|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 18, 2017 20:01:15 GMT -5
After hearing Krukow's comment that Matt had figured out what was wrong I watched him carefully.
Took about 10 pitches but I 'think' I figured it out.
At the top of his delivery he's closing his right shoulder more as he rotates and turns toward first base prior to the pitch.
This allows his arm to catch up, which I'm "guessing" was the problem.
Sure looked pretty good last night... outside of that RIDICULOUS underhanded throw to 1B.
Sheesh!
These morons find a new way to lose every night!
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 18, 2017 22:05:47 GMT -5
Matt was certainly better than he had been lately. I too was hoping he figured it out. To be honest, with the video available now it should be easy for a pitcher and his coach to see what he's doing differently. Fixing it clearly is more difficult.
But now would be a great time to have accomplished the feat. As they say, no time like the present.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 19, 2017 12:04:05 GMT -5
When it comes to pitching motions, there are so many moving parts... There might have been other 'things' Rags saw... I'm just pointing out what I saw.
Then again, I didn't have any video with which to compare things.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 19, 2017 15:28:38 GMT -5
I think what you saw was a good catch, Boly. And not having video with which to compare makes it more difficult.
Here is a question I would like to ask: To some extent there are "ideal" mechanics. When you look at a pitcher (or hitter), do you compare their mechanics with the "ideal"? Does that then give you a data base by which to judge changes in that player's mechanics?
Let me try to give a statistical comparison with what I'm thinking here. If our "ideal" is a .300/.400/.500 hitter (.300 batting average/.400 OBP/.500 SLG) and say our actual hitter is a .280/.360/.450 guy, we know he's off 20 points on BA, 40 points on OBP and 50 points in SLG. Might you look at the various phases of a pitcher's mechanics and remember that say Matt Moore is short on his load, his hip rotation and his arm extension, so that you might be able to see when one of those changes?
I realize number differences are easier to examine than less quantifiable mechanics differences, but is that how you approach it? A pitching coach and the pitcher himself have the advantage (or at least have easier access) to side-by-side mechanics comparisons, but is that how you evaluate a pitcher's or hitter's mechanics -- by comparing them to the ideal? And is that then what allows you to see when a pitcher or hitter improves or loses his mechanics?
Are you thus able to see why a player might be going into or coming out of a slump?
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 19, 2017 20:03:00 GMT -5
Roger-Here is a question I would like to ask: To some extent there are "ideal" mechanics. When you look at a pitcher (or hitter), do you compare their mechanics with the "ideal"? Does that then give you a data base by which to judge changes in that player's mechanics?
***boly says***
There are some "ideal" mechanics, to be sure.
compact is one you hear from me all the time.
Krukow talks about mechanics every game; elbow above the shoulder at the release point; balance at the top of the wind up; a proper length of stride for the body size, just to name of few.
But I don't, nor did I ever try to 'clone' everyone into one style.
Everyone is different.
Each pitcher has "keys" to his delivery; keys to their release point.
You hear Krukow speak frequently about being able to "repeat the stroke," be it arm angle or with the bat or golf club.
Watch a pitcher at his best. Analyze the arm angle and everything that goes with it.
Video helps.
Remember I mentioned compact.
Today's pitchers are taught to tuck their lead leg tight to their body at the top of their delivery for a balance point.
Now go to google and type in pitcher's names; Spahn, Johnny Klipstein, Billy O'dell.
Watch the film
Old time pitchers stuck their legs straight out, almost pointing it at 1st or 3rd base depending upon whether they were LH or RH.
THAT'S how they were taught to maintain balance.
For the past 30+ years it's been lead leg tuck.
In other words... compact the body and make it easier to control.
I was never a fan of Russ Ortiz, for example. His wind up and take away were bizarre, his arm coming straight back out of his glove rather than down, almost begging for an arm injury.
Lincecum over came TERRIBLE mechanics for a long, long time, with raw skill, and he was incredible!
