See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/7665805

Strength and Conditioning Practices of Major League Baseball Strength and

Conditioning Coaches

Article in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · August 2005

DOI: 10.1519/R-15464.1 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
189 12,300

3 authors, including:

William P Ebben Christopher J Simenz

Lakeland University Medical College of Wisconsin
113 PUBLICATIONS 4,444 CITATIONS 11 PUBLICATIONS 855 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Christopher J Simenz on 05 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2005, 19(3), 538–546
q 2005 National Strength & Conditioning Association

STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING PRACTICES OF MAJOR

LEAGUE BASEBALL STRENGTH AND
CONDITIONING COACHES
WILLIAM P. EBBEN, MARILYN J. HINTZ, AND CHRISTOPHER J. SIMENZ
Department of Physical Therapy, Program in Exercise Science, Marquette University, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin 53201.

ABSTRACT. Ebben, W.P., M.J. Hintz, and C.J. Simenz. Strength 27, 32). In addition to qualitative research, other sources
and conditioning practices of Major League Baseball strength have used surveys to obtain practical knowledge of pro-
and conditioning coaches. J. Strength Cond. Res. 19(3):538–546. fessional practices.
2005.—This study describes the results of a survey of the prac- Surveys have examined strength and conditioning
tices of Major League Baseball strength and conditioning (MLB
S&C) coaches. The response rate was 70.0% (21 of 30). This sur-
programs of college (6, 8, 13, 20, 26, 30, 33) and profes-
vey examines (a) background information, (b) physical testing, sional athletes and coaches (10, 11). However, surveys of
(c) flexibility development, (d) speed development, (e) plyome- baseball strength and conditioning practices are limited
trics, (f) strength/power development, (g) unique aspects, and (h) to 1 survey of strength and conditioning services for pro-
comments. Results indicate, in part, that coaches assess an av- fessional athletes in 4 sports including baseball (28). Ul-
erage of 3.6 parameters of fitness, with body composition testing timately, strength and conditioning practices may be op-
being the most commonly assessed parameter. All coaches use timal when research is combined with practical knowl-
a variety of flexibility development strategies. All coaches use edge of professional practices. No source has examined
speed development strategies, with form running drills being the baseball strength and conditioning practices at the sport’s
most common. Twenty of 21 (95.2%) coaches employ plyometric
highest skill level, Major League Baseball (MLB). The
exercises with their athletes. Eighteen of 21 (85.7%) of MLB
S&C coaches follow a periodization model (PM). Five of 21 coach- purpose of this survey is to examine a variety of strength
es (23.8%) indicated that their athletes use Olympic-style lifts. and conditioning practices and the collective knowledge
The squat and its variations and the lunge and its variations of MLB strength and conditioning (MLB S&C) coaches in
were most frequently identified as the first and second most im- order to describe the common, as well as unique, strength
portant exercises used to train the athletes. This survey provides and conditioning practices employed by these coaches.
detailed information about strength and conditioning practices
at the most competitive level of baseball and serves as a review, METHODS
as well as a source of applied information and new ideas.
Experimental Approach to the Problem
KEY WORDS. periodization, speed, power, agility, professional,
program design We hypothesized that MLB S&C coaches followed con-
temporary, scientifically based strength and conditioning
practices and that the majority of these coaches would
INTRODUCTION share their ideas, which were assessed through a com-
umerous sources, including anecdotal reports, prehensive survey of strength and conditioning practices.

N 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,
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
15), periodized conditioning (2), testing (31), flexibility with other professional sports organizations (10, 11). The
(14), and warm-up (34) for baseball players. original survey was pilot tested with an advisory group
In addition to anecdotal recommendations, research of strength and conditioning coaches and exercise physi-
has evaluated the injury rates of Major League Baseball ologists. The survey was divided into 8 sections including
players (1), the effects of preseason conditioning on col- background information, physical testing, flexibility de-
legiate baseball players (29), the effects of long-term fit- velopment, speed development, plyometrics, strength/
ness programs on professional baseball players (16), body power development, unique aspects of the program, and
composition and flexibility characteristics of college ver- comments.
sus professional baseball players (9), and body composi-
tion and running speed of professional baseball players Data Collection
(4). Several studies have evaluated the effect of various An introductory letter describing the project was sent to
training programs on throwing velocity (7, 12, 18, 19, 21) all MLB S&C coaches. Within 1 month, a survey and cov-
and other performance variables (25), while others have er letter were mailed. All surveys were sent with a self-
assessed the physiological responses to a single game of addressed, stamped envelope. A second letter and copy of
baseball pitching (24). Researchers have also evaluated the survey were sent to MLB S&C coaches who did not
the effects of various training programs on base running respond to the first mailing. Additional attempts were
speed (21) and have studied several aspects of batting (22, made to contact MLB S&C coaches who did not respond

