Research & Development at Driveline Baseball

Driveline Baseball’s history and success is rooted in Research and Development (R&D), and has been since it was founded in 2007 by Kyle Boddy.

First, we evaluate our training through a review of peer-reviewed sports-science articles. Is there a tested or theoretical foundation for what we wish to implement with athletes?

Second, we do our best to replicate those studies in-house with our athletes to determine if those findings will work for our population of athletes.

Not until a drill or training methodology has met both parts of the two-part test do we include it with our programming.

Brief reviews of the research papers that drive our creative process are available at our Pitching Research webpage.

History

In January 2008, then-intern Matthew Wagshol and Kyle Boddy built a prototype motion capture control object in the aisles of Home Depot in Shoreline, WA. This would serve as the platform and foundation of the first markerless baseball biomechanics motion capture laboratory in the world built from consumer high-speed cameras and a do-it-yourself attitude.

It tooks months and years of reverse engineering, mathematics, and hard work to finish this monumental project, but it remains a historical moment in the company as a reminder to all new employees: With enough perseverance and desire, great things are possible.

From our humble beginnings in a small batting cage in North Seattle, Driveline Baseball began testing other training concepts – weighted baseballs were one of the first modalities tested, back in mid-2008. We interviewed multiple professionals in the field to get their opinions, ranging from biomechanical experts to pediatric orthopedic surgeons, and tested range of motion pre/post throwing protocols as well as our subject group’s velocity gains. Our case study reflected what’s currently written about in baseball – that weighted implement programming increases velocity, and that there is no causal or even corollary link between their use and injuries.

From then on, we decided that we would lead the industry in quantitative analysis of training modalities in baseball, and became the first data-driven baseball training facility in the world.

Team

• Kyle Boddy: Founder
• Michael O’Connell: Research Analyst, Project Manager
• Joseph Marsh: Director of R&D
• Anthony Brady: Biomechanist, Lead Motion Capture Technician
• Alex Caravan: Quantitative Analyst
• Krissy Heishman: Electrical Engineer, Software Developer
• Garrett York: Software Developer
• Kyle Lindley: Biomechanist
• Dan Aucoin: Research Analyst
• Melanie Bell: Data Analyst Intern
• Jesse Clingman: Biomechanics Intern
• Rachel Balkovec: Fellow

Remote / part-time:

• Erin Bristow: Operations Intern (has pending study with us from ’18 summer internship)

The Driveline Baseball R&D team is supported by other employees and internal contractors like Terry Phillips, DPT and Jason Ochart (Director of Hitting), and we have an informal advisory board of orthopedic surgeons, expert biomechanists, kinesiologists, quantitative analysts, and exercise scientists we consult with on a regular basis to guide the mission of the department.

Research Lab

Most of the website talks about the benefits of training at Driveline Baseball. Here’s where we get to talk about the features, the real nerd stuff. Inside of our training center and research lab (separate buildings in our complex), we use the following tools to maximize athletic performance, develop better injury prevention programs, and perform industry-leading research and experimentation:

Optical Tracking / Motion Capture

• Optitrack Prime 13/13W/17W 240hz cameras (15) forming the backbone of our pitching motion capture laboratory – generate gold-standard kinematic, kinetic, and computed muscle control reports and validate inertial measurement unit (IMU) products
• Optitrack Flex 3/V100 100hz cameras (18) in our High Performance motion capture lab to capture single-plane movement and gait analysis
• Edgertronic SC1 and SC2X high-speed cameras (3) for extreme slow-motion optical tracking and videography, genlock capable

Monitoring

• Somaxis Cricket wireless electromyography sensors (4) to precisely measure muscle output in athletic movements
• Omegawave heart rate variability and DC potential sensors to measure fatigue and readiness
• Emotive Flex electroencephalogram headset to analyze brain wave patterning in vision-related tasks and efficiency metrics on skill development
• Motus Sleeve IMUs for simple workload tracking and mechanical data

Baseball Physics

• Trackman and Rapsodo ball tracking radar/optical devices to measure spin rates, pitch break, trajectory, velocity, and batted ball data
• HitTrax batted ball optical tracking device to measure pitch location and batted ball launch angle and exit velocity in real-time
• Stalker 2 Pro and Sport 2 radar guns and Stalker LED Boards at all throwing stations (4) to provide real-time pitching and throwing velocity feedback
• Diamond Kinetics Pitchtracker IMU-integrated baseballs for consumer-grade pitch physics data collection

