Similar looking actions, almost same anatomical dispositions, and yet so so different. If you warn to learn more then this article is for you.


This discussion took place on one of Ryan’s LinkedIn posts between Ryan L. Crotin, PhD, CSCS, RSCC, founder of ArmCare.com, and myself, Umesh Chhikara Sports Scientist (https://umeshchhikara.com/about/).

Before this conversation, Ryan and I had several interactions and discussions, and we hold great respect for each other’s work and perspectives. However, as researchers, our shared goal is to pursue an injury-free life for sportspeople, specifically focusing on baseball pitchers and fast bowlers. Naturally, our discussions delve deep into the realm of science as we seek clues to achieve our ultimate objective of making these sports safer from injuries.

Its long but well explained. I promise anybody who is reading this will gain some insights on both baseball pitching and fast bowling. For many of you who prefer a concise version, here are the conclusions we aim to defend through our discussions.

Ryan L. Crotin: Throwing arm injuries occur due to weakness in the arm, causing it to strain and sprain. To prevent injuries, evaluating throwing arm strength is crucial. Ryan explained his theory based on his research and case studies conducted on baseball pitchers.

Umesh Chhikara: Could injuries be more related to lack of recovery and fatigue in the structure rather than lack of strength? I am confident about this for fast bowlers but unsure about baseball pitchers. This factor, along with training, might play a significant role in causing injuries. #recovery. Umesh defended his theory using his own research and case studies on fast bowlers. Additionally, Umesh highlighted the anatomical differences between pitching and fast bowling.

Conclusion: Ultimately, both of us agreed that the training and strength requirements for pitching and fast bowling are distinct. We also reached a consensus to collaborate on research together

Hope you enjoy the discussion:

Article by Ryan: https://blog.armcare.com/the-great-debate-part-iii/

Umesh Chhikara reply:

Interesting Ryan. Good work. Here is cut and paste from an article I wrote a year back:

“The science of biomechanics can be used to optimize movements, but it’s essential to preserve some aspects of natural movement that are best suited to our anatomy.”

Here is the article if you like to read which is precisely on the same subject:

https://umeshchhikara.com/2022/11/30/should-we-change-the-biomechanics/

Also, in my world, I don’t call it strength because its not brute strength at play! Its power generation through the movement. This is why we find athletes in all shapes and size. There are lean athletes who can generate power more than their counterparts who look solid. Do you agree?

Ryan’s reply:

I do agree that power is a critical piece, but remember, the relationship in equating higher power is to increase force and velocity, force being strength, velocity being the speed application of strength. In powerlifting methodology, they train at extremes, hypertrophy in the middle to promote power. Obviously training approaches are tailored to individuals, their biological development, injury history and training age, but strength matters most. It has to…As another example, with increased max strength, the relative neurological requirement is reduced. Imagine squating 400 lbs, but you only need 200 lbs to compete on the field, you are taxing yourself at 50% of your maximum recruitment threshold. Now think about increasing your squat to 700 lbs, but you only need 200 lbs to compete on the field, you have further reduced the competitive load in relation to your highest neural recruitment. Do I think athletes need to be 450+ squatters or benchers, no, but they have to be relatively strong.

Effectively, stronger athletes relative to their bodies are harder to kill. i do believe absolute metrics are more influential of performance characteristics (ie. throwing velocity), but when it comes to strength, relative strength is what reduces the likelihood of injuries and puts everyone on the same playing field to truly determine which athletes are strong and which athletes are not regardless of anthropometrics. Other individual features that may slant our opinion of strength (aka the huge pitcher at 6’5″ 275 lbs)…you will be amazed how relatively weak their throwing arms are…trust me, I have seen 100s of athletes that people consider “strong”, but are really weak and to your point of strength, they do not have the force component in the throwing velocity equation, they use stretch more than muscular recruitment and overtime, the rubber bands get worn out so to speak and power actually suffers – you will see this on a Force-Velocity Curve as well when an athlete becomes too speed dependent. Much too much to talk about in a comment, but this is another great debate – does force matter in developing power? Some would argue it doesn’t matter, but Sir Isaac Newton says otherwise.