538
 STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING PRACTICES OF MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL 539

TABLE 1. Major League Baseball strength and conditioning

coaches’ responses to survey.
Total
Number of teams response
Survey inquiry responding rate
First mailed survey 10 33.3%
Second mailed survey 4 46.6%
Third mailed survey 7 70.0%
Telephone interview 0

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 FIGURE 1. Times when variables of athlete fitness are
formally measured.
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- FIGURE 2. Variables of athlete fitness tested by Major
search and content analysis. League Baseball strength and conditioning (MLB S&C)
coaches.
RESULTS
Background Information
following: ‘‘Bod Pod,’’ ‘‘H2O weighing,’’ ‘‘skinfold 5 site,’’
Twenty-one of 30 (70.0%) MLB S&C coaches responded ‘‘skinfold, 7 site,’’ and ‘‘Skyndex.’’ Two other coaches did
to the survey. One MLB S&C coach directly refused to not specify the methods used.
participate. The remaining 8 MLB S&C coaches did not Nine MLB S&C coaches reported testing for anaerobic
respond to the mailed surveys or telephone messages. Ta- capacity. Five indicated they used the 300-yard shuttle.
ble 1 presents responses to the first mailing, the second Other responses were ‘‘treadmill, bike, and shuttle,’’ ‘‘gas-
mailing, and the telephone contact/third mailing. sers, shuttle,’’ and ‘‘V̇O2max test,’’ with 1 respondent not
All 21 coaches that responded reported their names specifying.
and tenure in MLB, which averaged 5.14 years. Five Seven MLB S&C coaches reported measuring mus-
coaches reported having 1 or more assistants. cular strength. Each of the coaches indicated using 1 of
the following: grip test, grip strength, grip dynamometer,
Physical Testing 5–10 repetition maximum (RM), and 3–5RM, with 1 re-
The second section of the survey assessed variables of spondent not specifying.
physical testing. Coaches were asked how often and what Seven MLB S&C coaches stated that they measured
times of the year variables of athlete fitness are tested agility. Tests included the 5–10–5 test, T-test, 300-yard
(Figure 1), what parameters of fitness are tested (Figure shuttle, and cone drills, each reported by 1 coach.
2), and what specific tests are used. Coaches reported Seven MLB S&C coaches reported measuring mus-
testing an average of 3.6 parameters of fitness using 3.7 cular power. Four coaches indicated they test vertical
specific tests. Three of 21 MLB S&C coaches who re- jump with 1 specifically reporting that he uses the ‘‘Ver-
sponded ‘‘other’’ provided additional information about tec’’ to do so. Another coach indicated using the ‘‘Wingate
physical testing, including, ‘‘we test in spring training test’’ to test muscular power.
and at the end of the regular season,’’ ‘‘fall instructional Seven MLB S&C coaches stated that they measured
league,’’ and ‘‘we only test speed, fitness, and agility at flexibility. Methods used include a medical exam, the sit-
the minor league level.’’ Regarding which variables of and-reach test, ‘‘hamstring, trunk extension, shoulder,
physical fitness are measured and what specific tests are groin,’’ and ‘‘hamstring, Thomas test, hip flexion, trunk
used, 21 MLB S&C coaches reported measuring body rotation,’’ each reported by 1 coach, with 1 coach report-
composition. Of these coaches, 10 reported measuring ing that he used both the sit-and-reach and a standing
body composition with skin calipers, skin folds, or fat cal- reach test. Two coaches did not specify the tests used.
ipers; 3 reported testing with ‘‘calipers-3 points’’; 2 re- Five MLB S&C coaches reported measuring cardio-
ported ‘‘body fat’’; and 1 coach each reported using the vascular endurance. Methods used include the mile run,
540 EBBEN, HINTZ, AND SIMENZ

FIGURE 4. Length (minutes) of Major League Baseball

FIGURE 3. Times when Major League Baseball athletes are
strength and conditioning coaches’ normal prepractice
encouraged or required to perform flexibility exercises.
flexibility session.

