A 2017 study published in The Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology examined how skilled baseball pitchers respond to different types of instructions under high-pressure conditions. Researchers Gray, Orn, and Woodman recruited experienced college pitchers and divided them into two groups. One group received standard target-focused instructions, essentially being told where to place the ball. The other group received what the researchers called ironic instructions, they were shown a target zone but also told explicitly about a forbidden zone they needed to avoid, a spot where the opponent was most dangerous. Both groups pitched under low-pressure and high-pressure conditions while researchers tracked their accuracy and analyzed their throwing mechanics using motion capture. What they found challenges some fundamental assumptions about how we coach under pressure and reveals two completely different pathways that lead to performance breakdowns in skilled athletes.

What the Study Found

Every pitcher in the study, regardless of which group they were in, showed decreased accuracy when the pressure was turned up. Target hit rates dropped significantly during high-stress trials across the board, which isn't surprising given what we already know about performance under pressure. But here's where it gets interesting. The two groups failed in completely different ways, and those differences tell us something important about what's happening in the brain when an athlete is trying to execute under stress.

The target-only group, the pitchers who were just told where to aim, showed significant mechanical breakdown when the pressure increased. Their throwing kinematics fell apart in measurable ways. Elbow flexion became more variable, lead foot placement scattered across a wider range, and the pitch-body axis deviated more from pitch to pitch. These aren't small technical details, they're indicators that the automatic motor program these athletes had built through thousands of repetitions was being disrupted. The pitchers were shifting from smooth, automatic execution to conscious, deliberate control of their mechanics, and that shift degraded their consistency. This pattern aligns perfectly with what's called reinvestment theory, the idea that under pressure, skilled athletes sometimes revert to consciously controlling movements that should be automatic, and that conscious intervention makes things worse.

The ironic group though, they showed something completely different. Despite being under the same high-pressure conditions, their mechanics didn't break down at all. No significant changes were observed in any kinematic variables across the different phases of the study. Their elbow angles stayed consistent, their foot placement remained stable, their body alignment through the delivery looked just as clean under pressure as it did in the low-stress trials. By all mechanical measures, these pitchers were still executing at an expert level. But here's the problem, they were consistently hitting the exact zone they'd been told to avoid. The forbidden zone, what the researchers called the ironic zone, got hit significantly more often during high-pressure trials, increasing from an average of 2.1 pitches in the low-pressure phase to 5.8 pitches when the stakes were raised. And this wasn't random error, the distribution of their misses clustered around that forbidden area in a way that couldn't be explained by chance. The pitchers were literally doing the one thing they'd been explicitly instructed not to do, and they were doing it while maintaining perfect mechanics.

This is what's known as ironic process theory, and it reveals something uncomfortable about how the human brain processes instructions under stress. When you tell someone not to think about something, when you highlight what needs to be avoided, you're actually increasing the cognitive load associated with that thing. The brain has to continuously monitor for the forbidden outcome, which paradoxically makes that outcome more likely. It's the classic example of being told not to think about a white bear, the moment you hear that instruction, you can't stop thinking about a white bear. In the context of pitching, telling an athlete "don't miss high" or "stay away from the middle of the zone" plants that exact location in their mind as something to monitor, and under pressure, when cognitive resources are already stretched thin, that monitoring process fails and the system defaults to the very thing it was trying to avoid.

Why This Information Is Important

To be honest, this reminds me of conversations I've had with coaches who genuinely believe they're helping athletes by pointing out dangers. The logic seems sound, if you tell a pitcher that the opponent crushes inside fastballs, you're giving them useful information, right? You're helping them make better decisions. But what this study shows is that the way you frame that information determines whether it helps or hurts. Avoidant instructions, the kind that emphasize what not to do, create a cognitive burden that becomes especially problematic when the athlete is already dealing with the mental demands of a high-pressure situation.

Think about what else is competing for cognitive resources during a critical at-bat. The pitcher is managing their breathing, reading the catcher's signs, accounting for the count and game situation, monitoring their fatigue levels, potentially dealing with runners on base, and trying to execute a movement pattern that requires precise timing across multiple body segments. Now add to that mix an instruction that essentially says "whatever you do, don't put the ball here." Every pitch, the athlete has to actively suppress the thought of that location, and suppression under cognitive load is notoriously unreliable. Research on motor imagery in baseball players with the throwing yips confirms this exact mechanism. A study of college players found that athletes struggling with yips showed significantly higher vividness of negative throwing-specific imagery, they could visualize wild throws with startling clarity, but their ability to generate positive imagery wasn't impaired. The problem wasn't that they couldn't imagine success, it was that they couldn't stop imagining failure. Simply layering positive imagery on top of those negative scripts proved insufficient, the negative imagery persisted and perpetuated a feedback loop of impaired performance. This is the same dynamic at play with ironic instructions. You can tell a pitcher where to aim all you want, but if you've also planted a vivid image of where not to miss, that negative image competes for attentional resources and often wins when the system is under stress.

