Lookout Landing: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Holy War Week Brings out the Worst in Fans

A Closer Look At King Felix, And Lecturing Myself

A little under a week ago, reader Mike Ford sent me an email regarding Felix's mechanics. The gist was that, while he agreed with the general consensus that Felix's throwing motion is violent and therefore something of a risk, he'd stumbled across this writeup (scroll down) that's much higher of Felix's delivery, and was curious to know what I thought.

I sat on it for a few days, planning to come back to it and do a while big post breaking down his entire delivery when I had a few hours. I'd already gone through a lot of video and taken most of my necessary screengrabs when I saw this piece by MGL on The Book blog. That's when I decided to change my approach, because I agreed with what he had to say:

I hate to say it and I have nothing against Carlos (Gomez) or anyone else, but until we/I see some evidence that aything anyone says regarding pitcher or batter mechanics is true, why should anyone take it seriously? Because it "sounds intelligent?" Isn't that the hallmark of science - that something proferred has to have evidence to support it?

For something as popular to analyze as pitching mechanics, there's a lot of conjecture out there (I've been guilty of this a million times), but a startling lack of evidence. Why should we take somebody at their word? What has anyone done in the field to earn that kind of trust? If you're going to broach the subject, you should come to the table with some measure of support other than your own personal opinion.

So that's when I decided to delve into the primary literature. Not looking for anything exhaustive, but for something with substance. And, starting at ASMI, I eventually made my way to this paper by Matsuo, Fleisig, Zheng, and Andrews (J. Appl. Biomech., 2006). It deals with the relationship between elbow torque (more = bad) and both trunk tilt and shoulder abduction. For those unfamiliar with the terms, much like myself a few days ago, "trunk tilt" essentially refers to the angle between the upper body and a vertical line perpendicular to the hips, while "shoulder abduction" refers to the height of the throwing elbow (or the angle between the upper arm during release and a vertical line drawn up the side of the trunk, as if the arm were just hanging down).

That's probably unclear. Elucidation of scientific terminology isn't one of my strong suits. You should really just go ahead and read the article - not only because it'll help you understand what I'm talking about, but also because it's a pretty easy read for a piece out of an academic journal.

Anyway, here's where I'm going with this. A picture of Felix in the middle of his delivery (source: CNN):

The first things you notice, once you get past the chin: a high right elbow and a distinct lean towards first base. After applying a little MS Paint:

With a little measurement, you can come up with the following values:

Trunk Tilt: 27 degrees, contralateral (towards non-throwing arm side)
Shoulder Abduction: 110 degrees

(Give or take a few degrees, since MS Paint is hardly an exact science.)

By themselves, without any frame of reference, those numbers are meaningless. But in looking at the paper, we can see that Felix has a moderately high elbow and a substantial amount of lateral tilt. Of course, we've known this for a while - it's always been a part of Felix's delivery, as he has to lean left to clear his throwing arm.

Where this gets more interesting, though, is when you look at the relation between Felix's numbers and the amount of torque such angles put on the elbow. Scroll to Figure 2b (p. 4) and you can see that a guy with a trunk tilt of 30 degrees and a shoulder abduction angle of 110 degrees puts nearly 66% more torque on his elbow than someone at 10/100 degrees. For someone with a trunk tilt of 20 degrees, the torque is still up about 40-50%. And so on and so forth. According to this study, the "safest" delivery in terms of least torque on the elbow involves a lean of 10 degrees to the side, with 100 degree abduction. That's not Felix. He's got a more exaggerated lean to the side, and a higher elbow.

What does all this mean? Possibly nothing, as the authors are careful not to state any concrete conclusions based on their study. There are a few variables that're virtually impossible to account for when it comes to experimenting on living humans, and that clouds the picture a little bit.

That said, this paper suggests a possible issue, giving us some evidence based on scientific investigation that Felix's delivery may put added stress on his elbow, and a potentially considerable amount, at that. It could be nothing, or it could be Felix's "natural" (and therefore uniquely safest) body position when throwing, but let's put it this way - if I were a high school pitching coach, and I had a young pitcher who threw with Felix's degree of tilt and elbow height, I'd work with him to change it by making his body a little more upright, and bringing his elbow down closer to perpendicular to his side. Just because it might not pose a problem doesn't mean you shouldn't still try to play the odds.

