Adolescent Baseball Pitching Technique

Nissen, Carl W.; Westwell, Melany; Õunpuu, Sylvia; Patel, Mausam; Tate, Janet P.; Pierz, Kristan; Burns, Joseph P.; Bicos, James

doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e318064c88e

Cited by 98 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…14,21,27 Repetition of high force in the UCL associated with high varus torque can lead to gradual attenuation of the UCL. 2,18 Thus the progression of throwing phases during rehabilitation after UCL surgery should allow the athlete to regain his pitching mechanics, while progressively loading the UCL graft.…”

Section: Elbow Injury Mechanisms and Rehabilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanical Comparison of Baseball Pitching and Long-Toss: Implications for Training and Rehabilitation

Fleisig¹,

Bolt²,

Fortenbaugh³

et al. 2011

Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy

119

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Design Controlled laboratory study. Objectives To test for kinematic and kinetic differences between baseball pitching from a mound and long-toss on flat ground. Background Long-toss throws from flat ground are commonly used by baseball pitchers for rehabilitation, conditioning, and training. However, there is controversy over the biomechanics and functionality of such throws. Methods Seventeen healthy, college baseball pitchers pitched fastballs 18.4 m from a mound to a strike zone, and threw 37 m, 55 m, and maximum distance from flat ground. For the 37-m and 55-m throws, participants were instructed to throw “hard, on a horizontal line.” For the maximum-distance throw, no constraint on trajectory was given. Kinematics and kinetics were measured with a 3-dimensional, automated motion analysis system. Repeated-measures analyses of variance, with post hoc paired t tests, were used to compare the 4 throw types within pitchers. Results At foot contact, the participant's shoulder line was nearly horizontal when pitching from a mound and became progressively more inclined as throwing distance increased. At arm cocking, the greatest amount of shoulder external rotation (mean ± SD, 180° ± 11°), elbow flexion (109° ± 10°), shoulder internal rotation torque (101 ± 17 Nm), and elbow varus torque (100 ± 18 Nm) were measured during the maximum-distance throws. Elbow extension velocity was also greatest for the maximum-distance throws (2573°/s ± 203°/s). Forward trunk tilt at the instant of ball release decreased as throwing distance increased. Conclusion Hard, horizontal, flat-ground throws have biomechanical patterns similar to those of pitching and are, therefore, reasonable exercises for pitchers. However, maximum-distance throws produce increased torques and changes in kinematics. Caution is, therefore, advised in the use of these throws for rehabilitation and training. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2011;41(5):296–303, Epub 5 January 2011. doi:10.2519/jospt.2011.3568

show abstract

Section: Elbow Injury Mechanisms and Rehabilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanical Comparison of Baseball Pitching and Long-Toss: Implications for Training and Rehabilitation

Fleisig¹,

Bolt²,

Fortenbaugh³

et al. 2011

Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy

119

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Three-dimensional position data were filtered using a fourth-order low-pass Butterworth filter with a 60 Hz cut-off frequency which was chosen based on the results of residual analysis, previous studies (Barrentine et al, 1998;Keeley et al, 2010;Nissen et al, 2007;Solomito et al, 2014), and qualitative observation of the velocity and acceleration curves derived from the filtered data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We defined the instant of lead foot contact as the instant when the velocity of the heel or toe marker of the lead foot was less than 1.5 m/s, as in previous studies (Nissen et al, 2007(Nissen et al, , 2009). Data were synchronised with the instant of BRL, and some data points were removed from the beginning and ending parts to generate identical data lengths among trials.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nissen et al (2007Nissen et al ( , 2009) defined the instant of BRL as the instant when the distance between any of two markers on the ball and the marker on the metacarpophalangeal joint increased by greater than 2 cm (Distance method). Barrentine et al (1998) defined it as two frames (10 ms) after the wrist passed the elbow in the throwing direction (time method).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…CONTACT tomoyuki matsuo tmatsuo@skill.hss. osaka-u.ac.jp 1998;Naito, Takagi, Yamada, Hashimoto, & Maruyama, 2014;Nissen et al, 2007;Solomito, Garibay, Woods, Õunpuu, & Nissen, 2014). At times, there was a focus on pronation during the arm acceleration and follow-through phases to improve throwing velocity and prevent injury; therefore it was claimed that muscle training for the primary pronator muscles was needed (Carroll, 2004;Keeley et al, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Radio-ulnar joint supinates around ball release during baseball fastball pitching

