Search

Researchers have postulated that the rise in the incidence of pitching injuries is partially due to poor pitching mechanics. A topic that is often debated revolves around the correct positioning of the elbow in relationship to the body. Therefore, this study attempts to understand the associations of vertical or horizontal elbow positon with upper extremity joint moments, and ball velocity, and how elbow position is influenced by trunk position. Motion analysis data from 99 collegiate pitchers were analysed for this study. A random intercept, mixed-effects regression model was used to determine if statistically significant associations existed between elbow position and upper extremity joint moments and ball velocity. Results indicated that visual impressions of the elbow position were highly correlated with trunk position, whereas kinematic definitions of elbow position were correlated to the glenohumeral angle. Visual vertical and horizontal elbow position was associated with increased elbow varus moments (p = 0.001) and ball velocity (p = 0.019), respectively. Whereas kinematic elbow position was not associated with either upper extremity joint moments or ball velocity. Therefore, what coaches visually interpret as an improperly positioned elbow may actually be a combination of lateral lean, anterior tilt, and over rotation of the trunk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The incidence of elbow injury experienced by baseball pitchers is on the rise. Biomechanical investigations focusing on the acceleration phase of the pitch have yet to elucidate a singular cause for these injuries. Leading to the question is there an additional significant stress on the elbow during other phases of the pitch? This study sought to determine the magnitude of the elbow varus moment during the deceleration phase of the pitching cycle for the fastball, curveball, slider and change-up. Eighty-seven collegiate-level pitchers were evaluated using motion analysis techniques to determine the magnitude of the elbow varus moment occurring during the deceleration phase. The results indicated that the elbow varus moment during the deceleration phase of the pitch was typically between 40% and 50% of the peak acceleration phase moment and was greatest when throwing a slider. Results also indicated that more pitchers experienced deceleration phase moments in excess of 50% of the acceleration moment when throwing breaking pitches. These moments which are the result of the pitchers' need to rapidly decelerate their arm produce an additional significant elbow varus moment that results in additional stress to the elbow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The association between breaking pitches and elbow injury remains nebulous. Biomechanical studies have shown that throwing a fastball rather than a curveball results in greater elbow moments, despite some epidemiological studies and pitcher self-report indicating the opposite. This leads to the following question: Are biomechanical studies missing something that could explain this discrepancy? This study evaluated the association between elbow kinematics of baseball pitchers during the deceleration phase of the pitch and the elbow varus moment. Eighty-seven uninjured collegiate pitchers were analysed using 3-dimensional motion capture techniques. Results indicated that pitchers who remained in greater elbow flexion had greater post ball release elbow varus moments (EVMPBR) (p = 0.001). Regression analysis indicated that for every 10° of increased elbow flexion during follow-through the EVMPBR increased by 5.4 Nm for the fastball and 8.2 Nm for the curveball (p < 0.001). This suggests a concerning second stress on the elbow joint occurring during the deceleration phase of the pitch. The results showed that maintaining greater elbow flexion during the deceleration phase of the pitch can substantially increase the elbow varus moment after ball release (BR), especially when pitching the curveball. The results reinforce the need to emphasise appropriate pitching mechanics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Left-handed baseball pitchers are thought to have a number of theoretical advantages compared to right-handed pitchers; however, there is limited scientific research detailing differences in the pitching mechanics of right- and left-handed pitchers. Therefore, this study sought to understand whether any kinematic and kinetic differences existed between right- and left-handed baseball pitchers. A total of 52 collegiate pitchers were included in this study; 26 left-handed pitchers were compared to 26 age-, height-, weight- and ball velocity-matched right-handed pitchers. Demographic information, passive shoulder range of motion and kinematic and kinetic data were obtained for each pitcher participating in the study. Results indicated that left-handed pitchers did not have a glenohumeral internal rotation deficit as compared to right-handed pitchers. Kinematic analysis indicated that elbow flexion, horizontal glenohumeral abduction and wrist coronal plane motion were significantly different between the two study cohorts. It was also noted that left-handed pitchers had increased elbow varus moments. The findings of this study suggest that pitching coaches should be aware that there are biomechanical differences between left- and right-handed pitchers. [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]