Sports Biomechanics

ISSN: 1476-3141 (Print) 1752-6116 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rspb20

Biomechanical differences between left- and right-

handed baseball pitchers

Matthew J. Solomito, Joel V. Ferreira & Carl W. Nissen

To cite this article: Matthew J. Solomito, Joel V. Ferreira & Carl W. Nissen (2017) Biomechanical
differences between left- and right-handed baseball pitchers, Sports Biomechanics, 16:2, 143-151,
DOI: 10.1080/14763141.2016.1186725

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2016.1186725

Published online: 02 Jun 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 594

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rspb20
Sports Biomechanics, 2017
VOL. 16, NO. 2, 143–151
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2016.1186725

Biomechanical differences between left- and right-handed

baseball pitchers
Matthew J. Solomitoa, Joel V. Ferreirab and Carl W. Nissenc
a
Orthopedic and Sports Medicine Research, Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine,
Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, Farmington, CT, USA; bDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University
of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburg, PA, USA; cElite Sports Medicine, Connecticut Children’s Medical Center,
Farmington, CT, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Left-handed baseball pitchers are thought to have a number of Received 6 January 2016
theoretical advantages compared to right-handed pitchers; however, Accepted 3 May 2016
there is limited scientific research detailing differences in the pitching KEYWORDS
mechanics of right- and left-handed pitchers. Therefore, this study Kinematics; kinetics; motion
sought to understand whether any kinematic and kinetic differences analysis
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.

Introduction
Nearly 10% of the general population is left-handed and in many respects are forced to
conform to a right-handed world. However, in baseball, left-handed pitchers enjoy a posi-
tive preference from scouts and coaches. This has led to a disproportionate number of left-
handed pitchers in Major League Baseball and Division I colleges. Almost 30% of pitchers
in baseball are left-handed (Werner et al., 2010).
Pitching coaches and scouts believe that left-handed pitchers have a number of theo-
retical advantages over right-handed pitchers (Tango, Lichtman, & Dolphin, 2007). Left-
handed pitchers, when pitching from the stretch position, can better prevent runners at
first base from stealing second base since they face toward the runner (Tango et al., 2007).

CONTACT  Matthew J. Solomito  msolomito@connecticutchildrens.org

This article was originally published with errors. This version has been corrected. Please see Erratum (http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/14763141.2016.1200290)
© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
144    M. J. Solomito et al.

Furthermore, the movement of the ball when pitched by a left-handed pitcher appears
different to a batter when compared to the same pitch thrown by a right-handed pitcher
making the ball more difficult to hit (Morgan & Lally, 2014). Interestingly, however, despite
these supposed advantages, left-handed pitchers were shown to have nearly identical earned
run averages (Werner et al., 2010).
Werner et al. (2010) has investigated whether there were true biomechanical differ-
ences in pitching technique between right- and left-handed baseball pitchers. In their study,
Werner et al. (2010) noted a total of six parameters to be statistically significantly different
between left- and right-handed pitchers (Werner et al., 2010). Therefore, the purpose of this
study was to determine whether additional kinematic and kinetic differences exist between
right- and left-handed pitchers. It is hypothesised that left-handed baseball pitchers will
have the same biomechanical profile (passive range of motion, kinematics and kinetics) as
their right-handed counterparts.

Methods
The study was approved by the Connecticut Children’s Institutional Review Board, and all
study participants signed consent prior to the start of the pitching analysis. A total of 99
collegiate pitchers currently pitching for National Collegiate Athletic Association Division
I and Division III schools were recruited for this study. None of the participants involved
in this study had sustained a serious injury, defined as an injury that caused them to miss
pitching in at least one game or practice, to their pitching arm within the preceding six
months of the analysis. Additionally, none of the participants had a history of surgery to
their pitching arm. At the time of the data collection, all pitchers were capable of pitching
at full effort, using an overhead pitching technique.
Prior to starting the pitching analysis, anthropometric measures were taken to properly
scale the inertial properties of the biomechanical model as previously described in the
literature (Nissen et al., 2007). Each pitcher completed The American Orthopaedic Society
for Sports Medicine Young Pitchers Questionnaire, which details the participant’s pitching
history and pitching-related injury and pain. The passive internal and external rotation
of the shoulder rotational range of motion for all participants was also measured using a
goniometer. These measures were performed with the pitcher supine; the arm was vertically
abducted to 90°, and horizontally adducted 10° to bring the arm into the scapular plane.
The shoulder joint was stabilised by holding the coracoid process and scapular spine while
moving the pitcher through their rotational motion. A total of 38 reflective markers were
attached over specific boney landmarks to construct a 16-segment model as previously
described in the literature (Nissen et al., 2007). An additional two markers were placed on
the circumference of the ball to determine the instant of ball release (BR), to calculate the
instantaneous ball velocity and to allow for computation of joint kinetics. Following the
application of the markers, all participants were given as much time as they required to
warm-up and become comfortable pitching within the data collection space. All participants
pitched from a regulation 10-inch indoor mound toward a target with a designated strike
zone placed 60 feet 6 inches away. All pitchers pitched multiple pitch types (i.e. fastball,
curveball, slider, cutter or change-up depending on the pitches they normally threw) in a
random order to simulate a game setting. This work is limited to the results of the fastball
pitches only.
 Sports Biomechanics   145

