Who Would Be the Home-Run Leader in Space?
A writer — even a below-average baseball writer — needn’t worry much about finding a pretense upon which to invoke space. To the extent that night exists, the prospect of that distant, empty hellscape is, basically by definition, never far from one’s experience of the world. Space, as a notion, is inescapable.
During one recent night, I stumbled upon a dumb thought regarding that inescapable notion. Or, to put it more accurately, what I stumbled upon was less a thought and more a fleeting vision — a vision, specifically, of a baseball game being played in space.
There are obviously a lot of logistical concerns that attend such a vision. How are the players able to breathe? By what means do they move from base to base? Who washes the uniforms? Blessed with little in the way of intellectual curiosity and even less in the way of intellectual aptitude, I was fortunately untroubled by most such questions, allowing them to drift away unanswered. For the most part, I survived this reverie without having endured improvement of any kind.
One concern did emerge, however, that I was ultimately unable to escape. As to why it stayed with me, I’m unable to say, although I suspect it’s because, as one of this site’s editors, I’m compelled to work frequently with the sort of tools that might help one to answer it. What I wanted to know, specifically, was this: who, among baseball’s current hitters, would be the home-run leader in space?
Already you might see what’s at work here — namely, that physical strength isn’t of much use in space. Assuming a park environment with zero gravity — and that’s the assumption I’ve made for the sake of answering this question — the need for a batter to hit the ball with any great force disappears. Exit velocity is what allows earthbound hitters to briefly counteract the influence of gravity. In the starry abyss, however, there’s no need to counteract anything. A batted ball in motion will stay in motion — theoretically, to the end of the universe. Any exit velocity above zero is sufficient.
No, this is really a question about launch angle. The hitter best suited to homering in space isn’t the one who strikes the ball with the greatest force, but rather the one who is able, most often, to contact the ball with just enough loft for it to clear the outfield wall.
Here, for example, is the closest thing to a space homer in the majors this year:
That’s Maikel Franco hitting a ball on a line and clearing the fence at Citizens Bank Park. His homer, subject to gravity, had a launch angle of just 14.9 degrees. How much lower could that figure be without the baleful effects of gravity?
Before answering the question, it’s necessary to establish both the height of the outfield wall and also its distance from home place — not at Citizens Bank, just in a generic space park. For the sake of this meaningless thought experiment, I’ve decided those figures are 10 and 400 feet, respectively. Which, having arrived at those numbers, gives one almost all the necessary information to answer the question.
To review all that information, consider this hastily drawn schematic design:

The 400-foot horizontal line in this sketch represents the distance that must be traveled by a ball for it to become a hypothetical space home run. The 10-foot vertical line at the leftmost end of the horizontal one represents the height of the outfield fence. The dotted line connecting the top of the fence to the “plate” area indicates the (infinite) flight of a batted ball in space. One notes the result very much resembles a triangle — and, having already established the length of two sides (400 and 10 feet) and at least one angle (90 degrees at the base of the outfield wall), one has sufficient information to determine the minimum launch angle for a space homer.
Except there’s also one last consideration: batters typically don’t make contact with a ball at a height of of 0.0 feet. Accordingly, it won’t be necessary for a ball to ascend 10 feet between home plate and the outfield wall, but only the difference between 10 feet and the altitude at which the ball is struck. Because the middle of the strike zone is typically 2.5 feet off the ground, I’ve chosen that as the average point of contact, meaning our space homer only needs to ascend 7.5 feet. Using a combination of 400 feet, 7.5 feet, 90 degrees, and math, one finds that the minimum acceptable launch angle for a space homer is roughly 1.075 degrees.
Our objective, then: to identify the batters who have recorded the most batted balls with a launch angle of 1.075 degrees or higher (and lower than 90 degrees, as well). Here, per Baseball Savant, are the leaders by that set of criteria:
| Rk | Name | Team | PA | Space Homers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Whit Merrifield | Royals | 620 | 354 |
| 2 | Jose Peraza | Reds | 618 | 351 |
| 3 | Francisco Lindor | Indians | 671 | 348 |
| 4 | Alex Bregman | Astros | 640 | 344 |
| 5 | Nick Markakis | Braves | 638 | 339 |
| 6 | Ozzie Albies | Braves | 616 | 336 |
| 7 | Jose Ramirez | Indians | 629 | 335 |
| 8 | Freddie Freeman | Braves | 641 | 334 |
| 9 | Manny Machado | BAL/LAD | 631 | 329 |
| 10 | Eddie Rosario | Twins | 572 | 319 |
On our planet, Royals second baseman Whit Merrifield has recorded just 12 home runs. He strikes out less often than the average hitter, though, and has produced a ground-ball rate of just 34.8%. Among the 152 hitters who’ve recorded 300 or more plate appearances this season, his average launch angle of 16.9 degrees ranks 24th. Merrifield has been worth over four wins this year. In space, he might be an MVP.
