The Physician and Sportsmedicine

ISSN: 0091-3847 (Print) 2326-3660 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ipsm20

Physiological Characteristics of Major League

Baseball Players

A. Eugene Coleman

To cite this article: A. Eugene Coleman (1982) Physiological Characteristics of

Major League Baseball Players, The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 10:5, 51-57, DOI:
10.1080/00913847.1982.11947222

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00913847.1982.11947222

Published online: 18 Dec 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ipsm20
Physiological Characteristics of
Major League Baseball Players

A. Eugene Coleman, EdD Photo: Focus on Sports © 1982

In brief: Performance characteristics of

professional athletes are of interest to
those involved in sports. Major league
baseball players were tested for
muscular strength, cardiovascular
endurance, and body composition.
Comparisons were made among
positions and with other professional
athletes. Results indicated that
differences in strength and bOdy
composition existed among positions.
Cardiovascular endurance of baseball
players was comparable to that reported
for other professional athletes. These
data may be useful as a point of
reference for coaching, testing, training,
and selecting athletes.

P
erformance characteristics of pro-
fessional athletes who have reached
the pinnacle of athletic competition
are of particular interest to sports
medicine specialists. Descriptive performance
profiles of these competitors are often used as
standards for others attempting to become
professional athletes. Recently, a few re-
searchers have described the performance
characteristics of selected professional ath-
letes. Wilmore et al1. 2 described anthropomet- Houston pitchers such as Joe Niekro ranked first in lower body strength tests.
ric and physiological characteristics of N a-
tional Football League players by position.
Similar studies have been reported for profes- study describes the athletic profile of profes-
sional basketbalP and soccer players.4•5 ThiS sional baseball players by position by deter-
mining body composition, muscular strength,
and cardiovascular endurance. Comparisons
Dr. Coleman is professor and chairman of the program in
are made among positions and between test
health, leisure, and sports atthe University of Houston at subjects and athletes in other sports.
Clear Lake City, and he is a fellow of the American
College of Sports Medicine. He is the former director of Methods
physical condition for the Houston Astros baseball team
and physical fitness consultant for the Texas Rangers The subjects were 22 members of the Hous-
baseball team. ton Astros National League baseball team
continued