Motion data were collected at 250 Hz using a Vicon 512, 12 camera motion capture
system (Vicon Motion Systems, Los Angeles, CA, USA). The first three trials in which all
marker data were present throughout the pitch cycle were analysed for each participant.
These three trials were chosen regardless of whether the pitch resulted in a ball or strike
allowing the results to better reflect a game setting. The pitching motion was divided using
four distinct time points as previously described in the literature (Fleisig, Andrews, Dillman,
& Escamilla, 1995). The pitching cycle began at the instant of lead foot contact with the
mound (FC) and ended with the maximum internal rotation of the glenohumeral joint
(MIR). Two intermediate time points are also used to further describe the pitching cycle
and include the instant of maximum external rotation of the glenohumeral joint (MER)
and the instant of BR. Joint angles for the glenohumeral joint, elbow and wrist as well as
the segment angles for the trunk, pelvis and forearm were computed using Euler’s equation
of motion. Initial data processing including trajectory reconstruction and marker labelling
was performed in Vicon Workstation, and joint and segment kinematics were computed
using Vicon Bodybuilder (Vicon Motion Systems, Los Angeles, CA, USA) as previously
described (Nissen et al., 2007). Joint kinetics were computed using custom MATLAB code
(Mathworks, Natick, MA, USA) using standard inverse dynamic techniques (Greenwood,
1988). All kinetic data presented in this work are presented as internal moments.
Twenty-six left-handed pitchers were identified from the overall group. A comparison
group of 26 right-handed pitchers was created from the remaining 73 right-handed pitchers.
The comparison group pitchers were selected to ensure that both study groups (those in the
left-handed group and the right-handed comparison group) had similar age, weight, height
and ball velocity distributions. Although data were computed for all joints and segments,
the specific variables of interest included the following:
(1)  timing of events in the pitching cycle (i.e. MER and BR),
(2)  wrist angles and angular velocities, specifically ulnar and radial deviation (angles),
and ulnar and radial angular velocities (calculated as the first derivate of ulnar
and radial deviations),
(3)  forearm rotation angles, forearm supination and pronation moments,
(4)  elbow sagittal plane angles, elbow varus moment,
(5)  glenohumeral joint angles, angular velocities and internal rotation moment.
Data were also collected concerning the pitchers’ passive shoulder internal and external
rotation range of motion measured supine in the plane of the scapula as described, and
self-reported history of previous shoulder or elbow pain or injury (greater than 6 months
prior to the analysis).
Descriptive statistics were computed for all parameters of interest, and the means and
standard deviations are presented for ease of understanding. A mixed effects random inter-
cept model with Type III effects was used to determine whether there were statistically
significant differences between the two groups (Burton, Gurrin, & Sly, 1998; Greenland,
2000). This model was chosen as it can accurately account for repeated measures from the
same individual, even if the number of repeated trials among individuals is different. The
model also allows for an extension into a regression model should it be required. A p-value
of less than 0.05 was considered to be a statistically significant difference. All statistical
testing was performed using SAS software version 9.3 (Copyright © 2002–2010 by SAS
Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).
146    M. J. Solomito et al.

Table 1. Demographic data for the two study groups.

Right-handed pitchers Left-handed pitchers P-value
Age (years) 19.6 ± 1.4 19.9 ± 1.5 0.878
Height (cm) 182.0 ± 6.2 184.2 ± 7.1 0.256
Weight (kg) 86.2 ± 11.2 86.4 ± 13.5 0.931
Leg Length (cm) 94.9 ± 4.2 95.9 ± 4.5 0.402
Stride Length (cm) 130.1 ± 7.2 133.0 ± 9.7 0.231

Table 2. Comparison of passive range of motion data.

