Now that Little League and HS baseball is ramping up, my facility has been flooded by well-meaning parents and coaches who are giving out some poor advice to their pitchers.
http://www.drivelinebaseball.c...closer-to-the-plate/
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Nice write up. Good stuff.
Kyle,
Not sure I totally agree. I've seen many young pitchers who fall off hard to the side helped by the cue of "nose to the target" or something along those lines. Certainly there is rotation that may pull them off toward the end, just as a hitter keeps his head behind the ball until his back shoulder pulls it off. But staying down the line with some sense of balance is good for most pitchers, isn't it?
What is your teach?
Not sure I totally agree. I've seen many young pitchers who fall off hard to the side helped by the cue of "nose to the target" or something along those lines. Certainly there is rotation that may pull them off toward the end, just as a hitter keeps his head behind the ball until his back shoulder pulls it off. But staying down the line with some sense of balance is good for most pitchers, isn't it?
What is your teach?
quote:Originally posted by cabbagedad:
Kyle,
Not sure I totally agree. I've seen many young pitchers who fall off hard to the side helped by the cue of "nose to the target" or something along those lines. Certainly there is rotation that may pull them off toward the end, just as a hitter keeps his head behind the ball until his back shoulder pulls it off. But staying down the line with some sense of balance is good for most pitchers, isn't it?
What is your teach?
If you tell them to put the nose in the mitt, and it fixes their control but costs them 6 MPH on their fastball, how do you get the fastball velocity back while maintaining the control?
This is the problem with fixing stuff piece by piece. You don't fix a guy's control and then have him throw 90 MPH. You do both at the same time, knowing that it's a tougher road but ultimately way more beneficial for the athlete.
While I don't believe that the head has to be "still" and on a straight line to the plate I do believe that keeping the nose toward the target as much as possible is a good thing. In the end, the ability to repeat is going to be more important than head movement or keeping the eyes on the target. Some pitchers are able to repeat better with less head movement or by keeping the eyes on the target. Some are able to repeat without that.
A lot of it has to do with the individual pitcher's makeup. If a pitcher can keep the head relatively still and also get full rotation of the torso then great they may be able to get a combination of velocity and control.
If overdoing trying to keep the head still results in a significant velocity loss then one has to find a different way to get the control.
If a pitcher just can't throw strikes as a result of head movement then they may end up having to compromise the velocity to some degree.
A lot of it has to do with the individual pitcher's makeup. If a pitcher can keep the head relatively still and also get full rotation of the torso then great they may be able to get a combination of velocity and control.
If overdoing trying to keep the head still results in a significant velocity loss then one has to find a different way to get the control.
If a pitcher just can't throw strikes as a result of head movement then they may end up having to compromise the velocity to some degree.
Interesting. You've probably heard this theory somewhere in your athletic backgrounds; "Where the eyes go, the head and body will follow."
The head is the heaviest adult torso appendage. If my purpose is to build momentum to throw a baseball to the catcher at maximum velocity, why would I really want my head going somewhere else?
The head is the heaviest adult torso appendage. If my purpose is to build momentum to throw a baseball to the catcher at maximum velocity, why would I really want my head going somewhere else?
Because velocity is a function of rotation as well as forward motion.
Rotation should precede, slightly, linear delivery. They work together but you don't deliver maximum force in an arc.
Think about a propeller. The tip speeds approach sonic velocity. That's the most effective way for a series of levers to achieve high velocity. If linear was the most effective way we'd be pushing the ball instead of throwing it. Being more linear may contribute to better control but it will necessarily reduce velocity because the most effective way for the human body to produce velocity at the fingertips is through motion along an arc. That's why pitchers who try to aim the ball end up pushing it and losing velocity.
Sounds like a Marshallite misinterpretation of simple mechanics.
Just about the only thing that is linear is the push off from the mound and even that tends to have a rotational element to it as the leg swings open. After that the torso rotates, then the shoulder rotates and then the forearm extends by rotating about the elbow. The motions tend to overlap but that's the general sequence and it is rotation, rotation and more rotation. The hand is following a nearly circular path as the ball is released and there is essentially no linear portion of that motion. It is simply a matter of releasing the ball at the right point along that arc just like a catapult or a sling will throw an object in a straight line with a purely rotational motion.
