gear, but you are free to move right or left as soon as the ball has travelled 10 feet (sorry, you can’t just drop to the ground). Would you prefer that he stands 60 feet away or 44 feet away?
No… ESPN meant it to give a perspective of speed…facing a 77 mph pitch is comparable to a 100mph pitch because according to the announcer, not many would throw that fast in that age group.
Like how getting investment returns of 20% annually is like getting returns of 40% in the 60s.
No, I’m pretty sure it’s that simple. Google “fastest little league pitch” and the top results are 77-80 mph. Fastest MLB pitch is around 105 mph. ESPN was just making a simple analogy between the fastest pitches at the different levels.
For a kid that isn’t fully developed physically or mentally, I’d bet hitting a 77 mph fastball is comparable to a professional baseball player that has years of experience hitting a ball traveling 100 mph. No physics required.
My fault Blake, I didn’t realize you find it hilarious to read comments that are obviously meant to be comparisons literally. I should feel lucky I wasn’t your elementary English teacher when you reached the unit on metaphors…
I guess the answer’s just going to have to be inconclusive. One thing that was interesting was that apparently the statement was made after a guy got hit with a 77 mph pitch. In that context, what Blake’s saying makes more sense, so context makes a difference.
Videos or it didn’t happen. Also since you pointed out that a baseball doesn’t travel at constant velocity where are you taking your measurement? Must be from the scouts…
I stand by Palantir on this…i don’t think they meant all the technical stuff you bums are jabbering about…funny how you guys can go on and on about this…