Interesting, if true. I was surprised to hear this take on his motion, because Prior was always touted in college as having picture-perfect mechanics.

If Marshall has a problem, then it's that he knows too much, if you ask me.

Yeah, well, who asked you?

That was a great read actually.

What's Marshall's plan to keep guys from hitting line drives off Prior's elbow?

This isn't the first time that Marshall has criticized Prior's mechanics. The Daily Herald had a story that was well-illustrated with pictures of Prior and Marshall's explanations/critiques of his mechanics. They had it online for much of the 2005 season, but I can't find it now.

I doubt "picture perfect" has ever been used to describe Prior's windup. His mechanics have always been questionable at best.

Has Marshall ever given an example of what he considers a good motion? Most of what I hear about him is criticism of other pitchers mechanics, but it would be good to know what he thinks is "good" so we can see if it makes a difference.

I doubt "picture perfect" has ever been used to describe Prior's windup. His mechanics have always been questionable at best.

Google "Mark Prior" and "perfect mechanics". People aren't saying it now, but before and after he was drafted and all during 2003 the words "Mark Prior" couldn't be mentioned without "perfect mechanics".

In fact, an April 3rd, 2003 "Ask BA" on Baseball America had Jim Callis say,

"I'd take Prior first because a dominant pitcher is harder to find than a dominant hitter. With his stuff, command and picture-perfect mechanics, he's going to be the best pitcher in baseball over the next 15 years."

Maybe not picture perfect but a few quotes from a cursory google search:

http://usctrojans.collegesports.com/genrel/garrett-colm52.html

"He's extremely bright, extremely mature, extremely poised and extremely composed. His physical skills--thanks to the God-given gift of a great arm--are combined with great mechanics and great conditioning"

Donut boy
http://www.suntimes.com/output/mariotti/cst-spt-jay23.html

Not when we've seen him dominate in stretches with flawless mechanics

I thought I'd find more - but a lot must be archived. Will Carrolls book does a comparison side-by-side of Wood and Prior, using Prior as the baseline for great.

I doubt "picture perfect" has ever been used to describe Prior's windup.

This comment is almost the platonic ideal of wrongness.

What's Marshall's plan to keep guys from hitting line drives off Prior's elbow?

Sending large aid packages to rebuilding European nations?

Has Marshall ever given an example of what he considers a good motion?

It's possible I'm imagining this, but I think at one point he said Clemens was one of the closest in terms of active pitchers.

Has Marshall ever given an example of what he considers a good motion?

Semi-regular poster (and professional pitcher) Chad Bradford Wannabe said he saw a Marshall disciple pitch a while back. The way CBW described that pitcher's motion -- well, Marshall must have some radically different ideas about how pitchers should throw the ball. Apparently every pitcher in the majors has poor mechanics.

I very specifically remember hearing that Prior had "the best mechanics of any pitcher since Tom Seaver."

In fact, I remember watching a Cubs playoff game with my girlfriend, and for some reason trying to impress her by telling her how good Mark Prior's mechanics were, even though I actually had no idea and was just regurgitating what I had read, and even though there is no chance on earth that she would ever care about a thing like that or find my knowledge of it impressive.

Has he commented on Dontrelle's? So far he hasn't run into any problems (*knocking on wood*), and it's nice to see success in the face of Emanski-like conformity.

Has Marshall ever given an example of what he considers a good motion?

If you read his book end to end, you can find a lot of information on what he considers to be a good motion. This chapter has most of his recommendations consolidated.

Even when I first saw him throw in 2002-3, I've always thought Prior's motion was particularly "arm-y" and have never really considered his mechanics all that great. I doubt very much that most of the pundits/writers/sportscasters who throw around the picture-perfect thing have any idea what constitutes good mechanics regardless.

Prior thread, sort of -- from mlbtraderumors.com

Cubs Tejada Trade On The Table

An emailer reports that the Cubs are awaiting word from the Orioles on this offer:

Cubs get:

Miguel Tejada, Erik Bedard

Orioles get:

Mark Prior, Rich Hill, Corey Patterson

This proposal is on the table. The report comes from Bruce Levine on ESPN Radio 1000. Levine will be back on at 11am central time with an update, so I'll keep you posted.

