Rise or optical illusion?

[j.k.]

Scott said

Unless I am seeing it wrong, it looks like the hitter swung ABOVE this pitch as well. Yes? A High School hitter, too. Unusual, for a great rise ball, actualy. (Tells you something about what the pitch actually looked like absent the camera angle).

Scott, it's really hard to tell where the ball is as it passes through the hitting zone, you can't really see it in those frames. I think the swing was actually really late, that's probably why it's hard to see how bat and ball location relate.

I have seen Osterman's rise in real life, from about 10' away, and it looks to me kind of like a really good fastball in baseball. Sneaky fast and it holds its path when it seems like it should be dropping. Hard to catch, let alone hit, from what I've seen.

Joe

 

[rex]

I have seen Lisa F, from 20 feet away, throw a rise ball that really does jump up. I was surprised how much it jumped but it did. No guess - FACT.
The rise ball I teach does jump up for a fact. Some times it does as J.K. says but that is just a high fast ball.
The best way to see a rise ball's movement is by a complete path shot without camera movement and with a super high speed camera like on the Time Warp or Sports Science shows.
Perhaps one of you influential fellows can get them to do this for us all.

 

[ssarge]

I have seen Lisa F, from 20 feet away, throw a rise ball that really does jump up. I was surprised how much it jumped but it did. No guess - FACT.

I don't question your facts, and I'm sure it looked like that. Especially if it was coming at you. But profile angle video of her riseball does NOT appear to show what you are asserting. If you have access to a video showing otherwise, I'd personally love to see it.

The rise ball I teach does jump up for a fact. Some times it does as J.K. says but that is just a high fast ball.
The best way to see a rise ball's movement is by a complete path shot without camera movement and with a super high speed camera like on the Time Warp or Sports Science shows.
Perhaps one of you influential fellows can get them to do this for us all.

ESPN has done it with their pitch-track technology - accurate to 1/4 inch - while broadcasting WCWS and international play. It showed what most have come to expect - no rise, but a ball that fell far less than other pitches. Which typically fall a LOT, due to spin, and the inexorable effects of gravity (32 feet p/second / p/second, or 3-4 feet in the time it takes the typical FP pitch to reach the catcher). Which to the hitter, absolutely looks as if the riser IS rising (because the hitter doesn't "see" a 3-4 foot drop on a typical pitch - the brain kind of "sees" that as level). But despite what the hitter "sees," the pitch isn't actually rising. As profile angle video with a fixed camera clearly and consistently shows.


Physics calculations say that about 5,000rpm of "pure" backspin is required to cause a ball with the surface / weight ratio of a FP softball to actually rise. Humans top out at. . . .what? About 1500 for females? Maybe 1800, if the pitcher is REALLY exceptional.


Anyway, it doesn't seem to me that frame rate of the profile angle video is all that important. I have used 60fps technology (double the normal rate of capture) to film riseballs from the profile angle. This results in about 28-29 frames of video from release to catchers mitt. The best pitchers in the world (I've filmed a lot of them) don't show upward movement through the zone with that technology. Very obviously a downward trajectory through the zone, if the pitch is even near a strike. 10X frame rate wouldn't show a different trajectory; it would merely show more points ON the trajectory. Unless I am missing something (possible).

Regards,

Scott