Of course, with Felix, it's a little different. When you have a guy as flipping extraordinary as Felix, you don't screw around with his delivery, not when he's already established himself in the Majors. The potential benefit of better health just isn't worth the potential cost of Felix losing his identity as a young phenom. So, in situations like this, you sit back, enjoy the performance, and cross your fingers that nothing gets wonky in the elbow or shoulder.

So, is Felix at risk? Subjectively, we can say that his delivery looks a little rushed and violent, and that the way he puts everything he has into every pitch (watch his follow-through when he comes back) increases the amount of stress on his joints. Objectively, though, we're limited to things like this, where Felix's tilt and elbow height might raise some warning signs. Other possible issues either lack solid evidence or need to show proper citation to the primary literature, because otherwise we don't know where they're coming from.

Here's what it comes down to - if we're going to take anyone for their word as far as pitching mechanics are concerned, it ought to be the people with a keen physiological understanding of what goes on a pitcher's body when he throws. There's nothing wrong with going through the literature and using it to identify potential problems with a guy's delivery, but the minute clowns like me start distancing ourselves in the discussion, then the chances of inadvertently spreading misinformation go up exponentially. And that's not good for anyone.

Breaking down a pitcher's mechanics is a ton of fun, if you're into that sort of thing, but all too often people cross the line from "this looks like" to "this is" without any legitimate backing. I've done it myself, even when I knew I shouldn't have. MGL is right. We've been demanding evidence for performance-related ideas and theories for as long as baseball's existed. It's time to start taking the same approach to biomechanical evaluation. Giving people the benefit of the doubt for no reason at all is just too risky to allow.

0 recs  |  Comment 71 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

I don't think it's a *huge* problem.
Ever seen Mike Mussina?

It's just something to consider. We know that Felix doesn't have perfect mechanics, and this is one reason why.

by Jeff on Apr 30, 2007 7:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Looks like
He is about to throw it into the first couple rows of the grandstands at fenway.

by Grubbie on Apr 30, 2007 8:02 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm curious
What do these guys say about Francisco Rodriguez?

by ThundaPC on Apr 30, 2007 8:27 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I'm not sure
but it can't be anything good.

by Jeff on Apr 30, 2007 9:01 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

One thing you have to remember
Is that medics aren't all that great at dealing which what is essentially an engineering problem either - similarly an engineer wouldn't have much clue how to solve this because we don't have the required physiological training.

That said, I find it stunning that nobody's built a FEM model of a pitcher complex enough to look at individual ligament stresses in the shoulder and the elbow. It'd be hard, but not impossible.

by Graham on Apr 30, 2007 10:18 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Its called bioengineers
they deal with prosthetic limbs and stuff like that all the time.  Engineers can solve anything.

by Edgar for Pres on Apr 30, 2007 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, yes
But a bioengineer doesn't have the same training as a structures one.

by Graham on Apr 30, 2007 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

But more appropriate than a medic
or a statistician.

Someone with qualifications in biomechanics, together with maybe a background in mechanical engineering, and maybe an athletic background, would be ideal.

visiting A's fan.

by rfloh on May 1, 2007 1:02 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I am beginning to think that some
of the "bad" mechanics definitely lead to higher velocities.  It seems like with some of the more dangerous things pitchers do, they lead to more force transfered to the ball and better performances.  I think that if we all had perfect mechanics baseball might be pretty boring and pitchers would probably suffer (in performance and not health).  I also think its pretty important when talking about this stuff to remember that pitching even with perfect mechanics often leads to injury just because for some reason the human body isn't meant to hurl a small ball 90 mph over and over again.

by Edgar for Pres on Apr 30, 2007 10:46 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

You also have to remember
That no elbow is the same in terms of max loading, ability to deal with cyclical stuff, etc. It'd probably be fairly straightforward to figure out the loading going into each part of it (which is why I'm surprised nobody's done it), but determining actual damage to joint structure afte x pitches would be pretty impossible - pitchers are just behaving differently.

