PDA

View Full Version : Stephen Strasburg tomorrow


whitesox4eva
06-17-2010, 10:10 PM
Am I the only one worried about this guy. Was just watching video of him. Has a wicked nasty curve and can hit 101/102 on the radar gun. We just swept the pirates but those were the pirates, the nationals aren't much better, but Strasburg has me worried. IF Floyd can be as good as he was against the Cubs though we have a chance.

hi im skot
06-17-2010, 10:12 PM
The Sox will win.

soltrain21
06-17-2010, 10:12 PM
The Nationals are far better than the Pirates.

A. Cavatica
06-17-2010, 10:51 PM
Am I the only one worried about this guy. Was just watching video of him. Has a wicked nasty curve and can hit 101/102 on the radar gun. We just swept the pirates but those were the pirates, the nationals aren't much better, but Strasburg has me worried. IF Floyd can be as good as he was against the Cubs though we have a chance.

Yes, you are the only one. We feast on pitchers we've never seen before -- especially the ones who throw 100 MPH.

What's the over-under on Sox hits tomorrow? Two?

DirtySox
06-17-2010, 11:27 PM
The Nationals are far better than the Pirates.

+1

This isn't last year's Nats.

october23sp
06-18-2010, 12:01 AM
We will score 3 off of Strasburg, and 4 off of thier pen for a nice 7-3 victory.

spongyfungy
06-18-2010, 12:12 AM
Watched both his starts and his stuff is unbelievable. His Sunday start, he was a bit wild but the mound was wet and he looked bothered by it.

Their pen is pretty good too with Clippard, Capps and the guys they brought up Storen has been great.

Floyd has been really good his last two starts and I'm betting he's going to baffle these Nats. Who am I kidding. Willie Harris will probably hit a GS.

Domeshot17
06-18-2010, 12:19 AM
The gameplan has to be FOUL OFF PITCHES, go deep into counts, He is on a 90-100 pitch count. Keep it close, and try and get to the pen in the 6th or 7th.

Domeshot17
06-18-2010, 12:20 AM
Watched both his starts and his stuff is unbelievable. His Sunday start, he was a bit wild but the mound was wet and he looked bothered by it.

Their pen is pretty good too with Clippard, Capps and the guys they brought up Storen has been great.

Floyd has been really good his last two starts and I'm betting he's going to baffle these Nats

Was wet and there was a good hole at the front of the mound,

pythons007
06-18-2010, 12:21 AM
I'm not the smartest guy but verlander has the same type of stuff as straburg and the sox have beaten him. Strasburg isn't the second coming of Jesus Christ! It's June and it's time for Floyd to start pitching like an ace!

Boondock Saint
06-18-2010, 12:23 AM
I'm not the smartest guy but verlander has the same type of stuff as straburg and the sox have beaten him. Strasburg isn't the second coming of Jesus Christ! It's June and it's time for Floyd to start pitching like an ace!

No, he doesn't. Verlander doesn't have a 90mph circle change, nor does he have a hard curve that breaks like Strasburg's.

Domeshot17
06-18-2010, 12:26 AM
I'm not the smartest guy but verlander has the same type of stuff as straburg and the sox have beaten him. Strasburg isn't the second coming of Jesus Christ! It's June and it's time for Floyd to start pitching like an ace!

Just watch tomorrow. Strasburg has a fastball at Thornton velocity that moves like a Bobby Jenks Curveball. What this kid can do with a baseball, he isn't the best pitcher in the mlb (yet), but his stuff is unheard of.

WhiteSox1989
06-18-2010, 12:43 AM
And Strasburg will earn his first loss.

LoveYourSuit
06-18-2010, 12:58 AM
I think the Sox have a better chance versus a flame thrower.

harwar
06-18-2010, 07:37 AM
I've seen him twice on tv and he does kinda remind me of M. Prior with his huge legs n long arms .. i've read that guys should just sit on the fastball because the curve is unhittable but the problem is that so is the fastball .. it's not the velocity(almost all ML players can hit a straight fastball at any speed) but the movement it has .. you add a change-up that he throws in(not too often)and it's almost not fair .. he hasn't pitched long enough to show he can be consistent and i guess we'll see .. maybe he won't be firing on all cylinders tonight .. if he is,good luck to our guys tonight ..

kevingrt
06-18-2010, 08:01 AM
Take 2 out of 3 and leave that place.

I fear Strasmania tonight.

BadBobbyJenks
06-18-2010, 08:14 AM
Let's just hope he doesn't have his breaking ball working today, because just about everyone on this roster can turn around a 99 heater.

Dick Allen
06-18-2010, 10:35 AM
He's young and can make mistakes. That's the only hope I see. Otherwise, I don't see the Sox being disciplined enough.

Tragg
06-18-2010, 10:49 AM
Let's just hope he doesn't have his breaking ball working today, because just about everyone on this roster can turn around a 99 heater.
I agree.
The less junk he throws, the better off we are.'

