Actually, on balls hit directly at an OF, a player can take a step(or two) entirely in the wrong direction. I've seen it, and done it, plenty of times. You can't judge distance right off the bat. As silly as it sounds, the sound often determines that first step. But, for the sake of argument, let's just assume no ball is every hit directly at an OF and they never take a step entirely in the wrong direction. Let's just assume they hesitate for half a second(which is a very short increment of time).

Using the average times you listed, it takes 4.3 seconds to cover 90 feet. For the sake of argument, let's say the first 45 feet are covered in 2.3 seconds(I doubt this but I'm being generous). The average player, from a standstill, can cover 10 feet in half a second. So, in that half a second, the player who hesitates has lost 10 feet of range.

How many fly balls are actually caught at the very last moment in a 50 ft run? How fast would a player have to be to make up those 10 feet?

Deion Sanders fast. That's how fast. Not many of those guys floating around in baseball.

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 5/14/2010
Actually, on balls hit directly at an OF, a player can take a step(or two) entirely in the wrong direction. I've seen it, and done it, plenty of times. You can't judge distance right off the bat. As silly as it sounds, the sound often determines that first step. But, for the sake of argument, let's just assume no ball is every hit directly at an OF and they never take a step entirely in the wrong direction. Let's just assume they hesitate for half a second(which is a very short increment of time).

Using the average times you listed, it takes 4.3 seconds to cover 90 feet. For the sake of argument, let's say the first 45 feet are covered in 2.3 seconds(I doubt this but I'm being generous). The average player, from a standstill, can cover 10 feet in half a second. So, in that half a second, the player who hesitates has lost 10 feet of range.

How many fly balls are actually caught at the very last moment in a 50 ft run? How fast would a player have to be to make up those 10 feet?

A ball hit directly at an outfielder usually freezes an outfielder for a split second.Some outfielders train themselves to take a step or 2 backwards because they would rather be fooled on a ball in front of them than a ball over their heads.

Quote: Originally posted by amorak on 5/07/2010According to a study discussed here -- http://www.livescience.com/culture/090403-sports-baseball-catch.html -- the direction of that first step might not matter as much as you'd think.

As it says in amorak's link alot of those balls are caught at the end of a run because the players are adjusting in flight to catch the ball in stride...

this link is kind of neat and a little relevant to the discussion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU_3encGVP4

I'm sure MikeT will protest and say that he is alot faster than Rich Eisen, but I'm guessing MikeT is a tad bit older and heavier...

A half second for the first 10 feet is a really optimistic estimate for the average MLB player, that's an elite sprinter's time...

Though I agree with the assessment in its general form getting from point A to point B by both players. The only major factor I can see from the outfielders perspective is lateral movement. Some players have a better instinctive movement depending if the ball is hit to their right or side even if initially misjudged. Wind could also play a minor factor and work against MikeT.

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 5/06/201050 feet in 11 seconds?  Hell, yeah.   Leppy broke it down in the Bo Jackson blog.  I was a 274 lb defensive tackle.  While I'd have to gain 50 lbs to be that heavy, I'd also have to age -25 years and develop pro prospect talent.  But, he based it on a 5 second 40.  I think, from starting blocks and with a little training, a 5ish 40 would be possible.  I'm pretty active for an old dude.Anyway, the debate started about range/speed.  My contention that speed certainly helps but, if you reacted poorly at the crack of the bat, you're screwed.  Your momentum is going the wrong way so you have to shift that and regain the lost step. I used 50 feet because I don't know how many catches are made after running 50+ feet but I'm guessing not many.   So that lost step is huge in determining range.

The crux of this argument hinges on this 50 foot thing, the problem is it's just false. A ton of catches are made beyond 50 feet. Open Google Earth and use the ruler function. Goto any MLB stadium and draw a line from a best guess of where the CF is positioned to where you've seen outfielders make catches. You'll see distances beyond 100 feet, which makes this a completely different discussion. Acceleration and reaction time are more important at 50 feet than a 100 feet.

If you don't have Google Earth simply think about how far the CF wall is away (about 400 feet) and where the CF is positioned (usually 300 feet or less). Center fielders make catches in the gap on the warning track quite often, they easily travel 100+ feet for these plays.

I play in a wood bat adult baseball league and looked at the field where I made a catch at the fence last year. I covered over 100 feet easily.

So players only have to be Bo Jackson fast to cover the ground lost due to hesitation? How many of those guys play in the MLB?