PS: Yeah, I know we engineers (especially the cool people who do bio as well) can solve everything. We just sometimes don't try, which is sad.

by Graham on Apr 30, 2007 11:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

And that in a nutshell is why i'm not bio
If you want to really come to strong conclusions about humans you really need to look at way too many cause we are all slightly different.  It would be kinda a cool think to model and doesn't seem like it wouldn't be too hard if the right person got his hands on it.

by Edgar for Pres on May 1, 2007 12:00 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm a blend of bio and structural
This looks like a Ph.D. project waiting to happen if I can get funding after my Masters.

by Graham on May 1, 2007 12:15 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, I believe
people have figured out the loading of various joints for other sports, like weightlifting and basketball, so there is no reason why the same can't be done for baseball.

As for determining actual damage, if you could calculate, even roughly, and be aware of how much force is acting on a joint for all the pitches, whether a 100 mph fastball or a slider, that a pitcher throws, you would have a better tool than pitch counts or something worthless like Pitcher Abuse Points for managing a pitcher's workload.

visiting A's fan.

by rfloh on May 1, 2007 1:09 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Joint loading for pitching
Is going to have a lot more inputs than, say, weightlifting ever would. I can't speak for basketball, because I know nothing about the sport and would wipe it off the face of the planet should that option become available.

Basic studies are easy. Right now I (albeit with lots of grumbling, a couple days, lots of videos, and many sheets of paper) would be able to work out elbow and shoulder torques and loading for a given pitching motion. That doesn't really tell you anything though - the elbow's much more complex than a torque generator due to all the fiddly bits inside it (don't even get me started on the shoulder). A proper analysis, able to deal with different arm actions and motions would absolutely have to be done with a finite element model, otherwise you won't get an idea of load distributions -inside- the joints.

I've never seen a model that detailed being used for biomechanical analysis.

by Graham on May 1, 2007 3:28 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The elbow
is complex of course, but one could argue that the shoulder is even more so.

Joint loading for pitching has a lot more inputs than say the snatch? Why so?

Why the hate for basketball?

Even a basic model that merely calculates loading, torque, shear forces on the elbows and shoulders when Felix for example, throws a 100 mph fastball, or when Felix throws a 90 mph fastball, or when Felix throws a slider, would be far more useful for monitoring and regulating workload than pitch counts or worthless pap like PAP.

With these calculations, combined with pitch counts, you can have a gauge for intensity and volume, as opposed to merely volume.

visiting A's fan.

by rfloh on May 1, 2007 4:24 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, yes
The shoulder is definately much more complex than the elbow. I wasn't trying to state otherwise, just giving an example.

The reason I say pitching loading is difficult is because every motion uses a different... well... motion, so a decent study would have to invoke a high level of variability which I don't think a weightlifting manouvre would have.

The baskatball hate is irrational. I just hate it. I can deal with pretty much every other sport on the planet.

And I don't think a basic model is enough - we need to be looking at detailed ligament loading inside the joints. If, say, the tensile stress in the elbow is to the breaking point of the ulnar ligament, that doesn't mean anything until you see load distribution between the ulnar and the anterior - it could well be that the pitching motion serve to balance out the loads to the point it's not a worry.

Certainly, it'd be more informative than a pitch counting system, but I don't think there's any point stopping there when we have the ability to carry on. We -know- they're putting lots of toque on their elbow. That's part of how the ball goes so fast.

Also, I'd really like better studies into the engineering properties of ligaments - fatigue, the different tensile forces it can take under different lengths, plasticity and all that fun stuff which I'm not sure has ever been done.

All in all, I'd much rather be able to turn someone into a model and say 'he's putting x amount of stress into his ulnar ligament, here are the normal ranges at which the human ucl breaks down, here is the recovery time needed for it to regain its original shape,... etc'. I don't know as much as I'd like to on the subject - the bioengineering I do right now is much more focused on neural modelling, so it's not like I'm an expert or anything. I just don't think that a single measurement like torque on an elbow gives a good picture.

by Graham on May 1, 2007 6:23 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

In my mind I'm picturing some great
model that looks like the tendons, muscles, and bones in my arm.  As it moves they'd turn all those pretty colors MechEs love to show stress and strain.  Maybe by having a pitcher throw a ball and track his arm motion you could instantly use this model to then go track the stresses going on inside any individual pitcher on any unique pitch (would need really good cameras).

by Edgar for Pres on May 1, 2007 7:18 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's pretty much was I was thinking
A finite element model could be really crude everywhere but the joint in question and you could incorporate whole-body movements. It'd be an absolute pain to do first time to get the detail right, but once it's done, it could probably be applied to every concievable pitching motion.

