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.

Or....
 

you can look at it like everyone else. SAUMP is an idiot, has been proven wrong many times and still won't accept that he is wrong.

Relative DROP
 

The ACTUAL DROP is nearly identical from release POINT A (hand at 6 foot) to TARGET B (mitt at 3 foot) at 70 mph, 90 mph or 100 mph. The belief that the 100 mph fastball doesn't drop as much as one thrown at 90 mph is erroneous. The RATE of the DROP must be HIGHER for the 100 mph pitcher to hit the TARGET. In REALITY, the 100 mph pitch drops as much, if not MORE than the 90 mph pitch, because it does so in LESS TIME. Less time implies a FASTER drop rate is needed from the start of the release angle.

Next time you see heavy objects flying around a tornado or a hurricane, don't tell me any of those round or flat objects can't behave like a wing. This AIR passing beneath (not around) a 100 mph baseball makes LIFT possible at relatively flat angles, less than 15 degees. Not only does 100 mph fastball move faster, it carries more energy at a relatively flat 5 degree angle. Now I don't believe the AIR plays a role in adding to this downward energy, but I do believe the AIR plays a role in dampening this downward energy through SURFACE DRAG. The energy is certainly there, the surface pressure difference is there, and LIFT is entirely possible. I compare it to skipping rocks above water at much lower velocities. I can get a RISE 2 or 3 times before the rock settles below the water.
------------------
Even I recognize this will not add very much to dispelling the myth.

A round object has too much Side Spill to create as much lift as a wing. Side Spill is air spilling over from the sides onto the top, and counteracting the lift. This effect is something wing designers have to fight with. One of the reasons a wing is narrower at the tip.


Try skipping a ROUND rock, and see what happens.

Don't know where you're at SAUmp, but around here we generally don't play ball in tornadoes.

Express to go
 

See http://www.roundrockexpress.com/

I see a connection to Nolan Ryan who may confirm throwing an occasional rising fastball.;)

Near Round Rock
 

Home of the missions.

Well know that can be either San Antonio (where I spent a lovely summer in basic) OR Houston (where the space missions were based)

id go with San Antonio, because his name isnt Hump

Saw a video of a cow atop a barn
 

Saw the video on TV of a cow standing on the roof of a barn.
Folks around here would swear UP and down that it was scientifically impossible for a cow to climb atop a barn.
Some are still wondering how the cow climbed UP there because it can't be explained mathematically.

You sound like an economist - you are ASSUMING the cow CLIMBED up there. Simply because a cow is on the roof does not mean it climbed up there itself.
But I'm feeling frisky tonight - what does this "rising fastball" thread say about a SUBMARINE-style pitcher's fastball???

speaking of animals getting on things in wierd ways, anyone ever seen this: http://www.wayweird.com/archives/200...ets_pole_3.jpg
it ran so fast that it rose right up there

The idea behind a Submarine'r, is he is either throwing perfectly level, or a little up. Ball starts out rising, and continues. Where as a rising fastball starts out level or descending, and then changes direction to rise.

It can't be done !

But please don't tell my son that, as I taught him how to do it. He also has a 90+ fastball with a 12" corkscrew on the end. Too bad he chose to play the ridiculous game of Basketball, instead of continuing on with baseball. The local colleges were frothing at the mouth to get a hold of that arm. And he thinks nothing of it. :confused:

Oh good Lord you have to get to him!! BASKETBALL???

Impossible, Come on
 

Movement on a 100 mph FASTBALL: left, right and down only.

You're joking, right? Houston, we need LIFT OFF.

My cousin could throw a mean rise-ball. It started out a little below the knees and was about shoulder height when it got to the plate.

Of course this was whiffle-ball.

“The good rising fastball is the best pitch in baseball.”
Tom Seaver

Ted Breitenstein, a .500 pitcher for the Cardinals and Reds through the 1890s, threw a rising fastball. Nig Cuppy, a minor star with the Cleveland Spiders, threw what he called a "jump ball"-a rising fastball.
excerpt from "The Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers"

In the Dead Ball Era (1903-1919), a "hopping" fast ball was prized, because it led to strikeouts, pop ups, and fly balls, which were generally not dangerous in that era. In the lively ball era (beginning in 1920), the "sinking" fast ball was more prized, because it kept the ball in the infield, and kept down the number of home runs. excerpt from "The Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers"

However, while some pitchers could make a ball hop and some people could make a ball "sink," there is no evidence of any major-league pitcher, before 1950, doing both, or switching between one and the other (Satchel Paige threw two distinct fastballs in the 1930s, when he pitched in the Negro Leagues.excerpt from "The Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers"

"My fastball had a natural sink to it," they would say, or "My fastball had a pretty good hop to it," or "I had pretty good speed, but my fastball was straight, so I had to keep it away from the middle of the plate."
excerpt from "The Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers"

Nick Cuppy expressed this idea succinctly in 1908, in a book called How to Pitch (John Foster). "That there is such a thing as a jump ball I believe is universally conceded," said Cuppy, "but like other pitchers I am in the dark as to its cause. I am positive that it exists, for I have been able to get it myself." Forty years later, there is little evidence of much better understanding.excerpt from "The Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers"

Fergie Jenkins emerged as a star in 1967, throwing a rising fastball to right-handersexcerpt from "The Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers"

