Search

Documentation of the lower extremity motion patterns of adolescent pitchers is an important part of understanding the pitching motion and the implication of lower extremity technique on upper extremity loads, injury and performance. The purpose of this study was to take the initial step in this process by documenting the biomechanics of the lower extremities during the pitching cycle in adolescent pitchers and to compare these findings with the published data for older pitchers. Three-dimensional motion analysis using a comprehensive lower extremity model was used to evaluate the fast ball pitch technique in adolescent pitchers. Thirty-two pitchers with a mean age of 12.4 years (range 10.5-14.7 years) and at least 2 years of experience were included in this study. The pitchers showed a mean of 49 ± 12° of knee flexion of the lead leg at foot contact. They tended to maintain this position through ball release, and then extended their knee during the follow through phase (ball release to maximal internal glenohumeral rotation). The lead leg hip rapidly progressed into adduction and flexion during the arm cocking phase with a range of motion of 40 ± 10° adduction and 30 ± 13° flexion. The lead hip mean peak adduction velocity was 434 ± 83°/s and flexion velocity was 456 ± 156°/s. Simultaneously, the trailing leg hip rapidly extended approaching to a mean peak extension of -8 ± 5° at 39% of the pitch cycle, which is close to passive range of motion constraints. Peak hip abduction of the trailing leg at foot contact was -31 ± 12°, which also approached passive range of motion constraints. Differences and similarities were also noted between the adolescent lower extremity kinematics and adult pitchers; however, a more comprehensive analysis using similar methods is needed for a complete comparison. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The incidence of upper extremity injury in baseball pitchers has increased over the past decade. This has resulted in a large body of research mainly focused on the kinematic and kinetic patterns of the elbow and shoulder to elucidate the cause of these injuries, with little attention on studying the associations of forearm rotation and upper arm joint moments. Hypothesis: There will be significant differences in forearm kinematics and kinetics when comparing the fastball pitch with the curveball pitch. There will be a positive association between forearm kinetics, specifically supination and pronation moments, and the elbow varus moment. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: A total of 78 pitchers were recruited for this study, and they underwent a pitching analysis using motion analysis techniques. A random-intercept, mixed-effects regression model was used to determine differences in forearm kinematics and kinetics when pitching a fastball compared with a curveball, as well as to determine if associations existed between forearm supination and pronation moments and the elbow varus moment. Results: There were a number of significant differences in forearm position when pitching a fastball compared with a curveball, with the curveball producing a more supinated forearm position. Significant associations were found between increasing forearm supination moments and an increase in elbow varus moment for both the fastball and the curveball (P = .002 and P < .001, respectively). For every 1-N·m increase in the supination moment, there was a 1-N·m and 1.1-N·m increase in the elbow varus moment for the fastball and curveball, respectively. Conclusion: The results demonstrated that the forearm position was not associated with the elbow varus moment. However, the supination moment was associated with the elbow varus moment. Clinical Relevance: On the basis of these findings, pitching coaches and trainers can understand the implications of proper lower arm pitching mechanics in the later portion of the pitch cycle as a potential risk of injury and, therefore, can develop coaching strategies to reduce incorrect positioning, especially when players are pitching the curveball. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The incidence of upper extremity injuries in baseball pitchers is increasing. Over the past decade there has been a great deal of research attempting to elucidate the cause of these injuries, focusing mainly on the mechanics of the pitching arm with no examination of other key segments, such as the trunk. This is surprising, as coaches will often comment on trunk position in an effort to improve pitching outcomes. Purpose: To determine the association between contralateral trunk lean and ball velocity and the moments about the elbow and glenohumeral joint. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: A total of 99 pitchers were recruited for this study and underwent a pitching analysis using 3-dimensional motion analysis techniques. A random intercept mixed-effects regression model was used to determine if statistically significant associations existed between contralateral trunk lean (away from the pitching arm side) and ball velocity, as well as the elbow varus moment and glenohumeral internal rotation moment. Results: The results demonstrated that the greatest contralateral trunk lean occurs around the time of the peak elbow varus moment. Statistically significant associations were found between contralateral trunk lean and increased ball velocity (P = .003) indicating that for every 10 increase in contralateral lean, ball velocity increased 0.5 m/s. Results also indicated that for every 10 increase in contralateral lean, elbow varus moments increased by 3.7 Nm and glenohumeral internal rotation moments increased by 2.5 Nm (P \ .001 for both). Conclusion: Study findings indicate that the positioning of the trunk plays a substantial role in pitching performance and pitcher injury potential. This work helps to demonstrate the importance of proper trunk mechanics in pitching and highlights the need for future research to understand the contribution of the trunk to pitching mechanics. Clinical Relevance: Pitching coaches and trainers can use the results of this study to stress the importance of proper trunk mechanics in pitching. Specifically, improving core strength and trunk control in an effort to maintain a more upright posture through the pitching cycle can reduce upper extremity joint stresses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current pitching literature focuses primarily on the elbow and glenohumeral joints. This has led to a paucity of information regarding the forearm and wrist, and the limited data available are inconsistent. Therefore, this article seeks to provide a comprehensive description of the kinematics and kinetics of the wrist and forearm for the fastball, curveball, slider/cutter, and change-up for college-level baseball pitchers. Thirty-six collegiate pitchers were evaluated using motion analysis techniques. Results indicated that pitching the curveball generated the greatest forearm supination (16 ± 13°) compared with the other three pitch types (p < 0.05). The curveball and slider/cutter were pitched with less wrist extension and greater ulnar deviation compared with the fastball and change-up. The curveball was found to produce the greatest ulnar moment (7.3 ± 2.2 Nm) and was significantly different from the moments noted when pitching the fastball and change-up (5.1 ± 1.9 and 4.9 ± 1.9 Nm, respectively;p < 0.05). These results indicate that it may be possible to objectively determine pitch type from kinematic data of the wrist and forearm. It may also be possible that coaches may be able to identify abnormal pitching mechanics from more proximal segments by understanding the motion of the wrist. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]