Old School!

What can you say other than "It worked for him"

I'm not sure what's uglier - Gooden's mechanics or that Astros uniform.

Or someone who doesn't know the difference.

quote:

Originally posted by Roger Tomas:
I'm not sure what's uglier - Gooden's mechanics or that Astros uniform.

I'm with you on that!

You guys are looking at ... what, exactly?

Gooden used a high leg kick. For most, this is hard to do and maintain balance, but he was able to do it. There is also an element of distraction to it. (Think Dontrelle Willis.)

In this particular shot, he is also falling off to his left quite a bit. But you can also see that he is doing this intentionally to help him run his fastball away from a lefty batter.

His mechanics from the point he starts his kick leg down to the point where he releases the ball are practically flawless. Extremely loose and fluid. Excellent arm position and action. Great hip action. Excellent whip to the plate.

No wonder he was so good. Too bad he wasted it.

As I look at this clip, I harken back to Fergie Jenkins. Somebody going to say he was all messed up, too? All pitchers should be that messed up.

His arm action is great but it looks a little late. He is rotating his upper body and his throwing hand is about parallel to the ground.

Looks like he's throwing across his body also.

These 2 issues probably explain the shoulder problems he had.

His hips looked closed at plant also.

FJ - what was the purpose of your post?

Obviously, Doc made it work. But as many have noted, pros aren't always (note that I did not say "are never", but rather "aren't always") the best for young players to emulate. The pros have special gifts that sometimes allow them to succeed in spite of certain characteristics of their mechanics.

Personally, I wouldn't teach Doc's mechanics to young pitchers. Nor some of his other habits.

quote:

Originally posted by Midlo Dad:
You guys are looking at ... what, exactly?

(1) His high knee lift is accompanied by a foot kick that takes his foot way out in front of him causing his torso to lean back.

(2) Late posture change - as his shoulders start to square up, his head darts down and to the left.

(3) His front leg collapses to the left after ball release and then his whole body falls off to the left. I don't mind a small fall to the glove side but Gooden's is excessive in my opinion.

As others have pointed out, Gooden had the physical ability to be successful despite these mechanical flaws. This ability is fairly common among pro pitchers. But, as was also already pointed out, you wouldn't teach young pitchers to do these things.

Of course Tom House teaches that the hips should be closed at foot plant. I would be curious to hear what others have to say about this.

Gooden achieves incredible "stretch" in throwing shoulder - also known as external rotation. Am I incorrect is saying that this external rotation is aided by using momentum from the lower half as well as the hand break?

I don't believe Tom House teaches that the hips should be closed at foot plant. Well, maybe he used - I'm not sure about that. But I'm sure he doesn't currently. For the front foot to open up and point (somewhat) at home plate at foot plant, the hips usually must start to open up as well.

I'm not sure what you mean by "stretch in throwing shoulder". "External rotation" refers to the backward rotation of the upper arm (aka the humerous) such that the forearm lays back. External rotation is aided by the rotation of the shoulders. If you were to arbitrarily try to lay your forearm back, you wouldn't be able to get it to lay back as far as it does when you pitch. But add in explosive shoulder rotation and then there are enough forces to stretch the muscle and other connective tissue enough to make the forearm lay back.

Here's a clip of Gooden 10 years later (1996)...



Any thoughts?

Jason

While many will say his mechanics look better in the last clip... If hitting which would you rather hit against?

Surely hitters saw the ball better in the last clip!

The 10-years-later mechanics look noticeably better.

The first 5 years of Gooden's career starting at age 19 he went...

This with the mechanics shown in clip 1

1984 - 17-9, 218 IP, 161 H, 73 BB, 276 Ks, 2.60 ERA

1985 - 24-4, 277 IP, 198 H, 69 BB, 268 Ks, 1.53 ERA

1986 - 17-6, 250 IP, 197 H, 80 BB, 200 Ks, 2.84 ERA

1987 - 15-7, 180 IP, 162 H, 53 BB, 148 Ks, 3.21 ERA

1988 - 18-9, 250 IP, 242 H, 57 BB, 175 Ks, 3.19 ERA

The last 5 years of Gooden's career starting at age 31 he went...

