Posting for discussion purposes. Still need to do my homework but thought others may be interested and/or have thoughts on Mike Reinold's recent article. My son trains at facility that incorporates Driveline weighted ball program.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
My son did one last year that was mostly from knees, not actually using the throwing motion. He did well with it and was more than ready for HS tryouts.
This year he was asked to do a program given by a former MiLB pitcher. Apparently it starts off with long toss to help condition the arm, then moves into pitching weighted balls. He swears this is the program they did in the MiLB org....he's probably being truthful. The problem I have is my kid isn't a man and I don't believe his 15 year old muscles are ready for all that.
So, he's hitting the bands and weights on his own this winter while shut down from throwing, and we will see how that goes for him. I do NOT think I know more than the MiLB pitching guys but I do know that my son starts loosing velo as the season goes on. HIS particular arm does well when he has 2-3 months off from throwing, so I don't know more about baseball but I am hoping I know more about MY kid.
The answers to the Original Question are; Safe= NO and Effective=YES, respectively.
For youth level players & underdeveloped teens they are flat irresponsible, at best.
So my son had the opportunity to do this, this upcoming winter. He is 12.5 years old. Luckily, he made a team that by doing this program would have created a big conflict so we decided not to go with the program and instead do the elite baseball team. My personal opinion is that it was His way of telling me it was not good for my son to do this program at this time. I am glad we decided not to do it after reading that article.
This study is, as of yet, unpublished, let alone peer reviewed, so we know little concerning the methodology. There are several aspects we do know that raise questions:
* He used 38 subjects between the ages of 13 and 18. The "mean age was 15."
* He claims an injury rate of 24% from the WB group. However, no number of injuries from a group of 19 makes the math work.
* He claims in an earlier report that there was one major arm injury and two subjects withdrew due to "non throwing related injuries." It is unclear if these two subjects are included in his injury rate.
*without knowing the ages of the injured subjects, it's impossible to draw conclusions from this study. It could be that "there is a risk in weighted balls" or it could be "there is an increased injury risk for those younger than 15 using WB programs" or, given the small sample group, could simply mean "further research would help."
* The program he used is brutal. Again, he lists use of up to 32 oz. balls, but without knowing more about how he used them, there is little that can be concluded.
Unfortunately, at least one major player has taken this research and extrapolated it to a ridiculous conclusion and, without any knowledge of the methodology, has taken this small, unpublished, study and extrapolated it out to the farthest reach of a conclusion, using at support for an article entitled "How weighted balls cause serious injury." In it, he uses this to claim that using weighted balls leads to a 24% chance you'll be injured.
My belief is that this study used inappropriate subjects and the most extreme weighted ball program he could find making any conclusions suspect.
Steve A. posted:The answers to the Original Question are; Safe= NO and Effective=YES, respectively.
For youth level players & underdeveloped teens they are flat irresponsible, at best.
I don't think it's really that black and white. As with any training method, some will see benefit, some won't. Some will have injury issues, some won't.
I think the best observation he makes is this, "I think the most scary trend I am seeing in baseball right now is the blind use of generic weighted baseball programs." Of course the study then goes on to do that exact thing.
Weighted balls aren't a new thing. Marshall had guys throwing iron balls 20 years ago. The problem we have now is because weighted balls have been seen as a factor in the improvement of some pitchers, everybody thinks throwing around heavy balls is the easy way to go. There's a lot more to developing a pitcher than that.
I have zero surprise though at the results of the study given the protocol used. Who has 13 year old kids doing run and guns with a 16 and 32 ounce ball? That's pretty damn irresponsible on the part of the researchers. Anyone shocked that a good percentage of those kids had injuries?
They were looking for proof that weighted balls cause injuries and used the most extreme program (that no one uses) with 13-18 year olds to prove it. Great job guys. That is some fantastic research, but what more would you expect from Pourciau?
Did they mention whether either group applied ice or did distance running after the sessions? I'm betting every kid in the control group did both thus the zero injury rate. 
But seriously, the ages were a little baffling and the use of "averages" on such a small sample. Would love to see the entire set of data and you could probably explain some of the outliers. Would love to see actual stats for those that got injured. Who says no one can run a good study on arm injury for fear of actually causing injury. This should be the new standard for the scientific community - "No pain, no gain".
Nothing you do with overhead throwing is safe for the body but I don't think weighted balls are an increased risk vs other high intensity throwing.
The author of this study exposed 19 teenage (mean age ~15) pitchers who had a low throwing velocity (underdeveloped) to a six-week program with little to no ramp up throwing 2 pound balls as hard as possible from a running start (+ other drills) three times per week.
The only weighted ball program similar to this is the National Pitching Association / Tom House program, except the study in question did no holds.
Attached to this post is a sample weighted ball throwing schedule with even more volume than the study in question. Note that the NPA calls their program "safe" and science-based (no published study has ever been done on NPA's program, period).
I think this study was exceptionally risky and I am shocked it passed Institutional Review Board ethics clearing with athletes under the age of 18 signing assent forms.
Attachments
Images (1)
Kyle Boddy posted:The author of this study exposed 19 teenage (mean age ~15) pitchers who had a low throwing velocity (underdeveloped) to a six-week program with little to no ramp up throwing 2 pound balls as hard as possible from a running start (+ other drills) three times per week.
The only weighted ball program similar to this is the National Pitching Association / Tom House program, except the study in question did no holds.
Attached to this post is a sample weighted ball throwing schedule with even more volume than the study in question. Note that the NPA calls their program "safe" and science-based (no published study has ever been done on NPA's program, period).
I think this study was exceptionally risky and I am shocked it passed Institutional Review Board ethics clearing with athletes under the age of 18 signing assent forms.
yeah, basically it was a strain to failure test with athletes under 18.
Wait a minute - I just went back and looked at this again...
Study performed at Champion PT and Performance by Mike Reinold
Coincidentally starting this month... https://championptandperforman...performance-program/
Rob T posted:Wait a minute - I just went back and looked at this again...
Study performed at Champion PT and Performance by Mike Reinold
Coincidentally starting this month... https://championptandperforman...performance-program/
That website is weird! It's like they tried to merge Eric Cressey and Kyle Boddy into one place, but MOST of what they talk about appear to be applicable to people over 18.
For those wondering about the author, Mike Reinold - perhaps this will help:
https://mikereinold.com/about/
9and7dad posted:For those wondering about the author, Mike Reinold - perhaps this will help:
https://mikereinold.com/about/
I've seen his stuff for years, which is why I'm surprised he conducted a study this way.
He knows having underdeveloped kids throwing 2lb balls as hard as they can is a bad idea - why risk injuring them just to prove it? It's as if he knew what kids shouldn't do, and then had them go out and do it anyway.
It's a strawman study. He set out to prove you shouldn't do something that nobody says you should do.
I think it is certainly a valid topic to study as there are definitely risk/reward factors that need to be considered. There is probably a safe/maybe safe/not safe sliding scale based on the weight of the ball, and physical development of the player.
I just feel the author had an agenda and set out to create a protocol that proved it.
Weighted Ball Velocity training effective in the (relatively) short term? Yes
Safe? In terms of long term effects over 10-15 years? Nobody knows yet.
My kid ain't no guinea pig.
I checked in to this a couple of years ago. I ended up asking the coach at his future college, he adamantly discouraged us from any sort of weighted ball training. recommended a band training program for arm care.
For me, the danger here is the variance among differing programs & the lack of experience & or knowledge of those who administer the programs. Keep in mind, these types of programs are numerous, vary in execution, and are led by untold numbers of "instructors," across the Country.
If my kid were in a program administered by Kyle B directly, I may be OK with it given his experience & knowledge. The fact is, that just because someone has MiLB experience, this does not qualify them to conduct these actions safely. Hell, I have MiLB experience & plenty of it & I will not let my kid anywhere near a weighted ball.
I have witnessed, first hand, the administration of a "Velocity" program here locally where kids as young as 9 were throwing 12 oz balls as hard as they can into a tarp with a running start. Doing deceleration drills holding onto what looked like a lead bowling pin & simulating a throw while hanging on. It frankly made me want to throw up.
I don't care about this guy Reinhold or his study. It's just a matter of common sense. Unless you are super sure your kid is in the best possible care with respect to one of these programs, just say no. This is as far from a cookie cutter throwing program as possible. Every single participant is at a different level & should be treated accordingly. If that is not the case then just engage in all of the other core & lower body strength activities & lay off the weighted ball throws & stick with a standard oz ball & do the program if you wish.