Of course, many of the hitters earn their distinction as space’s top home-run hitters in large part because they’ve compiled pretty large plate-appearance totals. What about the rate leaders? How about them? To answer this even less important question, I’ve produced below a table including the leaders by space home runs per 600 plate appearances (SHR/600):
| Rk | Name | Team | PA | Space HR | SHR/600 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kurt Suzuki | Braves | 355 | 222 | 375 |
| 2 | Wilmer Flores | Mets | 418 | 253 | 363 |
| 3 | Yadier Molina | Cardinals | 447 | 263 | 353 |
| 4 | Corey Dickerson | Pirates | 485 | 284 | 351 |
| 5 | Kevin Pillar | Blue Jays | 495 | 289 | 350 |
| 6 | Victor Martinez | Tigers | 485 | 281 | 348 |
| 7 | Anthony Rendon | Nationals | 520 | 301 | 347 |
| 8 | Ian Kinsler | LAA/BOS | 483 | 276 | 343 |
| 9 | Whit Merrifield | Royals | 620 | 354 | 343 |
| 10 | Justin Turner | Dodgers | 347 | 198 | 342 |
By this measure, Kurt Suzuki rises to the top. He hits fewer balls on the ground than Merrifield and makes more contact than almost everyone in the majors. He is, perhaps, the best home-run hitter space has never seen.
Thanks to colleagues Sean Dolinar and Craig Edwards for their assistance in this absurd endeavor.
Carson Cistulli has published a book of aphorisms called Spirited Ejaculations of a New Enthusiast.
I’m surprised there’s no conversation here about the relative uses of the phrase ‘moon shot’ by JFK and Vin Scully, two of America’s greatest icons.
This is my favorite article of the year. Wonderful. Don’t get enough Cistullian posts. I will re-member if we get these or other not-ish posts with regularity.
But who would hit the most one-hop ground-rule doubles?
Well, this is pretty much who you’d suspect: Eric Hosmer. Based simply on who has hit the most ground balls, he is the winner with 254.
I think you’d have to figure out the minimum negative launch angle, similar to what Carson did for Space HRs.
What is the definition of a ground ball? Does it have to bounce before it leaves the infield to be a grounder rather than a liner? If so, I’m not sure there is either a minimum or maximum launch angle among balls that are ruled grounders.
There’s certainly not a minimum, as a ball hit almost straight down would be a ground rule double 100% of the time. Because it would never come back down after its first bounce, you have to follow a line extending into infinity from the point of first impact, which would eventually go farther than the outfield fence.
And I don’t think there’s a maximum, as a ball that hits the ground anywhere between home and the edge of the infield would have more than enough space to elevate over the fence in a standard ballpark. Even in Fenway, a ball that bounces once toward the edge of the infield would hit some way up the Monster and then disappear forever toward foul territory, which would also be a ground rule double.
Yes, but you’re still leaving out all the line drives that would hit the outfield grass first, and as such they would require a minimum launch angle calculation as well.
Line drives that hit the OF grass are exclusively because of the gravity on earth. Everything classified as a line drive in MLB would be a homer in space.
But you’d also have to adjust to make sure the ball cleared the infielders. At less than 7′ vertical distance it would be a catchable ball.
oconnk11 makes a fantastic point.
But there’s no ground in space…
You could get a ground rule double by hitting the ball at a launch angle > 0, but < 1.075 degrees because the ball will impact the wall on a line, then rebound, but keep rising. It would then clear the wall in foul territory, but since it initially impacted the outfield wall in fair territory it would be a fair ball.
Although this may still be a home run. I am not sure if the rules take it into account. Which would seem a pretty big oversight.
At very low launch angles (0-0.25), the ball could bounce back and forth from outfield wall to foul wall numerous times, which raises the question of how effective the space fielders are.
It would be very difficult to stop the ball in space, so we would see more home runs of the “bouncing off Jose Canseco’s head” variety.
Assuming zero gravity, couldn’t every outfielder just turn into super-Torii Hunter and theoretically rob any potential homers?
They could.
