Another pathetic attempt


… at pseudo science… :puking:

[quote]Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.

A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.[2] Science is also distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing.[3] Commonly held beliefs in popular science may not meet the criteria of science.[4] “Pop science” may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve science fiction.[4] Pseudoscientific beliefs are widespread, even among public school science teachers and newspaper reporters.[5][/quote]


Paul, simply ridiculing the effort or worse not even point by point dismissal but a label with no rebuttal is hardly scientific. Agree or disagree but at least show enough respect to enlighten those of us of lessor stature as to the flaws that you percieve in Kyles work…cheap shots are just that…you introduced the work…speak to it please


I agree with Jd, This type of post is not helpful to the community at all unless you back up your criticism with reasons why you think that way and potential alternatives.

I read the article and thought Kyleb is putting a lot of thought and considerable knowledge behind his ideas. I respect his work and the contribution he is making to the Art as a whole. But there are some things that are not accounted for in the evaluation. The big variable that I see as not being addressed is, how much of the velo is coming from the lower body and trunk.

All things remaining equal in the shoulder & elbow, the person who has a stronger leg drive and/or trunk flexion plus rotation will have increased velocity. That was largely left out of the equation, in an otherwise very well thought out argument.

IMO you cannot just isolate the ER of the shoulder to compare and contrast Velo, as that is just a fraction of force production in the chain.


Kyle Boddy follows in the infamous footsteps of Chris O’Leary, i.e. makes up his own interpretations of what others have said.

[quote]Paul Nyman described the ultimate goal of developing pitching velocity as connecting momentum in the delivery, that connective tissue are springs that are to be loaded and unloaded. Nyman’s general descriptions of intent and momentum in the delivery were (and remain) breakthroughs in understanding how velocity is really developed.

However, the fact that momentum is conserved has been twisted when it comes to baseball pitching mechanics. Nyman and others have posited that a constant flow of momentum being connected from proximal to distal is ideal for developing elite fastball velocities.

Let me be clear about this: I agree with the overall modern day understanding of the kinetic chain (proximal to distal, largest to smallest), but not with the idea that momentum is conserved in such a manner. What is being described is simply efficient sequencing of body parts, not the “elastic storage” of energy necessarily.

Let me be clear about this: I agree with the overall modern day understanding of the kinetic chain (proximal to distal, largest to smallest), but not with the idea that momentum is conserved in such a manner. What is being described is simply efficient sequencing of body parts, not the “elastic storage” of energy necessarily.[/quote]

This is where Boddy demonstrates his ignorance (and arrogance) of the physics. A whip is the perfect embodiment of the kinetic sequence.

First, never and I repeat NEVER have I said, implied either directly or indirectly that conservation of momentum has anything to do with the storage of elastic energy. And for those who forget my background is technical (physics/electoral engineering) so I am very careful when it comes to discussions regarding conservation of momentum and/or the transfer of momentum.

From a throwing perspective conservation of momentum only comes into play in terms of the whip affect. The whip effect converts larger mass slow moving segment to small mass fast-moving segment i.e. momentum is conserved. Has nothing to do with elasticity.

Second that with respect to throwing a baseball the main whipping sequence is a result of arm action. The main reason for this is because of the loop that is formed by the upper arm, forearm and wrist/hand. Is the unfurling of this loop that creates whipping action.

Momentum from the largest body segments such as the legs, hips, upper torso are not whip affect with respect to rotation around the bodies long axis. Momentum is transferred from one body segment to the next via the mechanism of connective tissue and muscle.

What makes the the segments of the body different than the whip effect is that by segments are connected by muscle and connective tissue. Muscle has the ability to add additional velocity to the kinetic sequence by virtue of being able to stretch and then contract. But the timing of this stretch contraction is very important in terms of maximally transferring momentum from one segment to the next. For maximum transfer to take place connection between segments such as the hips and the upper torso must take place at the previous segments maximum rotational velocity.

This is where Boddy’s comments such as:

[quote]1. Hip rotation velocity is simply not that important.

