Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/241057908
Biomechanics of Pitching
CITATIONS READS
24 9,689
4 authors, including:
James R Andrews
American Sports Medicine Institute
219 PUBLICATIONS 16,014 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Naiquan Nigel Zheng on 15 July 2016.
Biomechanics of Pitching
9.1 INTRODUCTION
Injuries in baseball have been one of the driving forces for many
advancements in sports medicine. Injuries to the throwing arm of a baseball
pitcher are common, including a tear of the rotator cuff of the shoulder.
(Altchek and Dines, 1995; Fleisig et al., 1995a; Miniaci et al., 2002; Tibone
et al., 1986). A tear of the ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) is also one of the
more common injuries of baseball pitchers. The surgical reconstruction of
torn UCLs began in the 1970s (Andrews, 1985; Indelicato et al., 1979; Jobe
et al., 1986; Jobe and Nuber, 1986). Related to this, there was a need for a
better understanding of pitching biomechanics. However, information on
pitching biomechanics was limited due to the rapid motions involved and the
lack of adequate methods for quantification. Recent advances in high-speed
video and computerized motion analysis has enabled biomechanical studies
of pitching to be conducted (Zheng and Barrentine, 2000). Over the past
several years, the understanding of injuries in baseball pitching has been
significantly improved (Dillman et al., 1993; Fleisig et al., 1995a; Fleisig et
al., 1996c; Fleisig et al., 1999).
Three types of data can be collected for baseball pitching: motion data
(how the body moves during pitching), electromyography (“EMG”, how the
major muscles work) and external forces (interactions between the body and
the pitching mound or with the ball during pitching). We are going to discuss
equipment and data collection for each of these.
cameras to identify the momentary spatial location of the one marker that is
on at any instant. Active marker systems require that wires be attached to
each marker, which makes measurements cumbersome and difficult,
especially for baseball pitching. Long and loose wires are needed to allow
stretching of the pitching arm but they fly and slap against the subject.
Passive retro-reflective markers reflect light in the direction from which it
comes. This is the same principle demonstrated by traffic signs, which
appear to be lit up when illuminated by the headlights of approaching
vehicles. The cameras simultaneously pick information from the passive
markers that appear on the screen of a video monitor as bright spots. At
ASMI, six electronically synchronized 240 Hz charged coupled device
cameras are used to transmit pixel images of the reflective markers attached
onto the baseball pitcher directly into a video processor without being
recorded onto video (Motion Analysis Corporation, Santa Rosa, CA).
After the projections of the markers on the cameras have been identified,
the photogrammetric approach can be applied to calculate the 3-D spatial
coordinates of each marker. The most common approach used to calculate
the 3-D coordinates of each marker is based on direct linear transformation
(DLT) (Abdel-Aziz and Karara, 1971; Shapiro, 1978; Walton, 1981). The
determination of the parameters necessary for the implementation of the
DLT algorithm requires a calibration procedure, which can be performed
prior to or after data has been collected. A cubic frame is often used with
numerous reflective markers attached. Since the global coordinates of these
markers are known, data collected from the cubic frame is used to calculate
the camera positions. Because the equations are linear, a minimum of 6
markers is required to determine the camera parameters. More markers are
often used to provide a degree of redundancy to the process of parameter
determination. A secondary step in the calibration process is the wand
calibration. A 1 m stick or wand with 2 markers attached at the ends and one
attached off the center is used for the procedure. The objective of wand
calibration is to fill the entire capture volume with images of the wand in
order to expand the calibrated volume defined by the cube. For baseball
pitching, the capture volume should cover the areas where the pitcher’s
hands and feet would reach during pitching. With wand calibration, the
initial camera positions calculated during cube calibration are refined. The
position of each camera in space (x, y, z) and its orientation with respect to
the global X, Y, Z axes are determined. Additional parameters are also
determined including the position of the camera image sensor with respect to
the camera lens, the effective focal length of the lens and a measure of the
geometric lens distortion of the lens. These camera internal parameters are
difficult to measure but necessary for photogrammetric reconstruction. The
cubic frame and wand are shown in Fig. 9.1.
Chap. 9. Biomechanics of Pitching 213
kinetic analyzes are the two most common biomechanical approaches used
to analyze pitching.
