sports
Article
A Description and Comparison of Cardiorespiratory
Fitness Measures in Relation to Pitching Performance
Among Professional Baseball Pitchers
Javair S. Gillett 1, J. Jay Dawes 2, Frank J. Spaniol 3,*, Matthew R. Rhea 4, Joe P. Rogowski 5,
Mitchel A. Magrini 6, Roberto Simao 7 and Derek J. Bunker 4
1
Athletic Performance, Houston Rockets, Houston, TX 77002, USA; jgillett@rocketball.com
2
University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, CO 80918, USA; jdawes@uccs.edu
3
Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, TX 78412, USA
4
A.T. Still University, Kirksville, MO 63501, USA; mrhea@atsu.edu (M.R.R.);
Bunkjames7@hotmail.com (D.J.B.)
5
Athletic Heart Research Institute, Orlando, FL, 32801, USA; jrogowski@athletic-heart.com
6
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74074, USA; mmagrini@uccs.edu
7
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro 21941-901, Brazil; rsimaoj@terra.com.br
*
Correspondence: frank.spaniol@tamucc.edu; Tel.: +1-361-549-7533
Academic Editor: Eling Douwe de Bruin
Received: 18 November 2015; Accepted: 15 February 2016; Published: 25 February 2016
Abstract: The purpose of this study is to provide descriptive and comparative information regarding
the cardiorespiratory ﬁtness of professional baseball pitchers. Twenty-four (n = 24) major league (ML)
baseball pitchers (starters n = 14; relievers n = 10) over seven seasons (2007–2013) were evaluated.
A modiﬁed Bruce protocol and the CardioCoach™ CO2 metabolic analyzer were used to estimate
VO2 max and anaerobic threshold (AT) at the beginning of each season. Performance data from each
season was utilized to draw inference about pitching performance. One-way Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) was used to compare Starting (S) and Relief (R) pitchers above/below the group mean
for VO2 max and AT. Pearson product moment correlations were also used to examine relationships
between cardiorespiratory ﬁtness and performance. Signiﬁcant differences in performance were
discovered between S pitchers above/below the overall group mean for VO2 max. (p ď 0.05) and for
AT in Walks plus Hits per Inning Pitched (WHIP) (p ď 0.05) and Earned Run Average (ERA) (p ď 0.05).
Signiﬁcant relationships between VO2 max and Walks per 9 Innings (BB/9) (p ď 0.05), Home Runs
per 9 innings (HR/9) (p ď 0.05), Wins (W) (p ď 0.05), Fielding Independent Pitching (FIP) (p ď 0.01),
Strikeouts (K) (p ď 0.01), Hits per 9 innings (H/9) (p ď 0.01), Strikeouts per 9 innings (K/9) (p ď 0.01),
ERA (p ď 0.01), and WHIP (p ď 0.01). Low, but signiﬁcant, correlations were discovered between
AT and WHIP (p ď 0.05) and ERA (ď0.05). CONCLUSION: Higher aerobic capacity appears to be
more inﬂuential for S than R pitchers. Strength and conditioning practitioners should ensure that
pitchers, especially S pitchers at the ML level, perform sufﬁcient and appropriate endurance training
to support pitching performance.
Keywords: conditioning; endurance; pitching; performance; VO2 max
1. Introduction
Baseball is a sport that requires short, explosive bursts of intense effort. While the duration of
each play is relatively short, a typical professional baseball game takes approximately three hours to
complete [1]. During a game, only two of the nine players on the ﬁeld are involved in every single
Sports 2016, 4, 14; doi:10.3390/sports4010014
www.mdpi.com/journal/sports
Sports 2016, 4, 14
2 of 8
play, the pitcher and catcher. While catchers perform many of their skills at submaximal intensities,
pitchers are expected to deliver every pitch at maximum, or near maximum effort [2]. A starting
pitcher typically delivers 80–100 pitches or more per game, whereas a relief pitcher is required to throw
signiﬁcantly fewer pitches per performance (40 or less). Whereas a starting pitcher is typically allowed
four days between performances, a reliever might be required to throw on consecutive days.
