Can one sweeper spin produce two different breaks?

Abstract

We propose a pair of sweepers that share arm action, spin rate, tilt and efficiency but carry opposite seam orientations, so that the non-Magnus seam-shifted wake (SSW) pushes one version up and the other down. Laboratory work at Utah State University shows that reversing seam orientation reverses the SSW force with the spin unchanged, and Hawk-Eye data show the same principle in Major League changeups [1][2][3]. Our calibrated trajectory model gives a middle estimate of about 8 inches of vertical spread at 82.5 mph (plausible range 5.4 to 10.8 inches) [4]. A shape model rates each version as roughly league average on its own, so any advantage would have to come from the pair, which the model cannot score.

1. Motivation and gap

The sweeper's novelty has faded. Chris Langin of Unfiltered Labs reports that right-on-right sweeper whiff rate fell from 39.3% in 2021 to 33.1% in 2025 as the shape became common [5], and Lance Brozdowski finds a similar decline in Baseball Savant data while noting that part of it reflects looser labelling [6].

In league data the sweeper also looks almost free of seam effects. In our analysis of 2025 and 2026 Statcast data, only 14 of 492 sweeper pitcher-seasons (3%) showed 30 degrees or more of deviation between the measured spin axis and the axis implied by the movement, against 193 of 812 sinker rows (24%) [7]. Barton Smith of Utah State University argues that the average misleads. Earlier analyses, his own included, pooled two-seam and four-seam gripped sliders, "which have seam effects in the opposite direction", and he now concludes that "the MOST SSW pitch is a sweeper" [8].

If two orientations push the ball in opposite directions, the cancellation in league averages is also an opportunity, because a pitcher could carry both on purpose. The vertical dimension matters most, because breaking balls that move glove side and up are rare. Only 48 pitcher-pitch rows with 12 inches or more of total break moved glove side with ride in 2025 and 2026, against 1,263 rows of 16 inches or more moving arm side with ride [7].

2. Physical basis

2.1 Boundary layer and separation

A pitched baseball flies at a Reynolds number of roughly 2,180 times its speed in miles per hour [9], about 1.8 × 10⁵ for an 82.5 mph sweeper. The air next to the surface forms a thin boundary layer that stays attached while pressure falls over the front of the ball and separates once pressure rises behind its widest section, leaving a wake. Roughness moves that separation point. In Anderson and Cadou's textbook example a trip-wire hoop forces turbulent flow on a sphere at a Reynolds number of only 30,000, so separation moves onto the back surface and the wake narrows [10], and Smits and Ogg show the critical Reynolds number falling from 350,000 to 400,000 for a smooth sphere to 40,000 to 60,000 for a dimpled golf ball [11].

A seam is a raised element of this kind, and its effect depends on where it sits. Smith and Smith (2021) showed with a launcher at 90 mph and about 1,200 rpm that seam placement produced significant, repeatable changes in pitch path [1]. Seams near the hemisphere plane (through the ball's center, perpendicular to its velocity) can advance separation on their side, while seams on the front of the ball or inside the wake do little [12][13]. When separation is advanced on one side, the wake tilts toward that side and the ball is pushed the other way. Smith, Garrett, Dufour and Francis (2024) add that the separation location is non-deterministic from shot to shot, so the force must be treated statistically [13]. This is a boundary-layer mechanism, not the airfoil idea of air travelling farther over one side.

2.2 Two forces, two dials

The Magnus force depends on the transverse part of the spin and acts perpendicular to both the spin axis and the velocity. The SSW force depends on where the seams sit relative to the flow. We model both in the form used by Alan Nathan's trajectory calculator, with SSW added as a lumped side-force coefficient [14].

F_M = ½ρAv²C_L,   C_L = 1.12S / (0.583 + 2.333S),   S = Rω_⊥ / v
F_SSW = ½ρAv²C_S,   1 inch of SSW movement ≈ C_S 0.0112ρ air density, A cross-sectional area, v speed, R ball radius, ω_⊥ transverse spin. Lift fit from Nathan; the C_S calibration is our own, over a 52.6 ft flight.

The key property for this proposal is that SSW depends on seam orientation relative to the spin axis, not on the axis or the spin rate [2][15][3]. Flipping the orientation should therefore reverse the seam force while every spin and release metric stays the same.

