Healthy Felix

by 116in01 on Feb 14, 2008 2:41 AM PST Comment 65 comments

I know that pitchers and catchers reporting is not deemed to be a big deal but Geoff Baker says in this blog entry that Felix reported in at 218 after losing 8 pounds during the offseason. Baker reports, "He is currently 218 pounds and looks the part. I noticed it right away." What does that mean exactly? Does it mean that he looked great or that he could stand to lose a few more pounds before opening day?

A quick look at a BMI calculator still puts him in the overweight category and prone to health risks. I find that concerning. I hope I'm wrong but does anyone else see potential trouble here?

0 recs | Comment 65 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I don't think that

You have to worry about the potential health risks of being slightly overweight if the person concerned is a 21-year-old professional athlete.

Also, I'm no expert, but I think generally bigger pitchers are considered to have more durability. I'm not too concerned about Felix losing 8 pounds.

Yeah, I'm an All-Star.

by MarinerintheDistrict on Feb 14, 2008 3:09 AM PST reply actions

BMI is always misleadingly high for athletes

by Fett42 on Feb 14, 2008 4:42 AM PST reply actions

I HATE the BMI!

BMI was written a long time ago and works for only one or two body types.
BMI says I should be 165 lbs. I got down to 165 lbs, when I was wrestling in high school at age 17. My dr at the time gave me a physical, and told me I had a body fat percentage of approx. 3-4%. He told me to gain 15 pounds in the next month or he was going to hospitalize me. (I doubt if he would done it.)

BMI is basically worthless. Everyone needs to focus more on body fat percentage, and actual fitness ability.

Sorry, but I freaking hate the BMI.

by mark s on Feb 14, 2008 6:20 AM PST reply actions

whoa settle down...

smoke a blunt or something

Yeah, I'm an All-Star.

by MarinerintheDistrict on Feb 14, 2008 7:54 AM PST up reply actions

Err

He's right though. BMI is completely worthless. During my playing days I was considered "morbidly obese" on the BMI scale but "All-American" on the athlete scale. You figure it out.

by Dylan on Feb 14, 2008 8:11 AM PST up reply actions

The worst is the Army Tape Test

Its basically the Army's method of determining whether someone has an unacceptably high body fat % if they are exceeding their weight/height/age limits. It consists of nothing more than taking the circumference of the neck and the stomach, and using a chart with age, height, and weight, spits out a number. We all tried it in one of my classes and it was wrong by 15% in some cases (which is the difference between being actively fit and obese).

by Fett42 on Feb 14, 2008 8:22 AM PST up reply actions

Plus

Since BMI used only height and weight, it totally discounts the fact that, of two people with the same height and body volume, the person who is a better athlete will weigh more due to having a greater percentage of heavier lean body mass as opposed to lighter fat.

by Fett42 on Feb 14, 2008 8:36 AM PST up reply actions

BMI's formula

also assumes that your ideal weight is proportional to the square of your height, which would make sense if you were two-dimensional. But, since you're not a cartoon, that's an idiotic measure.

Because of this, BMI routinely says all tall people are overweight and all short people are underweight. A friend of mine's 6'9", and BMI wants him to weigh about 220.

220? The dude got testicular cancer and even the chemo therapy couldn't get his weight to 220.

by Llewdor on Feb 14, 2008 9:33 AM PST up reply actions

Hmm

There's a quick way to put some weight on :)

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring." ~Rogers Hornsby

by thejew4u on Feb 14, 2008 9:33 AM PST up reply actions

Pffff

Tell that to Bob Marley.

by chaney on Feb 14, 2008 11:48 AM PST up reply actions

Good call--

I hear death and decomposition is a great weight loss program.

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring." ~Rogers Hornsby

by thejew4u on Feb 14, 2008 4:22 PM PST up reply actions

Meh

That sounded better in my head. Not implying he died from smoking.

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring." ~Rogers Hornsby

by thejew4u on Feb 14, 2008 4:22 PM PST up reply actions

So modest.

I agree, though. Obesity and athleticism sometimes do not correlate.

by .Taylor on Feb 14, 2008 8:25 AM PST reply actions

Using BMI is like using wins to evaluate

a pitcher.