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- FIGURE 5. Amount of time (seconds) Major League Baseball
ported measuring height and weight, and 1 coach report- strength and conditioning coaches encourage their athletes to
hold a static stretch.
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 FIGURE 6. Types of speed-development exercises used by
duration of the prepractice flexibility session, and the Major League Baseball strength and conditioning coaches.
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- spectively, reported employing resisted running and ov-
cated that players stretch during games, and 1 comment- erspeed running for developing speed. Other responses to
ed that ‘‘bench players stretched the 4th inning of every this question included ‘‘incline intervals,’’ ‘‘speed ladders,’’
game.’’ The mean duration of an MLB prepractice flexi- ‘‘done on an individual basis,’’ and ‘‘plyometrics are very
bility session was 12.8 6 3.0 minutes. The mean length low intensity.’’
of time that a MLB athlete was encouraged or required
to hold a static stretch was 12.02 6 4.0 seconds. Plyometrics
Out of 21 MLB S&C coaches, 20 reported using plyome-
Speed Development trics. For those who used plyometric exercises with ath-
All of the 21 coaches who responded to the survey re- letes, 17 coaches reported they used plyometric training
ported incorporating some type of speed development ex- for lower body power, and 15 reported using plyometric
ercise into their programs (Figure 6). All coaches used training for speed development. Plyometrics is used for
form running for developing speed. Eighteen coaches total body training and upper body power training by 11
used speed endurance training, and 17 used plyometrics and 10 coaches, respectively. Two coaches used plyome-
for developing speed. Additionally, 11 and 4 coaches, re- trics to improve vertical jump, and 3 others included com-
 STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING PRACTICES OF MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL 541

FIGURE 7. Reported uses of plyometric training by Major FIGURE 10. Plyometric exercises regularly employed by
League Baseball strength and conditioning coaches. Major League Baseball strength and conditioning coaches.

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-
FIGURE 8. The stage/cycle/phase of training in which Major ometrics, box drills, and multiple hops or jumps were re-
League Baseball strength and conditioning coaches incorporate ported as being used by 16, 15, and 14 coaches, respec-
plyometric training.
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
FIGURE 9. Method of integration for plyometric training and
weight training. 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.
ments about using plyometrics for the core and for agility The second question in the strength/power develop-
(Figure 7). ment section of the survey asked the MLB S&C coach to
In response to the question about when plyometric report the average length of their off-season resistance
training was performed, 9 coaches reported that they in- training workouts. Sixteen coaches reported that their
corporate plyometrics before spring training, and 8 coach- workouts are 45 to 60 minutes long, and 5 reported that
es reported that they incorporate plyometric training year workouts last 30 to 45 minutes. One coach commented
round. Plyometric training is incorporated during the sea- ‘‘between 3–5 days/week.’’
son by 7 coaches, during spring training by 7 coaches, and The third question in this section asked the coaches
during the postseason by 2 coaches. Additional comments how many days of the week their athletes perform in-
made by MLB S&C coaches concerning the stage or cycle season strength/power development activities. Thirteen
when plyometric training is incorporated included ‘‘with coaches reported 2 days a week, 6 coaches reported 3 days
rehab players’’ and ‘‘med ball plyos’’ (Figure 8). a week, 2 coaches responded 4 days a week, and 1 coach
Coaches were also asked how they integrate plyome- indicated 5 days a week.
tric training into their weight-training program (Figure The fourth question in the strength/power section as-
9). Ten coaches responded that they perform plyometric sessed the length of the in-season strength/power train-
training prior to weight training on the same day. Nine ing session. Sixteen coaches indicated that the sessions
coaches used plyometric training and weight training last 15–30 minutes, whereas 3 coaches reported that the
542 EBBEN, HINTZ, AND SIMENZ