This with the mechanics in clip 2

1996 - 11-7, 171 IP, 169 H, 88 BB, 126 Ks, 5.01 ERA

1997 - 9-5, 106 IP, 116 H, 53 BB, 66 H, 4.91 ERA

1998 - 8-6, 134 IP, 135 H, 51 BB, 83 Ks, 3.76 ERA

1999 - 3-4, 115 IP, 127 H, 67 BB, 88 Ks, 6.26 ERA

2000 - 6-5, 105 IP, 119 H, 44 BB, 55 Ks, 4.71 ERA

With the early mechanics he was one of, if not the best pitcher in baseball and destined for the Hall of Fame. I know there were many problems that had nothing to do with mechanics.

Regarding mechanics... check out the walk to K ratio (before and after). It looks like he had much better "control" using the mechanics in clip 1. While the actual mechanics might look much better in clip 2, it lacks the energy and intent shown in clip 1!

Nearly anyone would guess the clip 2 mechanics would provide better control. But not so in this case!

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
I know there were many problems that had nothing to do with mechanics.

Yep. And what effect did those other problems have on his pitching (physical, mental, etc.)? I'm not sure we can draw much from this particular case.

Tekulve (sp?) had some success. But that is not the mechanics I would teach a young pitcher.

PG I think you have to be careful drawing ant conclusions based on stats. There are way too many factors to consider not to mention his age. At some point a MLB coach decided he needed to improve his mecchanics for whar ever reason.

We can think of many reasons why Doc Gooden was better when he was 19 or 21 years old than when he was 29-31.

But we can not argue which way he threw the hardest and got the best results.

IMO, Much of what allows a pitcher to throw the very best is natural! My suggestion... FWIW... If you have a young pitcher... Before doing anything else... Find out what is natural about him. It appears that someone allowed Dontrelle Willis to use what comes natural. It would be simple to find a pitcher with better mechanics and a lot less natural ability.

There was a thread about Bob Feller on here. Anyone ever seen Bob Feller pitch? Nobody taught him how to pitch... He threw the way his body told him he could best throw a baseball. That is the part of baseball that we are losing.

So that people don't get the wrong idea... I am a big believer in mechanics... And a big non-believer in cookie cutter mechanics! If you watch the greatest pitchers in the world, you will see many different mechanics!

quote:

Originally posted by Roger Tomas:
The 10-years-later mechanics look noticeably better.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

ROFLMAO

quote:

Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
PG I think you have to be careful drawing ant conclusions based on stats. There are way too many factors to consider not to mention his age. At some point a MLB coach decided he needed to improve his mecchanics for whar ever reason.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

ROFLMAO

There is a confident swagger, if you will, in the first clip that is absent from the second clip. As a matter of physics, that swagger expressed itself in the way Gooden confidently whipped the ball to the plate. The way he involved his whole body in that whipping action was in my opinion excellently done. Not only was his MPH high even for today, and certainly for 20 years ago, but the transfer of stress from the arm to the trunk was well calculated to keep his arm healthy.

I don't remember him being a big "fall off to the left" guy. In particular he had a tremendous curve ball and that doesn't normally go hand-in-hand with a leftward fall. I would like to see more clips from that era to be sure, but I am betting that what we have here is a shot of Gooden running a 2-seamer away from a lefty and using the left turn to aid in getting the tailing action he was after on that particular pitch in that particular situation. In other words, he didn't fall to the left except when he did so with a purpose.

I don't see the same energy in the later clip. I would describe his motion as "careful". Many times this results in what coaches call "aiming the ball", and if you saw more walks in those years, I'm not particularly surprised.

I would guess that Gooden's stints out of baseball and the consequent loss of conditioning and the domino effect on his joints probably led to him adopting a more conservative delivery. Or maybe his life experiences just humbled him to the point where the natural swagger was gone from his body language. He was still a major leaguer, but not dominant like before.

