The Effect of Radar Guns on Baseball

Great post. Finally questioning the radar gun as final arbiter on the quality of a pitcher also grays the question of whether pitchers of today, collectively, are better than pitchers of past eras, wherein the argument generally lands on "because today's pitchers are better conditioned and throw harder." Coincidentally, when I think of pitchers who couldn't break a pane of glass, I immediately go to Bob Tewksbury. Tewksbury would just frustrate hitters by mixing speeds and hitting spots. Now he is a sports psychologist for the Red Sox, and his views on visualization and mental toughness are probably more important than any 5 MPH on the fastball.

Posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 2007-07-17 12:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

As a post-script, it will be interesting to see if the Royals begin to err toward the "million-dollar head with a five-cent arm" types, and how successful that movement would be. As hitters get more and more conditioned to catching up to the 90+ fastballs, I can see such a movement having enduring success.

Posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 2007-07-17 12:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Posted by yerfatma at 2007-07-17 12:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

At one point Tewksbury held the record for fewest pitches in a nine inning complete game with 76. Not really related, but I was thinking about it this morning. I suppose because of Gabbard's complete game shutout. "In 1944, Charley "Red" Barrett of the Boston Braves threw only FIFTY-EIGHT pitches during a nine inning complete game." I think Maddux has also through 60-something a couple of times as well. And Maddux fits in well with this topic of guys who could barely hit 90 with his fastball yet dominates(ed?) hitters because of location and movement. I think the argument about pitchers of today being better than pitchers of other eras holds weight (not universally, but generally). I mean it's not like we're saying pitcher A in 2007 throws hard and wild and pitcher B of 1947 throws soft but has good location. In general they both locate well, just one throws harder than the other. And if 2 pitchers both have location and movement, but one throws 5 mph harder, that guy is going to be harder to hit.

Posted by bdaddy at 2007-07-17 01:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Interesting article. Jonathan Papelbon recently sounded off on the display of radar gun readings in baseball stadiums, suggesting it gives hitters an unfair advantage.

Posted by holden at 2007-07-17 01:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's really interesting to me that the Sox have yet another of these "intangible" personnel. Perhaps it's not too surprising they have the best record in the majors: yeah, they have a big payroll, but investing in guys like James and apparently Tewksbury, among others, will certainly pay both short and long term dividends. I kind of agree with bdaddy: all other things being equal, greater speed = greater success. At 70mph, unless it's a knuckleball, every hitter in the majors can tee off that pitch, so there's obviously a minimum speed needed (more than 80), and since at 100mph the timing issues are far greater than at 80mph, a pitcher with equal control will be far more successful at 100mph than at 80mph. Look at what happened when Randy Johnson finally got some control of his stuff: virtually unhittable. Obviously, the key is "all other things being equal", since the 100mph pitcher with no control, movement, or ability to change up speeds seamlessly is just another Steve Dalkowski. Just because you have a Jamie Moyer fastball, if you have a Jamie Moyer brain you can still be successful. But it's better still if you have a Roger Clemens arm even though it comes in a package deal with the Roger Clemens brain.

Posted by Hal Incandenza at 2007-07-17 01:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

But it's better still if you have a Roger Clemens arm even though it comes in a package deal with the Roger Clemens brain. That goes against the theory that it's better to have Trevor Hoffman than Kyle Farnsworth. For what it's worth, I think Papelbon's gripe is bogus. Hitters don't have a swith setting for 98 MPH fastballs. They time themselves on what the pitcher is actually throwing, not what the scoreboard says. It's not like they don't know a 98 MPH fastball when they see one, or that they're saying to themselves, "Oh, that's a 98? I thought it was a 96. Better torque it up a bit."

Posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 2007-07-17 01:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

The important thing is not the speed with which a pitcher throws, but the speed at which the ball appears to come at the batter. At some point, I assume we will be able to measure that speed with the use of cameras focusing on hitters eyes.

Posted by spira at 2007-07-17 01:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

"In 1944, Charley "Red" Barrett of the Boston Braves threw only FIFTY-EIGHT pitches during a nine inning complete game." I think Maddux has also through 60-something a couple of times as well. And Maddux fits in well with this topic of guys who could barely hit 90 with his fastball yet dominates(ed?) hitters because of location and movement. Pitch counts have only been kept since 1990, which is why the record is somewhat qualified. As far as I know, Maddux's lowest pitch count was 78, because I saw that game and still cherish it as one of my favorite games of all time: regular season, Sunday night ESPN game, Maddux vs. Mike Morgan, Braves win 1-0 on a squeeze play. I think Morgan might have gone 8 or 9 (forget where the game was played).

Posted by yerfatma at 2007-07-17 01:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Interesting insight on Weaver,one of the all time greats.With better training,techniques, and possibly untestable pharmaceuticals there is probably no limit (except physical law) to how fast a pitcher can hurl.And lets not even consider robotic enhancements.

