Content uploaded by Christopher J Simenz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Christopher J Simenz on Jun 05, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
538
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2005, 19(3), 538–546
q2005 National Strength & Conditioning Association
S
TRENGTH AND
C
ONDITIONING
P
RACTICES OF
M
AJOR
L
EAGUE
B
ASEBALL
S
TRENGTH AND
C
ONDITIONING
C
OACHES
W
ILLIAM
P. E
BBEN
,M
ARILYN
J. H
INTZ
,
AND
C
HRISTOPHER
J. S
IMENZ
Department of Physical Therapy, Program in Exercise Science, Marquette University, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin 53201.
A
BSTRACT
.Ebben, W.P., M.J. Hintz, and C.J. Simenz. Strength
and conditioning practices of Major League Baseball strength
and conditioning coaches. J. Strength Cond. Res. 19(3):538–546.
2005.—This study describes the results of a survey of the prac-
tices of Major League Baseball strength and conditioning (MLB
S&C) coaches. The response rate was 70.0% (21 of 30). This sur-
vey examines (a) background information, (b) physical testing,
(c) flexibility development, (d) speed development, (e) plyome-
trics, (f) strength/power development, (g) unique aspects, and (h)
comments. Results indicate, in part, that coaches assess an av-
erage of 3.6 parameters of fitness, with body composition testing
being the most commonly assessed parameter. All coaches use
a variety of flexibility development strategies. All coaches use
speed development strategies, with form running drills being the
most common. Twenty of 21 (95.2%) coaches employ plyometric
exercises with their athletes. Eighteen of 21 (85.7%) of MLB
S&C coaches follow a periodization model (PM). Five of 21 coach-
es (23.8%) indicated that their athletes use Olympic-style lifts.
The squat and its variations and the lunge and its variations
were most frequently identified as the first and second most im-
portant exercises used to train the athletes. This survey provides
detailed information about strength and conditioning practices
at the most competitive level of baseball and serves as a review,
as well as a source of applied information and new ideas.
K
EY
W
ORDS
. periodization, speed, power, agility, professional,
program design
I
NTRODUCTION
Numerous sources, including anecdotal reports,
research, and surveys, have studied and rec-
ommended various components of strength
and conditioning programs for the physical
development of baseball players. For example,
anecdotal recommendations exist for conditioning (3, 5,
15), periodized conditioning (2), testing (31), flexibility
(14), and warm-up (34) for baseball players.
In addition to anecdotal recommendations, research
has evaluated the injury rates of Major League Baseball
players (1), the effects of preseason conditioning on col-
legiate baseball players (29), the effects of long-term fit-
ness programs on professional baseball players (16), body
composition and flexibility characteristics of college ver-
sus professional baseball players (9), and body composi-
tion and running speed of professional baseball players
(4). Several studies have evaluated the effect of various
training programs on throwing velocity (7, 12, 18, 19, 21)
and other performance variables (25), while others have
assessed the physiological responses to a single game of
baseball pitching (24). Researchers have also evaluated
the effects of various training programs on base running
speed (21) and have studied several aspects of batting (22,
27, 32). In addition to qualitative research, other sources
have used surveys to obtain practical knowledge of pro-
fessional practices.
Surveys have examined strength and conditioning
programs of college (6, 8, 13, 20, 26, 30, 33) and profes-
sional athletes and coaches (10, 11). However, surveys of
baseball strength and conditioning practices are limited
to 1 survey of strength and conditioning services for pro-
fessional athletes in 4 sports including baseball (28). Ul-
timately, strength and conditioning practices may be op-
timal when research is combined with practical knowl-
edge of professional practices. No source has examined
baseball strength and conditioning practices at the sport’s
highest skill level, Major League Baseball (MLB). The
purpose of this survey is to examine a variety of strength
and conditioning practices and the collective knowledge
of MLB strength and conditioning (MLB S&C) coaches in
order to describe the common, as well as unique, strength
and conditioning practices employed by these coaches.
M
ETHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
We hypothesized that MLB S&C coaches followed con-
temporary, scientifically based strength and conditioning
practices and that the majority of these coaches would
share their ideas, which were assessed through a com-
prehensive survey of strength and conditioning practices.
Survey
The survey, Strength and Conditioning Practices of Pro-
fessional Strength and Conditioning Coaches was adapted
for this application based on the survey used in research
with other professional sports organizations (10, 11). The
original survey was pilot tested with an advisory group
of strength and conditioning coaches and exercise physi-
ologists. The survey was divided into 8 sections including
background information, physical testing, flexibility de-
velopment, speed development, plyometrics, strength/
power development, unique aspects of the program, and
comments.
Data Collection
An introductory letter describing the project was sent to
all MLB S&C coaches. Within 1 month, a survey and cov-
er letter were mailed. All surveys were sent with a self-
addressed, stamped envelope. A second letter and copy of
the survey were sent to MLB S&C coaches who did not
respond to the first mailing. Additional attempts were
made to contact MLB S&C coaches who did not respond
S
TRENGTH AND
C
ONDITIONING
P
RACTICES OF
M
AJOR
L
EAGUE
B
ASEBALL
539
T
ABLE
1. Major League Baseball strength and conditioning
coaches’ responses to survey.
