Search Results

You are looking at 11 - 18 of 18 items for :

  • Author: James R. Andrews x
  • Athletic Training, Therapy, and Rehabilitation x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Tomoyuki Matsuo, Rafael F. Escamilla, Glenn S. Fleisig, Steven W. Barrentine and James R. Andrews

This study investigated differences in kinematic and temporal parameters between two velocity groups of baseball pitchers. Data were collected from 127 healthy college and professional baseball pitchers. Those who threw faster than 1 SD above the sample mean (>38.0 m/s) were assigned to the high velocity group (n = 29), and those who threw slower than 1 SD below the sample mean (<34.2 m/s) were assigned to the low velocity group (n = 23). Twelve kinematic parameters and 9 temporal parameters were measured and analyzed. The pattern of lead knee movement was also investigated. Maximum shoulder external rotation, forward trunk tilt at the instant of ball release, and lead knee extension angular velocity at the instant of ball release were significantly greater in the high velocity group. Maximum lead knee flexion angular velocity was significantly greater in the low velocity group. Seventy percent of the high velocity group showed knee extension during the approach to ball release, whereas the low velocity group showed a variety of knee movement patterns involving less knee extension and more knee flexion. The greater shoulder external rotation in the high velocity group produced an increased range of motion during the acceleration phase.

Restricted access

David F. Stodden, Glenn S. Fleisig, Scott P. McLean, Stephen L. Lyman and James R. Andrews

Generating consistent maximum ball velocity is an important factor for a baseball pitcher’s success. While previous investigations have focused on the role of the upper and lower extremities, little attention has been given to the trunk. In this study it was hypothesized that variations in pelvis and upper torso kinematics within individual pitchers would be significantly associated with variations in pitched ball velocity. Nineteen elite baseball pitchers were analyzed using 3-D high-speed motion analysis. For inclusion in this study, each pitcher demonstrated a variation in ball velocity of at least 1.8 m/s (range: 1.8–3.5 m/s) during his 10 fastball pitch trials. A mixed-model analysis was used to determine the relationship between 12 pelvis and upper torso kinematic variables and pitched ball velocity. Results indicated that five variables were associated with variations in ball velocity within individual pitchers: pelvis orientation at maximum external rotation of the throwing shoulder (p = .026), pelvis orientation at ball release (p = .044), upper torso orientation at maximum external rotation of the throwing shoulder (p = .007), average pelvis velocity during arm cocking (p = .024), and average upper torso velocity during arm acceleration (p = .035). As ball velocity increased, pitchers showed an increase in pelvis orientation and upper torso orientation at the instant of maximal external rotation of the throwing shoulder. In addition, average pelvis velocity during arm cocking and average upper torso velocity during arm acceleration increased as ball velocity increased. From a practical perspective, the athlete should be coached to strive for proper trunk rotation during arm cocking as well as strength and flexibility in order to generate angular velocity within the trunk for maximum ball velocity.

Restricted access

Steven W. Barrentine, Tomoyuki Matsuo, Rafael F. Escamilla, Glenn S. Fleisig and James R. Andrews

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.

Restricted access

Kevin E. Wilk, James R. Andrews, William G. Clancy Jr., Heber C. Crockett and James W. O'Mara Jr.

Treatment of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injuries has changed considerably in recent years. This article discusses current rehabilitation for PCL disruptions in athletes. The treatment of PCL injuries varies somewhat based on the chronicity (acute vs. chronic) of injury and associated pathologies. The authors provide their treatment algorithm for the acute and chronic PCL-injured-knee patient. Nonoperative rehabilitation is discussed with a focus on immediate motion, quadriceps muscle strengthening, and functional rehabilitation. A discussion of the biomechanics of exercise is provided, with a focus on tibiofemoral shear forces and PCL strains. Surgical treatment is also discussed, with the current surgical approach being either the two-tunnel or the one-tunnel patellar tendon autograft procedure. The rehabilitation program after surgery is based on the healing constraints, surgical technique, biomechanics of the PCL during functional activities, and exercise. With the new changes in surgical technique and in the rehabilitation process, the authors believe that the outcome after PCL reconstruction will be enhanced.

Restricted access

Michael M. Reinold, Glenn S. Fleisig, James R. Andrews, Kevin E. Wilk and Gene G. Jameson

Restricted access

Gretchen D. Oliver, Jessica K. Washington, Sarah S. Gascon, Hillary A. Plummer, Rafael F. Escamilla and James R. Andrews

Context: Hip abductor musculature contributes to the stability of the pelvis, which is needed for efficient energy transfer from the lower-extremity to the upper-extremity during overhead throwing. Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a bilateral hip abduction fatigue protocol on overhead-throwing kinematics and passive hip range of motion. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Controlled laboratory setting. Participants: A convenience sample of 19 collegiate female softball players (20.6 [1.9] y; 169.3 [9.7] cm; 73.2 [11.2] kg). Main Outcome Measures: Repeated hip abduction to fatigue was performed on an isokinetic dynamometer for 3 consecutive days. Trunk and shoulder kinematics during throwing and hip internal and external rotation range of motion were analyzed prior to fatigue on day 1 (prefatigue) and following fatigue on day 3 (postfatigue). Results: Repeated-measures analysis of variances revealed no statistically significant differences in trunk and shoulder kinematics prefatigue and postfatigue. A statistically significant time × side × direction interaction (F 2,36 = 5.462, P = .02, ηp2=.233) was observed in hip passive range of motion. A decrease in throwing-side hip internal rotation prefatigue to postfatigue (mean difference = −2.284; 95% confidence interval, −4.302 to −0.266; P = .03) was observed. Conclusions: The hip abductor fatigue protocol used in this study did not significantly alter trunk and upper-extremity throwing kinematics. The lack of changes may indicate that fatigue of the hip abductors does not contribute to trunk and shoulder kinematics during throwing or the protocol may not have been sport-specific enough to alter kinematics.

Restricted access

Rafael F. Escamilla, Glenn S. Fleisig, Coop DeRenne, Marcus K. Taylor, Claude T. Moorman III, Rodney Imamura, Edward Barakatt and James R. Andrews

A motion system collected 120-Hz data from 14 baseball adult hitters using normal and choke-up bat grips. Six swings were digitized for each hitter, and temporal and kinematic parameters were calculated. Compared with a normal grip, the choke-up grip resulted in 1) less time during stride phase and swing; 2) the upper torso more opened at lead foot contact; 3) the pelvis more closed and less bat linear velocity at bat-ball contact; 4) less range of motion of the upper torso and pelvis during swing; 5) greater elbow flexion at lead foot contact; and 6) greater peak right elbow extension angular velocity. The decreased time during the stride phase when using a choke-up grip implies that hitters quicken their stride when they choke up. Less swing time duration and less upper torso and pelvis rotation range of motion using the choke-up grip supports the belief of many coaches and players that using a choke-up grip results in a “quicker” swing. However, the belief that using a choke-up grip leads to a faster moving bat was not supported by the results of this study.

Restricted access

Rafael F. Escamilla, Glenn S. Fleisig, Coop DeRenne, Marcus K. Taylor, Claude T. Moorman III, Rodney Imamura, Edward Barakatt and James R. Andrews

We propose that learning proper hitting kinematics should be encouraged at a young age during youth baseball because this may help reinforce proper hitting kinematics as a player progresses to higher levels of baseball in their adult years. To enhance our understanding between youth and adult baseball hitting, kinematic and temporal analyses of baseball hitting were evaluated with a high-speed motion analysis system between 12 skilled youth and 12 skilled adult baseball players. There were only a small number of temporal differences between youth and adult hitters, with adult hitters taking significantly greater time than youth hitters during the stride phase and during the swing. Compared with youth hitters, adult hitters a) had significantly greater (p < .01) lead knee flexion when the hands started to move forward; b) flexed the lead knee over a greater range of motion during the transition phase (31° versus 13°); c) extended the lead knee over a greater range of motion during the bat acceleration phase (59° versus 32°); d) maintained a more open pelvis position at lead foot off ground; and e) maintained a more open upper torso position when the hands started to move forward and a more closed upper torso position at bat-ball contact. Moreover, adult hitters had greater peak upper torso angular velocity (857°/s versus 717°/s), peak left elbow extension angular velocity (752°/s versus 598°/s), peak left knee extension angular velocity (386°/s versus 303°/s), and bat linear velocity at bat-ball contact (30 m/s versus 25 m/s). The numerous differences in kinematic and temporal parameters between youth and adult hitters suggest that hitting mechanics are different between these two groups.