..... I'II'IIICIAII-»>OIIi_"C_ • Vol10. No 5. May 82 51

baseball players continued
Figure 1. Cybex test of arm and shoulder strength
(Nolan Ryan, pitcher)
(eight pitchers, eight infielders, and six out-
fielders). They represented 88% of the playing
roster. Each player was tested over three days
during the last month of the 1977 season
before the off-season conditioning program.
On the first day body composition and mus-
cular strength in the bench press and leg press
were assessed. Unilateral strength tests of arm
and leg flexion and extension were adminis-
tered on the second day, and endurance
capacity was determined on the third.
Body weight and standing height were
determined using calibrated scales. Skinfold
thickness was measured with Lange skinfold
calipers. Measurement procedures were con-
sistent with those described by Behnke and
Wilmore" and previously used with other
Major League Baseball players.' Skinfold
thickness was assessed on the right side at
three sites: midpoint between the anterior
crease of the axilla and nipple; adjacent to the
umbilicus; and at the midpoint of the anterior
aspect of the thigh. Two measurements were
recorded at each site; if they differed by more
52
Figure 2. Cybex test of leg strength
than I mm, a third measurement was taken.
Body density was estimated from the sum of
the mean skinfold measurements using the
procedures recommended by Jackson and
Pollock.' Density was converted to percent
body fat by Siri's equation." Absolute body
fat was determined from the product of rela-
tive body fat and total body weight. Lean
body weight was the difference between total
body weight and absolute body fat.
Six isokinetic muscular strength tests were
administered. The subjects performed bench
press maneuvers on a Cybex bench press
device to determine bilateral upper body
strength. Bilateral lower body strength was
measured as subjects performed maneuvers
on a Cybex leg press device.
Unilateral upper and lower body strength
was determined on a Cybex II machine. Arm
and shoulder strength was assessed by mea-
suring the maximal flexion and extension
force the subject could generate during a row-
ing motion. The rowing motion consisted of a
pushing and a pulling phase (figure I). During
Vol10 • No 5 • May 82 e THE PHYSICIAN AND SPORTSMEDICINE
 Table 1. Body Composition of Professional Baseball Players
Position No. Age (yrs) Height (em)
Pitchers 8 26.5± 4.1 189.3 ± 5.6
Infielders 8 27.3 ± 3.8 184.4 ± 4.2
Outfielders 6 28.6 ± 4.3 186.2 ± 4.3
Total mean 22 27.4 ± 4.0 185.1 ± 5.2
the pushing phase (shoulder flexion), the sub-
ject simultaneously flexed the shoulder joint
and extended the elbow joint in a horizontal
plane. Shoulder extension was measured as
the maximal force exerted by the shoulder
and arm during the pulling phase of the row-
ing motion (extension of the shoulder and
flexion of the elbow).
Unilateral strength of the quadriceps (knee
extension) and hamstring(knee flexion) mus-
cles was determined as the subject extended
and flexed the lower leg at the knee joint
(figure 2). Each strength test was repeated
three times, with each contraction conducted
at a velocity of 60° I sec. The score for each
test was the mean of the three trials.
Maximal oxygen consumption was deter-
mined by having the subject warm up for
three minutes and then run on a treadmill at a
constant speed of 230 meters· min 1• The incli-
nation of the treadmill was increased by 2.5%
every two minutes until the subject was
exhausted. Oxygen utilization was deter-
mined by open-circuit spirometry. Expired
gas samples were collected through a Daniels-
type breathing valve, 3.18 em I. D. tubing, and
a Collins three-way collection valve into a
200-liter weather balloon. Serial samples were
collected every 30 seconds during the last two
minutes of the run and were subsequently
analyzed twice for oxygen and carbon diox-
ide using a Beckman E2 oxygen analyzer and
LB-2 medical gas analyzer, respectively. The
analyses agreed within ± 1.5% of each other.
Expired air volumes were measured using a
Parkinson-Cowans CD-4 dry gas meter cali-
brated with a Collins 120-literTissot gasome-
ter. Standard procedures were observed in the
calculation of minute ventilation and oxygen
uptake. Maximal heart rate, measured from
Fat Fat Lean Body Total
Weight (kg) (%) (kg) Weight (kg) Sklnfolds (mm)
90.7 ± 9.1 13.6 ± 6.1 12.3 ± 3.8 78.4 ± 6.5 50.0 ± 13.1
80.3 ± 7.6 11.9 ± 4.1 9.6± 3.0 70.7 ± 3.8 39.7 ± 12.5
82.9 ± 4.3 9.7 ± 3.3 8.0± 2.9 74.9 ± 4.6 33.0 ± 10.9
84.6 ± 5.4 11.0 ± 5.0 9.3 ± 3.7 75.3 ± 6.1 35.4 ± 11.6
ECG tracings using a Marquette Case system
was determined when the heart rate did not
continue to increase while the subject was
undergoing an exhausting work load. Max-
imal heart rate for all subjects occurred dur-
ing the last 30 seconds of the test.
Results and Discussion
Descriptive summaries of the variables
measured are presented in tables I through 5.
Group means and standard deviations are
presented by position and for the entire
group. No inferential statistics were calcu-
lated because of the small nonrandom nature
of the group. Therefore, comparisons made
among positions and with other groups are
not statistically significant and should be
interpreted in relation to the magnitude of
difference involved.
Body Composition. Table I contains the
values for body composition by position.
Catchers are included with infielders for
comparative purposes. Height and weight are
consistent with that reported for other N a-
tiona! League players.' Pitchers were signifi-
cantly heavier than other players. The total
body weight of pitchers was 22.9 lb ( 10.4 kg)
greater than that of infielders, while their lean
body weight was 16.9 lb (7.7 kg) greater.
Pitchers were also heavier in total body
weight by 17.2 lb (7 .8 kg) than outfielders,
with only 7.7 lb (3.5 kg) more lean body
weight. Differences between outfielders and
infielders were less dramatic. Outfielders were
5.7 lb (2.6 kg) heavier than infielders with 9.2
lb(4.2 kg) more lean body weight. Differences
in relative and total body fat between pitchers
(13.6%; 12.3 kg) and infielders (11.9%; 9.6 kg)
were less than those between pitchers and
outfielders (9.7%; 8.0 kg).
continued
53
baseball players continued

