The basics are that 3 groups of 20 college players were trained 4 times per week for 12 weeks under the following conditions: batting practice group, dry swing group, control group.  The BP and dry swing group followed this swing training protocol using varied heavy and light weighted bats while the control group just dry swung with a regular weighted bat.

The results say that each group significantly imrpoved bat speed, but that’s a little misleading if you don’t read the whole study.  The batting practice group improved 10%, the dry swing group imroved 6%, and the control group improved 1%. 

I believe the 10% improvement from the BP group is the highest bat speed documented in published research.  Bat speed improvements above 10% are shown on the results page…although that’s not published research.

Something I like about this study is that it is practical and easy to implement.  If you work with a team, you can do this same program in your existing practices.  For example, have a group of 4 players take their batting practice – use the regular bat to hit live BP, have two other players swing the heavy and light bat, respectively, while the 4th player takes a rest before the live round in the cage.  Not only does this squeeze in some bat speed training, but it kills some wasted dead time around the cage.

An even easier way to implement this is in the batting cage using front flips.  This is why I formed an exclusive partnership with Max Bats to provide overload-underload training bats that players can actually hit with.  This research study suggests there is a significant difference in being able to hit the ball while training versus dry swinging, and maple bats won’t fray like ash bats or dent like the light aluminum bats used in this study.

Another think I like about the study is the implication of the use of dry swings in the weight room.  More on that at a future time…

Effects of Weighted Bat Implement Training on Bat Swing Velocity

DeRenne, Coop; Buxton, Barton P.; Hetzler, Ronald K.; Ho, Kwok W.

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of weighted bat training on bat swing velocity. Sixty male university baseball players volunteered to participate and were randomly assigned to one of three equal-sized training groups: batting practice (BP), dry swing (DS), and control. The BP hit live pitched baseballs with alternated overweighted, underweighted, and standard 30-oz bats for 12 weeks. The DS dry-swung with alternated overweighted, underweighted, and standard bats. The control group dry-swung with a standard bat during the 12 weeks. All three groups showed significant increase in bat swing velocity during the study (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the differences between pre- and posttest scores (delta scores) were significant between BP and control, between DS and control, and between BP and DS (p < 0.05). It is suggested that training with variable weighted implements will significantly increase bat swing velocity, and that the use of loads specific to the target activity but with sufficient variation about the standard load will induce further training adaptations.

(C) 1995 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Pasted below is the abstract from a bat speed training article published by Chester Sergo and Douglas Boatwright in 1993.  The italics and red text are emphasis added by me.  Read the abstract, but I’ll summarize and make a few points:

 - 24 subjects averaged 19-20 years old and were college students practicing in the off-season

- All the training was done with just dry swings, during practice.  100 swings in sets of 20 performed 3x/week for 6 weeks

- Group 1 (regular bat only), Group 2 (62 oz. bat), Group 3 (alternated sets with 62 oz. & fungo bat)

- Each group improved bat speed 8-9%, with no statistically significant difference.  Group 1 (8.8%, highest), Group 2 (8.0% lowest), Group 3 (8.2 %)

- FYI the average bat speeds reported for these players began in the low 90’s and ended around 100 mph, measured by some light timing device made by the school’s engineering department

Overload-Underload Maple Training Bats

 

 

 

I’ll add these points:

1.) This type of training is relatively easy to implement for any player or team.  Even with just a regular bat and dry swings, players will improve if they set their focus on high intensity, quality swings.

2.) Heavy bats are not bad.  I tried to suggest this in the weighted warm-ups post.  Remember there is a difference between acute and chronic training effects.  I would not recommend the volume of swings with as heavy of a bat as used in this study, but both overload and underload training components are valuable within a suggested range (see swing training page).

3.) The study makes reference to an unpublished thesis from 1970 which concluded that swinging a heavy bat in conjunction with weight training significantly improves bat velocity, whereas weight training alone did not.

4.) It doesn’t take tons of hitting drills or fancy weight room exercises to improve bat speed.  Mechanics and strength training are important, but remember —> intent, specificity, feedback.

 

Training Methods Using Various Weighted Bats and the Effects on Bat Velocity

-Sergo, Chester; Boatwright, Douglas

The purpose of this study was to determine if baseball bat velocity could be improved as a result of training with both weighted and light bats as opposed to training with either bat alone. Subjects (N=24) from a collegiate baseball team were pretested for bat velocity and randomly assigned to one of three training groups (n=8). Each group dry-swung a bat 20 sets of five swings each with 20 seconds rest between sets, 3 days a week for 6 weeks. The control group used a legal bat of their choice. Group 2 used a 62-oz weighted bat. Group 3 alternated a 62-oz weighted bat and a light bat between each set.Subjects took their normal swing through a light timing device, using a 31-oz bat, as if hitting in a game situation. The average of the last five swings was used for data analysis. A 3 x 2 (Group x Time) ANOVA with repeated measures on the last factor was used for statistical analysis. The reliability for the testing procedure was determined by pooling the test-retest data from the pretest and posttest. Data analysis revealed no significant group effect, a significant time effect, and no Group x Time effect. The evidence suggests that swinging a bat of any weight under the training program’s guidelines would significantly improve bat velocity.