My thinking was just to go up there and be aggressive, to swing at strikes," Lankford said. "The first pitch was away. But the second was a strike and I was able to drive it out of the ballpark. He has that rising fastball.
CNNSI.com Sept. 2 2001

Facing Johnson's the best challenge that you're going to have in this league. The scary thing about him right now is that he's becoming a better pitcher," said Chicago second baseman Eric Young. "Now he's mixing in a two-seamer with his rising fastball, so you can't even sit on any particular type of fastball. Just adding that one pitch sometimes makes him unhittable."
CNNSI April 30, 2000

I have 2 things to say:

1. If professional batters, pitchers and catchers from different eras are saying the ball is rising I tend to believe it.
As umpires we are always chastising fans, players and coaches for arguing calls from the stands and dugout. Our #1 response either to them or between ourselsves is generally 'how can they know better than us, we had the best angle and vantage point'.
Well, who has the better vantage point on a fastball than a pitcher, catcher and batter? Let's stay consistent with our arguments.

2. One of the most consistent arguments I've heard against the apparent rising fastball is that it doesn't drop as much as a slower fastball therefore giving the illusion of rising.

This explanation comes from an article by Lee Bowman,
Scripps Howard News Service
Terry Bahill, a professor of systems and industrial engineering at the University of Arizona, divides the batting process into thirds --sensory gathering, computing and swinging -- and agrees with Nathan that hitters use mental models of pitching.
He explains that pitchers keep earned-run averages low by trying to confuse those mental models, and uses the myth of the "jumping" or rising fastball to illustrate.
A pitcher will throw several 90-mph fastballs, and the batter develops a mental model and reaction to this speed. Then, the pitcher slips in a 95-mph toss, which looks the same to the batter at the sensory-gathering stage, and he swings for the same spot. But because the ball is actually moving faster, it doesn't drop quite as much as the earlier pitches.

If this were true then why, when a pitcher is consistently throwing 80mph fastballs and then muscles up one at 85mph doesn't it look like a riser?
In fact it should "jump" even higher since the % of increase in speed is even greater than one going from 90 to 95mph.
I've never heard anyone accuse an 85mph fastball of rising.
The logic doesn't work.

Besides the virulent and malicious posts that are forthcoming because I do not subscribe to the pack mentality I really want to hear from someone that can show the flaw in my logic. The illusion theory isn't working for me.

Fastpitch softball pitchers throw balls that rise as they approach the plate, as the spin on these pitches is opposite that of an overhand release, as well as the launch angle and trajectory. That is why they call the pitch a "riser."

i cant speak for everyone else, but im not looking at the "rising fastball" issue as an umpire. im looking at it as a former player (catcher), former physics student, and just a general schmuck off the street. ive also looked at it from a pitcher's perspective from the time i spent in the bullpen or at practice with my college pitching coaches, as well as with my world series ring owing HS pitching coach. i havent taken the perspective that "im the umpire, i know it all"

Steve, I believe that the spin on a "riser" in softball is in the same direction as, and not the opposite of, that of a fastball thrown with an overhand motion.

Brian
Usually quotation marks are used to indicate a direct quote and since you're referring to my post i have to assume you're trying to attribute that quote to me. I'd appreciate it if you corrected your mistake.
Not only did you purposely misquote but you also, purposely or not, misunderstood the the reference to umpires in my my post.
I can appreciate you and your coaches perspective on this issue, I was only giving the perspective of proven and respected players like Tom Seaver, Fergie Jenkins, Ray Lankford and others.
If I was going to get a perspective on golf, I'd be better advised listening to Tiger Woods than my high school health teacher/golf coach.

PS
The organist for the White Sox received a world series ring. Maybe she can give us a definitive answer to the question.

i may have misunderstood the reference, but i attributed nothing to you so i dont see the need to change anything.

i dont know about you, but id take the advice of a pitcher who won a game in the world series with the twins, even though hes a gym teacher now and works with the baseball team on the side.

I agree. If baseball players say that a pitched ball can defy the laws of physics it must be true.:rolleyes:


Tim.

Of course it’s true……

Did I ever tell you about the time I was abducted by aliens? The light lifted me up inside their trans-dimensional star cruiser and ……………………… :eek:

Okay, I'll give you that one, but the launch angle and trajetory are quite different, unless you have a Kent Tekulve type pitcher.

Not being a softball person, I'd really be interested in how you throw a softball underhand, with any velocity, and get backspin on it, as with an overhand thrown fastball. If you did, it would work against making the ball rise, but since the ball is being thrown in a upward direction from the start, the spin is overcome by inertia. And a rising Softball is not the same thing as a rising Fastball, which is thrown downward, and then rises.

So who exactly were you quoting?



When it comes to pitching and how the ball reacts this gym teacher has more or less credibility than Tom Seaver?

Here's an interesting piece:


Every sport is governed by the laws of physics, of course. However, Paul Doherty, senior scientist at San Francisco’s Exploratorium, argues that baseball is a special case......
For example, serious scientific studies have been done on the technique outfielders use to track and catch a fly ball. Another study determined that the “rising fastball” was an optical illusion, based on a batter’s perception of pitching speeds.
And what other sport ever had an official physicist? Yale Professor Robert K. Adair filled that post for the National League from 1987 to 1989, at the request of the late baseball executive (and one-time Yale president) Bart Giamatti.
“I like to point out that Einstein, if he were interested in baseball, still could not from first principles calculate the flight of the ball,” Adair said. “We know the basic rules, but we can’t solve the equations.”

