Photo by Mark Zuckerman / NATS INSIDER The Nats and Astros square off this afternoon at Space Coast Stadium. |

Werth, by the way, said he got confirmation from several people that his first-inning home run yesterday did indeed strike his truck. "There was a smoldering crater in the hood," he claimed. OK, so that part may have been an exaggeration. But the ball did at least make contact with the truck.

John Lannan, formally named this morning as Davey Johnson's No. 5 starter, is on the mound against the Astros. Ross Detwiler will follow him out of the bullpen.

Plenty of updates to come on a beautiful day in Viera, so please check back...

HOUSTON ASTROS vs. WASHINGTON NATIONALS

Where: Space Coast Stadium, Viera

Gametime: 1:05 p.m.

TV: None

Radio: Astros feed via MLB Gameday Audio

Weather: Sunny, 77 degrees, Wind 11 mph out to CF

STARTING LINEUPS

NATIONALS

SS Ian Desmond

2B Danny Espinosa

3B Ryan Zimmerman

RF Jayson Werth

1B Chad Tracy

C Wilson Ramos

CF Roger Bernadina

LF Jason Michaels

P John Lannan

ASTROS

CF Brian Bixler

2B Jose Altuve

1B Brett Wallace

LF J.D. Martinez

3B Chris Johnson

C Chris Snyder

RF Brandon Barnes

SS Marwin Gonzalez

P Jordan Lyles

**1:05 p.m.**-- John Lannan fires a fastball high to Brian Bixler to get this one underway. Really hoping Bixler hits a groundball so we can see him hustle down the baseline. Never seen anybody hustle like him.

**1:08 p.m.**-- Yes! Bixler hits a routine grounder to third and then sprints down the line, nearly beating Ryan Zimmerman's throw. Nice job by Lannan in the top of the first. He also got Jose Altuve to ground out to second, then got Brett Wallace to hit a lazy fly ball to left-center. Scoreless as we go to the bottom of the first.

**1:14 p.m.**-- Not quite like yesterday's first inning explosion. Ian Desmond grounded out weakly to third. Astros right-hander Jordan Lyles then made both Danny Espinosa and Zimmerman look silly swinging at some offspeed stuff. End of 1, it's 0-0.

**1:19 p.m.**-- Bad news and good news in the top of the second. The bad news: Lannan served up a solo homer to Chris Johnson on an 0-1 pitch. The wind is blowing out to center, so it may have aided that ball a bit, but it was still tagged pretty well. The good news: Desmond made a really nice play on Chris Snyder's grounder to the hole at short, backhanding the ball and then making a controlled-but-forceful throw to first to get Snyder. Not sure Desmond makes that play -- at least not in that manner -- the last two years. Lannan finished out the inning striking out Brandon Barnes. So it's 1-0 Astros.

**1:28 p.m.**-- Here's something you don't see every day at spring training: A major takeout slide at second base. Roger Bernadina did it to Jose Altuve in the bottom of the second, and in the process prevented the Astros from turning what would have been an inning-ending double play. That allowed Chad Tracy to score from third and tie this game 1-1.

**1:37 p.m.**-- Good stuff from Lannan so far. Through three innings, he's allowed only the Johnson solo homer, nothing else. He's also got a pair of strikeouts and has allowed only three balls to leave the infield. Still 1-1.

**1:55 p.m.**-- Some nice hitting from the Nats in the bottom of the third. Espinosa and Zimmerman each singled -- Zim, by the way, is now hitting .424 and slugging .788, though he'd be the first to say those numbers are meaningless -- and then Tracy drove in Espinosa with a bloop single to center. Ramos' well-struck double to right-center brought in Zim and gave the Nats a 3-1 after three.

**2:00 p.m.**-- Continued good stuff from Lannan. He retired the side in the top of the fourth, recording his third strikeout of the day. So he's now retired 12 of 13 batters faced today. (This is the part of the update where I'm legally required to point out he's pitching against the Astros this afternoon.)

**2:21 p.m.**-- A bit of a ragged fifth for Lannan, though nobody hit the ball hard against him. He struck out Johnson, only to have the ball squirt through Ramos' legs and all the way to the backstop, allowing the batter to reach. Lannan then walked Snyder and gave up an infield single to Barnes (on a ball to the hole at short than Desmond couldn't quite handle). A sac fly brought the runner home, but Lannan closed out the inning by striking out Bixler. I would assume he's done for the day, but we'll see. His line so far: 5 ip, 2 h, 2 er, 1 bb, 5 k. Nats lead 3-2.

