Annual Rising Fastball Update

[SAump]

Beckett and Lester are the two Red Sox starters who most clearly use 4-seamer and 2-seamer as two distinct pitches. The difference in action is substantially greater for Lester than for Beckett. Against the Yankees on July 27, Lester's 2-seamer (the right-most cluster) averaged +9 horizontal break and +5 inches in vertical break; his 4-seamer in the topmost cluster got +4 inches in horizontal break and +10 in vertical break.
Source: Fastballology - Sons of Sam Horn

Did anyone see that one in the PitchF/X data?


Edited Post: Meaning it ended up 10 inches higher than where it would have in a vacuum?
Meaning a 100mph fastball is not falling the predictable ten inches of another 100mph fastball.
Meaning the 100mph 4-seam fastball is 5 inches higher than a 2 seam 100mph fastball.
Meaning if Mr. Lester achieves a +10 average 1 day, a maximum record value exists.
Meaning a list of pitchers have or had the ability to obtain a +12 or +14 inches or more.
Meaning the release height and catch height may prove a rise as large as the predicted fall.
Meaning there is some "hop" from one 100mph fastball to another 100mph fastball.

It rose 10 inches after its lowest point on the way to the plate?
It has always been about competing against gravity.
It has never been about defying gravity.

[greymule]

The posts on that site are either way over my head or way under it.

What exactly does "+10 in vertical break" mean? It rose 10 inches after its lowest point on the way to the plate? It ended up 10 inches higher than where it would have in a vacuum? Anybody know?

Whoever came up with those figures had to be using photography, which Professor Miles, if you remember my post of a couple of years ago, said would be the most reliable way of proving whether a fastball actually rose.

[SethPDX]

It all means whatever anyone wants it to mean. I think it means the ball was 10 inches into the "gray area."

My interest in what the pitch does is limited to limited to where it was in relation to the strike zone, so I have no idea why anyone would care about this.

[Dave Reed]

From Gameday: PFX vs. BRK and Pitch Types:

"Pitch-f/x" is the distance between the location of the actual pitch thrown over the plate, and the calculated location of a ball thrown by the pitcher in the same way, with no spin. Or, in more common terms, this is the amount of "movement" the pitcher applies to the pitch.
Notice that the trajectory with "no spin" is slightly diferent than a trajectory in a vacuum, because in vacuum the ball wouldn't slow down on the way to the plate. Pitch-f/x calculates the trajectory including the drag which slows down the ball. The drag is in the direction opposite the instantaneous direction the ball is traveling, so it assumes that there are no aerodynamic forces are pushing the ball perpendicularly to the direction of the ball.

So, when a pitcher throws a 100mph pitch with a pitch-f/x of +12, it means that the pitch only fell about 3.5 feet on its way to the plate, rather than the 4.5 feet it would have fallen if it had no spin at all. For a normal pitch to qualify as "rising" (more inches above the plate at the back of the strike zone than at the front), it would need a vertical pitch-f/x value in the neighborhood of 60 inches. Maybe Chad Bradford (a submariner) could get by with +25 inches or so, assuming he could figure out a way to get backspin on the ball while throwing underhanded.

Gameday also uses the term break:
"Break" is the greatest distance between the trajectory of the pitch at any point between the release point and the front of home plate, and the straight line path from the release point and the front of home plate.

An eephus pitch would have a lot of break, using Gameday's definition, because the ball has a huge arc on the way to the plate. Since such a pitch is typically thrown with little spin or velocity, it would likely have a pitch-f/x value near zero.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

From Gameday: PFX vs. BRK and Pitch Types:

"Pitch-f/x" is the distance between the location of the actual pitch thrown over the plate, and the calculated location of a ball thrown by the pitcher in the same way, with no spin. Or, in more common terms, this is the amount of "movement" the pitcher applies to the pitch.
Notice that the trajectory with "no spin" is slightly diferent than a trajectory in a vacuum, because in vacuum the ball wouldn't slow down on the way to the plate. Pitch-f/x calculates the trajectory including the drag which slows down the ball. The drag is in the direction opposite the instantaneous direction the ball is traveling, so it assumes that there are no aerodynamic forces are pushing the ball perpendicularly to the direction of the ball.