And, yeah, I think I'm probably faster than Rich Eisen.

Nonetheless, if we get away from Poor Judgement Bolt vs. Aging MikeT, I think we could get somewhere.

How much hang time does a line drive in the gap have? Hesitating for a half second means you pick it up when it stops rolling. Judgement is way more important than speed wrt range.

Also, FWIW, I think we should probably throw out deep flies that have a hang time of 8 seconds. Greg Luzinski could misjudge those and still run 'em down.

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2010And, yeah, I think I'm probably faster than Rich Eisen.Nonetheless, if we get away from Poor Judgement Bolt vs. Aging MikeT, I think we could get somewhere.  How much hang time does a line drive in the gap have?   Hesitating for a half second means you pick it up when it stops rolling.   Judgement is way more important than speed wrt range.

Yeah i know we need to get away from Bolt and MikeT, thats why i suggested UZR and home to first times as a real life (and much more practical) comparison...

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2010And, yeah, I think I'm probably faster than Rich Eisen.Nonetheless, if we get away from Poor Judgement Bolt vs. Aging MikeT, I think we could get somewhere.  How much hang time does a line drive in the gap have?   Hesitating for a half second means you pick it up when it stops rolling.   Judgement is way more important than speed wrt range.

This is going to sound weird, but NFL players are both faster and slower than you think. I won a 40 yard dash against a couple NFL QBs, then lost to an offensive tackle. All shall remain nameless, but I thought it was interesting.

Quote: Originally posted by tropicana on 5/14/2010

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2010And, yeah, I think I'm probably faster than Rich Eisen.Nonetheless, if we get away from Poor Judgement Bolt vs. Aging MikeT, I think we could get somewhere.  How much hang time does a line drive in the gap have?   Hesitating for a half second means you pick it up when it stops rolling.   Judgement is way more important than speed wrt range.

This is going to sound weird, but NFL players are both faster and slower than you think. I won a 40 yard dash against a couple NFL QBs, then lost to an offensive tackle. All shall remain nameless, but I thought it was interesting.

Name names!

LOL...Mark Bulger and Rex Grossman I beat. from there it shouldn't be tough to figure out who I didn't

Quote: Originally posted by schuyler101 on 5/14/2010

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 5/06/201050 feet in 11 seconds?  Hell, yeah.   Leppy broke it down in the Bo Jackson blog.  I was a 274 lb defensive tackle.  While I'd have to gain 50 lbs to be that heavy, I'd also have to age -25 years and develop pro prospect talent.  But, he based it on a 5 second 40.  I think, from starting blocks and with a little training, a 5ish 40 would be possible.  I'm pretty active for an old dude.Anyway, the debate started about range/speed.  My contention that speed certainly helps but, if you reacted poorly at the crack of the bat, you're screwed.  Your momentum is going the wrong way so you have to shift that and regain the lost step. I used 50 feet because I don't know how many catches are made after running 50+ feet but I'm guessing not many.   So that lost step is huge in determining range.

The crux of this argument hinges on this 50 foot thing, the problem is it's just false. A ton of catches are made beyond 50 feet. Open Google Earth and use the ruler function. Goto any MLB stadium and draw a line from a best guess of where the CF is positioned to where you've seen outfielders make catches. You'll see distances beyond 100 feet, which makes this a completely different discussion. Acceleration and reaction time are more important at 50 feet than a 100 feet.

If you don't have Google Earth simply think about how far the CF wall is away (about 400 feet) and where the CF is positioned (usually 300 feet or less). Center fielders make catches in the gap on the warning track quite often, they easily travel 100+ feet for these plays.

I play in a wood bat adult baseball league and looked at the field where I made a catch at the fence last year. I covered over 100 feet easily.

Bolt would have caught up at longer distances. But there are several mis-assumptions that went into play with this. Firstly, that Bolt's speed translates to a short field example like this.

Additionally, a 40 yard dash is 120 feet. Chris Johnson (of the Titans), who probably runs a faster 20 and 40 than Bolt (who is still accelerating at 40 yards), wouldn't have been fast enough to make up for the 2 steps and then 180 degree change of direction and catch up to the DT prospect over that distance had he taken a step in the wrong direction.

In the problem posed, the DT won rather handily, assuming Bolt was the uber athlete of all-time, doing everything exceptionally.

The original premise of the argument was that a guy with 99 speed should have a higher range than (50). MikeT noted (correctly) that bad instincts negate much of that speed. In fact, a bad reaction negates nearly all of the speed.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.