**2:41 p.m.**-- Roger Bernadina came to play today. Crushed a two-run homer to right-center in the bottom of the fifth, giving the Nats a 6-2 lead. Lannan is indeed done for the afternoon, so Ross Detwiler takes the mound for the sixth.

**2:44 p.m.**-- And Detwiler makes quick work of the top of the sixth. He retired the side, striking out Altuve and then getting a pair of groundballs to second. Still three innings to go, but so far the Nats are playing a nice, crisp ballgame.

**3:12 p.m.**-- Just got back from talking to Lannan in the clubhouse. The lefty was pleased both with his outing -- "I gave myself a chance," he said, referring to how he trusted his pitches to do the job instead of trying to overthrow -- and the fact Davey Johnson named him the No. 5 starter this morning. Johnson hasn't actually told Lannan anything or addressed his situation this spring, but the lefty didn't feel that was necessary. "He doesn't have to worry about me." Meanwhile in this game, Detwiler gave up a two-run homer to Brandon Barnes. It's 7-4 Nationals after seven.

**3:23 p.m.**-- Still 7-4 after eight. Here comes Henry Rodriguez with a chance to earn the save. Hang on, folks.

**3:29 p.m.**-- It's all over, and the Nats have themselves an honest-to-goodness winning streak! OK, it's only two games, but still. ... H-Rod closes out the ninth, preserving a 7-4 victory. Nice afternoon for Lannan and Bernadina (2-for-3, homer, nice takeout slide).

## 130 comments:

I think I heard yesterday that Charlie and Dave won't be back on the radio until the Apr. 3 game against the Red Sox at Nats Park. What a shame. At least the other team's announcers will be there.

Hmmm Brian Bixler leading off. I've heard that name before somewhere.

three straight singles and no runs. Bet they don't score.

Error 303? I had the same issues yesterday. Primarily on page refresh. Just me? Not a big deal.

Bases loaded go Jason....

neg-anon said:

three straight singles and no runs. Bet they don't score.wanna bet?

You lose the bet....1:26

Doh! too late, they already scored . . .

What the heck happened to GameDay audio?

303 or 503? I've been getting the latter more & more lately.

Now it's back. Must have gone to a local commercial, I guess.

I've been getting the "site unavailable" message (can't recall the error number) more lately, too.

I'll pay at the door.

Yep no C&D until then. Seems like MASN and all the media outlets have been cutting back on ST this year. MASN let Debbie Taylor go ...

Have to wonder what the Lerner's are thinking? Ted may be getting too old for this albeit he is about the same age as Mr. Spock ... ;)

In my mind at least, the whole RGIII thing was an effort to try to get fan interest back when it was about to likely turn predominantly toward the Nationals and Caps. There is no way the Redskins win with no high draft picks for the next four years. Add in the salary cap penalty. They seem to be good at losing their 1st round picks as much as keeping them. One was suspended for smoking reefer last year. But RGIII appears to have worked to some extent until his first game when he gets crushed due to lack of an OL.

Something Snyder has always left on the back burner like the blithering fool that he is.

So, where is the Nats publicity? Attempt to ramp up interest in the team? Marketing, sales? I am not seeing it with diminished coverage. Of course a part of that is due to Angelos. Clearly, he liked Riggleman and put him in those silly "smart ball" commercials. No way he does that with Johnson. Make Johnson look better than Showalter? No way ...

Its disconcerting to see the Nats stuck between Angel'Os and his Oriholes and the Deadkin's maniacal owner. Nothing less than unhealthy for DC sports IMO.

But, as Boz says, cities like Boston seem to do okay as mulit-sports towns. NY, Chicago, etc. DC should be more discriminating and less fickle. The Deadskins are still on a five year plan and given the owner everyone has to know he will find a way to screw it up people!! And JayB complains about Rizzo ... that's real nightmarish roster handling JayB!

503 for me.

303 or 503? I've been getting the latter more & more lately.1-800-INDIA.

1:33

I think you've lost your way. Yes RG111 will help many moons from now. Yes Ovechkin is on fire (Montreal fan) and yes the Canadiens will miss the playoffs but this is a NATS blog.

Now the Astros team is talking about the Werth truck dinger. The legend grows... :-)

*broadcast* team, that would be

Looks to me (as I am looking at the google satellite picture) that there isn't even any parking beyond the LF wall. To me it looks like all the parking is either behind homeplate, or beyond the right field/right center field wall which leads me to believe that this is an entirely fabricated story.

Just sayin'.

The meteor struck truck story that is...

