What Can Hitters Actually See Out of a Pitcher’s Hand?

We’ve all seen those swings so terrible that a batter can’t help but smile. Swings like this one from Brandon Phillips last year.

Phillips, of course, isn’t the only victim of this sort of thing. He’s been a league-average major-league hitter for a decade, which is a substantial accomplishment. But even accomplished hitters can look bad, can get it very wrong.

Were Phillips batting not for a last-place club but one contending for the postseason, we might gnash our teeth. Couldn’t he see that was a slider? What was he thinking? What was he looking at?

The answer to that last question, turns out, is way more complicated than it seems. Phillips clearly should have laid off a breaking ball that failed to reach the plate. He clearly has done that — otherwise, he wouldn’t have had a major-league career. So what happened? What did he see? Or not see? Ask hitters and experts that question, and the answers are vague, conflicting, and sometimes just strange.

There are those who are sure they see spin. “I’m just trying to pick up spin,” said San Francisco infielder Joe Panik of what he’s looking for out of the pitcher’s hand. “I see spin on breaking balls,” agreed teammate Brandon Belt. “I see spin pretty well,” said Zack Greinke, this decade’s best-hitting pitcher.

Here’s the strange thing about seeing spin, though: there’s evidence that the part of the brain that batters employ when a pitch is released isn’t the part of the brain that sees motion. It’s the part of the brain used for detail and color.

No problem. Imagine a flashing red/white mess — you can extrapolate from the color what spin is coming. It’s basically what Preston Wilson said on the MLB Network, when he said he could see if the ball was “more red or more white” and that helped him know what pitch it was. That appearance inspired this whole post.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed. We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member. 1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other. 2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off. 3. Dark mode and Classic mode! 4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them. 5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects. 6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.) 7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only. 8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO. 9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members. 10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features! We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it. In case you didn't read all that, here's the short version. Membership includes:
✓Ad-free browsing
✓Unlimited FanGraphs & RotoGraphs articles
✓Historical & platoon projections
✓Leaderboard & player-page stat heatmaps
✓One-click data exports
✓Customizable player-page dashboards
✓Dark & Classic site modes
✓Weekly Members-only mailbag
✓FanGraphs Walk-Off, your year in review
✓Optional homepage photo removal
✓Gift articles to non-Members
✓Full postseason coverage

Greinke thought that was a real possibility. “It’s the color you see, and the color will be moving in a different direction, and you know what that means,” he said. It’s funny, though, because people will swear it’s not that way. Boston’s Chris Young was pretty sure: “I see spin. I don’t see color. I don’t see red,” he said before a game with the Blue Jays. He thought for a second, though. “Maybe I do and I don’t think I do.”

Whatever the neural mechanism, most batters to whom I spoke claimed to see spin of some sort. Could they see spin rate? Today’s stat du jour is most often though of as an innate statistic that judges pitch quality, but spin plus arm slot equals movement, and we’ve always had movement. Could spin rate be actually about deception?

Rich Hill would say yes, as suggested by his comments about “mirroring” his high-vertical-spin curve with his high-vertical-spin fastball, in the opposite direction. Responses from hitters were mixed, however. “You can’t see the speed of spin,” thought Young. “The changeup is going to spin slower, I assume, but I can’t see the speed of the spin.” Jason Ochart, Head of Driveline Baseball Hitting Research and Development, said his hitters report that “with changeups (and, in particular, split fingers), they see a lack of spin.”

Greinke agreed about spin as deception, calling back to his experience as a hitter facing different changeups: “I couldn’t see [Johnny] Cueto‘s change, as well as other pitchers’. Some guys have really tight spin on their changeup and it’s hard to see. Low-spin, you can probably see the spin, and it moves more. [Kris] Medlen’s, I couldn’t see the spin at all.”

There has to be a decent amount of instinct and programmed reaction going on in these responses, though, because there’s no time to think. “Think, and this game will grasp you and take you away,” said Atlanta rookie Dansby Swanson.

A recent Washington Post report brought out the science behind that eloquent missive from Swanson. The part of your brain working on object recognition works with the part of your brain that controls your body, and the brain actually reduces blood flow to the frontal cortex, the part of your brain that you use when you make decisions that require some kinds of reflection.

Clayman79a
You don’t have time to deliberate! “You have no time to react,” said Baltimore’s Manny Machado, and he was right, if not literally correct. The great Wall Street Journal infographic below details how a batter essentially has three blinks of an eye before the ball crosses the plate — and just over one blink of an eye before he has to stop or continue his swing. That’s 225 milliseconds!

baseball-reaction-times
Still, there are things that batters swear they can see. Most felt they could see if the ball “popped out” of the pitcher’s hand. Coach Ochart felt that was one of the most oft-used pieces of information: “Most commonly I hear that hitters can see the ball “pop upwards (relatively speaking)” out of the hand on breaking balls.” Greinke, Swanson, and Young agreed, but Belt thought those “poppers” were a specific brand of curveball: “Some guys, it’ll pop up, but that’s just the get me over for a strike,” he thought.

Watching a Blake Snell start, I thought maybe I was seeing him “wrap” his curveball, meaning that he was cocking his wrist hard, or supinating heavily in his grip, in order to get more movement on the pitch. That’s fine, and it can lead to more movement as Trevor Bauer found, but it might also make the curve more obvious to the hitter, as some scouts have suggested to me.

Can hitters see fingers? If so, they’d be able to see those wrapped fingers. But Snell didn’t think so. No hitter reported being able to see fingers on the release, but I hardly talked to all hitters ever. “It’s really hard to see fingers on top,” reported Panik. Steve Carter, Project Prospect scout and hitting coach, thought that some of his hitters could see them.

Take a look at a major-league pitcher — Caleb Cotham — releasing a four-seamer and a curve, overlaid on each other. Driveline Baseball used a high-speed camera to capture these images at the same point, and, well, seems pretty tough to see those fingers, at least to my eyes. Maybe you can see the different release point?

Cq0PRt4UIAABzka
Here’s something, though: I’m not a major-league hitter. Major-league hitters are very different from the public in general — and, specifically, when it comes to their vision. One study found that they have significantly better “mean visual acuity, distance steroacuity, and contrast sensitivity.” Some of these guys can see fingers.

Interestingly, this is true even of non-professional baseball players. Another study compared youth baseball and softball players to young people who didn’t play ball, and found that, even in the youth ranks, ballplayers had better visual skills.

Obviously it’s probably a selection thing — if you can’t see the ball well, you don’t play baseball maybe — but there also seems to be a learned component to this whole thing. Here’s Swanson, on what he thinks his brain is doing: “If you’ve faced a guy a couple times, get at-bats against them and then you get an idea of what they want to do, and you sort of visualize before the pitch comes, it’s almost anticipatory.”

Swanson’s point brings us to another consideration: focusing too hard on the moment of release ignores the fact that this is a process that begins as soon as the pitcher begins his delivery.

Jim Lyons, Professor in the Department of Kinesiology at McMaster University, agreed that the central vision (cones) most used by players are sensitive to color and detail but not motion, and that the peripheral visual system (rods) are motion sensitive. But he said we can be accurate at estimating the velocity of an approach object “like a baseball or a fist” because of “retinal expansion — the image of an object on the retina, as it gets closer, expands.” He calls the visual information “continuous.”

That’s important for spotting a fastball, which might be the most important thing a batter can do. For Machado, it’s the only thing he can do. “I don’t pick any of that stuff up,” he laughed. “I see fastball, I swing. You know how fast the pitcher can throw, so you can see it coming out of his hand. If it’s coming in hot, I’ll swing at it. I can’t tell out of the hand if it’s going to be a slider or a changeup.”

He’s not alone. Oakland’s Khris Davis could see some spin, but focused more on targeting fastballs and spotting location. “You can see some location early, too,” he said, pointing out that the angle of the hand and the ball coming out could tell him if the ball would be up or down. “I like to look for release location,” he added. “Lots of guys have different release points. Some hide it better than others.”

So there’s the other thing that’s important about the fluidity of the moment: there are hints about what’s coming out of the pitchers’ hand that batters can spot in the delivery. Coach Carter echoed Davis (“You can generally see direction of the pitch, based on wrist and arm angle as it ‘comes through'”) and also talked about curveball deliveries being different (“forearm lay back”). Greinke focused on changeups, but talked about delivery cues: “Some pitchers will drop down a little, or slow their hand.”

