this was a good article. but i am not enough of an expert on pitching or human interaction to tell if he's off his nut or someone who is unfairly ignored.

I didn't even read the article, but in may experience many so-called nuts are unfairly ignored.

Does he have any former students in pro baseball? I thought I heard Josh Collmenter was, but I never saw it confirmed. Anyone else?

I didn't even read the article, but in may experience many so-called nuts are unfairly ignored.

It's a good read. I really wish he was a hidden genius, b/c it would be a great, fun story. But, my gut is that he's just a nut.

I've always thought that if his methods were all that and a bag of chips, we would have seen at least ONE of his pitchers in MLB by now...

He's had a couple of guys make it to MLB, I recall at least one playing for Tampa.

#4 I'm pretty sure Tim McCarver has said that Marshall is impossible to work with.

Then again, McCarver can't stand him and that may affect the way he sees Marshall and the rest of baseball.

One thing that was clear as far back as 1969. Marshall was a smart guy and a really tricky guy for a lot of people to deal with.

Jim Bouton and Mike Marshall pitched together briefly on the Astros (it was early in Marshall's career). My recollection from "Ball Four" is that Bouton really liked Marshall, partly because Marshall was so different from other ballplayers, a little unconventional and always thinking a lot.

Jim Bouton and Mike Marshall pitched together briefly on the Astros

it was actually on the Pilots in 69 then the astros in 70

My hunch is that Marshall is a crank because:

1) He's too damn sure of himself. He studied things, here are the results, therefore they're right. Are they different from what everyone else - including other doctors in the field - says/believes? Just means they're wrong and he's right.

When I've read Marshall talk on his system, he says that any shortcomings are the result of the pitcher's own limited talent or a misapplication of his system. It reminds me of a late night TV huckster promoting a weight loss system. Don't get me wrong - I'm sure Marshall believes in what he's saying, but he doesn't seem to believe in or be aware of any of his limitations.

2) I don't mind that he's been given the cold shoulder by the baseball community. But it does give me pause that he's completely out of step with the medical community. Hey - the lone voice can be right. Conventional Wisdom can be wrong. But the lone wolf can also be a nut.

I tend to agree with #10

I also vaguely recall Bouton saying that Marshall was one of the most intelligent athletes he'd ever met... Of course intelligence does not mean that someone is not a crank.

The specific thing I remember from Ball Four is that Marshall told Bouton that he should release the ball as close to the plate as possible because it "shortens the hypotenuse." No, I've never examined the data to see if this works but that kind of reasoning doesn't inspire me to learn more.

Also, I recall Marshall argued with his coach that a pitcher's selection of pitches and location should be completely random to have the best chance of fooling the batter. I don't think game theory would agree with this premise.

Marshall is one of the more distinct characters in Ball Four. Individualistic, even eccentric, opinionated and contrarian, contemptuous of the coaches (of course the Pilots coaching staff for the most part deserved all the contempt that could be heaped on them), and the advice he got. His ex-wife, Nancy Marshall, also tried to do a number on him in Home Games, co-authored with Bouton's ex. Marshall is probably one of the first players to get heavily into training with weights.

tfa article mentions him pitching in 106 games, but casual baseball fans under 40 might think that means 100 to 120 innings.

In 1974, Marshall pitched 208.3 innings - all in relief! It seemed weird even by the standards back then; it seems absurd now. He went 15-12 with 21 saves.

The year before, 179 relief IP in 92 G.

also fun that he had his 2nd-best season in 1979 with the Twins, 90 G and 143 IP of 166 ERA+ ball.

fyi, he started 14 G for those 1969 Pilots, 5th most on the team.

The specific thing I remember from Ball Four is that Marshall told Bouton that he should release the ball as close to the plate as possible because it "shortens the hypotenuse." No, I've never examined the data to see if this works but that kind of reasoning doesn't inspire me to learn more.

I don't know about "shortening the hypotenuse" but the release point thing is apparently legit. There was this article from last year about it.

He may have also said it to Bouton about release point, but Marshall definitely said that the lowered mound in 1969 would benefit the pitchers more than the hitters because it "shortens the hypotenuse."

Marshall deserves a lot more respect for he actually accomplished than he's gotten, mainly due to his abrasive personality. He did win a CYA, and it wasn't like it was a fluke. He had other years where he ranked him in the voting for CYA and the MVP. It seems that he came along at a time when the role of the reliever was in flux, and, of course, he had years when he started games a lot. A more recent and similar pitcher was Bob Stanley. Both approach being unique, but the way they were used, first this way then that, compromised any great legacy they might have had.

Maybe I'm being obtuse but I don't understand the scare quotes. If side a is 60'6", and side b is the height of the ball at the release point, the distance from the release point to the catcher's mitt would approximate a hypotenuse. Extending the pitcher's release point closer to the plate would shorten the hypotenuse.

Maybe you guys are making fun of the general theory, but what he's suggesting in the anecdote would in fact do what he says it would.

An interesting article on Marshall's career in Hardball Times. My only real recollection of him when he pitched for the Astros is the bizarre pick off move he developed. Astros' broadcasters were dumbfounded. Astros' coaches didn't know what to think. But it was effective. Until I read the HT article, I had forgotten that Marshall's outspoken role with the player's association also hurt his reputation with teams.

#19 He had the pickoff move with the Pilots. When Bouton asks Marshall why his pick-off move works, Marshall says "Newton's 3rd Law, of course." To which Bouton writes something like "Of course. Except when I try his move, I hear grinding noises in my shoulder."

Maybe you guys are making fun of the general theory, but what he's suggesting in the anecdote would in fact do what he says it would.

And I didn't realize the idea that you would want to release the ball as close to the plate as possible was something that needed to be proposed as radical or verified through study. That seems friggin' obvious to me.

He may have also said it to Bouton about release point, but Marshall definitely said that the lowered mound in 1969 would benefit the pitchers more than the hitters because it "shortens the hypotenuse."

That's it! My memory failed me.

Maybe I'm being obtuse but I don't understand the scare quotes.

They aren't scare quotes. They're the part of this statement I remembered with specificity.

i RTFA, it's nicely written (as you'd expect from someone like marshall). some thoughts:

-> houston's manager in 1970 was harry walker. no surprise he wouldn't want a 3rd year player telling him things.
-> marshall had a pretty good (1.98 era, but peripherals not great / it needs to be adjusted for the times) rookie season in '67 with detroit as the #2 closer. in 1969 seattle, he got beat up as a starter, and had pitched 4 games with houston in 1970 which he got beat up as a reliever. i can understand why they'd want to send him down. but as a 27 year with medical / coaching aspirations who feels he's smarter than others, i can understand why he wouldn't want to go back to the minors.
-> he definitely got screwed by detroit in '68 getting sent down. unfortunately, i can believe the players association rep as being part of the reason. it's on a similar level with lannan being sent down this year.

the thing that i knew marshall for, besides his pitching techniques, was his stance on autographs. i remember reading in the early 80s that marshall wouldn't sign autographs because the heroes were people like teachers. i thought of getting all my (current) teachers to sign, then emailing him a photocopy and asking for his...but never did. anyhow, i'm glad i didn't, because i found out later he wouldn't sign for his teammates either, and wasn't friendly to fans at the ballpark.

i heard something about him signing some autographs 10? years ago or so for some large sum of money, so i checked up now about it. he now signs exclusively for a guy named bill corcoran, where corcoran pays $100/autograph (as of 2004) to marshall.
http://www.drmikemarshall.com/Question-Answer2004.html

interesting part of that Q&A , #804 - topps put marshall on a couple "extra" cards in 1974 which they didn't pay him for. "As an aside, Topps never paid me for those two extra cards, which is why you will not find a Topps card of me for my 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980 or 1981 seasons or a posed picture after 1967, another card for which they did not pay me, that they did not alter from a 1967 picture. Topps can never claim that they have full sets of all major league players for those years."

his Q&As; (props to keeping them up there!) seem to be educational about the stuff he's passionate about, and (pick your adjective here) about other things.

And I didn't realize the idea that you would want to release the ball as close to the plate as possible was something that needed to be proposed as radical or verified through study. That seems friggin' obvious to me.

Just note that at the distance of the mound, the hypotenuse (assuming a release point three feet above the strike zone) will be about an inch longer than the straight distance at level height. With the three extra feet in height, you need to put less of the ball's velocity in the y-direction*, and it will cross the plate some thousands of a second before the pitch that was thrown at level height but with part of it's momentum diverted upwards. In short Marshall's error is that he is disregarding gravity and just going by the geometry. A pitcher on a high mound or with a high release point doesn't have to fight gravity as much as the level pitcher. The hypotenuse is your friend.

*) A 95 mph pitch can be thrown level (no y-momentum at all) at that height and end up in the strike zone anyway.

I collected this 1968 Marshall card:
http://us.ebid.net/for-sale/topps-mike-marshall-ex-exmt-tigers-19498904.htm#pic

but he looked so different, and a couple of years went by, that I hadn't connected him as being the 'iron man' guy 6-8 years later....

Also, I recall Marshall argued with his coach that a pitcher's selection of pitches and location should be completely random to have the best chance of fooling the batter. I don't think game theory would agree with this premise.

If you are not random, then you give the hitter a chance to pick up on patterns. It's not easy for a pitcher to stick with random pitch selection though. Most pitchers are better able to throw some pitches for strikes better than others, so when they get behind the hitter can zone in on that pitch, or take ball 4 if the pitcher throws a harder to control pitch.

the game in question apppears to be Oct 3 1981, a 3-0 loss to Montreal. Marshall gave up a hit to jerry Manual in the 8th for the final run. THe LF playing too deep would be Dave Kingman.

Marshall came off as some sort of goofball in that Bobbi Bouton book. I think they portrayed him as sex starved or something, maybe I am forgetting it. It's good to get a different perspective on the man.

I remember when the steroids story was breaking wide open and I guess it was Rob Dibble claiming pitchers never lifted weights they had no need for it. And I remember Mike Marshall being a big lifter in 70s, but so was Tom Seaver, who argued that it was important for leg drive as well as avoiding injuries.

From a purely physical perspective, Marshall's insistence on straight-line mechanics has always seemed eccentric bordering on crankish to me. There's nothing special about straight line motion, except that Newton's laws have a simple form when you use rectangular coordinates. But humans aren't made of rectangles -- if you move your hand in a straight line from a point a couple of feet behind your head to a point a couple of feet ahead of it, you'll end up twisting and bending your arm in a complicated and tricky way. In contrast, the classic pitching motion is easily described in terms of angles and joints -- you pivot your body around your hip, your arm around your shoulder, your forearm around your elbow, etc.

In a rotating joint picture of the human body, I don't see anything special at all about a pitching motion that pushes the ball through a straight line.

Marshall is probably one of the first players to get heavily into training with weights.

Honus Wagner was heavily into training with weights 70 years before that.

So it's been surmised for a long time. Is it now definitely established? Anyway, there are probably others, too, here and there since at least the beginning of the last century, especially among those players that went to college. And, of course, weights are just one way of doing resistance training. But I was thinking of as being precursors that led to weight training becoming the thing to do. I think weight-training might of played a part in Yaz's breakthrough, too.