9.3.1 Kinematics
Y
X
90
180 0
(a) (b)
0
90
(c)
-90
Figure 9.5. Motion definitions at the throwing shoulder (in degrees): (a) shoulder abduction,
(b) shoulder external rotation and (c) shoulder horizontal adduction.
60 90
-90 0
0
(a) 90
-90
0
-90 90
90
(b) (c)
Figure 9.7. Motion definitions at the wrist and forearm (in degrees): (a) wrist flexion, (b)
radial deviation and (c) forearm pronation.
r
As discussed before, V fa −t is the vector from the elbow to the wrist. The
vector from the radial to ulnar marker at the throwing wrist is represented as
r r r
Vru − t = Vu − t − Vr − t .
The vector from the wrist to the marker on the hand is represented as
r r r r
Vwh − t = Vh − t − 0.5(Vr − t + Vu − t )
r
If the X axis ( I wx ) of the wrist coordinate system is defined as the unit
r r r
vector of Vru −t , the Y axis ( I wy ) as the unit vector of V fa −t , and the Z axis
r r r
( I wz ) is the unit vector of Vru −t × V fa −t . Then the wrist flexion ( φ ) and
ulnar deviation ( ϕ ) can be determined as:
222 Nigel Zheng et al.
r r r r
tan −1 (Vwh − t • I wz Vwh − t • I wy ) right − handed
φ= −1
r r r r (9.8)
− tan (Vwh − t • I wz Vwh − t • I wy ) left − handed
−1
r r r r
tan (Vwh − t • I wx Vwh − t • I wy ) right − handed
ϕ= −1
r r r r (9.9)
− tan (Vwh − t • I wx Vwh − t • I wy ) left − handed
The pronation and supination of the forearm can be determined from
vector of the upper arm, vector of the forearm and the vector from the radial
to the ulnar markers at the wrist.
r r r r r
90 − cos −1 ((Vua − t × V fa − t ) • I wx Vua − t × V fa − t ) right − handed
ψ = −1 r r r r r
cos ((Vua − t × V fa − t ) • I wx Vua − t × V fa − t ) − 90 left − handed
(9.10)
Coaches frequently use the position of the trunk at certain instances of the
pitching motion for instructional purposes. The trunk vector discussed above
can be used to determine the trunk forward ( ξ ) and side tilt ( ζ ). They
describe the trunk position in the global coordinate system.
r r r r
ξ = tan −1 ( I trunk • I gx I trunk • I gz ) (9.11)
r r r r
tan −1 ( I trunk • I gy I trunk • I gz ) right − handed
ζ = −1
r r r r (9.12)
− tan ( I trunk • I gx I trunk • I gz ) left − handed
Typically, the motion of the spine during baseball pitching is not
analyzed relative to a specific level of the vertebral column (thoracic,
lumbar, etc.). Instead, overall spine motions based on the shoulder markers
and hip markers are determined. A local reference system is developed at the
pelvis with the X - axis pointing from leading hip to the throwing hip.
r r r r r
I px = (Vhip −t − Vhip −l ) (Vhip −t − Vhip −l )
r r r
I py = I trunk × I px
r r r
I pz = I px × I py
The orientation of the X - axis of the local reference system at the
shoulder discussed before can be used to determine the spine lateral bending
( δ ) and axial rotation ( ω ).
r r r r
δ = tan −1 ( I sx • I pz I sx • I px ) (9.13)
Chap. 9. Biomechanics of Pitching 223
r r r r
tan −1 ( I sx • I py I sx • I px ) right − handed
ω= −1
r r r r (9.14)
− tan ( I sx • I py I sx • I px ) left − handed
9.3.2 Kinetics
Kinetics is the study of forces and moments of force applied to a body.
Here we are interested in the forces and moments of force applied to the
elbow, shoulder and other joints during baseball pitching. If we have a full
description of body movements (positions, velocities and accelerations),
accurate anthropometric measurements, including body segment’s mass,
moment inertia, location of the mass center and external forces applied to the
body, the forces and moments of forces applied to the joint can be
calculated. During baseball pitching, external forces include gravitational
force, ground reaction force and the ball’s resistive force. An inverse
dynamic model is used to perform such a calculation.
