Comments on: The Situation of the “Curveball” http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/8940/ Wed, 22 May 2013 05:13:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Tim C http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/8940/#comment-15801 Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:37:42 +0000 http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/8940/#comment-15801 My dad was an MLB-scouted catcher in high school, also a good hitter (back injury derailed his baseball career) but he knows a lot about baseball from a technique angle, so I asked him about this post. His response:

This guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
When a pitcher’s curve ball isn’t “working” – it isn’t because the batter’s perception is dealing with reality better – it is because the ball isn’t breaking near as much. He obviously hasn’t been a pitcher or a catcher – no does he explain the actual visible reality of watching a slow motion replay in which the ball is coming toward the catcher’s mit – which is 3 feet off the ground, and suddenly, the ball drops and at times even hits the plate.
An example of this was in the WS game – it was Werth for the Phillies – they show how he struck out the first time up on a huge breaking curve ball. His next time up, the pitcher threw the same pitch with 2 strikes, and he got a base hit – but the ball didn’t drop near as much.

]]> By: ulyssesmsu http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/8940/#comment-15794 Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:24:20 +0000 http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/8940/#comment-15794 What’s *really* a trick of the mind is this “explanation” of how a curveball “doesn’t really curve.” Hasn’t Mr. Lu ever heard of Bernoulli? It’s incredible how every so often some scientist trots out another explanation of supposedly why a curveball is an illusion. But anyone who has ever played or umpired baseball knows that any such explanation is just pure nonsense.

]]>