White, Strasburg, and Gibson: Hyperabduction, Hyperabduction, and Clean Respectively

[TJ Wrangler]

I figured this was worthy of its own thread. Someone asked me about Alex White's mechanics in another thread, and I thought the tidbits I discovered deserved to be posted here. Here is what I posted.

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1634481&postcount=42

Serious hyperabduction in his delivery as his elbow is way above shoulder level. He breaks his hands with his elbows, which usually leads to a timing problem. I couldn't find any pictures of him at landing, but it looks like his timing is definitely going to be off. He's in line with Prior when it comes to horrible mechanics. I wouldn't bet on him having a long career. Judging by your avatar, you seem to be a UNC fan. Sorry for the bad news.

For what its worth, my favorite and sleeper is Kyle Gibson. His delivery is smooth, he has good arm action, and his frame is extremely projectable. I think he stands the best chance to have a long career, as he has a better delivery than White or Strasburg, who also has a case of hyperabduction.

Strasburg

Gibson

White has a terrible hand break that looks to be leading to a huge timing problem, and he has a severe case of hyperabduction. This is terrible news for his shoulder.

Strasburg appears to have some hyperabduction as well, but his arm action is way better than White's. Keep in mind that White is in line with Prior with the worst mechanics in baseball. Strasburg's arm action is better as he doesn't break with his elbows, but his timing is still a problem and he does hyperabduct. I'm not very hopeful for him long term either, but his delivery is a million times better than White's.

...and then there is Gibson, who has a very clean delivery, excellent timing, proper hand break, and a very very projectable frame. If we end up with Gibson this draft, I would be happy, because with growth and development, he could be a 15-20 year pitcher with great mechanics. Where he projects in the rotation is up to how his stuff develops as he fills out, but right now he's a solid bet to be a fast riser and be very durable for a long time.

[Stotle]

I've enjoyed reading your posts -- I've been underwater w/work and my own stuff recently, but I got caught-up last night and today and have found it to be interesting stuff.

That said, I worry that maybe you're putting too much value into mechanical analysis. Of course, it's a very important factor in determining how a pitcher will develop, and potential injuries (as well as the likelihood they will occur). At the end of the day, however, a red flag is still just a red flag. It can't possibly be the determining factor in whether or not to invest in a player -- particularly not in the draft.

I certainly think it's more important with college arms that are closer to ML-ready and have more mileage, but would you honestly pass on Strasburg to get to Gibson? At what point does the "stuff" and the likelihood that the player will not run into injury outweigh "cleaner" mechanics? I mean, I like Gibson a lot, but I'm not sure I see why it would be prudent to invest in his projection as opposed to other pitchers that are closer to fully-baked.

I'm not trying to be a wet blanket, but I think mechanical analysis is probably most usefully applied in FA/trade acquisition. Put this way -- if Peavy goes down (as many predict) in the next year or two, would anyone feel bad about drafting him and getting the career he had as production?

No one wants to run into a Loewen-type situation, but I'm not sure I'm on board with writing young arms off solely based on undesirable mechanics. Of course, in the end, what do I know?

Keep up the interesting posts.

EDIT -- Just wanted to be clear that I see where you are coming from and I think your analysis is very solid -- just a philosophical difference in drafting preference.

[allstar1579]

I like the mechanical breakdowns, like Stotle, I tend to focus on other parts of prospects make up though. Having a Psych degree, I tend to wander more into their make-up and that "it" factor after the basic baseball stuff.

I like Gibby too, I have him rated around 6th-7th best for me personally right now, but that is with the hopes that he puts on some muscle this year and he responds to being the #1 and not riding off Crow, facing other team's second and third best guys. He is on my must watch list for early season though.

What is your take on Purke's mechanics?

[crawdad]

Yeah, Strasburg does show slight hyperabduction along with a few other issues. I would hate to spend 7-10MM on him as the number one pick. I would also hate not to draft him number one. I think the basic fact is that even guys with bad mechanics wind up giving you some innings if they are good enough. Cubs got 650 innings out of Prior. AJ Burnett is still pitching. Gibson is nice (who almost exhibits hyperabduction with some scrapping . . . that suggests potential shoulder injuries . . . not exactly sure why you call it clean) . . . but . . . at some point conservativeness is going to get the better of folks.

