Article on Mark Prior's mechanics
by jsmall404 on Mar 13, 2009 1:50 AM EDT
Email
PrintYahoo Sports released an article today on Mark Prior that some of you may have already read.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AsCi1T0RVSmRuF8ZXF8.lz0RvLYF?slug=jp-prior031109&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
Generally, Jeff Passan is a good writer that I typically enjoy reading. Obviously alot has been made of Prior's mechanics on the internet.
I am curious on everyone's thoughts on the article.
Here are a few snipets but I advise everyone to read most of it.
"Back then, the Inverted W meant nothing. Today, it’s the likeliest culprit for Prior’s injuries, according to some armchair biomechanists: the part of his motion where his elbows end up higher than the plane of his shoulders, make a shape like an upside-down W and supposedly cause considerable strain on the arm."
"House, now the pitching coach at USC and no longer working with Prior, does not believe the Inverted W hurts a pitcher’s arm. He said years of science and research support his methods. Same with doctors at the American Sports Medicine Institute, including famed surgeon James Andrews."
"And to those who make a fuss about the Inverted W and point out that House’s prized student has been laid up for years? Well, House said, “They don’t know their asses from a boat paddle.”
191 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Also, Bud Black, former pitcher coach says:
"I think he’s got a good delivery," Black said. "Good mechanics. Good fundamentally. Sound thrower."
I'd be more inclined
to say that the over-use grossly irresponsible workload management in 2003, particularly towards the end of the year, is a much more likely culprit of Prior breaking down.
by slurve on Mar 13, 2009 7:36 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
He went from 157.2 IP in 2002 to 211.1 IP in 2003 not even counting ST and the playoffs
So… what slurve said.
2002
Those numbers are inaccurate. He threw 167.2 IP across AA/AAA/MLB in 2002. A pitcher going from 170 to 200+ isn’t that crazy, Verducci be damned.
The late 2003 high pitch counts is a more convincing avenue to argue.
Point taken
But he actually jumped from 167.2 to 234.2 if you count the playoffs, almost a 70 inning jump, with a hell of a lot of high leverage innings. I don’t think the inning jump is to be discounted.
Yep
an go look at some of his pitch counts at the end of the year – especially ones where he threw over 130 pitches and they won the game 7-0… inexcusable.
http://www.thebaseballcube.com/box/player_log.asp?y=2003&T=P&P=priom001
its the workload
or rather (lack of) proper rest in between. For every pitcher who had arm problems w/ an inverted W I can show you a half dozen that didn’t, some of the best pro pitchers now have inverted or slightly anyway “W’s”. What some of these gurus fail to mention is that you can’t just apply their theories to each pitcher like a blanket. Tall skinny guys can do things that shorter heavy guys cannot, vice versa, etc. They’re human beings not molded from a cookie cutter, they need to be watched and coached on an individual basis. It took me yrs to learn this, couldn’t develop a HS pitcher worth squat for about 5 yrs now I crank’em out left & right.
Should an inverted W be a red flag? On some guys absolutely. On others not so much. Does this inverted W need to be talked about and investigated more? Sure it does. But many tend to grab something and start flying off in one direction rather than look at how many different ways it can go.
heres the most pointed sentence in that entire article – “Eight pitchers this decade have thrown 109 or more pitches in nine straight games, and half of them needed reconstructive arm surgery. The only other pitchers this decade to throw at least four 130-plus-pitch games in a season, let alone in two months (edit. which is what Prior did), are Livan Hernandez and Randy Johnson.”
Mulder: Babe Ruth was an alien? Arthur Dales: sure; all the great ones were aliens.
Serious question
"Eight pitchers this decade have thrown 109 or more pitches in nine straight games, and half of them needed reconstructive arm surgery. The only other pitchers this decade to throw at least four 130-plus-pitch games in a season, let alone in two months (edit. which is what Prior did), are Livan Hernandez and Randy Johnson."
How many pitchers in the general populace end up getting “reconstructive arm surgery”? Or rather, how likely is it that of out any random 8 full season pitchers, 4 of them will have arm problems at some point?
I really don’t know, but pitchers tend to get injured pretty frequently in general.
The only other pitchers this decade to throw at least four 130-plus-pitch games in a season, let alone in two months (edit. which is what Prior did), are Livan Hernandez and Randy Johnson."
I don’t know what to make of this statistic either. I mean, I guess the point is that Prior was subjected to something that only durable freaks should be allowed to do, but… showing that 2/3 of the pitchers who did this turned showed very little ill effect isn’t a very convincing argument of its badness.
Proven
Both Livan and RJ were proven to have rubber arms when they were pushed that hard. Prior wasn’t a known quantity. I wouldn’t say it’s a sure-thing argument, but it’s foolish to push a young pitcher that hard in any case.
Sure
Exercising caution is always a good idea with young arms; but to just say that those two guys were proven “rubber arms” is creeping into a tautology. If you should only push those who have shown they can handle it, you’ll never actually push anyone.
Lincecum
While it wasn’t 4 130 pitch games, or 9 in a row over 109, I still think Lincecum should have been treated more carefully at the end of last season. Here are his last 9 pitch counts beginning in mid-August:
119, 115, 132, 92, 126, 138, 118, 102, 103.
His mechanics are not an issue, from what i understand, but 2 130s plus, and that 102 was in 4 and a third, which may be more worrisome than the 130 pitch games, where he was cruising.
May be nothing, but why take the chances they did, out of the race.
Nevertheless, I just traded Hosmer and Dereck Holland for Lincecum. I’m not THAT worried about it.
Yep
People get a little too excited about the fact that he doesn’t ice his arm, and how smooth his mechanics are. But, purely for the sake of argument, aren’t his mechanics modeled after Koufax’s? Because that’s hardly a ringing endorsement.
My understanding (although if sharksrog sees this, he’d probably know better) is that they were not directly modeled after Koufax, although reports vary. It may be that he was a general inspiration in that his motion has, as lincecum’s dad calls it, “flow.” That doesn’t mean the arm action is borrowed or anything. At least, that’s how I remember hearing it.
Less arm, more talk. Raisingcain is a GAMER.
Adopted Giant: Henry Sosa
by raisingcain on Mar 14, 2009 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions
Either way
That was more of an aside, and I personally think Lincecum’s mechanics are pretty good, a nice, easy motion. But I don’t think we should get too hyped about his not icing his arm.
ice
I’m not sure if that says more about his arm or the perception of today’s players and trainers. My feeling right now is let the player decide if they want to ice or not, if it’s working let them do what they want. I don’t think that’s a big deal though. Just responding to the koufax comment.
Less arm, more talk. Raisingcain is a GAMER.
Adopted Giant: Henry Sosa
it's a combination
Prior was abused badly and everyone knows that was the biggest factor.
Also, the colliding with Giles and suffering a shoulder injury had a lot to do with it I’m sure. It’s like a car. Once you crash your car, it will never be the same and similarly, your body could be compromised forever.
Finally, people don’t put enough stock in genetics. It’s like talent. Some bodies are built tougher, more flexible and some players have higher tolerance for pain/injuries, etc.
However, there are right and wrong ways to do things so form is still an important factor. I have yet to see convincing evidence that inverted W is the reason why pitchers get hurt. Everyone is built differently and when you have a bad combination, then you have a recipe for a disaster.
My take
Finally, people don’t put enough stock in genetics. It’s like talent. Some bodies are built tougher, more flexible and some players have higher tolerance for pain/injuries, etc.
I agree, some guys ligaments and tendons just arent the same as others..
Yes, Prior was overused, but that dosent explain why he STILL feels bad after all those surgeries.
Personally, and I have argued on this site alot about it, but that inverted W argument dosent hold water for me until there is more conclusive evidence that it was the cause.
I am not gonna believe some guy’s blog when I keep reading evidence that Priors mechanics were fine.
Shoulder vs. elbow
If he still felt bad after Tommy John, I might agree with you. But shoulder injuries are really tough to come back from, and have a tendency to derail careers in a way that elbow injuries really don’t.
Rich Harden anyone?
"Sometimes Joe (morgan) doesn't like facts to get in the way of his opinions."- billy beane
"That was a great pick...if this was 2002" Me, to guy who selected Barry Zito in a fantasy draft
www.27ClubPeak.blogspot.com
by harendaman365 on Mar 15, 2009 9:34 PM EDT up reply actions
You wouldn't make this comment
“Yes, Prior was overused, but that dosent explain why he STILL feels bad after all those surgeries.”
If you’ve ever had an arm surgery.
Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com
Question
If you are a young pitcher (or working with young pitchers) is there any down-side to avoiding the inverted-W? I mean, if they’re young enough doesn’t trying to move them away from that style make sense?
Firstly
Its not a style. None of the pitchers you see exhibiting the inverted w were taught that. Secondly, timing issues, which is what the inverted w generally creates, are probably the toughest mechanical “fixes” to make. Tom House refers to these as a pitcher’s “signature”. He doesn’t even mess with signatures.
I look at an inverted w pitcher’s timing pretty closely before trying a fix. If his timing is pretty close without a history of extended soreness or injury I will usually leave it alone.
Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com
The inverted W is evil
Learn it people. It is bad mechanics. While it doesnt result in injuries by itself, it is the indirect cause of many pitching injuries. Much like how exceeding 115 pitches doesnt necessarily mean youre getting injured.
Just accept it already.
So what's the upside of it?
Just that some pitchers are used to pitching that way, and teams don’t want to mess up their mechanics? Why don’t teams try to correct it?
I hope
these two responses to alskor were in sarcasm.
by richieabernathy on Mar 13, 2009 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions
+1
I do have a feeling he wouldn’t mind using a boat paddle for something else having to do with his ass though lol
DO YOU MEAN STICK IT UP HIS CORNHOLE?
Who loves orange soda?
by Kenan and Kel on Mar 13, 2009 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions
yet
All of the professionals claim its no big deal?? I am playing devil advocate here.
If it was that bad, and teams have millions invested into these pitchers, you would imagine a bigger deal would be made of it from PEOPLE WHO ARE PAID TO KNOW THESE THINGS…
Just because people are paid to know things doesnt mean s***
Look at Bill Bavasi and Jim Bowden… or any politician, for that matter.
Common Sense
Don’t let it get in your way.
I am good friends with a Twins pitcher. Last winter Liriano’s rehab was going poorly. He wasn’t feeling good and wasn’t even on a mound as late as December. The Twins were working hard with him to correct his mechanical flaws. Liriano got fed up and went back to what he is comfortable with.
They know Liriano’s mechanics are bad, they know he’s going to hurt himself again, they’ve tried to change him. He won’t and they stopped trying. Do you want to be the guy that lost his big league job because you tried to change the greatest young pitcher of a generation and screwed him up or do you leave him alone and let him do it to himself?
Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com
The truth is...
nobody knows anything about biomechanics. The leaders in the field are years away from having a basic understanding of which motions are most likely to result in injuries. Baseball people don’t know more than real biomechanists. It’s purely a guessing game, and nothing besides pitch count has been shown to have any predictive value whatsoever so far.
There’s certainly an “it” to be figured out in biomechanics as applied to pitchers, but nobody has any sort of clue what “it” is at this point. It couldnt’ be more of a guessing game.
by slamcactus on Mar 13, 2009 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well there is one whacko out there who is
both a real biomechanist and a baseball guy. Maybe more people would listen if he was a more likeable guy, or if what he’s offering wasn’t so different from a conventional release. Frankly, he’s one of the few people who DOES seem to know his ass from a boat paddle, but I haven’t heard him say anything one way or the other on the ‘inverted w’, probably in great part because his proposed release really just gets rid of most back torsion altogether.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
There is a difference between not completely understanding something
and knowing anything about it.
The inverted W is something we are just beginning to understand. Just because we dont have all the pieces of the puzzle doesnt mean we should throw it all out as unreliable.
This is how people used to treat defensive metrics… the tide on that is finally turning. People who dont believe in the inverted W are usually the ones who havent read anything about it and don’t actually have intelligent criticisms of it but just dont believe in any of that kind of thing…
The only people who have any idea about any of this stuff are biomechanics experts.
The general consensus of biomechanics experts? “We don’t know.”
by Aaron Campeau on Mar 14, 2009 5:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Exactly.
This isn’t the kind of stuff you eyeball. This is the kind of information you need decades of studies published in peer-reviewed journals before science has any idea how to say with reasonable certainty that a certain motion is x% more likely to result in pitching injury.
This isn’t something the SABR crowd can figure out. The questions about the ability of mechanical analysis to predict/prevent injuries is something that will need to be worked out at MIT and Cal Tech first, and then sold to baseball teams once the science is far more advanced than it is today.
by slamcactus on Mar 14, 2009 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I know nothing about pitching mechanics, but if James Andrews isn't condeming it, neither am I.
Tools Whore
yeah but James Andrews makes his money off these guys getting hurt. He is obviously setting them all up to pad his wallet.
by yondaime4 on Mar 13, 2009 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
thats not really fair
considering he does many different kinds of surgeries in different sports and probably dosent need the money at this point
Of course he needs the money
Everyone needs the money, other than maybe a few old money people who are living off a trust. 99.9% of Americans live up to their means, so once someone starts making more money, they start spending (or saving for the future) more money commensurate to what they’re making. Once someone starts spending more, they never want to give it up. And even the people who live below their means still WANT the money.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
I think you have have taken that a bit too seriously.
I doubt anyone really thinks that Dr. Andrews is setting up pitchers, and that one of his tools in doing so is by trying to coaxing people into adopting inverted W’s. I don’t think Dr. Andrews has any concern that he is in danger of losing business/money.
My dentist doesn’t tell me to eat more candy and wash it down with soda. However, my last doctor did tell me to eat a ton of Pizza Rolls and spend all of my time reading about baseball to help my fake team, so maybe there is something to it.
We'll see
Just FWIW, Rays pitchers with an inverted W:
James Shields
Andrew Sonnanstine
Pitchers without an inverted W:
Scott Kazmir
Jeff Niemann
Matt Garza (though his elbow does go above his shoulder, but when the other arm is down)
David Price
I think there’s more to it than some people are making it out to be.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
What will we see?
This is exactly why people dont get this… Not everyone who pitches with an inverted W gets hurt… and not every inverted W pitcher who gets hurt gets hurt because of it.
Still, it adds risk to something that is already inherently risky. People drink and drive. I could say theyre putting themselves at risk… and if you knew a guy who drank and drove all the time and never got in an accident that wouldnt prove anything at all about the risks of drinking and driving.
+1
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Mar 14, 2009 12:18 AM EDT up reply actions
This is exactly why people dont get this… Not everyone who pitches with an inverted W gets hurt… and not every inverted W pitcher who gets hurt gets hurt because of it.
You might even say that it varies based on genetic differences and that trying to predict injury based on pitching mechanics is a fool’s errand.
by Aaron Campeau on Mar 14, 2009 5:26 AM EDT up reply actions
You could say that, yes
but you dont have to stop there.
There are things Im sure even you would admit are bad mechanics and likely to result in injury. Think extreme cases, like throwing a screwball and really winging your arm across your body.
So its really all a matter of degree and there’s no reason to just get frustrated and throw it all up in the air and say we cant know anything about this stuff for certain!
.
no reason to just get frustrated and throw it all up in the air and say we cant know anything about this stuff for certain!
But there is a reason. The vast majority of studies being done on this are poisoned by confirmation bias before they’re even off the ground and the people doing the studies are by and large totally unqualified to draw meaningful conclusions from their research. Until actual biomechanics experts come to a consensus on these findings other than “it depends on the person” it’s generally better to ignore it.
by Aaron Campeau on Mar 14, 2009 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions
There is a reason, and that it's that you're all totally unqualified to even try to analyse pitching biomechanics
by Graham MacAree on Mar 16, 2009 2:59 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
-1
alskor makes a great point. I don’t need to be medical doctor to know that if you run into a brick wall full speed you’ll likely end up with an injury.
Graham is probably the only person on this board
who is even close to qualified to speak on the matter.
Tools Whore
by Tyler on Mar 16, 2009 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
It's too bad...
that we can’t enact some law to ensure Graham has final say over who can and can’t talk about things.
Or, of course, we could all agree that no one but he has anything worth while to say.
I have a Masters in Structural Biomechanics from Cambridge University
My thesis was predicting soft tissue failure. My conclusion was that you can’t. Your analogy is ridiculous – this isn’t medical doctors not confirming things, this is academic research saying you don’t and can’t know what you claim to know. Unless you want to pretend you’re 20 years ahead of science, in which case be my guest.
by Graham MacAree on Mar 16, 2009 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
His thesis disproves your theory completely though.
So you can stand by it, but it doesn’t make it right. I can stand by the fact that the earth is the center of the universe, but it does make me right.
Tools Whore
Uh...
You’ve made a pretty ugly mess of logic in that statement. If your argument is that no one has the ability to predict pitcher injury, it’s not proof of anything. You can’t “prove” a negative.
I don’t know of any scientific breakthroughs that start from, “uh, nobody knows how to do that.” Reaching that conclusion certainly doesn’t preclude the opposing view from being right.
His point, as I understand it, boils down to
“Some pitchers that do X have injured themselves. Therefore, doing X leads to injury.”
Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. But there’s no scientific basis for that argument and to claim it as fact is wrong.
by Aaron Campeau on Mar 16, 2009 9:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Lets try
“Inverted W mechanics add an unnecessary complication to a pitcher’s delivery, which is more likely to result in timing problems, which is more likely to result in mechanics breaking down, which ultimately increases the chances of injury.”
I would like to see proof of this being the case.
Plenty of pitchers have complex deliveries that they’re able to reproduce flawlessly. Plenty of pitchers have simple mechanics and end up suffering injury.
by Aaron Campeau on Mar 16, 2009 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Just like
talking to a brick wall.
There is too much noise, too many variables and too small a sample size for anything to do with this stuff to ever be “proven” anywhere near the level of proof you seem to require. That doesnt mean its not worth making some educated guesses.
Since in your opinion we dont have any “proof” of this stuff maybe no team should carry a pitching coach at all.
Youre taking a valid criticism of these theories and carrying it to an absurd extreme. NO ONE IS SAYING INVERTED W = INJURY. Its just increasing the chances…
Your belief that it increases the risk of injury has been dismissed by an honest-to-God biomechanics expert
and talking to ME is like talking to a brick wall?
by Aaron Campeau on Mar 16, 2009 11:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Wow!
One expert disagreed? Guess we can close the book on this one!
You know, Im beginning to think youve never actually read the inverted w theories, just the criticisms.
It also says
Early in the decade, only the most devoted to the study of pitching understood the idea of scap loading, or pinching the shoulder blades together to gain extra velocity. Now, everyone who values biomechanical analysis knows it as a crutch pitchers use – and opinions vary on its merits
My point was it still comes down to a question of which experts you choose to believe… acblue hasnt made any claims on the merits here… his argument is basically that his experts are better than the other experts. I dont find an argument like that particularly compelling.
Also, one of those people who claim its not a big deal was Prior’s pitching coach. Of course he isnt going to point to Prior’s mechanics as the source of the problem – its a condemnation of his own work to do so.
People with advanced degrees in biomechanics>>>pitching coaches.
by Aaron Campeau on Mar 17, 2009 2:03 AM EDT up reply actions
-1
“My experts are better”
That’s all youve said in this thread and youve said it 500 times.
Do you have any actual arguments on the merits? Do you have any substantive reasons why the inverted W isnt bad mechanics? Or are you just parroting the same quotes over and over?
I'm sorry I think that someone who did a Masters thesis on this subject saying "there's nothing to this" is good enough.
Graham’s posts at LL that Tyler linked to cover it much more eloquently than I ever could.
Until I see valid scientific research that lends any sort of validity to these claims, I’m going to ignore them. If you want to talk about mechanics and their impact on performance, fine. There’s certainly something there. But the methodology that leads people to the conclusion that things like the inverted W can contribute to injury is inherently flawed.
by Aaron Campeau on Mar 17, 2009 2:23 AM EDT up reply actions
Squawk
“My experts are better than yours!”
There are other qualified people that disagree. I think youve only read one side of the argument and stopped there.
Who? Show me evidence of someone
who’s doing peer reviewed scientific research and I’ll listen.
Tools Whore
You're right, that pretty much is my argument.
Guess what? Like Tyler says, my experts have come to their conclusions using sound scientific principles. If you would like to argue against science, go nuts.
by Aaron Campeau on Mar 17, 2009 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions
ll be glad to argue the merits
when you make an actual argument instead of just referencing experts without even referencing their arguments.
Just make a single friggin point about why you disagree, Ive yet to see you do it.
You havent even read the opposing viewpoints.
Dear God...
I’m sorry I think that someone who did a Masters thesis on this subject saying “there’s nothing to this” is good enough.
Holy fucking stupidity. Does that mean I can show one single thesis that agrees with my take on global warming and you’ll take it as gospel – even though there has been work that supports contrasting views? Pull your head out of your ass before making statements such as that one.
Show me a masters thesis that supports your argument.
by Aaron Campeau on Mar 17, 2009 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions
I'll go ahead and say it since you felt it reasonable to resort to ad hominem attacks;
this is the dumbest argument I’ve seen in quite a while.
by Aaron Campeau on Mar 17, 2009 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions
And
nice try with trying to discredit with the “ad hominem” when you yourself have provided nothing yourself. It’s not like you went out and looked for opposing views – you just assumed one was correct and ran with it.
You’ve given me no reason to believe you’re willing to listen to reason – so why shouldn’t I assume that?
I'm willing to listen to reason.
Claiming that you can predict pitcher injury without refuting the scientific evidence that you cannot is unreasonable.
by Aaron Campeau on Mar 17, 2009 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Who the hell is claiming that
NO ONE. Your beating the hell out of a strawman.
You dont even know WHAT argument youre trying to discredit because you havent read them.
And it appears as
though I have found some peer reviewed work. Once I get a chance to read it and post it here, you can finally let go of your Graham-dogma.
I like it that you assume I am unwilling to listen to reason.
by Aaron Campeau on Mar 17, 2009 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Try it again...
without the strawman argument.
---
His point, as I understand it
That’s not a strawman, that’s an invitation for clarification.
by Aaron Campeau on Mar 16, 2009 11:19 PM EDT up reply actions
No one is claiming anything as fact
from what I can tell. I tend to approach these things more like a statistician – you’ll rarely hear them say anything absolute one way or the other and the same applies here.
“If you do X, there is a good chance Y will happen.” Or “This data appears to support when you do X, Y is more likely to happen.”
Just because graham can’t prove that there are things that absolutely lead to injury, it doesn’t mean that people that say those same things are likely causes or that they raise your risk of being injured are wrong. Scientists have been saying for years that black matter existed. They couldn’t prove it one way or the other. Doesn’t mean that it didn’t exist until they were able to start piecing together some more concrete evidence as they have done in recent years. Same thing applies here.
The problem here is that I never see these things supported by data.
To me it appears as though people go back and look at a pitcher post-injury in an attempt to try to figure out what caused said injury. Then conclusions are drawn based on observation and cross applied to anyone with similar mechanical “flaws.” Since those conclusions are based on faulty logic, I’m inclined to ignore them.
by Aaron Campeau on Mar 16, 2009 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Well duh, professor
Of course you can’t predict soft tissue failure since that would involve evaluating each individual pitchers genetic signature. I would hope your thesis was more in depth.
What can be predicted and what has been analyzed by ASMI, the Journal of Sport Medicine, the National Pitching Associate etc is the resulting forces at joints from different motions. For example, Mike Marshall’s boys visited the ASMI lab recently. Flesig’s results showed Marshall’s medical jargon mumbojumbo about his mechanics was garbage and actually creates more stress without the possibility of creating usable major league velocities.
The National Pitching Association just came out with their book that is pretty in depth in what they have been studying over the last 2-3 years. It is a great read.
Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com
That said
Let me clarify my stance on the subject of the Inverted W.
I believe the Inverted w CAN lead to problems that create stress in the arm. I do NOT believe the inverted w in and of itself creates stress in the arm because in my experience, stress in the pitching motion and more specifically in the arm, does not take place at a level needed to create an injurous situation until the start of shoulder rotation. The Inverted w happens prior to shoulder rotation and MANY pitchers go from an inverted w to a safe position prior to shoulder rotation. Prior, IMHO, did not get into a safe position prior to. Neither does Kerry Wood.
What I mean by a “safe” position is in terms of the amount of stress created in the external rotation of the arm. In an Inverted w position or simply an elbow up/hand down position, that arm rotates 180+ degrees into the layed back external position. That IMO is alot of stress on the shoulder and elbow joints. In a safer elbow down/hand up position at the start of shoulder rotation (Greg Maddux) the arm rotates only about 90 degrees into its layed back external rotation.
Specifically on Prior, yes I think his mechanics were slightly flawed. But I also think overuse at the end of 2003, the achilles problem in the spring of 2004, the collision with Giles and the Hawpe line drive that created a crush factor on his elbow in 2004 all created a perfect storm destroying him. There is no doubt in my mind that his mechanics along would not have caused him to fall of the map so quickly.
Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com
*fixed
“There is a reason, and that it’s that everyone is totally unqualified to even try to analyze pitching biomechanics”
Again
just because we dont FULLY understand it doesnt mean we cant say ANYTHING on the subject. That is a overly simplistic line of thought and I dont know why youre all embracing it.
There are some obvious things we ALL would agree are bad pitching mechanics that are more likely to result in injury. For instance, a screwball. We dont need a study, or research, or understandings on the “atomic level” or any of the other bulls*** you people are calling for to understand how and why throwing a screwball is a bad idea.
Guess what? IMO the inverted W is on that level. It is an obviously bad idea… and even if we dont FULLY understand why that doesnt mean we should throw our hands up in the air and say “What’s to be done with these pitching mechanics!! We cant fully understand them so we better not even try to understand ANY of it!”
Also, it is exceedingly unlikely that much of what youre all asking for – all these studies – will ever be available on a level you would be comfortable with. There are too many variables, not enough of a population size to study and it seems unlikely a definitive answer will be reached to your liking. So, no more cop outs – if you have to make your decision on the data available now as to whether the inverted W is good or bad I would say you most thinking people would lean towards bad. NO ONE is saying this is determinative, but it is one more data point towards a better understanding of this stuff so there is absolutely no reason to throw up our hands and plead ignorance. Even less reason to act all snobby and scoff at people trying to understand it. Snarky “no one understands this stuff” kind of comments are stupid and unnecessary. No one is claiming to fully understand this. Many things in life require educated quesses in the absence of certainty.
To give an example
If I listed as a negative that a pitcher “throws across his body,” I wouldnt get fifteen responses saying there are no studies that show this is bad, that we dont truly understand bio mechanics, that Im not a pitching coach, that we dont yet understand this on an atomic level, etc…
I think youll find most of the people who argue against the inverted W have a personal issue with the guys who argue for it… or their favorite player is an inverted W guy.
Or that
there’s nothing even indicating a correlation. It shouldn’t be that hard for SOMEONE to put together a retroactive study, looking at video of pitchers from the 80’s, and to see if there’s any correlation. In everything I’ve read about the inverted W, the closest thing I’ve read to support is a list of pitchers who have gotten hurt who used the inverted W. Great – as you pointed out already, that proves nothing. There are going to be plenty of guys with an inverted W who don’t get hurt, and plenty of guys without it who do get hurt. All I want to see is that there’s a correlation, and that should be something easy to mathematically prove.
On the other hand, I have seen more qualified expert sources say things ranging from ‘inverted W has no effect’ to ‘we don’t know if inverted W has an effect’, but I have yet to see anyone other than an internet jockey or a baseball person with no formal medical or biomechanical training say that it’s probably a bad thing.
Call me a skeptic until I see some real evidence.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
.
just because we dont FULLY understand it doesnt mean we cant say ANYTHING on the subject. That is a overly simplistic line of thought and I dont know why youre all embracing it.
It’s not an issue of not fully understanding, it’s an issue of not understanding at all. I’m embracing it because it’s correct.
by Aaron Campeau on Mar 16, 2009 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Of course
I just have yet to see anything actually showing a correlation between the inverted W and injuries. So far, it’s just a lot of conjecture, and if that’s all it is, I figured I’d throw my conjecture in as well.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
If there's a correlation, I'll believe it
There’s no way to establish causation in baseball. It’s all correlation. Not a controlled enough environment.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
You can't establish causation but the rule should still apply.
You can make an educated guess, but to assume that your conclusion is correct is poor judgement.
by Aaron Campeau on Mar 19, 2009 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, for what it is worth
None other than Stephen Strasburg. Thought I would add this to the mix….
Wow
I didn’t really realize exactly what the inverted-W was until I saw this photo. If it’s really that bad, he looks like a prime injury candidate.
FWIW, driveline mechanics had a post on him a while back. The author thought he had a couple major flaws and was a huge injury risk.
Less arm, more talk. Raisingcain is a GAMER.
Adopted Giant: Henry Sosa
by raisingcain on Mar 14, 2009 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions
Kyle Boddy
at Driveline Mechanics has very little formal training either.
The picture above tells me nothing (as most still photos do). I do give Boddy create for using video, along with his buddy O’Leary. But honestly, this frame at this point in his delivery is worthless.
If he breaks down tomorrow, it could be bad mechanics (and you’ll hear Boddy and the boys crowing about how they were right) but it could just be the human body shouldn’t throw a ball 103 mph. We are talking enough G forces to kill a person if applied for a long enough period of time.
Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com
Hmm
Has anyone done a study of injuries in the population of pitchers with the inverted W versus the general population?
NO
This is the whole problem.
There is a very reasonable argument for why the inverted W SHOULD be bad for a pitcher. And there is a lot of hindsight/confirmation bias being used as evidence. But it takes more than a reasonable argument and cherry picked examples to make something factual; you can make a very reasonable argument that the earth moves in a circle about the sun (and that argument was made for thousands of years; even Copernicus thought this), but it is still inaccurate.
I am fascinated and excited by the recent enthusiasm and emphasis on pitching mechanics, but the theories are way too nascent for the certainty that some seem to speak with.
+1
I am also very interested in this topic and I have appreciated the work done by the likes of Kyle over at drivelinemechanics. I think its worth mentioning that Chris Oleary has been putting out a lot of ideas on the topic for a decent while now (since 2006) with somewhat mixed results on his predictions for pitchers. As a result I think there has been a drift away from saying the ‘’inverted W’’ or similar motions causes an injury, but a more focused concern on timing issues, rushing etc that may result from using such an arm action. FWIW I believe that Oleary has worked a consultant for a major league team(s) for the last couple of seasons so his ideas although perhaps in the early stages seem to have caught the attention of at least a MLB team. Still a lot of interesting work to be done here for sure!
O'Leary
is a good salesman, nothing else.
All he has done is read pitching gurus (Marshall, House, Nyman, etc) and look at still frames and videos. He has extremely limited practical experience and no confirmed contact of any kind with major league teams.
Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com
prior is a single case
and an interesting case study it is. you aren’t going to glean any causal information from just one case, unless you can break it down on an atomic level. so this doesn’t tell us much about an inverted w (why not just call it an ‘M’?), workload, genetics, other mechanical issues, or some interaction between those. maybe if a lot more data (i.e., more pitchers) is compiled a better argument can be made.
was seriously about to ask that.
damn you! you stole my joke! (sobs)
"Sometimes Joe (morgan) doesn't like facts to get in the way of his opinions."- billy beane
"That was a great pick...if this was 2002" Me, to guy who selected Barry Zito in a fantasy draft
www.27ClubPeak.blogspot.com
by harendaman365 on Mar 15, 2009 9:35 PM EDT up reply actions
I think..
it is possible someone say a great pitcher like Prior have continued injury problems, saw they have something that most other pitchers do differently, and then took off with it and ran
the real reason for his injuries
he’s not a knuckleballer
Alskor
I think the main area people disagree with you (me included) is that you are saying the inverted W can lead to injury. But how do you know? I understand blogs like drivelinemechanics SAY so..but until qualified people come out and say WHY it leads to injury, it is hard to believe.
In my experience, I have read more people say its BS from what I have read.
So I guess my question is: you have admited only SOME people with the inverted W have gotten hurt, so how can you accuratley say it leads to injury? It seems to me if it was so bad for you, then almost (if not all) the pitchers who have it would get hurt.
To piggyback on that if I may;
I’m not trying to say that it’s impossible that the inverted W can cause injury in certain pitchers. It’s entirely possible. Maybe it’s why Mark Prior broke. But that doesn’t mean the same thing is going to be true for other pitchers with similar mechanics.
All sorts of factors are involved when it comes to the attrition of pitchers; physiology, usage patterns, conditioning, genetics and pure dumb luck. What causes injury to Pitcher X may not cause injury to Pitcher Y. What is less than optimal for the long term health of Pitcher X may not be less than optimal for the health of Pitcher Y. And so on.
Baseball has gotten much better at figuring out what sorts of things are universally a bad idea and what things tend to be beneficial to the long-term health of pitchers; sudden increases in workload are pretty well documented to be a very bad thing, for example. Trainers have a very good idea of what sorts of exercise regimens to put pitchers on in order to minimize injury risk. These conclusions have been reached through scientific means; analysis of pitcher workload and subsequent injury with massive data sets and proper regression and the ongoing evolution of the science of sports medicine to be specific.
This isn’t the case with pitching mechanics. The understanding of the physiology of individual human beings is not nearly well advanced enough for the analysis of pitching mechanics to have any predictive value. It’s not like there aren’t benefits outside of predicting pitcher attrition to this sort of research. It’s just not possible.
In summation; it’s not that a pitcher’s mechanics can’t cause injury, it’s that predicting said injury ahead of time is simply not possible.
by Aaron Campeau on Mar 17, 2009 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the main area people disagree with you (me included) is that you are saying the inverted W can lead to injury.
I have not once said that! THAT IS NOT AT ALL WHAT IM SAYING.
I am saying it messes up timing – timing problems = mechanics breaking down… and when mechanics breakdown the chance of injury increases.
So if a pitcher can repeat the delivery each time there's not a problem, correct?
by Aaron Campeau on Mar 17, 2009 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions
of course not
but which pitchers mechanics are more likely to break down: one with a simple delivery? or one with a complex one?
You dont need a Cambridge degree in biophysics to answer.
…hence “increases the chances” btw. Obviously someone can repeat a complex delivery successfully. I think we can all agree that its easier to repeat a simple delivery. Its still difficult to make any definitive statements because there are so very many causes of pitching injuries…
I don't necessarily disgaree with any of your points, but I think you're overstating the risks invloved.
Lots of pitchers with complex deliveries have tremendously long and successful careers. The likelihood of making a pitcher less effective (or trying to reinvent the wheel and creating mechanical breakdowns by attempting to force someone to unlearn old habits) is far riskier than doing nothing and accepting the risk (if one even exists.)
by Aaron Campeau on Mar 17, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions
You still seem to be arguing against some notion that i dont hold
I realize some people point at inverted w pitchers and say “that guys going to get hurt.”
Im NOT saying that. Im looking at a guy who used the inverted w motion and saying “I dont love his mechanics, the way he’s pinching his shoulders worries me… While its by no means a lock that he will have a problem or injury because of this, he has, in general, a greater risk of injury than pitchers who dont do that because its relatively easy to screw up your mechanics when you do that.”
And I am skeptical of that.
I will stay that way until I see a study with a large enough sample that’s based on something besides subjective information.
by Aaron Campeau on Mar 17, 2009 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions
ok..
i see what u are saying about the timing ect and you arent saying the invierted W DIRECTLY leads to injuries..but I find it hard to believe that pitching coaches and scouts wouldnt be able to see a timing problem, that is where i am coming from.
"but which pitchers mechanics are more likely to break down: one with a simple delivery? or one with a complex one?"
I would argue neither. Most pitchers throw with a motion that’s a variation of whatever comes naturally. Different people’s bodies are built in different ways. The correct answer, in my opinion, is someone who people try to change their mechanics to simplify them (or for some other reason). If the motion isn’t second nature, the pitcher is less likely to be able to repeat it.
Maybe there’s a slightly increased chance of injury for complicated mechanics, but probably not enough to risk the first issue.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
?
I am saying it messes up timing – timing problems = mechanics breaking down… and when mechanics breakdown the chance of injury increases.
So you are saying that it can begin a causal chain of events than may end in injury… how is that different than “leading to injury”?
Extremely different
The difference between you killing someone and “you pulled the trigger” being the “cause” and you killed someone and “your mother gave birth to you” being the cause.
Your analogies need some work, because this does nothing but a disservice to your point..
by Aaron Campeau on Mar 17, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions
What?
Saying A causes B, B causes C, and C causes D (which you said above) is almost the definition of “A leads to D.”
That analogy is absurd.
Timing
I don’t think you understand what a “timing” problem is in the pitching motion or atleast you are using in different contextually than most pitching coaches do.
I have never heard of a timing problem referring to a pitcher’s ability to repeat his delivery but that is what I gather you are saying?
Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com
The "inverted W" (or as normal people like to call it--an "M")
I would just like to point out that Tyson Ross, the A’s recent draft pick also sports the “inverted W” delivery. He too has been struggling with injuries, even while playing at Cal Berkeley.
It certainly isn’t definitive for this argument, but it’s something to keep in mind.
by nobodyinparticular on Mar 17, 2009 5:54 PM EDT reply actions
Probably wasn't around before guys started pitching without a windup
With a windup motion, you’d almost never naturally end up in that position.
As for the concept, I’ve only seen it discussed in the past few years.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
Interesting from BA chat today...
“Strasburg is better than both of them, and JIm Callis has a great column coming in the next BA about why the online frenzy about Strasburg’s mechanics is overblown and frankly ridiculous.”
When did Jim Callis get a Cambridge degree in biophysics???
I guess you guys wont be giving this article any credence.
Your apparent anti-intellectualism is wildy entertaining.
by Aaron Campeau on Mar 18, 2009 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Okay, I really hate getting involved in flame wars and there's nothing else to be gained from this discussion.
I’ve stated my position in a manner that I feel is pretty clear. You have chosen not to accept it for whatever reason. That’s fine. You’re entitled to your opinion, and certain aspects of it may have some merit. You have accused me of being willfully ignorant and unwilling to listen to other people’s opinions, however, and that’s where my willingness to agree amicably comes to an end.
The only thing I have asked you to do is provide a scientifically valid refutation of Graham’s assertions or at least a scientifically valid defense of yours. Your response was to clarify your argument, which I read and then gave a thoughtful response. You have some valid points, but I stand by my assertion that attempting to alter a pitcher’s natural mechanics to prevent injury that may or may not occur because of a perceived flaw is inherently much riskier than leaving well enough alone. I would assume you disagree, and that’s fine; reasonable people can and often do.
And yet you persist with your habit of making light of people that take the scientifically valid and academically rigorous findings of a respected baseball analyst seriously. You continue to make absurd analogies and backpedaling whenever someone offers a valid criticism of your arguments. With this being the case, why should anyone take your opinions seriously?
by Aaron Campeau on Mar 18, 2009 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions
And yet you persist with your habit of making light of people that take the scientifically valid and academically rigorous findings of a respected baseball analyst seriously. You continue to make absurd analogies and backpedaling whenever someone offers a valid criticism of your arguments. With this being the case, why should anyone take your opinions seriously?
Your argument to date is this: “Someone I respect told me the inverted W isnt bad.”
I have offered time and time again to discuss the actual merits of this with you but you choose to instead rely on someone else’s opinion to the exclusion of all other opinions. Youve created a nice tautological circle there, where the only “qualified” opinions are those that agree with your position. So much so that you havent even read the other side of the arguments. Based on your comments to date I have to conclude that you actually have an understanding of the issues involved. Of course, that doesnt matter to you, because in your opinion neither of us is qualified to discuss this.
I find it beyond hilarious that other opinions were laughed at because they supposedly didnt come from credible sources, but now because Jim Callis is writing an article in favor of your opinion youre lining up to quote him.
I didn't quote Jim Callis.
Stop assuming I didn’t read the other side of the arguments simply because I disagree with you.
My argument to date is “The opinion of someone with a well researched and well explained argument has convinced me that he is correct and I have not seen an argument which convinces me otherwise.”
My opinion is that neither one of us is qualified to make definitive statements about this issue, not that we are unqualified to discuss the merits of the opinions of people that are actually qualified to make such statements.
by Aaron Campeau on Mar 18, 2009 6:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Alskor
how many times do you have to get beat in the head by industry professionals and their opinions that the inverted W isnt a big deal lol.
Jim Callis and the scouts he talks to isnt enough, KG and the scouts he talks to isnt enough, the article and the proffesionals in this article posted wasnt enough…
Geez you would go down with a sinking ship even if there was life boat 10 feet away.
acblue
My argument to date is "The opinion of someone with a well researched and well explained argument has convinced me that he is correct and I have not seen an argument which convinces me otherwise."
I couldn’t agree more, I dont think I am being stubborn about this. I just refuse to believe some internet blog because it is posted on the internet lol.
Can I get a few more examples of pitchers.....
With this so called inverted W mechanics?
Tyler Robertson, Stephen Strasburg? who else? anyone?
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Mar 22, 2009 5:37 PM EDT reply actions
anthony reyes is my favorite
i mean this is probably the worst inverted W ive seen
+1 that is good man Nice Job Thanks!
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Mar 25, 2009 11:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Speaking of Indians Pitchers....
I always thought Jeremy Sowers had a quirky take back and delivery…but I saw quite a few snapshots of him here and I did not detect inverted “W” – Good for him LOL
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Mar 25, 2009 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Reyes is not pretty
He’s apparently aware of the flaws in his delivery now, though.
A guy they profiled on Driveline Mechanics who has a terrible delivery was Kyle Lotzkar.
Here is the thread: http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/2009/3/5/781840/wow-this-is-ugly
Here is an animated gif of his delivery from that thread:
Yikes.
Poor Video Quality
Again, I disagree. Any analysis taken from a video with so few frames per second should be discounted immediately. The NPA uses 200 frames per second for example.
Inverted W? yes. But does his arm get into a safe position prior to the start of shoulder rotation into external rotation of his arm? He’s pretty close.
Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com
From todays chat I asked Callis:
Jonathan (Atlanta): Seems like there is alot of attention on the internet about Strasburg and the “invereted W”. Is it a big deal? If it was such a big deal, why would we not hear more about it from scouts?
SportsNation Jim Callis: (2:47 PM ET ) I actually wrote a column about this that should be posted on baseballamerica.com today or tomorrow. One internet site came up with the inverted W and a lot of bloggers seem to have run with it. We’ve talked to 10-20 scouts about Strasburg, and none of them is worried about his mechanics. I joked with Keith Law that he didn’t mention the inverted W (isn’t that an M?) in his Strasburg blog on ESPN.com, and Keith’s reply was that it didn’t exist when he saw him. Could Strasburg get hurt? Sure, but that’s true of any pitcher. Scouts don’t think his delivery puts him at risk, and yes, that’s still no guarantee he’ll stay healthy.
I guess we can wait till the article comes out then post that on here lol
Will Carroll mentioned Strasbourg in his chat today:
theguag (Louisville): Keith Law wrote in his blog that Stepehn Strasburg’s increase in velocity could be a warning sign about a possible future breakdown, pointing to Joel Zumaya and Nick Hagadone as potential comparables. I’m curious to hear your take.
Will Carroll: It’s interesting because as Steve Henson wrote yesterday, there’s almost no comparables. The thing that grabs me is that he doesn’t seem to lose velocity in game. He can ease off his max and still be in the 90’s. I’ll assume from all the scouting raves that he can do the same thing in the majors. The slurve is filthy to boot. I just don’t think we know and yes, KLaw’s right in that that known unknown is quite the risk especially when you consider that Strasburg hasn’t been throwing this hard that long. No one knows if his body can take it. There’s whispers that Boras has a full kinematic study in his Strasburg book, which would really be interesting to get a look at. If I’m the Nats, I’m putting Glenn Fleisig on retainer.
Here is A Case that is Meaningful
RHP Pat Neshek of the Minnesota Twins…
he undoubtedly has inverted “w” – we all know about his arm problems…
the thing is even if he pitched more upright and was a 2/3 or 3/4 thrower I’m convinced he’d still have the upside down W…
http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2007/0423/pg2_neshek_275.jpg
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Mar 26, 2009 12:03 AM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
