Run, Run, Pitcher Run.

I don’t know if it’s the “new norm”, but it is happening a lot more than it used to. I think it’s just that so much new information is running around out there that people are finally beginning to understand that while the “old ways” aren’t necessarily bad, they may not be the best way to approach pitcher conditioning.

 

When my kid was pitching just 10 years ago, he was running his butt off in practices, and hated it, and so were most of the other pitchers. So rather than looking forward to practice, it became something many didn’t want to do. If anyone could have shown why it was something that actually benefitted their pitching it would have been different.

 Not every kid is built to run all day several times a week, some kids are great baseball players but not long distance runners. Can you picture Sabathia, Pujols, or Panda running just to be running.

Conditioning as well as the science of conditioning has changed.

Running long distances is for long distance runners and is tough on the knees and does not benefit most athletes in most sports. 

Its good to see that coaches are turning things around.

 

Exactly!

 

A friend of mine was the pitching coach for the Dodgers for a number of years, but before that was a MiL pitcher for 20 years and a scout for almost 10. He is as firm a believer in pitchers running as anyone can find, but he makes it very plain that not all of his pitchers were expected to run the same amount. Don Sutton was one he says would just laugh when told it was time to do more than 1 or 2 short sprints, but Bob Welch would run all day if he was allowed. All he really wanted was for them to strengthen their legs, and if they could do it without running, that was fine with him.

Not running long distances does not mean you are not working your butt off.  pitchers today work harder than ever just not training for marathons. 

Get with the program Stats, that was then, not now. 

 

Pitcher son runs, not for conditioning, or to strengthen his core or legs, calves, but more so to get the cobwebs out and that is in off season only.

BTW, Pujols, and Panda are not pitchers, their training/conitioning regime is completely different that of a pitcher.

How do you know Albert Pujols does not run, do you know these guys?

 

Read above and you will see I did not dis-include position players. But nice try .. However I will play along a bit, I started watching Pujols in HS when he would hit balls out of Fort Osage, and then watched him 15 miles further down the road  at Maple Woods JC. he was never a speedster and definitely not a Greyhound.

Hey Doc,
Son was a teammate of Pujols at one timen with cardinals. Says he worked harder than anyone. 
Running has nothing to do with it.
Been down this road before...I'm out.

Big difference between running all day or working hard they are not the same thing if your confused why even enter this post?...I thought you might would know that. Bands, weights, stretching, comebackers, bunts, that is just a few things pitchers can do not to mention everyone else. There is more to baseball than just pounding the asphalt.

No kidding doc...who ever disagreed?

I'm sure this has been covered previously on a thread but here you go:

 

http://www.baseballstrength.or...hould-not-do-cardio/

 

Pitching is an explosive anaerobic action. I do understand getting loose and warming up but running just to be running for pitchers, not a fan. BTW, my son loves to run... almost to the point where he would have done track or CC but the seasons conflict with BB.

The other folks did not seem to be confused by the OP. Your the one that acted like I wasn't including position players. Oh and thanks for letting me know that Albert and Panda are not pitchers.....I thought you were out!

Originally Posted by The Doctor:…I thought you were out!

 

Some folks just can’t stand to be wrong.

 

Merry Christmas!

 While I was thinking about all the kids I know there have been some really good catchers that would be in this category too. Big kid's, that might be good catchers, and hard workers but running them to death might be the wrong way to handle them. Sometimes I think that running is kinda like busy work.

 

 I'm gonna look for some info on running all the weight and muscle off of a player and see if there is something to what this coach said.

 

My belly is so full that I couldn't even run to the bathroom!  Merry Christmas!

I never had our players run long distances.  However, we did do lots of short sprints and martial arts training in the off season.  I really believe the Karate work helped a lot with eliminating injuries.  Mostly due to added flexibility and core strength.

 

So while I believe in what many coaches are doing these days, let me play devils advocate for thought purposes only.  

 

Arm injuries are a big topic these days, not so much the same concern many years ago.  One of the things pitchers did many years ago was run a lot and run long distances. They pitched more innings and pitched more often than the pitchers today. In other words, it seems like they might have had more stamina.  

 

I still fail to see the benefit of long distance running, but our armed forces sure uses it in training soldiers.  Wouldn't they be concerned about explosive movements?  Professional Boxers are known to run long distances.  Their whole sport is inside a ring.  I believe the long distance running improves endurance.  How important is endurance in baseball? How important is endurance to a pitcher?

