On Elbows and Curves In Young Pitchers
Jeff pointed me towards an article in the New York Times which cites biomechanical studies apparently that the curveball isn't as dangerous for young arms as conventional wisdom would have us believe. Money quote:
Each study concluded that curves are less stressful than fastballs and, based on the data collected, contributed little, if at all, to throwing injuries in youth players.
So are common sense and years of experience totally off base here? Should young pitchers have the gloves taken off and start throwing curves willy-nilly? I, for one, am unconvinced that this is really meaningful. I can't speak for how physical development affects a mechanical analysis, so let's be more general about this.
In the sort of test the article references, 'stress' generally means 'elbow torquing' (I shall assume that this has not changed. If it has, please ignore). Two things immediately fall out of this. First up: Since the force imparted to the baseball is angular, a higher velocity out of the hand will therefore correlate pretty well to an increase in elbow torque. The force has to come from somewhere, after all. This makes the discovery that the curveball delivery is 'less stressful' than the fastball no discovery at all - it's essentially trivial.
Second, measuring torque in a joint is not the same thing as measuring ligament stress. It's a pretty weak oversimplification that does not accurately portray what goes on inside the elbow. The images below show ligaments compared to a torque diagram:

I could probably have rotated the diagram to make it line up with the elbow picture but I'm lazy. Anyway, the elbow is much messier than the cleanness of representing stress in torque form would indicate. The forces are somehow distributed throughout the ligaments in various directions, and it isn't even uniform because the soft tissues of the joint have different stiffnesses. The stresses we care about are in the ligaments rather than in the joints as a whole, which this sort of analysis misses (we can't yet do the sort that would be able to properly derive ligament stresses).
Throwing a curveball badly, as young pitchers are wont to do, doesn't add more torque to the elbow, but it will cause a twist in the arm, setting up a whole different set of stresses in the elbow (especially because ligaments are non-isotropic, meaning that they have different failure strengths in different directions). It could very well be that this causes the injuries that are apparently frequently observed in kids throwing the curveball*. The article essentially states that thrown properly, breaking stuff shouldn't really be any more detrimental than throwing fastballs, but we knew that already. Throwing while tired will also lead away from the 'ideal' curveball motion, as is probably a big factor in the warnings given by coaches against throwing too many curves.
As always, we should be moving away from the idea that we can accurately look at what motions cause/do not cause damage and towards what we actually know, and what we know is this: Pitching tired is much more likely to lead to injury than pitching fresh. So let's worry about not overusing pitchers rather than fret about what it is they're doing otherwise. Someday, we'll be able to look at stresses in ligaments and get a good idea on which motions are detrimental and beneficial, but attempting to do so now without all the tools in place is short-sighted. Playing things safe and letting their bodies say what's working and what isn't is probably better than just giving a blanket green/red light to pitches and deliveries.
*Do not take this as a statement of fact. It's not even a very strong statement of opinion.
37 comments
|
7 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Just the pictures alone should be required reading
for everyone who believes Driveline Mechanics and their ilk know what they’re talking about. Great piece and hopefully it’ll get through some skulls.
Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.
Someone on another SBN site told me
that everyone at LL is just bitter because of DM’s article on Morrow, and not because we have intelligent people like Graham giving us more concrete reasons why they are wrong.
[DELETED ZOMG NO POLITICS]
It's less about why they're wrong than about why they shouldn't speculate in the first place
Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.
They tried but they had trouble spelling his name because of the incorrectly inverted W at the beginning of his name
Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.
by pdb on Jul 27, 2009 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions 10 recs
Of course they would say that.
Rather than, you know, asking.
How exactly is this an example of how Kyle is wrong?
F%#& Billy Beane. Actually... I kinda like Holliday
by vivaelpujols on Jul 28, 2009 9:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Lone Rebuttal
1) For approximately the 200th time, I encourage my readers to seek out multiple points of view on the subject and do not classify my opinions as facts or expert testimony.
2) This quote:
that everyone at LL is just bitter because of DM’s article on Morrow, and not because we have intelligent people like Graham giving us more concrete reasons why they are wrong.
Is the first I’ve heard of anything regarding this ridiculous concept. I have nothing against Graham nor Lookout Landing and in fact enjoy the work of both parties.
3) For those who enjoy Appealing to Authority with regards to educational jabs, I have referred Graham to work done by Dr. Mike Marshall who has a post-graduate degree in Exercise Physiology. The common and easy response is “Dr. Marshall is nuts,” which is fine, but reading his material first might be something you do before saying that. I have, and while he is abrasive, he advances many interesting arguments.
4) Slowly, but surely, I have been building a lab that can digitize and accurately develop acceleration graphs and measure joint loads of overhand throwers. I have high-speed cameras and software that can produce the same numbers with approximately the same margin of error (which is wide, mind you) as ASMI. I look forward to sharing this data as it becomes available over the next year.
Though I don’t have an advanced degree in mechanical anything, I’ve been smart enough to surround myself with people who do – and people who have advanced training in exercise science, physical therapy, and kinesiology. I work tirelessly to understand a complex motion so elusive simply because it interests me.
You are free to make derisive comments and take my words out of context for humor purposes. This is the Internet, after all – and more specifically, a blog. I just wanted to state (again) that I do not classify my work as “expert” level analysis, so please, do recalibrate your insults.
Webmaster of Driveline Mechanics
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com - An Unconventional Look at Scouting
by Kyle Boddy on Jul 28, 2009 1:28 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Responses
If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to email me directly at kyle dot boddy at gmail dot com. If instead you want to fire off one-liner jokes and insults, feel free to do it here. Just in case anyone wanted to have a serious discussion, I wanted to provide my contact information, as I’d rather not do it on a site so biased against me as Lookout Landing.
Webmaster of Driveline Mechanics
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com - An Unconventional Look at Scouting
Pretty sure what pdb is referring to
are the people that do, despite your encouragement, pass it off as gospel.
I/we are not ranting against the search for better injury prediction models, or anything else pitching mechanics related.
Actually, pdb is doing what Graham indirectly implies doing
Which is to discount ANYTHING that guys like Kyle say, despite the fact that it is just someone’s well educated opinion.
F%#& Billy Beane. Actually... I kinda like Holliday
by vivaelpujols on Jul 28, 2009 8:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes because clearly I am less well educated here
by Graham MacAree on Jul 29, 2009 7:23 AM PDT up reply actions
What?
I’m am trying to say both of your posts about Biomechanics have created the notion amongst your readers, whether this was intended or not, that everything guys like Kyle say are worthless, because A) he doesn’t have a degree in Biomechanics, or B) because he supposedly presents things as fact, when they are basically eduated guesses.
The first reason is probably crap, as Kyle presumable spends most of his free time educating himself in this field and spends time around guys who do have bio-mechanical degrees or other things like that. The second is simply untrue, as Kyle has written several posts that explicity say his opinion is not fact and you shouldn’t take it this way.
Kyle has already told me he doesn’t care what you guys (not you obviously, but the people who blindly insult Kyle); however, as a person who is obviously very interesting in advancing innovative ideas (tRA), it’s probably in YOUR best interest to clear up this crap.
I’ll ask you this: do you think Kyle’s opinions on pitching mechanics are worthless? Have you ever explicitly disagreed with him the fundamentals of his analysis?
F*** Billy Beane... actually, I kinda like Holliday
by vivaelpujols on Jul 29, 2009 7:41 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes, I do explicitly disagree with the fundamentals of his analysis
They do not consider the actual physics of injury prediction in soft tissue. That is the crux of all my points. We can’t predict injuries because we don’t know ligaments actually work.
And just because Kyle spends a lot of time doing work on this does not mean he’s an expert on the behaviours of biological tissues. Apparently you don’t understand that injury prediction requires more than just kinesthesiology.
by Graham MacAree on Jul 29, 2009 8:19 AM PDT up reply actions
And really? You honestly think that I care what you think is in my best interest?
by Graham MacAree on Jul 29, 2009 8:29 AM PDT up reply actions
Not yours really, that wasn't what I was trying to say
But injuries are obviously a huge part in baseball, and any serious and well based attempts at learning more about how to help avoid them would be a huge help to everyone. If you are content with saying “we don’t know” and leaving it at that, that’s fine; but you shouldn’t discourage what people like Kyle are doing. You have to have failure before you have success.
F*** Billy Beane... actually, I kinda like Holliday
by vivaelpujols on Jul 29, 2009 8:32 AM PDT up reply actions
I discourage what Kyle is doing because I think he misses a huge chunk of methodology
This is of course because the tools to develop said chunk are woefully underdeveloped. There is a huge imbalance in the work as it stands and that is why I cause a fuss. It’s like rating pitchers by win-loss record.
by Graham MacAree on Jul 29, 2009 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Your point on predicting injuries
Is that we don’t have enough information about each specific pitcher to accurately piece together all of the information? However, do you not agree that certain mechanical traits of the general population of pitchers are observed to be detrimental to picture injury?
F*** Billy Beane... actually, I kinda like Holliday
by vivaelpujols on Jul 29, 2009 8:30 AM PDT up reply actions
Every model of pitching joints is a massive oversimplication
Until real models exist (they don’t and they’re a way off) empirical evidence is the only thing to draw conclusions from. However, empirical evidence is a silly way of doing it considering the natural variance in injury predilection in pitchers and the relatively small sample sizes we have. I will not accept (and I urge others not to accept either) conclusions drawn in this manner.
by Graham MacAree on Jul 29, 2009 8:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Fair enough
I guess I might have read more into your posts (or maybe the comments themselves).
F*** Billy Beane... actually, I kinda like Holliday
by vivaelpujols on Jul 29, 2009 8:38 AM PDT up reply actions
As an oversimplification, my argument goes like this
Good injury prediction should have three steps:
Kinesthesiology
Materials science
Individual tailoring
The platonic injury prediction can neglect the last part. The work I always see only has the first step though, and that’s frankly not good enough.
by Graham MacAree on Jul 29, 2009 8:41 AM PDT up reply actions
Ok
I don’t have much knowledge of how to create an accurate injury model, and most of my assumptions are probably off base. I’m sure that you are well founded in your view, and have probably e-mailed Kyle about this before, so I’ll back out…
F*** Billy Beane... actually, I kinda like Holliday
by vivaelpujols on Jul 29, 2009 8:50 AM PDT up reply actions
My thesis dealt with converting load data to injury predictions based on modern soft tissue models
I found it to be impossible (as of early 2008). I believe it is at least five years off as stands.
by Graham MacAree on Jul 29, 2009 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions
What do you thing about statistically predicting injuries?
Assuming enough regression and that you are able to someone isolate the variables.
F*** Billy Beane... actually, I kinda like Holliday
by vivaelpujols on Jul 29, 2009 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't like it at all
I have a passionate hatred for empirical testing with this many variables involved. The conclusions will either be noise or they’ll be washed out entirely.
by Graham MacAree on Jul 29, 2009 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions
Okay then, you certainly make it look pretty grim
This isn’t a slight, as you obviously know what you are talking about. However, isn’t there a slight chance that you may not be right in your views? Is is anyway productive to lash out against attempts an current analysis? Does have have enough of a downside to negate the upside?
F*** Billy Beane... actually, I kinda like Holliday
by vivaelpujols on Jul 29, 2009 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions
I could well be wrong about the liklihood of getting good conclusions, yes
All in all, I prefer to be cautious here simply because I feel it better reflects our lack on understand on how this all works. Kyle is doing what he can but his conclusions are taken … let’s say dogmatically. That’s what offends me/LL.
by Graham MacAree on Jul 29, 2009 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions
somewhat*
F*** Billy Beane... actually, I kinda like Holliday
by vivaelpujols on Jul 29, 2009 8:57 AM PDT up reply actions
Flagged, because you said it first!
This signature space for rent.
by PositivePaul on Jul 27, 2009 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Maybe kids should just pick up on the RA Dickey technique of not having an ulnar collateral ligament
Birth defects are the answer
I'm confused with what you're trying to show with the torque diagram
just that the simplifying the elbow to an ideal situation to a rod and torquing it is a vast oversimplification and fails to take into account any material loading properties, etc?










