I had lunch yesterday with a friend who is a minor league pitching instructor in the Rangers organization. He said something that was very well worded and might be helpful to many - so I will pass it on. He said that pitchers are focusing what they are doing : a) over the rubber OR ; b) over the plate ........ but you cant be thinking about both at the same time. For example, you could spend an entire bullpen session working over the rubber (aspects of the delivery) or you could spend an entire bullpen session over the plate (working on location). Or you could do half and half. But if you are working on delivery you are not working on location - and vice versa. Obviously in a game situation a pitcher has to be focused on over the plate (location) and NOT over the rubber (mechanics). This is common sense if you think about it but I thought he stated it very well - and its not something you would commonly hear from a run of the mill pitching coach.
Adbono, that sounds nice and clean. But here's where I sorta get hung up... when you are working on "over the rubber" mechanics, the slight adjustments are reflected by the "over the plate" results. That is often the measuring stick as to what the mechanical adjustments are doing. (Not always - i.e. when velo and movement are the focus). So, can you really always separate the two?
cabbagedad posted:Adbono, that sounds nice and clean. But here's where I sorta get hung up... when you are working on "over the rubber" mechanics, the slight adjustments are reflected by the "over the plate" results. That is often the measuring stick as to whether the mechanical adjustments are working. (Not always - i.e. when velo and movement are the focus). So, can you really always separate the two?
In terms of results the two are linked together for sure. But in terms of how to practice effectively the point is to keep the two separated. Hopefully you are different than this, but what I see in HS coaches regarding their pitchers is this: they make all their decisions based on performance - which is fine. But if a kid doesn't perform they get kicked to the curb (and its next man up). And the coach doesn't do anything to help the kid's performance improve. One of my pet peeves is (when a kid is struggling on the mound during a game) to hear a coach shout from the dugout, "make an adjustment." Just once I would like to see a pitcher holler back, "okay coach, please explain to me exactly what adjustment I should make & how to do it!"
adbono posted:cabbagedad posted:Adbono, that sounds nice and clean. But here's where I sorta get hung up... when you are working on "over the rubber" mechanics, the slight adjustments are reflected by the "over the plate" results. That is often the measuring stick as to whether the mechanical adjustments are working. (Not always - i.e. when velo and movement are the focus). So, can you really always separate the two?
In terms of results the two are linked together for sure. But in terms of how to practice effectively the point is to keep the two separated. Hopefully you are different than this, but what I see in HS coaches regarding their pitchers is this: they make all their decisions based on performance - which is fine. But if a kid doesn't perform they get kicked to the curb (and its next man up). And the coach doesn't do anything to help the kid's performance improve. One of my pet peeves is (when a kid is struggling on the mound during a game) to hear a coach shout from the dugout, "make an adjustment." Just once I would like to see a pitcher holler back, "okay coach, please explain to me exactly what adjustment I should make & how to do it!"
Can you expand, categorically, which aspects you would work on specifically under the rubber vs plate columns? Some are obvious, I think, but I'm curious on many others.
I agree largely on your comments but, as you know, there are limits. With our HS program, we work regular pens with instruction with our P's, including in-season, and we work on developing depth with our staff. But the line has to be drawn somewhere (time restrictions, the need for those same players to be involved in other aspects of practice, etc.) and performance does come into play. We may work with about eight pitchers deep at V (while realistically, five get the innings). There are others who would like to be included in the pen rotation but it's not realistic.
"Make an adjustment" ... well, yes, if there is no basis behind the comment, then this is not good. However, our P coach will sometimes use that statement and, having worked with each pitcher regularly, each pitcher will know exactly what adjustment he is referring to (almost always 
).
This is the type of stuff that makes the good guys different. Coaches will go and listen to "gurus" at conferences, but in the end they know better what works. And many of their fixes are really quite simple. For instance, thrown several balls down-and-away to help get back on top of the ball better.
cabbagedad posted:adbono posted:cabbagedad posted:Adbono, that sounds nice and clean. But here's where I sorta get hung up... when you are working on "over the rubber" mechanics, the slight adjustments are reflected by the "over the plate" results. That is often the measuring stick as to whether the mechanical adjustments are working. (Not always - i.e. when velo and movement are the focus). So, can you really always separate the two?
In terms of results the two are linked together for sure. But in terms of how to practice effectively the point is to keep the two separated. Hopefully you are different than this, but what I see in HS coaches regarding their pitchers is this: they make all their decisions based on performance - which is fine. But if a kid doesn't perform they get kicked to the curb (and its next man up). And the coach doesn't do anything to help the kid's performance improve. One of my pet peeves is (when a kid is struggling on the mound during a game) to hear a coach shout from the dugout, "make an adjustment." Just once I would like to see a pitcher holler back, "okay coach, please explain to me exactly what adjustment I should make & how to do it!"
Can you expand, categorically, which aspects you would work on specifically under the rubber vs plate columns? Some are obvious, I think, but I'm curious on many others.
I agree largely on your comments but, as you know, there are limits. With our HS program, we work regular pens with instruction with our P's, including in-season, and we work on developing depth with our staff. But the line has to be drawn somewhere (time restrictions, the need for those same players to be involved in other aspects of practice, etc.) and performance does come into play. We may work with about eight pitchers deep at V (while realistically, five get the innings). There are others who would like to be included in the pen rotation but it's not realistic.
"Make an adjustment" ... well, yes, if there is no basis behind the comment, then this is not good. However, our P coach will sometimes use that statement and, having worked with each pitcher regularly, each pitcher will know exactly what adjustment he is referring to (almost always
Send me your private email address is a PM and I will send you something. Too much meat on that bone to try and discuss in a thread on this board.