I find this excessive application of biomechanics to be similar when people (hello, Toronto!) went overboard in drafting college players or avoiding high school pitchers. The problem is that you overlook a great deal of talent because of peripheral issues that are real though not really something that should be make you decide not to select someone. The key is if you rate two guys the same . . . then you take the one with less issues.

[TJ Wrangler]

Yeah, Strasburg does show slight hyperabduction along with a few other issues. I would hate to spend 7-10MM on him as the number one pick. I would also hate not to draft him number one. I think the basic fact is that even guys with bad mechanics wind up giving you some innings if they are good enough. Cubs got 650 innings out of Prior. AJ Burnett is still pitching. Gibson is nice (who almost exhibits hyperabduction with some scrapping . . . that suggests potential shoulder injuries . . . not exactly sure why you call it clean) . . . but . . . at some point conservativeness is going to get the better of folks.

I find this excessive application of biomechanics to be similar when people (hello, Toronto!) went overboard in drafting college players or avoiding high school pitchers. The problem is that you overlook a great deal of talent because of peripheral issues that are real though not really something that should be make you decide not to select someone. The key is if you rate two guys the same . . . then you take the one with less issues.

In that picture of Gibson at the time of landing, his elbow is below shoulder level and his is in the high cocked position. He has much better timing than the other two. Strasburg and White both have hyperabduction problems and timing problems.

That said, I take Strasburg over him every time, but I was just pointing out the fact that maybe Gibson will be the surprise of this draft because he has the best mechanics out of the top college guys and he's very projectable. Where do you find faults in Gibson's delivery?

[TJ Wrangler]

I've enjoyed reading your posts -- I've been underwater w/work and my own stuff recently, but I got caught-up last night and today and have found it to be interesting stuff.

That said, I worry that maybe you're putting too much value into mechanical analysis. Of course, it's a very important factor in determining how a pitcher will develop, and potential injuries (as well as the likelihood they will occur). At the end of the day, however, a red flag is still just a red flag. It can't possibly be the determining factor in whether or not to invest in a player -- particularly not in the draft.

I certainly think it's more important with college arms that are closer to ML-ready and have more mileage, but would you honestly pass on Strasburg to get to Gibson? At what point does the "stuff" and the likelihood that the player will not run into injury outweigh "cleaner" mechanics? I mean, I like Gibson a lot, but I'm not sure I see why it would be prudent to invest in his projection as opposed to other pitchers that are closer to fully-baked.

I'm not trying to be a wet blanket, but I think mechanical analysis is probably most usefully applied in FA/trade acquisition. Put this way -- if Peavy goes down (as many predict) in the next year or two, would anyone feel bad about drafting him and getting the career he had as production?

No one wants to run into a Loewen-type situation, but I'm not sure I'm on board with writing young arms off solely based on undesirable mechanics. Of course, in the end, what do I know?

Keep up the interesting posts.

EDIT -- Just wanted to be clear that I see where you are coming from and I think your analysis is very solid -- just a philosophical difference in drafting preference.

Well I assume Strasburg will be gone by the point we pick, but at number one, I would in no way pass on Strasburg to get Gibson. I may regret it ten years down the road, but since nothing is guaranteed and Strasburg may not break down, I could also look like a fool as early as 2 years down the road.

Unlike you, I'm not as well rounded from a scouting standpoint. I'm best at finding mechanical issues and fixing them, and teaching pitching in general. I wouldn't be anywhere near as good as you are at scouting, because I'm better suited to coach and not be in the front office.

The point of my post though was to point out that Gibson might be the surprise of the draft because of his mechanics and projectablility. I'd definitely take him over White though, because after you come down from Strasburg's god-like prospect status, is the risk of injury really worth passing up on a prospect with a good delivery who could very well add 5 mph and be a solid #2 starter?

That said, keep up the good work as well. I really like reading your stuff. When it comes to draft day, I'd rather have you making the selections every time instead of taking on the responsibility myself.

EDIT: I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm just trying to share my area of expertise with everyone, much like you are. I'm not trying to push draft decisions, just trying to show potential red flags.