As I sit here and type this my dynamics textbook happens to be sitting right next to me. It is filled with problems like this. My professor was literally the guy who wrote the book.
Sounds like a Marshallite misinterpretation of simple mechanics.
Just about the only thing that is linear is the push off from the mound and even that tends to have a rotational element to it as the leg swings open. After that the torso rotates, then the shoulder rotates and then the forearm extends by rotating about the elbow. The motions tend to overlap but that's the general sequence and it is rotation, rotation and more rotation. The hand is following a nearly circular path as the ball is released and there is essentially no linear portion of that motion. It is simply a matter of releasing the ball at the right point along that arc just like a catapult or a sling will throw an object in a straight line with a purely rotational motion.
As I sit here and type this my dynamics textbook happens to be sitting right next to me. It is filled with problems like this. My professor was literally the guy who wrote the book.
quote:Think about a propeller.
I'm going to concede that my Business education didn't equip me to verbally spar with an engineering academic. You could place what I know about "Dynamics" into a tea cup.
That being said; I can't quite grasp how a propeller, creating motion against air or water resistance, relates to throwing a baseball to the catcher. If throwing a baseball is rotational (pushing is linear) than the best way for a pitcher to generate velocity would be to spin on the mound like a propeller, and then sling the ball in an arc at some point towards the plate and "hope" it lands close. Perhaps then, pitchers should then propel the ball more like a cricket bowler?
Slings and catapult levers were used early on to hunt animals and as weapons of battle. They could move great weights but the problem was speed and accuracy. When man needed to hit a target, to eat and survive, he developed weapons that propelled objects in a linear path; sling shots, then bows, and finally guns. Maybe Sir Isaac was on to something with his laws of motion?
I do concur, however, all human movements necessary to generate power incorporate both rotational and linear aspects.
(quote)Sounds like a Marshallite misinterpretation of simple mechanics. (/quote).
I really don't know what you mean other than it wasn't intended as a compliment. Certainly I'm aware of Mike Marshall. In fact, I'm old enough to have seen him pitch live on a number of occasions. Academically and experientially, he's better prepared to speak about human movement, as it pertains to throwing a baseball, than I am. But, I'm 100% convinced of his application of Newtons "Laws of Motions" as they to force application of a baseball, are indeed factual. Moreover, because those Physics Laws are applied in other human movements, necessary to generate power, as documented by martial art historians through some 2000 years of their historic (my professor didn't write the book) teachings. And because I've personally experienced their vailidity while throwing and striking, I use them as experiences that I can relate to.
The most powerful martial "weapon" is a spinning back kick. Facing the target, you spin 180 degrees but while in the spin and your back is turned to the target, you head rotates allowing your eyes to lock on the target, and then direct the energy created rotationally, in a direct linear motion delivering the heel to the targets solar plexis. The results are devastating, much more so than a straight, linear front or back kick.
Back to baseball and the topic of this discussion, in my semantics, when and while rotating, one's eyes , head and chin must lock on the target to direct that baseball homeward. When that ball leaves the fingertips it's propelled directly to homeplate. That my esteemed friend, is linear.
Marshall is absolutely wrong in his interpretation of Newton's laws of Motion. Would you like me to be a bit more direct?
So how many people do you know who are built like bows? I guess you could spit a baseball out of your mouth or propel it out of another orifice to simulate a gun. It wouldn't go very far and personally I wouldn't want to touch it.
The ball is traveling in an arc up until the point it is released and then and only then after it has left the hand does it go linear. There is little or nothing linear about the act of throwing a baseball until the baseball leaves the hand and is no longer being affected by the thrower.
Hideo Nomo, Fernando Valenzuela, Luis Tiant...
So how many people do you know who are built like bows? I guess you could spit a baseball out of your mouth or propel it out of another orifice to simulate a gun. It wouldn't go very far and personally I wouldn't want to touch it.
The ball is traveling in an arc up until the point it is released and then and only then after it has left the hand does it go linear. There is little or nothing linear about the act of throwing a baseball until the baseball leaves the hand and is no longer being affected by the thrower.
Hideo Nomo, Fernando Valenzuela, Luis Tiant...
quote:So how many people do you know who are built like bows? I guess you could spit a baseball out of your mouth or propel it out of another orifice to simulate a gun
Or better yet, spin like a propeller... and I did not realize Newton's Laws of Motion were open to individual interpretation? I can only relate to what I've experienced personally, when it comes to generating power to throw, hit or strike. Simulating propeller propulsion just isn't applicable for me. LOL
Maybe it works better in California per your examples; Tiant, Nomo & Valenzuela?
