Rising fastball

[SanDiegoSteve]

I'm no freakin' Galileo, but I would say that if a pitch that starts out at 90 mph, loses 9% of its speed, and ends up at 81 mph, that leads me to believe that 90 mph fastballs must start out at about 99 mph in order to arrive at the plate at 90 mph, thus being un-hitable for SAUmp.

[SAump]

Wow, did you happen to notice the tail lights on the end of that baseball light UP. A ball released at 100 mph would NOT slow down to 91 mph. DO you now believe outfielders that release the ball 240 feet from the plate are now posting speed records of 127 mph upon release. YOU would definitely notice the tail end of that baseball RISE.

[SanDiegoSteve]

SA,

I was being facetious (or sarcastic, I can't tell which) when I said that, because I don't believe that a pitch loses 9% of its velocity in 60 feet. I think a pitch released at 90 mph arrives at the plate at 90 mph. I was just trying to find a speed of a pitch you couldn't hit at your advanced state of decomposition.

[fwump]

SAump,

I have to chime in on this one. I am a private pilot and I work for a major airline as an FAA certified Flight Dispatcher. You have stated more that once in your arguments supporting the "rising fastball" the idea that warm humid air at sea level creates more resistance against the ball because the air is "thick".
You should realize that warm humid air is actually less dense than cool dry air. One of the problems we deal with each and every day during the warm days of summer how high temperature effects aircraft performance. Because air becomes less dense as the temperature increases the there are fewer molecules of air flowing over the aerodynamic sufaces of the aircraft (wings). This creates less lift which then requires a longer take-off roll and often requires the pilots to use greater amount of thrust from the engines to accomplish a safe lift-off and climb. This problem is compounded by the altitude above sea level of the airfield.
So to say that air resistance creates "lift" on thrown sphere and to support that argument by also arguing that warm, humid "thick" air increases the effect is simply a spurious argument. Cooler dryer air has much more density that warm humid air. Your "rise" phenomenon, if true, would be more likely on a cool dry evening than a hot humid afternoon.
I should also point out that, as all residents of Texas know, warm air holds more moisture and is much more unstable as cool dry air. Air-mass thunderstorms that develop most afternoons in July and August attest to that fact.

Mike

[Justme]

Originally Posted by fwump

SAump,

I have to chime in on this one. I am a private pilot and I work for a major airline as an FAA certified Flight Dispatcher. You have stated more that once in your arguments supporting the "rising fastball" the idea that warm humid air at sea level creates more resistance against the ball because the air is "thick".
You should realize that warm humid air is actually less dense than cool dry air. One of the problems we deal with each and every day during the warm days of summer how high temperature effects aircraft performance. Because air becomes less dense as the temperature increases the there are fewer molecules of air flowing over the aerodynamic sufaces of the aircraft (wings). This creates less lift which then requires a longer take-off roll and often requires the pilots to use greater amount of thrust from the engines to accomplish a safe lift-off and climb. This problem is compounded by the altitude above sea level of the airfield.
So to say that air resistance creates "lift" on thrown sphere and to support that argument by also arguing that warm, humid "thick" air increases the effect is simply a spurious argument. Cooler dryer air has much more density that warm humid air. Your "rise" phenomenon, if true, would be more likely on a cool dry evening than a hot humid afternoon.
I should also point out that, as all residents of Texas know, warm air holds more moisture and is much more unstable as cool dry air. Air-mass thunderstorms that develop most afternoons in July and August attest to that fact.

Mike

So after all of this bantering back and forth the question still remains:

Can a human throw a rising fastball assuming absolutely perfect atmospheric conditions?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

If so, can it be proved scientifically?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

Oh crap, that’s two questions isn't it…..sorry!

[NIump50]

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.

[BigUmp56]

"Yawn.....chuckle.....snort........"

Are we there yet?

Tim

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

SA,

I was being facetious (or sarcastic, I can't tell which) when I said that, because I don't believe that a pitch loses 9% of its velocity in 60 feet. I think a pitch released at 90 mph arrives at the plate at 90 mph. I was just trying to find a speed of a pitch you couldn't hit at your advanced state of decomposition.

I can't prove it with the law of physics, but last year during winter practice they put a gun on my son, aimed near the release point, and clocked him at 75-77 on his fastball. And no it wasn't rising.
When we pointed the gun nearer the catcher he was clocking at 73-75.
Very unscientific, but I think the ball loses some velocity, certainly not 9%.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by fwump

SAump,
I have to chime in on this one. I am a private pilot and I work for a major airline as an FAA certified Flight Dispatcher. You have stated more that once in your arguments supporting the "rising fastball" the idea that warm humid air at sea level creates more resistance against the ball because the air is "thick".
You should realize that warm humid air is actually less dense than cool dry air. One of the problems we deal with each and every day during the warm days of summer how high temperature effects aircraft performance. Because air becomes less dense as the temperature increases the there are fewer molecules of air flowing over the aerodynamic sufaces of the aircraft (wings). This creates less lift which then requires a longer take-off roll and often requires the pilots to use greater amount of thrust from the engines to accomplish a safe lift-off and climb. This problem is compounded by the altitude above sea level of the airfield.
So to say that air resistance creates "lift" on thrown sphere and to support that argument by also arguing that warm, humid "thick" air increases the effect is simply a spurious argument. Cooler dryer air has much more density that warm humid air. Your "rise" phenomenon, if true, would be more likely on a cool dry evening than a hot humid afternoon.
I should also point out that, as all residents of Texas know, warm air holds more moisture and is much more unstable as cool dry air. Air-mass thunderstorms that develop most afternoons in July and August attest to that fact.
Mike