[crawdad]

In that picture of Gibson at the time of landing, his elbow is below shoulder level and his is in the high cocked position. He has much better timing than the other two. Strasburg and White both have hyperabduction problems and timing problems.

That said, I take Strasburg over him every time, but I was just pointing out the fact that maybe Gibson will be the surprise of this draft because he has the best mechanics out of the top college guys and he's very projectable. Where do you find faults in Gibson's delivery?

Gibson needs to clean up his step. He picks up his leg then immediately drops it down with little forward movement. This could be cleaned up. He scrap loads. Also, watch him throw. He approaches the point of hyperabduction then rolls his elbow slightly down. That is going to put strain on the back end of the shoulder. He finishes well.

So, yeah, I would not call his motion clean.

I also think if Strasburg's hyperabduction is making you select Gibson over him . . . then you are putting a bit much confidence in biomechanics with respect to what effects we can actually tie to them. Another comparison is like when people tried to use PAPs to predict injury. Just does not work well. Too many variables are in play for a single metric to identify performance outcome.

EDIT: Read your reply to Stotle so ignore the draft part.

[Stotle]

Well I assume Strasburg will be gone by the point we pick, but at number one, I would in no way pass on Strasburg to get Gibson. I may regret it ten years down the road, but since nothing is guaranteed and Strasburg may not break down, I could also look like a fool as early as 2 years down the road.

Unlike you, I'm not as well rounded from a scouting standpoint. I'm best at finding mechanical issues and fixing them, and teaching pitching in general. I wouldn't be anywhere near as good as you are at scouting, because I'm better suited to coach and not be in the front office.

The point of my post though was to point out that Gibson might be the surprise of the draft because of his mechanics and projectablility. I'd definitely take him over White though, because after you come down from Strasburg's god-like prospect status, is the risk of injury really worth passing up on a prospect with a good delivery who could very well add 5 mph and be a solid #2 starter?

That said, keep up the good work as well. I really like reading your stuff. When it comes to draft day, I'd rather have you making the selections every time instead of taking on the responsibility myself.

Well, Justin, I certainly didn't mean to imply anything with regards to abilities to make drafting decisions. You are certainly very adept at breaking down pitchers and pointing to areas that could be of concern. Further, I really agree with you with regards to Gibson -- I think whoever ends-up with him will be in solid shape considering the projectibility in his frame and stuff and what you have had to say about his mechanics.

As Craw said, I prefer to use the "red flag" test (depending on how big the flag is) to help make a decision between two similar talents. I think the "red flag" test is incredibly important when you are talking about FA contracts for the sole reason that you're talking about much, much more money.

That's not to say that the draft isn't important, but there are developmental hurdles in addition to potential injury due to mechanics. Accordingly, I still prefer to take the guy with the most talent that seems most likely to contribute at the ML-level.

As a pitcher, let me ask you this. How conceivable do you think it is to tweak mechanics of a college pitcher (as opposed to HS) to the point that they aren't as problematic from an analytical standpoint? I tend to think it's more difficult than most realize, but not impossible. Would you draft White and focus on trying to correct (as much as you can, anyway) the hyperabduction?

[TJ Wrangler]

I like the mechanical breakdowns, like Stotle, I tend to focus on other parts of prospects make up though. Having a Psych degree, I tend to wander more into their make-up and that "it" factor after the basic baseball stuff.

I like Gibby too, I have him rated around 6th-7th best for me personally right now, but that is with the hopes that he puts on some muscle this year and he responds to being the #1 and not riding off Crow, facing other team's second and third best guys. He is on my must watch list for early season though.

What is your take on Purke's mechanics?

I can't find anything really good on Purke, but here is my take on what I did find.

In this photo, we can see that he has landed with his toe pointing to home plate, he has good hip/trunk separation, and his elbow is below shoulder level in the high cocked position. This looks good for his shoulder. The only problem here is that he's showing the ball to CF, which, due to the excess rotation and wasted movement, sets a red flag for his elbow's long term health.

However, in this photo, he is showing the ball to 1b. Maybe this is just a mechanical inconsistency. Overall, he looks pretty solid to me.

