Discussing The Ideas Of Dr. Mike Marshall

While I’m comfortable talking either about pitching mechanics from either the traditional or Marshall perspectives, I know that some people aren’t.

As a result, I am creating this thread to manage a continued discussion of Dr. Marshall’s ideas.

There is a difference. However, I’m not convinced that it will cost velocity.

Not sure what you mean here. How should one go into the landing?

No, but Dr. Marshall’s approach does take into account the physiology of the body. The traditional pitching motion doesn’t, which is why half of professional pitchers experience serious shoulder and elbow problems. I think it’s worth at least trying to improve upon that injury ratio.

Dr. Marshall does believe in external rotation (but he doesn’t believe in scapular loading). You don’t have to scap load in order to be externally rotated.

I disagree. There are a number of aspects of Dr. Marshall’s ideas that I disagree with. I also disagree with his overall approach. I believe it is possible to morph a traditional pitcher to using a motion that incorporates some of Dr. Marshall’s ideas.

Yes. Dr. Marshall believes the rotation of the hips, torso, and shoulders is critical. For one thing, that is why he beliefs pitchers should take shorter strides.

Forgive me for repeating this (I posted it in another thread).

My OPINION of the big picture of what he’s doing is starting from a standpoint of safety and attempting to apply his understanding of physics and bio-mechanics in order to achieve what “traditional pitching mechanics” already has but do it without injury. That’s it in a nutshell. Again, my opinion only.

What I see is a set of mechanics that will succeed on the safety front but will fail on the velocity front.

Yes, traditional pitching methods are dangerous. Period. It’s a nasty thing we’re trying to do with the shoulder and elbow. The reality is that people will do whatever they can to throw harder, DESPITE THE RISK. Everything we do involves risk. This one has plenty. So, what do we do? We attempt to mitigate and avoid by incorporate mechanics that minimize the risk without reducing velocity. That’s the holy grail, is it not?

Marshall believes he’s done just that. His writing style has lured many over to his side. I maintain that he’s succeeding re: safety but failing re: velocity.

You’re of course entitled to your opinion. I just happen to disagree.

I have seen enough guys pitch in enough different ways, and some people get injured while others don’t, that I think what Dr. Marshall is doing is worthwhile.

What reinforces this opinion is the success of guys like Josh Outman, a prospect in the Phillies organization, whose mechanics are very unusual and share many similarities to Dr. Marshall’s motion.

Chris
What in my post are you disagreeing with? I acknowledged that he might have success on the safety front. I’d very much like to see some evidence that his proposed mechanics can result in 100 mph velocity, or even 80 mph. How about 70, 60, etc.? If anyone out there could prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that their methods a) dramatically reduce or eliminate arm injuries while b) achieving velocities as high as traditional pitching methods has, the baseball world would beat a path to their door.

Marshall just hasn’t provided that proof. It’s all been talk so far. Show it. Prove it. Then all of the arguments would just simply stop!!

There is a difference. However, I’m not convinced that it will cost velocity.

Not sure what you mean here. How should one go into the landing?

Of course you dont, due to at least two reasons. you only see what you are capable of which inmy opinion aint to much.

No, but Dr. Marshall’s approach does take into account the physiology of the body. The traditional pitching motion doesn’t, which is why half of professional pitchers experience serious shoulder and elbow problems. I think it’s worth at least trying to improve upon that injury ratio.

Again, you only understand what you are capable of. Like these guy are not familar with the bodies physiology? Get a grip. Again SHOW me some reals RESEARCH. Wheres it at show me!

Dr. Marshall does believe in external rotation (but he doesn’t believe in scapular loading). You don’t have to scap load in order to be externally rotated.

Chris, Again you only understand what your capable of. External rotation and scap loading are TWO entirely different entities. A person DOES NOT scap load for external rotation purposes or vice versa.

I disagree. There are a number of aspects of Dr. Marshall’s ideas that I disagree with. I also disagree with his overall approach. I believe it is possible to morph a traditional pitcher to using a motion that incorporates some of Dr. Marshall’s ideas.

Which ideas? Im not the only one that has tried to tell you this Chris. Breaking the hands to early has the exact OPPOSITE effect of its design. Oh sure a pitcher may get his arm up quicker but it can and does in many cases cause the arm to drag or lag. thats why you want NO downtime with it. The arm should be throwing the ball from the moment it breaks from the glove, not getting up than throwing. Again this is a case of a person only seeing what they are capable of.