Posted by sickleguy at 2007-07-17 01:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

there is probably no limit (except physical law) to how fast a pitcher can hurl There's no arguing with logic.

Posted by yerfatma at 2007-07-17 02:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

With better training,techniques, and possibly untestable pharmaceuticals there is probably no limit (except physical law) to how fast a pitcher can hurl I'm not sure I agree with this. While there are definitely MORE hurler's today that throw faster in average than the hurler's of the past...the top speed generated today by the strongest arms is not very different (if at all) from the top speed generated 50 or 60 years ago. I read an interesting article on the subject not to long ago (wish I could remember where it was). The point of the article was talking about how training and techniques have enabled vast growth in most major sports in regarding things like "the best bench press" and "the fastest 40 yard dash" and "the fastest mile", etc. Those are records that are shattered with each generation and will continue in that path for the forseeable future...whereas the "top pitching speed" has been relatively stagnant at a little over 100mph for decades. The article was basically saying there IS a physical limit to how fast a human can throw the ball due to the physics of the whole thing.

Posted by bdaddy at 2007-07-17 03:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

In the article, Buck O'Neil's quotes were exactly on target. It is movement on a pitch, more than anything else that makes it hard to hit. According to my calculations, assuming a 60-foot distance for a pitch to travel to the plate, and also assuming that the pitch stays at constant velocity during that distance, it takes a 95 mph fast ball approximately 0.43 seconds to reach the batter. An 85 mph fast ball will take 0.48 seconds. That's a difference of only 50 milliseconds, which is not much of a difference at all. By changing speeds, a pitcher is able to make an ordinary fast ball appear quicker than it really is. This is pretty obvious. The key is to have movement on the ball through the strike zone. Even though the batter may see the pitch well and recognize it as one that may be struck, he will have difficulty getting the "sweet spot" of the bat onto the pitch. The result is that fewer balls will be struck well enough to carry to walls. One illustration of this in last night's game was that very few of Gabbard's 19 outs that were not strikeouts were fly balls. Only one of the hits was a line drive; the other 2 were ground balls. I remember watching a game in Japan several years ago. The wind in Hiroshima was blowing hard straight in from center field. The Hiroshima manager changed his starter just before the game, going with a guy who had a really good fast ball. His thinking was that the opposing team would hit a lot of fly balls into the teeth of the wind. The problem was that with the wind directly behind him, the Hiroshima pitcher had less air speed than he would have had in a gentler wind or with the wind blowing out. This meant that there was almost no movement on his fast ball, and the line drives were screaming through the wind and into the seats. The physics of the thing dictate that the velocity of the rotating ball through the air and the speed of the rotation of the ball will determine the amount of movement. Also, the longer it takes for the ball to get to the plate, the more time gravity has to act on it, thus allowing a so-called sinker pitcher to be more effective throwing slower than faster.

Posted by Howard_T at 2007-07-17 03:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

In general they both locate well, just one throws harder than the other. And if 2 pitchers both have location and movement, but one throws 5 mph harder, that guy is going to be harder to hit I'm not a baseball expert, but enjoy reading posts like this. My only point of comparison is cricket, where you have different types of bowlers operating at different speeds. I read something many years ago in a New Scientist about the physics of cricket balls. As Howard T points out, it seems that the very fast balls do not move as much as something just a little off pace (in cricket this is the specialty of the swing bowler). The slower path through the air allows for more friction/interaction between the spinning/turning surfaces and the air. Apparently. I wish I had a reference. Of course in cricket there is also the spin bowler (probably comparable to a knuckleballer in baseball) who doesn't use pace at all. But the two most successful Test bowlers in history (Warne and Muralitharan with over 700 wickets each) are both spinners putting it down there at about 80-90 km/hr (50-60 mph).

Posted by owlhouse at 2007-07-17 06:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

While I agree, Howard, that movement on pitches is vitally important to getting a major league hitter out, do not underestimate the difference between an 85 and a 95 mph pitch. I can tell you the difference between 70 and 80 at the local batting cage is enormous.

Posted by DudeDykstra at 2007-07-17 07:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Reliance on another machine, the computer, may be a bigger culprit. Radar speed is exactly the kind of quantitative measurement that can be fed into a computer and printed out on a spreadsheet. Using a group of numbers instead of looking for life as Buck O Neill said.

Posted by Newbie Walker at 2007-07-18 12:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

I got to agree with Hal's all things being equal argument. The best pitchers can mix velocity, movement, changing speeds, and deceptive delivery. As much as I loath him, Pedro Matinez is probably the best at mixing all these elements. He lost velocity on his fastball but is no less effective becaue he throws such a nasty change up. IMHO, changing speeds is more effective than pure speed.

Posted by HATER 187 at 2007-07-18 12:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Newbie - I doubt that any major league club has ever put radar speed numbers in a spreadsheet, at least not as data. It's much more likely that teams will start using the numbers they now have measuring the movement of pitches into a spreadsheet.

Posted by spira at 2007-07-18 12:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Comments