This is another bad team that we need to sweep. I know that they aren't as bad as the Pirates, but we also have lost 8 of 12 to the hapless Indians, and must make up for that.

doublem23
06-18-2010, 10:49 AM
He's young and can make mistakes. That's the only hope I see. Otherwise, I don't see the Sox being disciplined enough.

True. Let's also be real here, his two starts are against the Pirates; we saw how bad they are offensively this week, and the Indians, not exactly a juggernaut themselves. Of course, we're terrible offensively, as well, but as hyped and as good a prospect he is, he's still a young guy in his first month in the Majors. He walked 5 in 5.1 innings last time out, he's got explosive, nasty stuff, but young pitchers are prone to mistakes and getting frustrated.

At any rate, someone's got to nail that first L to his resume. We're hot, why not us?

TomParrish79
06-18-2010, 10:51 AM
I just hope we don't make him look like Steve Nebraska

34 Inch Stick
06-18-2010, 11:07 AM
+1

This isn't last year's Nats.

Maybe not, but the Sox are getting them at the right time. They haven't been hitting lately and have sunk below .500.

34 Inch Stick
06-18-2010, 11:08 AM
Was wet and there was a good hole at the front of the mound,

I'm lonely. Keep talking dirty to me.

Hitmen77
06-18-2010, 11:23 AM
Is this the first time the White Sox have played the Washington Nationals?

balke
06-18-2010, 12:22 PM
I'd like to see Pierre and AJ foul off as many as possible. I'd also like to see Vizquel - I think Beckham will be completely overmatched. If Beckham is in - bunt.

hi im skot
06-18-2010, 12:29 PM
At any rate, someone's got to nail that first L to his resume. We're hot, why not us?

:gulp:

voodoochile
06-18-2010, 12:33 PM
Well the good news is MLB Network has picked up the game. So out of towners rejoice...

NDSox12
06-18-2010, 12:36 PM
Is this the first time the White Sox have played the Washington Nationals?

Yes it is. I think the Sox played the Expos in their last season in Montreal. But this is the first time they have faced the Nats in either city.

munchman33
06-18-2010, 12:37 PM
I just hope we don't make him look like Steve Nebraska

Every time I watch Strasburg pitch that's exactly what I think. I have never seen anyone pitch like him. Never. Not even Roger Clemens in his prime. He doesn't have Nintendo stuff, he has Nintendo stuff after Game Genie.

Dick Allen
06-18-2010, 12:41 PM
Is this the first time the White Sox have played the Washington Nationals?Yes. The Sox played the Expos in two series (and lost two of three in both!). But this is the first time they'll play them as the Nationals.

Hitmen77
06-18-2010, 12:45 PM
Yes it is. I think the Sox played the Expos in their last season in Montreal. But this is the first time they have faced the Nats in either city.

So, this will be the White Sox first game in Washington, DC since July 16, 1971 - 39 years ago.

Tommy John got the win in that last Sox game in Washington:
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/box-scores/boxscore.php?boxid=197107160WS2

Little did we know then that the next Sox game in Washington would be against a first ballot Hall of Famer. :angel:

tacosalbarojas
06-18-2010, 01:30 PM
I hear Strasburg also has a gyroball...look out below Walkerball.

Farsouthside
06-18-2010, 02:34 PM
I hope #34 is the one shining tonight. Strassburg is gonna get his first big league whooping tonight.... lets hope, thats all I have left!!!!!!

october23sp
06-18-2010, 03:22 PM
The only reason I am nervous is that our weakest pitcher this season is starting against him. Maybe he'll step it up again like he did against the Cubs, I just don't want to get no hit.

whitesox4eva
06-18-2010, 03:24 PM
I hope #34 is the one shining tonight. Strassburg is gonna get his first big league whooping tonight.... lets hope, thats all I have left!!!!!!

:welcome::poke:

mmmmmbeeer
06-18-2010, 05:50 PM
Every time I watch Strasburg pitch that's exactly what I think. I have never seen anyone pitch like him. Never. Not even Roger Clemens in his prime. He doesn't have Nintendo stuff, he has Nintendo stuff after Game Genie.

This. Having watched both his starts myself, and planning on watching as many more as I can, I couldn't agree more.

This (http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2010/6/9/1508668/hype-fails-to-live-up-to-stephen)article has some great info about Strasburg's first start but the following is what really caught my eye:

" It was Stephen Strasburg's 21st pitch of his career. In the grand scheme of things, it didn't mean much. It was a ball that missed rather badly inside and did not draw a swing. But it was a fastball, and it broke over 8" upward and nearly 8.5" towards the plate... And it left his hand at 100.1 MPH. "


That's just madness. The Sox are going to have a helluva time hitting this guy but, if Floyd's on his game, it only takes 1 score to win.

soltrain21
06-18-2010, 05:53 PM
The only reason I am nervous is that our weakest pitcher this season is starting against him. Maybe he'll step it up again like he did against the Cubs, I just don't want to get no hit.

You are a very odd fan. Where does that even come from?

And why do you turn back and forth on this team at less than a drop of a hat?