TABLE 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– or ‘‘pull-downs’’ are the fourth most important exercise.
15 minutes during the in-season sessions. Examples of other responses indicated by 1 coach each
The next question in the strength/power section of the included ‘‘chest press,’’ ‘‘scapular stabilization,’’ ‘‘tubing
survey asked MLB S&C coaches if they used Olympic- side shuffles,’’ ‘‘core stability,’’ ‘‘push-up variations,’’ and
style weightlifting exercises or their variations. Six of 21 ‘‘rotator cuff.’’
(28.6%) reported using weightlifting exercises with their The fifth most important exercise according to coaches
athletes. included ‘‘rotator cuff’’ or ‘‘shoulder stabilization,’’ report-
Next, the coaches were asked whether they use ma- ed by 4 coaches each. Additional responses included
chines to train athletes and what manufacturer/brands ‘‘lunge variations’’ and ‘‘medicine ball core exercises,’’
they commonly used. All coaches indicated at least some each reported by 2 coaches. Examples of other responses
use of machines. Comments included ‘‘some use of ma- included ‘‘bicep curl/tricep extension,’’ ‘‘chest press,’’
chines,’’ ‘‘it varies in each city and park,’’ and ‘‘all brands ‘‘row,’’ ‘‘pulling movements,’’ ‘‘squats,’’ and ‘‘MB rotation.’’
because of the amount of travel we do.’’ The most com- One coach did not specifically identify exercises but
monly used machines include those manufactured by reported, ‘‘we consider complete development of the body
Hammer Strength, Cybex, Life Fitness, and Body Master, important. We don’t emphasize any particular lifts.’’
which are used by 16, 10, 10, and 5 coaches, respectively. The eighth question in this section assessed the MLB
Additionally, coaches reported the use of a variety of oth- S&C coaches’ conceptualization of training, specifically
er machines representing 16 manufacturers. inquiring about the use of a periodization model, training
The next question in the strength/power development phases, and cycles. Responses were content analyzed into
section asked MLB S&C coaches to identify, in order of 2 categories: a periodization model (PM) and a nonpe-
importance, the 5 resistance training exercises that are riodization model (NPM). Eighteen of 21 MLB S&C
most important in their programs. Seven coaches report- coaches (85.7%) reported conceptualizing training accord-
ed the squat as the most important exercise. Two coaches ing to a PM. Table 2 presents higher order themes, num-
each reported that the most important exercise is ‘‘squat ber of responses, and select raw data representing re-
or leg press,’’ ‘‘squat or lunge,’’ or ‘‘leg press.’’ Other re- sponses about the ways coaches who periodized training
sponses, reported by 1 coach each, include ‘‘abdominals,’’ organized training into cycles. Table 3 presents the ways
‘‘single leg squat,’’ ‘‘rotational core exercises,’’ ‘‘core,’’ coaches determine training loads. Tables 4 and 5 sum-
‘‘dumbbell (DB) shoulder exercises,’’ ‘‘bench,’’ and ‘‘DB marize the ways MLB S&C coaches organize sets and rep-
lunge matrix.’’ etitions during the off-season and in-season. Table 6 de-
Five coaches identified lunges or their variations as scribes the unique aspects of the coaches’ programs. Fi-
the second most important exercise in their program. nally, Table 7 describes the changes coaches would make
Other responses included ‘‘step-ups’’ or their variations, to their programs, and Table 8 includes the coaches’ ideas
‘‘leg press,’’ or ‘‘lat pull-downs,’’ reported by 2 coaches regarding future trends for strength and conditioning in
each. Examples of other responses indicated by 1 coach MLB.
each include ‘‘DB 1-arm row,’’ ‘‘medicine ball (MB) rota-
tion throws,’’ ‘‘tubing shoulder exercises,’’ ‘‘leg curl,’’ and Comments
‘‘seated cable row.’’
Five coaches indicated that the ‘‘lat pull’’ or ‘‘pull- The final section of the survey allowed MLB S&C coaches
down’’ is the third most important exercise in their pro- the opportunity to provide additional data or make spe-
gram. Three coaches indicated that rows are the third cific comments regarding the survey. The responses of the
most important exercise. Two coaches each reported that 7 coaches who filled out this section were content ana-
‘‘step-ups (variations),’’ ‘‘core exercises,’’ and ‘‘lunge (var- lyzed into 4 higher order themes: (a) interest in the re-
iations),’’ are the third most important exercises in their sults, (b) offer to answer questions, (c) contact informa-
programs. Examples of other responses included ‘‘shoul- tion, and (d) miscellaneous.
ders,’’ ‘‘DB straight leg,’’ ‘‘single leg split squat,’’ ‘‘shuffle The higher order theme ‘‘interest in results’’ consisted
squats,’’ and ‘‘DB chest press.’’ of comments such as ‘‘I would love to see the results of
The fourth most important exercise according to the study when done.’’ The theme of ‘‘offer to answer ques-
coaches includes some form of rowing such as ‘‘DB row,’’ tions’’ included responses such as ‘‘please contact me if I
‘‘seated row,’’ and ‘‘low row,’’ reported by 4 coaches. Four can be of further assistance to you.’’ The theme ‘‘contact
coaches indicated that step-ups are the fourth most im- information’’ included e-mail, addresses, and telephone
portant exercise. Three coaches reported that ‘‘lat pulls,’’ numbers.
 STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING PRACTICES OF MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL 543