Tllble 2. Muscular Strength of Professional Baseball Players (Mean ± SO)

BenchPreu Leg Press Shoulder Flexion (lb)

POIItlon No. (lb) (lb) DL* NDLt

Pitchers 8 142.1 ±21.8 305.5± 22.4 129.2± 16.8 121.2 ± 14.3

Infielders 8 157.3± 18.2 289.9± 23.2 137.4 ± 17.3 128.0± 15.4
Outfielders 6 165.8± 15.9 294.0± 21.7 148.8 ± 16.9 143.9 ±'15.8

Total mean 22 157.4±18.1 295.9 ± 22.0 138.7± 16.6 131.3 :t 15.2

'Dominant limb
tNondominant limb

Table 3. Ratio of Muscular Strength Between Nondomlnant and Dominant Umb

Shoulder Shoulder Knee Knee

Polltlon No. EXtension Flexion Extension Flexion

Pitchers 8 93.1 96.3 94.6 98.3

Infielders 8 93.5 97.7 98.9 96.3
Outfielders 6 98.2 95.6 99.1 97.4

TOIIII mean 22 94.6 96.0 97.4 97.2

Table 4. Ratio of Muscular Strength Between Antagonistic Muscle Groups

Dominant Nondomlnant Dominant Nonclomlnant

Shoulder Shoulder Knee Knee
Extension/ Extension/ Flexion/ Flexion/
Posllon No. Flexion Flexion Extension Extenilon

Pitchers 8 83.6 86.7 73.0 75.5

Infielders 8 84.7 88.2 75.1 72.7
Outfielders 6 85.8 84.1 74.5 72.6

Totlllmean 22 84.2 86.4 74.1 73.7

Differences by position in total body and
lean body weight are related to the type of
play required at each position. Infielders and
outfielders play daily and need a great deal of
speed, agility, and skill in hitting, fielding,
base running, etc. Excess fat weight is critical
for these players. In general, pitchers occupy a
power position, play less frequently, field
fewer balls, and run fewer bases than in-
fielders and outfielders. Fat weight, while not
desirable in any position, is less detrimental to
performance in pitching than in other
positions.
Muscular Strength. Mean values for mus-
cular strength by position are presented in
table 2. Since 23% of the players were left-
handed (two pitchers, two outfielders, and
one infielder}, strength data are presented for
dominant and nondominant limbs rather
than right and left limbs. Measurable differ-
ences were observed on most tests among the
various positions. Outfielders had the greatest
amount of upper body strength, and pitchers
had the least. Pitchers ranked first in lower
body strength tests, however, followed by
outfielders, with infielders last.
Since all players run and/ or cycle to condi-
tion the legs and increase endurance, the fairly
consistent level of leg strength across posi-
tions was not surprising. The higher leg
strength scores of pitchers may be attribut-
able to the lower extremity muscle require-

