ASMI Sports Medicine Forum - Does ASMI really know what they are doing?

ASMI Sports Medicine Forum
« Does ASMI really know what they are doing? »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Nov 20, 2009, 8:51pm

ASMI Sports Medicine Forum :: Baseball :: General :: Does ASMI really know what they are doing?

Page 1 of 4 » Jump to page Go

Author

Topic: Does ASMI really know what they are doing? (Read 3,606 times)

fastbal95
New Member

member is offline

Joined: Sept 2006
Posts: 30

Does ASMI really know what they are doing?
« Thread Started on Sept 9, 2008, 3:07pm »

This is a link to Dr. Mike Marshall's thoughts on ASMI's protocol for their biomechanical analyzation for pitchers. Very interesting stuff.

http://drmikemarshall.com/DoestheAmerica....ngInjuries.html

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

scorekeeper
Full Member

member is offline

Joined: Aug 2008
Gender: Male

Posts: 234

Re: Does ASMI really know what they are doing?
« Reply #1 on Sept 9, 2008, 4:07pm »

It is interesting stuff to read, and I would very much like to hear any rebuttal. But, here’s a post on Baseball Fever that pretty much sums up why there’s such animosity between the two camps. I don’t mind seeing people’s credentials called into question, but there’s a difference in questioning someone’s credentials, and flat out saying slanderous things with no substantiation.
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83206

I don’t expect anyone at ASMI to put on their armor and joust for their honor, but at the same time, some of the questions and answers do make interesting reading.

Would anyone care to comment?

Quote:

Recently, Dr. Mike Marshall and three of his pitchers were in contact with Dr. Glen Fleisig of the American Sports Medicine Institute, or ASMI, located in Birmingham, Alabama. One of Dr. Marshalls pitchers was in contact with Dr. Fleisig in the past and suggested that he call Marshall and discuss pitching and the biomechanics involved with it.

Well Fleisig did call and after speaking with Marshall, decided that he needed to work with Marshall and learn from him. So Marshall and three of his pitchers jumped in a car and drove to Birmingham from Zephyrhills. ASMI analyzed the three pitchers and Marshall explained things to Fleisig. Fleisig just could not understand most of it, because he has no background in anatomy, let alone baseball or pitching. This is not to say that Fleisig is not a nice guy, he really is, he just doesnt understand much of anything when it comes to pitching and pitching arm injuries.

Dr. Fleisig sent the reports to Dr. Marshall once they were all finished and Dr. Marshall looked over all of them. He saw some things which didnt make sense in ASMI's protocol and went over every single one of the 41 questions that ASMI asks in their analyzation. He send his critque of these questions to Dr. Fleisig and instead of taking these professional constructive criticisms to heart, Fleisis said he was no longer interesed in working with Marshall, his ego was too hurt.

Here is the link to Dr. Marshall's critique of ASMI's protocol for analyzing pitchers.

http://drmikemarshall.com/DoestheAmerica....ngInjuries.html

When will people stop looking to ASMI as an expert on pitching and pitching arm injuries? In the twenty years that ASMI has been in business, not only have they not reduced injuries, but injuries have actually increased exponentially!!

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

soxcrates999
Senior Member

member is offline

Joined: Jul 2008
Gender: Male

Posts: 250

Re: Does ASMI really know what they are doing?
« Reply #2 on Sept 9, 2008, 4:17pm »

Listen I have a lot of respect for Marshall and all of his research, and much of it cannot be agrued in my opinion. That being said the traditional baseball pitching style is not going away and although I have no connection what so ever to ASMI they are doing all they can in my opinion to figure out the research regarding what Marshall call the Traditional pitching motion. ASMI is doing all it can and this continuous holier than thou mentality is most certainly not going to endear Marshall or his findings to anyone. I have visited his site and watched the video in its entirety and learned a lot, but the traditional motion is not going away so what would be helpful would be a less abrasive and more cooperative focus on addressing the issues rather than the continuous accusations and patronizing demeanor

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Glenn Fleisig, Ph.D.
ASMI Team

member is offline

Joined: May 2005
Gender: Male

Posts: 849
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Does ASMI really know what they are doing?
« Reply #3 on Sept 9, 2008, 5:10pm »

Wow, I didn't see that coming.

