Correlation of Throwing Velocity to the Results of Lower-Body Field Tests in Male College Baseball Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Baseball-specific athleticism, potential, and performance have been difficult to predict. Increased muscle strength and power can increase throwing velocity but the majority of research has focused on the upper body. The present study sought to determine if bilateral or unilateral lower-body field testing correlates with throwing velocity. Baseball throwing velocity scores were correlated to the following tests: medicine ball (MB) scoop toss and squat throw, bilateral and unilateral vertical jumps, single and triple broad jumps, hop and stop in both directions, lateral to medial jumps, 10- and 60-yd sprints, and both left and right single-leg 10-yd hop for speed in 42 college baseball players. A multiple regression analysis (forward method), assessing the relationship between shuffle and stretch throwing velocities and lower-body field test results determined that right-handed throwing velocity from the stretch position was most strongly predicted by lateral to medial jump right (LMJR) and body weight (BW; R = 0.322), whereas lateral to medial jump left (LMJL; R = 0.688) predicted left stretch throw. Right-handed shuffle throw was most strongly predicted by LMJR and MB scoop (R = 0.338), whereas LMJL, BW, and LMJR all contributed to left-handed shuffle throw (R = 0.982). Overall, this study found that lateral to medial jumps were consistently correlated with high throwing velocity in each of the throwing techniques, in both left-handed and right-handed throwers. This is the first study to correlate throwing velocity with a unilateral jump in the frontal plane, mimicking the action of the throwing stride.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".