Balk or bad mechanics?

[mcrowder]

I'm not meaning to reopen that debate, as it "spun" out of control...

But ask your physicist friend to calculate the amount of spin needed to make the very best curveball curve such that it ends 3 feet sideways from where it would have ended had it not curved, given an initial V of 85 mph. Increase the velocity of the ball to 100 for a fastball, using the same spin.

He/she will quickly and easily be able to prove that even if a pitcher could put the same amount of backspin on a ball that a curveball pitchers puts in sidespin, 100 mph will not be enough to increase the Bernouli force enough to curve the ball upward enough to counteract gravity (which, on a 100 mph fastball, lowers the ball by about 6 feet).

However, use the same spin, and let our pitcher throw it 135 mph (actually fractions more) - the Bernouli Force curving the ball upward will now equal the gravity force curving it downward. Given the same spin, anything in excess of 135 mph will be able to curve upward more than gravity curves it downward, at least until the point that wind resistance lowers the ball's velocity to below 135 mph.

To put to rest the "impossible" faction's argument, consider a wiffleball, or even a solid plastic ball - obviously it can rise, right? Anyone remember TracBall? The white styrofoam one was easy to make rise, the yellow plastic not as easy, but still possible. The denser the object, the faster the spin must be to make it counteract gravity (even if briefly), and the faster it must be thrown.

ANY object, even a solid lead ball, if thrown with enough speed and enough spin, can curve upward to counteract gravity's force. The heavier, the more spin and speed needed.

Baseball's speed, given an equal spin to a MLB pitcher's curve ball, lands at around 135mph.

(Any nonsense about lift can be disproved easily if I have to).

[GarthB]

(Sigh)

We all make choices in life. I'll go with the F.N.A.L. and the other professionals.

They were not only uniform in their responses and explanations, they also understood the question.

Thanks, anyway.

[SAump]

I would love to get in on that RISE BALL discussion again, just not in this thread. Too bad the original was deleted with over 200 replies and 3000 views. I thought it was destined for 300 replies and 5000 views. Would that have put the post in The Official Forum Hall of Fame?

As far as the LHP and RHP in the same half-inning goes; I thought the rule provides that a LHP or RHP must complete the half-inning before making the switch. The book does say a batter and not a half-inning. Facing one bater LH and another RH might become too complicated because it raises too many issues. Casewriters are lazy people. I suppose if an umpire shall require that the pitcher face a batter either LH or RH, it wouldn't be much of a step to REQUIRE him to complete the inning too. I know the much needed editorial change would be much shorter.

I probably wouldn't allow it as a matter of safety. I wouldn't want him to get hurt wearing the wrong glove and all. Would I charge the coach with a visit to the mound? Does the team lose the DH? Does he get another 8 warm up pitches? I don't see a rule that would allow a pitcher to receive two warmup opportunities per innning or return as pitcher if he sits out an innnig. Does it count towards his allowable innings per week? I wouldn't want him to get hurt just to enter the Guinness Book of Records on my watch. I rather say NO and TOSS the coach because I said SO. After all his pitcher wouldn't be properly equipped. But if the NCAA/NFHS would like to bail out the defense once again and pass the rule in favor of it, and put it in the rule book in black and white. I suppose my opinion wouldn't matter very much. I know I would find it in NFHS 6-1-1.5.

To hear that it was done at the MLB level is fascinating. Was it part of the marketing plan to get the fans back in the bleachers. Pitchers at that level throw a large number of pitches and put a lot of stress on their arm just warming up. I wouldn't think he had the time to properly warm-up from both sides. Would his numbers (STATS) be any better than any of the other 7-12 pitchers waiting in the bullpen? I guess their set-up men and closers all suck. Did the club announce the pitching change over loud speakers? Now in for #97 is #97. Sounds too good to be true. Imagine the indorsements for ambidextrous gloves when your the only player in MLB that needs to use it. Chicks dig the ambidextrous handling.

[jicecone]

Originally posted by SAump
I would love to get in on that RISE BALL discussion again, just not in this thread. Too bad the original was deleted with over 200 replies and 3000 views. I thought it was destined for 300 replies and 5000 views. Would that have put the post in The Official Forum Hall of Fame?