Pitching relies heavily on the ATP-PCr system during the delivery of the pitch, followed by brief
bouts (approximately 20–30 s) of aerobic recovery between pitches [3]. Subsequently, pitching appears
to place a relatively low demand on the aerobic energy system [4]. In fact, Potteiger et al. [4] found
that mean oxygen consumption ranged between 14.8–20.6 mL¨ kg ´1 min ´1 for pitchers pitching in a
simulated game. The researchers noted that this would correspond to a continuous exercise intensity
at approximately 45% of the participants mean VO2 max. However, since this study was performed
in a laboratory setting where the pitchers did not face game competition, one may speculate that the
aerobic demands may differ during actual competition.
Stockholm and Morris [5] conducted a study in which a freshman collegiate baseball pitcher’s
heart rate (HR) was monitored and recorded during competition (3 h and 10 min, 9 inning game) via the
use of telemetry. It was discovered that the mean heart rate during the performance was approximately
87% of the player’s age-predicted heart rate max (HR max), with peak HR reaching 95% of the player’s
age-predicted HR max. This is signiﬁcantly greater than HRs achieved during a laboratory study [4]
and during bullpen practice sessions prior to an intra-squad game [6]. This suggests that arousal and
anxiety levels may impact the physiological demands of pitching. Furthermore, being that the bulk
of competitions in professional baseball occur during the summer months, greater cardiorespiratory
ﬁtness may help players better accommodate the physiological challenges and delay the onset of
fatigue when playing in hot/humid environments [5–13].
Very few studies have investigated the relationship between aerobic ﬁtness and pitching
performance [4]. This may in part be due to the observations that baseball is predominantly an
anaerobic sport. Ebben et al. [14] found that the majority of major league strength coaches do not test
anaerobic capacity or aerobic endurance, which may be due to the belief that possessing a high level
of aerobic ﬁtness does not appear to limit performance amongst professional or collegiate pitchers.
Furthermore, studies that have investigated aerobic ﬁtness and pitching performance have quantiﬁed
performance in terms of maintenance of ball velocity, rather than the player’s actual game statistics [4].
While one may assume that the maintenance of ball velocity is an inherent predictor of performance,
the art of pitching is a multifaceted and complex skill and success should not be limited to a singular
variable, particularly at higher playing levels. There are other performance indicators and statistics
that are more indicative of individual pitching performance and less dependent on team performance,
which should be taken into consideration when seeking to evaluate or predict pitching effectiveness.
Currently, there is very little data available regarding the cardiorespiratory ﬁtness of baseball
players, especially at the professional level. Thus, the primary purpose of this investigation was to
provide descriptive information regarding the cardiorespiratory ﬁtness proﬁles of Major League (ML)
pitchers, and compare cardiorespiratory ﬁtness levels between starting (S) and relief (R) pitchers.
A secondary purpose was to examine the relationship between cardiorespiratory ﬁtness and selected
measures of pitching performance.
2. Method, Results, Discussion
2.1. Methods
2.1.1. Experimental Approach to the Problem
The data used for this study was archival and approved by an Institutional Review Board for
research with human subjects prior to data analysis. In order to compare performance between
pitchers by position and ﬁtness level and identify the relationships between cardiorespiratory ﬁtness
and pitching performance, physiological and performance statistics over seven seasons (2007–2013)
Sports 2016, 4, 14
3 of 8
for 24 ML baseball pitchers were gathered and analyzed. A correlational analysis was also performed
to examine possible relationships between these variables. In addition, statistical analyses were
conducted to examine the differences between S and R pitchers.
2.1.2. Subjects
Data for 24 professional pitchers, within the selected ML baseball organization, was utilized in
this investigation. Only pitchers remaining within the organization throughout the entire season were
included in this analysis. Since some of the subjects in this study completed multiple seasons with
the organization, a total of 40 eligible cases (n = 27 S; n = 13 R) were available for evaluation. For the
purpose of analysis, each case (year) was treated separately as both physiological and performance
statistics are subsequent to change each season and therefore were evaluated individually. Only
pitchers with 50 or more innings pitched per season were used in this study.
2.1.3. Procedures
Physiological testing was performed within the ﬁrst week of spring training camp each year.
All physiological tests were performed after on-ﬁeld baseball practice on days in which the pitcher did
not throw a bullpen session. Pitchers completed a graded, submaximal exercise test on a treadmill
(Life Fitness TI, Model 97Ti/Model CLST and Woodway, Model R-DESMO, Franklin Park, IL, USA).
