More data/analysis to wonk out on...

Interesting stuff using Gourley & O'Toole as examples.

https://www.flosoftball.com/articles/6246853-how-technology-is-shaping-the-way-we-evaluate-pitchers

At least they got this part right, "A rising pitch does not mean the pitch is technically rising, rather, it means the pitch is defying gravity and holding its trajectory longer than a sinking pitch would. "

GunnerShotgun said:

At least they got this part right, "A rising pitch does not mean the pitch is technically rising, rather, it means the pitch is defying gravity and holding its trajectory longer than a sinking pitch would. "

Click to expand...

I saw that too and then the chart shows the riseballs with upward vertical break. I'm sure I'm missing something.

MNDad said:

I saw that too and then the chart shows the riseballs with upward vertical break. I'm sure I'm missing something.

Click to expand...

I could be wrong but I think they are measuring that vertical break from what would be the 'normal" trajectory.

Dropball info is interesting. Gurley is slower with almost 2 times the spin rate and gets less than half the vertical drop of Otoole. While Otoole gets 7 inches of drop with minimal spin of about 6 spins of the ball from hand to glove. My take is work on spinning the ball correctly, true spin. Glad to see someone incorporating softball data with Rapsody.

shaker1 said:

Dropball info is interesting. Gurley is slower with almost 2 times the spin rate and gets less than half the vertical drop of Otoole. While Otoole gets 7 inches of drop with minimal spin of about 6 spins of the ball from hand to glove. My take is work on spinning the ball correctly, true spin. Glad to see someone incorporating softball data with Rapsody.

Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking also...true spin, no yaw.

I'm always suspicious about these kind of tools (Pitch FX, used by MLB is another one). They don't directly measure spin rate...they derive spin rate from the initial starting point of the pitch and the final ending point of the pitch. They attribute all movement to spin.

There can be other factors related to ball movement...e.g., seam orientation...which are ignored by the tools.

sluggers said:

I'm always suspicious about these kind of tools (Pitch FX, used by MLB is another one). They don't directly measure spin rate...they derive spin rate from the initial starting point of the pitch and the final ending point of the pitch. They attribute all movement to spin.

There can be other factors related to ball movement...e.g., seam orientation...which are ignored by the tools.

Click to expand...

But Ray (and I'm not disagreeing with you here) the analysis is at least based on quantifiable data and leads to some conclusions which seem to be in line with what most of us would assume. Yes, there can be additional factors influencing this movement as well. Seems to me that technology is bringing us closer. Perhaps the next step would be to find a way to overlay another set of data/values on each pitch to account for these other factors?

The PitchFX system uses three cameras.

This system uses one. Using one camera doesn't seem to produce valid data. I've got huge doubts that this device works.

The data doesn't make any sense. Look at the data for O'Toole. Her riseball has a spin of 1089 RPM, which is less than 20 RPS. The ball moves 2.9 inches up (again, we all know that this mean "above where the ball would be if it were thrown without any spin). She throws a curveball with even less spin and the ball moves up 3.5 inches.

Look at the Gorley data for fastball vs. drop ball. She throws a 62 MPH fastball, with 1415 RPM and gets .1 drop and 4 inches horizontal break. She throws a drop as the same speed, with 10% more spin, and suddenly the ball drops 2.1 inches, and a 4 inch horizontal break. That is a 2000% improvement...which is completely absurd.


PitchF/X

some conclusions which seem to be in line with what most of us would assume

Click to expand...

I can't figure out how the guy who wrote the article came up with his conclusions. I can't figure how he came up with the movement chart.

sluggers said:

The ball moves 2.9 inches up (again, we all know that this mean "above where the ball would be if it were thrown without any spin).

Click to expand...

One of us didn’t have a clue