Is this the same as Lantz’s concept of feeling a “divide through the chest” (adding a segment to the kinetic chain and enabling better rotation around the glove side)?
Seems like an interesting concept, and substantially different from “equal and opposite” which is taken as gospel. Any studies on velocity gains using this concept?
It also seems to show that you can still “pull the glove”/satisfy the feeling of WANTING to do something with your glove side, while actually keeping the throwing side closed (which a lot of younger pitchers have a hard time with).
Anyway, I’m curious about this concept and any successes with it.
Totally disagree with Kyles disconnection “theory”. Violates physics, biomechanics and physiology of optimal throwing theory (efficient throwing).
His disconnection is in the same category as pushing off the rubber. Nothing more than a “cue” that if it gets the player to do the proper movement patten, fine. But otherwise has not what I would call “throwing science”…
This, of course, is false. You even posted to the same effect on your Baseball Think Tank articles considering the previous segment of a kinetic chain must be decelerated before acceleration of the next segment for optimal performance.
The glove arm does not move in sequence with the throwing arm at comparable angular velocities in the hardest throwers. And decomposed three-dimensional kinematic data from our lab proves it in guys that throw 92+ (max velocity of a pitcher in the study was 97, a high school pitcher).
At any rate, I’ve said my piece and I’ve got data to back it up from a research study done with four high-speed cameras. If you guys want to talk about it using 25 FPS video and what you see (“We are only capable of seeing what we are capable of seeing,” right? :)) don’t let me stop you. I’m just not joining in.
I used to think you knew something about throwing a baseball. But when it comes to physics, kinesiology, and motor learning this series of postings is almost total fiction when it comes to the science of throwing a baseball.
From your posting you demonstrate (to me) you know very little about the following:
The physics of how the body throws a baseball i.e. the biomechanical aspect of throwing.
How the body physiology works to throw baseball.
The kinesiology of optimally throwing a baseball.
How to develop drills to optimally throw baseball based upon the latest motor learning theory.
As time permits I will address these one by one.
I’ll start off with some physics. And for those who are uninformed I have a degree in physics as well as engineering. With a specialization in classical mechanics i.e. the set of physical laws describing the motion of bodies under the action of a system of forces.
Some basic physics
With respect to pitching mechanics discussions momentum is very much misunderstood by those who purport that they know something about the physics of throwing. Momentum is simply a property of a moving object. Linear momentum is the product of mass times velocity. Rotational momentum is the product of inertia times rotational velocity.
Momentum in itself is useless with respect to throwing a baseball UNLESS it is transferred from one segment of the body to the next segment of the body in such a way as to increase each successive segments velocity. Momentum can be dissipated or lost almost instantly by the soft tissues of the body.
MOMENTUM LOSS OCCURS BECAUSE OF DISCONNECTION.
There are several mechanisms for disconnection. Misdirection i.e. generating momentum in one direction and then attempting to transfer the momentum in another direction changing the direction of velocity vectors.
To take maximum advantage of the whip affect i.e. segmental transfer of momentum going from large mass to small mass the momentum transfer must take place in the same plane i.e. all velocities must be the same direction. Those losses may be a combination of both linear and rotational.
In the case of throwing a baseball (maximizing whip affect) we want momentum transfer is to take place in the same rotational plane i.e. same rotational velocity plane.
It also should be pointed out that creating momentum in one direction comes at the cost of creating momentum in the opposite direction (Newton’s third law equal and opposite reactions). Equal and opposite becomes important in terms of maintaining such characteristics as balance and optimal energy transfer.
The body (and the universe) love symmetry. And when throwing a baseball symmetry becomes very important. And this is what equal and opposite becomes very important.
More on this in future postings.
That being said the disconnection drill transfers virtually no momentum i.e. is true disconnection of the glove are momentum.
With respect to your statement:
At any rate, I’ve said my piece and I’ve got data to back it up from a research study done with four high-speed cameras. If you guys want to talk about it using 25 FPS video and what you see (“We are only capable of seeing what we are capable of seeing,” right?
High-speed cameras do nothing other than slow things down. It still takes somebody to interpret what they’re seeing. And I totally agree that were only capable of seeing what were capable of seeing. In your case…???
Next time why equal and opposite is so important when it comes to throwing a baseball.
So now all of a sudden after asking you to explain why the physics in relation to a vacuum and free bearing are not the same as earthly bound dampened physics, you now finally get it! After all this time.
