In a week where we've seen heartbreak come to highly-touted pitching prospects, I'm rather ambivalent about this item.

Does Chapman have an inverted W?

Why is it called 'an inverted W' and not an 'M'?

Why is it called 'an inverted W' and not an 'M'?

Mariner copyright.

Why is it called 'an inverted W' and not an 'M'?

I assume because an M has vertical legs, and an inverted (or a regular) W has diagonal ones, which look more like a pitcher's arms when he's throwing.

I think it's irresponsible journalism reporting this before rosters expand on Sept 1, which was the target day for me to pick him up in keeper fantasy leagues.

Why is it called 'an inverted W' and not an 'M'?

As Steve Treder noted in another thread, it's a partisan political decision, given the partisan political association with the letter W. ... just kidding, Steve.

Chris O'Leary popularized the term. He took it from Paul Nyman. I don't know why Nyman did not use the term M. However, M does not sound as scary as inverted W:

Many people think I coined the term "Inverted W" and criticize me for not using the much simpler term "M". This would be a perfectly valid criticism were it not for the fact that I did not coin the term "Inverted W". Instead, I believe the term "Inverted W" was coined by Paul Nyman. I'm just sticking with his terminology since it's already out there.

I think they said they liked "Inverted W" because it helped imply that it sucks.

Would this be the fastest pitch ever thrown? I had no idea Chapman had this kind of juice.

Would this be the fastest pitch ever thrown?

Sidd Finch says hello.

Batters: "Never saw the pitch."

And then what does he say? Does he answer the question?

Is it fair to assume that the fastest speed of a pitch evolves or progresses like the fastest speed of a sprinter? Every year a new record is broken in the 100-meter dash, or so it seems. Can we assume that that the fastest speed of pitch will always increase over time, or is there some definite maximum?

Yes, Sidd answered the question. Well, sort of. He said, "Steve Dalkowski says 'hello'."

I call BS on the 105 MPH. Fast gun or something. No one throws that hard.

[13] I read an article on that once, perhaps posted here. There seems to be less room to increase pitch speed, because throwing a fastball tests the limit of what the tendons are inherently capable of - getting stronger won't do any good past a certain point. Running, on the other hand, is still susceptible to improvement by muscular development. If that makes sense.

Harvey this is more great news for the Redlegs.

I call BS on the 105 MPH. Fast gun or something. No one throws that hard.

I think the velocity was confirmed by another scout's radar gun, as well as the stadium radar gun.

Is it fair to assume that the fastest speed of a pitch evolves or progresses like the fastest speed of a sprinter? Every year a new record is broken in the 100-meter dash, or so it seems. Can we assume that that the fastest speed of pitch will always increase over time, or is there some definite maximum?

Everyone knows that PEDs don't work on baseball players, sprinters are another story.

[16] Is this the article you were talking about?

http://www.slate.com/id/2116402


I have a hard time believing 105 as well. Does "other radar device" mean another radar gun of the same brand? Or the other kind of radar gun. I've always thought that one brand of radar gun clocked pitches a bit higher than the other one.

Cards fans and Cubs fans are upset about this. Understandable.

There seems to be less room to increase pitch speed, because throwing a fastball tests the limit of what the tendons are inherently capable of - getting stronger won't do any good past a certain point.

I would think that ultimately this has to be true of running as well. After all, there are ligaments and tendons in all those leg and foot joints, too.

Also, just curious... were people here doubtful of the 103's that Joel Zumaya was putting up in the playoffs a couple of years ago? Is another 2 mph really so difficult to imagine?

Also, just curious... were people here doubtful of the 103's that Joel Zumaya was putting up in the playoffs a couple of years ago? Is another 2 mph really so difficult to imagine?

Yes and yes.

The Fox guns always run notoriously high - probably as an excuse to use that little flame graphic which their execs probably think increases age 18-29 viewing - and I have read that guns in general give higher readings these days.

2 mph above the unofficial record seems like a pretty big gap to me.

Usain Bolt, however, has made me less skeptical of these things. I haven't paid close attention, but it seemed like the 100m record has inched slowly downwards one-hundreth of a second at a time. For Bolt to shatter the record, running by far the fastest 100 meters that any human has ever run in the history of the species, and also do it while breaking form with a good 10 yards to go and celebrating, absolutely blew my mind. I watched his Olympics run on mute, in a bar, and I was confident that there was an error.

It seems possible. He supposedly could hit 102 as a starter. It's not a stretch to think that, on a good night, he could hit 105 once or sit at 103. The Reds apparently have changed his delivery in a way that has improved his control. My guess is that they lowered his arm angle. When I saw his first start at Triple-A, his delivery reminded me of Brett Anderson's, with the same quick cutoff to his motion, except he threw directly over the top while Anderson throws from a 3/4 angle. Nearly every one of Chapman's fastballs were high. He could not get the ball down to the knees and his slider was erratic.

The 2002 angels called up a top 20 prospect in September to help out with the bullpen. The 20 year old had been bounced between starter and reliever during is minor league career. No matter the role he had impressive stuff & impressive numbers: 11.9 K/9, 0.5 HR/9, 3.9 BB/9 for his entire minors career, 12.6 k/9 0.2 HR/9 2.6 BB/9 in AAA before being called up. The kid was so impressive in limited innings in the majors that he made the postseason roster. The Angels pen was solid that year lead by an aging but still effective closer. Even with other talented relievers that helped the 2002 angels make the postseason, K-Rod still pitched 18.2 innings in the postseason, striking out 28 hitters while walking only 5.

