Functional Performance Testing for Baseball and Softball Players 2007 NSCA SSTC, San Antonio, TX

Functional Performance Testing for Baseball and Softball Players 2007 NSCA SSTC, San Antonio, TX Frank Spaniol, Ed.D., CSCS*D Professor, Department of Kinesiology Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi Brian Gearity, M.S., CSCS University of Tennessee

Purpose The purpose of this presentation is to introduce a battery of functional performance tests used to assess baseball and softball players. Topics to be discussed include: Test selection Test administration Normative data

Introduction Excellence Does Not Occur by Accident. Physique Technique Psyche

Why Test Test?? (so what! who who cares?) Better Information = Better Decisions = Better Performance Testing is the Foundation of Program Design Baseline Data - Assess Individual Strengths and Weaknesses Where are we? Where are we going? How do we get there? Accountability: Program and Athlete Evidence of Program Effectiveness St. Louis Cardinals slugger Pujols gets Babe Ruth test at Washington University (How to Build the Perfect Batter. GQ, 2006, September.)

I. Baseball Athletic Test (BAT) Developing the Athletic Profile Test Selection Protocols - Options Necessary Equipment Test Order/Sequence Test Administration Issues Individual vs. Team Testing

Baseball Athletic Test (BAT) Battery Demographics Anthropometrics Body Composition Flexibility Muscular Strength Power Agility Muscular Endurance Speed Anaerobic Capacity Aerobic Capacity Sport-Specific Specific Tests Vision Skills (VizualEdge)

BAT Team Testing 0:00 Team Meeting, profile sheets, demographics. 0:10 Rotation I: I Ht/Wt, body composition, flexibility, grip strength. 0:30 Rotation II: VJ/SBJ, T-test/Shuttle/5T test/shuttle/5-10-5, 30/60 yard dash, situps (optional). 1:00 Rotation III: Throwing velocity, bat speed, batted-ball ball velocity. 1:30 Optional tests: 300 yd. shuttle, 1.5 mile run. _ Vision skills testing (VizualEdge( VizualEdge) ) can be administered on an alternate day. PREPARATION, PREPARATION, PREPARATION!!!

Demographics/Anthropometrics Name, Date, Age, DOB, Gender, Sport, & Position Height & Weight, Girths/Circumferences. Eye, Hand, & Leg Dominance. Sport-specific Data (e.g., bats, throws). Additional information that may assist with program design (injuries, etc.).

Anthropometrics Height (in) Weight (lb)

Baseline Data Variable Number Age (yr) Exp (yr) Ht (in) Wt (lb) NAIA 109 19.7 NA 70.1 183.2 NCAA D1 34 20.6 NA 71.2 187.4 PRO A 132 22.6 1.9 72.1 190.7 PRO AA PRO AAA MLB 29 27 26.5 27.6 8.1 74.3 198.2 % fat 14.2 12.4 8.2 10.5 11.3 14.9 23.5 LBM 157.2 164.2 175.1 177.3 173.7 168.7 115.1 22 23.4 4.4 73.3 198.1 6.7 73.0 195.8 NCAA DI SB 17 18.9 NA 65.2 150.5 Coleman, 1992; Spaniol, 2005.

Body Composition Skin Folds: Calipers (Lange, etc.) 3-site: Chest/ Chest/Ab/Thigh (male) Triceps/ Triceps/suprailliac/thigh (female) Option: 7-site 7 skinfold 2-site: Triceps/Calf (youth)

Pectoral Skinfold (mm)

Abdominal Skinfold (mm)

Thigh Skinfold (mm)

Body Composition (BIA) BIA: Bioelectrical Impedance (Omron) %BF/Fat Mass/LBM Good validity and reliability in our lab when compared to 3-site 3 skinfolds. The importance of lean body mass (LBM). Mass vs. Inertia Omron HBF-306 CHPONLINE.COM

Body Composition - BIA

Body Composition Norms Position High School NAIA NCAA DI MILB MLB NCAA DI Softball All 14.8% 14.2% 12.4% 12.3% 10.4% 23.5% Pitchers 15.8% 14.7% 12.0% 12.4% 12.3% Catchers 17.5% 17.1% 17.0% 13.5% 11.5% Infielders 13.1% 14.9% 13.4% 12.3% 9.4% Outfielders 12.9% 10.8% 11.0% 11.3% 8.4% 23.8% 25.2% 22.0% 24.0% Coleman, 2000; Spaniol, 2005 & 2006

