Timing pitcher's stride

Originally Posted by jolietboy:

Wondering if anyone else out there times (and measures) their pitcher's strides to the plate.  If PG reads this I would be curious to know if it is something they look at.  There are a number of ways to time it I supose but for velocity sake I would think from forward momentum to land and to release would be most important.  Thoughts?

 

I’m all for tracking just about everything, but I’m lost on this one. Are you saying the velocity a pitcher’s body moves toward the plate is relative to the ball release velocity?

       
       
Absolutely.  First generator of velocity actually.  Long stride is important but the faster you can make that long stride the more power you deliver.

In fact there is a study out there somewhere that found a very close coorelation between time from highest apex of the knee kick and foot strike to velocity. It was eerily consistent. I'll see if I can't find that.

If you want some science backing this theory up, read some of Brent Pourciau at TopVelocity.net.  Pretty good information for thought.

       
       
thanks root!  I am all about science independent study numbers and video.  I think this is a fairly new or at least secerely underused measurement so I was wondering what others have done with it.  I plan to put a board painted white with black lines behind the mound (like a giant ruler) then put an I pad with a stopwatch app on in front of the mound.  Then video.  By freeze framing I am hoping we can clearly see stopwatch.  Freeze at forward momentum and at landing.  Simple subtraction gives the time.

I am not too sure about this. Effective pitching is a summation of a bunch of complex movements ending with the release of the baseball. I am not sure I would want a pitcher thinking about generating the fastest stride to generate velocity. These may be touch points, but pitchers need "keys" that trigger them to repeat a delivery that is consistent and effective.At least for my son it is about drive foot placement, hip drive in a very specific way, landing foot position, arm break, glove side placement, and some other arm touch points. If simply driving to the plate faster equals higher velocity then everyone would just have to leap to the plate as fast as they could and they would throw hard. 

 

I am not sure if I understand what would be done with the data to change behavior, and how it would be implemented. I am not an expert just an observer, but it seems like there are a lot of other things to focus on.  

       
       
big leaguers are around .7 seconds so that is a goal.  But they also have longer strides so that is part of the equation as well.  I would challenge them to beat their own numbers while maintaining their mechanics.  And if you think about it pitching is kind of a lateral leap.  And there is a lot of data showing lateral jump has a direct correlation to velocity.

       
       
good food for thought there.  I have read his stuff.  Also talked a lot about it to my sons trainer who interned for cressey.  And although he is far from my favorite guru dick mills talks a lot about it as well.

Speed down the mound certainly equates into velocity...the more explosive you move out of hand break, the longer the stride....the more speed / momentum into back hip rotation,... the more elastic energy you should develop (i.e. hip / shoulder separation)....assuming all has sequenced up the chain of movements.....  Having said that, you are not going to get a CC Sabathia, moving the same as a Roy Oswalt.  A lot of this has to do with body build. 

Jolieboy,

 

When you hear about the 0.7 secs,  this is time to the plate with runners on base with a slide step, which is important for holding the runners but actually messes up mechanics.

 

I know my son's previous pitching coaches talk about "tempo and intent to throw hard" but I have never heard anything about timing drive to contact point. Not that it might be important, just never heard about it and not sure what and how you would change behavior based on a series of measurements.  

Of course there's more to it, but momentum is a much ignored factor and it's a big one. Here's the analogy I like to use. Most tend to agree that velocity is more about body action than arm action - the arm and hand are the end of the kinetic chain. Picture yourself standing on top of a car moving down the road. The car hits a brick wall. Now, you are going to fly off that car, the only question is how fast are you going to fly off that car? Your coming off that car with a much greater velocity if the car is traveling 50mph than you are if it's going 20 mph. The baseball coming out of your hand is the same as you flying off that car. The minute you brace your body with the stride foot, stopping momentum just like the car hitting the wall, you have ended the forward momentum of your body and it is transferred to your arm and hand. When the arm and hand halt momentum, the ball flies out. It only follows (in fact must follow by the laws of physics) that the faster your body travels, the faster your arm travels and the faster the ball travels.

 

Is it the only important part of velocity? Of course not. But, it is one thing you can easily change assuming your velocity off the mound isn't that great to begin with.