I will share some scientific data to address this issue in a few moments, but first let me respond to some of the accusations posted:

Recently, Dr. Mike Marshall and three of his pitchers were in contact with Dr. Glen Fleisig of the American Sports Medicine Institute, or ASMI, located in Birmingham, Alabama. One of Dr. Marshalls pitchers was in contact with Dr. Fleisig in the past and suggested that he call Marshall and discuss pitching and the biomechanics involved with it.

Well Fleisig did call and after speaking with Marshall, decided that he needed to work with Marshall and learn from him. So Marshall and three of his pitchers jumped in a car and drove to Birmingham from Zephyrhills.

First of all, I do not work by myself at ASMI. When it says "Fleisig" said this and "Fleisig" did that, it was often ASMI's team of researchers working together. Second, ASMI did not agree to do a study with Mike Marshall so that we could "learn from him." ASMI agreed to do this study because the Marshall style is very different than traditional pitching and it would be an interesting study to see what was better or worse about it.

ASMI analyzed the three pitchers and Marshall explained things to Fleisig.

ASMI did ask Dr. Marshall to demonstrate and explain his thoughts, so we could hear what his theory was. Listening is an important part of scientific research. Also, we analyzed a fourth Marshall pitcher at a later date.

Fleisig just could not understand most of it, because he has no background in anatomy, let alone baseball or pitching. This is not to say that Fleisig is not a nice guy, he really is, he just doesnt understand much of anything when it comes to pitching and pitching arm injuries.

This attack is insulting and wrong. My resume includes BS, MS, and PhD degrees from MIT and other schools in biomechanics and related fields. I have taken all relevant classes from anatomy to dynamics. I have conducted research with biomechanists, orthopedists, coaches and other co-investigators for 20 years in motion analysis, cadaver testing, field studies, and clinic studies. These studies have been written, then reviewed by other experts, and then published. There are more scientific publications on throwing biomechanics and related topics by Fleisig et al (70 pubs) during the last twenty years than by anyone else, including Marshall et al (0).

Dr. Fleisig sent the reports to Dr. Marshall once they were all finished and Dr. Marshall looked over all of them. He saw some things which didnt make sense in ASMI's protocol and went over every single one of the 41 questions that ASMI asks in their analyzation. He send his critque of these questions to Dr. Fleisig and instead of taking these professional constructive criticisms to heart, Fleisis said he was no longer interesed in working with Marshall, his ego was too hurt.

Totally wrong. I could have said I was not interested, but instead I reviewed Dr. Marshall's comments and provided suggested corrections to him. He accepted some of my suggestions, and rejected others.

When will people stop looking to ASMI as an expert on pitching and pitching arm injuries? In the twenty years that ASMI has been in business, not only have they not reduced injuries, but injuries have actually increased exponentially!!

This is the most insulting segment of all. What injuries have "gone up exponentially" - pro pitchers? youth pitchers? Where is this quantified? Even if injuries have gone up during the past twenty years (which is probably true), how can this be pinned on ASMI? Perhaps there would be more injuries today if ASMI never existed?

« Last Edit: Sept 10, 2008, 1:36pm by Glenn Fleisig, Ph.D. »

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Glenn Fleisig, Ph.D.
ASMI Team

member is offline

Joined: May 2005
Gender: Male

Posts: 849
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Does ASMI really know what they are doing?
« Reply #4 on Sept 9, 2008, 5:13pm »

Okay, here are some data and interpretations.

Biomechanical Analysis of Dr. Mike Marshall’s Pitching Technique
June 27, 2008

Methods
Four pitchers taught by Dr. Mike Marshall were tested in the James R. Andrews Biomechanics Lab at the American Sports Medicine Institute. After warming up as wanted, each pitcher was tested pitching at full effort. Kinematic and kinetic data were then computed, using equations previously published by ASMI (see references).
A biomechanical evaluation is attached for each of the four subjects. In each report, the pitcher’s data for the maxline fastball, torque fastball, dropout, screwball and/or curve are compared to traditional fastball mechanics thrown by healthy, elite pitchers previously tested at ASMI.
The hypothesis proposed was that pitching a Marshall-style fastball can produce comparable ball velocity as a traditional fastball, but with less risk of injury to the shoulder and elbow. To test this hypothesis, the torque fastball data for XXXXXXXX, YYYYYYYY, and ZZZZZZZZ were grouped together and compared to traditional pitching data. WWWWWWW was not included, as he had less ball velocity than the other three subjects, and his kinematics did not match well the data of the other three. The torque fastball was used, as it was the fastest pitch thrown by the Marshall-style pitchers. The “torque group” was compared to two groups of subjects previously tested at ASMI – an elite group, and a matched group. The elite group was comprised of healthy professional and collegiate pitchers who threw at least 85 mph during testing. The matched group was made up of healthy pitchers with similar height, weight, and fastball velocity as the torque group.

