For decades, pitching discourse has framed stride strategy as a binary: tall and fall (TF) or drop and drive (DD). The implicit promise has been simple—pick the “right” style and velocity goes up while elbow stress stays down. Coaches, players, and even medical staff have used these labels to justify wholesale mechanical changes: stand taller to harness gravity, or sink deeper to create linear drive. But what if this framing is conceptually backward? What if the “better” strategy isn’t a category to join, but a profile to discover?

A 2024 in-game biomechanics study of 64 NCAA Division I pitchers used markerless motion capture and season-long fastball samples to evaluate how vertical center of mass (COM) displacement—a continuous marker of TF↔DD tendencies—relates to velocity and elbow valgus torque. Crucially, the researchers did not assign pitchers to TF or DD groups. Instead, they treated COM displacement above a stride-line trajectory as TF-like and below that line as DD-like, then modeled outcomes across the full spectrum.

The headline finding: both directions of vertical COM movement were associated with higher velocity, and neither direction increased elbow valgus torque after accounting for height and mass. The largest variance lived between pitchers, not within them. Translation: for velocity, stride strategy looks individual, not prescriptive—and for elbow load, it’s largely neutral.

The real question isn’t “Which is better?” It’s “Which are you?”

The Primary Problem

Binary categories are tempting. They tidy complexity and speed decisions. But pitching mechanics are continuous processes, not discrete buckets. When we force fluid variables into hard groups—especially ones with fuzzy cutoffs—we risk flattening the very relationships we’re trying to optimize.

The TF vs DD debate is a classic example. Different research teams have classified styles with different thresholds—pelvic trajectory here, lead-knee angle there, mixed groups somewhere in the middle. Every cutoff is arbitrary; any two-threshold system is an editorial decision imposed on a continuum. That’s a problem for applied performance because discrete labels invite style forcing—coaching an athlete into a bucket that may not match his structure, timing, or motor solution.

This study’s continuous approach avoids that trap. By modeling how much and when a pitcher’s COM rose above or fell below a straight stride-line trajectory—from peak knee height to stride foot contact (SFC)—the authors captured the actual spectrum pitchers use in games, not a simplified caricature.

Methods in Plain Language

• Population: 64 collegiate pitchers, 7 teams, 2023 season, right-hand dominant n=42, mean 90.7 mph fastball.
  
  
• Data collection: In-stadium 8-camera markerless motion capture (300 Hz), paired with ball tracking (TrackMan). Only competitive four-seam fastballs near the zone were analyzed; pitchers needed ≥4 tracked fastballs across the season to be included.
  
  
• Key variables:
  
  
  
  • Vertical COM displacement relative to a straight line from peak knee height to SFC.
    
    
    
    • Positive displacement = COM above the line (TF-like).
      
      
    • Negative displacement = COM below the line (DD-like).
      
      
  • Timing (% of stride phase when peak displacement occurred).
    
    
  • Outcomes: Fastball velocity and peak elbow valgus torque (external reference).
    
    
• Modeling: Multilevel (mixed) models using every fastball recorded across the season; covariates included height and mass to control anthropometric influences.
  
  

This is not a lab snapshot. It’s in-game, season-long, within-and-between pitcher analysis—a high bar for ecological validity.

Major Findings (Interpreted)

1. Velocity rose in both directions of COM travel.
   
   

• Each inch above the line (TF-like) → +0.54 mph (P < .001).
  
  
• Each inch below the line (DD-like) → +0.45 mph (P = .021).
  
  
• Interpretation: Vertical energy strategies—either storing gravitational potential (TF) or building early linear momentum (DD)—both support ball speed. The body can “buy” velocity with either tactic provided the rest of the chain coordinates.
  
  

2. Timing only mattered for TF-like motion.
   
   

• Later peak positive COM (closer to SFC) → additional velocity (P = .023).
  
  
• Timing of negative COM (DD-like) → no velocity effect (P = .36).
  