Flexibility Modified Sit and Reach (Accuflex( I) Shoulder Rotation (Accuflex II) Total Body Rotation (Accuflex III)

Modified Sit and Reach (in)

Flexibility Averages (in) (modified sit & reach) Position High School NAIA NCAA DI MILB NCAA DI Softball All 15.1 17.7 17.3 5.4* 17.2 Pitchers NA NA 17.8 5.9* 16.3 Catchers NA NA 15.4 5.3* 17.3 Infielders NA NA 17.1 4.4* 16.9 Outfielders NA NA 17.6 5.5* 18.0 *traditional sit & reach test Spaniol, 2005 & 2006

Muscular Strength Traditional Tests 1RM Tests (dynamic) Submaximal Estimate of 1RM Functional Strength Absolute vs. Relative Strength Grip Strength Dynamometers Lafayette, Takai, Jamar, Baseline

Grip Strength

Age (N) Grip Strength Averages (kg) kg Level (N) kg 13 (77) ¹26.1 +/- 6.6 NAIA (108) ¹45.4 +/- 6.9 14 (98) ¹32.3 +/- 7.2 NCAA DI (34) ²61.4 +/- 8.9 15 (138) ¹37.3 +/- 6.7 MILB (148) ³60.7 +/- 7.9 16 (158) ¹40.7 +/- 6.5 MLB (28) ³61.6 +/- 6.6 17 (135) ¹43.4 +/- 7.3 NCAA DI Softball (17) 1-Tested with Takai grip dynamometer 2-Tested with Jamar grip dynamometer, which produces higher test results than Takai. 3-Tested with Baseline grip dynamometer, which produces higher test results than Takai. ²34.6 +/- 2.9 Coleman, 2004; Spaniol, 2005

Grip Strength Averages (kg) by Position Position NAIA¹ NCAA DI² MILB³ MLB³ NCAA DI Softball² All 45.4 61.4 60.7 61.6 34.6 Pitchers Catchers Infielders Outfielders NA 57.9 58.5 59.8 NA 63.9 59.9 62.2 NA 60.7 61.4 59.7 NA 67.0 66.9 60.0 1-Tested with Takai grip dynamometer 2-Tested with Jamar grip dynamometer, which produces higher test results than Takai. 3-Tested with Baseline grip dynamometer, which produces higher test results than Takai. 36.7 32.0 36.2 32.5 Coleman, 2004; Spaniol, 2005

Power (Strength + Speed) Lower Body Power Vertical Jump Standing Broad Jump Single Leg Jumps Jump Mat Upper Body Power Medicine Ball Throw Rotary Torso Throw

Power - Vertical Jump

Vertical Jump Averages (in) Position HS NAIA NCAA MILB NCAA DI DI Softball All 23.0 23.7 27.0 26.9 16.5 Pitchers NA NA 27.0 26.9 17.0 Catchers NA NA 24.8 25.8 14.0 Infielders NA NA 26.6 26.4 16.2 Outfielders NA NA 29.9 28.6 18.0 Spaniol, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006

Power - Standing Broad Jump

Research Notes High correlation between vertical jump and standing broad jump. Moderately high correlation between leg power and throwing velocity. Moderately high correlation between leg power and bat speed. Standing broad jump of 100 + + (8 ft. 4 in.) is common for good athletes. Vertec vs. Jump Mat

Agility College/Professional: T-test 5-10-5/Pro Shuttle Youth: 10-yd. Shuttle Run Equipment Cones, measuring tape, stopwatch.

