Curveball Pitches Research Articles

Effects of a Simulated Game and Doubleheader Inning on Peak Kinetics in Softball Pitching Across Pitch Types

Background: Softball pitchers frequently pitch at high volumes. Previous research has demonstrated changes in mechanics, range of motion, and perceived levels of fatigue and pain at high workloads. To date, little research has assessed changes in kinetics at high workloads across pitch types to understand the injury risk. Purpose: To examine changes in peak kinetics of the shoulder, elbow, and wrist of the pitching arm throughout a simulated game and doubleheader inning. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: A total of 19 high school softball pitchers (mean age, 15.1 ± 1.5 years; mean height, 1.6 ± 0.2 m; mean weight, 76.3 ± 16.9 kg) participated. Pitchers threw 4 innings of 25 randomly assigned pitches to mimic a game's high pitch count. Participants then rested for 30 minutes before subsequently proceeding to pitch the first inning of a doubleheader. Each pitcher threw a fastball, drop ball, curveball, and changeup. Peak shoulder, elbow, and wrist kinetics were compared across the first, last, and doubleheader innings and pitch types. Results: Compared with the first inning, significant decreases in kinetics were observed at the shoulder, elbow, and wrist in the last (P < .016) and doubleheader (P < .016) innings, particularly for shoulder and elbow compression force during the drop ball and curveball pitch types and wrist net force for all pitch types but the changeup. Significant decreases in elbow and wrist kinetics were observed during the changeup between the last and doubleheader innings (P < .016). Furthermore, differences in kinetics were observed between pitch types (P < .008); notably, the changeup had reduced kinetics compared with the fastball and breaking ball pitch types (drop ball, curveball) across innings. Conclusion: Across innings, attenuations in select joint kinetics of the pitching arm occurred that were specific to the pitch type. Across pitch types, peak kinetics was often greater during the fastball, while the changeup displayed the lowest peak kinetics. Clinical Relevance: The joints examined in this study are common sites of overuse injuries in pitchers. This work adds to previous findings on decrements in neuromuscular function as well as self-reported fatigue and pain with tournament-style pitching that may increase the injury risk. Collectively, these findings support developing a protocol combining functional testing and player-reported outcomes to aid sports specialists’ decisions for pitchers to continue to pitch or return to play, which may help prevent musculoskeletal injuries and time loss from sports participation.

Poster 171: Comparative Analysis of Kinetic Variables Between Different Pitch Types in Professional Baseball Pitchers