TABLE 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

TABLE 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 9 Depending on the phase, anywhere from 15 repetitions
phase/cycle (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 3 10 but it changes with every player.

TABLE 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 3 6–8. July–September 2–3 3 4–8.
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.

TABLE 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

TABLE 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: 601 players 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 EBBEN, HINTZ, AND SIMENZ

TABLE 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/ 5 The strength and conditioning coach will become part of
medical focus 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- 4 Increase in dynamic training protocols, reduction in sin-
body training. gle-joint strength training.
Miscellaneous 3 Less and less reliance on strength/power resistance train-
ing. . . more towards romper room.
No answer 4
*PT 5 physical therapist.

DISCUSSION anaerobic sport and that a high aerobic capacity is not

important for major league players (16) or collegiate
This is the first comprehensive survey of MLB strength
pitchers (24).
and conditioning practices. The survey response rate of
All MLB S&C coaches, 87% of NHL S&C coaches, and
21 of 30 (70%) is lower than the rate reported for surveys
85% of NFL S&C coaches reported using static stretching
of National Football League (NFL) (87%) and National
with their athletes, and the majority use dynamic and
Hockey League (NHL) (76%) S&C coaches (10, 11). How-
PNF stretching as well. This result is not surprising given
ever, multiple mailings and telephone calls may have re-
the number of survey respondents whose comments sug-
sulted in a higher response rate than is typical for
strength and conditioning surveys, which ranges from gest the importance of flexibility (e.g., ‘‘more focus on hip
42.7% to 61.9% (2, 8, 20, 30). The desire to maximize the mobility’’) and the recommendations in the literature for
response rate, in addition to difficulty getting responses flexibility (15, 34) or dynamic flexibility (14) for baseball
in some cases, led to a protracted period of data collection players. Interestingly, 4 coaches reported having athletes
(7 months). This issue was exacerbated by address chang- perform ballistic flexibility, which is identical to the num-
es as coaches moved between off-season, spring training, ber of NHL S&C coaches and fewer than the number NFL
and in-season addresses, and by turnover among coaches. coaches (8 of 26) who use this method.
In fact, results indicate MLB S&C coaches have a shorter All of the MLB S&C coaches incorporated speed de-
average tenure with their present team (5.14 years) than velopment strategies, with form running being used by
NFL (6.52 years) and NHL (6.28 years) S&C coaches (10, all and speed endurance training, such as interval train-
11). ing, used by 18 of 21 coaches. However, only 9 coaches
In general, MLB S&C coaches test fewer parameters reported testing anaerobic capacity and only 4 reported
of fitness (3.6) with fewer tests (3.7) compared to their testing speed. Eleven of 21 coaches used resisted running
counterparts in the NHL (7.4 parameters of fitness using with their athletes, compared to 17 NFL S&C coaches and
9.8 specific tests) and NFL (7.2 parameters of fitness with 15 NHL S&C coaches (10, 11). Only 4 MLB S&C coaches
10.0 tests) (10, 11). All MLB S&C coaches reported that employed overspeed methods, compared to 15 NFL S&C
they test body composition, a practice that is similar to coaches and 10 NHL S&C coaches (10, 11).
the data reported by NFL and NHL S&C coaches (10, 11), Twenty of 21 (95.2%) coaches incorporated plyometric
despite some evidence that body composition may not be training with their athletes. This result is consistent with
highly related to performance (9). Only 7 MLB S&C the percentage of other strength and conditioning coaches
coaches indicated that they test strength or power. This who reported using this mode of training with their ath-
finding is dissimilar to the NHL, where 100% of the letes. For example, 91.3% of NHL, 90% of NCAA Division
coaches reported testing strength and 82.6% reported I, and 73% of NFL S&C coaches used plyometrics to train
testing power, which is somewhat surprising because an- athletes (8, 10, 11).
ecdotes and evidence indicate that these abilities are im- Most MLB off-season programs are performed 4 days
portant for acceleration and throwing velocity (18, 19), a week, and most in-season programs are performed 2
may reduce pain associated with throwing (17), and have days a week. These results are consistent with the prac-
been recommended for testing with professional baseball tices of NHL, NFL, and Division I S&C coaches (8, 10,
players (15). 11).
Only 1 coach reported testing acceleration, 4 test Only 3 of 21 (14.3%) of MLB S&C coaches used Olym-
speed, and 7 test agility, even though all coaches reported pic-style lifts with their athletes. This result is unlike oth-
using speed development strategies to train athletes. Pre- er survey data that indicated that 91.3% of NHL and 85%
vious recommendations indicate that performance testing of Division I coaches used Olympic-style exercises with
for baseball should include tests for speed, quickness, and their athletes (8, 11). In fact, variations of weight-lifting
agility (15, 31). Furthermore, the majority of coaches do exercises and squats are the exercises most commonly
not test anaerobic capacity or cardiovascular endurance. used by other professional athletes (10, 11). For MLB
For those who do, more coaches test anaerobic capacity S&C coaches, variations of the squat were also identified
(9 of 21) than cardiovascular endurance (5 of 21), consis- as the most important exercise.
tent with previous recommendations (31) and perhaps Eighteen of 21 (83.4%) coaches reported periodizing
demonstrating an awareness that baseball is primarily an their programs, compared to 91.3% and 69.2% of NHL
 STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING PRACTICES OF MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL 545

and NFL coaches, respectively (10, 11). Of the 3 MLB PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
S&C coaches who did not report periodizing, none defined
their programs as ‘‘high-intensity training’’ which is con- This article describes the practices of MLB S&C coaches.
sistent with the findings from research with NHL coach- Strength and conditioning coaches now have a source of
es, but dissimilar to the NFL data, where 19.2% indicated data describing baseball strength and conditioning prac-
using ‘‘high-intensity training’’ concepts (12). tices as they occur at the sport’s highest talent level, Ma-
jor League Baseball. Baseball strength and conditioning
In the description of their program designs, all but 1
coaches at all levels can use this data as a review of
MLB S&C coach cycles their repetitions and loads during
strength and conditioning practices and a possible source
the off-season, and all but 2 do the same in-season, re-
of new ideas. In addition to this new source of profession-
sulting in phases or cycles with changing volume and in- al practice knowledge, scientists are encouraged to con-
tensity. However, for many of the MLB S&C coaches, the tinue to empirically investigate aspects of this sport.
prescription of training load is fairly subjective (e.g., ‘‘trial
and error,’’ ‘‘guesstimation’’) which in part may be a func- REFERENCES
tion of the reported absence of strength testing and the
subsequent RM, estimated RM, and multiple RM data for 1. CONTE, S., R.K. REQUA, AND J.G. GARRICK. Disability days in
prescribing training loads, as well as the administrative Major League Baseball. Am. J. Sports Med. 29(4):431–436.
2001.
challenges associated with working with a large number 2. CLIMINO, J.S. Baseball: One year periodization conditioning
of athletes over the course of a long season. The subjective program specific to fastball pitchers. Natl. Strength Cond. As-
determination of training loads used more frequently by soc. J. 9(2):26–30. 1987.
MLB S&C coaches contrasts with the NFL and NHL S&C 3. COLEMAN, A.E. Physiological characteristics of Major League
coaches who most frequently used formula (10) or per- Baseball players. Physician Sports Med. 10(5):51–57. 1982.
centage of repetition maximum (11), respectively. 4. COLEMAN, A.E., AND L.M. LASKY. Assessing running speed and
The practices of MLB S&C coaches was most similar body composition in professional baseball players. J. Strength
Cond. Res. 6:207–213. 1992.
to other groups of strength and conditioning coaches as-
5. COLEMAN, G. The year-round conditioning plan. In: 52-Week
sessed in areas such as flexibility training, use of ply- Baseball Training. G. Coleman, ed. Champaign, IL: Human Ki-
ometrics, and the incorporation of periodization. Their netics, 2000. pp. 1–4.
dissimilarity to the other groups was demonstrated by 6. CRAFT, J. Football core exercises of selected universities. Natl.
less physical testing, less variety of speed development Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 14(5):13–16. 1992.
strategies, less use of weightlifting and its variations, and 7. DERENNE, C., K.W. HO, AND J.C. MURPHY. Effects of general,
less elegant program design specifically related to the special, and specific resistance training on throwing velocity in
baseball: A brief review. J. Strength Cond. Res. 15:148–156.
prescription of load. 2001.
While the demands on S&C coaches in all sports are 8. DURELL, D.L., T.J. PUJOL, AND J.T. BARNES. A survey of the
undoubtedly high, it is possible that some of the differ- scientific data and training methods utilized by collegiate
