Internal rotation of the back leg

JC heir suggested, in the “Drop ball and internal rotation thread” that we may be getting “too hung up on the same mechanics working the same for every pitcher” and mentioned Osterman’s hips closing early on the roll over drop. I have been looking at 4 case clips – Osterman, Ueno, Pauly and Finch – and am curious about other opinions on a style vs. absolute issue.

This has to do with the amount of external/internal rotation of the back leg. On a scale, Osterman has the most internal rotation of the back leg into release followed by Ueno. Pauly has a small amount of internal rotation and Finch almost none. For the most part I would classify this as the equivalent of bug squishing in hitting – particularly in the case of Osterman. Ueno seems to connect this internal rotation better than Osterman and that may account for why she closes more into and through release.

I am inclined to believe that taking away the amount of back leg rotation and looking specifically at the angle of the pelvis at release will show that there is only a slight variation in all 4 pitchers. In this case Ueno would close the most – but not as much as it appears – followed by Osterman, Pauly and Finch. My question is: Is this primarily a style issue? Is there any benefit or disadvantage associated with the amount of internal rotation of the back leg into release?

This is just my opinion and I know there will be disagreement with my thoughts, but I can only go by what the results I and my daughter have received.

We started playing around with getting the rear leg more active in terms of external/internal rotation. Velocity improved immediately as well as control.

My thinking is as follows:

The act of getting the rear knee turned out (external rotation) helps get the body sideways. The act of internally rotating the rear leg by the time the front foot lands torques the hips/torso which boosts arm speed. This action as opposed to trying to rotate the hips forcefully- which I believe is misdirected force harder to control and thus effects release point and control.

And this action of the rear leg as opposed to dragging it along which bogs down the arm speed because it drags on the hips/torso forcing a pitcher to try and throw harder using the arm.

This is Rachele Fico (Fr @ LSU) who set just about every pitching record in Connecticut in HS.



Can't hurt to try it and see if it helps...

The external rotation of the knee has nothing to do with her throwing harder, rather she is getting fantastic leg drive. What she is doing is the closest you can get to a crow hop/leap and still be legal. If you look at a crow hop pitcher it almost looks like the above, except that the CH replants with the pivot foot before throwing.

Here is a crow hopper...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SmN134NuKxc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SmN134NuKxc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

The external rotation of the knee has nothing to do with her throwing harder

Click to expand...

Where did I say this?

The act of getting the rear knee turned out (external rotation) helps get the body sideways. The act of internally rotating the rear leg by the time the front foot lands torques the hips/torso which boosts arm speed.

Click to expand...

I don't know enough to comment on the relative power contribution of the leg rotation, but while Fico is unlikely to ever be called for crow-hopping, it is in effect what she is doing with that heavy drag foot toe plant, which made that nice big divot separating the shallow drag line from the rubber (pre-toe plant) and the deeper 'banana' rut (post-toe plant). I would even go so far as to assert that without the toe plant, she wouldn't have been able to so forcefully rotate her drive leg prior to the landing of the stride foot, as there would have been no fulcrum for that leg to leverage upon. Real nice demonstration of IR of the arm though...

GT

Renntiger, excellent observations! Also, thanks Batsics1 for rewording/reopening the discussion which never really got off the ground in this thread:

http://www.discussfastpitch.com/softball-pitching/1823-drive-leg.html

MTS offered a vg video example of a pitcher who's leg mechanics look similar to Cat's IMO, (although the glove arm looks like Hillhouse and the throwing arm finish is more Finch.) There may be some truth to getting “too hung up on the same mechanics working the same for every pitcher” The example MTS gave looks like a combo of 3 elites to me.

But back to topic... I hope more discussion is given to the bending of the drive leg 'in flight' in this thread. I know I would benefit from an explanation of this. What I see from Cat/others who have this form is often the sequence of: Drive/straighten, bend(while dragging a scant few pieces of sand with tiptoe), replant, then slight repush. I suspect there is mph in the replant/repush based on what I've seen at the youth levels. But I am a student/observer trying to soak up information.

This thread, if addressed this time , has great potential to benefit many of us IMO.

Thanks for bringing it back up. DD and I study slow mo of Cat and noticed this rather glaring difference too.

VW

MTS, thanks for posting the Fico clip it produced a light bulb moment.

I would say that Fico is very similar to Ueno in her opening and closing. She is almost fully closed at release. I am inclined to believe that the reason both are able to close as much as they do prior to release is because of the internal rotation of the drive leg AND external rotation of the stride leg. Make no mistake, in my opinion, this is very much a core driven action. But, the internal/external rotation of the legs – connected to core rotation - narrows the hips on the throwing side allowing the arm to stay close to the body rather than going around the hip.

The way that Fico and Ueno connect the external/internal rotation of both legs to the twisting action of the core is very different than Finch and Osterman. Both Finch and Osterman’s stride leg plants with the leg internally rotated and the push leg internally rotates more or less independent of the hips. If they were to rotate their hips to close ahead of the release their hips would interfere with their arm circle and they would have to throw around their hip. I am inclined to believe that both use internal rotation of the stride leg and external rotation of the push leg, along with the core to help them open. But because they do not close hard with the core the stride leg does not open and the push leg internally rotates to keep the hips from interfering with the arm circle.

Because Fico and Ueno connect leg rotation to their core and are opening AND closing with the core their stride leg opens such that their plant foot is pointing towards the catcher. This action allows the front hip to rotate out and back and the back hip to fold into the front leg. Oddly enough, this seems to me to be very similar to the way a baseball pitcher rotates into foot plant and may explain why these pitchers can close without throwing around their hip.

As a fellow student, VW, I will risk stating the obvious by offering the following observation: the replant allows the pitcher to leap farther towards the plate than 'orthodox' leap-n-drag pitchers, because the power-robbing "anchor" effect of her pivot leg is partially, if not fully, mitigated by its secondary action post-replant. As I see it, an 'orthodox' leap-n-dragger can only work off of her stride leg once the initial push-off has occurred (after all, a leg that's being 'dragged', no matter how lightly, is by definition no longer able to actively contribute towards any kind of forward movement), so an excessively long stride would amplify the 'anchor' effect of the pivot leg with respect to upper body mechanics. Replanting the pivot foot/toe is like turning on a second stage rocket (the ground against which the foot acts being the ultimate source of fuel). In effect, while the 'orthodox' leap-n-dragger must live within the means afforded by a two stage engine: pushing off + landing, a crow hopper/toe planter has three stages at her disposal: pushing off + replanting and secondary pivot leg action + landing, so she can really afford to let it fly (I would even forward the hypothesis that in some instances, crow hopping is an adaptive by-product of unchecked emphasis on stride length during a pitcher's early training).

My own limited experience watching the evolution of young pitchers between 10U and 14U has been that crow-hoppers never become 'orthodox' leap-n-draggers (I suppose because it would have required such a huge revamping of their lower extremity mechanics, in exchange for something that might feel only 2/3 as powerful as what they already had); some of them just become better at disguising their replant by keeping their heel well off the ground (i.e., toe planting) and making the transition between the secondary pivot leg action and stride foot touch-down quicker and more seamless. However, to anyone who is paying attention to their pivot leg, its initial abduction in flight, followed by forceful adduction post-replant, or its pre-replant flexion followed by post-replant extension, clearly show that it is doing a lot more than just being 'dragged' along for the ride. Moreover, there can be no doubt that the replanting is occurring before the touching down of the stride foot , even though the two events look simultaneous in real time when the pitcher is good at hiding the former, because this is the sequence through which the body can extract maximum mechanical advantage from the replant; it will thus feel 'natural' to the pitcher, whether or not she is conscious of it.

In any case, the technique seems to work well for many pitchers, and as long as the crow hoppers/toe planters don't include an egregious airborne phase in their motion, it doesn't appear to bother anyone to the point of making it an issue for them during games. Even the routinely airborne ones tend to get away with this more often than not (verified through many slow-mo clips I took of both youth league games and local college games), so I tend to accept it as just another style of pitching.

Gene T

MTS said:

This is just my opinion and I know there will be disagreement with my thoughts, but I can only go by what the results I and my daughter have received.

We started playing around with getting the rear leg more active in terms of external/internal rotation. Velocity improved immediately as well as control.

My thinking is as follows:

The act of getting the rear knee turned out (external rotation) helps get the body sideways. The act of internally rotating the rear leg by the time the front foot lands torques the hips/torso which boosts arm speed. This action as opposed to trying to rotate the hips forcefully- which I believe is misdirected force harder to control and thus effects release point and control.

And this action of the rear leg as opposed to dragging it along which bogs down the arm speed because it drags on the hips/torso forcing a pitcher to try and throw harder using the arm.

This is Rachele Fico (Fr @ LSU) who set just about every pitching record in Connecticut in HS.

Can't hurt to try it and see if it helps...

Click to expand...

Seems to me that both her knees are turning inward (in relation to her left and right hips), with the knees touching (or almost touching). Does her almost straight stride leg at finish concern anyone from an injury standpoint?

Here is a game clip of Fico (I believe a CT all star game) to maybe add to the discussion.



And here is Josh Hamilton:



A little off topic, but what if you taught your players to throw OH using this rear leg rotation?