The CardioCoach™ CO2 metabolic analyzer and software (version 3.04.72, KORR Medical Technologies
Inc., Salt Lake City, UT, USA) was used for gas analysis. This device has been found to be a valid
method of assessing VO2 at submaximal and maximal levels [15]. Subjects performed a modiﬁed
Bruce protocol and were asked to complete as many stages as possible. The test was terminated
when the subject requested to stop or reached volitional fatigue. Utilizing the software provided via
CardioCoach™ a linear regression equation was used to predict VO2peak. CardioCoach™ software was
also used to identify oxygen consumption at anaerobic threshold (AT). In addition to cardiorespiratory
ﬁtness, the following anthropometric and physiological data was collected for each of the subjects:
height (cm), weight (kg), percent body fat (%BF), and lean body mass (LBM). Body fat was estimated
using a six-site skinfold test [16].
Performance data were accessed and gathered immediately after the season via reliable online
databases [17–19]. These databases are open access sources for pitching statistics. Multiple databases
were used for the purpose of comparison to ensure accuracy. The key pitching performance statistics
used in this analysis included: Fielding Independent Pitching (FIP), Walks plus Hits per Inning Pitched
(WHIP), and Strikeout to Walk Ratio (K/BB). These statistics were chosen because they tend to be
the least inﬂuenced by uncontrollable variables (i.e., team performance, defense skill, batter skill,
situational hitting, stadium environment, etc.) and more dependent on the pitcher’s overall pitching
performance. Keeping this in mind additional performance statistics analyzed in this study included:
Earned Run Average (ERA), Hits per 9 innings (H/9), Homeruns per 9 innings (HR/9), Strikeouts
per 9 innings (K/9), and Walks per 9 innings (BB/9), Wins (W), Win/Loss Percentage (W/L%) and
Strikeouts (K). Data were entered into a spreadsheet matching performance data with the physiological
measures for each player for each year.
2.1.4. Statistical Analyses
A descriptive data analysis was conducted for all pitchers in the sample and by their individual
positions (S or R) Comparison between ﬁtness measures among S and R pitchers on selected
ﬁtness and performance measures was conducted via an independent samples T-test based on
position. Additionally, all players were then separated into either a higher or lower cardiorespiratory
ﬁtness group within their position based on the average VO2peak and AT. A one-way Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) was then utilized to examine differences between these groups. Pearson product
moment correlations were then used to examine the relationship between physiological measures and
performance data as a whole as well as divided by position. Data were evaluated using SPSS Statistics
Sports 2016, 4, 14
4 of 8
version 22 (SPSS, Armonk, NY, USA). Statistical signiﬁcance was set at p < 0.05. Data are presented
as means and standard deviations. Correlations were considered high (0.80–1.00), moderately high
(0.60–0.79), moderate (0.40–0.59) or low (0.20–0.39) [18].
2.2. Results
Descriptive data for the entire sample is presented in Table 1. For all pitchers, average VO2peak was
48.13 ˘ 5.30 (mL/kg/Min). For all pitchers VO2peak was found to have a low-moderate relationship
(p < 0.05) between WHIP (r = ´0.484, p ď 0.01), K (r = 0.572, p ď 0.01) BB/9 (r = ´0.358, p ď 0.05) and
W (r = 0.550, p ď 0.01). A strong relationship (r = 0.602, p ď 0.01) was found between VO2peak and
K/BB. Additionally, low, but signiﬁcant correlations were also found between AT and K (r = ´0.328,
p ď 0.05), K/BB (r = ´327, p ď 0.05) and W (r = 0.358, p ď 0.05).
Table 1. Descriptive data.
Anthropometric and
Fitness Variables
All Pitchers (n = 40)
Mean ˘ SD
S Pitchers (n = 27)
Mean ˘ SD
R Pitchers (n = 13)
Mean ˘ SD
Age (YEARS)
28.03 ˘ 5.17
27.33 ˘ 5.46
29.46 ˘ 4.31
Weight (KG)
100.06 ˘ 6.80
99.27 ˘ 5.75
101.75 ˘ 8.59
Height (CM)
191.19 ˘ 5.11
192.28 ˘ 5.00
188.92 ˘ 4.80
Estimated Percent Body fat (%BF)
15.28 ˘ 3.45
14.21 ˘ 2.45
17.5 ˘ 4.2
Lean BODY mass (lBM) (KG)
84.63 ˘ 4.54
85.07 ˘ 3.85
83.72 ˘ 5.79
Estimated Max. Heart Rate (HR)
191.98 ˘ 5.16
192.66 ˘ 5.46
190.53 ˘ 4.31
VO2 max (mL¨ kg´1¨ min.)