 

So no matter what I believe, I could see an old timer making an argument against modern day beliefs.  And one thing about all beliefs, both old and new, they all have a possibility of changing in time. That is what happens the more we learn.

PG some interesting points, especially the boxing analogy. That is definitely a short, explosive sport. I guess one could argue that the rounds are 3 or 5 minutes each (I'm not even sure which) while a pitcher works in small "bursts" over a 5-20 minute inning. But I do agree with your basic premise that ideas constantly change with knowledge. This is precisely one of the many reasons I enjoy this site. I think there is more than one way to skin a cat and I have learned so much from so many different posters over the years. I think an open mind is critical if you truly want to be the best at whatever your craft is. Challenging the status quo may be as important as the amount of work put in. While I am personally in the camp that long distance running is not the best way to train a pitcher and maybe is even detrimental, I also do understand that there is a lot of benefit to distance running whether for cardio benefit or "clearing the mind" as some have said.

The reason ideas about training change so much is because way to often someone comes up with a theory that is then taken as fact and then someone jumps to a conclusion baised on something similar. Then some one will link it all together and package it so they can sell. Now all of a sudden everyone believes it's gospil until someone does a study to prove its wrong. Even then it can take for ever for the belief to be broken.

I couldn't really tell you how benificial long distance running can be for pitchers. I don't know if it is or isn't. However this new idea that it's detramental is baised on a flawed assuption. For some reason though its gaining tremendous ground. I've seen a few experts in the field giving lectures on it and going on and on as if it was some newly discovered fact. After the lecture I would just shake my head and say you know better than that. One actually responded no one has proven it wrong. To which I responded I thought scientific fact was about proving it right not believing an opinion that hasn't been proven wrong.

Heck even the premis behind a large majority of today's sports training  the Specificity Principle is just a theory. Right or wrong I don't know. I haven't seen enough long term evidence. But either way it's still just basically an opinion. It always cracks me up when I hear a trainer use Specificity Principle to justify their training then start speaking about cross training. I just want to bang my head on a wall because they just don't realize they are contradicting themselves. Their just spouting out the most popular training believes.

Energy system development is a lot more complicated than a binary answer. Sure, anaerobic power development is more important than aerobic power development, but the latter energy system is not useless.

 

Coaches (and people in general) want things to be simple. If training for baseball was simple, everyone would throw 90+ MPH and hit light-tower bombs. The reality is that something as mundane as "endurance training" is actually really complex.

Nearly everyone who has posted on this thread knows more about this topic than I do, so I offer the following questions for the group's consideration:

 

If you accept, as I do, that:

A) It is generally desirable for training to prepare athletes to perform the functions they will be called upon to perform in competition; and

B) Pitchers are called upon to generate explosive power with their legs every time they throw; and 

C) It is possible for too much low intensity distance running to hinder a pitcher's maintenance of muscle mass or development of explosive power, then:

 

1. How much cardiovascular fitness should a baseball player have and how should it be developed?

 

2. Does cardiovascular fitness translate into endurance for pitchers?

 

3. How much running qualifies as excessive distance running, and how does one know?

 

 

Many basic fitness plans for adults recommend a half hour or so of aerobic conditioning three or four times per week.  Even as a 200+ pounder in my mid-40's, I considered running four miles in a half hour to be only a mildly invigorating workout.  Would this sort of running be considered not enough, about right, excessive, or irrelevant for a high school or college pitcher?  Is explosive capacity so fragile that this kind of running would degrade it?

 

       

To me this is the heart of what becomes the reason for most of the misinformation about training. Someone does research that shows some of our muscle fibers can be changed. Now the paper is long and complicated and discusses the fact that it's a negligible amount of fibers and an insane amount of training to change that small amount of fiber. Now that research is simplified to training certain ways can change your muscle fiber make up. That then gets simplified and sold since simple sells. Now you have kids afraid to run across the street because it will make all their muscle fibers endurance ones hahaha.

I get asked constantly on my opinion on this. My answer I just don't know. There is very little research done on in and it's and extreemly complicated function. You just kinda have to go with what gives you results. If running after pitching makes your arm feel better than run. If running sprints helped you gain 3 mph then run sprints. Maybe someday there will be enough research to make a conclusion.

The other half of the problem is people trying to make some things much more complicated than they are. For example the dieting industry won't make its billions of dollars with eat less exercise more.

Good article from Cressey

http://www.ericcressey.com/tag/aerobic