2.3 Evidence that the sign can be flipped

Three lines of evidence support the sign flip. In Utah State's "Looper" tests, a launcher fired 56 pitches at 90 mph and 1,200 rpm with a 3:00 tilt, a vertical spin axis like a sweeper's. With a seam loop held on the bottom or top of the ball, the larger-seamed ball moved about 4 inches away from the loop, plus an unexplained horizontal effect of nearly 4 inches, and seams about 35% taller gave about 20% more break [2]. Smith later summarised the two orientations, 180 degrees apart, as differing by about 8 inches [16]. In Hawk-Eye data, Nathan found that Kyle Hendricks's two-seam and four-seam changeups share speed, spin, efficiency and axis, yet move in directions 29 degrees apart, with 6.4 versus 2.9 inches of side movement [3]. And Smith reports that most pitchers who throw both fastball grips spin them "essentially the same", differing only in seam orientation [8].

2.4 Why the sweeper is a plausible host

An SSW force survives the rotation only if a seam patch stays near the separation line on one side for most of each revolution, which analysts including Mikey Ajeto argue requires some gyro spin [17][3]. Sweepers carry it, at a league mean of 50% active spin [7]. For a 9:00 sweeper the Magnus force is almost purely horizontal, so a vertical seam force acts where the spin cannot, the Looper's geometry at much higher spin and lower efficiency.

3. Simulated shape

We integrated each pitch with a fourth-order Runge-Kutta scheme using Nathan's pitched-ball coefficients, a spin vector fixed in space and an air density of 1.194 kg/m³. Against 2025 Baseball Savant pitcher averages, the model's median ratio of observed to modelled movement was 1.01 for four-seamers, 0.99 for changeups and 1.08 for sinkers [4][14]. Because SSW magnitudes at game spin are not measured for these orientations, each version is simulated at a low, middle and high side-force coefficient. Inputs are a right-handed pitcher at a 30 degree arm angle, 82.5 mph, 2,600 rpm, 55% efficiency and a 9:00 tilt.

The middle case is anchored to the Looper's roughly 4 inches. In the same simulated arsenal the 94 mph four-seamer shows 13.4 inches of IVB and 13.2 of arm-side run with a vertical approach angle (VAA) of -4.89 degrees. The middle-case riding version arrives at a VAA of -6.53 degrees and the drop version at -7.26, against -6.89 for the standard sweeper [4].

Hitters, however, judge the early path. Baseball Prospectus defines a tunnel point 23.8 feet from the plate, about 175 milliseconds before arrival, as the last point for a swing decision [18]. When each pitch is aimed through the four-seamer's position at that point, the middle-case riding version finishes 7.7 inches below and 11.5 inches glove side of the four-seamer, and the drop version 11.2 inches below and 11.6 glove side, both about 55 milliseconds later. The vertical gap that opens between the two sweepers after the tunnel point is therefore about 3.5 inches (2.3 in the low case, 4.7 in the high case) [4]. That is consistent with kinematics, since under a near-constant extra acceleration the hidden share of the deflection is close to the remaining share of flight time, about 175 of 457 milliseconds.

The interactive figure runs the same model in your browser. The slider sets the seam-shifted wake strength for both versions at once, and its shaded band marks the range we consider plausible (C_S 0.03 to 0.06). At zero both versions collapse onto the standard sweeper, which shows that the whole difference comes from the seam term. With the tunnel box ticked, every pitch passes through the four-seamer's position 23.8 feet from the plate, so the catcher's view shows only what a hitter could not see at decision time. Untick it to aim every pitch at the middle of the zone. Slow motion replays the flight at a quarter of real speed, and the movement plot places both versions on the 2025 and 2026 MLB distribution. The legend names each version by where the seams sit at release (underneath for the riding version, on top for the drop version), matching Section 6. Values in the figure are computed live and can differ from the table above by about 0.1 inch, and its approach angles change with the aiming mode.

The divergence grows roughly with the square of time, so most visible separation occurs late. That is a property of constant acceleration, not of a force that switches on near the plate. Adair noted that half of a curveball's deflection occurs in the last 15 feet [19], and Bahill and Baldwin attribute the perceived "break" of such pitches to errors in the batter's prediction [20].

