The Difference In Their Dominance – A Tale of Two Stars: How Justin Verlander and Are Completely Different Mechanically, Yet the Best in the Game

BACKGROUND Justin Verlander is an eight-time MLB All-Star, has led the AL in five times and in wins twice. He was the AL Rookie of the Year in 2006, and on June 12, 2007, pitched the first no-hitter at versus the . In 2011, he threw another no-hitter and by the season's end, Verlander won the Pitching , the AL Award unanimously, the AL Most Valuable Player (MVP) Award, and the Player of the Year Award. In the 2017 he was named ALCS MVP, and in the 2018 season, Verlander became the 114th in major league history to surpass 200 career wins, also becoming the 20th fastest to reach the milestone (412 starts).

Max Scherzer has won 3 , is only the fourth pitcher in history with four consecutive seasons of 250 or more strikeouts and a seven-time MLB All-Star. In 2015, Scherzer became the sixth pitcher in Major League history to record multiple no-hitters in a single season, including the first with at least 17 strikeouts and no bases on balls, and the first to accrue a of 100 or more twice in one season. In 2016, he tied the major league nine-inning record with 20, making him the second player to achieve both a no-hitter and 20 strikeouts over nine innings. In 2017, he became the third-fastest hurler to record 2,000 strikeouts. Scherzer has more strikeouts (2,503) than any pitcher in the 2010s.

It is fair to say these guys dominate. It is also fair that they have many similarities. They obviously share many, many accolades and awards. They are both power that throw in the range average 92-102 mph. They are both tough minded, and have a burning desire to be great.

BUT, they are physically different in the way they move, therefore the way they deliver dominance to the plate is completely different.

THE MATH AND SCIENCE OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THEIR DOMINANCE To explain the differences, let’s start at the beginning…. From the moment the first creature divided from one cell into two and became a complex organism, every species in history has had two primary goals: 1) Survive, and 2) Propagate the species. That is, organisms want to eat and make more me’s. And, in the survival of the fittest universe we live in, the organism that does so in the most energy preservative manner wins the race. The cheetah goes after the slowest gazelle because he knows he can eat and still have enough energy left to go back to his cave to make more baby cheetahs with momma cheetah. We’ve evolved to the point that we no longer need to worry about survival and procreation: however, our bodies are still solely interested in accomplishing what we deem to be important goals. In the case of a pitcher, his body wants to throw the ball over the white pentagon, make the hitter go back to the dugout, and it hopefully to do it with enough velocity for the guys with the radar guns behind the backstop to ask him to be on their team. What these athletes are looking for is maximizing a sequence of movements that generate the maximum amount of force with the least amount of energy. To accomplish this, the athlete must eliminate disconnected movements that reduce power, add undue stress to connective tissue, and exert more energy than necessary to optimize performance. Sound easy, but all athletes are built differently, so teaching the same motion to Max Scherzer and Justin Verlander would be disastrous for both. One size does not fit all.

At the Florida Ranch we use the term “connection” to describe when body parts are working in proper timing sequencing and synergy. A disconnection is when a body part does something out of proper timing, sequence and synergy with the rest of the body.

So, if moving efficiently is natural, then why do disconnections occur? Well, there are quite a few reasons; 1) They are taught by well-meaning people with incomplete information. 2) The athlete has a mobility or stability issue that prevents him from getting into position to optimize the mechanical and elastic properties of his muscles. 3) He’s looking for energy in the wrong places. 4) His body is in a protective mode from a prior injury and has altered its movement pattern. 5) His body is disconnecting as a compensation for an inefficient move further up the kinetic chain.

