Geez, what a downer.

Damn, now the Lerners have an excuse not to draft him.

Even if his mechanics are like Mark Prior's, if his stuff is like Prior's I'd still take him.

First, mechanical analyses are pretty ancedotal. Until there's a good way of figuring out who's right or wrong, I think the question will always be: is it bad mechanics or the mere act of pitching that causes certain pitchers to break down?

Second, even if a breakdown is inevitable, it's an open question as to when that breakdown will occur. According to some, Carlos Zambrano has bad mechanics. With 210 career starts and a 128 ERA+, I don't think anyone will have the right to crow if / when he breaks down.

Finally, even if you know he'll break down before the age of 28, I think you take 4 seasons with ~100 starts of 123 ERA+ ball from a #1 pick.

Yeah, this is nonsense. I'd take my chances. There's a lot of risk involved with guys with "bad" mechanics, but there's at least just as much risk in pinpointing "bad" mechanics that will lead to an injury in the first place.

First, mechanical analyses are pretty ancedotal. Until there's a good way of figuring out who's right or wrong, I think the question will always be: is it bad mechanics or the mere act of pitching that causes certain pitchers to break down?

I agree with the first part. Disagree with the second. Firstly it doesn't have to be a binary issue of bad mechanics vs mere act of pitching. It could be a combination of both. Secondly, it could be a combination of both, AND various other factors, such as workload, ie not so much the act of pitching, but the act of pitching too much, too soon.

Frankie Rodriguez has taken 6 seasons to make his horrible mechanics simply bad. Lotta work.

Since when did/does Mark Prior have bad mechanics?

We've always been at war with Eurasia.

We've always been at war with Eurasia.

Seriously. I thought I was going insane reading this article. Was it all just a dream?

Who is Kyle Boddy and what are his credentials? Seriously, I know that CBW used to pitch and obviously Arizona respected him enough to hire him. But I'm not familiar with this guy. That said, this is a part of baseball analysis I don't follow all that much.

Since when did/does Mark Prior have bad mechanics?

His mechanics were made retroactively bad when he got injured.

His mechanics were made retroactively bad when he got injured.

That's how I remember it too. His mechanics were perfect until he started getting hurt, and then various experts started claiming that they had detected a small flaw in his motion.

I thought it was more interesting when it came out after one of his surgeries that he had a "loose" shoulder (or whatever the specific term was), and that he was probably going to be more prone to injury, no matter how good or flawed his mechanics were.

Incidentally, the headline on this made me wonder why someone had posted a Formula 1 article.

Info on Boddy

Incidentally, the headline on this made me wonder why someone had posted a Formula 1 article.

Or that a planned NASCAR venue in the northern Shenandoah Valley of Virginia had fallen through.

That's how I remember it too. His mechanics were perfect until he started getting hurt, and then various experts started claiming that they had detected a small flaw in his motion.

It's possible that his mechanics started off good, but then injuries negatively affected his mechanics, resulting in kind of a downward spiral of injury leading to worse mechanics leading to injury. It does seem like some people are now saying that his mechanics were bad all along, though, which is not how I remember it.

His mechanics were made retroactively bad when he got injured.

I love it. Revisionist history at its best, err... worst.

Will Carroll's Saving the Pitcher (an interesting concept, but a tedious book for all but the most avid of baseball pitching geeks, who happen also to be doctors or physical therapists) makes Prior (and his coach, Tom House) the poster-boy for great mechanics. Carroll has more or less maintained that Prior's mechanics were good, but that he was overworked in 2003 and his mechanics "deteriorated", leading to the injury.

why does this crap get posted?

I don't think it was a matter of Prior's mechanics being good until he got hurt. I think it was because of there is no agreement on just what good mechanics are. For example, most scouts and baseball traditionalists are concerned that Tim Lincecum's mechanics will make him injury prone. However, the Driveline Mechanics folks like his mechanics. Hence, when judging mechanics one can only say that a pitcher has good or bad mechanics by so and so's standard. One thing I will say in defense of the folks at Driveline Mechanics. At least they are very specific about what they like and don't like.

That's how I remember it too. His mechanics were perfect until he started getting hurt, and then various experts started claiming that they had detected a small flaw in his motion.

Mike Marshall said when he was drafting that his elbow would never survive.... then his shoulder got balkanized.

Those who said Prior had good mechanics were not orthopedists. Marshall is a fellow biomechanist, and I agree that Prior was always doomed to be hurt.

Strasburg looks much less extreme than Prior - no hyperabduction to shred his labrum, more vertical forearm at left foot plant to take stress off rotator cuff. I think Pedro is a better mechanical comp, which is still a bit risky.

He's at least less likely, from a mechanical standpoint, to get hurt than Prior was.

I'll echo #19... my joke was about the nature of these discussions, not at the expense of DM or anyone else specifically.

He's at least less likely, from a mechanical standpoint, to get hurt than Prior was.

Has the biomechanics of pitching evolved to the point that this can be predicted with any certainty? With all due respect, I'm skeptical, as I think each individual has too many variables working in too many intertwined way specific to that pitcher's physical make up and history that I wonder if any useful generalities can be determined. I'd love to hear the rationale, though. Pitching mechanics is one of the frontiers of sabr-research, for sure. I'm skeptical, but I think I'm opened-minded about it.

I want to try to phrase this as respectfully as possible, as to avoid stepping on a lot of toes all at once.

I'm very distrustful of articles or studies that start off trying to reach conclusions based upon a single player, and that's true whether it's essentially SABR stuff (BABIP, LD%, etc.), PitchF/X, or biomechanics.

I'd like to see more studies where the biomechanics folks, instead of just looking at one pitcher, pick a trait and choose a lot of similar pitchers to look at. Or go ahead and rank pitchers by injury risk and let's see if your list is more predictive than a simple Marcels projection for playing time. I'd feel a lot better about these micro analysis if we started from the macro and moved down, instead of starting micro like everyone seems to.

(If I'm simply not read enough, and this sort of work IS going on, please let me know about it!)

Has the biomechanics of pitching evolved to the point that this can be predicted with any certainty? With all due respect, I'm skeptical, as I think each individual has too many variables working in too many intertwined way specific to that pitcher's physical make up and history that I wonder if any useful generalities can be determined

Shooty, it looks to me that all he is saying is that generally, Strasburg's technique, from a biomechanical standpoint, is more likely to lead to injury than Prior's technique. It could very well be that there are other factors that make it less, or more likely, that Strasburg gets injured.

It's similar to saying that a runner's running technique is biomechanically more likely to lead to injury, persistent hamstring problems because he uses the "kick butt with heel / quadriceps technique" in the swing leg to use an example, than another runner's technique.

Shooty, it looks to me that all he is saying is that generally, Strasburg's technique, from a biomechanical standpoint, is more likely to lead to injury than Prior's technique. It could very well be that there are other factors that make it less, or more likely, that Strasburg gets injured.

Thanks. I would love for biomechanists to make predictions on the long term health of young pitchers and see how they do. I don't mean that in a "gotcha" sense, but if their techniques have some predictive value, then that would be incredibly valuable to a baseball team. Has anyone done this?

Has anyone done this?

Well, Mike Marshall has predicted that any pitcher not taught by him will suffer debilitating injuries, and that any pitcher taught by him will remain effective until they pass away from extreme old age.

Thanks. I would love for biomechanists to make predictions on the long term health of young pitchers and see how they do. I don't mean that in a "gotcha" sense, but if their techniques have some predictive value, then that would be incredibly valuable to a baseball team. Has anyone done this?

Because of other factors, how each individual team handles the workloads of its pitchers, just for one factor, I'm not really sure what the value of predictions are. Even if you limit the value of biomechanical analysis simply to getting pitchers to pitch with "better" technique, there is the question of what is "better" technique.

"Better" at protecting from injuries? "Better" at allowing a pitcher to throw as hard as possible? "Better" in the sense that that particular technique is more easily repeatable, or easier to learn? Etc. A particular technique that is "better" for one thing, might be worse for another.

Because of other factors, how each individual team handles the workloads of its pitchers, just for one factor, I'm not really sure what the value of predictions are. Even if you limit the value of biomechanical analysis simply to getting pitchers to pitch with "better" technique, there is the question of what is "better" technique.

That's fine, except from TFA:

I predict a steady loss of velocity over the first few years of his career leading to him dropping his arm slot and then a major shoulder injury.

Emphasis mine.

If the "biomechanists" are going to be out there making predictions - and they are, aren't they? - then they should be testing these predictions. Until they do, then I don't see a compelling reason for me to believe them.

If the "biomechanists" are going to be out there making predictions - and they are, aren't they? - then they should be testing these predictions. Until they do, then I don't see a compelling reason for me to believe them.

To be clear, I agree much more with you and Shooty, in that, I'm VERY sceptical of these kinds of biomechanical "analysis". Which was why I made that caveat the definition of what is "better" technique. I'm usually more sceptical than you and Shooty. IMO, most of these kinds of analysis are worthless, AND grossly irresponsible / unprofessional.

But, there's a difference between what someone sitting at home, and viewing videos on their computer can do, and what someone working with a team, with access to the pitchers can do.

For example, in cricket, it biomechanical research was that led to the change in rules regarding legal bowling technique. After it was discovered that the rules as written regarding what was legal bowling technique were biomechanically / physiologically impossible.

I want to see both much more real research, much more more nuanced analysis, not just that Pitcher X's mechanics are good / bad. Good / bad in what way, the pros and cons of those mechanics etc. I'm very suspicious of technique analysis that presents a particular technique as only bad, except in extreme cases where the athlete is using a technique that is clearly unsafe.