Timing pitcher's stride

The answer is yes you should tell them all to increase their speed down the hill.  I believe I have detailed how I would use this info and how it fits in the overall but if not let me clarify some things.

1. Never said or implied this is a magic bullet.  But is an important ingredient.
2. I have specifically mentioned that it will add velocity only assuming all other mechanical aspects remain sound.
3. Video is for overall mechanical analysis timing is for quickening the stride
4. Measuring device would be a running stopwatch app.  Agree manually started stopwatch would be way too inaccurate.  By use of a high speed camera you take time at point hip starts forward and subtract it from time at footstrike and you have a highly accurate time.
5. Finally the timing is an assesment tool not an instructional tool.  You watch the video iron out mechanics and then the timing would be a PART of an assessment of how your progress is coming.

So let's just play the what if game for a moment.  As we all know pitchers vary even throughout a pen or game by as much as 5mph sometimes more.  If by timing I found a direct correlation between stride time and velocity would that be worthwhile information?

Well, let’s just hope everyone reads all your caveats, understands them, only makes appropriate changes, and doesn’t get hurt because of changes they make.

Tom House speaks about Nolan Ryans stride (11:50) and speed (13:50) off of the mound. 

If you can sit through the entire discussion Nolan talks about his conditioning about how you never want to get beat because the other guy was in better shape than you. 

 

I do agree with PG in the idea that a pitching coach should use what the specific pitcher brings to the table. It is for this precise reason my son has never had a formal pitching lesson. I just never found anyone in our small area that I trusted. When he was younger, we had a couple different hitting instructors. The one I always seemed to feel comfortable with was the one that took his natural ability and tried to perfect it. Any instructor that says there is one, cookie-cutter way that everyone should do any particular movement makes me very nervous and uncomfortable. I know there are certain positions that all successful pitchers or hitters must get to, but how they get there should allow for individuality. Not everyone has the same body type, size, etc. We are fortunate that son is very athletic and most sports came to him very easily.

It's the difference between style and form. Same goes for hitting. there are a handful of things that you will find a large majority of successful (and I'll add healthy) pitchers do mechanically. How they do them may often look different. That's style. I'll give you an example. My son at one point had a problem getting sufficient hip/shoulder separation. i tried a lot of different hings that didn't work. What finally did work was to have him bring his arm behind his back. It's unusual, but it works for him. I've used it with a couple of other pitchers, but usually I have them change their hand break. No instructor should mess with a pitcher's style unless it absolutely hinders proper mechanics.

 

 

root - I'm curious what you change about their hand break.  I understand your arm behind the back to show the "feel" of hip / shoulder separation, but curious about your hand break change.

I think if there was a direct correlation, of stride speed at the same stride length increasing velocity without any other negative effects, it would be very meaningful.

 

I actually believe stride speed will help produce more velocity. Just like a crow hop helps the outfielder throw with more velocity.  But that stride speed needs to be under control.

 

My guess is that Randy Johnson had a fairly slow stride speed.  Most extra tall pitchers do.  Yet they are often the hardest throwing.

 

Trying to keep an open mind on the subject.

Timing. Simplest and first attempt. I've found with some kids who are early with shoulder rotation that if I can make them break the hands appreciably later it solves the problem. With many, I have them go behind the back and then after they get that down I;ll find they can abandon that technique and still stay late with the shoulders.

I'm still looking for the study I mentioned earlier. It's a few years old and rather obscure. However, if I remeber right, Johnson was one of the fastest, which surprised me. I had always thought of RJ as one of the exceptions to a lot of rules. He seemed slow on delivery and didn't get exceptionally good hip/shoulder separation (though it was better very early in his career).

I wanted to clarify this a bit. What I mean is that I have them severly delay the handbreak until almost through the stride phase. Barely enough time to get the arm up into the cock phase. Typically, they will work their way back to a more traditional break without losing the feeling of holding the upper body back as long as possible.

       
       
I will be sure to tell you when I have some data.  While it will be only a small sample size (about 15 pitchers between freshman jv and varsity) at least It is something.  And you are right some may be slower but have other assets that make up for it.

       
       
and I agree with you too.  I am not a cookie cutter guy.  But just like in hitting there are some absolutes in pitching.  Thats what I try to focus on.  I don't try to change arm slots or where they hold their hands at the set position or other things that make that pitcher who they are.

       
       
Root you are not alone.  Hip shoulder separation is a very difficult thing to develop.   I put my pitchers against the wall hands stretched out to the side palms to the wall.  Ear to the wall then have them move their hips while hands and arms (therefore shoulders) stay stationary.  But all this accomplishes is teaching them that it can be done and a little bit about how it feels.  But to get that separation during the pitch...  hard.  Very hard.  I would gladly take any input from others who have found ways to get their pitchers better separation.