1) Many disconnections are taught by well-meaning people with incomplete information. It is not my intent to disparage anyone here. I’ve never met a coach or instructors who was trying to make a player worse and there are probably over a thousand former players and students to whom I should apologize. We all teach what we know, with the available information. Nonetheless, my experience has been that most of the disconnections we see have been taught by coaches. Again, I’m as guilty as anyone. 2) Physical limitations prevent the athlete from moving into and through positions to optimize length tension relationships. We don’t need the mobility of a gymnast, but we do need enough mobility to get into positions that optimize length-tension relationships. If an athlete is not able to get into optimal positions due to mobility constraints, he may operate on as little as 30% of his potential force production capacity. Length tension relationships in musculature often demand prerequisite orientation of bony articular interfaces into non- shearing positions. These “center-packed” joint positions often place the surrounding musculature in optimal length-tension relationships. Sometimes, joint restrictions are due to soft tissue tightening or contracture, and sometimes they are due loss of accessory motion in joints themselves. Whatever their “cause,” mobility problems must be addressed before motor control solutions can attained. You can’t bring a motor control solution to a mobility problem. 3) Looking for energy in the wrong places. A classic example of this can be found in the athlete who, lacking efficient and powerful lower half movement, seeks energy in a variety of upper half disconnections. Remember, the athlete’s body is only interested in accomplishing what the organism has determined to be an important goal and according to Dr. Nikolai Bernstein, “The body will organize itself in accordance to the goal of the activity. Unfortunately, the body doesn’t always choose the most efficient or the safest pattern. If the will and the intent of the athlete is great enough, the body may organize itself in a manner that compensates inefficiently and a compromises energy conservation and/or safety. We see this a lot in unguided, intent-based programs that involve high intent, weighted ball throwing into a target-less plyo wall with radar gun feedback. Velocity records may be achieved, but corrupted movement patterns can emerge that limit overall game performance and can lead to increased injury risk. This approach is also present in so-called “data driven” hitting programs that encourage the athlete to “sell out” for exit velocity and launch angle gains. Compensatory patterns may achieve the goal, but the movement that emerges could lack the adjustability and motor control necessary to perform at a high level. 4) Protective alteration of movement due to pain or injury. When an athlete plays through an injury his body may develop protective movement patterns that get the job done in the short term. However, these guarded patterns may deepen over time and erode the efficiency of the movement. Often, even after the injury has healed, the protective pattern remains and inhibits the expression of more optimal power, control and protection form injury. In these cases, the athlete must be presented with a sensory environment that re-introduces him to a more preferred pattern that allows him to optimize length-tension relationships and maximize power, control and protection through synergistic co-contraction. 5) Compensation for an inefficient move further up the kinetic chain. In throwing hitting, as in many other athletic skills, the first move is the most critical. If the first movement is inefficient or sends the athlete’s body in the wrong direction, the body may need to deploy any of a combination of disconnections to get back on course. The compensatory pattern (software) the athlete chooses may be intimately intertwined with any physical limitations or preferences (hardware) his body may possess. These compensatory disconnections may expressed in a wide array of choices. For example, if a pitcher’s hips are retroverted (oriented outward and/or rearward on his pelvis) his body will tend to like external rotation. Since hip external rotation avoids physical resistance and saves calories, this athlete is likely to choose a lead leg disconnection as a compensation for a quad dominant first move that projects him toward the arm side on deck circle. This could disrupt the length-tension relationship of his lower abdominals. Another athlete may choose early torso rotation to get back on course and a third athlete may show a significant lateral tilt of his spine to right his course. Either of these choices disrupts the length and orientation of his abdominals and chest muscles, thus limiting his force production capacity. In many cases, compensatory disconnections are accompanied by a concomitant movement of the head. Excessive head movement can garble the sensory information available and can negatively affect the athlete’s ability to properly time co-contractions necessary for power, control, and protection.

THE BREAKDOWN

I have personally assessed and trained Verlander on two occasions. Justin’s hips are retroverted. His body loves external rotation. One of the issues he was facing when his velocity began to decline in 2015 was that he had lost a little bit of mobility in his hip flexors, quads, and ankles. These deficits had combined to shift his weight forward and toward the ball of his back foot. He then was projected slightly toward the on deck circle toward his arm side. Justin’s hardware did not afford him adequate internal rotation to pull this off. As a result his back leg was going airborne just a little bit too soon and his launch point was slightly earlier than normal.