Objectives: The persistent high rates of elbow injuries among professional baseball pitchers indicates a critical gap in our understanding of how a pitch influences load on the elbow. Traditionally, research has examined the maximum value of various kinetics experienced at the throwing arm during a pitch, especially elbow varus torque. The maximum elbow varus torque has been used as a surrogate for potential elbow injury; however, the elbow injury epidemic has still persisted. It is possible that analysis focused on only the maximum value misses the total load experienced on the throwing arm. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate different metrics to evaluate elbow stress, including maximum elbow varus torque, elbow loading rate, and cumulative varus torque between different pitch types. By evaluating these aspects of elbow stress, our study aims to uncover previously overlooked kinetic variables that might be potential contributors to elbow injuries, bridging the gap between existing kinetic analyses and the persistent high injury rates. Methods: Data from a cohort of 41 professional baseball pitchers were utilized for this analysis (188 ± 6 cm; 91.9 ± 8.2 kg). Pitchers threw a series of fastball, changeup, and curveball pitches (fastball: 10 ± 3 pitches, changeup: 3 ± 1 pitches, curveball: 4 ± 1 pitches) captured using a 3D motion capture system (480 Hz). Kinetic variables were calculated for each pitch, including maximum elbow varus torque, loading torque rate (measured as the derivative of the varus torque curve), and cumulative elbow varus torque (measured as the area under the elbow varus torque curve). A linear mixed effects model was employed to examine within player associations between pitch type and ball velocity, maximum elbow varus torque, loading torque rate, and cumulative elbow varus torque. Statistical significance was set at p&lt;0.01. Results: Our findings reveal that the fastball pitch created greater loading on the elbow compared to the change up and curveball pitches (Table 1). Pitchers threw their fastball with increased ball velocity (40.3 ± 0.6 m/s) compared to throwing their changeup (36.6 ± 0.5 m/s) and curveball (33.7±0.5 m/s) (p&lt;0.001). Maximum elbow varus torque was also greater in the fastball pitch (93.7 ± 3.3 N∙m) compared to the changeup pitch (84.1 ± 2.4 N∙m) and curveball (91.0 ± 2.3 N∙m) (p&lt;0.001); the curveball pitch had greater maximum torque compared to changeup pitches (p&lt;0.001). The loading rate was 15% lower for the changeup pitch (690.0 ± 49.4 N∙m/s) (p&lt;0.001) and 6% lower for the curveball (753.6 ± 60.3 N∙m/s) compared to the fastball (820.1 ± 72.2 N∙m/s) (p&lt;0.001). The cumulative elbow varus torque for the fastball was 4% greater than the changeup pitch (2996.9 ± 92.9 vs 2894.1 ± 84.1 N∙m) and 7% greater than the curveball pitch (2996.9 ± 92.9 vs 2797.2 ± 85.8 N∙m) (p&lt;0.001). Conclusions: This study reveals the importance of considering pitch type when evaluating kinetic variables in professional baseball pitchers. The observed differences in elbow varus torque, loading rate, and other kinematic metrics between fastball, changeup, and curveball pitches highlights the need for a comprehensive understanding of biomechanical variations associated with different pitch types. These findings have implications for optimizing pitcher training programs, injury prevention strategies, and player management. By unraveling the intricate connections between kinetic variables and pitch types, this research contributes to advancing the biomechanical knowledge within the field of orthopedics and sports science.

Comparison of glenohumeral and scapulothoracic kinematics between fastballs and curveballs during baseball pitching

ABSTRACT Shoulder injuries are common in baseball pitchers and primarily involve the glenohumeral joint. Past analyses have examined shoulder biomechanics during different pitch types simply as the motion of the upper arm relative to the thorax. In this study, glenohumeral and scapulothoracic kinematics were compared between fastballs and curveballs at key timepoints throughout a pitch. Upper extremity kinematics of thirteen collegiate pitchers were collected during fastball and curveball pitches with motion capture. A linear model approach was utilised to estimate scapular kinematics based on measurable humerothoracic motion. Glenohumeral kinematics were computed from the scapular and humeral motion data. Comparisons of scapulothoracic and glenohumeral kinematic variables at times of maximum glenohumeral external rotation, ball release, and maximum glenohumeral internal rotation between pitch types were made using paired t-tests with Benjamini-Hochberg corrections. There were no significant differences in glenohumeral kinematics. Fastballs elicited significantly less scapulothoracic internal rotation and more posterior tilt at maximum glenohumeral external rotation. Fastballs produced significantly less scapulothoracic internal rotation and anterior tilt at maximum glenohumeral internal rotation. This study provides further evidence that risk of injury to the glenohumeral joint may be consistent between fastballs and curveballs and offers insights into subtle differences in scapular kinematics between pitch types.

Pitch release speed predictors for division I collegiate baseball players

BACKGROUND: Analytics, to quantify baseball pitch metrics, take on many forms and are unlike earlier methods to assess performance. OBJECTIVE: Quantify associations of flight kinematic and anthropometric variables on pitch release speed. METHODS: Male college-age pitchers (n= 182) from 2021 Division I games provided data. A 3D radar system collected data. Fixed effects regression OLS models analyzed data for sliders, changeups, curveballs, and fastballs. RESULTS: Spin rate (r= 0.017–0.514, p&lt; 0.05) and vertical break (r= 0.374–0.703, p&lt; 0.05) were positively associated with pitch release speed per pitch type. Release height (r=-0.286–0.051, p&lt;-0.05) and pitch extension (r=-0.176–0.43, p&lt; 0.05) were negatively associated with pitch release speed per pitch type except sliders. Spin axis had a negative association with pitch release speed for fastballs (r=-0.235, p&lt; 0.05) and sliders (r=-0.311, p&lt; 0.05), and a positive association (r= 0.029, p&lt; 0.05) with curveball pitch release speed. Weight only related to pitch release speed for fastballs (r=-0.315, p&lt; 0.05). Height did not impact pitch release speed. CONCLUSIONS: Results refute long-held beliefs of anthropometry’s influence on performance and instead reveal flight kinematics’ impact on baseball pitch release speed.