Umesh’s reply:

Thanks Ryan. I agree with the concept of strength as you have explained it. However, my take on the subject is that most athletes I have come across possess the required strength, and the problem lies in optimizing that strength. As for muscle recruitment, you are right again, but it’s not strength. At least for fast bowlers.

In cricket, most of these lean bowlers with swift action would have less muscle recruitment. However it is not because they do not have the requisite strength. It’s because of how their structure is adapted to their swift, repeated actions. It is a question of biomechanics to me, and we both agree that it is not advisable to change that unless it is leading to injury again and again. However, your strength point is valid, and those who are weak should improve it for sure, and it will show on the muscle recruitment chart. After all, power is only generated until the muscle can take the demand without fatigue.

It is their athletic ability & swift action that makes makes their action more s stretchy-looking, as you said. Those who went on to gain muscle mass broke up very soon.The most efficient bowlers with beautiful action are getting injured very soon. And I bet it is not a lack of strength.

Anatomy plays a role in our thinking, and while you may be right about baseball, I can also provide examples from cricket. Let us first understand the difference:

In baseball pitching, the action is designed to align with our anatomical layout – from the spinalis, LAT, to the rhomboids, mid-trapezius, rotator cuff, posterior and anterior deltoids, pectoralis, and finally finishing at the obliques. The pitching action aims to generate maximum force from each muscle involved. Some may argue that our spinal rotator muscles are too small to handle rotational forces, but this is compensated by the large gluteal muscles. Overall, it’s a well-designed action to produce maximum force from each muscular engagement, you would agree. Then how could it be harmful? Maybe we overload it?

On the other hand, cricket bowling is a uniquely designed action that leverages the biomechanics of our spine and muscles while minimizing harm. It’s not as straightforward from an anatomical standpoint as baseball pitching. Consequently, if you consider the amount of total strength utilized by a muscle in pitching, it is considerably less in bowling due to the action’s anatomical nuance.

This is why the average speed for fast bowlers hovers around 83 miles per hour, while baseball pitchers often average above 92/93 miles per hour. There is a substantial difference between the two actions, despite their anatomical similarities with different movement/motor patterns, of course.

Regarding your analogy, because of the action’s complexity, fast bowling requires less muscle strength compared to pitching. For example, a fast bowler may be extremely lean but possess a biomechanically correct and fluent action (most lean athletes seem to have this advantage, based on my experience). Let’s say a fast bowler has a strength level of 10 in their legs; they may only need to utilize 3 units of strength. In my live case studies, I have found that if we optimize the existing strength then we make it more efficient. Competitive load at 30% to 40% can be leveraged from existing strength in my studies and experience. Not just that, we can continue to improve (without adding more strength) by making movements more efficient in my studies.

For instance, I train at the gym using around 70% of my 1RM (12 to 15 reps), and I don’t feel fatigued at all. Sometimes, when lost in a thought, I even forget which body part I trained the previous day. Whereas on days when I train at 75%/80%, I feel it in that body part for little while longer. So, I believe we can optimize strength and easily reach up to 50% of our total relative muscular strength without needing to add more. Furthermore, here are my questions that I want to understand genuinely:

What leads us to believe that sporting actions, which engage the entire body in pitching and bowling, do not strengthen the musculature but rather weaken it?

Analogy: our muscles have x budget to spend. Suppose we spend 90% of X by the end of day. We relax and recover. Next day we are again standing at X. In fact, by practicing and playing we are making it X+ provided we recover fully.

Let’s consider the arm swing – all the muscles of the arm are engaged in this action. If a muscle contracts repeatedly, aren’t we training the muscle? From my perspective, we are training all the arm muscles through what I would call a compound exercise. The same applies to the legs.

Do we lose strength at the end of day?

Yes.