A pitcher with retroverted hips usually can’t afford to be quad dominant and land across his body.

Max Scherzer (whom I have not assessed) on the other hand appears to have more anteverted hips. I heard an interview once in which he said that he likes to feel his weight on the ball of his foot as he moves toward the plate. This works fine if you’re Max Scherzer and your body loves internal rotation. Max can afford to land across his body. He has enough internal rotation hip mobility to clear his front hip without enacting any compensatory disconnection such as vaulting over his front hip or flexing his back hip. If Justin Verlander, or some other pitcher with different hardware characteristics chose this kind of software organization, he might not be able to pull it off.

Because I don’t have an assessment on Scherzer, I will use 2 case studies of two young men who have trained at the Florida Baseball Ranch® and have similar hips to both Scherzer and Verlander and therefore can be used to breakdown the differences.

CASE STUDY: Colt (retroverted hip pitcher like Verlander) :

This pitcher (we’ll call him Colt) came in for one of our Precision Strike One Day, One- On-One Evaluation and Training Sessions. He’s an 18 year-old righty from Texas throwing in the mid 80s and looking to add a few miles per hour to his . He decided to take a gap year to train before entering college. During our initial evaluation, he scored a “red” on thoracic extension and a “yellow” on bilateral thoracic rotation. We also noted a red score on the 3D Opposite Side Rotation, which examines the combination of hip internal rotation and thoracic rotation. On the Same Side Rotation test he scored a “green.” When we looked at prone internal and external hip rotation, he was red on internal and green on external rotation. This collection of data suggested that Colt probably had retroverted hips. Gross observation of the orientation of his feet (toes out) during conversational stance and the fact that he sat with one foot on the other knee and his hip in flexion, abduction and external rotation, increased my index of suspicion that Colt’s body would prefer external rotation. Colt reported that he typically felt pain in his right biceps and medial elbow after a heavy day of throwing which made recovery difficult.

When we looked at high-speed video of his throwing motion, it became clear that given the hardware characteristics he possessed, the movement he was choosing was less than optimal.

**Note that these are 2 different pitches with video synchronized, so the images are not always exactly the same.**

As you can see in this still frame, Colt’s first move involves counter-rotation of his pelvis and collapsing of his back leg. Since his hips are retroverted, his body probably wouldn’t naturally choose internal rotation of his back hip as its preferred first move. The counter rotation maneuver is probably something that was taught to him (“Show your back pocket to the hitter.”), or he is looking for energy inappropriately by feeling tension as he internally rotates around the back hip. The weight on his back leg is then shifted to the ball of his foot, his butt moves over his back heel and his back knee shifts forward of his back toes. This creates a quad dominant first move that projects him toward the arm-side on deck circle.

Since he has retroverted hips that love external rotation, his first choice to get back on line was a lead leg that opened independently and prematurely, disrupting the length- tension relationships in his hips and lower abdominals. This also placed his lead leg in an awkward toe-out position, making it difficult for him to find lead leg stability.

In a further effort to get back on course, he opened his torso early and lost the advantage of the elasticity of his abdominals and chest muscles. This problem was contributed to and compounded by his lack of thoracic rotation mobility. When the lead leg opens the lead hip early, Colt did not possess enough thoracic rotation mobility to prevent his torso from turning with his hips.

Notice how far across the midline Colt lands with his front leg. Since his hips are retroverted, Colt can’t afford to be across his body. Lacking enough left hip internal rotation to get around his front leg, he is unable to fully rotate his back hip into launch and has to go airborne with his back leg to get it around his front hip. Once his back to is off the ground, his throwing arm is void of support of his back leg. Notice also that he yanks his head literally in a further attempt to get his momentum going toward home plate. This disrupts the sensory information available and can negatively affect his movement. As his back hip moves into flexion, his knee comes forward, his torso lurches forward and his throwing arm straightens. This is what we call a “linear deceleration pattern” and it encourages large amounts of eccentric biceps tension that can negatively impact the shoulder and the elbow. For more on the danger of excessive eccentric biceps, click here.