A myriad of mysteries
The unpredictability of a baseball - and the prowess of a pitcher - has much to do with the 216 raised red cotton stitches encircling its cowhide surface.
Excerpt from an article by Alan Boyle

I'm no physicist so correct me if I'm wrong, what I'm reading is movement on a baseball is unpredictable and even Einstein could not predict through physics the movement of the ball, yet we know it won't rise but don't ask us to prove it.
Short of definitive scientific proof to the contrary, I don't think defaulting to the accounts and experiences of respected professionals personally involved is such a reach.
I do enjoy all the sarcasm around this subject, but I haven't seen anyone tackle the question of why an 85mph fastball never 'appears' to be rising.

I'm also quite sure that the once official physicist of the national league, Robert Adair, is not the right person to be sourcing any info from but I couldn't find any appropriate quotes or studies from high school gym teachers.

Arrrrrggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh................ ..
 

Doug:D

The same way you get topspin on a curveball thrown overhand.(Think about it). And no it wouldn't work against making it rise. And yes the theory is the same for both the "rise" and the rising fastball.

Well.........
 

I had to condense this into two posts.


From LiveScience:


Busting Baseball Myths: Scientist Throws Big Curveballs
By Bjorn Carey
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 20 April 2006
09:06 am ET


Your Little League coach probably didn't know it, but every time he sent you to the plate with the instructions "keep your eye on the ball," he was giving you an impossible task.

And if you followed the coach's advice of positioning yourself directly under a popup, you probably struggled to catch balls in the outfield, too.

Ken Fuld, a baseball enthusiast and visual psychophysicist at the University of New Hampshire, has pored over numerous baseball studies and suggests that neither of these approaches produce optimal results.

Instead, much to your coach’s chagrin, you should try mimicking the quirks of the best Major League players.

Major League heat

At the Major League level, pitchers sling fastballs between 90 and 100 mph and sometimes a tweak faster. The ball moves far too swiftly for a batter to watch for its entire journey to home plate.

"In the last few feet before the plate, the ball reaches an angular velocity that exceeds the ability of the eye to track the ball," Fuld told LiveScience. "The best hitters can track the ball to within 5 or 6 feet of the plate."

Sometimes players will abandon eye contact mid-way through the pitch and move their line of sight to where they anticipate the ball will cross the plate. Batters often "take" the first couple pitches of an "at bat" in this manner to try and calibrate the movement and speed of a pitcher's offerings.

Killer curve

But a hitter is at the mercy of what the pitch does in those last few feet. That's when their eyes have left the ball and a nasty 12-to-6 curveball—a pitch named after the face of a clock and which drops top to bottom—can make even the best hitters swing out of their shoes. The pitch looks innocent enough, 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.


Because of its straight trajectory, many hitters have an easier time hitting a four-seam, 100-mph fastball than a lively curveball. Forkballs, sinkers, and split-fingered fastballs, all of which have tough-to-judge spin and dart around the strike zone, are similarly tough to hit.

On the flipside are knuckleballs. Even though they're slow-moving and have little to no spin, they flutter erratically, making them one of the most difficult pitches to connect with. As legendary hitting coach Charlie Lau once said, "There are two theories on hitting a knuckleball. Unfortunately, neither of them works."

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.

"If he thinks it's an 80-mph fastball, but it's really 90 mph, since it didn't drop it will appear to rise in that last instant," Fuld said. "It looks like it hops up, and that's the illusion of a rising fastball."



Tim.

Sorry, but I have to.....again!
 

From the Wikepedia:


The fastball is the most common type of pitch in baseball. Some "power" pitchers, like Randy Johnson and Billy Wagner, can throw it 95-100 mph (150-160 km/h), and rely on this speed to prevent the ball from being hit. Others throw more slowly but put movement on the ball or throw it on the outside of the plate where the batter cannot easily reach it. The effect of a faster pitch can sometimes be achieved by minimizing the batter's vision of the ball before its release. The result is known as an "exploding fastball": a pitch that seems to arrive at the plate quickly despite its low velocity. Fastballs are usually thrown with backspin, so that the Magnus effect creates an upward force on the ball, causing it to fall less rapidly than might be expected. A pitch on which this effect is most marked is often called a "rising fastball", as the ball appears to rise to the batter. Colloquially, use of the fastball is called throwing heat or putting steam on it, among many other variants.



From Popular Mechanics:




The Myth Of The Rising Fastball

Years ago, baseball players and fans commonly believed that it was possible to throw a rising fastball--a pitch that would curve upward or hop as it approached the batter. This could be done, it was thought, by gripping the baseball across the seams and releasing the pitch with a wrist snap that would impart a pronounced backspin on the ball. Although they could not explain why it happened, pitchers, batters and catchers were convinced that if the pitch were thrown at high speed--over 90 mph--it would rise as it crossed the plate, causing the batter to misjudge the trajectory and swing under the ball. They were certain the ball rose because they could see it rise.