ences between this group of coaches and others may be a strength and conditioning coaches. J. Strength Cond. Res.
result of unfavorable staff-to-athlete ratio, difficulty get- 17(2):368–373. 2003.
ting athletes and coaches to buy into the program, dual 9. DYRIW, G.M. A comparison of performance attributes in an
responsibilities (strength and conditioning and athletic NCAA Division I baseball team. Microform Publications, Uni-
versity of Oregon, Eugene, 2002.
training), and in some cases, an emphasis on injury pre- 10. EBBEN, W.P., AND D.O. BLACKARD. Strength and conditioning
vention and not performance enhancement typified by practices of National Football League strength and condition-
statements such as the following comments on future ing coaches. J. Strength Conditioning Res. 15(1):48–58. 2001.
trends: ‘‘programs will be designed with pre-habilitation 11. EBBEN, W.P., R. CARROLL, AND C. SIMENZ. Strength and con-
in mind, not strength maintenance or strength gains,’’ ditioning practices of National Hockey League strength and
‘‘the strength and conditioning coach will become part of conditioning coaches. J. Strength Conditioning Res. 18(4):889–
897. 2004.
the medical staff,’’ ‘‘less and less reliance on strength/
12. ESCAMILLA, R.F., K.P. SPEER, G.S. FLEISIG, S.W. BARRENTINE,
power resistance training. . . more towards romper room,’’ AND J.R. ANDREWS. Effects of throwing overweight and under-
‘‘I believe with the injuries in the sport, more programs weight baseballs on throwing velocity and accuracy. Sports
will be geared toward injury prevention and not enhance- Med. 29(4):259–272. 2000.
ment,’’ ‘‘more emphasis on pre-hab for injury prevention,’’ 13. FORTI, D.S. The study of off-season football strength and con-
‘‘I believe more dual certified athletic trainer/certified ditioning programs at selected major colleges. Master’s thesis,
strength and conditioning specialist (ATC/CSCS) individ- University of Oregon, Eugene, 1984.
14. FREDRICK, G.A., AND D.J. SZYMANSKI. Baseball (part 1): Dy-
uals will be hired to coordinate the conditioning activi-
namic flexibility. Strength Cond. J. 23(1):21–30. 2001.
ties.’’ 15. GAMBETTA, V. Concepts of baseball conditioning: The White
It is interesting to note that some evidence indicates Sox experience. Strength Cond. 19(4):7–9. 1997.
that the incidence of injury in Major League Baseball has 16. HAGERMAN, F.C., L.M. STARR, AND T.F. MURRAY. Effects of
increased in recent years (1). What is less clear is whether long-term fitness on professional baseball players. Physician
this increased rate of injury has resulted in a greater fo- Sports Med. 17(4):101–104,107–108,115–119. 1989.
cus on injury prevention. It is also possible that the in- 17. HAYES, R., P. HAMERE, R. GROVE, AND B. ELLIOTT. Effects of
creased rate of injury has occurred in spite of, or possibly strength training on shoulder pain and perceived health of the
throwing arm in baseball pitchers. Appl. Res. Coaching Athlet-
as the result of, an increased emphasis on injury preven-
ics Annu. 16:178–191. 2001.
tion. Future research should examine the role of perfor- 18. JONES, K., P. BISHOP, G. HUNTER, AND G. FLEISIG. The effects
mance enhancing strength and conditioning protocols of varying resistance training loads on intermediate- and high-
versus ‘‘injury prevention’’ protocols and the effect of each velocity-specific adaptations. J. Strength Cond. Res. 15:349–
on the injury rate associated with the sport. 356. 2001.
546 EBBEN, HINTZ, AND SIMENZ