Comparison of Kinematic Sequences During Curveball and Fastball Baseball Pitches.

Performance of a sequential proximal-to-distal transfer of segmental angular velocity (or Kinematic Sequence) is reported to reduce stress on musculoskeletal structures and thus the probability of injury while also maximizing ball velocity. However, there is limited investigation regarding the Kinematic Sequence of the five body segments (Pelvis, Trunk, Arm, Forearm, and Hand) among baseball pitchers. Some biomechanical and epidemiology studies have reported an association of the curveball with increased risk for elbow injury among youth pitchers. Kinematic Sequences with altered distal upper extremity (forearm and hand) sequences have been associated with greater elbow valgus and shoulder external rotation torques compared to other Kinematic Sequences. Identifying Kinematic Sequence patterns during curveball pitches may lead to improved understanding of injury susceptibility. This study investigated the Kinematic Sequence patterns (and their variability) during curveball pitching and compared them to the sequences identified during fastball pitches. Using 3D motion analyses, 14 baseball pitchers (four high school, eight college, and two professional) performed 5–6 curveball pitches and 12 pitchers also threw fastball pitches in a simulated bullpen session. Eleven different curveball Kinematic Sequences were identified and 8 fastball Kinematic Sequences. There was no significant variability in the number of Kinematic Sequences performed between the two pitch types, (Z = −0.431, p = 0.67). The median number of KSs performed by each group was 2.5. The most frequently used Kinematic Sequences for both pitch types were due to alteration in the sequence of the distal segments. The total percentage of Kinematic Sequences with altered distal segment sequencing for the curveball pitches was 49% and 43% for fastball pitches. Identifying the frequency of Kinematic Sequences with altered timing of hand and forearm peak velocities across pitch types may lead to a better understanding of the stresses that individual pitchers incur.

Kinetic analysis of the wrist and fingers during fastball and curveball pitches

This study had two objectives: (a) revealing kinetic parameter differences at the fingers during a fastball and curveball, and (b) examining timing control between the wrist and finger torques. The participants were eight baseball pitchers. The kinetics of the wrist and fingers were calculated using an inverse dynamics method. The peak torque and work of finger adduction during the curveball was significantly larger than that during the fastball. During the fastball pitch, the maximal correlation coefficient between the wrist flexion torque and finger flexion torque was very high (r = 0.94 ± 0.05). The reasons for this result are twofold: (a) the extrinsic finger muscles cross the wrist (biarticular muscle) and (b) the wrist flexion torque during the fastball pitch acts in the direction of acceleration of the ball. During the curveball pitch, we found two typical types of wrist and finger torque control. Furthermore, the two pitchers exerted large wrist extension and radial torque, and finger adduction torque. Although the other six pitchers hardly exerted these torques, they exerted wrist flexion torque predominantly. It was considered that the six pitchers selected wrist flexion torque as the control for the fastball and curveball pitch to confuse the batter.