48.13 ˘ 5.30
49.49 ˘ 4.59
45.28 ˘ 5.71
Anaerobic threshold (AT)
37.31 ˘ 7.87
38.63 ˘ 7.03
34.57 ˘ 9.06
HR at VO2 max
184.28 ˘ 9.70
182.33 ˘ 9.06
188.31 ˘ 10.09
HR at Anaerobic Threshold
162.72 ˘ 13.83
161.11 ˘ 11.97
166.08 ˘ 17.13
When comparing S vs. R pitchers there was a signiﬁcant effect for position, t = 2.50, p ď 0.01,
with S pitchers demonstrating higher VO2 max values (49.49 ˘ 4.59) when compared to relievers
(45.28 ˘ 5.72) as presented in Figure 1. However, our analysis revealed no signiﬁcant differences in AT
between S and R.
Sports 2016, 4, 14 
4 of 8 
as means and standard deviations. Correlations were considered high (0.80–1.00), moderately high 
(0.60–0.79), moderate (0.40–0.59) or low (0.20–0.39) [18]. 
2.2. Results 
Descriptive data for the entire sample is presented in Table 1. For all pitchers, average VO2peak 
was 48.13 ± 5.30 (mL/kg/Min). For all pitchers VO2peak was found to have a low-moderate relationship 
(p < 0.05) between WHIP (r = −0.484, p ≤ 0.01), K (r = 0.572, p ≤ 0.01) BB/9 (r = −0.358, p ≤ 0.05) and W  
(r = 0.550, p ≤ 0.01). A strong relationship (r = 0.602, p ≤ 0.01) was found between VO2peak and K/BB. 
Additionally, low, but significant correlations were also found between AT and K (r = −0.328, p ≤ 
0.05), K/BB (r = −327, p ≤ 0.05) and W (r = 0.358, p ≤ 0.05). 
Table 1. Descriptive data. 
Anthropometric and  
Fitness Variables 
All Pitchers (n = 40)  
Mean ± SD 
S Pitchers (n = 27)  
Mean ± SD 
R Pitchers (n = 13)  
Mean ± SD 
Age (YEARS) 
28.03 ± 5.17 
27.33 ± 5.46 
29.46 ± 4.31 
Weight (KG) 
100.06 ± 6.80 
99.27 ± 5.75 
101.75 ± 8.59 
Height (CM) 
191.19 ± 5.11 
192.28 ± 5.00 
188.92 ± 4.80 
Estimated Percent Body fat (%BF) 
15.28 ± 3.45 
14.21 ± 2.45 
17.5 ± 4.2 
Lean BODY mass (lBM) (KG) 
84.63 ± 4.54 
85.07 ± 3.85 
83.72 ± 5.79 
Estimated Max. Heart Rate (HR) 
191.98 ± 5.16 
192.66 ± 5.46 
190.53 ± 4.31 
VO2 max (mL·kg−1·min.) 
48.13 ± 5.30 
49.49 ± 4.59 
45.28 ± 5.71 
Anaerobic threshold (AT) 
37.31 ± 7.87 
38.63 ± 7.03 
34.57 ± 9.06 
HR at VO2 max 
184.28 ± 9.70 
182.33 ± 9.06 
188.31 ± 10.09 
HR at Anaerobic Threshold 
162.72 ± 13.83 
161.11 ± 11.97 
166.08 ± 17.13 
When comparing S vs. R pitchers there was a significant effect for position, t = 2.50, p ≤ 0.01,  
with S pitchers demonstrating higher VO2 max values (49.49 ± 4.59) when compared to relievers  
(45.28 ± 5.72) as presented in Figure 1. However, our analysis revealed no significant differences in 
AT between S and R. 
 
Figure 1. Differences in VO2 max between Starters and Relievers. 
A one-way ANOVA with pairwise comparisons revealed significantly better performance 
statistics among S pitchers with a VO2peak above the overall group mean in FIP (F(3,36) = 3.87, p ≤ 0.01, P), 
WHIP (F(3,36) = −4.60, p ≤ 0.01 ), K/BB (F(3,36) = 7.25, p ≤ 0.01), and ERA (F(3,36) = −4.58 p ≤ 0.01 ). 
