Energy Flow Analysis to Investigate Youth

Pitching Velocity and Efficiency

JACOB HOWENSTEIN1, KRISTOF KIPP2, and MICHELLE B. SABICK1
1
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Saint Louis University, St Louis, MO; and 2Department of Physical Therapy, Marquette
University, Milwaukee, WI

ABSTRACT
HOWENSTEIN, J., K. KIPP, and M. B. SABICK. Energy Flow Analysis to Investigate Youth Pitching Velocity and Efficiency. Med.
Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 523–531, 2019. Purpose: The purposes of this study were 1) to investigate the transfer of energy
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 01/15/2021

through the kinetic chain by youth baseball pitchers during the pitching motion and 2) to provide insight into how the total magnitude of
energy flow and its linear and rotational components relate to both velocity and joint torque per unit increment of pitch velocity (joint
load efficiency). Methods: Twenty-four youth baseball pitchers participated in this study. Data collection occurred in an indoor research
laboratory equipped with a 14-camera infrared motion capture system and an instrumented pitcher_s mound with embedded force plates.
Energy flow was calculated by integrating power transfer into and out of each segment. The magnitudes of key instances of energy flow
were compared to pitch velocity and velocity-normalized joint torques using simple linear regressions. Results: All of the energy flow
variables calculated had a significant correlation to pitch velocity. Energy flow into the arm from the trunk had the strongest correlation to
velocity of any variable investigated (r = 0.900, P = 0.000). The total magnitude of energy flow into the trunk had a significant
correlation to increased horizontal shoulder adduction efficiency and shoulder internal rotation efficiency. The magnitude of energy flow
into the trunk by only joint forces had a significant correlation to increased horizontal shoulder adduction efficiency, shoulder internal
rotation efficiency, and elbow varus efficiency. Conclusions: Energy flow analysis is an effective tool providing quantitative assessment
of the kinetic chain to gain a deeper understanding of how energy moves through an athlete, and how specific pitching mechanics impact
this movement. The results of this study support the importance of generating energy flow throughout the body to produce high velocities
and energy flow through the trunk to increase pitch efficiency. Key Words: PITCHING, ENERGY, EFFICIENCY, KINETICS, KINEMATICS

I
n baseball pitching, shoulder and elbow injuries are Baseball pitching is an application of an open kinetic
prevalent given the ballistic nature of the motion (1,2). chain. Pitchers begin by generating mechanical energy in the
Certain overuse injuries that were once predominantly lower extremities and transfer it through the trunk and into
seen in older pitchers, such as ulnar collateral ligament injury, their dominant arm, ultimately propelling the ball toward
have begun to permeate to younger athletes (1,3–7). Proposed home plate (20,21,22). Optimal transfer of energy between
explanations for the rise of injuries at the youth level have segments is critically dependent on the correct muscle acti-
included a greater volume of pitches thrown, playing year- vation and timing of sequential steps during the pitching
round baseball, playing for multiple teams, early specialization, motion (10,19,20). It has also been proposed that less optimal
and increased pressure to perform at a young age (1,3,4,8,9). management of the kinetic chain earlier in the delivery may
Multiple studies have investigated youth pitching kinematics subject the pitcher to larger upper-extremity joint torques
and joint kinetics; however, there is still no consensus on op- (19,21,23,24). On the other hand, an optimal, or more effi-
timal pitching technique for youth pitchers, especially given cient, pitching technique would be characterized by higher-
the unique aspects of the developing musculoskeletal system energy generation and transfer coupled with relatively low
(2,6,7,10–17). Because repetitive microtrauma may lead to shoulder and elbow joint torques (10,11,19).
acute injuries, understanding how youth pitchers can achieve Multiple studies have documented the importance of the
high-performance levels with minimal joint loads could yield kinetic chain and the timing of key events during the pitching
APPLIED SCIENCES
important information to help reduce the risk of injury in these motion (10,19,20,22,25). However, the tools used to evaluate
athletes (2,10–12,18,19). the sequence and timing of movements of the body during the
baseball pitching motion have been limited. These analyses
Address for correspondence: Jacob Howenstein, M.S., 3507 Lindell Blvd, have focused primarily on correlations between the magnitude
Saint Louis, MO 63103; E-mail: jacob.howenstein@gmail.com. of peak rotational velocities, timing of key kinematic events, and
Submitted for publication January 2018. the duration of specific phases in relation to upper-extremity
Accepted for publication September 2018. kinetics or ball velocity (10–12,18,19).
0195-9131/19/5103-0523/0 Energy flow (EF) analysis is a technique that offers certain
MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS & EXERCISEÒ advantages over the standard motion analysis techniques of
Copyright Ó 2018 by the American College of Sports Medicine previous research studies. Energy flow analysis is an exten-
DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001813 sion upon a segment power analysis that quantifies how

