Our hitters and pitchers take the VAK assessment at the beginning of every fall to determine if they are a Visual, Auditory or Kinesthetic learner. I will talk about some of the benefits of this test in another post, but will specifically cover how we graded our pitch design results and examine whether or not there is a relationship between the type of learner the pitcher is and their results.
I have always felt there is more than one way to help a player improve and the VAK Assessment is just another tool to communicate with each player on an individual basis. With so much tech at our hands, I felt that the Visual learners would show the most improvements in designing a new pitch or improving on a current one. One reason I made this assumption is because both the Rapsodo dashboard and high speed video present in pitch design sessions would fall under the Visual category. A pitcher can view the various metrics and rotating ball on Rapsodo after a pitch, and visualize how it leaves the hand with video.
Ways to Communicate with Each Type During Pitch Design Session
Pitching coaches are responsible for this part, but I will provide some examples on how each of the learner types could be used as a different means of teaching during pitch design sessions.
Visual: This is the type that I initially thought would have the highest scores. As I said in the beginning, between the Rapsodo dashboard and having high-speed video of not only a particular pitcher during a bullpen but also pros they are trying to emulate, I felt like the Visual learner would have the biggest advantage. So for this type, watching that video and getting the immediate feedback would be how they learn most effectively.
Auditory: This is usually the type with the least amount of learners. I see this as a good thing because research has started to show that external cues and constraints are more effective than internal cues when it comes to skill acquisition, and auditory teaching methods are primarily internal. That does not necessarily mean that some players won't respond better to internal cues, however. In pitch design, an Auditory learner might need to hear "cup the ball" when adding depth to a curveball, or "pronate sooner" when trying to stop cutting a fastball in order to increase spin efficiency.
Kinesthetic: When you think of kinesthetic learners, think "feel". These are the guys who might have the quickest learning curve on their own. For example, in a bullpen or game setting they might feel their front side flying open and be able to self-correct on the next pitch. In pitch design, this could come in the form of feeling the ball come off their fingers a certain way. In this video, Trevor Bauer talks about trusting his grips and his finger "slipping" off the ball to create the movement on his changeup that he is looking for. It's important to note that he specifically says he does not think about that in-game, he practices it enough times with high intent that he can trust it. Another way I have heard him talk about throwing his curveball is that at release, he does a karate chop-like motion with his hand. As a coach, if you are working with a Kinesthetic type pitcher on their curveball, you might literally grab their throwing hand and help them simulate that feel.
Our Team
Below is a chart that shows how many of our pitchers fall into each category.
As you can see, the Kinesthetic learner leads the way with eight pitchers. We have three pitchers with two learner types, meaning their test scores were tied.
Grading System
When we were coming up with a grading scale, we wanted to make sure that we graded each pitcher based on what the specific initial goals were. Say, for example, a pitcher was struggling with the goal of adding a new pitch halfway through the offseason and decided to bag that idea. Instead, their focus shifted to turning three current average pitches into two really good ones. That pitcher could not score a 5 because they did not achieve the initial goal. Obviously we want them to have the better arsenal long term, but what we were looking for in this case is if their specific learner type made adjustments faster than others.
Results
Here are the actual results. The inner rectangle represents the interquartile, or the range from 25-75% of the scores. The horizontal line within the rectangle represents the median score, and the extended lines off the rectangle represent the minimums and maximums of each score. Kinesthetic learners had the highest median scores, but they also had the largest spread (or standard deviation). Visual learners had the highest mean score and were the most consistent scorers given their sample size, with all six scoring either a 2 or 3. The three players with two learner types might as well be ignored due to minimal sample size.
Conclusion
We have a few improvements that can be made to this logic moving forward. My initial thinking that Visual learners would make the best candidates for pitch design is not necessarily wrong, but we need to keep evaluating this. There are many additional things to think about. For example, a possible flaw with our grading scale is that if we were to have a player with a "perfect" pitch arsenal with no goals for improvement, he would score a 1 because there was no change. If that were the case, we need to only evaluate this system for pitchers that are focusing on pitch design. We are also forced to make subjective grades, in part because we cannot download the Rapsodo csv. If we had the Rapsodo csv, we would be able to make more objective conclusions by having certain parameters for each pitcher. We also need to think about whether or not the profiles translate to games not only from a performance standpoint, but if the data is even the same from a bullpen. We have used Rapsodo during intrasquads on the field and seen completely different movement profiles than their bullpens. Another thing to think about is diminishing returns. A senior who has been working on improving a pitch for three years might see less returns than a freshman or sophomore. We also need to consider a better way to categorize the players who have two learner types.
Ideally, this would be continually evaluated over the next few years. At the pro level, having a much larger sample size has the potential to provide a lot more insight and help identify which pitchers would benefit most from different teaching styles in a pitch design setting.
Comments