Chris Tillman

i have to say, i’m not sure the conclusions from this piece relate to the difficulty in hitting curveballs (at least at more than a basic level).

1) one of the main caveats of the “flyball problem” that they mention right off the bat is that, because of the distance between the fielder and ball, a great deal of visual information is unavailable to outfielders (for instance, they mention the ball’s SPIN, which batters quite obviously detect). but cues like motion parallax and binocular disparity will DEFINITELY be used when perceiving a pitch thrown from 60’6".

2) more importantly, two of the three models tested (including the one they conclude is correct) cannot be relevant to hitting. they are concerned with online updating in the circumstance in which your visual field is moving — and what movements you make in response.

in contrast, any hitting coach worth his salt will tell you the key to good hitting is to keep your head/eyes still as possible. any adjust you make is PURELY with your hands.

what’s the difference? regardless of HOW your sensorimotor system predicts versus makes online updates, it certainly WON’T have to do with making movements that keep your body in a certain relationship with some physical characteristic (velocity, acceleration, etc) with the ball. this actually makes a prediction model (trajectory) MORE likely……although i think, generally speaking, the trajectory model sounds massively out of date with any modern understanding of perceptual sciences. however, it does offer a jumpoff point for your hands to make adjustments.

having said all that, i think the last question you asked still might have any answer, even if i don’t think this article answers it. however, in game situations, i’m not sure it’s relevant. why do i say that? because, in order to ask this question, you would need to have a scenario in which the hitter/test-subject KNEW curveballs were coming. in a game, both timing and location obviously play a role, as hitters are geared up for a certain type of pitch and, even when they recognize they will receive a curveball early, may not be able to readjust in time along either time OR space.

in a lab scenario — interesting question though. i’m not sure i could make a particularly educated prediction about which one it is people would underlyingly be “off” on. though it’s still difficult to separate the two apart. for instance, pretend you swing “too early,” as in the ball hasn’t crossed the classic hitting zone yet. were you really off on time? or did you miscalculate location, meaning you THOUGHT the ball would be in that space and were tricked by the trajectory of the ball?

one final thought — why is it that “slurvey” curveballs are so much easier to hit? and why is it that breaking balls are so much more effective coming from same-handed pitchers?

clearly, this has SOMETHING to do with perception. (while i can make some nonperceptual arguments, i don’t think any are sufficiently large to explain the differences, and most have perceptual elements intertwined with WHY the hands can’t make the adjustment in time.)

so the question is, would understanding why these two types of pitches (12-6 curves and, e.g., sliders from lefties to lefties) are tough for hitters to hit in comparison to their counterparts help explain how it is hitters track breaking pitches?

I would say it’s not the movement that kills the hitter but the velocity. You can see a pitch released and now where it’ll end up by the spin, hand motion, arm motion, body movements… but I don’t how many times I swung through a curve because the bat was already through the hitting zone when the ball got there…