Survey inquiry
Number of teams
responding
Total
response
rate
First mailed survey
Second mailed survey
Third mailed survey
Telephone interview
10
4
7
0
33.3%
46.6%
70.0%
F
IGURE
1. Times when variables of athlete fitness are
formally measured.
F
IGURE
2. Variables of athlete fitness tested by Major
League Baseball strength and conditioning (MLB S&C)
coaches.
to the mailed surveys. The MLB S&C coaches either re-
turned the survey, granted a telephone interview, or did
not respond to the mailing or telephone messages. Data
for the present survey were collected from November
2002 to August 2003.
Statistical Analyses
The survey contained fixed-response and open-ended
questions. Answers to open-ended questions were content
analyzed according to methods described by Patton (23),
which have been used in other surveys of professional
sports strength and conditioning practices (10, 11). Dur-
ing data analysis, each researcher generated raw data
and higher order themes via independent, inductive con-
tent analysis and compared independently generated
themes until consensus was reached at each level of anal-
ysis. At the point of development of higher order themes,
deductive analysis was used to confirm that all raw data
themes were represented. Researchers were trained and
experienced with qualitative methods sports science re-
search and content analysis.
R
ESULTS
Background Information
Twenty-one of 30 (70.0%) MLB S&C coaches responded
to the survey. One MLB S&C coach directly refused to
participate. The remaining 8 MLB S&C coaches did not
respond to the mailed surveys or telephone messages. Ta-
ble 1 presents responses to the first mailing, the second
mailing, and the telephone contact/third mailing.
All 21 coaches that responded reported their names
and tenure in MLB, which averaged 5.14 years. Five
coaches reported having 1 or more assistants.
Physical Testing
The second section of the survey assessed variables of
physical testing. Coaches were asked how often and what
times of the year variables of athlete fitness are tested
(Figure 1), what parameters of fitness are tested (Figure
2), and what specific tests are used. Coaches reported
testing an average of 3.6 parameters of fitness using 3.7
specific tests. Three of 21 MLB S&C coaches who re-
sponded ‘‘other’’ provided additional information about
physical testing, including, ‘‘we test in spring training
and at the end of the regular season,’’ ‘‘fall instructional
league,’’ and ‘‘we only test speed, fitness, and agility at
the minor league level.’’ Regarding which variables of
physical fitness are measured and what specific tests are
used, 21 MLB S&C coaches reported measuring body
composition. Of these coaches, 10 reported measuring
body composition with skin calipers, skin folds, or fat cal-
ipers; 3 reported testing with ‘‘calipers-3 points’’; 2 re-
ported ‘‘body fat’’; and 1 coach each reported using the
following: ‘‘Bod Pod,’’ ‘‘H
2
O weighing,’’ ‘‘skinfold 5 site,’’
‘‘skinfold, 7 site,’’ and ‘‘Skyndex.’’ Two other coaches did
not specify the methods used.
Nine MLB S&C coaches reported testing for anaerobic
capacity. Five indicated they used the 300-yard shuttle.
Other responses were ‘‘treadmill, bike, and shuttle,’’ ‘‘gas-
sers, shuttle,’’ and ‘‘V
˙
O
2
max test,’’ with 1 respondent not
specifying.
Seven MLB S&C coaches reported measuring mus-
cular strength. Each of the coaches indicated using 1 of
the following: grip test, grip strength, grip dynamometer,
5–10 repetition maximum (RM), and 3–5RM, with 1 re-
spondent not specifying.
Seven MLB S&C coaches stated that they measured
agility. Tests included the 5–10–5 test, T-test, 300-yard
shuttle, and cone drills, each reported by 1 coach.
Seven MLB S&C coaches reported measuring mus-
cular power. Four coaches indicated they test vertical
jump with 1 specifically reporting that he uses the ‘‘Ver-
tec’’ to do so. Another coach indicated using the ‘‘Wingate
test’’ to test muscular power.
Seven MLB S&C coaches stated that they measured
flexibility. Methods used include a medical exam, the sit-
and-reach test, ‘‘hamstring, trunk extension, shoulder,
groin,’’ and ‘‘hamstring, Thomas test, hip flexion, trunk
rotation,’’ each reported by 1 coach, with 1 coach report-
ing that he used both the sit-and-reach and a standing
reach test. Two coaches did not specify the tests used.
Five MLB S&C coaches reported measuring cardio-
vascular endurance. Methods used include the mile run,
540 E
BBEN
,H
INTZ
,
AND
S
IMENZ
F
IGURE
3. Times when Major League Baseball athletes are
encouraged or required to perform flexibility exercises.
F
IGURE
4. Length (minutes) of Major League Baseball
strength and conditioning coaches’ normal prepractice
flexibility session.
F
IGURE
5. Amount of time (seconds) Major League Baseball
strength and conditioning coaches encourage their athletes to
hold a static stretch.
F
IGURE
6. Types of speed-development exercises used by
Major League Baseball strength and conditioning coaches.
1.5-mile run (full team or ‘‘pitchers only’’), and 2-mile run
(full team or ‘‘pitchers only’’).
Four MLB S&C coaches reported testing for speed.
Two coaches indicated that they test the 60-yard dash,
with 1 of those 2 reporting that he also tests the 40-yard
dash. One coach tested the 20-yard sprint, and 1 tested
the ‘‘time to (first base) in game situations.’’