Results
Kinematic and kinetic data for the torque group and elite group are compared in Table 1 below. “Range" indicates the mean minus or minus one standard deviation (Mean +/- SD) for the elite pitchers.
The torque group produced significantly less ball velocity than the elite group. The height and weight of the torque group were within the elite group range. As expected, there were numerous kinematic differences between the torque and elite groups. This included significantly less knee lift and shorter stride for the torque group. The front foot landed “closed” (to the thirdbase side, for a righty) for traditional pitching, but open for the torque group. The torque group generated significantly less (and later) trunk rotational velocity, which seems consistent with the teaching of the style. The torque group also generated significantly less external rotation of the throwing shoulder. At the instant of ball release, the torque group had significantly less forward trunk tilt and more sideways trunk tilt than traditional pitchers. Shoulder abduction was in the elite range. This shoulder abduction, coupled with greater sideways trunk tilt (towards the glove side), created a more “over-the-top” release point for the torque fastball, compared to the elite pitchers. Kinetic values for the torque group were within the normal ranges for the elite traditional pitchers.

Table 1. Comparison between Marshall pitchers and elite traditional pitchers

VARIABLE	TORQUE GROUP (mean)	ELITE GROUP (range)

Velocity	77 MPH	85 to 89




Height	75 inches	73 to 77
Weight	221 pounds	185 to 233
Humerus length	38 cm	37 to 41
Radius length	30 cm	28 to 31



MAXIMUM KNEE HEIGHT
Maximum Knee Height	24 % height	60 to 68
Pelvic Drift	11 inches	6 to 9
Head Roll	-2 degrees	11 to 34
Head Pitch	-13 degrees	-11 to 8
Head Yaw	-22 degrees	-49 to -29

FOOT CONTACT
Stride Length Ratio	62 % height	77 to 87
Lead Foot Position	-3 inches	5 to 13
Lead Foot Angle	9 degrees	7 to 26
Knee Flexion	43 degrees	36 to 52
Pelvis Rotation	12 degrees	20 to 41
Trunk Separation	-36 degrees	-59 to -38
Side Trunk Tilt	-9 degrees	-4 to 12
Throwing Shoulder Abduction	107 degrees	78 to 103
Throwing Shoulder Horizontal Abduction	-2 degrees	13 to 34
Throwing Shoulder External Rotation	52 degrees	24 to 79
Throwing Elbow Flexion	62 degrees	74 to 107

ARM COCKING
Maximum Pelvis Rotation Velocity	567 degrees / sec	522 to 675
%tMPRV	56 % time	17 to 41
Maximum Lateral Trunk Flexion Velocity	323 degrees / sec	249 to 374
%tMLTFV	59 % time	19 to 48
Maximum Upper Trunk Rotation Velocity	958 degrees / sec	1075 to 1223
%tMUTRV	75 % time	39 to 58
Maximum Trunk Separation Velocity	368 degrees / sec	427 to 648
%tMTSV	95 % time	36 to 74
Maximum Throwing Shoulder External Rotation Angular Velocity	405 degrees / sec	1291 to 1866

MAXIMUM EXTERNAL ROTATION
Maximum Throwing Shoulder External Rotation	162 degrees	173 to 191
Maximum Throwing Shoulder Horizontal Adduction	15 degrees	9 to 22
Throwing Elbow Flexion	116 degrees	88 to 116
%tEA	69 % time	42 to 69

ARM ACCELERATION
Maximum Pelvis Deceleration	16 m / s2	22 to 38
%tMPD	59 % time	30 to 72
Maximum Throwing Shoulder Internal Rotation Angular Velocity	7899 degrees / sec	6558 to 8536
Maximum Throwing Elbow Extension Angular Velocity	2509 degrees / sec	2146 to 2680
%tMEEAV	94 % time	89 to 94

