ANTHROPOMETRIC AND PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS
IN PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL PLAYERS
JAY R. HOFFMAN,1 JOSE VAZQUEZ,2 NAPOLEON PICHARDO,2
1
Department of Health and Exercise Science, The College of New Jersey, Ewing, New Jersey; 2Texas Rangers Baseball Club,
Arlington, Texas; and 3Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 09/06/2021
ABSTRACT
Hoffman, JR, Vazquez, J, Pichardo, N, and Tenenbaum, G.
Anthropometric and performance comparisons in professional
baseball players. J Strength Cond Res 23(8): 2173–2178,
2009—This study compared anthropometric and performance
variables in professional baseball players and examined the
relationship between these variables and baseball-specific
performance (i.e., home runs, total bases, slugging percentage,
and stolen bases). During a 2-year period, 343 professional
baseball players were assessed for height, weight, body
composition, grip strength, vertical jump power, 10-yard sprint
speed, and agility. Subject population consisted of players on
the rosters of one of the minor league affiliates (Rookie, A, AA,
AAA) or major league team (MLB). All testing occurred at the
beginning of spring training. Players in Rookie and A were
significantly (p , 0.05) leaner than players in MLB and AAA.
These same players had significantly lower lean body mass than
seen in MLB, AAA, and AA players. Greater grip strength (p ,
0.05) was seen in MLB and AAA than in Rookie and A. Players
in MLB were also faster (p , 0.05) than players in AA, A, and
Rookie. Vertical jump power measures were greater (p , 0.05)
in MLB than AA, A, and Rookie. Regression analysis revealed
that performance measures accounted for 25–31% of the
variance in baseball-specific power performance. Anthropo-
metric measures failed to add any additional explanation to the
variance in these baseball-specific performance variables.
Results indicated that both anthropometric and performance
variables differed between players of different levels of
competition in professional baseball. Agility, speed, and
lower-body power appeared to provide the greatest predictive
power of baseball-specific performance.
KEY WORDS fitness, assessment, sport, power, speed, agility
Address correspondence to Dr. Jay R. Hoffman, hoffmanj@tcnj.edu.
23(8)/2173–2178
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2009 National Strength and Conditioning Association
AND GERSHON TENENBAUM3
INTRODUCTION
I
n recent years, professional baseball has had to defend
itself that the upsurge in power numbers seen in the
sport is the direct result of performance enhancing
drugs, primarily the use of anabolic steroids (17). The
belief is that the increase in muscle size, strength, and power
associated with these drugs have led to improvements in
baseball power numbers (e.g., home runs, total bases, and
slugging percentage). However, during this same time period,
professional baseball teams have also invested in the hiring
of strength and conditioning professionals to develop and
monitor player development. On the basis of the report from
Senator George Mitchell on anabolic steroid use in Major
League Baseball (17), professional teams were directed to
hire strength and conditioning coaches certified from the
National Strength and Conditioning Association. This
directive was based upon the understanding that the strength
and conditioning professional would be able to achieve the
desired performance outcomes based upon sound scientific
principles and minimize the use and reliance of illegal
performance enhancing drugs.
Despite the tremendous popularity of professional baseball
and the measures taken to maximize athletic performance,
little is known regarding the importance of various fitness
components’ impact on baseball-specific performance. Sev-
eral articles were published in the 1980s on the physiologic
characteristics and preseason assessment programs of pro-
fessional baseball players (3,7). However, these investigations
did not examine how these factors impacted sport-specific
performance. Potteiger and colleagues (20) in 1992 examined
the physiological responses to a single baseball game in
pitchers but failed to investigate which physiological
components were predictive of baseball performance.
Subsequent studies have examined the positive benefit of
various resistance training programs on reductions in
shoulder and elbow pain (14), enhancing throwing velocity
in pitchers (16,18), and enhancing bat velocity in position
players (4,11,24). The role that these specific fitness
components have on specific baseball performance, however,
is not clear. Pedegana and colleagues (19) suggested that
improvement in upper-extremity strength (specifically in
elbow and wrist extensors) may enhance throwing velocity,
whereas Spaniol (23) has suggested that leg power is
VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 8 | NOVEMBER 2009 | 2173
Performance Characteristics in Professional Baseball
positively related to throwing speed, bat speed, and batted-
ball velocity. Recently, Kohmura and colleagues (12)
reported that strength, power, and agility were significantly
correlated to the subjective evaluation of batting and fielding
performance in Japanese college baseball players. However,
the comparisons between subjective measures of evaluation
by the coaches were moderately correlated, suggesting
a potential large variability in the rating scales among the
coaches. The potential of fitness variables to differentiate
