The relationship between age and baseball pitching kinematics in professional baseball pitchers

Dun, Shouchen; Fleisig, Glenn S.; Loftice, Jeremy; Kingsley, David; Andrews, James R.

doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2006.01.008

Cited by 70 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Though this convention was the opposite of that reported in a few previous papers, 2,23,26 it was consistent with most studies. 1,[5][6][7][8][9][14][15][16][17][18][19]25,30 Maximum values were reported for elbow varus torque and shoulder internal rotation torque when the arm was cocked, and for elbow flexion torque and shoulder proximal force near the time of ball release.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Twenty-five parameters (16 position, 5 velocity, and 4 kinetic values) were calculated for each trial, according to methods previously described. [5][6][7][8][9][10]14,16,17,19,25 Nine position parameters were measured at the instant of foot contact: elbow flexion, shoulder external rotation, shoulder abduction, shoulder horizontal abduction, upper trunk tilt, pelvis angle, front knee flexion, stride length, and foot position. Upper trunk tilt was defined as the angle between a line through the 2 shoulder joints and the horizontal plane.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Self Cite

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

mentioning

confidence: 98%

mentioning

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

Self Cite

119

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The literature has documented the mechanics of youth pitchers [1][2][3][4]8,20,21]; however, data regarding the mechanics of catchers is only beginning to become available [5]. With both the catcher and pitcher performing multiple throws throughout the course of a game, it is important to understand not only the mechanics of the throw, but also to determine if differences exist.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To date, a majority of the available data dedicated to biomechanics of throwing has focused on youth pitchers [1][2][3][4]. However, there is another position that requires more throws than the pitcher, the catcher [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Kinematics and Kinetics of Youth Baseball Catchers and Pitchers

Oliver

Lohse

Gascon

2015

Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The purpose of this study was to compare the throwing kinematics and kinetics of youth catchers and pitchers. It was hypothesized that catchers and pitchers would exhibit differences throughout the throwing motion. Descriptive statistics were used to investigate kinematics during the four events of throwing: foot contact (FC), maximum shoulder external rotation (MER), ball release (BR) and maximum shoulder internal rotation (MIR). Additionally, kinetics were investigated within phases of the events: Phase 1 (cocking; FC to MER), Phase 2 (acceleration; MER to BR) and Phase 3 (deceleration; BR to MIR). Results revealed significant difference in torso flexion, lateral flexion, pelvis lateral flexion and segment velocities between the catchers and pitchers. Based on data from the current study, it appears that the youth catchers execute their throw as they have been instructed. It is unclear if the throwing mechanics displayed by these youth are efficient for a catcher, thus further investigation is needed to determine long-term injury susceptibility.

show abstract

“…Dun et al, 2007;Elliott et al, 1986;Escamilla et al, 1998Escamilla et al, , 2002Feltner and Dapena, 1986;Fleisig et al, 1995Fleisig et al, , 1996Fleisig et al, , 1999Fleisig et al, , 2006Ishida and Hirano, 2004;Matsuo et al, 2001;Sakurai et al, 1993高橋ほか，2005）．それに対して，内野手の球速は33 …”

unclassified

Kinematic comparison of baseball throwing motions in relation to the trunk and throwing arm among various types of player positions

Miyanishi

Sakurai

Endo

2015

Japan Journal of Physical Education, Health and Sport Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

: Kinematic comparison of baseball throwing motions in relation to the trunk and throwing arm among various types of player positions. Japan J. Phys. Educ. Hlth. Sport Sci. 60: 551 564, December, 2015 AbstractThe purpose of the present study was to clarify kinematic diŠerences in baseball throwing motions among various types of player positions-pitcher, catcher and inˆelder-based on kinematic data reported in previous studies. A total of 20 articles including 17 pitching studies, 2 catcher's delivery studies and 1 inˆelder's delivery study were investigated mainly with regard to trunk and throwing arm kinematics. Since there no kinematic data were available for the trunk and throwing arm of the catcher, only release parameters (i.e., ball speed, release angle, and height of release) and the durations of the 4 throwing phases (i.e., step, stride, arm cocking, and arm acceleration) were compared between the catcher and the players at other positions. The characteristic diŠerences observed for each throwing motion were as follows: Ball speed was greater for the pitcher than for other positions. Although step phase was shorter for the catcher than for the inˆelder, stride phase was shorter in the latter. Both arm cocking and acceleration phases were shorter for the pitcher than for players at other positions. At the instant of stride foot contact, trunk backward twist and elbow extension angles were larger for the pitcher than for the inˆelder, and the pelvis backward rotation angle was smaller for the former. At the instant of ball release, the upper trunk forward tilt, upper trunk leftward tilt, and trunk forward twist angles were larger for the pitcher than for the inˆelder. Maximum elbow ‰exion and shoulder horizontal abduction angles were larger for the pitcher than for the inˆelder, whereas the maximum shoulder external rotation angle was smaller for the former. Although there were no marked diŠerences in the maximum upper trunk and pelvis forward rotation angular velocities between the pitcher and the inˆelder, their times of occurrence arose in the early phase of throwing in the pitcher in comparison with the inˆelder. These results provide evidence of possible ways in which the throwing performance of players in various positions can be improved.

show abstract

The relationship between age and baseball pitching kinematics in professional baseball pitchers

Cited by 70 publications

References 35 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

Kinematics and Kinetics of Youth Baseball Catchers and Pitchers

Kinematic comparison of baseball throwing motions in relation to the trunk and throwing arm among various types of player positions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About