you jsut proved that it does mean something. aggain, you have to be careful what you are discussing. you are confusing velocity (where the MLB catchers with more power and smaller ball will certain have more velocity) with elapsed time (the time it takes from pop into the mitt to hitting the SS glove in position for tag). why is pop time the measurement talked about, why not strictly velocity? because velocity by itself is meaningless. transition time counts. and pop time is a measure of elapsed time, not velocity. you can throw 300 mph, if it takes you 3 seconds to get that throw off the guess what, you will NEVER throw a BR out unless they are a turtle.
What age to start throwing from knees?
- Thread starter John 800
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
- Jun 8, 2016
- 16,118
- 113
He is saying comparing pop times in baseball and FP to try and make a point is useless. What you need to know is how fast you need to get the ball there in order to get the best basestealers out in either sport. Anybody arguing that baseball catchers can be less efficient than FP catchers and still have a high success rate is reaching imo..
still no way that moevemtn is faster than throw. no way they are gaining 5-6 feet without an additional step. DD gains ground on transition as well, as she moves forward and goes from shoulders perpendicular to pitch/throw path to parellel to ball path, basically striding forward during trnsition with left leg (RH throw), but that is it, by the time she is done that throwing arm is moving forward with the ball. adolescent girls are not gaining 5-6 feet without additional steps, and those additional steps are not faster than the throw.
I
Not confusing anything. Ive worked at high levels in both sports.
the fork has nothing to do with pop time, pop time is not measured with a gun, but with a stop watch. you can say there is user error, but pop time can only be measure with a stop watch.
pop time is in seconds. velocity in distance per second. two different things. and yes, it is possible for 14u players to have shorter pop times than MLB catchers, because the ball has LESS DISTANCE to travel. not saying the velocity is greater. velocity is only a component of pop time, it does nto define pop time (measured differently as well, stop watch vs gun).
For those who really want to educate themselves about the kinetic chain and how it relates to throwing any ball from your knees. Here's some reading. Please google the researchers as well. They know what theyre talking about. Sorry all I could do is paste the PDF
QUANTATATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THROWING FROM THE KNEES IN BASEBALL AND
SOFTBALL CATCHERS
Hillary A. Plummer & Gretchen D. Oliver
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
Email: hplummer@uark.edu
INTRODUCTION
Baseball and softball are popular sports in which
many athletes choose to participate, and
understanding proper throwing mechanics is
essential for injury prevention. The throwing
mechanics of catchers throwing down to second
base have yet to be examined thoroughly in the
literature. Catchers have the option of throwing
down to second from either their stance or knees in
order to throw out a stealing runner. In attempt to
improve ball release time many catchers will throw
down to second base from their knees. Throwing
from the knees eliminates the use of the lower
extremity which may affect force transfer up the
kinetic chain, possibly resulting in decreased torso
rotation and increased shoulder and elbow stress.
Improper timing or sequential segment movement
while throwing from the knees may place the
throwing athlete at an increased risk of injury which
may explain the increased occurrence of shoulder
injuries in youth. Thus, it was the purpose of this
study to examine shoulder and torso kinematics in
catchers throwing to second base from their knees.
METHODS
A randomized control trial was implemented in a
controlled laboratory setting. Baseball and softball
catchers (n=29; 15.2+3.5 years; 165.4+12.8 cm;
66.4+17.2 kg) reported for testing prior to engaging
in resistance training or any vigorous activity that
day. All of the catchers were right handed. Testing
protocols were approved by the University’s
Institutional Review Board.
Kinematic and kinetic data were collected using
The MotionMonitorTM motion capture system
(Innovative Sports Training, Chicago IL) at a rate of
1000Hz. Prior to completing test trials, participants
had a series of ten electromagnetic sensors attached
at the following locations: (1) the medial aspect of
the torso at C7 [1]; (2) medial aspect of the pelvis at
S1 [1]; (3) the distal/posterior aspect of the
throwing humerus; (4) the distal/posterior aspect of
the throwing forearm; (5) the distal/posterior aspect
of the non-throwing humerus; (6) the
distal/posterior aspect of the non-throwing forearm;
(7) distal/posterior aspect of stride leg femur; (8)
distal/posterior aspect of stride leg fibula; (9)
distal/posterior aspect of non stride leg femur; and
(10) distal/posterior aspect of non stride leg fibula.
Sensors were affixed to the skin using double sided
tape and secured using flexible hypoallergenic
athletic tape. An eleventh sensor was attached to a
wooden stylus and used to digitize the palpated
position of the bony landmarks. A segment link
model was developed through digitization of joint
centers for the ankle, knee, hip, shoulder, T12-L1,
and C7-T1. The spinal column was defined as the
digitized space between the associated spinous
processes, as the ankle and knee were defined as the
midpoints of the digitized malleoli, and femoral
condyles, while by virtue of the least-squares
method, the hip and shoulder joint centers were
defined.
Participants were given an unlimited time to warm-
up. Following warm-up participants were instructed
to catch a pitched ball and throw down to second
base, simulating a game setting where a runner was
attempting to steal second base. Each participant
had five fastballs pitched to them in which they
caught and threw down to second from their knees.