It's definitely not a cookie-cutter program. It's also fair enough if someone doesn't want their pitcher involved. My point is more about research and the fact that this was apparently poorly done. I say apparently because it hasn't even been published yet so we can't see enough of the methodology to know what can be taken from it. However, someone who already had a bias against WB programs picked it up and ran with it. If you are truly on the fence and trying to make a decision, this study (at the very least, this study at this time) isn't worth considering in the equation.
Steve A. posted:For me, the danger here is the variance among differing programs & the lack of experience & or knowledge of those who administer the programs. Keep in mind, these types of programs are numerous, vary in execution, and are led by untold numbers of "instructors," across the Country.
For sure.
So many guys cropping up that just hand over weighted balls and have kids with crap mechanics who have never worked out a day in their life go out and start chucking. Recipe for injury.
pabaseballdad posted:I checked in to this a couple of years ago. I ended up asking the coach at his future college, he adamantly discouraged us from any sort of weighted ball training. recommended a band training program for arm care.
This is an important factor. There would be no reason to get involved in it if you were then sending your kid off for four years where it was going to be nixed. Personally, that was a factor in where my kid is going. He wouldn't have gone to a school that prohibited them. On the other hand, I have long held the position that long toss is a waste of time and my son doesn't long toss. However, he will now be going to Alan Jaeger's Alma mater and they do long toss, so I will be putting my kid on a program so he's ready for it.
Rob T posted:Steve A. posted:For me, the danger here is the variance among differing programs & the lack of experience & or knowledge of those who administer the programs. Keep in mind, these types of programs are numerous, vary in execution, and are led by untold numbers of "instructors," across the Country.
For sure.
So many guys cropping up that just hand over weighted balls and have kids with crap mechanics who have never worked out a day in their life go out and start chucking. Recipe for injury.
While true, this applies to a lot of work out programs and could apply to long toss programs as well.
roothog66 posted:Rob T posted:Steve A. posted:For me, the danger here is the variance among differing programs & the lack of experience & or knowledge of those who administer the programs. Keep in mind, these types of programs are numerous, vary in execution, and are led by untold numbers of "instructors," across the Country.
For sure.
So many guys cropping up that just hand over weighted balls and have kids with crap mechanics who have never worked out a day in their life go out and start chucking. Recipe for injury.
While true, this applies to a lot of work out programs and could apply to long toss programs as well.
Could not agree more. The max distance, all out, long toss madness is equally as potentially destructive and probably more so.
Please understand. I'm really not trying to start a conflict with any of these opinions. Without taking "risk" there is no great reward with respect to increasing velocity. With respect to throwing hard, there has to be intent & the willingness to put in the work. The debate arises around how to conduct these actions while minimizing the risk of injury.
In researching various training methods & how the body responds & reacts to various methods, a common theme has emerged in what I am coming across & here it is. Sometimes a focused & intense "less," is "more."
If you are training to be a sprinter, you are not best served by going out & doing 100 sprints daily. The body does not work to react to this kind of stimulus to give you the desired result. It actually breaks down.
If you are training to throw gas, you do not go out & max long toss for 15 minutes 5X a week or run down a mound & launch baseballs into a net X times per week while chucking weighted implements all winter long.
There is a needle to thread here & everyone & every pitcher is different. So, the caution is to try to discover how to best achieve the maximum potential of the player while offsetting risk of injury. Signing up for a 1 size fits all velo or long toss program aint it. This is my main point.
Steve A., I would be very interested in taking advantage of your research and getting direction from you, whether it be summary of your findings, pointing to references and resources that you found had merit or any other information you are willing to provide, for both (or either) topics - weighted ball and long toss. Either PM or on the forum, whichever you feel comfortable.
I am continuously trying to find the right /best way to use the long toss element with our HS group. I have, to date, stayed away from weighted balls because I don't feel I have the necessary knowledge to properly implement. However, several of the P's that have come through the program and moved on to pitch at the next level find themselves thrown into a program at their college. A few are actively using a program while here in HS that was introduced by their respected travel organization.
I also have particular interest in age-appropriate use of weighted balls. We have a young player about to enter our program who is regularly using them at roughly age 13. Older brother is successful D1 P. I asked the dad if he was confident that what younger son was doing is age-appropriate and he assured me that it was. Of course, I'm not sure that is necessarily the case and would like to provide any info that may be helpful.
