Rising fastball

[SAump]

White Sox have a tall lefty clocked at 97. Matt Thornton had trouble locating the strike zone but managed the save. Hitters just couldn't lay off it.

Mets have a closer clocked at 97. Billy Wagner had trouble keeping the ball down and lost a game to the Yankees, 5-4.

Braves have a closer clocked at 97. Chris Reitsma lost a save to the D-backs.
-----------------

Yep, ALL BALLS HIGH. Announcers used the terms HIGH RIDING fastball, explosive movement, pitch to the body and not aim at the mitt. It isn't even HOT yet and a lot of those pitches missed HIGH. I kept saying to myself, "Was that ONE, was that ONE, was that ONE?"

Trouble was that one knows NOT when one is thrown or knows NOT what one looks like. So I couldn't be SURE because of my LACK of visual PERCEPTION.

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by SAump

Yep, ALL BALLS HIGH. Announcers used the terms HIGH RIDING fastball, explosive movement, pitch to the body and not aim at the mitt. It isn't even HOT yet and a lot of those pitches missed HIGH. I kept saying to myself, "Was that ONE, was that ONE, was that ONE?"

Trouble was that one knows NOT when one is thrown or knows NOT what one looks like. So I couldn't be SURE because of my LACK of visual PERCEPTION.

You're wrong!!
I've finally seen the light. It's so clear to me now. SA I only wish you would believe, be enlightened as I HAVE BEEN ENLIGHTENED.
You have visual perception It's just that everyones visual perception is lying to them. Don't you get it SA It's not what we see that's real it's what we're told that's really real.
shhhhhh only the pitchers, catchers and hitters can speak of the RISER. Occasionally an announcer will refer to this god like phenomena, but never by name lest he be struck down in the booth. What he sees though is so real to him that he describes it by saying 'riding high' or 'climbing the stairs' but he'll never ever say the R word because he knows (because he's been told) it doesn't exist.
Don't ever believe your eyes SA they're liars, and da@@ good at it.
If God or physicists intended for baseballs to rise then he/they would have put a leading edge on it.
I feel so much better now SA, the world was against me, now I'm with the world and the world is never wrong. Join me will you?

[Bainer]

I think if this argument is to continue (please, God, no!), there does need to be a small clarification made.

There is a marked difference between a ball RISING and ball MOVING VERTICALLY.

Firing a baseball into the roof of my living room is not a rising fastball, though by many of your definitions, it simply rose until it reached it's target.

The mythical 'Rising Fastball' is purported to change it's angle of incidence- much like a curveball or sinker- though obviously not to such a great extent. It would begin on one trajectory arc, and finish on another.

The arguements being made about submarine pitchers or fastpitch pitchers is invalid- the ball doesn't RISE- it is thrown UPWARDS.

It's a difficult concept- especially for us dumb-a$$ umpires, but it's about relative planes.

-the line from the pitcher's hand to the catcher's glove is not straight- it is arced, though accepted as 'normal'. Now, a reduction of that arc is simply a reduction- not a rise. For a rise to occur, the ball would have to achieve a position which falls between it's initial release point and lowest point- ie, drop and come back up- or RISE.

Anyway, I'm already bored of this- reading this thread has taken hours off of my life!

Just remember, if you define RISE simply as going up, then any 8-11 yr old who slams one off the backstop has achieved the impossible!


Bainer.

[SAump]

She explained it to me this way.
Think of it as employment. You are denied a pay raise. What are your options?
One can easily move downward and find another job that doesn't pay as much.
One can move left by going to work for the competition at the same rate of pay.
One can move right by going back to college at night to get a better education.

I then asked the young Lady at work about the apparent conflict in logic.
I stated that one would stop trying so hard to RISE in the corporate world.
I stated that one would never CLIMB UP the corporate ladder until the boss retires.

She completely agreed saying, "Yes."
There must be an invisible GLASS CEILING that doesn't allow one to intellectually RISE above the mediocrity."

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by SAump

There must be an invisible GLASS CEILING that doesn't allow one to intellectually RISE above the mediocrity."

Well.....I certainly agree with everything you say....

You're my hero!

[gsf23]

Originally Posted by NIump50

You're wrong!!
I've finally seen the light. It's so clear to me now. SA I only wish you would believe, be enlightened as I HAVE BEEN ENLIGHTENED.
You have visual perception It's just that everyones visual perception is lying to them. Don't you get it SA It's not what we see that's real it's what we're told that's really real.
shhhhhh only the pitchers, catchers and hitters can speak of the RISER. Occasionally an announcer will refer to this god like phenomena, but never by name lest he be struck down in the booth. What he sees though is so real to him that he describes it by saying 'riding high' or 'climbing the stairs' but he'll never ever say the R word because he knows (because he's been told) it doesn't exist.
Don't ever believe your eyes SA they're liars, and da@@ good at it.
If God or physicists intended for baseballs to rise then he/they would have put a leading edge on it.
I feel so much better now SA, the world was against me, now I'm with the world and the world is never wrong. Join me will you?

Again, it is very easy to prove if the rising fastball exists or not. There is plenty of technology out there that can track the path of a pitched ball. Show me one piece of footage that shows a pitch starting in a downward trajetory and then changing to an upward trajectory and I will believe in the rising fastball. Hell, show me a pitch that just stays on the same plane for a few feet and then starts rising and I will believe it.

