Can a seam on the spin pole add ride to a low-slot fastball?

This is one of six proposed designs; the shared methods are in Can physics invent new pitches? Throughout, we assume a right-handed pitcher and use IVB for induced vertical break and HB for horizontal break, positive to the arm side. Movement runs from release to the plate as on Baseball Savant, and spin tilt is a clock face from the pitcher's view.

1. Motivation and gap

Fastball ride is tied to arm angle. Across 1,187 four-seam pitcher-seasons (at least 50 pitches) in 2025 and 2026, IVB rose about 1.5 inches per 10 degrees of arm angle (R² 0.55 with velocity in the fit), from a mean of 9.9 inches below 15 degrees to 13.3 inches at 15 to 30 degrees and 15.6 inches at 30 to 45 degrees [1]. Mike Petriello's 2024 MLB.com analysis of the arm-angle metric shows the same pattern in individual pitchers [5].

The low-slot ceiling is narrow. Seven four-seam pitcher-seasons from below 25 degrees reached 15 inches of IVB; the highest was 15.4 inches (Alexis Díaz, 2025, 93.5 mph from 16.3 degrees) and none reached 16 [1]. Even among the 61 low-slot (under 30 degrees) four-seamers with at least 95% active spin, the best was 16.8 inches from 29.4 degrees. In Travis Sawchik's 2025 Driveline survey of missing pitches, Michael Lorenzen named this shape, a "hybrid four-seamer from (lower) slots" with "max vert" [6]. Low releases already give flat vertical approach angles (VAA), which Driveline's 2026 review associates with the modern outlier fastball [7].

Meanwhile the four-seam family is nearly free of seam effects. Only 2 of 1,186 four-seam pitcher-seasons showed an axis deviation of 30 degrees or more between the measured spin axis and the axis implied by movement [1], and Alan Nathan's Hawk-Eye analysis found about 2 inches of non-Magnus movement on Kyle Hendricks's four-seamer against 9.4 inches on his sinker [8]. A seam force designed into a four-seamer would be working in almost empty space.

2. Physical basis

2.1 Boundary layer, separation and the seam as a trip

A pitched ball flies at a Reynolds number of about 2,180 times its speed in mph (Nathan 2008), roughly 2.0 x 10⁵ at a 94 mph release and 1.9 x 10⁵ at the plate [9]. That is the band where roughness matters most; Colin White places the critical Reynolds number of typical sports balls near 1.4 x 10⁵, and Smits and Ogg's review of Achenbach's rough spheres shows roughness lowering it [10][11]. Anderson and Cadou show a trip-wire hoop ahead of a sphere's equator forcing turbulent separation far aft, and Bertin and Cummings cite baseball seams as transition-promoting roughness [12][13].

The seam-shifted wake (SSW) follows from where separation happens. Seams on the front of the ball, in the favourable pressure gradient, do little. A seam near the hemisphere plane (through the ball's center, perpendicular to its velocity) can make the boundary layer on its side separate earlier; the wake then leaves off-center, tilted toward that side, and the ball is pushed the other way [14][15]. Smith and colleagues measured these separation points with particle image velocimetry and found the effect repeatable on average but variable from throw to throw [16]. The Magnus force is different. It comes from spin making separation asymmetric (Blazevich gives this separation-based account) and acts perpendicular to the spin axis and the velocity [17]. For a seam force to survive the flight, the seam must sit in the active band on one side for most of each revolution, or its effect averages away [15].

2.2 Why the spin pole

A spin pole is the one point whose surface does not travel around the axis. At high spin efficiency the axis is nearly perpendicular to the flight path, so both poles lie close to the hemisphere plane for the entire flight, and a seam on a pole can trip separation on one side every revolution. Utah State's "Scuffball" tests used this orientation on a 90 mph pitch at about 1,100 to 1,200 rpm and measured roughly 4 inches of movement away from the seam, with the ball also arriving lower (consistent with extra drag) and one pole working better than the other [2][3]. The orientation needs no gyro, and adding gyro moves the pole off the separation line [3][18].

A physically scuffed pole is the upper bound. On a 90 mph, 1,500 rpm ball it produced more than two feet of break, away from the scuff [19]. Ball alteration is illegal and is cited only as physics. Robert Adair had reasoned that a scuffed ball should veer toward the roughened side [20]; the measurements found the opposite, the behaviour cricket aerodynamicists associate with high Reynolds numbers, where the rough side separates earlier [19][21].