19. LACHOWETZ, T., J. EVON, AND J. PASTIGLIONE. The effect of an 29. TAYLOR, G.R., T.W. HENRICH, E. COSNER, K. CLOW, D. BOR-
upper body strength program on intercollegiate baseball throw- AWSKI, AND S. CLIFTON. The effects of pre-season conditioning
ing velocity. J. Strength Cond. Res. 12:116–119. 1998. programs on collegiate baseball players. In: Texas Association
20. MCCLELLAN, T., AND W.J. STONE. A survey of football strength for Health Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. Austin,
and conditioning programs for Division-I NCAA Universities. TX: 1998. p. 32.
Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 8(2):34–36. 1986. 30. TEICHELMAN, T. Trends in the strength and conditioning pro-
21. MCEVOY, K.P., AND R.U. NEWTON. Baseball throwing speed fession in Division I schools. Strength Cond. 20(2):70–72. 1998.
and base running speed: The effects of ballistic resistance 31. WATKINSON, J. Performance testing for baseball. Strength
training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 12:216–221. 1998. Cond. 20(4):16–20. 1998.
22. OTSUJI, T., M. ABLE, AND H. KINOSHITA. After-effects of using 32. WELCH, C.M., S.A. BANKS, F.F. COOK, AND P. DRAOVITCH. Hit-
a weighted bat on subsequent swing velocity and batters’ per- ting a baseball: A biomechanical description. J. Orthop. Sports
ception of swing velocity and heaviness. Perceptual Motor Skills Phys. Ther. 22(5):193–201. 1995.
94(1):119–126. 2002. 33. ZEMPER, E.D. Four-year study of weight room injuries in a na-
23. PATTON, M.Q. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. tional sample of college football teams. Natl. Strength Cond.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990. Assoc. J. 12(3):32–34. 1990.
24. POTTEIGER, J.A., D.L. BLESSING, AND G. DENNIS WILSON. The 34. ZOMAR, V.D., H. KURLAND, AND C. BREWSTER. A look at pro-
physiological responses to a single game of baseball pitching. grams used by San Francisco Giants, Los Angeles Giants, Cal-
J. Strength Cond. Res. 6:11–18. 1992. ifornia Angels. Natl. Strength Coaches Assoc. J. 2(6):34–41.
25. POTTEIGER, J.A., H.N. WILLIFORD, D.L. BLESSING, AND J. 1980.
SMIDT. Effects of two training methods on improving baseball
performance variables. J. Strength Cond. Res. 6:2–6. 1992. Acknowledgments
26. PULLO, F.M. A profile of NCAA Division I strength and con-
ditioning coaches. J. Strength Cond. Res. 6:55–62. 1992. The authors wish to thank each of the Major League Baseball
27. SERGO, C., AND D. BOATWRIGHT. Training methods using var- strength and conditioning coaches who participated in this
ious weighted bats and the effects on bat velocity. J. Strength study. This study was funded by a Marquette University College
Cond. Res. 7:115–117. 1993. of Health Science faculty development grant.
28. SUTHERLAND, T.M., AND J.P. WILEY. Survey of strength and
conditioning services for professional athletes in four sports. J. Address correspondence to Dr. William Ebben,
Strength Cond. Res. 11:266–268. 1997. webben70@[Link].

View publication stats