j/k. I thought this was going to be another “blah blah” Fanpost, but it looks pretty good. Let me read it and get back to you.

A Radar gun works VIA the Doppler effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

As such, it is extremely dependent on the angle of measurement relative to the direction of motion of the object who’s speed is being measured. Measuring speed perpendicular to a moving object will give you a reading of essentially 0, whereas measuring it inline with the object will give you as close as possible to the true speed.

Additionally, when you are measuring the difference in wavelength of two radio waves, it’s not very big. The difference in wavelength of a a wave reflected off a ball going 101 mph and one going 98 mpg is like – infinitesimal. All sorts of things, like AD converter resolution, noisy signal, other sources of RF interference, etc can throw this measurement off.

Add in that really what you are measuring is the velocity of the fastest thing in the gun’s “sights” (which should be the ball, but could also be some other part of the pitchers body in his motion, even after he releases the ball) and you get a measurement that isn’t very accurate.

Something as simple as what side of the rubber the pitcher is throwing off of could easily effect the reading on the gun by a mph or two. (by changing the angle of measurement, for example)

I wouldn’t feel confident that the gun was accurate to more than +- 2.5 mph w/o a serious effort at validation. On top of that, I wouldn’t really trust the gun to have a precision higher than +- 1mph.

So Timmys 100 MPH at ATT could EASILY be ~97 MPH somewhere else, and the same pitch measured twice could EASILY give you 100 mph or 98 mph depending on how the variables changed between pitches. Move the gun, get a different value. Change the arm slot, get a different value.

So I try not to get tooo worked up over radar gun readings. It would be interesting to see what efforts MLB have put in place (if any) to try to eliminate some of this inherent variability.

But he usually doesn’t. I would guess it’s easier to locate the ball if he takes a little off of it, which would explain why he averages 96 or so. Also, I’m pretty sure he only throws a 2-seamer. Felix is great and all, but Lincecum is more polished and already accomplishing more than Felix has. Also, Lincecum is a smaller injury risk. I think Lincecum has the edge, although that doesn’t mean both aren’t supremely talented.

The original poster gives kudos to Tim for his great fastball/curve combination. And indeed that is what Tim was known for in college. And what he threw at San Jose.

But although Mike Krukow is completely oblivious to this fact, Tim developed his change up two winters ago. Actually an abbreviated forkball, he used it in his first game for Fresno, forming a strikeout ratio in his 8 strikeouts of 3/3/2 between his three pitches. I believe the 2 were his strikeouts with the fastball.

PITCH/fx showed last season that Tim’s best swing-and-a-miss pitch was indeed his change up. You know, the one that according to Kruk he didn’t yet have. :)

Incidentally, Kruk is a FABULOUS announcer who knows TONS more about pitching than I do. But I can’t believe he missed Tim’s change up all last season. In Tim’s first start, Bengie called for only 15 curves and change ups combined. I kept saying I wished he would call for Tim’s secondary pitches more often.

Then had had Tim use the change up a fair amount against left-handed batters. I suggested they should use the change against righties. They have begun doing that more.

When asked by Amy G about his strikeout success in his two starts before yesterday, Tim replied that they were using his curve and change up more. That’s what I have been wanting them to do all along! ;)

I’ll have to look it up, but I believe an analysis done of Tim with PITCH/fx about a month ago showed him with a 14% swing-through rate on his fastball and rates in the 40%’s on his three secondary pitches. One thing I have noticed about MLB’s Gameday at least is that they sometimes mix up the three secondary pitches, all of which drop off pretty nicely. Once in a while it also seems they categorize one of Tim’s change ups as a fastball.

In terms of movement, Tim’s fastball moves inward on a right-handed batter the most, with the change up a close second. Both his curve and slider move away from a right-handed hitter, although the primary movement on his curve ball is down. Tim’s fastball has the most rise, followed by the change. The change rises compared to a ball thrown with no spin, but then drops off more quickly than the fastball as gravity takes over. The slider’s movement is away from a right-handed batter and down, but is quicker and shorter in movement than Tim’s hammer curve. The curve moves away from righties, but it’s primary movement is downward.

I actually think that as good as Tim’s fastball is, Matt Cain’s is a slightly better swing-and-a miss heater. Tim’s fastball seems to move in on a right-handed hitter more at the end, while Matt’s seems to have a touch more hop. Tim’s biggest advantage over Matt seems to come from his excellent secondary pitches.

Tim does have one of the best change ups in the game, although its movement isn’t all that much more than Matt’s. The biggest difference is that Tim is in the top five starters both in terms of fastball speed and perhaps even more importantly in terms of speed differential between his fastball and curve. Tim’s speed differential between the two pitches is nearly twice that of Matt.

And coming back to Kruk, what do you think the final two pitches to Daryl Ward to end the eighth inning were when Tim threw that magnificent two-hitter through eight innings against the Cubbies last August 21st, Meat? Tim began getting his fastball up in that eighth inning and walked his only batter of the game. But he got out of the inning with his strikeout of Ward on the back-to-back change ups.

And my question for Bengie would be, why after Tim began to get his fastball up in that eighth inning after keeping it down perhaps better than in any other game through seven did you call for five straight fastballs from Tim when he came out for the ninth inning for the only time thus far in his career? Four of the five were up, three of them went for quick base hits, and suddenly what was arguably the most effective start of Tim’s career up to that point became a conflagration when the firemen he turned the game over to turned into arsonists.

I’m thinking Kruk would be an even better announcer if he realized Tim had his fine change up coming out of the chute at Fresno. And I’m thinking Bengie would have been an even better catcher if he had figured out more quickly just how good Tim’s secondary pitches are.

And this thread by 25 was really cool. But it would have been even better had 25 realized just how good Tim’s change up really is. The major league batters do. Just ask Daryl Ward.

Oh, and I think Brian McCann, who had Tim’s number in his first three at bats before striking out on the change his fourth time up, would back up the change thing, as well.

I have enclosed a link to the July 3rd article on Tim which was on—get this – a CUBS website, although I located it through The Hardball Times. The article does confirm that essentially at the season’s halfway point, Tim’s whiff percentages were:

Fastball—14.49%

Curve—40.13%

Change—43.56%

Slider—44.62%

Overall whiff percentage—23.96%

http://www.cubsfx.com/2008/07/tim-lincecum-freak-of-nature.html

although I don’t know how legit the radar gun was but I did see 101 on the radar gun.