Hey umm i was wondering if you have a 40 inch vert would your velocity be naturally really high. Or leg strength like bartolo colon reli big legs and able to push off. cuz rich harden has like a 40 inch vert and he has good velocity. So does this mean that if you jump really high you will have good pitching velocity?
michael jordan could jump high and he didn’t throw 90mph
leg strength will aid you in throwing harder tho but just because you have tree trunks for legs it doesn’t mean you will throw 90mph
but like if you have really great legs that means even if ur arm isn’t great but good enough to throw 85 u’ll be able to throw 90?
everything needs to be strong and working together to throw even 85 much less 90
the question your asking isn’t really possible to answer because everybody’s body is different, most peoples mechanics aren’t identical…some people have chicken legs and can throw gas, some people have huge powerful legs but can’t throw 80mph
Being strong doesn’t mean you are a good baseball player. Increasing strength doesn’t make you a better baseball player. Lifting improves your athletic ability and strength. You must take you extra strength and apply it to the skills involved in baseball. Its impossible to say a “x” in vertical equals “y” mph fastball. However, if you increase your power (vertical jump) and learn to apply the increased power, you might be able to throw faster.
The bottom line is this: Work hard now and work hard at your baseball skills. The rest will take care of itself.
I agree with a lot of the things that you guys are saying. However, my highschool team has been doing insane leg workouts and I have been there every week consistantly putting in the time, and I have seen a huge jump in my velocity because of it. We don’t use weights. We only focus on plyometrics, but man I’m telling you, I’m 15, and I threw 78-79 freshman year before I started the workouts. Now, I have been doing the leg workouts for a month, and I have been gunned every week, and now I’m around 82-84. Any person who knows what they’re talking about in the baseball world won’t dispute that that is a significant increase. So, I thought about it for a while, and I have come to the conclusion that stronger legs can make you a better pitcher, but only if you use them to your advantage. It really comes down to mechanics and how well you implement your larger muscles(quads and rear) into your motion. It makes perfect sense if you think about it because you are using your naturally stronger muscles to aid you in getting around your arm as fast as you can. For instance, if the muscles around your hips(can’t name them)are stronger, than you are going to get around faster, thus, more velocity. It is closely connected to the concept of turning the hips in hitting in that regard. I hope this isn’t too confusing, but anyway, this leg and core strength program I’m on has done wonders.
What’s much more important is when and how fast you turn your hips, torso, and shoulders.
Interesting to look at Sutton and Seaver. Their styles were so different yet they both had great success. The difference though is between a breaking ball pitcher trying to throw down hill and a high fastball pitcher trying to get the ball to “rise”. Seaver released from such a low point that a high fastball had very little drop on it. Very few pitchers could get as close to having a fastball rise so the pitch was extremely effective as a result. The reason Seaver pitched with a bent knee was to maintain that low release point. Sutton on the other hand took a relatively short stride, stopped hard against his plant leg and released the ball from a relatively high point allowing him to throw an effective curve and sinker. When I was a kid I thought I threw like Seaver. Films later showed that I threw like Sutton (just not as hard).
“Seaver released from such a low point that a high fastball had very little drop on it. Very few pitchers could get as close to having a fastball rise so the pitch was extremely effective as a result.”
Tell me more about why you think Seaver was effective.
I tend to believe that a high release point, and lots of vertical movement is good because it makes the actual trajectory of the ball harder to perceive (and conversely a flat ball is easier to hit). As a result, I see Seaver as something of an enigma.
The weirdness and unusual nature of his delivery (it was different from what batters were used to seeing, which made it hard to get used to)?
His ability to put extra spin on the ball (and give it a different movement)?
His ability to hide the ball prior to the release point?
On a similar vein, I think that part of what made Gibson so effective was his follow through. It must have been incredibly distracting to see him falling all over the place while you were trying to watch the ball.
High fastballs are hard to make contact with at all, although every now and then a hitter will really drive one deep. Low fastballs coming downhill are harder to get in the air. Power pitchers tend to throw high fastballs to get strikeouts. The less a high fastball drops the more effective it tends to be. It is very difficult to get on top of a “rising” fastball. Most power pitchers unless they are fairly tall will tend to get low when they release the ball. Roy Oswalt is a current example of a relatively short power pitcher who gets low and who can be effective high in the zone. That’s also why you’ll see pitchers throwing 4 seamers when they go up in the zone. They don’t want the ball to sink in that case.
The majority of pitchers are most effective throwing downhill but many power pitchers are more effective throwing as flat as possible. Even though the ball is really fairly flat and dropping slightly it seems to be rising as hitters are programmed to see a ball coming in downhill as being straight.
What made Gibson so effective beyond having great stuff was his competitiveness/being downright mean.
“The majority of pitchers are most effective throwing downhill but many power pitchers are more effective throwing as flat as possible. Even though the ball is really fairly flat and dropping slightly it seems to be rising as hitters are programmed to see a ball coming in downhill as being straight.”
I kind of buy this, but let me run a different possibility by you.
What ball is the hardest for an outfielder to catch? Most people would reply that it’s the one that’s coming directly at you. The reason that this is the case is the same reason why 4-seam fastballs seem to rise (they don’t actually rise, they just don’t fall as quickly as you would expect).
Because of how our eyes are oriented (e.g. on a horizontal plane), the human visual system has a hard time judging the motion and velocity of an object that is coming directly at us but moving in a nearly vertical plane.
I wonder if some pitchers are more effective than others because of where they release the ball and where they want it to go. It could be that more effective pitchers release the ball in such a way, and from such a point, that from the batter’s perspective it looks like it’s coming directly at them, which would make its motion harder to judge. Conversely, it could be that less effective pitchers release the ball in such a way, and from such a point, that from the batter’s perspective they are able to see the ball from the side and thus get a better sense of both its velocity and trajectory.
This could explain why a 12-6 fastball is the hardest one to hit; because it has the purest vertical motion.
If true, this would seem to have implications for where pitchers should stand on the mound and where they should throw the ball. For example, it would say that a RH pitcher should never throw the ball from the R (from the batter’s perspective) side of the rubber and to the outside part of the plate because that would give the batter the best chance of getting a side view of the traqjectory of the ball. Instead, they should stand on the L (again from the batter’s perspective) side of the rubber and throw to the inside part of the plate. That way the ball will be coming most directly at the batter.
Does this hold up with what pitches are actually the most effective?
I don’t think so. I think location on the rubber doesn’t change the angle of the pitch as much as it affects the release point and thereby affects the amount of movement. My (RH) son’s fastball tends to tail so he gets his best movement throwing from the left (from the pitcher’s perspective) side of the rubber. He also tends to have a bit better control from that side. RH pitchers who step across their body a bit may tend to throw from the other side of the rubber. It might be interesting to see where Zito stands on the rubber as he tends to step across his a body a bit to get more break on the curve. Maybe I should take a long lunch and go see if he’s throwing today. Looking at a clip it looks like Pedro Martinez who often throws a tailing fastball also throws from the left side of the rubber (from pitcher’s perspective), although not excessively.
In any case, where you stand on the rubber is a matter of personal preference and probably has very little to do with how the batter perceives the pitch unless you’ve got a sidearmer who strides across his body or something of that sort.