Skip to main content



Could Juan Marichal survive under the microscope of todays guru? Is there any chance a pitching coach would have left this delivery be?..he would have been cookie cuttered in a heart beat. He may have never pitched in the big leagues let alone be a hall of famer.

So many things in all aspects of sport have evolved and progressed. I dont know why pitching, and the mechanics behind it have not followed suit. There was a time when so many pitchers on a staff could give hitters a different look. Deception, power, and style is being taken away from pitchers. I have trouble picking up when new pitchers have been put into a game unless im paying attention to the number on his back (identical deliveries). I keep hearing terms like wasted motion, leg sweeping, to much counter rotation, and striding closed used to describe mechanical flaws. I feel the proof should be in the pudding...Todays pitchers pitch less innings, get hurt more, have way worse stats, less control, all while being bigger and stronger then their predessors and pitching on an extra day rest. I look at the delveries from previous decades and I see human sligshots, I see style and momentum, I see pitchers putting themselves in such powerful positions with such great results, human catapults that endured 300 plus innings a year. Maybe we need to turn back the clock....
Last edited {1}
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Deemax,

Excellent point and very interesting topic! I have watched college and high school teams where every pitcher looks just like the last one. Maybe different ability, but it looks like an instant replay!

There are too many pitching experts and very little regard for natural ability. It used to be a kid would figure out on his own how to best utilize his body to allow him to throw his best. Some of these deliveries ended up being very deceptive. But today they would likely be changed by one of the seemingly million pitching experts.

Everyone knows that pitchers are different, that some throw better from one slot or another. Yet so many believe in one standard method that couldn’t possibly be the best for every individual. Marichal, Koufax, etc. are great examples. Feller taught himself how to best throw a baseball. His body told him how to do it. He felt it and it came naturally.

The fastest runners don’t all have identical styles, so why should pitchers all do everything the same? They are not pitching “machines”!

The only thing I might disagree with you on is… IMO… Some of the greatest pitchers in baseball history have come from the current era. That even includes the stats.
Watch out kid. Plenty of people hereabout make their living teaching baseball. Smile

One reason for the cookie cutter deliveries: TV (now with instant replay and radar readings), ESPN type networks, camcorders, and even video games. Kids used to grow up playing baseball; now they grow up watching it from the best seat in the park, too.

Players today watch many times more baseball than did a player from 40 years.
Last edited by micdsguy
What a great post. Juan Marichal and Luis Tiant were the pitchers everyone tried to imitate. Many pitchers were done early but I think that had a lot to do with medicine at the time not mechanics. No Tommy John surgery available you were finished. Today I think Koufax would have had surgery and continued to pitch.
Mickey Mantle's knee would have been repaired and he probably would have been walking on it the next day.
Stachel Paige pitched until he was 59.
B1 has touched on something which is a cautionary point on adopting an "anything goes, whatever is natural" philosophy when teaching young pitchers. Many of the "old timer" pitchers had careers cut short due to injuries. More than we tend to think about. We only read and hear about the successes.

There was "something" different and remarkable about the HOF'ers. And that "something" may have been what allowed them to do some of the things they did without injury (although that was not always the case, some HOF'ers had shortened careers). And that same "something" is (probabilities would tell us) not present in the vast majority of the youth pitchers.

And personally, I would rather that a young pitcher not have to go through TJ - if the choice is keeping unique mechanics that are hard on the body or changing his unique mechanics. Surgery is painful, expensive, has a long rehab and not always successful. Wink


Sidebar: If I recall properly, Koufax's diagnosis was arthritis in his elbow. Not sure surgery could help that. Mantle probably could have greatly benefitted from today's surgical techniques.
Texan so true. Too many young pitchers are opting for this surgery. I even heard a doctor who performs the surgery talking on the radio about a dad who wanted it done for his son who threw 85 so he might get to 90 even though there was no injury. Unbelievable.
More on Koufax: I believe Koufax said it was arthritis but who knows for sure.

From Baseball Prospectus 9/2004
Until recently, a UCL injury was career-ending or, at the very least, a major detour in a career path. Some believe that Sandy Koufax's "dead arm" in 1966 was simply a case of a damaged UCL. It is unknown how many pitchers prior to 1974 could have benefited from this type of procedure, but given the rate of surgeries today and what we know about the workloads of the past, it is reasonable to assume that one out of every ten or so pitchers who burned out or simply faded away might have been saved.
quote:
Originally posted by Big1toe:
Texan so true. Too many young pitchers are opting for this surgery. I even heard a doctor who performs the surgery talking on the radio about a dad who wanted it done for his son who threw 85 so he might get to 90 even though there was no injury. Unbelievable.
More on Koufax: I believe Koufax said it was arthritis but who knows for sure.

