Why More Data Won’t Solve the Pitching Injury Crisis — Unless We Account for One Crucial Variable

A recent study looked at 87 elite college pitchers and concluded that sidearm throwing results in less stress on the elbow and shoulder than overhand throwing — without sacrificing velocity.

An intriguing conclusion:

And yet…

As I write this piece, yet more cases of Tommy John surgeries are being reported.

It’s becoming almost routine.

The numbers continue to rise daily, reaching unprecedented levels in Major League Baseball.

The trend doesn’t stop at the big leagues — reports now indicate a sharp rise in Tommy John surgeries across the Minor Leagues as well.

Even more alarming, coaches, trainers, and insiders are using phrases like: “It’s shocking how many players are having TJ surgeries.

It’s a trend. And it’s a dangerous one.

At the same time, I heard an MLB front office executive proudly say, “New technology is finally helping us manage workloads properly, and the reduction in arm injuries is starting to show.”

That sounds promising — but it doesn’t add up.

Despite all the biomechanical tools, wearables, high-speed cameras, and AI analytics, injuries keep rising.

So the question is:

Are we even looking at the right variables?

📊 What Did the Study Measure?

The study compared sidearm and overhand pitchers on biomechanical parameters:

• Elbow torque: 6.0% in sidearm vs. 6.7% in overhand
  
• Shoulder load: 5.8% in sidearm vs. 6.6% in overhand
  
• Average velocity: 86.3 mph in both groups
  
• Efficiency: Sidearm pitchers generated more velocity per unit of stress

Based on these numbers, one might say:

“Let’s promote sidearm pitching — it’s healthier and just as effective.”

But here’s the critical question:

Are we measuring what truly matters, or just what’s measurable?

❓ What Don’t We Know About These 87 Pitchers?

Nobody seems to ask:

• Were these players throwing sidearm or overhand based on their natural preference?
  
• Did their current arm slot develop from personal flow, or was it coached and forced?
  
• Did their technique align with their unique motor structure, or were they biomechanically adjusted to fit an ‘ideal’?
  
• Have their motor preferences ever been assessed at all?

If the answer to these questions is no, then the whole study is built on quicksand.

Because: Without the context of motor preferences, biomechanical data are fundamentally unreliable.

🧬 The Biggest Mistake: Treating Humans Like Biomechanical Machines

The word ‘biomechanics’ sounds scientific but creates a dangerous misconception — that the body acts like a predictable robot.

If we just measure, calibrate, and correct enough, we’ll find the ‘perfect’ movement.

That’s an illusion.

Humans are not biomechanical machines.I wa

We are neurobiological beings. Which means:

• Movement arises from intention
  
• Personal preference systems guide movement
  
• Movement adapts through real-time sensory feedback

Biomechanical analysis looks backwards. It measures the result, not the cause.

It’s like measuring exactly how fast and hard a pianist presses keys — it tells you nothing about their musicality, intent, or style, and nothing about what should be changed.

🧩 The Missing Variable: Motor Preferences

Every athlete has a unique motor preference blueprint. According to ActionTypes principles, there are four major motor skill families (global, distal, rhythmical, and conceptual), and two key immutable parameters:

• Vertical vs. horizontal orientation
  
• High vs. low mobile point in the spine

Together, these factors determine:

• How a player naturally moves
  
• Where their energy flows optimally
  
• How do they generate power most easily and safe
  
• And crucially, their healthiest, most efficient arm slot

The Painful Truth:

Forcing a Pitcher Out of Their Natural Motor Blueprint Is Like Throwing With the Brakes On

This isn’t a metaphor. The body actively adapts when forced into unnatural movement patterns.

Recently, an MLB front office executive pointed out:

“Throwing heavier baseballs reduces force because the arm moves more slowly, which reduces torque.

Ofcourse it does!

Because the body protects itself.

It lowers output when the input structure feels unsafe.

The motion slows, power decreases, and the system pulls back — all in self-defence.

🚨 Injuries Happen When There’s a Disconnect

What we see today is a dangerous pattern:

• Pitchers are mechanically ‘reshaped’ toward biomechanical averages
  
• Coaches teach an ‘ideal arm slot’ or conform to the ‘pitch design’
  
• Analysts compare athletes with fundamentally different internal structures

The result?

• Loss of flow
  
• Increased system tension
  
• Micro-compensations that lead to injuries

Tommy John and shoulder surgeries are rising — yet we keep saying “we need more data.”

🧠 Biomechanics Shows What — Motor Preferences Explain Why

As long as we rely solely on biomechanics without accounting for individual preferences, we will keep drawing the wrong conclusions.

So the outcome is predictable:

• One pitcher thrives after a biomechanical intervention
  
• Another gets injured
  
• The study calls it “no significant average effect”

But remember:

Averages are meaningless when you test Ferraris and golf carts together.

🔁 The Real Game-Changer Isn’t More Tech — It’s Better Interpretation

We don’t lack data.

We lack understanding.

And above all, we lack respect for the body’s internal logic.

Pitching isn’t a math problem solved by numbers.

It’s a neurological art form that emerges from flow, preference, and variation.

🎯 Time for a Paradigm Shift

Want to reduce injuries, boost performance, and truly personalise player development?

It doesn’t start with motion capture, spin rate, or average torque data.

It starts with:

• Understanding how an athlete moves
  
• Knowing why they move that way
  
• Training in harmony with their natural system

Only then do numbers gain meaning.

And only then can we build pitchers from the inside out.