BTW, the local JC has a well-respected coach who is adamant about using a weighted ball program for all players, not just P's.
There is another aspect of the study that I need to know more about. One claim from the source I mentioned earlier is that the only effects gained from the program were external rotation angle increases. He means layback, but not sure if the two terms fit together well in my opinion. He showed no changes in arm speed or strength. So, in order to make any analysis of this data, I need to know how these points were measured. For example, you are likely to not find anything that increase "arm speed" as it is traditionally measured (by shoulder rotation and upper arm movement). However, measured in terms of forearm extension, there can b significant changes in arm speed. So, if he is using that measurement, the study might well tell me something. However, if using traditional calculations, there is no new information at all.
Often times, I think people get a little confused by the process involved in these sort of things and each parties' positions in the process. Every analysis of something like this starts with an hypothesis. Hypotheses come about in a variety of ways. For example, someone may notice a correlation between an action and a result (think of guys like O'Leary) or someone may use their existing knowledge on a subject to think through what they believe, based on that knowledge, must be actually happening (think Marshall). At this stage, people will often formulate a conclusion without going farther. It's an important step but not the end and might be worth considering, but should not necessarily be used as support for a conclusion. A good example of this: based on scientific knowledge, it used to be a very popular belief that the curveball couldn't actually "break" but must be an optical illusion.
The second step would be to conduct a study. This is the normal what organizations like ASMI do. The current study is an example. It took live subjects and logged process and results. At this point, there is more support for a position, if the study finds results that support the hypothesis. A good example was the ASMI study on curves and youth pitchers. Andrews and ASMI had held the position that curves put undue stress on young arms and caused injury rates far above those who did not throw curves. Starting with this hypothesis, they conducted a ten year study. In the end, they concluded that their study could not support the hypothesis. Often people will jump on the results of studies and form conclusory opinions. But, not so fast.
The next step is usually where organizations like Driveline step in. Once a study is published and the methodology and data is available, it is up to the appropriate scientific community to take three steps: 1) replicate the study to see if the results stand up and 2) test to answer the question of "why" the results came about and how they relate to the process, and 3) analyze how the process correlates to the results. For example, in the ASMI study above, they found no correlation between the curve and injury rates. After being peer reviewed, Dr. Niessen at UCONN undertook testing of actual stress levels on different pitches and those results provided data that, despite what made perfect sense from an anatomical, theoretical, analysis wasn't actually true, In fact, curve balls were found to apply less stress - at least as he measured it. This, as well, is open to peer review. From that point, using the data for conclusions is much more appropriate.
cabbagedad posted:Steve A., I would be very interested in taking advantage of your research and getting direction from you, whether it be summary of your findings, pointing to references and resources that you found had merit or any other information you are willing to provide, for both (or either) topics - weighted ball and long toss. Either PM or on the forum, whichever you feel comfortable.
I am continuously trying to find the right /best way to use the long toss element with our HS group. I have, to date, stayed away from weighted balls because I don't feel I have the necessary knowledge to properly implement. However, several of the P's that have come through the program and moved on to pitch at the next level find themselves thrown into a program at their college. A few are actively using a program while here in HS that was introduced by their respected travel organization.
I also have particular interest in age-appropriate use of weighted balls. We have a young player about to enter our program who is regularly using them at roughly age 13. Older brother is successful D1 P. I asked the dad if he was confident that what younger son was doing is age-appropriate and he assured me that it was. Of course, I'm not sure that is necessarily the case and would like to provide any info that may be helpful.
BTW, the local JC has a well-respected coach who is adamant about using a weighted ball program for all players, not just P's.
Hi Cabbage, I could go on & on & list all of the material I have read but I don't think that would answer the question. I would suggest you take a look at "Athletic Development," By Vern Gambetta. Here is what he has to say specifically about weighted baseball use: " An application of specificity is the use of underweight and overweight balls for the pitcher. Biomechanical analysis has shown that there is very little difference between throwing an underweight ball and throwing an overweight ball as long as they are not TOO heavy or TOO light." Here is the rub & the danger out there of overloading & injury. What is TOO heavy? It is subjective to the individual athlete.
His overall theme could be summed up here: " You are what you train to be. If you train to be slow, you will be slow. If you train to be explosive, you will be explosive." He advocates in season daily training to "30-40 minutes daily is more than enough, and 75-90 off season is sufficient to get the job done."