Right-handed Pitchers Left-handed pitchers P-value
Dominant Side Shoulder External Rotation (°) 122 ± 19 122 ± 17 0.977
Dominant Side Shoulder Internal Rotation (°) 44 ± 14 53 ± 17 0.029
Dominant Side Shoulder Arc of motion (°) 165 ± 22 175 ± 22 0.281
Non-dominant Side Shoulder External Rotation (°) 105 ± 17 112 ± 27 0.311
Non-dominant Side Shoulder Internal Rotation (°) 57 ± 15 55 ± 15 0.734
Non-dominant Side Shoulder Arc of motion (°) 169 ± 26 170 ± 27 0.928

Results
There were no significant differences in the demographics between the right- and left-
handed pitchers (Table 1). The average fastball speed was similar between both groups
with the left-handed group averaging 31.3 ± 1.9 m/s and the right-handed group averaging
32.3 ± 2.1 m/s (p = 0.086).
The results of the medical and pitching history, specifically the questions describing
previous shoulder or elbow pain or injury, indicated there was no statistically significant
difference between the two groups. A total of 15 of the 26 left-handed pitchers indicated
that they had pain or a previous injury compared to 11 of the 26 right-handed pitchers who
had indicated previous pain or injury (p = 0.267).
There were no statistically significant differences in the passive external rotation for
shoulder and overall shoulder arc of motion for the pitching arm between the two groups of
pitchers. However, there was a statistically significant difference in passive internal shoulder
rotation between the groups with the left-handed pitchers having greater internal shoulder
rotation than their right-handed counterparts (p = 0.029) (Table 2).
There were no differences in wrist sagittal plane kinematics, forearm kinematics and
glenohumeral coronal and rotational kinematics. It was also noted that there were no signif-
icant differences between the timing of MER (64 ± 7% of the pitching cycle for left-handed
pitchers and 64 ± 6% for right-handed pitchers p = 0.871) or BR (76 ± 5% of the pitching
cycle for left-handed pitchers and 75 ± 4% for right-handed pitchers p = 0.613). However,
there were a number of kinematic parameters that were significantly different between
right- and left-handed pitchers, Table 3.
When reviewing the differences between joint moments, it was noted that there was
no difference between the maximum internal rotation glenohumeral moment for the left-
handed group (73.9 ± 17.6 Nm) compared to the right-handed group (74.4 ± 14.6 Nm)
(p = 0.567). However, there was a statistically significant difference noted when reviewing
the data concerning the elbow varus moment (79.8 ± 18.8 Nm left-handed compared to
71.8 ± 14.4 Nm right-handed, p = 0.009). Differences were also noted in the forearm prona-
tion moment with the right-handed pitchers having a statistically lower pronation moment
 Sports Biomechanics   147

Table 3. Comparison of kinematic parameters.

Right-handed pitchers Left-handed Pitchers P-value
Wrist Deviation at FC (°) −4 ± 6 −8 ± 5 <0.001
Wrist Deviation at MER (°) 4±5 −5 ± 5 <0.001
Wrist Deviation at BR (°) 2±4 −1 ± 5 <0.001
Wrist Deviation at MIR (°) 6±3 0±5 <0.001
Maximum Wrist Ulnar Velocity (°/s) 709 ± 285 531 ± 182 <0.001
Maximum Wrist Radial Velocity (°/s) 599 ± 257 511 ± 287 0.250
Forearm Position at FC (°) 21 ± 28 10 ± 23 0.240
Forearm Position at MER (°) 3 ± 10 −1 ± 25 0.429
Forearm Position at BR(°) 9 ± 10 10 ± 24 0.851
Elbow Flexion at FC (°) 85 ± 21 98 ± 19 0.002
Elbow Flexion at MER (°) 76 ± 11 81 ± 14 0.130
Elbow Flexion at BR (°) 42 ± 10 41 ± 9 0.687
Elbow Sagittal Plane ROM (°) 72 ± 14 83 ± 14 <0.001
GH Horizontal Abduction at FC (°) 21 ± 8 15 ± 10 <0.001
GH Horizontal Abduction at MER (°) 23 ± 9 17 ± 10 0.002
GH Horizontal Adduction at BR(°) 9 ± 13 4 ± 14 0.006
Notes. FC – Foot Contact, MER – Maximum External Rotation, BR – Ball Release, MIR – Maximum Internal Rotation, ROM –
Range of Motion, GH – Glenohumeral.
*negative value of wrist deviation indicates radial deviation; positive values of wrist deviation indicate ulnar deviation.
**negative value of forearm position indicates supination; positive values of forearm position indicate pronation.