Marshall has certainly misinterpreted their application to throwing a baseball and yes people who don't understand mechanics often misinterpret even the most basic principles.
For example, someone might not even understand that a propeller is an example of achieving maximum velocity with minimum energy through a series of levers which result in a rotational motion. Maybe I can interpret for you - propellers rotate really fast. Shoulders and elbows rotate really fast.
Tiant = California
For example, someone might not even understand that a propeller is an example of achieving maximum velocity with minimum energy through a series of levers which result in a rotational motion. Maybe I can interpret for you - propellers rotate really fast. Shoulders and elbows rotate really fast.
Tiant = California
Apparently there is much that I and others don't understand but, thankfully you do. And you've established that Marshall certainly doesn't know anything about pitching baseballs, but you do.
Not sure of the point you're trying to make, I guess both of the above. I guess I'm just too dumb to understand and can't contemplate that it's preferable to take you eyes and head off of and away from a target you want to hit, according to you.
In high speed crash avoidance automobile drivers training, you also learn how to properly use the brains natural means of utilizing what the eyes see.
I hope and pray, that you never attempt to ride a motorcycle, well safely anyway as the bike will travel where you eyes look. In fact, you look where you want to go, not where you're currently heading. What a silly concept. Things tend to go where your eyes look (oops, I'm back on subject again).
Since this has gotten way of base let's let it die, shall we?
Not sure of the point you're trying to make, I guess both of the above. I guess I'm just too dumb to understand and can't contemplate that it's preferable to take you eyes and head off of and away from a target you want to hit, according to you.
In high speed crash avoidance automobile drivers training, you also learn how to properly use the brains natural means of utilizing what the eyes see.
I hope and pray, that you never attempt to ride a motorcycle, well safely anyway as the bike will travel where you eyes look. In fact, you look where you want to go, not where you're currently heading. What a silly concept. Things tend to go where your eyes look (oops, I'm back on subject again).
Since this has gotten way of base let's let it die, shall we?
How to make your point online:
Step 1 - Make vague statement based on hearsay.
Step 2 - Statement is refuted by fact.
Step 3 - Try again despite not really understanding.
Step 4 - Statement is further refuted by fact.
Step 5 - Try to insult person who refuted with fact and try to put word's in that person's mouth they really didn't say "...that it's preferable to take you(r) eyes and head off of and away from a target you want to hit, according to you."
Step 6 - Draw a totally unrelated analogy.
Step 7 - After doing all that say "let's let it die".
BTW, here's what I actually wrote before you made a statement that only referred to velocity that I refuted:
While I don't believe that the head has to be "still" and on a straight line to the plate I do believe that keeping the nose toward the target as much as possible is a good thing. In the end, the ability to repeat is going to be more important than head movement or keeping the eyes on the target. Some pitchers are able to repeat better with less head movement or by keeping the eyes on the target. Some are able to repeat without that.
Step 1 - Make vague statement based on hearsay.
Step 2 - Statement is refuted by fact.
Step 3 - Try again despite not really understanding.
Step 4 - Statement is further refuted by fact.
Step 5 - Try to insult person who refuted with fact and try to put word's in that person's mouth they really didn't say "...that it's preferable to take you(r) eyes and head off of and away from a target you want to hit, according to you."
Step 6 - Draw a totally unrelated analogy.
Step 7 - After doing all that say "let's let it die".
BTW, here's what I actually wrote before you made a statement that only referred to velocity that I refuted:
While I don't believe that the head has to be "still" and on a straight line to the plate I do believe that keeping the nose toward the target as much as possible is a good thing. In the end, the ability to repeat is going to be more important than head movement or keeping the eyes on the target. Some pitchers are able to repeat better with less head movement or by keeping the eyes on the target. Some are able to repeat without that.
I believe you need to keep your eyes on the target. I rode a motorcycle for years and understand what Prime9 is talking about and I believe that by keeping your eye on the target, your body will naturally follow and you will more likely hit the target with the ball.
