Jeff Sparks - Mike Marshall

[tradosaurus]

I really didn't know what all the hubbub was about concerning Mike Marshall and one of his pupils Jeff Sparks.

I watched a youtube video where Jeff Sparks is demonstrating the pitch philosophy of Mike Marshall.

Wikepedia states for Jeff Sparks "As of May 2007, Sparks was selling home-and-garden products at Lowe's and attending firefighter school while training with former major league pitcher Mike Marshall"

Personally I would like to see some pitchers in the MLB that have proven the success of Mike Marshalls pitching style before I would ever let my son adopt it.

I realize this maybe a hot button for a few but I figured the moderator needs to earn his "pay". :cap:

[Jake Patterson]

If you want to learn about Jeff there was a thread about this several years ago.

[Roothog66]

I, for one, think there is plenty to learn from Marshall's studies. As far as adopting his methods, I wouldn't; simply for the reason I think he vastly overstates the problems and his solutions are overkill. His methods will produce very healthy, safe pitchers with little to no success. It's a tradeoff and my main concern is that he is blind to the tradeoff.

[Jake Patterson]

I, for one, think there is plenty to learn from Marshall's studies. As far as adopting his methods, I wouldn't; simply for the reason I think he vastly overstates the problems and his solutions are overkill.

On what data did you form your opinion on? Look at pitching injuries in MLB.
(I once went to a pitching class given by a Toronto Blue Jay's pitcher... He used conventional methods. the problem was - He could not demonstrate anything because his arm was in a sling)

His methods will produce very healthy, safe pitchers with little to no success. It's a tradeoff and my main concern is that he is blind to the tradeoff.

There are pitchers who use his or modified versions of his technique with great success... My son used them and did very well without ever getting injured.

I don't think there is the tradeoff many think. I stood at the catcher's net and faced Jeff... I would not want to have caught him.... even in my prime.

I feel the biggest trade off, mostly due to the way in which he went about trying to spread the word, is the deep seeded dogma many use to teach. It's different and many can't get their hands around it so they poo poo it and rely on what dad taught them, whose dad taught them, etc... There are those who are mainstreaming some of his methods with great success. They don't come here because why beat their heads against the wall? Many don't buy into a different way of throwing because it's ... well... different. But don't say it doesn't work. I re-learned how to throw and was very successful with it.

[mudvnine]

I feel the biggest trade off, mostly due to the way in which he went about trying to spread the word, is the deep seeded dogma many use to teach. It's different and many can't get their hands around.....

Unfortunately, I think you hit the nail on the head, of the problem.....it's not necessarily the "what" he's teaching, but rather the "how".

I consider myself fairly well versed on the medical terminology and A&P of baseball instruction, yet I too find much of his writings difficult to wrap my head around and get into the heart of what it is he's attempting to share. While Dirtberry has done a much better job at simplifying and explaining it, I still think there is somewhat of a disconnect with what is the actual extent of the acceptable "Marshall hybrid" mechanics, and that that falls into the "traditional" realm.

I think over time, I've come to understand a good portion of the "upper half" terminology and what's expected, but tying that into the lower half "hybrid" mechanics and timing, still has me scratching my head a bit.

[Roothog66]

On what data did you form your opinion on? Look at pitching injuries in MLB.
(I once went to a pitching class given by a Toronto Blue Jay's pitcher... He used conventional methods. the problem was - He could not demonstrate anything because his arm was in a sling)

There are pitchers who use his or modified versions of his technique with great success... My son used them and did very well without ever getting injured.

I don't think there is the tradeoff many think. I stood at the catcher's net and faced Jeff... I would not want to have caught him.... even in my prime.

I feel the biggest trade off, mostly due to the way in which he went about trying to spread the word, is the deep seeded dogma many use to teach. It's different and many can't get their hands around it so they poo poo it and rely on what dad taught them, whose dad taught them, etc... There are those who are mainstreaming some of his methods with great success. They don't come here because why beat their heads against the wall? Many don't buy into a different way of throwing because it's ... well... different. But don't say it doesn't work. I re-learned how to throw and was very successful with it.

I simply mean that he comes on very strong and basically speaks as if traditional pitching will automatically lead to one's arm completely falling off one day. Much of what he teaches is dead on and very usefull. Other stuff is overcautionary. When I see some success with it at the higher levels, I'll take a closer look. To be honest, most of the "hybrids" I've seen are very far removed from a straight up Marshall pitching technique. Hey, I've read his stuff and buy into a lot of it. In fact, you won't find any posts prior to this thread of me jumping on what he or Dirt teach.