The mechanical breakdown seen in the target-only group tells a different but equally important story. When these pitchers started consciously controlling their movements under pressure, their kinematics became more variable, which suggests they were no longer trusting the motor program they'd developed through years of practice. This phenomenon, reinvestment, happens when athletes shift from automatic execution to step-by-step conscious control. And here's the thing, conscious control is slow, it's resource-intensive, and it disrupts the fluid timing that defines high-level pitching. Research on perceived effort in baseball pitchers reveals just how unreliable conscious perception can be when it comes to motor execution. A study examining whether pitchers could accurately self-regulate their effort during long toss found a massive disconnect between what athletes thought they were doing and what was actually happening. When pitchers were instructed to throw at 50 percent perceived effort, they still generated 86 percent of their maximum elbow torque and 78 percent of their maximum velocity. Their conscious perception of effort was completely miscalibrated relative to the actual physical output. This matters because it shows that when you ask athletes to consciously modulate or control their movements, what they think they're doing and what their body is actually doing can be wildly different. The same principle applies to throwing under pressure. When a pitcher tries to consciously guide their mechanics because they're worried about making a mistake, they're essentially trying to manually control a system that's too fast and too complex for conscious oversight.

Another study examining reduced-effort pitching found that even when pitchers dialed back to 75 percent perceived effort, their elbows still absorbed 74 to 81 percent of the torque seen at full intensity. This reinforces the point that conscious attempts to modulate movement don't translate cleanly to actual biomechanical changes, and if conscious control can't even accurately reduce effort, how can we expect it to improve precision under pressure? The answer is we can't. Automatic execution, the kind that happens when you trust your training and let your body do what it's practiced thousands of times, is almost always more reliable than conscious intervention.

What makes the ironic group's preservation of mechanics so fascinating is that it suggests their external focus, even though it was pointing them toward the wrong target, protected them from the reinvestment problem. By giving their attention something external to latch onto, the avoidant instruction paradoxically prevented them from falling into the trap of overthinking their mechanics. Their bodies kept doing what they'd trained to do. The problem was their aim, not their execution. This mirrors findings from research on environmental stressors and performance. A study of professional baseball games played in extreme heat found that when apparent temperature exceeded 93 degrees Fahrenheit, pitching command deteriorated significantly. WHIP increased from 1.48 in cold conditions to 1.60 in extremely hot conditions, and pitchers threw fewer strikes overall. But here's the key detail, this wasn't because their mechanics broke down, it was because the cognitive and physiological demands of managing heat stress left fewer resources available for the fine motor control needed to hit precise locations. The mechanics stayed intact, the accuracy suffered. Sound familiar? It's the same pattern we see in the ironic group. When cognitive resources are taxed, whether by heat or by ironic instructions, the outcome suffers even when the movement quality doesn't.

There's also evidence that the physiological state of the nervous system plays a huge role in how athletes respond to pressure. Research tracking heart rate variability in professional starting pitchers showed that HRV was significantly suppressed for up to 48 hours after a start, indicating elevated sympathetic tone and reduced parasympathetic recovery. When the autonomic nervous system is still taxed, when the body hasn't fully shifted out of a stress-dominant state, performance under additional pressure becomes even more precarious. This suggests that pressure isn't just a psychological construct, it's a physiological one. An athlete's ability to execute under stress depends partly on whether their nervous system has the capacity to handle additional load. But here's where it gets hopeful, research on heart rate variability biofeedback shows that athletes can train their ability to regulate their autonomic response. A study of college baseball players found that just 10 days of HRV biofeedback training reduced cognitive anxiety and improved batting performance significantly. Hit percentage increased from 24.5 percent to 33 percent, and the improvement was accompanied by measurable changes in autonomic regulation. This tells us that while pressure creates real physiological challenges, those challenges aren't fixed. Athletes can build resilience through targeted training, and part of that resilience involves learning to manage attentional focus and avoid the traps that ironic and reinvestment processes create.