But in the end, Father time caught up with him.
Those complicated, far from compact mechanics couldn't be consistently repeated.
Result; shortened career.
And that is, I contend, his father's fault.
HE thought he was smarter than the laws of physics.
His son had tremendous talent. But in the end, what dad taught him, destroyed him.
Timmy, with his incredible athletic ability and arm speed would have been just as good, no, I argue, BETTER with simpler mechanics.
We'll never know.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 19, 2017 20:04:01 GMT -5
As to numbers, Rog? They have nothing to do with mechanics.
They explain nothing but results.
And the results of Moore's crappy mechanics were a 6+ ERA.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 19, 2017 21:06:05 GMT -5
As to numbers, Rog? They have nothing to do with mechanics. Rog -- I was using the numbers I used only for comparison purposes. But now that you mention it, numbers have almost EVERYTHING to do with mechanics. Mechanics can be measured, and those measurements will become more and more precise over time. If a player is a hundredth of a second late in a rotation, that can or will be able to be measured. You have an excellent general knowledge of mechanics. It is likely that during your lifetime mechanics will be able to be measured closer than your eye is possible of telling you. Open your eyes to the power of numbers. The more you understand what they do and can do, the more you will appreciate them. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3977/matt-moore#ixzz4nKiX3YHJ |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 19, 2017 21:08:48 GMT -5
They explain nothing but results.
Rog -- They do or will eventually be able to help explain why mechanics are off. We need to widen our view of numbers, as they widen what they can tell us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 19, 2017 21:17:05 GMT -5
HE thought he was smarter than the laws of physics. Rog -- I get irked when someone talks as if he knows something but doesn't have a clue. Chris Lincecum may or may not have been wrong in what he taught his son -- as you pointed out, I don't think we'll ever know for sure -- but if he was wrong, it was because he misapplied the laws of physics, not because he thought he was smarter then they. What do you know that I don't know that makes you think Chris thought he was smarter than the laws of physics? I've read quotes from Chris and talked to him personally about the physics involved. Chris might have misunderstood or misapplied the rules of physics, but he has given me absolutely no indication he was smarter than they. I believe he thinks he's smarter than a lot of things (and he is an intelligent soul), but not the laws of physics. What have you read or heard Chris say that led you to believe that he did? He thought physics were HELPING his son. He also based his principles on several pitchers including Sandy Koufax, whom he thinks the world of. I realize you disagree with him. But I don't think you understand his thought process. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3977/matt-moore?page=1#ixzz4nKkzWAHx |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 20, 2017 12:30:12 GMT -5
Rog -- I get irked when someone talks as if he knows something but doesn't have a clue. Chris Lincecum may or may not have been wrong in what he taught his son -- as you pointed out, I don't think we'll ever know for sure -- but if he was wrong, it was because he misapplied the laws of physics, not because he thought he was smarter then they.
***boly says***
Roger, you can get irked at me all you want.
I've been teaching pitching since 1970, and studying pitching techniques since 1965.
I'm not stupid.
I'm not spouting simple opinions.
I've learned from some outstanding pitching coaches over the year, and learned even more from reading and listening to Krukow.
No one, and I freaking mean NO ONE teaches a pitcher to stride as far as Lincecum did.
No one!
Pick up any book written on pitching.
Talk to any pitching coach, and they'll all tell you the same thing; over striding puts incredible strain on the elbow and rotator cuff, makes it difficult to get on top of, and STAY on top of pitches, and also makes it more difficult to FINISH the pitch.
It goes against physics.
So you go ahead and throw a hissy at me and anyone else that contradicts what Chris did.
But the fact is this: what he taught was wrong.
If he studied pitching, and I'll bet he did, he did it HIS way, defying what all the experts and coaches before him said and taught.
That makes him arrogant.
That is why I said HE thinks he's smarter 'n everyone else.
I don't have to know what he's thinking, I'm judging him by his actions.
And as the old saying goes, "actions speak louder than words."
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jul 20, 2017 14:13:30 GMT -5
I'll simply ask you one question Boly, how many future cy young award winners did you coach?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 20, 2017 19:51:45 GMT -5
No one, and I freaking mean NO ONE teaches a pitcher to stride as far as Lincecum did. No one! Pick up any book written on pitching. Talk to any pitching coach, and they'll all tell you the same thing; over striding puts incredible strain on the elbow and rotator cuff, makes it difficult to get on top of, and STAY on top of pitches, and also makes it more difficult to FINISH the pitch. It goes against physics. Rog -- Chris's concept was that the arm following the body was like a pole vaulter using the pole to go over the bar. That was the physics he was applying. You can say he was misapplying physics or that he was applying the wrong physics. But to say he thought he was smarter than physics is a judgment without facts. As for how well Tim would have done had he pitched in a normal matter, as you said, we have no way of knowing. But it seems to me as if you're acting as if we DO know, and that he would have been as good or better. We just don't know that. One can make at least as strong an argument against it as for it. But I don't know any way to be conclusive about it. The thing I worry about is Tim's not icing. The bottom line is that we don't know what people are thinking, and IMO too often we act as if we do. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3977/matt-moore#ixzz4nQFAa79a |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 20, 2017 19:56:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 20, 2017 19:58:56 GMT -5
That's your argument, Boagie?
That's the best you can come up with?
I had none.
Zero.
Then again, I NEVER, EVER coached a kid as athletic or talented as Tim.
But answer some questions for me:
1-How long was his career?
8 years.
2-For how many years was Tim effective?
Four. Only FOUR TIMES did he have an ERA of LESS THAN 4!!!
3-Did Tim's career end due to arm problems?
No, it didn't.
It ended because he couldn't repeat the release point.
If you remember Marc... he sent me photos of Timmy BEFORE he was called up and asked for my evaluation.
I said his stride was too long and that because of it, he was a candidate for arm injury or a shortened career, and except for the arm injury, that is precisely what happened.
Then again, I never coached a CY Young winner, so what would I know.
Let me make this very clear; I never, EVER said, nor would I ever imply Tim wasn't great... and he was, for 4, truly outstanding years.
But my contention is this: Had dad not done it HIS way; had dad taught him proper mechanics, in all likelihood, Tim would still be pitching and pitching effectively.
Why? Because he would have had repeatable mechanics.
He wouldn't have put such stress on the arm that caused him to lose so much velocity so quickly.
4-If I'm wrong, boagie, then YOU come up with a better reason why Tim's career was so short.
I can't.
In fact, I predicted it just the way it happened. Not the arm injury, but the goofy, complicated mechanics.
So you can pull out your "you never coached a CY Young winner," all you want.
But I listed the facts; 8 years, only 4 really good ones.
His career should have longer.
It could have been longer.
It wasn't.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 20, 2017 20:00:11 GMT -5
Roger-Rog -- If no one challenged norms, we would never advance. Challenging norms isn't arrogant.
***bolys says***
This is the lamest argument I've ever heard you come up with, Roger.
And with that, when it comes to the Lincecums... you and I are done.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 20, 2017 20:11:08 GMT -5
I'm not stupid. I'm not spouting simple opinions. Rog -- You're certainly not stupid. But you are speaking opinions. There are different opinions on how best to throw a pitch. One could say the best way is the way that causes the ball to go the fastest. One could say the best way is to throw the way that allows the most control. One could say that the best way is the one that causes the least damage to the arm. Read the book "The Arm." You may or may not learn anything about mechanics, but you'll learn a lot about the pitching arm. Incidentally, we look at today's pitchers compared to those of our youth and see that they pitch a lot fewer innings. We ask why that is, and imply at least that it is because they are inferior. In reality, there are more arm injuries today for a variety of reasons, and one of them is that with pitchers throwing harder on average than ever, they are putting more strain on their arms. The Giants have been blessed with Tommy John surgeries. They've had pitchers who have previously had them, but the only pitcher I can remember who needed one while a Giant before this season is Brian Wilson, who needed his second. Will Smith underwent one this spring, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Mark Melancon needs one before his Giants career is over. In fact, I believe it strongly enough that I would trade him if feasible. Pain around the elbow often leads to pain in the elbow, which often means Tommy John is necessary. There is a new procedure that is less invasive than Tommy John. It is still experimental, as was Tommy John when Dr. Jobe first used it on its namesake, but the early returns are good. What I am learning from the book though is that despite major league arms being a billion dollar commodity, very little is known about them. I also learned that Tommy John surgery is extremely sensitive. And that while I thought Sandy Koufax retired because of a circulation problem in his pitching arm, it was his elbow. Don had mentioned that before. Reading a biography on Sandy and now "The Arm," I've learned a lot. And of course, I still have a lot to learn. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3977/matt-moore?page=1#ixzz4nQJC9VGj |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 20, 2017 20:42:28 GMT -5
Did Tim's career end due to arm problems? No, it didn't. It ended because he couldn't repeat the release point. Rog -- Tim's career has apparently ended because of a hip problem which caused his velocity to fall from 94 to 87. As for his release point, if you go to www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2015/5/9/8575663/tim-lincecum-giants-version-2-dot-0 you'll see that Tim's horizontal release point was more consistent in 2015 than in any previous season of his career. The article notes that Tim's father worked with him the winter before the 2015 season. It doesn't specifically attribute the more consistent release point to Tim's father working with him, although it does mention it. Anyway, Tim didn't have the most consistent of release points, but the article makes a good argument that Tim's problem was more a loss of velocity than a loss of consistent release point. One thing about stats (which in the article come in graphical form): They show facts. In this case, it is fact that Tim's release point became more consistent. His release points were measured over his career. We downgrade the mathematical here, but MLB itself is realizing that they can learn a lot from them and are beginning to use them far more than they've ever been used in baseball before. We talked recently about Kelby Tomlinson's hitting. I mentioned he doesn't hit the ball hard enough to be a good hitter. This season he's hit the ball hard just 19% of the time, and his average exit velocity has been only 82.5 MPH compared to the major league average of 87.7 mph. Those are facts. And of course they're numbers. Baseball has long used numbers. .300 batting average. 20 homers. 100 RBI's. But now numbers are delving far deeper into the game. And while it was figuratively dragged to the party kicking and screaming, MLB is now relying far more heavily on those numbers. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3977/matt-moore?page=1#ixzz4nQNCBPse |
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jul 20, 2017 20:56:25 GMT -5
Boly, you seem to be taking a lot of my posts personally, please don't. I apologize if I come off as rude or arrogant. That's certainly not my intention. We don't always agree, and sometimes we "go for the throat" but that doesn't mean I think any less of you after the fact. I enjoy a good discussion, even if we can't agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 21, 2017 6:47:45 GMT -5
I'll echo Boagie's thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 21, 2017 10:02:29 GMT -5
Boly, you seem to be taking a lot of my posts personally, please don't. I apologize if I come off as rude or arrogant. That's certainly not my intention. We don't always agree, and sometimes we "go for the throat" but that doesn't mean I think any less of you after the fact. I enjoy a good discussion, even if we can't agree.
***boly says***
I was taking them personally, boagie, and I DO appreciate your telling me I was not reading them as intended.
That's the problem with print; you can't 'hear' how the words are delivered.
My apologies, too.
A very humble,
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 22, 2017 8:09:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 23, 2017 22:19:19 GMT -5
What did we see in Matt's mechanics this past time out?
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 24, 2017 10:08:52 GMT -5
His upper body turn wasn't as pronounced as it was in his previous start.
That's what I saw.
Also, other than that one inning, (isn't that the way it's been all year?) I thought he pitched pretty well.
boly
|
|