(2.7 ± 1.3 Nm) compared to the left-handed pitchers (4.5 ± 0.9 Nm) (p < 0.001), as well as
in forearm supination moments which also showed statistically lower supination moments
for right-handed pitchers (3.4 ± 1.2 Nm for right-handed pitchers compared to 6.8 ± 1.9
Nm for left-handed pitchers, p < 0.001).

Discussion and implications

This study sought to determine whether there were biomechanical differences between
left- and right-handed pitchers. Intuitively, there should not be a difference as the two
groups should be mirror images of one another. However, since pitching coaches and scouts
often give preferential treatment to left-handed pitchers, a more complete understanding
of any differences that exist is important for coaches to better evaluate and instruct left-
handed pitchers in order to effectively teach proper mechanics. Additionally, understanding
differences will help medical providers work to decrease injury rates. Our review of the
literature revealed that with the exception of study of Werner et al. (2010), there has been
limited scientific study exploring whether any differences exist. The results of this study
indicate that there are a number of kinematic parameters that are different between left- and
right-hand-dominate pitchers.
The results of this work are similar to those findings presented by Werner et al. (2010).
Both studies focused on determining the biomechanical differences between left- and right-
handed collegiate level pitchers with no prior injuries. Furthermore, both studies were sim-
ilar in sample size with Werner et al. (2010) presenting results from 28 pitchers, while this
study presents data from 26 pitchers (Werner et al., 2010). In both studies, differences were
noted in the passive shoulder range of motion, kinematic and kinetic parameters that were
analysed. Table 4 compares the results of Werner et al. (2010) to the results from this study.
The passive range of motion was statistically significant different with regard to shoulder
internal rotation of the pitching arm between the two groups despite finding that the overall
arc of motion though slightly greater for left-handed pitchers compared to right-handed
148    M. J. Solomito et al.

Table 4. Comparison of selected matched variables from the current study to Werner et al. (2010).
Current Study Werner et al., 2010
Right- Left- p-value Right- Left- p-value
handed handed handed handed
Sample Size 26 26 – 28 28 –
Age (years) 19 ± 1 20 ± 2 0.878 20 ± 2 20 ± 2 0.727
Height (cm) 182 ± 6 184 ± 7 0.256 185 ± 7 188 ± 7 0.133
Weight (kg) 86 ± 11 86 ± 13 0.931 87 ± 8 88 ± 10 0.308
Ball Velocity (m/s) 32 ± 2 31 ± 2 0.086 36 ± 2 36 ± 2 0.350
D. Passive Internal Rotation (°) † 44 ± 14 53 ± 17 0.029 44 ± 8 49 ± 10 –
ND. Passive Internal Rotation (°) ‡ 57 ± 15 55 ± 15 0.734 55 ± 9 52 ± 12 –
D. Passive External Rotation (°) 122 ± 19 122 ± 17 0.977 126 ± 12 124 ± 11 –
ND. Passive External Rotation (°) 105 ± 17 112 ± 27 0.311 113 ± 9 124 ± 8 <0.001
Elbow Flexion FC (°) 85 ± 21 98 ± 19 0.002 79 ± 16 94 ± 20 0.004
GH Horizontal Abduction at FC (°) 21 ± 8 15 ± 10 <0.001 25 ± 12 15 ± 12 0.003
GH Internal Rotation Moment 74 ± 15 74 ± 18 0.567 54 ± 13 43 ± 8 0.042
(Nm)
Notes. GH – Glenohumeral, ND – non-dominant, D – dominant, FC – foot contact.
†
Significant difference between D internal and ND internal rotation for right-handed pitcher p < 0.05 for both studies.
‡
No significant difference between D internal and ND internal rotation for left-handed pitchers for both studies.

pitchers was not statistically different. It was noted that left-handed pitchers had greater
internal rotation than their right-handed counterparts. Similar to the findings of Werner
et al. (2010), this study showed there was no difference in the internal rotation between
the non-dominate and dominate arms of the left-handed pitchers, whereas there was a
marked reduction (13°) between the dominate and non-dominate arms of the right-handed
pitchers (Table 4). These data confirm Werner et al.’s (2010) results and could possibly
indicate that differences in pitching biomechanics between right- and left-handed pitchers
may actually be protective from glenohumeral internal rotation deficiency for left-handed
pitchers. Interestingly, most studies regarding the effect of glenohumeral rotation deficiency
or those studies describing shoulder passive range of motion only compare the dominate
versus the non-dominate arms rather than breaking up the left-handed and right-handed
individuals (Ellenbecker, Roetert, Bailie, Davies, & Brown, 2002; Wilk et al., 2011). This
makes interpretation of these findings difficult and with limited numbers in this study and
in the results presented by Werner et al. (2010) drawing a definitive conclusion as to the
effect this finding may have on pitching mechanics or on injury rates may be inappropriate.
Additional work in this area should be addressed in descriptive studies in which the dom-
inate arms are divided into right- and left-hand-dominate subgroups. One potential idea
as to the cause of this difference may be that there are differences in a pitcher’s mechanics
when pitching to an opposite handed batter. Since left-handed pitchers pitch to right-handed
batters more frequently than right-handed pitchers pitch to left-handed batters, there may
be need for left-handed pitcher to adapt or compensate in ways that right-handed pitchers
would not have the need to.
Similar to Werner et al. (2010), this study also noted that left-handed pitchers had less
horizontal glenohumeral abduction at foot contact than their right-handed counterparts
(Table 4). From foot contact through BR, left-handed pitchers have less horizontal gleno-
humeral adduction, indicating that left-handed pitchers tend to maintain their arm in a
different orientation and alignment with their trunk when compared to right-handed pitch-
ers. Left-handed pitchers were also noted to have increased elbow flexion at foot contact.
Sabick, Kim, Torry, Keirns & Hawkins (2005) had shown that greater the elbow flexion at
 Sports Biomechanics   149

foot contact was associated with increased humeral torque and therefore increased risk of
injury and therefore is a concern and worthy of further evaluation (Sabick et al., 2005).
This study evaluated the wrist as well in an attempt to elucidate why pitching coaches
believe left-handed pitchers are able to generate more movement on the ball. The results
indicated a substantial difference in coronal plane wrist motion between the two groups.
Additionally, left-handed pitchers pitched in a greater degree of radial deviation at each of the
four time points in the pitching cycle compared to the right-handed pitchers. Furthermore,
peak ulnar angular velocity, the velocity at which the pitcher’s wrist deviates towards the
ulnar side, was significantly slower in the left-handed pitchers. This may be of significance
for both pitching coaches and biomechanical analyses, as the wrists’ motion provides most
of the control for producing the movement of the ball (Solomito, Garibay, Woods, Õunpuu,
& Nissen, 2014). It is also important to note that there are large standard deviations in
the results for the wrist parameters could be caused by inter-pitcher variability indicating
differences in pitching techniques as previously described in the literature (Solomito et al.,
2014). Clinically, these results may indicate that left-handed pitchers require less ulnar devi-
ation in order to pitch to the inside of a right-handed batter, which they do far more often
than right-handed pitcher pitch inside to a left-handed batter. For a left-handed pitcher to
deliver a pitch inside to a right-handed batter, the ball must essentially cross home plate,
whereas a right-handed pitcher does not need the ball to cross home plate to pitch inside
to a right-handed batter.
Although there were no statistically significant differences found for the maximum gle-
nohumeral internal rotation moment, the elbow varus moment in left-handed pitchers
was significantly greater than right-handed pitchers. Given that the two groups are nearly
identical, the cause of this increased moment in left-handed pitchers suggests a biome-
chanical difference between the two groups, the cause of which is unknown. This difference
may be related to differences in joint kinematics such as increased elbow flexion at foot
contact which has been shown to increase risk of injury (Sabick et al., 2005). Interestingly,
left-handed pitchers in this study were noted to pitch with 13° more elbow flexion and
showed an 11-Nm increase in elbow varus moment. Therefore, further work should be
directed to better understanding the relationship between elbow flexion and the elbow varus
moment, especially in left-handed pitchers. It is also important to note that the left-handed
pitchers also showed increased forearm moments compared to their right-handed coun-
terparts which could again be caused by pitching to an opposite-handed batter more often
than right-handed pitchers as discussed previously. Future work should also be directed
to understanding whether there is a biomechanical difference for either a left-handed or a
right-handed pitcher when pitching to an opposite-handed or same-handed batter.
This study does have some limitations. The study was performed in a laboratory environ-
ment with limitations inherent in that research setting; these limitations were minimised by
allowing pitchers adequate time to become accustomed to the testing conditions and the use
of a regulation mound, pitching a regulation distance to an appropriately positioned pitching
target. Additionally, our data were based on uninjured pitchers that do not have a history
of surgical intervention to their pitching arm nor have they had a serious injury within the
preceding six months of the analysis. Therefore, determining true injury prevalence from
this population is difficult as their ability to remember previous injury from past seasons
may have skewed the results in favour of fewer injuries reported. It is important to point
150    M. J. Solomito et al.

out that even in this cohort of ‘healthy’ pitchers, nearly half of both study groups reported
previous shoulder or elbow issues.