[bobmc]

I can't find anything really good on Purke, but here is my take on what I did find.

In this photo, we can see that he has landed with his toe pointing to home plate, he has good hip/trunk separation, and his elbow is below shoulder level in the high cocked position. This looks good for his shoulder. The only problem here is that he's showing the ball to CF, which, due to the excess rotation and wasted movement, sets a red flag for his elbow's long term health.

However, in this photo, he is showing the ball to 1b. Maybe this is just a mechanical inconsistency. Overall, he looks pretty solid to me.

I have a somewhat naive question. I pitched some years ago and wonder if you can teach someone to "show the ball to first or third" vice centerfield for all pitches? I can see where a curve might be shown to third or a fast ball to center as a normal mechanical tendency to get the most out of each different pitch. But it seems to me that you get better snap or movement (for lack of better terms) when it's shown to center for a fast ball. Or better put, is each person different and you get what you get - i.e., you can't coach such a change? :scratchchinhmm:

[TJ Wrangler]

I have a somewhat naive question. I pitched some years ago and wonder if you can teach someone to "show the ball to first or third" vice centerfield for all pitches? I can see where a curve might be shown to third or a fast ball to center as a normal mechanical tendency to get the most out of each different pitch. But it seems to me that you get better snap or movement (for lack of better terms) when it's shown to center for a fast ball. Or better put, is each person different and you get what you get - i.e., you can't coach such a change? :scratchchinhmm:

I personally think any habit can be changed once a pitcher develops the muscle memory to repeat the change constantly. Most pictures actually pronate their fastballs upon release, some more so than others, so showing the ball to centerfield would require a quick suppination actually have your arm facing the right way to throw the ball, followed by a quick pronation at release, hence why I say there is a lot of wasted movement, especially since it is hard to stop a suppination and that suppination is bad for the elbow.

Just my theory, but since the wrists and arm are small when compared to the muscles that generate a pitchers power (legs and trunk/core), any "snap" as you put it would be insignificant in regards to adding more power simply because the muscles you are referring to don't generate most of the power for a pitcher.

Because of all this, I conclude that showing the ball to CF produces dangerous and unnecessary movement that puts a pitcher's elbow at risk. Sorry if this sounds like rambling, but does it make sense to you? It's one of those things where its tough to type, but I could show it to you with ease in about 5 seconds in person.

[allstar1579]

I personally think any habit can be changed once a pitcher develops the muscle memory to repeat the change constantly. Most pictures actually pronate their fastballs upon release, some more so than others, so showing the ball to centerfield would require a quick suppination actually have your arm facing the right way to throw the ball, followed by a quick pronation at release, hence why I say there is a lot of wasted movement, especially since it is hard to stop a suppination and that suppination is bad for the elbow.

Just my theory, but since the wrists and arm are small when compared to the muscles that generate a pitchers power (legs and trunk/core), any "snap" as you put it would be insignificant in regards to adding more power simply because the muscles you are referring to don't generate most of the power for a pitcher.

Because of all this, I conclude that showing the ball to CF produces dangerous and unnecessary movement that puts a pitcher's elbow at risk. Sorry if this sounds like rambling, but does it make sense to you?

It seems like it is just a problem with his grips, where he is showing one pitch to CF and one to 1B, I'd be more worried about him tipping pitches at a higher level.

As for the wrist thing, I think that ties in to why showing the ball to CF isn't always horrible, some people can "roll" their wrist in their delivery to get that snap that Bob was talking about, I have seen that snap add a noticeable difference in velocity, but it all depends on the delivery as a whole, not just that point, I'd have to see the complete motion. Most of the benefit from the snap I have seen comes from guys with a straight over the top delivery, but I can't tell if his is close to that. Either way, we need to see some actual game footage this spring before we can make too much of him I think, thanks for taking a look though.

[TJ Wrangler]

It seems like it is just a problem with his grips, where he is showing one pitch to CF and one to 1B, I'd be more worried about him tipping pitches at a higher level.