(C) 1993 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Something I think that was overlooked there was that the original NSCA article by Dr. David Szymanski also includes a simple protocol for increasing bat speed using overload/underload weighted implement training:

Expected results from implementing this type of program can be found in this post I made about the effect of overweighted forearm training devices on bat speed and batted ball velocity. 

In that study, the control group followed a similar type of resistance training program (minus the medicine ball work) and did only 315 dry swings per week (3 days x 105 swings/day).  This would be the most basic thing you could do to improve bat speed – just try to swing faster! 

Either add swings to the end of your workout or do some compound training (ie add a short set of swings after bench press or squat) and you’re moving in the right direction.  These dry swings alone lead to a 4.6% increase in bat speed for high school baseball players over the 12-week training period. 

Now add some weighted implement bats for overload-underload and some feedback and you’re on your way to serious bat speed improvement!

This isn’t a new topic, but an article in Scientific America brings up the issue again with a new study in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research:

Warming up with 5 swings of a light or normal bat appears to increase post warm-up velocity of the normal bat when compared with warming up with a heavy bat after a rest period of 30 seconds. Within the bat weight spectrum of this study, it is suggested that when preparing to hit, 5 warm-up swings with either a light or normal bat will allow a player to achieve the greatest velocity of their normal bat.

Coop DeRenne, Montoya, Southard and Groomer are all other researchers that have found similar results – basically that bat speed will not be significantly slowed if the warm-up bat used immediately prior does not vary greatly (ie. +/- 13%) in weight from the regular bat.

The show Sports Science also did a piece on this where they showed a slight decrease in bat speed and altered timing after using a couple of donuts as added weight for warm-up swings:

So why do players still use weighted bats to warm-up?

Here are a couple of observations:

1. These images come from the Sports Science video comparing the swings pre- and post-weighted bat warmup.  The video mentions altered timing, but it’s interesting to me that the swing on the right after the weighted warmup is a shorter, quicker swing (this is assuming, of course, that the videos are synched up correctly to initiation of the swing).  All things being equal, I’ll trade 0.7 mph bat speed for the difference in the quickness of those swings.

2. I rarely see someone in the on-deck circle taking full effort hacks with a heavy bat, but players still want to feel good before they get into the box, and part of that for some is still using weighted implements to get loose.  As the player says in the video, it ‘feels’ better.  Understandably lame and non-scientific, but sometimes that’s the way it is…..especially in baseball where the mental game is significant.  If a player has a good pre-AB routing going that gets him focused, then go get ‘em.

Bottom line for me is that getting ready with your game bat immediately before getting in the box (ie. on deck) appears to make the most sense.  If you want to take some cuts with the heavy bat, that’s fine, but get loose and then move on so you at least have a couple of swings with the regular bat.  And don’t forget to watch the pitcher!

Roger M. Enoka best sums it up in his textbook “Neuromechanical Basis of Kinesiology”

“Training adaptations are specific to the cells and their structural and functional elements that are overload.

Any athlete competing in a sport that required rotation, like baseball, hockey or golf, was blindly urged to develop more flexibility in rotation.

Is Rotation Training Hurting Your Performance?

There is a part in there that I think can be useful as a teaching point…..see if you can figure out what it is.

EFFECT OF OVERWEIGHTED FOREARM TRAINING ON BAT SWING AND BATTED‐BALL VELOCITIES OF HIGH SCHOOL BASEBALL PLAYERS (Resistance Training/Periodization) David J. Szymanski, Jeff M. Albert, Dustin L. Hemperley, Hung‐Sheng Hsu, Roland M. Moore, Jeff D. Potts, Josh G. Reed, Justin E. Turner, Jeremy P. Walker, and R. C. Winstead. Louisiana Tech University/Applied Physiology Lab, Ruston, LA

In baseball it is important to increase sport‐specific power. This may allow a hitter to swing his bat and hit a ball with greater velocity.

PURPOSE: To examine the effects of 12 weeks of overweighted forearm training on bat swing velocity (BV) and batted‐ball velocity (BBV) of high school (HS) baseball players.

