12
Ebben et al. 2005. Strength & conditioning practices of major league baseball strength and conditioning coaches. J Str & Con Res. 19(3), 538-546. 95.2% employ plyometrics 85.7% follow a periodised plan Squat & lunge variations were top priorities 23.8% use olympic lifts 29% “guestimated” training loads CURRENT PRACTICES

Ebben et al. 2005. Strength & conditioning practices of major league baseball strength and conditioning coaches. J Str & Con Res. 19(3), 538-546. 95.2%

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Ebben et al. 2005. Strength & conditioning practices of major league baseball strength and conditioning coaches. J Str & Con Res. 19(3), 538-546. 95.2%

Ebben et al. 2005. Strength & conditioning practices of major league baseball strength and conditioning coaches. J Str & Con

Res. 19(3), 538-546.

95.2% employ plyometrics 85.7% follow a periodised plan Squat & lunge variations were top priorities 23.8% use olympic lifts 29% “guestimated” training loads

CURRENT PRACTICES

Page 2: Ebben et al. 2005. Strength & conditioning practices of major league baseball strength and conditioning coaches. J Str & Con Res. 19(3), 538-546. 95.2%

Pitching/throwing:

Kinetic link of sequential movements

beginning at the feet & ending at the hand

9000 o/sec int rot at shoulder

50% of force d/t trunk rot

IR’s develop force, ER’s are the brake

MOVEMENT ANALYSIS

Page 3: Ebben et al. 2005. Strength & conditioning practices of major league baseball strength and conditioning coaches. J Str & Con Res. 19(3), 538-546. 95.2%

Batting: Similar importance of torso rot to pitching Force generation via lower body & trunk Peak angular velocities of 2437 o/sec (college players)

Running: Alactic (phosphate) dominance Movements are lateral & at different angles Emphasis on acceleration/deceleration

MOVEMENT ANALYSIS

Page 4: Ebben et al. 2005. Strength & conditioning practices of major league baseball strength and conditioning coaches. J Str & Con Res. 19(3), 538-546. 95.2%

Starting strength & explosive strength (olympic variations) Avoid deceleration phase by “letting go” of training implement (med ball, plyo power). This also enhanced motor-unit recruitment Be aware of training volumes in-season Positional considerations (batters v’s pitchers) Med ball exercises recommended by Ebben et al. 2006 May need to deal with preconceived beliefs of athletes

STAC IMPLICATIONS

Page 5: Ebben et al. 2005. Strength & conditioning practices of major league baseball strength and conditioning coaches. J Str & Con Res. 19(3), 538-546. 95.2%

Ebben et al. 2006

Page 6: Ebben et al. 2005. Strength & conditioning practices of major league baseball strength and conditioning coaches. J Str & Con Res. 19(3), 538-546. 95.2%

SPEED SPECIFICITY

Weatherly & Schinck, 1996

Page 7: Ebben et al. 2005. Strength & conditioning practices of major league baseball strength and conditioning coaches. J Str & Con Res. 19(3), 538-546. 95.2%

MLB VARIABLES

Ebben et al. 2005

Page 8: Ebben et al. 2005. Strength & conditioning practices of major league baseball strength and conditioning coaches. J Str & Con Res. 19(3), 538-546. 95.2%
Page 9: Ebben et al. 2005. Strength & conditioning practices of major league baseball strength and conditioning coaches. J Str & Con Res. 19(3), 538-546. 95.2%

Positives

Use of power/plyo in warm up

Volume is not excessive (180 lifts/workout max)

Variety – 3-day split (avoidance of boredom &

OUI’s)

Movement specificity (skater jump, med ball

routine)

Posture specificity (ground-based, CKC)

Prehab (wall angel, bodyblade)

Is multimodal (med balls, plyo, weights, body

weight)

ANALYSIS OF QAS PROGRAM

Page 10: Ebben et al. 2005. Strength & conditioning practices of major league baseball strength and conditioning coaches. J Str & Con Res. 19(3), 538-546. 95.2%

Negatives 3 x 10RM for all core exercises? Time under tension is too long for most exercises (speed specificity graph) Absence of speed work Tempo & recovery not specified Possible role for weighted implements & contrast/complex loading? Warm-up is too long & is often not completed Too many saggital plane exercises (2 frontal plane & 1 transverse in total)

ANALYSIS OF QAS PROGRAM

Page 11: Ebben et al. 2005. Strength & conditioning practices of major league baseball strength and conditioning coaches. J Str & Con Res. 19(3), 538-546. 95.2%

FUTURE TRENDS

Ebben et al. 2005

Page 12: Ebben et al. 2005. Strength & conditioning practices of major league baseball strength and conditioning coaches. J Str & Con Res. 19(3), 538-546. 95.2%

Ebben, W.P., Hintz, M.J. and Simenz, C.J. 2005. Strength & conditioning practices of major league baseball strength & conditioning coaches. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.19(3), 538-546. Ebben, P.E., Fotsch, A. and Hartz, K.K. 2006. Multimode resistance training to improve baseball batting power. NSCA. 28(3), 32-36. Weatherly, J & Schinck, C. 1996. Concepts for baseball conditioning. Strength & Conditioning. 18(2), 32-39.

REFERENCES