Baseball News: Breaking ball caused by batter (not pitcher)

[Piggy]

The breaking ball. That wicked curveball that makes a sudden sharp "break" as it nears the plate. Bane of hitters on every diamond.

But according to new research, whether or not a curveball "breaks" is not determined by how a pitcher throws it, but rather how the batter observes it.

So, is this finally evidence that quantum weirdness leaks into the macro world? Does the act of observation "collapse the wave function" in day-to-day human experience?

That would be WAY cool! Sadly, though, it's not the case.

However, the reality is cool enough!

Arthur Shapiro of American University and Zhong-Lin Lu of the University of Southern California have determined that the breaking ball does not actually exist.

In fact, all curveballs follow the same gradual arc.

But batters will tell you that some curveballs do break sharply as they near the batter's box, and these pitches are harder to hit. So what gives?

Turns out, it all depends on how the batter eyes that curveball.

"The curveball does curve, but the curve has been measured and shown to be gradual," Shapiro said. "It's always going to follow a parabolic path. But from a hitter's point of view, an approaching ball can appear to break, drop or do a whole range of unusual behaviors."...

"If the batter takes his eye off the ball by 10 degrees, the size of the break is about one foot," Lu said.

He explained that batters tend to switch from central to peripheral vision when the ball is about 20 feet away, or two-thirds of the way to home plate. The eye's peripheral vision lacks the ability to separate the motions of the spinning ball, Lu said. In particular, it gets confused by the combination of the ball's velocity and spin.

The result is a gap between the ball's trajectory and the path as perceived by the batter. The gap is small when the batter switches to peripheral vision, but gets larger as the ball travels the last 20 feet to home plate.

As the ball arrives at the plate, the batter switches back to central vision and sees it in a different spot than expected. That perception of an abrupt change is the "break" in the curveball that frustrates batters.

"Depending on how much and when the batter's eyes shift while tracking the ball, you can actually get a sizable break," Lu said. "The difference between central and peripheral vision is key to understanding the break of the curveball."

A similar illusion explains the "rising fastball," Lu added.

The obvious remedy for a batter, repeated by parents and coaches everywhere, is to "keep your eye on the ball."

That is easier said than done, according to the authors. As the ball nears home plate, its size in the batter's field of view spills out of the eye's central vision.

"Our central vision is very small," Shapiro said. "It's the size of the tip of your thumb at arm's length. When an object falls outside of that region, strange perceptions can occur."

Lu noted that the spin of the ball tends to draw the eye to the side, making it even harder for the batter to keep the ball in central vision.

"People's eyes have a natural tendency to follow motion," Lu explained.

His advice to hitters: "Don't trust your eyes. Know the limitations of your visual system. This is something that can be trained, probably."

The question is, will I no longer hear the call "breaking ball, outside" from announcers as I tune into the game in my truck?

My prediction: Nah.

 

[Skeeve]

But according to new research, whether or not a curveball "breaks" is not determined by how a pitcher throws it, but rather how the batter observes it.

Heh, I almost said, "Woo!" and closed the window.

Glad I kept reading.

 

[paiute]

B.S. It's the same B.S. that gets ginned up every decade or so since the invention of photography: "proof that a curveball does not curve". Well, I have thrown tens of thousands of breaking balls in my life, and I can tell you that the ground speed of the ball, the rate of rotation, the angle of the axis of rotation and the place the ball leaves my hand all contribute to making each breaking ball unique. I can see the differences in the breaks, and - unlike the batter - I observe them from the same angle and distance each time, no matter which pitch is thrown.

 

[SezMe]

You've mixed two things here, paiute. First, the OP claim is NOT that the curve ball does not curve. In fact, I don't ever remember seeing that claim. The issue is whether the curve ball "breaks" or whether it follows a smooth arc and only appears to break. And it is clear that curve ball pitches thrown differently will have different arcs. Again, I've not seen a claim to the contrary.

Ah, the nefarious curve ball. The only reason I'm not in the baseball hall of fame.





OK, ok, bad eyes and small hands might have played a minor role.

 

[theprestige]

So basically, the curve ball does curve, and an optical illusion turns the gradual parabolic curve thrown by the pitcher into an abrupt "break" observed by the batter, as the ball makes its sudden transition from central to peripheral vision?

Like how a stick is straight, but appears to break abruptly when crossing the boundary between air and water?

 

[CapelDodger]

I can see the differences in the breaks, and - unlike the batter - I observe them from the same angle and distance each time, no matter which pitch is thrown.

Do you judge the break before you see the batter's reaction?

 

[Piggy]

B.S. It's the same B.S. that gets ginned up every decade or so since the invention of photography: "proof that a curveball does not curve". Well, I have thrown tens of thousands of breaking balls in my life, and I can tell you that the ground speed of the ball, the rate of rotation, the angle of the axis of rotation and the place the ball leaves my hand all contribute to making each breaking ball unique. I can see the differences in the breaks, and - unlike the batter - I observe them from the same angle and distance each time, no matter which pitch is thrown.

Presumably, the pitcher's eye is also moving between central and peripheral vision and so would be vulnerable to the same illusion.

It would be interesting to do a study in which pitchers and batters are asked independently about each pitch, and see if their descriptions of the "break" matched up, or varied.

 

[Piggy]

So basically, the curve ball does curve, and an optical illusion turns the gradual parabolic curve thrown by the pitcher into an abrupt "break" observed by the batter, as the ball makes its sudden transition from central to peripheral vision?

Like how a stick is straight, but appears to break abruptly when crossing the boundary between air and water?

According to these guys, yeah, except the boundary is created by our eye movements.

 

[CapelDodger]

So basically, the curve ball does curve, and an optical illusion turns the gradual parabolic curve thrown by the pitcher into an abrupt "break" observed by the batter, as the ball makes its sudden transition from central to peripheral vision?

I suspect it's an unconscious agreement between batter and pitcher that it happened - the batter looks confused, the pitcher feels confirmed, and its all over in a fraction of a second. What each remembers seeing is written-in after the event.

Just a thought.

Like how a stick is straight, but appears to break abruptly when crossing the boundary between air and water?

Not much like that at all . That's something you can learn to adjust for (using a three-pronged fish-spear helps as well). Also, focus - make it a split-second experience for the fish but not for you. Batter and pitcher both know something's coming, whatever it might be.

 

[Just thinking]

Perhaps another item causes this perceived effect ... the fact that the ball is closer to the batter with each and every passing millisecond. Hence, equal horizontal movements per unit of time become magnified. Just as a car going 60 mph at a distance seems slower than one that breezes by.

 

[Dancing David]

Coolio. Curves but is perceived as 'breaking'.

 

[Piggy]

So what makes announcers at a distance call the "breaking ball"?

Is it, as CD proposes, a response to the reaction of the batter?

Or could it be an effect of foreshortening? If the ball really does describe a clean parabolic arc at every pitch, then perhaps the angle of the plane of that arc, relative to the ground, makes a difference in how it appears from the booth.

Iow, from overhead we would always see the clean arc. But from behind the pitcher or behind the plate, elevated only slightly, the relative angle of the plane might warp that shape in various ways.

I would be really interested to know whether the batters, pitchers, catchers, umps, and announcers all agree on which pitches break, or if they disagree.

 

[paiute]

Do you judge the break before you see the batter's reaction?

Most pitches a pitcher throws in his lifetime will be to a catcher with no batter in the box. Warm ups, side sessions, etc. The pitcher and catcher will get together frequently to assess the effectiveness of different pitches. A huge discrepancy between how a pitcher sees the ball break and how the catcher sees it would have been discovered around 1880 or so.

 

[paiute]

So what makes announcers at a distance call the "breaking ball"?

Is it, as CD proposes, a response to the reaction of the batter?

Or could it be an effect of foreshortening? If the ball really does describe a clean parabolic arc at every pitch, then perhaps the angle of the plane of that arc, relative to the ground, makes a difference in how it appears from the booth.

Iow, from overhead we would always see the clean arc. But from behind the pitcher or behind the plate, elevated only slightly, the relative angle of the plane might warp that shape in various ways.

I would be really interested to know whether the batters, pitchers, catchers, umps, and announcers all agree on which pitches break, or if they disagree.

It does not take that long watching the game before you can tell the difference between a fastball, a cut fastball, a curve, a slurve, a slider, a screwball, etc. from almost anywhere in the park.

 

[Percent]

Yay baseball! (I believe in the supernatural IFF it comes to Wrigley and my Cubs.)

The mechanism behind the illusion of the rising fastball was first identified by Michael McBeath, a very nice guy btw. It is no wonder that other pitches, though not completely dependent on batters' perception are also being found to involve illusion.

Here is a link to the abstract for the 20 year-old research on the rising fastball http://www.perceptionweb.com/abstract.cgi?id=p190545

And here is a link to something more extensive than an abstract http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Baseball+pitchers+hurl+illusions+home-a013508683

Hmm, Google has outed me to vendors for Wrigley roof-top tickets.

I'll be pleased if I am successful with my first link posts. Thanks to everyone who has encountered me for tolerating my nOOb posts. It is wonderful here (except for the goat).

Anne

 

[Aepervius]

Pardon me, I have no idea on baseball, but from the rough description of it, are some of the baseball fan/pitcher/batter/booth person pretending that arrived at some point in space, the ball stop having a normal parabolic curve and suddenly "jump" ? Because if it is the case my first reaction would be to ask them to provide visual evidence (camera on two or three looking at the ball axis camera) because that would be an extraordinary claim to me.

 

[Garrette]

Aepervius beat me to it.

It would be interesting to have a controlled setting filmed from whatever the appropriate angles are in which pitcher, catcher, ump, non-swinging batter, and broadcaster record their observations of the pitch and compare them later to a disinterested party's observations of the recorded pitch and the actual flight path.

 

[Just thinking]

Since we're on the subject ... which is more rare? The triple play (does not have to be unassisted), or an inside the park home run (without errors)?

 

[Just thinking]

So what makes announcers at a distance call the "breaking ball"?

I'm only guessing, but perhaps it might be whether or not the ball is called a strike or not (assuming either a swing and a miss or no swing but over the plate) ... in that a curve ball strike (IMHO) has more visual/emotional impact on it being a misleading/fooled-the-batter curve than a curve that misses the plate, there's no swing, and gets called a ball. "Wow ... did you see that ball break across the plate? Sure got the better of him."

 

[Jungle Jim]

Aepervius beat me to it.

It would be interesting to have a controlled setting filmed from whatever the appropriate angles are in which pitcher, catcher, ump, non-swinging batter, and broadcaster record their observations of the pitch and compare them later to a disinterested party's observations of the recorded pitch and the actual flight path.

Watch a baseball game on TV. The most common camera position used on a pitched ball is from centerfield (essentially looking over the pitcher's shoulder). The most common pitches: fastball, curve and change up are easy to recognize from this perspective.