Let’s assume that the hand and ball are one body before ball release. Fig.
r
9.8 shows the free-body diagram. Resultant force ( Rw − h ) and moment of
r
force ( M w − h ) acting at the wrist to the hand can be determined using the
Newton’s second law.
r r r
∑ r r r
Ri + mg = m a (9.17)
r
∑ ( M i + Ri × d i ) = I α (9.18)
r
where m is the mass of a body segment, g is the acceleration due to the
r
gravity, a is the acceleration vector of the segment’s mass center, I is the
r r
moment inertia, d i is the vector of the moment arm of force Ri about the
r
mass center, and α is the angular acceleration vector.
For the hand-ball free-body diagram, from Eqs. 9.17 and 9.18, we have:
r r r
R w − h = mh + b ( a h + b − g ) (9.19)
r r r r
M w−h = I h +bα h +b − Rw−h × d Rw−h (9.20)
where mh + b is the mass of the hand and ball before ball release and the
mass of the hand after ball release.
Chap. 9. Biomechanics of Pitching 225
r
r R
w−h
R
w − fa r
M
w − fa
m fa
r
r M
r R s − trunk
M
e − fa
e − fa r
M
s − rua
r R
R s − ua r
e − ua R
r s − trunk
M m fa
e − ua
In accordance with Newton’s third law, there are equal and opposite
forces and moments of forces acting at the wrist to the forearm
r r r r
( Rw − fa = − Rw − h , M w − fa = − M w − h ). Again using Newton’s second law,
r r
the resultant force ( Re − fa ) and moment of force ( M e − fa ) acting at the
r r
elbow to the forearm can be determined with known Rw− fa and M w− fa .
r r r r
Re − fa = m fa ( a fa − g ) − Rw − fa (9.21)
r r r r r r r
M e − fa = I faα fa − Rw − fa × d Rw − fa − Re − fa × d Re − fa − M w − fa
(9.22)
226 Nigel Zheng et al.
r
For the same reason we can determine the resultant force ( Rs − ua ) and
r
moment of force ( M s − ua ) at the shoulder to the upper arm.
r r r
Rs − ua = mua ( a ua − g ) − Re − ua (9.23)
r r r r r r r
M s − ua = I ua α ua − Re − ua × d Re − ua − Rs − ua × d Rs − ua − M e − ua
(9.24)
The force and torque at the shoulder applied to the trunk will be
determined:
r r
Rs − trunk = − Rs − ua (9.25)
r r
M s − trunk = − M s − ua (9.26)
0.800
r r
[
E m − jc I e − m
r
I e− a
r
]
I e − d 0.521 right − handed
r 0.296
E m − jc =
r − 0.800
E
m − jc
r
[
I e−m
r
I e−a
r
]
I e − d 0.521 left − handed
0.296
(9.31)
Figure 9.9. Six phases of baseball pitching: (a) to (c) winding-up, (c) to (e) stride, (e) to (g)
arm cocking, (g) to (h) arm acceleration, (h) to (j) arm deceleration and (j) to (l) follow-
through. Some key events are (e) foot contact, (g) maximum shoulder external rotation and
(h) ball release.
pitcher to pitcher and pitch to pitch. While the time interval from the leading
foot contact to ball release is very short, it is more consistent from pitcher to
pitcher and pitch to pitch. Zheng et al. (1998) reported the time interval from
the leading foot contact to ball release for 26 highly skilled adult male
pitchers averaged 0.139 seconds with a standard deviation of 0.002 seconds
(Zheng et al., 1998). It is a better choice to use time from foot contact to ball
release than the entire pitching motion for normalizing variables. Data from
the stride phase to the follow-through phase have been digitized and
analyzed. Most results reported have been focused from foot contact to
shortly after ball release (Barrentine et al., 1998; Dillman et al., 1993;
Escamilla et al., 1994; Escamilla et al., 2001; Fleisig et al., 1995a; Fleisig et
al., 1996d; Fleisig et al., 1999; Zheng et al., 1998). Here the joint motions
during pitching, except the wrist and the forearm, are presented from 26 high
skilled adult male pitchers collected at ASMI. Their ball speed ranged from
37.5 m/s (84 mph) to 40.7 m/s (91 mph).