523

Copyright © 2019 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 energy is both generated and transferred among body seg- The subjects for this convenience sample were recruited by
ments (26,27). Therefore, it allows researchers to determine word of mouth through local youth baseball coaches. Ath-
how energy is generated and the direction, method, and effi- letes were asked to fill out an initial screening questionnaire
ciency by which it is transferred through the kinetic chain. regarding pitching injury history and their experience level.
Additionally, EF analysis can calculate the contribution of All pitchers were between the ages of 9 and 13 yr and had at
individual joint contact forces and joint torques to the trans- least 1 yr of prior pitching experience. Exclusion criteria
fer, generation, or absorption of energy across a joint. These included any injury that affected their ability to pitch, or an
components of the total EF allow for an additional depth of unorthodox throwing motion as determined by the research
insight that could be particularly useful in baseball pitching team. No subjects were ultimately excluded based on the
because it involves both linear and rotational motion of a criteria. Upon arriving at the laboratory, the subjects and
large number of body segments. Understanding the relative guardian were asked to sign an informed consent and assent
contributions of linear and rotational energy of individual documents before any testing occurred. The use of human
body segments could lead to greater understanding into the subjects was approved by the institutional review board at
interconnected aspects of pitching mechanics overall. Marquette University.
Energy flow analysis has been previously used to inves- Instrumentation. All testings occurred in an indoor re-
tigate the tennis serve (26), which is single-arm, open kinetic search laboratory equipped with a 14-camera infrared motion
chain movement similar to pitching. The study found that capture system at 250 Hz (Vicon, Oxford, UK) and a custom
athletes who transferred more energy from their trunk into pitcher_s mound containing two embedded force plates (Kistler,
their dominant arm not only had higher serve velocities but Winterthur, Switzerland); one under the pitching rubber and
also were less likely to suffer overuse injuries. This finding one under the landing area. The force plate under the landing
provided some of the first empirical evidence that higher area was mounted on an aluminum track that allowed the lo-
serve speeds are not necessarily related to greater loads on cation of the plate to be adjusted based on the pitcher_s natural
the arm or greater risks for injury. stride length. Pitchers were asked to simulate their pitching
Previous pitching research looking at youth athletes has motion on the mound, upon arriving at the laboratory, to de-
largely focused on how upper-extremity and trunk kinematics termine their natural landing location. The force plate was then
relate to either shoulder and elbow joint loading or to ball adjusted to the appropriate position, by a member of the re-
velocity. These studies have found that larger athletes with search team, while the athlete warmed up.
higher pitch velocities are subjected to higher joint loads and Marker set. The full-body marker used in this study
increased risk for injury (1,4,8,9,28,29). Additionally, many combined an upper-extremity marker set consistent with ISB
of the kinematic parameters that relate to reduced joint load- recommendations (31) with a lower-extremity marker set used
ing are also related to a decrease in ball velocity (6,19,30). In previously (25). The marker set consisted of 32 individual
short, previous studies have either identified nonmodifiable skin-mounted markers and seven marker clusters (Fig. 1). In-
factors that relate to pitch velocity, or factors that improve dividual tracking markers for the trunk were placed on the
pitch safety at the expense of pitch velocity. These findings xiphoid process, sternal notch, spinous process of the seventh
are difficult for coaches and players to use, because they are cervical vertebrae, spinous process of the eighth thoracic ver-
forced to weigh the tradeoffs between performance and safety. tebrae, and the left and right acromion processes. Individual
Investigating joint loads with respect to pitch velocity, as the tracking markers for the pelvis were placed on the right and
athlete_s peak joint moment per mph of pitch velocity, for left iliac crests, right and left anterior superior iliac spines, and
example, would provide an indicator of pitch efficiency and the right and left posterior superior iliac spines. Individual
would allow coaches to evaluate the effects of pitch mechanics tracking markers for the foot were placed on the outside of the
on both performance and indicators of injury risk (11,18,19). shoe at the 1st and 5th metatarsals and heel. Ten markers were
The purposes of this study were (1) to investigate the used solely for calibration and were located bilaterally on the
transfer of energy through the kinetic chain by youth base- medial and lateral femoral condyles, and on the medial elbow,
ball pitchers during the pitching motion and (2) to provide lateral elbow, medial wrist, lateral wrist, 2nd metacarpal, and
insight into how the total magnitude of energy flow and its 5th metacarpal of the dominant arm. Marker clusters to track
APPLIED SCIENCES

linear and rotational components relate to both pitching ef- the segments during pitching trials were attached bilaterally on
ficiency and velocity. The long-term goal of this project is to the lateral aspects of the subjects_ shanks and thighs, as well as
gain a better understanding of the underlying mechanics of on the upper arm, forearm, and hand of their throwing arm.
energy transfer through the kinetic chain and to identify Calibration. Two calibration trials were utilized to es-
whether certain techniques can lead to improved velocity tablish segment coordinate systems. For the first trial, the
and decreased injury risk in youth pitchers. subjects stood motionless in anatomical position with both
the tracking and calibration markers attached. The second
calibration trial was used to calculate the location of the
MATERIALS AND METHODS shoulder joint center using a dynamic joint calculation pro-
Participants. Twenty-four youth baseball pitchers, 19 cedure in Visual3D (C-Motion, Germantown, MD) (32).
right-handed and 5 left-handed, participated in this study. The calibration trial was captured with the athlete standing