BALL RELEASE
Lead Shank Angle	9 degrees	8 to 22
Lead Knee Flexion	21 degrees	20 to 46
Lead Hip Flexion	119 degrees	89 to 109
Forward Trunk Tilt	22 degrees	29 to 42
Side Trunk Tilt	42 degrees	14 to 31
(Average) Throwing Shoulder Abduction	93 degrees	87 to 103
Throwing Elbow Flexion	20 degrees	19 to 28

MAXIMUM INTERNAL ROTATION
Lead Knee Flexion	5 degrees	11 to 36
Forward Trunk Tilt	28 degrees	40 to 57
Maximum Throwing Elbow Flexion	18 degrees	16 to 24



FORCES
Maximum Throwing Shoulder Anterior Force	364 Newtons	267 to 403
Maximum Throwing Shoulder Proximal Force	1264 Newtons	1094 to 1436
Maximum Throwing Elbow Proximal Force	1150 Newtons	1029 to 1319

TORQUES
Maximum Throwing Shoulder Horizontal Adduction Torque	128 Newton-meters	87 to 135
Maximum Throwing Shoulder Internal Rotation Torque	106 Newton-meters	80 to 116
Maximum Throwing Elbow Varus Torque	108 Newton-meters	80 to 113
Maximum Throwing Elbow Flexion Torque	49 Newton-meters	38 to 64

Kinematic and kinetic data for the Marshall pitchers are compared to a matched-group of traditional pitchers in Table 2 below. In this table, “Range” represents the mean +/- one standard deviation for the matched-group. The height, weight, and ball velocity of the torque group were within the matched-group range. There were numerous kinematic differences between the torque group and matched-group. In general, these were the same kinematic differences as seen between the torque and elite groups. Kinetic values for the torque group were above the normal ranges for the matched-group.

Table 2. Comparison between Marshall pitchers and a matched group of traditional pitchers

VARIABLE	TORQUE GROUP (mean)	MEDIOCRE GROUP (range)

Velocity	75 MPH	74 to 77

ANTHROPOMETRICS


Height	75 inches	75 to 77
Weight	221 pounds	171 to 222
Humerus length	38 cm	36 to 39
Radius length	30 cm	28 to 30

KINEMATICS

MAXIMUM KNEE HEIGHT
Maximum Knee Height	24 % height	n/a to n/a
Pelvic Drift	11 inches	n/a to n/a
Head Roll	-2 degrees	n/a to n/a
Head Pitch	-13 degrees	n/a to n/a
Head Yaw	-22 degrees	n/a to n/a

FOOT CONTACT
Stride Length Ratio	62 % height	73 to 82
Lead Foot Position	-3 inches	8 to 11
Lead Foot Angle	9 degrees	10 to 29
Knee Flexion	43 degrees	39 to 52
Pelvis Rotation	12 degrees	7 to 30
Trunk Separation	-36 degrees	-55 to -32
Side Trunk Tilt	-9 degrees	-2 to 16
Throwing Shoulder Abduction	107 degrees	73 to 95
Throwing Shoulder Horizontal Abduction	-2 degrees	10 to 34
Throwing Shoulder External Rotation	52 degrees	-4 to 58
Throwing Elbow Flexion	62 degrees	64 to 110

ARM COCKING
Maximum Pelvis Rotation Velocity	567 degrees / sec	492 to 572
%tMPRV	56 % time	20 to 50
Maximum Lateral Trunk Flexion Velocity	323 degrees / sec	226 to 338
%tMLTFV	59 % time	20 to 70
Maximum Upper Trunk Rotation Velocity	958 degrees / sec	1003 to 1113
%tMUTRV	75 % time	40 to 63
Maximum Trunk Separation Velocity	368 degrees / sec	395 to 597
%tMTSV	95 % time	47 to 78
Maximum Throwing Shoulder External Rotation Angular Velocity	405 degrees / sec	1208 to 1852

MAXIMUM EXTERNAL ROTATION
Maximum Throwing Shoulder External Rotation	162 degrees	162 to 176
Maximum Throwing Shoulder Horizontal Adduction	15 degrees	10 to 29
Throwing Elbow Flexion	116 degrees	80 to 115
%tEA	69 % time	38 to 72

ARM ACCELERATION
Maximum Pelvis Deceleration	16 m / s2	18 to 30
%tMPD	59 % time	27 to 62
Maximum Throwing Shoulder Internal Rotation Angular Velocity	7899 degrees / sec	5354 to 6393
Maximum Throwing Elbow Extension Angular Velocity	2509 degrees / sec	1722 to 2235
%tMEEAV	94 % time	93 to 95