Yes. Dr. Marshall believes the rotation of the hips, torso, and shoulders is critical. For one thing, that is why he beliefs pitchers should take shorter strides.[/quote]

Number one Marshall does not even refer to a stride. He says a walking step forward. Number two there are countless numbers of pro pitchers who stride in the vicinity of 80-90% of their height had have no trouble with hip rotation why is that? When you learn this one aspect perhaps you will understand. It does tie into how a pitcher goes into landing. As well as the pitchers body position as hes going into landing. As well as his body position in space as hes going into landing. Again, you are only capable of seeing what you can see. You just need a whole lot more education Chris, in my opinion of course. Perhaps look at some video instead of still pics. Count the frames from highknee lift until the moment of release. Or from handbreak to release. On a 30 frame per second video most high level pitchers are right around 20 frames, give or take a FEW not 6 or 7 but a few. This has nothing to do with throwing mechanics it has everything to do with tempo/effieciency. You will find that in almost everysingle case hard throwing successful pitchers are right at or near 20 some even a little quicker. Break late/throw late everything in between as quickly and efficiently has one can be. The fact is this Chris your gonna be bumpin your head against the wall for a long time becasue you are trying to tie two different philosophies together. There is NO such thing as becoming half prenant!

MAN, you need to learn alot, but hey I’ll let everyone else do the bashing.

Oh Yeah, and Josh Outman?

umm, mechanics Dr. Marshall likes (you too)? OK

I don’t believe Marshall’s comments and recommendations can be taken out of the context of his specific set of mechanics and try to apply them to traditional methods. You’ll only water it down. They’re incompatible concepts.

I go back to what I said earlier. Show me the proof that his methods can result in velocities anywhere near what traditional methods have achieved and then we’ll talk. We have plenty of proof of 100 mph + but what does he have. Talk.

I agree that the proof isn’t yet there. However, I believe it isn’t long in coming. You’ll just have to wait a little while.

I like any motion and mechanics that let a guy throw in the mid-90s (as Josh Outman can).

Yes, the way Outman throws the ball looks weird, but so do the motions of…

  • Chad Bradford
  • Danys Baez

BTW, the idea of the Outman mechanics is to spin with the arm tight to the body and then extend the elbow directly at the target. That way you release the ball late and apply virtually all of the force directly at the target (rather than toward 3B as traditional pitchers do).

Outman also doesn’t believe in a leg kick. He just takes a walking step toward the plate.

So? The stride is highly overrated as a source of power. There are also pitchers like Robb Nen who didn’t get much power out of the stride.

I agree that they do. However, they tend to have above-average levels of flexibility in their backs. If they were to take a shorter stride, then more ordinary people could achieve the same thing.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the guys you say exemplify this model also experience a disproportionate level of elbow and shoulder injuries.

That’s fine if you want it for your guys. I want my guys to have much longer careers.

[quote=“dm59”]I don’t believe Marshall’s comments and recommendations can be taken out of the context of his specific set of mechanics and try to apply them to traditional methods. You’ll only water it down. They’re incompatible concepts.[quote]

I disagree.

As I have said before, there are many current pitchers who do some of the things that Dr. Marshall advocates…

  • Break The Hands Early.
  • Long Arm Swing.
  • Shorter Stride.
  • Tilt The Shoulders.
  • Early Pronation.
  • Finish Upright.

So? The stride is highly overrated as a source of power. There are also pitchers like Robb Nen who didn’t get much power out of the stride.

Chris you just do not get it. Again HOW THEY GO INTIO LANDING! you honestly are in way over your head. Im starting to think you are not even capable of seeing what you see.

I agree that they do. However, they tend to have above-average levels of flexibility in their backs. If they were to take a shorter stride, then more ordinary people could achieve the same thing.

This is just more B.S because you DONT KNOW in my opinion. so now flexibility issues determine a normal person? give me a break man!

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the guys you say exemplify this model also experience a disproportionate level of elbow and shoulder injuries.

Chris, you find fault with EVERYBODY. Which is tuogh for me to grasp becasue yuo OBVIOUSELY dont have a clue about real pitching mechancis. Oh sure you know what YOU like you know a lilttle about Marshall but you know NOTHING about what REAL pitchers are doing.

That’s fine if you want it for your guys. I want my guys to have much longer careers.[/quote]

Thats just a flat out stupid statement Chris. Who doesnt want their pitchers to be healthy? Your guys will have NO careers becasue they will never EVER pitch beyond yourh baseball. If you call that a career than so be it. AGAIN WHERE IS THE RESEARCH I asked about. you must have something other than just conjecture!

[quote=“dm59”]I don’t believe Marshall’s comments and recommendations can be taken out of the context of his specific set of mechanics and try to apply them to traditional methods. You’ll only water it down. They’re incompatible concepts.

I go back to what I said earlier. Show me the proof that his methods can result in velocities anywhere near what traditional methods have achieved and then we’ll talk. We have plenty of proof of 100 mph + but what does he have. Talk.[/quote]

You are so correct about the two methods. Thats why I told Chris you cant become half pregnent! Chris is like the guy that wants to be able to drive his car 120 mph. but refuses to drive anything other than a 4cylinder puddle jumper.

I’m sure that everyone wants their pitchers to be healthy.

However, what I have found is that many people seem to hold one of two attitudes when it comes to injury prevention…

  1. There is nothing you can do about it (since we don’t know why pitchers injure themselves).

  2. There is something we can do about it, but doing something about it would come at the cost of velocity.

I think number 1 has been proven to be wrong. I think the fact that some pitchers, like Greg Maddux and Tom Seaver, have had long, injury-free careers suggests that number 2 is wrong as well.

Exactly what kind of research do you want to see? I’m not clear what you want to see proven (or disproven).

[quote=“Chris O’Leary”]You’re of course entitled to your opinion. I just happen to disagree.

I have seen enough guys pitch in enough different ways, and some people get injured while others don’t, that I think what Dr. Marshall is doing is worthwhile.

Just what on earth does this mean? That staement does not make one bit of sense other than SCREAMING at the top of its lungs “nobody knows why some get hurt and others dont”.

What reinforces this opinion is the success of guys like Josh Outman, a prospect in the Phillies organization, whose mechanics are very unusual and share many similarities to Dr. Marshall’s motion.[/quote]

Chris thanks for this thread.

I have always felt Marshall’s material was so hard to understand, but in the end, I looked for little things to pull out of it. For instance, the pulling of the glove arm straight back toward second base. Now, I know Marshall’s delivery is NOT traditional, but reading about what he wants the glove arm to do and looking at some pictures of Clemens’s finish on O’Leary’s site, I did draw a correlation. Clemens does forcefully pull back his glove arm toward second base and finish with the glove behind him. I know the NPA wants the pitcher to take their chest to the glove, but that does not correlate with efficent force production using all the “tools” in the “toolbox”. Furthermore, with Clemens pulling the glove straight back, right off the lead hip, helps him stay in a straight line with the target, not wasting a lot of force. I know he bends at the waist, but his acrominal line does end up facing home as well.

Maybe I’m reaching or trying to justify all the darn time I spent reading his material.

http://www.philaphans.com/news/phillies/columns/1118991849.html

Great Article on Josh Outman

From what I have seen, most pitchers who had long, injury-free careers do tend to apply more force in line with Home Plate and 2B. They have relatively less reverse-rotation of the shoulders (but do reverse-rotate their hips).

Agreed. I don’t think their taking advantage of the idea of force coupling (which is also used in the Martial Arts such as when throwing a punch).

Both Clemens and Ryan are very compact when spinning. This helps them apply force closer to the driveline.

I don’t think so. At a minimum it will improve the advice you give to your guys who use the traditional pitching motion.

[quote=“CoachKreber”]… reading about what he wants the glove arm to do and looking at some pictures of Clemens’s finish on O’Leary’s site, I did draw a correlation. Clemens does forcefully pull back his glove arm toward second base and finish with the glove behind him[/quote]Sorry, guys but, as I noted before, you CANNOT reach any conclusions about this by looking at stills. I have a dozen videos of Clemens, a couple of Ryan, one of Kevin Brown, Kazmir, Pedro, Rivera, etc. etc. and NONE OF THEM “forcefully pull back” the glove arm. If you look at the last pic of Clemens, you’ll see the glove back there. That does NOT mean he pulled it back to help increase velocity. It’s not a cause of anything but a result. If you look at the video, you’ll see that the elbow comes back to beside the hip and the glove actually stays somewhat stationary, relative to the torso, for a moment. Then, AFTER THE BALL HAS LONG GONE, the forearm straightens out behind him (actually them). It’s a “result” not a “cause”. We really have to stop drawing conculsions such as this from still images. They’re just a snapshot in time, not the whole picture.

[quote=“CoachKreber”]Maybe I’m reaching or trying to justify all the darn time I spent reading his material.[/quote] I think both of these are true.