Three MLB S&C coaches reported measuring other
variables of physical fitness. These variables include 1-
minute jump rope, grip strength, and ‘‘core stability, side
lying bridge, single leg bridge, and overhead squat test
for hip mobility.’’
Three MLB S&C coaches reported taking anthropo-
metric measurements on their athletes. Four coaches re-
ported measuring height and weight, and 1 coach report-
ed measuring girth.
One MLB S&C coach reported measuring muscular
endurance but did not specify the type of test used. Ad-
ditionally, 1 MLB S&C coach reported measuring accel-
eration without specifying the type of test used.
Flexibility Development
All 21 of the MLB S&C coaches who responded reported
that their teams perform some type of flexibility training,
including static flexibility exercises. Seventeen coaches
reported that they employ dynamic exercises, 15 reported
using proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF),
and 4 coaches reported using ballistic. Additional com-
ments in this section included ‘‘yoga.’’
Coaches were asked about when athletes were en-
couraged or required to perform flexibility exercises, the
duration of the prepractice flexibility session, and the
length of time that athletes were encouraged to hold a
static stretch (Figures 3–5). Additionally, 1 coach com-
mented that athletes stretch before games, 1 coach indi-
cated that players stretch during games, and 1 comment-
ed that ‘‘bench players stretched the 4th inning of every
game.’’ The mean duration of an MLB prepractice flexi-
bility session was 12.8 63.0 minutes. The mean length
of time that a MLB athlete was encouraged or required
to hold a static stretch was 12.02 64.0 seconds.
Speed Development
All of the 21 coaches who responded to the survey re-
ported incorporating some type of speed development ex-
ercise into their programs (Figure 6). All coaches used
form running for developing speed. Eighteen coaches
used speed endurance training, and 17 used plyometrics
for developing speed. Additionally, 11 and 4 coaches, re-
spectively, reported employing resisted running and ov-
erspeed running for developing speed. Other responses to
this question included ‘‘incline intervals,’’ ‘‘speed ladders,’’
‘‘done on an individual basis,’’ and ‘‘plyometrics are very
low intensity.’’
Plyometrics
Out of 21 MLB S&C coaches, 20 reported using plyome-
trics. For those who used plyometric exercises with ath-
letes, 17 coaches reported they used plyometric training
for lower body power, and 15 reported using plyometric
training for speed development. Plyometrics is used for
total body training and upper body power training by 11
and 10 coaches, respectively. Two coaches used plyome-
trics to improve vertical jump, and 3 others included com-
S
TRENGTH AND
C
ONDITIONING
P
RACTICES OF
M
AJOR
L
EAGUE
B
ASEBALL
541
F
IGURE
7. Reported uses of plyometric training by Major
League Baseball strength and conditioning coaches.
F
IGURE
8. The stage/cycle/phase of training in which Major
League Baseball strength and conditioning coaches incorporate
plyometric training.
F
IGURE
9. Method of integration for plyometric training and
weight training.
F
IGURE
10. Plyometric exercises regularly employed by
Major League Baseball strength and conditioning coaches.
ments about using plyometrics for the core and for agility
(Figure 7).
In response to the question about when plyometric
training was performed, 9 coaches reported that they in-
corporate plyometrics before spring training, and 8 coach-
es reported that they incorporate plyometric training year
round. Plyometric training is incorporated during the sea-
son by 7 coaches, during spring training by 7 coaches, and
during the postseason by 2 coaches. Additional comments
made by MLB S&C coaches concerning the stage or cycle
when plyometric training is incorporated included ‘‘with
rehab players’’ and ‘‘med ball plyos’’ (Figure 8).
Coaches were also asked how they integrate plyome-
tric training into their weight-training program (Figure
9). Ten coaches responded that they perform plyometric
training prior to weight training on the same day. Nine
coaches used plyometric training and weight training
combined in the same workout as complex training. Six
coaches responded they integrate plyometrics by conduct-
ing plyometric training and weight training workouts on
separate days. Two coaches had their athletes perform
plyometric training after weight training on the same
day. Finally, 2 coaches endorsed ‘‘other’’ methods of com-
bining plyometric and weight training. Both coaches in-
dicated, ‘‘it depends on the player.’’
The fifth question in this section asked the coaches to
identify the types of plyometric exercises regularly used
in their program (Figure 10). Eighteen reported having
their athletes perform jumps in place. Upper body ply-
ometrics, box drills, and multiple hops or jumps were re-
ported as being used by 16, 15, and 14 coaches, respec-
tively. Thirteen coaches used bounding exercises with
athletes, 7 coaches employed standing jumps, and 2 used
depth jumps. Three coaches chose the ‘‘other’’ category,
with responses such as ‘‘steps,’’ ‘‘jump rope,’’ and ‘‘core
rotation drills.’’
Coaches who used plyometric training were asked to
estimate the number of injuries resulting from plyometric
training annually. Nineteen reported no annual plyome-
tric training injuries. The 2 coaches who reported ply-
ometric training injuries estimated that 1 injury occurred
per year.
Strength/Power Development
The first question in this section asked the number of
days per week that athletes participated in an off-season
strength/power development program. Fifteen coaches re-
sponded 4 days a week, 5 coaches indicated 3 days a
week, and 1 coach responded 5 days a week.
The second question in the strength/power develop-
ment section of the survey asked the MLB S&C coach to
report the average length of their off-season resistance
training workouts. Sixteen coaches reported that their
workouts are 45 to 60 minutes long, and 5 reported that
workouts last 30 to 45 minutes. One coach commented
‘‘between 3–5 days/week.’’