Mean muscle activation comparison between fastballs and curveballs with respect to the upper and lower extremity

Baseball research on muscle activity (upper and lower extremity) during the throwing motion is important to understanding pitching mechanics for the future. Therefore, it is the purpose of this research study to compare the lower extremity muscle and upper extremity muscle activation patterns associated with the curveball pitch and the fastball pitch from the stretch position. Twelve skilled (NCAA collegiate level) pitchers volunteered to be in this study, with a mean age of 22.3 ± 4.53 years, mean height of 1.74 ± 0.13 m, and mean mass of 89.0 k ± 10.97 kg. The pitchers were fitted with six surface electromyography (EMG) bipolar electrodes on the stride leg biceps femoris, medial gastrocnemius, ipsilateral side lower trapezius, upper trapezius, triceps brachii and biceps brachii. Each pitcher underwent maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) testing and then performed the fastball & curveball pitching sequence. All EMG variables of interest were normalized using MVIC data and compared between pitching type. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for all muscle activity as well. If significance was found a pairwise analysis (Bonferroni) was performed between pitch type, using SPSS (p 0.05). Significant differences in the mean muscle activity for the fastball and curveball pitched from the stretch were observed. A higher level of muscle activity was found for the stretch fastball when compared to the stretch curveball. This study was able to provide a baseline measurement of muscle activity; however, kinematics and kinetics should be measured in future studies.

Does The Kinematic Sequence Of A Curveball Pitch Vary Within Baseball Pitchers?

Does The Kinematic Sequence Of A Curveball Pitch Vary Within Baseball Pitchers?

The influence of mound height on baseball movement and pitching biomechanics

ObjectivesTo determine whether mound height is associated with baseball movement (velocity, spin and break) and baseball pitching biomechanics (kinematics and kinetics). DesignControlled laboratory study. MethodsTwenty collegiate baseball pitchers threw five fastballs and five curveballs from four different mound heights (15cm, 20cm, 25cm, 30cm) in a randomized order. Ball movement was computed by a ball tracking system, while pitching biomechanics were calculated with an 11-camera optical motion capture system. Repeated measures analysis of variance was utilized to detect significant differences among the four different mound heights (p<0.05) for the fastball and curveball pitches. ResultsThere were no significant differences observed for ball movement. There were seven significant kinematic differences for fastballs and eight kinematic differences for curveballs. Although these differences were statistically significant, the magnitudes were small, with most joint angles changing by less than 2°. There were no significant kinetic differences for curveballs, but five kinetic parameters (elbow varus torque, elbow flexion torque, elbow proximal force, shoulder internal rotation torque, and shoulder anterior force) varied with mound height for fastballs. In general, fastball kinetics were 1%–2% less from the lowered (15cm, 20cm) mounds than from the standard (25cm) or raised (30cm) mounds. ConclusionsLowering the mound may not affect a pitcher’s ball movement, but may slightly reduce shoulder and elbow kinetics, possibly reducing the risk of injury.

Control of ball spin rate by fingers torque during fastball and curveball pitches

Control of ball spin rate by fingers torque during fastball and curveball pitches

Wednesday, September 26, 2018 7:35 AM–9:00 AM ePosters

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Major League Baseball (MLB) players are at significant risk for back injury, and back injury accounts for a significant proportion of time spent on the disabled list. MLB players that sustain back injuries are either managed conservatively or undergo operation with the goal of returning to their full level of pre-injury performance. Performance data of MLB players is a readily available method of objectively comparing performance outcomes following recovery from back inury. PURPOSE To better understand differences in performance outcomes and ability to return to play following back injury in MLB players. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING This is a retrospective cohort study comparing performance outcomes in MLB players with back injury who underwent conservative versus surgical managment. PATIENT SAMPLE Major League Baseball players that sustained a documented back injury between 2010 and 2016 as recorded in individual MLB team disabled lists. Inclusion criteria also required that players have statistical performance data available one year prior to the injury and following return to play. OUTCOME MEASURES Various outcome measures of in-game performance were measured using hitting and pitching metrics. Hitting performance was assessed using at bats, hits, batting average, home runs, RBIs, and OPS. Pitching performance was analyzed using win/loss ratio, ERA, saves, innings pitches, strike outs and WHIP. Fast ball velocity and pitch selection was also analyzed. Time on the disabled list and whether players returned to play were determined. METHODS Players who sustained back injury were identified using publically available disabled listings from MLB teams from 2011 to 2016. Conservative versus surgical treatment method was determined by using news media and team-affiliated reporting on injured players. Online statistical data on MLB players performance metrics and pitch selection was gathered for the players meeting inclusion criteria. Performance data was compared from one year prior to the injury to one year following return to play to assess change in performance. RESULTS A total of 187 players were identified who sustained back injury between 2010 and 2016. Of these, data was analyzed from 126 players who met inclusion criteria. A total of 100 and 26 players were treated with conservative and surgical management, respectively. The average age was 33. Surgeries included thoracic and lumbar fusion, and discectomy or microdiscectomy of the lumbar and cervical spine. Players undergoing surgery averaged significantly longer time on the disabled list (126days and 41days, respectively). Pitcher earned run average was increased more in the conservative treatment group than the surgical treatment group (increases of 1.15 and 0.4, respectively). Pitcher fastball velocity decreased and frequency of curveball and change-up pitch selection increased. Players undergoing operative management were less likely to return to play. CONCLUSIONS Major league baseball player performance declines following back injury regardless of the form of treatment. Players undergoing surgery miss more playing time and are less likely to return to play than those undergoing conservative therapy. However, when indicated, surgery may be beneficial in maintaining pitching performance as opposed to conservative management.