524 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine http://www.acsm-msse.org

Copyright © 2019 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
FIGURE 1—Marker placement. Open dots indicate calibration markers and filled dots indicate tracking markers.

in anatomical position while making small forward arm the mound in the laboratory as they wanted until they were
circles of approximately 15- for approximately 2 s. comfortable with the markers and mound. Once ready, each
Coordinate systems. The trunk and upper-extremity pitcher threw 15 maximal effort fastballs toward a hanging
coordinate systems were established using ISB recommenda- strike zone 46 ft from the pitching rubber. The fastest three
tions (31). The pelvis coordinate system was defined using the strikes thrown for each pitcher were chosen for analysis.
CODA pelvis (Charnwood Dynamics Ldt., UK) in Visual3D. Data analysis. Marker coordinate data were filtered
During the pitching trials, rigid marker clusters on the domi- using a fourth-order, 14 Hz, zero-lag, low-pass Butterworth
nant arm and lower extremities were used to track the segment filter and the force plate data were filtered with a fourth
orientations. order, 300 Hz, zero-lag, low-pass Butterworth filter. Joint
The standard forearm coordinate system used the elbow forces and torques were calculated using standard inverse
joint center and the midpoint between the medial and lateral dynamics equations using Visual3D software. Energy flow
wrist markers as the proximal and distal endpoints, respec- was quantified using a segment power analysis for the drive
tively, to define the superior–inferior (S-I) axis. The anterior– leg, pelvis, trunk, and throwing arm (27). The rate of work
posterior (A-P) axis was formed as the vector normal to the done on each segment by the joint forces (JFP; equation 1)
plane formed by the elbow joint center, the medial wrist and joint torques (STP; equation 2) were calculated at the
marker, and the lateral wrist marker. The medial–lateral (M-L) proximal and distal ends of each segment. These powers can
axis was defined as the vector normal to the S-I and A-P axes. be summed to calculate the total segment power (SP; equa-
This coordinate system was used for elbow kinematics. How- tion 3), or they could be utilized individually (26,27).
ever, because forearm pronation rotates the M-L and A-P axes
JFP ¼ ðjoint reaction forceÞ  ðlinear joint velocityÞ ½1
of the forearm when using this coordinate system, a secondary
forearm coordinate system was utilized for calculating the el-
STP ¼ ðjoint momentÞ  ðsegment angular velocityÞ ½2
bow varus moment. The varus moment is defined as the mo-
APPLIED SCIENCES
ment around the axis normal to long axis of the forearm and the
SP ¼ JFPprox þ STPprox þ JFPdist þ STPdist ½3
flexion–extension axis of the elbow. Therefore, the secondary
forearm coordinate system established one axis to always meet
SPprox ¼ JFPprox þ STPprox ½4
this definition by defining it normal to the plane formed by the
wrist joint center, the medial elbow marker, and the lateral el- When the total SP is integrated over a specified interval of
bow marker. This coordinate system was only used to calculate time, the result is net energy transfer into or out of the seg-
the elbow varus moment. ment. In addition, the JFP or STP at the proximal or distal
Data collection. Pitchers were allowed unlimited time end of a segment can be integrated to find the energy transfer at
to warm-up as they would for a normal game. After the warm- the specific joint attributed to joint forces or muscular contri-
up, the marker set was attached to the subjects. The pitchers butions, respectively. The power variables for each segment
were then instructed to throw as many practice pitches from were integrated over the period that they were positive to

ENERGY FLOW IN YOUTH PITCHING Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercised 525