But unless they were tethered this would be known as a sacrifice catch as they would drift off into the abyss afterwards.
hahahahaha
Not sure they could be tethered. A player subject to gravity can leap over the fence to make a home run saving catch, but he cannot go over the fence and set up in position there to make the catch. If he does that it is a home run. I would think being tethered to a point would be considered a similar sort of established position. Rule 3.10 says that no markings creating a system of reference can be used, and I would think tethers that are within the field of play would easily count as systems of reference; other outfielders would know right away whose ball it is by checking their proximity to the tethers.
Moreover, the comments on Rule 5.09(a)(1) establishing a catch say that a player may be held up by other players to avoid falling. But by mentioning specifically other players but no other supports, it would seem to exclude other systems like tethers. The question is whether prevention of falling UP is covered the same way as prevention of falling DOWN.
Just give them jet packs, but only allowed to use on the way back AFTER making the catch. Otherwise not sporting.
Jetpacks are the answer.
Only they are deactivated while the ball is live. Since we don’t need base umpires anymore, one of them gets the killswitch job. At the conclusion if each play, the ump will turn on all the jetpacks, and the players can navigate back to their neutral positions.
Can you name a single space stadium that isn’t domed?
This is a great point. The real leader in space home runs is whichever player got the most balls in play before appearing in a single outdoor game. All the players who played outdoors are dead.
Clearly, the Red Sox need to ask Worcester if they’re willing to contribute $300 billion to build one. It would pay for itself in 1 year from space tax dollars.
What are they pushing off of to create this directional momentum?
Low-A outfielders with no discernable upside, mostly, who’s only chance to make the show is as a footstool.
You’d want a lot of those. It seems like the optimal defensive alignment would be to position everyone as close to the plate as possible and in the batter’s highest-frequency ball in play areas, and hope for the best. Is there a rule that only the catcher may wear protective gear?
Would anyone ever try to rob a space home run? Presumably if you tried, you would be sacrificing yourself as you’d float off into the abyss. You’d really need a stocked farm system in space.
Jose Bautista’s bat flip would have been visible for at least a couple days. Awkward much?
You really need to account for fielders, though. With zero gravity, fielders could position themselves well above the outfield and rob homers hit above the wall with impunity. Would be hard to move around as fast, up there, but you’d have to avoid hitting it where the outfielders are positioned, presumably above fence level to stop these home runs.
What a fantastic piece of nonsense that was to read.
I’d assume at least a few of the homers hit at 1-2 degrees would be playable by the infielders, and maybe a shallow playing outfielder with long arms (Judge?). Come-backers to the pitcher would be HR saving catches sometimes too.
Wait! The obvious strategy in space is bunting! Just have to pop it up fair. Maybe even the “I’ll never learn to bunt, even if it gets me a few free hits and stops them from shifting on me” crowd would go for it if it meant a HR, right?
This is tough, though, because the bunt needs sufficient exit velocity to escape the range of leaping fielders.
There is nothing in the rulebook about the length of a player’s shoelaces. In space, I think the optimal defensive strategy is something like 600-foot laces that are spooled up neatly to start each play. Once the ball is bunted, the fielders in that third of the field all move into optimal alignment to leap for the ball and then leap, and the other fielders back them up, as now, only backing up consists of grabbing onto their laces to bring them back.
Of course, those players could just be pulled into space by the momentum of the leaper, so they would need something to aid their own downward momentum. Each player would have to keep an object of significant mass in their pockets that they would hurl into space with one hand as they pull down on the laces with the other. By extension, the leaping fielders would have to remember to drop their own massive objects before they leap. A handful would probably forget this, but hopefully they would remember midflight, before it cost their teammates’ lives.
The leapers have a lot on their minds, actually; in addition to losing their own massive objects, they have to watch out, lest they collide with their teammates’ projectiles on their way back down. That’s a good way to send everything hurtling off in unpredictable directions.
“There is nothing in the rulebook about the length of a player’s shoelaces”
This is when I realized I was about to read a top notch comment.
I mean, we could just have a sphere of protective netting around the stadium. Wayward players could just push off the netting to get back to the field.
Plus side is the netting could deal with the ambiguity of what an effectively infinitely high pop up counts as. You could easily put some Tropicana style rules in place about what hitting which part of the netting means.
But given baseball teams’ aversion to protective netting, and the pace of play considerations, the league may just prefer to let guys float off into space.
I have to go Willians Astudillo. Almost never K’s and hits a good amount of non-grounders.
IT’S A SIMPLE QUESTION, WOULD YOU EAT THE MOON IF IT WERE MADE OF RIBS ?
And, what if the man in the moon is really mooning us?