54 VallO • No 5 • May 82 e TMa IIIIYIICIAII AIID ~

Shoulder Extenllon Knee Extension
DL NDL DL
107.9 ± 14.6 105.0 ± 12.6 162.9 ± 19.7
116.0 ± 14.3 113.7 ± 13.9 152.2± 18.6
127.0± 15.2 121.9 ± 12.3 157.4±17.9
118.7±14.7 1142 ± 12.7 156.8 ± 18.4
ments during the throwing motion. In throw-
ing, the body functions as a system oflevers to
project an object at high speeds. Levers with
the greatest mass (legs and trunk) have the
greatest inertia and move first in the sequence.
Although most players throw every day, few
throw as long or as hard as pitchers. Most
starting pitchers warm up every second or
third day and pitch every fifth day. A typical
starting pitcher will throw 300 to 400 pitches
during this five-day period. Relief pitchers
throw fewer pitches per game but warm up
and pitch more frequently than starters.
The relative lack of pitchers' arm strength
may be partly attributable to differences in
training procedures and playing require-
ments. While six players said they used some
form of strength training during the off-
season, all used weighted bats, metal rods,
dumbbells, etc, during the season to maintain
arm and shoulder strength for batting. Al-
though one pitcher said he lifted weights dur-
ing the off-season, the weight work was
limited primarily to the lower body. Pitchers
limited in-season weight work to swinging a
weighted bat before batting and occasionally
lifting a 5-Jb iron ball. Since pitchers played
Jess often than other players and had fewer
opportunities to bat, they performed fewer
exercises to strengthen the arm and shoulder
muscles used in batting.
Comparison of dominant and nondomi-
nant limb test results show very minor
strength differences between contralateral
limbs (table 3). However, comparison of
antagonistic muscle groups (flexors vs exten-
sors) on the same side of the body indicates
strength imbalances in both the upper and
lower extremities. Table 4 reveals that the
extension (pull) strength of muscles of the
ntaiiiiYIICIAIIAIID- e Vol10 • No5 • May82
Knee Flexion
NDL DL NDL
154.4 ± 19.6 118.9 ± 16.6 116.9 ± 15.6
151.1 ± 19.1 114.3 ± 15.8 110.0±15.1
156.8 ± 18.3 116.8 ± 14.5 114.2 ± 14.6
153.6± 18.9 116.2 ± 14.9 114.6 ± 15.4
arm and shoulder is approximately 85% of
that recorded for the flexor (pushing) mus-
cles. Average knee flexion strength was ap-
proximately 75% of that recorded for knee
extension. No measurable differences were
observed among positions or between domi-
nant and nondominant limbs.
Several authorities' 0- 11 have emphasized the
importance of muscular strength in athletic
performance, but few have addressed the rela-
tionship between muscle symmetry and ath-
letic injury or performance. Studies by
Guess, 14 Campbell, 15 and Gay 16 indicate that
collegiate and high school football players
who lifted weights during the competitive sea-
son were significantly stronger and Jess sus-
ceptible to musculoskeletal injuries than their
teammates. Burkett' 7 suggests that athletes
whose hamstring strength is not at least 60%
of their quadriceps strength experience ham-
string injuries more frequently than those
with a high degree of hamstring/ quadriceps
symmetry. The hamstring-to-quadriceps
ratio of present study subjects exceeded this
minimal limit. While most experts theorize
that a similar condition exists for the muscu-
lature of the arm and shoulder, no minimal
strength criteria have been identified. Addi-
tional clinical and research data are needed
before definitive conclusions can be made
concerning the relationship between upper
extremity muscle symmetry and injury and
the effects of strength training on muscle
symmetry between antagonistic muscle
groups.
Cardiovascular Endurance. Table 5 gives
values for cardiovascular endurance capacity
and associated measurements by position.
The optimal index of cardiovascular endur-
ance capacity is maximal oxygen uptake (V02
continued
55
baseball players continued
Table 5. Maximal C&rdiovascular Endurance capacity of Professional Baseball Players
Heart Rate Max
Position No. (beats·mln·1 )
Pitchers 8 192.0 ± 9.2
Infielders 8 189.5 ± 7.8
Outfielders 6 195.0 ± 7.1
Total mean 22 192.1 ± 8.1
