Ok, I have a simple idea and I’m not sure if this is something that scouts or professional baseball teams are keeping track of. The idea is this: a spinning baseball looks different depending on its orientation.
For example, a 4 seam fastball spinning perfectly backwards with 100% efficiency will look very white, but a 2-seam fastball spinning perfectly backwards will look “red” because the hitter can see the seams. These two pitches should, in theory, look identical on a rapsodo, but they look completely different to a hitter trying to hit it. I’m going to refer to “how a ball looks” as its visual cross section for now (this is probably a bad name).
Coaches who like talking about pitch characteristics will often talk about features like spin rate, velocity, vertical/horizontal movement, spin efficiency, spin axis, vertical approach angle, release height, and release extension. I think these are all lovely things to measure, but, as a former hitter, I always had trouble identifying off speed pitches that looked very similar to a pitchers fastball. I’ll refer to “one pitch looking like another pitch” as deception from now on. I think we’ve become pretty good at measuring one dimension of deception through the idea of tunneling. If a pitcher throws his fastball and changeup from the same point in time and space then it is more likely to throw off the hitter. Also if a pitcher can consitently throw pitches that have the same initial trajectory as each other then that will also be deceptive. A classic example of this is the high 4-seam fastball/12–6 curveball combo, or the arm side fastball to back foot changeup combo. These things are quite deceptive because of the release point and trajectory. Generally, I think deception is a super interesting idea to explore because it could be the missing ingredient that explains why pitchers with poor advanced metrics can still have outstanding big league careers. Players and scouts can see deception (but this is wishy washy science at best and not a reliable formula for replication I’m guessing), but I’m not sure if the nerdotrons of baseball have been able to quantify it yet. If you can measure it, then you can improve and more accurately evaluate it.
I’m wondering if the visual cross section of a pitch could be a vital missing ingredient in pitcher deception evaluation. It seems like professional baseball is constantly trying to come up with new technology and methods for evaluating and improving player talent. I think the visual cross section attribute is a hypothesis worth testing (sorry if it has already been tested). It seems to me that it would be easy (comparatively) to quantify and put to use in a quick and dirty way (using edgertronic image capture or something). Something as simple as changing a pitcher’s changeup from a 4-seam to a 2-seam grip could go a long way in throwing off a hitter’s timing.
As a hitter I’d want to face a pitcher who throws “red” and “white” pitches, and I wouldn’t want to face a pitcher who throws only “white” or only “red”pitches.
If someone on the internet reads this and has any thoughts on the state of deception or my stupid idea then please hit me up at hunter bigge 7 at gmail dot com.
Toodaloo.