Posted by: () on Thu Oct 17 20:43:39 2002

I am sure this has been discussed in great detail in the past so if you would like to direct me to that discussion or add to it please feel free. My question is regarding the 'rise ball'. Does the baseball actually begin its movement towards homeplate on a straight line and then begin to rise? Or is it a perception of the naked eye, because of leaning backwards and the particular release point the ball seems to move upwards?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > John,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > To make a ball rise it would have to spin backward, toward the thrower, with enough velocity to make it overcome the pull of gravity. A base ball thrown 100 mph over 55 ft will drop 2.61 feet.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It is physically impossible for a human to spin a ball enough to make it rise. Overhand is the way to make the ball spin backward the most. It must spin from 12 o'clock to 6 o'clock and it can't be done. It certainly can't be done in softball where the myth of the "rise ball" is most prevalent.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Scientist, who know a ball can't rise think that the most that can be done is make the ball not drop as much. Batters expect the ball to drop a certain amount. When it doesn't it "looks" to them like it rose.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The "rise ball" does not rise. People think it rises because the softball fast-pitch is the only ball in baseball or softball that is thrown with speed that ends up, when caught, at a point higher than the release point.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > F. J.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > F.J.,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the quick response! I appreciate it very much, however, I am wondering if you could direct me to the peer reviewed scientific literature that states these claims (i.e., a ball cannot rise under normal conditions). Thanks again.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > F.J.,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This statement obviously came from somewhere, if you could direct me to this resource that might be helpful as well: "To make a ball rise it would have to spin backward, toward the thrower, with enough velocity to make it overcome the pull of gravity. A base ball thrown 100 mph over 55 ft will drop 2.61 feet." ---Thanks.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > John,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The science is all over the place. Look in a book called "keep your eye on the ball." It has a section on this very subject. Even gives you the formula.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The horizontal movement of the ball has no impact on it's vertical movement. A ball drops at the same rate if dropped or thrown. A ball thrown 100 mph and a ball dropped from the same height as the release point, will both hit the ground at the same time. This was the same experiment done from the leaning tower in Italy a few hundred years ago. The formula for this is common for high school physics students. I just can't think of it right now but if you look for it, it's easy to find.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have read scientific data about seeing and hitting and have talked to the scientist who do the experiments. This fact about a ball rising is commonly understood. It's so common that it's a "given" and hardly discussed in serious papers about seeing and hitting. Look in any physics book or ask a physics teacher. This information is common knowledge to any one outside the softball community.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Incidently, you will find that many coaches get their information from T V announcers who will say anything to fill air time. You will also find that ex player-announcers are the worst at making the game more complicated. I think they feel that they have to know all the intimate details of the game and they don't. You will notice that even TV announcers do not talk about the "riseing fastball" any more and they are the biggest idiots in the world. god, can any body shut Tim McCarver up?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > F. J.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How do explain fastpitch softball catchers having problems handling the so called 'Rise ball' even after they are the ones who called for it? Many feel the ball jerks up.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I haven't noticed that fastpitch cathcers have a particular problem. But if they do, its not because the ball rises it's because the ball is always high and many times, with no one on base, which is common if fastpitch, they have to get up off their haunches to get it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By the way, why is the rise ball always high?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's not. Low "rises" are common in the men's game and not unheard of in the women's game.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If a pitcher could throw a ball low, say below the knee, and have it rise into the strike zone, nobody would swing at it let alone hit it if they did? So, why don't they do it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They do. Get on ASA's website and find the major men's Nationals site and date if you're curious. The girls I have watched throw a low rise are very difficult to hit. Does it rise? Hmmm. All I can say from a scientific point of view is, it sure does something strange...and that is enough. As to the rise up in the zone, put a camera on it and maybe it's not rising. But sit on the bucket and catch a good riseball pitcher and you will swear it did. Assuming that is, that you didn't catch it in your forehead as it came over the top of the glove. lol
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The riseball. Does it rise? Always a great thread starter. Maybe the illusion crowd is right. But the people who adamantly argue the illusion theory are rarely if ever people who have caught a great riseball pitcher or sat behind the catcher and watched a great riseball pitcher. Whatever it does, it's a son of a gun to hit. Now certainly there are plenty of pretenders and plenty who really think they are throwing a riseball who aren't. Most pitchers who claim a riseball are merely throwing a spiral football spin fastball from low to high. A good rise should have AT LEAST half backspin half spiral spin. This will give you most of the lift. Perfect would of course be 6-12 spin, but almost no one throws this. It's usually leaned over slightly or oriented slightly toward bullet spin. So, does it rise? First let's get the facts straight. The underhand backspin pitch commonly called a rise in fastpitch is commonly thrown high in the girls game but does get thrown at the knees occassionally. When thrown high, if the batters will hack, she won't bring it into the zone. A good pitcher can and will, if necessary, throw it in the zone and make the hitter miss. If a pitcher can't do this, then the rise is merely a throwaway sucker pitch of limited usefulness to that pitcher.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The "does it rise" question is a fun thread starter, but the only useful question is, can the pitcher throw it in the zone and still make the hitter miss. And then of course, how the heck did he or she do that? : )
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mark H.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sounds like Flat Earth thinking to me.
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well at least it drew out a well thought out reasoned response. ; )
> > > >
> > > > Mark H.
> > >
> > >
> > > Mark H. Jack M. and everyone else,
> > >
> > > We have so many people on this site who claim to be students of hitting and baseball. Some, like Jack, say they are taking a scientific approach and use scientist as advisors or consultants.
> > >
> > > It should be easy to decide if it is possible for a person to throw a baseball or softball with enough spin to make it "curve up." Why is this such a big deal? Jack, where are you?
> > >
> > > My point is that Mark H., in the previous post said "Well at least it drew out a well thought out reasoned response. ; )"
> > >
> > > Actually, it can't be a reasoned response if it is not possible to make a ball rise. You can't make a reasoned point if the point you are making is something that is not possible.
> > >
> > > This is a "yes or no" question and should be resolved once and for all. If this site cannot resolved such a basic question then what is the point. Jack, you can forget about your "scientific approach" because it means nothing. Anything and everything is valid and no one is right or wrong.
> > >
> > > Louy, Louy
> > >
> > >
> >
> > YOU just made a well thought out reasoned response (which you say is impossible?). Well...somewhat thought out anyway. Better than the flat earth put down. As to this thread relating to Jack, I'm pretty sure he doesn't care a fig what riseballs do or don't do so I'm not sure why you felt a challenge to him was in order. After all, this is a hitting site. If some want to discuss other aspects of the game...well, Jack is a patient man and I doubt he minds. But I also doubt he is interested in another research project. : )
> >
> > As to pitching in general of both sports. As you know, spin, speed and location are varied in an attempt to make the batter fail. The "rise" is a variation in spin in an attempt to make the ball do something other than what the batter expects it to do. To this extent it works. To argue otherwise, would be laughable. And making the batter fail is, after all, the point of pitching. Is it not?
> >
> > Does it actually rise? Fun off season thread topic. Nothing more. But if you have never caught one, or sat behind the catcher and watched a good one, it's not all that interesting discussing it with you.
> >
> > Mark H.
>
>
>
> For those who are interested. Whether the ball rises or not is a consideration for two reasons. Much of softball hitting is based on hitting the rise ball. The idea of swinging from the shoulder down on the ball was supposed to help batters hit the rise ball.

