I will note that this does not address how well the ball carried at the old stadium. It's possible, though I suspect not likely, that the ball carried very, very poorly at the old stadium so that the new stadium, while not absolutely high on the carry scale, still rates highly relative to the old stadium.
My bet is that the dimensions are slightly wrong. That seems to be where all the evidence is pointing.
2 comments:
Since I'm getting ready to teach a physical science class this fall, the question of what does or does not help the ball to carry well in the stadium is intriguing. Do you have any physics analysis of the stadium that might give some explanation?
The posted link resides at Alan Nathan's Physics of Baseball website (link). There's a lot of information there.
Post a Comment