Rising fastball

[Kaliix]

Hey man, no one is forcing you to click on the link and read the thread.

If it bothers you that much, STOP F'ING READING IT!!!

Originally Posted by Carbide Keyman

everything spinning, eyes can't focus, going black, help meeeeeeeeeeeeee, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[SAump]

Oberle CD, McBeath MK, Madigan SC, Sugar TG.

Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Box 871104, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA. [email protected]

This research introduces a new naive physics belief, the Galileo bias, whereby people ignore air resistance and falsely believe that all objects fall at the same rate. Survey results revealed that this bias is held by many and is surprisingly strongest for those with formal physics instruction.

--------------

Haven't I witnessed this all along?

[SAump]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=2&c=y

"When I ran computer simulations of pitches, I made some interesting discoveries. I learned that over the standard pitching distance of 60 ft. 6 in., a ball loses about 9 percent of its initial speed due to aerodynamic drag--thus a pitch launched at 90 mph will have slowed to 81 mph when it reaches the batter."

"After all, a baseball must obey the laws of physics, and there was a well-established theory and sufficient data available to allow me to calculate the aerodynamic forces on a baseball in flight."

-------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

He (Galileo) also concluded that objects retain their velocity unless a force – often friction – acts upon them, refuting the accepted Aristotelian hypothesis that objects "naturally" slow down and stop unless a force acts upon them (again John Philoponus had proposed a similar (though erroneous) theory). Galileo's Principle of Inertia stated: "A body moving on a level surface will continue in the same direction at constant speed unless disturbed." This principle was incorporated into Newton's laws of motion (1st law).
------------

Only one can be true. I believe Newton's First Law of Motion trumps the statement, "a pitch launched at 90 mph will have slowed to 81 mph when it reaches the batter." I saw a lot of 90 mile an hour pitches an none of them slow down at that rate. If a pitch would pass me at the plate at 81 mph then I would have NO PROBLEM hitting it, even at my age. That article is a JOKE. I stated a long time ago that it was full of BS and that I could prove it. I also stated another article provided by BIGUMP about gripping different pitches was also full of BAD MOFO. No one from the peanut gallery believed those who have sided with me at the time. Perhaps you can use your brain this time around and put an end to this MYTH.

[Kaliix]

Dude, you kill me....

ROTFLMAO!!!

You can't even make a logical argument. LOL

Now pitches don't slow down, drag is nominal....hahahaha

Stop dude, you're killing me....I can't stop giggling.....

Originally Posted by SAump

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=2&c=y

"When I ran computer simulations of pitches, I made some interesting discoveries. I learned that over the standard pitching distance of 60 ft. 6 in., a ball loses about 9 percent of its initial speed due to aerodynamic drag--thus a pitch launched at 90 mph will have slowed to 81 mph when it reaches the batter."

"After all, a baseball must obey the laws of physics, and there was a well-established theory and sufficient data available to allow me to calculate the aerodynamic forces on a baseball in flight."

-------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

He (Galileo) also concluded that objects retain their velocity unless a force – often friction – acts upon them, refuting the accepted Aristotelian hypothesis that objects "naturally" slow down and stop unless a force acts upon them (again John Philoponus had proposed a similar (though erroneous) theory). Galileo's Principle of Inertia stated: "A body moving on a level surface will continue in the same direction at constant speed unless disturbed." This principle was incorporated into Newton's laws of motion (1st law).
------------

Only one can be true. I believe Newton's First Law of Motion trumps the statement, "a pitch launched at 90 mph will have slowed to 81 mph when it reaches the batter." I saw a lot of 90 mile an hour pitches an none of them slow down at that rate. If a pitch would pass me at the plate at 81 mph then I would have NO PROBLEM hitting it, even at my age. That article is a JOKE. I stated a long time ago that it was full of BS and that I could prove it. I also stated another article provided by BIGUMP about gripping different pitches was also full of BAD MOFO. No one from the peanut gallery believed those who have sided with me at the time. Perhaps you can use your brain this time around and put an end to this MYTH.

[SAump]

"According to Newton's law of action and reaction, if the ball deflects the air to one side, the air will push the ball in the opposite direction."

Yep, if you throw a ball downward at a flat angle and the front end of the ball pushes the air downward, then the air will push the ball in the opposite direction, UPWARD. Now most pitches, due to inertia and LOW velocities, will continue their downward trajectory. But under the right conditions, very high velocities and warm stable sea-level air such as DODGER stadium in late-July, the AIR will push the bottom of the ball upward. It may not be detectable unless you LOOK for it, but it is there skimming across the plate. Now don't expect the baseball to FLOAT straight up with over a 90 mph horizontal velocity. But you may notice that it HANGS UP there for a moment, just before impact with the bat or mitt. You may even notice the catcher or hitter adjust the level of their glove or bat at the last milli-second. This same reaction is often caught on camera, especially on STRIKE THREEEEEEE.

[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

[Kaliix]

SAump, you're funny. The abstract you provided proves nothing. In fact, I could see it working against you more than for you. The premise has nothing to do with this discussion, as the physics problem it observes isn't relevant.

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.

Originally Posted by SAump

Oberle CD, McBeath MK, Madigan SC, Sugar TG.

Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Box 871104, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA. [email protected]

This research introduces a new naive physics belief, the Galileo bias, whereby people ignore air resistance and falsely believe that all objects fall at the same rate. Survey results revealed that this bias is held by many and is surprisingly strongest for those with formal physics instruction.

--------------

Haven't I witnessed this all along?

[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