As a longtime baseball fan and a physicist specializing in the physics of sports, I was curious to find out whether the rising fastball was for real. 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. The basic principles are relatively simple. After the ball leaves the pitcher's hand, it is subject to just three forces: gravity (equal to the weight of the ball) pulling it vertically downward; aerodynamic drag, created by the collision of the ball with the surrounding air, which reduces its forward speed; and what is known as the Magnus force, generated by the interaction of the spinning surface of the ball with the air. The ball generates a low-pressure wake behind it as it moves through the air, but if the surface is spinning, the wake is deflected sideways. 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. The Magnus force always acts perpendicular to the path of the ball, deflecting it sideways according to the direction of spin. It is this force that allows pitchers to throw a repertoire of breaking balls--curveballs, sliders, sinkers, etc.--by adjusting the rate and direction of the spin on the ball along with the speed and location of the pitch. To throw a rising fastball, the Magnus force must be directed upward, opposing the pull of gravity, and this can be achieved by throwing the ball with backspin. If the Magnus force is greater than the weight of the ball, then the net force on the ball will cause it to rise.

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. The pitch takes only about 0.44 second to cover the distance. During this interval the ball falls about 3 ft. due to the pull of gravity. A batter has less than half a second to judge the trajectory of the ball, decide whether to swing, and then bring his bat around to the projected point of contact. Hitting a baseball at the major league level, I discovered, is a truly remarkable feat.

Most significantly, I discovered that in order for the ball to truly rise in flight--for the Magnus force to exceed the weight of the ball--the pitch would have to be launched with a backspin of more than 3600 rpm. This is far beyond the capacity of any major league pitcher. High-speed photography shows that spin rates of about 1800 rpm are the best that can be achieved. Thus, it is not humanly possible to throw a true rising fastball. With the ball spinning at 1800 rpm and traveling at 90 mph, the Magnus force retards the vertical drop by a little more than a foot. Instead of dropping 3 ft. vertically on its way to the plate, the ball drops slightly less than 2 ft. I concluded that the rising fastball is an optical illusion. The ball appears to rise only because it doesn't fall as much as the batter expects it to--in other words, the ball rises only in relation to the batter's expectations.

Over time, a number of other scientists have verified my results. The most convincing confirmation has come from real-time tracking of baseball pitches using multiple video cameras and rapid computerized reconstruction of the trajectories. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever recorded a fastball rising as it crosses the plate. A Google search on the term "rising fastball" reveals dozens of articles all attesting to the fact that the rising fastball is an optical illusion. To the exquisitely trained eyes of a top-flight batter or catcher, the ball appears to rise because it does not fall as much as it would without the backspin.

--Peter J. Brancazio
Professor Emeritus of Physics
Brooklyn College, The City University of New York



You can see for yourself that it's impossible for a pitched baseball to rise by doing a simulation at this link. All of the advanced calculations are done for you. However feel free to input as many relevant variables as you'd like.


http://www.csc.calpoly.edu/~nterrell...eport.html#use


In the past four months as this debate has raged I've done mathematical calculations myself to prove the impossibility of a baseball thrown overhand rising, posted studies by noted physicists and image physiologists. Yet for some reason I can only attribute to stubborness there are at least two of you who feel you know better. This will hopefully be my last post on this subject. Feel free to believe what ever science fiction you want to. The fact is, and I do mean fact, that it's impossible for a baseball thrown overhand to escape it's initial velocity vector.



Tim.

Sooooooo.....you're saying that's it's impossible for a baseball, thrown overhand, to......RISE! Say it ain't so......AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

Did you read the quote from physicist Robert Adair?
He says not even Einstien can predict the movement of a baseball and that
the equations to predict the movement of a baseball cannot be solved.
When the basic rules of physics are applied to a baseball they are not able to calculate the flight of the ball.
Are these physicists in your post smarter than Adair? Maybe yes maybe no.
maybe they're just postulating. Maybe it's not as exact a science as you make it out to be.

A Google search on the term "rising fastball" reveals dozens of articles all attesting to the fact that the rising fastball is an optical illusion. To the exquisitely trained eyes of a top-flight batter or catcher, the ball appears to rise because it does not fall as much as it would without the backspin.
An 85 mph fastball doesn't have backspin?
And again I ask
Based on the reasons given for why a ball 'appears' to rise, why does an 85mph fastball never 'appear' to rise.
The logic behind optical illusion makes no sense.

Please explain

I'll not do the footwork again. There was an exact study presented here several months ago that was conducted by the physics department at Arizona State University. In the study they used several different modems whereby a baseball could be projected with exact measured speed and spin ratios. They concluded that for Bernoulli's principle to apply the rotation of the ball would have to exceed 3600 rpm. Then through more extensive research they concluded that the highest possible rotation placed on a baseball by a human while throwing it would reach only 1800 rpm. Adair was correct that Einstein couldn't predict all the pertinent forces that would need to be applied to prove exact movement. However, Einstein not only did no such study that I'm aware of, if he did he would not have had the advanced mesurement technology available to him that the physicists did who conducted the ASU study.


Tim.

ok, while dan schatzeder is not tom seaver, he still has a ring and still knows whats up. can you read, or did you ignore the previous 20 times when i said that the man has a clue?

I'm sorry I missed this the first time.
Can you, unlike Robert Adair, solve the equations and mathematically calculate accurately the flight of a baseball?