"Body temperature. pressure. and saturat1on
max). Y0 2 max is expressed relative to body
weight (ml-kg- 1-min- 1) to account for differ-
ences in body size. Normal values for college
men 1H are between 48 and 50 ml-kg· 1-min· 1.
Highly trained elite endurance athletes 19 usu-
ally have values between 70 and 80.
Table 5 shows that no meaningful differ-
ences in maximal oxygen uptake existed
among the positions tested. The average Yo,
max for all baseball players tested was 50.3,
which slightly exceeds the value for the aver-
age college man. Comparison of Yo, max
data for baseball players with those for ath-
letes in other professional team sports indi-
cates comparable endurance capacities.
Parr et al.' testing 34 players from two
N a tiona! Basket ball Association teams,
found that the average Yo, max across alt
positions was 47.2. Guards had the highest
values (50.0), followed by forwards(45.9) and
centers (41.9). Wilmore et at' 2 examined 185
NFL players and found that the endurance
capacities for defensive backs (53.1 ), offensive
backs and wide receivers (52.2), and line-
backers (52.1) were greater than those for
offensive linemen and tight ends (49.9), defen-
sive linemen (44.9), and quarterbacks (49.0).
Similar tests conducted by Raven et a!' on 18
players in the North American Soccer League
reported an average Yo, max of 58.4 for all
players. Forwards(59.6) and backs(59.3) had
the highest values and goal keepers (53.6) the
lowest. M idfielders averaged 56.1.
Although baseball is basically an anaerobic
sport consisting of short bursts of activity, the
data indicate that the aerobic capacity of the
players tested is moderate to high when com-
pared with population norms. 1H This may be
56
VEMax
(llters·mln·1 ) V~Max V~Max
BTPS* (llters·min·1 ) (ml·kg·1·mln·1 )
163.6 ± 16.9 4.8 ± 0.7 50.1 ± 4.9
159.1 ± 20.9 4.4 ± 0.2 51.6±5.5
150.6±14.0 4.6 ± 0.8 48.9 ± 6.3
159.0 ± 17.1 4.6 ± 0.6 50.3 ± 5.6
due to the amount and type of running
required of baseball players. Most players
reported that they played winter ball and/ or
jogged, played basketball. racquetball, etc,
during the off-season. During spring training
they jogged, ran sprints, and participated in
base-running drills. Most pitchers jogged
and; or ran sprints during the season. Non-
pitchers ran sprints during the season and ran
a mile for time at regular intervals.
Published data"' 21 suggest that most per-
sons can increase their aerobic capacity by
I0% to 20% by using systematic distance run-
ning and/ or interval training regimens. Al-
though there are no data on the optimal level
of aerobic capacity for successful baseball
performance, most fitness experts 1112 agree
that players with low endurance capacity will
experience more fatigue in the latter stages of
the game. This can affect their performance
and make them more injury-prone than their
more fit counterparts. Highly conditioned
players should recover more completely
between games and maintain a higher level of
stamina throughout the competitive sea-
son. 21 .24 In addition, research with older cham-
pion athletes"'" suggests that fit individuals
can successfully lengthen their competitive
careers.
Summary
Physical characteristics and selected physi-
ological measurements of 22 Major League
Baseball players were described by position.
Body composition, strength, and cardiovas-
cular endurance were assessed. Pitchers were
taller, heavier, and fatter than infielders and
outfielders. Lower body strength was similar
Vol10 • No 5 • May 82 e TMII PMYIICIAII AIID .-T~-
for all players. Outfielders had the most upper
body strength, and pitchers had the least.
Muscular imbalances between antagonistic
muscle groups were noted. Cardiovascular
endurance was similar for all players and was
comparable to that reported for professional
athletes in other team sports.
Because of the small nonrandom nature of
the study, we can draw no conclusions about
the physical and physiological status of pro-
fessional baseball players in general. The data
obtained in descriptive studies such as this
should be used as a point of reference for
References
I. Wilmore J H. Haskell WL: Body composition and