The .7 seconds he's talking about isn't time to the plate. No one gets .7 seconds time to the plate, by the way. 1.1 is a very fast slide step time to the plate.

I just saw BFS post or compare Lincecom vs Nolan Ryan, or a Jonathon Broxton vs a Bob Feller. I don't think it is something to worry about frankly, too many others to get right. JMO.

roothog - +1 on your explanation...you said it much better than I did.

 

Pitchers that don't move as explosively as others, must sequence the momentum they do produce much more efficiently...so it is not an absolute for velocity, just another component in the equation.

Roothog,

 

I get what you are saying but say the difference between a fast stride vs a slow stride is what in MPH? 1 or 2 at max. So if I take a guy with a whip who snaps it at 100 vs 98 does this make a lot of difference? I don't see it. Certainly part of the teaching on throwing hard is about tempo. 

 

Again I am not sure, but having been around pitchers and instructors for quite some time I am not sure how you are gong to measure this and then how are you going to implement meaningful change. 

Let's break this down into 4 basic sequences:

 

1. stride down the mound (this is where speed can make a difference)

2. Hip rotation

3. trunk (shoulder rotation)

4. arm layback / ball release

 

All of the above sequences are influenced by the preceding sequence, and only happen after that preceding sequence stops, therefore if the first sequence (speed of stride down the mound is faster, than the last sequence will have more speed (ball release).

Well, if you have a pitcher who already has good, quick explosive moves down the mound, you aren't going to create a lot of extra velocity. However, I have kids come to me all the time with this idea of a balancing at leg lift and then presenting a slow, deliberate movement down the mound. Those kids I can make quick progress with.

As far as measurement, I'm trying to find a pretty good study I found a while back. However it was (some help here?) measured time from the top of knee lift to foot strike of a decent sample of mlb pitchers and the correlation between those times and the corresponding velocity was pretty consistent.

Roothog, I get what you are saying, and some of my son's his early instructors talked to him about "intent to throw hard and tempo" which is what you are talking about. I think you can get his by getting a kid to stand in front of a mirror and drive tot he plate with quick and slow tempo and you will get what you are looking for.

 

What I have seen in in the past year and a half with my son who went from a mid to high 80's pitcher who is now sitting at 91-93 and a lot of this had to do with hip drive, drive foot placement, (like anything there was a lot more but this is the most visible difference)   I think you can generate that velo with good hard hip drive, and work on this vs trying to time them down a mound. 

I've had pretty good success with concentrating first on the lower body - fast explosive move down the mound and (I know this goes against the grain of a lot of traditional thought) getting the hips completely open by foot strike. Then I move to the upper body. For me, I've broken my teaching down into three main factors that I think, together, contribute 98% to velocity. Momentum down the hill, hip/shoulder separation, and max peak valgus angle (aka arm layback). The rest is fine tuning. Of the three, I find that arm lay back angle is the hardest to make any change with. It seems to me that may be the most genetically determined factor of the three.

Attached is a pretty good study. Although it focuses mostly on the effects of stride length, it also attempts to measure the importance of initial momentum in the kinetic chain.

Went to bed early last night so I am a little late to the party.  BOF how much velo is gained is one of the things I really want to find out.  Research on this is hard to find (haven't read research provided by root yet so hopefully something in there) but I would bet the gain is significantly more than 1 or 2 mph.  Like root said there are a lot of 'instructors' now teaching that stupid 'balance point' then bring foot down and skim it down the mound.  What I refer to as the up down out approach.  Only kershaw does it in the mlb.  May be someone else but I haven't seen it.  And while he is great you certainly don't want to model yourself after the exception to the rule.  Then our job as high school pitching coaches id to deprogram what they learned from their instructor who played minor league ball for five years so they must be right.  And remember those who make it to a very high level are very smooth mechanically.  Even though it may not look like they are 'rushing' down the hill they are in fact going at a high rate.  And the .7 refers to the time from which that lead hip begins to move to the plate til foot strike. Usually the hip starts to the plate even before the apex of the leg kick.  So not sure how mlb measures it.  Someone says from apex.  Two measurements would be pretty close though.  And as long as you are consistent with your method it would still be legit.  Back foot great point about the sequencing and how each affects the others.

