Biomechanical Comparison between Elite Female and Male Baseball Pitchers

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yungchien Chu ◽  
Glenn S. Fleisig ◽  
Kathy J. Simpson ◽  
James R. Andrews

The purpose of the current study was to identify the biomechanical features of elite female baseball pitching. Kinematics and kinetics of eleven elite female baseball pitchers were reported and compared with eleven elite male pitchers. Results suggested that females share many similarities with males in pitching kinematics, with a few significant differences. Specifically, at the instant of stride foot contact, a female pitcher had a shorter and more open stride and less separation between pelvis orientation and upper torso orientation. From foot contact to ball release, a female pitcher produced lower peak angular velocity for throwing elbow extension and stride knee extension. Ball velocity was lower for the female. Foot contact to ball release took more time for a female pitcher. Maximal proximal forces at the shoulder and elbow joints were less for a female pitcher.

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (12) ◽  
pp. 2816-2820 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew D. Cohen ◽  
Erin J. Garibay ◽  
Matthew J. Solomito

Background: The incidence of upper extremity injuries in baseball pitchers is increasing. Over the past decade, research has attempted to elucidate the cause of these injuries, focusing mainly on pitching arm mechanics with little examination of other important segments, such as the trunk. This is surprising, as trunk motion has been shown to have significant effects on pitching mechanics. Purpose: To determine the associations between trunk rotation, ball velocity, and the moments about the elbow joint. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: Data collected using 3-dimensional motion analysis techniques from 99 collegiate pitchers (18.0-24.8 years) were analyzed. A random intercept mixed-effects regression model was used to determine if significant associations existed between trunk rotation and ball velocity or elbow varus moment. Results: Significant associations were found between trunk rotation angle at ball release and elbow varus moment ( P = .019, β = 0.254) as well as ball velocity ( P = .016, β = 0.060). For every 10° increase over the average trunk rotation angle at ball release, the elbow varus moment increased by 2.54 N·m and the ball velocity increased by 0.60 m/s. Additionally, the maximum rotational velocity of the trunk was positively associated with elbow varus moment ( P < .001, β = 0.029) and ball velocity ( P < .001, β = 0.007). For every 100 deg/s increase over the average maximum rotational velocity of the trunk, the elbow varus moment increased by 2.90 N·m and the ball velocity increased by 0.70 m/s. Conclusion: In collegiate pitchers, trunk rotation angle at ball release was significantly associated with ball velocity and elbow varus moment. Also, an increase in maximum rotational velocity of the trunk was significantly associated with an increase in the ball velocity and elbow varus moment. This work demonstrates the importance of trunk mechanics in the kinetic chain of the pitch cycle. Clinical Relevance: Pitching coaches and trainers can use the results to stress the importance of trunk mechanics in pitching, specifically, combining adequate core function with increased trunk rotational velocity in an effort to increase pitching velocity without increasing elbow joint stress.


2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 210-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glenn S. Fleisig ◽  
Alek Z. Diffendaffer ◽  
Kyle T. Aune ◽  
Brett Ivey ◽  
Walter A. Laughlin

Background: Weighted-ball throwing programs are commonly used in training baseball pitchers to increase ball velocity. The purpose of this study was to compare kinematics and kinetics among weighted-ball exercises with values from standard pitching (ie, pitching standard 5-oz baseballs from a mound). Hypothesis: Ball and arm velocities would be greater with lighter balls and joint kinetics would be greater with heavier balls. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Twenty-five high school and collegiate baseball pitchers experienced with weighted-ball throwing were tested with an automated motion capture system. Each participant performed 3 trials of 10 different exercises: pitching 4-, 5-, 6-, and 7-oz baseballs from a mound; flat-ground crow hop throws with 4-, 5-, 6-, and 7-oz baseballs; and flat-ground hold exercises with 14- and 32-oz balls. Twenty-six biomechanical parameters were computed for each trial. Data among the 10 exercises were compared with repeated measures analysis of variance and post hoc paired t tests against the standard pitching data. Results: Ball velocity increased as ball mass decreased. There were no differences in arm and trunk velocities between throwing a standard baseball and an underweight baseball (4 oz), while arm and trunk velocities steadily decreased as ball weight increased from 5 to 32 oz. Compared with values pitching from a mound, velocities of the pelvis, shoulder, and ball were increased for flat-ground throws. In general, as ball mass increased arm torques and forces decreased; the exception was elbow flexion torque, which was significantly greater for the flat-ground holds. There were significant differences in body positions when pitching on the mound, flat-ground throws, and holds. Conclusions: While ball velocity was greatest throwing underweight baseballs, results from the study did not support the rest of the hypothesis. Kinematics and kinetics were similar between underweight and standard baseballs, while overweight balls correlated with decreased arm forces, torques, and velocities. Increased ball velocity and joint velocities were produced with crow hop throws, likely because of running forward while throwing. Clinical Relevance: As pitching slightly underweight and overweight baseballs produces variations in kinematics without increased arm kinetics, these exercises seem reasonable for training pitchers. As flat-ground throwing produces increased shoulder internal rotation velocity and elbow varus torque, these exercises may be beneficial but may also be stressful and risky. Flat-ground holds with heavy balls should not be viewed as enhancing pitching biomechanics, but rather as hybrid exercises between throwing and resistance training.


2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 334-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hirofumi Ida ◽  
Seiji Kusubori ◽  
Motonobu Ishii

The purposes of this study were to (a) describe the racket-arm kinematics and kinetics of the soft-tennis smash during match rallies, and (b) assess the characteristics of this smash vs. the laboratory-simulated smash of our previous study. In the current study we recorded soft-tennis smash motions during match play of the 3rd East Asian Games. Racket-arm anatomical joint angular velocity and anatomical joint torque were calculated from 3-D coordinate data of 13 collected motions obtained using the direct linear transformation procedure. The results showed that most of the maximum values of the anatomical joint torques were qualitatively smaller than those of the tennis serve. Peak elbow extension, shoulder internal rotation, and elbow varus torques in match play were significantly greater than values reported for laboratory-simulated conditions. The greater forward swing torques did not result in significantly different racket head velocity, possibly because there was a significantly shorter forward swing phase in match conditions. In particular, a clear peak of the elbow extension torque during the forward swing phase was the most characteristic pattern in the smashes under match conditions, for it was 160% greater than laboratory-simulated conditions. These results supported our hypothesis that racket-arm kinematic and kinetic characteristics of the smash under match conditions differ from those under laboratory-simulated conditions. Possible explanations include the time-pressure conditions of the competitive situation in a match, and the Hawthorne effect (Hudson et al., 1986), both of which alter performance between match conditions and laboratory-simulated conditions.


2011 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 252-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roland van den Tillaar ◽  
Gertjan Ettema

The aim of this study was to compare the kinematics in throwing with a regular weighted handball with 20% lighter and heavier balls in female experienced handball players. In total, eight joint movements during the throw were analyzed. The analysis consisted of maximal angles, angles at ball release, and maximal angular velocities of the joint movements and their timings during the throw. Results on 24 experienced female team handball players (mean age 18.2 ± 2.1 years) showed that the difference in ball weight affected the maximal ball velocity. The difference in ball release velocity was probably a result of the significant differences in kinematics of the major contributors to overarm throwing: elbow extension and internal rotation of the shoulder. These were altered when changing the ball weight, which resulted in differences in ball release velocity.


2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (14) ◽  
pp. 3358-3367 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael F. Escamilla ◽  
Glenn S. Fleisig ◽  
Dave Groeschner ◽  
Ken Akizuki

Background: In professional baseball pitchers, pitching biomechanics have not been examined for the slider, and the only known study for the curveball and changeup examined limited kinetics. Moreover, no known studies have investigated pitching biomechanics between strikes and balls. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to compare pitching biomechanics in professional baseball pitchers among the fastball, slider, curveball, and changeup and between balls and strikes. It was hypothesized that pitching kinematics and kinetics would be similar among the slider, fastball, and curveball; shoulder and elbow forces and torques would be significantly lower in the changeup; and pitching biomechanics would be similar between balls and strikes. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Among 18 professional baseball pitchers, 38 reflective markers were positioned on the body and each player threw 32 to 40 maximum effort pitches—consisting of the fastball, curveball, slider, and changeup pitch types—from a regulation mound to a catcher. The markers were tracked by 18 high-speed 180-Hz cameras, and data were processed and run through a computer program to calculate 25 kinematic parameters, 7 kinetic parameters, and 4 temporal parameters for each pitch type and for both strikes and balls. A 2-way repeated-measures analysis of variance ( P < .01) was used to assess pitching biomechanical differences among pitch type and pitch result (balls vs strikes). Results: During arm cocking, elbow varus torque was 8% to 9% greater in the fastball and slider compared with the changeup, shoulder horizontal adduction torque was 17% to 20% greater in the slider and curveball compared with the changeup, and shoulder anterior force was 13% greater in the curveball compared with the changeup. During arm deceleration, elbow flexor torque was 9% to 14% greater in the fastball compared with the curveball and changeup, and elbow and shoulder proximal forces were 10% to 14% greater in the fastball, slider, and curveball compared with the changeup. At ball release, forward trunk tilt was 16% to 19% greater in the fastball and curveball compared with the changeup, contralateral trunk tilt was 26% to 41% greater in the curveball compared with the slider and changeup, knee flexion was 18% greater in the changeup compared with the fastball, and the knee extended 7° more from lead foot contact to ball release in the fastball compared with the changeup. During arm cocking, pelvis angular velocity was 7% to 8% greater in the fastball compared with the curveball and changeup, and upper trunk angular velocity was 5% greater in the fastball compared with the changeup. During arm acceleration, shoulder internal rotation angular velocity was 6% to 7% greater in the fastball, slider, and curveball compared with the changeup, and ball velocity at ball release was 11% to 18% greater in the fastball compared with the slider, changeup, and curveball and 6% greater in the slider compared with the curveball. For all the kinematic, kinetic, and temporal parameters, analysis showed no significant differences between balls and strikes and no significant interactions between pitch type and pitch result. Conclusion: Nearly all kinetic differences among pitch types occurred between the changeup and the remaining 3 pitch types. Shoulder and elbow forces and torques and injury risk were greater among the fastball, slider, and curveball compared with the changeup but were similar among the fastball, slider, and curveball. Body segment and joint positions were similar among all pitch types at lead foot contact and at maximum shoulder external rotation; however, at ball release, throwing a fastball and curveball resulted in greater knee extension and more forward and contralateral trunk tilt compared with throwing a changeup and slider. Movement speeds for the pelvis, upper trunk, and shoulder were greatest in the fastball and least in the changeup and were generally similar among the fastball, slider, and curveball. The timing of when pelvis, upper trunk, elbow, and shoulder velocities occurred among the fastball, slider, curveball, and changeup was similar, and no kinematic or kinetic differences were noted between throwing balls and strikes. Clinical Relevance: The results from the current study will help clinicians understand differences in pitching biomechanics in professional baseball pitchers among the fastball, slider, curveball, and changeup; the study provides limited insight into shoulder and elbow injury risk associated with different types of pitches.