Completely and totally worthless. An utter piece of crap.

By BMI, most male athletes, are at the very least overweight, in many cases obese.

By BMI, most female athetes, are obese.

By BMI, a pro bodybuilder in contest shape, with 2-3% bodyfat, paper thin skin to the point where you can see every little striation in every little muscle, bodyfat levels so low that the bodybuilder avoids intense exercise due to the pain and the risk of injury, is obese.

By BMI, competitive olympic weightlifters, male and female, who can squat triple their bodyweights without blinking, snatch double bodyweight, are overweight or obese.

Hell, by BMI, most people who lift weights consistently, not necessarily weightlifters / powerlifters / bodybuilders, are overweight or obese.

BMI, completely and utterly fails to distinguish between muscle mass and fat.

BMI is a disgrace.

visiting A's fan.

by rfloh on Feb 14, 2008 8:36 AM PST reply actions

Yeah lets all go fuck BMI up

by Fett42 on Feb 14, 2008 8:37 AM PST up reply actions

BMI's a jerk

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Feb 14, 2008 8:46 AM PST up reply actions

BMI killed my father

and raped my mother

by thenatural on Feb 14, 2008 8:50 AM PST up reply actions

BMI's mother was a witch

BURN HER!

by Llewdor on Feb 14, 2008 9:34 AM PST up reply actions

Does she weigh more than a duck?

by Jed MC on Feb 14, 2008 9:37 AM PST up reply actions

Is the duck obese?

by Jordan of Boise on Feb 14, 2008 10:38 AM PST up reply actions

The duck's BMI is 39

but it can also deadlift 600 lb, so I can't tell.

by Llewdor on Feb 14, 2008 12:05 PM PST up reply actions

Can someone do a diary that explains what "Stuff" is (ie "Felix has great stuff") in a way that is not/less subjective, that also explains why it can't be taught to someone else.

I was thinking about that this morning. It is easy to tell when a pitcher has good stuff, but why his would always be better than someone else's is what I'm not getting. If there is a difference in motion or in the way a pitcher twists his hands, why can that not be taught to a less impressive pitcher?

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Feb 14, 2008 10:42 AM PST reply actions

pfx data as well as whiff rate for pitches

by Fett42 on Feb 14, 2008 10:43 AM PST up reply actions

But to say a little more

I think other than growing into it naturally, velocity, the primary 'stuff' factor, can't really be taught or improved much once you've gotten to MLB.

by Fett42 on Feb 14, 2008 10:45 AM PST up reply actions

See, that doesn't make sense to me.

If a person's motion was preventing them from, say, a good drop in their curve, why can't you teach them to throw with a motion that allows a good drop in their curve?

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Feb 14, 2008 10:46 AM PST up reply actions

Understood.

But that doesn't explain why it can't be taught.

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Feb 14, 2008 10:46 AM PST up reply actions

Every throwing motion is different

some lead to hard stuff with sharp break, some don't. There are too many moving parts for me to be able to isolate any two or three that're responsible.

by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 14, 2008 10:46 AM PST up reply actions

Okay, to clarify

I get that, what I'm wondering is why a pitcher who is, say, terrible doesn't learn to change his motion. Or why he can't.

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Feb 14, 2008 10:48 AM PST up reply actions

Everyone also has different limitations

I could change my motion all I want, and you could put me through a Major League-caliber training program, but I'll still never throw harder than Jamie Moyer. My body just won't allow it.

You can teach some velocity, but you can't teach all of it. By and large, the bulk still seems to be natural, in that you either have it or you don't. And since velocity is the biggest component of good stuff...

by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 14, 2008 10:53 AM PST up reply actions

That was hopefully going to be the point to my

question. Several players at least have good enough velocity, yet still suck. I would think these players have little excuse for sucking since they can learn to change their delivery.

I don't mean why can't you teach ME to throw that fast. I mean why can't you teach a ~major league player that already throws a good enough speed but has no movement - or something - to change their delivery style to make them more dominant.

From what I understood, the term "stuff" is not limited to velocity.