between different levels of play and their relationship with
objective baseball performance variables has not been
investigated. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare
anthropometric and performance variables across different
levels of professional baseball and to examine the predictive
power that these variables have on baseball-specific power
performance.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
All subjects were professional baseball players that were under
contract to play for the Texas Rangers baseball franchise.
Players were examined before the onset of preseason training
for 2 consecutive seasons. During the preseason training camp,
players were assigned to either the major league team (MLB)
or one of the ballclub’s affiliate minor league teams (Rookie, A,
AA, or AAA). For players that competed for more than 1 team
(e.g., AAA and AA), all baseball statistics were summed for the
entire season. For comparing fitness variables among leagues,
players were placed in the category (level of play) that they
played the most games in. Field assessments were used to
analyze lower-body power, speed, agility, grip strength, and
body composition. Baseball statistics (home runs, total bases,
slugging percentage, and stolen bases) were completed at the
end of each season. All testing sessions were supervised by
certified strength and conditioning specialists.
Subjects
Three hundred forty-three professional baseball players from
the Texas Rangers professional baseball organization were
examined during the course of 2 separate seasons. Players
were either on the roster of the ballclub’s minor league
affiliates (Rookie, A, AA, or AAA) or on the major league
roster. Minor league affiliates differ on baseball performance
ability. As players move from Rookie, A, to AAA, the level of
baseball performance is assumed to improve. All performance
assessments were part of the athlete’s normal training camp
routine. Players gave their informed consent as part of their
sport requirements, which is consistent with the institution’s
policies of our institutional review board for use of human
subjects in research.
Performance Assessments
Subjects’ anthropometric measurements were taken (height,
body mass, and body composition), and they performed
isometric strength (hand-grip dynamometer), vertical jump
and anaerobic power measures, speed (10-yd sprint), and agility
the TM
2174 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
(pro-agility) tests. All testing sessions (10-yd spring) were
supervised by certified strength and conditioning specialists.
Anthropometric (height, body mass, and body composition)
and isometric strength measures were taken and performed
initially, followed by vertical jump, speed, and agility testing.
Test-retest reliabilities for all assessments were R . 0.90.
Isometric Handgrip Testing
Isometric grip strength was assessed with a Jamar Handgrip
Dynamometer (Sammons Preston, Bolingbrook, IL, USA).
All measurements were assessed with the subject’s dominant
and nondominant hands. Isometric handgrip assessments
were performed as previously described (9). Each subject was
seated with back straight, arm resting on the arm rest, and the
elbow at 90°. Subjects were instructed to maintain the arm in
that position while performing a maximal effort attempt.
After 2 maximal effort attempts, the highest score in
kilograms was recorded.
Vertical Jump and Anaerobic Power Measures
Countermovement vertical jump height was measured using
a Vertec (Sports Imports, Columbus, OH, USA). Before
testing, each athlete’s standing vertical reach height was
determined. Vertical jump height was calculated by subtract-
ing the standing reach height from the jump height. Subjects
performed 3 attempts. The highest vertical jump height
achieved was recorded. To determine power output, vertical
jump heights were converted to watts using the Harman
formula (8).
Speed and Agility Assessments
Speed was determined by a timed 10-yard (9-m) sprint. Sprint
times were measured using an infrared testing device (Speed
Trap II; Brower Timing Systems, Draper, UT, USA) as
performed on an Astroturf field. Timing began on the
subject’s movement out of a 2-point (base-running) stance.
The best of 3 attempts was recorded as the subject’s best time.
Agility was determined by a pro-agility test on an Astroturf
field. The protocol was conducted as previously described (9).
Three lines with 5 yards (4.5 m) between each line were
marked on the field. The subject straddled a middle line and
sprinted to one line (4.5-m away) and touched the line.
He then changed direction and sprinted to the far opposite
line (9-m away), touched the line with the same hand used
to touch the first line, reversed direction, and returned to the
starting point. Subjects were instructed to sprint through
the finish line. Agility times were measured using a handheld
stopwatch. The timer began upon the athlete’s initial move-
ment and stopped as the athlete crossed the finish line. The
same investigator conducted all agility tests. Each subject per-
formed 3 maximal attempts, and the fastest time was recorded.
Statistical Analyses
Statistical comparisons among different levels of professional
baseball were accomplished using a one-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA). In the event of a significant F-ratio, LSD
post-hoc tests were used for pair-wise comparisons. Pearson
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