Additionally, it was discovered that S pitchers with an AT above the overall group mean 
demonstrated significantly better performance as measured by WHIP (F(3,36) = 2.54 ,p ≤ 0.05), 
presented in Figure 2, and ERA (F(3,36) = 2.52, p ≤ 0.05), presented in Figure 3. When comparing R 
pitchers above and below VO2peak the only significant difference discovered in measures of pitching 
performance was in HR/9 (F(3,36) = 5.06, p ≤ 0.05). 
49.49
45.28
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
VO2 max (mL·kg−1·min.)
Starters
Releivers
 
Figure 1. Differences in VO2 max between Starters and Relievers.
A one-way ANOVA with pairwise comparisons revealed signiﬁcantly better performance statistics
among S pitchers with a VO2peak above the overall group mean in FIP (F(3,36) = 3.87, p ď 0.01, P),
WHIP (F(3,36) = ´4.60, p ď 0.01), K/BB (F(3,36) = 7.25, p ď 0.01), and ERA (F(3,36) = ´4.58 p ď 0.01).
Additionally, it was discovered that S pitchers with an AT above the overall group mean demonstrated
signiﬁcantly better performance as measured by WHIP (F(3,36) = 2.54, p ď 0.05), presented in Figure 2,
and ERA (F(3,36) = 2.52, p ď 0.05), presented in Figure 3. When comparing R pitchers above and below
Sports 2016, 4, 14
5 of 8
VO2peak the only signiﬁcant difference discovered in measures of pitching performance was in HR/9
(F(3,36) = 5.06, p ď 0.05).
Sports 2016, 4, 14 
5 of 8 
 
Figure 2. Differences in walks and hits per inning pitched (WHIP) amongst S pitchers with higher 
and lower VO2 max. 
 
Figure 3. Differences in earned run average (ERA) amongst S pitchers with higher and lower VO2 max. 
Among starting pitchers, Pearson product-moment correlations revealed low- high relationships 
between VO2 max and BB/9 (r = −0.416), HR/9 (r = −0.478, p ≤ 0.05), W (r = 0.548), FIP (r = −0.567, p ≤ 0.01), 
K’s (r = 0.572, p ≤ 0.01), H/9 (r = −0.589, p ≤ 0.01), K/9 (r = 0.614, p ≤ 0.01), ERA (r = −678, p ≤ 0.01), and 
WHIP (r = −0.685, p ≤ 0.01). Low correlations were also found between AT and WHIP (r = −431, p ≤ 0.05) 
and ERA (r = −431, p ≤ 0.05). When separately analyzing R pitchers the only significant relationships 
(r = 0.592, p ≤ 0.05) was found between FIP and VO2 max. This relationship indicated that R pitchers 
with a higher VO2 max had a higher FIP. No other significant relationships between VO2 max or AT and 
performance were discovered among R pitchers. 
2.3. Discussion 
The results of this study indicate that ML S pitchers are more aerobically fit than R pitchers and 
that several pitching performance variables appear to be related to greater VO2 max. For S pitchers 
only, there was a strong, significant correlation between VO2 max and FIP, WHIP, and ERA. There was 
also a moderate but significant relationship between AT and both WHIP and ERA for S pitchers only.  
For R pitchers no significant relationships were discovered between either VO2 max and AT for any of 
the selected measures of used in our analysis. In contrast, the sole correlation among R pitchers in 
this study was found when this group was subcategorized into high/low VO2 max. It was discovered 
that R pitchers with a higher VO2 max actually pitched worse than those with a lower VO2 max based on 
FIP. After analysis of R pitchers data it can be concluded that cardiorespiratory fitness may not 
 
Figure 2. Differences in walks and hits per inning pitched (WHIP) amongst S pitchers with higher and
lower VO2 max.
Sports 2016, 4, 14 
5 of 8 
 
Figure 2. Differences in walks and hits per inning pitched (WHIP) amongst S pitchers with higher 
and lower VO2 max. 
 
Figure 3. Differences in earned run average (ERA) amongst S pitchers with higher and lower VO2 max. 