So, when a pitcher throws a 100mph pitch with a pitch-f/x of +12, it means that the pitch only fell about 3.5 feet on its way to the plate, rather than the 4.5 feet it would have fallen if it had no spin at all. \

So, SAUmp is now posting evidence to support the fact that fastballs do not rise. Who said people can't change?

[tballump]

Imagine explaining this one to an Earl Weaver when he questions a pitch. I'll be nice and say WGARA or WGAFF on this one, and I believe, so would Earl.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by tballump

Imagine explaining this one to an Earl Weaver when he questions a pitch. I'll be nice and say WGARA or WGAFF on this one, and I believe, so would Earl.

It means knowing a ball on tv camera is 17 inches off the plate and a computer glitch allows it to be incorrectly scored as a strike.

It also means balls clearly within the strike zone on tv cameras were incorrectly labled as balls by the tracking system use to judge the accuracy of the umpire.

It means that plus or minus 1/2 inch accuracy is fuzzy math for an inch {eliminating the glitches which frequently occur in the system}.

It means umpire judgement that rely on any computer algorithm is only as good as the computer algorithm being used.

It means if Earl were serious, MLB would place 2 HD cameras in CF on either side of the pitcher and one directly over the plate and rely on computer video graphic packages that capture the location of the baseball on instant replay.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

So, SAUmp is now posting evidence to support the fact that fastballs do not rise. Who said people can't change?

I think I caught the bug after reading about fluid dynamics in another thread.
I am aware that a parabolic function will model a parabolic curvature.
I am aware that a rising fastball doesn't exist in a parabolic model.
The Pitch/FX data destroys the logic of the parabolic model.
Does this count as 4 down, one up in Pitch/FX data or as 3 down, no up in parabolic data?

Observed the same physics debate taking place in the comments below the Q&A of that Gameday thread that took place here two years before. Coincidence?
Outside a vacuum, simple math predicts a 9.9435 ft/sec or 6.77966 mph drag/lift/rise.
Inside a vacuum, that +10 inch Pitch/FX spin data provides a +2 ft/sec invisible rise.
Already 2 ft/sec closer based on information from a "bad" 100mph model.
Remember a fastball wasn't suppose to rise at all; just cut, slide and sink.
I'd like to insert some Earl Weaver type humor here meant to loosen everyone up.
bakeball on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

[tballump]

Yes they would (MLB would place 2 HD cameras in CF on either side of the pitcher and one directly over the plate and rely on computer video graphic packages that capture the location of the baseball in a series of instant replay videos), and I believe that was the MLUA arguement when announcers tried to call pitches from the camera years ago. It has also been the WUA's position ever since Questec was initiated, and I believe the WUA has quite successfully challenged many of the points you brought up about the deficiencies in the system.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by tballump

Yes they would (MLB would place 2 HD cameras in CF on either side of the pitcher and one directly over the plate and rely on computer video graphic packages that capture the location of the baseball in a series of instant replay videos), and I believe that was the MLUA arguement when announcers tried to call pitches from the camera years ago. It has also been the WUA's position ever since Questec was initiated, and I believe the WUA has quite successfully challenged many of the points you brought up about the deficiencies in the system.

Previous MLUA incorrect strike calls were once electronically tagged as a strike. The umpire was always right according to MLB.

Current WUA incorrect strike calls are removed from the database by Pitch/FX for MLB before release of data to the public. No one could prove the umpire wasn't right according to MLB. So how did that other website SDS provided know if the umpire call resulting in an ejection was correct or not?

Future negotiations may include reversal of incorrect call with crew consultation and permission from MLB Instant Replay office. The umpire will always be right thanks to high definition TV according to MLB.

Thanks for the interesting discussion and valuable comments provided by all.
Trying hard to be clear here with added union info provided by tballump.

[bob jenkins]

We're not going through this crap again.