That being said, I think there is a lot of rotational as well as linear in the baseball pitching motion. Here's an analogy that I hope is not totally unrelated. I think we can agree that the golf swing is a rotational motion. It certainly is not linear since there is no movement towards the target during the swing. However, if you ever watch the slow motion golf swings, you will see that those guys never move their head. It is like they have a spike driven through their head and down through their spine and their body rotates around that.
I think that a pitcher can use a similar concept. You have linear in the pitching motion - ie body driving toward the plate and your arm moving toward the target to propel the ball. You also have rotational forces coming into play. The shoulders rotate around the spine to help force and use the whole body to bring the arm linearly (is that a word?) towards the target. I would think - and I am not a kineseologist or anything - that a pitchers goal would be to rotate the hips and shoulders around a relatively stable spine for as long as possible, not taking the eyes off the target. I envision a stake coming up out of the ground going through the spine and then head. That spike is on a slide that goes towards home plate. Pitcher drives off the rubber, hips open (or rotate), then shoulders open (or rotate) as the throwing arm comes around. All this while the body rotates around the spine. I then think follow through will pull some off to the glove side, but this is hopefully after the ball has been released.
Like I said, I am not an expert, but this is how I view it. Hopefully it makes sense to some.
That being said, I think there is a lot of rotational as well as linear in the baseball pitching motion. Here's an analogy that I hope is not totally unrelated. I think we can agree that the golf swing is a rotational motion. It certainly is not linear since there is no movement towards the target during the swing. However, if you ever watch the slow motion golf swings, you will see that those guys never move their head. It is like they have a spike driven through their head and down through their spine and their body rotates around that.
I think that a pitcher can use a similar concept. You have linear in the pitching motion - ie body driving toward the plate and your arm moving toward the target to propel the ball. You also have rotational forces coming into play. The shoulders rotate around the spine to help force and use the whole body to bring the arm linearly (is that a word?) towards the target. I would think - and I am not a kineseologist or anything - that a pitchers goal would be to rotate the hips and shoulders around a relatively stable spine for as long as possible, not taking the eyes off the target. I envision a stake coming up out of the ground going through the spine and then head. That spike is on a slide that goes towards home plate. Pitcher drives off the rubber, hips open (or rotate), then shoulders open (or rotate) as the throwing arm comes around. All this while the body rotates around the spine. I then think follow through will pull some off to the glove side, but this is hopefully after the ball has been released.
Like I said, I am not an expert, but this is how I view it. Hopefully it makes sense to some.
bballman,
Here's the issue.
Prime9 wrote:
That's what I was responding to. Do you see anything in there about hitting a target? He was saying that you don't deliver maximum force in an arc and that is absolutely wrong within the context of throwing a baseball. That is what I was refuting.
I said in my statement repeated multiple times that I prefer that the nose (and therefore eyes) be pointed at the target. However, there are other ways to get the job done and I recognize that. When one goes to the extreme of having the chin go on a line toward the target it tends to reduce velocity. There have been some very successful pitchers who did that because it was the right trade of velocity and control for them.
The majority of golfers do keep their heads very still and rotating off the ball will tend to cause problems. I've done both and it is easier to throw a baseball accurately than to hit a golf ball accurately with power. There is an example of a golfer whose head tends to rotate off the ball pretty violently at times and as he's gotten older it has become a problem. However, Tiger won a lot of majors with that problem. How? Because he was able to repeat.
Golf is also an example of the club head moving in an arc and the ball coming off the club head in a straight line (until spin takes over).
BTW, please take a look at Jered Weaver's motion and let me know how it compares to your stake through the spine example. He doesn't stride toward the plate. He's got pretty good control. Why? Because he repeats.
Here's the issue.
Prime9 wrote:
quote:Rotation should precede, slightly, linear delivery. They work together but you don't deliver maximum force in an arc.
That's what I was responding to. Do you see anything in there about hitting a target? He was saying that you don't deliver maximum force in an arc and that is absolutely wrong within the context of throwing a baseball. That is what I was refuting.
I said in my statement repeated multiple times that I prefer that the nose (and therefore eyes) be pointed at the target. However, there are other ways to get the job done and I recognize that. When one goes to the extreme of having the chin go on a line toward the target it tends to reduce velocity. There have been some very successful pitchers who did that because it was the right trade of velocity and control for them.