Maybe Robert Adair, the once official physicist of MLB is one of the few intellectually honest physicists weighing in on this subject because he is not pretending to know everything and admits that there is unpredictability in a baseballs movement.
I bet you disagree, you think the scientific community knows it all and there is nothing left to learn. Facts are facts don't confuse me with unsolved equations and unpredictable flight patterns. I know what I know and by golly if you don't agree you're an idiot.
Oh and could someone give me the definition of stubborn?

You've take one small quote out of Adair's works and misrepresented it. I've read the studies done by Dr. Adair. The quote you've so eloquently chosen to use addresses the unpredictability of lateral and downward movement of a thrown baseball. Had you read all of his study you would have seen that he concluded himself that a rising fastball was an impossibility.


Tim.

I'm sorry can you read?
The organist at Commisky has a ring.

Did Dan ever throw a 95 mph fastball that gave the optical illusion of rising?
Tom Seaver had a very long career doing so.
Funny thing is, after all of those years and many thousands of pitches his stupid brain never could figure out how much that fastball was supposed to drop and til the end he kept thinking it was actually rising.

8 Dozen MPH Vortex
 

Believe it or not, it doesn't take more than three pitches to become an effective major league pitcher. Anyone that thinks every young MLB pitcher commands a five pitch arsenal is looking for Tommy John surgery. There is one statement that accurately describes an exploding fastball which cannot be predicted; most go STRAIGHT, some tail away and some tail downward, and there are some of them that TAIL UP and some that tail INTO a hitter.

I would look at some of the bean ball footage of players who lean away from the pitch. Most are damn glad to see that ball RISING over them, instead of sinking into their shoulder. There are plenty of major league hitters that knew what John Rocker was bringing ot the table; low heat, more heat and high heat. There are many more who cleverly made careers off a very good fastballs. To say that one of those four-seam gripped pitches did not climb the ladder or RISE to the top occasionally is absolutely ridiculous.

There isn't one of you that can imagine the airflow around a 96 mph fastball that doesn't allow the same "knuckle" motion on its way to the plate. By the way, surface drag and gravitational influences decrease remarkably above 75 mph. Above 90 mph, objects tend to take on characteristics of FLIGHT. To categorical state that 100 mph objects cannot RISE in FLIGHT is simply ludicrous. Please, it is time you update your physics books.

No, I'm very aware that he thought a ball cannot rise.
My point is that he admits the baseball is unpredictable and the equations cannot or at least have not been solved.
If the equations are not solved and the ball is unpredictable it means the science is not exact and most likely they are missing something. Perhaps the missing something explains a rising fastball.
Since there are many first hand accounts from many players from different eras proclaiming a rising ball and some scientists admit to the unpredictability of the ball and also admit that for some reason they cannot solve the equations that perhaps if it looks like a riser, feels like a riser and tastes like a riser, it just might be.

im sorry, did the organist win a game in the world series?

*adds you to the growing list of users i ignore

No, but just like Dan she's never thrown a 95 mph fastball that looks like it's rising. And they both have the same amount of credibility in this argument. I'd say they have a lot in common.

So, we're back to "It looks like it rises, so it must be rising." Dr. Adair never maintained that the equations could not be solved to disprove the myth of the rising fastball. His contention was, and still is, that the predetermined flight path held too many variables to calculate lateral and/or downward movement to a certainty.


Tim.

Are you admitting that some balls 'appear' to be rising?
If so, why?
And if the reason is the drop isn't as much as expected therefore it 'appears' to rise, then please explain why a 85 mph fastball never appears to rise.

Who said that an 85 mph fastball doesn't appear to rise? It certainly wasn't me. It's all about perception and expectation. If a batter is looking for a 65 mph bender and a pitcher throws an 85 mph heater the ball will get on him much quicker that he expected and he will perceive that the ball exploded, or rose as it reached the plate. It seems to me that you wan't someone else to do the work for you. There are many, many articles on this subject available on the Internet. If you really want to know why the rising fastball is an optical illusion you need to some work for yourself.



Tim.

Gravity and SPIN
 

STUBBORNESS. I can only agree that I may have been stubborn in my refusal to release the SHIFT key despite angry protest from the community. I did so under the pretense of self-expression and style unique to my own writing craft and self-entertaining thoughts of BLAH BLAH BLAH.

From the beginning, I supported my position that the Popular Mechanics article was pseudo-science. It relies on a very elementary premise that gravity (Newton) and spin (Bernoulli) accurately describe the motion of a 100 mph fastball. Therefore, I must conclude that your premise that, "A fastball thrown overhand cannot rise" is only TRUE because that is the logical conclusion of your pre-determined choice. In laymens terms, if you go looking for only a drop ball, you'll find a drop ball and maybe through sheer accident, perhaps you may recognize a curve to one side or the other.

I proposed that a RISE was possible. I stated that I could not prove the possibility of a RISING fastball without introducing the concept of LIFT. My attempts to introduce LIFT have been thwarted despite the fact that it is also as observable in nature as gravity. It has also been commonly accepted by the scientific community. I do suppose that when you decide to go looking for a RISE ball, you will find it. Of course, it doesn't exist until YOU decide to look for and discover it at the most oppertune time. Please let me know when you decipher the rise ball so that I can announce it to the world.

Time to take the Garbage Out
 

The trash is picked up early in the morning.