If it is an urban legend, I will like it even more, but Bos spoke of eyewitness accounts in his chat. ;-)

I think you've lost your way. Yes RG111 will help many moons from now. Yes Ovechkin is on fire (Montreal fan) and yes the Canadiens will miss the playoffs but this is a NATS blog.The point is DWS they ARE LOSING THE PUBLIC RELATIONS MARKETING war when they should be winning going away? What part of that didn't you get fella? Need some reading comprehension work me thinks.

natsfan1a said...

Now the Astros team is talking about the Werth truck dinger. The legend grows... :-)

I heard that it was a meteor that hit Werth's truck...

If Werth hits 50 doubles most with men on and 10 homers I'd be happy ... I don't care about massive shots ... production == runs. NOT solo blasts.

Les in NC said...

The meteor struck truck story that is...

Didn't see this. My bad...

Doesn't Chris Johnson wear us out?

I don't get the Werth story. Physically impossible. I was at the game and where he hit it there is not even grass to park a car. I guess I really don't get why people who should know better are biting on it.

I was talking about the baseball-hit truck story. You guys are on your own as far as any meteor sightings. :-)

Anon 1:51.

Again, I was at the game. You would care if you had seen it. An absolute BLAST! Would have cleared the seats at Nats Park. I didn't know he could hit a ball that far. Not sure I thought ANYONE could hit a ball that far. Left fielder never moved, just turned his head slightly.

Also, there was a fan yelling 'overrated' to him during the at-bat. He stopped and stared down the fan before entering his home run trot.

Because it's funny, whether or not it's true (just my personal opinion). Just noticed that Kilgore has more of Bos' investigative work on the story. Wonder whether he used the tape measure he employed in the RFK outfield back in the day? I smell a Pulitzer. ;-)

Anonymous said...

I don't get the Werth story. Physically impossible. I was at the game and where he hit it there is not even grass to park a car. I guess I really don't get why people who should know better are biting on it.

March 26, 2012 1:52 PM

Anon 1:52 -- You're correct that there isn't a parking lot behind the left-field fence, but they do put a couple of players' cars over there. I can see at least two of them today.

Did Werth's HR actually hit his own car? We'll never know. But he absolutely hit it in the very near vicinity of several cars.

Hey Mark,

I love the work you do and can't get enough NI! But don't give the Mets runs they didn't earn. Yesterday's game was a shutout 12-0!

p.s. I am expecting this to be the first in a fairly long line of shutouts by the staff.

natsfan1a said...

Our attempt to add to the legend as though Werth's hit was a meteor...

Thanks, Cease. I thought I might have missed a late-breaking bulletin. :-)

Lannan going into the 5th. This is the real test.

Is there an estimate on how many feet Werth's homer traveled?

They should modify that DJ car-alarm soundtrack to include Werth yelling: "Geez, not my truck again!"

Did Werth's HR actually hit his own car? We'll never know. But he absolutely hit it in the very near vicinity of several cars.Boz was apparently on the case with his sherlock holmes pipe and loyal associate Dr. Kilgore. It hit a Palm frond and bounced off of his truck's bumper.

Boz figures it out.

Haha that would be funny NatsFan :-)

I like that idea.

Cwj, not to send a loyal NI reader elsewhere but you might want to take a quick peek at the Nationals Journal site to see the Bos calculations.

(and 503 it is on the error)

Thanks, Cwj. I see that Anon beat me to the punch on the Bos calculations (tips virtual cap).

Just read it (thanks for the link Anon).

490ish feet.

I'll bookmark Nationals Journal. Not sure why I haven't before.

But yeah, NI is my true home :-)

Mine, too, Cwj. Mark also has a link to the Journal on the left side of the page (under Other Nats Blogs).

I don't work in PR, never claimed to. Perhaps your ideas would be better served directed to the proper people.....

The point is DWS they ARE LOSING THE PUBLIC RELATIONS MARKETING war when they should be winning going away? What part of that didn't you get fella? Need some reading comprehension work me thinks.

Les in NC- I can't verify one way or the other, but the explanation I read elsewhere is that many players parallel park on the access road (way) beyond the left field wall.

I'm personally of the theory that the ball was struck with such force that it went over the left field wall, circumnavigated the globe, and landed in the RF parking lot, in the process both damaging Werth's truck and reversing the earth's spin to save Lois Lane.

Boz wrote:

At this point, Boz employed the “3-4-5 triangle rule we all learned in school,” he said. If the ball had hit 12 feet up the tree, he figured, the ball would have carried another nine feet had the tree not been there. Just to be sure, he put the extra distance at 9 to 12 feet.Uggh . . . that shows he has no idea what he's doing. He's using the Pythagorean theorem which has absolutely nothing to do with the paths of projectiles (bodies moving through space), which take on the shape of a parabola. My daughter, who is in 11th grade physics, could tell him that.