[Jake Patterson]

I simply mean that he comes on very strong and basically speaks as if traditional pitching will automatically lead to one's arm completely falling off one day. Much of what he teaches is dead on and very usefull. Other stuff is overcautionary. When I see some success with it at the higher levels, I'll take a closer look. To be honest, most of the "hybrids" I've seen are very far removed from a straight up Marshall pitching technique. Hey, I've read his stuff and buy into a lot of it. In fact, you won't find any posts prior to this thread of me jumping on what he or Dirt teach.

I agree... What helped me the most was sitting down with Doc and then several times with someone who has taken his teachings and made it teachable. Demonstration allowed me to better understand.

In spite of the way Dirt comes off here at times, and he and I have had our moments, I suspect he does a great job teaching.

[ralanprod]

Here's something I've wondered...

How well do the mechanics work out for positions other than pitcher? Outfield would seem to be okay - but what about the infield positions?

The reason I ask is because at least in youth ball, your pitchers are going to be playing other positions. If you have to teach one set of mechanics for pitching, and another for other positions, I would suspect that you would end up with kids that don't do either properly.

By the time players are older and have established that they are a "pitcher" - they're probably too successful with and ingrained in their mechanics to want to change. At that point you end up with the only kids willing to change their mechanics being the ones that are either unsuccessful traditionally, or who are injured. Of course that's a generalization - but I think it hits close to the mark. I think it's rare to see a high quality athlete in prime shape who is willing to change his mechanics. Until that mentality changes, I don't think Marshall mechanics will attain widespread success.

[tradosaurus]

I really think what would help Mike Marshall's philosophy gain momentum is to have a pitcher trained with his technique make it into the MLB and be successful.

[raptor]

Here's something I've wondered...

How well do the mechanics work out for positions other than pitcher? Outfield would seem to be okay - but what about the infield positions?

The reason I ask is because at least in youth ball, your pitchers are going to be playing other positions..

The outfield mechanic under full Marshall would remain relatively similar, correct, Dirtberry? I'm talking on threat plays where you have to come up gunning. As for infield dont see it happening...the ability to throw quickly and hard from different arm slots depending on speed of runner /number of bounces/ depth of play etc will neccesitate a fielder to throw with mechanics which many would deem debilitating if performed by pitchers. Cant stand up and throw as an infielder on all but charity hops.

[Jake Patterson]

I really think what would help Mike Marshall's philosophy gain momentum is to have a pitcher trained with his technique make it into the MLB and be successful.

Marshall's philosophy HAS gained momentum... Most current pitching coaches have modified their techniques over the past 10 years based on what Marshall and other kenesiological experts have found. What is being taught today, on the whole, is far different than what was being taught years ago.

While I agree with you - there has been many successes.

[azmatsfan]

Marshall's philosophy HAS gained momentum... Most current pitching coaches have modified their techniques over the past 10 years based on what Marshall and other kenesiological experts have found. What is being taught today, on the whole, is far different than what was being taught years ago.

While I agree with you - there has been many successes.

This is where Marshall's theories have become successful. As a whole his mechanics may have failed, but if more coaches can apply some of his methods to a hybrid technique to help decrease the chances of arm injuries, then that's great. I think some (or at least one) have the impression I'm against Marshall as an individual. I have nothing against the man and have said in the past he has some valuable ideas. My concern was his misue of physics to justify his pitching motion. At first I suspected it was purposeful, but as I've looked into his academic background I no longer believe it is. I've never questioned his knowlege of anatomy though.

[JJA]

This is where Marshall's theories have become successful. As a whole his mechanics may have failed, but if more coaches can apply some of his methods to a hybrid technique to help decrease the chances of arm injuries, then that's great. I think some (or at least one) have the impression I'm against Marshall as an individual. I have nothing against the man and have said in the past he has some valuable ideas. My concern was his misue of physics to justify his pitching motion. At first I suspected it was purposeful, but as I've looked into his academic background I no longer believe it is. I've never questioned his knowlege of anatomy though.

Totally agree. Most folks assume that since he got a Ph.D., he is automatically knowledgeable in physics, but many of kinesiology programs apparently don't require physics. Chances are he simply doesn't have that background. It's actually the same as Yeager whose Ph. D. program at Southern Mississippi also didn't require physics. So I most definitely chalk it up to lack of knowledge rather than being purposefully misleading.

[songtitle]

Most current pitching coaches have modified their techniques over the past 10 years based on what Marshall ... have found.

What are some of these technique changes directly attributable to Marshall?

[tradosaurus]

Marshall's philosophy HAS gained momentum... Most current pitching coaches have modified their techniques over the past 10 years based on what Marshall and other kenesiological experts have found. What is being taught today, on the whole, is far different than what was being taught years ago.

While I agree with you - there has been many successes.

Could you post some youtube videos of MLB pitchers that use even a modified technique of Marshall's?

It seems maybe Dickey with the Mets maybe close although he throwing a knuckleball.