2.3 Why a low slot loses ride

The spin axis follows the hand. Jinji, Sakurai and Hirano (2011), filming at 1,000 Hz, found that axis direction tracked hand orientation about 6 ms before release (r near 0.84) and that maximal backspin requires the palm to face home plate [22]. From a 22 degree slot, a vertical hand plane would need far more than the roughly 20 degrees of radial deviation that clinical norms allow, and fastball wrists actually move toward about 20 degrees of ulnar deviation during acceleration (Barrentine et al. 1998, as reported by Zheng et al. 2004) [23][24]. The wrist is a condyloid joint limited to flexion, extension and the two deviations [25]. Raising the hand plane by contralateral trunk tilt is possible, but Solomito et al. (2015) found it adds about 3.7 N·m of elbow varus moment per 10 degrees along with about 0.5 m/s of ball speed [26]. Most low-slot pitchers instead accept a tilted axis, so backspin becomes run.

2.4 Direction and size of the proposed force

With the axis tilted to 1:30, the poles sit toward 10:30 and 4:30 as seen from behind. A seam on the lower, arm-side pole would advance separation on that side, shift the wake toward 4:30 and push the ball toward 10:30, up and slightly to the glove side. We add this as a side-force coefficient C_S to the pitched-ball equation of motion with Nathan's drag and lift coefficients [27][4].

a = −K C_D v v + K C_L v² m̂ + K C_S v² ŝ − g ẑ,   K = ρA / (2m)

Here m̂ is the Magnus direction and ŝ the seam-force direction. Over a 52.6 ft flight, one inch of seam-driven movement corresponds to C_S of about 0.0112, nearly independent of speed [4]. We simulate LOW (C_S 0.02, about 1.8 inches), MID (0.03, 2.7 inches) and HIGH (0.045, 4.0 inches) cases. HIGH equals the Scuffball's magnitude measured at half the spin rate; LOW is near the non-Magnus movement already seen on some MLB four-seamers [2][8].

3. Simulated shape

The model pitcher is right-handed with a 22 degree arm angle, 94 mph, 2,300 rpm, 93% spin efficiency and a 1:30 tilt [4]. Pitches in the table are aimed at the middle of the zone, 2.5 ft high.

Source: Pitch AI trajectory model [4]. Release speed shown; the riser and typical four-seam reach the plate at 85.8 mph (0.402 s), the sinker at 85.0 mph and the sweeper at 75.3 mph.

Only the HIGH case clears the observed 15.4 inch ceiling. The claim is a relative gain, 1.3 to 2.9 inches more ride than the same pitcher's normal four-seamer from the same release, paid for with run because the push points toward 10:30. Early in flight the two are nearly identical. Aimed through the four-seamer's position 23.8 ft from the plate, Baseball Prospectus's tunnel point about 175 ms before arrival [28], the riser finishes only 0.5 to 1.2 inches higher and as far to the glove side (0.8 to 1.7 inches in total), at the same moment. VAA flattens by 0.1 to 0.3 degrees at the same target.

The interactive figure runs the same model in your browser. The catcher's view plays each pitch in real time (tick slow motion for a 4x replay), and the side and top views show the paths. The slider sets the seam-force coefficient; its shaded band is the LOW to HIGH range we consider plausible, and zero turns the riser back into the typical four-seamer. With the tunnel box ticked, every pitch passes through the first fastball's point 23.8 ft from the plate, so the catcher's view shows only what separates afterwards; untick it to aim at the middle of the zone and reproduce the table above. The movement panel places the simulated pitches on the real Statcast cloud.

4. Expected effectiveness

We used a descriptive gradient-boosting model of whiff rate and expected wOBA (xwOBA) trained on 5,036 MLB pitcher-pitch-seasons from 2025 and 2026, with velocity, IVB, HB, arm angle, extension and differences from the pitcher's primary fastball as inputs [4]. In five-fold cross-validation grouped by pitcher it explained 56% of pitch-weighted whiff variance (RMSE 6.6 points) and 24% of xwOBA variance (RMSE .058). It describes current MLB outcomes by shape; it is not causal and ignores location, command and sequencing.

Distance is a scaled Euclidean distance in velocity (3 mph), IVB (3 in), HB (3 in) and arm angle (10 degrees). League values are pitch-weighted. Source: [4].

