Priceless you did a very good job of describing handbrake in scapula loading. Thank you.
[quote]Breaking w/ hands vs. Breaking w/ elbows…
Can you explain this a little more to help me understand the movement?
By doing one over the other, are you trying to shorten the glove and throwing arm paths following separation? How do you teach it when working with a kid… (thx)[/quote]
Velocity efficiency (throwing with the least amount of wasted efforts) requires a continuous development and transfer of momentum. Tom house did an analysis on Aroldis Ghapman (http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5661690&categoryid=2378529[/url]) and if you factor out his belief in long stride and effective velocity what you end up with is the real secret of Chapmans throwing ability i.e. the speed at which he uses his body to throw the baseball.
To anyone versed in the most elementary physics this is as rudimentary as falling out of bed i.e. the change in momentum relative to the change in time is equal to force applied. And force applied equals acceleration. And acceleration begets velocity. Elementary physics.
So the point of breaking with the elbows is twofold by mechanically or should I say from a physics perspective it’s to quickly and efficiently enter into the throwing process (get to the point where external rotation of the throwing arm begins). Secondly it’s precursor to developing eccentric action of the scapula i.e. pinching the scapula in preparation for unloading the scapula.
Focusing on breaking with the elbows and or lifting the ball out of the glove with the elbows in my opinion is important in achieving efficiency and loading.
Fleisig is careful to say that the horizontal shoulder abduction is not the issue; only that the amount of internal/external rotation of the pitching upper arm (timing) is the issue. So I don’t think it’s valid to say they want to go with a Mills-like “high cock” position concept. [/quote]
No I don’t think so. This is what Fleisig is purported to have said:
[quote]There is one moment in this sequence when both of Strasburg’s elbows are higher than his shoulders, as if he were locked in medieval village stocks. Many people have frozen that moment of his delivery and assigned it as the point of risk. That’s not entirely true.
The problem is the timing associated with that move, not the move itself. When Strasburg gets his elbows above his shoulders and the baseball is below or about even with his right shoulder, his stride foot is hitting the ground. The ball should be in the loaded position at that point, but because Strasburg uses the funky “high elbow” raise, he still has to rotate his arm above his shoulder to get it there. The energy from landing on his stride foot has passed too early to the shoulder and elbow – before the joints are ready to use it.
“It’s not a case of too much armpit angle,” Fleisig said, referring to the moment when the elbows are raised. “It’s that the arm hasn’t rotated yet.”[/quote]
There is no mention of scapula loading (horizontal shoulder abduction) or for that matter the inverted W (maybe he’s implying or hinting but doesn’t specifically use the terminology).
And secondly as shown from the video that I posted comparing Nolan Ryan and Strasburg, to my “uneducated eyes” I do not see Strasburg’s not having rotated yet.
One of the problems I’ve had for many years with attempt such as Fleisig’s to predict injury based upon his inverse dynamic analysis is it inability to predict what’s actually happening within the body. All I can do is calculate what torques and forces are occurring at the joints. There is no ability to predict exactly what the soft tissues are experiencing. All that can be said is that at the joint there is X or Y amount of force/torque.
[quote]Direct measurement of muscle forces in vivo is usually limited to minimally invasive measurements in superficial tendons such as the Achilles (Finni et al., 1998; Komi et al., 1992). Otherwise, in vivo measurements can be conducted in the operation room where a force transducer can be placed on a tendon, following data collection and the removal of the device before the completion of the surgery, e.g. flexor tendons of fingers during surgeries of carpal tunnel (Dennerlein et al., 1998; Dennerlein et al., 1999; Dennerlein, 2005; Schuind et al., 1992). Such approaches may not necessarily be feasible in a clinical setting; therefore such tendon force measurement techniques have been utilized mostly in research laboratories (Ravary et al., 2004; Fleming and Beynnon, 2004).
Non-invasive methods rely on the basic principle that muscles produce skeletal movement and ground reaction forces. Clearly, none of these observable variables provides information on any single muscle. Instead, a technique known as inverse dynamic analysis has been developed, based on computational modeling of the dynamics of linked body segments. The analysis produces estimates of joint torques, each of which represents the resultant action of all muscles crossing a joint. While inverse dynamic analysis has become a routine tool in clinical gait analysis (Vaughan et al., 1992; Winter, 2005), muscles are not represented and the approach provides no information on muscular load sharing, agonist– antagonist activity, energy transfer between joints via biarticular muscles, and dynamic coupling (van den Bogert, 1994; Zajac et al., 2002). Electromyograpy (EMG) data can support a clinical inverse dynamic analysis to more effectively interpret joint torques, but there are no estimates of individual muscle forces (Zajac et al., 2003).
Actual estimates of muscle forces can only be obtained with computational models in which the skeleton and muscles are both represented. Implemented in a variety of forms, musculoskeletal models have been used in conjunction with non-invasive measurements to obtain individual muscle forces during a number of movement tasks. Within the current article, we have attempted to critically evaluate those studies that have combined musculoskeletal models, optimization methods and movement data to estimate individual muscle forces. A review of literature is first provided with the necessary methodological background, followed by the applications of the various techniques with a discussion of limitations. Novel strategies that attempt to improve understanding of muscle function are also presented. We will conclude with recommendations, for clinical applications and for further research that may increase the applicability and validity of these techniques in clinical practice. [/quote]
The bottom line at least as far as I’m concerned is that throwing a baseball is a whole body effort. And all it takes is one small part of the kinetic sequence to be out of whack to totally screw things up. This includes what stress is applied to what parts of the muscular skeleton system. In other words all it takes a small change to dramatically affect the stress on connective tissue and joints. In other words the magnitude of what is happening may not change but how it actually is applied does potentially have a significant difference depending upon what precedes.
For example how many times have we heard about the player who can long toss 300+ feet which equates to 90+ mph at launch and yet has a hard time breaking 80 mph off the mound? It all comes back to something that I have preached for many years that the intent or the goal dictates how we use our body to achieve that goal.
As usual my not so humble opinions.