Comparing the Elite Group (85-89 MPH in lab settings) of pitchers with the Mediocre Group (74-77 MPH in lab settings) of pitchers reveals that the elite throwers have a mean maximum pelvis rotation velocity of 598.5 deg/sec while the mediocre group was at 532 deg/sec. A delta of 66 deg/sec was less than one standard deviation (522 to 675, SD of 76.5) in the elite throwers’ group for hip rotation velocity.[/quote]

For the following reasons:

  1. 85-89 mph does not constitute elite throwers. There are many inefficient ways to throw 85-89 mph. As I have said in a previous post every pitcher that I have seen asking for help on this forum and posting a clip of themselves exhibits very poor sequencing the lower body parts i.e. they do not transfer momentum from the lower body parts to the upper body parts optimally.

Examples of players who do transfer our players that Hired Guns has posted. My point being that studies that attempt to quantify what constitutes effective mechanics that use pitchers who are throwing 85-89 mph do not represent what I would consider optimal mechanics.

  1. From that same study that Boddy refers to regarding hip rotational velocity here is that studies conclusion:

Boddy’s references to support his contentions from this study is called “cherry picking”.

In other words what’s critical is sequencing and optimally transferring momentum from one segment to the next i.e. kinetic chain. Specifically you can have two players with the same hip rotational velocity and if one player misses transferring momentum to the next segment by .01 seconds, much of the benefit of the previous segments momentum will be lost. Again if you know something about physics this make sense.

For those who would like to read what throwing a baseball is really about please see:

There’s a lot more that I could say that I really don’t have time for. Other than to repeat

Another pathetic attempt…

… at pseudo science… :puking:


I have little to nothing to say to or about Paul, who has not meaningfully advanced his knowledge on pitching mechanics and/or training in many years, and is incapable of having a constructive conversation where he might actually have to admit he was incorrect or did not fully understand something.

So, if anyone else is interested in the body of work I do, you can direct all questions to me. Happy to engage in interesting questions and debate from individuals who are open-minded, but it should be noted that you can consider Paul on my permanently ignored list from here out on all sites unless he decides to change his model of thinking (in my experience, few adults do this, so someone will have to notify me if so as I will not be monitoring his posts).

As for my credentials and success, I only need say that I have been studying pitching mechanics and building out far more advanced technologies than Paul has ever had access to (or interest in) in much less time than Paul, and the results my clients (and partners I consult with) have gotten have been reasonably good, if I do say so myself. The evidence to support these claims can be seen on your television, in my lab, or in the 2014 and on draft, or the #2 school in the nation where I design training programs for their pitchers (4th in ERA this year), etc.

Paul is free to keep up his work and commentary and I’ll continue to use this deeply flawed methodology that demonstrates a terrible understanding of physics. It’s really a wonder how the clients I train get such good results, honestly. Probably all luck :wink:


Some questions that anyone who is really interested in understanding what it takes to develop high-level throwing capabilities needs to consider/answer.

  1. What significant biomechanical or training concepts and contributions has Kyle Boddy actually developed and more importantly PROVEN with all of his “sophisticated” equipment that he claims is advancing the state of how the body throws the baseball?

  2. Where has Kyle Boddy EVER PROVEN that I am incorrect and/or do not fully understand “something”?

Some background information.

In college I lettered in track and field (jumping events) and spent a lot of time trying to understand how to develop better jumping capabilities. The two sports that have contributed most to understanding how the body optimally performs athleticly are track and field and swimming. Why? Because in both track and field and swimming you are always quantifying your efforts (time/distance) and therefore have a much better understanding of cause-and-effect when it comes to training technique and developments.

In college one of my coaches was Gideon Ariel ( ) who was one of the most instrumental people in developing the concept of three-dimensional biomechanical analysis. I was also physics major at that time and one my best friends became his chief software development person.

When I left the engineering world (20 years ago) and started my own baseball facility I played around with his 3D analysis systems (see pictures below).

The main value of 3-D analysis is doing inverse kinematics analysis. But not to do inverse kinematics analysis you have to have a background in physics and engineering which Kyle has demonstrated a total lack of… So therefore I question what he’s actually learning from his sophisticated laboratory??

What I found was while it was interesting it really didn’t help in terms of developing teaching a training methods. Why? Because other than timing information of the body parts, which by the way for someone who really understands how the body throws the baseball normal 30 frames per second video will tell you the same thing much faster and much easier, high-speed 3-D is of little value. You cannot connect high-speed 3-D analysis to actually imparting movement into the body of a player.

No better example of this can be found in the work of the ASMI. They have spent 30 years doing study after study after study with 3-D biomechanical analysis and have not produced anything resembling methods or techniques for developing high-level throwing capabilities. For all of their studies and thousands and thousands of 3-D analysis the only thing that they’ve come up with is that if you throw the baseball too much is a possibility of getting hurt.

I readily admit that in the past I played the same “game” that Kyle plays. The game of trying to put my throwing instruction “thumb print” on someone who learned how to throw the baseball long before I met them. Does anybody really think that Kyle had any significant impact on Trevor Bauer throwing mechanics? Or any other professional who works out at his training facility? If he has its simply result of using SETPRO concepts such as intent, overload underload training and using video to determine timing issues. All concepts that I either developed or explained many years ago.

With respect to developing high school players, instruction and throwing development that level doesn’t exist or is so pathetic at that level anything even resembling concepts that I developed will do wonders. All one has to do is look to Ron Wilforth’s programs which has nothing to do with biomechanics and is simply using the concept of intent and allowing the players to throw the damn baseball.

When Kyle “flaunts” is sophisticated biomechanics laboratory the real question you must ask is what has Kyle contributed to the body of knowledge of how the body optimally throws the baseball?

And when was the last time Kyle proved me wrong?

Enough said.


What I wil say is this…there is more than one way to raise up a pitcher. The ones who are successful do so under constant criticism because…well everyone else can do it better of course :lol:
Now Kyles involvement with Trevor may just be holding his jock for all I know…maybe, in ways like House he’s his confessor, or shrink…but that stretches to the land of IDM (It don’t matter), if you hybridize and mix technique and have a plan that is attractive, folks will arrive and participate…once you have “some” success, more success will follow…I don’t think that Leo Mazzoni “knows” how the body throws as well as you Paul or even Marshall…but he had success…in my mind because he had a plan and talent that showed up…not as much in Baltimore as Atlanta.

Kyle is no Chris O’Leary though and he isn’t profiting off of nothing…I’ve been to his facility, it is a successful venture…because of a good plan and execution…now I understand the derision towards professionals…those idiots have no idea of reality (Thats the meme anyway) but it lends credability to an already good plan if they show up and respect your efforts.
This site benefits from honest straightfoward discourse, we don’t need to be derisive of one another as long as we can assert our position…I have never seen Kyle attempt to “prove you wrong” Paul…actually he has always expressed a respect towards you…now I do recall you stating a certain kid from Maryland would never acheive certain speeds with his mechs…his desire proved your statement incorrect so we all aren’t perfect in every statement every time…in my humble opinion bfd…it doesn’t take away from your skill and knowledge…nor does Kyle trying to delve into deep diving mechanics discourse…will he be right everytime…nope, can you help get him to a higher level with good solidly based criticism…oh yes…but let us stop with the open derision and one line or sentence zingers…this ain’t SetPro, it ain’t MM’s site…not BB Fever…we do our best to help…even if it’s just talking to a kid who is uncertain…and no…most that come on won’t go much further than HS…but so what…it doesn’t make the effort less noble…in my humble opinion…it makes it much more noble.
“What so ever you do to the least of my brothers” homey… 8)


Well said JD!


As stated to JD and Steven Ellis in private communication, I have zero interest in participating in what is becoming the SETPRO 2.0 forum where Paul’s word is law and everyone else who disagrees is shouted down - considering the influx of posters from that era, I can see the future developing (as it has happened on other forums times before).

And as I’ve said approximately 10,000 times before, Paul’s previous work has been monumentally influential in the world of pitching mechanics and training.

Best of luck to all, and see you elsewhere!