T-TestTest

Agility Averages - T-test (s) Position NAIA NCAA NCAA DI DI Softball All 10.1 9.9 10.9 Pitchers Catchers Infielders Outfielders NA 9.8 NA 10.6 NA 10.1 NA 9.5 11.1 11.5 10.8 10.6

Shuttle Run

Muscular Endurance Situps Pushups Pullups Submaximum Lifts Health-Related Fitness

Speed 30/60 yard dash Specific Tests (home-first, etc.) Stop watch vs. electronic timers

Speed 60 yd. Dash (s) Position HS (113) NAIA (109) NCAA DI (34) PRO (210) All 7.20 7.61 7.25 6.92 Pitchers Catchers Infielders Outfielders NA NA NA NA NA 7.35 NA 7.40 NA 7.29 NA 6.93 NA 7.19 6.97 6.89 NCAA DI Softball (17) 5.75* 6.05* 6.05* 5.60* 5.50* *Softball tested 40 yd. dash Coleman, 2004; Spaniol, 2003, 2005

Fastest Pro Players by Position Position 0-60 yd (sec) Catcher 7.19 Infield 6.97 Outfield 6.89 Position Catcher Infield Outfield Splits 0-30 yd 30-60 yd 3.83 3.36 3.73 3.24 3.69 3.20 Sig. faster than catchers Coleman, 2004

Are these differences meaningful? OF 24.4 fps 13 INF 3.2 Catcher

Fastest Pro Players by Level Level 0-60 Time (sec) MLB 6.96 AAA 6.86 AA 6.79 Coleman, 2004 A 7.05 Level MLB AAA AA A Splits 0-30 yd 30-60 yd 3.75 3.21 3.68 3.18 3.64 3.15 3.77 3.28

Are these differences meaningful? AA 24.7 fps 0.6 AAA 24.6 fps 2.6 MLB 24 fps 3.0 A 23.9 fps

Average time to first base by position? Position RHB (sec) LHB (sec) All 4.35 4.32 Catcher 4.49 4.46 1B 4.51 4.40 2B 4.25 4.21 3B 4.44 4.42 SS 4.32 4.21 LF 4.31 4.30 CF 4.21 4.14 RF 4.25 4.23 323 MLB Players LHB are faster than RHB Differences exist among positions Utility IF 4.26 4.15 Utility OF 4.32 4.28

Catcher Position RHB (sec) LHB (sec) All 4.35 4.32 Catcher 4.49 4.46 1B 4.51 4.40 2B 4.25 4.21 Sig. slower than all Other positions 3B 4.44 4.42 SS 4.32 4.21 LF 4.31 4.30 CF 4.21 4.14 RF 4.25 4.23 Utility IF 4.26 4.15 Utility OF 4.32 4.28

Middle of the Field Position RHB (sec) LHB (sec) 2B 4.25 4.21 SS 4.32 4.21 CF 4.21 4.14 1B 4.51 4.40 3B 4.44 4.42 LF 4.31 4.30 RF 4.25 4.23 Faster than the corners (2B,SS, CF) sig. faster vs. (1B, 3B, LF)

Anaerobic Capacity 300 Yard Shuttle Purpose: Assess intermediate anaerobic endurance Cones, tape measure, stopwatch

300 Yd. Shuttle Averages - MILB Position (sec) All 58.3 ± 2.5 Catchers 60.1 ± 2.4 Infielders 58.2 ± 2.1 Outfielders 56.9 ± 2.5

Aerobic Capacity Purpose Measure cardiorespiratory endurance 1.5-Mile Run (HS/College/ Professional) 2-Mile Run 1-Mile Run (Youth) Health-Related Fitness Equipment Cones, stopwatch, measuring tape.

II. Sport-Specific Specific Tests for Baseball/Softball Throwing Velocity Bat Speed Batted Ball Velocity

Throwing Velocity Purpose Measure Arm Strength Equipment Radar Gun Types Baseballs (5 oz) Net

Throwing Velocity Protocol Thorough Warm-up Flat Ground Pitcher s s Stretch Five Maximum Throws Record Peak Velocity Special Considerations Distance Angle

Throwing Velocity

Throwing Velocity

Throwing Velocity

Throwing Velocity Norms (standardized) Age (N) MPH Age MPH 13 (77) 57.5 ± 6.0 HS (494) 72.8 ± 5.6 14 (98) 62.3 ± 5.8 NAIA (108) 76.7 ± 4.4 15 (138) 66.6 ± 6.5 NCAA DI (34) 16 (158) 68.9 ± 6.2 NCAA DI Softball (17) 17 (135) 73.1 ± 6.4 78.2 ± 4.2 55.9 ± 2.9 Spaniol, 2005 & 2006

Bat Speed Purpose Measure Bat Speed Equipment ATEC 2000 Sports Speed Chronograph Game Bat Reflective Tape Batting Tee Baseball (5 oz) Net