He is a huge advocate of training patterns of movements vs. isolated muscles.
I studied weighted baseball throwing programs for my son long before Driveline existed, but what I have seen from a distance is that they are trying to be as diligent and as scientific as one can be.
First, throwing a baseball overhand at high velocities will eventually damage your arm. Period. The amount is dependent on training, how much throwing you do, genetics and luck.
The first study I found on the subject was from Dr. John Bagonzi who got his PhD on the subject which proved they help velocity and control. I think his thesis was in 1979.
Ron Wolforth started studying them in detail in the late 90's and continues today. He has also found they help velocity, control and arm health. Kyle (Driveline) has taken the Wolforth (and others) work and is progressing it further with additional monitoring equipment that Wolforth has not used. (to my knowledge)
Even "scientist" and Dr's. who study the subject make mistakes. As an example AMSI study on long toss was flawed in how they took velocity measurements. CADad who used to post here (and is a "rocket scientist") has pointed this out and communicated with them on their measurement mistakes. So just because a the and industry expert writes something, you still need to use scientific discernment when reading a study. (which is likely beyond most individuals who do not have engineering or scientific backgrounds)
I don't know Pourciau but when I read his article I immediately thought "there is an agenda here" just like Dick Mills and others so called pitching experts who proclaim their way is best and do so by trashing others. If someone has a better approach, in my view they should prove it through concrete results, not trashing others.
When my son started HS I decided that there was not enough information on the subject to undertake using them and we also did not want to spend the time and money to go to Wolforth's ranch and learn the program properly.
My son eventually played in college at probably the top D3 pitching program in the country who has been using weighted baseball training long before they were publically discussed much. They consistently have the best and highest velocity pitchers at their level. Yes, they have guys with Tommy John, and I honestly don't know the stats, but it probably does not matter since their pitchers tend to throw harder than their peers so scientific comparisons would be impossible to measure. Further complicating the ability to do A/B testing is, like most good programs they incorporate weight lifting, yoga or pilates and other stretching/strength training.
The fact that advanced training is working is seen at the pro level and all you have to do is look at the velocity improvements over the past 10 years. The fact is that the higher velocity you throw the greater the risk. Stress is a Vsquared function so it is not a linear problem, high velocities have much much great risk. You won't see too many 82MPH pitchers getting TJ, but likely a lot more 90+.
So after this long diatribe...
If it was me and I had a youth pitcher. I would wait until they became genetic adults - Dr Mike Marshall was right about this!
I would wait for advanced training until his bones and cartilage matured before undertaking activities that could potentially damage an arm. I would also limit pitching to the ASMI guidelines and not play year round baseball, particularly as a pitcher, and play multiple sports.
JMO
Interesting topic. I don't have a firm opinion one way or another. My son wants to do the basic Driveline 8-week program starting in Dec leading up to HS tryouts at end of Jan., and I plan to support him and monitor him closely (says the guy who let him throw too much this past weekend). With Driveline, they seem to emphasize ensuring that the player is ready to start the program (age, conditioning, range of motion), coupled with proper warm-up, moderation, rest & recovery as key elements to the program - if properly followed.
To me, there's seemingly nothing magical about a 5 oz ball vs an "under-weighted" or "over-weighted" ball. It's all relative. The standard 5 oz ball is a circumstance of history, not a carefully considered weight for a particular age group based on bio-mechanical studies over long periods of time and large player sample sizes. The way I see it, to a 12 yr old (for example), a 5 oz ball would feel considerably heavier (and place considerably more stress on developing bones, and arm/shoulder tendons/ligaments) than the same ball would to a typical 18 yr old. Yet I don't hear anyone advocating that pre-HS kids should be avoiding 5 oz baseballs.
Again, I don't purport to be an expert in the field - far from it as I'm just a dad whose son is a 2019 HS ballplayer. But it's unclear whether there's enough evidence to say emphatically and conclusively that weighed ball programs are the end all and be all to increasing velo, or that weighted ball programs are all bad and should be avoided at all costs. Like anything that involves increasing the limits of the human body, moderation, nutrition, rest & recovery, and paying attention to one's body's own feedback seemingly would reduce risks (though not eliminate them) significantly.
Spoke with Reinhold who claims that the program he studied was designed by him and NOT NPA. However, it sure looks close and he wrote "the 6-week program was developed to be similar, if not more conservative, than commonly marketed weighted baseball velocity programs available programs for baseball pitchers." There is only one program I've seen that looks like this, though.