The predicted gain of 1.3 to 2.6 whiff points is well inside one RMSE, a small average tendency rather than a forecast for any pitcher. The riser sits in a populated region (44 to 60 real pitcher-seasons within distance 1), so the model is interpolating. The nearest similar shapes show both the tendency and the spread. Trevor Rogers's 2026 four-seamer (93.8 mph, 15.2 IVB, 10.7 HB, 22.2 degrees) had a 24.7% whiff rate and .309 xwOBA over 1,262 pitches; Craig Kimbrel's 2026 four-seamer (93.6 mph, 15.0, 11.6, 22.7 degrees) had 23.6% and .320 over 508; Kimbrel's 2025 version had 29.3% and .290 over 148; Andrew Sears's 2026 four-seamer (94.0 mph, 13.9, 11.5, 24.3 degrees) had 18.9% and .352 [4][1]. These are similar shapes, not users of this grip, and the range of about 19% to 30% is the model's error made concrete.

Two caveats apply. We scored the riser against the typical same-slot four-seamer as its reference fastball; if it replaced a pitcher's four-seamer, the fastball-difference inputs would be zero and only the raw shape would count. And the identical MID and HIGH predictions reflect a property of tree models, which return the nearest populated region's value beyond the data. Any real advantage would likely be perceptual. Bahill and Baldwin attribute the batter's sense of a "rising" fastball to a mismatch between the predicted and actual trajectory [29], and the strong slot-to-IVB relationship suggests hitters calibrate expected ride to slot [1]. The extra displacement is not a late force; a constant force produces displacement that grows with the square of time, so the visible difference concentrates near the plate, as Adair notes for a curveball, about half of whose deflection occurs in the last 15 feet [20].

5. Complementary pitches and sequencing

The riser is the vertical anchor of a low-slot arsenal. In our simulation a same-slot 82 mph sweeper finishes about 15 inches below it and 25 inches to the glove side, arrives 58 ms later, and sits 8.6 inches from it at the tunnel point when both are aimed mid-zone [4]. A same-slot 93 mph sinker finishes 11.6 inches lower and 5.5 inches farther arm side, arrives 4 ms later, and is only 3.3 inches from the riser at the tunnel point. Baseball Prospectus's 2017 league averages were 10.0 inches at the tunnel and 18.7 at the plate [28], so riser and sinker would be an unusually tight pair, ride and sink from one window. In Jack Lambert's terms, described by Sawchik, they are a Match+ pair (alike out of the hand) and the sweeper adds Mix+ [6]. A reasonable sequencing hypothesis is riser at the top of the zone, sinker at the bottom arm-side corner and sweeper off the glove-side edge, all from one release so no slot change tips the pitch.

The pitch suits a narrow profile. Only 61 pitcher-seasons combined a slot under 30 degrees with at least 95% active spin [1], and a low-slot four-seamer at 80% efficiency would gain little, because gyro moves the pole off the separation line [3].

6. Execution

Grip. Start from a standard four-seam grip and find the lower pole, the point on the pinky side of the ball where the axis exits from a low slot, with a camera at 1,000 frames per second or more filming from behind or with a spin-axis tool. Mark it, then rotate the ball in the grip until a seam covers the mark, with the same finger pressure and depth. Spin comes from fingertip shear in the last milliseconds; Kinoshita et al. (2017) measured index-plus-middle shear peaking 4 to 5 ms before release at about 102 N combined [30]. Friction depends on normal force and the contact surface [17], so re-check spin rate and efficiency after rotating the ball.

Arm action. Unchanged. Distal segments in throwing are driven largely by interaction torques from the trunk and shoulder (Hirashima et al. 2007), which is why a grip change can alter the ball without altering the engine [31]. The requirement is a repeatable axis at 90% efficiency or more [3].

What anatomy permits and what it costs. With the arm action unchanged, expected loads are those of the pitcher's own four-seamer. Fastballs carry the highest or equal-highest elbow and shoulder loads of the common pitch types (Fleisig et al. 2006; Escamilla et al. 2017) [32][33], and Hall cites elbow valgus torque of as much as 64 N·m in pitching [34]. The riser asks for no added trunk tilt, the costly route to ride from a low slot [26], and no unusual forearm rotation, which occurs entirely at the radio-ulnar joints [25]. No study has measured this grip, so load neutrality is an inference, and the performance-first way to introduce it is within existing fastball volume.

