The effect of progressive plyometric training on sprint performance and flexibility in college baseball athletes

Introduction: Baseball performance relies on short sprint ability and lower-limb flexibility, yet evidence for structured plyometric training in collegiate players is limited. Objective: This study examined an 8-week progressive plyometric program on linear sprint performance and flexibility in collegiate baseball athletes. Methodology: Twenty-four collegiate baseball players, all regularly training, were randomly as- signed to a Plyometric Training Group (PTG; n = 12) or Control Training Group (CTG; n = 12). The PTG completed an 8-week plyometric program, three sessions per week, including hurdle jumps, multi jumps, and drop jumps in 3–6 sets per exercise, while the CTG continued usual baseball and strength training without additional interventions. Results: The PTG showed significant improvements in sprint performance, with 10-m time de- creasing from 1.987 ± 0.125 s to 1.728 ± 0.132 s (p = 0.05), 20-m from 3.342 ± 0.162 s to 3.146 ± 0.143 s (p = 0.05), and 30-m from 4.578 ± 0.121 s to 4.120 ± 0.1087 s (p = 0.05). Sit-and-reach flexibility increased from 20.42 ± 2.56 cm to 22.40 ± 1.82 cm (p = 0.05). The CTG showed no statistically significant changes (p = 0.124–0.422). Discussion: These findings indicate that progressive plyometric training produces meaningful gains in acceleration and lower-limb flexibility beyond regular training alone. Conclusions: An 8-week progressive plyometric program can be recommended as an effective conditioning strategy to enhance sprint performance and flexibility in university-level baseball athletes. Keywords Plyometric, sprint, flexibility, baseball. Resumen Introducción: El rendimiento en el béisbol depende de la capacidad de sprint corto y la flexibi- lidad

training produces meaningful gains in acceleration and lower-limb flexibility beyond regular training alone. Conclusions: An 8-week progressive plyometric program can be recommended as an effective conditioning strategy to enhance sprint performance and flexibility in university-level baseball athletes. Keywords Plyometric, sprint, flexibility, baseball. Resumen Introducción: El rendimiento en el béisbol depende de la capacidad de sprint corto y la flexibi- lidad de las extremidades inferiores; sin embargo, la evidencia del entrenamiento pliométrico estructurado en jugadores universitarios es limitada. Objetivo: Este estudio examinó un programa pliométrico progresivo de 8 semanas sobre el ren- dimiento en sprint lineal y la flexibilidad en atletas universitarios de béisbol. Metodología: Veinticuatro jugadores universitarios de béisbol, todos con entrenamiento regu- lar, fueron asignados aleatoriamente a un Grupo de Entrenamiento Pliométrico (GTP; n = 12) o a un Grupo de Entrenamiento Control (GCT; n = 12). El GTP completó un programa pliométrico de 8 semanas, con tres sesiones semanales, que incluían saltos con vallas, saltos múltiples y saltos con caída en 3-6 series por ejercicio, mientras que el GCT continuó con su entrenamiento habitual de béisbol y fuerza sin intervenciones adicionales. Resultados: El PTG mostró mejoras significativas en el rendimiento del sprint, con una disminución del tiempo de 10 m de 1,987 ± 0,125 s a 1,728 ± 0,132 s (p = 0,05), 20 m de 3,342 ± 0,162 s a 3,146 ± 0,143 s (p = 0,05), y 30 m de 4,578 ± 0,121 s a 4,120 ± 0,1087 s (p = 0,05). La flexibilidad de sentarse y alcanzar au- mentó de 20,42 ± 2,56 cm a 22,40 ± 1,82 cm (p = 0,05). El CTG no mostró cambios estadística- mente significativos (p = 0,124–0,422). Discusión: Estos hallazgos indican que el entrenamiento pliométrico progresivo produce mejoras significativas en la aceleración y la flexibilidad de las extremidades inferiores, en comparación con el entrenamiento regular por sí solo. Conclusiones: Se puede recomendar un programa pliométrico progresivo de 8 semanas como una estrategia de acondicionamiento eficaz para mejorar el rendimiento en velocidad y la flexi- bilidad en atletas de béisbol universitarios. Palabras clave Pliometría; sprint; flexibilidad; béisbol. The effect of

en la aceleración y la flexibilidad de las extremidades inferiores, en comparación con el entrenamiento regular por sí solo. Conclusiones: Se puede recomendar un programa pliométrico progresivo de 8 semanas como una estrategia de acondicionamiento eficaz para mejorar el rendimiento en velocidad y la flexi- bilidad en atletas de béisbol universitarios. Palabras clave Pliometría; sprint; flexibilidad; béisbol. The effect of progressive plyometric training on sprint performance and flexibility in college baseball athletes Los efectos del entrenamiento pliométrico progresivo en el rendimiento de velocidad y la flexibilidad en el béisbol universitario

