Started By
Message

re: T or F: Babe Ruth Hit longest dinger in MLB history (575 ft)

Posted on 3/22/20 at 10:23 am to
Posted by TigerintheNO
New Orleans
Member since Jan 2004
44914 posts
Posted on 3/22/20 at 10:23 am to

The Red seat is the longest HR ever hit in Fenway, 502 feet







The guy that hit it was built like this-

Posted by Tunica
Member since May 2018
1789 posts
Posted on 3/22/20 at 10:40 am to
Galarraga off of Kevin Brown

ESPN home run tracker calculated this at 468 in 2011 after the Rockies site initially stated 579 (which was later reduced to 529) when it happened in '97. This is one of the most impressive yacks I've seen
This post was edited on 3/22/20 at 10:42 am
Posted by TigerintheNO
New Orleans
Member since Jan 2004
44914 posts
Posted on 3/22/20 at 10:45 am to
too bad the Rockies were on the road when he hit that
Posted by Tunica
Member since May 2018
1789 posts
Posted on 3/22/20 at 10:47 am to
No doubt. Thick, humid, sea-level air compared to Coors Field.
Posted by PrimeTime Money
Houston, Texas, USA
Member since Nov 2012
28019 posts
Posted on 3/22/20 at 10:54 am to
Yeah, that Ted Williams homerun is a perfect example of a legend growing over time. Here is a news clipping from the day after that game:



“Ted’s Longest Homer Pierces Straw Hat on Head 450 Feet Away”

Back then, the distance was 450 feet. As the legend grew, it’s now 502 feet.

Even still, 450 feet is a long homer. But here is another fact... ballparks today have much more seating and huge scoreboards and are surrounded by huge buildings. Back then, there was much less seating and much less around the ballparks obstructing the wind. It was common for there to be wind blowing out towards the fence back then due to less obstruction.

In fact, the wind when Ted Williams hit that homer was blowing out at 24 mph.

It even mentions the high wind in the article:


“But yesterday’s drive, borne on a high wind...”
Posted by biglego
San Francisco
Member since Nov 2007
84717 posts
Posted on 3/22/20 at 11:01 am to
quote:

ESPN home run tracker calculated this at 468 in 2011 after the Rockies site initially stated 579 (which was later reduced to 529) when it happened in '97.


So even in 1997 there was a 110 foot discrepancy?
Posted by biglego
San Francisco
Member since Nov 2007
84717 posts
Posted on 3/22/20 at 11:03 am to
quote:

A ball can be hit a long way, but it very rarely is," he says. "It is very rare to have a perfect storm of simultaneously hit very hard with wind blowing out at the optimum angle." Historically, Mickey Mantle's 1953 home run at Washington, D.C.'s Griffith Stadium is considered the longest ever, at 565 feet. Nathan has investigated that tater and believes the real number is closer to 540 feet. How could that have happened? A 20-mph outgoing wind. "That made a big difference," he says. "Without the wind, it would not have been over 500 feet."

From Popular Mechanics link a few pages back
Posted by Tiger in Texas
Houston, Texas
Member since Sep 2004
22216 posts
Posted on 3/22/20 at 1:09 pm to
quote:

Unless every single sports writer was just blatantly lying, Ruth did hit 460-490+ foot homeruns with regularity. I don't really see how that's disputable.




This is one time I believe the Sports Writers...not like they are current CNN so-called reporters!
Posted by Draconian Sanctions
Markey's bar
Member since Oct 2008
88509 posts
Posted on 3/22/20 at 1:11 pm to
Joey Belle mashed a few that haven’t landed yet
This post was edited on 3/22/20 at 1:12 pm
Posted by PrimeTime Money
Houston, Texas, USA
Member since Nov 2012
28019 posts
Posted on 3/22/20 at 2:05 pm to
quote:

Ruth wasn't just popping it over a 200 ft fence 50 times a year. Yankee Stadium in the 20s was 460 to left center, 490 to center, and 430 to right center
I like how you conveniently left out that it was 295 to right and 281 to left.

And it was only like that for 4 years, from 1923 to 1927.

quote:

Unless every single sports writer was just blatantly lying, Ruth did hit 460-490+ foot homeruns with regularity. I don't really see how that's disputable.
People have no idea how to judge distance. They often, unintentionally, exaggerate.
Posted by Nobelium
Member since May 2018
865 posts
Posted on 3/22/20 at 2:44 pm to
.
This post was edited on 4/23/21 at 10:33 pm
Posted by AlwysATgr
Member since Apr 2008
21005 posts
Posted on 3/22/20 at 3:37 pm to
Yep.

Not sure why someone thinks swinging a baseball bat is akin to sprint or swim times.

