Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kaliix
If anything, the article shows that people observe things with their minds biased eye. So if I see a fastball rise, it must be true, even if it couteracts the laws of physics.
|
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the current laws of physics do not allow for a rising fastball. To say however, it is impossible is very difficult, because you are saying we have factored every concievable possibility and there is nothing we do not know relative to this subject and there are NO exceptions within the physical laws to allow this to happen.
So let's say, as many have, this is all true. We now have to deal with all the first hand testimony from respected professionals and spectators throughout many years of the game that swear they have seen or have thrown a rising fastball.
The general concensus from the anti-rising ball community is it is simply an optical illusion.
I would think, that if you were going to have no doubts as to the validity of your beliefs, you would have to buy into the optical illusion theory as well.
As yet, I have not been convinced of the optical illusion, here's why:
The theory states, in laymens terms, that a batter after seeing a number of 'slower pitches' creates a mental image of how far the ball will drop, and since he does not actually see the ball the last 6' to the plate, he swings where he thinks the ball will be based on prior pitches. When a faster pitch than expected is thrown it drops less and consequently the batter swings under the ball and then in frustration exclaims that the ball rose.
If I am misrepresenting the theory please correct me.
Here's my issues:
Not necessarily in order of importance.
1. The pitcher, lets use Tom Seaver as an example, knows how hard he is going to throw the ball. He has to know how far the ball will 'drop' in order to throw a strike. His mind is not playing tricks, after tens of thousands of pitches I think he mentally knows how his ball will react. He says he threw a rising fastball.
2. If the theory was accurate, anyone could throw a ball capable of giving the illusion of rising. A 12 yr old throwing nothing but 50mph fastballs for 4 innings(I'm giving the mind lots of time to create the illusion) is replaced by Joey( rocket arm) Smith and his first warm up pitch is 62 mph. Honestly now, does anyone, the on deck batter, the kids and coaches in the dugout, even Joeys dad, exclaim "WOW, did you see that ball rise" I don't think so.
In all my years around the game I've never heard of anyone who throws in the 70s and 80s ever be accused of throwing a rising fastball. But if the theory was accurate, any pitcher who fooled enough batters with his speed should get the reputation of having a rising fastball. Relatively few pitchers have ever achieved this reputation all of which were very hard throwers.
3. Though I've asked Bigump to lend his expertise on this question I have not got an answer so I will make some assumptions. I'm open to correction if I am wrong.
A 100mph fastball, according to the current laws of physics, will drop less than 1 inch from its original trajectory out of the hand of the pitcher to when it crosses the plate. A 93 mph fastball less than 1.5 inches. Regardless of the actual drop, the difference between the two will be less than an inch.
So the theory states that a batter assuming a 93 mph fastball and instead gets a 100mph fastball(I've read explanations from some physicists using 90-95 as the differential) swings under the pitch because his mental picture has the ball dropping further than the actual pitch. The bat is at least 2" wide at the sweet spot, if the ball stays 3/4" higher than expected the batter still makes contact and probably puts the ball in play.
4. I believe the many players throughout the eras that have attested to a rising fastball. Some physicists have admitted that a baseball is too unpredictable to calculate it's movements side to side and downward, however leaving no room for unpredictability upward. Seems a bit arrogant to me, unpredictable is unpredictable. Based on my first 3 points the optical illusion theory is weak at best.
If this issue is important enough to justify all the 'scientific study' it has received perhaps more time should be spent getting an optical illusion theory that isn't in itself an illusion.