Chapman's a 22 year old top 20 prospect that has electrifying stuff. He has good numbers in his first taste of pro ball while bouncing between being a starter and a reliever: 11.8 K/9, 0.7 HR/9, 4.9 BB/9, and even more impressive as a reliever: 14.7 K/9, 0.3 HR/9, 3.6 BB/9. The Reds pen had been solid after some blowups during the first month of the season, but is starting to show some signs of being over exposed. Chapman has the ability to make a huge impact for the Reds when he joins the team Sept 1st. There are already some similarities between the 2002 Angels - K-Rod and the 2010 Reds - Chapman, and I hope there will be some more similarities going forward.

In case it wasn't obvious I have both feet on the Reds bandwagon. I had my guard up through the All-Star break, but I've been fully open and invested for over a month now. Don't burn me too bad Dusty.

[20] That's probably it. It's certainly the point I was attempting to explain.

Does Chapman have an inverted W?

I don't think so--although I'm sure if he blows his arm out, someone will find it for him.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_es_1TaSmpPQ/S_jdKV7ORyI/AAAAAAAACZE/BMp3iplyOnM/s1600/A.Chapman+2.jpg
http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/2010/writers/joe_posnanski/03/08/chapman.debut/aroldis-chapman.p1.jpg
http://masnsports.com/images/Aroldis-Chapman.jpg

Doesn't look like it to me, at least.

Ps ther any downside to calling Chapman up Monday or Tuesday, so that he will be elegible for the playoffs? i could well be wrong, but can't they send someone like Sam LeCure down and then they would both be eligible, giving the Reds the option to choose who they want on the post season roster? Or, what would happen if they put Arthur Rhodes on the DL (he was limping today and looks exhausted) and brought up Chapman-would they both then be eligible?

No inverted W. That elbow stays down.

If Chapman stays healthy and can figure out how to throw strikes more consistently, the kid's going to be incredible. If not, the Reds may have to settle for "really good".

Ps ther any downside to calling Chapman up Monday or Tuesday, so that he will be elegible for the playoffs?

Chapman's already eligible for the post-season, even if he doesn't throw a major league pitch during the regular season. Since he's on the 40-man roster, he can be an injury replacement for any pitcher on the DL. He could be Mike Lincoln's injury replacement even if he wasn't already on the 40 (since Lincoln is on the 60-day DL).

I'd love to see a Reds-Rays world series. For my own sake, these teams have a lot of exciting talent, but hearing the lamentations of the TV executives for their precious ratings will be fun too.

I thought the Phillies stupidly traded away a playoff spot with Cliff Lee, but getting Roy Oswalt without giving up too much talent mitigates this. Having Hamels and the Roys will probably make them a favorite to 3-peat the NL, even if out of a wild card spot.

I don't have any good feeling about the Braves going far in the playoffs, and still don't know what to make of the Padres. And of course the season is far from over so the Giants and Cardinals might still make it in there.

I've been trying to make sense of the NL playoffs and potential matchups for over a month now. I don't know what to make of it. None of the 6 teams currently in reasonable contention are really separating themselves from the pack. More so than most years, the NL playoffs this year will really be a crapshoot. Is there 1 team of the 6 that would be more surprising than the others if they won the pennant?

Joel Zumaya was clocked at 104 last year, so Chapman being clocked at 105 doesn't seem unreasonable. Whether he actually threw that hard is another matter. A lot of it could be people measuring from different places: a pitched ball typically slows down about 10 mph during its trip to the plate. This scout may have just had his gun pointed closer to Chapman's release point.

Is it fair to assume that the fastest speed of a pitch evolves or progresses like the fastest speed of a sprinter?

As sometimes comes up in these threads, the short answer is "no," because unlike sprinting, baseball doesn't select for pure speed. It's great to throw really fast, but it's also great to have a changeup. There are no changeups in the 100M dash.

A lot of it could be people measuring from different places: a pitched ball typically slows down about 10 mph during its trip to the plate.

I think it's ~1 mph every seven feet, so probably more like 7-8 mph since the ball is released from ~ 55 feet or closer. And measuring from different places absolutely is the difference between "fast" and "slow" guns. I'm pretty sure that all stadium guns are positioned to try to measure as close to release point as possible; you know, to wow the fans as much as possible.

There are no changeups in the 100M dash.

Unless you're Usain Bolt.

Here is a great chart showing that Usain Bolt's records are 30 years ahead of their times. That is, based on the progression in human speed, you would expect somebody to run as fast as Usain Bolt in about 30 years.

http://www.esquire.com/cm/30daysofbeauty/images/MH/usain-bolt-chart-0410-xlg.jpg

Ethan Siegel, a theoretical astrophysicist at Lewis & Clark College, recently charted a graph to demonstrate that, judging by the incremental progression of the 100-meter world record over the past hundred years, Bolt appears to be operating at a level approximately thirty years beyond that of the expected capabilities of modern man. Mathematically, Bolt belonged not in the 2008 Olympics but the 2040 Olympics. Michael Johnson, the hero of the 1996 Olympic summer games, has made the same point in a different way: A runner capable of beating Bolt, he says, "hasn't been born yet."

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/features/usain-bolt-bio-0410-2#ixzz0y6UjCEV3

Ah, so time travel will be perfected in 2040. Good to know. I wonder what the WADA position on that will be.

If he throws downhill, he might hit 105.