4. Expected effectiveness

To estimate value we used a gradient-boosting model of whiff rate and expected wOBA (xwOBA) on pitch shape (velocity, IVB, HB, arm angle, extension and differences from the pitcher's primary fastball), weighted by pitches and cross-validated in five folds grouped by pitcher. Out of sample it explains 56% of the variance in whiff rate (RMSE 6.6 points) and 24% in xwOBA (RMSE 0.058) [4]. It describes how shapes have performed. It is not causal.

For each version alone, the model predicts 29.7% whiff and a .281 xwOBA for the middle-case riding version and 29.4% and .291 for the drop version, with 28.9% to 29.7% whiff across the low and high cases. The league sweeper baseline is 31.5% and .269 [4]. Within model error these are indistinguishable from an average sweeper. Both shapes sit in populated regions (28 and 19 real pitcher-pitch rows within one distance unit), so these are interpolations, not extrapolations.

Similar real shapes show how wide outcomes are. For the riding version, Erick Fedde's 2025 sweeper (82.6 mph, 4.3 inches IVB, 12.8 glove side, 30.1 degree arm angle) produced 26.0% whiff and a .321 xwOBA over 615 pitches. For the drop version, Connor Thomas's 2026 sweeper (82.8 mph, -4.4, 13.0) produced 28.1% and .294 over 76 pitches, Jack Kochanowicz's 2025 sweeper (82.4, -3.1, 13.2) 22.0% and .362 over 103, and Cam Booser's 2026 sweeper (82.0, -2.8, 13.6) 50.0% and .137 over only 61 [4][7]. That spread, 22% to 50%, dwarfs any difference between the two predictions.

The model cannot score the pair. It treats each pitcher-pitch row independently and has no input for "another pitch with the same release and spin that breaks 8 inches differently", and no such pairs are labelled in Statcast to learn from. The hypothesised value is uncertainty, since a hitter reading spin and release would see one pitch whose outcome depends on a seam orientation that cannot plausibly be read in flight. For context, Baseball Prospectus reported league-average pitch pairs with 10.0 inches of separation at the tunnel point, 18.7 inches at the plate and 2.6 inches of post-tunnel break [18]. Two pitches nearly identical at the tunnel point and about 3.5 inches apart afterwards would be an unusually tight pair, but whether that produces whiffs depends on how hitters use spin cues, which is not established.

5. Complementary pitches and sequencing

The riding version stays nearer the four-seamer's plane and the drop version finishes under it [4], while a sinker (93 mph, 16.0 inches of arm-side run in our arsenal) supplies the opposite lane. Ben Clemens of FanGraphs found that the sweeper's 2022 advantage came mostly from contact quality against same-handed hitters and largely disappeared against opposite-handed hitters [21], so the pair is most plausibly a same-side weapon.

From a sidearm slot below 15 degrees our analysis found no non-fastball pitches in the glove-side and drop sector [7], so a drop version would add depth where no curveball shapes exist. And because the versions are meant to look identical, sequencing should be closer to random than patterned. Ryan Flippo of Tread Athletics describes splitting a "tweener" slider into small and big versions sequenced small to big [22]. Mirror sweepers invert that logic, with one look and two outcomes.

6. Execution

Grip and arm action

Start from the normal sweeper grip in two orientations. With the seams on top of the ball at release, separation is advanced on the top, the wake tilts up and the ball is pushed down (drop version). With the seams underneath, the force points up (riding version). Smith identifies the two-seam versus four-seam grip choice as the documented way to obtain opposite-signed seam effects on sliders [8]. Mark the ball and film both from behind at 1,000 frames per second or more to confirm the seam pattern at release.

The arm action is identical for both. A sweeper's hand plane is supinated, with the palm toward the third-base side for a right-hander and the fingers on the outside front of the ball, usually from a three-quarter or lower slot. Flippo cues a laser on the nose of the ball pointing up and notes that too much gyro usually means the fingers are too far forward [22]. In a 2022 Driveline video, Chris Langin moved one slider grip from sweeper to gyro by changing only the cue [23], a warning that the spin can drift along with a new orientation.