Conclusion
The results of this study indicate that contrary to our intuitive hypothesis, there are biome-
chanical differences between left-handed and right-handed pitchers. While it is difficult to
state whether left-handed or right-handed pitchers are at a greater risk of injury, the find-
ings of this study bring about two important points. The first is that it may be necessary to
establish normative data for left-handed pitchers as they pitch differently than their right-
handed counterparts. With these known differences, it may not be accurate to combine
left-handed pitchers with right-handed pitchers in future studies. Second, coaches should
be aware that there are biomechanical differences between left- and right-handed pitchers.
Although it is still early in this line of research to conclusively state that coaches should
adjust their coaching styles to safely train left- or right-handed pitchers, some suggestions
can be made. Given that the results of this work, as well as the study by Werner et al. (2010),
which indicated that right-handed pitchers are more susceptible to glenohumeral internal
rotation deficits compared to left-handed pitchers, coaches may want to incorporate addi-
tional stretching routines for their right-handed pitchers to try and reduce this reduction in
internal rotation. Clinicians and trainers should also be aware of these differences especially
when interpreting biomechanical data as they may inadvertently overinterpret differences in
data from a left-handed pitcher if they are more familiar with reviewing right-handed data.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported in part by Major League Baseball.

References
Burton, P., Gurrin, L., & Sly, P. (1998). Extending the simple linear regression model to account for
correlated responses: An introduction to generalized estimating equations and multi-level mixed
modelling. Statistics in Medicine, 17, 1261–1291.
Ellenbecker, T.S., Roetert, E. P., Bailie, D. S., Davies, G. J., & Brown, S. W. (2002). Glenohumeral joint
total rotation range of motion in elite tennis players and baseball pitchers. Medicine and Science
in Sports and Exercise, 34, 2052–2056.
Fleisig, G. S., Andrews, J. R., Dillman, C. J., & Escamilla, R. F. (1995). Kinetics of baseball pitching
with implications about injury mechanisms. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 23, 233–239.
Greenland, S. (2000). Principles of multilevel modelling. International Journal of Epidemiology, 29,
158–167.
Greenwood, D. T. (1988). Principles of dynamics (pp. 389–468). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Morgan, J., & Lally, R.(2014). Baseball for Dummies (pp. 118–125). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Nissen, C. W., Westwell, M., Ounpuu, S., Patel, M., Tate, J. P., Pierz, K., … Bicos, J. (2007). Adolescent
baseball pitching technique: A detailed three-dimensional biomechanical analysis. Medicine &
Science in Sports & Exercise, 39, 1347–1357.
 Sports Biomechanics   151

Sabick, M. B., Kim, Y.-K., Torry, M. R., Keirns, M. A., & Hawkins, R. J. (2005). Biomechanics of
the shoulder in youth baseball pitchers implications for the development of proximal humeral
epiphysiolysis and humeral retrotorsion. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 33, 1716–1722.
Solomito, M. J., Garibay, E. J., Woods, J. R., Õunpuu, S., & Nissen, C. W. (2014). Evaluation of wrist
and forearm motion in college-aged baseball pitchers. Sports Biomechanics, 13, 320–331.
Tango, T. M., Lichtman, M. G., & Dolphin, A. E.(2007). The book: Playing the percentages in baseball
(pp. 157–190). Dulles, VA: Potomac Books,.
Werner, S.L., Guido, J. A., Delude, N. A., Stewart, G. W., Greenfield, J. H., & Meister, K. (2010).
Throwing arm dominance in collegiate baseball pitching a biomechanical study. The American
Journal of Sports Medicine, 38, 1606–1610.
Wilk, K. E., Macrina, L. C., Fleisig, G. S., Porterfield, R., Simpson, C.D., Harker, P., … Andrews, J.
R. (2011). Correlation of glenohumeral internal rotation deficit and total rotational motion to
shoulder injuries in professional baseball pitchers. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 39,
329–335.