Would also add this is about a few players not the entire league.

In a few more decades, some fans will question if Nolan Ryan was real.
Posted by WestCoastAg
Member since Oct 2012
150142 posts
Posted on 3/22/20 at 4:02 pm to
Nobody is doubting that babe ruth could hit a baseball 505 feet. People are doubting that he hit it 575 when literally no one in the era of statcast has come within 70 feet of that
Posted by biglego
San Francisco
Member since Nov 2007
84717 posts
Posted on 3/22/20 at 4:03 pm to




I agree about bat speed and technique but Straw and Reggie Jackson were not small wimpy men. Straw was lanky but had some muscle and Reggie was strong.
This post was edited on 3/22/20 at 4:04 pm
Posted by biglego
San Francisco
Member since Nov 2007
84717 posts
Posted on 3/22/20 at 4:06 pm to
quote:

Nobody is doubting that babe ruth could hit a baseball 505 feet.


I guess he could, but it is a little to believe after seeing him and his batting practice swings. A slow clumsy swing that just doesn’t look possible. And I’m not sure if the balls were the same back then. But he was the best so what do I know.
Posted by PrimeTime Money
Houston, Texas, USA
Member since Nov 2012
28019 posts
Posted on 3/22/20 at 4:25 pm to
quote:

Hitting is definitely not based on pure strength. It's based on mechanics and hip and wrist speed. Darryl Strawberry and Griffey Jr hit the ball just as hard and far as any of the bulked up roid monsters because they had unbelievable bat speed. Reggie Jackson's 1971 All Star game home run off the roof of Tiger Stadium was hit every bit as hard as any of Bonds or Sosa's homeruns.
Yeah, no shite... and muscle mass makes great natural hitters some of the best of all time. Muscle gives them MORE hip and bat speed. Why do you think players were hitting more bombs than ever during the steroid era? It turned good hitters into great hitters and great hitters into all-time record-setting hitters.

By the way, you’re acting like Reggie Jackson, Daryl Strawberry, and Ken Griffey Jr were small. They were huge.

Ken Griffey Jr, 6’2” 230 lbs


Reggie Jackson, 6’0” 215 lbs


Darryl Strawberry, 6’6”, 215 lbs
Posted by Finkle is Einhorn
Member since Sep 2011
4384 posts
Posted on 3/22/20 at 5:07 pm to
Ehhhh there’s a reason those swimming and track records are so distorted. And it’s not bc today’s athlete is better. It’s actually bc of the advancements in how those things are measured now or how the events are set up period.

The tracks are made of different materials. The starting block has been innovated throughout the years. Etc etc

Same for swimming. Body suits. No wave pools. Etc etc

This is a great video that helps explain some of this

LINK
Posted by AlwysATgr
Member since Apr 2008
21005 posts
Posted on 3/22/20 at 5:14 pm to
In general, I agree. Better training, strength, flexibility would make a hitter a better hitter. But that doesn't necessarily preclude someone from a different era of baseball from hitting a baseball a long way.

A better comparison would be golf. Tiger was the epitome of a golfer who trained. He was also 6-3. His swing mechanics were perfect in his prime.

OTOH, John Daly was overweight, smoked on the course, and drank profusely. But their driving distances were comparable.

So I don't categorically rule out that a Ruth or a Mantle hit a baseball a long, long way.

What makes me question Ruth, is his swing mechanics. They were unorthodox as compared to Dunn, Judge, McGwire, etc.



This post was edited on 3/22/20 at 5:20 pm
Posted by PrimeTime Money
Houston, Texas, USA
Member since Nov 2012
28019 posts
Posted on 3/22/20 at 5:16 pm to
quote:

Ehhhh there’s a reason those swimming and track records are so distorted. And it’s not bc today’s athlete is better. It’s actually bc of the advancements in how those things are measured now or how the events are set up period.

The tracks are made of different materials. The starting block has been innovated throughout the years. Etc etc Same for swimming. Body suits. No wave pools. Etc etc


In 1936, the high jump record was 6 feet 9 inches, the current record set in 1993 is 8 feet 1/2 inches.

The shot put world record in 1932 was 16.05 meters. The current record, set in 1990, is 23.12 meters.

Look, better materials in track and swimming may account for the differences (sometimes) between current records and records set in the 90’s.

But technology advancements in the track material or the suits are not the reason why there is such large differences in records set during Babe Ruth’s era and today.
This post was edited on 3/22/20 at 5:18 pm
Posted by Finkle is Einhorn
Member since Sep 2011
4384 posts
Posted on 3/22/20 at 5:24 pm to
Maybe watch the video in the link?
first pageprev pagePage 6 of 8Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram