How much does a ground rule double weigh?

[Bobhead]

We all know about the crazy bounces and ground rule double plays situation. I think I have a theory for what exactly is going on.

I was thinking about it. If the ball was just excessively bouncy, wouldn't it bounce off of everything - uh... - excessively? Has anyone ever seen a play where the ball took an excessive bounce off of a surface that was not horizontal?

For me the answer is no. I'm even playing a game right now, and I'm seeing that anytime the ball makes contact with a wall, it caroms at a very realistic angle, and with a believable intensity. The only time the ball seems to rebound with an extraordinary energy is when the ball is bouncing up, usually, off of the ground. Perhaps it's not the ball that's programmed incorrectly, but the simulated effect of gravity that is not strong enough.

Some more food for thought: at first glance, it seems like an unrelated issue, but since the age of the dinosaurs, The Show players have been complaining about the lack of bloop singles, and flares and stuff like that. The gist I've gotten is that we are under the assumption that the root of the problem is in the batted ball physics. We don't see X type of hit because Y type of contact doesn't seem to exist.

What if the bat-and-ball collision isn't the problem?
An overly-weak gravity could also be the cause of all this stuff. Perhaps the reason we don't see bloop hits or "bermuda triangle" fly balls that drop is because balls simply hang in the air too long?

Speaking of hangtime, that's something I've always felt was off anyway. I don't know how many people are with me on this last point, but I feel like I don't see enough foul balls that drop before a fielder can reach them (even with changes to the fielders' speed, and balls are hit over walls like the green monster in Fenway a little too frequently - and a lot of them seem to just float over there.

So there we have three separate issues, or three separate tendencies, and in my opinion, they all appear to point towards and share a common cause: The baseball just doesn't seem to hold much weight these days.
I know this post is a little on the heavy side.
But I really think my opinion holds some weight
Sorry about the puns, I don't want to take away from the gravity of the situation.
Ok I'm done now

But really... thoughts? Comments? Anything you agree with or disagree with I'd definitely like to hear it.

[seanjeezy]

Bobhead, have you noticed if balls bouncing off of the grass result in ground rule doubles, or is it limited exclusively to the warning track (like in real life)?

I was at the Mariners game yesterday, watched the Tigers take BP. Deep fly balls that hit the grass first died on the spot, maybe bouncing 1 ft in the air at the most. I've noticed while taking BP in the Show that balls will routinely bounce 10-15 in the air.

[authentic]

Here's my take on how the ball jumps of the ground and it's relatively simple.

I think the ground is too "hard". On grass fields, the ball reacts the SAME way it does on a turf field, meaning it will hop more and higher. The ball won't slow down in grass fields and just sort of skims on top of it. If a ball is skied into the air, coming almost straight down, there is no chance it's going to go over the wall in a real ballpark. Best way to see this is in homerun derby.

[nomo17k]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the gravitational acceleration in the game; I honestly think if someone got that incorrect then s/he has no business coding a game like this.

I lost the post, but I think it was theSlab who made it very clear what the issue seems to be with the ball physics right now.

The energy loss calculation upon contact between the ball and any surface needs some adjustment, in such a way that when the angle of incidence is small (i.e., the ball hits the surface closer to perpendicular), the ball should lose a bit more energy since the surface absorbs some of the energy from the ball, and the ball also absorbs some energy by heating itself up. That's because upon contact the ball is imparting more momentum to the surface by hitting it more squarely.

On the other hand, the ball *might* be losing slightly more energy than it should when the angle of incidence to the surface is large (i.e., the ball is moving almost parallel to the surface), causing the ball down the line to slow down a tiny bit more than it should... a point some have been making. And the less energy is lost in this case since the ball isn't imparting as much momentum into the surface since there isn't a whole a lot of momentum component pointing perpendicularly to the surface.

So I think the culprit if you will is that the energy loss calculation isn't taking into account the angle of incidence appropriately.