Learning. Rob Gray's How We Learn to Move argues that skilled athletes implement prescribed technique poorly and that coaches should define the task by its outcome, design the practice environment and give feedback on whether the search is heading the right way (the constraints-led approach), adding small variations to encourage exploration [35]. Here the outcome is a movement shift toward 12:00 at an unchanged spin axis and the variation is small rotations of the ball around the marked pole. Pitch AI's Pitch Lab can import TrackMan or Rapsodo CSV files and show the movement profile and estimated arm angle session by session; it does not measure seam orientation.

7. How to test it

1. Instruments. A pitching machine or athletes, a camera at 1,000 frames per second or more behind the release to confirm the seam position, and tracking that reports both the spin-based axis (Rapsodo) and observed movement (TrackMan or Hawk-Eye). Their difference, the axis deviation, isolates non-Magnus force (Nathan 2023; Driveline 2020) [8][36]. Smith's single-camera method is a low-cost alternative [37].
2. Design. Alternate blocks of standard and pole-seam orientations at the same effort, 30 or more throws each, because separation is non-deterministic [16]. Exclude throws below 90% efficiency.
3. Prediction. At MID, movement direction rotates about 8 degrees toward 12:00 (from about 45 to 37 degrees off vertical; 6 degrees at LOW, 12 at HIGH) while the spin-based axis stays put [4]. Four-seam axis deviation already spans about −10 to +9 degrees across pitchers (10th to 90th percentile) [1], so only within-pitcher block differences are informative.
4. Spin dependence. On a machine, compare about 1,200 rpm with 2,300 rpm.
5. Value. Shape stabilizes within dozens of repetitions; in-game outcomes need hundreds of pitches (Premier Pitching Performance 2026) [38].

8. Limitations and open questions

• Spin rate. The Scuffball was measured near 1,200 rpm. Garrett's 2022 Utah State thesis reported seam effects at 1,300 to 2,300 rpm, while Seydel's 2024 CFD study found seam-orientation effects on lift that shrink as spin approaches the wake's shedding frequency [39][40].
• Drag. The Scuffball arrived lower than expected [2]; our model adds no drag for the pole seam and may overstate the vertical gain.
• Ball variation. Seam height varies across game balls, and Utah State's Looper tests suggest seam-driven break grows with seam height [41].
• Model structure. A constant side-force coefficient, a spin axis fixed in space and league-calibrated lift are simplifications [42].
• Outcomes and feasibility. The shape model's error exceeds the predicted gain, no athlete has thrown this grip under measurement, and no load data exist for it.

The open question is measurable. Does a seam on the lower pole of a 2,300 rpm, high-efficiency fastball produce a repeatable upward push of a few inches? If so, the low-slot ride ceiling is partly a grip problem; if not, it remains a property of anatomy.

Frequently asked questions

Know your slot

See where your fastball sits for your arm angle

Import your Rapsodo or TrackMan sessions into Pitch AI's Pitch Lab to see your movement profile, your estimated arm angle and pitch design recommendations for your slot.