Okay, Boz said it bounced off a palm tree and hit his car. That adds some plausibility.

Awesome theory, Beantown.

NatinBeantown said...

Les in NC- I can't verify one way or the other, but the explanation I read elsewhere is that many players parallel park on the access road (way) beyond the left field wall.

I'm personally of the theory that the ball was struck with such force that it went over the left field wall, circumnavigated the globe, and landed in the RF parking lot, in the process both damaging Werth's truck and reversing the earth's spin to save Lois Lane.

March 26, 2012 2:21 PM

Anyone know the longest home run ever hit by a Nat? I recall a 450 bomb in Cincy by Soriano that cleared the riverboat in center field. Jayson probably matched that even with a parabolic flight of the ball.

Werth swinging 2 ABs with 3-0 and didnt come close to hit cars.

that shows he has no idea what he's doing. He's using the Pythagorean theorem which has absolutely nothing to do with the paths of projectiles (bodies moving through space), which take on the shape of a parabola.Oh sigh all of these NON-MATH types? No wonder our government is in the shambles it is.

Dude, you can use good old pythagorus to do that calculation because it was AT THE END of the parabola? Its simple (even for a wonk) probability and stats. You can say that Boz's calculations are within a .95 probability given the small size left compared to the original track. Roughly, a straight line will do. Sheesh another Greek named Euclid understood this!

I suppose you believe all those pretty circles you seen depicting orbits are accurate ... ~laughing derisively~ NOT EVEn CLOSE there is so much pitch, yaw and movement they are only gross APPROXIMATIONS but they come close enough.

In the study of Dyamics the first thing you LEARN silly Wonk is about limits. You never get a precise answer but the more sample measurements you make the closer you get to that hypothetical "limit". The Greeks found that even if you could achieve that grosser approximations come close enough to provide reasonable information.

Gosh HOC EST RIDICULUM! Next you'll be telling us the Earth is perfectly round? ~really laughing now~

Atta way, Bernie (with a two-run dinger)!

Are MLB's Game Day stats correct? Has Lannan really only made 33 pitches and only 4 balls through 5 IP?

Anon 2:29-Last year Morse hit one 466ft which was 8th longest in the NL.

Not sure, but Dunn may have hit one further when he was here.

Will,

No it's not correct.

A DC Wonk said...

Boz wrote:

At this point, Boz employed the “3-4-5 triangle rule we all learned in school,” he said. If the ball had hit 12 feet up the tree, he figured, the ball would have carried another nine feet had the tree not been there. Just to be sure, he put the extra distance at 9 to 12 feet.

Uggh . . . that shows he has no idea what he's doing. He's using the Pythagorean theorem which has absolutely nothing to do with the paths of projectiles (bodies moving through space), which take on the shape of a parabola. My daughter, who is in 11th grade physics, could tell him that.

Actually it does kind of make sense. Ball is on an angled downward trajectory about ready to hit ground. Instead, it hits 12 feet up on a tree, stopping its progression along the path away from the plate, which is the distance Boswell is trying to calculate. Let's call the distance measured along the ground from the plate to the base of the tree D. How much further along the ground would the ball have traveled had it not hit the tree? Assume at this point that the ball's trajectory is basically straight, and the point where the ball hit the tree, the point where it would have hit the ground, and the point at the base of the tree form a right triangle. (Assuming also that the tree is exactly 90 degrees vertical to the ground.) Using the 3-4-5 right triangle rule, 12 feet high on the tree equals 9 feet away on the ground from the base of the tree. Thus the total distance the ball traveled is D+9.

Will... no. Walks usually counts as 4 balls, his as one strike, outs as strikes.

There's something off about the way GameDay indicates balls and strikes but I can't recall how that works.

Will said...

Are MLB's Game Day stats correct? Has Lannan really only made 33 pitches and only 4 balls through 5 IP?

March 26, 2012 2:41 PM

Anony blathered:

In the study of Dyamics the first thing you LEARN silly Wonk is about limits.I have a degree in math. I understand limits.

Dude, you can use good old pythagorus to do that calculation because it was AT THE END of the parabola? Its simple (even for a wonk) probability and stats.I was simplifying. Let me get more specific:

You can't use Pythagorean here

because you only know one side of the triangle!Why does he assume it's the shape of a 3-4-5 triangle? It hit 12 feet up. So what! What if it was a 5-12-13 triangle? Then Boz would be arguing it went 5 more feet? Utterly ridiculous.To put it in other words, which are mathematically equivalent: just because it was at the end of the parabola, you still don't know any of the angles! To take extreme examples: if it went high into the air, then it would not have traveled much past the tree., if it was a line drive it would have traveled further.

The bottom line is this: knowing the ball hit 12 feet above the ground is not enough information -- you need either: (a) the angle at which it hit; or (b) the time the ball took to get there; or (c) the highest point in the arc. Unless you get one of these, you're just making a WAG.

Nice to see the bats beginning to liven up.

Here's another angle on sprint training stats: Isn't it a bit of an insult to fans who pay to watch ST games to say "they mean nothing?". Who cares if you paid $2.50 to come to the game? "We decided not to try today because it doesn't matter".

Yep just looked it up in my Bill James handbook, Dunn hit a 479 foot homer on 9/14/10.

He also hit a 471 footer that year.

I'm personally of the theory that the ball was struck with such force that it went over the left field wall, circumnavigated the globe, and landed in the RF parking lot, in the process both damaging Werth's truck and reversing the earth's spin to save Lois Lane.Nah, only Willie Harris could do that.

Super Willie!

"1:05 p.m. -- Really hoping Bixler hits a groundball so we can see him hustle down the baseline. Never seen anybody hustle like him."

Even Jamie Carroll? Notorious hustle guy.

John Lannan,(sorry, LannEn), and Roger Bernadina are both playing like they have something to prove......

Feel Wood wrote:

Using the 3-4-5 right triangle rule, 12 feet high on the tree equals 9 feet away on the ground from the base of the tree. Thus the total distance the ball traveled is D+9.(Note to others: we're saying a 3-4-5 triangle, but we're using a multiple of that: 9-12-15).

I hope my prior post answered that. The question is: why a 3-4-5 right triangle? There are an infinite number of right triangles that have a length of 12 on one side (e.g., 5-12-13). In fact, it was much more likely to be closer to 5-12-13 than 3-4-5.

My god! Andres Blanco got a base hit!!

No worries. Y'all lost me at Pythagorean. ;-)

(Note to others: we're saying a 3-4-5 triangle, but we're using a multiple of that: 9-12-15).Who are King and Keyes and why are they still in camp? When will the rest of the minor leaguers/people who are released going to be gone?

I was talking to a homeless person who sleeps under one of the trees beyond the leftfield fence and he said a person from the Nats asked him where the ball hit. The homeless guy showed him and the guy measured it out to be 602 feet in the air! The guy also said the ball didn't hit any truck. He said it "plugged" much like a golfers drive will on a wet day

They don't have homeless people in Viera. In Viera, everything is better.

Well maybe he was jump camping out then

The woman on the grassy knoll reported seeing a man with an umbrella, but it had not rained all day.

I think there was a second hitter.

If the stats don't count, than the comment strings don't either. This one went off the rails a few hours ago.

Not disppointed that Sharkadina will likely get a lot of early season innings in LF while Morse recovers. It's his best position and he can hold up his side of the platoon.

Definitely the comment strings don't count in ST. Speaking only for myself, I reported to the blog in the best shape of my life but, sadly, I am not yet in midseason form.

Gameday hasn't moved in a while....

Kudos to Lannan, anybody? 5 IP, 2 H, 2 R, 1 BB, 5 K's (5 K's?!?). Not great -- but not bad -- certainly pretty good for a #5 ;-)

I hope my prior post answered that. The question is: why a 3-4-5 right triangle? There are an infinite number of right triangles that have a length of 12 on one side (e.g., 5-12-13). In fact, it was much more likely to be closer to 5-12-13 than 3-4-5.AND an infinite number of arcs of infinitesimal angles make a perfect circle. You are over thinking the problem dear Wonk. Again, why out government is whacko!!

How did the 7th run score?

I think Lannan pitches better with a chip on his shoulder. Internally, of course - outwardly he has been super professional. He has acted " like he has been there before". Good guy. For a minute there I though Detweiler was going to have his scheduled meltdown like the other pitchers have had in the last week.Got out of it without too much damage.

Anony said:

You are over thinking the problem dear Wonk. Again, why out government is whacko!!I'm not overthinking it. You're underthinking it.

To solve a triangle you need *two* pieces of information: either the length of two of the sides, or one length and one angle. If you only know one length, you don't know anything else about the triangle at all.

It's like saying "I drove my car for one hour, how far did I go?" Unless you know more information, you can't answer it.