Resistance Training

• Keiser Infinity Series Functional Trainer to measure rotational power and prescribe minutely graduated consistent resistance exercises in injury rehabilitation cases
• Tendo Power Analyzer with Bluetooth sending units (2) to measure bar speed and power output in resistance training movements

Prototyping

• MakerGear M2 3d printer for rapid prototyping of new devices and modifications for in-gym equipment

Take a look at the beauty of two synchronized and genlocked Edgertronic cameras – filming pitching mechanics in slow motion:

Here’s some example motion capture reports that we generate to improve athlete training results and to conduct research to contribute back to the scientific community:

Publishing Research

We are committed to publishing open source research back to the baseball community where it belongs. Our Primary Research category contains all in-house collected data and reports that we are making publicly available at no charge. In almost all cases – except when it would violate personal privacy – we release full datasets for independent validation and analysis. Researchers like Dr. Mike Sonne have used these datasets, and we advocate that any independent researcher, coach, parent, or player do the same!

Furthermore, in 2017, we took steps to begin submitting our research to peer-reviewed journals. After a lengthy education and selection process, we have decided to submit articles primarily to PeerJ. Professor Dee Carter, one of PeerJ’s editors and a Fellow at the American Academy of Microbiology, said it best:

[PeerJ is] driven by people with a real passion for communicating science and for making a difference to how we access and read about scientific progress, which aligns with my own passions for research and written communication. With PeerJ I feel like I’m part of a team aimed at pushing forward open access research.

PeerJ is extremely strict when it comes to submission guidelines and they believe strongly in the ethos of Open Access. They require IRB approval for all human studies and also require that all data be published with your article submission, where it will then be made public for everyone to view. There is also the option to make the peer review process open to readers, which reveals how the system works after submission.

It is our view that science is not truly science unless it can be replicated, and PeerJ’s mission statement agrees with that. Replication requires open access – all article submissions are free to download under a Creative Commons license – and detailed methods and datasets to analyze and start as a jumping off point for meta-analyses and new research projects.

Furthermore, PeerJ’s time to first review and their revision process is faster than the average journal by a wide margin, which incentivizes us to continue to engage the peer-review process.

We plan on splitting our blog post-style research and submissions to PeerJ – we will publish Case Studies to our blog, as we’ve done in the past, and we will publish more rigorously designed research to PeerJ. We may also submit Case Studies to PeerJ’s Preprint server as well.

Published Articles in Peer-Reviewed Journals

• Surface electromyographic analysis of differential effects in kettlebell carries for the serratus anterior muscles: Caravan A, Scheffey JO, Briend SJ, Boddy KJ. (2018) PeerJ 6:e5044 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5044
• Effect of a six-week weighted implement throwing program on pitching velocity, arm kinematics, arm stress, and arm laxity: Marsh J, Wagshol M, Boddy K, O’Connell M, Briend S, Lindley K, Caravan A (2018) PeerJ 6:e6003 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6003
• Exploring wearable sensors as an alternative to marker-based motion capture in the pitching delivery: Boddy KJ, Marsh JA, Caravan A, Lindley KE, Scheffey JO, O’Connell ME (2019) PeerJ 7:e6365 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6365

Other articles that are planned, in the data collection phase, or in peer-review:

• Surface electromyographic analysis of differential effects of dumbbell vs. barbell bench press for the serratus anterior muscles (in review)
• A motion capture analysis on differences between single-leg strength dominant vs. double-leg strength dominant athletes (in writing phase)
• Differences in kinematics, arm stress, and arm laxity controlled for the velocity variation in the spread of weighted ball running throws (in data collection)
• Biomechanical comparison of pitching 3-7 oz. weighted balls (in data collection phase)
• Biomechanical comparison of weighted plyo throws (in data collection phase)

Published Case Studies and Articles

FORWARD DYNAMICS RESEARCH

ON-GOING DRIVELINE RESEARCH PROJECTS

Here’s some of the work that’s ongoing or that interests us greatly, with references. Additionally, check the Pitching Research page for articles that formed the foundation of our scientific curiosity.