Paul, if I may ask, is your beliefs based on solely analysis? I understand the hype of having the credentials of having a degree in physics or engineering or whatsoever. But sometimes one needs to get out and play the game and get a feel for what they teach. You can analyse all you want but the honest to god truth on whether it actually works isn’t shown until you get out and play the game yourself. Analysis sometimes has no meaning because in reality you don’t feel what your students feel and in all honesty some successes are just due to some people not having any guidance on how to throw. If all your three dimensional analysis truly had any bearing on how to throw efficiently and injury free and indeed it may, you wouldn’t be here posting on a forum. And just to bring you down to earth, your use of credentials as a focus on “making you the more intelligent one” means absolutely nothing because all you do is the SAME as Mr. O’leary and many of us on this here forum and that is: ANALYZE. Perhaps when your analysis has made the leap from paper to reality, meaning you’ve achieved high levels of velocity injury free YOURSELF and have proved the other ways don’t work using YOURSELF, perhaps your analysis may have some weight to it. Furthermore, it disgusts me how someone who couldn’t even achieve a spot on the roster of a high-school varsity team would petty others saying “my knowledge would do high schoolers wonders” when he honestly doesn’t know from experience not putting his thoughts into his OWN body to see if it actually works but will be willing to sell it to oblivious people for money. And btw using students or whoever for proof is STILL analysis. Until you experience it yourself you truly have no idea the effects of anything you teach. It really puts you on the SAME level as Mr. O’Leary. This is why so many people such as myself cringe when going to this site. You truly have made the forum of helping youngsters get a good base for the sport they love a disaster of who’s right and who’s wrong when in reality the answer of that doesnt matter in the end.

Good day my oblivious friend.


This thread reminds me of the old University of Chicago slogan:

Kyle is saying he has had great results with actual pitchers, and he posts these results. He also posts results of actual measurements he’s taken, using several types of measurements. Then, his “theory” of why he’s getting these results is being attacked. But, isn’t what really matters the results?

If Kyle’s measurements are legit (no reason to think they’re not), and they doesn’t fit some predetermined long-time accepted theoretical model, then maybe that model/theory needs tweaking, and not the real world results. Or maybe the model is perfect, and the results are just being misunderstood. Dunno.

These discussions are great, but everyone should have an open mind, especially based on real world data from someone running his own clinic with top of the line measurement tools and access to world class throwers. Physics describes a lot in baseball, but there’s also the fact that not everybody is built the same way, or stores energy the same way, and may generate velocity in different ways…“kinesiology” involves biology/chemistry as well (what’s efficient for one body-type may not necessarily be efficient for another). There are many things you can’t see (like muscles, ligaments, nerves, etc.) from the outside, without high end measurement tools so taking measurements of what is really happening is definitely another way of going about this.

I really appreciate all Paul and Kyle have contributed to the pitching discourse–but starting a thread with an ad hominem attack (“pathetic attempt”) really is not appropriate for this forum and reflects poorly on the attacker (as an attorney, you typically see these attacks when the attacker’s underlying argument is lacking–if you have the facts or law behind you, you usually argue the facts or law, rather than attack the person). As Paul would say…IMNSHO.


I’m just going to state for the record a couple of things…
First, though we value his input, Paul Nyman has not established himself here to create, re-create…keep going, SetPro…1, 2, 3, 47.5 period.
Any participation he has is voluntary and appreciated. Do we consider him final authority? Well yes on what he’s accomplished or developed…does that mean he cannot be challenged? Absolutely not.
Is Paul the smoothest, easiest person to “get along with”? I guess that all depends on who you are…If you don’t want to hear his honest opinion, don’t involk it, if you do and he replies in a way that is caustic…that is the man and how he communicates…if your constitution cannot handle it…don’t ask.

Second, LTP and I don’t care who you are, Nyman, Mills, Marshall, Fleisig, Andrews…etc. if you confront or want to confront us with a threat that it is one contributer over another…don’t bother, just leave. The philosophey here has always been…all are welcome, discussion of every aspect is welcome…WE ARE HERE TO HELP OUR POSTERS! No other site on the internet is so welcoming of all who come and ask for assistance…or for that matter who just want to brag a bit or find out how they stack up.
So though I have the greatest respect for Mr. Boddy…if it is his choice to leave rather than to either ignore or not participate where he’s challenged, I can only simply wish him the best and hope for his continued success elsewhere.

Third, we just want all posters to maintain a posture of positive discourse, one line (Or word) dismissals are disrespectful and really un-necessary…there are many venues out there that will allow the flaming of individuals…this isn’t one of them…this thread…as I addressed with Paul, is not in keeping with the spirit of our site…calling a mans work out is acceptable but throwing labels and and ridicule without backing it up with a discussion of the points of disagreement will be called into account everytime it is found or brought to our attention.

We appreciate all of our posters and contributers. It saddens us to see anyone leave under negative circumstances.


The only problem I have with that above statement is the fact it is just a theory. While they have results from elite throwers to back their beliefs on hasn’t taken the time to take those same elite throwers and have then become as proficient using another theory to truly test their theory. You can come up with all the theories you like and always get good results but using the same athlete to test each theory is never done. That’s why I always suggest using yourself as a Guinea pig instead of elite throwers. And then to sell it at a cost to the customer with only tested results of their particular theory and not true results of other theories is purely disgusting. In the true reality is just a basis to make money. And that part is the sad part. Think of it this way. The wright brothers theorized on paper how the first airplane would fly. And their theory worked after going to the field and testing it and after previous theories had truly failed. If all we do is theorize then my friends we’d still on the ground./


The problem with using the same “elite” throwers for multiple approaches is they will always be building on the results from the program before. There is never going to be totally equal test groups. So it goes. I think almost anyone could take a physically mature 16 year old who has no training history, work with them for 3 or 4 months and get results. That doesn’t mean the results are not real. Could anyone take a grown man who has been sitting 90-91 for years and get results? Probably not. So what are we really talking about? The pitching culture as a whole? Because working with high schoolers and pros are two different things. The Tom House book and soon to be movie (which Im sure will be ridiculous) Million Dollar Arm took guys who had not played baseball and aimed to get them signed. Of course they selected genetically gifted guys who could throw high 80s to 90 with no instruction. So, really what were they doing? In reality that book (a good read) is about mechanics and control. Taking gifted people and teaching mechanics.

The assertion that only players can teach is silly on its face. Following this logic only someone who ran or worked in a NASCAR crew could hold knowledge required to repair cars. Only someone who has owned wildly successful restaurants could teach someone how to cook. Only someone who has made $10 million in cd sales or downloads could teach music lessons.
In my experience the only thing guaranteed about going to a former pro is the per hour rate is higher. We have had a couple of good experiences with former or current pros the rest have not been great. High school and travel ball is loaded with former drafted and college players that are not good coaches.
New ways to measure performance, execution and training/results should always be explored as should player health and recovery.
In short there is no golden holy grail. Different roads on the same journey.
It is discouraging (to a layperson) to see obviously intelligent committed people place ego ahead of discourse. Someone can be the most educated, informed person in their field…it does not give them the right to be a jerk.
If they give great info and are an A hole…they are still an a hole.
Take the info (which has great value) and forget the person (probably has little value).
As for people making money or charging for their services, there is nothing wrong with this at all and does not denote value or lack of value in and of itself.
As for anyone claiming to create any said exercise, drill ect in this field is just silly. My grandfather who played pro/semi pro ball in the late 1930s played long toss, threw weighted baseballs, used medicine balls ect.
Just the passing thoughts from a baseball dad who does not feel the need to drop a full résumé into every discussion.



Wow… this has became a little bit vicious.

[quote]“Once upon a time, in the less civilized world young upstarts anxious to propagate their genes would frequently band together to oust the old sperm bank.

And yes… his darling cubs must go too…

Of course the older lions, having survived up to this point… have already proven to be clever and determined, and the “well equipped” will sometimes survive these kinds of confrontations to fight another day.”[/quote]

Okay…admittedly some heavy editing will likely be required for this version of the Lion King to get a PG rating…][img][/img

But which would you rather see…This…

Or, the Million Dollar arm, throwing 80 mph something fluff???

In the final analysis probably both required. Reality so harsh we undoubtedly need good stories just to get us through…

Indeed… “Let’s Talk Pitching”…however in our attempt to be “civil” lets not overlook the importance of the occasionally “vicious”, yet undeniably well equipped!!][img][/img


And who pray tell can miss the fact that our ferocious lion with the kahunas is also showing his a$$ :wink:


:haha: :haha: :haha:

Never could understand why the Designer decided to place them in such close proximity…now I think… I know. Thanks JD