135
120
105
90
0 70 140 210 280 350
75
Foot Contact
60
45
Ball Release
30
15
0
90
120 60
150 30
180 0
0 70 140 210 280 350
Foot Contact
Ball Release
The shoulder was externally rotated about 50 degrees at foot contact, and
continued to rotate to approximately 180 degrees of external rotation during
arm cocking phase (Fig. 9.11). Because of how it is calculated, this
maximum external rotation is actually a combination of glenohumeral
rotation, sternoclavicular motion, and extension of the spine. From
maximum external rotation the throwing shoulder started internal rotation. It
internally rotated about 60 degrees in less than 10 milliseconds during the
arm acceleration phase, and continued its internal rotation during the arm
deceleration phase, eventually reaching zero degrees shortly after ball
release. The maximum internal rotation velocity is typically 7000
degrees/second, making it one of the fastest human motions in sports.
232 Nigel Zheng et al.
90
60
30
0
0 70 140 210 280 350
Foot Contact
-30
Ball Release
-60
-90
120
100
Elbow Flexion Angle (degree)
80
60
40
20
Time
Figure 9.13. Elbow flexion angle during baseball pitching.
40
20
-20
-40
-60
Time
20
Wrist Radial / Ulnar Deviation (degree)
10
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
Time
Figure 9.15. Wrist radial and ulnar deviation during baseball pitching.
Chap. 9. Biomechanics of Pitching 235
The forearm had minimal pronation during the arm cocking phase and
reached approximately 24 degrees of pronation at the time of ball release
(Fig. 9.16). It reached almost 60 degrees at the moment of shoulder
maximum internal rotation and the end of the arm deceleration phase.
100
Forearm Pronation / Supination (degree)
80
60
40
20
-20
-40
Time
40
20
Axial Rotation (degree)
-20
-40
-60
-80
-50 0 50 100 150
FC BR
Time
50
40
30
Lateral Bending (degree)
20
10
-10
-20
-30
-50 0 50 100 150
FC BR
Time
kT = m ∗ h 2 /(74.2 * 1.7552 )
k L = m 2 ∗ h /(74.2 2 * 1.755)
Table 9.1 Anthropometric Data Used in Calculating Forces and Torques
Segment Mass/Massb CMP/LS IT ( kg ⋅ m 2 ) IL ( kg ⋅ m 2 )
Hand 0.006 0.506
Forearm 0.016 0.430 0.0076*kT 0.0011*kL
Upper arm 0.028 0.436 0.0213*kT 0.0024*kL
Notes: Massb is the total mass of the body, CMp is the distance of the center of the mass to
the proximal end of the segment, LS is the length of the segment, IT is the moment of inertia
about the transverse axis and IL is the moment of inertia about the longitudinal axis, kT is
scale factor for IT and kL is the scale factor for IL .
The force applied to the forearm at the elbow can be decomposed into
three parts: medial force, anterior force and proximal force. Fig. 9.19 shows
these three forces during baseball pitching.
238 Nigel Zheng et al.
300
Anterior Force (N)
200
100
0
300
Medial Force (N)
200
100
1000
800
Proximal Force (N)
600
400
200
Time
Figure 9.19. Forces applied to the forearm at the elbow during baseball pitching.
Chap. 9. Biomechanics of Pitching 239
60
Flexion Torque (N.m)
40
20
-20
60
50
Varus Toruqe (N.m)
40
30
20
10
Time
Figure 9.20. Torques applied to the forearm at the elbow during baseball pitching.
240 Nigel Zheng et al.
Two torques applied to the forearm at the elbow were determined: the
flexion torque and varus torque (Fig. 9.20). No torque in the axial rotation
was determined. The maximum flexion torque, 50 Newton meters ( N ⋅ m ),
occurred in the middle of the arm acceleration phase. The maximum varus
torque of 52 N ⋅ m occurred during the arm cocking phase, just prior to the
instant of shoulder maximum external rotation.
400
200
Anterior Force (N)
-200
-400
300
200
Superior Force (N)
100
-100
-200
-300
1000
800
Proximal Force (N)
600
400
200
Time
Figure 9.21. Forces applied to the upper arm at the shoulder during baseball pitching.
242 Nigel Zheng et al.
80
Adduction Torque (N.m) 60
40
20
-20
-40
-60
-80
Horizontal Adduction Torque (N.m)
80
60
40
20
-20
-40
-60
-80
External Rotation Torque (N.m)
-20
-40
-60
Time
Figure 9.22. Torques applied to the upper arm at the shoulder during baseball pitching.
Chap. 9. Biomechanics of Pitching 243
effort to 32.6 m/s at 75% effort and 30.4 m/s at 50% effort. Pitching with
partial-effort appears to be useful for a pitcher in training or rehabilitation
when he does not want to put high loads on his arm as normally occurs
during full-effort throwing.
average age of 14.6 years for girls and 16.5 years for boys. These areas are
the weakest part of the muscle-ligament-bone complex. It is this weak area
that is prone to injury due to repetitive stress during sports in active
adolescent’s pitchers. The muscles that flex the wrist attach to the inner
elbow. During pitching these muscles pull at the growth plate causing
separation of the open growth plate as well as small tears in the muscles
causing inflammation. The tension that the flexor muscle group exerts on the
elbow is at its maximum in the early acceleration phase of the throwing
motion. Since Little League elbow is a syndrome of a child with immature
growth plates, it is most common in the 9 to 12 year old group. Pitchers are
affected more than any other position because of the number of balls that
they throw. This condition is an overuse injury caused by a variety of
factors. Examples include excessive throwing, usually without proper
preseason conditioning, poor pitching technique and inadequate warm-up.
Physical factors such as anatomic abnormalities, lack of flexibility, and
muscle imbalance may contribute as well.
9.9 SUMMARY
As presented in this chapter, the understanding of the motion in pitching a
baseball has benefited tremendously from biomechanical analysis.
Innovations in scientific instrumentation has enabled researchers to quantify
the extreme angular velocities that occur during baseball pitching, including
7000 º/s for internal rotation at the shoulder and 2400 º/s for elbow
extension. Along with the dynamic angular movements that occur during
pitching are the stresses on the pitcher’s body and the potential for overuse
injury. Biomechanical analysis techniques have also provided the basis for
estimating the forces and torques that are experienced at the shoulder and
elbow joints during pitching. Using inverse dynamic models, the forces and
torques applied to the elbow and shoulder have been estimated. The
proximal forces exerted to resist distraction of the arm and forearm at the
Chap. 9. Biomechanics of Pitching 253
shoulder and elbow during pitching has been estimated to be near 100 % of
the pitcher’s body weight for each pitch. From the estimation of stresses on
throwing, two critical instants of the pitching motion have been identified.
These instances occur near the end of the arm cocking phase and near the
time of ball release. The motions, forces, and torques that occur at these
instants are being linked to the pathology of common throwing injuries.
The knowledge of the kinematic and kinetic factors gained from
biomechanical analyses has been combined with anatomical considerations
to improve the understanding of injury mechanisms. Injuries to the UCL
have been attributed to the high forces and torques that are experienced at
the elbow during arm cocking. The stress due to these forces and torques is
exacerbated by the extreme external rotation at the shoulder and extension at
the elbow creating a valgus extension overload that occurs at this time.
Impingement injuries at the shoulder and elbow have been attributed to the
forces and torques that occur during arm cocking. Rotator cuff tears, and
SLAP lesions at the shoulder have also been attributed to these factors. The
time near ball release and initial arm deceleration is also considered a critical
instant related to potential injury mechanisms. The forces and torques
exerted to resist distraction at the shoulder and elbow have been attributed to
causes of shoulder pathology including SLAP lesions. The dual role of the
biceps tendon complex in controlling elbow extension and distraction of the
arm at the shoulder during arm deceleration, have been associated with
SLAP lesions.
Biomechanical analysis of the throwing motion has improved our
understanding of injury mechanisms, and has provided a basis for improved
prevention and treatment of injury. Trainers, therapists and coaches have
gained valuable knowledge in determining proper rehabilitation and
prevention protocols for the throwing athlete. Surgical treatment has also
benefited from an understanding of the stresses that are experience at the
various joint structures during pitching. Applications in all of these areas
will continue to improve as scientific methods of analyzing human
movement continue to be refined. This includes the application of computer
modelling techniques to analyze specific joint structures and related joint
actions that occur during human movement. These advances will benefit
pitchers at all levels of competition by improving their performance and
preventing injuries.
254 Nigel Zheng et al.
9.10 REFERENCES
Abdel-Aziz YI, Karara HM. Direct linear transformation: From comparator coordinates into
objects coordinated in close-range photogrammetry. 1-19. 1971. Falls Church, VA.
American Society of Photogrammetry, Symposium on close-range photogrammetry.