I remember Don Drysdale as a commentator on a TV game when Gooden was a rookie, and he joked that the name was right out of Hollywood casting "because he IS a 'good un'." With all due respect to those above who offer criticisms, I'll side with Drysdale on this one. It's just such a tragedy that the guy blew it. Heck, he's roughly the same age as Clemens; he could've been pitching right up utnil now and on his way to the Hall if he just could've exercised some self discipline.

quote:

Originally posted by Midlo Dad:
I don't remember him being a big "fall off to the left" guy. In particular he had a tremendous curve ball and that doesn't normally go hand-in-hand with a leftward fall. I would like to see more clips from that era to be sure, but I am betting that what we have here is a shot of Gooden running a 2-seamer away from a lefty and using the left turn to aid in getting the tailing action he was after on that particular pitch in that particular situation. In other words, he didn't fall to the left except when he did so with a purpose.

Midlo Dad,

I have more video of Gooden from back in the 80's, and the same game I posted the first clip from. When I have time, and if I remember, I'll post another clip (or two).

Jason

Hey, stop making fun of those old Astro uni's, I took some pictures of my son in those a few weeks ago and thought he looked so handsome! I was so proud of that kid and now you're telling me that they're awful? I guess I should be thankful then that I did not have the money to bid on the sucker when they auctioned them off! I'd be the laughingstock of Hartville!

quote:

Originally posted by Midlo Dad:
I don't remember him being a big "fall off to the left" guy. In particular he had a tremendous curve ball and that doesn't normally go hand-in-hand with a leftward fall. I would like to see more clips from that era to be sure, but I am betting that what we have here is a shot of Gooden running a 2-seamer away from a lefty and using the left turn to aid in getting the tailing action he was after on that particular pitch in that particular situation. In other words, he didn't fall to the left except when he did so with a purpose.

I don't see the same energy in the later clip. I would describe his motion as "careful". Many times this results in what coaches call "aiming the ball", and if you saw more walks in those years, I'm not particularly surprised.

I think those are excellent insights.

I'd add that there are many possible reasons why Gooden's mechanics changed over the years - all we can do is speculate as to the real reason(s).

True indeed. As another example of that, I recently saw some old footage of Roger Clemens and had totally forgotten how he threw when he first hit the bigs. Big arm backswing, head tilting far left, delivery high overhand. Relied a lot on a big curve.

Today, Clemens has a very tight, short motion, especially in his arm action. Head is very straight upright and shoulders are very flat. Not many curves, lots of splitters and some cutters and sliders.

But while anybody can see that he did change, I don't know why. Obviously he's had fabulous success both ways. It does seem that he successfully put behind him some elbow issues that flared up some in his first decade in MLB. Whether that's a cause/effect thing or not I wouldn't venture to guess, but it's food for thought.

I can share some insights into the upright head and shoulders thing you mentioned. Here's a story I heard from Tom House directly...

Back when Clemens was with the Yankees, Tom House identified a way for Clemens to improve his mechanics. When the opportunity came for House to approach Clemens on this issue, Clemens replied, "Thanks but I'm happy with my 6 Cy Youngs". House said, "Ok". And that was the end of that.

But when Clemens later went to the Astros, a guy named Nolan Ryan said he wanted Clemens to try something. Of course, you need to understand that House used to be Ryan's pitching coach when both were with the Texas Rangers so these guys had no doubt already talked about this. Before long, Clemens' head and shoulders were more upright. His release point was closer to home plate, his breaking pitches had more movement, and he experienced a bit of a resurgence.

quote:

Originally posted by Mojojojo:
His hips looked closed at plant also.

What do you mean by this?

If you look at the clip frame by frame, you can see his hips start to turn before his glove-side foot is planted.

Just watch the stripe on the pitching arm side of his pants.

quote:

Originally posted by Texan:But as many have noted, pros aren't always (note that I did not say "are never", but rather "aren't always") the best for young players to emulate. The pros have special gifts that sometimes allow them to succeed in spite of certain characteristics of their mechanics.

Key point.

Even Gooden had to change his mechanics as he got older.

You can see the same thing with Tiger Woods (and other golfers). They have to change their swings as they get older and their bodies become less able to do funky things.

I think Dontrelle is going to run into this at some point in the next few years.

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
While many will say his mechanics look better in the last clip... If hitting which would you rather hit against?

I have come to believe that some of Bob Gibson's success was due to his sprawling follow-through.

It must have been incredibly distracting.