I know I would!
A bit of a wasted opportunity, assumed it was going to discuss the differences between a ball hit in a vacuum (where spin and air resistance matter not one whit), but with full Earth gravity. Or at least on the moon…lots of ground for OF’ers to cover-I’d guess the entire field would need to be scaled up, not just the fences. Bases 540 feet apart, fences over a mile distant…
In any event it’s interesting that, while a 45 degree launch angle is optimal in a vacuum, here on Earth it typically needs to be much lower, and very few homers go out above 45.
I give this article five Cistullis.
I absolutely adore this
Now pitching, Bill Lee.
This piece is incredibly dumb, but fantastically smart at the same time. Thanks for the fun read!
I believe that is what Carson’s parents say about him all the time.
Mars has two tiny moons, Phobos and Deimos. They are both fairly close to Mars, so the view of Mars from these moons must be breathtaking. I have always wondered if a person could stand on one of those moons and hit a golf ball to Mars. Throw a baseball? Even just jump? How much gravity does a tiny moon have? Would a person be able to jump 50 feet?
The escape velocity on Deimos is about 6m/s. You could certainly toss a baseball off there and hit Mars. Maybe you can jump as well…
Throw a ball, easily. The escape velocity of Phobos is 26 mph, and Deimos about half that. Throwing it up past the equilibrium point to fall down to Mars is a bit easier than throwing up to infinity.
Jumping, let’s see, if you can jump up a meter on Earth you’re putting about 10 joules in per kilo; that’s sqrt (20) m/s, so the jump started 10 mph. So nope, close to Deimos’s 12.4 mph but not quite. You’d go up a couple of miles before coming back though.
Maybe somebody can calculate for the jump over to Mars.
Fascinating! So, a strong jumper would jump a couple of miles off of Deimos? I read a lot of kids’ space books in the 1990’s, and this is the kind of thing I wanted to learn.
How about Dactyl, the tiny moon of the astroid Ida? I don’t think Dactyl could even hold a person down.
Wouldn’t this be close to the ideal ball field in space. The infield is on Phobis or Deimos and the outfield is in Mars. Anything over Mars us a HR.
This is Fangraphs meets XKCD and I love it.
I’m still hovering my mouse over random spots looking for the alt text.
Hey, who hits the most homahs over the Green Monstah? Carson?
Space Force intramurals should be a blast
Based on James’ observation below(above? depending on sorting) I was wondering what the optimal defensive alignment would be for a hypothetical game of spacebaseball ? No, spaceball. Definitely spaceball. It sounds much better. Anyways, upon several moments of pondering I’ve reached a conclusion. The optimal defensive alignment for a game of space ball would be to place all 7 fielders that are not the pitcher and not the catcher on points equidistant from each other along the top of the out field wall. Justification for my choice of defensive alignments available upon request at the post game interview.
Why can’t the pitcher play outfield defense as well? Surely he can throw it with full velocity just as easily from 400′ away in space. I would further argue that if he doesn’t brace himself against the wall, the violent motion of the pitch would send him spinning off into the ether!
Not sure about this. Doesn’t his foot have to be in contact with the rubber when he begins his delivery?
Balk rules.
Plus, even tho velo won’t suffer, still much harder to throw the ball to a spot over the plate from 400 feet than 60.5
Yeah, throwing strikes would be difficult, and it gives the batter a long time to see what kind of pitch is coming.
— though, also, it’d probably be a fastball. Really tough to imagine getting a breaking ball into the strike zone from 400 ft.
Wouldn’t it be better to have them aligned about in front of the batter in a wall?
Brings up a good question about what exactly are the rules for positioning, I feel like sometimes the infielders get pretty far in in actual games. So I suspect they can stand anywhere. In space baseball, the soccer wall is the new shift!
In a spirit of fellowship I have upvoted every comment on this fine specimen of nonsense, and I would upvote every sentence of this article if I could.
I think FanGraphs should dedicate a week in the off-season to be Space Week, similar to how we have Shark Week.
If all hits in the statcast era were hit from the same location in space near earth, which would be the voyager 1 (furthest from earth) of baseballs?
Gotta be Stanton’s single off Mike Bolsinger in May 2015, hit at 120.3. Highest EV of that season, fairly early in the season, hit at 4.9 degrees so with no gravity it should have cleared the Dodgers Stadium fence without much trouble. No way anything hit earlier than that is still farther than it is, and while there have been five harder-hit balls since then (all by Stanton, Judge, or Sanchez), none of them were more than 2mph faster. It’s going to take a while before it gets caught.
