Rising fastball
 

During the most recent of our raging debates about whether a pitcher can throw a rising fastball, I mentioned that perhaps a friend of mine, a professor of aeronautical and aerospace engineering at Princeton University, might be able to supply some useful input. I saw him last night and broached the subject, and I thought his response quite interesting.

My friend, Professor Richard Miles, says that the recently deceased George Reynolds, a well-known professor of physics at Princeton who spent much of his career studying sources of light at the bottom of the ocean—and loved baseball—investigated the physics of the game in several areas and was particularly intrigued by the question of the rising fastball. After much analysis, Reynolds eventually concluded that a human being cannot throw a rising fastball.

However, Reynolds did not arrive at his determinination easily. The physics of objects traveling through any medium (water, air, oil) is extremely complicated, and even with round balls, whether smooth, seamed, or pitted like golf balls, equations from books are insufficient. In such cases, experimentation is required, and after the behavior of the ball is observed, the scientists can look to the equations to figure out why. (He gave the example of golf balls, where everyone originally assumed that a smooth ball would travel farther until the players themselves noticed that old, nicked balls outperformed the new ones.) I wish I could relate exactly what my friend told me, but he placed great emphasis on the air flow behind and around the ball, repeatedly mentioning "attached" versus "detached" air flow and cautioning that a ball might travel predictably up to a certain speed but behave drastically differently beyond that point.

He said that the best way to determine whether a fastball can rise would be to study films. Interestingly, on Miles's living room wall is the series of photographs (the originals) that settled a "raging" sports debate of long ago: whether a race horse's hooves are ever all off the ground at once.

I'm sure that any errors in the above are mine, not Professor Miles's.

One other item of interest: Reynolds did a lot of study of breaking balls and knuckle balls, why and how they break when they do, what the limits are, etc. Anyway, he concluded that human pitchers were just short of the ability to throw balls that broke far more. In other words, if pitchers could get just a little more spin on the ball, the break would be significantly greater.

thanks
 

Great stuff!

I thought most physicists had come to the conclusion that it was impossible for a fastball to rise, but that the really hard throwers have a ball that drops less, giving the appearance of a rise to hitters who are used to seeing the ball drop more with the average pitcher.

Oh God, not this **** again....

"This is the song that never ends. Yes it goes on and on my..............."



Tim.

while this has gone on long enough, i think it was a good post and hopefully clears it up for some people. it will be sure to get a rise out of SAump if nothing else

Please Release Me O Mighty Myth Buster
 

"I thought most physicists had come to the conclusion that it was impossible for a fastball to rise, but that the really hard throwers have a ball that drops less, giving the appearance of a rise to hitters who are used to seeing the ball drop more with the average pitcher."

Yeah, it drops less, an entire foot less.

Speed _ Ft/sec __ Time __ Freefall _ Height _ %gravity %other
103, ___ 151.06, _ 0.397, _ -2.523, _ 4.476, _ 0.360, __ 0.639,
88, ____ 129.06, _ 0.464, _ -3.457, _ 3.542, _ 0.493, __ 0.506,

The faster the ball travels, the less influence gravity has on its path.

Giving the appearance of a rise to hitters who are used to seeing the ball drop more with the average pitcher.
Only an appearance of rise if one NEGLECTS LIFT which is present in AIR, aka RISE. This also doesn't explain the flight characteristics of 2 100 mph pitches that hit different spots (1 HIGHER than the lower, a REAL observational FACT).

"But that the really hard throwers have a ball that drops less."
Laws of physics can also explain "drops of a foot less" without any LIFT, aka RISE, by increasing horizontal velocity; which by the way adds to the presence of LIFT, aka RISE. Oh, I forgot that theses arguments FAIL to include LIFT, aka RISE.

"Most physicists had come to the conclusion that it was impossible for a fastball to rise."
Physicist are studying a baseball released at a DOWNWARD angle and FAIL to introduce LIFT, aka RISE. You can't see LIFT, aka RISE, if you ignore AIR conditions for LIFT and you FAIL to consider it's presence in that AIR.

Funny, summer is almost here and the HOME RUN balls will travel further. I suppose more pitches will also HANG UP in that thick AIR too. I suppose those sliders will have the appearance of less sliding, those sinkers will have the appearance of less sinking and those curveballs will have the appearance of less curving. We may all agree a pitch will hang UP on a pitcher. Why is it so hard to accept the next logical reasoning level?

One other item of interest
 

"Reynolds did a lot of study of breaking balls and knuckle balls, why and how they break when they do, what the limits are, etc. Anyway, he concluded that human pitchers were just short of the ability to throw balls that broke far more. In other words, if pitchers could get just a little more spin on the ball, the break would be significantly greater."

One Dave Drabecky comes to mind (I hope I spelled his name right, but I think we all know the story). I personally witnessed a pitcher form Austin, TX snap his arm in two places while releasing a pitch. Its too bad that there is only a handful of good pitchers available for MLB clubs at the moment and a large number of great hitters to face. I feel that pitchers are finding ways to add a little more spin in this modern game of baseball.

And TC is my witness
 

I never said just any 90 mph pitcher could throw a rising fastball.

I am only defending those with a little extra talent found in their right shoulder. I certainly, and billions of others who have tried unsuccessfully, have never possessed that special talent either. MLB Scouts have seen them and do believe they still exit. There is a LARGE signing bonus waiting to be earned if you find one of them. I have been told that it is harder to find a young man who can throw 100 mph baseball than it is to find a needle in a haystack. I suppose this diamond in the rough could go on to become a RISING STAR at the center of the diamond.

Discovery Channel Airs
 

My favorite episode of MYTH BUSTERS posed the following question.:rolleyes:

Which travels higher and/or further, a football filled with helium or a football filled with AIR? This question was raised by BUM Phillips who coached the Houston Oilers back in the 1970's. He noticed that the Oakland Raiders punter Ray Guy (??) was punting the ball so high and so far that his punt returner was forced to call for a FAIR catch everytime. He asked the NFL to check what was in those footballs and the statistical term "Hang Time" was later introduced. It also explained how the spin on the football, or SPIRAL, allows the football to travel further, overcoming constant gravitational effects. :cool:

What weighs more, the famous Eiffel Tower in Paris, France or a column of AIR surrounding the Eiffel Tower in Paris, France?;)

Release Point
 

SAump,
Your fanciful workings of lift and physics aside, don't you realize that if a pitcher actually threw a rising pitch, that it would likely be uncatchable by F2 and probably over the batters head?

A pitcher releases the ball at a height of 6 feet or more (in relation to ground on which the batter stands). It wouldn't be a very effective pitch if it actually rose!

It is mathematically impossible to throw a rising fastball.

A) The ball is spinning in the wrong direction.

B) Round objects don't create lift like a wing when traveling through air.

C) The ball is traveling at a downward trajectory with too much energy to overcome direction and gravity.

D) I see rising fastballs all the time !

[QUOTE=Kaliix]SAump,
Your fanciful workings of lift and physics aside, don't you realize that if a pitcher actually threw a rising pitch, that it would likely be uncatchable by F2 and probably over the batters head?

A pitcher releases the ball at a height of 6 feet or more (in relation to ground on which the batter stands). It wouldn't be a very effective pitch if it actually rose.

If you're definition of a rising fastball is any ball that crosses the plate higher than the release point then I think most people could accomplish it.

I think most people that believe an exceptional pitcher can throw a rising fastball define it this way:

Let's say the trajectory of the ball at release places the ball 3' above the ground when it crosses the front of the plate, but instead it crosses the plate higher than 3', the ball has risen relative to it's original trajectory even though the release point was well above 3'.

Based on your thoughts of a rising fast ball I wonder how others that argue against it would define what a rising fastball looks like.

.

I have to say .......................
 

NO MORE !!! I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE !!!



Doug

Damn if I HIT a SOUND Barrier
 

The myth sounds too good not to believe.

Maybe look at this a different way. It's not so much that the 100mph fastball RISES, but rather that it doesn't DROP as much as one thrown at 90mph or less.