Paul Danaher <paul.danaher@watwinc.com> wrote:

Since cricket is using the same mechanics, I would say that similar speeds
would be expected.



Having a round bat vs. a flat racket certainly makes a difference.

The comparative weights of the objects also come into play. A baseball is
significantly heavier (and denser) than a tennisball/racketball. This
means that it's energy when it reaches the batter is higher given the same
velocities. Which is why bats break in baseball, but it's rare to break a
tennis racket (although I guess broken strings count).

That means the bat needs to be dense enough to not shatter, but light
enough that the batter can generate enough of their own velocity in the
swing. This means that the "sweet spot" on a bat is really very small
(maybe 1.5" long x .33" high).

Also, baseball pitchers also put spin on the ball which gives it too an
eliptical orbit (think curveball, slider, sinker, etc). Plus as baseball
has raised threads (something missing from tennisball/racketball) which
gives the air pressure in flight a little something extra to exert "push"
on during that spin.


These things (plus a couple of others I think I'm leaving out) is why it
is often said that "hitting a homerun is the hardest thing to do in
sports".


PS: the physics of athletics, especially baseball, is a minor facination
to me. ;-)

PSS: anyone else here every read Bill James' _Historical Baseball
Abstract_?

--

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
chris@txbarnes.com Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes

You always have freedom of choice, but you never have freedom of
consequence.

Wooly Baa Lamb wrote:

Seems reasonable.


I frankly don't know about squash balls - they're significantly smaller, but
then they have a tremendous amount of elastic energy stored in there too,
like golf balls. This is going to be a consideration with cricket balls and
baseballs as well. Modern tennis raquets are very different from the stuff I
grew up with!!


A cricket ball has a raised thread, and bowlers use all kinds of illegal
methods to scuff it and add to the spin factor. Does a pitcher get to put
significant spin on a fast ball?


You might enjoy http://www.oceansiderevolution.com/EINSTEIN.HTM and/or
http://www.soccerballworld.com/Physics.htm

Paul Danaher <paul.danaher@watwinc.com> wrote:

Yes, but not as much as a curve ball. The better pitchers get more spin
on their fast ball without sacrificing velocity. Their pitches are said
to be "live". In fact, more movement is generally always preferred over
an additional 1-2 mph ... a big league hitter will eventually get their
timing down on a 100mph fastball. If it doesn't have some movement to it,
those are the pitches that turn into majestic home runs.


Oh great... now my weekend will be taken up.


--�

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
chris@txbarnes.com Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes

You always have freedom of choice, but you never have freedom of
consequence.

Wooly Baa Lamb wrote:

That makes sense. Cricket adds the variables of the pitch around the wicket,
rather like golf in some respects.


As Kanga's Evil Twin said in another thread - "My work here is done!"