Matsuo

Jinji

Hirayama

et al. 2016

Sports Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was conducted to determine whether a supination phase of the forearm exists around ball release (BRL), and, if present, to determine whether this supination is explained by a reaction force or by the body configuration required for this task. A 16-camera motion analysis system with a sampling frequency of 1,000 Hz recorded 20 healthy male semi-professional pitchers pitching from an indoor pitching mound. A short supination phase around BRL was confirmed for all participants in the current study. Correlation analyses revealed that the supination angle at BRL had significant relationships with several measurements of shoulder movement kinematics. Mechanical work analysis of the forearm's longitudinal axis revealed several variations in joint power curve and various patterns of mechanical work among the participants, suggesting that a reaction force originating from accelerating a ball might not be the main cause of supination. The raw data also were down-sampled to a sampling frequency of 250 Hz, to match previous studies and to investigate the discrepancy among previous studies concerning the existence of the supination phase. The experience of participants and methodological differences, such as the definition of BRL and the time-normalisation technique, influenced whether the supination phase was observed.

show abstract

Feasibility of the pitch efficiency rating: A novel tool for systematic assessment of pitching mechanics in developing throwing athletes

Kenyon,

Beebe,

Easley

et al. 2024

PM&R

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundInjuries in younger baseball athletes continue to increase despite work characterizing risk factors. Three‐dimensional (3D) motion capture may identify suboptimal pitching mechanics that predispose an athlete to injury, but 3D‐motion analysis is often inaccessible. Thus, there is a gap between the current biomechanics literature and its practical application in young athletes. The current study aims to assess the reliability of the pitch efficiency rating (PER) as a systematic tool to evaluate throwing mechanics in developing baseball pitchers.ObjectiveTo determine the feasibility of application and reliability of a novel, scientifically informed tool (PER) for the assessment of pitching mechanics.DesignReliability study using Bland–Altman methods for assessing agreement between two raters.SettingAcademic medical center through community outreach.ParticipantsPitching mechanics were assessed and rated with the PER for 40 athletes (26 high school, 14 Division III), average age 19.0 years old (range 15.3–23.7 years old).InterventionsN/A.Main Outcome MeasuresInterrater and intrarater reliability as calculated by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).ResultsFor initial readings comparing interrater reliability between Rater 1 and Rater 2, the ICC was calculated at 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66–0.89) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.60–0.86) for the second set of ratings. Regarding intrarater reliability across reads, ICC was found to be 0.63 (95% CI 0.43–0.79) for Rater 1, and 0.91 for Rater 2 (95% CI 0.85–0.95).ConclusionsThe present study introduces the PER as a potential tool for evaluating pitching mechanics. However, the intrarater reliability of the PER did not meet preestablished criteria in one of the two pilot raters. Further study is needed to continue to assess the reliability of the tool across diverse demographics.

show abstract

Adolescent Baseball Pitching Technique

Cited by 98 publications

References 11 publications

Biomechanical Comparison of Baseball Pitching and Long-Toss: Implications for Training and Rehabilitation

Biomechanical Comparison of Baseball Pitching and Long-Toss: Implications for Training and Rehabilitation

Radio-ulnar joint supinates around ball release during baseball fastball pitching

Feasibility of the pitch efficiency rating: A novel tool for systematic assessment of pitching mechanics in developing throwing athletes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About