From Baseball Prospectus 9/2004
Until recently, a UCL injury was career-ending or, at the very least, a major detour in a career path. Some believe that Sandy Koufax's "dead arm" in 1966 was simply a case of a damaged UCL. It is unknown how many pitchers prior to 1974 could have benefited from this type of procedure, but given the rate of surgeries today and what we know about the workloads of the past, it is reasonable to assume that one out of every ten or so pitchers who burned out or simply faded away might have been saved.


Dead arm in 1966??? He pitched 323 innings, punched out 317, was 27-9, had a 1.73 ERA, 27 complete games and won the CY Young award in 1966. Everyone should have such a dead arm.
Look at today I believe Arroyo led all pitchers with something like 240IP. Koufax threw 323 about a 1/3 more. It's no wonder he had a dead arm. Not showing my age but I kind of remember that diagnosis at the time. You didn't come out of a game in those days because the closer was some washed up guy who couldn't start anymore so they put him in the bullpen. And even a tired Koufax was 100x better than that.
Back to the original idea though, today's pitchers do seem to get hurt more and they are all on pitch counts. Has anyone ever heard Tommy Lasorda talk about pitch counts? Should we let pitchers use their natural motions and not try and put them in a cookie cutter? I know my sons high school team wants every pitcher to start their motion with a step to the side not back. They all need to be able to pitch the whole game or they won't use them.
quote:
Originally posted by Big1toe:
Back to the original idea though, today's pitchers do seem to get hurt more and they are all on pitch counts.


An old friend of mine stated that this was not the case. He said he thought more of the pitchers "back in the day" went out with injuries. It just didn't make the papers like it does today. He felt back then that significantly more went out with injuries before they ever made it to the majors. FWIW
quote:
Originally posted by Roger Tomas:
Wow. If I were to make all of my pitchers start the same way, stepping to the side wouldn't be my first nor second choice. Wink


I agree.

I don't know why people are being taught this side-step.

If you're not going to do a full Wind-Up, then why not go from the Set position all the time?

I just looked at a kid who actually threw slower using this "Wind-Up" (92-ish) than he did from the Set position (95-ish).
quote:
Originally posted by Texan:
quote:
Originally posted by Big1toe:
Back to the original idea though, today's pitchers do seem to get hurt more and they are all on pitch counts.


An old friend of mine stated that this was not the case. He said he thought more of the pitchers "back in the day" went out with injuries. It just didn't make the papers like it does today. He felt back then that significantly more went out with injuries before they ever made it to the majors. FWIW



Well, I pitched in pro ball in the 60's and I think your friend is dead wrong. My reasoning comes from hands on experience in that era.
quote:
Originally posted by thepainguy:
quote:
Originally posted by Roger Tomas:
Wow. If I were to make all of my pitchers start the same way, stepping to the side wouldn't be my first nor second choice. Wink


I agree.

I don't know why people are being taught this side-step.

If you're not going to do a full Wind-Up, then why not go from the Set position all the time?

I just looked at a kid who actually threw slower using this "Wind-Up" (92-ish) than he did from the Set position (95-ish).



The "set position"??? Deemax made some great points and many people just don't get it. From the set position, you get very little deception, and pitching is location, movement and deception. Many of the deliveries that are used today do nothing for the pitcher except help him to be less decieving.

As far as guys being hurt, about 10 years ago our front office found out that from the beginning of that particular season until the all star break, there were more guys on the DL than in the whole decade of the 60's.

The deliveries of about 90% of the college pitchers I see today make me want to be sick.
quote:
Originally posted by Texan:
I speak about what someone DID tell me. No "may" about it. Someone who was there. And a real student of the game. The most knowledgeable person about pitching I have ever met.

So I'll take your opinion on the 40's & 50's over his knowledge...? Nope, think not.


So, what you are really saying is that you are not speaking from experience. Smile
And you are saying it is only possible to learn from personal experience? My gracious goodness, I hope not. That is a rather ridiculous idea. We can start whole new worlds with things that the great bbscout hasn't experienced. As well as with things that Texan hasn't experienced.

Or are you saying that your personal experience in a different era negates his personal experience?

Sorry, either way I will take his knowledge.

Been fun, but it's getting to be a waste of time...
quote:
Originally posted by bbscout:
The "set position"??? Deemax made some great points and many people just don't get it. From the set position, you get very little deception, and pitching is location, movement and deception. Many of the deliveries that are used today do nothing for the pitcher except help him to be less decieving.


I think we're in violent agreement.

My point is that I think the current side step mini Wind-Ups that guys are being taught aren't doing them any favors. As a result, I think they might be better off going from the Set position.