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Feb 14, 2008 11:11 AM PST up reply actions

Changing deliveries is hard

So are learning new pitches and improving command.

Pitching is a lot more difficult than you seem to think it is.

by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 14, 2008 11:28 AM PST up reply actions

"Stuff" is mostly velocity and movement.

If your question is just what gets someone to have "Stuff" there are a variety of physical factors. Here is a very simple overview.

Hands - length of fingers had a huge effect on the ability to spin or move a ball.

Wrist - ability to snap the wrist at release and maintain control.

Elbow - ability to consistently fire the arm forward and down to prepare for the wrist snap.

Legs and torso - rotation and drive through the pitch creates the base for the strength needed.

Most of these things needed to have "stuff" are a natural gift. You either have it or you don't. Getting to the Major Leagues and succeeding requires incredibly fine tuning of these raw skills.

by Sec 108 on Feb 14, 2008 11:32 AM PST up reply actions

Huh. That's interesting.

Especially the finger length and wrist action. I'd think the wrist action could be taught, but as I think about the throwing motion I can see why that would be difficult.

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Feb 14, 2008 11:38 AM PST up reply actions

Maybe it can be taught

But I never saw it be taught successfully.

I could never learn the wrist snap and my fingers are short so I was a classic BP pitcher. Slow and no movement. I have a friend who because of his natural wrist snap and a very long middle finger cannot throw a ball without movement no matter how hard he tries.

by Sec 108 on Feb 14, 2008 11:54 AM PST up reply actions

I can't throw

Without putting severe screwball spin on the ball.

by Graham on Feb 14, 2008 11:58 AM PST up reply actions

I have some strange spin as well.

Sometimes it "looks" like the ball goes up rather than down, which is impossible. But it got people swinging. So that was something.

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Feb 14, 2008 12:05 PM PST up reply actions

I'm one of those.

I don't have overly long fingers, but anything I throw always has a down and across my body movement to it.

I got kicked off a softball team because of it, I would go across the diamond, and catch the 1B in the nuts because he was expecting it to be a foot higher.

If anyone knows how to get rid of it w/o losing all my ballspeed, I'd be much obliged.

by Faux on Feb 14, 2008 11:59 AM PST up reply actions

After your follow through where is your hand?

If it is on the opposite side of your body then you need to adjust your release to a more over the top motion. If it is on the hip near the same side of your throwing arm then you can try using three fingers on top of the ball or locking your wrist.

Other than that you may just throw that way.

by Sec 108 on Feb 14, 2008 12:07 PM PST up reply actions

Both good pieces of advice.

Unfortunately, the same advice a pitching trainer gave me once.

I come down way over the top, I've been known to swipe my ear when I throw really hard.

I've tried the "less grip" alternative, and all it does is give me less control where it goes (I've gotten used to my arc and throw accordingly, putting less grip on it just makes me release way too early, and I can't time it). Same with the locking wrist, all it does is leave me with a sore wrist at the end of a day.

Also, I've tried sidearming it, it rises and is easier for others to handle. That also kills my wrist.

I've pretty much given up.

by Faux on Feb 14, 2008 1:27 PM PST up reply actions

Regrettably I do not know what else to tell you

I am only regurgitating what I have been taught. The only other thing I could suggest is a change up release where you roll the ball off of your pinky side of the hand instead of the index finger side. That can be tough to control though.

by Sec 108 on Feb 14, 2008 2:16 PM PST up reply actions

As long as the movement is consistent

I don't see the problem. I've been playing softball for 15 years, and every guy on my team has a different release and movement to his throws.

I tend to throw a bit of a "2-seamer" when throwing from SS, so I aim accordingly, but while throwing from the OF I come more over the top and it tends to be more of a "4-seamer".

Unless you're short-hopping and bouncing all of your throws, a decent first baseman should be able to adjust to the movement. Unless it's an absolutely insane amount of movement..

All this optimism is bringing me down...

by Thingray on Feb 14, 2008 3:09 PM PST up reply actions

It has a lot of bite to it.

He's not bad at it, I think he doesn't have good depth perception is all. And they decided his "insta-HR" batting style (good power plus amazing speed) was better than my occasional fence clearing, rest of the time doubles approach.