Spread them out on the mound, same position as if landing sideways.  Without moving their feet have them throw using no stride.  They quickly understand and feel what is needed to throw best from that position.  Once they understand, it is easier to transfer this into the full delivery.

The body will always strive (and win) to be balanced, otherwise we fall. If the hips (specifically back hip) fires / rotates just prior to front foot strike, the shoulders will stay back...otherwise the body will be out of balance. Hip rotation prior to shoulder rotation is the ONLY action that will create hip to shoulder separation.  Hip to shoulder separation has been surmised to account for up to 80+% of velocity....separation / distance of the back hip from the throwing arm / elbow creates the stored elastic energy (stretched rubber band) ultimately in the arm layback position that creates velocity.  Arm action at or inside of 90 degrees at the high cock position aids in this as well.

 

Edit to add:  if  you can get the pitcher to learn how to activate the hips prior to FFS, the hip to shoulder separation (keeping shoulders back) becomes a "non-teach" it happens automatically....and to a large degree this is true of arm action.  What happens first, directly affects what happens next.  Too many instructors teach the symptom, without realizing the cause...this creates IMO - robotic, non-athletic pitchers that all look the same.

       
       
I have done this with them but really just feeling the separation not actually having them throw out of the position.  I will incorporate that and give it a try.  I have had them throw out of this position to get them out over the front foot and stress releasing out in front.  I am always open to anything that helps.

I've not had quite as easy a time. Comparing most major leaguers to most high school pitchers and what you'll find is that, while they are able to keep the shoulders back, it's at the expense of full rotation of the hips by foot strike. Part of it is conventional instruction which teaches that you need to hold the hip rotation back as long as possible and fire the hips around. these instructors find some value in the velocity of hip rotation. The first faukt they will try to teach out of a kid is "hurdling." I, personally don't find hurdling to be any big problem. And, while late, quick hip rotation may help some pitchers achieve separation, I don't think it's necessary to achieve it. That particular velocity I don't think is a necessary part of the kinetic chain and the energy produced is bled out at foot strike anyway. I teach my pitchers to try and get the hips open early. It makes it more likely that they get there by foot strike. As long as the hips are fully open and the upper body has not yet began internal rotation (but has completed external rotation), you are exactly where yo want to be.

 

I look at it like this. If you are shooting a rock from a slingshot and you pull it back six inches really fast is that going to provide more velocity to the shot than if you pulled it back six inches slowly? No. the tension is the same between the handle (braced lower body) and the pocket of your slingshot (not yet rotated upper body).

The only problem with this is that I try to reproduce it myself to show students where I want them at foot strike. However, when properly positioned, the back foot at this point should have already been pulled completely over by your hip position. I fall down when I try to hold the position. Probably could have held it when I was younger. However, I started puting my back foot on a short chair so that I can mimic hip/shoulder separation.

Root and back foot, 

I am going to play politician here and be on both sides of the debate!  If you think of it like a coil spring that is already rotating then the coil is sprung loose in the same direction would not both activities be miltipliers of velocity?  Not sure to be honest but it seems to be intuitive to me.  But root I feel your pain.  I don't think it is so easy to get hs pitchers to execute separation.  And for those who really struggle with it I think your early hip opening may be a good idea as long as their lead foot remains linear and the shoulders don't open early.  Better to have one velocity multiplier than none.  And maybe by doing this for a while they would eventually gravitate to a more sequencial firing of hips then shoulders.  Kind of a walk before you run thing

Good youtube for the Brent P fans.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KqRbmpIyVwk

Jolieboy,

 

I took a look at the video and explanation and it pretty much highlights my concern about just timing speed down the mound and comparing that to out of hand velo. There are all kinds of mechanical adjustments that need to be made to produce good mechanics, which RESULT in higher down the mound velocity, not the other way around. Just focusing on timing and trying to go faster with bad mechanics does nothing to improve a pitcher. Fixing the real problem, (which is likely less than optimal mechanics) should be the priority and as PGStaff pointed out earlier timing is critical for optimal velocity. 

No mechanical change is made in a vacuum. However, there isn't a lot of mechanics involved in, "do what you're doing, just do it faster," Myself, I am going to fix other things (assuming they need fixing) first, then work on speed down the mound. It really is just a matter of "be more explosive and quicker down the hill." Then look to see if that has changed any timing or mechanics. If so, it's now a matter of engraining those good mechanics back into my pitchers new timing. I wouldn't want anyone to think I just grab a pitcher and start working on decreasing his move down the mound. "Faster down the mound" is just an augmentation to already sound mechanics. My point is that those guys throwing higher velocity are indeed (most, at least) getting downhill faster than those who don't. That makes it, to me, an important component to high level velocity.