A Biomechanical Analysis of the Association Between Forearm Mechanics and the Elbow Varus Moment in Collegiate Baseball Pitchers

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.

Effects of a Simulated Game on Upper Extremity Pitching Mechanics and Muscle Activations Among Various Pitch Types in Youth Baseball Pitchers.

Throwing requires proper stability and orientation of the pelvis and scapula for efficient energy transfer during pitching. Fatigue of the pelvis and scapular musculature throughout the course of a game can impair pitching performance, and place excessive demands on the throwing arm leading to injury. The purpose of this study was to examine differences in pelvis, torso, and upper extremity pitching mechanics and muscle activations between the fastball, change-up, and curveball pitches in youth baseball pitchers following a simulated game. Fourteen youth baseball pitchers with no history of injury participated. Pitching mechanics were collected using an electromagnetic tracking system. Surface electromyography data were collected on the bilateral gluteus medius and maximus; and throwing arm side latissimus dorsi, lower trapezius, upper trapezius, and serratus anterior. Participants were instructed to throw maximum effort pitches during a simulated game that provided random game situations similar to those that occur in competition. Participants were limited to 85 pitches based on age-restricted pitch counts. Data from 3 fastballs, curveballs, and change-ups thrown in the first and last innings were selected for analysis. Repeated measures multivariate analyses of variance revealed that neither pitch type nor the effect of a simulated game resulted in statistically significant changes in pitching mechanics (F(10,600)=0.55, P=0.85), or muscle activations (pelvic: F(4,195)=0.07, P=0.85; scapular: F(4,118)=0.09, P=0.52). The principle findings of this study revealed that pitching to the age-restricted pitch count limit did not result in altered pitching mechanics or muscle activations, and no differences occurred between the 3 pitches. These results support previous research that indicate the curveball pitch is no more dangerous for youth than the other pitches commonly thrown. This is supported by the pitcher's ability to maintain a proper arm slot during all 3 pitches and indicates that they are obtaining the spin on the ball from their grip and not by altering upper extremity mechanics. Level 5.

Selected Kinetics During The Curveball and Drop Ball Pitches in Softball Pitchers

Selected Kinetics During The Curveball and Drop Ball Pitches in Softball Pitchers

A Biomechanical Comparison of the Fastball and Curveball in Adolescent Baseball Pitchers