What anatomy permits and what it costs

Jinji, Sakurai and Hirano (2011) found that spin-axis direction tracks hand orientation about 6 milliseconds before release (correlations up to about 0.84) [24]. Pronation and supination occur in the forearm as the radius rotates over the ulna [25], and breaking-ball forearm orientation is pre-set before release rather than snapped (Sakurai et al. 1993) [26]. Hirashima, Kudo and Ohtsuki (2003) found that wrist muscle torque opposes the interaction torque arriving from proximal segments [27]. We infer that the hand is a late shaping stage in which the hand plane sets the axis and the grip sets which seams face the flow, two dials that can be adjusted separately.

No study has measured loads for seam-oriented sweepers. Curveballs carried no more elbow varus torque than fastballs in college pitchers (Fleisig et al. 2006) or youth pitchers (Dun et al. 2008) [28][29], and Hall summarises fastballs as producing significantly greater valgus torque than curveballs [30]. But Solomito and colleagues (2018) found that varus moment rises with forearm supination moment, roughly one newton-metre per newton-metre [31]. Because the second orientation changes only the ball's position in the hand, we expect the load to match the existing sweeper, provided supination drive is not increased to chase break. Build the second version inside existing pitch counts rather than adding volume.

Learning the pair

Rob Gray, discussing a tennis study by Giblin and colleagues (2015), notes that skilled athletes implement explicit technique changes poorly when the change is smaller than their trial-to-trial variability, and recommends defining the goal by its outcome with "transition feedback" on whether the search is heading the right way [32]. Here the outcome is clear (same spin readout, opposite vertical break) and ball-flight data supply the feedback. Gray also argues for representative practice, so throw both versions from the stretch and in sequence with the fastball [32].

7. How to test it

The protocol below, shared by all six proposals in this series, is designed to separate the seam force from the spin.

• Use a gyro-capable pitching machine or athletes, and film every throw from behind at 1,000 frames per second or more to confirm seam orientation.
• Track spin and movement with Rapsodo, TrackMan or Hawk-Eye and compare the spin-based axis with the axis implied by the movement, the standard SSW marker (Nathan 2023; Driveline 2020) [3][33].
• Throw at least 30 pitches per orientation, because SSW is non-deterministic shot to shot [13].
• Judge shape on dozens of repetitions and in-game value on hundreds of pitches, following Premier Pitching Performance's distinction between shape and outcome stabilisation [34].

The prediction is that the two orientations will match in spin rate, tilt and efficiency, within normal variability, while differing in IVB by at least the low-case 5 inches. A mean difference of an inch or two, or clusters that overlap almost completely, would mean the mechanism does not survive game spin for that pitcher. A launcher that can add gyro, such as the one Smith used at Washington State University in 2020 [16], would allow a controlled version of the comparison.

Measure both versions

See each version next to your fastball

Import your TrackMan or Rapsodo CSV into Pitch AI's Pitch Lab to see the movement profile of each version beside your fastball, with your estimated arm angle and pitch design recommendations for what to develop next.

8. Limitations and open questions

• Magnitude at game spin. The Looper was measured at 1,200 rpm with no gyro, while a sweeper spins at about 2,600 rpm at 55% efficiency. Garrett's (2022) thesis, testing 1,300 to 2,300 rpm, found regions where a seam also changes movement in the Magnus direction [35].
• Scatter. Separation is non-deterministic [13], and the Looper's own scatter was larger than usual for the launcher [2]. The two clusters may overlap more than the means suggest.
• Speed and altitude. Seam effects depend on Reynolds number, and Smith notes that 90 mph tests at Logan's altitude correspond to about 76 mph at sea level [36].
• Model limits. The trajectory model treats SSW as a constant side-force coefficient, and the shape model explains about half of the variance in whiff rate. Neither can value unpredictability.
• Hitters and command. Whether hitters read seam orientation is unknown, and a second orientation adds a grip decision whose effect on command has not been measured.

Frequently asked questions

Build the pair on evidence

Turn your pitch data into a plan

Pitch AI's Pitch Lab maps your movement profile, estimates your arm angle, recommends pitch designs and includes grip library videos, so a new pitch starts from your own data.