References

1. Baseball Savant, MLB Advanced Media. Statcast search exports grouped by pitcher and pitch type (2025 season and 2026 season to date) and the spin-direction and active-spin leaderboards; pitcher-pitch-seasons with at least 50 pitches (5,102 rows, 915 pitchers, 1,371,201 pitches); retrieved and summarized by Pitch AI, October 2026. https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/statcast_search
2. Smith BL (2020). How to legally scuff a baseball (Post 45). Baseball Aerodynamics (baseballaero.com), Utah State University, January 30, 2020. https://www.baseballaero.com/2020/01/30/how-to-legally-scuff-a-baseball-post-45/
3. Smith BL (2020). The state of baseball aerodynamics (Post 47). Baseball Aerodynamics (baseballaero.com), Utah State University, February 10, 2020. https://www.baseballaero.com/2020/02/10/the-state-of-baseball-aerodynamics-post-47/
4. Pitch AI (2026). New-pitch trajectory simulations and descriptive shape model: RK4 integration of the Nathan pitched-ball model with a seam-shifted wake side-force term, calibrated to 2025 Statcast pitcher averages, and a gradient-boosting model of whiff rate and xwOBA on 2025 to 2026 pitch shapes with 5-fold cross-validation grouped by pitcher. Internal analysis, October 28, 2026; methods described in Can physics invent new pitches?
5. Petriello M (2024). How arm slot and angle affect pitches. MLB.com, September 25, 2024. https://www.mlb.com/news/how-arm-slot-and-arm-angle-affect-pitches
6. Sawchik T (2025). The search for missing pitches. Driveline Baseball, September 22, 2025. https://www.drivelinebaseball.com/2025/09/the-search-for-missing-pitches-has-pitch-design-given-the-game-all-the-shapes-it-needs-or-are-we-at-the-end-of-the-beginning/
7. Sawchik T (2026). Pitchers are going low, and for good reason. But it's not for everyone. Driveline Baseball, March 12, 2026. https://www.drivelinebaseball.com/2026/03/pitchers-are-going-low-and-for-good-reason-but-its-not-for-everyone/
8. Nathan AM (2023). What Is The Hawkeye Spin Data Teaching Us? III. Searching for the Seam-Shifted Wake. March 1, 2023. https://baseball.physics.illinois.edu/Hawkeye-4S-2S.pdf
9. Nathan AM (2008). The effect of spin on the flight of a baseball. American Journal of Physics 76(2), 119 to 124. doi:10.1119/1.2805242. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2805242
10. White C (2010). Projectile Dynamics in Sport: Principles and Applications. Routledge. Ch. 5, Section 5.3 (critical Reynolds number of sports balls, about 1.4 x 10⁵, and the effect of roughness); ch. 12 (cricket swing and the knuckleball).
11. Smits AJ, Ogg S (2004). Aerodynamics of the golf ball. In Hung GK, Pallis JM (eds.), Biomedical Engineering Principles in Sports, ch. 1, pp. 3 to 27 (Fig. 1.5, drag of rough spheres versus Reynolds number, p. 9). Kluwer/Springer.
12. Anderson JD, Cadou CP (2023). Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, 7th ed. McGraw Hill. Ch. 6, Section 6.6, pp. 514 to 515, Figs. 6.9 and 6.10 (laminar separation ahead of the equator of a sphere versus a trip-wire hoop that forces turbulent separation farther aft).
13. Bertin JJ, Cummings RM (2022). Aerodynamics for Engineers, 6th ed. Cambridge University Press. Ch. 3, pp. 132 to 135 (seams on a baseball and dimples on a golf ball as transition-promoting roughness); ch. 5, pp. 258 to 260 (forward movement of a roughness strip raising minimum drag).
14. Smith AW, Smith BL (2021). Using baseball seams to alter a pitch direction: The seam shifted wake. Proceedings of the IMechE, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology 235(1), 21 to 28. doi:10.1177/1754337120961609. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754337120961609
15. Smith BL (2020). Cliff notes, seam shifted wake (Post 65). Baseball Aerodynamics (baseballaero.com), Utah State University, December 23, 2020. https://www.baseballaero.com/2020/12/23/cliff-notes-seam-shifted-wake-post-65/
16. Smith BL, Garrett J, Dufour P, Francis E (2024). How seams alter boundary layer separation points on baseballs. Experiments in Fluids 65, 27. doi:10.1007/s00348-023-03751-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-023-03751-3
17. Blazevich AJ (2017). Sports Biomechanics: The Basics. Optimising Human Performance, 3rd ed. Bloomsbury. Ch. 12, Friction; ch. 16, The Magnus Effect (separation-based account of lift, cricket swing and apparent late swing); ch. 17, The Kinetic Chain.
18. Smith BL (2020). The effect of gyro on optimal SSW orientation (Post 60). Baseball Aerodynamics (baseballaero.com), Utah State University, August 18, 2020. https://www.baseballaero.com/2020/08/18/the-effect-of-gyro-on-optimal-ssw-orientation-post-60/
19. Smith BL (2020). Scuffed baseballs (Post 44). Baseball Aerodynamics (baseballaero.com), Utah State University, January 17, 2020. https://www.baseballaero.com/2020/01/17/scuffed-baseballs-post-44/
20. Adair RK. The Physics of Baseball, 3rd ed. (HarperCollins; epub printing 2015). Ch. 2 (drag and the Magnus force) and ch. 4, Pitching (curveball deflection growing with distance; scuffed-ball and cricket remarks).