endurance capacity of professional football play-
ers. J Appl Physio133:564-567. November 1972
2. Wilmore J H. Parr RB. Haskell WL, et al: Football
pros'strengths-and CV weakness-charted. Phys
Sportsmed 4:44-54. October 1976
3. Parr RB. Wilmore JH. Hoover R. et al: Profes-
sional basketball players: athletic profiles. Phys
Sportsmed 6:77-84. April 1978
4. Gettman LR. Pollock ML: What makes a super-
star? A physiological profile. Phys Sportsmed
5:64-68. May 1977
5. Raven PB. Gettman LR. Pollock ML. et al: A
physiological evaluation of professional soccer
players. Br J Sports Med 10:209-216. December
1976
6. Behnke AR. WilmoreJ H: Evaluation and Regula-
tion of Body Build and Composition. Englewood
Cliffs. NJ. Prentice-Hall. Inc. 1974
7. Coleman AE: Skinfold estimates of body fat in
Major League Baseball players. Phys Sportsmed
9:77-82. October 1981
8. Jackson AS. Pollock M L: Generalized equations
for predicting body density of men. Br J Nutr
40:497-504. November 1978
9. Siri W A: Body volume measurements by gas dilu-
tion. in Brozek J. Henschel A (ed): Techniques for
Measuring Body Composition. Proceedings of a
National Research Council Conference. Washing-
ton. DC. National Academy of Sciences. 1961
10. Chui EF: The effects of systematic weight training
on athletic power. Res Q 21:188-194. 1950
II. Hooks GA: Application of Weight Training to
Athletics. Englewood Cliffs. NJ. Prentice-Hall.
Inc. 1974
12. Mirkin GM. Hoffman M: The Sports Medicine
Book. Boston. Little. Brown and Co. 1978
13. O'Shea JP: Scientific Principles and Methods of
Strength Fitness. Reading. MA. Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co. 1969
14. Guess LC: A comparison of two training programs
for maintaining increased muscular strength devel-
Tlta I'HYSICIAII AND .-...m~CIU e Vol 10 • No 5 • May 82
critically evaluating the results of future tests
on additional athletes. As more athletes are
tested and the data base is expanded, data
such as these should be useful to those who
coach, test, train, and select athletes.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks the testing personnel and the
players, coaches, and management of the Hous-
ton Astros baseball team for their cooperation.
Address correspondence to A. Eugene Coleman. EdD, Pro-
gram in Health. Leisure. and Sports. University of Houston at
Clear Lake City, 2700 Bay Area Blvd. Houston 77058.
oped during an off-season conditioning program.
Unpublished master's thesis. University of Texas.
Austin, 1967
15. Campbell DE: Maintenance of strength during a
season of sports participation. A mer Correct Ther
J 21:193-195. November-December 1967
16. Gay RA: A comparison of four strength mainte-
nance programs for football. Unpublished mas-
ter's thesis. Texas Tech University, Lubbock. 1969
17. Burkett LN: Causative factors in hamstring strains.
Med Sci Sports 2:39-42. 1970
18. Pollock ML. Wilmore JH. Fox SM Ill: Health
and Fitness Through Physical Activity. New York
City. John Wiley and Sons. Inc. 1978
19. Pollock ML: Submaximal and maximal working
capacity of elite distance runners. Part 1: Cardio-
respiratory aspects. Ann NY Acad Sci 301:310-
322. 1977
20. Pollock ML: The quantification of endurance
training programs. in Wilmore JH (ed): Exercise
and Sports Science Reviews. voll. New York City,
Academic Press. 1973
21. Fox EL. Mathews D: Interval Training: Condi-
tioning for Sports and General Fitness. Philadel-
phia. W. B. Saunders Co, 1974
22. Campbell DE: Heart rates of selected male college
freshmen during a season of basketball. Res Q
39:880-887. December 1968
23. Green HJ. Houston ME: Effect of a season of ice
hockey on energy capacities and associated func-
tions. Med Sci Sports 7:299-303. Winter 1975
24. Hanson JS: Decline of physiologic training effects
during the competitive season in members of US
Nordic ski team. Med Sci Sports 7:213-216. Fall
1975
25. Pollock M L: Physiological characteristics of older
champion track athletes. Res Q 45:363-373.
December 1974
26. Pollock ML. Miller HS Jr. WilmoreJH: Physio-
logical characteristics of champion American track
athletes 40 to 75 years of age. J Gerontol 29:645-
649. November 1974
57