BALL RELEASE
Lead Shank Angle	9 degrees	0 to 12
Lead Knee Flexion	21 degrees	27 to 61
Lead Hip Flexion	119 degrees	88 to 126
Forward Trunk Tilt	22 degrees	21 to 37
Side Trunk Tilt	42 degrees	16 to 28
(Average) Throwing Shoulder Abduction	93 degrees	87 to 106
Throwing Elbow Flexion	20 degrees	26 to 32

MAXIMUM INTERNAL ROTATION
Lead Knee Flexion	5 degrees	21 to 51
Forward Trunk Tilt	28 degrees	31 to 53
Maximum Throwing Elbow Flexion	18 degrees	21 to 27

KINETICS

FORCES
Maximum Throwing Shoulder Anterior Force	364 Newtons	194 to 314
Maximum Throwing Shoulder Proximal Force	1264 Newtons	842 to 1043
Maximum Throwing Elbow Proximal Force	1150 Newtons	725 to 980

TORQUES
Maximum Throwing Shoulder Horizontal Adduction Torque	128 Newton-meters	61 to 99
Maximum Throwing Shoulder Internal Rotation Torque	106 Newton-meters	53 to 82
Maximum Throwing Elbow Varus Torque	108 Newton-meters	52 to 81
Maximum Throwing Elbow Flexion Torque	49 Newton-meters	29 to 49

Discussion
The data did not support the hypothesis that the Marshall style of pitching produces less risk of injury but with comparable ball velocity as traditional pitching. Compared to elite traditional pitchers, the torque fastball pitchers produced similar shoulder and elbow torques, but significantly less ball velocity. Compared to a matched traditional group, the torque fastball group produced similar ball velocity, but required significantly greater shoulder and elbow force and torque.

While the current study provides no direct measurement of injury risk, the biomechanical data do provide shoulder and elbow kinetic parameters. Cadaveric and mathematical modeling have linked total joint force and torque to loads on individual tissues, like rotator cuff tendons and ulnar collateral ligament (see references). Thus, elbow varus torque coupled with elbow flexion has been correlated with tension in the UCL. Shoulder internal rotation torque coupled with shoulder external rotation angle has been correlated with SLAP tears and internal impingement of the infraspinatus in the shoulder capsule. Shoulder proximal force has been linked to rotator cuff tensile tears and SLAP tears.

Accuracy was also an issue. Collectively, the three skilled Marshall-style pitchers threw only one-third (9 out of 27) of their maxline fastballs for strikes, and about one-fourth (5 out of 21) of their torque fastballs for strikes.

While the current study does provide some insight into the performance and safety about various styles of pitching, future research would also be helpful. Biomechanical testing of a larger sample of Marshall-style pitchers would be valuable, as would long-term outcomes of performance and injury compared between Marshall-style and traditional pitchers.

References:

Dun S, Loftice J, Fleisig GS, Kingsley D, Andrews JR. A Biomechanical Comparison of Youth Baseball Pitches: Is the Curveball Potentially Harmful? Am J Sports Med 36(4):686-692, 2008.
Dun S, Kingsley D, Fleisig GS, Loftice J, Andrews JR. Biomechanical comparison of the fastball from wind-up and the fastball from stretch in professional baseball pitchers. Am J Sports Med 36(1):137-41, 2008.

Dun S, Fleisig GS, Loftice J, Kingsley D, Andrews JR. The relationship between age and baseball pitching kinematics in professional baseball pitchers. Journal of Biomechanics 40:265-270, 2007.

Escamilla RF, Barrentine SW, Fleisig GS, Zheng N, Takada Y, Kingsley D, Andrews JR. Pitching biomechanics as a pitcher approaches muscular fatigue during a simulated baseball game. Am J Sports Med 35:23-33, 2007.

Fleisig GS, Kingsley DS, Loftice JW, Dinnen K, Ranganathan R, Dun S, Escamilla RF, Andrews JR. Kinetic comparison among the fastball, curveball, change-up, and slider in collegiate baseball pitchers. The American Journal of Sports Medicine 34(3):423-430, 2006.