I know exactly the explanation given for the supposed optical illusion.
I also know that an "exploding" fastball is not a rising fastball.
If a batter is expecting offspeed and gets a fastball his timing is screwed but he's not saying the ball is rising.
Of all the pitchers that legend has given the rising fastball ability, none have topped out at 85 with their fastball. No one has ever accused Greg Maddux of having a rising fastball, yet over the years he has confounded, confused and kept more hitters off balance than anyone else. If the optical illusion of a rising fastball was simply expecting one speed and the actual speed being 5-10 faster then Maddux should be the king of the rising fastball.
Like I've said in prior posts, the logic of the optical illusion doesn't add up.
You knew what I was driving at and you avoided the issue because you can't explain it.

I was just wondering if any of you guys have ever had any luck with teaching a pig to sing?

I tried with mine once, but after a while he just seemed to get kind of pissed off.

Never did sing worth a damn.

In retrospect, I think it might have been a waste of my time to even try.

JM

Since you insist.


http://www.engr.arizona.edu/newslett...s/fastball.jpg

For years batters swore that some pitchers could throw a rising fastball. The laws of physics say this is impossible. Instead, it's an illusion caused when the pitcher throws a faster pitch than the batter has seen. In bottom figure b, the batter watches the ball for the first part of its flight and calculates its drop. Then he looks down at the bat and the ball appears to have jumped because it's higher than where his mental model predicted it would be, based on earlier, slower pitches as shown in the top illustration. (Graphic by Alison Habel)


By Ed Stiles
February 18, 2000

Baseball is numbers to Terry Bahill, as well - but of a different kind. The University of Arizona professor of systems and industrial engineering has used numbers, graphs and mathematical analysis to investigate some of baseball's more intriguing questions, most of which center around that half second between the time a pitcher releases the ball and the moment the batter hits it.


The Rising Fastball —

For years batters swore that some pitchers could throw a rising fastball that would "jump" a half foot as it crossed the plate, making it hop over the bat. But this isn't possible, Bahill says. Even the greatest pitchers can't violate the laws of physics. Once a ball is thrown, it follows a smooth trajectory. Physics simply doesn't allow abrupt jumps in that trajectory.


So what's happening? "The batter is using the wrong mental model," Bahill says.

Batters divide a pitch into thirds. The first third is sensory gathering, the second is computing, and the third is swinging. So a pitcher throws several 90-mph fastballs and the batter develops a mental model and reaction to this speed, Bahill says.

Then the pitcher slips in a 95-mph fastball. During the sensory gathering segment of the pitch, the batter doesn't see anything different. He calculates where the 90-mph fastball would go and swings at that spot. But the 95-mph fastball has a flatter trajectory. It doesn't drop quite as much from the pitcher to plate because it's going faster.

"When the batter starts to swing, he takes his eye off the ball to look at the predicted bat-ball collision point," Bahill says. "When the ball comes back into his view, it is higher than his mental model predicted and he sees it 'jump' higher than where he calculated that it would be."



Tim.

In your illustration, the trajectory of the ball for the first 20 feet would take the ball just below the neck of the batter, yet the pitch finishes waist high.
What speed would this pitch be for that amount of drop? Assuming it is a fastball and assuming a normal sized man that would be about a 16 to 18" drop from the initial trajectory.
I'm guessing that's about a 50-60 mile an hour gasser.
I can't count the number of 12 yr old games I've done where the kid was bringing 55 mph heat, the ball was dropping 16" and everyone in the crowd was gasping WOW did you see that ball jump.

If a pitch is released at 5' above home plate with an initial trajectory that plots out to 3' above home plate, after drag and gravity and all that other good stuff, at what heighth will a 100 mph fastball be when it crosses the plate? How about a 90 and 85mph ball?

Callously release under hand
 

-------------------------
Release the softball under hand and snap the wrist/hand upward to allow the ball to travel upward along the fingers imparting an UPward spin from the front of the ball toward the back of the ball as it is traveling toward the hitter. Softballs have been clocked on radar in the lower seventies.

Grip the baseball along all four seams and snap the wrist downward to allow the ball to travel upward along the fingers imparting an UPward spin from the front of the ball toward the back of the ball as it is traveling toward the hitter. Baseballs have been clocked on radar in the very low hundreds.

Like guitar players, A MLB grip often results in soreness on the ends of the finger and/or the growth of callus. If you have never thrown a baseball which resulted in the growth of callus on the fingertips, then you cannot imagine what the release of a RISING fastball must feel like.
----------------------
callous or callus? Do not confuse the spelling of callous and callus, which sound similar. Callous is an adjective meaning "insensitive or unfeeling," as in a callous remark. Callus is a noun that usually denotes a patch of thickened skin on the hand or foot.

I have those numbers
 

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

Can you handle the truth?
Which numbers do you want to see?

The argument that a RISING fastball cannot be thrown overhand is definitely TRUE at all speeds below 70 mph. 88 mph was a special number. I never argued that this rising fastball concept wasn't TRUE between 70 and 90 mph as well. I also did the math work and came up with some very interesting numbers, 93 mph, 96 mph and 98 mph. Somehow this work disappeared when the original AUTHOR HIT the DELETE thread BUTTON.