Since I'm partly a structures boy, I have to play with this sort of system a lot. I'd love to get the chance to try to model a shoulder or an elbow and see what happens.

by Graham on May 1, 2007 7:31 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Models
I wonder how sophisticated the model would have to be...given all the other variables (effort, weather, mound angle, etc), there may be a simpler system that incorporates ranges for the various components or gross assumptions....sort of like LRFD factors (for all you Civi folks).  It's similar to "why design the road elevation to 2 decimals when the guy driving the bulldozer can only get within a 1/2 inch".

by wgrd on May 1, 2007 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It wouldn't have to be perfect
But it should at least distribute loads around through the joints properly.

by Graham on May 1, 2007 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think the problem is that
your elbow or shoulder isn't like a building because it doesn't have beams or other "finite" structures.  I imagine it would be a lot harder because muscles are soft tissue and you probably need most of them to stabilize your joints.  Another thing is that muscles can exert force by themselves since that's their purpose and aren't simply something like a rubber band.  It'd be nice but if you make it too simple I'm betting you probably wouldn't learn enough.

by Edgar for Pres on May 1, 2007 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

One of my project options
For my masters year is modelling spinal disc failure. Not quite elbows and shoulders, but it should give me a much better idea of how all this works. Hopefully I get the project.

by Graham on May 1, 2007 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yes, they're putting lots
of torque on their elbow? How much? How much during a particular start? How much in previous starts? How much in the next start? This month? This year? Even if the model is basic, with an idea, it becomes easier and more feasible to monitor and regulate workload and maybe increase work capacity. If you have this data for every pitcher in the league, over many years, you can then maybe look for patterns.

I'm not saying that what you want to do is not useful and cool, just that a basic model still can be extremely useful.

The problem I would think with trying to find a breaking point in say the UCL is that ligaments can become stronger, so the breaking point would be unique, different for different pitchers. Of course, it would be within a general range.

Even though I snatch and clean and jerk pretty much everyday, I would say that every attempt for me at least is slightly different, especially if you're using a bar that isn't a spanking new competition bar. Also at max weights, even elite weightlifters have sometimes considerable variability in their technique.

visiting A's fan.

by rfloh on May 1, 2007 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What I'm saying
Is that the max torque in a motion could be misleading (I haven't done any actual analysis here, mind) because we don't have any idea of the load path through the elbow that the forces are taking. You could easily have a guy who's forcing more torque through his elbow but doing less damage than a pitcher putting less stress on the elbow as a whole.

Torque itself is a useful question to ask, but our answers will still be muddy unless we delve deeper. I'm not trying to say it's pointless to do basic calcs, rather that I'm unsure if these will give you an indication as to failure criteria.

And yeah, I'm with you as to the difficulty of predicting injuries, which is why I'd really like to see more work done on this by materials dudes. The cycles of fatigue and regeneration/strengthening will probably be almost as important as population strength distribution. My take on this is that it's an area that should be investigated rather than left to simple analysis.

We're not disagreeing here, as far as I'm aware :)

by Graham on May 1, 2007 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It would also be cool to see
how the stress transfers to all the different components throughout the motion to see which ones see the maximum stress and which see the most total stress in the process.

by Edgar for Pres on May 1, 2007 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's basically what I want to know
I'm curious as to whether a team would want to fund a doctorate on this stuff. If any team would, it'd be the A's...

by Graham on May 1, 2007 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If anybody
I think the cubs would go for it the most cause if they ever figured a way to get Prior and Woods going they might actually win games.

by Edgar for Pres on May 1, 2007 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Heh,
given the A's history of injury after injury after injury to players, and how they seem to react towards those injuries, I'm not so sure.
visiting A's fan.

by rfloh on May 1, 2007 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I understand / understood your point
that it can be misleading. No need for smileys ;) I think I'm expressing myself badly, so I'll try again.

Let's say you have a pitcher, call him King Felix, whom you've calculated has put x amount of total torque in the month of April on his elbow, you've also calculated that he has put y, where y > x, amount of total torque on his elbow in the month of May. In that case, you can reasonably conclude that King Felix's workload in the month of May is higher than in the month of April.

Furthermore, since you're doing this for every pitch , you can calculate King Felix's workload for each start, throughout his entire career, and even his daily workload during training.

Yes, King Felix may be able to handle more torque on his elbow / shoulder than Rich Harden, but it would still be very useful to know how much torque King Felix is putting on his shoulder / elbow in each start, in each training session, over a month, a year.

It isn't so much a specific failure criteria that I think would be useful, though that is very useful too, but simply a better means of monitoring workload by tracking both volume, how much, and intensity, how hard. Right now, pitch counts only record volume, and nothing of intensity.

visiting A's fan.

by rfloh on May 1, 2007 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Aha
You're comparing a pitcher to himself? Ok, I got it now. Yeah, that'd be interesting data, although really, really hard to capture. Monitoring a guy when he's on the mound is a tricky proposition - you'd have to be playing with lots of cameras and clever processing to get limb movements and all that... from my standpoint (I'm not good at the processing part of all this) it'd be a nightmare.

It's a good idea, but I'm not sure how feasible obtaining the data is, and if you're going to put that much effort into data collection you might as well subject it to a more rigourous analysis.

by Graham on May 1, 2007 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The more rigourous the
analysis, the better it is, of course.

But right now, even if you collect the data in non-competitive situations, and then extrapolate it, it would still be more useful than pitch counts, innings pitched, and worthless pap like PAP, which disappointingly is being presented as a useful and legitimate tool by the experts at BPRO.

If you have King Felix throw all his pitches in training, or even in a lab, and then capture and calculate that data for each different type of pitch: sliders, curves, changes, fastballs of different varieties, you could then chart the pitches he throws in any game and then extrapolate the data that you've collected to calculate the forces that he is putting on his elbow / shoulder for each pitch of that game.

Of course this isn't ideal, but it is still more useful than pitch counts, innings pitched. Thus, for example, instead of slowly increasing the number of pitches and number of innings a young pitcher like King Felix throws, you could slowly increase, and decrease if necessary, the stress forces he puts on his arm in each start, each month, each year.

visiting A's fan.

by rfloh on May 1, 2007 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

A good idea
One issue I'll bring up is conventional wisdom stating that a pitcher will throw more damaging pitches when he's tired or in tricky situations. I'm not sure how this would take high-stress situations into account. Would you just multiply by a factor, try and simulate the conditions, or ignore them entirely?

by Graham on May 1, 2007 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Damn, forgot this
Ideally, I would think it would be best to try and simulate the conditions, say by collecting this "pitching when tired data" at the end a training session, but of course there are injury concerns.

If you don't have an idea of what factor to multiply by, doing so would probably make it worse.

Another problem would be how to tell during a game that a pitcher is tired. Yeah, a pitching coach could ask, but a pitcher could always lie.

visiting A's fan.

by rfloh on May 1, 2007 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

As a guess
You could probably use leverage index to tell if a pitcher is stressed, and a consistant fastball velocity drop to tell when he's tired. Not idea but not totally uninformed either.

To get data out of it I'd imagine you'd want to watch for differences in motion between normal/tired situations, note them down and feed them into a throwing motion simulator. If you have accurate results for a pitcher in his normal states, you should be able to get a reasonable idea about his tired one, assuming you can get a good data read.

My (totally uninformed) hunch is that pitching tired is the most dangerous thing a pitcher can do, especially if his mechanics change in doing so.

by Graham on May 1, 2007 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Fastball velocity
is a good idea. IIRC, Jim Leyland said last year that he was monitoring the fastball velocity of Verlander and Bonderman during starts to gauge their fatigue levels during starts.

I agree with your hunch, both because of possibly changing mechanics and also changing mechanical qualities of the muscles / tendons / ligaments.

visiting A's fan.

by rfloh on May 1, 2007 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Oh, I know.
It was just the first thing I could find.

by Jeff on May 1, 2007 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Although, actually...
Compared with the initial 2 innings, as a pitcher approached muscular fatigue during the final 2 innings he was able to pitch, there was a significant decrease in ball velocity, and the trunk was significantly closer to a vertical position.

I think that certainly represents a mechanical change. A guy who isn't getting as much forward extension at release is ending his delivery more abruptly, which leads to the same amount of stress being placed on the elbow/shoulder in a lesser amount of time than usual. In my unscientific opinion, that's bad.

by Jeff on May 1, 2007 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Huh
Yeah, I didn't think much of that when I read it, but since they tied trunk angle into elbow torque in the first study you links, and pitching tired lowers the trunk twist, could that be part of the velocity drop? Presumably velocity is at least partially dependant on elbow torque.

by Graham on May 1, 2007 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Clarification:
The article I linked yesterday talks about horizontal trunk tilt (towards first/third base). This one's talking about forward tilt, i.e. a measure of back bend towards home plate at release. As the pitchers in this study approached physical fatigue, they got less forward extension and threw the ball from a more vertical position.

It was interesting to me that the article didn't say anything about elbow drop. That's one of those signs of fatigue everyone talks about, but that I've never seen actually proven.

by Jeff on May 1, 2007 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Pretty easy to show it I'd think.
MLB tv image capture. Pair each starting pitcher's fastball in the first vs. their last inning. Compare elbow positions. Hardly scientific, but it'd give an idea.

by Graham on May 1, 2007 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, it should be simple.
I'm just wondering if there's a reason they didn't mention it, since you'd think it'd be one of the factors they'd look at in the study. I don't have access to the full article, so all I can do is speculate, but I wonder if they looked at it and didn't see any correlation.

by Jeff on May 1, 2007 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Other than SSS
I wish that they had recorded pitch speeds, pitch types for each pitcher.

Also, their conclusion is fairly conservative. They didn't say that fatigue when pitching doesn't lead to injuries, only that the "study did not support the idea that there is an increase in shoulder and elbow forces and torques as muscular fatigue is approached".

I wonder what would have happened if they had pushed beyond just approaching muscular fatigue. Of course, ethically, that would be impossible.

visiting A's fan.

by rfloh on May 1, 2007 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm curious as to whether
Mental fatigue has an affect as well (proving that one'd be difficult though). Another thing that's tricky to measure in-lab.

by Graham on May 1, 2007 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If you had lots of money
like maybe you run a baseball team you could use something like an MRI to look at the muscles in a pitcher and figure out their properties such as density and then do strength tests on top of that to give you a pretty good idea of the strength of components in the pitcher's arm.  It won't be 100% exact but it should give a good idea to personalize it for each person.

Also, it could be used in preventative measures too.  If it looks like an muscle or tendon is the weak link, the physical training could be changed to prevent injury.

by Edgar for Pres on May 1, 2007 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What kind of strength tests
would you do?
visiting A's fan.

by rfloh on May 1, 2007 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well....
I'm guessing a biomech guy has a better idea but off the top of my head you could come up with exercises that would isolate individual muscles or tendons to see how "strong" they are.  You can't get their ultimate strength because you don't want to risk hurting them but you could get some sort of baseline strength that you could probably correlate to overall strength.  You also might use some high speed camera to look at how fast the arm accelerates or decelerates during a pitch and try to account for which muscles are acting when but that seems like it would be tougher.

by Edgar for Pres on May 1, 2007 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Tests that isolate
the individual muscles and tendons are probably the most useless, since most sports are complex movements involving multiple muscles, multiple tendons and multiple ligaments working together.

If you want to figure out which muscles are acting, you're probably best of using EMG or a myotensiometer.

visiting A's fan.

by rfloh on May 1, 2007 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well I guess
I was talking about when you build your model you'll need the strengths of individual groups because not all muscles or tendons are equally strong.

by Edgar for Pres on May 1, 2007 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I dunno
The individual tests would probably be better than anything else for approximating the engineering properties of the muscles themselves. Even in a complex structure with lots of different interactions, you're not going to get the correct load pathing  or failure criteria without knowing the capabilities of each member (biological systems are even more complicated, but even so having an idea of what each bit can do is probably a good thing).

by Graham on May 1, 2007 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The problem with
most isolated tests is that most are badly designed.
Most isolated tests are done using machines, with a fixed movement path, at a "constant" velocity.
visiting A's fan.

by rfloh on May 1, 2007 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'll be honest
I have no idea of the tests they'd use to do this stuff. I'm just saying that if some good ones existed, they'd have merit.

by Graham on May 1, 2007 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well of couse I was suggesting
only well designed tests.  Don't ask me what they are though.

by Edgar for Pres on May 1, 2007 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

And of course, the flip side
That some people can pitch with horrible mechanics and yet pitch forever without getting hurt, like K-Rod.

by Gomez on Apr 30, 2007 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think that's definitely true.
Pitching mechanics, first and foremost, have always been developed with the express intent of helping the pitcher throw harder and control the ball better. Generally speaking, that's the basis behind anything a pitcher does in his delivery, even the things that may make him a physical gamble.

by Jeff on May 1, 2007 5:48 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Very nice analysis,
I appreciate that you took the time to cite scholarly sources to reach some hypotheses.

by Grant H on May 1, 2007 12:13 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I think Jeff Weaver can tell us a great deal
about joint loading for pitchers.

by Mere Tantalisers on May 1, 2007 6:33 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

couldn't resist

by Mere Tantalisers on May 1, 2007 6:33 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Mark Prior
Just remember it's not all about mechanics when it comes to pitcher injuries. Mark Prior has a beautiful, effortless delivery, the kind you would want to teach your kids. And how many times has he been on the DL in the last few years?

by phil333 on May 1, 2007 7:06 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

It is really all about mechanics
It's just that some pitchers are inherantly more fragile than others, so even with theoretically great mechanics (besides, our point is nobody knows what great mechanics are anyway) you're still going to snap a ligament or two.

by Graham on May 1, 2007 7:41 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Speaking of which
I don't know that Prior's mechanics are/were really as gorgeous as are/was claimed.

by Jeff on May 1, 2007 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah
I wonder how much of that 'perfect mechanics' thing was just people adopting common hearsay.

by Gomez on May 1, 2007 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Interesting article over at the Hardball Times
about Prior.

Link!

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

by Phildopip on May 1, 2007 8:32 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Irony!
Now we're back to seeking out information from one of the dudes MGL pointed to as an example of people we tend to, without reason, blindly trust.

by david h on May 1, 2007 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Actually IIRC MGL's
post was in response to Carlos' post.
visiting A's fan.

by rfloh on May 1, 2007 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I wasn't presenting this as evidence
one way or the other about Prior's "perfect" mechanics. Rather, that his mechanics have changed since he first came up in the league.

If I had been purporting this as definite evidence, I would have said so. Instead, I titled it "interesting article".

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

by Phildopip on May 1, 2007 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Mechanics Video
Recently posted on mlb.com, they talk a bit about Felix along with Liriano and Bartolo Colon.

Watch  it!

by guest on May 1, 2007 10:12 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

And where are the Major League teams?
The amazing thing about all this is that Major League teams don't know any better than relying on traditional wisdom, which as far as anybody can tell, tells them nothing about who's likely to get hurt and/or how to prevent that. Yet they'll plunk down their money to sign a Gil Meche or a Barry Zito and just cross their fingers.

And they can't spend a million or two a year to find out even a little bit about this that might help them spend their money more wisely? Bring together some intelligent, knowlegable specialists from different fields that can put their heads together and come up with some real answers. Arm specialists, Physicists, Physical Therapists, Mechanical Engineers, Surgeons, and yes, baseball scouts and former pitchers.

With as much as money they're spending each year on pitching, probably $30 million or so per team (YIKES!), why wouldn't you want to get as much real, verifiable information as possible to make the right decisions?

Would any other big business spend their money so blindly?

by nathaniel dawson on May 1, 2007 7:20 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

By reading a game thread of your own volition you agree to accept all liability for any and all damage done to your delicate sensibilities.
Start posting about the Mariners »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Max_small
The Turkey Bowl (Nov 27, 1:00pm)
Small
The Sabermetrics of Cats

Recent FanPosts

X_ray_small
Econometrics Applied: New Robust Measure of Repeatable Skills
Small
11/23: Weekly? Rumor Open Thread
Small
WAR gains major exposure
Laughing_man_elmex_small
AFL Championship game thread
Smell-the-glove_small
OFFTOP 11/19 - The Hand of Fraud
Small
Tony Blengino interview on 710 AM ESPN Seattle's Hot Stove League
Ichirocameron_small
OTFPOTD 11/16: Recipes Edition
Small
Lookout Landing as a communtiy

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Sexy People

1_small Graham

Small Matthew

Small Jeff