However, that doesn't mean that nobody should pitch from the Wind-Up at all.

For example, I happen to like Matsuzaka's Wind-Up because...

1. It's herky-jerky.

2. He seems to change the timing of the jerks from pitch to pitch.

At a minimum it's got to be distracting as heck for the hitter (ala Bob Gibson's sprawling follow-through), and it probably helps to ruin the hitter's timing (especially if he has a more complicated swing). With Matsuzaka, you never know for sure when to start your stride or your load because his time to the plate probably varies.

Do you agree?
Last edited by thepainguy
What I am really saying is that my experience in the 60's and my experience in pro ball the past 25 years showed me that the pitchers today are getting injured today more often than they were 40 years ago. That and the fact that I see over 200 high school, college, minor league and major league games every year in person and get the DL lists of the minor and major leaguers e-mailed to me daily.

I had a great friend who was from your pal's era. He just passed away last fall at 89 years of age. He pitched in the World Series in 1939 and 1940. His name was Gene Thompson and he was in pro ball for 72 years. I recieved a lot of info from him too, but in court that would be called heresay.
I actually prefer the side step for several reasons. Smile But if a pitcher is good enough he can do whatever he wants.

I know in the old days it was taught to step straight back. It is one of the many things I've changed my mind about over the years. Stepping to the side has nothing to do with throwing out of the stretch.

Question: What are the advantages or disadvantages of stepping straight back vs stepping to the side?
quote:
Originally posted by thepainguy:
quote:
Originally posted by bbscout:
The "set position"??? Deemax made some great points and many people just don't get it. From the set position, you get very little deception, and pitching is location, movement and deception. Many of the deliveries that are used today do nothing for the pitcher except help him to be less decieving.


I think we're in violent agreement.

My point is that I think the current side step mini Wind-Ups that guys are being taught aren't doing them any favors. As a result, I think they might be better off going from the Set position.

However, that doesn't mean that nobody should pitch from the Wind-Up at all.

For example, I happen to like Matsuzaka's Wind-Up because...

1. It's herky-jerky.

2. He seems to change the timing of the jerks from pitch to pitch.

At a minimum it's got to be distracting as heck for the hitter (ala Bob Gibson's sprawling follow-through), and it probably helps to ruin the hitter's timing (especially if he has a more complicated swing). With Matsuzaka, you never know for sure when to start your stride or your load because his time to the plate probably varies.

Do you agree?


Yes......he has deception.
quote:
Originally posted by PGStaff:
I actually prefer the side step for several reasons. Smile But if a pitcher is good enough he can do whatever he wants.

I know in the old days it was taught to step straight back. It is one of the many things I've changed my mind about over the years. Stepping to the side has nothing to do with throwing out of the stretch.

Question: What are the advantages or disadvantages of stepping straight back vs stepping to the side?


Jerry, What I don't like about the side step is this........you step sideways towards 1st with your left foot and your weight goes that way. You then step towards 3rd with your right foot and your weight goes that way.....you then have to try and center your weight and then go towards home. Most of the kids that do it today slow it down so that they can stay under control and then they end up going at a real slow tempo which is not to their advantage. I call it "pitching around a corner".

The old way keeps you on line and allows you to have a more upbeat tempo.
quote:
Originally posted by bbscout:
I recieved a lot of info from him too, but in court that would be called heresay.


Get the lawyers into it, and the verdict may be reached that the earth is flat! Big Grin
In the real world, we don't call it hearsay, we call it learning.


PG, I have heard those who teach a little (or a lot) of over-rotation of the hips at leg lift say that stepping back makes it easier to "swing into" that over-rotation. Perhaps it gets back to that rythym or "tempo" (as referred to by bbs).

A small step back does make it easy to maintain balance. But then a small step to the side doesn't upset balance that much either.
Last edited by Texan
quote:
Originally posted by bbscout:
quote:
Originally posted by thepainguy:
For example, I happen to like Matsuzaka's Wind-Up because...

1. It's herky-jerky.

2. He seems to change the timing of the jerks from pitch to pitch.


Yes......he has deception.


bbscout,

I think this is really important (and subtle) point.

Could you elaborate more on this?

Are there any past guys that you liked especially much and why? Maybe a top three?

Are there any current guys that you like especially and why? Maybe a top three?
Backing up a bit: Koufax's early retirement was caused by a rare circulatory problem in his pitching arm. The throwing motion made blood rush to his fingertips, as it does with all pitchers. But he had trouble with the blood getting stuck there. His fingertips turned black and he had to stop until it would return to normal. Eventually he learned that this problem could not be solved, so he retired.

