Biomechanical effects of foot placement during pitching

Slowik, Jonathan S.; Diffendaffer, Alek Z; Crotin, Ryan L.; Stewart, Megan; Hart, Karen; Fleisig, Glenn S.

doi:10.1080/14763141.2021.1898668

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This approach is similar to a previously published study exploring the effect of mound placement on pitching biomechanics. 18 High and low biomechanical efficiency groups were then compared via Mann-Whitney U tests on the significant predictors from multivariate regression to provide standardized cutoffs for training and coaching purposes to improve performance and reduce injury risks. All analyses were conducted using JASP (Version 0.16; University of Amsterdam) a priori with α = .05.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For each pitch, 21 kinematic variables were calculated as previously described. 18 At the instant of SFC, stride length (expressed as % body height), lead foot position, lead knee flexion, pelvic rotation, trunk axial rotation, throwing-arm elbow flexion, shoulder abduction, shoulder horizontal abduction, and shoulder external rotation were measured. At the instant of maximum external rotation (MER), MER angle, shoulder horizontal adduction, and elbow flexion were recorded.…”

Section: Biomechanical Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Determinants of Biomechanical Efficiency in Collegiate and Professional Baseball Pitchers

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Biomechanical efficiency, defined as fastball velocity per unit of normalized elbow varus torque, is a relatively new metric applied to improving the performance and health of baseball pitching. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this work was to evaluate kinematic parameters influencing biomechanical efficiency among professional and collegiate pitchers. Kinematic differences were compared between pitchers of high and low biomechanical efficiency. We hypothesized that professional pitchers would have greater biomechanical efficiency than collegiate pitchers. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: A deidentified biomechanical database of 545 pitchers (447 professional, 98 collegiate) was analyzed. A multivariate linear regression model was used to evaluate significant findings a priori with α = .05. Additionally, biomechanical differences were identified between competition levels and between high and low biomechanical efficiency groups using Mann-Whitney U test (α = .05). Results: Competition level and 11 (of 21) kinematic variables explained 27% of the variance in biomechanical efficiency, with most of the predictors being throwing arm kinematics (elbow flexion at stride foot contact [SFC]: β, −1.47; SE, 0.26; shoulder abduction at SFC: β, −1.78; SE, 0.39; shoulder external rotation at SFC: β, 0.60; SE, 0.22; maximum external rotation [MER] angle: β, 1.82; SE, 0.42; shoulder horizontal adduction at MER: β, −3.42; SE, 0.71) (all P≤ .05). Professional pitchers had greater biomechanical efficiency than collegiate pitchers (711.0 ± 101.0 vs 657.0 ± 99.3, respectively; P < .001; d = 0.53). Compared with the low-efficiency group, the high-efficiency group had significantly lower normalized elbow varus torque with greater weight and height (high: 0.047 ± 0.004 %wt*ht vs. low: 0.063 ± 0.006 %wt*ht, P <.001; d = 3.20). At the instant of SFC, the high-efficiency group demonstrated greater shoulder external rotation and less elbow flexion, shoulder abduction, and pelvic rotation. The high-efficiency group also had greater MER and less shoulder horizontal adduction at MER, trunk side tilt at ball release, and knee excursion from foot contact to ball release. Conclusion: Professional pitchers had greater biomechanical efficiency than collegiate pitchers. Biomechanical efficiency was also affected by 11 kinematic variables identified in this study. Pitchers with higher efficiency had distinct differences in arm position, trunk side tilt, and lead-knee extension range of motion in the delivery. Thus, pitchers and baseball organizations should focus on these factors to lower normalized elbow varus torque relative to ball velocity.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Biomechanical Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of Biomechanical Efficiency in Collegiate and Professional Baseball Pitchers

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Researchers have explored the effects of foot placement on gait analysis, rehabilitation programs, biomechanics, and muscle activity during dynamic tasks within a sport setting [31,32,33,34,35]. Additionally, some studies have assessed the impact of nonleading foot placement on power and velocity [36,37,38,39,40].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of stance width during barbell hip thrust on power and velocity output among adolescent Silat athletes

Mohd Nasir,

Md Nadzalan,

Nor Azmi

et al. 2023

ppcs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Study Aim. In the physically demanding combat sport of Silat, strength and power dominate. Consequently, applying various stance widths during barbell hip thrusts may tailor athletes' lower-body exercises to individual needs. This has the potential to optimize performance. The aim of this study is to investigate the impact on performance of power, speed, and stance width among Silat combat athletes. Material and Methods. Participants performed 10RM tests in three stance widths: wider than shoulder width (WSW), normal shoulder width (NSW), and narrower than shoulder width (NRW). This was done using a 72-hour counterbalance cross-over study design. Power and velocity were measured and analyzed using a mixed ANOVA design. Results. The results indicated a significant main effect of stance width on power (F(2,56) = 3.086, p < 0.05) and velocity (F(2,56) = 3.683, p < 0.03) output. Both males and females demonstrated the highest power in NRW (M = 413.26, SD = 131.76; M = 239.53, SD = 111.16), followed by WSW and NSW. A strong positive correlation between power and velocity was observed for all stance widths: WSW (r(28) = 0.77, p < 0.001), NSW (r(28) = 0.79, p < 0.001), and NRW (r(28) = 0.89, p < 0.001). NRW was associated with superior power production, while WSW facilitated higher velocity. Conclusion. The results of this study demonstrate the importance of considering a variety of stance width techniques during exercise due to their effects on power and velocity during the barbell hip thrust exercise. Coaches can tailor training programs with a velocity-targeted strength and conditioning approach to enhance performance and competitiveness. Further research should investigate different athlete groups and age levels to refine training methodologies.

show abstract