About three weeks earlier, Nelson Cruz’s hit a single 119.0 mph at 1.7 degrees. That miiiight still be slightly farther if there were nothing beyond the fence—I don’t feel like doing the math, though I doubt it. But it’s a moot point anyway as there’s no way that ball cleared the Safeco Field outfield seats. Congrats to that fan!
To steal a line from ‘The Guard’:
“I don’t you if you’re really motherf****** dumb or really motherf****** smart”.
#KeepNotGraphs
#MakeFangraphsNotgraphsAgain
Notgraphs uber alles.
I think that a Whit Merrifield “Space MVP” shirt is absolutely necessary now
But you fail to take into account the lack of side spin. Without air to engage the seams, all balls will be perfectly straight so no balls that start fair will hook or slice foul.
Can we imagine Aroldis Chapman travelling backwards at 105mph after delivering the home run pitch?
I think you mean more like 0.158 mph.
Do Chapman and a baseball have equal mass?
Wait, so a “space homer” is just a non-ground ball? Wouldn’t you also need a minimum exit velocity to keep the fielders from jetpacking over to it in time?
Psht, good luck getting a jet pack that includes no polished metal, which is a clear violation of rule 3.03(h).
Hold on, are defenders stuck to a flat plane to approximate the way they would play defense on Earth? Because you are assuming that defensive positioning wouldn’t be altered to take advantage of the fact that outfielders can locate themselves higher than the wall – and they really should, because it’s not like fly balls are arcing back towards the field and they need to be there to catch them.
All fly balls would continue on straight – so you’d really want to position all your fielders in some sort of vertical array in front of the batter, with one even floating almost directly over him (I am assuming that routine infield flys would effectively become inside the park home runs unless recovered quickly enough)
I would assume raw exit velocity would be king in this system, because you just need a fly ball that is higher than the wall, not directly over or behind home plate, and traveling with enough speed that the defenders can’t nab it before it ends up in the horsehead nebula.
#FreeNotGraphs
Which pitcher would be the leader in wild pitches, bearing in mind that you can only have a wild pitch if there’s a runner on base, and pretty much the only way a runner would stop at a base without coming all the way around to score in these gravity conditions is if they got there by walk/HBP?
For that matter, would any pitcher be able to top Dee P. Gordon’s single-game pitch count of 944?
If I pitched in space, that number would be about 10 times higher.
That is still the most hilarious baseball article I have ever read.
I feel like SpaceBall is the natural environment for the Clone Baseball League.
I suspect 25 Dee Gordons wins all the titles in such a league…
A Dangerous Experiment
Moonanza
Who says NotGraphs is dead and buried?
Dude WTF….
What about the gravitational fields of the guys on the other team?
Braves would have a great space team
Gotta figure the Astros have got everyone covered.
I want a follow-up article where you take into account the actual players ability to intercept the ball. I suspect at the lower launch angles some portion of those “space homers” are intercepted, so below certain launch angles there is some attrition from that.
Between the failure to account for how or whether ground exists, where fielders would play, how they would move, how or whether a fence would be moored, what pitchers would push off of, et cetera, this has got to be one of the dumbest articles I have ever read.
Subscription renewed.
Joe West would have so many ejections due to rule violations. He’s probably twitching right now thinking about it.
Hmmm, I don’t believe that games would be played in space due to the fact that most games have boundaries. It would be interesting to see how future baseball differs being played on other planets, if humanity still has an interest in it at that time.
Of more importance in the near future I think, is genetic engineering. Hypothetically, in the future, we’ll be able edit genes and be able to manufacture hall of famers. So competitive edges could come down to science budgets.
Bring back NotGraphs…….it enhances life.
Way to be, Whit.
http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/8300000/Space-Olympics-the-lonely-island-8384065-853-480.jpg
Poor effort.
Another interesting thought, what if we just didn’t have gravity, but we weren’t in space? I mean — we aren’t in a vacuum — there was still air that created friction against the baseball. Then a ball hit on a line with some backspin would slowly rise. I suppose it might even end up coming backwards.
Another thought, who would be the homerun leader if we were playing on the moon? Or how far would homeruns go if they were hit on the moon?
Wait a minute. If the hitter has the advantage of zero gravity, so does the outfielder, who theoretically could leap infinitely high in order to catch the ball. So the question comes down to how high can the fielder “leap” before the ball has passed the wall. This now requires exit velocity, as well as an increased launch angle, and the velocity of the leaping outfielder.
Oh and what is the ground rule when the ball hits some piece of space junk?