He also says that there were four injuries in the WB group, but admits that three of those happened in the year following the study. He further said, off the top of his head, that he remembered them being spread out over 14-17 years of age.
I was involved in a long discussion on this with Brent and others, but it turned ugly and I ended up getting piled on by a few serious anti-WB groups that came into the discussion with serious bias issues.
You can't have a decent discussion with some people. This is what I get for voicing the concern that the program used in the study was not typical:
Of course you believe the program was brutal Your a DL troll. We wouldn’t expect anything else.
It would, of course, be nice, if more of the research in this field were done by completely uninterested parties, but the truth is that if that were going to be done, it would have happened a long time ago. I can only show appreciation to Kyle (and a few others) for picking up the baton on this one. That hardly makes me a "DL Troll."
Here's Brent Pourciau's article with Top Velocity & the take on weighted balls:
Until the past 24 hours, I didn't know it was that controversial, but gotta wonder if WB's is the new "hitting wars."
roothog66 posted:Until the past 24 hours, I didn't know it was that controversial, but gotta wonder if WB's is the new "hitting wars."
Sounds like it. I've never heard a convincing explanation of why throwing a 5 oz ball with high intent is "safe" but a 4 oz ball or 6 oz ball is "dangerous."
BOF posted:
If it was me and I had a youth pitcher. I would wait until they became genetic adults - Dr Mike Marshall was right about this!
I would wait for advanced training until his bones and cartilage matured before undertaking activities that could potentially damage an arm. I would also limit pitching to the ASMI guidelines and not play year round baseball, particularly as a pitcher, and play multiple sports.
JMO
Many seem to be looking for a definitive answer on this topic where none exists. The above comments are simple, common sense and a logical method to apply to the issue.
As far as Pourciau is concerned, he has a vested interest and it'd be hard to consider him objective - even if he really is well-meaning. Individuals with their own preconceived biases (even if innocent and/or well-intentioned) can look at the same set of data, or cherry pick data, to reach disparate conclusions. I'm not asserting that Brent is wrong or right, but he has planted a (seemingly lucrative) stake in the ground and has a position to defend.
2019Dad posted:roothog66 posted:Until the past 24 hours, I didn't know it was that controversial, but gotta wonder if WB's is the new "hitting wars."
Sounds like it. I've never heard a convincing explanation of why throwing a 5 oz ball with high intent is "safe" but a 4 oz ball or 6 oz ball is "dangerous."
Yea, let me know if you ever come across an explanation on that. I'd want to pass it along to those softball girls who throw a "weighted" ball their entire lives.
Maybe we just need to teach the guys to throw like a girl?
Also, those heavy balls certainly contribute to the rash of Tommy John surgeries among football quarterbacks...
It's almost as if there must be other factors that come into play?
https://www.drivelinebaseball....l-stress-on-the-arm/
There's little difference in the amount of stress on the elbow and shoulders between different ball weights when thrown with good mechanics.
Having had the night and about 400 Twitter feed posts in a conversation on this on my phone when I woke up, another thought crossed my mind. After reading more of Rinhold's stuff, I now have serious ethical questions. To do a study like this with minors, there is a requirement that the parents sign a release.
Looking back on his blogs, Mike has been anti-WB programs for years. IN fact, in a blog published before he started this study, he writes, concerning the supposed TJ Epidemic, that "the two biggest offenders...are weighted ball and long toss programs." So, hang with me here. He went into the study with a sincere belief that weighted ball programs cause significant injuries. Then, he signs up kids as young as 13 to participate in a program he fully believes puts them at a significant risk of injury. Anyone else see a problem with this?
While I'm sure the releases included a disclaimer that injury was possible, this wouldn't be sufficient if the guy running it actually has a sincere belief that the risk of injury was not just possible, but significant.
roothog66 posted:Having had the night and about 400 Twitter feed posts in a conversation on this on my phone when I woke up, another thought crossed my mind. After reading more of Rinhold's stuff, I now have serious ethical questions. To do a study like this with minors, there is a requirement that the parents sign a release.