Copyright © 2019 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 calculate the energy the segment gained, and integrated over calculated as the shaded positive area under the ‘‘Pelvis to
the period that they were negative to calculate the energy Trunk JFP’’ curve. The energy into the trunk by joint torques
transferred out of the segment. The time interval of integration was calculated as the positive area under the ‘‘Trunk STP’’
for each segment varied due to the sequential activation curve. The two results were then summed to calculate the
through the kinetic chain. Therefore, the specific intervals of total EF into the trunk. In the case of JFP at the drive hip and
energy generation and energy transfer occurred earlier for JFP between the pelvis and trunk, these variables were cal-
proximal segments and later for more distal segments. Energy culated only in the direction of the pitch to remove in-
flow during the pitch was analyzed starting when pitcher_s fluences in the calculations from extraneous lateral motion and
stride leg reaches its maximum height at the beginning of the energy the segment loses from decreases in gravitational po-
motion and ending when the ball is released. tential energy.
The primary EF variables calculated included EF into the In this study, the term ‘‘joint load efficiency’’ is used to
pelvis through the drive hip, EF into the trunk, EF into the arm describe key joint torques at the shoulder and elbow that
from the trunk, EF into the upper arm, EF into the forearm, and have been normalized to body mass, height, and pitch ve-
EF into the hand. Energy flow into the pelvis was calculated locity, such that they represent joint load per increment of
during the interval from maximum stride knee height to stride velocity (i.e., elbow varus torque per miles per hour) as proposed
foot contact. Energy flow into the trunk, upper arm, forearm in previous research (11,18,19). The three upper-extremity
and hand were calculated during the period from stride foot joint torques investigated in this study were horizontal
contact to ball release. In addition, the magnitudes of the shoulder adduction, shoulder internal rotation, and elbow
components of the total EF produced by joint forces or joint varus torque. Energy flow variables were compared with
torques were calculated for the pelvis, trunk, and arm. pitch velocity and the joint load efficiencies with simple
Because the pelvis and trunk energy transfer exhibits linear regressions using the SPSS statistical software package
distinct periods of linear and rotational motion during the (Armonk, NY).
pitching motion, energy transfer by JFP and STP occurred
over a different time interval. The components of power
RESULTS
transfer for these two segments were integrated separately
and then summed together to calculate total energy flow The mean age for subjects is this study was 11.1 T 1.3 yr
through the segment (Fig. 2). Other segments did not exhibit with a range of 9 to 13 yr. The mean subject mass was 45.5 T
this separation between rotational and linear motion, and 11.9 kg and the mean subject height was 1.549 T 0.116 m.
thus, the energy transfer was calculated based on total seg- The mean velocity of the three fastest pitches from each
ment power. As shown in the figure, the positive power subject was 23.5 T 3.3 mIsj1 (52.6 T 7.3 mph). The kine-
transfer from the pelvis to trunk by joint forces was matic and kinetic variables from this study were comparable
APPLIED SCIENCES

FIGURE 2—Power transfer through the pelvis and trunk.

526 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine http://www.acsm-msse.org

Copyright © 2019 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
FIGURE 3—Mean (TSD) normalized elbow varus moment as a function of time normalized from stride foot contact to ball release.

to values reported in previous research (2,10,12). The aver- peak varus moment for the subject population was 29.7 T
age values across the subject population for elbow varus 13.1 NIm and the mean peak shoulder internal rotation was
moment are shown below with error bars equal to the stan- 31.8 T 13.8 NIm.
dard deviation of the data at each point normalized in time The average magnitudes of EF into the pelvis, trunk, total
from stride foot contact to ball release (Fig. 3). The mean arm, upper arm, forearm, and hand are shown below (Fig. 4).

APPLIED SCIENCES

FIGURE 4—Mean magnitude of EF at key points in the kinetic chain for the subject population. Error bars indicate the standard deviation for each
instance of EF.

ENERGY FLOW IN YOUTH PITCHING Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercised 527

Copyright © 2019 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 TABLE 1. Pearson correlation coefficients quantifying the relationships between primary energy flow values and pitch velocity and joint load efficiency.
Shoulder Horizontal Shoulder Internal
Velocity Adduction Efficiency Rotation Efficiency Elbow Varus Efficiency
EF into pelvis 0.769 (0.000) j0.434 (0.034) j0.277 (0.190) j0.283 (0.180)
EF into trunk 0.828 (0.000) j0.497 (0.013) j0.417 (0.043) j0.365 (0.080)
EF into arm (shoulder) 0.900 (0.000) j0.268 (0.205) j0.160 (0.456) j0.122 (0.570)
EF into upper arm 0.839 (0.000) j0.373 (0.073) j0.266 (0.209) j0.190 (0.373)
EF into forearm 0.843 (0.000) j0.314 (0.135) j0.297 (0.159) j0.273 (0.197)
EF into hand 0.845 (0.000) j0.295 (0.162) j0.193 (0.365) j0.146 (0.496)
P values are displayed in parenthesis. Significant P values (P G 0.05) are highlighted in bold font.

As evident by the large error bars, there was significant var- load on the pitcher (12,19,20). Although the importance of
iation between subjects based on size and skill level. the kinetic chain is often referenced in regard to baseball
All of the EF variables were positively correlated to pitch pitching (19,20,22), energy generation and transfer during
velocity, and all the correlations were statistically significant the movement have not been reported. In addition, many
at alpha = 0.05 (Table 1). Energy flow into the arm from the baseball biomechanics studies have focused solely on the
trunk had the strongest correlation to ball velocity (r = upper trunk and throwing arm. Although these studies have
0.900, P = 0.000). provided significant insight into proper throwing mechanics,
Energy flow into the pelvis, trunk and arm was broken there remains a gap in the understanding of how power
into its subcomponents produced by joint force power (the generation in the lower extremities, trunk, and arm relate to
joint contact forces) and segment torque power (the joint the upper-extremity kinetics and ball velocity.
torques). The correlations between velocity and the magni- The calculated upper-extremity joint moments for this
tude of EF from each of these components of segment power study were very similar to those reported for this age group
were also statistically significant (Table 2). This included EF in previous research. Fleisig et al. (12) reported a mean peak
into the pelvis from JFP, EF into the pelvis from STP, EF varus moment of 28 T 7 NIm and a mean peak shoulder
from the pelvis to trunk by JFP, EF into the trunk by STP, internal rotation moment of 30 T 7 NIm for a population of
EF into the arm from the trunk by JFP, and energy into the 10- to 15-yr-old athletes. In addition, Aguinaldo et al. (10)
arm from the trunk by STP. reported a mean peak shoulder internal rotational moment of
There were multiple-energy flow variables found to have 33 T 3 NIm in a subject population with a mean age of 12 yr.
a significant relationships with improving efficiency metrics The mean elbow varus moment found for this study was
(Tables 1 and 2). Energy flow variables found to have a sig- 29.7 T 13.1 NIm and the mean shoulder internal rotation
nificant correlation to increased horizontal shoulder adduction moment was 31.8 T 13.8 NIm. The kinematic data were also
efficiency were EF into the pelvis, EF into trunk, EF into the consistent with previously reported data. The patterns of mean
pelvis from JFP, and EF from the pelvis to trunk by JFP. En- shoulder external rotation angle and mean elbow flexion angle
ergy flow variables with a significant correlation to increased from stride contact to ball release for this population are in
shoulder internal rotation efficiency were EF into the trunk and agreement with those reported for this age group by Sabick
EF from the pelvis to trunk by JFP. The magnitude of EF from et al. (2).
the pelvis to trunk by JFP was the only variable to have a The results of this study give strong evidence regarding
significant correlation to increased elbow varus efficiency. the importance of EF in regard to producing high pitch ve-
locities as every energy flow variable quantified in this study
was significantly correlated with velocity. This finding is
DISCUSSION
logical because the velocity of the ball is closely related to
Baseball pitching is an open kinetic chain motion, be- its kinetic energy at release. Therefore, if the pitcher is able
ginning with the initialization of forward momentum by the to transfer more energy into the ball, the ball will have a
back leg, and terminating with the release of the ball toward greater kinetic energy and subsequent ball velocity.
home plate. The correct timing and contribution of events in Total EF into the throwing arm from the trunk had the
APPLIED SCIENCES

the kinetic chain has been suggested to be critical both for strongest correlation to ball velocity (r = 0.900, P = 0.000)
producing high ball velocity as well as for limiting the joint of all energy components quantified. This EF value was also

TABLE 2. Pearson correlation coefficients quantifying the relationships between component energy flow values and pitch velocity and joint load efficiency.
Shoulder Horizontal Shoulder Internal
Velocity Adduction Efficiency Rotation Efficiency Elbow Varus Efficiency
EF into pelvis by JFP 0.752 (0.000) j0.411 (0.031) j0.309 (0.142) j0.308 (0.143)
EF into pelvis by STP 0.470 (0.020) j0.171 (0.424) j0.043 (0.842) j0.002 (0.992)
EF pelvis to trunk by JFP 0.814 (0.000) j0.555 (0.005) j0.490 (0.015) j0.440 (0.032)
EF into trunk by STP 0.670 (0.000) j0.252 (0.224) j0.157 (0.464) j0.112 (0.602)
EF out of shoulder by JFP 0.874 (0.000) j0.398 (0.054) j0.204 (0.338) j0.157 (0.464)
EF out of shoulder by STP 0.872 (0.000) j0.105 (0.626) j0.099 (0.645) j0.075 (0.729)
P values are displayed in parenthesis. Significant P values (P G 0.05) are highlighted in bold font.

528 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine http://www.acsm-msse.org

Copyright © 2019 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the largest energy value of any instance calculated, empha- transferred more energy from the shoulder into the serving
sizing the importance of the lower extremities and trunk in arm had higher serve speeds and fewer overuse injuries. The
producing the energy to move the ball at high velocities. importance of the energy transfer from the trunk to the
However, EF into the upper arm, EF into the forearm, and dominant arm in generating ball velocity was supported by
EF into the hand all also had strong relationships to velocity, our data. The fact that multiple instances of energy flow were
indicating that effective energy flow through the arm is significantly related to several different efficiency metrics
critical in delivering the energy from the trunk to the ball. providing evidence that certain energy transfer patterns may
Pitch efficiency was characterized by three key upper- also positively impact joint loading in pitching.
extremity joint moments: horizontal shoulder adduction The magnitude of EF from the pelvis to trunk by JFP
moment, shoulder internal rotation moment, and elbow varus had a significant correlation to all three efficiency met-
moment each normalized by subject height, mass, and velocity. rics. This component of energy flow is calculated as the
The effective units of these metrics became ‘‘joint load per miles integral of the positive joint force power transfer at the
per hour.’’ The goal of investigating upper-extremity loading pelvis/trunk joint after stride foot contact. Therefore, it
from this perspective was to identify movement patterns that represents the energy transfer that drives the trunk, over
minimized joint loads without necessarily compromising the stride leg, toward home plate. This same energy
pitch velocity. component also comprises a large portion of the total EF
Given that the magnitude of EF was shown to be out the pelvis and total EF into the trunk. Therefore, en-
strongly related to pitch velocity, it was hypothesized that ergy flow from the pelvis to trunk by JFP is likely a major
certain methods or patterns of energy generation and reason that EF into the trunk also had significant corre-
transfer may be more effective in producing the overall lations to horizontal shoulder adduction efficiency and
EF required for high pitch velocity, while placing less shoulder internal rotation efficiency. These results give
load on the upper-extremity joints. The results from this evidence that EF through the trunk by JFP may be par-
study reinforce this hypothesis that specific instances of EF ticularly important to producing a high velocity and ef-
were related to increased pitch efficiency. Energy flow ficient pitch. Because the joint forces driving the trunk
through the trunk appeared to be particularly important for forward occur above the blocking front hip, a moment
improved efficiency of the pitch. The total EF into the trunk arm is created, and these forces would also contribute to
and the EF into the trunk by JFP both had significant re- the forward flexion of the trunk. Stodden reported that
lationships to horizontal shoulder adduction efficiency and increased forward flexion of the trunk was related to in-
shoulder internal rotation efficiency, whereas the EF from JFP creased pitch velocity (37). It was, additionally, found by
also had a significant relationship to elbow varus efficiency. Laughlin that pitchers with a history of shoulder injuries
These results reinforce the findings in previous literature had decreased forward trunk flexion at release compared to
on the importance of pelvic and trunk timing, kinematics, healthy subjects (38). Together these findings support the
and control in regard to upper-extremity kinematics,
idea that appropriate trunk EF is improved for improved
upper-extremity kinetics, and pitch velocity (19,23,24,33–
pitch efficiency.
36). Oyama previously found that pitchers with improper
The age range of 9 to 13 yr encompassed athletes who
pelvis and trunk sequencing had a greater magnitude of
participated at youth levels but who varied greatly in size,
proximal force acting on the shoulder. Oyama and Urbin
skill, and pitching experience. The impact of collecting data
both stressed the importance of proximal to distal se-
in a laboratory and using a constructed pitching mound on
quencing of segment rotation in regard to ball velocity
the results is unknown, although the subjects were able to
and minimizing joint kinetics (19,24). Urbin proposed that
throw their regulation distance to the strike zone. Addition-
incorrect timing might cause disruptions in the energy
generated and transferred to the upper extremity. This dis- ally, the data collection occurred in the fall, after the
connect in the energy transfer was theorized to either ad- subjects_ baseball season ended, or in the spring, before the
versely affect ball velocity or require additional loading of the season began. There is a potential that the subjects were not
upper extremity to compensate for the lost energy (19). En- at the peak performance level achieved during the season. APPLIED SCIENCES
ergy flow analysis is an excellent tool to investigate this as- However, the mean pitching velocity of this population at
sertion because it can quantitatively identify disconnects in 23.5 mIsj1 was consistent with other studies on the same
energy transfer and investigate their impact on pitch velocity age group, indicating a reasonable level of proficiency and
and upper-extremity joint loading. It should be noted that conditioning. There is no previous research on energy flow
improved efficiency does not necessarily imply a decrease in in baseball to compare the values calculated for the youth
the magnitude of upper-extremity joint torques. Instead, in- subjects so it is difficult to determine how their energy flow
creased pitch efficiency could also be the result of increasing data varies from adults. It is also unclear what normal EF
ball velocity without increasing joint moments. values are for a well-developed pitcher.
The results of this study are also consistent with the findings Future research should apply energy flow analysis to addi-
of a similar study investigating energy flow during the tennis tional subject populations to better characterize how pitchers
serve (26). That study found that tennis players who at different levels generate and transfer energy. Additionally

ENERGY FLOW IN YOUTH PITCHING Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercised 529

Copyright © 2019 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 EF analysis should be utilized in conjunction with a kinematic flow through the trunk to improve pitch efficiency. Given
analysis to understand how specific movement patterns and the increased pressure on youth athletes perform at a high
timing relate to EF through the kinetic chain. level and participate in a greater volume of games, under-
standing how these athletes can maintain this performance
while minimizing the load on their elbow and shoulder is
CONCLUSIONS critical to curbing the increase in major arm injuries that
Energy flow analysis is an effective tool that can be uti- have become more prevalent in youth pitchers.
lized as a quantitative assessment of the kinetic chain to gain
a deeper understanding of how energy is transferred among
body segments, and how specific pitching mechanics im- There were no external funding sources or conflicts of interest
pact this movement. The results of this study support the relating to this study. The results of this study are presented clearly,
honestly, and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data
importance of generating energy flow throughout the body manipulation. The results of this study do not constitute endorse-
to produce high velocities and greater magnitudes of energy ment by the American College of Sports Medicine.

REFERENCES
1. Chalmers PN, Sgroi T, Riff AJ, et al. Correlates with history of 16. Sgroi T, Chalmers PN, Riff AJ, et al. Predictors of throwing ve-
injury in youth and adolescent pitchers. Art Ther. 2015;31(7): locity in youth and adolescent baseball pitchers. J Shoulder Elbow
1349–57. Surg. 2015;24(9):1339–45.
2. Sabick MB, Torry MR, Lawton RL, Hawkins RJ. Valgus torque in 17. Wicke J, Keeley DW, Oliver GD. Comparison of pitching kine-
youth baseball pitchers: a biomechanical study. J Shoulder Elbow matics between youth and adult baseball pitchers: a meta-analytic
Surg. 2004;13(3):349–55. approach. Sports Biomech. 2013;12(4):315–23.
3. Fleisig GS, Andrews JR. Prevention of elbow injuries in youth 18. Aguinaldo AL, Chambers HG. Correlation of throwing mechanics
baseball pitchers. Sports Health. 2012;4(5):419–24. with elbow valgus load in adult baseball pitchers. Am J Sports Med.
4. Olsen SJ, Fleisig GS, Dun S, Loftice J, Andrews JR. Risk factors 2009;37(1):2043–8.
for shoulder and elbow injuries in adolescent baseball pitchers. Am 19. Urbin MA, Fleisig GS, Abebe A, Andrews JR. Associations
J Sports Med. 2006;34(6):905–12. between timing in the baseball pitch and shoulder kinetics,
5. Petty DH, Andrews JR, Fleisig GS, Cain EL. Ulnar collateral liga- elbow kinetics, and ball speed. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(2):
ment reconstruction in high school baseball players: clinical results 336–42.
and injury risk factors. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(5):1158–64. 20. Elliot B, Grove JR, Gibson B. Timing of the lower limb drive and
6. Popchak A, Burnett T, Weber N, Boninger M. Factors related to throwing limb movement in baseball pitching. Int J Sports Biomech.
injury in youth and adolescent baseball pitching, with an eye to- 1988;4(1):59–67.
ward prevention. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;94(5):395–409. 21. MacWilliams B, Choi T, Perezous M, Chao E, McFarland E.
7. Post E, Laudner KG, McLoda TA, Wong R. Correlation of Characteristic ground-reaction forces in baseball pitching. Am J
shoulder and elbow kinetics with ball velocity in collegiate base- Sports Med. 1998;26(1):66–71.
ball pitchers. J Athl Train. 2015;50(6):629–33. 22. Seroyer ST, Nho SJ, Bach BR, Bush-Joseph CA, Nicholson GP,
8. Lyman S, Fleisig GS, Andrews JR, Osinski ED. Effect of pitch type, Romeo AA. The kinetic chain in overhand pitching: its potential
pitch count, and pitching mechanics on risk of elbow and shoulder pain role for performance enhancement and injury prevention. Sports
in youth baseball pitchers. Am J Sports Med. 2002;30(4):463–8. Health. 2010;2(2):135–46.
9. Lyman S, Fleisig GS, Waterbor JW, et al. Longitudinal study of 23. Laudner KG, Wong R, Onuki T, Lynall R, Meister K. The rela-
elbow and shoulder pain in youth baseball pitchers. Med Sci Sports tionship between clinically measured hip rotational motion and
Exerc. 2001;33(11):1803–10. shoulder biomechanics during the pitching motion. J Sci Med
10. Aguinaldo AL, Buttermore J, Chambers HG. Effects of upper Sport. 2015;18(5):581–4.
trunk rotation on shoulder joint torque among baseball pitchers of 24. Oyama S, Yu B, Blackburn JT, Padua DA, Li L, Myers JB. Im-
various levels. J Appl Biomech. 2007;23(1):42–51. proper trunk rotation sequence is associated with increased max-
11. Davis JT, Limpisvasti O, Fluhme D, et al. The effect of pitching imal shoulder external rotation angle and shoulder joint force in
biomechanics on the upper extremity in youth and adolescent high school baseball pitchers. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(9):
baseball pitchers. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(8):1484–91. 2089–94.
APPLIED SCIENCES

12. Fleisig GS, Barrentine SW, Zheng N, Escamilla RF, Andrews JR. 25. Graci V, Van Dillen LR, Salsich GB. Gender differences in trunk,
Kinematic and kinetic comparison of baseball pitching among pelvis and lower limb kinematics during a single leg squat. Gait
various levels of development. J Biomech. 1999;32(12):1371–5. Posture. 2012;36(3):461–6.
13. Kageyama M, Sugiyama T, Kanehisa H, Maeda A. Difference 26. Martin C, Bideau B, Bideau N, Nicolas G, Delamarche P, Kulpa R.
between adolescent and collegiate baseball pitchers in the kine- Energy flow analysis during the tennis serve: comparison between
matics and kinetics of the lower limbs and trunk during pitching injured and noninjured tennis players. Am J Sports Med. 2014;
motion. J Sports Sci Med. 2015;14(2):246–55. 42(11):2751–60.
14. Keeley DW, Hackett T, Keirns M, Sabick MB, Torry MR. A 27. Robertson DG, Winter DA. Mechanical energy generation, absorp-
biomechanical analysis of youth pitching mechanics. J Pediatr tion and transfer amongst segments during walking. J Biomech.
Orthoped. 2008;28(4):452–9. 1980;13(10):845–54.
15. Sabick MB, Kim YK, Torry MR, Keirns MA, Hawkins RJ. Bio- 28. Bushnell BD, Anz AW, Noonan TJ, Torry MR, Hawkins RJ.
mechanics of the shoulder in youth baseball pitchers: implications Association of maximum pitch velocity and elbow injury in
for the development of proximal humeral epiphysiolysis and hu- professional baseball pitchers. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(4):
meral retrotorsion. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(11):1716–22. 728–32.

530 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine http://www.acsm-msse.org

Copyright © 2019 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
29. Hurd WJ, Jazayeri R, Mohr K, Limpisvasti O, Elattrache NS, 34. Keeley DW, Oliver GD, Dougherty CP, Torry MR. Lower body pre-
Kaufman KR. Pitch velocity is a predictor of medial elbow dis- dictors of glenohumeral compressive force in high school baseball
traction forces in the uninjured high school-aged baseball pitcher. pitchers. J Appl Biomech. 2015;31(3):181–8.
Sports Health. 2012;4(5):415–8. 35. Oliver GD, Keeley DW. Pelvis and torso kinematics and their
30. Solomito MJ, Garibay EJ, Woods JR, Õunpuu S, Nissen CW. relationship to shoulder kinematics in high-school baseball
Lateral trunk lean in pitchers affects both ball velocity and pitchers. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(12):3241–6.
upper extremity joint moments. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(5): 36. Robb AJ, Fleisig G, Wilk K, Macrina L, Bolt B, Pajaczkowski J.
1235–40. Passive ranges of motion of the hips and their relationship with
31. Wu G, van der Helm FC, Veeger HE, et al. ISB recommendation pitching biomechanics and ball velocity in professional baseball
on definitions of joint coordinate systems of various joints for the pitchers. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(12):2487–93.
reporting of human joint motion—part II: shoulder, elbow, wrist 37. Stodden DF, Fleisig GS, McLean SP, Andrews JR. Relationship of
and hand. J Biomech. 2005;38(5):981–92. biomechanical factors to baseball pitching velocity: within pitcher
32. Schwartz MH. Rozumalski a. a new method for estimating joint pa- variation. J Appl Biomech. 2005;21(1):44–56.
rameters from motion data. J Biomech. 2005;38(1):107–16. 38. Laughlin WA, Fleisig GS, Scilia AJ, Aune KT, Cain EL, Dugas
33. Chaudhari AM, McKenzie CS, Borchers JR, Best TM. Lumbopelvic JR. Deficiencies in pitching biomechanics in baseball players with
control and pitching performance of professional baseball pitchers. a history of superior labrum anterior-posterior repair. Am J Sports
J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(8):2127–32. Med. 2014;42(12):2837–41.

APPLIED SCIENCES

ENERGY FLOW IN YOUTH PITCHING Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercised 531

Copyright © 2019 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.