2026 (Mayo), Retos, 78, 75-82 ISSN: 1579-1726, eISSN: 1988-2041 https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/retos/index 76 Introduction Baseball is a sport that integrates a variety of complex physical and technical elements including throw- ing, hitting, catching, and sprinting (Kim et al., 2024). The sequence of physical components involved in baseball not only demands advanced motor skills but also requires strategic understanding to effec- tively interpret game situations (Matsuda et al., 2022; Papadakis et al., 2021). As a competitive sports, baseball necessitates an optimal combination of strength, speed, flexibility, endurance, and coordination to achieve high-level performance (Aydin et al., 2015; Crotin et al., 2023; Matsuda et al., 2022). Hitting the ball is a crucial element in baseball, as it significantly influences a team’s chances of winning a game(Carboch et al., 2022). However, sprinting ability represents another key component that can directly impact the outcome of a baseball games (Magrini et al., 2018). Offensively, sprinting allows play- ers to reach bases safely after hitting the ball, thereby avoiding elimination by the opposing team (Mar- quardt et al., 2018). While defensively, it enables players to chase down batted balls, make critical catches, or stop opposing runners from advancing to the next base (Sekine, 2016). Moreover, flexibility plays an essential role in enhancing movement efficiency and reducing the risk of injury, particularly during batting and fielding actions (Phrathep et al., 2023). Therefore, developing sprinting speed and flexibility should be considered a training priority for baseball players, alongside improving hitting skills. Several training programs that aim to improve sprint performance and flexibility have been developed and documented in recent years including interval training (Lee et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023), re- sistance training (Gao et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2023), and mobility exercise (Cetin et al., 2020). Plyom- etric training is a widely adopted methods to enhance physical conditioning due to its its accessibility, time efficiency, and relatively low risk of injury (Ramirez‐campillo et al., 2022; Ramirez-Campillo et al., 2023). Findings from previous studies have demonstrated that sport-specific plyometric training can significantly enhance physical performance in football players (Moran et al., 2024) and handball players (Jakšić et al.,

etric training is a widely adopted methods to enhance physical conditioning due to its its accessibility, time efficiency, and relatively low risk of injury (Ramirez‐campillo et al., 2022; Ramirez-Campillo et al., 2023). Findings from previous studies have demonstrated that sport-specific plyometric training can significantly enhance physical performance in football players (Moran et al., 2024) and handball players (Jakšić et al., 2023). Recent research has shown that a systematically designed plyometric training pro- gram can lead to significant improvements in sprint performance among collegiate-level futsal athletes (Irawan et al., 2024). Additionally, structured plyometric training has been found effective in enhancing flexibility, particularly among athletes in sports such as badminton (Hassan et al., 2023), and volleyball athletes (Patel et al., 2022). The effectiveness of specific plyometric training has been well-documented in enhancing physical per- formance across various sports disciplines, including football, futsal, badminton, volleyball, and hand- ball. However, the effectiveness of specific plyometric training among baseball athletes particularly at the collegiate level remains limited and underexplored. Therefore, this study aims to examine the impact of structured plyometric exercises on sprint performance and flexibility in collegiate baseball players. By utilizing the findings of previous studies that show the effectiveness of plyometric training in im- proving physical performance, this study is expected to provide a significant contribution to specific training programs for student-level baseball athletes, which to date have rarely been explored. Method Participants This study employed an experimental design with a pre-test and post-test approach involving one intervention group with a control group. Thies approach was selected to evaluate changes in sprint performance at 10-meters, 20-meters, and 30-meters, and flexibility performances among collegiate- level baseball players before and after a progressive plyometric interventions. This study involved twenty four collegiate-level baseball players aged 19–22 years who actively trained and competed in national collegiate baseball tournaments. Sample selection was conducted using purposive sampling with inclusion criteria requiring participants to be actively engaged in baseball training at least three times per week for the past two years. Additionally, participants were required to have no history of injuries, particularly in the knee or ankle and to be

years who actively trained and competed in national collegiate baseball tournaments. Sample selection was conducted using purposive sampling with inclusion criteria requiring participants to be actively engaged in baseball training at least three times per week for the past two years. Additionally, participants were required to have no history of injuries, particularly in the knee or ankle and to be willing to complete the entire intervention program and participate in all planned assessments. This research has been approved by the Ethics Committee of Jakarta State University with No. 616/UN39.14/PT.01.05/V/2025.

