Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 29, 2025
Importance of Jumping Ability in Handball Throwing Speed and Accuracy
Published on: April 4, 2025
Feasibility of the pitch efficiency rating: A novel tool for systematic assessment of pitching mechanics in
Charles Kenyon1,2,3, Alex Beebe4, Kirk Easley5
1Department of Orthopaedics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Background:
Injuries in younger baseball athletes continue to increase despite work characterizing risk factors. Three-dimensional (3D) motion capture may identify suboptimal pitching mechanics that predispose an athlete to injury, but 3D-motion analysis is often inaccessible. Thus, there is a gap between the current biomechanics literature and its practical application in young athletes. The current study aims to assess the reliability of the pitch efficiency rating (PER) as a systematic tool to evaluate throwing mechanics in developing baseball pitchers.
Objective:
To determine the feasibility of application and reliability of a novel, scientifically informed tool (PER) for the assessment of pitching mechanics.
Design:
Reliability study using Bland-Altman methods for assessing agreement between two raters.
Setting:
Academic medical center through community outreach.
Participants:
Pitching mechanics were assessed and rated with the PER for 40 athletes (26 high school, 14 Division III), average age 19.0 years old (range 15.3-23.7 years old).
Interventions:
N/A.
Main Outcome Measures:
Interrater and intrarater reliability as calculated by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
Results:
For initial readings comparing interrater reliability between Rater 1 and Rater 2, the ICC was calculated at 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.89) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.60-0.86) for the second set of ratings. Regarding intrarater reliability across reads, ICC was found to be 0.63 (95% CI 0.43-0.79) for Rater 1, and 0.91 for Rater 2 (95% CI 0.85-0.95).
Conclusions:
The present study introduces the PER as a potential tool for evaluating pitching mechanics. However, the intrarater reliability of the PER did not meet preestablished criteria in one of the two pilot raters. Further study is needed to continue to assess the reliability of the tool across diverse demographics.