To be sure that my calculations were CORRECT, I rounded these figures to an even 100 mph. I located a page of MLB pitchers who were all clocked at throwing baseballs at over a 100 mph. I even noticed that many pitchers were not on the table because someone never officialy clocked them on RADAR. I also noted that NOLAN RYAN's speed was clocked just above 101 mph, even though he was reported to have thrown a 105 mph baseball in his time in the minors. There was also a minor leaguer who could chunk the ball from home plate over the center field wall that didn't make the list.

But the memories of my missing DATA, my missing numbered proofs, my missing initial attempts at introducing/explaining RISE are now GONE from the record. So sad! Barry Bonds must be nervous about adding that asterick.

Help me ...................................
 

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

Quick! Someone throw some water on Carbide!

And 88mph was the speed that Marty McFly needed to get the time machine to work(that's why it's special).

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!!!

Who believes Galileo
 

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?

Conflict of Interest
 

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, 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.

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..... :D

Yep, I said it before
 

"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.

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.

Must Be Lead Brain
 

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

Are we there yet?

Tim

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%.

Misunderstanding LIFT
 

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.

Popular Mechanics Radar Busted
 

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.

Wings of a Baseball
 

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.

The MYTH Continues
 

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.

We made the first page
 

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.:D

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.

The Bumble BEE Returns
 

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.

Okay, I get it now. All of the studies done by so many repected physicists were part of a conspiracy to refute your nonsense. They all came to the same conclusions, so they must be duplicating each others research methods.

I like how you ignore Fulds findings on the myth of a rising fastball, yet discuss his contentions on curve balls. I though we were discussing why it's impossible for a baseball thrown overhand to escape it's initial velocity vector and actually rise. I could debate you all day on the effectiveness of hitting a good curveball. It would only be a waste of my time though, as I doubt you've ever stood in a batters box and looked dead red when a pitcher capable of bringing it at 90+ throws an ungodly bender. I have, and it wasn't pretty. The only thing an average hitter will track is his way back to the dugout.


Tim.

SAump,
you have absolutely no understanding of the concept of lift. You keep trying to sound intelligent and instead you are showing futher proof of how ignorant you are.

A ball travels better in warm air because the air is less dense so there are less molecules of "air". With less "air" there is less resistance in the air so the ball travels further as air resistance decreases velocity. This less dense air however counteracts lift in planes. The less air passing over the wing, the smaller the amount of lift that is generated. That is why there is no lift in space, because there is no molecules of air.

You are darn funny though...

You know, this whole thing is very easy to prove.

Get a pitcher who claims to throw a "rising fastball". set him up on a mound with two strings set in front of him. If he can throw a ball that travels under the first string and then over the second string, then I will believe in a rising fastball.

Or just take high-speed film from the side and show me a rise in trajectory. I've yet to even see something as simple as this.

A Hop in Your Ozone
 

I appreciate the simple lecture on air density but the real argument is more complicated and off topic. The air over Denver can be colder and less dense than the air over SA simply because of altitude. A baseball will travel farther in Denver SIMPLY because of the light air, but the pitcher's MOVEMENT will also be dampen by the same light air. Pitchers struggle in Denver because their sinkers don't sink and their sliders don't slide (except this year). The PILOT was correct in his assessment of density but he did not mention all the other factors that are just as vital to LIFT.

Other characteristics in AIR also play a vital role in determining the LIFT capability of AIR such as altitude, density, pressure, temperature, humidity, ozone, smog, polutions, etc. The actual number of AIR molecules remains CONSTANT or near constant thanks to our protective ATMOSPHERE. The THICKNESS between molecules increases or decreases in distance. Does SA have a polution problem in the summer or winter? I would say the summer polution level prove those molecules are closer together in that hazy SA AIR. Most of you already ignore LIFT so asking you to accept its presence in the summer air SEAMS to be a waste of my time.

Ballistics Test Confirm LIFT
 

I will now recollect the details of ONE of many visits to a local batting cage. One machine was set at 80 mph. I was told that a handheld radar was used to confirm that 80 mph speed setting. After inserting 2 tokens, the machine would toss 10 yellow dimpled batting cage baseballs every 6 seconds. The rotating arm (lever) would rebound violently after a toss and then rise at a prescribed rate, pick up another baseball and toss it towards the strike zone. As I stood in the batters box swinging at pitches that would enter the strike zone, I quickly recognized some pitches were high and others were low.

After a few rounds of batting practice it became very clear that only half of the 10 pitches were actually groved right down the middle of the strike zone. The range or variance between max and min height must have been over two feet. I find it very difficult to believe that a rotating mechanical arm would actually vary spin rate between pitches to account for this vertical range. Therefore, I must assume that GRAVITY is the CULPRIT. My test confirm that gravity does not treat each pitch equally. Can GRAVITY and SPIN discriminate against yellow dimpled baseballs. Could each yellow dimple baseball actually have individual characteristics to account for this large variance? After investingating the predicted flight path using the standard equations of motion, I found that these equations only provide a realistic MODEL. The equations are USELESS for predicting the actual location of each individual pitch. They serve as an average barometer of what might happen on an ideal pitch.