He is the only case of this I have ever heard of. Just a freaky thing, and we'll never know what he might have accomplished had he pitched another 5-10 years.
Last edited by Midlo Dad
Texan said this...
quote:
There was "something" different and remarkable about the HOF'ers. And that "something" may have been what allowed them to do some of the things they did without injury (although that was not always the case, some HOF'ers had shortened careers). And that same "something" is (probabilities would tell us) not present in the vast majority of the youth pitchers.


So since most pitchers dont have that "something" then maybe we should take "something" away from all youth pitchers so that they dont risk hurting "something". Maybe we should teach inferior methods to inferior players?!...

Texan said "some HOF'ers had shortened careers" I dont think for a minute that a 10 year plus HOF career is considered shortened. If you can find fault in a 10 year ML career (for a pitcher), then your vision is much greater than mine. Getting hurt pitching after 10 HOF caliber seasons is probably not due to not having a cookie cutter delivery. I will never be able to justify teaching an inferior method not used buy the best pitchers in history to any caliber of player, including my son. Your entitled to your opinion that, or if you feel the newer deliveries are better and safer, but if thats the case your opinion is wrong....IMO
Last edited by deemax
Who said anything about inferior methods? Certainly not I.

So you teach the double windmill windup? That is what Feller did. Do you teach that? If not, why not (according to your logic)?

Teach the rule, not the exception, when working with youth.

And based on your comments, I guess you hate Nolan Ryan's delivery since it is "conventional".

I think the bottom line as just like in hitting there is no perfect way to pitch like everyone is trying to teach.
Also on Koufax the circulatory injury was in 1962. Who knows it may have contributed to his retirement in 1966 or the arthritis or dead arm, but I don't think anyone but him and his doctors know the real truth.
Last edited by Big1toe
quote:
Originally posted by Midlo Dad:
Backing up a bit: Koufax's early retirement was caused by a rare circulatory problem in his pitching arm. The throwing motion made blood rush to his fingertips, as it does with all pitchers. But he had trouble with the blood getting stuck there. His fingertips turned black and he had to stop until it would return to normal. Eventually he learned that this problem could not be solved, so he retired.

He is the only case of this I have ever heard of. Just a freaky thing, and we'll never know what he might have accomplished had he pitched another 5-10 years.


Koufax missed part of the 1962 season due the finger problem. It healed and he retired after the 1966 season because of elbow pain that at the time was diagnosed as arthritis. Dr. Robert Kerlan who broke in Dr. Jobe told Koufax that if he continued to pitch that he might end up with a crippled elbow. He then retired, but not because of the finger problem from 1962.


There is nothing cookie cutter about Ryans delivery

Texan yelled this:
"And based on your comments, I guess you hate Nolan Ryan's delivery since it is "conventional"."

Im sorry you feel Nolans delivery is merely conventional. I never used the word conventional, I used the word cookie cutter. Its OK though, your still entitled to your opinions even if they are yours.

Texan spewed
quote:
So you teach the double windmill windup? That is what Feller did. Do you teach that? If not, why not (according to your logic)?


I have double pumped myself in games, and have had pitchers use it in a game. I have had pitchers try 0-2 fastballs using a double pump with great success. Any more brain busters? Im going to go help my son practice his Dontrelle "the bird" Feller delivery now, he at least has "the birds" hair.
Who yelled? Not I. Maybe you might want to turn your hearing aid down a bit.

Convetional does not mean mediocre. Not at all. Please check your thesaurus and dictionary again. The results of Ryan's delivery were spectacular. But most knowledgeable people would not say that he had an unorthodox delivery.

Not a double pump, double windmill. Watch some old films of Feller and you will see what I mean. I haven't seen anyone do the double windmill in the last forty years. Perhaps bbs or someone else has seen it and will enlighten us.

Now calm down & go eat your supper like a good boy. Collikar's place might be a good choice.
Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by Texan:
But most knowledgeable people would not say that he had an unorthodox delivery.


Ryan had a very conventional delivery, aside from his freakishly high leg kick. It shares a lot of things in common with Maddux, Clemens, Koufax, Marichal, Gibson, and other greats like them.

You just have to ignore all of the pre and post throw acrobatics.

I would argue that those common elements helped to explain their longevity.
Ryan went over his head with his hands in his windup, much like Maddux, Clemens and Schilling do today. They all have/had good deliveries, unlike most of the cookie cutter hands at the chest, dead start deliveries that are taking over high school, college and also the major leagues today.

There is a reason that they won't let Clemens retire or that Maddux, Schilling, Moyer, Johnson and a bunch of other over 40 guys are getting millions to keep piching. The reason is..............there are no cookie cutter 25 year olds who are good enough to take their jobs.

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×