GoGoCrede
06-18-2010, 06:33 PM
Wow, they're treating this kid like a Beatle.

Garfien:

Cameras lined up outside Washington's dugout in anticipation of Strasburg walking on water to the bullpen for pre-game warmups.

voodoochile
06-18-2010, 06:39 PM
... and it broke over 8" upward."


Bull****. The only way to get a projectile to rise it to have it accelerate after it leaves the firing mechanism. Since baseballs only decelerate after leaving the pitcher's hand it's impossible for the ball to rise. Maybe Strasburg used the force to cause it to accelerate or maybe he simply used his Jedi Mind Tricks on the author of the article.

There is the possibility he just got under it and actually threw it at an upward angle. Submariners actually get this effect but I'm pretty sure Strasburg throws over the top or 3/4 from the pictures I've seen.

Any way you slice it, there is simply no chance it "broke upward"...

Over By There
06-18-2010, 07:00 PM
I was watching MLBN and they interviewed the Nationals' pitching coach. When asked what Strasburg can work on, he had no response, said it was hard to find anything. When told that the Sox don't strike out much and hit lots of HR, so what does he tell Strasburg to prepare, he responded he just tells Strasburg to warm up and then go do what he wants. Earned his paycheck today, he did.

october23sp
06-18-2010, 07:01 PM
You are a very odd fan. Where does that even come from?

And why do you turn back and forth on this team at less than a drop of a hat?

I'm mentioning no hitter early and often tonight.:wink:

soltrain21
06-18-2010, 07:07 PM
And I was so worried we'd get no hit.

october23sp
06-18-2010, 07:07 PM
And I was so worried we'd get no hit.

It worked!

voodoochile
06-18-2010, 07:21 PM
It worked!

Don't kid yourself. The Nationals refused admittance to the goat of one of their fans. The fan immediately put a curse on the team and that's what jinxed Strasburg.

soltrain21
06-18-2010, 07:30 PM
It worked!

You didn't say it with any intention of jinxing something.

voodoochile
06-18-2010, 07:46 PM
Now one announcer was talking about how the baseball made a sound when he witnessed Strasburg pitch before.

Like some Zeus thunderbolt from on high apparently.

The guy has a great arm is a very good very young pitcher, can we try to tone down the hype machine a bit and just let him pitch?

GoGoCrede
06-18-2010, 07:48 PM
Now one announcer was talking about how the baseball made a sound when he witnessed Strasburg pitch before.

Like some Zeus thunderbolt from on high apparently.

The guy has a great arm is a very good very young pitcher, can we try to tone down the hype machine a bit and just let him pitch?

I hope he doesn't end up becoming insanely arrogant because of all the hype.

RadioheadRocks
06-18-2010, 08:11 PM
Now one announcer was talking about how the baseball made a sound when he witnessed Strasburg pitch before.

Like some Zeus thunderbolt from on high apparently.

The guy has a great arm is a very good very young pitcher, can we try to tone down the hype machine a bit and just let him pitch?


Exactly, I've been saying all along he's a good pitcher but he isn't the second coming of Cy Young (like they'd like us to believe).

soxfanreggie
06-18-2010, 10:05 PM
Now one announcer was talking about how the baseball made a sound when he witnessed Strasburg pitch before.

Like some Zeus thunderbolt from on high apparently.

The guy has a great arm is a very good very young pitcher, can we try to tone down the hype machine a bit and just let him pitch?

I feel bad for this kid, even though he did ask for a huge bonus. The way they're building him up, being a 5-time All-Star would be a huge disappointment.

mmmmmbeeer
06-18-2010, 11:43 PM
Bull****. The only way to get a projectile to rise it to have it accelerate after it leaves the firing mechanism. Since baseballs only decelerate after leaving the pitcher's hand it's impossible for the ball to rise. Maybe Strasburg used the force to cause it to accelerate or maybe he simply used his Jedi Mind Tricks on the author of the article.

There is the possibility he just got under it and actually threw it at an upward angle. Submariners actually get this effect but I'm pretty sure Strasburg throws over the top or 3/4 from the pictures I've seen.

Any way you slice it, there is simply no chance it "broke upward"...

You've never heard of Pitch f/x I take it? It's a system installed in every MLB stadium that has incredible accuracy on both speed and movement. So while you may believe that upward movement is some Jedi mind trick stuff, well, the data says otherwise. I'm shocked you've never heard of a rising fastball, I know I have.

Here's the tool...you can pull up any game and any pitcher to get data

http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/pfx.php?

voodoochile
06-18-2010, 11:52 PM
You've never heard of Pitch f/x I take it? It's a system installed in every MLB stadium that has incredible accuracy on both speed and movement. So while you may believe that upward movement is some Jedi mind trick stuff, well, the data says otherwise. I'm shocked you've never heard of a rising fastball, I know I have.

Here's the tool...you can pull up any game and any pitcher to get data

http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/pfx.php?

It's not physically possible. I don't care what they call it or what this systems says. To gain altitude you need to increase speed, period. Maybe with wings and other stuff you can do it, but not with a sphere.