American Society of Photogrammetry.
Altchek DW, Dines DM. 1995. Shoulder Injuries in the Throwing Athlete. J Am. Acad.
Orthop. Surg 3:159-65
Andrews JR. 1985. Bony injuries about the elbow in the throwing athlete. Instr. Course Lect.
34:323-31
Andrews JR, Angelo RL. 1988. Shoulder arthroscopy for the throwing athlete. Techniques in
Orthopaedics 3:75-81
Andrews JR, Carson WG, McCleod WD. 1985. Glenoid labrum tears related to the long head
of the biceps. The American Journal of Sports Medicine 13:337-41
Andrews JR, Fleisig GS. 1998. Prevention of throwing injuries. Journal of Orthopaedic and
Sports Physical Therapy 27:187-8
Andrews JR, Whiteside JA. 1993. Common elbow problems in the athlete. The Journal of
Orthopaedic and Sports Physicial Therapy 17:289-95
Andrews J, Fleisig G. How many pitches should I allow my child to throw? USA Baseball
News April, 5. 1996.
Barrentine SW, Takada Y, Fleisig G, Zheng N, Andrews JA. Kinematic and EMG Changes in
Baseball Pitching During a Simulated Game. 1997. American Society of Biomechanics
Annual Meeting, Clemson, SC. 9-27-1997.
Barrentine S, Matsuo T, Escamilla R, Fleisig G, Andrews J. 1998. Kinematic analysis of the
wrist and forearm during baseball pitching. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 14:24-39
Clauser CE, McConville JT, Young JW. 1969. Weight, Volume, and Center of Mass of
Segments of the Human Body. AMRL-TR-69-70 Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
Crockett HC GLWKSMRJOJRMDJMKLSAJR. 2002. Osseous Adaptation and Range of
Motion at the Glenohumeral Joint in Professional Baseball Pitchers. The American
Journal of Sports Medicine 30:20-6
De Luca CJ. 1997. The use of surface electromyography in biomechanics. Journal of Applied
Biomechanics 13:135-63
Dempster WT. 1955. Space requirements of the seated operator. WADC-TR-55-159 Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base,
DiGiovine NM. 1992. An electromyographic analysis of the upper extremity in pitching.
Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery 1:15-25
Dillman CJ, Fleisig GS, Andrews JR. 1993. Biomechanics of pitching with emphasis upon
shoulder kinematics. J Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 18:402-8
Escamilla RF, Fleisig GS, Alexander E, Andrews JA. 1994. A kinematic and kinetic
comparison while throwing different types of baseball pitches. Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise 26:S175
Escamilla RF, Fleisig GS, Zheng N, Barrentine SW, Andrews JR. 2001. Kinematic
comparisons of 1996 Olympic baseball pitchers. J Sports Sci 2001. Sep. ;19. (9. ):665. -76.
19:665-76
Fleisig G, Escamilla RF, Barrentine SW, Zheng N, Andrews JA. Kinematic and kinetic
comparison of baseball pitching from a mound and throwing from flat ground. Twentieth
Annual Meeting of the American Society of Biomechanics, 153-154. 1996. Georgia Tech,
Atlanta, Georgia. 10-17-1996.
Chap. 9. Biomechanics of Pitching 255
Fleisig G, Zheng N, Barrentine SW, Escamilla RF, Andrews JA. Kinematic and kinetic
comparison of full-effort and partial-effort baseball pitching. Twentieth Annual Meeting
of the American Society of Biomechanics, 151-152. 1996. Georgia Tech, Atlanta,
Georgia. 10-17-1996.
Fleisig GS, Andrews JR, Dillman CJ, Escamilla RF. 1995. Kinetics of baseball pitching with
implications about injury mechanisms. Am. J Sports Med 23:233-9
Fleisig GS, Barrentine SW, Escamilla RF, Andrews JR. 1996. Biomechanics of overhand
throwing with implications for injuries. Sports Med 21:421-37
Fleisig GS, Barrentine SW, Zheng N, Escamilla RF, Andrews JR. 1999. Kinematic and
kinetic comparison of baseball pitching among various levels of development. J Biomech.
32:1371-5
Fleisig GS, Dillman CJ, Escamilla RF, Andrews JR. 1995. Kinetics of baseball pitching with
implications about injury mechanisms. American Journal of Sports Medicine 23:233-9
Fleisig GS, Escamilla RF, Andrews JR, Matsuo T, Satterwhite Y, Barrentine SW. 1996.
Kinematic and kinetic comparison between baseball pitching and football passing. Journal
of Applied Biomechanics 12:207-24
Glousman R, Jobe F, Tibone J, Moynes D, Antonelli D, Perry J. 1988. Dynamic
electromyographic analysis of the throwing shoulder with glenohumeral instability. J Bone
Joint Surg Am. 70:220-6
Indelicato PA, Jobe FW, Kerlan RK, Carter VS, Shields CL, Lombardo SJ. 1979. Correctable
elbow lesions in professional baseball players: a review of 25 cases. Am. J Sports Med
7:72-5
Jobe FW, Moynes DR, Tibone JE, Perry J. 1984. An EMG analysis of the shoulder in
pitching. A second report. Am. J Sports Med 12:218-20
Jobe FW, Nuber G. 1986. Throwing injuries of the elbow. Clinics in Sports Medicine 5:621-
36
Jobe FW, Stark H, Lombardo SJ. 1986. Reconstruction of the ulnar collateral ligament in
athletes. Journal of bone and joint surgery 68:1158-63
Jobe FW, Tibone JE, Perry J, Moynes D. 1983. An EMG analysis of the shoulder in throwing
and pitching. A preliminary report. Am. J Sports Med 11:3-5
Kindall J. 1993. Sports Illustrated Baseball: Play the winning way Lantham, MD: Sport
Illustrated Books.
MacWilliams BA, Choi T, Perezous MK, Chao EY, McFarland EG. 1998. Characteristic
ground-reaction forces in baseball pitching. Am. J Sports Med 26:66-71
Matsuo T, Fleisig GS, Escamilla RF, Barrentine SW, Andrews JR. 2001. Comparison of
kinematic and temporal parameters between different pitch velocity groups. Journal of
Applied Biomechanics 17:1-13
Miniaci A, Mascia AT, Salonen DC, Becker EJ. 2002. Magnetic resonance imaging of the
shoulder in asymptomatic professional baseball pitchers. Am. J Sports Med 2002. Jan. -
Feb. ;30. (1):66. -73. 30:66-73
Shapiro R. 1978. Direct linear transformation method for three-dimensional cinematography.
Research Quarterly 49:197-205
Stodden D, Fleisig GS, McLean SP, Lyman SL, Andrews JA. 2001. Relationship of pelvis
and upper torso kinematics to pitched baseball velocity. J. Applied Biomechanics 17:164-
72
Takada Y, Barrentine SW, Fleisig G, Zheng N, Andrews JA. Kinematic and
electromyographic changes with fatigue. 1997. XVIth International Society of
Biomechanics.
256 Nigel Zheng et al.
Tibone JE, Elrod B, Jobe FW, Kerlan RK, Carter VS, Shields CL, Jr., Lombardo SJ, Yocum
L. 1986. Surgical treatment of tears of the rotator cuff in athletes. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
68:887-91
Walton JS. 1981. Close range cine photogrammetry: a generalized technique for quantifying
gross human motion. Penn State University
Watkins RG, Dennis S, Dillin WH, Schnebel B, Schneiderman G, Jobe F, Farfan H, Perry J,
Pink M. 1989. Dynamic EMG analysis of torque transfer in professional baseball pitchers.
Spine 14:404-8
Werner SL, Fleisig GS, Dillman CJ, Andrews JR. 1993. Biomechanics of the elbow during
baseball pitching. J Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 17:274-8
Yamanouchi T. 1998. EMG analysis of the lower extremities during pitching in high-school
baseball. Kurume Med J 45:21-5
Zheng N, Barrentine SW. 2000. Biomechanics and motion analysis applied to sports. Phys.
Med Rehabil. Clin. N. Am. 2000. May. ;11(2):309. -22. 11:309-22
Zheng N, Fleisig G, Andrews JA. 1999. Biomechanics and Injuries of the Shoulder during
Throwing. Athletic Therapy Today 4:6-10
Zheng N, Fleisig G, Young JL, Andrews JA. Spine kinematics during baseball pitching with
implications about injury mechanisms. 479-480. 1998. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, The
Third North American Congress on Biomechanics. 8-14-1998.