Effects of Non-throwing Arm on Trunk and Throwing Arm Movements in Baseball Pitching

Paper : Biomechanics Effects of Non-throwing Arm in Baseball Pitching Effects of Non-throwing Arm on Trunk and Throwing Arm Movements in Baseball Pitching Kazuyuki Ishida * and Yuichi Hirano ** * Department of Sports Sciences, Japan Institute of Sports Sciences 3-15-1 Nishigaoka, Kita-ku, Tokyo 115-0056 Japan kazuisd@yahoo.co.jp ** Graduate School of Education, The University of Tokyo 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033 Japan [Received December 10, 2003 ; Accepted February 27, 2004] The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of non-throwing arm on trunk and throwing arm movements in baseball pitching. Ten right-handed collegiate baseball players were asked to throw baseballs under two conditions, the normal and the restricted conditions. Under the restricted condition, non-throwing arm was fi xed to the trunk by a rubber band. Their motions were analyzed by three-dimensional high-speed motion analysis and compared between two conditions. Under the restricted condition, upper torso rotated more counterclockwise and trunk twist angle decreased, at the instant of stride foot contact on the ground. It might be because the moment of inertia of upper torso and upper extremities along the trunk axis was smaller without non-throwing arm movement. Additionally, the maximum angular velocities of shoulder internal rotation and elbow extension as well as pitched ball velocity were lower under the restricted condition. When trunk twist, which stretches trunk rotator musculature, is small, the energy exerted by the musculature and transferred to throwing arm would decrease. Therefore, non-throwing arm in baseball pitching motion is considered to contribute to enhance pitched ball velocity by controlling the moment of inertia of upper torso and upper extremities along the trunk axis. Keywords: non-throwing arm, pitching, trunk twist, ball speed [] 1. Introduction Increasing throwing velocities is a big challenge for baseball strategy. Mechanics as well as physical strength are important determinants in improving throwing velocities and are often-discussed themes in sports biomechanics. Though studies on throwing motions often focus on the throwing arm movement, Toyoshima, et al., (1974) reported that contributions of the throwing arm to the throwing velocity was 53.1%, indicating the importance of energy transferred by the trunk rotation. Miyanishi, et al., (1997) conducted a three-dimensional analysis of the throwing motion, showing that the maximum mechanical energy is generated sequentially from the upper torso, upper arm, forearm, hand, and then to the ball. The energy is transferred from proximal to distal segments. Hirashima, et al., (2002) also argued that the trunk muscles become activated prior to the throwing arm muscles, contributing to an increase in throwing velocities. The frontal side of the trunk of a right-handed pitcher faces third base prior to stride phase, then rotates to the left and faces the batter at ball release. Stodden, et al., (2001) analyzed throwing motions of the trunk, by dividing the upper torso and the pelvis. They found that the pelvis is oriented more toward the batter than the upper torso at the instant of stride foot contat on the ground, and that both angles become approximately equal at the instant of the maximum external rotation of the shoulder joint. The upper torso keeps rotating toward the ball release, whereas the pelvis angle remains almost unchanged and the rotation is slowing down. Rotation occurs fi rst in the pelvis and then in the upper torso, causing the trunk to be twisted. This trunk twist will generate stretches in the trunk muscles, which will cause an increase in muscle force by stored elastic energy [Asmussen and Bonde-Petersen, (1974)] and induced stretch refl ex [Dietz, et al., 119

Ishida, K. and Hirano, Y. Figure 1 Experimental Setup (1979)]. The twist will also increase the motion range which cause an increase in mechanical work, presumably leading to higher throwing velocities. Additionally, isometric torque in the axial rotation the trunk was greater when exerted with pre-rotated posture in the reverse direction of rotation, in comparison with that exerted with the neutral posture [Kumar, et al., (2002)]. It is presumed that the length of muscles infl uences muscle force, so that stretched muscles will exhibit greater force. It is, therefore, presumed that the twisting motions between the pelvis and the upper torso during pitching will help create greater length of the trunk muscles that will exert more force. The non-throwing arm of a skilled pitcher is extended forward prior to the stride phase and is drawn to the trunk while the trunk rotates toward the batter. It can be inferred that this non-throwing arm, when extended forward, will increase the moment of inertia along the longitudinal axis of trunk including the upper torso and upper limb, help suppress the rotation of upper torso during pelvis rotation that precedes, and help increase the twisting movement between upper torso and pelvis of the trunk. Subsequently, it may be appropriate to conclude that as the arm is drawn to the trunk while the pelvis rotation decelerates, the moment of inertia reduces and the rotational velocity of the upper torso increases. It is expected that an increase in throwing velocities will occur, as rotational velocities of the upper torso increase and then those of the throwing arm connected to the upper torso increase. It can be inferred that the non-throwing arm changes the moment of inertia along the longitudinal axis of trunk including the upper torso and upper limb according to each phase, in order to insure a maximum use of stretch-shortening cycle and force-length relations in the trunk muscles, thus performing a certain function to develop throwing velocities. No research has been done so far to examine how the non-throwing arm affects throwing velocities. Therefore research on these effects would provide useful information for those who seek a solution to improve pitching mechanics. Studies are required to examine the extent to which throwing velocities will drop and the type of changes that are expected to occur in trunk and throwing arm motions, when the non-throwing arm movement is restricted. The purpose of our study is to identify the impact on throwing velocities and motions in subjects who deliver a pitch with their non-throwing arms fi xed onto the trunk in order to limit motion, and compare with those in normal pitching. 2. Methods 2.1. Subjects Subjects were 10 male baseball players who belonged to a university baseball team (aged 21.3 ±1.6, height 173.4±7.0cm, weight 71.2±3.4kg, all right-handers). The signifi cance of the research and the test method were explained, and their consent was obtained. 2.2. Test conditions To help insure easier analysis of motion, subjects were instructed to wear tight fi tting pants on the lower-body and to have nothing on the upper-body, or to wear a tight fi tting shirt if requested by subjects. All the joints were marked with stretch tape. No baseball glove was worn on the left hand. Our experiment used offi cial baseballs (weight 0.145kg, circumference 23.0cm) and subjects were instructed to pitch at full speed from the pitching mound (plate height 25cm) toward a home plate 18.44m away and to a catcher. They were given two different conditions: normal pitching and controlled pitching with the non-throwing arm fi xed to the trunk (thereafter referred to as normal and restricted condition, respectively) (Figure 1). Subjects were bound with a strong wide rubber band in a way that 120

Effects of Non-throwing Arm in Baseball Pitching Figure 2 Fixation method of the non-throwing arm to the trunk by a rubber band Figure 3 Defi nition of trunk vectors the subjects felt no pain, while their arm motions were restricted (Figure 2). Suffi cient warm-up time was allowed prior to the experiment, and ample pitching exercise was provided prior to each trial until subjects were accustomed to the pitching movements in the test clothing and test settings. The experiment was initiated only after the subjects were certain to pitch at full speed. Because our methods were to fi x the extended non-throwing arm onto the trunk, there was a concern that not only the motions of the non-throwing arm but also the twisting motions of the trunk might be limited. The subjects, however, did not exhibit excessively unnatural motions nor did they claim to do so. Two types of trials were executed in random order, and 5 trials were conducted continuously for each trial condition. Throwing motions were videotaped (250fps, shutter speed 1/1000sec.) utilizing three electrically synchronized high-speed video cameras (HSV 500C3: nac Image Technology Inc.) and throwing velocities were recorded from behind the catcher with a radar gun (CR-1K: Decatur Electronics Inc) (Figure 1). Prior to fi lming, 2.30m poles were set up vertically at 9 locations in the 3.00m-deep (pitching direction) and 2.30m-wide pitching area to calibrate the performance area, and then the cameras were adjusted to ensure all of the poles fell into a calibration frame. The three-dimensional coordinate system was defi ned with the Y-axis as the throwing direction, the Z-axis as the vertical axis and the X-axis to the right of the home plate and perpendicular to the Y-axis and Z-axis. 2. 3. Calculation of three-dimensional coordinates One trial that the highest throwing velocity was recorded by the radar gun for each test condition was used for analysis. Within-subject differences in velocities were 8km/h for normal condition, and 5km/h for restricted condition. Joint centers of both shoulders, both hips, elbow and wrist of the throwing arm side as well as the baseball were digitized in every video fi eld. Three-dimensional coordinates of these points were calculated by utilizing the Direct Linear Transformation (DLT) method [Abdel-aziz and Karara, (1971)]. Previous studies have found that the stride foot contacts the ground at around 0.10-0.15 sec. prior to the ball release, followed by the large motion of the trunk and throwing arm [Dillman, et al., (1993); Feltner and Dapena, (1986); Fleisig, et al., (1995); Fleisig, et al., (1996); Fleisig, et al., (1999; Miyanishi, et al., (1996); Miyanishi, et al., (1997); Sakurai, et al., (1993)]. Therefore our study analyzed those motions in the time period between 0.3 sec. (75 frames) before and 0.08 sec. (20 frames) after ball release. The moment of ball release was set at zero. A fourth-order digital Butterworth-type fi lter was used to smooth the three-dimensional coordinates for X, Y and Z respectively with the cutoff frequency of 13.4Hz [Winter, (1990)]. 2.4. Calculation of angles The following is the vector defi ned for trunk segments to calculate the trunk angles and throwing arm angles. The vector advancing from the left to the right shoulder joint centers was defi ned as SD, the vector from the left to the right hip joint was defi ned as HP and the vector from the mid-point of the right and left shoulders to the mid-point of the right and left hip joints was defi ned as TR. The cross product of two vectors SD and TR was defi ned as the vector FR (Figure 3). 121

Ishida, K. and Hirano, Y. Figure 4 Defi nition of kinematic variables; (A) upper torso, pelvis rotation angles and trunk twist, (B) shoulder adduction/abduction, (C) shoulder horizontal adduction/abduction, (D) shoulder internal/external rotation and (E) elbow fl exion/extension We used the same method as Stodden, et al., (2001) to evaluate the rotational motions of the trunk, with the upper torso angle defi ned as an angle between the vector SD projected onto the horizontal plane (XY-plane) and the Y-axis (negative direction), and the hip angle between the vector HP and the Y-axis (Figure 4A). Trunk twist angle was defi ned as the difference between the pelvis and the upper torso angles (Figure 4A). Next, angles of the shoulder and elbow joint were determined as follows to examine the impact of the trunk motion on the throwing arm. Adduction/abduction angle of the shoulder joint was the angle between the vector projection of the upper arm vector (advancing from the center of the shoulder joint of the throwing arm toward the center of the elbow joint) projected onto the SD-TR plane and the TR [Escamilla, et al., (1998); Fleisig, et al., (1996)]. The horizontal adduction/abduction angle was the angle between the vector projection of the upper arm vector projected onto the SD-FR plane and the SD [Escamilla, et al., (1998); Feltner and Dapena, (1986); Fleisig, et al., (1996); Sakurai, et al., (1990); Sakurai, et al., (1993)]. The internal/external rotation angle was the angle between the vector projection of the forearm vector (advancing from the center of the elbow joint of the throwing arm toward the center of the wrist joint) and the FR in the plane perpendicular to the upper arm vector [Escamilla, 122

Effects of Non-throwing Arm in Baseball Pitching Table 1 Kenematic parameters of two conditions et al., (1998); Fleisig, et al., (1996); Sakurai, et al., (1990); Sakurai, et al., (1993)]. The fl exion/extension of the elbow joint was the angle made by the upper arm and forearm vectors [Escamilla, et al., (1998); Fleisig, et al., (1996); Sakurai, et al., (1990); Sakurai, et al., (1993); Werner, et al., (1993)]. Angles for the throwing arm are defi ned in Figure 4B-E. 2.5. Statistical analysis Comparison was made between the two test conditions for the angles when the trunk reached its maximum twist, when the whole sole of the stride foot contact the mound (SFC), when the shoulder joint reached its maximum external rotation (MER) and when the ball was released (REL), and as to the peak velocities of the upper torso and pelvis rotation, internal rotation of the shoulder joint, extension of the elbow joint and the time those maximal values were reached. A t-test was used to determine a signifi cant difference in means between the two conditions. The coeffi cient of correlation was computed using differences in the throwing velocities and variables between the two conditions to identify joint motions that might affect throwing velocities. The criterion for statistical signifi cance was set at p<0.01. 3. Results Table 1 shows mean values and the standard 123

Ishida, K. and Hirano, Y. Figure 6 Shoulder internal/external rotation angle of Subject T. M. Figure 5 Upper torso, pelvis and trunk twist angles of Subject T.M.. Thick and thin lines show normal and restricted conditions, respectively a: Time of maximum trunk twist Normal condition: -0.164s Restricted condition: -0.180s b: Time of SFC Normal condition: -0.144s Restricted condition: -0.160s c: Time of MER Normal condition: -0.036s Restricted condition: -0.040s deviation between the variables for two conditions, and Figure 5, Figure 6, and Figure 7 took a subject T.M. as an example to show time course changes in trunk angles, internal/external rotation angles of the shoulder joint, and angular velocities of internal rotation of the shoulder joint and extension of the elbow joint. A signifi cant difference (p<0.001) was found in velocities for the two test conditions, with 30.9± 2.9m/s for restricted condition as opposed to 33.6± 2.0m/s for normal condition. One subject exhibited a maximum difference of approximately 20%. Figure 5 shows trunk motions presented in time series. For both conditions, trunk twist angle was largest around 0.16 sec. before REL, with upper torso angled at -10-0 degrees and pelvis angled at approximately 40 degrees. This indicated that the pelvis was oriented more toward the throwing direction. No differences have been found between the two conditions as to the maximum twist angle of the trunk, the time of occurrence and upper torso/pelvis angles at the time of occurrence. In some subjects peak rotation velocity of the pelvis was attained before their trunks reached maximum twist angle, whereas in others it was attained after. However, the comparison between the two conditions found that the peak rotation velocity of the pelvis was attained signifi cantly earlier in restricted condition (p<0.01). There was, however, no difference in the peak rotation velocity of the pelvis. Then the stride foot contacted the mound approximately 0.13 sec. prior to REL, and at this point signifi cant difference was observed in the upper torso angle (p<0.001), with 6±15 degrees for normal condition as opposed to 17±19 degrees for restricted condition. Although there was no signifi cant difference in pelvis angle, twist angle of the trunk exhibited a signifi cant difference, with the values of 43±13 and 34±17 degrees respectively (p<0.01). Although peak rotation velocity of the upper torso was attained before shoulder joints reached their maximum external rotation, no differences were seen between the two conditions as to the maximum values and time of occurrence. At MER, the upper torso angle was approximately 90 degrees, that is, the upper torso rotated more counterclockwise than the pelvis (approximately 75degrees), presenting a negative trunk twist angle. At this point no signifi cant difference was observed in the angles of upper torso, pelvis or trunk twist. No difference was observed in these angles at REL. Next, discussion shall be made on the throwing arm angles. At SFC, there was a signifi cant difference only in internal/external rotation of the shoulder joint, with larger external rotation observed in restricted condition (Figure 6). The maximum external rotation angle occurred signifi cantly earlier in restricted condition (p<0.001), presenting a signifi cantly smaller angle (p<0.01) (Figure 6). At REL, there was a signifi cant difference only in fl exion/extension 124

Effects of Non-throwing Arm in Baseball Pitching Figure 7 Angular velocities of shoulder internal rotation and elbow extension of Subject T. M. angle of the elbow joint (p<0.01), with restricted condition exhibiting a slightly larger fl exion angle. Peak angular velocities of the elbow extension and shoulder internal rotation were signifi cantly lower in restricted condition (p<0.01 in both cases), however no signifi cant difference was observed in time of occurrence (Figure 7). Regarding correlations between differences in throwing velocities and variables for the two conditions, there was a signifi cant positive correlation in the maximum trunk twist angle and the twist angle at SFC, with the correlation coeffi cient of 0.766 and 0.829 respectively (p<0.01 in both cases) (Figure 8). Therefore it can be implied that players who had a larger drop in throwing velocities also experienced larger reduction in twist angle of the trunk. 4. Discussion Our study has found differences in throwing velocities and motions, however there are possibilities that trials performed in unfamiliar settings caused those differences, as the settings, where the non-throwing arm was fi xed to the body using a rubber band, were extremely unusual. However, the subjects were instructed to do pitching practice until they could pitch at full speed. In addition to that, throwing velocity measurements by the radar gun indicated that within-subject differences were maximum 8km/h in normal condition as opposed to maximum 5km/h in restricted condition, and thus it might be reasonable to conclude that the subjects learned how to deliver pitches under the given Figure 8 Relationships of difference in pitched ball velocity to those in (A) maximum trunk twist angle and (B) trunk twist angle at SFC conditions. Judging from the tendencies developed in all subjects, the fi ndings in our study were more likely to be affected by fi xing the throwing arm to trunk rather than by pitching in unfamiliar settings. It is undeniable that our interpretation has its limitations due to the possibility that our study method not only limited rotational motions of the non-throwing arm but also twisting motion between the upper torso and pelvis. However, the maximum twist angle of the trunk was 44±12 degrees, presenting no signifi cant difference from normal condition, therefore it can be inferred that no major restriction was given to trunk twist. Our fi ndings suggest that differences in trunk twist, which occurred in succeeding phases, were mainly caused by utilization of non-throwing arm. The factors that account for the differences between the two conditions will be discussed below. In this study, the average velocity for normal condition was 33.6m/s, which is much the same as those previously reported for other college players (35m/s: Escamilla, et al., 1998; 33.5m/s: Feltner and Dapena, 1986; 35m/s: Fleisig, 1999; 29.8m/s: Miyanishi, et al., 1996; 29.8m/s: Miyanishi, et al., 1997; 35.0m/s: Sakurai, et al., 1993) and the status of shoulder and elbow joint angles agrees with the fi ndings in previous studies [Dillman, et 125

Ishida, K. and Hirano, Y. al., (1993); Escamilla, et al., (1998); Feltner and Dapena, (1986); Fleisig, et al., (1996); Fleisig, et al., (1999); Matsuo, et al., (2001); Sakurai, et al., (1993); Werner, et al., (1993)]. Therefore it is suggested that the subjects participating in our study were typical university-level baseball players and were skilled in pitching mechanics. Our fi ndings have shown that the average velocity drop caused by fi xing the throwing arm on the trunk was around 10%, suggesting that the magnitude of the impact on the non-throwing arm was approximately 10%. The fi rst infl uential factor for the velocity drop would be decreased twisting angle of the trunk. Our study has shown that fi xing the non-throwing arm caused the upper torso to develop a larger angle in the stride foot contact phase and the front upper torso to advance more toward the pitching direction, resulting in less twisting in trunk. This indicates that an unused non-throwing arm will restrict control of the upper torso to result in less twisting in the trunk. Likewise strong correlation between differences in the angle and throwing velocity suggests that the trunk be twisted in this phase. Furthermore, the signifi cant correlation was found between differences in maximum trunk twist angle and throwing velocity suggests the possibility that this maximum trunk twist angle might affect throwing velocity. Stodden, et al., (2001) instructed professional, university and high school-level pitchers to deliver sets of 10 pitches at full speed to create 1.8m/s variation in throwing velocities, and found that increasing the average rotation velocity of the pelvis from stride foot contact through the maximum external rotation phase of shoulder joint, as well as increasing the average rotation velocity of the upper torso from the maximum external rotation of shoulder joint through the ball release phase will help improve throwing velocity. However our study found no difference in maximum rotation velocities of the pelvis and upper torso between the two conditions, nor any correlation between those differences and throwing velocities. Although fi xing the non-throwing arm created a difference in twisting angle of the trunk, this did not affect the rotation velocity of the upper torso. The reason that the peak rotation velocity of pelvis was reached earlier in restricted condition might be that rotation angle of the upper torso was large around the stride foot contact phase, causing less twisting in the trunk, and then generating smaller torque to rotate the pelvis to the right. In conclusion, the difference made in the trunk for the two conditions is that fi xing the non-throwing arm will advance rotation in the upper torso at SFC, resulting in less twisting of the upper torso and pelvis. Our study found neither difference in the upper torso angle at REL nor any time difference from SFC through REL, therefore it can be concluded that mechanical work involved in upper torso rotation decreased, resulting in reduced power in the trunk muscles. Our study has shown that a fi xed non-throwing arm will affect trunk rotation as well as motions of the throwing arm. Although extension of the elbow joint and internal rotation of the shoulder joint are variables used to analyze the throwing arm, as these joint motions play a major role in acceleration of ball velocity [Dillman, et al., (1993); Escamilla, et al., (1998); Feltner and Dapena, (1986); Fleisig et al., (1996); Fleisig, et al., (1999); Matsuo, et al., (2001); Miyanishi, et al., (1996); Pappas, et al., (1985); Werner, et al., (1993)], their maximum angular velocities had a signifi cant drop in restricted condition, indicating this can be a major cause of reduced throwing velocity. Notably, it is assumed that reduction in maximum external rotation angle caused reduction in stretch of the internal rotation muscles, resulting in a drop in internal rotation angular velocity. Previous studies have found that a higher throwing velocity group exhibited larger maximum external rotation angle as opposed to a lower throwing velocity group [Matsuo, et al., (2001)]. An analysis conducted on motions of a pitchers in actual baseball games showed that the maximum external rotation angle of the shoulder joint was smaller, and that the throwing velocity dropped in the second-half of the game compared to the fi rst-half [Murray, et al., (2001)]. One study reported that when a subject delivered pitches using an internal rotation motion alone, while his trunk was fi xed for this experiment, the wrist velocity developed higher in trials in which he did not stop his motion, while switching from external to internal rotations, compared with allowing 1 or 2 seconds of motionlessness [Elliot, et al., (1999)]. These fi ndings suggest that an effective way of improving throwing velocity is to externally rotate the shoulder joint further, followed by the swift internal rotation motion. It appears that external rotation of the shoulder joint will occur when horizontal adduction torque generates a forward force and abduction torque generates an upward force in the 126

Effects of Non-throwing Arm in Baseball Pitching proximal part of the upper arm [Feltner and Dapena, (1986)]. Therefore, as shown in our study, reduced twist angle of the trunk as well as reduced stretch of the trunk muscles might cause the torque, which is applied to the throwing arm, to be reduced, resulting in decreased external rotation angle. In restricted condition, the elbow fl exion angle at REL was large and its maximum extension angular velocity was small. It is known that extension of the elbow joint is subject to the torque produced by rotation of the body in addition to actions of the main agonist, the triceps brachii [Toyoshima, et al., (1974)], therefore this phenomenon indicates that decreased twist of the trunk will cause a drop in the torque applied to the throwing arm. It is then suggested that the elbow joint, when fl exed in greater degrees, will shorten the distance between rotation axis of the trunk and ball, and as moment arm decreases, throwing velocities will drop. As mentioned above, our study has shown that restricted motions of the non-throwing arm have a large impact on internal/external rotation of the shoulder joint and fl exion/extension of the elbow joint, whose relationships with throwing velocities have been reported before. Therefore, their remarkable contribution to the throwing velocities has been reaffi rmed. Our study has shown that a fi xed non-throwing arm will cause decreases in the twist of the trunk, maximum external rotation angle of the throwing arm, internal rotation velocity and extension velocity of elbow joint, resulting in a drop in throwing velocity. These fi ndings show possibilities that increasing the twist of the trunk and external rotation angle of the shoulder joint are effective in improving velocity for normal pitching. Further study needs to be done to determine whether improvement of the non-throwing arm movement can change motions of the trunk and throwing arm, and fi nally affect throwing velocity. In addition, a glove used in an actual ball game will affect the mass and moment of inertia of the entire non-throwing arm, and therefore quantifi cation for all these is required. References Abdel-aziz, Y. I. & Karara, H. M. (1971). Direct linear transformation from comparator coordinates into object space coordinates in close-range photogrammetry. In Proceedings of the American Society of Photogrammetry Symposium on Close-Range Photogrammetry (pp.1-18). Falls Church, VA: American Society of Photogrammetry. Asmussen, E. and Bonde-Petersen, F. (1974). Storage of elastic energy in skeletal muscles in man. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, 91: 385-392. Dietz, V., Schmidtbleicher, D. & Noth, J. (1979). Neuronal mechanisms of human locomotion. Journal of Neurophysiology, 42: 1212-1222. Dillman, C. J., Fleisig, G. S. & Andrews, J. R. (1993). Biomechanics of pitching with emphasis upon shoulder kinematics. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy. 18: 402-408. Elliot, B. C., Baxter, K. G. & Besier, T. F. (1999). Internal rotation of the upper-arm segment during a stretch-shorten cycle movement. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 15: 381-395. Escamilla, R. F., Fleisig, G. S., Barrentine, S. W., Zheng, N. & Andrews, J. R. (1998). Kinematic comparisons of throwing different types of baseball pitchers. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 14: 1-23 Feltner, M. & Dapena, J. (1986). Dynamics of the shoulder and elbow joints of the throwing arm during a baseball pitching. International Journal of Sport Biomechanics, 2: 235-259 Fleisig, G. S., Escamilla, R. F., Andrews, J. R., Matsuo, T., Satterwhite, T. & Barrentine S. W. (1996). Kinematic and kinetic comparison between baseball pitching and football passing. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 12: 207-224 Fleisig, G. S., Barrentine, S. W., Zheng, N., Escamilla, R. F. & Andrews, J. R. (1999). Kinematic and kinetic comparison of baseball pitching among various level of development. Journal of Biomechanics, 32: 1371-1375. Hirashima, M., Kadota, H., Sakurai, S., Kudo, K. & Ohtsuki, T. (2002). Sequential muscle activity and its functional role in the upper extremity and trunk during overarm throwing. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20: 301-310. Kumar, S., Narayan, Y. & Garand, D. (2002). Isometric axial rotation of the human trunk from pre-rotated postures. European Journal of applied physiology, 87, 7-16. Matsuo, T., Escamilla, R. F., Fleisig, G. S., Barrentine, S. W. & Andrews, J. R. (2001). Comparison of kinematic and temporal parameters between different pitch velocity groups. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 17: 1-13. Miyanishi, T., Fujii, N., Ae, M., Kunugi, Y. & Okada, M. (1996). A three-dimensional study on contribution of torso and throwing arm segments to ball velocity in baseball throwing motion. Japan Journal of Physical Education, 41, 23-37. (in Japanese). Miyanishi, T., Fujii, N., Ae, M., Kunugi, Y. & Okada, M. (1997). A three-dimensional analysis on mechanical energy fl ows of torso and arm segments in baseball throw. Japanese Journal of Physical Fitness and Sports Medicine, 46, 55-68. (in Japanese). Murray, T. A., Cook, T. D., Werner, S. L., Schlegel, T. F. & Hawkins, R. J. (2001). The effects of extended play on professional baseball pitchers. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 29: 137-142, Pappas, A. M., Zawacki, R. M. & Sullivan, T. J. (1985). Biomechanics of baseball pitching. A preliminary report. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 13: 216-222. Sakurai, S., Ikegami, Y., Yabe, K., Okamoto, A. & Toyoshima, S. (1990). Three-dimensional cinematographic analysis of the arm movement during a fastball baseball pitch. Japan Journal of Physical Education, 35, 143-156. (in Japanese). Sakurai, S., Ikegami, Y., Okamoto, A., Yabe, K. & Toyoshima, S. 127

Ishida, K. and Hirano, Y. (1993). A three-dimensional cinematographic analysis of upper limb movement during fastball and curveball baseball pitches. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 9: 47-65. Stodden, D. F., Fleisig, G. S., McLean, S. P., Lyman, S. L. & Andrews, J. R. (2001). Relationship of pelvis and upper torso kinematics to pitched baseball velocity. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 17: 164-172. Toyoshima, S., Hoshikawa, T, Miyashita, M. & Oguri, T. (1974). Contribution of the body parts to throwing performance. In Biomechanics Ⅳ (pp.169-174), Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Werner, S.L., Fleisig, G. S., Dillman, C. J. & Andrews, J. R. (1993). Biomechanics of the elbow during baseball pitching. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 17: 274-278. Winter, D. A. (1990). Biomechanics and motor control of human movement. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley. Name: Kazuyuki Ishida Affi liation: Department of Sports Sciences, Japan Institute of Sports Sciences Address: 3-15-1 Nishigaoka, Kita-ku, Tokyo 115-0056 Japan Brief Biographical History: 1995-2001 Graduate School of Education, The University of Tokyo 2001- Researcher at Japan Institute of Sports Sciences Main Works: Experimental study on decision and adjustment in baseball batting. Japanese Journal of Biomechanics in Sports and Exercise. Vol.4, 172-178, 2000 Membership in Learned Societies: Japan Society of Physical Education, Health and Sport Sciences Japanese Society of Biomechanics Scientifi c Congress for Sports and Exercise Training 128