I'd compare it to guys who start out by teaching a longer stride with a new pitcher without first looking at his other mechanics. Sure, a longer stride is a major contributing factor, but teaching a pitcher to do so in a vacuum is a mistake.

       
       
I love to debate and discuss baseball but when I sense it is turning into an argument I usually opt out.  I DON'T want to turn this into an argument but I must admit to a certain level of frustration.  I am not sure what I have said to give anybody the impression that I feel mechanics are unimportant and all you have to do is speed down the mound.  And discussing what comes first the chicken or the egg is silly to me.  Of course it is the mechanics that lead to the speed.  I just don't know what else to say.  I assure you I read and study baseball (mostly pitching) every day of my life.  I don't pretend to be the best but I can assure you I am not a hack either.  So I welcome any and all suggestions but please realize that I do not focus solely on any one 'magic bullet'

And while I am preparing myself to be taken out of context once again I must agree with root that SOMETIMES (note the sometimes) with a pitcher that has otherwise good mechanics it is just a matter of getting them to start down the mound a little quicker.

This is getting fun...mainly because we are able to share experiences, ideas, and knowledge, even if we don't completely agree, don't agree at all, or find different ways to get there.

 

Root - I think when you state "hurdling" you are talking about the front leg swinging open to get the hips square to the target, correct?  If so, I am not sure I agree that it does not matter how you square the hips to HP, I believe you want a "swinging gate", and not a "revolving door".  I have always said, the lower half mechanics are very similar in pitching as it is to hitting.  You want a firm / somewhat closed off front side, to rotate the back side around.  If you rotate the entire piece, sure you ensure complete "squaring" to the target, however I don't think you create the "elastic energy" between the top / and lower half....at least not the same as if your "firing" mechanism is the back hip being the dominant rotating component.

 

Each sequence influences the next, and I don't think they are completely static & segmented movements, they influence, and hopefully make the next sequence more powerful.  Otherwise, why not have the old "Mike Marshal" delivery where you step towards the plate square from the "get go" without ever going sideways.  I hear your statement on the slingshot, however I will ask if this is the case in pitching, and hitting, why not just hold the bat in the "power slot" then swing, and not have any gained momentum from let's say a "tip & rip" style of hitter (i.e. Gary Sheffield)?

 

Jolietboy - not a fan of Brent P...., and I would not construe BOF or any others as argumentative....I think your topic has yielded a great discussion.

I am not advocating everyone try to race down the mound at the speed of light, however I find it very interesting that many very notable / successful pitching instructors will get pitchers moving faster, to clean up mechanical flaws (less goes wrong if your tempo picks up), rather than working on mechanical flaws first then tempo.  IMO - too many pitching instructors are looking at still video clips, and teaching "positions" rather than looking at the dynamic movements that create the positions...whereby they take "non-teach results or by-products" and try to make them into teachable positions / mechanics.  Case in point, if you have a pitcher that is having a problem activating his hips prior to FFS, the last thing I would do is put them in a static position with his hips square to HP, and his shoulders back.  Instead, you look at what is happening before the desired result. 

I realize I'm in the minority on "hurdling." Here's why. I used to spend a lot of time "fixing" that problem with kids, including my own son. I was pretty proud of myself for doing so. Then, reviewing video I noticed my son had gone back to "hurdling." Being way too detailed, I have pretty good velocity records from bullpens for my students. A closer look showed me absolutely no difference from before and after fixing the "problem. In fact, I noticed more than once (especially with mine). Velocity actually decreased a tic after the fix. So, I had to ask myself, why does everyone teach it? Asking around got me either no answer or answers about momentum and the kinetic chain. A little more study and viewing video leads me to believe that any momentum built in late hip rotation is an unnecessary component. The momentum built is focused in the wrong direction. I can't see any proof that it adds anything to velocity and may actually decrease from stability. I now focus on hip/shoulder separation without worrying too much as to how it is attained. For some pitchers, it may well be a mechanism that aids in getting max separation, but I no longer think it's a teach. Again, I know I'm in the vast minority. I've just tried to stop teaching anything unless I can explain why I teach it.

I can certainly working it the opposite of what I do. My first rule of thumb is simply "one problem at a time." What order you address them in is more a personal preference.

Back foot,

I am glad somebody is having fun lol.  And I sincerely appreciate that you feel this thread lead to a lot of positive exchange of ideas.  I too am a little sceptical of some of the Brent P. Stuff but someone had mentioned him earlier so that is why I posted that.  I can't really say I am an advocate of any one 'pitching guru' but I certainly read them all.  Dick mills is probably my least favorite but ironically enough he is probably one of the biggest advocates for speed down the hill.  But really if you read around while some advocate it to a larger or lesser degree I think all would acknowledge it matters.  Light bulb going on for next thread...  how about who is your favorite hitting/pitching guru and why?  What do you think does that have potential?