References

1. Smith AW, Smith BL (2021). Using baseball seams to alter a pitch direction: The seam shifted wake. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology 235(1), 21-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754337120961609
2. Smith BL (2020). A zero-gyro seam shifted wake pitch, the Looper (Post 49). Baseball Aerodynamics, Utah State University, February 17, 2020. https://www.baseballaero.com/2020/02/17/a-zero-gyro-seam-shifted-wake-pitch-the-looper-post-49/
3. Nathan AM (2023). What Is The Hawkeye Spin Data Teaching Us? III: Searching for the Seam-Shifted Wake. University of Illinois, March 1, 2023. https://baseball.physics.illinois.edu/Hawkeye-4S-2S.pdf
4. Osnacz A (2026). Pitch AI new-pitch trajectory and shape models: RK4 integration of Nathan's pitched-ball coefficients calibrated to 2025 Baseball Savant pitcher averages, and a gradient-boosting shape model of whiff% and xwOBA (5-fold cross-validation grouped by pitcher; whiff R² 0.56, RMSE 6.6 points; xwOBA R² 0.24, RMSE 0.058). Unpublished analysis, October 2026. Method summary in New pitch types from first principles.
5. Langin C (2025). Tatsuya Imai Deserves $200M+: The Inflection Point for Modern Pitcher Evaluation. Unfiltered Labs. https://unfilteredlabs.com/blog/tatsuya-imai-deserves-200m-the-inflection-point-for-modern-pitcher-evaluation
6. Brozdowski L (2026). The Sweeper is Dead. YouTube, February 13, 2026. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndnV6RNZcR0
7. Baseball Savant, MLB Advanced Media. Statcast search exports grouped by pitcher and pitch type, plus the spin-direction and active-spin leaderboards, 2025 and 2026 regular seasons (2026 season to date). Retrieved October 2026 and analysed by the author (5,102 pitcher-pitch-seasons with at least 50 pitches). https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/statcast_search
8. Smith BL (2023). Seam-Shifted Wake Timeline, Part 4. Baseball Aerodynamics, Utah State University, November 7, 2023. https://www.baseballaero.com/2023/11/07/seam-shifted-wake-timeline-part-4/
9. Nathan AM (2008). The effect of spin on the flight of a baseball. American Journal of Physics 76(2), 119-124. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2805242
10. Anderson JD, Cadou CP (2023). Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, 7th edition. McGraw Hill. Section 6.6, The flow over a sphere, the real case, pp. 513-515 (Figures 6.9 and 6.10).
11. Smits AJ, Ogg S (2004). Aerodynamics of the golf ball. In Hung GK, Pallis JM (eds.), Biomedical Engineering Principles in Sports. Kluwer/Springer, chapter 1, p. 9 (Figure 1.5).
12. Smith BL (2020). Cliff notes seam shifted wake (Post 65). Baseball Aerodynamics, Utah State University, December 23, 2020. https://www.baseballaero.com/2020/12/23/cliff-notes-seam-shifted-wake-post-65/
13. Smith BL, Garrett J, Dufour P, Francis E (2024). How seams alter boundary layer separation points on baseballs. Experiments in Fluids 65, 27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-023-03751-3
14. Nathan AM (2026). Trajectory Calculator, new 3D version (updated June 26, 2026). University of Illinois. https://baseball.physics.illinois.edu/trajectory-calculator-new3D.html
15. Smith BL (2020). How to use the Looper and Scuffball (Post 50). Baseball Aerodynamics, Utah State University, February 27, 2020. https://www.baseballaero.com/2020/02/27/how-to-use-the-looper-and-scuffball-post-50/
16. Smith BL (2023). Seam-Shifted Wake Timeline, Part 3. Baseball Aerodynamics, Utah State University, November 2, 2023. https://www.baseballaero.com/2023/11/02/seam-shifted-wake-timeline-part-3/
17. Ajeto M (2022). We're Talking About Seam-Shifted Wake Wrong. Baseball Prospectus, May 17, 2022. https://www.baseballprospectus.com/?p=74601
18. Long J, Judge J, Pavlidis H (2017). Introducing Pitch Tunnels. Baseball Prospectus, January 24, 2017. https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/31030/prospectus-feature-introducing-pitch-tunnels/
19. Adair RK. The Physics of Baseball, 3rd edition. HarperCollins (Harper Perennial; 2015 ebook printing). Chapter 4, Pitching.
20. Bahill AT, Baldwin DG (2004). The rising fastball and other perceptual illusions of batters. In Hung GK, Pallis JM (eds.), Biomedical Engineering Principles in Sports. Kluwer/Springer, chapter 10, pp. 275-276.