Only among the flat earthers. ; ) Seriously, you should get out more. Watch a few clips of the National Team. Hang around SoCal or Houston. You really are ten or twenty years behind.




>
> But, the real point, zinged over Mark's head like a wild fastball. If a simple physical fact such as "does the ball rise or not" can't be established then none of the "science" used for hitting is of any value. How can people have a discussion about hitting if people refuse to accept a physical fact as a given.

The zinger is the spider web thin connection in your strained analogy. If you're worried about it, quit discussing mathematics and physics, go find one of the world's acknowledged best riseballers and film them from the side with a suitable background. Bottom line is, if it's really rising in the zone, then you're out of luck since matching the plane of the swing to the pitch means you beat it into the ground. If it doesn't, then you don't need to worry about it anyway. Either way, you don't need to change your swing. Just like baseball...high pitches need a more upright torso to match the lesser down angle of the pitch-lower pitches, just the opposite. Since there is no mound and the release is underhand, the down angle is, on average, less than in baseball. What does a backspin underhand softball pitch really do? It crosses the zone higher than the batter thought it would. They miss underneath it. Happens all the time. And it's real fun to watch unless you're on offense. The real fun discussion is between people who have experience watching top fp pitchers. Lori Harrigan has a pretty blah "rise". Doesn't appear to rise when you watch it but rather just appears to fail to drop. IOW it isn't really a very good illusion (although I hear she is improved). Now I have seen her "rise" dissected with fancy computer video equipment and sure enough, it failed to rise from it's original trajectory. It did however, hold a straight upward angled path from release to just about the hitting zone. Hmmm. About what I expected from my eyewitness watching of her live and in person. Now, I'm perfectly willing to lend credence to the scientist who tells me rises can't possibly rise and sure enough his calculator proves it. What I want him to explain to me and what the wonder of it is, while Lori's rise looks like it fails to rise, Lisa Fernandez' rise does give the illusion of rising and Osterman's rise gives the illusion of rising even more than that. OK, fine, it's all illusions. But where do they fit that illusion in between Lori who has been shown with fancy computer aided video (scientific stuff no doubt ; )), to be throwing a backspin pitch that holds it's trajectory versus two pitchers who give the illusion of much more than that comparatively. Got to be some really fancy vision versus perception mojo working there.




>
> It doesn't matter if the fact is related to baseball or not. It's about the nature of the discussion. Whether people are going to discuss any subject in a way that makes sense. As a minimum all parties have to accept some provable "facts" as given. If not, then there can be no meaningful discussion. If people are going to hold on to their "flat earth" thinking no matter what the scientific fact are, then can be no real discussion.



You say there can be no discussion if some hold on to their flat earth thinking. Excuse me? If a few refuse to relinquish beliefs in the face of your opinionated scorn, the rest of the group can make no progress? Your whole point is patently silly. If a few refuse to accept rotational thinking, the rotationalists can't go on to have a "real" discussion? There will always be a few who think the South will rise again. That doesn't seem to have kept the USA from prospering. Either you don't have a point, or you have obscured it with muddy reasoning.

Mark H.