The moment it leaves the pitchers hand, gravity starts to take effect. Yes, you can throw a ball upwards and then it will rise for a while until it slows down enough for gravity to work, but you cannot cause a baseball to break upwards, period.

Rising fastballs are an optical illusion, caused by the ball not losing much if any height, the movement of the catcher's glove and the fact that the batter normally swings underneath the pitch.

Here's a simple trick...

Take two bullets. Load one into a gun and put the other in a simple release mechanism that will drop it straight down. Level the gun so the barrel is perfectly parallel to the ground and put the dropped bullet at the exact same height as the gun barrel. Then at the same time fire the gun and release the dropped bullet. They will both hit the ground at the same time. It doesn't matter what gun you use. So long as you have a clear line of sight for as far as the bullet will fly, gravity will work equally on both of them.

Now if a bullet won't rise what makes you think a fastball will? :scratch:

Boondock Saint
06-19-2010, 12:13 AM
It's not physically possible. I don't care what they call it or what this systems says. To gain altitude you need to increase speed, period. Maybe with wings and other stuff you can do it, but not with a sphere.

The moment it leaves the pitchers hand, gravity starts to take effect. Yes, you can throw a ball upwards and then it will rise for a while until it slows down enough for gravity to work, but you cannot cause a baseball to break upwards, period.

Rising fastballs are an optical illusion, caused by the ball not losing much if any height, the movement of the catcher's glove and the fact that the batter normally swings underneath the pitch.

Here's a simple trick...

Take two bullets. Load one into a gun and put the other in a simple release mechanism that will drop it straight down. Level the gun so the barrel is perfectly parallel to the ground and put the dropped bullet at the exact same height as the gun barrel. Then at the same time fire the gun and release the dropped bullet. They will both hit the ground at the same time. It doesn't matter what gun you use. So long as you have a clear line of sight for as far as the bullet will fly, gravity will work equally on both of them.

Now if a bullet won't rise what makes you think a fastball will? :scratch:

Get your logic and science bull**** out of this thread.

munchman33
06-19-2010, 09:45 AM
It's not physically possible. I don't care what they call it or what this systems says. To gain altitude you need to increase speed, period. Maybe with wings and other stuff you can do it, but not with a sphere.

The moment it leaves the pitchers hand, gravity starts to take effect. Yes, you can throw a ball upwards and then it will rise for a while until it slows down enough for gravity to work, but you cannot cause a baseball to break upwards, period.

Rising fastballs are an optical illusion, caused by the ball not losing much if any height, the movement of the catcher's glove and the fact that the batter normally swings underneath the pitch.

Here's a simple trick...

Take two bullets. Load one into a gun and put the other in a simple release mechanism that will drop it straight down. Level the gun so the barrel is perfectly parallel to the ground and put the dropped bullet at the exact same height as the gun barrel. Then at the same time fire the gun and release the dropped bullet. They will both hit the ground at the same time. It doesn't matter what gun you use. So long as you have a clear line of sight for as far as the bullet will fly, gravity will work equally on both of them.

Now if a bullet won't rise what makes you think a fastball will? :scratch:

Voodoo that analogy is not apt because a rising fastball is thrown with force to a point above the point of release. Instead of losing altitude, it loses velocity in the vertical direction. It can drop, but a true rising fastball will never lose altitude (because it will hit the catcher's mitt before gravity overcomes the initial force "up").

voodoochile
06-19-2010, 11:37 AM
Voodoo that analogy is not apt because a rising fastball is thrown with force to a point above the point of release. Instead of losing altitude, it loses velocity in the vertical direction. It can drop, but a true rising fastball will never lose altitude (because it will hit the catcher's mitt before gravity overcomes the initial force "up").

Okay, explain how a fastball thrown "up" that is released from above or level with the pitcher's head while standing on a mound that is above ground level and then fails to lose altitude would be caught by anything but a leaping catcher with his arms fully extended above his head (unless the pitcher was a submariner).

As I said, a fastball can rise if it is thrown upwards (as most baseballs are when thrown back into the infield by outfielders after making a routine play with no risk of runners advancing), but I doubt anyone would swing at it and odds are it would bounce off the screen behind home plate before it ever touched anything else, IMO.

munchman33
06-19-2010, 01:51 PM
Okay, explain how a fastball thrown "up" that is released from above or level with the pitcher's head while standing on a mound that is above ground level and then fails to lose altitude would be caught by anything but a leaping catcher with his arms fully extended above his head (unless the pitcher was a submariner).

As I said, a fastball can rise if it is thrown upwards (as most baseballs are when thrown back into the infield by outfielders after making a routine play with no risk of runners advancing), but I doubt anyone would swing at it and odds are it would bounce off the screen behind home plate before it ever touched anything else, IMO.

Release points are generally not above you. For some pitchers, sure. But not for all.

As for why, because the "break" of a pitch is measured from deviation in a straight line from the point of release to a target at the same level at the point of catch. Gravity can aid in a break down, but movement against gravity isn't counted the other way?

