John Smoltz's HOF speech on specialization

       
       
we would all like our kids to be top D1 players.  I am certainly not banking on that.  And if my son plays D3 - any level - I will be there watching him enjoy himself.

Don't forget NAIA.    

I know two kids off of my son's team high school team that started their freshman year at a NAIA baseball school.  

 It is certainly true that very few draft picks come out of D3 each year,  Still, I think you are both underestimating  how good what you call the "really good" but not great players who play at the top of  D3 are and maybe overestimating just  a tad the number of D1 players who live up to your standard of being "really great"   -- at least if by really great you mean players who get drafted. Though a lot more D1 players than D3 players get drafted,  you know it's also the case that FAR  from the majority of D1 players get drafted.  In 2013,for example,  just over 500 D1 players were drafted (roughly  60% were juniors and the other 40% were seniors).  There are just over 10,000 D1 players.  Not sure how many are draft eligible at any one time.  But let's say roughly half.  That's 1 in 10 of the draft eligible players getting drafted.   So by your measure, 90% of D1 players are not great either, right?  A significant thing about D1 is that talent is clearly not evenly distributed throughout D1.  UCLA for example had 8 guys drafted this year,I think,  but Butler had none.  If fact, Butler has had fewer guys drafted over time than Trinity University has.  Sure, there's a lot of distance between Butler and UCLA.  But that's my point in a way.   Probably Butler is closer to Trinity University than it is to UCLA in the level of baseball played there, I would guess.  Not sure, but I would  guess (though not be willing to place a bet on the proposition)  that by far the majority of the D1 draft picks come from, say,  the top 25% of D1 schools.

 

 

My statement was not intended to hurt anyone's feelings.  Just recognizing (as has been pointed out on this site before) that any player who really wants to continue their baseball career in college probably has an opportunity to do so somewhere.  That 94% thing is misleading. That's all.  And yes I do have a high bar for the word 'great'.  And yes I am sure there are a lot of D1 players who also don't meet that definition.  However if we take the D1 guys who quit after freshman year out of the equation I think you will find that a lot more than 1 of 10 get drafted.  How many juniors and seniors do you think are left on D1 teams?  It is not an even distribution among the four classes.  It is a much greater accomplishment to play D1 ball.  I will certainly not be ashamed if my son plays D3 and I think that is how my words are being misinterpreted.   That somehow I am looking down my nose at D3.  If some day my son plays for Whitewater or Stevens Point I will be very excited for him.  I will be his #1 fan just like if he accomplished the goal of going to his dream school.  Next year I am not coaching so some baseball season time will clear up.  Between my sons schedule and my own there is very little time to go to college games.  We saw one small college game last year and carved out time for a few D1 games.  But I promise you I will make my best effort to go see some high levwl D3 play next season.  I am sure that will be a lot of fun.

Sorry for the late response, school started today, lots of stuff to do!

 

To answer your question PGStaff, yes MANY children under the age of 14 "specialize" in one sport, and especially in the Atlanta Area.  I think the word specialize is too specific though, I know in my kids case he picked up a baseball at age 6 and by age 9 he was on a year round team because that is what he enjoyed, and what he continues to enjoy.  I have made it clear on multiple occasions that I would be happy to take him to football, basketball, soccer...and buy whatever, but he LOVES baseball.  He might play a pick up game in the neighborhood of football or soccer, but he's not interested in getting on a team.

 

FWIW, we didn't allow our LHP son to play year round ball until sophomore yr in HS. He thought we were being overly cautious/insert nasty-slang-term here. We knew his physique/velocity was not 'projectable' D1 level and, fortunately, we, the parents, didn't have to say one thing b/c experience in Atlanta as rising junior eventually made it clear. (Whew!) That said, he had serious looks by our local high D2 school. He will be playing high D3 next year (assuming a good fall work-out). Though not a brilliant student, he received a LOT of merit aid (the best kind there is!). I think it worked out beautifully. He didn't flame out in middle school. He didn't flame out in high school. And he gets a chance to play ball in college.

 

Why didn't we let him play year round? My better half knows Andrews and when our kid was 11-ish was told the stats about year-rounders. Yes, there are always outliers but the chances of injury skyrocket with year-round play. Also, re specialization: my player and his buddies didn't do multiple high school team sports but do a LOT of physical activity: wake boarding, snowboarding, scuba, ultimate frisbee, etc. They just came back from their 4th 5+hr day hike in our local mtns. 

 

The small, small, SMALL percentage of players going on to play high-level D1ball (and further) are, in my mind, the outliers. The bulk of our kids are regular kids with a cool chance to play a fun sport in college. Our job as parents is to remember that. 

Okay this is what I don't get!  You admit your kid isn't D1 material.  You admit the D1 guys are the outliers that can handle year round ball.  Yet, based on the advice of Dr. Andrews you wouldn't allow a 11 year old...a 12...a 13 year old to play baseball, which he loved, with his buddies year round...all to protect his arm which you knew wasn't D1 material.

 

Okay, to me this says you robbed your kid of the doing what he loves on the off chance he would hurt himself....I'd like to refer you back to the wrapped in a bubble comment by 2020dad.

it's true that many things cut down the number of upperclassmen on D1 rosters -- the draft being one of them. Some of the power schools seem to lose a significant chunk of their junior class each year to the draft.  Then there are injuries, on and off the field failure, and burn-out.  So you're right that it probably isn't right to think of 1/2 of D1 rosters as consisting of draft eligible juniors and seniors.  But still, even if you take account of attrition, I would bet it's still true that the VAST majority of D1 players don't get drafted. 

 

Here's a somewhat random sample -- trying to pick a range of schools -- and how many of their draft eligible players got drafted in 2015. 

 

• Of the 21 draft eligible players at the University of Notre Dame this year exactly 1 got drafted. 
• Of the 20 draft eligible players at Ohio State 4 got drafted
• Of the 17 draft eligible players at Cal State Long Beach 2 got drafted.
• Of the  9 draft eligible players at Vanderbilt,  all 9 got drafted.  (wow) 
• Of the 13 draft eligible players at Umass Amherst, 0 got drafted. 

 

That's  5 schools from different parts of the country, with 80 total draft eligible players, of whom 16 got drafted -- over half of them from a single power house school.  If that pattern generalizes over the roughly 300 D1 schools that means on the order of 20% will get drafted.   Of course, as you yourself point out, the attrition along the way is not insignificant.  So even if you land a D1 spot, you have to run the gauntlet before becoming draft eligible. 

 

Caco I hope they are talking about actually playing competitve games year round.  And pitching competitively year round.  But it is confusing because even in your climate do you know anyone who actually does this?  But as far as being involved in a 12 month a year program - part games, part practice, part strength and fitness - I don't see that as an issue.  I get the words of caution.  Nobody knows for sure what causes one kid to get injured and the other to not.  So caution is great.  But when it gets to statements like 'parents need to be parents' and 'our job as parents is' now I take exception.  I would never dream of telling someone else how to parent their children.  Its like that aunt or uncle who scolds their niece or nephew and talks behind the back of their brother/sister about what poor parents they are.  Everybody has a different value system.  We need to respect everyone's parenting without calling them wrong.  Seems like every specialization debate I wind up in this argument.  And my kid doesn't specialize.  But if he walked up to me tomorrow and said "dad I want to stop playing basketball and just focus on baseball" what am I supposed to say?  "No son I can't allow you to do that because it would bring me heavy criticism on HSBBW"???  Ok sorry, a little sarcastic there but really can't people just make their own choices without being horrible parents?

If your son wanted to specialize in baseball only then just tell him to specialize for six to seven months. If my son decided to focus on one sport there would definitely be at least a four month downtime

       
       
Remember one thing though...  its like the odds of rolling a three on a dice.  Its 6 t o 1 of course.  But if you roll it twice its 3 to 1.  Not a math teacher and I am sure in statistics and probability it is much more complicated than that.  But remember those draft eligible juniors have another shot as seniors!  So now that 20% becomes closer to 40%!  That's getting pretty large.  In fact I think the 1 in 5 is pretty large.  Go to baseball cube and look up 2010 rosters.  The smoke has cleared there.  And see how many kids eventually got drafted.  Now you will have to do a little work filtering out those who quit after their freshman or sophomore season but even if you leave them in it might be in that 20 or 30% range.  That's still pretty impressive.  Now.if we had the means and will power to some how sort it to guys who played...  like starters and pitchers who threw significant innings I bet that number would be astonishing.  Fact of the matter is if you are fortunate enough to be a D1 starter your chances of being drafted are pretty darn good.

       
       
Keep in mind part of this time is strength and fitness only.  but a baseball specific program.  Of course he usually hits in the cage some while he is there.  We do take at least three months a year with little or no throwing.  But that is our way not the only way.  Why would you need down time?  Burnout?  Most of these guys in our program...  I can not describe for you how in to baseball they are.  A sheer love of the game.  And I witness no burnout that I am aware of.  If burnout is a concern for your kid then give him the down time.  If my son says he needs a break from baseball then he will get it.  He drives the bus.  But when he wants to go hit or something we jump in the car and go to the facility.

 Uh, this  sampling includes both Juniors and Seniors.  20% of ALL draft eligible players -- including both juniors and seniors -- got drafted at these  five schools.  So your reasoning doesn't really apply.   Plus you do know, don't you, that seniors tend to go a lot lower in the draft and have a lot less leverage?

"  Fact of the matter is if you are fortunate enough to be a D1 starter your chances of being drafted are pretty darn good."

 

Only if you play in a top 75-100 of the 300 D1 programs.  You can do the math and find information on the internet. The vast majority of D1 drafted players come from top 100 programs.

I mightily apologize b/c I think my last comment was sorta misinterpreted to imply 'bad parents'. Not at all!! What I mean is that as parents, our job is definitely to make sure they know all about those wonderful odds! And play them according to the hand you are dealt. In our house, we don't second guess ourselves about whether by limiting his playing time we decreased his odds of getting to the D1 level or decreased his amount of fun 'cuz we sure had ourselves a bucket of fun doing the two summers of traveling to college camps and showcases and such. That was really a TON of fun and worth the money and time, etc. I really only want to chime in on the hazards of too much ball on a developing young man's body. And, well, my kid has a Dad who operates on young men with bad shoulder and arm injuries, so yeah, in our house, we definitely erred on the side of caution. Enjoy the moment everyone! It passes soooooo darn fast...

I think the point about juniors and seniors is that some of the juniors who aren't drafted this year will be drafted next year, so the number of players drafted, overall, from a given set of players (the set consisting of seniors and draft-eligible juniors) is a bit higher.

Overall, though, the point is correct that of course most D1 baseball players are not drafted, and, in addition, most of those who are drafted receive very modest signing bonuses.

I'm just reading this, so maybe it's been addressed. ASMI's studies did not, in any way, deal with "properly thrown" curveballs - only "self reported" curves. That means that even when included curves thrown with what some would consider bad mechanics, the curve ball was found to be a non-factor as compared to fatigue and overuse. Nissen, in fact, showed the curve to provide LESS stress than the fastball. I think it's time we lose the arguments concerning a "correctly thrown" curve versus a "poorly thrown" one. I think what you will find, though, is that the curve (and change, as well) is thrown with lower peak valgus angle (arm layback) than the fastball and this may well be a major contributor to elbow injuries. When trying to pinpoint pronation v. supination as a factor in elbow wear and tear, I believe we may be looking in the wrong place.

I've made this argument before, but think it again relevant. Heredity may be a big factor. Here's my theory (based on very little, admittedly). In the past, pitchers took on heavy workloads. How many of us remember the days when no one even thought about counting pitches and LL and high school teams would trot the same pitcher out inning after inning all season?  It's my belief that in the "good ole days" only those genetically able to withstand such a pounding made it to the Big Leagues. The rest fell to the wayside with injuries and quite pitching early in their careers - long before reaching pro ball. Today, we do a better job of protecting arms. As a result, many pitchers who do not have the genetic makeup of which I speak get farther into their careers than their genetic makeup previously would have allowed. Guys like Nolan Ryan and Randy Johnson probably could have thrown 200 pitches a game every four or five days for years with little injury risk. Guys like Kerry Wood probably not. By restricting young pitchers, we've greatly increased the pool of guys who can throw 90+ by keeping them healthier for longer periods of time. that's a good thing.