But why do we treat as we have lost strength and unless we gain it, it wont come back. Aren’t we gaining relative strength physiologically? May be less comparatively if the same effort was put in gym, but gaining strength none the less.

Is it because we think contracting muscles on the field is ‘expending’ and contracting the same muscles at the gym is ‘building’. And unless we keep building, our muscle will dry otu of strength.

But how?

The action may allow for typical contraction, eccentric, and isometric demands but it is still training the musculature. What makes us believe it doesn’t? What’s the physiological explanation to this? I would love to learn this.

Yes, after a certain number of games, we experience muscle burnout and fatigue. Could this burnout be due to a lack of strength? Yes. But we gain it back after recovery. Net-net, it’s not of strength. It is the use of strength

Otherwise, we are asking a tired musculature (already trained through pitching) to train differently at the gym. It’s the same bunch of poor muscles. But why do we want to break them? Can we gain strength in fatigued musculature? How much recovery time does a player need to restore their body? Could this recovery time improve if we didn’t focus solely on strength? I know answers of these questions for fast bowlers, but it would be good to hear your perspective regarding baseball players.

Of course, I understand that you are not referring specifically to training times. However, it’s important to consider that continuous strength training can increase the risk of injuries which matters to your studies on strength and injuries. For example, in fast bowling, the muscle contribution from each muscle group is less, and the training obtained from practicing and playing the sport provides sufficient strength. In such a scenario, recovery becomes crucial. In my studies, the evidence suggest that it’s about making oneself more efficient in the bowling action, which translates into a recovered state the next day and helps delay the onset of fatigue.

Can’t this work for baseball pitchers? What do you think?

So, could the key lie in recovery for players who do not theoretically lack strength but still get injured? Can relaxation bring strength to fatigued musculature? Yes, absolutely 100% in the case of fast bowlers. Pool sessions, ice baths, and manual therapy alone may not be sufficient for recovery, particularly in the middle of the season. Players need recovery sessions to relax both their musculature and the nervous system at large. And when they receive these recovery sessions, they refuse to break. I have demonstrated this time and again, hence the thought.

Perhaps baseball players also require proper recovery sessions, which can decrease the number of injuries to players who have decent relative strength. Something that relaxes them mentally and physically. I refer to these as relaxation sessions. And I and hundreds of athletes would vouch for the fact that it works.

Sorry…but I had to finish what I started 🙂

Thanks for your insights and I continue to learn from you.

Ryan’s reply:

these are all great insights that you have raised. As you mentioned, there are fundamental differences between cricket bowling and pitching. Both obvious in energy generation. In pitching, gravitational stored energy is the predominant energy source initially, the COM is raised higher from the ground. In cricket, kinetic energy is the initial requirement followed by a brief instant of gravitational energy in the hind foot contact going into the terminal block. Due to the body speed requirement for cricket bowling, an athlete with a larger BMI, bigger muscle mass (potentially more force driven like a gorilla, less like a cheetah) does not perform as well. However, I played winter baseball in Australia and witnessed former rugby players bowl above your average velocity. Because they required greater acceleration, their absolute strength was important to increase their relative strength. A lighter bowler with low BMI does not…long lanky, more fasically- driven. Strength qualities are unique to the body and what is needed to perform well. There are limiting effects of both strength and velocity. For example, if an athlete attempts increased throwing power by faster COM speed, they may lose accuracy.

The speed accuracy tradeoff is real and to handle the increases speed needs tremendous lead leg block strength to stabilize the COM and keep on target. Cricket and baseball are not apples to apples, yet when we look at relative strength, that may be seen in cricket to have on average stronger arms due to lower body mass. In that case, they may not need an increase in absolute strength by comparison to pitchers who start in a low inertial position, must maintain co-contraction and likely slower delivery times after foot contact (about 150ms in a pitcher).

I have worked with athletes of a variety of strength qualities. Did a study on arm injuries internally with one MLB team looking at pitching press strength. If athletes could not press 50% of their body weight, they had an 80% chance of being on the IL list. The beautiful thing about working for an injury-laden team is that you have plenty of injury data to study.