I understand why you say what you do, and nobody's spinning the ball to cause it to go upward (though it is possible despite common opinion, you can read on the topic on most physics forums), but the way the break of a pitch is measured lends itself to counting upward trajectory on a fastball as break. And let's face it; if a 100 mph is coming at you with an upward trajectory, it might as well be spinning up.

voodoochile
06-19-2010, 02:17 PM
Release points are generally not above you. For some pitchers, sure. But not for all.

As for why, because the "break" of a pitch is measured from deviation in a straight line from the point of release to a target at the same level at the point of catch. Gravity can aid in a break down, but movement against gravity isn't counted the other way?

I understand why you say what you do, and nobody's spinning the ball to cause it to go upward (though it is possible despite common opinion, you can read on the topic on most physics forums), but the way the break of a pitch is measured lends itself to counting upward trajectory on a fastball as break. And let's face it; if a 100 mph is coming at you with an upward trajectory, it might as well be spinning up.

Even if the release point is 3/4 (about even with the head in most cases) or even sidearm (even with the shoulder). That would still put it at about level with the top of the head or above for the batter (who is normally crouching) because of the height of the mound (10" above the field). So any fastball that was thrown "upward" would continue to rise and would be well above the batters head.

If the ball in question actually was thrown so it rose 8.5" it would have been caught by the catcher while standing with his arms above his head.

Strasburg is 6-4" and throws 3/4 from what I saw yesterday, so the ball would have been released at about 7'2" above the playing surface. If it rose 8.5" on the way to the plate, it would have been almost 8' off the ground when it arrived.

Now, I'm no expert, but I don't see that being a "wow" pitch unless it's to earn some reputation as a guy with no control in an effort to intimidate ala Randy Johnson when he was younger or Nuke Laloosh from Bull Durham.

Am I nuts here or are you arguing that a pitch that was thrown with intent to be close to the strike zone (aka downward from the release point) can actually also be thrown upward at the same time?

TDog
06-19-2010, 02:18 PM
It's not physically possible. I don't care what they call it or what this systems says. To gain altitude you need to increase speed, period. Maybe with wings and other stuff you can do it, but not with a sphere. ...

Statistics, not physics, is the only science that applies to baseball.

...
06-19-2010, 02:27 PM
This thread is ****ed.

doublem23
06-19-2010, 02:39 PM
This thread is ****ed.

Seriously, the concept of a rising fastball is really not that hard to understand. It's been a part of baseball lexicon since I was in high school, at least. It's not meant to be taken literally, it's an optical illusion for the hitter based on the break and velocity of an incoming pitch. A fastball thrown with enough power is said to appear to "rise" to a batter as it approaches the plate because it does not dip into the strike zone the way most other pitches do.

Huisj
06-19-2010, 02:58 PM
Ok, first of all, Voodoo's bullet comparison is NOT a good comparison to a baseball. The big difference is that a ball is thrown with spin. Why does a curveball break? Because of the pressure differential caused by the spin--the direction of the spin creates a low pressure pocket on one side and higher pressure on the other side, and thus the ball moves toward the low pressure side as it moves along it's path.

Think of a golf ball. Have you ever hit or seen someone hit a monster drive with a bit of backspin? It starts out relatively straight, and then seems to float a bit and soar high into the air. Why? Backspin creates low pressure above the ball. It's the Magnus effect. It makes the ball stay in the air longer than it otherwise would were there no spin and it was only subject to the constant force of gravity.

Now, with a fastball, I think the discrepancy is whether it actually rises. As far as I know, people generally believe that no, it does not actually rise. What it does instead is sink slower than it would due to gravity. If you look at pitchf/x data, they give a vertical movement statistic for all pitches. I do believe that what this actually is is the difference in movement between the thrown ball and what that ball would do with no spin--the and downward drop from a ball with no spin would be due to the initial downward velocity (since you are throwing from a mound) and constant gravitational acceleration.

For example, if a pitch were expected to drop 15 inches due to its initial velocity and gravity in the time between when it was released from the pitcher's hand and caught by the catcher, but the actual pitch only dropped 8 inches, they would say the vertical movement on pitchf/x was +7 inches. With a fastball, the higher this number is, the more "rise" the pitch has. It doesn't mean it's actually rising since that would be quite hard to do while throwing a ball downward off a mound. But it does mean it dropped slower than gravity would normally cause it do drop. If you look at sinkerball pitchers, their fastballs generally have smaller numbers closer to 0 for this, probably because they'll have less pure backspin, and thus they'll drop more in line with gravitational acceleration. Look at a good overhand curveball, and it'll have a negative number, meaning that the overspin made it drop faster than gravity.

Ok, so back to the question of can a ball rise...I'm convinced that with a golfball, yes, backspin can make it rise away from it's initial trajectory. As for throwing a baseball, maybe not, because it might just be too heavy and the spin rate too low. But, a thrown object can certainly be made to rise with spin--go grab a ping pong ball, and throw it as hard as you can with backspin. You can indeed make that rise, because with the small mass, the pressure force caused by the low and high pressure from the spin is easily large enough to overcome the gravitational force mg.