21. Clemens B (2022). The Secret Benefit (And Cost) Of Sweeping Sliders. FanGraphs, September 2, 2022. https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-secret-benefit-and-cost-of-sweeping-sliders/
22. Tread Athletics (Flippo R) (2026). Complete Guide To Throwing A Sweeper [Grips, Cues, & Sequencing]. YouTube, April 19, 2026. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em1Qall59TE
23. Driveline Baseball (Langin C) (2022). How to Throw a Slider: Thumb Positions, Grips, and Cues. YouTube, March 24, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwJ4oV6jBnM
24. Jinji T, Sakurai S, Hirano Y (2011). Factors determining the spin axis of a pitched fastball in baseball. Journal of Sports Sciences 29(7), 761-767. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2011.553963
25. Drake RL, Vogl AW, Mitchell AWM (2022). Gray's Basic Anatomy, 2nd edition. Elsevier. Chapter 7, Upper Limb, pronation and supination pp. 412-413; intrinsic hand muscles p. 430.
26. Sakurai S, Ikegami Y, Okamoto A, Yabe K, Toyoshima S (1993). A three-dimensional cinematographic analysis of upper limb movement during fastball and curveball baseball pitches. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 9(1), 47-65. https://doi.org/10.1123/jab.9.1.47
27. Hirashima M, Kudo K, Ohtsuki T (2003). Utilization and compensation of interaction torques during ball-throwing movements. Journal of Neurophysiology 89(4), 1784-1796.
28. Fleisig GS, et al. (2006). Kinetic comparison among the fastball, curveball, change-up, and slider in collegiate baseball pitchers. American Journal of Sports Medicine 34(3), 423-430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546505280431
29. Dun S, Loftice J, Fleisig GS, Kingsley D, Andrews JR (2008). A biomechanical comparison of youth baseball pitches: is the curveball potentially harmful? American Journal of Sports Medicine 36(4), 686-692.
30. Hall SJ (2023). Basic Biomechanics, 9th edition. McGraw Hill. Chapter 7, The Biomechanics of the Human Upper Extremity, p. 192.
31. Solomito MJ, et al. (2018). [Forearm supination moment and elbow varus moment in pitchers.] American Journal of Sports Medicine 46(1), 52-57.
32. Gray R (2021). How We Learn to Move: A Revolution in the Way We Coach & Practice Sports Skills. Perception Action Consulting & Education. Chapter 7 (constraints-led approach and transition feedback), chapter 8 (differential learning), chapter 14 (representative practice).
33. Driveline Baseball (Aucoin D, Caravan A, eds.) (2020). More than what it seams: An introduction to seam-shifted wakes and their effect on sinkers. Driveline Baseball, November 1, 2020. https://www.drivelinebaseball.com/2020/11/more-than-what-it-seams-an-introduction-to-seam-shifted-wakes-and-their-effect-on-sinkers/
34. Premier Pitching Performance (2026). The Pitch Design Phase in Baseball: Developmental Fit, Workload-Informed Timing, Biomechanical Determinants of Effectiveness, and Evidence-Based Evaluation Thresholds. Premier Pitching Performance blog, February 2, 2026. https://premierpitching.com/blogs/premier-pitching-chronicles/the-pitch-design-phase-in-baseball-developmental-fit-workload-informed-timing-biomechanical-determinants-of-effectiveness-and-evidence-based-evaluation-thresholds
35. Garrett JW (2022). Seam Shifted Wake in the Magnus and Non-Magnus Directions. MS thesis, Utah State University. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/8452/
36. Smith BL (2022). Effect of velocity or altitude on seam shifted wake, part 3 of 4 (Post 74). Baseball Aerodynamics, Utah State University, April 28, 2022. https://www.baseballaero.com/2022/04/28/effect-of-velocity-or-altitude-on-seam-shifted-wake-part-3-of-4-post-74/

Related reading

• New pitch types from first principlesThe hub. Methods, the gap map and all six proposals.
• The pole-seam riserA low-slot four-seam that rides like a higher slot.
• The float cutterA riding cutter in the mid 80s.
• The reverse hammerAn arm-side 12-6 curveball for the empty corner of the plot.
• The bullet fastballA gyro pitch at fastball speed.
• The two-face splitterOne split grip, two lifts.
• How to throw a sweeperGrips and cues for the parent pitch.
• Is the sweeper dead?Why the shape has lost some of its edge.