Now explain why Dr.Marshall is spot on when it comes to redirection math in relation to rotational right angled momentum that you have always conveniently left out and refused to answer in the past. When you realized he is exactly right a long time ago and only now are contending with real insito physics.
I’m still waiting for you to produce just one acceleration graph to prove any of you past nonsense, that is changing as you realize he has had it right a long long time ago.
Please explain to the viewers what the difference is between “force coupling” and “force doubling” as only you do these explanation best in my opinion.
Please explain material “memory” and how little of it exists in bodily (bone, tendon, ligament and muscle) tissues.
Please explain lengthening and shortening in exercise physiology to be precise?
I’ve asked these hard questions of you in the past and you have always ran and hid and only now you explain dampening by bodily tissues, Bravo, you are starting to get it.
Please start with redirection math!!!
Instead of saying Kyle nows nothing at all about throwing mechanics, why don’t you just explain where he gets something wrong and give you explanation, kindly! This where you and Marshall have some learning to do.
Kyle is much further ahead of you in non-injurious application and force management in my opinion just by his age.
The number one misunderstood scientific principle in the pitching and swing community is the concept of momentum. The least understood aspect of momentum is that it can be instantaneously lost through disconnection.
The following two clips demonstrate the two most important principles regarding momentum:
For optimum momentum transfer it must take place in the same direction (vector) for each segment. The greater the difference between directions of segment movement the greater the loss of momentum in the desired direction.
Momentum transfer is proportional to stiffness of the connection between segments. One segment will decelerate the neck segment will accelerate proportionately. Any softness in the connection immediately decreases momentum transfer.
The following two clips illustrate these principles.
Clip 1. Showing that when momentum is perfectly aligned between segments maximum transfer takes place.
Re momentum, what about possibly looking at it this way?
The disconnection of the glove side, going out of plane, is setting up a very firm “block” for the front side (rather than just decelerating, it is setting up an even more firm “wall,” because it’s going out of plane). This could allow the throwing arm to be accelerated due to all the momentum in the front side being stopped–thus it would go faster and go further out/late launch. Like a gate swinging or a car accident, where the approaching car hits a car perpendicularly in the tail end, causing the front end to rotate very fast.
If the glove side merely decelerates, and doesn’t go out of plane, is it possibly setting up a “softer” thing to stop momentum (like your green ball example) rather than a harder wall, out of plane glove movement?
I’m not saying it definitely works this way (certainly up for other explanations), but that doesn’t seem that wacky either. Then again, I don’t want to assume that’s what Kyle is trying to do here with that drill, it’s just the way I’m thinking of it.
From a physics perspective is no such thing as a “block” or “wall”. Once the glove comes to a stop the only thing that is happening is the inertia are that’s represented by the mass of the arm and glove.
That’s not going to get you to 95+ mph.
I will repeat for the umpteenth time once any part of the body starts to decelerate the momentum is transferred. Once the body part comes to a stop that momentum is gone. It’s clearly shown in the clips that as the player is glove comes. This aptly no effect on rotation of the shoulders. After that the glove and become simply baggage.
There’s a whole lot of other things that need to go (the reason for scapula loading and unloading Which creates shoulder fishhook principle Of acceleration). All of which Kyle really doesn’t have a clue about at least not from what he posts.
And then we have something called part versus whole practice. That’s a whole 'nother story…
Assuming the scaps are connected momentum-wise, they’ll rotate in a circle. Why wouldn’t “disconnecting” the glove side scap cause the momentum to go more oval/straight as in something flying off a merry-go-round?
Since at some point you want the ball going forward, rather than in a circle, when you’re pitching, wouldn’t you want the throwing arm to be going both rotationally and linearly? So, if you disconnect the glove side, could that not aid in taking the momentum of the glove side to the throwing arm to go both around and forward (rotating forward into a late launch rather than purely in a circular/rotational manner—thus, maximizing angular velocity)?
Kyle does examine things in his biomechanics lab, and has access to pitchers and equipment that seem to be unmatched. If, through his analysis, he sees that hard throwing pitchers share certain things in common, why reject it out of hand and belittle him as “not having a clue”? When pitchers such as Trevor Bauer agree with his theory…and Trevor happens to be both a UCLA engineer and student of pitching as well (who also happens to throw in the upper 90s), maybe Kyle’s observations make some sense, and help enhance the revolutionary pitching theories that you and SetPro established.
[quote]Assuming the scaps are connected momentum-wise, they’ll rotate in a circle. Why wouldn’t “disconnecting” the glove side scap cause the momentum to go more oval/straight as in something flying off a merry-go-round?
Since at some point you want the ball going forward, rather than in a circle, when you’re pitching, wouldn’t you want the throwing arm to be going both rotationally and linearly? So, if you disconnect the glove side, could that not aid in taking the momentum of the glove side to the throwing arm to go both around and forward (rotating forward into a late launch rather than purely in a circular/rotational manner—thus, maximizing angular velocity)? [/quote]
Let me put it as simply as I possibly can. When the glove arm has come to a stop ( Kyles player) what effect has it had on rotational velocity of the body/scaps/whatever? Answer: none. Why? Because it’s totally disconnected from the throwing process.
You can continue to believe whatever you want to believe. As I said previously we can only see were capable of seeing. From a physics standpoint you’re not capable of seeing what is there.
Kyle does examine things in his biomechanics lab, and has access to pitchers and equipment that seem to be unmatched. If, through his analysis, he sees that hard throwing pitchers share certain things in common, why reject it out of hand and belittle him as “not having a clue”? When pitchers such as Trevor Bauer agree with his theory…and Trevor happens to be both a UCLA engineer and student of pitching as well (who also happens to throw in the upper 90s), maybe Kyle’s observations make some sense, and help enhance the revolutionary pitching theories that you and SetPro established.[/quote]
Exactly what training does Kyle have that allows him to correctly analyze the physics and biomechanics of what he seeing on high-speed video?
Other than piggybacking on intent and overload underload training mechanisms that others have developed exactly what has he contributed to the body of knowledge regarding how thoughtfully throw baseball?
High-speedVideo is only as good as the ability of the person viewing it to be of value. I see no viable “scientific” contribution from Kyle’s work. It’s basically anecdotal specific to his players.
As far as Trevor Bauer having the engineering capacity to interpret this stuff all I have to say is “get real”. Just having an engineering degree doesn’t mean a damn thing unless you put the time in the understand this stuff.
As an example Fleisig of the ASMI (PhD mechanical engineering, high-speed film inverse kinematics guru) still really doesn’t understand what it takes develop throwing a baseball. He can tell you something about the forces that the body experiences when throwing a baseball but when it comes to developing throwing capabilities he really doesn’t have a clue. As evidenced by his long toss study where he implies that long tossing is of no value because the mechanics are different.
To develop a player you have to understand not only the physics but also the biomechanics and also the physiology and also something about motor learning i.e. how the body acquires movement skills. Then you have to understand how to put all the stuff together in the training regimen.
How Bauer throws a baseball was developed long before he met Kyle. He was doing long toss, weighted balls, intent to throw the baseball.
So I asked the question just exactly what has Kyle done for Bauer??
I don’t have the energy to waste my time answer anymore to answer/deal with your questions because you don’t have the capability to process what’s being explain to already or you either because you don’t have the native intelligence or because you are so politically invested/attached to your existing belief system.
Native intelligence? Come on. I can guarantee you, by any objective measures, I’m at least in your class as far as “native intelligence.”
Just because someone questions you, doesn’t make them dumb or stuck to their belief system. A bad coach blames his players, a bad carpenter blames his tools, and a bad professor blames his students.
It’s certainly within your rights to take your ball and go home–heaven forbid someone question things on a pitching message board titled “lets talk pitching.” I am totally open-minded about this topic, which is why I asked the question to begin with.
However, just because you say something doesn’t make it beyond question. If Kyle is measuring something in his lab and says it’s so, and a pitcher who is known to be extremely bright and well versed in biomechanics agrees after trying it…well, maybe there’s an explanation for this that you haven’t fully thought of or pieces of the kinetic chain you haven’t fully accounted for.
Or maybe not. You could be correct. It just doesn’t seem that you’re at all open-minded to even consider that possibility that anyone else could discover something that you haven’t thought of.
“The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.” Albert Einstein.
CoachXJ, you have really put yourself in a bad position. I´m not even a part of this conversation and I need to point out that you are getting ridiculous now. Saying someone of this forum doesn´t have the “native intelligence”? Come on! How ridiculous can you be towards an individual?
Both theories have applicable uses, and as a physicist myself I am not able to declare which theory, model, etc. is in fact correct. Everything that we know about pitching has been theoretical, aside from computer analysis and proper calculation of forces we cannot properly decide what is and is not correct. In order to say that you “obviously” know correctly when you just quoted that Dr. Fleisig got it wrong, and he has a PhD, are you not in fact saying that you can as well be wrong? Or are you above reproach?
Furthermore, if I had to choose a coach, I would not choose one who spouts information as you do, preaches as if his words were gospel, and gets angry when someone disagrees with him. Ideas, good or bad, generate great discussion and lead to knowledge. Ted Williams would discuss hitting with even the worst hitter, knowing that within all men there can be hidden knowledge.
So please, before this gets ugly, let’s sit back, relax, and agree to disagree. If you are right, you’ll produce better pitchers than Kyle, theories will eventually be confirmed, and you can sleep well. If you are wrong however-and that possibility does exist-then should you not stop being so forceful with what, as we still know it, remains an opinion?
Just some food for thought. On the subject I am neither commenting which I agree with, but I am here to point out that fighting such as this helps in no way.
I’d like to comment on the drill and drills similar to that. Also I’d like to comment on training of upper body rotation.
This drill(in my opinion) is working on upper body torso rotation. There are other things that are being work, but I believe other things are trained as a result, but torso rotation is the main focus of the drill. At least it would be what I’m thinking about if I was doing that drill.
I believe that Kyle is applying constraint training as part of this drill. Limited movement in one area to focus all energy into the movement of another area.
I think most people would agree that the faster torso twists open the faster the arm can throw the baseball. I believe that you can and should train this aspect of the pitching motion.
The glove arm plays a HUGE role in this rotation and it’s movement applies positive energy to the pitching motion. Look at the video I made. When I isolate the glove arm part of the upper body rotation, you’ll notice my arm flopping about.
Pay attention to when my torso begins to twist forward, it is almost the exact time my glove arm stops moving. The energy create by it’s motion is transferred as you notice my scap loading and my in the second part of the video, you’ll notice my arm flopping forward.
The purpose of the second part of the clip is to show how much energy is transferred to a completely energy rid arm. I have my arm complete tension-less and only let momentum move it forward.
I believe my clip shows how positive disconnect, is just that, positive.
Please correct me if I’m misunderstanding this concept.
energy=mass x acceleration
That drill and ones like it focuses on the acceleration part of that piece of the delivery.
In theory, increasing acceleration will increase energy output. More energy output equals more velocity.
Everything effects everything.
I’ll cap off my comment here. I’m brimming with thoughts, but I wish to not to be to verbose.
But one closing thought. I’m think that sprinting contains within it positive disconnect. I’m think about how the opposite arm goes up as the opposite leg goes up. Just a quick thought I had. Curious to what you all think about what I’m saying.
I hope I made a little sense. Please reply, comment, question and correct me! Discussion is fun!
Very interesting tweets by Bauer this morning (citing Kyle’s positive disconnection article, and complimenting Kyle)…I thought Trevor’s analysis was very helpful and detailed. Love that he takes the time to do that.
Also, for context, here is the pitcher to whom he was giving advice:
Not going to get in an argument (since I promised I wouldn’t) - but Paul and most people in this thread are trying to see something. I have long given up on that and just explain it that way for convenience.
We can decompose kinematics/kinetics and measure actual muscle activity using EMG sensors. As someone in an MLB front office once told me, “I don’t care what I see. I care what is true.”
What you believe you see - including Paul - are all based on your individual experiences that create your viewpoints. But you can’t argue with biomechanical (kinematics) and kinesiological (muscle activity) data that is fed into machine learning / regression analyses that give a strong indication on what is actually occurring. (Usually counterintuitive.)
(By the way, the kid in the video with poor upper torso rotation - or whatever he is being accused of - came to me throwing 70-71 MPH 12 months ago. He topped 91 MPH in 50 degree rainy weather last month exhibiting this huge flaw. Just imagine how hard he’d be throwing if I removed that flaw from him…)
By the way, for the new kids: If you get worked up over Paul’s ascerbic nature (or worse, try to change him), you are barking up the wrong tree. That’s just Paul. It doesn’t mean he doesn’t have good information (he does) nor does it mean he is always wrong (he isn’t).
Like anything else, you have to decide what you think is or isn’t true. I’ve told you how we go about our analyses. I am not going to go out of my way to convince you; at the end of the day I don’t really care if you believe me or Paul! I don’t get points for being right on the Internet or getting in legendary arguments (a lesson that took me some time to learn, I might add).
So first of all, the idea that pitchers that throw hard and throw strikes have equal and opposite arms can be immediately discredited by this image:
This is Jensen Lewis, who pitched a few years in the big leagues as the setup man for the Cleveland Indians, and he threw 90+ with this unequal arm setup at stride foot contact (SFC). Others include Jake Peavy and even Greg Maddux (gasp).
Anecdotally we’ve shown that “equal and opposite” isn’t a law when it comes to pitching mechanics. Scientifically and mechanically, it doesn’t make a lot of sense either. The combined high-speed GIF below is of David Robertson and Yu Darvish – frame rates not equal, I know. Watch their glove arm in respect to the throwing arm carefully.
What is the biggest thing that pitching coaches always talk about to improve velocity? Hip/shoulder separation, right?
Hip Shoulder Separation
But what’s so special about the hips and the shoulders? What about other corresponding body parts? After all, the kinetic chain is best optimized when the preceding body part is fully decelerated before the next body part in the chain is accelerated. (Think about elite pole vaulters and their strong block with the pole.)
How about… scapular separation?
Look above at Robertson and Darvish. Watch how their glove arm and throwing arm scapulae “disconnect,” as discussed in a previous blog post on our site: Disconnected Pitching Mechanics, a Good Thing? Their glove arms and throwing arms have a vast amount of separation despite throwing from two totally different postures – and both of them finish with strong rotation around the upper spine and a “glove pull” that doesn’t resemble a… Firm front Side[/quote]
First and foremost I don’t think I’ll really understand what equal and opposite is or how it actually works.
Using Jensen Lewis for example is to meet both farcical and ironic.
Farcical because Lewis had a grand total of four years in the major leagues. On a good day was lucky to hit 91 or 92. How this becomes the poster boy for his not equal and opposite being the way to go is beyond me.
The ironic part comes from the fact that the Cleveland Indians action contacted me regarding Jensen Lewis and his loss of velocity. What happened was in 2007 in the ALS playoffs he was hitting 92 mph. But the next year he was down to the 87-88 mph region . Part of the problem was his not equal and opposite. But this is how he learned how to throw the baseball and you cant change that once you get to a certain level especially when you’re trying to compete at the major-league level. So as I said choosing Jensen Lewis as a poster boy for not equal and opposite shows Kyle’s total lack of understanding of how to throw baseball.
With respect to one of his other poster boys Robertson. Robertson demonstrates what I consider classic equal and opposite arm actions.
The Eagle and opposite refers to how the arm separate and create scapula loading. And then the timing of pulling the glove arm in and unloading the scapula. This is a continuous process and relies on symmetry (equal and opposite) in our to effect the correct timing for maximum momentum transfer and utilization. Something Kyle’s drill does not do.
Here’s another example of equal and opposite:
Totally incorrect statement i.e. " After all, the kinetic chain is best optimized when the preceding body part is fully decelerated before the next body part in the chain is accelerated.".
What decelerates the previous segment is the acceleration of the next segment. The kinetic chain does not wait until the previous segment is fully decelerated. By definition fully decelerated means that there is no more momentum and no more kinetic energy to transfer. Basic physics 101 which Kyle Bodie has aptly no concept of and yet attempts to tell us how scientific he is.
And for those who think that I’m hyper sensitive, yes I am hypersensitive when it comes to the spreading of pseudoscientific nonsense at the expense of all the years and hours that I put into this trying to understand and define how.only throw the baseball.
I will repeat again they only thing that Bodie has done over the years is capitalize on the intent to throw the baseball and overloaded and under load training. All you have to do is look at Bauers comments tweets, how many times does he make reference to intent to throw hard? And guess who was the first one to preach this??
And jimster before you start pontificating about how much you know about throwing process and if you going quote some physics to support your contention you look pretty foolish when you make statements such as :
Energy does not equal mass times acceleration. Mass times acceleration as momentum. Momentum is not energy. Energy is equal to one half MV squared.
My model is about conservation of momentum and its transfer. There is only one correct model and it’s my model i.e. there is no momentum transfer if the previous segment has come to a stop before the next segment starts to move. And if you don’t agree with this you are no physicist.