Author Topic: Nationals vs Dodgers, Game 1  (Read 9707 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JMUalumni

  • Posts: 7789
Re: Nationals vs Dodgers, Game 1
« Reply #275: April 23, 2010, 09:10:34 PM »
The so-called rising fastball is a myth.  A pitch that seems to be rising is really falling at a much slower rate than normal, and the angle of the camera (higher than the pitcher) is what gives the illusion of upward movement.

THe camera angle also makes a left hander's curve look like it has more break than a right hander's, but not true.

Well that is what I thought too, and I was confused about it for a long time with Clippard (as well as others with negative pitchFX data).  But after analyzing the data, I actually do believe Clippard's pitch has some rise to it (though I will admit it is very tough to verify).  Not the so called negative rise that is very common in many four-seamers.

But you are correct, all pitchFX data is categorized as negative or positive.  That data which is negative usually means exactly what you have stated.

Regardless of the semantics, it is a beauty of a pitch that always ends up very high in the strikezone.

Offline natsfan4evr

  • Posts: 6171
Re: Nationals vs Dodgers, Game 1
« Reply #276: April 23, 2010, 09:10:43 PM »
Max Power

Offline PC

  • Posts: 47236
Re: Nationals vs Dodgers, Game 1
« Reply #277: April 23, 2010, 09:10:48 PM »
Not scoring against Ramon Ortiz is worse than scoring against Joel Hanrahan.

Offline GMUNat

  • Posts: 5251
Re: Nationals vs Dodgers, Game 1
« Reply #278: April 23, 2010, 09:11:37 PM »
Is Tyler Clippard the closer of the future? I think he is a lot better than Storen (and Capps). The guy has ridiculous stuff even without a mid 90's fastball. He could the next Eric Gagne (without roids).

Offline natsfan4evr

  • Posts: 6171
Re: Nationals vs Dodgers, Game 1
« Reply #279: April 23, 2010, 09:12:45 PM »
Not scoring against Ramon Ortiz is worse than scoring against Joel Hanrahan.
Happy now?

Offline PC

  • Posts: 47236
Re: Nationals vs Dodgers, Game 1
« Reply #280: April 23, 2010, 09:12:54 PM »
There you go.

Offline JMUalumni

  • Posts: 7789
Re: Nationals vs Dodgers, Game 1
« Reply #281: April 23, 2010, 09:12:58 PM »
Is Tyler Clippard the closer of the future? I think he is a lot better than Storen (and Capps). The guy has ridiculous stuff even without a mid 90's fastball. He could the next Eric Gagne (without roids).

I really like Clippard as the two-inning set-up man.

Offline PC

  • Posts: 47236
Re: Nationals vs Dodgers, Game 1
« Reply #282: April 23, 2010, 09:13:07 PM »

Online aspenbubba

  • Posts: 3288
Re: Nationals vs Dodgers, Game 1
« Reply #283: April 23, 2010, 09:14:09 PM »
Hey ...Anybody living in DC and has Comcast. What station is MASN2 HD? Thanks

Offline PC

  • Posts: 47236
Re: Nationals vs Dodgers, Game 1
« Reply #284: April 23, 2010, 09:14:09 PM »
You're an idiot, Bob.

Offline PC

  • Posts: 47236
Re: Nationals vs Dodgers, Game 1
« Reply #285: April 23, 2010, 09:14:29 PM »
Hyperbaric Chamber!!!

Offline JMUalumni

  • Posts: 7789
Re: Nationals vs Dodgers, Game 1
« Reply #286: April 23, 2010, 09:15:22 PM »
As much as I've hated on the home plate umps the last few games, I'd have to give this dude some props.  He has had a fair and consistent zone tonight.

Offline NatsTheFats

  • Posts: 1036
Re: Nationals vs Dodgers, Game 1
« Reply #287: April 23, 2010, 09:15:23 PM »
Not scoring against Ramon Ortiz is worse than scoring against Joel Hanrahan.
I saw hanrahan gave up 6 runs in 1 inning of work yesterday.... :)

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 64654
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Nationals vs Dodgers, Game 1
« Reply #288: April 23, 2010, 09:15:23 PM »
The goaltending has been incredible.