TDog
06-19-2010, 03:12 PM
Seriously, the concept of a rising fastball is really not that hard to understand. It's been a part of baseball lexicon since I was in high school, at least. It's not meant to be taken literally, it's an optical illusion for the hitter based on the break and velocity of an incoming pitch. A fastball thrown with enough power is said to appear to "rise" to a batter as it approaches the plate because it does not dip into the strike zone the way most other pitches do.

Exactly. The illusion has to do with the fact that the pitcher is throwing slightly down toward the hitter.

A pitcher with a submarine-style motion could throw a rising fastball, but that's not what we're talking about.

At one time it was believed that break on a curveball is an optical illusion. But, of course, physics can explain why a curveball curves and you can't get a cricket ball, which has just one seam down the middle, to act the same way.

doublem23
06-19-2010, 03:15 PM
Quoted post snipped for brevity

That is an excellent post. Let's clear a few things up in this discussion:

#1: A baseball is not a sphere.

#2: Pitch F/X does not just measure where a ball ends up from where it was thrown, the data analyzes were a pitch ended up in relation to where it should have (based on velocity) had it been thrown with no break. That is why a rising fastball is said to "rise," it's not actually moving up, but compared to an equally fast-moving baseball without any spin, the rising fastball will not dip as quickly as gravity takes effect on both balls. It is an optical illusion on the hitter, and that is what Pitch F/X tracks.

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/4/17/841366/understanding-pitch-f-x-graphs

voodoochile
06-19-2010, 03:32 PM
Seriously, the concept of a rising fastball is really not that hard to understand. It's been a part of baseball lexicon since I was in high school, at least. It's not meant to be taken literally, it's an optical illusion for the hitter based on the break and velocity of an incoming pitch. A fastball thrown with enough power is said to appear to "rise" to a batter as it approaches the plate because it does not dip into the strike zone the way most other pitches do.

That's fine and I've got no problem with that, but the post that started the discussion stated the ball broke upwards 8.5" and was supposedly verified by the tracking system. If so then the tracking system isn't worth ****...

voodoochile
06-19-2010, 03:39 PM
Ok, first of all, Voodoo's bullet comparison is NOT a good comparison to a baseball. The big difference is that a ball is thrown with spin. Why does a curveball break? Because of the pressure differential caused by the spin--the direction of the spin creates a low pressure pocket on one side and higher pressure on the other side, and thus the ball moves toward the low pressure side as it moves along it's path.

Think of a golf ball. Have you ever hit or seen someone hit a monster drive with a bit of backspin? It starts out relatively straight, and then seems to float a bit and soar high into the air. Why? Backspin creates low pressure above the ball. It's the Magnus effect. It makes the ball stay in the air longer than it otherwise would were there no spin and it was only subject to the constant force of gravity.

Now, with a fastball, I think the discrepancy is whether it actually rises. As far as I know, people generally believe that no, it does not actually rise. What it does instead is sink slower than it would due to gravity. If you look at pitchf/x data, they give a vertical movement statistic for all pitches. I do believe that what this actually is is the difference in movement between the thrown ball and what that ball would do with no spin--the and downward drop from a ball with no spin would be due to the initial downward velocity (since you are throwing from a mound) and constant gravitational acceleration.

For example, if a pitch were expected to drop 15 inches due to its initial velocity and gravity in the time between when it was released from the pitcher's hand and caught by the catcher, but the actual pitch only dropped 8 inches, they would say the vertical movement on pitchf/x was +7 inches. With a fastball, the higher this number is, the more "rise" the pitch has. It doesn't mean it's actually rising since that would be quite hard to do while throwing a ball downward off a mound. But it does mean it dropped slower than gravity would normally cause it do drop. If you look at sinkerball pitchers, their fastballs generally have smaller numbers closer to 0 for this, probably because they'll have less pure backspin, and thus they'll drop more in line with gravitational acceleration. Look at a good overhand curveball, and it'll have a negative number, meaning that the overspin made it drop faster than gravity.

Ok, so back to the question of can a ball rise...I'm convinced that with a golfball, yes, backspin can make it rise away from it's initial trajectory. As for throwing a baseball, maybe not, because it might just be too heavy and the spin rate too low. But, a thrown object can certainly be made to rise with spin--go grab a ping pong ball, and throw it as hard as you can with backspin. You can indeed make that rise, because with the small mass, the pressure force caused by the low and high pressure from the spin is easily large enough to overcome the gravitational force mg.

Okay, that's fine and sure I guess it's possible, but given the dynamics of human arm strength and the mass of a baseball, it's seems unlikely which you seem to agree with. An 8.5" rise on a ball thrown downward would require a LOT of spin in the .5 seconds of flight.

I'd be very interested in learning the grip that makes back spin possible too. You'd think if it were really feasible, that more pitching coaches would teach it.

