Translated... he could see the effect of her rise spin from the nosebleed section in the stands. It's really that obvious... if you raise your standard. You don't need 300fps video... just great awareness, a high expectation, and the knowledge/patience to see it through.
Rocket... I respectfully disagree. Although I get what your saying... the consequences behind making these exceptions/concessions in the game are quite large.
I'm probably going to ramble on here... only cause I'm so passionate about what you've touched on here... do apologize for the rant.
This whole subject reminds me of a thing called fluency learning. You all probably remember or are familiar with math fact sheets given to kids at a young age... they are asked to get as many questions answered in a time frame. When it first became a mainline way of teaching math... the results were incredible. The concept was simple, it's not just about right or wrong... but the ability to fluently produce a result. In that concept... the student obtains mastery.
So... anyway... when it came out, the standard for "mastery" was really high. I forget the exact expectation... but it had something to do with a national standard (arrived on by determining a 90+ percentile ranking... like better than all but 10% of the entire country). All was good... it was embraced... and started trickling into every school curriculum. Kids were excelling at math. Simple concept... just takes awareness/practice.
However... As it made its way into the inner-city districts... the kids really struggled with obtaining this mastery. Rather than maintain a high expectation, they lowered the standard. The results were horrible. Within a few years, that lower standard spread like wild fire... and the results became dismal again, nationally.
I get super excited when I see speed, spot, spin. Not just one, not two, but all three. Is it rare? Sure. But ask yourself WHY it is rare?
- How many kids even recognize how the ball is leaving their hand?
- How many can even recognize the spin they are producing?
- How many kids even know what rise ball spin is? As evidenced by the commentating... former Olympic pitchers do not... seriously.
- How to produce it? Turn a doorknob? Really?
- How many times were you tempted to turn the audio off in these games? How painful is it to hear about a "hopping" rise ball with "perfect" spin... as you watch a giant dot approaching the catcher?
- How many reps does it take to master it? Is it easy? Like the math facts... it's a simple concept, but mastery is through fluency... and fluency is about correct repetition... and this takes time.
In contrast... asking a kid to wheel back and bust off a throw is not rocket science. We can have an expectation for them to learn I/R... and make them faster... but we just say, "eh... spin isn't important." How contradicting is that?
Imagine setting the bar for I/R mastery at 50%. That is a joke, right? We (DFP) hold our kids to a HIGH standard... and guess what happens? They get infinitely better.
The first issue is awareness. Truth is, 99% of people have no clue what a rise ball looks like out of the hand. Like the fluency thing above, do we just ignore the problem by lowering a standard?
I got a text (about 100, actually...) from Rich Balswick during the Oregon game on Saturday. He said... and I quote, Translated... he could see the effect of her rise spin from the nosebleed section in the stands. It's really that obvious... if you raise your standard. You don't need 300fps video... just great awareness, a high expectation, and the knowledge/patience to see it through.
Another thing to consider... although I've missed watching two games... every "rise ball" that exited the park, had significantly compromised spin. Same with every drop. Whether it be slight yaw, tilt, or a little of both... they got jacked. How many true riseballs got hit out?
If a kid isn't aware of their spin, how it leaves there hand, etc... how can they work on improving it? One of my favorite pitchers this year... Emily Watson of Tulsa... can spin beautifully. Her drop and change of speed is mind-numbing. Location is even decent. Just like Parker... when she gets hit... it gets hit hard... and it's almost ALWAYS a rise with compromised (bullet) spin. I'd say her rise is about 60-70% of the time "on"... but it's not 90% fluent (and the offense behind her is lacking). She's working on her drop, I hear... should be mastering her rise.
Take a look who is left this year... Oklahoma (Parker... who is 8-0) and Barnhill/Gourley. Surround them with offense and defense... and it was pretty obvious who was going to pair up in this series. Although it's fun to watch kids with emotion out there, like Lee and Moss... and there is no doubt that Garcia and Alvelo possess a ton of "wow"... but what is that ALL of them lack for the consistency necessary to punch their ticket? Speed? No. Spot? No. Spin? Yes. Of the three... they possess 67% of the goods.