METHODS: Thirty HS baseball players were randomly assigned by a stratified sampling technique to 1 of 2 training groups. Group 1 (n = 15) and group 2 (n = 15) performed the same progressive full‐body resistance exercises while training 3x/wk for 12 weeks according to a stepwise periodized model. Both groups also took 105 dry swings a day with their standard game bat 3x/wk for 12 weeks. In addition, group 2 wore a weighted device (neoprene sleeve with lead inserts) on the forearms for additional resistance while taking dry swings. A 2:1 ratio of resistance was used (70 swings with device & 35 swings without device). Resistance began at 113.4 g (4 oz) and increased by 113.4 g (4 oz) every 2 weeks for the 12‐week study. By week 11 the resistance was 680.4 g (24 oz). Instantaneous BV and BBV were recorded pre‐ and posttraining by a SETPRO SPRT5ATM chronograph and Speed TracTM radar gun. Throwing velocity (TV) and dominant, non‐dominant, and total grip strength were also measured pre‐ and posttraining by a JugsTM radar gun and a Jamar TM hand dynamometer. A 3 repetition maximum (RM) parallel squat and bench press were measured at baseline and after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of training.

RESULTS: Both groups showed statistically significant increases (p < 0.05) in instantaneous BV (4.2 & 6.0%), BBV (7.4 & 7.8%) and TV (2.5 & 3.1%) (m∙s‐1 ± SD) after 12 weeks of training; however, there were no differences between the 2 groups. Both groups showed statistically significant increases in dominant (4.9 & 5.0%), non‐dominant (3.2 & 3.3%), and total (4.1 & 4.7%) grip strength (kg ± SD) after 12 weeks of training; however, there were no differences between the 2 groups. Both groups demonstrated statistically significant increases in predicted 1RM parallel squat and bench press after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of training; however, there were no differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that a 12‐week stepwise periodized training program can significantly increase instantaneous BV, BBV, TV, and grip strength among HS baseball players. The use of additional resistance worn on the forearm while swinging did not contribute to further statistical increases in instantaneous BV or BBV.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Both training protocols increased BV and BBV in HS hitters. Since there was no statistically significant difference between groups on these variables, it is recommended that HS coaches use the program performed by group 1. Perhaps the resistance used on the forearms was not great enough or resistance is not needed on the forearms to make further improvements in BV and BBV. Previous research has indicated that additional forearm and grip strength did not contribute to further improvements in BV. Since the baseball swing is a sequential, rotational movement that incorporates the entire body, perhaps additional resistance should be placed elsewhere on the body, be thrown, or be on the bat itself to produced significantly greater increases in BV. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: This investigation was partially funded by Eagle Training Systems, Inc. Jenks, OK.

Along with another assistant, I got involved in directing the team’s strength and conditioning program for the 2007-2008 season.  What we were very fortunate to be able to do was measure/test all kinds of physical and performance variables at the beginning and end our training.

I made a previous post about presenting a conference poster about our intial findings regarding the relationship of the players’ physiological characteristics to the performance characteristics.  So after all this time, here is the actual poster that I presented:

Relationship between physiological characteristics and softball-specific variables of NCAA division I softball players

Big surprise, the girls who were bigger and stronger hit the ball harder!  It was nice to find some relationship between the variables, but the correlations are not great, with the highest r-squared value being .25

The abstract and poster is based on research I did with the Tech softball team for my independent research study.  What we basically tried to do was look for any and all relationships between physiological and performance variables in division I softball players.  For example, we tested for hang clean, squat, bench press, grip, bat velocity, throwing velocity, speed, agility, etc.  19 variables all together.
Title of the abstract/poster is:
Relationship between physiological characteristics and softball-specific variables of NCAA division I softball players
What I may do is post my abstract after the conference…
If you happen to be interested in attending, here is the information that I have been provided – LSU-S Conference

Special thanks to the Tech Softball team and coaches, s&c staff and all of the people who helped during the testing!

don’t read into it too much!

OK here goes:

1.) This first graph shows the amount of VERTICAL GRF created by both expert and novice grouns under two conditions – stride and no stride.  The only significant difference was in the stride condition where the novice group, 3 college students in our department, had a much higher vertical GRF.

What threw me off a little was that the expert group, three college hitters, actually had a lower GRF in the no-stride condition.  My only explanation for that, from an observational standpoint, is that their no-stride condition swings seemed closer to what their natural swings would be.  For example, in the stride condition, I literally had to remind them that they needed to lift their front foot off the ground.

2.) The second one simply shows the correlation of bat velocity to GRF.  In both conditions, the novice group showed a high correlation to GRF produced and bat velocity.  Simply put, the more GRF they had, the more bat speed they had.

This was not the case in the expert group.  They showed minimal correlation in both conditions.  What this suggests is that they are relying much less on weight shift in the direction of the pitcher for bat speed production.  I believe the golf study I have (left it at home today, unfortunately) attributed just 10% of club head speed in experts to weight shift, and this would agree with the results here.  In other words, the experts are relying on other means, namely summation of forces from the sequential rotation of body parts – aka kinetic link – to develop bat velocity.

Steve Englishbey got me going a few weeks ago on the topic of Ground Reaction Forces in batting.  While there isn’t a ton of stuff directly pertaining to baseball, I have managed to dig up a couple of studies specifically directed at baseball/softball batting, and there are others as well that deal with other sports (like golf).