Looking back on his blogs, Mike has been anti-WB programs for years. IN fact, in a blog published before he started this study, he writes, concerning the supposed TJ Epidemic, that "the two biggest offenders...are weighted ball and long toss programs." So, hang with me here. He went into the study with a sincere belief that weighted ball programs cause significant injuries. Then, he signs up kids as young as 13 to participate in a program he fully believes puts them at a significant risk of injury. Anyone else see a problem with this?
While I'm sure the releases included a disclaimer that injury was possible, this wouldn't be sufficient if the guy running it actually has a sincere belief that the risk of injury was not just possible, but significant.
Conducting such a study with young players does seem irresponsible - irrespective of whether or not one had a pre-conceived notion that a wb program causes/doesn't cause elbow/shoulder issues. But if one believes going in that wb programs cause injuries and yet proceeds to conduct the research with minors regardless, then not only is it irresponsible but potentially unethical (I'll reserve judgment as ethics are shades of gray).
IMHO, the person who could suffer the injury should be of age to understand the inherent risks and sign/decline to sign the liability release - and not allow some overzealous parent to put their son's baseball career (or even future strength and arm/shoulder mobility outside of baseball) at risk because they're wide-eyed chasing an athletic scholarship or have visions of their kid playing in the bigs etc.
The problem for me isn't that he did the study. The problem is that he brought kids into a program he designed and was working, at least partly, under the hypothesis that weighted balls cause injury and was looking to both measure their effectiveness and measure the injury rate, which he expected, given his previously published opinions, to be high. I would guess hie disclaimer on release was nothing more than a warning that WB's could be dangerous and the participant takes the risk. However, given the facts, I don't think this is enough. If you were the parent, would it not be an important thing to know that the guy running the test believes they are inherently injurious and was putting your kid in a program for the purpose of quantifying just how dangerous they are?
To give a better example of how to study this, look at ASMI's ten year study concerning youth pitchers and the curve. They started the study with the hypothesis and belief that throwing curveballs at an early age was a significant factor in arm injury rates. It would have been unethical for them to pull in 50 kids and ask them to start throwing curveballs, especially given their sincere belief that they were harmful. Instead, they went and found subjects already throwing them and asked them to log and report their experiences. There's nothing unethical about that, but never would they have done it like Mike did.
We still know nothing about pitching safety. Pitchers get injured and no solution that was suggested so far has prevented that. Anyone who claims he figured out pitcher health is lying, not even pro ball has figured it out.
Now it could be that physical training in pro ball sucks but more likely throwing 90+ overhead is just not what the arm is made for biologically.
Lots of things are effective. Steroids are effective. Ritalin is effective. Stealing signs is effective. Caffeine is effective.
as with all things, you have to weight the risk/benefit ratio and perhaps most importantly factor in individual genetics when making a decision.
if I was going to have my Kid do a weighted ball program, there are two things I would absolutely do:
1). Have my Kid evaluated by a very highly rated strength & conditioning expert looking for muscle imbalances and weaknesses, and then train to correct those weaknesses and imbalances before beginning the program
2) I would have my Kid do the weighted ball training in person at Driveline's facility.
We didn't have Ryan involved in a WB program, because we had heard a lot of negative things regarding them. Personally, I am not sure if they are good or bad. There is just too much information on both sides of the issue. However, now that Ryan is a Jr. in college, and the window is closing, I wouldn't be against him giving it a shot next summer. Since he only touches 90, and lives 86 - 89, the velocity gains could be the difference in him getting a shot, and him not getting a shot. He is also a man now, so he is as developed as he is going to be physically.
Anyone notice that Driveline has a different program for under 14u?
Wonder why that is?
We just bought it. I had looked at it in the past, but several really good college programs use it for arm care and in season/off season training. As with all things, I'm sure if it is done incorrectly it could cause harm. We haven't even gotten it out of the box yet, but my son was impressed with it when they had them use it at a college camp recently.
Rynoattack: Son sat @ 86-89 since soph yr in HS. Touched 90 a few times in college. Going into Sr. yr in college, spent the entire first week of June @ Driveline in Seattle. Fall ball had him sitting consistently in low 90's. He is still following their regime thru the fall & winter. Anxious to see what happens this spring! As a side note, his roommate LHP, was in the low 90's Freshman year. Started Driveline on his own fall of Soph. yr. Left D1 after soph yr 94-95mph. Dropped down to D2, continued Driveline program and 95-97mph Jr. year. He was drafted & signed this past June by the Yankees in the 6th round. And yes, both these players started the program at age 20, grown men.