As for the wrist thing, I think that ties in to why showing the ball to CF isn't always horrible, some people can "roll" their wrist in their delivery to get that snap that Bob was talking about, I have seen that snap add a noticeable difference in velocity, but it all depends on the delivery as a whole, not just that point, I'd have to see the complete motion. Most of the benefit from the snap I have seen comes from guys with a straight over the top delivery, but I can't tell if his is close to that. Either way, we need to see some actual game footage this spring before we can make too much of him I think, thanks for taking a look though.

No problem. It is unfortunate that what I posted is all I could find worthwhile of him. I still disagree on the whole notion of a snap, because when you look at a pitchers delivery, everything before the wrist pulls the previous part through, so it is debatable if there even is a snap at such high speeds.

As I've said before, hip/trunk separation means that the legs and hips stretch the core muscles, which in turn pull the shoulder around at explosive high speeds. From this point, as a result of throwing at high speeds, wrist and forearm actually lag behind the elbow in the delivery, even in pitchers with bad mechanics.

Greg Maddux

Randy Johnson

Roger Clemens (image courtesy of Chris O'Leary)

Chris Carpenter

Mark Prior

B.J. Ryan

Using this as a basis, as the arm straightens out at high speeds before the release, it is debatable whether or not the wrist actually has the time to snap or if the snap will provide anything in terms of power. I think what you may be refering to is wrist pronation or suppination, or maybe even wrist curl to throw a curveball. As a pitcher, I never "snapped" my wrist in any of my pitches, as doing so will fire your forearm muscles down to where they attach at the elbow, which could result in elbow issues if it is done constantly at high speeds. I think the snap might just be the visualization of the wrist lagging behind the elbow as the elbow lags behind the shoulder. This is just a result of throwing hard, not necessarily a conscious effort by the pitcher.

[TJ Wrangler]

Also, here is a slowed down video of Dan Haren. He does have a little bit of a timing problem on this pitch, but the video shows how his hand lags behind his elbow as his shoulders are pulled by his torso. It also shows how his elbow straightens out and how he pronates his wrist at the end instead of snapping it. Besides the timing problem, Haren has great mechanics. If he could just break his hands a little sooner, he would be a great example for everyone to base their delivery off of.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MwOpvWfzLY&NR=1

[bobmc]

No problem. It is unfortunate that what I posted is all I could find worthwhile of him. I still disagree on the whole notion of a snap, because when you look at a pitchers delivery, everything before the wrist pulls the previous part through, so it is debatable if there even is a snap at such high speeds.

As I've said before, hip/trunk separation means that the legs and hips stretch the core muscles, which in turn pull the shoulder around at explosive high speeds. From this point, as a result of throwing at high speeds, wrist and forearm actually lag behind the elbow in the delivery, even in pitchers with bad mechanics.

Greg Maddux

Randy Johnson

Roger Clemens (image courtesy of Chris O'Leary)

Chris Carpenter

Mark Prior

B.J. Ryan

Using this as a basis, as the arm straightens out at high speeds before the release, it is debatable whether or not the wrist actually has the time to snap or if the snap will provide anything in terms of power. I think what you may be refering to is wrist pronation or suppination, or maybe even wrist curl to throw a curveball. As a pitcher, I never "snapped" my wrist in any of my pitches, as doing so will fire your forearm muscles down to where they attach at the elbow, which could result in elbow issues if it is done constantly at high speeds. I think the snap might just be the visualization of the wrist lagging behind the elbow as the elbow lags behind the shoulder. This is just a result of throwing hard, not necessarily a conscious effort by the pitcher.

Well said - I get the difference between the large muscles of the legs and back versus the forearms and elbows and the problems these differences can cause. I consciously "snapped" my wrist to get more movement on the overhand delivery. I compare this to throwing from shortstop, for example, with just a "normal" power throw. But, I was not a great hurler and I don't want to debate the mechanics here. I still don't "see" how you can adjust the positions, but that has no relevance either. I just wanted to know if you thought you could coach the change and you say you can so that makes sense to me.

This conversation is extremely interesting!

I also wonder about our minor league shortstop Greg Miclat and his arm problems. I assume that he can get his full strength back but wonder if someone like you also reviews throwing mechanics for position players. I apologize for constantly hijacking threads with side issues!