Science and Pitching, Science and life

Here is something I want to share for interaction and thought.
Simplicity is the key. (I know I say that alot)

[size=18]“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication”[/size] - Leonardo Da Vinci

Enjoy.

I appreciate you sharing this; Some thoughts, mostly negative (sorry):

  1. a presentation like this really has more impact with background music.

  2. I’m not sure if I agree with your definition of science as “The extent of what our smartest people already know”. Science is the search for truth in physical phenomena.

  3. I don’t understand what your diagrams represent; also, these diagrams are somewhat crude looking.

  4. The comparison of Koufax and Lincecum was interesting…

I’m not really understanding your point… :frowning:

[quote=“bbrages”]I appreciate you sharing this; Some thoughts, mostly negative (sorry):

  1. a presentation like this really has more impact with background music.

  2. I’m not sure if I agree with your definition of science as “The extent of what our smartest people already know”. Science is the search for truth in physical phenomena.

  3. I don’t understand what your diagrams represent; also, these diagrams are somewhat crude looking.

  4. The comparison of Koufax and Lincecum was interesting…

I’m not really understanding your point… :([/quote]

bbrages,
No negativity in your comments and responses whatsoever. Thanks for bringing about things I can expand on.

  1. I don’t place music on my information videos because I am not in the music business and I coulnt find anything that U2 has written to place with it.

  2. I am not saying that the definition of science is “what or smartest people”. I am saying that everything science is based on is currently what our smartest people know and as they get smarter we will know more.
    Which leads me to the crude drawings. the drawing is to show illustrate that technology may be taking us to a higher level and I don’t question that being so other than I think we should be smart enough to know that the information that may be percieved as taking is up might be in the larger scheme a bend in the cycle or circle of things.

Example from a personal experience (which may not amount to a hill of beans in your world): 10 years ago I attended a great seminar on a certain subject I had great interest in. After hearing all the wonderful stuff that was brought about this subject, I immediately called my mentor and expressed that I felt we were closer to the truth 3 years prior and should go back rather than down a road I felt would eventually bring us there later.

Since then I found that we try to make things so scientific when there are way too many variables in the pitching process, or even further, the human process. Science has a better way of telling you why machines do things or mechanical things happen or electrical things etc. The problem I find is that we try to make robots out of every human action. Which in the grand scheme of things will never work. Another variable will come about making us as human beings much more capable than manufactured product.

I am not saying that science is not important. that would make me an idiot. I am saying that if I base all my info and understanding on what we currently think science assumes would make me an idiot as well.
Examples:
Drop and drive, was once a bad cue…did Tom Seaver stink?

Long toss is over-rated, does a majority of pitchers that do do this lack intellegence - Trevor Bauer?

Stride length should be at least 80 % your body height, or more than your body height 110% - Is Joe Nathan not the caliber of pitcher that Tim Lincecum is?

The leg should straighten at release nad not stay flexed to provide a greater lever or vice a versa- Is John Smoltz approach less efficient than Luke Hochevar’s?

ETC. Place the current “Flavor of the month” topic here and find someone very effective doing the opposite. - check back with me after next years draft or baseball season.

If the MLB pitchers are our elite and they are what we are striving for, then someone answer for me this question please: Why isn’t there one dominate style of mechanics in the Big Leagues?
Too many variables, that is the problem with being a human being and not a machine.

I am not saying it is not great to talk over philosophies and debate thoughts because there is more than one way to do things. It is important for me to express that you do not have to be a rocket scientist or a former major leaguer or have worked with a major leaguer to help your son become one. Use common sense and you will gain a great amount of info. I am stating that anybody can do what I do, (if what I do is good.) if they just see the simplicity of things and uses common sense. Just trying to make things easier to understand.

Thanks for the explanation. I agree wholeheartedly!

I feel the same discomfort you seem to Fred, we attempt to box and say there is “1 Way” or the “only way”…“I have studies that prove”…is a common refrain…how did anyone make it out of those terrible dark ages before we broke down everything to the molecular level :?
How do you quantify desire or a “winner”?
Timmy Tebow is constantly making me smile as the pundits look more stupid every week…how do you figure a heart like that?..a kid with so much competitive spirit that he quarterbacked an entire 2nd half of a varsity hs football game with a broken femur??? :shock: (He was also a great baseball player…the reason my son got looked at the first time by scouts :smiley: ) or the desire of a Dave Dravecky…you can’t and Fred that is so much the point…
Thanks for the discussion…

Every pitcher has a certain style but I believe there are certain constants that most pitcher adhere too.

ex. hip/torso separation and rotation.

That’s what I try to look for in a pitcher. Most everything else will vary from the individual, but that seems to be a constant from small pitchers to big ones.

Just my opinion.

[quote=“jimster”]Every pitcher has a certain style but I believe there are certain constants that most pitcher adhere too.

ex. hip/torso separation and rotation.

That’s what I try to look for in a pitcher. Most everything else will vary from the individual, but that seems to be a constant from small pitchers to big ones.

Just my opinion.[/quote]

Careful with looking for things like hip/torso separation to indicate if a pitcher is better or worse, with or without h/t sep. I have seen people improve by taking away h/t sep.
Just a personal experience thing to share.

I’m just saying that most guys do that.

I’m also just saying that are some constants between most players. Kind of like how almost all hitters load before they swing.

Just my opinion :stuck_out_tongue:

There may be constants in mechanical processes. For instance, all pitchers stride prior to delivery of the ball to home. Where the variables come in is how they get to that stride.

I think it’s the science part that helps pitchers get from point A to B. What I mean is that the variables in mechanics can be broken down today with high speed video much easier than, say, in the 1960s. With these tools at our disposal we are able to break down each variable and illustrate, provide corrective measures.

Imagine Whitey Ford or Sandy Koufax playing in today’s game with the advantages of science on their side. Could their mechanics have been altered to make them even better or have even more longevity.

All of the science and biomechanical studies aside, a player, pitcher or otherwise, can never be successful without the heart and drive it takes to put in the work necessary to succeed. Without that drive to win, perfect mechanics A to Z ain’t gonna get it done.

Whitey Ford pitched for 16 seasons and Sandy Koufax pitched for 12 and this was in the time period where pitchers pitched a lot of innings in a season. I don’t think they would have been better in today’s pitching world. They would have probably have lasted longer, but would have probably gotten about the same career stats. They might have thrown faster too. Who knows.

Sandy Koufax only pitched until he was 30 but he started in the big leagues when he was 19.

I just thought I would mention that.

I do agree with you that today’s science and new knowledge would have helped then. At the very least proper conditioning of their bodies could have allowed them to have longer careers.

He also had physical issues not related to throwing (Arthritis…which they still haven’t cured so…Sandy K. woulda been done anyway)…maybe steroids would have extended his career but imo couldn’t have a better 5 years than Sandy did on his way out and he was just class so I don’t think it would have suited him to have a lingering sub-par exit.

[quote=“Turn 22”]
Imagine Whitey Ford or Sandy Koufax playing in today’s game with the advantages of science on their side. Could their mechanics have been altered to make them even better or have even more longevity.
.[/quote]

Be careful with this thought process. Not that i necessarily disagree. It is all relevant to their time. With this thought process, would it fair to assume that Strausburg or Prior would not have sniffed in Koufax’s day without science or philosophies of today? Strausburg would be weighing around 240 back then without his hot yoga and up to date throwing and conditioning program and instead of dealing with racial stuff that Sandy went through growing up, Strausburg would have hid himself from all the fat jokes he received. Who knows? Did science and technology lengthen Prior’s career? Without it, would he have even made it back then? I think so. Not because of science or technology, but because his love was so great for baseball that it became his passion which pulled him toward his calling. Science had little to do with that.
Merry Christmas and good stuff.

Good Stuff.

We’ll never know if science could have helped with success or longevity of players in the 1960s. It’s kinda hard to improve on the likes of Ford or Koufax anyway. Both men were incredible pitchers who posted phenominal numbers and both exited the game on their own terms.

Again, science aside, I believe it’s the heart, the grit, the determination, and the love of the game that makes players great, not just successful.

That is cool to look at the similar styles the Lincecum and Koufax share. That is a cool video. sorry, didn’t pay attention to the scientific stuff! lol
I just find it awesome how similar their motion is.
thank you for sharing.

the man with all the information is called an expert, there are many experts that can’t pitch. the man that can identify the core absolutes and implement them becomes successful. sam walton didn’t finish high school but became more successful running a retail store than any harvard graduate to date.

mike marshall is one of the most knowledgeable/educated people in the world on throwing a baseball with a cy young on his mantle, and wolforth in houston consistently produces 90 mph draftable arms through common sense and applying things the has empirically proven work. you cannot avoid the requirement of sweat and hard work to become an elite player.

the problem with technology and the information explosion is figuring out who to listen to. libraries and especially the net/forums are full of information that is dead wrong, and if you follow it you could hurt yourself. the upside is there has never been more access to good knowledge than we have right now. college educations are becoming almost antiquated, and businesses and america are looking for kids with work ethic and disciple. these are the guys that are succeeding. you have access on the web to the same information and people as student attending harvard or playing professional baseball.

nice thread: worthy topic to discuss. i do think our models should be hall of famers, there are guys in the big leagues that cannot stand the test of time and if you use them as models it might not be a good thing. remember pryor and willis and zito and the lefty for the rays that i can’t remember now who everyone on the site wanted to copy.

I do not want to pick out one thing from what you typed (that would be de-contextualization), but Zito is a much better pitcher than he gets credit for.

Is the pitcher you cannot remember Scott Kazmir?

yes kazmir, thank you. zito is good, but when he signed with giants he was supposed to be all that and tanked. how about ankiel, had the best help money could buy and couldn’t figure it out. it is a different game we love.

I totally understand and agree with you. I sure wish there were some absolutes.

Not me…I love the diversity that can bring guys like Bill Lee and Juan Marischall, Dennis Eckersley, Fydrich…it is what makes it art…can’t have no stinkin absolute art 8) …gimmie an El Duque…and a Vida Blue…a Gaylord Perry and a Roy Halliday…now your talkin…absolutes has 300 robots…no Beckett, no Wakefield…
In business I call it an MBA mentality…when the accountants relieve us all of creativity :sosorry:

I like that too - The ability to get outs is most important. I was thinking more about the process of getting to where those guys are. Some is ability, but quite a lot seems to be right place - right time. I could be dead wrong though.

Sorry, I should have been more specific.