The mike marshall mechanics


#1

im watching a red sox game right now, and michael bowden from the red sox looks like he has some marshall mechanics going on, there is a lot of similarity.


#2

The mike marshall mechanics are a joke in my opinion.


#3

You may have just opened up a can of worms…can’t wait to see some of the responses to this!!!


#4

A few years ago I was researching a paper on pitching coaches which I would present at a regional SABR meeting, and I divided it into several segments—the ones who could both pitch and coach, the ones who could pitch but couldn’t coach, the ones who couldn’t pitch but who could coach, and the ones who could do neither. I subdivided this last segment further to include a few oddballs—of which Mike Marshall (not to be confused with a journeyman outfielder of the same name) was one. This Mike Marshall, who had had a career year in 1974 with the Los Angeles Dodgers, has a book which he is constantly revising and editing, and in the interest of my research I downloaded it. It was very heavy reading; part one was the sort of thing that even a college major in kinesthesiology would find very difficult if not impossible to make sense of, and the second part was a whole bunch of questions and answers which didn’t tell me a thing. I decided to drive out to Zephyrhills, Florida, about half an hour from where I live in Tampa, and talk to this guy. He has a compound in this tiny town where he aims to “injury-proof” pitchers, and it didn’t take me long to find it.
After two hours, during which he paid absolutely no attention to what a couple of pitchers were doing—he sat on a bench and made notes in a notebook, was what he was doing—I couldn’t wait to get out of there. At one point I asked him about pitching deliveries other than the straight over-the-top he advocates to the exclusion of everything else, and he summarily dismissed them as “silly”. I didn’t know whether to laugh or hit the ceiling. I thanked him for his time, got out of there, and as I drove away I shook my head in amazement at all the nonsense I heard from him. You’re right—this guy is a complete joke, and not funny at all. In my opinion it was a crash course in how not to teach pitching!
I mean, he made no effort to get up off his heinie and go over to the cages where the pitchers were throwing and check them out. :shock: :roll: :!: OUCH!!!


#5

As I have read his techniques are just as devisive as his coaching style, there are definate opinions both ways.


#6

If he actually knew what he was doing, he would have more followers. He’s just looking to make a buck.


#7

main point to this is does this guy actually is a mike marshall disciple that made it to the bigs? it sure looked like it


#8

Not a true disciple, although Bowden may be a hybrid between the Marshall school of thought and the traditional school of thought. I have heard that Tyler Matzek, the Rockies stud prospect was trained by a coach who had been influenced by Marshall.


#9

http://www.baseballdebate.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=pitching&action=display&thread=47

Here is a thread on another forum that covers that prospect fairly well…as it shows Marshall doesn’t claim the kid but the coach was very influenced by Marshall.

I want to point out again that there is revised Marshall thought out there, Nyman didn’t discount it (He actually acknowledged the benefit of the new thinking on this forum). It uses the conditioning/injury prevention aspect of Marshalls teaching, in concert with more traditional mechs.
I’m personally an anti-guru person…I don’t think there is only “one way” to train up a pitcher. I think that each of the gurus has some valid offerings in which a coach or prospective pitcher can gleen meaningful knowledge from.
Guys like Laflippin have beat the Marshall bush for information and fact aside from all the rhetoric and jargon…DM59 has really bird dogged some very interesting branches of hybrid Marshall thought…Coach45 being one whom he thought was gaining some ground…I’d like to point to our own Kyleb…he’s adopted many Marshall ideas and well as adding in some Eric Cressey conditioning methods and his own astute approach to build what looks to be an outstanding training facility up there in “flannel land” and I see nothing but ups from up there. Gotta tip my cap. It is resourceful to take information and use it to suit your own needs…we can all stand to keep that in mind.


#10

“Guys like Laflippin have beat the Marshall bush for information and fact aside from all the rhetoric and jargon.”

------------I only admit to studying the Marshall cult because I have an amateur interest in the pathological phenomenon that physicist Robert Park called “Voodoo Science”…it wouldn’t be fair to suggest that I buy into any of Marshall’s bunk.

Also, the terms “rhetoric and jargon” are overly-polite descriptions of what I would call “deliberately misleading baloney” from Marshall and his followers.


#11

Houdini was the greatest skeptic in the world because he wanted to find truth…
I regret if I inferred the work you’ve done was in any way an endorsement…“pole-axing” ok…vivisectionist…alright…endorsement :shock: :? :twisted: :wink:
La has done more to expose more…of the adjectives he used…re MM than anyone…nervous tics break out at the mear mention of his initials…how fun is that?

I always thought it was a cool hobby…


#12

I wonder if I ever mentioned that in all the years that Mike Marshall was in the major leagues—always as a relief pitcher—he had a consistent record of always losing more games than he won, and his save record wasn’t all that great…
When I was interviewing him for that presentation I was researching, he lost me when in response to a question I had about deliveries other than the straight over-the-top he dismissed them all as “silly”. There, in my opinion, is a beautiful example of the stick-in-the-mud, the guy with his head in the sand (and unlike the ostrich, he was not looking for water). I kept thinking about Ed Lopat and his basic premise: that every pitcher has a natural motion, and the thing to do is work with that pitcher and show him or her how to make the most of it (and a few other pitching coaches like Johnny Sain and Leo Mazzone subscribed to that same idea). I couldn’t wait to get out of there. :greenmartian:


#13

[quote=“Zita Carno”]I wonder if I ever mentioned that in all the years that Mike Marshall was in the major leagues—always as a relief pitcher—he had a consistent record of always losing more games than he won, and his save record wasn’t all that great…
When I was interviewing him for that presentation I was researching, he lost me when in response to a question I had about deliveries other than the straight over-the-top he dismissed them all as “silly”. There, in my opinion, is a beautiful example of the stick-in-the-mud, the guy with his head in the sand (and unlike the ostrich, he was not looking for water). I kept thinking about Ed Lopat and his basic premise: that every pitcher has a natural motion, and the thing to do is work with that pitcher and show him or her how to make the most of it (and a few other pitching coaches like Johnny Sain and Leo Mazzone subscribed to that same idea). I couldn’t wait to get out of there. :greenmartian:[/quote]

This is not an endorsement of anyone or anything.

BTW, it’s a shame when one has to make a statement like that to try to be sure he doesn’t get attacked.

Don’t “traditional” baseball people do much the same “stick-in-the-mud” routine you accuse him of? I’ve run into more people who demean him and his philosophies, yet know little or nothing about him than you can shake a stick at. I don’t happen to believe his full program is the “best” way to develop studs such as we’ve been seeing recently show up in the game, but I have a totally open mind as to how well his program might work for pitchers across the board. I don‘t think that’s such a bad way to view the subject, and for sure its how I’d like to be treated by others.

I’ve communicated with him on several occasions, agreeing with him in some, and flat out arguing with him in others, but I’ve never found him to be anything other than a gentleman, and that’s much more than I can say about many of his critics. I think much of the problem with Mike is, he seems to have many followers who are shall we say, argumentative, and they give him much more of a bad image than I believe he deserves. All in all, he’s just giving his educated opinions. How many of his detractors are equally educated and expert?

An old friend named “Red” Adams says, and I happen to agree, there is more than one way to skin a cat, especially when talking about baseball pitchers. Red was Mike’s pitching coach in LA when he won the Cy Young, and other than saying he was one of the most stubborn guys he ever met, has never had anything but wonderful things to say about him, his ability, his work ethic, and especially the way he educated himself.


#14

Ahh so you can appreciate the due diligence of a Zita who actually went to him and allowed him to paint his own picture as part of a bigger more well researched whole.

I think you are right about his acolytes effecting the way the world looks at him but I don’t think those folks were created in a vacuum, I’ve read enough of his questions and answers to see certain patterns of behavior and attitude…do you really think that our mild mannered friend didn’t bring about the jingoism and demeaning condenscending approach to “non-believers”?
And in answer to your last challenge to Zita, I see some traditionalists be as close minded and inflexable as I see Marshallites…not many though…the professionals I’ve known usually are (I know subjective to my experience…but it is what it is) very open to seeing and hearing about other approaches and techniques.
One does have to also point out though that it isn’t wrong to point to the natural egotism of someone who “teaches” something to someone else, the very act intimates a larger knowledge on one side of the coin there.


#15

I still have not heard any evidence to suggest that Mike Marshall knows what he’s talking about.


#16

Ahh so you can appreciate the due diligence of a Zita who actually went to him and allowed him to paint his own picture as part of a bigger more well researched whole.

I think you are right about his acolytes effecting the way the world looks at him but I don’t think those folks were created in a vacuum, I’ve read enough of his questions and answers to see certain patterns of behavior and attitude…do you really think that our mild mannered friend didn’t bring about the jingoism and demeaning condenscending approach to “non-believers”?
And in answer to your last challenge to Zita, I see some traditionalists be as close minded and inflexable as I see Marshallites…not many though…the professionals I’ve known usually are (I know subjective to my experience…but it is what it is) very open to seeing and hearing about other approaches and techniques.
One does have to also point out though that it isn’t wrong to point to the natural egotism of someone who “teaches” something to someone else, the very act intimates a larger knowledge on one side of the coin there.[/quote]

Of course I appreciate Zita’s actually taking the time to meet with him. But I’ve heard directly from many people who have done the same thing, and I’ve never heard him described as being a complete joke before, and I’ve heard him described by several people who don’t think very highly of his philosophies.

And I’m not saying she’s wrong. All I’m saying is, the man obviously has a different than traditional view of pitching, but that doesn’t make him or what he has to say totally worthless. I just don’t believe that about anyone.

You’re correct about those guys not being created in a vacuum. In fact I’ve heard stories about how he wasn’t exactly the easiest guy to like when he was playing. He’s extremely opinionated, but if you can’t say anything else about the guy, he at least took the time to educate himself so that his opinions wouldn’t be based on what other people believed, which isn’t something which can be said for many of his detractors.

Your kind of “arguing” about him I find to be quite refreshing. I tire of the downright mean and hateful rhetoric on both sides whenever a MM thread starts anywhere! He’s nothing more than another voice out there, and people are free to listen to it or not, but it would be so nice if they’d do it without the fire and brimstone :wink:


#17

That’s perfectly ok by me, but I would encourage you to do this one simple thing. Think up the most perplexing pitching question you can, and e-mail it to him, I’ve never known him not to answer an honest question, and perhaps then you’ll have some “evidence” one way or the other. His e-mail address is drmikemarshall@earthlink.net


#18

Thanks for the nice comment. I would also suggest to you that the harshness in which Zita has discussed Dr Mike was also not formed in a vacuum…we’re talking about a lady who had manners but knowledge (Matter of fact when she was trolled by someone on the forum, she was just plain nice to the guy…)…Dr. Mike may not have approached her with…shall we say anything comparable to respect…or perhaps with barely concealed disdain, this would seem to be consistent with his behavioral profile also.


#19

Pretty odd for Dr. Marshall to be in this to make a buck since he charges nothing for his training…

Anyway, we use wrist weights, weighted balls, and medicine balls at our facility as jdfromfla mentioned. Our website (in my sig) has more information. I think that his upper body concepts have a lot of validity and that his concept of the kinetic chain is unbelievably out of date and flat-out wrong. (ASMI’s papers indicate this is true when comparing %/time rotation of the pelvis/trunk.)

We’re finishing our motion capture lab to hopefully give us some more information.

If anyone has questions about our training methodologies, they’re more than welcome to email/PM me for more info, or we can chat via phone. Or ideally, come by the facility in Seattle and see for yourself!


#20

Quoted from an August 8, 2007 MLB.com article by J. B. Hill:

[b]“Mike Marshall’s a joke,” Cardinals pitching coach Dave Duncan says bluntly. “That’s my comment on him.”

Duncan, a former Major League catcher, doesn’t bother to say a word more. His reaction is one that Marshall’s theories face across the sports landscape. Then again, is it people’s reaction to the theories or is it to the always outspoken Marshall?

“Well, does he have a track record of success – other than himself?” White Sox pitching coach Don Cooper asks. “Who, if anybody, had gone on and had success through that, because if there was, a lot more people would be using it – whatever he’s doing.”[/b]

Scorekeeper,

Mike Marshall’s shifty nonsense has been available for careful study since 2000 on his own website and his ideas have been thoroughly aired out in the baseball community since that time. It’s good to keep an open mind to potentially useful concepts. On the other hand, if you leave your mind uncritically open to junk-science that consistently fails to show any results other than “greatness by assertion”…well, heck, it’s a free country…knock yourself out with it. On the other hand, it appears that some of us have done our homework and apparently have as good a basis for a solid opinion about Marshall’s work as you do.

After ASMI did a complete motion analysis on four of Marshall’s hand-picked students (including Sparks and Williams) the final straws for me were: (1) The study showed very clearly that Marshall pitchers get far less velocity than age/size matched traditional pitchers although they (the MMers) incur just as many potentially injurious stresses from their delivery. (2) The MMers were also far less accurate at their pitiful velocities (3) Marshall, in his usual pattern of behavior, now trashes Fleisig and Andrews as know-nothing idiots who are destroying arms. His response to the ASMI study was essentially gibberish if you try to drill down into it at all.

John D’Acquisto and his new motion analysis company also did a unique study with a Marshall-trained pitcher who could also still throw with traditional mechanics. He was his own internal control. The conclusions agreed closely with those of ASMI.

Yes, you will always get e-mail answers from Marshall. Whether to take those answers at all seriously is certainly up to the individual.