February 10, 2010
Order Now Get "The world champ of baseball annuals." The Hardball Times Baseball Annual 2010 features articles by THT's staff as well as Bill James, Tom Tango and Craig Wright and contains much, much more. Please support THT and use this link to purchase the Annual.  Get the fantasy book that everyone's raving about! Edited by THT Fantasy's Rob McQuown and Michael Street, and featuring our own Matt Hagen on prospects. Shipping now from ACTA! 
Pat Andriola
Rich Barbieri John Barten Brian Borawski Craig Brown Evan Brunell Chuck Brownson Kevin Dame Joshua Fisher David Gassko Jeremy Greenhouse Brandon Isleib Chris Jaffe Max Marchi Bruce Markusen Dan Novick Harry Pavlidis Alex Pedicini Jeff Sackmann Nick Steiner Dave Studeman Steve Treder Bryan Tsao Tuck! Geoff Young John Brattain And here's the full roster.
Or you can search by:
Gear up for baseball season with Chicago White Sox tickets and New York Yankees tickets. LA Angels tickets, Houston Astros tickets, and Atlanta Braves tickets are hot sellers! You can get Boston Red Sox tickets, San Diego Padres tickets or Chicago Cubs tickets for your favorite baseball fan. Coast to Coast Tickets has the best MLB tickets like Minnesota Twins tickets, LA Dodgers tickets, Milwaukee Brewers tickets, New York Met tickets and St. Louis Cardinals tickets. Find premium Chicago Cubs tickets and other Chicago tickets at JustGreatTickets.com. Chicago Cubs Tickets Chicago Tickets  All content on this site (including text, graphs, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
Verlander and Bonderman: If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, Part 2by Paul NymanJune 13, 2008 “When all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking. (Part 1 can be found here) In Part 1, I said the following, which I repeat because of its relevance to Verlander and Bonderman throwing baseballs: 1. The most crucial aspects of swinging and throwing are virtually invisible to the naked eye; they happen so fast and there's so much going on that it's virtually impossible for the naked eye and brain to process what is happening. Combine this with the infinite complexity of how the body creates movement and you have almost an impossible situation with respect to understanding how high-level performers swing and throw. Even with the best video footage, it still comes down to understanding how the body actually throws the baseball or swings the bat along with the analyst's experience. What constitutes “good” video analysis experience? The only answer I can give is that good video analysis requires the ability to explain using inference and induction using proven concepts about how a player should throw the baseball or swing a bat. All videos are not created equalMaintaining performance at the major league level is life on a knife edge. The smallest change in how a player throws or swings is the difference between playing at Fenway Park or playing in McCoy Stadium (of the Red Sox Triple-A affiliate). In Part 1, I presented these comparisons of Verlander and Bonderman.  On the left, Verlander 2008 throwing 89 mph; on the right, Verlander 2007 throwing 99.  On the left, Bonderman 2008 throwing 90 mph; on the right, Bonderman 2007 throwing 95 If you see a significant difference those clips of Verlander or of Bonderman, you should be writing this article and not me. I posted these comparisons to show how difficult it is to “see” how a pitcher can lose 5-10 mph off his fastball. More often than not, what you don't see or don't take into consideration is the difference. Also, there are problems in attempting to decide about throw or swing mechanics using off-the-air broadcast video. One is the need for consistency in camera angle and positioning. I always try to find clips that are from the same stadium and the same camera angle. Lacking that, I try to make sure that the clips are as close as possible to the same camera angle. I do that by picking reference points and comparing them. This picture illustrates that.  1. First, I look for a common baseline. In the case of these two clips, it's the edge of the standards that forms a horizontal reference line. 2. I create a reference point at home plate that approximates a point that would be directly in line with a point on the pitching mound (XYZ coordinates). 3. I then create a construction that approximates the camera angle (number of degrees from true center field view). In the Verlander clips, the angles are approximately 33 degrees and approximately 35 degrees respectively. This gives me confidence that I'm looking at Verlander from same relative camera angle in both clips. Why is this important? Because 30 frames per second does not capture the necessary dynamics of trying to throw abaseball more than 90 mph. And then what you don't seeMuch of what I understand about how the body throws or swings is based on physics—specifically, simulation models of the swing and throwing process. These simulations demonstrate the sensitivity of final throwing results to small changes in the throw process/sequence. In the clips of Verlander and Bonderman, there is little perceptible difference in their deliveries that would "scream out" as a reason for their decreased velocity. There appear to be no major changes in mechanical components such as posture, arm action, tempo or overall sequencing of the throw. The key word here is "major”. Enter the physics; the following is a simulation of throwing the baseball resulting in a release of 95 mph.  This simulation is based on actual throwing measurements, including duplicating the players' body mass and size as well as the rotational dynamics, the most important variable being upper torso angular velocity. Typical values for upper torso angular velocity are approximately 1,200 degrees (1,176 degrees actual) per second. This physics simulation is optimized for this upper torso rotation rate using typical values for moments of inertia of upper torso, upper arm, forearm and the ball. Release ball velocity is approximately 95 mph and a “throwing time” of .070 seconds.  The same simulation as before except upper torso angular rotation velocity is 1,100 degrees (1,081 degrees actual) per second (8 percent reduction in upper torso angular rotation speed) resulting in a release ball velocity of approximately 87 mph and a "throwing time” of .070 seconds. Rotation and connection of the most fundamental aspects of throwing velocity; a reduction by 8 percent of upper torso rotational velocity equates to approximately 8 percent decrease in throwing velocity. But throwing time remains almost constant (.070 seconds). This would mean that putting two pitching clips shot from the same camera angle side-by-side at 30 frames per second (.033 seconds per frame) would show no difference in throwing mechanics yet result in almost in an 8 percent decrease in throwing velocity.  Side-by-side comparison of 87 and 95 mph simulations (.010 seconds per step) showing virtually no difference in throwing time The point of that exercise is to demonstrate that small and imperceptible changes (imperceptible at 30 frames per second) can account for significant decreases in velocity. That also raises the question of how "good" is the analysis of those who depend on video to analyze how effectively players swing or throw. “When all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Yes I do like the saying because of its relevance to the Verlander-Bonderman loss of velocity. Here are the same clips with additional footage after the release of the ball:  On the left, Verlander 2008 throwing 89 mph; on the right, Verlander 2007 throwing 99.  On the left, Bonderman 2008 throwing 90 mph; on the right, Bonderman 2007 throwing 95 What happens after the pitcher releases the ball can tell us (me, anyway) as much if not more about the pitcher's mechanics as what happens before he releases the ball. What I see in both clips after the release of the ball is the effect on the body of residual rotational momentum. Both Verlander and Bonderman exhibit significant residual rotation momentum after they release the ball. This is indicated by their “heading off” toward first base after releasing the ball. The body doing this after releasing the ball can be either good or bad and the only real way to determine which is what happens to the baseball when this residual rotational momentum is or isn't present. In the case of both pitchers, it appears that better things happen to the ball when there is residual rotational momentum that carries them "around" toward first base. Many pitching instructors and coaches view this move toward first base after the ball is released as being a negative. To understand why requires understanding that pitching instruction historically holds that a player, especially a young player, is more likely to throw strikes by keeping his head and body going straight toward home plate. This may be fine for a Little Leaguer or a player who doesn't wish to pitch at a high level, but it is a potential kiss of death for anyone attempting to throw 90 mph or more. Unfortunately, coaches and instructors at all levels have adopted this instructional mantra. They equate keeping ahead on a straight line with throwing strikes. To them, movement toward home plate after the release of the ball indicates extension to home plate and therefore greater "perceived" velocity. Unfortunately, attempting to get extension is the first cousin to "pushing" the baseball; i.e., killing velocity and ball movement. My experience is that pitchers who exhibit residual rotational momentum toward first base (right hander) or third base (left hander) maintain what I call connection through the release of the baseball as opposed to disconnection toward home plate. More "Sherlock Holmes" pitching mechanics sleuthingThe evidence of residual rotational momentum is the strongest clue in solving the Verlander and Bonderman velocity mystery. There are some less obvious clues, not as observable primarily because of the inability of video at 30 frames per second to capture the clues.  In this frame comparison, Verlander's throwing hand is higher on the 89 mph clip (left) and lower on the 99 mph clip (right). Also, Verlander's upper body is more closed off in the right-hand clip than the left-hand clip. This would mean that Verlander has to rotate through a longer distance faster to achieve the same release point time as the left-hand clip. Again I am talking about fractions of a frame (fraction of .033), illustrating the difficulty in attempting to identify and measure rotational speed differences. And very small differences in rotational speed can account for large differences in throwing velocity.  Again, note the difference in throwing hand position.  In the above clip, note the difference in throwing hand location in the follow through. Again without further video corroboration it appears that Verlander's throwing arm has followed through more rapidly in the right-hand clip (99 mph) versus the left-hand clip (90 mph), indicating greater residual rotational momentum (and connection).  The above clip shows a dramatic difference in body position after release of the ball. The right-side clip (99 mph) is indicative of significant rotational momentum followed through as compared to the left-side clip (89 mph).  Bonderman exhibits the same residual rotational momentum on his follow through. In Part 1 cited this excerpt from a newspaper article regarding Verlander's recent increase in velocity: But hitting the radar gun consistently in the mid-to-high 90s shows the extra work with pitching coach Chuck Hernandez is paying off. The human body is a very complex throwing machine, and I will be the first to say that there is no sure thing when it comes these types of analysis. All I can say is that with what I know about how the body throws the baseball, the only way that I can see how putting more stress on the lower body could reduce the stress on the upper body is by improving the throwing efficiency of the upper body. Putting more stress on the lower body makes no sense. I suspect what Verlander is thinking is that increasing the momentum production of the lower body and efficiently transferring this momentum to the upper body increases the rotational efficiency of the upper torso. Rotational efficiency can be a combination of improving the rotational speed of the upper torso and improving the connection between the arm and the rotational momentum created by the upper torso. The lower body is capable of doing two things to help improve upper body by: 1. The generation and transfer of rotational momentum to the upper body. 2. Acting as a more effective anchor point for the upper body to work against. The primary way to take stress off the arm is to take advantage of the natural time constant of the upper body-arm throwing system. I will save that topic for another day. With respect to Bonderman, take your pick of any or all of the standard pitching coach dictums and most likely you'll find the reason he lost his fastball. 1. Stay back 2. Get to a balance point 3. Point the toe down 4. Stay tall 5. Push off the rubber 6. Keep your eyes on the target the entire delivery 7. Keep the head still 8. Point the glove at the target (not so often heard) 9. Take a short stride so you can drive the ball down 10. Pitch downhill 11. Take the ball out of your glove early so you get it to the launch position 12. Think fastball when throwing your breaking ball 13. Get extension, reach out to the hitter 14. Pull the glove to the hip 15. Don't move forward at leg lift; wait until you get to a balanced point over the rubber 16. Finish in a good fielding position 17. Keep your shoulder closed 18. Make sure you step with your foot on the line 19. Right hander, pitch from the third base side. Left hander, the first base side 20. Don't land on your heel 21. Land on the ball of your foot More sleuthing.In my initial investigation of Verlander I did an Internet search using search words including mechanics, Verlander and velocity and found several references to his and his pitching coach changing his mechanics. I also came across the following video clip of Verlander working with Chuck Hernandez, his pitching coach, and immediately the “lost velocity” red flag went up. Why? Because from my experience working with pitchers, apparently what Hernandez was working on with Verlander was “staying back,” which is intended to cure the problem of “rushing." Verlander and Tigers pitching coach Hernandez doing a bullpen session early April I then found the following commentary: Tigers television commentator explaining Hernandez's changes to Verlander's pitching mechanics. Unfortunately, it's been my experience that almost every pitching instructor thinks that staying back (slowing the delivery) fixes "rushing.” I say unfortunately because “rushing” is not rushing in the sense that the player is moving too fast with his pitching mechanics. Rushing is a rhythm problem. It's a sequencing problem of the body parts; i.e., the upper body gets ahead of the lower body. This gets interpreted by well-meaning pitching coaches as keeping the entire body back, slowing the delivery—a primary contributor to lost velocity and lack of control. The video clip of Bonderman in Part 1 speaks to the same issue—pitching coach attempting to slow the delivery by attempting to modify the player's mechanics, having his "stay back." Developing repeatable, high-performance throwing mechanics begins very early in a player's life. It also results in physiological and anatomical changes. It's been demonstrated that the throwing arm bone structure of a high-level pitcher is different than that of the non-pitching person. One of the more important structural changes is referred to as retro version of the humerus, a twist that the humerus develops which statistically appears to help throwing velocity because it increases the range of external rotation of the throwing arm. Attempting to change a player's pitching mechanics after he has thrown a certain way while his body has been developing is a potential prescription for disaster.
| ||||