I think rating pitching gurus is a potential recipe for disaster....when you talk about philosophy, you can attach them to some extent to folks that teach it, but when you talk about certain pitching instructors by name, IMO it becomes personal, and many flame throwers out there.  I certainly have read, studied, and spent time in person with many of them...Nyman is likely my go to when it comes down to it, but remember this, if they all said the exact same thing, it would be tough to convince someone that they are the one's you should spend money with, so each has to be somewhat unique to separate themselves from the others.  I have certain aspects I like about most of them, and each of them have something I am not fond of.

It would be interesting to get everyone's thoughts on Clayton Kershaw.  I'm sure there is plenty of video available on google.  Then perhaps on Madison Bumgarner.  Any similarities?

       
       
good point.  Perhaps naming names is not the best idea.  And to clarify on mills I do like some of what he says.  It is his constant criticism of others that is kind of a turnoff for me.

Funny you should say that because I take more from Mills probably than any other guru out there. However, I think there are some fundamental things he's completely wrong on. I would never send my kid to him for instruction, either, because he just comes across as a complete "my way or the highway" kind of guy. Also, while he is more open to most when it comes to using modern research, there is an area or two where he's adopted particular research, sticks with it to the end, and refuses to see possible flaws or mountains of contradictory research (mainly concerning weighted ball training). Other's? Paul has good stuff. Take some. Leave some. Steve Ellis I find almost useless. He has some good ideas but is so commercially oriented that he plays it all close to the vest and spouts the normal ages-old mantra for the non-paying masses. Mostly, I've found almost no one who has nothing to offer me and absolutely no one who I would take hook, line, and sinker on their ideas. Buy the way, some of the best actual hands-on, applicable stuff comes straight from Driveline.

I'll be honest. I've always had a hard time analysing and instructing lefties. I don't know why. The should just be mirror images of right-handers, right?

PG - have studied both quite a bit...there are similarities, and some big differences....and when you break down video and watch it at real time speed, and frame by frame, many will see what they want / think they see, so you really have to break it down as objectively as possible.  I think Kershaw is a classic example of letting pitchers know that except for very few pitchers the leg lift, up to its apex is of very little benefit...Fernando Rodney is another example...Kershaw could eliminate his leg lift, and just start like Rodney with his foot just barely off the ground then stride.  Bumgarner is as rotational of a pitcher as there is, and IMO that is why he is such a low effort / free and easy guy.  They have different arm angles, Kershaw more over the top, while Madison has a lower arm slot..  IMO because Madison activates his back hip more than Kershaw, he looks to use less effort for similar MPH. 

 

See below for what I am talking about regarding how rotational Bumgarner is vs. Kershaw...basically at the same point in their delivery. 

 

Another thing I think both do well, however I again think Madison does better is activate his back hip firing around his front hip...which gives him greater hip / shoulder separation IMO...

 

I know they tied to change Bum's arm slot coming up. Crazy! I've got two RHP brothers here in Colorado that both have the same arm slot and the same external rotation and their stuff is just nasty and hard to put a bat on. Fastball runs so far it's nuts. On was all-state as a pitcher last year as a frosh and the other will join him on the rotation this year as a freshman. I don't think arm slot is something to teach, but if it were I'd be tempted to emulate Bumgardner.

       
       
I show kershaw to my kids by way of full disclosure!  He is one of the very few mlb guys who pretty much does the up down out thing with the lead foot.  And i hate that.  His hips make only a negligable amount of progress towards the plate before foot drop.  In fact his hips almost appear to go backwards until just before foot drop.  He is a prime example that there are more roads than one to the same destination.  However probably not wise for a young pitcher to try and model himself after the exception to the rule.  As for bumgarner I don't see that he is so mechanically flawed or different as some make him out to be.  Just an opinion.

I've come to believe that a lot of what people poitn to as "flaws" with pitchers aren't flaws at all because they don't affect the kinetic chain the way we've been told or taught they do for years. Because it looks different, we tend to want to change it. I do so for years before finally looking at some of those changes and trying to make an honest evaluation of whether my "fixes" actually improved anything or just took up both mine and the pitcher's time to make him look more traditional.

jolietboy - there does seem to be  somewhat of a fad about teaching leading with the front hip out of hand break.  Look below to see if you can tell me if either Kershaw or Bumgarner is leading with their front hip out of hand break...doesn't look like it to me (Bumgarner maybe slightly). 

The reason many want you to lead with front hip is to keep the COM or the core stacked until the right moment.  Both Kershaw and Bumgarner are stacked going into rotation right before foot strike....see second pics below.  Stacked or the core being stacked is the head is still aligned over the spine, and not tilted off center before & right at foot strike.