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by Bainer

-the line from the pitcher's hand to the catcher's glove is not straight- it is arced, though accepted as 'normal'.

Are you saying there is an arc in a 98mph fastball?
From it's trajectory coming out of the hand, how far does a straight 98 mph fastball drop or 'arc'?

Originally Posted by Bainer

-Now, a reduction of that arc is simply a reduction- not a rise. For a rise to occur, the ball would have to achieve a position which falls between it's initial release point and lowest point- ie, drop and come back up- or RISE.

I disagree!

I do not contend that once the ball begins to drop (from gravitational force) it will then reverse course and then rise.
My definition of a rising fastball is a ball that ends up higher at the plate than the original trajectory of the ball out of the hand of the pitcher.
Therefore, the ball can still be on a downward angle from pitchers hand to intended target and the rise comes from physical forces, causing lift among other things, to lessen the descent angle.

The downward angle and descent angle has nothing to do with gravity. Everything is based on original trajectory of ball coming out of pitchers hand.
Since the pitcher releases the ball above the batters shoulders most all pitches start out at a downward angle. A rising fastball also starts out at a downward angle and maintains a downward angle even after it "rises". Because of the rise, the angle of descent becomes less than the original trajectory.

The explanation given for why a ball 'appears' to rise is that it doesn't drop as much as expected and therefore gives the illusion of rising.

Let's define drop.

If drop is merely the difference in height between release point and where it crosses the plate then I am in total agreement. Because there is a less than expected drop in a rising fastball relative to it's original trajectory.

If drop is defined as how much gravity has pulled the ball downward below it's original trajectory, then I disagree. A straight 98 mph fastball does not deviate from it's original trajectory in 56', therefore there is 0 drop. If there is 0 drop there cannot be a reduction in drop, unless of course there is a negative reduction, which would then be a rise.

[jxt127]

At 95 mph a baseball will drop 3.5 feet in the 60 feet from mound to plate.

[edited to add] due to gravity.

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by jxt127

At 95 mph a baseball will drop 3.5 feet in the 60 feet from mound to plate.

Please tell me you're joking.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by jxt127

At 95 mph a baseball will drop 3.5 feet in the 60 feet from mound to plate.

[edited to add] due to gravity.

What? That's almost as nuts as SA's riser! If a 95 mph pitch dropped that far, every pitch would be in the dirt and not the strike zone!

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

What? That's almost as nuts as SA's riser! If a 95 mph pitch dropped that far, every pitch would be in the dirt and not the strike zone!

I haven't done the math, but I think the answer is approximately correct.

Most pitchers actually release the ball on a slight upward trajectory.

[jxt127]

Originally Posted by NIump50

Please tell me you're joking.

I work for the government I never make jokes.

[fmsc]

I have intended to stay out of this mess and I will probably regret this but I will attempt to offer the views of an engineer who has been designing for consideration of earth's gravity for 30 years. Due to gravitational forces only; an object with an intial horizontal velocity of 95 mph released on a horizontal line (that is with intial vertical velocity of 0 mph) will drop 2.99 feet in 60 feet of horizontal travel. The path followed is a parabolic arc with its apex at the release point. The calculation is a basic high school physics problem. 95 mph is equivalent to 139.3 ft. per sec.The time duration of travel assuming no loss of horizontal velocity (true only in a vacuum but close enough) is 60 ft. divided by 139.3 ft/sec. or .431 sec. Average gravitational acceleration on earth's surface is approximately 32.2 ft. per sec. per sec. The drop is caculated as 1/2 times acceleration (32.2 ft/(sec squared)) times the time duration squared (.431 x .431). or 2.99 ft.
jxt's statement of 3.5 ft. would presume an initial downward velocity of approx 1.2 ft. per sec. That would mean an initial trajectory of 1.1 degrees below horizontal. Therefore a ball released at 6 ft. above the elevation of the plate at 95 mph at such an angle would arrive at the plate 2.5 ft. above the plate. I am 6 ft. tall and the hollow beneath my knee is 19 inches from the bottom of my shoes meaning that pitch would be a thigh high strike. If the ball had followed it's initial tajectory of 1.1 degrees it would have dropped 1.15 ft. ( tan 1.1 times 60 ft.). Therefore if it arrives at the plate any where between a drop of 1.15 ft. and 3.5 ft. it has NOT RISEN but dropped less than gravity alone would account for. If it arrives with less than 1.15 ft. of drop then areodynamic forces have exceeded or overcome gravitational forces.
Therefore,I can accept the statements that it is not humanly possible to create enough rotation to overcome gravity and that the rising fastball is due to perception because the drop is less than expected for an object traveling 60 feet in less than 1/2 second.

[UmpJM]

fmsc,

I am deeply disappointed in you.

I mean, if you're going to go around throwing a bunch of facts and science into the mix, I don't even see where it makes any sense to engage in this fascinating conversation. (Oh wait - it doesn't - I already knew that.)

Besides, it sounds like you're one of those "science mumbo-jumbo" non-believers who thinks the Earth is a sphere - just because of some "doctored up" photos alledgedly taken from, get this, "outer space". Puhleeeze! Anyone with two eyes can simply step outside and see for themselves that it is perfectly flat.

JM

[jxt127]

Gotta be something about engineers.

As my dad put it

Mechanical engineers build weapons.

Civil engineers build targets.