[MENTION=4691]smddad[/MENTION] posted the curve-screw, rise-screw, etc... comment... and it's so sad. How can 3 pitches with exactly the same spin move in three opposite directions? Because Smitty says so? Really? Bulletspin... of either type... is going to move LESS from a physics (and reality) definition, not more. Let's call those what they are... fastballs thrown in three different spots. Labeling them a rise, curve, screw, drop, etc. is a like calling a Ford a Ferrari. It may be convenient... and easier... but it's wrong. Period.
Something to consider...
How do you throw a level-1 rise effectively with bullet spin?
If you want it to "maintain plane"... you're going to have to throw it 90 mph. I don't see anyone ever doing that in the woman's game. So.. the compromise? Release the ball lower. Sacrifice posture and wellness for spot? That's what is happening....
People see a rise as a pitch that goes up... rather than one that does not go down as much, right? Or maybe even both. But sadly, the definition stops there... Try this little experiment:
Take a ball on a stick... and holding the stick parallel to the ground in front of you, spin the ball forward (Drop spin). As it spins, rotate the handle (while keeping the stick parallel to the ground) 180-degrees. Your drop spin is now backspin (rise).
What lies in the middle?
Bullet. So... one could say (simple statement, I know... but accurate, nonetheless) that a BULLET spin is 50% rise... and 50% drop. From a mastery perspective... 50% fluent. Sure it doesn't rise, or drop... it's just stuck... in the middle... doing nothing, producing an awfully obvious visual, and predictable flight path to the batter.
I don't panic when I see a student throwing a bullet... I simply expect them to recognize that they are halfway there to a drop or rise... and EXPECT them to start moving the axis gradually forward/back, depending on the pitch. We work on that right out of the gate, because it is an expectation. Speed, Spot, and Spin.
Here's some physics... brought to you by the good people at NASA. Granted, I know you said it can be almost as effective... but I totally disagree:
Considering all things are equal (5-degree upward trajectory, height of release, distance of release, and all that physics stuff)... a pitch thrown with PURE drop spin @ 62 mph and 20rps will finish 1.5 feet over the plate. That same exact pitch... with the ONLY thing different being SPIN AXIS... will finish 3.75 feet over the plate with nearly pure backspin. That's a difference of 28-inches!
What lies in the middle? A bullet. A homerun. Average. The difference? 14 inches? Four softballs stacked on one another.
Granted, few are going to throw pure backspin... BUT... we can hold them to a standard of 90+% axis... and in doing so, change the LOCATION by a HUGE difference. And... rise spin rate is greater than drop rate 99.99% of the time... and significantly so... so a little loss in axis can be partially offset by rate.
If a batter perceives a ball to arrive 14-inches lower than it does... guess who wins that battle every time?
Sure... I stepped out on a limb here... sorta over-reached with an expectation that they can produce the axis without a difference in speed (there is always a sacrifice in speed for getting GREAT rise spin)... Barnhill sacrifices 6-9 mph every time she catches the spin... and her axis is pretty dang good. Is losing speed a bad thing? Hell no... a fb at 72... and a rise at 63-64... is exactly what Parker/Lowry do as they form an incredible 1-2 punch...
But... Barnhill does both... by herself. Sure, she jumps around like the Easter Bunny out there... but her spin is fantastic when throwing a rise. Her spin rates on the rise are 30+... and if she had a drop... they would probably be around 20ish. Imagine that?
Point being... I don't pat my kids on the back when they bring an exam home with a 50%. Or say... hey, 50% I/R is better than none. That's like a weather forecast with a 50% chance of rain. How useless is that? Or... I'm on a diet, this is 50% fat-free...
However, when they bring home a 90%... they get what they earned... my respect, other students respect, and other teachers respect... not to mention self-respect They create a standard for those around them... and for themselves.
Blah... sorry... having a half-standard next to a full standard just makes no sense to me... and 50% as effective is no where near the same.