I gathered my results into 3 seperate categories. Those pitches 1 standard deviation above average, those pitches within 1 standard deviation of average, and those pitches 1 standard deviation below average. Feeling that I did my best to classify each pitch location, my results indicate the following conclusions. Half the pitches were grooved into the stike zone. These pitches appear to FLY STRAIGHT. Some of the pitches ROSE above normal. These pitches appear to RISE on their way to the plate. Some of the pitches FELL below normal. These pitches appear to SINK on their way to the plate. SEEING IS BELIEVING

It is the belief of this AUTHOR that these results can be duplicated by physics experts across the nation. It is the belief of this author that every psychologist in the nation will also confirm the same results with thorough scientific follow-UP testing and analysis of REALTIME DATA. The MYTH of a RISING FASTBALL NOT RISING should become an OLD WIVES TALE. CAUTION: more money is needed to test whether some people continue to believe OLD WIVES TALES after reading the results of this investigation. PERCEPTION IS NOT ACTUALLY SEEING, PERCEPTION IS BELIEVING RISE IS NOT POSSIBLE.

Or maybe it could just be that the release angle of each ball was different? And perhaps that a ball thrown with a steep enough release angle will rise at the beginning of it's initial trajectory path? No, that would be too easy wouldn't it!?!?

Dude, you are a hoot! Now gravity isn't a constant after all. It varies between pitches. Wow, you need to apply for a Nobel or something because that is one fantastic discovery that truly contradicts centuries of understanding of gravity and physics.

Oh, and I love that you threw in that big "standard deviation" word. It gave the whole paragraph a much needed academic feel.

You kill me.... ROTFLMAO!!!!!

Surprising NEWS
 

I have often stated that warm air has special qualities not found in cold air. I would list some of those qualities AGAIN but I know some of you would NOT know the difference anyway. It was surprising when I was floored with the latest DENSITY argument supporting LIFT to be found in COLD AIR. Si I posted this message to announce some surprising news for the very first time about WARM air.

WARM 100 mph air is full of ELECTRICITY. There is lots of anticipation about tapping into that source of alternative fuel. The funny thing is that cold air does not contain LARGE amounts of electricity so one cannot move north of the border to investigate LIGHTNING. Lightning occurs with much frequency during the summer months as WARM air mass thunderstorms roll across the US. However, the occurence of lightning diminishes greatly during the winter months as the warm surface air masses are replaced with colder surface air masses during frontal passages. Why doesn't the LIGHTNING show UP for winter ball? I suppose it catches a LIFT on the WIND headed southward. Lightning and LIFT don't particularly favor cold air.

I know some of you will ignore the importance of this new information. I know some of you will ignore the relevance of tapping that lightning found in a SHOULDER. But it is obvious to me, you don't know much about LIFT.

If annoying was money....................



Good God Man!


Tim.

http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/edu/ltg/

Lightning occurs less frequently in the winter because there is not as much instability and moisture in the atmosphere as there is in the summer. These two ingredients work together to make convective storms that can produce lightning. Without instability and moisture, strong thunderstorms are unlikely

Enjoy the laugh
 

Or maybe it could just be that the release angle of each ball was different?

Why would you suspect a different release angle? The arm on the batting machine provides a very stable release angle because of GRAVITY. The effect of a ball not settling to the bottom of a very slow mechanical rotating "hand" would be hard to prove. The machine is bolted down and consistently releases pitch after pitch at a constant 80 mph speed.
-----------------
And perhaps that a ball thrown with a steep enough release angle will rise at the beginning of it's initial trajectory path? No, that would be too easy wouldn't it!?!?

To easy? No, that would concur with my point all along. The ball rises above initial trajectory at the beginning, the middle and end because it is traveling 100 mph upon release and 99 mph at the plate. Those of you who are looking for a DIP must be disappointed with LIFT.
-----------------
Dude, you are a hoot! Now gravity isn't a constant after all. It varies between pitches. Wow, you need to apply for a Nobel or something because that is one fantastic discovery that truly contradicts centuries of understanding of gravity and physics.

Yep, I have said it all along and can easily prove it. Gravity acts differently on all pitches, bullets, shells, and bombs. Thank GOD for GPS and LASERS that aim STRAIGHT because the PARABOLIC GRAVITY CURVE was never that GOOD an AIM with the pitches, bullets, shells, and bombs. Quantity tossed always won out over quality of tosses using those older PHYSICS books.
-----------------
Oh, and I love that you threw in that big "standard deviation" word. It gave the whole paragraph a much needed academic feel.

Good, because I have stated at least 9 different reasonable PROOFS and BIGUMP56 still repeats his same old tired WIVES TALE. Some of you may remember 1) the baseball strikeout records, 2) logical reasoning of FOUR primal directions, 3) sexual bias between softball and hardball, 4) aerodynamics characteristics of winged-FLIGHT, 5) fluid dynamic effects of airflow (HPG is PRIMARY force) around a baseball, 6) Air resitance affecting kinetic energy from light boomerang to baseball to heavier football, 7) mathematical proof that gravity's role on 100 mph fastball isn't the same as a 70 mph fastball, 8) the role of LIFT exisiting in our WARM atmosphere, and 9) a statistical argument for RISE. Now those 9 items are the ones I remember over the last 5 months. How many have I failed to discuss. I am sure that, along with the proofs, I gave countless number of examples. I guess your next question would ask me to list them all too.:D
--------------
You kill me.... ROTFLMAO!!!!!

I did the best I could.