1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

TRAP TARGETS AND BASEBALL IN DENVER

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by Baber, Oct 10, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Baber

    Baber TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,348
    Mr. Winston and Ireland:

    Noted a very interesting article in this mornings USA TODAY (October 10, 2007 pg. 4C) entitled “Humidor Changes Home Run Climate”.

    This article talks about the steps the Colorado Rockies have taken to reduce Home Runs and scoring at their Denver facility. The Rockies noticed that they were having excessive home runs and hits and attempted to determine what was happening. They found that the baseballs were shrinking in weight by as much a 20% and they bounced higher due to the lower humidity in Denver. They installed a humidor to insure that balls are stored at a constant temperature and humidity. The have reduced Home runs on average from 3.02 to 2.23 and runs from 14.37 to 10.58 per game.

    Trap targets are subject to the same humidity variations therefore unless you can control this aspect of the testing your assumptions that there is no difference in target speed and variation due to altitude can not be accepted. I stand by my statement that all things being equal (as we see here its very difficult to hold everything equal) the difference in target speed from sea level to Denver should be on the order of approximately 2%.

    This is just one of the many variations present when altitude increases. Although target speed does decrease with altitude it is unknown what other variations has an impact thus masking the altitude effect. Maybe as the humidity decreases as noted here and the target shrinks and becomes more brittle and prone to breakage could be one of the factors affecting scores. There is not enough known to make a blanket statement that altitude makes no difference in target speed.

    TB
     
  2. Baber

    Baber TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,348
  3. Baber

    Baber TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,348
    Start storing targets in climate controlled warehouses. Thats what they did with Base Balls.

    My real point is to state that targets at altitude behave differently. They are slower but many with their radar guns don't believe it.

    TB
     
  4. Hipshot 3

    Hipshot 3 TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,796
    Slow day, huh TB?
     
  5. Baber

    Baber TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,348
    Yes... it is a little slow but thats not the point. Mr. Winston and Ireland claim that there is no difference in target speed between seal level and high altitude like Denver. This is an example that shows there is a difference and one of the many ways that can be used to negate the difference. Targets don't have to be thrown as hard at Denver than at say San Diego.

    TB
     
  6. TOOT

    TOOT TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    114
    Sounds like apples and oranges to me.

    The concept here was that a ball was being "impacted" (think compression here)by a bat....and the ball had been affected by it's environment.

    Last time I knew, we don't throw targets downrange by "impacting" them with anything. Their distance or speed is not effected by the compression of the target....or at least minimally.

    I also rather doubt that a target made from pitch is effected the same way a ball is, by the humidity.......a touch maybe but I could only imagine that having an effect on the weight. That might have some effect on the energy required to throw it at a certain speed and distance.
     
  7. hairy

    hairy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    374
    For a baseball, or anything for that matter, to shrink by as much as 20% because of "drying out", it would first have to be made up of more than 20% moisture or water. Moisture content of a normal baseball is over 20%? ... I doubt that.
     
  8. Baber

    Baber TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,348
    My point in is this whole discussion is to state that things are different at altitude than at sea level. There are those that say its not. The baseball example is just that an example of the differences at altitude. Humidity and temperature effect target flight of a trap target just as a baseball. I also suspect that the moisture content of the target can like the baseball also be affected. Targets can absorb water (weight) or dry out and will perform differently just like a baseball although the difference may not be as profound.

    TB
     
  9. TOOT

    TOOT TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    114
    Nobody said a baseball is 20% moisture........the article said it's moisture content was reduced by 20%. Imagine hitting a rock with a bat as opposed to an orange.

    TB.....I would agree with your last post. Although.......just shoot the damn target.
     
  10. hairy

    hairy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    374
    "shrinking in weight by up to 20%"

    Toot, I agree it could dry out by 20%. That would be going from 3% down to 2.4%.
     
  11. Baber

    Baber TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,348
    I am just quoting the article....

    I agree I just shoot them where they are at however with the new 42 MPH rule I suspect there are going to be numerous arguments especially at higher elevation when the target is set at 42 and then sails over the 50 yrd stake.

    TB
     
  12. TOOT

    TOOT TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    114
    If ya shoot'em they never go that far....
     
  13. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,849
    For those who don't know where Tbabar is "coming from" the above link will give you a pretty good idea. I've no idea why he keeps at this, and often enough ask him that very question, but here we are again, but multiple posts will be needed to clear this up.

    Neil
     
  14. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,849
    So let's go to the article, cited by hairy. I mean it, go read it.

    (sounds of reading)

    Done? Really? OK, I'll take your word for it.

    Any alarm bells? There surely should be!

    Starting with hairy's (and Tbaber's ) claim that they say that in changing from median (50%) humidity to low (10%) humidity the balls lose 1/5 of their weight. TOOT, who must not have read it, disagrees, but it's there clear as day. Hairy says that means that baseballs are 1/5 water, but it's not that cut and dried. You also have to believe that balls in Florida and New Orleans in mid-summer are 2/5 water, since the humidity there is very high. Of course this is impossible. The 1/5 is impossible. Vicki simply writes what she is never asks herself it is possible.