Among starting pitchers, Pearson product-moment correlations revealed low- high relationships 
between VO2 max and BB/9 (r = −0.416), HR/9 (r = −0.478, p ≤ 0.05), W (r = 0.548), FIP (r = −0.567, p ≤ 0.01), 
K’s (r = 0.572, p ≤ 0.01), H/9 (r = −0.589, p ≤ 0.01), K/9 (r = 0.614, p ≤ 0.01), ERA (r = −678, p ≤ 0.01), and 
WHIP (r = −0.685, p ≤ 0.01). Low correlations were also found between AT and WHIP (r = −431, p ≤ 0.05) 
and ERA (r = −431, p ≤ 0.05). When separately analyzing R pitchers the only significant relationships 
(r = 0.592, p ≤ 0.05) was found between FIP and VO2 max. This relationship indicated that R pitchers 
with a higher VO2 max had a higher FIP. No other significant relationships between VO2 max or AT and 
performance were discovered among R pitchers. 
2.3. Discussion 
The results of this study indicate that ML S pitchers are more aerobically fit than R pitchers and 
that several pitching performance variables appear to be related to greater VO2 max. For S pitchers 
only, there was a strong, significant correlation between VO2 max and FIP, WHIP, and ERA. There was 
also a moderate but significant relationship between AT and both WHIP and ERA for S pitchers only.  
For R pitchers no significant relationships were discovered between either VO2 max and AT for any of 
the selected measures of used in our analysis. In contrast, the sole correlation among R pitchers in 
this study was found when this group was subcategorized into high/low VO2 max. It was discovered 
that R pitchers with a higher VO2 max actually pitched worse than those with a lower VO2 max based on 
FIP. After analysis of R pitchers data it can be concluded that cardiorespiratory fitness may not 
 
Figure 3. Differences in earned run average (ERA) amongst S pitchers with higher and lower VO2 max.
Among starting pitchers, Pearson product-moment correlations revealed low- high relationships
between VO2 max and BB/9 (r = ´0.416), HR/9 (r = ´0.478, p ď 0.05), W (r = 0.548), FIP (r = ´0.567,
p ď 0.01), K’s (r = 0.572, p ď 0.01), H/9 (r = ´0.589, p ď 0.01), K/9 (r = 0.614, p ď 0.01), ERA (r = ´678,
p ď 0.01), and WHIP (r = ´0.685, p ď 0.01). Low correlations were also found between AT and WHIP
(r = ´431, p ď 0.05) and ERA (r = ´431, p ď 0.05). When separately analyzing R pitchers the only
signiﬁcant relationships (r = 0.592, p ď 0.05) was found between FIP and VO2 max. This relationship
indicated that R pitchers with a higher VO2 max had a higher FIP. No other signiﬁcant relationships
between VO2 max or AT and performance were discovered among R pitchers.
2.3. Discussion
The results of this study indicate that ML S pitchers are more aerobically ﬁt than R pitchers and
that several pitching performance variables appear to be related to greater VO2 max. For S pitchers
only, there was a strong, signiﬁcant correlation between VO2 max and FIP, WHIP, and ERA. There was
also a moderate but signiﬁcant relationship between AT and both WHIP and ERA for S pitchers only.
For R pitchers no signiﬁcant relationships were discovered between either VO2 max and AT for any of
the selected measures of used in our analysis. In contrast, the sole correlation among R pitchers in
this study was found when this group was subcategorized into high/low VO2 max. It was discovered
that R pitchers with a higher VO2 max actually pitched worse than those with a lower VO2 max based
on FIP. After analysis of R pitchers data it can be concluded that cardiorespiratory ﬁtness may not
necessarily have a positive impact on successful pitching performance among R pitchers. While the
Sports 2016, 4, 14
6 of 8
results may simply be a product of on-ﬁeld demands, or due to different training and conditioning
methods performed between S and R pitchers, it may also suggest that aerobic ﬁtness has a larger
impact on pitching performance for the S pitcher at the ML level.
In an attempt to identify key ﬁtness benchmarks related to performance, further evaluations
were performed on S pitchers only. The S sample was divided into higher and lower VO2 max groups
(greater than or less than 48.13 (mL/kg/min)) to examine differences in performance in FIP, WHIP,
and ERA. The higher ﬁtness group (n = 15, VO2 = 50.19 ˘ 4.23) had an average WHIP of 1.25 ˘ 0.18,
FIP of 3.61 ˘ 0.66, and average ERA of 3.77 ˘ 1.02. The WHIP and ERA results were signiﬁcantly
better (p < 0.05) than the lower ﬁtness group (n = 12, VO2 = 48.84 ˘ 4.97) which were found to have an
average WHIP of 1.48 ˘ 0.17 and ERA of 5.04 ˘ 0.97. The higher ﬁtness group also had a better K/9
(p < 0.05). In summary, S pitchers exhibiting above average VO2 max, pitched considerably better than
S pitchers with below average VO2 max.