Finally, because he lacks the lead hip internal rotation and thoracic rotation mobility necessary to continue rotating, his throwing elbow races across the midline of his body. This leads to a traumatizing bang and rebound of his elbow across his body.

Colt’s training plan included heavy doses of unstable loads on his back leg as well as mobility exercises to improve his thoracic rotation and extension. Even though most of the internal rotation deficits of his hips can probably be attributed to the retroversion of his hips, we also prescribed some mobility exercises for hip internal rotation hoping to gain what we could. His throwing program emphasized drills to encourage hip hinging to eliminate his counter rotation and to promote later torso rotation. We added drills to help him control his lead leg, delay torso rotation and to feel foot plant from above. Colt will need to improve his mobility and his movement patterns significantly before his allowed to advance to a velocity enhancement program.

CASE STUDY: Kyle (anteverted hips like Scherzer)

This pitcher (we’ll call him Kyle) is an 18 year-old righty from Virginia. He came in for a Precision Strike One-On-One Evaluation and Training Session shortly after Colt’s appointment. Kyle is also a mid 80s right looking to gain some velocity. Our physical evaluation revealed that Kyle’s body likes internal rotation. On his Opposite Side Rotation test he scored a “green,” and he was a ”yellow” on Same Side Rotation test. On the table, Kyle’s level 2 mobility assessment showed “yellows” bilaterally on thoracic rotation, and a “yellow” on thoracic extension. He graded out as a “green” on hip internal rotation (both legs) and a “yellow” on the external rotation of both hips. This data suggested that Kyle’s hips are more anteverted, meaning his body tends to prefer internal rotation. At rest Kyle stands with his legs crossed and toes pointing inward. He sits with his legs crossed at the knees ("like a girl”) and when I asked him, he confirmed that in elementary school, sitting on the floor “crisscross-applesauce” was always uncomfortable. A review of his high-speed video showed that Kyle also counter rotates his pelvis as he lifts his leg. This may be more of a natural move for Kyle (because his body isn’t so averse to internal rotation), but it could also be the result of something he was taught earlier in his career. When a pitcher has anteverted hips and adequate thoracic rotation, a little counter rotation may be ok, but we must keep an eye on it to make sure it doesn’t become so extreme that is places the gluteus medium and gluteus minimums in mechanically disadvantageous positions. It’s ok to let him like internal rotation as long as we don’t let him like it too much. I like ice cream and that’s ok … as long as I don’t like it too much.

Notice now that as he comes out of his counter rotation and into his back leg load, the counter rotation demands that he begin opening his lead leg independently to get back on track. However, this movement is not nearly as extreme as we saw with Colt.

Like Colt, Kyle lands slightly across the midline of his body but in a much more stable position.

Kyle is able to hinge his hips a little more than Colt, and he’s able to get his butt behind his heel. This puts him in a more anatomically advantageous position to find optimal length, co-contraction and stability of the back leg.

Since his hips are more anteverted than Colt’s, Kyle has enough internal rotation available to allow him to rotate around his front hip while still maintaining contact with the ground. He doesn’t have to go airborne or compensate with hip flexion. Subsequently, he is able to continue rotating to a later launch and he doesn’t have to yank his head laterally to get the ball on line with the target. Since Kyle’s back leg is more stable than Colt’s, his training plan included a more moderate dose of back leg instability exercises. Instead, we were able to emphasize unstable loading of thoracic rotation and to advance to dynamic combination moves. His movement enhancement exercises involved mobility exercises for external rotation of hips, bilateral thoracic rotation and thoracic extension. In addition, he began combining movements and transitioning to hip locks and hip switches to allow him to experience the feel of finding co-contractions while moving through the kinetic sequence. Kyle’s throwing program included drills to further enhance back leg stability while controlling counter rotation. We also added some drills that added time pressure to rotation to nudge him toward more optimal length in his thoracic spine while rotating. Since Kyle presented with fewer mobility issues than Colt, and since he is naturally doing a better job of linking his hardware and software, he will probably be able to advance to a more aggressive velocity enhancement program and subsequently on to a pitch design process to develop SAVAGE filth in his pitch movement characteristics.