The third question in this section asked the coaches
how many days of the week their athletes perform in-
season strength/power development activities. Thirteen
coaches reported 2 days a week, 6 coaches reported 3 days
a week, 2 coaches responded 4 days a week, and 1 coach
indicated 5 days a week.
The fourth question in the strength/power section as-
sessed the length of the in-season strength/power train-
ing session. Sixteen coaches indicated that the sessions
last 15–30 minutes, whereas 3 coaches reported that the
542 E
BBEN
,H
INTZ
,
AND
S
IMENZ
T
ABLE
2. Conceptualization of training.
Higher-order themes Number of responses Select raw data representing responses to this question
Season/specified cycle length 9 In-season: April–October (6 mo). Out-of-season: October–No-
vember (1 mo). Off-season: November–February (3 mo).
Pre-season: February–April (2 mo).
Adaptations/phases 4 Hypertrophy: October–November (6–8 wk). Strength: Novem-
ber–December (4 wk). Power: December–January (2–3 wk).
Seasonal with adaptations/phases 4 Base strength/endurance: October–November (3–4 wk). Hy-
pertrophy/Strength: November–December (4–6 wk). Power:
January (4 wk). Pre-season: February–March (4–6 wk).
No answer 4
sessions last 30–45 minutes, and 2 trained athletes for 0–
15 minutes during the in-season sessions.
The next question in the strength/power section of the
survey asked MLB S&C coaches if they used Olympic-
style weightlifting exercises or their variations. Six of 21
(28.6%) reported using weightlifting exercises with their
athletes.
Next, the coaches were asked whether they use ma-
chines to train athletes and what manufacturer/brands
they commonly used. All coaches indicated at least some
use of machines. Comments included ‘‘some use of ma-
chines,’’ ‘‘it varies in each city and park,’’ and ‘‘all brands
because of the amount of travel we do.’’ The most com-
monly used machines include those manufactured by
Hammer Strength, Cybex, Life Fitness, and Body Master,
which are used by 16, 10, 10, and 5 coaches, respectively.
Additionally, coaches reported the use of a variety of oth-
er machines representing 16 manufacturers.
The next question in the strength/power development
section asked MLB S&C coaches to identify, in order of
importance, the 5 resistance training exercises that are
most important in their programs. Seven coaches report-
ed the squat as the most important exercise. Two coaches
each reported that the most important exercise is ‘‘squat
or leg press,’’ ‘‘squat or lunge,’’ or ‘‘leg press.’’ Other re-
sponses, reported by 1 coach each, include ‘‘abdominals,’’
‘‘single leg squat,’’ ‘‘rotational core exercises,’’ ‘‘core,’’
‘‘dumbbell (DB) shoulder exercises,’’ ‘‘bench,’’ and ‘‘DB
lunge matrix.’’
Five coaches identified lunges or their variations as
the second most important exercise in their program.
Other responses included ‘‘step-ups’’ or their variations,
‘‘leg press,’’ or ‘‘lat pull-downs,’’ reported by 2 coaches
each. Examples of other responses indicated by 1 coach
each include ‘‘DB 1-arm row,’’ ‘‘medicine ball (MB) rota-
tion throws,’’ ‘‘tubing shoulder exercises,’’ ‘‘leg curl,’’ and
‘‘seated cable row.’’
Five coaches indicated that the ‘‘lat pull’’ or ‘‘pull-
down’’ is the third most important exercise in their pro-
gram. Three coaches indicated that rows are the third
most important exercise. Two coaches each reported that
‘‘step-ups (variations),’’ ‘‘core exercises,’’ and ‘‘lunge (var-
iations),’’ are the third most important exercises in their
programs. Examples of other responses included ‘‘shoul-
ders,’’ ‘‘DB straight leg,’’ ‘‘single leg split squat,’’ ‘‘shuffle
squats,’’ and ‘‘DB chest press.’’
The fourth most important exercise according to the
coaches includes some form of rowing such as ‘‘DB row,’’
‘‘seated row,’’ and ‘‘low row,’’ reported by 4 coaches. Four
coaches indicated that step-ups are the fourth most im-
portant exercise. Three coaches reported that ‘‘lat pulls,’’
or ‘‘pull-downs’’ are the fourth most important exercise.
Examples of other responses indicated by 1 coach each
included ‘‘chest press,’’ ‘‘scapular stabilization,’’ ‘‘tubing
side shuffles,’’ ‘‘core stability,’’ ‘‘push-up variations,’’ and
‘‘rotator cuff.’’
The fifth most important exercise according to coaches
included ‘‘rotator cuff’’ or ‘‘shoulder stabilization,’’ report-
ed by 4 coaches each. Additional responses included
‘‘lunge variations’’ and ‘‘medicine ball core exercises,’’
each reported by 2 coaches. Examples of other responses
included ‘‘bicep curl/tricep extension,’’ ‘‘chest press,’’
‘‘row,’’ ‘‘pulling movements,’’ ‘‘squats,’’ and ‘‘MB rotation.’’
One coach did not specifically identify exercises but
reported, ‘‘we consider complete development of the body
important. We don’t emphasize any particular lifts.’’