A DC Wonk said...

Feel Wood wrote:

Using the 3-4-5 right triangle rule, 12 feet high on the tree equals 9 feet away on the ground from the base of the tree. Thus the total distance the ball traveled is D+9.

(Note to others: we're saying a 3-4-5 triangle, but we're using a multiple of that: 9-12-15).

I hope my prior post answered that. The question is: why a 3-4-5 right triangle?

The answer is: why not? He's doing an

estimate, for Fick's sake. And he's trying to estimate a distance that is what, about 2 or 3% of the overall distance? If he's off by 2 or 3 feet with this last bit, what's the effect on the total distance? Virtually nil. So don't flame Bos for using bad math on something like this, since his math was good. He stated his assumption right up front, a 3-4-5 ratio right triangle. If you want to flame him for anything, flame him for being so anal as to even do this calculation in the first place when he could just as easily said he was making a SWAG.How did the 7th run score?Lombo single

Blanco single, Lombo to 3rd

Stephen King sac fly, scoring Lombo.

Wonk, Lannan did a very good job. 1 wind aided HR and a K wild pitch followed by a frustration 4 pitch walk then eventually a Sac Fly scored the 2nd run. He dominated all game.

Detwiler just seems to always want to give up the long ball once every effort. OK maybe not want to but seems to.

Sure, I'll toss some kudos Johnny's way, too. Atta way, kid.

Feelwood, you used FLAME a bunch. Do Boz and flame go together?

What the heck? Blogger Monster at my post. H-Rod in for the 9th.

Using the 3-4-5 ratio, can we calculate the precise length of a geometry discussion on a baseball blog before everyone stops giving a *&%$# and moves on to something else?

ate, rather

Don't know about you, but I was there some time ago... ;-)

before everyone stops giving a *&%$# and moves on to something else?I asked:

The question is: why a 3-4-5 right triangle?FeelWood wrote:

The answer is: why not?I tell you why not in simple terms: because a 3-4-5 right triangle has absolutely nothing -- nothing -- to do with the problem! That like saying: "gee, my car is 4 feet high -- I'll bet the shadow is 3 feet long because it makes a 3-4-5 triangle" Or: "I threw a ball, and it hit 12 feet up on the wall, so it would have gone 9 more feet." It's a total non-sequitor.

Again, the problem is that a triangle has nothing to do with what he's trying to figure out.

Is his estimate close? Sure, in the grand scheme of things, but that's just because he's using a small number compared to 490 feet. If he had rolled a pair of dice, he would have gotten any number between 2 and 12, he'd be close, too -- but it has nothing to do with how to figure out the distance a ball flies.

I don't care if he's close or not -- anybody can make estimates. And I wasn't even criticizing him -- I was just pointing out that he has no idea what he's doing.

For Henry: 1B, K, and a game-ending DP. Nats win 7-4.

MPHRod -- small sample size -- but, still, ERA of 0.00

Atta way, Henry. :-)

Again, the problem is that a triangle has nothing to do with what he's trying to figure out.

And I wasn't even criticizing him -- I was just pointing out that he has no idea what he's doing.

You don't agree that the point where a ball hits a tree, the point where the ball would have hit the ground had it not hit the tree, and the point at the base of the tree form a triangle? Sounds like you're the one who doesn't know what he's doing.

don't care if he's close or not -- anybody can make estimates. And I wasn't even criticizing him -- I was just pointing out that he has no idea what he's doing.Sheesh I would say just the opposite? You apparently don't know what you are talking about? If you are a wonk and like things like polls then you would know what the central limit theorem is? Right? No, probably NOT. Look it up and stop this nonsense. Sheesh ... although I find humor in it I also find it alarming! Our education system is producing dolts ... my God!

Couldn't we talk about something less controversial than Boz's home run calculations? Like maybe the healthcare law?

The bottom line is this: knowing the ball hit 12 feet above the ground is not enough information -- you need either: (a) the angle at which it hit; or (b) the time the ball took to get there; or (c) the highest point in the arc. Unless you get one of these, you're just making a WAG.Or you can use probability to come up with a good estimate. Right? Which is what Boz did. A degree in Math? From where? The K-Mart? Not the University of Maryland where I got my degree that's for damned sure.

Leaked footage from the locker room

Couldn't we talk about something less controversial than Boz's home run calculations? Like maybe the healthcare law?Its not as much fun! 11th graders, parabolas, BAH just ask Venn if Boz was right ... because true masters care nothing for these ... bwahahahahaah.