I think the problem is, I don't have much arm strength (comparatively), and I get all my speed on my wrist. I can make a tennis ball break if I throw hard.

Not the best for a slow-pitch SB league, great when I was a pitcher in LL.

by Faux on Feb 14, 2008 5:31 PM PST up reply actions

Alot of it

also has to do with the grip you use, especially when you consider that you usually don't have the time as a fielder to adjust your grip on the fly. Odds are that you were thowing a heavy 2-seamer without a softball without even trying.

If you can somehow get used to gripping across the seams rather than parallel to them, the velocity and control should improve. It's never going to go completely straight unless you change your wrist snap but the grip should help.

You scratch our backs, we'll scratch yours. Well Jules, the funny thing about my back is that it's located on my $#%&.

by AZSEAfan on Feb 14, 2008 12:24 PM PST up reply actions

geez

"without a softball" should obviously read "with".

You scratch our backs, we'll scratch yours. Well Jules, the funny thing about my back is that it's located on my $#%&.

by AZSEAfan on Feb 14, 2008 12:25 PM PST up reply actions

If you hit your first baseman

in the nuts... the throw wasn't the problem.
Most people's throws have a little curve to them.

That first baseman just sucks.

by johnbai on Feb 14, 2008 3:14 PM PST up reply actions

That's kind of what I was saying

a little farther up. Either the first baseman sucks, or he's short-hopping him all the time.

All this optimism is bringing me down...

by Thingray on Feb 14, 2008 3:34 PM PST up reply actions

oh, now I see where you already said that

Yeah, the only way I can see an on-target throw to first being problematic is if you're throwing a hellacious knuckleball.

by johnbai on Feb 14, 2008 3:53 PM PST up reply actions

Knucklers suck,

but the first baseman still shouldn't be getting hit in the nuts all the time by them. Softballs only knuckle so much.

All this optimism is bringing me down...

by Thingray on Feb 14, 2008 4:02 PM PST up reply actions

Just repeating below.

I have a lot of bite to my throws, as I throw with pretty much all wrist. I think his depth perception is off, and I don't think the rest of my team had any real drop to their throws.

My little brother is already a mean defensive catcher. Twice a week I aim for the ground and make him block. He didn't pass a ball all last fall league.

by Faux on Feb 14, 2008 5:35 PM PST up reply actions

You sound like the third baseman

on my co-ed team. He throws side-arm (almost submarine style) with all wrist, and it ends up being this screwball/reverse slider/sinker kind of thing.

It gets the ball there, but people struggle to catch it at first. They get used to it eventually.

Sounds to me like your throws are tolerable, but maybe your first baseman is more about offense than defense. Our first baseman (mens league) is just like Sexson (w/o the SO). He's fine with normal throws, but he ain't gonna "pick" anything for you.

All this optimism is bringing me down...

by Thingray on Feb 15, 2008 11:45 AM PST up reply actions

Velocity is not everything

The thing about high velocity is that it reduces the amount of time the hitter has to react to your fastball. The velocity readings on TV are the velocity out of the hand - it will decelerate on its way to the plate. How much it decelerates has a lot to do with the way the ball spins, and long fingers do help here, a lot. Obviously, less deceleration is better. Also, guys like Erik Bedard and George Sherrill are able to throw 92mph fastballs by hitters as if they were 96, because they hide the ball very well. That means they delay as much as possible the moment when the hitter can begin tracking the ball, which reduces reaction time and achieves the same thing as increased velocity.

You can't just start doing things better, because by the time you're on a mound throwing to decent hitters, you've thrown thousands, if not millions, of times. Even with me, a self-taught amateur whose highest aspiration as a pitcher is to get a win for the Evergreen Goeducks, my windup is so ingrained in me that changing it would take forever and probably not be worth the effort. I'd still lapse into my old wind for a long time, and once I'd gotten the new motion set, then I'd have to start teaching myself to command the ball with it. There's just way too many things going on when you pitch a ball to teach "stuff."

by chaney on Feb 14, 2008 11:59 AM PST up reply actions

Evergreen

has a baseball team now?! WTF

by johnbai on Feb 14, 2008 3:16 PM PST up reply actions

A really bad one!

by chaney on Feb 17, 2008 12:22 PM PST up reply actions

Changing pitching

mechanics, or hell changing the mechanics of any complex physical movement, is not a simple case of a willing teacher teacher a willing student.

There are many factors involved. Just superficial "physical" factors, limb length, body configurations, muscle, tendon and ligament flexibility, stability, mobility and strength.

There are also neural factors: flexibility, mobility and stability is often as much affected by the neural system as it is by the muscles.

There are also motor learning factors.

And most of these factors tend to be interrelated.

This does not only apply to baseball. It applies to any complex physical movement.

"Several players at least have good enough velocity, yet still suck. I would think these players have little excuse for sucking since they can learn to change their delivery."

Would you say the same for golfers who can drive the ball far, yet still suck?

visiting A's fan.

by rfloh on Feb 14, 2008 12:05 PM PST up reply actions

I dunno, maybe, actually.

Though in golf, driving the ball far tends to not be as important as throwing the ball fast is in baseball. So that's not a perfect comparison.

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Feb 14, 2008 12:06 PM PST up reply actions

Actually

I think it is a pretty good comparison. Each motion, whether it's hitting a beautiful drive or throwing a perfect strike, takes into account that everything is working together in harmony to produce the intended result. The raw strength from muscle/connective tissue and healthy flexibility/range of motion allows you to throw hard/hit a golf ball far. The speed of the ball (either ball) does absolutely no good if it doesn't end up where it was meant to.

The trick is training all of the moving parts to each repeat the same exact motion every single time. I imagine that this is the biggest reason why control and command usually improve with age and experience.

You scratch our backs, we'll scratch yours. Well Jules, the funny thing about my back is that it's located on my $#%&.

by AZSEAfan on Feb 14, 2008 12:37 PM PST up reply actions

Would you say the same for a classical

pianist who can play fast and loud in the flashy technical pieces, but who can't play fast and gently, who struggles to play with a gentle touch?

A weightlifter who is very strong and has a great clean and jerk but is weak in the snatch which places more emphasis on technique, speed, flexibility?

visiting A's fan.

by rfloh on Feb 14, 2008 1:58 PM PST up reply actions

No.

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Feb 14, 2008 2:13 PM PST up reply actions

Swinging strike % will be the best indicator

by Graham on Feb 14, 2008 11:15 AM PST up reply actions

I didn't know that BMI was such a poor indicator

I'll have to tell my doctor what you guys have said the next time he uses it to point to the extra 10 pounds he says I carry.

Seriously, maybe I'm reading too much into it but the Geoff Baker comment I quoted above can be taken in two different ways. I guess I'm just suspicious by nature given Felix's weight history and last season's arm trouble. I know, I know...10 pounds does not equal arm trouble but I just want him healthy all year making his 33+ starts.

by 116in01 on Feb 14, 2008 2:36 PM PST reply actions

BMI's a less-than-awful tool

if you're both sedentary and of average height.

The more you exercise beyond none, and the farther you are from being 5'8", the less good a tool it is.

by Llewdor on Feb 14, 2008 3:43 PM PST up reply actions

That is perhaps true

bu, taking off your clothes and looking at yourself in the mirror is a better tool, if all you are looking for is a less-than-awful tool.

Using BMI just reflects an obsession with numbers.

visiting A's fan.

by rfloh on Feb 14, 2008 10:03 PM PST up reply actions

using BMI

reflects being lazy with numbers, not an obsession...

by thenatural on Feb 14, 2008 10:22 PM PST up reply actions

Clearest example

I can think of is Bad Jeff Weaver vs. Good Jeff Weaver. Early in the year, his stuff was poor and everyone teed off on him. Later he kept batters off-balance, had sharper breaks on his offspeed stuff, better location on his pitches and greater velocity (a couple MPH makes a big difference) on everything.

I don't think it was pitch selection, or any mental issue. I think his arm was weak and he got out of synch with his mechanics and had to struggle through it until he was effective again.

by johnbai on Feb 14, 2008 3:26 PM PST reply actions