Huisj
06-19-2010, 03:40 PM
That's fine and I've got no problem with that, but the post that started the discussion stated the ball broke upwards 8.5" and was supposedly verified by the tracking system. If so then the tracking system isn't worth ****...

Rather, I think the reader's interpretation of the tracking system isn't correct. That 8.5" is the 8.5" that the ball didn't sink relative to how gravity would have made it sink with no spin. Someone calling that upward break is not right.

I guess the next step would be to do some simple calculation of how far gravity would make an object sink during the fractions of a second it is in the air. Then, look at the pitchf/x number. If the pitchf/x data gave the same number as the distance the object would sink, then this would be a "flat" pitch with no sink, meaning that it would never stray vertically down from the direction it was thrown (knowing that there is a vertically down component to the initial velocity). If the number was larger, that would mean the backspin is making it "rise" away from it's initial direction. If a pitcher could make a fastball do that, it would be quite spectacular. When I have a chance, maybe I'll do some plug-and-chug calcs real quick...

Huisj
06-19-2010, 03:42 PM
Okay, that's fine and sure I guess it's possible, but given the dynamics of human arm strength and the mass of a baseball, it's seems unlikely which you seem to agree with. An 8.5" rise on a ball thrown downward would require a LOT of spin in the .5 seconds of flight.

I'd be very interested in learning the grip that makes back spin possible too. You'd think if it were really feasible, that more pitching coaches would teach it.

Right, I'm not saying it's possible to do it with a baseball by throwing it. I'm saying that with other lighter balls or other instruments besides an arm throwing, the effect is easy to demonstrate.

voodoochile
06-19-2010, 03:43 PM
That is an excellent post. Let's clear a few things up in this discussion:

#1: A baseball is not a sphere.

#2: Pitch F/X does not just measure where a ball ends up from where it was thrown, the data analyzes were a pitch ended up in relation to where it should have (based on velocity) had it been thrown with no break. That is why a rising fastball is said to "rise," it's not actually moving up, but compared to an equally fast-moving baseball without any spin, the rising fastball will not dip as quickly as gravity takes effect on both balls. It is an optical illusion on the hitter, and that is what Pitch F/X tracks.

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/4/17/841366/understanding-pitch-f-x-graphs

Thanks, that explains things very well. Appreciate the link, been wondering about that for a while now.

mmmmmbeeer
06-19-2010, 03:44 PM
That's fine and I've got no problem with that, but the post that started the discussion stated the ball broke upwards 8.5" and was supposedly verified by the tracking system. If so then the tracking system isn't worth ****...

So, again, a 4 seam fastball had 8" of "movement", whether real or perceived, in two directions and traveling at 100MPH. This "movement" was verified by the tracking system. I know you're anti-Strasburg for whatever reason, but that is unheard of movement on a 4 seam fastball...certainly not a pitch that you can sit on waiting for solid contact.

voodoochile
06-19-2010, 03:45 PM
So, again, a 4 seam fastball had 8" of "movement", whether real or perceived, in two directions and traveling at 100MPH. This "movement" was verified by the tracking system. I know you're anti-Strasburg for whatever reason, but that is unheard of movement on a 4 seam fastball...certainly not a pitch that you can sit on waiting for solid contact.

I am not anti-Strasburg. I'm anti-bad information.

Edit: And again, it didn't break up, it merely dropped less than expected.

Huisj
06-19-2010, 03:58 PM
Ok, and the results are in and...

In the roughly 0.4 seconds that a fastball is in flight, it would be expected to drop more than 2.5 feet due to gravity if it had no spin. If the pitchf/x data says it had 8.5" of vertical movement, that means that it still probably dropped more than 20 to 25 inches due to gravity.

So yes, it's not going to rise, and it's not even going to come anywhere close to a "flat" path relative to it's initial velocity, even with 8.5" of vertical movement.

Here's something interesting to think about then...the higher the pitchf/x value for a fast ball, in a sense the less actual movement is has rather than the other way around. Movement on fastballs is often meant as sink, and that sink would just be that the fastball is approaching gravitationally-caused sink. I'd be curious to look up the pitchf/x for a guy like Thornton who throws hard but seems to have that "straight as a string" type of fastball. How much sink is he not getting?

EDIT: found it (http://www.fangraphs.com/pitchfx.aspx?playerid=1918&position=P). To answer my question, it looks like Thornton's fastball "moves" about 10" or 11" relative to gravity...which is why his fastball looks so straight, because it doesn't sink very much. It also only has 2" or 3" inches of tailing action on it too.

Strasburg, on the other hand (http://www.fangraphs.com/pitchfx.aspx?playerid=10131&position=P), seems to average less "rise" (meaning more sink) but also way more horizontal movement at a higher velocity. His two seamer sinks a bit more and moves horizontal even more too.

munchman33
06-19-2010, 04:37 PM
Smarter folks than we are debate this issue. (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=120675)

slavko
06-19-2010, 05:15 PM
Smarter folks than we are debate this issue. (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=120675)

Just looked at a few posts. They know less than us. We know a curveball will break in the direction of the spin. I know if I hit my driver (golf) with a powerful descending blow (not a good idea, you're supposed to sweep it off the tee) the ball will rise because of the backspin, die quickly and then fall gently to earth with little roll.