Background The incidence of shoulder and elbow injuries in adolescent baseball players is rapidly increasing. One leading theory about this increase is that breaking pitches (such as the curveball) place increased moments on the dominant arm and thereby increase the risk of injury. Hypothesis There is no difference in the moments at the shoulder and elbow between fastball and curveball pitches in adolescent baseball pitchers. Study Design Controlled laboratory study. Methods Thirty-three adolescent baseball pitchers with a minimum of 2 years of pitching experience underwent 3-dimensional motion analysis using reflective markers aligned to bony landmarks. After a warm-up, pitchers threw either a fastball or curveball, randomly assigned, from a portable pitching mound until 3 appropriate trials were collected for each pitch technique. Kinematic and kinetic data for the upper extremities, lower extremities, thorax, and pelvis were collected and computed for both pitch types. Statistical analysis included both the paired sample t test and mixed model regression. Results There were lower moments on the shoulder and elbow when throwing a curveball versus when throwing a fastball. As expected, speed for the 2 pitches differed: fastball, 65.8 ± 4.8 mph; and curveball, 57.7 ± 6.2 mph (P <. 001). Maximal glenohumeral internal rotation moment for the fastball was significantly higher than for the curveball (59.8 ± 16.5 N·m vs 53.9 ± 15.5 N·m; P <. 0001). Similarly, the maximum varus elbow moment for the fastball was significantly higher than for the curveball (59.6 ± 16.3 N·m vs 54.1 ± 16.1 N·m; P <. 001). The wrist flexor moment was greater in the fastball, 8.3 ± 3.6 N·m, than in the curveball, 7.8 ± 3.6 N·m (P <. 001), but the wrist ulnar moment was greater in the curveball, 4.9 ± 2.0 N·m, than in the fastball, 3.2 ± 1.5 N·m (P <. 001). Relatively minor motion differences were noted at the shoulder and elbow throughout the pitching motion, while significant differences were seen in forearm and wrist motion. The forearm remained more supinated at each point in the pitching cycle for the curveball but had less overall range of motion (62° ± 20°) than with the fastball (69° ± 17°) (P <. 001), and the difference in the forearm pronation and supination moment between the pitches was not significant (P =. 104 for pronation and P =. 447 for supination). The wrist remained in greater extension during the fastball from foot contact through ball release but did not have significantly different total sagittal range of motion (53° ± 11°) when compared with the curveball (54° ± 15°) (P =. 91). Conclusion In general, the moments on the shoulder and elbow were less when throwing a curveball than when throwing a fastball. In each comparison, the fastball demonstrated higher moments for each individual pitcher for both joints. Clinical Relevance The findings based on the kinematic and kinetic data in this study suggest that the rising incidence of shoulder and elbow injuries in pitchers may not be caused by the curveball mechanics. Further evaluation of adolescent and adult baseball pitchers is warranted to help determine and subsequently reduce the risk of injury.

Water entry of spinning spheres

The complex hydrodynamics of water entry by a spinning sphere are investigated experimentally for low Froude numbers. Standard billiard balls are shot down at the free surface with controlled spin around one horizontal axis. High-speed digital video sequences reveal unique hydrodynamic phenomena which vary with spin rate and impact velocity. As anticipated, the spinning motion induces a lift force on the sphere and thus causes significant curvature in the trajectory of the object along its descent, similar to a curveball pitch in baseball. However, the splash and cavity dynamics are highly altered for the spinning case compared to impact of a sphere without spin. As spin rate increases, the splash curtain and cavity form and collapse asymmetrically with a persistent wedge of fluid emerging across the centre of the cavity. The wedge is formed as the sphere drags fluid along the surface, due to the no-slip condition; the wedge crosses the cavity in the same time it takes the sphere to rotate one-half a revolution. The spin rate relaxation time plateaus to a constant for tangential velocities above half the translational velocity of the sphere. Non-dimensional time to pinch off scales with Froude number as does the depth of pinch-off; however, a clear mass ratio dependence is noted in the depth to pinch off data. A force model is used to evaluate the lift and drag forces on the sphere after impact; resulting forces follow similar trends to those found for spinning spheres in oncoming flow, but are altered as a result of the subsurface air cavity. Images of the cavity and splash evolution, as well as force data, are presented for a range of spin rates and impact speeds; the influence of sphere density and diameter are also considered.