       
       
Again I believe it can be more than 2mph.  But if all other things are well refined it may be as little as 2 I suppose.  How big of a difference is that?  Huge.  In mlb the offensive production dips significantly from 95 to 97.  If you are a hs pitcher looking to be recruited by a good D1 the difference between 89 and 91 would be huge.  Only in mlb is there a 'zone' where velocity doesn't seem to make much difference.  From about 90 to 94 doesn't seem to make a huge statistical difference.  Probably a lot of reasons for this beginning with the guy who only throws 90 is probably mlb because of incredible control or a wicked curveball etc.  Also theory has it because there are so many pitchers in that range they are used to seeing it and that is the hitters timing sweetspot.

I am thinking that these would have secondary effect but for accuracy.

 

1 MPH = 1.47 ft/sec

Average Stride = 6 ft

0.7 secs = 5.8MPH

 

For every 0.1 sec difference you are talking about 1 MPH in average velo. However once foot strike happens linear velocity is converted into rotational. Also remember these are average numbers in actuality there is a velocity and acceleration curve.

 

I believe intent to throw hard and hip drive are huge in the velocity equation, so I would work on this first and worry about timing it maybe later. 

Actually, I don't time it. I want that momentum as fast as a pitcher of mine can give me, so I just teach quickening it. I'm not even sure I know anyone personally who does time it for training purposes. I was pointing out, that for study purposes, it has been timed and shown that there is a coorelation - the higher velocity pitchers recording quicker times to foot strike.

I also wanted to ask BOH what you mean when you say "hip drive." I think I know, and I have some strong aopinions on that, but don't want to comment without knowing we're talking about the same thing.

BOF, I'm not trying to debate here because I don't have the info to back up anything I'm saying. But I wouldn't think the .1 sec would equate to 1 mph. It's not a linear progression. The result (ball leaving finger tips) is further from the source (trunk rotation after front foot strike). Think about cracking a whip. The tip of the whip is breaking the sound barrier to result in the "crack". That is 760 mph. There is no way your arm or hand is traveling anywhere close to that.  So the farther away from the source of the motion, the resulting speed will be exponentially greater. I just don't have the physics background to explain this any better.

Brent doesn't talk about getting faster per se, his big thing is having the strength in the legs and core to be more explosive and increasing stride length due to that explosiveness. My son went to work with him for a week a couple years ago. We never fully implemented his techniques as we didn't have access to proper weight training. He believes heavily in Olympic lifts. I was afraid to have son do these without proper instruction and guidance. I will tell you that doing his medicine ball drills and working on increasing stride length definitely made a difference. This is very non-scientific, but I have watched my son pitch his entire life. When everything is sequenced correctly and his stride is long, he looks much more effortless. Our big takeaway is to use your lower half maximally. I believe that most everyone agrees this will reduce stress on arm. I'm not pushing his site, but the info would be explained much better there than what I am doing.

I like to measure anything that matters and this clearly matters.  Plus if you want to get buy I from your pitchers if you can show them on video the direct correlation it will go a long way.  Plus we have to remember our target audience here.  I went to school with a guy who had a 15 year career in mlb.  One time 20 game winner.  He was a great athlete who could roll out of bed and beat you.  He threw incredibly hard at the age of ten.  People from the community came out just to watch him from the time he was about 12.  All the things we are talking about just came naturally for him.  I would not want to time or Even video him when he is throwing 97 in high school.  But what about that kid throwing 79 who we are trying to get to 85?  Or maybe even a tick or two more to make him recruitable?  These kids have serious flaws including not getting down the hill quickly enough.  If you can show them and explain to them in definable terms what is holding them back...  then provide a method by which they can set a goal and measure their progress I think it helps.  Rather than just saying "you are at 79 and we need to get to 85"  I would rather break down what we need to do to get to 85 then show them incremental improvement along the way and how it directly relates to what we are teaching.  This of course includes a lot of things mechanically not just speed down the hill.