The majority of golfers do keep their heads very still and rotating off the ball will tend to cause problems. I've done both and it is easier to throw a baseball accurately than to hit a golf ball accurately with power. There is an example of a golfer whose head tends to rotate off the ball pretty violently at times and as he's gotten older it has become a problem. However, Tiger won a lot of majors with that problem. How? Because he was able to repeat.
Golf is also an example of the club head moving in an arc and the ball coming off the club head in a straight line (until spin takes over).
BTW, please take a look at Jered Weaver's motion and let me know how it compares to your stake through the spine example. He doesn't stride toward the plate. He's got pretty good control. Why? Because he repeats.
Kyle,
I like the image of Lincecum from the super slo mo clip that is on the web right at release with his torso well forward and his arm essentially vertical at release as the counter to reaching toward the plate. The more the torso leans forward (a plus for velocity) the earlier the release has to be for a pitcher throwing mostly overhand or they'll throw the ball into the ground.
I like the image of Lincecum from the super slo mo clip that is on the web right at release with his torso well forward and his arm essentially vertical at release as the counter to reaching toward the plate. The more the torso leans forward (a plus for velocity) the earlier the release has to be for a pitcher throwing mostly overhand or they'll throw the ball into the ground.
CADad, no doubt there are many ways to skin a cat. I also understand that what I said isn't right for everyone and may not be entirely correct for anyone. There will always be some lateral movement off the spike. As you stated, repeatability is the key. Generally speaking, the simpler things are, the easier they are to repeat. I would like to think my example is one that promotes simplicity. The more you veer from that, the more complicated it gets and the harder it is to repeat. However, there are those that can have an extremely complicated delivery and still repeat. It is what is right for them. I think that whole theory is why you don't see many guys with the big arms over the head, big step back wind-up any more. The take a small step back, place the foot parrellel to the rubber and deliver is simple, with much less movement that could mess with balance and repeatability in the delivery. Just an observation.
As to the golf example, Jim Furyk is a good example of a swing that is not something that most would want to emulate, but works for him. You will always find those examples.
Finally, I agree with you about the arc concept. I have always used the example of a catapult as a great example of showing that propulsion does not ONLY come from a linear approach.
As to the golf example, Jim Furyk is a good example of a swing that is not something that most would want to emulate, but works for him. You will always find those examples.
Finally, I agree with you about the arc concept. I have always used the example of a catapult as a great example of showing that propulsion does not ONLY come from a linear approach.
bballman,
I tend to agree, but there was one person that those of us who have been on this site a bit longer remember who was a very big advocate of the hands over the head, etc. windup.
I tend to agree, but there was one person that those of us who have been on this site a bit longer remember who was a very big advocate of the hands over the head, etc. windup.
quote:Originally posted by CADad:
bballman,
I tend to agree, but there was one person that those of us who have been on this site a bit longer remember who was a very big advocate of the hands over the head, etc. windup.
There are still guys out there who do it. Even those guys do it in a more controlled manner than the old timers. I watch old clips of guys like Walter Johnson and even as late as Bob Gibson (probably others from the 50's and 60's as well) that did the swinging the arms behind the body, then way up over the head and some even did a circle with the arm, then threw. Don't see anything close to that now a days. Not really sure what the purpose was. It has gotten to the point that some say why even go from the wind up, just go from the stretch all the time. Not sure I'm for that, but it's out there.
CADad, I would love to hear the theory behind the over the head part. Maybe to generate momentum towards the plate? If that's the case, today's guys that go over the head just do a small rocker step and a very controlled movement over the head. Maybe it's just something they are comfortable with. I'm not sure.
bballman,
Search for posts by bbscout. He was very well respected on this site and was very much a proponent of a full windup. If I remember correctly he felt it was more a matter of being loose and flowing than anything else. I think he felt it was part of why the "old-timers" could throw so many innings each year.
Search for posts by bbscout. He was very well respected on this site and was very much a proponent of a full windup. If I remember correctly he felt it was more a matter of being loose and flowing than anything else. I think he felt it was part of why the "old-timers" could throw so many innings each year.
quote:Originally posted by CADad:
My professor was literally the guy who wrote the book.
Not to be a wise guy but professors who write the book usually do it because of the money they make selling overpriced books to their students.
Sorry, just a cynical college bill payer here. lol
But to the OP's post, the link to the article is all about what NOT to do. Are there any basic Jr. High standards we should coach our pitchers, and throwers for that matter, to, in terms that they can understand?