Zheng N, Fleisig GS, Barrentine S, Andrews JR. Biomechanics of Pitching. In Hung GK, Pallis JM (eds), Biomedical Engineering Principles in Sports, Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York, pp 209-256, 2004.

Fleisig GS, Barrentine SW, Zheng N, Escamilla RF, Andrews JR. Kinematic and kinetic comparison of baseball pitching among various levels of development. Journal of Biomechanics 32(12):1371-1375, 1999.

Zheng N, Fleisig GS, Andrews JR. Biomechanics and injuries of the shoulder during throwing. Athletic Therapy Today 4(4):6-10, 1999.

Escamilla RF, Fleisig GS, Barrentine SW, Zheng N, Andrews JR. Kinematic comparisons of throwing different types of baseball pitches. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 14(1):1-23, 1998.

Fleisig GS, Escamilla RF, Andrews JR, Matsuo T, Satterwhite Y, Barrentine SW. Kinematic and kinetic comparison between baseball pitching and football passing. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 12(2):207-224, 1996.

Fleisig GS, Andrews JR, Dillman CJ, Escamilla RF. Kinetics of baseball pitching with implications about injury mechanisms. The American Journal of Sports Medicine 23(2):233-239, 1995.

« Last Edit: Sept 10, 2008, 9:50am by Glenn Fleisig, Ph.D. »

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Dino.
Junior Member

member is offline

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 57

Re: Does ASMI really know what they are doing?
« Reply #5 on Sept 9, 2008, 9:00pm »

Any more questions?

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

porcupinelove
New Member

member is offline

Joined: Sept 2008
Posts: 5

Re: Does ASMI really know what they are doing?
« Reply #6 on Sept 9, 2008, 9:51pm »

We've seen the analysis workups and have already looked at them quite closely. Fastbal95 has a degree in biology and was one of the three pitchers whose data you kept. It's a shame he's not able to respond to your latest posts.

Most of the problem lies with the elite group's ranges being implied as being the ideal. The people who come to your lab and throw that hard are quite gifted athletes. A majority of pitchers could emulate them perfectly and still not throw that hard. Furthermore, the implications of the elite group taking the elbow ~13-33 degrees behind the shoulder line aren't going to curb labral and anterior deltoid pain. What I got from reading all four analyses was that it is okay, perhaps recommended (if read that way), that pitchers take their elbows farther laterally behind their body.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

soxcrates999
Senior Member

member is offline

Joined: Jul 2008
Gender: Male

Posts: 250

Re: Does ASMI really know what they are doing?
« Reply #7 on Sept 9, 2008, 10:59pm »

Sept 9, 2008, 9:51pm, porcupinelove wrote:

And Marshall sent his worst pitchers to ASMI ::)

Forces are similar if not exceeded with marshall pitchers and their lack of control has to be a major concern

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

porcupinelove
New Member

member is offline

Joined: Sept 2008
Posts: 5

Re: Does ASMI really know what they are doing?
« Reply #8 on Sept 10, 2008, 12:03am »

Sept 9, 2008, 10:59pm, soxcrates999 wrote:

And Marshall sent his worst pitchers to ASMI ::)

Why yes, that's exactly what I said and nothing resembling a straw man argument.

Quote:

Forces are similar if not exceeded with marshall pitchers and their lack of control has to be a major concern

Save control issue concerns for a game situation, we're talking about pitching injuries. Pitching in a lab for biomechanical evaluation and high speed filming is about as far of a cry from pitching in a game as it gets.

« Last Edit: Sept 10, 2008, 12:09am by porcupinelove »

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

uspatriot
Junior Member

member is offline

Joined: Feb 2008
Gender: Male

Posts: 52

Re: Does ASMI really know what they are doing?
« Reply #9 on Sept 10, 2008, 3:49pm »

Sounds to me like ASMI dealt with Dr. Marshall totally objectively. Also sounds to me like Dr. Marshalls techniques put more stress on the elbow and shoulder (for like velocity pitches) than traditional mechanics. As ASMI stated, that may or may not relate to more injuries, but, sounds like there is more force on the joints. That can't be good. I am not as concerned with angle of this or that. Marshall vs. Traditional, sounds like traditional wins.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

soxcrates999
Senior Member

member is offline

Joined: Jul 2008
Gender: Male

Posts: 250

Re: Does ASMI really know what they are doing?
« Reply #10 on Sept 10, 2008, 9:56pm »

Sept 10, 2008, 12:03am, porcupinelove wrote:

Sept 9, 2008, 10:59pm, soxcrates999 wrote:

And Marshall sent his worst pitchers to ASMI ::)

Why yes, that's exactly what I said and nothing resembling a straw man argument.