Interestingly, some research suggests that acute physiological interventions can also modulate performance under cognitive stress. A study examining the effects of nicotine gum in non-smoking baseball players found that while nicotine increased sympathetic activation, it also sharpened motor reaction time and improved hit percentage by nearly 35 percent. The mechanism appears to involve enhanced cognitive processing speed, essentially buying the athlete a few extra milliseconds to make decisions and execute movements. While I'm certainly not advocating for nicotine use, the study does highlight that the relationship between arousal, cognition, and motor performance is complex. Moderate increases in sympathetic tone aren't automatically bad, they can enhance certain aspects of performance, but only if the athlete isn't simultaneously dealing with conflicting instructions or trying to consciously override automatic processes.

Finally, there's evidence that cognitive load during movement screening can reveal vulnerabilities that predict performance under stress. A study using a dual-task single-leg step-down test with a cognitive Stroop component found that pitchers who showed increased transverse-plane motion of the trunk during the cognitive load condition were nearly three times more likely to generate high elbow torque with lower velocity. The cognitive challenge exposed movement inefficiencies that weren't apparent under normal conditions. This suggests that how an athlete responds to divided attention, essentially how well they can maintain movement quality while managing additional cognitive demands, may predict how they'll handle the attentional challenges of high-pressure game situations. If a pitcher struggles to stabilize their core while simultaneously processing a cognitive task in a controlled testing environment, they're likely to struggle even more when they're facing a hitter with runners in scoring position and trying to process multiple sources of information, including potentially contradictory instructions about where not to miss.

How Can This Information Be Applied

If you're coaching pitchers, the first and most important application is this, be ruthlessly intentional about how you frame instructions, especially in pressure situations. Stop telling athletes what to avoid and start emphasizing what you want them to do. Instead of saying "don't leave it up in the zone," say "keep it down." Instead of "don't miss over the middle," say "work the edges." This isn't just semantic wordplay, it's a neurologically distinct instruction that changes where the athlete's attention goes. Approach-oriented language directs focus toward a desired outcome, while avoidant language forces the brain to continuously monitor for an undesired one, and monitoring under pressure is cognitively expensive and unreliable.

This principle extends beyond just verbal cues. If you're using video analysis or showing pitchers spray charts of where hitters do damage, frame that information in terms of opportunities rather than threats. Show them where the hitter struggles, not just where the hitter crushes. Give them a target to attack, not a danger zone to avoid. The goal is to create a clear picture of success in the athlete's mind, not a vivid image of failure that they have to actively suppress.

For athletes dealing with performance anxiety or movement disruptions like the yips, the research on motor imagery offers a clear path forward. Don't just pile on positive visualization and hope it drowns out the negative imagery. You have to directly address the negative scripts. This might involve guided rescripting exercises where the athlete visualizes the feared outcome, acknowledges it, and then consciously rewrites the ending. It might involve exposure-based training where the athlete practices in progressively more challenging conditions to build confidence that they can handle the thing they're afraid of. The key insight is that unresolved negative imagery doesn't disappear just because you ignore it. It sits there in the background, consuming cognitive resources and waiting to surface when the athlete is under stress.

HRV biofeedback training is another practical tool worth considering, especially for athletes who consistently struggle under pressure. The research shows that even short interventions, 10 days of 20-minute sessions, can produce measurable improvements in both autonomic regulation and performance outcomes. This isn't about eliminating stress, it's about building the physiological capacity to handle stress more effectively. Athletes learn to recognize when their nervous system is ramping up and develop strategies to bring it back into a more balanced state. Over time, this creates a buffer that allows them to perform better when the stakes are high. The beauty of HRV training is that it's low-cost, non-invasive, and highly individualizable. You can track an athlete's baseline and monitor how they respond to different interventions in real time.

On the mechanical side, the findings around reinvestment suggest that you need to build robust, automatic motor programs that can withstand the interference of conscious attention. This means spending time in practice working under conditions that simulate the cognitive and emotional demands of competition. Don't just throw bullpens in silence with no consequences. Create situations where the athlete has to execute while managing distractions, processing information, or dealing with simulated pressure. The goal is to train the motor program to run automatically even when the athlete's conscious mind is busy with other things. If an athlete only practices in clean, quiet, low-stakes environments, they're not preparing their system to handle the chaos of competition.

It's also worth paying attention to perceived effort and understanding its limitations. The research showing that pitchers at 50 percent perceived effort are still generating 86 percent of maximum torque should make coaches very cautious about relying on subjective cues during rehab or return-to-throw progressions. If you're telling an athlete to throw at "half speed" or "easy effort" and assuming that translates to proportionally reduced stress on the arm, you're likely wrong. Use objective measures whenever possible, radar guns, wearable sensors, video analysis, anything that gives you actual data rather than relying solely on how the athlete feels. This doesn't mean perceived effort is useless, it can still give you insight into the athlete's mental state and their sense of control, but don't treat it as an accurate reflection of biomechanical reality.

Finally, consider the role of environmental and physiological stressors in your planning. If you know a pitcher is going to compete in extreme heat, or if they're coming off a heavy workload and their HRV data suggests they haven't fully recovered, adjust your expectations and your instruction accordingly. An athlete whose system is already taxed has less capacity to manage the additional cognitive load of complex or avoidant instructions. In those situations, keep your cues simple, positive, and focused on one clear outcome. Don't overload them with information they have to process while also managing their mechanics and reading the game situation.

Conclusion

Performance breakdowns under pressure aren't all created equal. Some athletes lose their mechanics as they shift from automatic execution to conscious control. Others maintain perfect form but consistently hit the exact target they're trying to avoid. The difference often comes down to how the instruction was framed, whether the athlete was given a clear goal to pursue or a danger to suppress. Both pathways lead to failure, but they do so through completely different mechanisms, and understanding those mechanisms changes how we coach.

The ironic process research should fundamentally alter how we communicate with athletes in high-stakes situations. Every time you tell a pitcher what not to do, you're planting a cognitive load that has to be managed, and under pressure, that management often fails. The result is an athlete whose body executes beautifully but whose ball ends up in exactly the wrong spot. Meanwhile, the reinvestment research reminds us that even well-intentioned athletes can sabotage themselves by trying too hard to control movements that should be automatic. The conscious mind, no matter how skilled, can't outperform a well-trained motor program when the task requires speed and precision.

The path forward requires intentionality at every level. Frame your instructions to emphasize approach rather than avoidance. Build motor programs that can run automatically even when cognitive resources are divided. Train athletes to regulate their nervous system response to stress. Use objective measures to validate what athletes think they're doing. And most importantly, recognize that the way you communicate in pressure situations isn't just about strategy, it's about protecting the athlete's ability to access the skills they've worked so hard to develop. The mind doesn't suppress under pressure, it obeys. Make sure you're giving it the right commands.

References

1. Gray R, Orn A, Woodman T. Ironic and Reinvestment Effects in Baseball Pitching: How Information About an Opponent Can Influence Performance Under Pressure. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2017;39(1):3-12.
2. Yeh CY, Cauraugh JH. Motor imagery ability in baseball players with throwing yips. J Sport Rehabil. 2023;33(1):35-41.
3. Chang WD, Gao JY, Chen FC, Huang ZY, Lin YJ. The Impact of Heart Rate Variability Biofeedback on Anxiety Reduction and Batting Performance Enhancement in Taiwan University Baseball Players. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. 2024;49(4):637-645.
4. Sonne MW, Keir PJ. Baseball Pitchers' Perceived Effort Does Not Match Actual Measured Effort During a Structured Long-Toss Throwing Program. Sports Biomech. 2020 [Epub ahead of print].
5. Boddy KJ, Marsh JA, Caravan A, Lindley KE, Smith DJ, O'Connell ME. Changes in Elbow Stress and Ball Velocity During Reduced Effort Pitching: A Marker-Based Motion Capture Analysis. Sports Biomech. 2023;22(1):76-88.
6. Parks PS, Taguchi T, Naito H, Fujii N, Shiraki H, Yamashita M, Kurosawa S, Tochihara Y, Gerrett N. Influence of Hot Environment on Pitching and Hitting Performance in Professional Baseball. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2021;16(10):1484-1492.
7. Fang SH, Lu CC, Lin HW, Kuo KC, Sun CY, Chen YY, Chang WD. Acute Effects of Nicotine on Physiological Responses and Sport Performance in Healthy Baseball Players. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(3):1813.
8. Carson EW, Orishimo KF, McHugh MP, Kremenic IJ, Fleisig GS, O'Brien SJ, Niven GS, Mullaney MJ. Association Between Lumbopelvic Stability During a Single-Legged Step Down and Elbow-Varus Torque During Baseball Pitching. Am J Sports Med. 2025;53(2):389-397.
9. Buchheit M, Racinais S, Bilsborough J, Bourdon PC, Voss SC, Hocking J, Cordy J, Mendez-Villanueva A, Coutts AJ. Resting Heart Rate Variability Among Professional Baseball Starting Pitchers. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30(5):1280-1285.