[authentic]

Quote: Originally Posted by nomo17k

I don't think there's anything wrong with the gravitational acceleration in the game; I honestly think if someone got that incorrect then s/he has no business coding a game like this. I lost the post, but I think it was theSlab who made it very clear what the issue seems to be with the ball physics right now. The energy loss calculation upon contact between the ball and any surface needs some adjustment, in such a way that when the angle of incidence is small (i.e., the ball hits the surface closer to perpendicular), the ball should lose a bit more energy since the surface absorbs some of the energy from the ball, and the ball also absorbs some energy by heating itself up. That's because upon contact the ball is imparting more momentum to the surface by hitting it more squarely. On the other hand, the ball *might* be losing slightly more energy than it should when the angle of incidence to the surface is large (i.e., the ball is moving almost parallel to the surface), causing the ball down the line to slow down a tiny bit more than it should... a point some have been making. And the less energy is lost in this case since the ball isn't imparting as much momentum into the surface since there isn't a whole a lot of momentum component pointing perpendicularly to the surface. So I think the culprit if you will is that the energy loss calculation isn't taking into account the angle of incidence appropriately.

Nomo, sometimes I can't finish your posts because you make me think too much.

[Armor & Sword]

Short answer is ground rule doubles IMO need to be nerfed down a tad. I am seeing more than in any other version of the game.

At the same time if this would affect all the other great hit variations we are getting this year......then don't change a thing. I am in heaven seeing all the choppers, bloops, bad hops, short hops, etc.

The game has never played more realistic from a ball physics stand (actually all of it) point ever.

I can live with the ground rule doubles if nerfing would adversely affect everything else.

[bukktown]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bobhead

We all know about the crazy bounces and ground rule double plays situation. I think I have a theory for what exactly is going on. I was thinking about it. If the ball was just excessively bouncy, wouldn't it bounce off of everything - uh... - excessively? Has anyone ever seen a play where the ball took an excessive bounce off of a surface that was not horizontal? For me the answer is no. I'm even playing a game right now, and I'm seeing that anytime the ball makes contact with a wall, it caroms at a very realistic angle, and with a believable intensity. The only time the ball seems to rebound with an extraordinary energy is when the ball is bouncing up, usually, off of the ground. Perhaps it's not the ball that's programmed incorrectly, but the simulated effect of gravity that is not strong enough. Some more food for thought: at first glance, it seems like an unrelated issue, but since the age of the dinosaurs, The Show players have been complaining about the lack of bloop singles, and flares and stuff like that. The gist I've gotten is that we are under the assumption that the root of the problem is in the batted ball physics. We don't see X type of hit because Y type of contact doesn't seem to exist. What if the bat-and-ball collision isn't the problem? An overly-weak gravity could also be the cause of all this stuff. Perhaps the reason we don't see bloop hits or "bermuda triangle" fly balls that drop is because balls simply hang in the air too long? Speaking of hangtime, that's something I've always felt was off anyway. I don't know how many people are with me on this last point, but I feel like I don't see enough foul balls that drop before a fielder can reach them (even with changes to the fielders' speed, and balls are hit over walls like the green monster in Fenway a little too frequently - and a lot of them seem to just float over there. So there we have three separate issues, or three separate tendencies, and in my opinion, they all appear to point towards and share a common cause: The baseball just doesn't seem to hold much weight these days. I know this post is a little on the heavy side. But I really think my opinion holds some weight Sorry about the puns, I don't want to take away from the gravity of the situation. Ok I'm done now But really... thoughts? Comments? Anything you agree with or disagree with I'd definitely like to hear it.

I totally agree with this game having unrealistic hang times. I've never measured the game's hang times vs real life but I've thought about doing it on numerous occasions lol.

To your point about gravity, I don't agree because the theory of "weak" gravity that you mention would mean that the ball has less energy as it is falling to the ground and therefore would not bounce as high. You know what I mean?

[Bobhead]

Quote: Originally Posted by nomo17k

On the other hand, the ball *might* be losing slightly more energy than it should when the angle of incidence to the surface is large (i.e., the ball is moving almost parallel to the surface), causing the ball down the line to slow down a tiny bit more than it should... a point some have been making. And the less energy is lost in this case since the ball isn't imparting as much momentum into the surface since there isn't a whole a lot of momentum component pointing perpendicularly to the surface.

Why is it the ball only loses so much velocity down the line then? Wouldn't this same angle of incidence factor into low, hard-hit balls in any direction?

[Bobhead]

Quote: Originally Posted by bukktown

To your point about gravity, I don't agree because the theory of "weak" gravity that you mention would mean that the ball has less energy as it is falling to the ground and therefore would not bounce as high. You know what I mean?

That's a good point, I forgot about that actually.

[nomo17k]

Quote: Originally Posted by authentic

Nomo, sometimes I can't finish your posts because you make me think too much.

Oh I now realize why I haven't been out of luck with women these days. I do talk to them like this regardless of situations.