I understand that cold air is more dense, but cold dense air sinks and dampens LIFT. I am trying to explain LIFT which requires warm juicey air that RISES. Say an airplane or helicopter has a max altitude or ceiling. My experience is that the colder the air, the lower the ceiling. The warmer the air, the higher the ceiling. Warm humid air provides the MOST LIFT. Glider pilots love spring and summer because of strong winds in the spring and strong thermal uplifts in the summer. Same with baseball, most batters have warning track power (300 feet) on cooler nights. But once summer time rolls around, the ball takes off 30 to 100 feet further and the number of home runs CLIMB. I think a MLB pitcher has less MOVEMENT on his fastball on a cool night. Once he gets the sweat rolling off the bill of his cap, you know he's warmed UP enough to get a RISE or 2. If any of this is wrong, let me know because I may have messed UP.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by NIump50

I can't prove it with the law of physics, but last year during winter practice they put a gun on my son, aimed near the release point, and clocked him at 75-77 on his fastball. And no it wasn't rising.
When we pointed the gun nearer the catcher he was clocking at 73-75.
Very unscientific, but I think the ball loses some velocity, certainly not 9%.

The faster the pitch, the less likely to lose speed due to increased inertia. A radar takes an average scan and is accurate to + or - 1 mph because the baseball or vehicle maintain a constant speed during that 1/2 second measurement. So if this POPULAR MECHANICS article is so OFF the MARK; wouldn't it be a logical conclusion that the rest of this MYTH is BUSTED.

Yet a quick search of the internet turned up some new articles that were not there 4 to 5 months ago. Here is another version of the same point made on this website.

http://www.girls-softball.com/2006/0...rs-rising.html

We are not alone.

[SAump]

I don't know how many times someone on this site has stated that a round object doesn't behave as a wing. Well, one of you better write the folks at NASA cause they now have a flight simulation software program written for a BASEBALL.

http://www.microsoft.com/education/fastball.mspx

download the FoilSim program from http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/aerosim/

I always hear the BS from the peanut gallery when I am wrong. I love the sound of silence when I am RIGHT.

[SAump]

Wait a minute, same story from different researcher.

Are these guys being paid for duplicating research. I think that is cause for early dismissal. I understand the need to publish or perish, but this looks like down right plagerism. Perhaps I'll write a paper and sell it to leading researchers around the country every 6 months so they could pass it off as their independent research. NO, I wouldn't do that.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12424508/

It would be even more suspect if this same stuff is published by another leading reseacher from another well-respected university in a few more months. Real geeks are more intelligent than this.

[SAump]

Check this out:

The Official Forum - Powered by vBulletin
Welcome to the The Official Forum. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ ... Rising fastball

forum.officiating.com Cached page 5/13/2006

Someone knows what their talking about.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by SAump

Check this out:

The Official Forum - Powered by vBulletin
Welcome to the The Official Forum. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ ... Rising fastball

forum.officiating.com Cached page 5/13/2006

Someone knows what their talking about.

Are you really too dumb to read the contents if the articles you post, or are you just trying to be funny? This is from the article you just posted the link for.


The myth of the rising fastball

Fuld has pondered other aspects of hitting that will interest any fan.

When a hitter swings under the ball and misses, baseball announcers sometimes say the pitcher got him with a "rising fastball." But technically, this pitch cannot exist if thrown overhand — it's impossible for a pitch thrown downward to buck gravity and achieve upward lift.

The rising fastball deceives the hitter in almost the opposite way a good curve does. A 90-mph fastball will drop significantly less than one thrown at 80 mph. So instead of dropping a few inches in the last few feet, a fastball with some serious zip will maintain a nearly straight trajectory.


You've taken this ridiculous contention of yours to the extreme. We all know you're wrong yet you persist. Please let it go before you embarass yourelf any further. I would rather have you tell us again why it's appropriate in your world to go for help on a check swing with the right hand. At least it pertains to officiating.


Tim.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Are you really too dumb to read the contents if the articles you post, or are you just trying to be funny? This is from the article you just posted the link for.

Tim.

Calling me dumb when you actually waste your time reading that ****. This is from the article I posted, " Ken Fuld, a baseball enthusiast and visual psychophysicist at the University of New Hampshire ..." Where I come from, plagerism isn't shined upon brightly. Now what happened to you source at ASU or is just about everybody publishing this SAME research every four months? It looks like the UNH guy is now saying the exact SAME THING as the ASU guy was saying four months ago. One thing is RIGHT, both of those guys are psycho-physicist. To bad neither knows anything about HONESTY or HITTING A BASEBALL.

Take a look about what FULD said about the killer curve, "The pitch looks like it comes in straight, but during the instant the hitter is blind to the ball, a good curveball will have dropped a foot or more, and the batter will likely swing over the pitch." BUTTER. If you believe the hitter is blind to a major league curve, that a hitter cannot track the ball for a brief moment and only makes contact by swinging where he thinks the ball is going to be, then YOU ARE FULL of it TOO. I played ball and adjusted my swing as the pitch was delivered. I am not relying on past history or experience. I LIVED IN THE MOMENT and ADJUSTED MY SWING right then and there using my BRAIN to read the pitch type and location. I know that is difficult for some dweeb that can't hit a baseball very well to understand, but I don't make up the BS about how others HIT something these psycho-physicist can't hit.

This JOKE IS GETTING OLD. Another myth {perpetrated} on the interenet. Oh I remember, your physicists is smarter than my physicists. One lie told right after another. Where are the FACTS, critical thinking or scientific method? The most you can hope for is for me to believe you just because some PSYCHO_PHYSICISTS said SO. NOT! At least greymule came through when he wrote the initial post. It was well thought out and his sources are credible.