Gretchen D Oliver1, Jessica L Downs Talmage1, Kenzie B Friesen2, Michael G Saper3, Jeffrey R Dugas4. 1. Sports Medicine and Movement Laboratory, School of Kinesiology, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA. 2. College of Kinesiology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan, Canada. 3. Department of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 4. Andrews Sports Medicine and Orthopaedic Center, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Baseball leagues have implemented pitch count and pitch type restrictions based on biomechanical concepts associated with pitch type. Softball has not yet adopted these practices, although softball pitchers continue to pitch at a high volume and learn multiple pitches at a young age. PURPOSE: To examine shoulder and elbow kinetics between the fastball, curveball, and changeup, as well as to provide descriptive upper extremity pain data in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) softball pitchers. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive laboratory study. METHODS: Study participants consisted of 27 female NCAA Division I softball pitchers (age, 20.2 ± 1.9 years; height, 175.7 ± 5.7 cm; weight, 83.6 ± 12.7 kg). The participants pitched 3 balls of each pitch type, and kinetic data were recorded. A one-way within-participants repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance was used to determine significant differences in kinetics and pitch speed between pitch types. RESULTS: Results revealed a statistically significant main effect for pitch type (Wilks λ = .087; F = 36.523; P < .001). Post hoc testing showed that the changeup produced less anterior elbow force compared with the fastball (P < .001) and the curveball (P = .012). In addition, the changeup produced less shoulder distraction force compared with the fastball (P < .001) and the curveball (P = .001). Additionally, there was a significant difference in pitch speed between all 3 pitch types (P = .006). The curveball revealed no statistically significant kinetic differences compared with the fastball. CONCLUSION: The fastball and curveball placed similar stress on the upper extremity in collegiate softball pitchers. However, in comparison with the changeup, the fastball and curveball placed increased stress on the upper extremity. More research is needed to fully explain the differences seen between pitch type and injury risk. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Sports medicine professionals, coaches, and athletes should use the current study results to note these differences in shoulder distraction and elbow anterior forces between softball pitch types. The study results can be used as a reference and basis for future research investigating kinetic differences across varying pitch types.
BACKGROUND: Baseball leagues have implemented pitch count and pitch type restrictions based on biomechanical concepts associated with pitch type. Softball has not yet adopted these practices, although softball pitchers continue to pitch at a high volume and learn multiple pitches at a young age. PURPOSE: To examine shoulder and elbow kinetics between the fastball, curveball, and changeup, as well as to provide descriptive upper extremity pain data in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) softball pitchers. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive laboratory study. METHODS: Study participants consisted of 27 female NCAA Division I softball pitchers (age, 20.2 ± 1.9 years; height, 175.7 ± 5.7 cm; weight, 83.6 ± 12.7 kg). The participants pitched 3 balls of each pitch type, and kinetic data were recorded. A one-way within-participants repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance was used to determine significant differences in kinetics and pitch speed between pitch types. RESULTS: Results revealed a statistically significant main effect for pitch type (Wilks λ = .087; F = 36.523; P < .001). Post hoc testing showed that the changeup produced less anterior elbow force compared with the fastball (P < .001) and the curveball (P = .012). In addition, the changeup produced less shoulder distraction force compared with the fastball (P < .001) and the curveball (P = .001). Additionally, there was a significant difference in pitch speed between all 3 pitch types (P = .006). The curveball revealed no statistically significant kinetic differences compared with the fastball. CONCLUSION: The fastball and curveball placed similar stress on the upper extremity in collegiate softball pitchers. However, in comparison with the changeup, the fastball and curveball placed increased stress on the upper extremity. More research is needed to fully explain the differences seen between pitch type and injury risk. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Sports medicine professionals, coaches, and athletes should use the current study results to note these differences in shoulder distraction and elbow anterior forces between softball pitch types. The study results can be used as a reference and basis for future research investigating kinetic differences across varying pitch types.
Authors: Ge Wu; Frans C T van der Helm; H E J DirkJan Veeger; Mohsen Makhsous; Peter Van Roy; Carolyn Anglin; Jochem Nagels; Andrew R Karduna; Kevin McQuade; Xuguang Wang; Frederick W Werner; Bryan Buchholz Journal: J Biomech Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 2.712
Authors: Gretchen D Oliver; Gabrielle G Gilmer; Adam W Anz; Kenzie B Friesen; Abigail R Brittain; Michael D Goodlett; Jeffrey R Dugas; James R Andrews Journal: Int J Sports Med Date: 2018-09-11 Impact factor: 3.118
Authors: Kelechi R Okoroha; Vincent A Lizzio; Fabien Meta; Christopher S Ahmad; Vasilios Moutzouros; Eric C Makhni Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Andrew V Pytiak; Matthew J Kraeutler; Dustin W Currie; Eric C McCarty; R Dawn Comstock Journal: Sports Health Date: 2017-10-25 Impact factor: 3.843
Authors: Gretchen D Oliver; Kenzie Friesen; Jeff W Barfield; Kevin Giordano; Adam Anz; Jeff Dugas; James Andrews Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2019-08-21