2026 (Mayo), Retos, 78, 75-82 ISSN: 1579-1726, eISSN: 1988-2041 https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/retos/index 77 Figure 1. Participants flow chart Procedure Pre-test Procedures Participants underwent anthropometric measurements, including body mass, stature, body mass index, and body fat percentage. A stadiometer was used to measure stature, while body mass, body mass index, and body fat percentage were assessed using the Omron KaradaScan Body Fat Monitor. Following the anthropometric measurements, participants performed a flexibility performance using sit and reach test, followed by sprint performance at 10-meters, 20-meters, and 30-meters measured with the Smartspeed system for precise timing. Pre-test assessments were conducted during week 0 to establish baseline data for subsequent analysis. Intervention Procedures Participants were randomly assigned to two groups: Plyometric Training Group (PTG) and the Control Training Group (CTG). The intervention group underwent a spesifically designed 8-week plyometric training program following their daily training program, progressing from the first to the eighth week. Before initiating the program, participants received a detailed explanation of the research procedurs and were instructed on proper plyometric exercise tehniques to minimize the risk of injury. Meanwhile the control group continued their daily training program as prescribed by the coach without additional plyometric training intervention. The detailed plyometric training program for the experimental group is presented in tabel 1. Table 1. Progressive Training Program for Experimental Group Week number Exercise Type Rest between series (s) Repetitions of Set Number of Sets Total Volume (Reps x Sets) 1 Hurdle Jump 120 s 8 3 24 Multi Jumps 120 s 8 3 24 Drop Jump 120 s 8 3 24 2 Hurdle Jump 120 s 10 3 30 Multi Jumps 120 s 10 3 30 Drop Jump 120 s 10 3 30 3 Hurdle Jump 90 s 10 4 40 Multi Jumps 90 s 10 4 40 Drop Jump 90 s 10 4 40 4 Hurdle Jump 90 s 12 4 48 Multi Jumps 90 s 12 4 48 Drop Jump 90 s 12 4 48

s 10 4 40 Drop Jump 90 s 10 4 40 4 Hurdle Jump 90 s 12 4 48 Multi Jumps 90 s 12 4 48 Drop Jump 90 s 12 4 48

2026 (Mayo), Retos, 78, 75-82 ISSN: 1579-1726, eISSN: 1988-2041 https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/retos/index 78 5 Hurdle Jump 75 s 12 5 60 Multi Jumps 75 s 12 5 60 Drop Jump 75 s 12 5 60 6 Hurdle Jump 75 s 14 5 70 Multi Jumps 75 s 14 5 70 Drop Jump 75 s 14 5 70 7 Hurdle Jump 60 s 14 6 84 Multi Jumps 60 s 14 6 84 Drop Jump 60 s 14 6 84 8 Hurdle Jump 60 s 16 6 96 Multi Jumps 60 s 16 6 96 Drop Jump 60 s 16 6 96 Post-test Procedures Participants completed post-test assesments for 10-meters, 20-meters, and 30-meters sprint performance, along with flexibility testing in the ninth week without further anthropometric measurements. Sprint performance was measuerd using Smartspeed system, while flexibility performance was assessed with the sit and reach test. This post-test evaluation aimed to compare performance with baseline data and dtermine the effectivnees of the intervention Data analysis The data analysis was performed using SPSS version 24. All variables were presented using descriptive statistics, expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD). The Shapiro-Wilk test was utilized to assess the normality of the data. To examine differences between group over time, a Two-Way Repeated Measures ANOVA was conducted, enabling the evaluation of interaction effects between group assignment and time (pre-test and post-test). A significance level of P < 0.05 was set to determine statistically significant differences between groups. Changes in sprint performance and flexibility within each group from pre- test to post-test were analyzed using paired sample t-tests. Results Table 2 presents the baseline characteristics of the plyometric group (PTG) and the control group (CTG). At baseline, the two groups were comparable across all measured variables. Mean age was 19.49 ± 1.91 years in PTG and 18.90 ± 2.62 years in CTG (p = 0.53; Cohen’s d = 0.26), while body mass was 68.30 ± 11.40 kg and 69.50 ± 12.30 kg, respectively (p = 0.81; d = −0.10). Stature was also similar between groups (170.10 ± 8.50 cm vs. 169.80 ± 9.30 cm for PTG and CTG;