If true, you'd think the O's would have to ask for Cedeno as well...

I doubt very much that most of the pundits/writers/sportscasters who throw around the picture-perfect thing have any idea what constitutes good mechanics regardless.

The first quote in #10 is from USC's baseball coach.

I doubt "picture perfect" has ever been used to describe Prior's windup.

This comment is almost the platonic ideal of wrongness.

Does that mean Artie Ziff gets thrown into the BTF cave? Will he only be allowed to view baseball news by watching Meatwad make shadow puppets?

Cubs get:

Miguel Tejada, Erik Bedard

Orioles get:

Mark Prior, Rich Hill, Corey Patterson

Ugh...why on earth would the Orioles make that trade?

RP, they don't have to; that's what the Cubbies have offered, supposedly.

I know...my point is that it's a ridiculous offer (if true). Even the idiots in the Orioles FO would laugh at that.

It's not TOTALLY ridiculous. Just not overwhelming.

I doubt "picture perfect" has ever been used to describe Prior's windup.

This comment is almost the platonic ideal of wrongness.

The comment is correct in that he did doubt that "picture perfect" had been used. The doubt is what is incorrect.

The comment is correct in that he did doubt that "picture perfect" had been used. The doubt is what is incorrect.

Hmmmm...fair enough.

Dr. Mike does think most pitchers in the major leagues today have poor mechanics. He espouses a whole different philosophy towards pitching and if you read his site, it sounds pretty credible. But it is so completely different then what is taught today that he will have a hard time gaining much traction, unless one of his rubber-armed proteges had the stuff to make it to the big leagues and dominate. Much like Bill James in the 70's , Marshall is the Don Quixote of pitching coaches right now, time will tell if his theories will ever get a chance or if he is even correct at all.

The problem with Marshall's theories is that he has no diagrams on his site, so his description of "proper" mechanics sounds insane, to me at least.

As far as I can tell, imagine Kevin Gregg with no leg kick instead of a tiny leg kick, but with this like pendulum thing beforehand, and ... hell, never mind, I can't make any sense of it.

Marshall on Prior, as well as CBW's account of seeing a Marshall disciple, can be found at that link ...

For right now, Marshall's work is just speculation. Highly pleasing speculation, but without any evidence except Marshall's pedigree and the theory upon which his work is based. To me, Marshall's work sounds too good to be true.

Marshall is a bitter old guy who's mad nobody's listening to him. Maybe he's right; but how does his personal record without injury enter into the equasion of deciding that?

Stylistically, he reminds me of Dick Mills, the self-proclaimed "pitching rebel" who managed to get his son, Ryan Mills, a big dollar contract and a first-round draft pick with the Twins, only to have him turn into a pumpkin once he actually started pitching at higher levels. Judging by his innings pitched in 2001, 2003, and 2004, I would also hazard a guess that he had injury problems, something Mills claims capable of preventing. Everybody else is a moron, contravailing received wisdom is not "credible", and at the end of every post, an offer to send a 30-page free report. Blecch.

I can't find the stats or box scores, but Ryan Mills was overworked during Arizona State's College World Series run in 1998.

In partial defense of Marshall, he does claim that he never really figured out the whole pitching thing until after he retired. He broke a rib in 1975 from bad mechanics throwing the curve (or so he says), and he says he figured out how to really throw a curve much later.

I'm a little torn on Marshall's credibility. He loses a little credibility in my mind by implying that a pitching coach would be helped by knowing Newton's laws. I'm pretty sure everyone has an intuitive understanding of those laws even if they're not aware of it. Simple physics isn't going to tell you whether you can throw a fastball harder by moving it in a straight line or in an arch. It depends on the details of how the body is designed. On the other hand, I would agree that a pitching coach should know about the rotator cuff muscles and that Hendry should be putting serious effort into how best to protect his pitcher's arms (if he isn't already). I also think Marshall might well be right about too much rest leading to atrophy.

If I had to guess, I'd bet that Peterson's approach of filming pitchers when they're pitching well and when their not as well as comparing pitchers to an ideal sucessful form (I think that Peterson is the one who said that Clemens is close to the ideal) is more fruitful than Marshall's plan of inventing new techniques based on first principles.

I can't find the stats or box scores, but Ryan Mills was overworked during Arizona State's College World Series run in 1998.

Mills started 2 games in the CWS, including the championship game in which he was shelled (6 runs in 1+ inning). He'd pitched 108 1/3 innings prior to the CWS.

Mills had severe control problems during his early minor league career, and then he got hurt in '01. The Twins finally gave up on him in '04.

-- MWE

Newton's Laws as they're commonly taught don't seem like they'd be intuitively applicable to pitching, anyway. I noticed in the earlier thread that Marshall never talks about torque or moments of inertia.

It's not at all clear to me (and I _do_ understand Newton's Laws very well, thank you) that Marshall's mechanics are anything close to ideal. If you want a better physical model, I'd suggest reading _Lefty's Legacy_, the biography of Koufax, where he compares pitching to a multi-armed catapult.

Has he commented on Dontrelle's? So far he hasn't run into any problems (*knocking on wood*), and it's nice to see success in the face of Emanski-like conformity.

The real oddity of Willis' motion is his windup and how he twists his body- I don't actually see how he puts more stress on his arm (or part thereof) than he would with a more conventional windup.

The 69-76 Mets had several pitchers, Seaver, Koosman, Matlack who had been taught to use their bodies as levers- when they threw their back knees would brush the ground... After a few innings they would always have a dirt spot there- I don't see pitchers doing that anymore...

Everybody else is a moron, contravailing received wisdom is not "credible", and at the end of every post, an offer to send a 30-page free report. Blecch.

OTOH, Marshall is one of the only pitching coaches with a doctorate in physiology, which makes me want to listen to him more than a so-called pitching rebel.

I noticed in the earlier thread that Marshall never talks about torque or moments of inertia.

I have less than zero understanding of Newton's Laws, but he does prescribe a pitch called a "Torque Fastball." I'm not sure if that relates to what you're discussing or not, just tossing that out there ...

Mills was overworked, if only once: He threw 149 pitches in the Midwest Regional championship game to beat Georgia Tech 3-1. That victory got ASU to Omaha.
http://thesundevils.collegesports.com/sports/m-basebl/recaps/052598aab.html

Newton's Laws as they're commonly taught don't seem like they'd be intuitively applicable to pitching, anyway.

<a href="http://www.drmikemarshall.com/ChapterTwenty-Nine.html">Here</a? is where Marshall does most of his jabbering about the laws of physics. Check out 29(d)(1) - 29(d)(2) where he argues against flaws in the traditional system and improvements in the Marshall method.

In partial defense of Marshall, he does claim that he never really figured out the whole pitching thing until after he retired. He broke a rib in 1975 from bad mechanics throwing the curve (or so he says), and he says he figured out how to really throw a curve much later.

In partial criticism of Marshall, this conveniently means that he didn't prove this radical theory when he had a major league pitcher willing and able to be a guinea pig. Marshall (probably undeservedly) reminds me of L. Ron Hubbard: If your theory of the mind really leads to perfection, how are you so batshit insane?

Marshall knows Mills, and predictably hates him. (Warning: the above two links are HUGE HTML files and take quite a while to download.)

I doubt very much that most of the pundits/writers/sportscasters who throw around the picture-perfect thing have any idea what constitutes good mechanics regardless.

The first quote in #10 is from USC's baseball coach.

True. But anecdotally, having pitched in college, I can tell you that most college pitching coaches have no clue what constitutes good mechanics. They get their job b/c they're buddies with the manager, who gets his job from the boosters.

But it's beside the point, anyway. You can hardly see Prior on TV without some lunkhead announcer going on about how great his mechanics are. The announcer can't actually tell you what's great about Prior's mechanics - he's just repeating what he's heard from everyone else. Prior's mechanics may in fact be "perfect" and I may wrong. Or it could be an often-repeated anecdote that traces back to, perhaps, someone like Prior's college pitching coach.

It's all a conspiracy, I tell you!

I'd have no problem having Marshall on my staff as a consultant, if nothing else because anyone that's spent so much time singularly focused on pitching and pitching mechanics must have SOMETHING to offer. I doubt he'd last very long, though, because he seems to have a bit of an absolutist quality.

In the end, I don't think there's any such thing as a perfect motion for any overhand pitcher (submariners and true side-wheelers are another matter). The human shoulder just isn't well built to do the things required of a top flight pitcher.

That doesn't mean ignoring the debate - just accepting that there's a tradeoff point between health and effectiveness. Like all things, you minimize the risk to the greatest extent possible with as little lost effectiveness as possible.

I'm neither a doctor nor a pitching coach, but it seems that the best motion is one that minimizes the oft-injured and vital shoulder and elbow muscles and ligaments. It seems pretty logical that the best way to minimize this is a fluid, balanced motion that doesn't put these areas through a rapid succession of jerky contortions -- presumably the balanced 'plane' that Prior does seem to have in spades, unlike Kerry Wood, whose motion doesn't seem to take in a straight line to the plate.

The other oft-cited key is to use the legs - and here, I agree with a poster above. Despite having the perfect set of thighs and calves for a power pitcher, Prior doesn't always seem to get the most leverage out of his lower body.

I think it would be intersting to see comparisons between his motion now and in 2003. I'm wondering if the achilles issues of 2004 didn't subtly alter his motion to be slightly less legs and slightly more arm and shoulder.

Either way, I still wouldn't trade him for Miguel Tejeda.

If I was given a shot at running a team (I can dream) I'd certainly be looking closely at Dr Marshall's ideas. Take a team has had long term problems (ala Detroit) and take a risk. Heck, how much worse could it get after over 10 years of sub-500 ball?

Marshall sounds like a crank in the links in 43, but a lot of people thought that Johnny Sain was just a crabby old man, and Mazzone sure did OK by following his lead.

I go back and forth on it.

Knowing Newton is irrelevant, but extensive knowledge in kinesiology and exercise physiology would almost certainly be valuable in studying why pitchers break down and possible ways to prevent it from happening. Would be interested in reading further on his ideas about the proper ratio of rest and work for pitchers.

Kudos to the person above who admitted he was full of crap trying to impress a girl. Too bad most folks can't admit they're often full of crap regurgitating what they little understand, but it's certainly more embarrassing to admit you're interested in impressing your fellow geeks on the internet.

Course, the net's pretty much about one thing in one way or another.

Strokin it.

Knowing Newton is irrelevant, but extensive knowledge in kinesiology and exercise physiology would almost certainly be valuable in studying why pitchers break down and possible ways to prevent it from happening. Would be interested in reading further on his ideas about the proper ratio of rest and work for pitchers.

Kudos to the person above who admitted he was full of crap trying to impress a girl. Too bad most folks can't admit they're often full of crap regurgitating what they little understand, but it's certainly more embarrassing to admit you're interested in impressing your fellow geeks on the internet.

Course, the net's pretty much about one thing in one way or another.

Strokin it.

Sorry, new web browser.

The torque fastball refers to torque placed on the fastball, as in a cut fastball. I'm talking about torque, angular momentum, and moment of inertia of the arm itself.

Chapter 29 is exactly what I'm talking about. He doesn't work through the pitching motion as a physics problem (If he did, he'd almost cerainly need to use a more convenient coordinate system.) He just states the three laws of motion, works one or two oversimplified problems, and then says everybody needs to pitch the way he did, or else. I certainly don't see any evidence that he actually worked out the forces felt by the various tendons and ligaments in different motions, and decided on his mechanics after working out the answers.

I don't know where else to put this, but Chicago sports radio is apparently reporting that Jon Garland has signed a three-year contract with the White Sox worth $29 Million.

Kind of a shocker, if true - I thought sure he'd test the market.

Rotoworld is confirming - 3 years, $29 Million

So, what now, KW? Trade Contreras? Or give him a three year extension too, and then peddle McCarthy, Uribe and a spare part or two for Miguel Tejada?

The payroll would go up quite a bit, but that would be a stroke of genius. It'd be even better, of course, if he traded Contreras, Uribe, + for Miggy

I go back and forth on it.

So does Mazzone.