Just Plain Sad


#1

If you haven’t had a good laugh in awhile, check out O’Leary’s site today attacking the NPA and their sequencing of events in pitching. Its amazing the level of misunderstanding. I’ll leave it at that, because anything more posted will give O’Leary a tangent to go off on and leave the real point behind.


#2

It’s all so amazing to me:

NPA Advisory Board

Nolan Ryan
Randy Johnson
Mark Prior
Robb Nen
Orel Hershiser
Dave Dravecky
Bobby Valentine
Dusty Baker
John Young
Karl Meinhardt
Gary Heil
Jim Brogan
Glenn Fleisig
Todd Durkin
Alan Blitzblau
Arnel Aguinaldo
Dr. Lewis Yocum
Dr. Rick Heitsch
Dr. James Andrews
Dr. John Conway
Dr. Hank Chambers
Dr. Todd Lanman

Imagine the arrogance it takes for a guy who has never thrown a “high level” pitch or operated on an elbow to undermine these names.


#3

I really used to be a fan of O’Leary. I liked how he broke down motions using slow motion film. I have recently found him in bad taste by attacking the NPA and other pitching guru’s. I still hold my belief that everybody has a different delivery and that the very best pitching coach is yourself.


#4

The NPA analyzes pitchers at 1000 frames per second. Chris doesn’t. :wink:

The NPA has a saying:

The hand is quicker than the eye…
but 1000 frames per second don’t lie.


#5

exactly


#6

Well, there goes his chances of some decent affiliation with a professional team.

O’leary has discovered nothing. He “believes” that a hyperabduction causes injuries. The injuries he says are caused by it are usually caused by something else. The man follows Marshall for chrissake. It almost makes me cry.

The NPA has done more to create high level throwers than O’leary will ever dream of doing. He has no right to criticize them until he comes up with something that actually makes sense. Not this garbage about inverted letters destroying arms. He needs to look at other things that high level throwers do, besides hyperabducting thier arms. His so called analysis of pitchers just comments arm action and nothing else. He once directed a post at me saying “what more is there to say?” in regards to a pitcher using the inverted w. :roll:


#7

Kind of random but what des O’leary look like? I get this picture in my head of this old white lookin leperchaun guy with a thick white beard. Any Help? :lol:


#8

I think you just described the Santa Claus at my nearby mall from this past holiday season. I was thinking more along the lines of a tall, rail thin, Rick Moranis looking kind of guy.


#9

Yes, it is sad—but in a way it’s very funny, because while reading this sequence of events I was reminded of a book I had read a long time ago. In this book, “The Case Against Psychoanalysis” (a detailed and very accurate critique of this particular concept), there was a passage in which the author described hardcore psychoanalysts as being comparable to, and I quote directly, “a dog chasing its tail. It discovers nothing new, only itself, and barks out the great news to the world”.
I was also reminded of something I had said once in an article I had written for the now sadly defunct Jazz Review magazine, in which I had analyzed (with numerous examples) the style of the great tenor saxophonist John Coltrane. A lot of people had been tearing into him for not having a “good” saxophone sound, stating that only the likes of Lester Young and Coleman Hawkins had “good” saxophone sounds. I had said that Lester Young’s sound was great for Lester Young, and that Coleman Hawkins’ sound suited Coleman Hawkins, and I went on to point out that a sax player’s sound is good if it suits his style and conception. So it was with Mr. Coltrane, whose sound, eerie and spine-chilling (the result of a combination of mouthpiece, extremely hard reed and a tight embouchure), was perfect for his style and conception, what he was doing with the instrument.
And in the field of classical music, the composer Claude Debussy made these remarks in his introduction to a set of twelve etudes (which I had worked on in my own playing days as a classical musician)—he had purposely omitted fingerings in the manuscript. Why? Because, as he put it, no two hands are alike, and so no one set of fingerings will facilitate playing these etudes for everybody. He said, "Let’s find our own fingerings!"
Q.E.D. 8)