As far as the LHP and RHP in the same half-inning goes; I thought the rule provides that a LHP or RHP must complete the half-inning before making the switch. The book does say a batter and not a half-inning. Facing one bater LH and another RH might become too complicated because it raises too many issues. Casewriters are lazy people. I suppose if an umpire shall require that the pitcher face a batter either LH or RH, it wouldn't be much of a step to REQUIRE him to complete the inning too. I know the much needed editorial change would be much shorter.

I probably wouldn't allow it as a matter of safety. I wouldn't want him to get hurt wearing the wrong glove and all. Would I charge the coach with a visit to the mound? Does the team lose the DH? Does he get another 8 warm up pitches? I don't see a rule that would allow a pitcher to receive two warmup opportunities per innning or return as pitcher if he sits out an innnig. Does it count towards his allowable innings per week? I wouldn't want him to get hurt just to enter the Guinness Book of Records on my watch. I rather say NO and TOSS the coach because I said SO. After all his pitcher wouldn't be properly equipped. But if the NCAA/NFHS would like to bail out the defense once again and pass the rule in favor of it, and put it in the rule book in black and white. I suppose my opinion wouldn't matter very much. I know I would find it in NFHS 6-1-1.5.

To hear that it was done at the MLB level is fascinating. Was it part of the marketing plan to get the fans back in the bleachers. Pitchers at that level throw a large number of pitches and put a lot of stress on their arm just warming up. I wouldn't think he had the time to properly warm-up from both sides. Would his numbers (STATS) be any better than any of the other 7-12 pitchers waiting in the bullpen? I guess their set-up men and closers all suck. Did the club announce the pitching change over loud speakers? Now in for #97 is #97. Sounds too good to be true. Imagine the indorsements for ambidextrous gloves when your the only player in MLB that needs to use it. Chicks dig the ambidextrous handling.

You know, it is one thing not to get it.

But when you don't get, that you don't get it. It's a sad day.

[umpduck11]

Originally posted by SAump


The book does say a batter and not a half-inning. Facing one bater LH and another RH might become too complicated because it raises too many issues. I suppose if an umpire shall require that the pitcher face a batter either LH or RH, it wouldn't be much of a step to REQUIRE him to complete the inning too.
I probably wouldn't allow it as a matter of safety.

.

Too complicated ??? How does the change of arms
complicate your duties? You wouldn't allow it as
a matter of safety ? There you go again, changing
rules to suit your desires. If a rule allows it,
where do you get off disallowing it ? OOO.....OOO...
OOO....OOO.

[Tim C]

I'd rather poke my eyes out with a hot iron, but what the hey!

Greg Harris of the Padres was the last MLB pitcher to pitch both right and left handed during the same MLB game.

Harris wore a pitcher's glove that was legal to wear on either hand.

Harris was allowed to warm up ONCE during each inning from both arms (not sure that makes sense). No charged conferences were committed if he simply moved the glove from one hand to the other.

He was forced to follow the remainder of rules of when he was allowed to change.

We know now that PWL is just making stuff up to cover his incorrect view of the rule. I for one know when to quit trying to HELP anyone. We are there.

Trying to play the safety card is an age old dodge for those who have no bullets left in the chamber.

I, for one, am now moving on . . .

[mcrowder]

Originally posted by SAump
As far as the LHP and RHP in the same half-inning goes; I thought the rule provides that a LHP or RHP must complete the half-inning before making the switch. The book does say a batter and not a half-inning.

What? "I thought the rule said X... the book says the opposite". What?!?!?!

Facing one bater LH and another RH might become too complicated because it raises too many issues.

What issues? Complicated to who? What an inane statement.

I suppose if an umpire shall require that the pitcher face a batter either LH or RH, it wouldn't be much of a step to REQUIRE him to complete the inning too.

Wouldn't be much of a step... about the same step as seeing that 3 strikes equals an out and taking the step to calling 2 strikes an out in your game. The rule is clear. Why ad lib at all?

I probably wouldn't allow it as a matter of safety.

If OBR or FED felt this was a safety issue, they would address it as such. You're making things up again.

I wouldn't want him to get hurt wearing the wrong glove and all.

Nice of you to have concern. I'm sure the pitcher is quite capable of either switching gloves, or having one made for him (Monte Williams, if that was indeed his name, had a legal, approved glove that he could simply swap from one hand to the other)

Would I charge the coach with a visit to the mound? Does the team lose the DH? Does he get another 8 warm up pitches?

No - why - when did the coach visit the mound. No - why would the team lose the DH just because a pitch was thrown with 2 different hands in the same inning. Completely irrelevant. No - decent question there, but with a precedent set for us to follow. The pitcher only gets his normal allowed warmups - he can throw them with whatever hand he wants to throw them with.

I rather say NO and TOSS the coach because I said SO. After all his pitcher wouldn't be properly equipped. But if the NCAA/NFHS would like to bail out the defense once again and pass the rule in favor of it, and put it in the rule book in black and white.

OOO. So now you decide on which rules to use? You would never work again around here. I'm sure the pitcher would be properly equiped - it's not like this (pitching both-handed) is a spur of the moment decision by the pitcher. If he wasn't properly equipped - fine, deal with that on its own. This IS in the rulebook - no need to pass a new rule.

To hear that it was done at the MLB level is fascinating. Was it part of the marketing plan to get the fans back in the bleachers. Pitchers at that level throw a large number of pitches and put a lot of stress on their arm just warming up. I wouldn't think he had the time to properly warm-up from both sides. Would his numbers (STATS) be any better than any of the other 7-12 pitchers waiting in the bullpen? I guess their set-up men and closers all suck. Did the club announce the pitching change over loud speakers? Now in for #97 is #97. Sounds too good to be true. Imagine the indorsements for ambidextrous gloves when your the only player in MLB that needs to use it. Chicks dig the ambidextrous handling.

It was only AA - he never made it further as far as I heard. It was not marketing - this guy pitched just as well with each arm, and he based his handedness on the handedness of the next batter. The rule regarding not switching DURING a batter was actually put in SPECIFICALLY after this pitcher and a switch hitter had a standoff and the umpire (who ruled with the eventual rule anyway, but had no rulebook to back him up at the time) had to do something just to get the game going. This guy was a starter, and from all I heard, pitched deep into the game sometimes simply because he had half the wear and tear on the arm that a normal pitcher would have. There were games where he simply was having a bad day one way or the other, and he'd stick with the other hand.

[mcrowder]

Wow--- I say all that about the AA guy I knew about... and then read Tim's post.

I had no idea Greg Harris pitched both ways. I do remember him, but had never heard/seen him pitch like this.

I do know that the rule change was specifically caused by the AA guy (and it's only my admittedly faulty memory supplying the name to me... can't find it on the net anywhere - I'm pretty sure I'm close, but could be slightly off on the name).

[SAump]

I never even heard ambidextrous baseball gloves existed. You're telling me there is a thumb hole on both sides of the glove, or room for SIX fingers. That's legal?
I would definitely get one of them gloves if I was pitching for a cool 4 million a year. I can only imagine what pitchers might be hiding in that extra hole for the shorter fingers, where the longer fingers can still reach. Are the First and Third BASE UMPIRES ever going to check the inside of the pitcher's glove before he enters and leaves the playing field? Hmmm.

--------------------
GUYS, I know I haven't answered all your questions. Maybe its because there is so damn many of them. Well, I wanted to think about some of my answers a bit. Please be patient, I'll try to get to some of the better ones.

I just thought that since some of you took umbrage at my finger pointing on this thread, I would POINT out that there is a FINGER POINTING lesson on the "Switching Batters Boxes in Pony baseball" thread too.

[SAump]

Physics History Lesson
Still think 135 mph baseball will not RISE? Well using your info, I calculated a 1 pound bowling ball will have to travel faster then 432 mph to get any LIFT at all.

I know one thing, from 60 feet it may not rise. Are you happy? Don't be, because at that velocity I doubt gravity will have much of an influence either. I can almost guarantee a horizontal flight path over 60 feet. My question is how long will it stay airbourne and what speed will it be traveling when it hits the ground? Then you have a measure of deceleration and drag.

Now take the LIFT coefficient of a NON-spinning leather cowhide baseball WITH SEAMS traveling 100 mph and compare it to a smooth concrete bowling ball withOUT SEAMS traveling 432 mph across 60 feet. Care to bet which has a greater chance of RISING?

But I suppose your physics friends wouldn't wanna answer that. Because if they did, you would have to SAY YOUR WRONG, baseballs can rise if thrown hard enough. Again, it has nothing to do with SPIN, its LIFT! Something NEWTON didn't work on back in the 1600's. Care to ask your physics friends how many feet of concrete or STEEL can stop a 432 mph bowling ball after 60 feet. I think the Momentum Effect would project right through 10 feet of concrete or 3 feet of steel. But I just made that up because it sounds good. Doesn't matter anyway because back in the 1600's ships were made out of wood and airplanes didn't exist. Yep, time to update your physics books again!

[GarthB]

Originally posted by SAump
Physics History Lesson
Still think 135 mph baseball will not RISE? Well using your info, I calculated a 1 pound bowling ball will have to travel faster then 432 mph to get any LIFT at all.

I know one thing, from 60 feet it may not rise. Are you happy? Don't be, because at that velocity I doubt gravity will have much of an influence either. I can almost guarantee a horizontal flight path over 60 feet. My question is how long will it stay airbourne and what speed will it be traveling when it hits the ground? Then you have a measure of deceleration and drag.

Now take the LIFT coefficient of a NON-spinning leather cowhide baseball WITH SEAMS traveling 100 mph and compare it to a smooth concrete bowling ball withOUT SEAMS traveling 432 mph across 60 feet. Care to bet which has a greater chance of RISING?

But I suppose your physics friends wouldn't wanna answer that. Because if they did, you would have to SAY YOUR WRONG, baseballs can rise if thrown hard enough. Again, it has nothing to do with SPIN, its LIFT! Something NEWTON didn't work on back in the 1600's. Care to ask your physics friends how many feet of concrete or STEEL can stop a 432 mph bowling ball after 60 feet. I think the Momentum Effect would project right through 10 feet of concrete or 3 feet of steel. But I just made that up because it sounds good. Doesn't matter anyway because back in the 1600's ships were made out of wood and airplanes didn't exist. Yep, time to update your physics books again!

God, you're funny.

[mcrowder]

My Physics degree will not let that nonsense pass, on the off chance that there's one uninformed person out there reading this drivel. There's only one word that comes to mind here... and in the interest of keeping with the policy we've recently been reminded of, I'll direct it at the argument, and not the poster. SA, I'm not calling you stupid. But the argument you just posted is just flat stupid.

Before I explain why, I wish to note that I am saying a 135mph fastball with the same amount of spin used on a primo curveball, applied as backspin instead of sidespin, WILL rise. You seemed to have thought I was saying a 135 mph fastball would not rise.

First, gravity works with the same acceleration on ALL objects - be they baseballs, bowling balls, or peas. There are other forces (such as wind resistance) that will react differently to these items, but the affect of gravity on ANY object moving at 90 mph over 60 feet 6 inches is identical. If you throw a baseball that distance at that speed, it will drop a certain amount. If you can manage to propel a bowling ball 90 mph, it will also drop exactly the same amount over the same distance, due to gravity. (Calculate it - it's about a 6 foot drop).

Second, and more importantly, your concept of lift is so far wrong that a high-school physics student should be able to shoot holes in it.

So, for you and anyone who might be swayed by the argument, I'll simplify.

Lift is essentially the force of wind resistance hitting an angular object, and transferring that force in a perpendicular direction to the angle it is hitting (usually this is "up" when you're calling it lift, but there is such a thing as negative lift - which would be downward).

A plane has lift because the wind hitting the bottom of the wings is transferred perpendicularly to the wing itself - ie. up and back.

By definition, a spherical object has zero lift. Period end of story. The wind resistance hitting the bottom half of the ball DOES apply upward force to the ball. Assuming the ball is travelling parallel to the ground, however, the wind resistance hitting the TOP half of the ball applies EXACTLY equal downward force to the ball. EXACTLY. Hence the zero lift. (It should be noted that if the ball has an initial vector that is slightly downward, the "lift" calculated would be negative (i.e. downward))

[mcrowder]

PS - you briefly mentioned seams. You also said non-spinning. A non-spinning non-spherical object (such as a baseball with seams) WILL behave in odd ways. It is similar to lift, but not in the way you're mentioning. So, a knuckleball, for example, CAN rise. (A bowling ball without holes, thrown with no spin at a similar speed as a knuckleball would NOT behave like a baseball knuckleball).

However, I don't think that was anyone's argument (yours or the other side's). We were talking about a fastball, which does spin. And it is spin which causes the movement of a baseball (ask anyone who has seen a curveball. Have you seen one?)

[SAump]

Gravity cannot be used to explain UPWARD motion. I applaud your effort to include other forces. Aerodynamical terms MUST be considered.

1) Gravity is NOT identical on all round objects (outside a VACUMM). The atmosphere is definitely not a vacumm. A beach ball is much larger than a bowling ball. A bowling ball is much larger than a baseball. Gravitational comparisons must also take mass and surface area into consideration. So gravity doesn't act on all ROUND objects in an identical manner in our atmosphere.

2) PRIMARY forces provided by the pitcher (such as a 100 mph WIND RESISTANCE) generate LIFT, a small upward perpendicular force acting on a 5 ounce baseball. My concept of WIND RESISTANCE and LIFT have been CONSISTENT for some time now in the AIR I BREATH. Let me now correct some of the kids mistakes.

3) Wind resistance acts upon any moving object in a direction OPPOSITE to the direction of the moving object. Swing a ping pong paddle up and down or left and right. The wind resistance is quite noticable in the opposite direction. This is true with a tennis racquet and this is true with a 3 inch baseball traveling 100 mph.

4) Lift results from an air pressure gradient between the top half and bottom half of the baseball. The small DOWNWARD angle (remember gravity) of the baseball hitting the air at 100 mph provides sufficient LIFT for it to RISE a wee bit. Some people have actually seen it. I haven't.

5) There is such a thing as negative lift - downward DRAG acting on a baseball traveling at an upward angle.

6) "A plane has lift because the wind hitting the bottom of the wings is transferred perpendicularly to the wing itself - ie. up and back." That IS NOT true. If it was, the wings would be ripped off any airplane, and it would fall to the ground. A thin sheet of wing material cannot withstand the wind pressure. The wing actually cuts through the wind. The front edge is ROUND. The pressure DIFFERENCE creates a magical LIFT, one that doesn't rip the wings off a 747. Its only magical to those who do not understand how such a large heavy airplane made out of a thin SHEET METAL can move so slowly off the ground.

7) A spherical object has zero lift. ... (It should be noted that if the ball has an initial vector that is slightly downward, the "lift" calculated would be negative (i.e. downward)) Correction i.e Downward is NOT opposite of downward. UPWARD is, and that is why it is possible for a baseball to RISE ^ above horizontal. Negative and Zero lift at low VELOCITY is certainly possible, but negative, zero and positve lift is also possible at high VELOCITY.

8) You briefly mentioned seams. --> Seams add to WIND Drag and WIND DRAG adds to LIFT to a slower moving knuckle ball or a much faster RISING fastball. The principles are not entirely different because they are identical.

9) "We were talking about a fastball, which does spin. And it is spin which causes the movement of a baseball (ask anyone who has seen a curveball. Have you seen one?)" -> Wind resistance on the spinnning seams actually causes the curve you see. If a person could spin the ball fast enough, then the higher velocity of a RISING fastball would not be needed. A slow curve can be thrown at 50 mph.

I would love to say thanks for trying, I applaud the effort.

[mcrowder]

I'd send you a copy of my physics degree, but you'd be unable to read it.

Everyone with a brain can stop at "Gravity does not work the same on different objects". Good god.