Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's just a turn
Posted by: (
) on Wed Oct 4 11:31:25 2000
> From your web site....
> > """""If a pitcher is throwing a fastball at about 85mp on a regulation size field, where the pitching mound is 60'6" from the front of the rubber to the rear of home plate, then it would take .711 seconds for the ball to reach the catcherís mitt, if the ball were released exactly 60'6" from the mitt. Since that is highly improbable, other factors need to be taken into consideration when determining how long it takes for a pitch to reach the hitting zone. Consider this, most pitchers actually release the ball from their hand approximately 5 feet in front of the rubber. Using that number, letís subtract it from the 60'6". Now, we have a distance of 55'6". The time it takes for the ball to travel that distance at 85mph is .653 seconds. We lost about .06 seconds there, but thatís not all. Consider that the optimum point of contact is about 12" in front of home plate and that the plate itself is 17" deep. Hmmmm, 17 plus 12 is 29 inches, for simplicities sake, letís call it 30", or 2 Ĺ feet. We are now down to a distance of 53'. At 85mph it takes a ball approximately .624 seconds to go from the pitcherís hand to the hitting zone. """"""""
> > Buzz, I'm sure I could be pedantic as well and question many of your assumptions and numbers--for example. You say the optimum place to hit a ball is 12" in front of the plate? But what if you are way back in the box? Does that still hold true? See what I mean? I suggest you make any points based on the essense of what someone is saying rather than nit-picking.
> > Actually you are more than correct. I was not criticizing, just pointing out that the numbers are not hard-fast. I do say "about" 12". In fact, the statement should read; "about 12" in front of the front leg", that would be more correct. Placement in the box obviously has an impact on where the optimum point of contact is. I apologize if my demeanor was perceived as critical in nature. The discussions on this board are very intuitive and interesting.
Incidentally, I did adjust that statement. That was one area that slipped past me during publication. I appreciate you pointing that out to me.
Post a followup: