↓ Skip to main content

Biomechanical Comparisons Among Fastball, Slider, Curveball, and Changeup Pitch Types and Between Balls and Strikes in Professional Baseball Pitchers

Overview of attention for article published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
183 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Biomechanical Comparisons Among Fastball, Slider, Curveball, and Changeup Pitch Types and Between Balls and Strikes in Professional Baseball Pitchers
Published in
The American Journal of Sports Medicine, October 2017
DOI 10.1177/0363546517730052
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

In professional baseball pitchers, pitching biomechanics have not been examined for the slider, and the only known study for the curveball and changeup examined limited kinetics. Moreover, no known studies have investigated pitching biomechanics between strikes and balls. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to compare pitching biomechanics in professional baseball pitchers among the fastball, slider, curveball, and changeup and between balls and strikes. It was hypothesized that pitching kinematics and kinetics would be similar among the slider, fastball, and curveball; shoulder and elbow forces and torques would be significantly lower in the changeup; and pitching biomechanics would be similar between balls and strikes. Controlled laboratory study. Among 18 professional baseball pitchers, 38 reflective markers were positioned on the body and each player threw 32 to 40 maximum effort pitches-consisting of the fastball, curveball, slider, and changeup pitch types-from a regulation mound to a catcher. The markers were tracked by 18 high-speed 180-Hz cameras, and data were processed and run through a computer program to calculate 25 kinematic parameters, 7 kinetic parameters, and 4 temporal parameters for each pitch type and for both strikes and balls. A 2-way repeated-measures analysis of variance ( P < .01) was used to assess pitching biomechanical differences among pitch type and pitch result (balls vs strikes). During arm cocking, elbow varus torque was 8% to 9% greater in the fastball and slider compared with the changeup, shoulder horizontal adduction torque was 17% to 20% greater in the slider and curveball compared with the changeup, and shoulder anterior force was 13% greater in the curveball compared with the changeup. During arm deceleration, elbow flexor torque was 9% to 14% greater in the fastball compared with the curveball and changeup, and elbow and shoulder proximal forces were 10% to 14% greater in the fastball, slider, and curveball compared with the changeup. At ball release, forward trunk tilt was 16% to 19% greater in the fastball and curveball compared with the changeup, contralateral trunk tilt was 26% to 41% greater in the curveball compared with the slider and changeup, knee flexion was 18% greater in the changeup compared with the fastball, and the knee extended 7° more from lead foot contact to ball release in the fastball compared with the changeup. During arm cocking, pelvis angular velocity was 7% to 8% greater in the fastball compared with the curveball and changeup, and upper trunk angular velocity was 5% greater in the fastball compared with the changeup. During arm acceleration, shoulder internal rotation angular velocity was 6% to 7% greater in the fastball, slider, and curveball compared with the changeup, and ball velocity at ball release was 11% to 18% greater in the fastball compared with the slider, changeup, and curveball and 6% greater in the slider compared with the curveball. For all the kinematic, kinetic, and temporal parameters, analysis showed no significant differences between balls and strikes and no significant interactions between pitch type and pitch result. Nearly all kinetic differences among pitch types occurred between the changeup and the remaining 3 pitch types. Shoulder and elbow forces and torques and injury risk were greater among the fastball, slider, and curveball compared with the changeup but were similar among the fastball, slider, and curveball. Body segment and joint positions were similar among all pitch types at lead foot contact and at maximum shoulder external rotation; however, at ball release, throwing a fastball and curveball resulted in greater knee extension and more forward and contralateral trunk tilt compared with throwing a changeup and slider. Movement speeds for the pelvis, upper trunk, and shoulder were greatest in the fastball and least in the changeup and were generally similar among the fastball, slider, and curveball. The timing of when pelvis, upper trunk, elbow, and shoulder velocities occurred among the fastball, slider, curveball, and changeup was similar, and no kinematic or kinetic differences were noted between throwing balls and strikes. The results from the current study will help clinicians understand differences in pitching biomechanics in professional baseball pitchers among the fastball, slider, curveball, and changeup; the study provides limited insight into shoulder and elbow injury risk associated with different types of pitches.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 183 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 183 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 9%
Researcher 15 8%
Student > Bachelor 14 8%
Student > Postgraduate 13 7%
Other 39 21%
Unknown 68 37%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 18%
Sports and Recreations 26 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 9%
Engineering 16 9%
Unspecified 3 2%
Other 10 5%
Unknown 78 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 April 2026.
All research outputs
#5,564,492
of 32,950,043 outputs
Outputs from The American Journal of Sports Medicine
#2,275
of 6,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,650
of 352,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The American Journal of Sports Medicine
#51
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,950,043 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,707 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,904 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.