Offline natsfan4evr

  • Posts: 6171
Re: Nationals vs Dodgers, Game 1
« Reply #289: April 23, 2010, 09:15:33 PM »

Offline cmdterps44

  • Posts: 15536
  • Future
Re: Nationals vs Dodgers, Game 1
« Reply #290: April 23, 2010, 09:15:54 PM »
Hey ...Anybody living in DC and has Comcast. What station is MASN2 HD? Thanks

In Silver Spring its 4. The HD is like 800 something.

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 64654
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Nationals vs Dodgers, Game 1
« Reply #291: April 23, 2010, 09:17:21 PM »
Hey ...Anybody living in DC and has Comcast. What station is MASN2 HD? Thanks

Try channel 5.

Offline cmdterps44

  • Posts: 15536
  • Future
Re: Nationals vs Dodgers, Game 1
« Reply #292: April 23, 2010, 09:19:20 PM »
[censored]lippard

Offline JMUalumni

  • Posts: 7789
Re: Nationals vs Dodgers, Game 1
« Reply #293: April 23, 2010, 09:19:59 PM »
[censored]lippard

haha, you succeeded where I failed in being PC

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 64654
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 31022
  • Hell yes!
Re: Nationals vs Dodgers, Game 1
« Reply #295: April 23, 2010, 09:20:32 PM »
Well that is what I thought too, and I was confused about it for a long time with Clippard (as well as others with negative pitchFX data).  But after analyzing the data, I actually do believe Clippard's pitch has some rise to it.  Not the so called negative rise that is very common in many four-seamers.

But you are correct, all pitchFX data is categorized as negative or positive.  That data which is negative usually means exactly what you have stated.

It is possible to throw a rising ping pong ball, put backspin on it.

Jim Palmer was often credited with a rising fastball, but there's no evidence that the ball was actually rising.  I remain skeptical - want to see proof.

Offline cmdterps44

  • Posts: 15536
  • Future
Re: Nationals vs Dodgers, Game 1
« Reply #296: April 23, 2010, 09:21:17 PM »
[censored]Klippard

Offline Nathan

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 10724
  • Wow. Such warnings. Very baseball. Moderator Doge.
Re: Nationals vs Dodgers, Game 1
« Reply #297: April 23, 2010, 09:22:36 PM »
Well that is what I thought too, and I was confused about it for a long time with Clippard (as well as others with negative pitchFX data).  But after analyzing the data, I actually do believe Clippard's pitch has some rise to it (though I will admit it is very tough to verify).  Not the so called negative rise that is very common in many four-seamers.

But you are correct, all pitchFX data is categorized as negative or positive.  That data which is negative usually means exactly what you have stated.

Regardless of the semantics, it is a beauty of a pitch that always ends up very high in the strikezone.
To be honest, the only reason I knew about the rise is from the commentary on MLB 10 The Show when they said "And that 4 seam fastball does have a tendency to rise at the end" every time I miss upstairs with it :lol:

Offline JMUalumni

  • Posts: 7789
Re: Nationals vs Dodgers, Game 1
« Reply #298: April 23, 2010, 09:22:39 PM »
It is possible to throw a rising ping pong ball, put backspin on it.

Jim Palmer was often credited with a rising fastball, but there's no evidence that the ball was actually rising.  I remain skeptical - want to see proof.

Yeah, it would be tough to prove but I'm going to try to put together some stuff over the next month or so to see if I can (yeah, good luck right?).  But just looking at that pitch, I swear it is rising.

Offline PC

  • Posts: 47236
Re: Nationals vs Dodgers, Game 1
« Reply #299: April 23, 2010, 09:24:18 PM »
Tyler Clippard is almost worth picking up in fantasy, even though he's not a closer!