Complex systems are … complex … and as such, they demand hyper- individualization across the entire spectrum of training.

Many athletes in the current generation of players get labeled as lazy or contrarian by “old-school” coaches and executives. In some organizations, if a player dares to question an authority figure about the value of a suggested training technique or philosophy they are judged, labeled, and/or lambasted. As I survey the population of athletes we serve, I see a generation of players who have more information available to them than any time in the history of the game. Most of the athletes I encounter don’t mind working hard. They just don’t want to work hard on stupid stuff. I recently worked with former , Cody Allen and he made a statement that I believe perfectly summarizes the view of every serious athlete we train, “I’m not afraid of hard.” He said. “I’m afraid of wrong.”

I think we can all agree by now with the idea that one-size-fits all training is a substandard way to develop today’s players. Such training programs can be highly efficient for the coach or the trainer, but they are usually highly ineffective for the player. A Lack of individualization in a training process is easily identified. If you look around and everyone on the team or in the program is doing the same thing, there is a good chance that the program is going to be a failure for a large majority of players involved. However, in my experience many coaches, players, and parents can be misguided by a shallow interpretation of the concept of individualization. To some, simply having one athlete perform dumbbell bench press while another does barbell bench constitutes an individualized plan. To ensure maximal return on training time, we have a tried and true system to assess both the hardware and the software traits of every individual athlete, and then we must design innovative training interventions that use leading-edge motor learning science to guide the athlete’s body toward a movement pattern of optimal efficiency within that landscape. In the FBR SAVAGE Training System, we use a meticulous assessment process to paint a general picture of how our athlete currently moves and how we might encourage more productive movement solutions.

It’s one thing to know what to do. It’s another to know how to do it.

As Frans Bosch stated in the 2018 FBR/SOS Baseball Skill Acquisition Summit, “If you want to manage and train athletes in the best way possible, you must have tools, not rules.” Every baseball coach needs a valid and reliable assessment tool to identify relevant deficiencies that should be targeted for each athlete. Every coach also needs vast and variable war chest of training techniques and modalities for encouraging the implicit self-organization of meaningful movement solutions. At the 2019 FBR/SOS Baseball Skill Acquisition a team of the world’s most renowned, highly regarded, and effective scientists, coaches and trainers will teach the entire process from stem-to- stern. When you attend the Summit you’ll be exposed to all of the evaluation and training principles, and we’ll give you all the tools you will need to apply our Dynamic Systems Theory and Constraints-Led Approach to the training of your players in the most accurately targeted manner ever conceived. When you master the concepts and learn to apply them, you’ll clear you own mind of all the irrelevant clutter that may have corrupted your prior training sessions. You’ll be able to conduct a thorough and detailed assessment that will allow you to connect each athlete’s physical attributes to the movement qualities that will be the most likely to optimize his performance.

Last year, over 150 forward thinking coaches, trainers, sports scientists and player development specialists attended the inaugural Skill Acquisition Summit. That list included 53 representatives from 15 different MLB clubs. Players’ and coaches’ lives were changed, development systems were overhauled, and performance and productivity on the field were given a shot of nitrous. According to one of the most highly respected player development professionals in the business, “I firmly believe your skills acquisitions summit may actually prove to be a catalyst to change the way that athletes are trained in the future.”

This year, we will take an even deeper dive into the process for laser-targeting baseball training so each player gets the most “bang” for his training “buck.” October 12th and 13th, 2019 could be a seminal moment in the history of baseball player development. We look forward to seeing you there.

Register on-line or learn more at floridabaseballranch.com/summit. Or call Amy at 866-787-4533 and ask her about our group discounts (when 5 people register with an organization, the 6th one is free).

Don’t wait!

The Hotel and the Ranch can only hold so many people and the spots are filling up fast.

We’ll see you at the Summit: