WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE VIS BASEBALL SECTION

[thesnout]

Just wondering what happened to the VIS Baseball section that was once run by Matty Sheldon-Collins and then I think Damien Shanahan.

[bb26]

The VIS like others around the country are there to support/prepare athletes for commonwealth games and Olympics etc. baseball hasn't been in Olympics since 2008. I think Shana's still runs something similar now, but it is fund by participants (no govt funding). So the VIS I don't think even has baseball on their website anymore.

[mc15]

Spot on bb26. The selection of programs funded and support provided falls in line with the new ASC funding structure. Individual athletes are still eligible to apply. At this moment in time, Justin Huber is the only existing baseball scholarship holder

[oldmanriver]

I have seen what Shana runs and it seems a general waste of time with no specific teachings. I think last season or the season before it was $300.00 for 15 weeks. More was achieved if the person attended his/her own Clubs training than attending the Shana money spinner.

[mc15]

May 31, 2013 15:06:22 GMT 10 oldmanriver said:

I have seen what Shana runs and it seems a general waste of time with no specific teachings. I think last season or the season before it was $300.00 for 15 weeks. More was achieved if the person attended his/her own Clubs training than attending the Shana money spinner.

About as ill-informed as it comes... About as insulting as it comes too.

[Chardy]

May 31, 2013 15:06:22 GMT 10 oldmanriver said:

I have seen what Shana runs and it seems a general waste of time with no specific teachings. I think last season or the season before it was $300.00 for 15 weeks. More was achieved if the person attended his/her own Clubs training than attending the Shana money spinner.

Seems?

I'm interested in your level of knowledge that makes anything Shannas teaches to be a "general waste of time with no specific teachings" your words.

Personally I spent many years being coached by the man and found him to be one of the best coaches I have played under in the country.

[lardio]

A couple of points I'd like to mention. The winter academy(old vis) was a fantastic addition to the MWBL, in giving the youth in our sport the opportunity to compete against men midweek, whilst still representing their clubs on a weekend. I am sure all players involved would have seen an improvement in their baseball by playing more often and the increased intensity that such a training environment can provide.
As to its current value, not having witnessed the training myself, I would imagine that any chance that these kids get to improve their standard of play would be an asset and encouraged by their clubs.
On a different note, can anyone out there, (mc15?), explain to me the weights lifting and throwing program that is adopted/standard for players that need the work. Do you lift before training or after? What are the strength and conditioning benefits of lifting in developing miles per hour, arm strength, etc? How much is too much?
It would be an advantage to have some information to pass on to any junior players who are keen to learn but not necessarily in the winter academy yet.

[headinsand]

OMR, I have read a number of things you've written and I think you are getting dumber as you go or your just saying dumb things to be annoying.
To point the finger at one person is naive and you should look at the bigger picture before making comment.

[mc15]

May 31, 2013 23:44:39 GMT 10 lardio said:

On a different note, can anyone out there, (mc15?), explain to me the weights lifting and throwing program that is adopted/standard for players that need the work. Do you lift before training or after? What are the strength and conditioning benefits of lifting in developing miles per hour, arm strength, etc? How much is too much?
It would be an advantage to have some information to pass on to any junior players who are keen to learn but not necessarily in the winter academy yet.

More than happy to contribute lardio... Hope I can do your questions justice without writing a thesis...

In terms of lifting before/after training, generally we need to look at what the priority outcome of the session is meant to be. For instance, if the priority is a full gas bullpen, you’d fully warm up, get your throwing program in to prepare for the bullpen, find your rhythm on the mound and get after it. Same goes if you were working on technical elements in the cage. If you are just going through the motions and getting some swings in/playing catch, gym beforehand isn’t too much of a problem. The bigger issue is recovery time between sessions on the same day. A good rule of thumb is multiply the duration of the training session by two, and that is your rest. For example, if your gym session runs for 1 ½ hours, have 3 hours off before you hit the field. Clearly there are practical reasons why you would not do this, but I’m talking ‘perfect world’ scenarios.

In regards to preparation work for increasing arm velocity, there is a hierarchical approach we need to think about to achieve the goal. Firstly you have to stay healthy, secondly you need to maintain function/quality of movement, and lastly develop the underlying physiology of the movement (strength/power attributes etc).

Health has to be the number 1 priority. Injury/soreness limits the workload you are able to execute within a session. If you limit workload, you are unable to develop the movement qualities and the physiology required to build arm strength. When we think about the loads and movement at the shoulder joint, we are performing a task that is similar to twisting the leg off a roast chicken. There is a fair bit of movement in the chicken leg as you start to move it, but the threshold of free movement and the ‘pop’ of the drumstick coming away from the rest of the chicken is very small. The innate stability of our shoulder joint prevents it from going into this ‘at risk’ range. If stability is compromised through either laxity (too much movement) or fatigue (loss of control) the ability to stay out of these at risk positions is reduced. This is why we have pitch counts and designated days rest from pitching again to lessen the risk of instability at the joint. What is difficult to monitor is the other workloads outside of the game environment (bullpens, playing catch, long toss, other positional play) that influences the total workload in this area.

The second consideration is the function and quality of movement. We need to think of power generation for throwing as a full body movement. This requires a number of elements to occur across the body, including; momentum towards the target, internal rotational velocity of the front hip, Range of motion through both hips, thoracic spine extension and rotation, separation of the hips to the shoulders and range of motion at the shoulder joint to allow the arm to release into external rotation. Combined, this allows for three functions to occur in coordination. Firstly, the is a rapid acceleration of the centre of mass towards the target, secondly we create an elastic stretch throughout the entire system, and lastly once the system has been pretension like a sling shot, we get a whip like release which accelerates the ball. Arm speed requires a very complex and highly competent coordination of all these factors. Strength without coordination and quality of movement will not allow for arm velocity.

The last point of reference is the development of strength attribute. We must consider the following ideas here. If you develop strength and then apply that strength through an unstable joint, you place it at risk of injury (see the health bit above). If you develop strength and then apply that strength through a system of poor function or mobility, the movement will not be able to coordinate and arm strength will not develop (see the second consideration). So the question then becomes what exercises can we apply that improve the qualities mentioned in the paragraph above to improve the elasticity and end range strength? Well there are heaps, but not many from the traditional handbook. We want exercises that challenge control, range and tension under load keeping in mind that the initial influence on arm velocity comes from shifting the centre of mass. We need the ability to move the body towards the target quickly, then on ground contact, create a firm, stable platform of rotation to transfer the ground reaction forces back up through the full system by utilising muscle stretch to accelerate the arm.

As for specifics... What I’ll do is contact Shana on everyone’s behalf and make sure the information I provide is consistent with the model he is applying within the academy. It has been about three years since I’ve updated my research and I wouldn’t want to lead you astray.
One thing I would caution you on is information off the internet. Just because someone makes a couple of cool videos promising improved throwing velocity doesn’t mean they really have any idea of what is going on. Hold off til I chase up the resources for you. As for strength stuff in baseball, be very very careful on what you resource and who it comes from. I’d like to think that the majority of the baseball world is now clearly aware of the influence certain substances had within professional baseball over a 15 year plus period, and the resulting deception that created in how long it takes to develop strength attributes, and what qualities that can naturally be gained from training. Again, if everyone is patient, I’ll work with Shana to chase up some quality resources for you.

[pirates]

Hey thanks for this informative feedback. Love reading about this stuff, thanks for sharing. I recently met and spoke to a guy who is up with the latest reaserch in this field. Very interesting.

[lardio]

Thanks mc, great response! I look forward to seeing some more info.
Cheers

[highball]

Lardio, it depends very much on the player as to what level of strength development (weights) can be used. It should be remembered that those that went into the VIS program usually did so at the end of 2nd year U16s. Those inductees were nearly always kids that developed early and consistently so by 15 1/2 had reached a point where their bodies had developed enough for such programs. I recall talking with a young gym instructor several years ago who had advised several fathers to delay their 15 / 16 year old sons commencement in weight training as their bodies weren't ready for it. This is an area that has been totally overlooked until current time but will be a part of future training program methodology across all sport. It will also change the way we presently determine pitch counts and the total amount of throwing in a defined period (which is inclusive of pitch counts). It's unfortunate that other sports are showing greater interest and therefore the lead in this area ahead of baseball. If you do go down the path of weight training then make sure they only lift or extend themselves to around 80-85% of max if you cannot tell what point they are at in their physical development.

[mc15]

Highball makes some interesting observations which are round the mark, but need a little clarification. Physical maturity does indeed improve at an alarming rate in the mid teens, and our absolute ability to produce force goes through the roof. However, the ability to coordinate the application of this force, or more importantly, the bodies ability to accept and absorb this additional force does not improve at the same rate. Fundamentally, this is where the notion of 'don't lift weights until XXX age' is applied. The mindset should be 'progression of exercises under load should not be advanced until strength and control has been attained throughout the full range of motion.'

This approach is independent of age. The forces that run through the body in day to day loading activities are truly amazing. And to be honest, kids are more exposed to these loads than teens and adults. As you will see through the table below, the step phase of triple jump has forces between 8 and 13 times body weight in a very short period of time. The measurement of time in which force is applied is called impulse. The higher the impulse, the more stress on the body.



Let's use a movement in the gym such as a squad as an example. A 50kg 12 year old kid squatting the external load equivalent to 100kg of load. The duration it takes to complete the movement is long (2-3 seconds) which conforms to a slow movement thus low impulse. The complexity of the movement is high, which highlights the importance of technical proficiency, but if performed correctly, risk from this type of movement is low. If we compare this to a run into a double leg landing for the same 50kg 12 year old kid, we can see ground impact forces moving through his body at between 5 to 6 times body weight (250-300kg)in the space of 1/2 a second. The complexity of this skill is still high, but because younger kids are exposed to this so many times every day playing round, their ability to execute the skill is high. Multiple exposures to this type of movement or a decay of this movement (which occurs as we get older and crustier) exposes us to much greater risk that the squat in the gym.

So the take home message is that technical proficiency enables us to handle very large loads at all ages. Coordination and control development governs the risk, not the movement itself.

I'm tipping right now some people are thinking about that ol' chest nut 'damage to growth plates'. Simply put, it's one of the greatest urban myths in existence. I do not know of a single case of any person suffering growth plate damage as a result of gym training. This is due to how damage to growth plates actually occurs. The mechanism requires high load, short impulse with rotation. These type movements do not occur within the gym. What very few documented cases exist come in the elbow from gymnastics from bar spins with rotation while still hanging on to the bar, and a very few cases in elbows from kids pitching baseball.

I do disagree with highball that this area has been overlooked. It is one of the most vigorously research areas in exercises science. Baseball as a sport however has been a very slow adaptor in taking this information on board, and if I was to be hyper critical, the majority of the baseball community in Australia flat out refuses to listen to experts in this field (eg Scott Barrow, David Darbyshire, Andrew Milan, myself) who have been banging on about this since the mid 90's.

Again, I'll provide some resources going forward. They will take a week or so to chase up.

[mc15]

Here are a couple of resources to wet your appetite. The first link is a series of the ‘Inside Word’ seminars by coaching and support staff from the Victorian Institute of Sport from. There are a variety of topics already at this link with sessions in sport psychology and effective coaching due to be posted by the end of the week.

www.vis.org.au/the-inside-word.html

The second link is to an organisation called Bluearth who are a not for profit group established to develop movement skill sets for life for primary school level kids. Information and videos at their site would be fantastic for skill acquisition for T-ball/under 12/little league teams

www.bluearth.org/resource/welcome/welcome.cfm

[highball]

mc15 you are partially correct in your remarks. There has been an enormous amount of research in terms of exercise science which basically studies movement and how that is achieved and enhanced through strength and conditioning. However, in 2004 I spent 4 months searching the internet for information on growth development and came up with zero. This also meant there wasn't anything connecting growth development with strength and conditioning. The very reason we have pitch limits that are different for each age group is to prevent injury not just to spread around the pitching. I am also aware of a young baseballer that was diagnosed with a rare injury believed to be a combination of growth and overthrowing. It is therefore important to include all throwing (ie warm-ups etc) that occurs say within 1 day not just pitch counts. Having looked at the issue for some 14 years now, there are a number of conclusions I can draw. I have not seen any studies that have looked at the impact of physical loadings at certain points in the growth path and as all would be aware if you look at the rises and falls in throwing speed and the growth points they coincide with then you can see why I am concerned. We all have heard or know of kids that developed early or late, but there has been no attempt to determine on a large scale as to who they are or what this means in terms of what is physically safe for each kid or the obvious effects on opportunity. For example, there is a growth profile that I've termed Type B. I have recorded this profile for players that have commenced phase 1 growth at age 11 1/2 (P1)and also at 12 3/4 (P2). If you look at the variance possible you could have (P1) born in January (ie commences phase 1 growth before the start of 2nd year U12) and (P2) born in December (ie commences phase 1 growth at the start of 2nd year U14). So what is considered safe? If it is safe for P1 to have a pitch count of 70 at U14s is it also safe for P2 who has commenced development 2 years later than P1? And guess which player is likely to be selected at State level. This is where other sports are moving ahead in that they are beginning to recognise the importance of knowing where each player is in terms of growth development and that allows tailored pathways and strength and conditioning programs to be implemented and it is something concrete on which projections can be based.

[mc15]

Thanks highball. Within the general context in which I was trying to share information, one could clearly delve deaper with a reply. So I'll try and just keep it to the points you haverightly mentioned above.

With all due respect, understanding of this area has advanced at an amazing rate since 2004. I am lucky enough to have access to peer review journals through my day job and the biomechanics research I do at Vic Uni. My question for you is in regards to 'growth development', what are you trying to define? If you can share that with me, I'll be more than happy to review what information is out there. If I was to make an assumption, you would be refereing to changes in force production during different stages of maturity?

I agree that the only reason why pitch counts have ever been in place has been for injury prevention. This has been implemented by governing bodies not teams or clubs as the focus of teams and clubs has been and always will be a winning bias (A generalisation I know, but a reality across all sports).

I'm actually not surprised to see an injury related to throwing and growth. We actually see this within another sports/activities on a very regular basis. The simplist and most common example I can give you on this is Osgood-Schlatters syndrome which is a delay in the patella tendon to grow and lengthen at the same rate as the growth of the tibia and femur with an additional factor of an increase in force production from rec fem (quad muscle). Medial elbow pain in young throwers as they start to go through puberty is oftern diagnosed as an irritation to the ulnar colateral ligament (the Tommy John ligament) but more often than not, can be attributed to the same mechanism we see at the knee. Health providers (righfully so) can over-diagonse this pain to make sure the adequate recovery/rest is completed.

I agree with you 100% that in an idea world, all throwing workloads would be monitored. The practicalities of this are not realistic. Not to mention, if we went down this path, we would find ourselves in the situation that Cricket Australia is in with workloads completed to the scientific letter, yet injuries still occuring conflicting with what was originally well thought out and reasonable ranges in which to perscribe workload.

As for the increases and decreases in performance across the maturation period, this can now be clearly defined. Believe it or not, this has been explained by some geeky scientist trying to get robots to move like humans. Basically, what the mathmatics tell us is that movement patterns are highly variable. the repeatability and reduction of this variability continually evolves and chages over time. We could clearly expect that during the prime growth years (early teens) the most obvious changes will occur for highly complex skills such as throwing. The majority of the mechanisms responsible for this are neurological.

Yes there are massive differences in the development rates of kids both physically and mentally. In the environment I function in on a daily basis, we are able to cater for these needs. Equilly, when baseball was a VIS program, we were able to cater for these needs. Shana does the best job he can with the limited time available to develop attributes at independant rates, however the resources to do this at the detailed level he wants are just not there. ie he makes the best out of very restricted situation. Team formats such as the under age state teams and the age groups of club baseball make it very hard for significant outlyers of maturity to be addressed. This is a major issue with team sports but one we have to build a bridge and get over as it is not subject to change.

This first half of the year/second half of the year has been inredibally well documented starting in the mid 70's. Soccer have had an on-going study into the time of year players were born and their subsequent participation in the World Cup which demonstrates a huge bias. Looking at a number of sports here in Australia, we have seen that smae trend in lower age groups, particularly in team sports. We can't consider these unfortunate participants as late bloomers, as they actually mature at the same rate. They are actually late opportunity sufferers.

Lastly, forget about projections. There is crystal clear data to show that a high performing lower age group player does not correlate with a high performing senior player. Opportunity is based on merit at the time you are wanted or not. Unfortunatly, Darwinism striking again

[highball]

It is good to see that there has been some effort to understand growth factors, particularly injuries associated. In junior baseball in this country we have seen a predominance of Jan/Feb/Mar born players making it into state teams etc. I recall one year where 15 out of 16 U14s selected were born Jan - Apr (2 were 1st years). However this is most likely caused by the effect I've outlined previously. When you have the age bracket starting on the 1st of Jan and trials commencing September who are most likely to get in? Will it be players that start developing during U12s or players that start during U14s? It would also be interesting to move the start date for age brackets to the 1st of July and see what happens. There is also the effect of other sports, for instance cricket has a 1st Sept start date for junior brackets and therefore you would expect a larger number of Sept to Dec born players succeeding and therebye drawing players away from baseball. Your last comment about projections however, does not agree with the predictive data that I have amassed over the years. When you see the patterns of growth defined by the data then projections become eminently possible and that agrees partially with the second part of your comment re 'a high performing lower age group player does not correlate with a high performing senior player'. The bit that I disagree with is 'does not', should read, 'may not'. The reason being is that there are 2 factors that will determine success through the juniors, and I might add not just sport; natural ability (these days referred to as X factor) and growth path type. Numerous permutations of those 2 provide different outcomes. What is clear is that a player with high ability can be a reasonably high performer through the juniors even though they may have a delayed or slow growth path. Ultimately they will still being a high performer as an adult because of that combination. There are several MLB player bios that strongly allude to it. I won't go into it any further tonight as I should already be in bed. In winding up, my interest was sparked by seeing the extraordinary differences in growth in players at U14s many years ago and a remark by a development manager at that time along the lines that growth was unpredictable so it wasn't taken into consideration in development programs. Always up for a challenge I've pretty much consigned that one to the Carnegie Institute.

[mc15]

We need to be very careful looking at causality in isolation. Yes I agree that those born in the first half of the year clearly have an advantage in particular through the lower age groups. However this is not just a maturity issue. We see the same pattern occurring within education pathways, the performance arts right on through to financial success as an adult. These other vocations that demonstrate bias are not limited by physical maturity. So what is the advantage then? It’s a multi-factorial life issue. Most opportunities across the board are base round the calendar year which predisposes an advantage for those born during that period.

What we also clearly know is the interaction that accompanying vocations have on each other. It has been very well researched that physical activity influences classroom performance, as does class room performance on physical activity. We see this mirrored within the performance arts too. So if we look at an any advantage in isolation then multiply all those advantages across the board, we get a very clear picture as to why those born earlier in the year have an advantage.

We do not have to hit the panic button however. While the advantages as an adult are clear the spreads are quite small... In the range of 4-8% difference in performance first half/second half.

Sport does provide an interesting paradox though. As stated in my previous post, success at a lower age group does not correlate with performance at a senior level. When you factor in the additional exposure hours that young high achievers are exposed to (between 2-4 time the hours per week) and the better coaching they receive, the lack of success/investment return from the 8-14 higher performing age group is astounding.

This points towards again a multi-factorial influence on development, not one factor in isolation such as maturity. Is there still a slight bias at the senior level for those born in the first half of the year? Yes. But it’s a different group to those who had the advantage young!

So back to how baseball tackles this. Firstly, BV is well aware of this and have been working hard for a number of years to try and rectify disadvantages where possibly. Within the old VIS program this was a heck of a lot easier with the resources and time available to the coaching staff. Since that program was lost, Shana has been working hard to try and get round this issue the best way possible with the resources available. Hence the reason why there is a tearing structure within his academy, and this is also a fundamental reason why the Vic blue/white teams train together as a squad for the longest period possible leading into national championships. This maintains lower achievers exposure to the better coaches and players throughout the preparation period, which are all clear influences on accelerated performance.

As for natural ability, well it just does not exist. We have genetic pre-disposition to perform based on limb length, body composition etc etc that evolve from your family history, but the ability to perform motor tasks are purely environmental. They are learned and acquired over time through exposure. This has been outlined time and time again within some great books such as Talent Code and Outliers. I suggest reading Freakonomics to for understanding environmental correlations.

Have a look at this brilliant video on how we learn motor skills. It should fill in some early learning gaps.

[highball]

This will be my last post on the issue mc15 as I'm heading to the sun. It is clear we will have to agree to disagree on a number of issues.
1) I'm sure those young players who were big names from U12s onwards, were signed and are playing pro ball would be happy to know that 'success at a lower age group does not correlate with performance at a senior level'.
2) The whole discussion from my point has been about players who are not just a few months apart in development ie one end of the year vs the other but about being 1 or 2 years apart in development and are in the same year level ie same age. The difference of 3 to 6 months may be 4-8% however where there is 18 months + difference that blows out to around 15%. This has been derived from data sets on players who have had the same growth path type and have identical parameters showing up at the same points within that growth path. The difference between them being the age of commencement of that growth path and their birth dates. This is all about the classic tortoise and hare scenario. If you give all the opportunities to the hares then you may find no tortoises left by seniors.
3) As for natural ability, well I could write several pages including a large number of examples on this and I'm sure most of the forum audience could as well.
4) We have to keep an open mind when it comes to science as a reference as history has shown that what is revealed today through some study or research can be countermanded or superseded in 5 or 10 years time by another study or research paper, all seemingly having gone through peer review. There have been 2 I can recall in the news this year, complete backflips. So stay tuned.

[mc15]

Too bad it's your last post highball as I was enjoying going backwards and forwards with you on this. I'm not trying to create a compelling argument leading anywhere other that the understanding that performance is multi-faceted and to hang your hat on one area/concept is not going to provide you with the answer. I'm presenting you with summations of research across a variety of vocation from round the world. If you don't want to take this information on board, it is your provocative. I have asked you to share more information with me about the 'growth paths' which you are referring to so I can gain a greater understanding. You've decided not to do that, so I'll stick with the knowledge I have.

As for natural talent. Write away. You clearly haven't watched the video I provided for you and I doubt you'll read the book I referred you to. Talent is acquired through learning. Learning is environmental. Talent is a culmination of learning. This is indisputable regardless of the vocation.

Yes science does evolve which is the whole premise of all my posts in this thread. I'm trying to provide the most up to date information on physical preparation (the original question from lardio) and we have moved into this motor learning as the conversation evolves.

I will leave you with these thoughts in regards to sharing research. Not my words, but they help to filter through to find the quality.

Mastering the art of scientific bullnutstery.
Step 1. Frequently use scary, often irrelevant, scientific buzzwords, it's impressive!
Step 2. Always quote cherry picked, in vitro studies, & display distinct inability to critically appraise methodology & scientific research.
Step 3. Develop 'edgy science' approach that shows complete disregard of all existing evidence. Edgy science, it's novel, impressive & sells
Step 4. Use personal experience as justification of all current practices.
Step 5. React like a 3-year old child when challenged on current beliefs/practices & refuse to discuss or justify these beliefs/practices.
Step 6. Everyone else is wrong, everyone, even you!