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:
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 |
71 comments
Comments
I don't think it's a *huge* problem.
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
by Grubbie on Apr 30, 2007 8:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm curious
by ThundaPC on Apr 30, 2007 8:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure
by Jeff on Apr 30, 2007 9:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
One thing you have to remember
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
by Edgar for Pres on Apr 30, 2007 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, yes
by Graham on Apr 30, 2007 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But more appropriate than a medic
Someone with qualifications in biomechanics, together with maybe a background in mechanical engineering, and maybe an athletic background, would be ideal.
by rfloh on May 1, 2007 1:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am beginning to think that some
by Edgar for Pres on Apr 30, 2007 10:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You also have to remember
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
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
by Graham on May 1, 2007 12:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I believe
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.
by rfloh on May 1, 2007 1:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Joint loading for pitching
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
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.
by rfloh on May 1, 2007 4:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, yes
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
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
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
by wgrd on May 1, 2007 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It wouldn't have to be perfect
by Graham on May 1, 2007 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the problem is that
by Edgar for Pres on May 1, 2007 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
One of my project options
by Graham on May 1, 2007 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, they're putting lots
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.
by rfloh on May 1, 2007 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I'm saying
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
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
by Graham on May 1, 2007 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If anybody
by Edgar for Pres on May 1, 2007 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heh,
by rfloh on May 1, 2007 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand / understood your point
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.
by rfloh on May 1, 2007 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Aha
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
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.
by rfloh on May 1, 2007 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A good idea
by Graham on May 1, 2007 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Damn, forgot this
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.
by rfloh on May 1, 2007 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As a guess
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
I agree with your hunch, both because of possibly changing mechanics and also changing mechanical qualities of the muscles / tendons / ligaments.
by rfloh on May 1, 2007 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I know.
by Jeff on May 1, 2007 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Although, actually...
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
by Graham on May 1, 2007 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clarification:
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.
by Graham on May 1, 2007 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, it should be simple.
by Jeff on May 1, 2007 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Other than SSS
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.
by rfloh on May 1, 2007 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm curious as to whether
by Graham on May 1, 2007 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you had lots of money
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
by rfloh on May 1, 2007 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well....
by Edgar for Pres on May 1, 2007 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tests that isolate
If you want to figure out which muscles are acting, you're probably best of using EMG or a myotensiometer.
by rfloh on May 1, 2007 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well I guess
by Edgar for Pres on May 1, 2007 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dunno
by Graham on May 1, 2007 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with
Most isolated tests are done using machines, with a fixed movement path, at a "constant" velocity.
by rfloh on May 1, 2007 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll be honest
by Graham on May 1, 2007 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well of couse I was suggesting
by Edgar for Pres on May 1, 2007 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And of course, the flip side
by Gomez on Apr 30, 2007 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that's definitely true.
by Jeff on May 1, 2007 5:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very nice analysis,
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
by Mere Tantalisers on May 1, 2007 6:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Mark Prior
by phil333 on May 1, 2007 7:06 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It is really all about mechanics
by Graham on May 1, 2007 7:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Speaking of which
by Jeff on May 1, 2007 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting article over at the Hardball Times
by Phildopip on May 1, 2007 8:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Irony!
by david h on May 1, 2007 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually IIRC MGL's
by rfloh on May 1, 2007 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn't presenting this as evidence
If I had been purporting this as definite evidence, I would have said so. Instead, I titled it "interesting article".
by Phildopip on May 1, 2007 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mechanics Video
by guest on May 1, 2007 10:12 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
And where are the Major League teams?
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

by 