2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 68-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Micheal J. Luera ◽  
Brittany Dowling ◽  
Tyler W.D. Muddle ◽  
Nathaniel D.M. Jenkins

Pitch velocity (PV) is important for pitching success, and the pelvis and trunk likely influence pitch performance. The purposes of this study were to examine the differences in pelvis and trunk kinetics and kinematics in professional baseball pitchers who throw at lower versus higher velocities (HVPs) and to examine the relationships among pelvis and trunk kinetics and kinematics and PV during each phase of the pitch delivery. The pitch velocity, pelvis and trunk peak angular velocities, kinetic energies and torques, and elbow and shoulder loads were compared among HVPs (n = 71; PV ≥ 40.2 m/s) and lower velocities pitchers (n = 78; PV < 39.8 m/s), as were trunk and pelvis rotation, flexion, and obliquity among 7 phases of the pitching delivery. Relationships among the kinetic and kinematic variables and PVs were examined. Higher velocity pitchers achieved greater upper trunk rotation at hand separation (+7.2°, P < .001) and elbow extension (+5.81°, P = .002) and were able to generate greater upper trunk angular velocities (+36.6 m/s, P = .01) compared with lower velocity pitcher. Trunk angular velocity (r = .29) and upper trunk rotation at hand separation (r = .18) and foot contact (r = .17) were weakly related to PV. Therefore, HVPs rotate their upper trunk to a greater degree during the early phases of the pitching motion and subsequently generate greater trunk angular velocities and PV.


2021 ◽  
pp. 175857322110103
Author(s):  
Joseph E Manzi ◽  
Brittany Dowling ◽  
Nicolas Trauger ◽  
Michael C Fu ◽  
Benjamin R Hansen ◽  
...  

Background The relationships between shoulder abduction and external rotation with peak kinetic values at the shoulder and elbow in professional baseball pitchers are not well established. Methods Professional pitchers ( n = 322) threw 8–12 fastballs under 3D motion analysis (480 Hz). Pitchers were stratified into quartiles by shoulder abduction and external rotation at distinct timepoints. Regression analyses were performed to quantify associations between shoulder position and kinetics. Results Shoulder abduction remained relatively consistent throughout the pitch (foot contact–ball release: 85.5 ± 11.1–90.7 ± 8.4°); shoulder external rotation increased dramatically (foot contact–ball release: 30.8 ± 24.6–165.2 ± 9.7°). For every 10° increase in maximum shoulder rotation, shoulder superior force increased by 2.3% body weight ( p < 0.01), shoulder distraction force increased by 5.9% body weight ( p < 0.01), and ball velocity increased by 0.60 m/s ( p < 0.01). Shoulder abduction was significantly associated with shoulder superior force at all timepoints but not with ball velocity ( p > 0.05). For every 10° increase in shoulder abduction at ball release, shoulder superior force increased by 3.7% body weight ( p < 0.01) and shoulder distraction force increased by 11.7% body weight ( p < 0.01). Conclusion Increased shoulder abduction at ball release and increased maximum shoulder external rotation were associated with greater superior and distraction forces in the shoulder. Pitchers can consider decreasing shoulder abduction at later stages of the pitch to around 80° in order to minimize shoulder superior force, with no impact on ball velocity.


2009 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 245-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon N. Pearson ◽  
John B. Cronin ◽  
Patria A. Hume ◽  
David Slyfield

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document