TABLE 1. Anthropometric and performance comparisons among levels of play in professional baseball.

Variable Rookie (n = 90) A (n = 84) AA (n = 50) AAA (n = 52) MLB (n = 62)

Age (yr) 21.3 6 2.5† 22.9 6 2.1† 24.9 6 2.2† 26.8 6 2.7† 28.7 6 4.2†
Height (cm) 185.2 6 5.8 185.4 6 6.1 185.5 6 5.8 187.5 6 6.9§†† 186.7 6 6.1
Body mass (kg) 92.0 6 9.8 92.0 6 9.6 96.0 6 7.9§†† 99.5 6 12.0§†† 101.2 6 10.5§††{
Body fat (%) 12.0 6 3.5 12.4 6 3.6 12.8 6 2.9 13.7 6 3.4§†† 13.8 6 3.0§††
Lean body mass (kg) 80.8 6 7.0 80.4 6 6.5 83.6 6 5.8§†† 85.7 6 9.3 §†† 87.1 6 7.9 §††{
Vertical jump (cm) 70.1 6 7.6 70.1 6 7.1 69.1 6 7.1 71.1 6 8.4 71.9 6 8.2
Vertical jump peak 10,798 6 791 10,823 6 737 11,127 6 622§†† 11,435 6 957§†† 11,542 6 849§††{
power (w)
Vertical jump mean 3835 6 499 3850 6 475 4052 6 393§†† 4235 6 605§†† 4298 6 539§††{
power (w)
Grip strength (kg) 103.5 6 12.5 105.2 6 12.6 111.6 6 12.7§†† 115.6 6 12.6§†† 111.0 6 16.0§††
10-yard sprint (s) 1.57 6 0.09 1.59 6 0.07 1.58 6 0.07 1.55 6 0.09 1.52 6 0.10§††{
Pro-agility (s) 4.54 6 0.19 4.48 6 0.54 4.42 6 0.68 4.53 6 0.20 4.42 6 0.90

*§p # 0.05 compared with rookie league, ††p # 0.05 compared with A league; {p # 0.05 compared with AA league.
†p # 0.05 compared with all other groups.

product-moment correlations were used to examine selected
bivariate correlations between physical fitness assessments
and baseball-specific performance variables. A hierarchical
linear regression was performed using 2 clusters. The first
cluster comprised fitness components (i.e., vertical jump
power, grip strength, 10-yd sprint, pro-agility), and the
second cluster comprised the anthropometric measures (i.e.,
height, body mass, body fat percent, lean body mass). A
2-model procedure was performed using baseball-specific
performance variables (i.e., home runs, total bases, slugging
percentage, and stolen bases) as dependent variables
separately. For each model, standardized regression
coefficients (b) were determined along with the respective
examination for 0-difference using a paired t-test. Percent
variance for each model and added and total variance
were determined, and an ANOVA was used to assess the
significance of each model. A criterion alpha level of p # 0.05
was used to determine statistical significance. All data are
reported as mean 6 SD.
RESULTS
Anthropometric and performance comparisons among the
different levels of play in professional baseball are shown in
Table 1. At each level of play, the age of the players was

TABLE 2. Selected bivariate correlations between fitness components and baseball performance.

Home Total bases Slugging Stolen

runs (r, r2) (r, r2) percentage (r, r2) bases (r, r2)

Lean body mass 0.478† 0.292† 0.474† 20.188

0.228 0.085 0.225 0.035
Grip strength 0.317† 0.213† 0.273† 0.099
0.100 0.045 0.074 0.010
10-yard sprint 20.089 20.251† 20.064 20.422†
0.008 0.063 0.004 0.178
Pro-agility 0.001 20.153 0.033 20.482†
0.000 0.023 0.001 0.232
VJ PP 0.481† 0.281† 0.471† 20.216
0.231 0.079 0.222 0.047
VJ MP 0.476† 0.270† 0.465† 20.246†
0.227 0.073 0.216 0.061
*VJ PP = vertical jump peak power; VJ MP = vertical jump mean power.
†p # 0.05.

VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 8 | NOVEMBER 2009 | 2175

Performance Characteristics in Professional Baseball
Figure 1. Scatter plot examining bivariate correlation between peak power and slugging percentage.
significantly different than all other levels. MLB players were
significantly heavier than Rookie, A, and AA players,
whereas AAA and AA players were significantly heavier
than players in Rookie and A leagues. Significantly higher
body fat percentages were seen between MLB and AAA level
players compared with Rookie and A level players. However,
MLB players still had significantly greater lean body mass
than players in Rookie, A, and AA, whereas AAA and AA
players had significantly greater lean body mass than players
in both Rookie and A leagues.
No differences were noted in vertical jump height between
the players at any of the levels of professional baseball.
However, significant differences were observed in vertical
jump power. Players in MLB had significantly greater peak
and mean jump power than players in the AA, A, and Rookie
leagues. In addition, players in the AAA and AA leagues had
Figure 2. Scatter plot examining bivariate correlation between mean power and slugging percentage.
the
2176 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
significantly greater peak and
mean jump power than players
in the A and Rookie league.
Grip strength was significantly
greater for players in MLB,
AAA, and AA leagues com-
pared with players in A and
Rookie leagues. No differences
were seen in time for the pro-
agility test between players at
any level of competition, but
players in MLB were signifi-
cantly faster in the 10-yard
sprint than players in AA, A,
and Rookie leagues. No other
significant differences in 10-
yard sprint speed were noted
among players of any of the
other professional leagues.
Table 2 provides selected bivariate correlations between
fitness components and baseball performance. Correlations
revealed significant positive relations between lower-body
power performance and home runs, total bases, and slugging
percentage. Figures 1 and 2 depict the relationship between
vertical jump peak and mean power to slugging percentage,
respectively. Significant correlations were also obtained
between grip strength and home runs (r = 0.317), total
bases (r = 0.213), and slugging percentage (r = 0.273).
Lean body mass was also significantly correlated to home
runs, total bases, and slugging percentage. Significant nega-
tive correlations were observed between 10-yard sprint
times and stolen bases (r = 20.422) and between agility
times and stolen bases (r = 20.482).
Regression results for the anthropometric and performance
measures are presented in Table 3. The correlation between
vertical jump mean and peak
power was r = 0.99, and thus all
regression analyses were per-
formed using vertical jump
mean power only. The physical
fitness measures (model 1)
accounted for 25%, 29%, 31%,
and 29% of the total bases,
home runs, slugging percent-
age, and stolen bases variance,
respectively. Model 1 was
found to be significant (p ,
0.05) for all dependent varia-
bles. Vertical jump mean power,
pro-agility, and 10-yard sprint
were significant predictors of
total bases. Vertical jump mean
power was the only significant
predictor of home runs and
slugging percentage, whereas
TM
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

TABLE 3. Regression statistics for 2-model procedure predicting total bases, home runs, slugging %, and stolen bases by
physical fitness and anthropometric measures in baseball players.

Total bases Home runs Slugging percentage Stolen bases

Model B t p b t p b t p b t p

1 Pro-agility 2.31 22.18 0.03 2.26 21.91 0.06 2.22 21.63 0.11 2.24 21.77 0.08
Sprint 10-yard 2.24 21.94 0.05 2.04 2.36 0.72 2.07 2.56 0.58 2.23 21.92 0.05
Grip strength 2.02 2.14 0.89 .18 .13 0.89 2.06 2.46 0.65 .18 1.31 0.20
VJMP .37 2.48 0.02 .59 4.13 0.00 .63 4.39 0.00 2.24 21.61 0.11
2 Pro-agility 2.38 22.43 0.02 2.26 21.74 0.09 2.24 21.57 0.12 2.24 21.54 0.13
Sprint 10-yard 2.29 22.19 0.03 2.06 2.50 0.62 2.07 2.55 0.59 2.23 21.75 0.08
Grip strength .03 .20 0.84 .03 .23 0.82 2.05 2.36 0.72 .18 1.21 0.23
VJMP 2.40 2.36 0.72 .78 .71 0.48 .31 .28 0.78 2.21 2.19 0.85
Height .08 .57 0.57 .04 .28 0.78 2.06 2.45 0.66 2.07 2.48 0.64
LBM .44 .34 0.74 2.29 2.23 0.82 .14 .11 0.91 2.17 2.13 0.90
Body mass .05 .05 0.96 .07 .06 0.95 .21 .20 0.85 .27 .25 0.81
Body fat percent .43 .76 0.45 2.01 2.02 0.98 .03 .05 0.96 2.15 2.26 0.79
1 df = 4,66 F = 5.44, p = 0.001; F = 6.68, p = 0.000; F = 7.49, p = 0.000; F = 6.68, p = 0.000;
R = 0.50, R2 = 0.25 R = 0.54, R2 = 0.29 R = 0.56, R2 = 0.31 R = 0.54, R2 = 0.29
2 df = 8,62 F = 3.07, p = 0.006; F = 3.20, p = 0.004; F = 3.58, p = 0.002; F = 3.20, p = 0.004;
R = 0.53, R2= 0.28 R = 0.54, R2 = 0.29 R = 0.56, R2 = 0.32 R = 0.54, R2 = 0.29

*VJMP = vertical jump mean power.

the pro-agility measure tended (p = 0.06) toward significance
in home runs. The 10-yard sprint was the only significant
predictor of stolen bases, whereas the pro-agility measure
again tended (p = 0.08) toward significance as a predictor for
stolen bases as well. Adding anthropometric measures
(model 2) to the analysis added only 3% and 1% to the
variability of total bases and slugging percentage, respec-
tively. However, it did not provide any additional explanation
to the variance for home runs and stolen bases. Although
model 2 was found to be significant for all dependent
variables, none of the anthropometric measures were found
to be a significant predictor for any of the dependent
variables.
DISCUSSION
Results of this study indicate that both anthropometric and
performance variables are able to differentiate professional
baseball players at different levels of competition. Lean body
mass, speed, lower-body power, and grip strength were also
shown to be significantly correlated with baseball-specific
performance variables. Although this appears to be the first
study to examine the relationship between various compo-
nents of fitness and baseball performance, previous studies
examining strength/power in athletes have shown that
physical ability can be an effective predictor of success in
college basketball (10), college football (1,2,5,6), and pro-
fessional football (13,16,22).
Physical performance characteristics have been shown to
differentiate between starters and nonstarters, playing time,
and different divisions of play. A 4-year study of an elite
NCAA Division I college basketball team, using playing time
as the dependent variable, reported that lower-body strength,
speed, and power contributed to greater playing time (10).
Strength, power, and speed have also been shown to
differentiate starters from nonstarters in 11 NCAA Division
I football teams (2). Similarly, Schmidt (21) demonstrated
that strength and power can differentiate starters from
nonstarters in NCAA Division III football players. Fry and
Kraemer (5) have also reported that these performance
attributes can also differentiate between different levels of
competitive play in college football. Power, speed, and
strength also appear to differentiate drafted and undrafted
players entering the NFL draft (22) and accurately predict
draft status (16). However, of these measures, only speed
appears to be the best predictor of continued success (based
upon salary and football-specific performance) during the
athlete’s professional football career (13).
There are a number of factors that contribute to successful
sports performance. Although all athletes and coaches desire
greater strength, power, and speed, the critical component for
success in athletic endeavors is the athlete’s sport-specific
skill. This appears to be the most critical component that
determines playing time (10) and is what likely contributed to
the overall low to moderate correlations seen between
anthropometric and performance measures and baseball-
specific outcomes. However, once this variable is factored
out, then the relative importance of physical factors relating
to athleticism appear to become more important. A recent

VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 8 | NOVEMBER 2009 | 2177

Performance Characteristics in Professional Baseball
study has suggested that strength, power, and agility are
related to the subjective evaluation of batting and fielding
performance (12). The present investigation provides
additional support to these findings by showing that
lower-body power, speed, and agility account significantly
and substantially for objective baseball performance. Al-
though grip strength was significantly correlated to several
baseball-specific performance variables, it did not signifi-
cantly add to the regression analysis predicting performance
outcomes. It is likely that the more powerful athletes were
also the stronger athletes, and most of the variance relating to
grip strength could be explained by the variance relating
to vertical jump power (r range 0.54–0.51, between grip
strength and mean and peak power, respectively).
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Focus on strength, power, and speed improvements in
baseball players appears to be highly desirable in the
development of their training programs. The use of
performance testing in player selection, especially in regard
to the amateur draft, may potentially provide valuable
information to general managers and scouting professionals
in making a more educated decision in the signing and
drafting of perspective professional baseball players.
REFERENCES
1. Berg, K, Latin, RW, and Baechle, T. Physical and performance
characteristics of NCAA Division I football players. Res Quart
61: 395–401, 1990.
2. Black, W and Roundy, E. Comparisons of size, strength, speed
and power in NCAA division I-A football players. J Strength Cond
Res 8: 80–85, 1994.
3. Coleman, AE. Physiological characteristics of major league baseball
players. Physician Sportsmed 10: 51–57, 1982.
4. Derenne, C, Buxton, BP, Hetzler, RK, and Ho, KW. Effects of
weighted bat implement training on bat swing velocity. J Strength
Cond Res 9: 247–250, 1995.
5. Fry, AC and Kraemer, WJ. Physical performance characteristics of
American collegiate football players. J Appl Sport Sci Res 5: 126–138,
1991.
6. Garstecki, MA, Latin, RW, and Cuppett, MM. Comparison of
selected physical fitness and performance variables between NCAA
Division I and II football players. J Strength Cond Assoc 18: 292–297,
2004.
7. Hagerman, FC, Starr, LM, and Murray, TF. Effects of a long–term
fitness program on professional baseball players. Physician Sportsmed
17: 101–119, 1989.
the TM
2178 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
8. Harman, EA, Rosenstein, MT, Frykman, PN, Rosenstein, RM, and
Kraemer, WJ. Estimation of human power output from vertical
jump. J Appl Sport Sci Res 5: 116–120, 1991.
9. Hoffman, JR. Norms for Fitness, Performance and Health. Human
Kinetics: Champaign, IL, 2006. pp. 27–39.
10. Hoffman, JR, Tennenbaum, G, Maresh, CM, and Kraemer, WJ.
Relationship between athletic performance tests and playing time in
elite college basketball players. J Strength Cond Res 10: 67–71, 1996.
11. Hughes, SS, Lyons, BC, and Mayo, JJ. Effect of grip strength and grip
strengthening exercises on instantaneous bat velocity of collegiate
baseball players. J Strength Cond Res 18: 298–301, 2004.
12. Kohmura, Y, Aoki, K, Yoshigi, H, Sakuraba, K, and Yanagiya, T.
Development of a baseball-specific battery of tests and a testing
protocol for college baseball players. J Strength Cond Res 22:
1051–1058, 2008.
13. Kuzmits, FE and Adams, AJ. The NFL combine: does it predict
performance in the National Football League? J Strength and Cond
Res 22: 1721–1727, 2008.
14. Lachewetz, T, Drury, D, Elliot, R, Evon, J, and Pastiglione, J. The
effect of intercollegiate baseball strength program on the reduction
of shoulder and elbow pain. J Strength Cond Res 12: 46–51, 1998.
15. Mckee, KJ and Burkett, LN. The National Football League combine:
a reliable predictor of draft status? J Strength Cond Res 17: 6–11, 2003.
16. Mcevoy, KP and Newton, RU. Baseball throwing speed and base
running speed: The effects of ballistic resistance training. J Strength
Cond Res 12: 216–221, 1998.
17. Mitchell, GJ. Report to the Commissioner of Baseball of an Independent
Investigation into the Illegal Use of Steroids and Other Performance
Substances by Players in Major League Baseball Office of the Commissioner
of Major League Baseball. New York, NY: 2007.
18. Newton, RU and Mcevoy, KP. Baseball throwing velocity: A
comparison of medicine ball training and weight training. J Strength
Cond Res 8: 198–203, 1994.
19. Pedegna, LR, Elsner, RC, Roberts, D, Lang, J, and Farewell, V. The
relationship of upper extremity strength to throwing speed. Am J
Sports Med 10: 352–354, 1982.
20. Potteiger, JA, Blessing, DL, and Wilson, GD. The physiological
responses to a single game of baseball pitching. J Appl Sport Sci Re
6: 11–18, 1992.
21. Schmidt, WD. Strength and physiological characteristics of
NCAA Division III American football players. J Strength Cond Res
13: 210–213, 1999.
22. Sierer, SP, Battaglini, CL, Mihalik, JP, Shields, EW, and Tomasini, NT.
The National Football League Combine: performance differences
between drafted and nondrafted players entering the 2004 and 2005
drafts. J Strength Cond Res 22: 6–12, 2008.
23. Spaniol, FJ. Baseball athletic test: a baseball-specific test battery.
Strength Cond J 31: 26–29, 2009.
24. Szymanski, DJ, Mcintyre, JS, Szymanski, JM, Bradford, TJ, Schade, RL,
Madsen, NH, and Pascoe, DD. Effect of torso rotational strength on
angular hip, angular shoulder, and linear bat velocities of high school
baseball players. J Strength Cond Res 21: 1117–1125, 2007.