Feelwood, you used FLAME a bunch. Do Boz and flame go together?I am the ultimate FLAMER, I make the dread Dormamu look like a spent match stick.

Good work on breaking the locker room story, Grandstander. Seems like the pep talk must have worked. :-)

Could you guys stop talking about baseball so much? It's messing up this fascinating blog about math.

FeelWood wrote:

You don't agree that the point where a ball hits a tree, the point where the ball would have hit the ground had it not hit the tree, and the point at the base of the tree form a triangle? Sounds like you're the one who doesn't know what he's doing.FeelWood, unlike some of the others here, I try not to pontificate on stuff unless I know what I'm talking about. I know a lot more about projectile motion and the math involved than you think.

If you want to approximate it as a triangle, go ahead. It's not going to work with many angles, but, I'll play along. But you still have no idea of the length of the other sides! None at all.

Since you insist on dragging this out, let me go over specific examples with you.

Disregarding air resistance, etc., the ball will land at approximately the same angle as it was hit, right?

And let's approximate by using Pythag.

So, suppose Werth hit the ball at an angle of 15 degrees. Then it would land at approximately that angle. Do the trig, and you'd find that in a right triangle, if the opposite side of the 15-degree angle was 12 feet (the height of where it hit the tree), then the other leg of the triangle (the length the ball would have traveled) is over 44 feet (!!). Is that anywhere near the 9-to-12 feet that Boz estimated?

Similarly, if Werth hit it at 40 degrees, it would have traveled an extra 14 feet.

Do you see that the angle that Werth hit it determines everything, and a 3-4-5 triangle has nothing to do with it? A 3-4-5 triangle is only relevant if Werth happened to hit the ball at 53.13 degrees.

(Handy right-triangle calculator at http://www.csgnetwork.com/righttricalc.html)

A DC Wonk said...

I feel educated now. thanks Wonk...

A degree in Math? From where? The K-Mart?You know, I'm actually trying to explain things, rather than insult others.

Well the wino measured it at 602 feet. I don't give a rats behind about any triangle nonsense. I'll take his word for it. Move on

Hey Beavis, if I wanted to do math, I'd go to school.

Thanks, Cease.

To all, ignore all the math and look at the nice color picture at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ideal_projectile_motion_for_different_angles.svg. You can see that the length of the homerun has 100% to do with how hard it's hit, and what angle it's hit. It's a nice pic. While you're looking at it, visualize Nats players hitting home runs ;-)

Holy cow, it feels like everyone is hanging out in the basement of the Science Building today!!

Who cares how Boz came about his hypothesis? Here's the only answer we need on the Werth home run:

He hit it hard. He hit it far.

You're welcome.

Anything involving Pythagoras and geometry gives me a headache.

Good to see Lannan pitch well.

Rodriguez has been very sharp this spring. I definitely would be on board with him filling in for Storen.

I have a feeling Davey will alternate Henry and Lidge, which would be fine as well.

Or I should say, good to "read" that Lannan pitched well :)

Can't look at pretty picture. Ignoring math. Physics? Fuhgeddaboudit. Visualizing blog peace now...

A DC Wonk said...

Thanks, Cease.

To all, ignore all the math and look at the nice color picture at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ideal_projectile_motion_for_different_angles.svg. You can see that the length of the homerun has 100% to do with how hard it's hit, and what angle it's hit. It's a nice pic. While you're looking at it, visualize Nats players hitting home runs ;-)

March 26, 2012 4:04 PM

Similarly, if Werth hit it at 40 degrees, it would have traveled an extra 14 feet.Which, if you had read Kllgore's post carefully Boz took into account. What Boz managed to do was get a rough estimate of the area underneath YOUR curve Wonk. So, we now have a an x' distribution. We can safely assume that your "parabola" can be considered a standard normal distribution since it often occurs in nature. In other words: CENTRAL LIMIT theorem? Right?

My God dosey dolts and little lambsey ivies a diddly didy do wouldn't you?

In any case Boz's calculations appear to give a decent level of confidence at least greater than .9. Now we examine his confidence interval and its between 489 and 492 feet. We can safely assume but the central limit theorem that the mean is somewhere between 489 and 492 feet. Because of the central limit theorem his measurements and estimates based on eye-witness testimonies are likely valid. NOT perfect.

the mean is somewhere between 489 and 492 feet.Sorry, not the mean ... the x-bar or z-score depending ... since this is an estimated standard normal distribution curve.

A DC Wonk said...

FeelWood wrote:

You don't agree that the point where a ball hits a tree, the point where the ball would have hit the ground had it not hit the tree, and the point at the base of the tree form a triangle? Sounds like you're the one who doesn't know what he's doing.