This stuff may be more important than what happens at the actual release point. A famous study of cricket bowlers isolated experience, delivery cues, and information after release to find which were the most important aspects. The first two were very important. The last? “Additional ball flight information provided no more advantage to this discrimination ability” — i.e., information after release wasn’t very important.

Hold on. The release-point information isn’t important? Maybe. Batters have to access the “swing” motor program before the pitch is released, really, and so there’s little time to change that, Professor Lyons pointed out. You can really just halt it.

But what about this, I asked Lyons? This swing was started, not halted, and yet somehow Vladimir Guerrero did this.

Didn’t he adjust to the flight of the ball? Post-release information? “I would argue that the swing path hasn’t really been altered from the original motor program,” responded Lyons. “Same action being executed as was planned on the basis of early perceptual information, but it’s gone beyond the point of checking the swing (i.e., issuing the stop command) and hoping for the best.” In other words, Vlad thought the ball would be low, the ball was low, and then… “the ball hit the bat (rather than the other way around)” as Lyons put it.

As much as hitters don’t like to think too much — Belt said “When I get myself in trouble, it’s when I guess and anticipate too much” — it looks like anticipating the pitch is huge.

Recently, I was at Pitch Talks in Toronto, talking backstage with Pete Abraham of the Boston Globe about baseball, and we ended up talking about David Ortiz, as one does. We first talked about how Ortiz spent a replay delay talking about how Matt Andriese would throw him a first-pitch curveball. The pitcher did, and Ortiz homered.

If that’s not a sufficiently impressive display of anticipation — one that might, for instance, explain some of the slugger’s late-career excellence — there’s more. Abraham mentioned something about Xander Bogaerts enjoying the spot in the batting order ahead of David Ortiz. When I raised an eyebrow, he explained. It seems that Ortiz will often follow along in Bogaerts’ at-bats and try to alert him to when a certain pitch is coming with chirps and whistles from the on-deck circle. What anticipation!

It’s hard for me to completely discount the value of information received at the moment of release, but it’s also interesting how many hitters had no idea what happened at that moment.

Some excerpts from the players themselves…

MVP candidate Mookie Betts:

“I don’t really know what I see. I see this white thing coming, and I somehow try to read it. I try to look at a window where his slot is and try to pick it up as fast as possible. You try to read spin, but the way I do it, I have no idea.”

Edwin Encarnacion:

“I just see the ball, it’s white or red, but I try not to think, and I don’t want to start thinking.”

Panik:

“It’s hard to talk about.”

Astros hitting coach Dave Hudgens:

“I know when a hitter is locked in, or in the zone, nothing is in their mind and everything slows down.”

Coach Ochart:

“Some of the best hitters I’ve ever coached will “black out” when they hit. Very interesting. I’ll ask them what pitch they hit, or what location the pitch was, and they won’t remember. ‘Idk coach, I just see ball, hit ball.'”

This experience of “blacking out” probably speaks to the lack of frontal-cortex activity during the moment — hitters aren’t using the part of the brain that’s best for mapping out complicated, deliberate decisions, so maybe it’s not surprising they bypass the frontal cortex and use deeper, darker parts of the brain. Some have never thought about this action using the speaking part of their brain — “Nobody’s ever asked me that question,” said Betts. When the major work is unlocking motor programs, or chunks, how do you explain that?

That doesn’t mean we can’t try to put words to it using the best research and player quotes at our disposal. Call this a conclusion, but not the type of conclusion you put on the end of an academic paper. Just imagine a big, blinking neon sign alternating between the words “maybe,” “probably,” and “could be” above this paragraph.

It looks like anticipating the pitch is a benefit. Combining that idea of the pitcher’s tendencies with pre-release delivery information might be more important than the information at release. At release, hitters might access motor programs (primed by anticipation) for each type of pitch, and then use the release information to stop their swing if it doesn’t line up with what they expected. That info on release is probably mostly velocity, with some movement extrapolated from changes in color (and then called “spin” in the parlance of our times), but every hitter reported that sensitivity to that information came and went. Once the ball is in flight, if they’re wrong, it could be a matter of luck (and maybe a little geometry — think of the flat swing) if they swing and still manage to hit the ball.

All of this has ramifications for coaching! Professor Lyons suggested doing a study to see what hitters could do with a ball with white seams, which seems like a great idea. Brian Dozier even complained that current balls all look “brown” because of the mud — perhaps spin and seam movement is over-reported and overemphasized. Coach Ochart seemed to suggest that this sort of research is planned for Driveline Hitting, so we can look forward to more results soon, maybe.

If that aspect of coaching is overrated, we might have already had clues in this direction. Russell Carleton found evidence that hitting coaches mostly affect the patience or passivity of their teams, and that might be the rudder here. How early do you get your hitters going, and how quickly can you get your hitters to stop swinging, while possibly helping your batters align their swings geometrically with the outcomes that fit their athletic skill sets: that seems to be the work of a hitting coach. Perhaps you can help them “build a mental database” about pitchers, as Coach Carter refers to it. That should help with anticipation, after all. But then even he says they have to “go off instinct” at the plate.

Certainly coaches shouldn’t get mad at the hitter with whom they’re working. The whole thing — hitting 2400 rpm at 96 mph with a blink of an eye of time to figure it out — seems pretty impossible, after all.





With a phone full of pictures of pitchers' fingers, strange beers, and his two toddler sons, Eno Sarris can be found at the ballpark or a brewery most days. Read him here, writing about the A's or Giants at The Athletic, or about beer at October. Follow him on Twitter @enosarris if you can handle the sandwiches and inanity.

33 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
ashlandateam
10 years ago

I could not have loved this more. Super interesting stuff!!

TJMember since 2020
10 years ago
Reply to  ashlandateam

I totally agree. Outstanding article.

Neutralluke
10 years ago
Reply to  ashlandateam

Agreed. One of the best articles I’ve read in a long time. It was ENOrmously entertaining, SARRISly. I’m sorry. I’ve had too much to drink tonight. Great article, though.

dirtbag
10 years ago
Reply to  ashlandateam

THIS.

WAS.

AWESOME!!!

I’m going to read it again now.

Peter BonneyMember since 2023
10 years ago

Chris Young: “Maybe I do and I don’t think I do.”
Chris Young: [goes away and thinks deeply about this for the first time]
Chris Young: [can’t stop thinking about it while batting]
Chris Young: [can no longer hit at major-league level]
Chris Young: [is forced to retire]
Eno Sarris: “The first step of my evil plan worked to perfection!”

Brad JohnsonMember
10 years ago
Reply to  Peter Bonney

Chris Young is an interest guy to get for comment. He was one of the poster children for passivity early in his career. Seems like there is an obvious link between passivity and pitch recognition.

BigChief
10 years ago

This is going down as one of my favorite baseball articles, great work! Interestingly enough, another one of my favorite baseball articles is also about vision…. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=19409

baltic wolfMember since 2016
10 years ago

I read the WAPO piece too. After I was finished, I was reminded of something that I believe Yogi Berra said many years ago: “You can’t think and hit at the same time.”

Probably one of the biggest disappointments I had when I was young was after visiting an ophthalmologist. After a thorough examination he asked me if I ever had trouble hitting a baseball. I replied: “I sure do!” The doctor told me: “And you will continue to do so.” He explained that my left eye was so lazy that there was no chance of being successful even in recreational leagues because I was essentially looking at the world with one eye.

That lack of “stereoacuity” was a killer of dreams of glory.

phoenix2042Member since 2016
10 years ago

“Professor Lyons suggested doing a study to see what hitters could do with a ball with white seams, which seems like a great idea… Coach Ochart seemed to suggest that this sort of research is planned for Driveline Hitting, so we can look forward to more results soon, maybe.”

Yes, please! I really hope they do that experiment. This kind of article is so cool!

backward galaxy
10 years ago

Three things I thought while reading this article:
1: This is a great article.
2: Vladimir Guerrero was an insanely great hitter.
3: Kris Medlen’s career makes me sad for what it could have been if not for injuries.

AaronC
10 years ago

Mike Blowers (color man for Mariners broadcasts) will, probably 10-12 times per game, call out pitches before they are thrown:

“He’s got an 0-2 count, so look for the slider out of the zone” The pitch is a slider out of the zone.
“Now he’s got the at-bat right where he wants it. I’d look for a fastball up and in.” Pitch is a fastball up and in, batter swings through, strikeout.

Not that I’ve kept track, but he sure seems to be right a hell of a lot more than he’s wrong, so I have to believe the batters (at least the more veteran guys) can anticipate the next pitch at a pretty good clip just by knowing the count and the pitcher’s patterns. If you’re looking for a specific pitch, then it’s just a matter of matching reality to those expectations in the first few milliseconds after release to decide whether to swing or not.

Having consistent release points and late-moving pitches, then, is the key to successfully fooling hitters.

DavidBowser
10 years ago
Reply to  AaronC

Love it. Mets TV guys Ron Darling (pitcher) and Keith Hernandez (hitter) do the exact same thing.

The thing that gets me is that once in a while (2-3 times a season), they will find a pitcher that tips his pitches and will start calling them during the windup.

rpeltzMember since 2016
10 years ago
Reply to  AaronC

Blowers anticipates pitches before the game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkfmH6ASrOc

rounders
10 years ago

The sighting and recording abilities of professional hitters is different from normals, but they are also clearly different from themselves.

There are hitters who see spin very well, others who see it middling, and some who see it not at all. Raul Mondesi’s talent never reached beyond mediocrity because he never saw spin. Manny Mota threw him countless hours of BP without a bat to help him differentiate fastball spin and slider spin. It never happened. His sight was great.

Tony Guinn, frm the dugout, took mental snapshots of the pitchers hand and called each pitch from that point of the delivery. I don’t know of anyone else who could do this but there must be others.

Dustin Pedroia blinks to snapshot the ball as do a few others. If it worked for everybody they would all be doing it.

Shawnuel
10 years ago

I think it would be much cooler if the title of this article was “What Can Hitters Actually See Out of a Pitcher’s Butt?”

Shirtless Bartolo Colon
10 years ago
Reply to  Shawnuel

Barbecue sauce. That is the answer for your title, or Eno’s.

Brad JohnsonMember
10 years ago

Dammit Eno, I can’t use any of this to hit baseballs farther in men’s league!

(great stuff though!)

JoserMember since 2021
10 years ago

For anyone who enjoyed this, I recommend Why MLB hitters can’t hit Jennie Finch. There’s a lot about hitting in there, but it goes on to what remarkable perceptual abilities the best athletes develop in general

In one instance Starkes tested members of the Canadian national women’s volleyball team, which at the time included one of the best setters in the world. The setter was able to deduce whether the volleyball was present in a picture that was flashed before her eyes for 16 thousandths of a second. “That’s a very difficult task,” says Starkes, who would become one of the world’s most influential expert-performance researchers. “For people who don’t know volleyball, in 16 milliseconds all they see is a flash of light.”

Not only did the world-class setter detect the presence or absence of the ball in 16 milliseconds, but she also gleaned enough visual information to know when and where the picture was taken. “After each slide she would say yes or no — whether the ball was there — and then sometimes she would say, ‘That was the Sherbrooke team after they got their new uniforms, so the picture must have been taken at such and such a time,’ ” says Starkes. One woman’s blink of light was another woman’s fully formed narrative. It was a strong clue that one key difference between expert and novice athletes is not in the raw ability to react quickly but rather in the way the expert has learned to perceive the game.

ashlandateam
10 years ago
Reply to  Joser

This was also really great. Thanks for the share!!

WARrior
10 years ago

It’s well known that softball pitcher Jenny Finch made some really good hitters, like Pujols and Bonds, look like fools. The theory is that softball pitchers have an entirely different release point, so that MLB players can’t get any useful cues from the release. Ergo, most of the information that the batter needs to process to hit successfully comes before the ball is released, or certainly by a very short time after.

Wu-Bacca
10 years ago

Fascinating article – nice work! I once heard David Epstein on a podcast talking about his book The Sports Gene, and he suggested that a batters don’t necessarily have super-quick reflexes. Rather, they are masters at pattern recognition. In other words, they’re not reacting to spin, or velocity, or even the ball at all, so much as subtle (often subconscious) clues that a pitcher gives off BEFORE he even releases the ball.

I may be characterizing his position wrong – I’m going off my recollection of a podcast, so someone please correct me if I’m off here – but I’m wondering how it squares with your article, Eno.

And one other thing your piece makes me wonder: is all that talk about how afternoon shadows affect a batter’s perception just b.s.? I mean, if a batter is picking up things like speed and location in the first fraction of a second before or after the pitcher releases the ball, does it really matter whether it passes through a shadow or two on the way to home plate?

jtricheyMember since 2021
10 years ago

Fascinating stuff. Thanks a lot!