Bat Speed - Equipment Setup

ATEC 2000 Sports Chronograph

Equipment Options Sport Speed Radar Bat Maxx 5000 (laser) Set Pro

Bat Speed Test Protocol Warm-up Five Swings (line drives) on Batting Tee Test Modifications

Bat Speed

Bat Speed Norms Age (N) MPH Level (N) MPH 13 (76) 63.3 +/- 6.8 HS (494) 78.8 +/- 5.6 14 (93) 67.5 +/- 7.0 NAIA (108) 84.4 +/- 4.4 15 (139) 72.7 +/- 7.0 NCAA DI (34) 87.4 +/- 6.0 16 (161) 75.6 +/- 6.6 NCAA DI Softball (17) 17 (134) 78.9 +/- 6.6 61.9 +/- 7.9

Batted Ball Velocity Purpose Measure Result of Bat/Ball Impact Equipment Radar Gun Protocol Measure Ball Speed Concurrently with Bat Speed Special Considerations

Batted Ball Velocity

Batted Ball Velocity

Research Notes BBV is more indicative of batting performance than bat speed. Very high positive correlation (r=.83) between grip strength and BBV (Spaniol, et al, 2006). Lean body mass (LBM), leg power, rotational power, and grip strength are most predictive of BBV. BBV should be bat speed. Best hitters will produce BBV 1-81 8 MPH greater than bat speed. Aluminum bats produce greater BBV than wood.

Research Notes Top MILB hitters produce BBV scores from 90-100 mph in live batting practice. Strange note the average professional BP pitch rarely exceeds 50 mph and varies less than 2 mph per pitch. Important - If BBV is less than bat speed, check for breaks in the kinetic chain (usually the hands). It is suggested that pre and post injury BBV scores be utilized for player rehabilitation.

Visual Skills Beyond Visual Acuity VizualEdge Software developed by Dr. Barry Seiller (Visual Fitness Institute) Assesses a variety of vision skills including: Divergence Convergence Tracking Research

III. Evaluation Interpreting Test Results What do they mean? Comparing to Normative Data/Percentiles Using Test Results to Improve Performance Developing an Athletic Profile Retesting: What s s Next? Predicting Success: Can We Make Better Decisions? Talent Identification

NCAA DI Baseball Normative Data Spaniol, Melrose, Bohling, and Bonnette, 2005.

NCAA DI Softball Data Melrose, Spaniol, Bohling, and Bonnette, 2005.

Summary What Have We Learned? Excellence Doesn t t Occur by Accident Success Leaves Clues (So Does Failure!) Better Information = Better Decisions = Better Performance

References Baechle, T.R. and Earle, R.W. (Eds.). (2000). Essential of Strength Training and Conditioning: National Strength and Conditioning Association. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Coleman, A.E. (2000). 52-Week Baseball Training: A proven plan for strength, power, speed, agility, and performance. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Coleman, A.E. (1992). Assessing running speed and body composition in professional baseball players. Journal of Applied Sport Science Research, 6(4). Gore, C.J. (2000). Physiological Tests for Elite Athletes. Australian Sports Commission. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Heyward, V.H. (2004). Applied Body Composition Assessment. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Hoffman, J. (2006). Norms for Fitness, Performance, and Health. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Melrose, D., Spaniol, F.J., Bohling, M. and Bonnette, R. (2005). Physiological characteristics of NCAA Division I softball players. (Abstract). Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19(4). Spaniol, F.J. Sport-specific testing for baseball. Manuscript submitted for publication. 2005. Spaniol, F.J. Physiological characteristics of adolescent baseball players. Manuscript submitted for publication. 2005. Spaniol, F.J. Physiological characteristics of NAIA intercollegiate baseball players. Manuscript submitted for publication. 2005. Spaniol, F.J., Melrose, D., Bohling, M. and Bonnette, R. (2005). Physiological characteristics of NCAA Division I baseball players. (Abstract). Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19(4). Spaniol, F.J. (2002). Physiological predictors of bat speed and throwing velocity in adolescent baseball players (Abstract). Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 16(4). Spaniol, F.J. (1997). Predicting Throwing Velocity in College Baseball Players (Abstract). Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 11(4).

Thank You Texas A&M University Corpus Christi Email: frank.spaniol@tamucc.edu