Display options
Cite
Manzi JE, Dowling B, Wang Z, et al. Kinematic and kinetic findings in high vs. low consistency professional baseball pitchers. J Orthop. 2021;27:28-33doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2021.08.007.
Manzi, J. E., Dowling, B., Wang, Z., Arzani, A., Chen, F. R., Nicholson, A., & Dines, J. S. (2021). Kinematic and kinetic findings in high vs. low consistency professional baseball pitchers. Journal of orthopaedics, 2728-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2021.08.007
Manzi, Joseph E, et al. "Kinematic and kinetic findings in high vs. low consistency professional baseball pitchers." Journal of orthopaedics vol. 27 (2021): 28-33. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2021.08.007
Manzi JE, Dowling B, Wang Z, Arzani A, Chen FR, Nicholson A, Dines JS. Kinematic and kinetic findings in high vs. low consistency professional baseball pitchers. J Orthop. 2021 Aug 16;27:28-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2021.08.007. eCollection 2021. PMID: 34475727; PMCID: PMC8387831.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Orthop. 2021 Aug 16;27:28-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2021.08.007. eCollection 2021.

Kinematic and kinetic findings in high vs. low consistency professional baseball pitchers.

Journal of orthopaedics

Joseph E Manzi, Brittany Dowling, Zhaorui Wang, Artine Arzani, Frank R Chen, Allen Nicholson, Joshua S Dines

Affiliations

  1. Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
  2. Sports Performance Center, Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush, Oak Brook, IL, USA.
  3. Department of Anesthesiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
  4. Sports Medicine Institute Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.

PMID: 34475727 PMCID: PMC8387831 DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2021.08.007

Abstract

While the performance metric ball velocity has often been associated with increased kinetics at the upper extremity and risk of injury in baseball pitchers, it is unclear if the performance metric pitch location consistency has any positive/negative associations with pitching kinetics. Professional pitchers subdivided into high(Hcon) and low(Lcon) consistency groups were instructed to throw 8-12 fastballs while assessed with motion-capture technology(480 Hz). To further assess pitching consistency, 95% confidence ellipses with comparisons of major and minor radii were conducted with an external comparison to a cohort of high school pitchers. Lastly, kinematic and kinetic values were compared between Hcon and Lcon professional pitchers. Professional baseball pitchers(n = 338) had consistency in pitch location comparable to high school pitchers(n = 59) (22.0 ± 6.7 vs. 23.2 ± 7.5% grid width respectively, p-value = 0.21). Hcon professional pitchers(n = 91) compared to Lcon pitchers(n = 98) had a smaller major radius(15.2 ± 3.0 vs. 26.3 ± 5.9 respectively, p-value<0.001) and a smaller minor radius(9.4 ± 1.9 vs. 16.1 ± 4.4 respectively, p-value<0.001) in the 95% confidence ellipses. Hcon pitchers compared to Lcon pitchers had increased arm slot(59.7 ± 13.5 vs. 54.7 ± 12.4° respectfully, p-value = 0.009), trunk tilt(-33.4 ± 9.1 vs. -37.2 ± 8.9° respectfully, p-value = 0.004), and trunk lateral flexion(-27.1 ± 9.3 vs. -31.8 ± 9.0° respectfully, p-value<0.001) at ball release. These pitchers also had lower shoulder(112.4 ± 15.9 vs. 118.3 ± 15.1% BW respectfully, p-value = 0.001) and elbow distraction forces(110.5 ± 17 vs. 117.0 ± 15.2% BW respectfully, p-value = 0.006) during arm deceleration. Professional pitchers who approach a sidearm style of pitching, typically involving less contralateral trunk tilt, may achieve higher consistency in their throws while also experiencing diminished peak distractive forces at the elbow and shoulder.

© 2021 Professor P K Surendran Memorial Education Foundation. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Arm slot; Distraction force; Kinematics; Motion-capture; Pitch location; Trunk

References

  1. J Sci Med Sport. 2020 Dec;23(12):1202-1207 - PubMed
  2. J Strength Cond Res. 2016 Jul;30(7):1787-95 - PubMed
  3. Am J Sports Med. 2001 May-Jun;29(3):354-8 - PubMed
  4. Am J Sports Med. 2009 Oct;37(10):2043-8 - PubMed
  5. PeerJ. 2019 Jul 29;7:e7390 - PubMed
  6. Orthop J Sports Med. 2016 Feb 01;4(2):2325967115627126 - PubMed
  7. J Appl Biomech. 2020 Mar 10;:1-8 - PubMed
  8. J Strength Cond Res. 2012 May;26(5):1181-7 - PubMed
  9. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018 Oct 16;6(10):2325967118800240 - PubMed
  10. J Sports Sci. 2016;34(12):1182-9 - PubMed
  11. J Strength Cond Res. 2013 Aug;27(8):2206-12 - PubMed
  12. J Strength Cond Res. 2004 Aug;18(3):441-6 - PubMed
  13. J Neurophysiol. 1999 Sep;82(3):1187-97 - PubMed
  14. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016 Dec;48(12):2512-2516 - PubMed
  15. Am J Sports Med. 2010 Apr;38(4):728-32 - PubMed
  16. Front Sports Act Living. 2020 Nov 17;2:579377 - PubMed
  17. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2020 Feb 12;6(1):e000704 - PubMed
  18. Am J Sports Med. 1985 Sep-Oct;13(5):337-41 - PubMed
  19. J Appl Biomech. 2018 Oct 1;34(5):377-385 - PubMed
  20. Sports Biomech. 2019 Aug 26;:1-8 - PubMed
  21. Am J Sports Med. 2016 Sep;44(9):2202-9 - PubMed
  22. Am J Sports Med. 2016 Aug;44(8):2130-5 - PubMed
  23. J Sci Med Sport. 2019 Jul;22(7):858-861 - PubMed
  24. Am J Sports Med. 2015 May;43(5):1235-40 - PubMed
  25. Am J Sports Med. 2010 Dec;38(12):2487-93 - PubMed
  26. Front Sports Act Living. 2020 Apr 15;2:36 - PubMed
  27. J Appl Biomech. 2006 May;22(2):93-102 - PubMed
  28. Sports Biomech. 2009 Mar;8(1):10-21 - PubMed
  29. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018 Mar 20;6(3):2325967118760780 - PubMed
  30. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2016 Mar;11(2):247-54 - PubMed
  31. J Neurophysiol. 1996 Mar;75(3):1013-25 - PubMed
  32. Sports Biomech. 2017 Sep;16(3):399-410 - PubMed
  33. J Sports Sci. 2017 Nov;35(21):2142-2147 - PubMed
  34. Am J Sports Med. 2013 Oct;41(10):2430-8 - PubMed

Publication Types