After reading that thread regarding the ASMI study of Mike Marshall pitchers, along with a few other websites, I'm really impressed by one person specifically: Glenn Fleisig. He seems to be one of the most competent and committed scientists involved in the study of pitching. His ego is well under control and his work seems at least solid.

There is one extreme flaw with this study, however. ASMI is the only group involved in it. Marshall is not a scientist, and he seemed practically insulted by the entire thing, even going so far as to publish his list of 40 questions for the experiment. Dr. Andrews is definitely not a scientist, and his financial stake in the experiment is certainly significant. There are glaring problems with the unrepeatability and subjectivity of the study.

I'm afraid I simply cannot fully support "research" that is so far from the system of double-blinding, peer review, and scrutiny that is so important to science. The fact that the names of pitchers involved cannot be revealed is fine: They are subjects of an experiment, and their privacy probably had to be repeatedly guaranteed to get them to participate (being labeled mechanically flawed in a scientific study could annhilate a pitcher's career). However, this means the study cannot be repeated, and there is obvious subjectivity in the inclusion of a group simply labeled "elite pitchers" while they remain faceless and their mechanics are not up to our scrutiny (only the results are revealed). While the ASMI study is a step forward, we have a long way to go.

So, let's say you were a scientist (perhaps you are one, who knows?). At your laboratory, who would you use as examples of the best mechanics? Personally, I'd love to see the following pitchers as the control:

Greg Maddux.

Roger Clemens (it's not miss congeniality, I hate the guy as a person).

Roy Oswalt.

Tim Lincecum (more out of curiousity than reverence).