Skip to main content

I was gong to put this on Causes of Arm Injury thread, but felt it'd be better here.


From the NPA book The Art & Science of Pitching:

"A lot of instruction is based only on what coaches think they see. Remember, the human eye can only see about 32 frames per second, while most of the critical movement in pitching takes place at 250 to 750 frames per second. Therefore, for decades, coaches developed their instruction based on flawed data. Coaching was based on conventional wisdom repeated so often and for so long that everyone began to accept it as fact."

"The following are some opinion-based pieces of conventional wisdom that are actually myths,"

• To create the release-point angle, left-handers should stand on the left side of the rubber, while right-handers should stand on the right side
• Pitching is an unnatural movement
• Stay tall and fall
• Stay back
• Don't rush
• Slow down
• Push off the rubber
• Drop and drive
• Step straight to the plate
• Point your toe to home plate
• Land on the ball of your foot
• Don't land on your heel
• Get on top of the ball to create angle
• Pull your glove
• Throw over the top
• Reach down and grab grass or dirt
• Come to a good balance point
• Shorten your stride to get on top of the ball
• Don't overstride

There is more in the book, but this should give some idea for the type of myths that go around.

When I went to a coaching symposium/clinic over 6 years ago where Tom House started off his presentation by asking the coaches in the audience by item if they taught this to their players. Proud hands went up for each of the items he called out. And Tom then said he taught this too. . .but he doesn't do it any more as the science data he's been gathering has recently shown this all to be bunch of %$@^#! ****. (He said it in such a way I remember us all chuckling)

IMHO, while what you coach in terms of physical performance can be tested by science, how you coach is an art and how good that art is shows up in the results.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

We have to be careful about making definitive statements about "right" and "wrong" when it comes to technique. As soon as you tell a player what he is doing is wrong, I guarantee he will turn on the TV and see a major leaguer doing the very thing you told him not to do.
"Procedure" (what a player has to do) is the same for all players. "Technique" (how he does it) will vary according to the skills, body type, etc. of the player.
Tom House is a smart guy who has earned far more stripes in the game than I have so who am I to judge.
But one thing I do know is that if he had a staff of 10 pitchers who all did those "myths" and got batters out consistently, he wouldn't care a lick.

BaseballByTheYard.com
There is truth in what you are saying. I don't disagree nor do I disagree with House. I agree that many of the things listed are, in fact, myths. Along with you, I also believe it's important not to be married to a particular method and open to new ideas. That being said, it's interesting how over time, even with the science we now have access to, we seem to gravitate back to what was taught prior to having all that science. (ex. long-tossing is now the rage)
I guess I am just skeptical of those things that make the game too complicated than it has to be.

BaseballByTheYard.com
And then you have the observation of "He who cannot be named" on this site...

That many times no coaching at all is better than the majority of coaching now.

The very best, work with the pitcher presented, they develop as presented...I can think of no "successful" guy who preaches radical delivery change.
In the case of House, I see his most notable recent projects looking more like psycho-analytical victories than pitching coach tweaks (I am speaking of Zito and Hamels).
I feel like most who expouse a specific thing, cover only one era/period of a pitchers development, if you teach "something" during a growth period, chances are that it will "appear" very successful. That formula will work for someone trying to make money over time but individually the pitchers will be exposed to ramifications if one area is concentrated on to the exclusion of all others. That includes diet and grades.
The mention of long toss alone will stir huge discussion, if you talk to the main person who is attached to it (Alan Jeager) you'll find it only a portion of how he trains a pitcher.
There are no magic bullets, except the same old ones: work ethic and desire.
Cookie cutter dogma has been short-hand cue's for years on end, the smart guys who used them were trying to elicit reaction which would cause the body to interpret the cue a certain way, even if the actual movement differed from the cue. Over the years those cues were "heard" by lazy, or less experienced guys and they interpreted those cues into "how to coach".
I differ with those who think that hi-speed film is "the only" way these days..I agree that it is an excellent tool but unless we're talking going 93 to 95, the flaws it uncovers will be shown and fixed using those old cues or the new old cues some other smart guy comes up with.
What the heck do most of those have to do with high speed film? You can see almost all of those so-called myths with unaided eyeballs.

Sorry, but I'm not overly impressed with how House did at USC and the way some of his pitchers made big leaps only after leaving USC doesn't speak well for him.

Watch the Japanese LL'ers who throw much harder for their size than their peers. Guess what? They adhere to most of those "myths". That doesn't mean the cues are right or wrong. The difference is that they get very good at repeating based on those cues and ridiculous numbers of repetitions. It really isn't the motion as much as the ability to repeat that matters. Of course, one doesn't see the many, many kids who blew out their arms or backs with all those repetitions.

BTW, I see both tall and fall and drop and drive are myths. Poor Tom Seaver, poor Don Sutton, they probably could've been good pitchers if they hadn't been misled by those myths.
Last edited by CADad
Hey CaDad!

I think that you've got a paradigm of House which isn't his profile. I mean think about it, he isn't known for "making" pitchers, he is known for resurrecting pitchers careers....He didn't teach "The Express or The Big Unit" how to pitch....he helped them get back in sync.
If you consider what you said...just a little different way...like

quote:
the way some of his pitchers made big leaps only after leaving USC doesn't speak well for him.


Could it be that he instilled the ability to "self-fix" into them, increased their planning and strategic approach in order to give them that leap?

As I'm certain you and CaSon (I'm hoping all is well with you two) are finding out...college team life is crazy....all sorts of agenda, rules, distractions....I'd be shocked to really see him "develop" them very much at all under the spot light which is USC baseball. To find out that after they leave him that they prosper...well for me that is a positive.

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×