    You think this is a little harsh? Does that mean you missed the BIG ONE?

    "He began to think about the leather covering on baseballs and how the dry air in Denver, where humidity rarely exceeds 10%, affected it." Is Denver the Saraha? Or is this guy full of it?

    Now this should have sent you running to a weather site. Try Google and humidity in Denver and you will see that not only is this impossible, the whole story is impossible. Denver's mornings start about 60% or so, evenings end at 30% or so. Let's split the difference, and say that hairy's observation of 20% weight loss can now only be ascribed to a 10% change in humidity - the change from their desired 50% to Denver's about 40%. on the average, so baseballs undergoing a 10% loss in water content experience a 20% loss in weight, and so are 200% water. In other words, this story's science is totally bogus. Vickie knows nothing about asking tough questions, and whoever told her this knows a patsy when he sees one.

    Though Tbaber should have seen all of this as, no doubt you did, he
     
  15. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,849
    ...couldn't resist imposing his own misunderstandings on a story, which, however false, is pretty clear in its limited claims.

    OK, by now I should have piqued our interest, so go read the darn article, will you!

    Now we are getting down to it, Tbaber's first post, which, by the first two words of the thread was aimed at me, so that means I get to shoot back, right?

    Tom's first mistake was this:

    "They found that the baseballs were shrinking in weight by as much a 20% and they bounced higher due to the lower humidity in Denver."

    That is of course not strictly true, and if Vickie had known what she was saying, she might have kindly helped Tbaber avoid this error.

    The flack who told Vickie this did _not_ say they bounced higher due to the low humidity, What he said was that drier balls bounded higher. "Rockies employees conducted some basic tests. They dropped balls they'd had in storage for a while from the same height as balls they'd just received from Rawlings, Major League Baseball's supplier, and noted how much higher the older balls bounced."

    So the claim being made, impossible as it is in the context of the humidity facts, is that the coefficient of restitution (think "bounciness") of dry baseballs is higher than balls as delivered from the maker. I'll bet this is true. Why not? A dry ball is bouncier than a wet one? Sure.

    But I'm not going to build some box without more research, or maybe I'll just put the balls in a big plastic garbage bag when they come in and just take out as many as i'll need but at the very least I'll not make Tbaber's mistake. . .
     
  16. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,849
    ...which is to confuse coefficients of restitution with air pressure. The worthless USA Today article was about the rebound of dry balls. Tbaber thought it was about humidity. And he never look up the humidity of Denver anyway - if he had, he never would have posted this.

    Then Tbaber really goes off the deep end. Thinking the balls bounce higher because the humidity is lower instead of the real claim, that they are drier, he writes:

    "Trap targets are subject to the same humidity variations therefore unless you can control this aspect of the testing your assumptions that there is no difference in target speed and variation due to altitude can not be accepted"

    You see the problem, don't you? The cited article says nothing about altitude. (aside: You will hear plenty about it in the next week or two.) Tbaber is simply confused. This is evident in the final sentence of his first post:

    " This is just one of the many variations present when altitude increases. Although target speed does decrease with altitude it is unknown what other variations has an impact thus masking the altitude effect. Maybe as the humidity decreases as noted here and the target shrinks and becomes more brittle and prone to breakage could be one of the factors affecting scores. There is not enough known to make a blanket statement that altitude makes no difference in target speed."

    Which you can make of what you want, but I don't get much out of it.

    Too harsh? No way!

    Go to my website::

    http;//claytargettesting.com

    and click on the first study and see that I have tested thousands of targets (in contrast to Tbaber's zero) and have published all that data about the non-effect of target weight and altitude and all of that and no one has come up with different results. Altitude isn't worth worrying about.

    Neil
     
  17. jackmitch

    jackmitch TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    815
    neil i think you need to check the targets at ottumwa ikes in ottumwa, iowa they haven't been breaking very well for mr lately. i think they must be too hard from the iowa heat and humidity.p robably the altitude too.when can we expect you.jackmitch
     
  18. Baber

    Baber TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,348
    Mr. Winston:

    This whole issue boils down to this one statement. I believe its correct. Do you?

    A target thrown at a certain speed flies a yard further in Denver
    than it would in the Midwest or, conversely, you can throw a high-altitude
    target a foot-per-second slower than one at the Grand and
    still reach the stake.
    Though this difference is right at the limit of our precision, the consistency
    and sheer amount of the data make me think the distinction
    is real.

    TB
     
  19. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,849
    Yes, those were my results. Jerry Hauser got no difference (Prescott vs Red Mountain); I got a yard (Denver vs St. Paul).

    But it's about impossible to set a target to a yard in still air. You see that when you have a spotter at 50 yards, with measuring standards, and write down every target. Some go long, some short, just as the readings of a radar gun will jump around a bit.

    If you worry about that yard distance, then you should like radar, since it is not measurably sensitive to air density. I don't worry about a yard anyway, especially since a new generation of targets varies, brand-to-brand, way, way more than that. And radar fixes that as well.

    Neil
     
  20. Hipshot 3

    Hipshot 3 TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,796
    Parts is parts, and targets is targets! Just shoot 'em for Christ's sake!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.