Quote:

Forces are similar if not exceeded with marshall pitchers and their lack of control has to be a major concern

The control with that delivery has always been an issue and if you cannot demonstrate control in an indoor setting absent game situation pressures I amnot sure where you can demonstrate it

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

thepainguy
Senior Member

member is offline

Joined: Sept 2008
Gender: Male

Posts: 329

Re: Does ASMI really know what they are doing?
« Reply #11 on Sept 11, 2008, 3:23pm »

Dr. Fleisig,

Thank you very much for publishing the results of your study of the Marshall pitchers.

It's nice to have some actual facts to inject into the great Marshall debate.

Over the past few years, my concern with Marshall's ideas has been that he's (probably unnecessarily) trying to substitute the arm for the body and it's not an even trade-off (probably due to the size of the muscles involved). I think you can see that that's the case in both the velocity and torso numbers.

Do you have a sense of why the measured torque numbers would be higher for the Marshall pitchers even while their velocity numbers are lower?

That doesn't make obvious sense, but I guess it could be due to a lower level of efficiency (due to the arm-yness of the Marshall mechanics).

Chris O'Leary

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

scorekeeper
Full Member

member is offline

Joined: Aug 2008
Gender: Male

Posts: 234

Re: Does ASMI really know what they are doing?
« Reply #12 on Sept 11, 2008, 4:35pm »

Sept 9, 2008, 5:13pm, Glenn Fleisig, Ph.D. wrote:

Accuracy was also an issue. Collectively, the three skilled Marshall-style pitchers threw only one-third (9 out of 27) of their maxline fastballs for strikes, and about one-fourth (5 out of 21) of their torque fastballs for strikes.

Glenn,

Perhaps you know the strike/ball ratio of traditional P’s at relatively the same level as the MM P’s in the report, in the same kind of setting, when they’re attempting to throw their FB ball as hard as they can. Also, how were strikes determined?

Thanx

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Glenn Fleisig, Ph.D.
ASMI Team

member is offline

Joined: May 2005
Gender: Male

Posts: 849
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Does ASMI really know what they are doing?
« Reply #13 on Sept 12, 2008, 10:24am »

Each pitcher pitched off of a mound to a home plate located 60.5 ft away. (The view from homeplate can be seen here.) There was a vertical net suspended right behind home plate, to stop the pitched ball. A strike zone ribbon was sewn into the net. The location of where the ball hit the net and the radar gun speed was recorded for each pitch.

The average percent of strikes for fastball trials were as follows:

GROUP	PERCENT STRIKES
Elite Traditional	73%
Mediocre Traditional	76%
Marshall Maxline	33%
Marshall Torque	24%

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Dave Fortenbaugh, M.S.
ASMI Team

member is offline

Joined: Dec 2007
Gender: Male

Posts: 64
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Does ASMI really know what they are doing?
« Reply #14 on Sept 12, 2008, 10:39am »

There has also been some mention of Dr. Marshall's students displaying excessive head movement. Some have speculated this as another reason for the poor accuracy. I recently presented research at this year's North American Congress on Biomechanics (NACOB). The study found no significant differences in head movements during the pitching motion between balls and strikes. We made two comparisons: accurate vs. not accurate pitchers and within-pitcher comparisons (same pitcher throwing balls and strikes). It appears as though the head motion itself is not as crucial as initially thought.

Intuitively, it makes sense to focus on your target. However, the research did not show much change in result when specifically analyzing head movement. I intend to further investigate kinematic changes that lead to changes in pitch accuracy in the near future. Obviously something has to change in the pitcher's mechanics in order for a ball's location to change from pitch to pitch.

By the way, the technology also exists to track "gaze", that is the eye movements rather than the overall head movement. I am not aware of any research profiling gaze in baseball pitching. I know this has been done to study free-throw shooting in basketball, among other things.

« Last Edit: Sept 12, 2008, 11:20am by Glenn Fleisig, Ph.D. »

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Page 1 of 4 » Jump to page Go

Click Here To Make This Board Ad-Free

This Board Hosted For FREE By ProBoards
Get Your Own Free Message Boards & Free Forums!