The eighth question in this section assessed the MLB
S&C coaches’ conceptualization of training, specifically
inquiring about the use of a periodization model, training
phases, and cycles. Responses were content analyzed into
2 categories: a periodization model (PM) and a nonpe-
riodization model (NPM). Eighteen of 21 MLB S&C
coaches (85.7%) reported conceptualizing training accord-
ing to a PM. Table 2 presents higher order themes, num-
ber of responses, and select raw data representing re-
sponses about the ways coaches who periodized training
organized training into cycles. Table 3 presents the ways
coaches determine training loads. Tables 4 and 5 sum-
marize the ways MLB S&C coaches organize sets and rep-
etitions during the off-season and in-season. Table 6 de-
scribes the unique aspects of the coaches’ programs. Fi-
nally, Table 7 describes the changes coaches would make
to their programs, and Table 8 includes the coaches’ ideas
regarding future trends for strength and conditioning in
MLB.
Comments
The final section of the survey allowed MLB S&C coaches
the opportunity to provide additional data or make spe-
cific comments regarding the survey. The responses of the
7 coaches who filled out this section were content ana-
lyzed into 4 higher order themes: (a) interest in the re-
sults, (b) offer to answer questions, (c) contact informa-
tion, and (d) miscellaneous.
The higher order theme ‘‘interest in results’’ consisted
of comments such as ‘‘I would love to see the results of
study when done.’’ The theme of ‘‘offer to answer ques-
tions’’ included responses such as ‘‘please contact me if I
can be of further assistance to you.’’ The theme ‘‘contact
information’’ included e-mail, addresses, and telephone
numbers.
S
TRENGTH AND
C
ONDITIONING
P
RACTICES OF
M
AJOR
L
EAGUE
B
ASEBALL
543
T
ABLE
3. Determination of training loads.
Higher-order themes Number of responses Select raw data representing responses to this question
Trial and error 7 We don’t strength test for repetition maximum. We use
guesstimation and trial and error.
Repetition maximum (RM) 4 5–10RM.
Do not use testing 4 Do not work with that by numbers or %: Do not lift that
heavy.
Subjective 4 Athletes are selecting weights on the basis of required
number of repetitions.
Based on previous workouts 4 Working with them during initial workouts.
No answer 1
T
ABLE
4. Sets and repetitions used during off-season programs.
Higher-order themes Number of responses Select raw data representing responses to this question
Multi-set/repetition range with
phase/cycle
9 Depending on the phase, anywhere from 15 repetitions
(early) to 5 (power/strength). 2–4 sets.
Multi-set/repetition range 8 2–6 sets. 1–15 repetitions.
Individual 2 Each of the athletes on our 40-man roster has an indi-
vidual program.
Miscellaneous 1 Start with high repetition then lower repetitions; in-
crease sets; usually not fewer than 8 repetitions.
Nonperiodized 1 It varies with each player and what their goals are. Ba-
sics are 3 310 but it changes with every player.
T
ABLE
5. Sets and repetitions used during in-season programs.
Higher-order themes Number of responses Select raw data representing responses to this question
Multi-set/repetitions specified 14 2–3 sets. 8–12 repetitions.
Multi-set/repetitions specified w/phase 3 April–June: 2–3 36–8. July–September 2–3 34–8.
Decrease sets, increase repetitions 2 Fewer sets, more repetitions. Repetitions 10–15.
Miscellaneous 2 None of our athletes work with the same type of program.
T
ABLE
6. Unique aspect of each Major League Baseball strength and conditioning program.
Higher-order themes Number of responses Select raw data representing responses to this question
Miscellaneous 6 Education, education, education, education. Of all personnel in
the organization; players, coaches, player development, front
office. Everyone should have a practical knowledge of the
program.
Specific techniques 4 Metabolic interval training of starting pitchers.
Individualize 3 We treat each person as an individual and train them in that
manner.
Nothing unique 3 I don’t feel anything is unique. Our program is your basic
meat and potatoes. No fancy appetizers!
No answer 5
T
ABLE
7. How Major League Baseball strength and conditioning coaches would change their programs.
Higher-order themes Number of responses Select raw data representing responses to this question
Off-season development and access 7 Make training mandatory—using fine system.
Testing 5 More testing, Olympic-style lifts, higher intensity ply-
ometrics.
Increased/improved staffing 3 Have more help: 601players for 1 coach in spring train-
ing is overwhelming at times.
Continual evaluation 2 We evaluate our program on a daily, weekly, monthly ba-
sis for minor adjustment, but as long as our players
continue to stay on the field, no major changes will
happen.
Satisfaction 2 Think we have most of the bases covered.
Miscellaneous 2 Keep endurance training and interval training as high as
possible during season and spring training.
No answer 4
544 E
BBEN
,H
INTZ
,
AND
S
IMENZ
T
ABLE
8. Predictions regarding future trends in strength and conditioning in Major League Baseball.
Higher-order themes Number of responses Select raw data representing responses to this question
Increased importance and growth 6 I think it will continue to progress and become as impor-
tant as regular skills work.
Association with medical field/
medical focus
5 The strength and conditioning coach will become part of
the medical staff. Programs will be designed with pre-
habilitation in mind, not strength maintenance or
gains. Baseball will consider a 3 athletic training for-
mat or 2 trainers, 1 PT.*
Dynamic, functional, and whole-
body training.
4 Increase in dynamic training protocols, reduction in sin-
gle-joint strength training.
