Softball players moved differently when they hit from a stationary tee and when they hit a front-toss pitch, according to a peer-reviewed study of 22 NCAA Division I players. The differences appeared in the lead knee, pelvis and trunk at different points in the swing. Front toss showed greater lead-knee flexion at foot contact and greater back-side trunk rotation at ball contact. Tee swings showed greater back-side trunk lateral flexion at foot contact and greater lead-side trunk and pelvis rotation during the follow-through. The study describes movement patterns, not evidence that one practice method produces better results in games.
A comparison built around the same players
Each player took five maximal-effort swings from each condition. The order of the tee and front-toss conditions was randomized, so every athlete served as his or her own comparison. The front-toss pitcher stood 9.14 metres away, and the average pitch velocity was 20.1 metres per second. The group included seven left-handed and 15 right-handed hitters. Reported group descriptors were 20.3 years of age, 166.6 centimetres in height and 68.0 kilograms in mass, with reported plus-or-minus spreads of 1.5 years, 6.3 centimetres and 7.5 kilograms.
Researchers tracked lead-knee flexion, pelvis rotation and several trunk movements at five swing events. In plain terms, they examined how much the knee bent, how the pelvis and torso turned, and how the torso leaned sideways or forward. The analysis crossed the two hitting conditions with the five events and used a repeated-measures test, which compares each athlete's conditions with their own other swings. The data were normalized to a right-handed hitting position. Differences were judged against a preset p-value threshold of 0.05, with a correction applied when a statistical assumption called sphericity was not met.
The differences changed across the swing
One broad result stood out: the gap between the two conditions changed with the stage of the swing. This condition-by-event interaction was statistically significant for lead-knee flexion, pelvis rotation, trunk lateral flexion and trunk rotation. The reported p-values were 0.043, 0.031, 0.001 and less than 0.001, respectively. It was not statistically significant for trunk flexion, where p was 0.053. The reported effect-size values for the four significant interactions were 0.110, 0.139, 0.276 and 0.351, respectively. In practical terms, the study did not find one simple tee-versus-front-toss difference that held across every moment.
At foot contact, front toss showed greater lead-knee flexion. The reported mean difference was 2.625, with a 95% confidence interval from 0.564 to 4.686 and p=0.015. At the same point, tee swings showed greater back-side trunk lateral flexion, with a mean difference of 3.771, a 95% confidence interval from 2.232 to 5.311 and p less than 0.001. The two conditions therefore moved in opposite directions on these two measures at foot contact.
At ball contact, front toss showed greater back-side trunk rotation. The mean difference was 6.14, with a 95% confidence interval from 1.02 to 11.27 and p=.021. The pattern changed again in the follow-through: tee swings showed greater lead-side trunk rotation, with a mean difference of 6.48, and greater lead-side pelvis rotation, with a mean difference of 2.05. The 95% confidence intervals were 1.26 to 11.70 for trunk rotation and 0.17 to 3.94 for pelvis rotation; the reported p-values were .017 and .034.
Movement findings are not performance results
The researchers say these contrasts may matter when coaches try to carry trunk mechanics from practice into competition. They recommend paying attention to that transfer, while presenting any improvement in swing outcomes as a possibility rather than a demonstrated result. The movement comparison did not directly test whether either practice condition improves batting performance.
The limits are important. All participants came from one team and shared its training regimen. Pitch locations during front toss were judged visually, which increased variability and makes any interpretation tied to pitch location tentative. Warm-up duration was not standardized. These constraints leave open whether the same movement differences would appear in other teams or whether they would matter for actual hitting outcomes. For now, the evidence is a comparison of body positions in 22 collegiate players, not a test of a training program.
Paper data and sources
Original title: Kinematic differences between hitting off a tee versus front toss in collegiate softball players
Authors: Washington J, Oliver G
Journal/Repository: International biomechanics
Status: Peer-reviewed
First online: 2026-10-12
DOI: Not available
Original paper · Full text