That's what happens with an overhand fastball thrown with spin by a powerful pitcher. Bob Turley would throw it at the waist and it would wind up head high. Just as an example, Willie Mays or Roberto Clemente would throw trying to get a runner and the ball would rise as it came in. (Mays was a more powerful but less accurate thrower than Clemente.

It may be part illusion, but not all. It happens. I don't want to fight about it, no.

doublem23
06-19-2010, 06:00 PM
That's what happens with an overhand fastball thrown with spin by a powerful pitcher. Bob Turley would throw it at the waist and it would wind up head high. Just as an example, Willie Mays or Roberto Clemente would throw trying to get a runner and the ball would rise as it came in. (Mays was a more powerful but less accurate thrower than Clemente.

In the case of the pitcher, the ball appears to be "rising" because it's being thrown off a mound. In the case of Mays and Clemente, the ball elevates because they're not just throwing it horizontal, but vertical as well. It's rising because of the way they're throwing it, not because it has the velocity to escape Earth's gravity.

slavko
06-19-2010, 07:26 PM
In the case of the pitcher, the ball appears to be "rising" because it's being thrown off a mound. In the case of Mays and Clemente, the ball elevates because they're not just throwing it horizontal, but vertical as well. It's rising because of the way they're throwing it, not because it has the velocity to escape Earth's gravity.

The point is that the velocity alone would not cause the ball to rise against earth's gravity for a time without the powerful backspin that causes it to rise until gravity wins. It's easier to argue against it if the ball is thrown off a mound. The case against is harder to make if the ball is thrown from the outfield at ground level.

Are you also saying that it can't be done with a golf club? I say it can. And with a thrown baseball too.

voodoochile
06-19-2010, 07:31 PM
The point is that the velocity alone would not cause the ball to rise against earth's gravity for a time without the powerful backspin that causes it to rise until gravity wins. It's easier to argue against it if the ball is thrown off a mound. The case against is harder to make if the ball is thrown from the outfield at ground level.

Are you also saying that it can't be done with a golf club? I say it can. And with a thrown baseball too.

Golf clubs impart a LOT more force on a lot smaller denser object than a pitcher does on a baseball. The face of the golf club is also designed to produce backspin due to it's shape. It's significantly easier to produce the kind of spin and speed necessary with a golf club hitting a golfball than it is with a hand and arm using a baseball.

slavko
06-19-2010, 07:43 PM
Golf clubs impart a LOT more force on a lot smaller denser object than a pitcher does on a baseball. The face of the golf club is also designed to produce backspin due to it's shape. It's significantly easier to produce the kind of spin and speed necessary with a golf club hitting a golfball than it is with a hand and arm using a baseball.

True. But. Drivers don't have deep grooves, or in most cases, any grooves in the "sweet spot." Doing it with a baseball would require a freaky strong thrower, for sure. Enough of this until I see some science. Real science.

doublem23
06-19-2010, 09:53 PM
Are you also saying that it can't be done with a golf club? I say it can. And with a thrown baseball too.

Absolutely not with a baseball. Absolutely not. I sincerely doubt with a golf ball, but I will say that I come from a stance of complete ignorance on golf as I've never played a hole sober.

I think you're confusing trajectory in this discussion. Obviously, I can throw a baseball in the air well above my head, but that's not like a baseball rising as it follows a straight line path. Obviously all baseballs are thrown at a downward angle because the mound is raised. Conversely, outfielders can probably throw a frozen rope, but to actually "rise" and disobey Earth's gravity, an object has to be traveling over 25,000 MPH.

Huisj
06-21-2010, 12:31 AM
Absolutely not with a baseball. Absolutely not. I sincerely doubt with a golf ball, but I will say that I come from a stance of complete ignorance on golf as I've never played a hole sober.

I think you're confusing trajectory in this discussion. Obviously, I can throw a baseball in the air well above my head, but that's not like a baseball rising as it follows a straight line path. Obviously all baseballs are thrown at a downward angle because the mound is raised. Conversely, outfielders can probably throw a frozen rope, but to actually "rise" and disobey Earth's gravity, an object has to be traveling over 25,000 MPH.

With a golf ball hit with too much backspin by a driver, it is absolutely possible for it to rise away from the initial trajectory. Yes, the ball starts with an upward path, but excessive backspin makes it rise even more before it begins to lose speed and then fall back down. You can easily see this on tv when they show the shot tracer path of the ball flight.

This sight shows different sample trajectories with different spins:
http://www.knetgolf.com/GolfBallSpin.aspx

Also, just because a ball rises from the pressure differential caused by the spin, that doesn't mean it needs a 25,000 mph speed. An object rising from spin-related pressure differentials is in no way the same as a ball achieving orbit by reaching exit velocity and leaving the lower atmosphere to go into orbit.