FeelWood, unlike some of the others here, I try not to pontificate on stuff unless I know what I'm talking about. I know a lot more about projectile motion and the math involved than you think.

If you want to approximate it as a triangle, go ahead. It's not going to work with many angles, but, I'll play along. But you still have no idea of the length of the other sides! None at all.

Again, I'm not triangulating anything. I'm merely pointing out what Boswell did and saying that there was nothing wrong with the assumption he made about the path of the ball

on the last ten feet or so of a 500 foot trajectoryand the way he calculated it out. You're the one saying it was wrong. But you miss the point, again. Kilgore says Boseyeballedthe distance the ball traveled to the outfield fence, yet he goes to higher math to estimate the last 10-15 of the distance. Boswell is clearly insane. But for that matter, so are you.And why can I look at it statistically rather than dynamically? Because the ball landed. its no longer in motion. I would use dynamics to predict where a moving projectile will move to next but you would need velocity, trajectory, acceleration. You would have to know how fast the ball was moving when the bat hit it ... the angle of trajectory etc.

DC WONK can never know those things so how in Texas should Boz? How would anyone? SO, we use the fact that standard normal distributions occur frequently in nature and look an awful lot like Dr. DC Wonk daughter's parabola. It is now "fixed" and "static" in time because it is no longer moving. We can then use the approximate landing spot to estimate the possible total distance interval (and that's what everyone is interested in ... not how fast the ball was traveling, nor its angle.)

Solve the problem not your daughter's homework Wonk.

We need some real baseball. Not even winning is getting through to these guys anymore.

Some threads just go off the track early. Happens to the best of them. Go get 'em in the next post.

FeelWood wrote:

Boswell is clearly insane. But for that matter, so are you.I apparently overlooked where you had turned into one of those posters that throws insults at others. I'm sorry to see that.

One of the Anonys, after talking about central limit theorems and normal distributions (which also have absolutely nothing to do with this) wrote:

DC WONK can never know those things so how in Texas should Boz? How would anyone?Actually, one

canmake a determination by timing how long it took from the crack of the bat until it hit the object. All one needs is time and distance, and one can compute the angle.we use the fact that standard normal distributions occur frequently in natureProjectiles _never_ follow a curve that resembles a normal distribution. Did you ever see a batted ball start off as flat off the bat for a while, and then rise up quickly, then come down quickly, and then flatten out before it hits the ground?

Wonk: feel might call you crazy but by my calculations if you were only betting the anons a dollar on each of their statements you have still made well over $1000 so far and the season hasn't even started.

As one who failed statistics in graduate school (my advisor was the damn teacher as well) I scrolled through most of that dialogue faster then most of Peric's stuff.

While on the treadmill today I watched the Red Sox vs. Phillies. Lester totally shut them down going 7 innings and I think the final was 6-0.

Phillies really do have some issues with their GM saying there was not even a timeline for either Utley or Howard. Howard's injury is particularly troubling in that he is fighting an infection and until that gets cleared up he can't begin to rehab his achilles injury. I am not sure of this but I think I saw Lance Nix playing 3rd base but it could have been left field and he was just coming in on a popup.

Off to read the next post.

Go Nats!!

Maybe I missed it in a note hear, but from reading Mark's write up, why is it 2 ER, The second run was the guy who got on base on pass ball on a strike out. He should have never been on base,, That run should be unearned for sure, unless I missed something in the translation.

Yeah? Bugs proved the world was round by throwing a baseball around it and getting it stamped through customs on the way. That's enough physics for me.

Leave us not forget that Bugs was no slouch on the field, either.

OK, is everybody gone? Is it safe?

AKudos is singular. It's a laurel wreath. A kudos.kudos.Manassas Nats Fan

It was ruled a wild pitch instead of a passed ball, so it counts as an earned run against the pitcher. (It really seems like anything that gets the batter to swing shouldn't be allowed to be called a wild pitch, but that would be too logical)

LOL, so that was you the whole time back in the day on NJ?

Section 3, My Sofa said...

OK, is everybody gone? Is it safe?

A kudos. Kudos is singular. It's a laurel wreath. A kudos.

March 26, 2012 7:41 PM

pssst...is everybody still gone? What if he was awarded more than one wreath? Anyhoo, off to have some coffee, rest on my laurels, that type of thing. :-)

Thanks Dave. Almost never when the guy swings even if it a terrible pitch is ruled q wild pitch. IF it was close enough to swing, it is close enough to stop. Being a wild pitch would make it earned.

## Post a Comment