The physiological demands on S pitchers are greater than R pitchers due to the higher workload
and duration of time they are expected to perform. This may result in a greater reliance on overall
cardiorespiratory ﬁtness and endurance to sustain performance throughout the duration of a game.
The apparent lack of importance related to both VO2 max and AT for the R pitcher is not surprising and
provides additional support for constructing position or role-speciﬁc exercise programs. It makes sense
that the relationship between VO2 and AT and pitching performance measures may simply indicate
the need for higher levels of endurance for S pitchers and not speciﬁc requirements for successful
pitching performances for R pitchers.
The current ﬁndings support the need for personalized in-season conditioning programs
dependent on the speciﬁc role a pitcher holds on their team. The S pitcher is usually on a 5 day rotation
involving four days in between each pitching outing. When the major emphasis of conditioning
programs is placed on minimizing reductions in power and strength over the course of the season,
the use of slow, long distance runs could be counter-productive. The authors postulate that one high
intensity interval training session between each pitching outing may be sufﬁcient to help maintain
aerobic ﬁtness and maximize recovery. This approach may also serve to minimize reductions in power
and strength and interference during power development and strength training sessions performed
during the four days between pitching outings.
Conditioning programs for R pitchers should not mimic S pitchers, even though some R pitchers
are expected to pitch multiple innings and sustain higher pitch counts. Practitioners must determine
whether or not this type of R pitcher should fall under a modiﬁed conditioning program similar to a
S pitcher. In this case, the R pitcher would be allowed more days to rest following an outing making it
more conducive to higher intensity conditioning sessions. The day following a long outing where a
R pitcher has the day off might be best to incorporate more intense conditioning sessions. It should
also be noted that more extensive modiﬁcations in conditioning programs might be required to meet
anthropometric needs/goals.
In summary, this is the ﬁrst known study that examines aerobic capacity among ML pitchers and
its potential impact on pitching performance. When interpreting the current ﬁndings it is important to
realize that there are many uncontrollable variables that become more evident in ﬁeld experiments.
First, successful pitching performance at the professional level is certainly not identiﬁed by one single
performance measure. There are many variables that lead to a positive pitching performance, making
it difﬁcult to come to precise conclusions on how much of an impact physical ﬁtness really has on
performance statistics in this analysis. In addition, pitching mechanics play an important role in
successful pitching at any level. Therefore, the evaluation of the statistical ﬁndings should consider
the complexity of pitching performance in general. Furthermore, it is important to note that subjects
exercised to voluntary exhaustion. Subsequently, it is possible that a true VO2 max may not have been
reached due to lack of motivation. All of these factors should be considered when evaluating the
outcomes of this study.
Sports 2016, 4, 14
7 of 8
3. Conclusions
Practical Applications
The current data suggests that metabolic training among ML baseball starting pitchers should
focus on improving both aerobic capacity and anaerobic threshold. At the higher levels of play
adequate training time should be devoted to maximizing these physiological parameters to improve
chances of successful performance. Concurrent training strategies should focus on maximizing both
physiological variables while attempting to minimize any potential interference in maximizing power.
High intensity interval training seems to be the most efﬁcient mode of training to improve a starting
pitcher’s aerobic capacity. Neglecting important physiological components can have a detrimental
effect on performance but athletes need evidence-based guidance to ensure productivity and a return
on their training efforts.
Strength and conditioning professionals should work closely with pitchers, coaches, and
organizational management to design and implement appropriate training strategies for pitchers
at various levels. The reliance on research such as the current analysis ensures that training programs
are evidence-based and effective. For speciﬁc examples of proposed conditioning programs for pitchers,
further examination of published works are suggested [7,8,20,21].
Author Contributions: Javair S. Gillett conceived the experiment, oversaw the testing procedures, analyzed
the data, and contributed in the writing and review of the manuscript; J. Jay Dawes analyzed the data and
contributed in the writing and review of the manuscript; Frank J. Spaniol contributed in the writing and review
of the manuscript and served as the corresponding author; Mitchel A. Magrini contributed in the writing and
review of the manuscript; Matthew R. Rhea analyzed the data and contributed in the writing and review of the
manuscript; Joe P. Rogowski oversaw the testing procedures and contributed in the review of the manuscript;
Robert Simao contributed in the writing and review of the manuscript; and Derek J. Bunker contributed in the
writing and review of the manuscript.
Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest.
References
1.
Baseball Prospectus. Available online: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/sortable/index.php?cid=1667158
(accessed on 6 May 2015).
2.
Bradbury, J.C.; Forman, S.L. The impact of pitch counts and days of rest on performance among major-league
baseball pitchers. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2012, 26, 1181–1187. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3.
Szymanski, D.J.; Fredrick, G.A. College baseball/softball periodized torso program. Strength Cond. J. 1999,
22, 42–47. [CrossRef]
4.
Potteiger, J.; Blessing, D.; Wilson, G.D. The physiological responses to a single game of baseball pitching.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 1992, 6, 11–18.
5.
Stockholm, A.; Morris, H. A pitcher’s heart rate during actual competition. Res. Q. Am. Assoc. Health Phys.
Educ. Recreat. 1969, 40, 645–649.
6.
Szymanski, D.J.; Myres, R.L. Heart rate responses of collegiate baseball pitchers while pitching and
conditioning. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2007, 21, e28.
7.
Syzmanski, D. Collegiate baseball in-season training. Strength Cond. J. 2007, 29, 68–80. [CrossRef]
8.
Szymanski, D. Physiology of baseball pitching dictates speciﬁc exercise intensity for conditioning.
Strength Cond. J. 2009, 31, 41–47. [CrossRef]
9.
Tomlin, D.L.; Wenger, H. The relationship between aerobic ﬁtness and recovery from high intensity
intermittent exercise. Sports Med. 2001, 31, 1–11. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10.
Tripp, B.; Boswell, L.; Gansneder, B.; Shultz, S. Functional fatigue decreases 3-dimensional multi-joint
position reproduction acuity in the overhead-throwing athlete. J. Athl. Train. 2004, 39, 316–320. [PubMed]
11.
Tripp, B.L.; Yochem, E.M.; Uhl, T.L. Functional fatigue and upper extremity sensorimotor system acuity in
baseball athletes. J. Athl. Train. 2007, 42, 90–98. [PubMed]
12.
Van Wessel, T.; de Haan, A.; Van der Laarse, W.; Jaspers, R. The muscle ﬁber type–ﬁber size paradox:
Hypertrophy or oxidative metabolism? Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2010, 110, 665–694. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sports 2016, 4, 14
8 of 8
13.
Yang, S.W. Assessment of professional baseball players aerobic exercise performance depending on their
positions. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2014, 28, 3289–3292. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14.
Ebben, W.; Hintz, M.; Simenz, C. Strength and conditioning practices of major league baseball strength and
conditioning coaches. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2005, 19, 538–546. [PubMed]
15.
Dieli-Conwright, C.M.; Jensky, N.E.; Battaglia, G.; McCauley, S.; Schroeder, E.T. Validation of the
CardioCoachCO2 for submaximal and maximal metabolic exercise testing. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2009,
23, 1316–1320. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16.
Yuhasz, M.S. Physical Fitness Manual; University of Western Ontario: London, Canada, 1974.
17.
Sports Reference, LLC, 2013. Available online: www.baseball-reference.com (accessed on 6 May 2015).
18.
ESPN MLB. Available online: http://espn.go.com/mlb/ (accessed on 6 May 2015).
19.
FanGraphs. Available online: www.fangraphs.com or http://www.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/pitching/_/
league/nl/sort/pitches/type/expanded-2 (accessed on 6 May 2015).
20.
Rhea, M.; Bunker, D. Baseball-speciﬁc conditioning. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2009, 4, 402–407. [PubMed]
21.
Rhea, M.; Oliverson, J.; Kenn, J.; Naclerio, F. Non-compatibility of power and endurance training among
college baseball players. J Strength Cond. Res. 2008, 22, 230–234. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

A Description and Comparison of Cardiorespiratory Fitness Measures in Relation to Pitching Performance Among Professional Baseball Pitchers.
Gillett, Javair S,Dawes, J Jay,Spaniol, Frank J,Rhea, Matthew R,Rogowski, Joe P,Magrini, Mitchel A,Simao, Roberto,Bunker, Derek J