21. Mehta RD, Koga DJ (c. 2000). Cricket ball aerodynamics: Myth versus science. NASA Ames Research Center, NTRS 20000112958. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20000112958
22. 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 to 767. doi:10.1080/02640414.2011.553963. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2011.553963
23. Barrentine SW, Matsuo T, Escamilla RF, Fleisig GS, Andrews JR (1998). Kinematic analysis of the wrist and forearm during baseball pitching. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 14(1), 24 to 39 (values as reported by Zheng et al. 2004, pp. 233 to 235). doi:10.1123/jab.14.1.24. https://doi.org/10.1123/jab.14.1.24
24. Zheng N, Fleisig GS, Barrentine S, Andrews JR (2004). Biomechanics of pitching. In Hung GK, Pallis JM (eds.), Biomedical Engineering Principles in Sports, ch. 9, pp. 209 to 256. Kluwer/Springer.
25. Drake RL, Vogl AW, Mitchell AWM (2022). Gray's Basic Anatomy, 2nd ed. Elsevier. Ch. 7, Upper Limb, pp. 405 to 407 (elbow), 412 to 413 (radio-ulnar joints and pronation), 414 to 418 (forearm muscles), 425 to 426 (wrist and hand joints).
26. Solomito MJ, et al. (2015). Lateral trunk lean in pitchers affects both ball velocity and upper extremity joint moments. American Journal of Sports Medicine 43(5), 1235 to 1240.
27. Nathan AM (2026). Trajectory Calculator, new 3D version (spreadsheet and README, updated June 26, 2026). University of Illinois. https://baseball.physics.illinois.edu/trajectory-calculator-new3D.html
28. 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/
29. 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, ch. 10 (Section 10.2, The Rising Fastball, pp. 259 to 261). Kluwer/Springer.
30. Kinoshita H, Obata S, Nasu D, Kadota K, Matsuo T, Fleisig GS (2017). Finger forces in fastball baseball pitching. Human Movement Science 54, 172 to 181. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2017.04.007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2017.04.007
31. Hirashima M, Kudo K, Watarai K, Ohtsuki T (2007). Control of 3D limb dynamics in unconstrained overarm throws of different speeds performed by skilled baseball players. Journal of Neurophysiology 97(1), 680 to 691.
32. 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 to 430. doi:10.1177/0363546505280431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546505280431
33. Escamilla RF, et al. (2017). Kinematic and kinetic comparison of pitch types in professional baseball pitchers (title paraphrased). American Journal of Sports Medicine 45(14), 3358 to 3367. doi:10.1177/0363546517730052. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546517730052
34. Hall SJ (2023). Basic Biomechanics, 9th ed. McGraw Hill. Ch. 7, The Biomechanics of the Human Upper Extremity, pp. 190 to 194 (elbow valgus torque in pitching, p. 190; wrist close-packed position, p. 194; research summary on baseball pitching, pp. 193 to 194).
35. Gray R (2021). How We Learn to Move: A Revolution in the Way We Coach and Practice Sports Skills. Perception Action Consulting and Education. Ch. 7, The Constraints-Led Approach (pitching example of forearm flyout and the connection ball); ch. 8, Differential Learning; ch. 14, injury prevention through variability.
36. 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/
37. Smith BL (2020). How to tell if you threw a SSW pitch, sinker and changeup edition (Post 57). Baseball Aerodynamics (baseballaero.com), Utah State University, May 14, 2020. https://www.baseballaero.com/2020/05/14/how-to-tell-if-you-threw-a-ssw-pitch-sinker-changeup-edition-post-57/
38. Premier Pitching Performance (2026). The Pitch Design Phase in Baseball: Developmental Fit, Workload-Informed Timing, Biomechanical Determinants of Effectiveness, and Evidence-Based Evaluation Thresholds. 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
39. Garrett JW (2022). Seam Shifted Wake in the Magnus and Non-Magnus Directions. MS thesis, Utah State University (abstract consulted). https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/8452/
40. Seydel (2024). The influence of seam orientation on the lift and drag of a rotating baseball in flight. Proceedings of the IMechE, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology 240, 319 to 330 (abstract consulted; full author list not checked). doi:10.1177/17543371241241846. https://doi.org/10.1177/17543371241241846
41. Smith BL (2020). A zero-gyro seam-shifted wake pitch, the Looper (Post 49). Baseball Aerodynamics (baseballaero.com), Utah State University, February 17, 2020. https://www.baseballaero.com/2020/02/17/a-zero-gyro-seam-shifted-wake-pitch-the-looper-post-49/
42. Nathan AM (2020). The 3D Spin Axis: An Addendum. August 30, 2020. https://baseball.physics.illinois.edu/trackman/SpinAxisAddendum.pdf

Related reading

• Can physics invent new pitches?The overview, methods and all six proposed designs.
• The float cutterA proposed mid-80s cutter that rides, built with a seam loop.
• Mirror sweepersOne spin, two breaks, from flipping the seams.
• Should I lower my arm slot?What a lower release does to fastball shape.
• How to throw a four-seam fastballThe base grip this design starts from.