Kinematic Analysis of the Wrist and Forearm during Baseball Pitching

Previous researchers studying baseball pitching have compared kinematic and kinetic parameters among different types of pitches, focusing on the trunk, shoulder, and elbow. The lack of data on the wrist and forearm limits the understanding of clinicians, coaches, and researchers regarding the mechanics of baseball pitching and the differences among types of pitches. The purpose of this study was to expand existing knowledge of baseball pitching by quantifying and comparing kinematic data of the wrist and forearm for the fastball (FA), curveball (CU) and change-up (CH) pitches. Kinematic and temporal parameters were determined from 8 collegiate pitchers recorded with a four-camera system (200 Hz). Although significant differences were observed for all pitch comparisons, the least number of differences occurred between the FA and CH. During arm cocking, peak wrist extension for the FA and CH pitches was greater than for the CU, while forearm supination was greater for the CU. In contrast to the current study, previous comparisons of kinematic data for trunk, shoulder, and elbow revealed similarities between the FA and CU pitches and differences between the FA and CH pitches. Kinematic differences among pitches depend on the segment of the body studied.

A Three-Dimensional Cinematographic Analysis of Upper Limb Movement during Fastball and Curveball Baseball Pitches

Joint angle kinematics of the throwing limb from the early-cocking phase to ball release were investigated for the fastball (FB) and curveball (CB) baseball pitches through use of a three-dimensional film analysis technique. Small sticks were fixed to the hand and forearm to permit rotations of the radioulnar and wrist joint to be calculated. The actions were very similar for two pitches within one subject. There were no differences in the motions of the shoulder and elbow joints or in the temporal sequences between FB and CB pitches. However, there was a significant difference (p&lt;0.05) in the motion of supination/pronation of the forearm and dorsiflexion/palmar flexion of the wrist prior to the ball release; the forearm was supinated more in the CB (maximum supination: 39.9 ±6.0° at 0.072 ±0.045 s before ball release, or BRL) compared to the FB (19.4 ±8.5° at 0.076 ±0.046 s before BRL), whereas the wrist was dorsiflexed more in the FB (maximum dorsiflexion: 41.7 ±6.5° at 0.039 ±0.011 s before BRL) compared to the CB (31.2 ±4.7° at 0.036 ±0.013 s before BRL) during late-cocking and acceleration phases leading to the ball release.

Single-Source Financing: Pitching the Curve Ball

To the Editor. —Dr Saltman1gives curve-ball pitch for single-source financing of health care as a solution for the United States. Even his diasadvantages reflect his strong bias (requires political will to act boldly and the like). I submit that any single-source financed and administered system of health care is doomed to disaster whether it is private or public. The strength of America is in its competition and choice of alternatives. Most important are issues of equality and freedom. While most of us would agree that there should be equality for basic health care services and that there must be system to provide this to all individuals, we should not allow this quest for equality to destroy the freedom to have extra services for those who wish to provide or purchase them. Except in fantasy land, it is not possible for everyone to have everything, and we

Timing of the Lower Limb Drive and Throwing Limb Movement in Baseball Pitching

Eight international baseball pitchers were filmed in a laboratory while throwing from a pitching rubber attached to a Kistler force platform. Following a warm-up, all subjects threw fastballs (FB) until two strike pitches were assessed by an umpire positioned behind the catcher for both wind-up and set pitching techniques. Subjects then followed the same procedures for curveball pitches (CB). Both vertical (Z) and horizontal (Y) ground reaction force (GRF) data were recorded. A shutter correlation pulse was encoded so the temporal data from the film could be synchronized with the kinetic data from the force platform. Analysis of variance was used to analyze differences in force data at selected points in both pitching actions for both techniques. Vertical and horizontal GRFs increased from the first balance position to maximum levels at the cocked position for both techniques. Nonsignificant changes in GRF then occurred between the cocked position and front-foot landing. The Z GRFs were similar throughout the pitching action but higher in magnitude for the CB compared to the FB. Mean resultant forces were similar for the three fastest FB pitchers when compared to the three slowest pitchers. However, the slower group produced their peak resultant force earlier in the action, thus reducing the ability to drive over a stabilized front leg.