Dooduh
10 years ago

I would assume that Ortiz has extremely good vision and that excellent vision is a baseline for being a good hitter. Add that he’s obviously a really tuned in as a student of hitting by following pitcher tendencies closely. So the combo of his experience which he’s used to offset his aging plus his elite vision is prob what puts him into the top percentile of performers.

Normally I guess you would see the benefit from experience get offset by aging while eyesight goes thru its normal deterioration at the same time. And there is little anyone can do to slow that down. Again, I would assume that Ortiz’s vision is off the charts (pun intended!).

Paul22
10 years ago

Thats interesting. Especially the chirps and whistles from Ortiz.

I do think hitters guess a bit in certain counts, but with 2 strikes they probably revert to see the ball and hit the ball. Thats why knowing location or pitch from the on deck hitter or coach is so useful, and perhaps explains some players home splits if its coming from elsewhere (someone in stands, lights on scoreboard, etc)

I always wonder why a hitter up against a pitcher who is throwing almost 50% changeups will always sit on the fast ball though, and not just look for the changeup which I presume should be easier to hit (bot maybe thats not true for all).

Heck, I can’t even hit a softball, and remember 80 mph looking like 100 mph to me. All I saw was a blur, heard it more than saw it. I suspect there are some umpires who cant even see the balls they are calling for balls and strikes and just look at the catchers glove, which is why framing works with them but not others.

Betts supposedly underwent some neural testing that showed he had superior skills at recognizing pitches. I suspect teams may know more than this, but for obvious reasons, don’t talk. Some players may withold information as well, and I am not sure some of the above players were telling all they knew

ChippersJonesing
10 years ago

This is, as usual, fantastic. It’s just so awesome to hear the players’ perspective on these types of things. Of course the problem is I want more, like, and I don’t think I’m alone here, what would Joey Votto say? Also Barry Bonds would be interesting, also Ted Williams would’ve been amazing to hear from, and…

duntroon68
10 years ago

I wish I could remember all the details but in a coaching discussion I was involved in once the unconscious sport specific experience was raised. Players read cues they aren’t aware of based upon long years of practice. And despite being great athletes the skills don’t translate from sport to sport. It’s why MLB hitters don’t step in and hit well against softball pitchers. The physical cues of the pitcher aren’t the same. A MLB hitter, who, I cannot remember, was quoted. When asked when he knew a pitch was a curveball he replied, “Just before it leaves the pitcher’s hand.”

DSCeee
10 years ago

Yes, players can see different things, Release point, spin, and so on. Muscle memory (doing the same thing so your brain can do some stuff automatically because it ‘knows how now’ is at play, think of riding a bike) goes players a chance to focus on the important stuff. ANd yes, Vlad was awesome in so many ways.

Eye of the Tigers
10 years ago

Wow. Absolutely fascinating article!

JimmyD
10 years ago

Is Mcmaster University a real place?!

Beer
10 years ago
Reply to  JimmyD

I think it’s in Canada. So the answer is “no.”

DavidBowser
10 years ago

The visual part of innate ability vs. learned is pretty interesting. I had read an article years ago dealing with tennis and baseball that discussed tracking a ball at high speed over relatively short distances, and it said that people that practice this can get better. Part of it is how the small muscles in the eye are trained over time.

The best medical explanation I could find is here:
https://www.sharecare.com/health/eye-vision-health/how-eyes-adjust-different-distances

So the net result is that anyone can work at it and get better (assuming those muscles work properly). The flip side is that normal folks that sit in front of computers or at desks all day train their eyes to focus on a fixed distance and thus have an uphill battle.

Kyle Sharamitaro
10 years ago

Hey Eno… As if this article wasn’t great enough on its own, I give you ten million mega bonus points for this lil nugget… “in the parlance of our times”… Every time someone drops an overt Big Lebowski reference in a piece, an angel gets its’ wings! Kudos my friend, kudos indeed!

ggf
10 years ago

I hit exactly one homerun during my long and undistinguished non-professional career, and it was most definitely anticipatory–the pitcher had just fooled me badly on a breaking ball, took the ball from the catcher and almost immediately went into his windup; fastball right down the pipe. I had a few other experiences like that, too, so, this aspect of hitting does ring true with me.