A position player covered second base and only
those throws that he/she was able to catch without
stepping off the base were recorded. Those data
form the fastest throw down to second were selected
for detailed analysis. Ball velocity was determined
by JUGS radar gun (OpticsPlanet, Inc., Northbrook,
IL) positioned behind the pitcher and directed
towards second base. Descriptive kinematic data of
the trunk and shoulder for the fastest throw to
second base were calculated at the instances of foot
contact (FC), maximum external rotation (MER),
ball release (BR), and maximum internal rotation
(MIR).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Trunk and shoulder kinematics are depicted in
Figure 1. As catchers throw from their knees, the
amount of trunk flexion present is greatest at
maximum external rotation and decreases until they
are in an upright position at maximum internal
rotation. At foot contact the trunk is positioned
flexed toward the right and then gradually flexes to
the left throughout the throwing motion where it
finally reaches its greatest value at maximum
internal rotation. Trunk axial rotation was greatest
at foot contact, the point at which the catcher
attempted to rotate towards second base. Shoulder
plane of elevation displayed slight extension at
MER and then moved into forward flexion at BR
and on into MIR. Shoulder elevation, or abduction
of the humerus, gradually increased from the start
of the motion until reaching a mean maximal angle
of 88° at the point of maximum external rotation. It
is interesting to note, that when throwing from the
knees, catchers do not reach the optimal shoulder
elevation of 90°. Following the peak of shoulder
elevation, at maximum external rotation, the
elevation of the shoulder then decreases. The
shoulder is in an externally rotated position at foot
contact and continues to externally rotate until it
reached MER.
CONCLUSIONS
This study successfully described the kinematics of
throwing from the knees in catchers. Understanding
the kinematics of throwing can lead to the
identification of potentially harmful
pathomechanics in catchers. The inability for
catcher to reach optimal shoulder elevation may
lead to additional stresses being placed on the
shoulder and elbow and eventually cause injury. To
our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the
kinematics of catchers throwing from their knees
and more studies are needed to validate our results.
Future research should be directed towards
determining how the throwing mechanics of
catchers relates to the kinematics observed in
baseball pitchers.
REFERENCES
1. Myers, JB, et al. Am J Sports Med 33: 263-271,
2005.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge University
of Arkansas Women’s Giving Circle for their
financial support.
FC MER BR MIR
-100
-50
0
50
Trunk Flexion
Trunk Axial Rotation
Trunk Lateral Felxion
Shoulder Elevation
Shoulder Plane of Elevation
Shoulder Rotation
Degrees
Figure 1. Trunk and shoulder kinematic variables at each event mark.
Trunk flexion (-) is flexion; Trunk lateral flexion (+) is to the right for a right handed thrower.
Trunk axial rotation (-) is to the right; Shoulder plane of elevation 0= abduction and 90=forward
flexion; shoulder elevation 0=full abduction while -90 = 90 degrees abduction; and shoulder
rotation (+) is internal rotation while (-) is external rotation.
QUANTATATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THROWING FROM THE KNEES IN BASEBALL AND
SOFTBALL CATCHERS
Hillary A. Plummer & Gretchen D. Oliver
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
Email: hplummer@uark.edu
INTRODUCTION
Baseball and softball are popular sports in which
many athletes choose to participate, and
understanding proper throwing mechanics is
essential for injury prevention. The throwing
mechanics of catchers throwing down to second
base have yet to be examined thoroughly in the
literature. Catchers have the option of throwing
down to second from either their stance or knees in
order to throw out a stealing runner. In attempt to
improve ball release time many catchers will throw
down to second base from their knees. Throwing
from the knees eliminates the use of the lower
extremity which may affect force transfer up the
kinetic chain, possibly resulting in decreased torso
rotation and increased shoulder and elbow stress.
Improper timing or sequential segment movement
while throwing from the knees may place the
throwing athlete at an increased risk of injury which
may explain the increased occurrence of shoulder
injuries in youth. Thus, it was the purpose of this
study to examine shoulder and torso kinematics in
catchers throwing to second base from their knees.
METHODS
A randomized control trial was implemented in a
controlled laboratory setting. Baseball and softball
catchers (n=29; 15.2+3.5 years; 165.4+12.8 cm;
66.4+17.2 kg) reported for testing prior to engaging
in resistance training or any vigorous activity that
day. All of the catchers were right handed. Testing
protocols were approved by the University’s
Institutional Review Board.
Kinematic and kinetic data were collected using
The MotionMonitorTM motion capture system
(Innovative Sports Training, Chicago IL) at a rate of
1000Hz. Prior to completing test trials, participants
had a series of ten electromagnetic sensors attached
at the following locations: (1) the medial aspect of
the torso at C7 [1]; (2) medial aspect of the pelvis at
S1 [1]; (3) the distal/posterior aspect of the
throwing humerus; (4) the distal/posterior aspect of
the throwing forearm; (5) the distal/posterior aspect
of the non-throwing humerus; (6) the
distal/posterior aspect of the non-throwing forearm;
(7) distal/posterior aspect of stride leg femur; (8)
distal/posterior aspect of stride leg fibula; (9)
distal/posterior aspect of non stride leg femur; and
(10) distal/posterior aspect of non stride leg fibula.
Sensors were affixed to the skin using double sided
tape and secured using flexible hypoallergenic
athletic tape. An eleventh sensor was attached to a
wooden stylus and used to digitize the palpated
position of the bony landmarks. A segment link
model was developed through digitization of joint
centers for the ankle, knee, hip, shoulder, T12-L1,
and C7-T1. The spinal column was defined as the
digitized space between the associated spinous
processes, as the ankle and knee were defined as the
midpoints of the digitized malleoli, and femoral
condyles, while by virtue of the least-squares
method, the hip and shoulder joint centers were
defined.
Participants were given an unlimited time to warm-
up. Following warm-up participants were instructed
to catch a pitched ball and throw down to second
base, simulating a game setting where a runner was
attempting to steal second base. Each participant
had five fastballs pitched to them in which they
caught and threw down to second from their knees.
A position player covered second base and only
those throws that he/she was able to catch without
stepping off the base were recorded. Those data
form the fastest throw down to second were selected
for detailed analysis. Ball velocity was determined
by JUGS radar gun (OpticsPlanet, Inc., Northbrook,
IL) positioned behind the pitcher and directed
towards second base. Descriptive kinematic data of
the trunk and shoulder for the fastest throw to
second base were calculated at the instances of foot
contact (FC), maximum external rotation (MER),
ball release (BR), and maximum internal rotation
(MIR).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Trunk and shoulder kinematics are depicted in
Figure 1. As catchers throw from their knees, the
amount of trunk flexion present is greatest at
maximum external rotation and decreases until they
are in an upright position at maximum internal
rotation. At foot contact the trunk is positioned
flexed toward the right and then gradually flexes to
the left throughout the throwing motion where it
finally reaches its greatest value at maximum
internal rotation. Trunk axial rotation was greatest
at foot contact, the point at which the catcher
attempted to rotate towards second base. Shoulder
plane of elevation displayed slight extension at
MER and then moved into forward flexion at BR
and on into MIR. Shoulder elevation, or abduction
of the humerus, gradually increased from the start
of the motion until reaching a mean maximal angle
of 88° at the point of maximum external rotation. It
is interesting to note, that when throwing from the
knees, catchers do not reach the optimal shoulder
elevation of 90°. Following the peak of shoulder
elevation, at maximum external rotation, the
elevation of the shoulder then decreases. The
shoulder is in an externally rotated position at foot
contact and continues to externally rotate until it
reached MER.
CONCLUSIONS
This study successfully described the kinematics of
throwing from the knees in catchers. Understanding
the kinematics of throwing can lead to the
identification of potentially harmful
pathomechanics in catchers. The inability for
catcher to reach optimal shoulder elevation may
lead to additional stresses being placed on the
shoulder and elbow and eventually cause injury. To
our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the
kinematics of catchers throwing from their knees
and more studies are needed to validate our results.
Future research should be directed towards
determining how the throwing mechanics of
catchers relates to the kinematics observed in
baseball pitchers.
REFERENCES
1. Myers, JB, et al. Am J Sports Med 33: 263-271,
2005.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge University
of Arkansas Women’s Giving Circle for their
financial support.
FC MER BR MIR
-100
-50
0
50
Trunk Flexion
Trunk Axial Rotation
Trunk Lateral Felxion
Shoulder Elevation
Shoulder Plane of Elevation
Shoulder Rotation
Degrees
Figure 1. Trunk and shoulder kinematic variables at each event mark.
Trunk flexion (-) is flexion; Trunk lateral flexion (+) is to the right for a right handed thrower.
Trunk axial rotation (-) is to the right; Shoulder plane of elevation 0= abduction and 90=forward
flexion; shoulder elevation 0=full abduction while -90 = 90 degrees abduction; and shoulder
rotation (+) is internal rotation while (-) is external rotation.
Can't believe Google had the link heres the complete PDF
[/URL]
[/URL]
interesting, but focuses on difference in mechanics as potential cause for injuries, does not speak to pop times at all.
also, to me study is incomplete. did not take measurements of throws from stance/feet (does anyone throw from their stance other than back to pitcher? assume this was simply a bad wording, hence I added "/feet"). also, what is foot contact for a throw from the knees.
also, when DD is working throws from knees, she does not keep both knees in place, but rather "steps" with left knee towards target, then as she follows through, right knee comes up and forward (probably right about at release), as oppoosed to say warming up a pitcher which she might do from her knees entirely, but much softer throw. would be interested in the mechanics of the throws from knees that were measure.
also, to me study is incomplete. did not take measurements of throws from stance/feet (does anyone throw from their stance other than back to pitcher? assume this was simply a bad wording, hence I added "/feet"). also, what is foot contact for a throw from the knees.
also, when DD is working throws from knees, she does not keep both knees in place, but rather "steps" with left knee towards target, then as she follows through, right knee comes up and forward (probably right about at release), as oppoosed to say warming up a pitcher which she might do from her knees entirely, but much softer throw. would be interested in the mechanics of the throws from knees that were measure.