  
• Interpretation: TF benefits from late vertical energy release—think “stay tall, keep the pelvis riding high, then let it fall late.” DD’s benefit seems tied to magnitude more than timing—“get down early enough to load, then go.”
  
  

3. Elbow valgus torque did not change with COM strategy.
   
   

• Neither positive nor negative displacement nor timing predicted torque (P > .60).
  
  
• Height and mass increased torque; strategy did not.
  
  
• Interpretation: At the college level, anthropometrics drive torque far more than vertical stride strategy. TF and DD are not reliable injury risk levers for UCL load.
  
  

4. Most variance was between pitchers, not within.
   
   

• Adding COM variables reduced inter-pitcher variance more than intra-pitcher variance.
  
  
• Interpretation: Strategy appears structural—rooted in the pitcher’s build and ingrained movement solution—rather than a knob you can dial a little up or down each pitch to squeeze out speed.
  
  

What This Means (and What It Doesn’t)

• It means both TF and DD features can be velocity-positive when expressed in the right body.
  
  
• It means late TF-like vertical peak has an added velocity upside—if the pitcher can hold height through the stride and release it late.
  
  
• It means choosing TF or DD with the goal of reducing elbow torque is a category error—this study found no torque penalty either way once size is considered.
  
  
• It does not mean everyone should chase bigger vertical excursions. More is not universally better; it is context-dependent.
  
  
• It does not mean timing is irrelevant; it’s strategy-specific (late matters for TF, not for DD).
  
  
• It does not mean you can micro-tinker vertical COM pitch-to-pitch and expect immediate velocity returns. The effect lives primarily between athletes.
  
  

Mechanistic Lens: Why Both Sides Can Win

TF-like benefit: Holding a higher pelvis longer preserves gravitational potential energy and delays vertical-to-forward conversion. When that height collapses late—closer to SFC—hips translate and rotate with a sharper impulse; trunk gets a later “ride,” and distal segments (arm, forearm, hand) receive a more synchronized energy pulse. That is consistent with the finding that later positive COM peak adds velocity.

DD-like benefit: Earlier drive-leg flexion and COM drop allow the athlete to load the system sooner, increase stride speed, and achieve aggressive horizontal GRF toward the plate. Done well, this front-loaded momentum helps the pelvis cover ground faster and may create a longer time-under-tension window to align the trunk and arm—resulting in a different route to the same velocity destination.

Torque neutrality: Why no torque difference? In college pitchers with similar game-intent effort, net elbow load tends to scale with size and output, not vertical COM path. If vertical strategy simply re-times how energy is moved but doesn’t inflate the end-of-chain demand beyond what the athlete already produces, torque won’t budge.

The Individual Problem: Structure Before Style

The big lesson is fit. Vertical COM strategies are not interchangeable parts; they are the natural consequence of anthropometrics, strength qualities, coordination, and temporal preferences. Forcing a pitcher whose body “chooses” DD features into TF, or vice versa, risks breaking the coordination he uses to deliver the ball.

This aligns with the paper’s variance structure: strategy mattered more across athletes than within athletes. In other words, who you are matters more than what you try—especially in-season.

Practical Framework for Coaches and Pitchers

1) Profile First, Prescribe Second

• Measure vertical COM (or its reliable proxy) across several outings.
  
  
• Note magnitude and timing of positive peak (TF-like) and negative peak (DD-like).
  
  
• If a pitcher naturally shows larger positive peak late, he may be a TF-leaning mover; if he shows larger negative peak earlier, he may be DD-leaning. Most pitchers will feature both in some combination.
  
  

2) Align Drills With the Natural Strategy

• TF-leaning pitchers
  
  
  
  • Emphasis: ride height longer, delay collapse, “glide then drop.”
    
    
  • Drills: post-up rides, “tall carry” step-behind, counter-rotation holds that cue late vertical release.
    
    
  • KPIs: later positive peak timing, consistent trunk-hip timing near SFC, stable release height.
    
    
• DD-leaning pitchers
  
  
  
  • Emphasis: early load, strong drive, “down early then go.”
    
    
  • Drills: loaded hinge-to-stride, coil-and-fire med-ball work, early GRF feel.
    
    
  • KPIs: earlier negative peak timing paired with efficient forward COM travel, consistent stride speed.
    
    

3) Keep the Goal the Goal

• Do not use TF/DD to manage injury risk. This study found no influence on elbow valgus torque. Injury discussions belong to workload, recovery, size, velocity, and command variability, not vertical COM strategy.
  
  

4) Respect the Season

• Because the effect resides more between pitchers than within, wholesale vertical strategy changes in-season are unlikely to yield reliable gains and may disrupt execution. If you adjust, adjust off-season, and anchor to objective feedback (release metrics, movement shape, command spread).
  
  

5) Consider a Hybrid Cue: “Coil, Then Ride”

The authors note that pitchers exhibit both positive and negative peaks in the same pitch (negative early, positive later). Practically, that supports a hybrid idea: load low early (DD-like), then preserve height into a later release (TF-like). That pattern mirrors how elite movers often look in slow motion: a down-then-carry that merges both energy strategies without chasing labels.

Addressing Common Misconceptions

“TF hurts elbows; DD protects them.”

Not supported here. Once you control for height and mass, neither COM direction altered elbow valgus torque.

“Pick one style and push it to the max.”

The study found velocity benefits in both directions but emphasized that variance is between athletes. Maximizing your pattern beats mimicking someone else’s.

“If timing mattered for TF, I should force later peaks.”

Only if your body naturally supports TF-like features. Forcing “late height” in the wrong mover can compromise stride organization, timing, and command.

“This means everyone should change vertical COM.”

No. It means identify your vertical strategy, understand its strengths, and optimize around it. Fit, then refine.

How We’ll Use This at Velo University

Assessment

• Capture in-game or bullpen COM proxies via motion systems or consistent high-speed video landmarks (pelvis height relative to a fixed reference from peak knee to SFC).
  
  
• Document magnitude and timing of positive and negative peaks across multiple sessions to stabilize the profile.
  
  
• Pair with anthropometrics, stride speed, ground interaction cues, and pitch outcome metrics (velocity, release height, vertical/horizontal break, zone miss patterns).
  
  

Intervention

• TF-leaning pitchers: build capacity to maintain height under intent, rehearse late vertical release, and protect trunk-arm timing.
  
  
• DD-leaning pitchers: build early hinge strength and linear intent, emphasize “down-then-go,” and coordinate early GRF into a clean SFC arrival.
  
  
• Hybrids: train early coil plus late ride without over-cooking either; use constraints that elicit the sequence rather than verbal overload.
  
  

Validation

• Reassess vertical peaks and timing, plus command spread (standard deviation of miss height/arm-side miss), release stability, and velocity consistency.
  
  
• Confirm that any velocity changes do not carry a torque tax; use size-adjusted context when interpreting load.
  
  

Communication

• We will stop selling styles and start explaining profiles. Athletes need to hear: You don’t need to switch teams. You need to express your pattern better.
  
  

Closing

This study doesn’t crown a winner in the TF vs DD debate—it retires the debate. By modeling vertical COM as a continuum, it shows velocity can be driven by either late vertical ride (TF-like) or early coil and drive (DD-like), and that elbow torque is essentially strategy-agnostic once size is considered. The largest lever isn’t which side of the fence you’re on; it’s whether your stride strategy fits your build and timing.

The practical takeaway is liberating: stop forcing styles. Profile the mover in front of you, then build a plan around his natural solution. The right question isn’t “Which is better?” It’s “Which are you—and how do we make that excellent?”

References

Giordano, K. A., Nebel, A. R., Fava, A., & Oliver, G. D. (2024). Tall and fall versus drop and drive strategy in college baseball pitchers for velocity and elbow valgus torque. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 52(12), 3110–3117. https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465241279406