Tom Seaver


#1

Why so many pitchers in MLB have inverted L or v problem and they all have injury ???

such as Jake Peavy, Joe Zumaya, Chris Carpenter, Ian Kennedy, etc

but my question is ,

why Tom seaver has also a inverted L problem (shouder same as elbow)

but he does not has any shouder injury ??

is it because of his very good followthroguh phase? or ??>


#2

[quote]Why so many pitchers in MLB have inverted L or v problem and they all have injury ???

such as Jake Peavy, Joe Zumaya, Chris Carpenter, Ian Kennedy, etc

but my question is ,

why Tom seaver has also a inverted L problem (shouder same as elbow)

but he does not has any shouder injury ??

is it because of his very good followthroguh phase? or ??>[/quote]

Because this “theory” is complete and utter speculation with no basis in fact. No science as it’s basis, just some guy looking at pictures and saying it is so…it is not.


#3

JD is right, the inverted L is just a theory. Most of the people O’leary uses as examples have had other things happen to them that could have possibly caused the arm problems they’ve (Mark Prior is one of them). I’m trying not bash Chris or discredit him because I think he means well but there is no scientific proof if what he is saying is actually true.


#4

lets look at what professional say about mechanics

(personally i don’t really like this one because it does not explain much about mechanics)

well, this one is quite interesting
because he is ‘’ some guy’’ talking about inverted L problem


#5

Interesting…just out of curiousity what do these videos tell you Hydejing?


#6

re: “…what do these videos tell you Hydejing?”

--------My guess is, these videos tell hydejing whatever he is already predisposed to hear.

Between the comments of the three “analysts” on the second video clip, every possible conclusion can be arrived at.

As an alternative to extracting useful content from entertainment sound-bytes of this sort, a person might as well look for profound, specific guidance from his daily horoscope.


#7

[quote=“laflippin”]re: “…what do these videos tell you Hydejing?”

--------My guess is, these videos tell hydejing whatever he is already predisposed to hear.

Between the comments of the three “analysts” on the second video clip, every possible conclusion can be arrived at.

As an alternative to extracting useful content from entertainment sound-bytes of this sort, a person might as well look for profound, specific guidance from his daily horoscope.[/quote]

:lol: That’s perfect LA well said.

Unfortunately a lot, and I mean A LOT of people will put a lot of weight behind what these guys say.

Did I just say a lot a lot? :shock:


#8

I wonder if our friend from Melbourne has ever seen Mitch Williams’ mechanics…I wonder if they were considered injurious…or bad :shock:
They sure were for him…with all those death threats that ran him out of Philly back on down to Tejas :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Joe Carter must have loved them…alot…or a lot…perhaps many.
I will say he is a member of my “All World Mullet Squad”…I mean just how could he miss?


#9

This is what i agree with Leiter as well

don’t left up with elbow first, because many players will have this motion then resulted an inverted L or even V

You can also argue that there are other players in MLB who also start with elbow first but don’t have inverted L such as

Daisuke Matsuzaka, Tim Lincecum, etc…just to name a few ( that is why he said , are these guy pitcher in the big league ? yes …etc)

this is what i prefer and also what i like about pendulum arm swing , which is swing from side and as a result when the ball is raise up, the elbw will not higher than shouder, and therefore, there is a small chance for inverted L to occour.

what Leiter also say is that, show the ball to 2nd base or CF which is not good, i also totally agreed with.


i do not know who is Mitch Williams’


#10

Mitch Williams was the guy with black hair in the first vid…he was known far and wide as the real “Wild Thing”, he was one of the top closers in baseball, for the Cubs and Phillies until Joe Carter took him deep to end a world series and then the fans of Philidelphia placed so many threats on his life that he retired from the game and moved back to Taxas to raise steers… :shock: If you are going to use someone as an example of mechanics…I would think that he would be…shall we say…the very hardest to reproduce…I’d also suggest that if you want credability for the things you are posting, it may help to understand who it is you use as example.
The reason you are getting challenged in the way you are is two-fold, first you are making dogmatic statements

Is just one amongst many…here you will always be challenged for that, so be prepared to defend the dogma…

And you are acting as a parrot for Chris O’Leary’s speculation, you are not the first, you are among a few, the ones we see here are generally your age and intelligent thoughtful guys. You have some of the best computer skills of that group but still, when it all comes down to it, the things you say are diametrically opposite of how to train a pitcher. You as a coach should never say “don’t” do this or that…1st and foremost. You take what is presented, you assess what is there and you work through adjustments (Incremental in nature and closely monitered by you) to make it the most efficient delivery or whatever that you train. Saying don’t do the inverted x, y or z is immaterial to the training, particularly if it isn’t even presented. Focus on the task at hand, unproductive ques are both a waste of time and potentially detrimental…Look how much time you spend focused on it Hydejing…instead of positively impacting your mechanics with proper adjustments based on feedback you are risking getting this thought to completely dominate the mentality of your delivery. This is “the problem” with O’Leary’s pose phobic method of “analysis”. Little or no productive development can be expected by it.
One thing I notice that you didn’t mention about what Lieter said was that there is a world of variation and that guys who he thought had “bad” mechs were in the bigs. Now stop. Ask yourself this question; “What is the goal”? Is it to make it to the bigs and stay there for as long as possible? Or is it to look pretty a some moment in time for a picture?
You’er an intelligent and stalwart debater, I think if you step back and intellectually approach the thought that you may see that the rigid dogmatic approach you advocate might be subject to some moderation, humility and a bit more open to dissenting thought.


#11

The internet is a powerful tool.

“Inverted W” and “Inverted L” are now common terms. Not sure how much bearing they should have with regards to injury prevention, but I’m amazed at how often these terms are used as gospel.

As JD said, I’ll “Inverted W” all day if it gets me to the bigs. Who wouldnt? What if changing your arm action to become “safer” lost you 5 mph?

I don’t think anything tangible came out of the Mitch Williams “expert” video. Pretty generic.

I think Nyman used to say something along the lines of “you can only see what you’re looking for.” Basically, 3 different people can look at video and see 3 completely different things.

Lincecum is everyone’s favorite example of powerful mechanics, but I’ve heard so many different opinions on how he does it

I’ve heard coaches say:

He has great balance
He has a quick arm
He’s a natural freak

I’ve heard “experts” say:

He has great hip/shoulder separation
He produces great torque
He has a long stride built up from great momentum

Mitch Williams said:

He doesn’t move down the mound until his leg reaches maximum height.

Is all of this true of Tim Lincecum? Probably (except for Mitch’s comments)

To sum it up:

Every “guru” or expert can make blanket generic statements either because they don’t know better, or they’re trying to spin things to benefit their own product.


#12

[quote=“palo20”]Mitch Williams said:

He doesn’t move down the mound until his leg reaches maximum height.

Is all of this true of Tim Lincecum? Probably (except for Mitch’s comments)[/quote]
What the heck was Mitch looking at? :roll:

[quote]To sum it up:

Every “guru” or expert can make blanket generic statements either because they don’t know better, or they’re trying to spin things to benefit their own product.[/quote]
:allgood:


#13

additional information,

by comparing Tom Seaver, with other pitchers who also have those Inverted L sign

there is only one thing that Tom Seaver is different from

he has a very flat back and followthroguh phase also when he is at release point, his front leg is very low,
(like Roy Oswalt,Roger clemens, clayton kershaw, many more etc)

this is what i guess
Tom Seaver has a very low front leg standing, and very good followthrough phase which helps him to reduce the risk of getting injury ?

i do not know…this is just what i guess…because i can not say whether it is totally right or wrong because i can not find evidence to prove what i say.

but anyway this is forum and free speaking, so i use the word ‘‘guess’’…
lol :roll:


#14

IN regards to the inverted “L” and “W” there is no scientific proof that they are prone to injury. There is however incidental evidance that they MIGHT be. At this point nobody knows for sure either way. While it’s not proven that these are going to cause injury I don’t see anything wrong with wondering about it and exploring the idea. Especially since pitchers I have known who have tried them believe that they feel more discomfort or tightness in their shoulder when they attempt them. Again no proof just incidental it could be just that these pitchers were not used to that arm action.

The point that palo20 makes that “Every “guru” or expert can make blanket generic statements either because they don’t know better, or they’re trying to spin things to benefit their own product” is right on in my oppinion. No one should follow ANY guru blindly and believe everything they say as gospel. Too often when a pitcher is unable to reach a simple goal of being able to throw a ball 90 MPH even when he is doing exactly as some guru tells him he should; he believes the fault is with him instead of the fault being with the advice of the guru.

I believe Nyman was right about seeing what your looking for in a video; I know I’ve done it myself. I think it’s especially true when we put all of our beliefs in some guru. It’s awful easy to see exactly what he’s saying is happening instead of what exactly IS happening.


#15

re: “I believe Nyman was right about seeing what your looking for in a video; I know I’ve done it myself. I think it’s especially true when we put all of our beliefs in some guru. It’s awful easy to see exactly what he’s saying is happening instead of what exactly IS happening.”

-----Well-said, jwest…I agree with you’re saying here and I have also been there myself, more times than once.

In my opinion, the problem is even worse with the use of still photos to illustrate flaws and especially injury-predictions. At least with a complete video clip, all viewers have equal access to the information being discussed…but when stills are selected to illustrate these kinds of beliefs, it should always be recognized that the person who selected a certain still to make his point has an agenda, and he selected just one out of many hundreds of brief moments in a pitching delivery in order to promote that agenda.


#16

Seaver’s mechanics did haunt him his whole career. I watched him on TV in the early eighties. From the stretch he could hardly register more than 98 on the gun. He had to rely on his pin point control and devastating curve ball to dominate that day. It was sad really. You could tell he had more in him, if only someone could have helped him bring it out. His inverted L became so disruptive that eventually he suffered a knee injury. That was the beginning of the end. Really, its one of the saddest stories in sports. So much promise just wasted by the inverted L.

Hopefully someone will fix Lincecum before its too late.


#17

Poor Tom Seaver

http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080925&content_id=3546282&vkey=news_nym&fext=.jsp&c_id=nym

What could he have been? :shock: I mean really :shock: ? Considered the greatest Met EVER??? Now lets consider that for a minute… 30 teams in baseball…in all history he’s recognized (No speculation at all) as the very best Met EVER to tie on a pair of cleats…that would be some very tall cotton I’d say. The arguement that he was held back…or hindered by anything just holds no water at all. 1st chance HOF…I mean come on just how was he held down back or what ever, he broke in, in the 60’s and he threw into the mid 80’s what is the problem??? Threw a no-no with the Reds. Poor Tom…beat my Cubbies like a pinyata at a hyper-active kids b-day party :shock: I used to hate watching him kick their butts…and just to throw fire on the gas…Tommy T knew his stuff was best when his back leg knee got all dirty from getting so low. Cookie cutter ideas only work in cookie production.

Here’s the vid that went with the piece…300 game winner held back by being the best ever on a team…oh Ted you just can’t revise history without proof.


#18

[quote=“Ted”]Seaver’s mechanics did haunt him his whole career. I watched him on TV in the early eighties. From the stretch he could hardly register more than 98 on the gun. He had to rely on his pin point control and devastating curve ball to dominate that day. It was sad really. You could tell he had more in him, if only someone could have helped him bring it out. His inverted L became so disruptive that eventually he suffered a knee injury. That was the beginning of the end. Really, its one of the saddest stories in sports. So much promise just wasted by the inverted L.

Hopefully someone will fix Lincecum before its too late.[/quote]

Sarcasm


#19

Ya think?
If it is Ted…good one :wink:
:oops: duhhh on me :lol:


#20

I’m sorry JD. I should have used the tongue in cheek emoticon. My humor can be a little too obtuse sometimes. I am with you on Seaver though. He is one of the best ever. My point is, if in the twilight of your career you can throw upwards of 98 mph with excellent control as well as last for 20 years, you don’t have mechanical issues.

best regards,

Ted