I'm struggling with this one, 2020. Why should we respect everyone's parenting?

 

Obviously you mean within reason, I'm sure -- but still. Think about how many REALLY AWFUL parents there are in this world. We have laws to protect children from bad parents, for goodness' sake!

 

By the same logic, I think it's incumbent on parents who've been there ... to point out where they think parents of ball players are wrong -- based on their experiences. When someone thinks I'm wrong about how I'm handling my son's baseball experience, I want to know it.

 

Then it's up to me to weigh that against my own experiences, beliefs, etc.

I guess I should have been even more precise and actually referenced some of the articles which use the phrase "thrown with proper mechanics."

 

Also, based on the 2014 published article by Yang, et.al. the youth curve ball is not fully exonerated.

 

http://ajs.sagepub.com/content...46514524699.abstract

"Nearly 70% of the sample reported throwing curveballs, which was associated with 1.66 (95% CI = 1.09-2.53) greater odds of experiencing arm pain while throwing."

 

 

 

You have to be careful with abstracts. I have the entire study if you want it (just PM me). The study was very careful to point out that while increased use of the curve did increase reports of pain, that this increase in reported pain did not apparently mean much since it did not coincide with any increase in injury risk.

I think the wisdom of the parents on this site that have been there and done that is invaluable.  I also think that several on here think that the way THEY chose to do it is the ONLY correct way to do it...and I think that is where 2020 is taking offense.  It's like saying only party X knows how to run the government and only religion Y worships correctly....parenting has no manual and we are all likely screwing it up in some way, or have already. 

Now THERE ... you are right, Caco. There are definitely moms and dads here who think they know it all because their sons made it to a certain level. And yes, they can be blunt to the point of ineffectiveness. But most aren't like that, and I just wanted to be clear: We sometimes ARE WRONG as parents. Or we WONDER if we're wrong. That's why we're here!

 

So being challenged as wrong is to be expected. After all -- feedback is a gift.

 

 

roothog66,

 

That is some real good stuff! IMO

 

You know I have heard from an extremely reliable source that there are hundreds of surgeons today capable of performing TJ surgery.

 

My biggest issue remains this... Everyone seems to agree that fatigue and over use is the biggest factor for all these injuries. I love having rules that help prevent some of the abusive pitch counts and lack of recovery time. 

 

However, we all also know that every pitcher is different.  The fatigue doesn't set in at the same time for every pitcher.  So how do we protect the kid that is totally fatigued after throwing 50 pitches, when the rules say he can throw 100 pitches?

 

So having guidelines are great and very helpful, it will actually take more than rules to keep everyone health or at least most pitchers healthy. It takes someone, coach, parent, etc., that takes the time to watch closely and determine what that pitcher is capable of and when he reaches his "personal" danger zone. When fatigue sets in!  Then we know that number of pitches he should throw for now until he develops more stamina and can throw a higher number.

 

Because of what we do, we see lots of pitchers.  We have seen pitchers that have had TJ surgery that never once threw what anyone would consider too many pitches.  So I have to believe that not every pitcher was born with an equal UCL.  I mean can't we just look at each other and see the differences?  

 

I totally respect Doc Andrews and everything he says.  He and his staff probably knows more about TJ surgery than anyone on earth.  That said, I feel like there is still a lot that is unknown. In the meantime all people can do is use common sense and at least follow some guidelines.  That is why PitchSmart is important, it at least gives some guidelines that will help many young pitchers.

I probably depose as many doctors as most so I fully appreciate what you are saying. I also understand that the UCL is most often a cumulative wear and tear deterioration.  There can also be issues with lawyers being doctors, and doctors trying to be lawyers in my experience, although both can create a lot of interesting things when they occur.

Many can read the same articles and come to different conclusions. This is one which would vary from the views that even an improperly thrown curveball has no risk:

 

"

 

I do agree that we have to also be careful with how we talk about pitching. To say curveballs are safe is, indeed, misleading. Pitching is not a safe activity. The article you linked concerning mechanics is as close as I've seen to something that agrees with my own views. My point - and belief - has and is that we are concentrating on some of the wrong areas. I think pitch type is way down the list of things that contribute to arm problems. I believe one of the biggest fixable factors, for example, to be late external rotation (the main problem with the inverted W). However, I'm also convinced that one of the biggest problems is extreme peak valgus angles in arm layback and, unfortunately, I don't believe this is a mechanical flaw. I think it is a mechanical peculiarity that is the biggest factor in velocity that can't be changed without decreasing velocity.

I think, however, that one thing that never seems to be emphasized is that the current pitch count guidelines are really meant to protect arms from the extreme situations. In the end, it's up to individual coaches (and parents) to closely monitor their pitchers so that they understand what limits and restrictions apply individually to their pitcher. I often see coaches who lean on these guidelines and substitute them for their own judgment. They seem to operate under the notion that as long as they stay within the guidelines, they've done their job. Unfortunately, there are a lot of kids being coached by staffs with no qualified pitching coach onboard. I see this A LOT at the high school level.

One more thing... I'm actually very thankful for TJ surgery.  It was the only reason my son got to continue his career.  I realize some don't fully recover, but I also know that many do. None of them would have in days days before TJ surgery.

 

Once again I only have a problem with the word epidemic.  John Smoltz was the very first TJ surgery to become a hall of famer.  Would he be a hall of famer today without TJ surgery? For sure, he won't be the last.

 

If there were no TJ surgery, there wouldn't be a TJ epidemic, would there?   It would just be like the old days when you blew out the arm you were done.

 

So I look at TJ surgery as a blessing in some ways.  Sure it's still terrible and you wouldn't wish it on anyone, but because of modern medicine it doesn't have to be the end.  Surely no one really thinks Tommy John was the first pitcher to ever have a UCL problem? The injury didn't start with him, the solution started with him. And now we are having pitchers get the surgery, that would have just kept throwing until it gave away completely, in the old days.  Then their career was over!  They weren't part of any epidemic, they were just done!

 

 

PG,

This information from  recent 2015 study might help better localize the medical concern and focus, which is on TJ for the population aged 15-19.  The study describes a "staggering" increase in the numbers for ages 15-19, and is also interesting in suggesting how misinformed so many are about the issue of overuse and TJ:

 

http://www.rushortho.com/pdf/E...n-UCLR-AJSM-2015.pdf

 

To address the issues which both you and Roothog have about TJ not being possible until recently, it appears the authors intend to do further analysis comparing TJ and ACL repairs in the involved age group of 15-19, since both are pretty new in the spectrum of successful surgeries amd sports injuries.

These authors conclude the rise in numbers for ages 15-19 needs to correlate with greater education and a better understanding of risk reduction, which hopefully some of these discussions will provide for those with son's ages 10-19.

I think, too often, the media tries to make sense of the rise in TJ surgeries. In doing so, they tend to try to use it in a way which doesn't work from a logic standpoint. An increase in TJ surgeries from 2007 to 2015 can only be used as evidence of one conclusion - TJ surgeries are on the rise. Take note that I didn't say it is proof that UCL injuries are on the rise. That may or may not be true, but the rise in reported reconstructions cannot logically be used to support that argument. It would be the equivalent of arguing that heart disease is greatly on the rise since 1982 by pointing to the staggering increase in artificial heart implants. It just doesn't work. In fact, I would venture to say that there is no way to settle this particular argument. It's a reporting problem. Prior to the last 10-15 years, most torn UCLs most likely didn't even result in a visit to a specialist. You threw out your arm, you either tried to pitch through it or you quit pitching. I knew lots of kids in the 80's that probably suffered torn ucls, but they didn't even visit a doctor, yet alone a surgeon. Their careers were simply over. Today, we do a better job with young pitchers. A sore elbow leads to - at the very least - a doctor visit. However, this increase in reporting makes it impossible to compare numbers concerning reported incidents of injury from 1990 and 2015 in a way that gives us any truly useful information. All we can do is continue to be vigilant and cautious. However, we spend too much time trying to compare incomparable statistics when we should be focused on prevention.

Infielddad,

 

Thank you for that link.  

 

I'm curious as to how many of the TJ surgeries involved baseball.  I would imagine a very high percentage, though I have heard about TJ involving other sports.  Also noticed a number of females listed in their discovery.  I have not ever heard of a female, softball player or otherwise, that had TJ surgery.  Of course, that doesn't mean anything, there are lots of things I don't know.

 

i would like to know if sports like tennis have many TJ surgeries?  Seems logical they would.  

 

The 15 to 19 ages don't surprise me, but I wish they separated it a bit more.  I would think there are many more from 17 to 18 than from 15 to 16.  Still very good stuff, thank you.

 

I would love to see more surveys and studies.  And for sure prevention is important.

 

This thread has posts which could be interpreted to argue there is no "increase" in TJ from 40 years ago other than the surgery exists,  so everything being done now is just fine, when we both agree that is not the case.

Don't you think 50% of HS athletes and over 30% of coaches and even more

parents thinking TJ is a proper prophylactic treatment  is somewhat alarming?(without attempting to alarm!)

Both you and PG are very persuasive and respected on this site. I think many could read this thread and come away with  the view that TJ is just "part of baseball" and nothing should change because UCL tears have always been part of baseball.

That may not be your intent and I can tell from our last exchanges that is not your perspective.  However, if over 50% of HS players and almost 40% of parents believe TJ should be done on a prophylactic basis, more and better education about TJ and the risks needs to occur.

Good for you Al Pal!  

No one knows at 9, 10, 11, 12 or even 15 or 16  what division a player may qualify for but you knew that your son might one day play at the next level and you did what you did based on credible info you received from Doc Andrews.  This has nothing to do with what division or level but avoiding injury to youth players.

Not understand why some just don't get that.

 

Don't make someone who hasn't had their son make it even to HS yet, tell you that you denied him anything or what you did was wrong.

 

Best of luck to your son!

My major concern is that too much time is spent trying to explain "why" TJ surgeries are up. They are on the rise because we perform more of them. Instead of asking that question, I believe we should ignore that particular question and instead focus on the question, "what mechanical deficiencies actually contribute to ucl damage?" More studies on mechanics and their physical forces would be a lot more useful than arguments based on comparative data that is logically flawed.

 

His speech was not about a professional pitcher having TJS, its about kids having TJS.

There is a very big difference.

Maybe I am sending the wrong signal. I do believe that ucl tears have always been part of the game and I suspect that the problem is no worse - and perhaps even not as bad - as it was in the past. However, it was a problem then and it is a problem now. It is a problem that was not adequately addressed in 1950 or 1970 or 1980 and it's not being adequately addressed in 2015. More real study needs to be done. I mean real study and not vague statistical analysis. We have the means to break down pitching mechanics and measure the forces applied, yet we've been slow about doing it. I think, if anything, that's the real tragedy here - that we drag our feet. I applaud organizations like ASMI,  ut what studies we've seen so far are only the very beginning of what needs to be done.

If it is true that 40% of parents truly believe TJ should be done on a prophylactic basis, why would they care about mechanics and prevention.

Doesn't the message have to be understood that TJ is a significant surgery, not always successful, can take 12-18 months for recovery and involves risks post TJ, to drive home a different message than even coaches currently ,so that there is a fundamental change belief systems in up to 90 to 95% of the  baseball population which appears to be most at risk?

Stated in a different way, why would a coach, HS player or parent of a HS player focus on prevention and mechanics if the player is successful with poor mechanics and lots of "innings" and work and they believe TJ is a good prophylactic treatment?

I know you "got it" but how do we get the other close to 50% to "get it" or do we?

True and I haven't addressed that part of the article yet. Maybe because I find it hard to fathom that people actually think like that. I just find it hard to wrap my head around. I think maybe those numbers a re a little outdated because that very issue was discussed a lot in the media early last year. At least I hope that data is old. I guess the remaining problem would be how do you go about educating people on this?

By doing the studies and authoring the articles you don't like? 

By and large, I have tremendous respect for our medical system, but that does not mean everyone in the system and the medical system is so large, the number of those who might be questioned is a growing population.

While it is hard to imagine, some articles a year or two ago confirmed ortho's were doing TJ, prophylatically.