Here’s what else I noted in MLB and that we see time and time again. Our ArmScore (% body weight throwing arm strength) is correlated to our Fatigue Score (% fresh strength). Athletes who have over 90% body weight strength in their arms generally have over 90% strength after pitching in games. I have even seen huge increases with athletes meeting our minimums with small increases in relative strength as their energetic and neurologic costs reduce and in a lot of cases, the athletes are potentiated to be stronger after pitching than rest. That is my measure for neurological efficiency is strength comparison pre and post competition….have you evaluated that in cricket? That could be seen as the same. Similarly, I add a layer to it and we educate on it in the updated Certified ArmCare Specialist course in evaluating neuromechanical efficiency which combines neurological efficiency and accuracy ratings. Again, relatively stronger athletes prevail.

You mentioned “optimization” and “efficiency” a few times. Can you share with me how you quantify those elements with objective data?

Umesh’s reply:

Very interesting, Ryan. Thanks for sharing your insights. There is always something to learn.
Let’s start with the trade-off between speed and accuracy – I have worked with bowlers who have increased their speed from 132 km/hr to 145 km/hr, and with more time, we could have touched 150 km/hr. However, I haven’t trained a bowler beyond that speed yet, so I can’t speak about speeds beyond 150 km/hr. It does seem possible to me with adequate time and training. Nonetheless, not every cricketer can bowl that fast; there’s a limit to what their anatomy allows given anatomical nuances in fast bowling. Some bowlers’ upper limit might be 135/140 km/hr. Therefore, the speed-accuracy trade-off comes into play in cricket when we try to increase a bowler’s speed either too quickly through strength training or beyond their capacity, which lead to injuries. My case studies prove that additional strength has no role to play in fast bowling. It’s not just about speed in cricket; accuracy is more important. Often, speed is an automated outcome of efficient machinery.

I found the data on pitching press strength intriguing. It’s very interesting.

Strength comparison – You are absolutely right; as relative strength increases, there is a decrease in the energetic and neurologic components. This is how I define efficiency.

Fact: Cricket, like MLB, has a long season (around 6 to 7 months, from preparation for trials to finishing the season) during which many bowlers either suffer injuries or experience fatigue, necessitating rest. Fast bowlers, in particular, bowl for approximately 8 to 9 months throughout the year.

Now, given the above stat, how do I quantify efficiency and optimization? I analyze four key components:

1) On-ground stamina: This involves considering the number of overs a fast bowler bowls and how well their body copes. It’s crucial to note that cricket is a prolonged game, and a fast bowler may be required to stand on the ground all day during a match. Hence, it’s not just the act of bowling that tires them; fatigue accumulates.

2) Fatigue: I assess the level of fatigue experienced by the bowler on day to day and post match

3) Recovery: I observe whether the bowler can fully recover by the morning of the next match.

4) Consistency: This applies to both their existing speed and accuracy in their bowling.

In my perspective, all four aspects are intertwined. Bowling stamina directly influences fatigue levels, which, in turn, dictate recovery. Ultimately, all four factors contribute to the bowler’s overall efficiency.

And if a bowler shows improvement in speed as they play more matches without the need for additional strength, then that is optimization of their existing strength. And when this happens every season for years right under my eyes while staring at injuries everywhere else; it becomes a hard evidence.

Having said all this…I would love to engage with you on a research project on this for study purposes sometime. You take the strength route and I will take the non-strength route for 4 weeks. Let’s see how much difference it factually makes in speed, muscle recruitment, etc. when subjects are given proper recovery sessions with training.

Regarding rugby players, they are indeed strength-oriented athletes, and we see a similar trend in cricket. Fast bowlers who focus more on strength training tend to use their shoulders more, disrupting the kinetic/circuitry balance and leading to injuries most definitely. However, pitching is a different beast, as we both agree. Nevertheless, it’s still an interesting insight.