My own motion of pitch


#1

This is my own motion of pitch. I get good stuff on my fastfall, but my controling ability is bad. Could you guys give me some suggestions about that? Thanks a lot!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4715945001323254370


#2

It appears that you stride to the closed side of the target and then throw back across your body. And you try to get your upper body back in line with the target by bending to the glove side at your waist. These things will affect control. Try getting yourself to stride straight toward the target so you can eliminate the posture change.


#3

you could throw faster by accelerating everything you do after your knee starts to drop. that would help you being more explosive.


#4

How much pitching have you actually done?

To reach the highest level of performance takes about 10 years of working diligently, consistently, and above all else “smartly”.

Your throwing mechanics look reasonably good. it takes years to develop the combination of effective throwing along with being able to locate your pitches. What do many players do is attempt to become pitchers too soon, i.e. they are too focused on getting batters out as opposed to developing overall throwing capabilities.

[quote]Researchers interested in identifying the factors that distinguish the exceptional from the ordinary performer have created numerous theories to explain the development of expertise. Since Francis Galton wrote the phrase ‘nature and nurture’ in 1874 scientists have used (and overused) this phrase to describe factors that interact to promote high levels of human achievement (i.e., expertise). Our current understanding of the relative contributions of genetic (nature) and environmental (nurture) factors suggests that a significant portion of the variation among individuals can be accounted for by ‘heritability’. For instance, research from the HERITAGE family study has linked genetic factors to physical characteristics such as heart rate and blood pressure (Wilmore et al., 2001), as well as measures of aerobic performance (Pérusse et al., 2001). Perhaps more importantly, these findings suggest that the level of improvement due to training (i.e., trainability) is constrained by genetic factors. Lewontin (2000) uses the metaphor of the empty bucket to describe this approach to the relative contribution of genes and environment on development; specifically that genes determine the size of the bucket while the environment determines the contents. Regardless of whether one completely supports this position or not (cf. Ericsson et al., 1993; Lewontin, 2000), environmental factors clearly play important roles in accounting for interindividual variation. The purpose of this review is to examine the training and environmental factors related to acquiring high levels of sport proficiency.

Training Factors

It is perhaps not surprising that high levels of training or practice are required to attain expertise. Research on skill development clearly supports the relationship between training/practice and skill acquisition. Moreover, previous research has identified general rules that outline the progression from novice to expert in a given domain. These include the “10-year rule” (Simon and Chase, 1973) and the power law of practice (Newell and Rosenbloom, 1981). The 10-year rule.

In a study of expertise in chess, Simon and Chase (1973) indicated that differences between the expert level players (grandmaster player) and lesser skilled players (master and novice players) were attributable to the ability to organize information in more meaningful “chunks” rather than the possession of a superior memory capacity. Based on this finding, the authors suggested that inter-individual variation in performance could be explained by quantity and quality of training. Since then, there have been no reliable differences found between expert and novice performers on static, physical capacities such as visual acuity, reaction time, or memory. However, consistent differences for domain-specific information-processing strategies have been identified, thus suggesting that these differences were the result of training or experience. Singer and Janelle (1999) summarized the characteristics that distinguish the expert as follows:

  1. Experts have greater task-specific knowledge.

  2. Experts interpret greater meaning from available information.

  3. Experts store and access information more effectively.

  4. Experts can better detect and recognize structured patterns of play.

  5. Experts use situational probability data better.

  6. Experts make decisions that are more rapid and more appropriate.

Evidence from perceptual/cognitive sports examined to date implies that in domains where experts and non-experts are distinguished by domain-specific, information-processing abilities, these skill differences are better accounted for by intense training rather than innate abilities. The logic behind this position is that while certain gross, general traits have been linked to genetic endowment (e.g., intelligence; Bouchard, 1997), the refinement of these traits into domain specific abilities (e.g., pattern recognition, strategic thinking) only occurs after years of intense training. Furthermore, there is no empirical support for the idea that there is a gene that predisposes an athlete to superior information processing that is only manifested in a single domain (e.g., a gene for soccer processing).

According to the “10-year rule,” a 10-year commitment to high levels of training is the minimum requirement to reach the expert level. This “rule” has been supported in music (Ericsson et al., 1993; Hayes, 1981; Sosniak, 1985), mathematics (Gustin, 1985), swimming (Kalinowski, 1985), distance running (Wallingford, 1975), and tennis (Monsaas, 1985). The theory of deliberate practice (Ericsson et al., 1993) extends Simon and Chase’s work by suggesting that it was not simply training of any type, but engagement in ‘deliberate practice’ that was necessary for the attainment of expertise. According to Ericsson et al. (1993), deliberate practice activities are forms of training that are not intrinsically motivating, require high levels of effort and attention, and do not lead to immediate social or financial rewards. Under deliberate practice conditions, experts develop specific skills that are required by their domain under conditions of high effort and concentration. The authors suggest that by continually modifying training activities so that optimal amounts of effort and concentration are required, future experts maximize physiological and cognitive adaptations. [/quote]


#5

man i just got to say that first video looked like you were throwing at the camera what i think you should do is open up you stride and try to keep your eye on the catcher.

one more thing try to keep your balance on the mound cause after you release the ball cause you kinda got off balance after you through the ball.