Miscellaneous 3 Less and less reliance on strength/power resistance train-
ing. . . more towards romper room.
No answer 4
*PT 5physical therapist.
D
ISCUSSION
This is the first comprehensive survey of MLB strength
and conditioning practices. The survey response rate of
21 of 30 (70%) is lower than the rate reported for surveys
of National Football League (NFL) (87%) and National
Hockey League (NHL) (76%) S&C coaches (10, 11). How-
ever, multiple mailings and telephone calls may have re-
sulted in a higher response rate than is typical for
strength and conditioning surveys, which ranges from
42.7% to 61.9% (2, 8, 20, 30). The desire to maximize the
response rate, in addition to difficulty getting responses
in some cases, led to a protracted period of data collection
(7 months). This issue was exacerbated by address chang-
es as coaches moved between off-season, spring training,
and in-season addresses, and by turnover among coaches.
In fact, results indicate MLB S&C coaches have a shorter
average tenure with their present team (5.14 years) than
NFL (6.52 years) and NHL (6.28 years) S&C coaches (10,
11).
In general, MLB S&C coaches test fewer parameters
of fitness (3.6) with fewer tests (3.7) compared to their
counterparts in the NHL (7.4 parameters of fitness using
9.8 specific tests) and NFL (7.2 parameters of fitness with
10.0 tests) (10, 11). All MLB S&C coaches reported that
they test body composition, a practice that is similar to
the data reported by NFL and NHL S&C coaches (10, 11),
despite some evidence that body composition may not be
highly related to performance (9). Only 7 MLB S&C
coaches indicated that they test strength or power. This
finding is dissimilar to the NHL, where 100% of the
coaches reported testing strength and 82.6% reported
testing power, which is somewhat surprising because an-
ecdotes and evidence indicate that these abilities are im-
portant for acceleration and throwing velocity (18, 19),
may reduce pain associated with throwing (17), and have
been recommended for testing with professional baseball
players (15).
Only 1 coach reported testing acceleration, 4 test
speed, and 7 test agility, even though all coaches reported
using speed development strategies to train athletes. Pre-
vious recommendations indicate that performance testing
for baseball should include tests for speed, quickness, and
agility (15, 31). Furthermore, the majority of coaches do
not test anaerobic capacity or cardiovascular endurance.
For those who do, more coaches test anaerobic capacity
(9 of 21) than cardiovascular endurance (5 of 21), consis-
tent with previous recommendations (31) and perhaps
demonstrating an awareness that baseball is primarily an
anaerobic sport and that a high aerobic capacity is not
important for major league players (16) or collegiate
pitchers (24).
All MLB S&C coaches, 87% of NHL S&C coaches, and
85% of NFL S&C coaches reported using static stretching
with their athletes, and the majority use dynamic and
PNF stretching as well. This result is not surprising given
the number of survey respondents whose comments sug-
gest the importance of flexibility (e.g., ‘‘more focus on hip
mobility’’) and the recommendations in the literature for
flexibility (15, 34) or dynamic flexibility (14) for baseball
players. Interestingly, 4 coaches reported having athletes
perform ballistic flexibility, which is identical to the num-
ber of NHL S&C coaches and fewer than the number NFL
coaches (8 of 26) who use this method.
All of the MLB S&C coaches incorporated speed de-
velopment strategies, with form running being used by
all and speed endurance training, such as interval train-
ing, used by 18 of 21 coaches. However, only 9 coaches
reported testing anaerobic capacity and only 4 reported
testing speed. Eleven of 21 coaches used resisted running
with their athletes, compared to 17 NFL S&C coaches and
15 NHL S&C coaches (10, 11). Only 4 MLB S&C coaches
employed overspeed methods, compared to 15 NFL S&C
coaches and 10 NHL S&C coaches (10, 11).
Twenty of 21 (95.2%) coaches incorporated plyometric
training with their athletes. This result is consistent with
the percentage of other strength and conditioning coaches
who reported using this mode of training with their ath-
letes. For example, 91.3% of NHL, 90% of NCAA Division
I, and 73% of NFL S&C coaches used plyometrics to train
athletes (8, 10, 11).
Most MLB off-season programs are performed 4 days
a week, and most in-season programs are performed 2
days a week. These results are consistent with the prac-
tices of NHL, NFL, and Division I S&C coaches (8, 10,
11).
Only 3 of 21 (14.3%) of MLB S&C coaches used Olym-
pic-style lifts with their athletes. This result is unlike oth-
er survey data that indicated that 91.3% of NHL and 85%
of Division I coaches used Olympic-style exercises with
their athletes (8, 11). In fact, variations of weight-lifting
exercises and squats are the exercises most commonly
used by other professional athletes (10, 11). For MLB
S&C coaches, variations of the squat were also identified
as the most important exercise.
Eighteen of 21 (83.4%) coaches reported periodizing
their programs, compared to 91.3% and 69.2% of NHL
S
TRENGTH AND
C
ONDITIONING
P
RACTICES OF
M
AJOR
L
EAGUE
B
ASEBALL
545
and NFL coaches, respectively (10, 11). Of the 3 MLB
S&C coaches who did not report periodizing, none defined
their programs as ‘‘high-intensity training’’ which is con-
sistent with the findings from research with NHL coach-
es, but dissimilar to the NFL data, where 19.2% indicated
using ‘‘high-intensity training’’ concepts (12).
In the description of their program designs, all but 1
MLB S&C coach cycles their repetitions and loads during
the off-season, and all but 2 do the same in-season, re-
sulting in phases or cycles with changing volume and in-
tensity. However, for many of the MLB S&C coaches, the
prescription of training load is fairly subjective (e.g., ‘‘trial
and error,’’ ‘‘guesstimation’’) which in part may be a func-
tion of the reported absence of strength testing and the
subsequent RM, estimated RM, and multiple RM data for
prescribing training loads, as well as the administrative
challenges associated with working with a large number
of athletes over the course of a long season. The subjective
determination of training loads used more frequently by
MLB S&C coaches contrasts with the NFL and NHL S&C
coaches who most frequently used formula (10) or per-
centage of repetition maximum (11), respectively.
The practices of MLB S&C coaches was most similar
to other groups of strength and conditioning coaches as-
sessed in areas such as flexibility training, use of ply-
ometrics, and the incorporation of periodization. Their
dissimilarity to the other groups was demonstrated by
less physical testing, less variety of speed development
strategies, less use of weightlifting and its variations, and
less elegant program design specifically related to the
prescription of load.
While the demands on S&C coaches in all sports are
undoubtedly high, it is possible that some of the differ-
ences between this group of coaches and others may be a
result of unfavorable staff-to-athlete ratio, difficulty get-
ting athletes and coaches to buy into the program, dual
responsibilities (strength and conditioning and athletic
training), and in some cases, an emphasis on injury pre-
vention and not performance enhancement typified by
statements such as the following comments on future
trends: ‘‘programs will be designed with pre-habilitation
in mind, not strength maintenance or strength gains,’’
‘‘the strength and conditioning coach will become part of
the medical staff,’’ ‘‘less and less reliance on strength/
power resistance training. . . more towards romper room,’’
‘‘I believe with the injuries in the sport, more programs
will be geared toward injury prevention and not enhance-
ment,’’ ‘‘more emphasis on pre-hab for injury prevention,’’
‘‘I believe more dual certified athletic trainer/certified
strength and conditioning specialist (ATC/CSCS) individ-
uals will be hired to coordinate the conditioning activi-
ties.’’
It is interesting to note that some evidence indicates
that the incidence of injury in Major League Baseball has
increased in recent years (1). What is less clear is whether
this increased rate of injury has resulted in a greater fo-
cus on injury prevention. It is also possible that the in-
creased rate of injury has occurred in spite of, or possibly
as the result of, an increased emphasis on injury preven-
tion. Future research should examine the role of perfor-
mance enhancing strength and conditioning protocols
versus ‘‘injury prevention’’ protocols and the effect of each
on the injury rate associated with the sport.
P
RACTICAL
A
PPLICATIONS
This article describes the practices of MLB S&C coaches.
Strength and conditioning coaches now have a source of
data describing baseball strength and conditioning prac-
tices as they occur at the sport’s highest talent level, Ma-
jor League Baseball. Baseball strength and conditioning
coaches at all levels can use this data as a review of
strength and conditioning practices and a possible source
of new ideas. In addition to this new source of profession-
al practice knowledge, scientists are encouraged to con-
tinue to empirically investigate aspects of this sport.
R
EFERENCES
1. C
ONTE
, S., R.K. R
EQUA
,
AND
J.G. G
ARRICK
. Disability days in
Major League Baseball. Am. J. Sports Med. 29(4):431–436.
2001.
2. C
LIMINO
, J.S. Baseball: One year periodization conditioning
program specific to fastball pitchers. Natl. Strength Cond. As-
soc. J. 9(2):26–30. 1987.
3. C
OLEMAN
, A.E. Physiological characteristics of Major League
Baseball players. Physician Sports Med. 10(5):51–57. 1982.
4. C
OLEMAN
, A.E.,
AND
L.M. L
ASKY
. Assessing running speed and
body composition in professional baseball players. J. Strength
Cond. Res. 6:207–213. 1992.
5. C
OLEMAN
, G. The year-round conditioning plan. In: 52-Week
Baseball Training. G. Coleman, ed. Champaign, IL: Human Ki-
netics, 2000. pp. 1–4.
6. C
RAFT
, J. Football core exercises of selected universities. Natl.
Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 14(5):13–16. 1992.
7. D
ERENNE
, C., K.W. H
O
,
AND
J.C. M
URPHY
. Effects of general,
special, and specific resistance training on throwing velocity in
baseball: A brief review. J. Strength Cond. Res. 15:148–156.
2001.
8. D
URELL
, D.L., T.J. P
UJOL
,
AND
J.T. B
ARNES
. A survey of the
scientific data and training methods utilized by collegiate
strength and conditioning coaches. J. Strength Cond. Res.
17(2):368–373. 2003.
9. D
YRIW
, G.M. A comparison of performance attributes in an
NCAA Division I baseball team. Microform Publications, Uni-
versity of Oregon, Eugene, 2002.
10. E
BBEN
, W.P.,
AND
D.O. B
LACKARD
. Strength and conditioning
practices of National Football League strength and condition-
ing coaches. J. Strength Conditioning Res. 15(1):48–58. 2001.
11. E
BBEN
, W.P., R. C
ARROLL
,
AND
C. S
IMENZ
. Strength and con-
ditioning practices of National Hockey League strength and
conditioning coaches. J. Strength Conditioning Res. 18(4):889–
897. 2004.
12. E
SCAMILLA
, R.F., K.P. S
PEER
, G.S. F
LEISIG
, S.W. B
ARRENTINE
,
AND
J.R. A
NDREWS
. Effects of throwing overweight and under-
weight baseballs on throwing velocity and accuracy. Sports
Med. 29(4):259–272. 2000.
13. F
ORTI
, D.S. The study of off-season football strength and con-
ditioning programs at selected major colleges. Master’s thesis,
University of Oregon, Eugene, 1984.
14. F
REDRICK
, G.A.,
AND
D.J. S
ZYMANSKI
. Baseball (part 1): Dy-
namic flexibility. Strength Cond. J. 23(1):21–30. 2001.
15. G
AMBETTA
, V. Concepts of baseball conditioning: The White
Sox experience. Strength Cond. 19(4):7–9. 1997.
16. H
AGERMAN
, F.C., L.M. S
TARR
,
AND
T.F. M
URRAY
. Effects of
long-term fitness on professional baseball players. Physician
Sports Med. 17(4):101–104,107–108,115–119. 1989.
17. H
AYES
, R., P. H
AMERE
,R.G
ROVE
,
AND
B. E
LLIOTT
. Effects of
strength training on shoulder pain and perceived health of the
throwing arm in baseball pitchers. Appl. Res. Coaching Athlet-
ics Annu. 16:178–191. 2001.
18. J
ONES
, K., P. B
ISHOP
,G.H
UNTER
,
AND
G. F
LEISIG
. The effects
of varying resistance training loads on intermediate- and high-
velocity-specific adaptations. J. Strength Cond. Res. 15:349–
356. 2001.
546 E
BBEN
,H
INTZ
,
AND
S
IMENZ
19. L
ACHOWETZ
, T., J. E
VON
,
AND
J. P
ASTIGLIONE
. The effect of an
upper body strength program on intercollegiate baseball throw-
ing velocity. J. Strength Cond. Res. 12:116–119. 1998.
20. M
C
C
LELLAN
, T.,
AND
W.J. S
TONE
. A survey of football strength
and conditioning programs for Division-I NCAA Universities.
Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 8(2):34–36. 1986.
21. M
C
E
VOY
, K.P.,
AND
R.U. N
EWTON
. Baseball throwing speed
and base running speed: The effects of ballistic resistance
training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 12:216–221. 1998.
22. O
TSUJI
, T., M. A
BLE
,
AND
H. K
INOSHITA
. After-effects of using
a weighted bat on subsequent swing velocity and batters’ per-
ception of swing velocity and heaviness. Perceptual Motor Skills
94(1):119–126. 2002.
23. P
ATTON
, M.Q. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990.
24. P
OTTEIGER
, J.A., D.L. B
LESSING
,
AND
G. D
ENNIS
W
ILSON
. The
physiological responses to a single game of baseball pitching.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 6:11–18. 1992.
25. P
OTTEIGER
, J.A., H.N. W
ILLIFORD
, D.L. B
LESSING
,
AND
J.
S
MIDT
. Effects of two training methods on improving baseball
performance variables. J. Strength Cond. Res. 6:2–6. 1992.
26. P
ULLO
, F.M. A profile of NCAA Division I strength and con-
ditioning coaches. J. Strength Cond. Res. 6:55–62. 1992.
27. S
ERGO
, C.,
AND
D. B
OATWRIGHT
. Training methods using var-
ious weighted bats and the effects on bat velocity. J. Strength
Cond. Res. 7:115–117. 1993.
28. S
UTHERLAND
, T.M.,
AND
J.P. W
ILEY
. Survey of strength and
conditioning services for professional athletes in four sports. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 11:266–268. 1997.
29. T
AYLOR
, G.R., T.W. H
ENRICH
,E.C
OSNER
,K.C
LOW
,D.B
OR
-
AWSKI
,
AND
S. C
LIFTON
. The effects of pre-season conditioning
programs on collegiate baseball players. In: Texas Association
for Health Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. Austin,
TX: 1998. p. 32.
30. T
EICHELMAN
, T. Trends in the strength and conditioning pro-
fession in Division I schools. Strength Cond. 20(2):70–72. 1998.
31. W
ATKINSON
, J. Performance testing for baseball. Strength
Cond. 20(4):16–20. 1998.
32. W
ELCH
, C.M., S.A. B
ANKS
, F.F. C
OOK
,
AND
P. D
RAOVITCH
. Hit-
ting a baseball: A biomechanical description. J. Orthop. Sports
Phys. Ther. 22(5):193–201. 1995.
33. Z
EMPER
, E.D. Four-year study of weight room injuries in a na-
tional sample of college football teams. Natl. Strength Cond.
Assoc. J. 12(3):32–34. 1990.
34. Z
OMAR
, V.D., H. K
URLAND
,
AND
C. B
REWSTER
. A look at pro-
grams used by San Francisco Giants, Los Angeles Giants, Cal-
ifornia Angels. Natl. Strength Coaches Assoc. J. 2(6):34–41.
1980.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank each of the Major League Baseball
strength and conditioning coaches who participated in this
study. This study was funded by a Marquette University College
of Health Science faculty development grant.
Address correspondence to Dr. William Ebben,
webben70@hotmail.com.