        And the key to that correlation between stride length and velocity is due to the fact that longer strides generally promote faster movement downhill.  Theoretically if you moved further down the hill but at the same speed there would be no velocity gain.  Think of it like putting.  You are supposed to keep a count in you head like one thousand one on the back stroke and one thousand two on the finish.  Keeping that mental clock means all you have to do is bring the putter back further and the speed of the putter  increases because the putter covers more ground in the same amount of time.

Assuming this is something that has basis in fact and is worthwhile, here’s where I have reservations. For every coach who fully understands it and has the capacity to teach it correctly, there’s gonna be 100 who try but teach it wrong, and 1,000 dads or players who try to do it on their own and really get it mucked up. So what happens to those players who get poor instruction or do it incorrectly on their own?

 

Is this the next magic potion to gain velocity, the cause of a new wave of pitching injuries, or something in between? Personally I don’t know because it’s a new thought to me, but I have to say that after many years on this earth I lean much more toward being careful than going into it full blast.

OK, let me ask you this. You keep a lot of detailed stats that are quirte useful to those who have the experience and knowledge to make use of them. However, in inexperienced hands (even some coaches) they could be misused for purposes that hurt the team effort. Do you propose that you wouldn't share them or keep them for that reason? Should we not talk about using certain tools of our trade (pitching instruction) becauseit's possible that they could be used by less experienced coaches and parents who might not understand them and might actually do more harm than good? I really believe that's not how information should work.  

       
       
I think the real danger in instruction are the 'old school' guys who don't use video, don't research modern strength and fitness methods, don't embrace new thoughts and remain close minded.  And while I am sure there are plenty of good instructors out there who are former pros my experience with these guys have been mostly bad.  So while I agree we should not be quick to jump at anything we need to accept the fact that modern technology has opened a lot of doors for evaluation and improvement.  Youngguns talks about Porceau who I have researched and like a lot of what he says but I am more of a cressey fan.  Here's the thing if someone could show me someone else's plan makes sense I would change my thinking.  So I guess that is the bottom line, always be open minded and keep on exchanging ideas like on this site and never stop researching.  I just think a lot of the baseball community fails to keep these practices and falls back on the old " I talked to a college coach and he said" or "my cousins neighbor played pro ball and he said".  Watch the video of mlb guys and do your research and you will be far better off in the long run than just taking anybody's word for things.  I always tell my guys they should trust but verify.  Listen to me but do your own research to check out what I am saying.  And feel free to come back and disagree with me but do it with scientific, statistical or video evidence not anecdotal stuff like "my pitching instructor said..."

youngun and roothog,

 

This is exactly where I believe my son gained the most from. 1) Leg strength development, 2) Hip drive and linearizing his mechanics 3) Longtoss/weighted ball work 4)Fine tuning mechanics

 

Root as far as getting in right position on the hip drive, I know his program uses these angled metal plates in both flat ground and bull pen throwing. By getting the proper drive down the mound the momentum is started and as Youngun pointed out it is all a kinetic chain. 

 

My concern with this thread was the whole concept of measuring the timing of lift to leg plant. Just going faster is not the answer IMO. I think the mechanical aspects are what drives shorter times, and just going and just timing kids is a secondary effect, where the primary is likely other aspects and the end result may be quicker times.

 

Interesting discussion though.

 

Cheers.

 

 

Originally Posted by roothog66:

OK, let me ask you this. You keep a lot of detailed stats that are quirte useful to those who have the experience and knowledge to make use of them. However, in inexperienced hands (even some coaches) they could be misused for purposes that hurt the team effort. Do you propose that you wouldn't share them or keep them for that reason? Should we not talk about using certain tools of our trade (pitching instruction) becauseit's possible that they could be used by less experienced coaches and parents who might not understand them and might actually do more harm than good? I really believe that's not how information should work.  

 

Apples and oranges Root. Hurting the chances for winning a baseball game is far different than injuring an arm.

 

I never said this thing shouldn’t be talked about. I was trying to put a caveat out there to those who would just jump into it. Maybe you don’t quite realize how many people read about such things and go off half-cocked and get somebody hurt looking for that MLB career.

 

All I’m saying is, with so very little known about it, anyone would be ill advised to just start radically messing with timing and mechanics this way.

Stats,

 

There is no new philosophy of pitching in this discussion,.... momentum / tempo down the mound happened the day someone pitched from an elevated surface, it's called gravity.  Stride (mainly linear), rotation (hips then shoulders), and finally ball release have all been constants.  Learning how to maximize each of these have been taught for years.  There are different approaches on how to accomplish these four constants, and those can be debated, however there is nothing new here.

Originally Posted by Back foot slider:

Stats,

 

There is no new philosophy of pitching in this discussion,.... momentum / tempo down the mound happened the day someone pitched from an elevated surface, it's called gravity.  Stride (mainly linear), rotation (hips then shoulders), and finally ball release have all been constants.  Learning how to maximize each of these have been taught for years.  There are different approaches on how to accomplish these four constants, and those can be debated, however there is nothing new here.

 

Did I say there was some new philosophy? Why are you so dead set against anyone saying to be careful about making changes to their delivery? I’ve said the same thing many times over the years because I know how that can create huge problems.

Stats - you said, "Personally I don’t know because it’s a new thought to me, but I have to say that after many years on this earth I lean much more toward being careful than going into it full blast."

 

I am saying learning how to maximize the very first part of the pitching delivery (stride) is not new, nor should it be viewed as dangerous.  It is not a magic bullet, or that instructors just now thought, "let's see if a faster tempo might help"...very old school thought process.  Sure, I will give you the fact that there are self-proclaimed "pitching gurus" who can harm unsuspecting kids...I am sure that happens.  Having said that, trying to maximize any of the four parts of the delivery is nothing to be scared or worried about, provided you have someone who is qualified...

TrackMan does compile stride information for us.

 

I can see how stride speed might relate to velocity.  On the other hand, you could say stride speed would relate to more power and bat speed in a hitter.  The problem is all actions should be under control.  They need to be fluid and repeatable. Timing is most important.

 

Now if a pitcher could maintain his mechanics, throw exactly the same, and still add some speed to his stride, without losing balance, I suppose he might gain some velocity. Much like the velocity an outfielder might gain by crow hopping.

 

Not sure that simply timing the stride would tell us much.  A 7 foot quick stride might take longer than a 5 foot slower stride.  Maybe there is a way to actually measure body velocity.  Combination of length and time.  I would only trust some type of mechanical timing vrs. Hand held stop watch.  Hand held just wouldn't be accurate enough in this case.

 

The thing to keep in mind is there is always a perfect point that is individual to any pitcher or hitter.  Anything below that will disallow maximum production, anything above that perfect point produces failure.  So one has to be careful.  Most successful hitters and pitchers operate slightly below that maximum line.  Because going over it most often produces failure.

 

For the record, I am for gathering as much information as possible.  I might be old, but over the years it has been proven how important any and all information can be.  I just don't believe in the proverbial magic bullet.  It's always a combination of things and that combination might be different from one athlete to the next.  To me the best pitching coaches make adjustments rather than change what is natural. I have seen young pitchers from one year to the next, go from being smooth and effortless and being a prospect based on natural ability... to looking like a robot throwing a baseball and no longer looking like a prospect.  All instruction is not good instruction. The number one ingredient is always natural ability.  The best pitching coaches can do wonders with the kid that has natural ability.  The bad ones can actually destroy that natural ability.

I was typing when BackFootSlider posted.  It kind of sounds like our minds were linked somehow with the wording.

Originally Posted by Back foot slider:

I am saying learning how to maximize the very first part of the pitching delivery (stride) is not new, nor should it be viewed as dangerous.

 

Well, I suspect many would argue that the stride isn’t the very first part of the pitching delivery.

 

… Having said that, trying to maximize any of the four parts of the delivery is nothing to be scared or worried about, provided you have someone who is qualified...

 

That’s precisely what I was talking about because there’s gonna be literally tens of thousands of pitchers who jump on this bandwagon without having anyone qualified to help them.

 

I know at the school I score for now there’s no one with even a fair degree of knowledge about pitching, other than throwing strikes is good and throwing hard strikes is better, but we have something like 15 pitchers in the program. Should I spread the word that they should all increase their body’s velocity toward the plate to gain velocity, and not to worry about it because it’s nothing new?

 

Look, I’m not trying to stop progress. I’m just very leery about pitchers messing with their deliveries.