was 19.49 ± 1.91 years in PTG and 18.90 ± 2.62 years in CTG (p = 0.53; Cohen’s d = 0.26), while body mass was 68.30 ± 11.40 kg and 69.50 ± 12.30 kg, respectively (p = 0.81; d = −0.10). Stature was also similar between groups (170.10 ± 8.50 cm vs. 169.80 ± 9.30 cm for PTG and CTG; p = 0.94; d = 0.03), as were BMI values (23.50 ± 3.30 vs. 24.20 ± 2.80 kg·m⁻²; p = 0.58; d = −0.23) and body fat percentage (14.80 ± 3.50% vs. 15.30 ± 4.10%; p = 0.75; d = −0.13). All p-values were no-significant, and all effect sizes were small (|d| < 0.30), indicating no meaningful baseline differences between the plyometric and control groups. Table 2. Anthropometric and Training Characteristic of Participants Variables Groups P-value Levene p PTG CTG Age (years) 19.5 ± 1.9 18.9 ± 2.6 0.534 0.347 Body Mass (kg) 68.3 ± 11,4 69.5 ± 12.3 0.807 0.561 Body Height (cm) 170.1 ± 8.5 169.8 ± 9.3 0.935 0.654 Body Mass Index (kg/m 2 ) 23.5 ± 5.3 24.4 ± 6.8 0.581 0.504 Body Fat Percentage (%) 14.8 ± 3.5 15.3 ± 4.1 0.751 0.986 Table 2 summarizes the changes in sprint performance and flexibility from pretest to posttest for the plyometric training group (PTG) and the control group (CTG). Within groups, the PTG showed statisti- cally significant improvements in all sprint tests. For the 10-m sprint, mean time decreased from 1.99 ± 0.43 s to 1.58 ± 0.44 s (p = 0.034; Cohen’s d = −0.70). A similar pattern was observed for the 20-m sprint, where time decreased from 3.34 ± 0.42 s to 2.95 ± 0.42 s (p = 0.042; d = −0.67). The largest improvement was found in the 30-m sprint, with times improving from 4.58 ± 0.51 s to 4.12 ± 0.48 s (p = 0.003; d = −1.09). The PTG also demonstrated a significant increase in flexibility, as indicated by the sit-and-reach

improvement was found in the 30-m sprint, with times improving from 4.58 ± 0.51 s to 4.12 ± 0.48 s (p = 0.003; d = −1.09). The PTG also demonstrated a significant increase in flexibility, as indicated by the sit-and-reach

2026 (Mayo), Retos, 78, 75-82 ISSN: 1579-1726, eISSN: 1988-2041 https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/retos/index 79 test, improving from 20.42 ± 3.37 cm to 23.42 ± 3.84 cm (p = 0.044; d = 0.65). In contrast, the CTG did not show significant changes over time in any variable. Sprint 10-m performance changed only slightly from 1.95 ± 0.48 s to 1.91 ± 0.51 s (p = 0.801), and 20-m sprint times changed from 3.46 ± 0.56 s to 3.37 ± 0.45 s (p = 0.760). The 30-m sprint improved minimally from 4.62 ± 0.40 s to 4.53 ± 0.43 s (p = 0.889). Sit-and-reach scores increased from 20.82 ± 4.27 cm to 21.02 ± 4.06 cm but remained non-significant (p = 0.862). Table 3. Performance variables of pretest and posttests for PTG (n = 12) and CTG (n = 12). Variables Groups Pretest Posttest Within group, p Between Group, p Effect Size Sprint 10-meters (s) PTG 1.99 ± 0.43 1.58 ± 0.44 0.034* 0.236 −0.48 CTGl 1.95 ± 0.48 1.91 ± 0.51 0.801 Sprint 20-meters (s) PTG 3.34 ± 0.42 2.95 ± 0.42 0.042* 0.260 −0.46 CTGl 3.46 ± 0.56 3.37 ± 0.45 0.760 Sprint 30-meters (s) PTG 4.58 ± 0.51 4.12 ± 0.48 0.031* 0.067 −0.76 CTGl 4.62 ± 0.40 4.53 ± 0.43 0.889 Sit and Reach (cm) PTG 20.42 ± 3.37 23.42 ± 3.84 0.041* 0.122 0.63 CTGl 20.82 ± 4.27 21.02 ± 4.06 0.862 Note. p < 0.05 indicates a significant within-group difference between pretest and posttest. Discussion The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an eight-week progressive plyometric training on sprint performance and flexibility in collegiate-level baseball athletes. This study highlights that a progressive plyometric training consisting of 3–6 sets of exercises over eight weeks can significantly enhance 10-meter, 20-meter, and 30-meter sprint performance as well as flexibility in col- legiate-level baseball athletes. Compared with previous research, the present study focused on collegiate-level athlete and an inter- vention period of eight weeks, whereas previous studies has mostly examined elite athletes and used longer training durations (Branquinho et al., 2022; Matuszczyk et al., 2025). The results of

An 8-week plyometric program significantly enhances sprint performance and flexibility in collegiate baseball athletes.