I've received multiple requests for comment. As I've said before, I don't like commenting about threads about Driveline; I think it stifles free speech. You can get in touch with me on Twitter or email our support staff for questions.
Know that I really enjoy both sides of this debate and I hold high opinions of the posters on this site. I appreciate the contributions and hope this "study" and the broader discussion leads to understanding on all sides.
Kyle Boddy posted:I've received multiple requests for comment. As I've said before, I don't like commenting about threads about Driveline; I think it stifles free speech. You can get in touch with me on Twitter or email our support staff for questions.
Know that I really enjoy both sides of this debate and I hold high opinions of the posters on this site. I appreciate the contributions and hope this "study" and the broader discussion leads to understanding on all sides.
not always easy to get in touch with you on twitter, you are a busy man
(which is good of course).
BTW we had a new guy showing up in our Team last week in Training who had all of your driveline stuff and a driveline Shirt and was doing the drills with our Kids. I thought that was pretty cool.
unfortunately he was also showing Kids to extend the arms and push the knob to the ball, so I guess I he Needs some driveline hitting Training too.
My recently turned 13yo has been using DL's htkc youth for 2 years (I have l also used Alan Jaeger's, Phil Rosengren's, Lantz Wheeler's, TBR's and Brent's 3x program as well). My 10 year old started it this year. Both my kids have above average velocity and would mostly throw with serious intent during the season. I agree with Mike Reinold that WB is not for anyone and I am fully aware of the risks but there is risk with all ballistic throwing over a several month span. I think a WB program should be progressive and have an age appropiate s&c component, this is why I like DL. For me the main benefit of this program for my kids is the arm (and overall) strengthening component to protect the joints.
Abt 18/24 months ago when my son was becoming more serious about his pitching role, I bought a 4oz and 6oz ball. I looked into what was out there for pitching programs, and I settled on the Steven Ellis format that has been around forever.
Warm up with regular 5 oz baseball
3 minutes at 70 feet
3 minutes at 90 feet
3 minutes at 120 feet
1 minute at 70 feet
Then, at 70 feet, I would do:
20 throws with the 6 oz overweight ball
20 throws with the 4 oz underweight ball
20 throws with the regular 5 oz ball
Cool down
I am a big fan of the KISS principle. If you make something too complicated then the kids won't do it. The overweight and underweight ball is only 1oz difference. I suspect injury would not come from the weight difference, but from not doing it safely - failing to get the arm hot, overthrowing, etc.
Anyway, my son refused to do it. He is not willing to risk injury for improved velocity. So the weighted balls are collecting dust.
And that's what I have to say abt that.
Kyle Boddy posted:I've received multiple requests for comment. As I've said before, I don't like commenting about threads about Driveline; I think it stifles free speech. You can get in touch with me on Twitter or email our support staff for questions.
Know that I really enjoy both sides of this debate and I hold high opinions of the posters on this site. I appreciate the contributions and hope this "study" and the broader discussion leads to understanding on all sides.
Class act, man! Much respect!
so my son who just turned 15 and has done a modified weighted ball program in the past. 2 days of throwing the various weighted balls and then a bullpen on the 3rd day with regular ball. The typical exercises you see on driveline, reverse pickoff etc. they are on his youtube page. This yr we are just starting the free program that you can download on driveline. read it carefully, he emphasizes the rest, recovery, warmup and cool down a lot. my 15 yr old barely has time for that wants to go home etc. but I do think its an important part of the program.
Like Kyle says his program has a ramp up, the first couple of weeks are actually pretty light and the most strenuous part is the long toss portion, which is tough my son has no interest in putting air under the ball and wants to throw hard all the time, in fact yesterday he threw a ball right through the webbing of my 2 yr old barely used Rawling glove, snapped the laces right off.
One other thing i would add, my son does take regular pitching lessons, his coach's number 1 concern is arm action and throwing safely and he has certified my son as being a good candidate for weighted ball training due to having very good mechanics.
my freshman is touching 83 right now, did run and gun 88 with a baseball the other day at a lesson where his coach was trying to show him how his body organized when he just tried to throw as hard as he could, hoping to transfer that kind of intent to the mound. He is never sore after throwing, has no pain whatsoever can throw every day, we dont ice or run after throwing. We own a marc pro but he says he feels totally fine and never uses it after throwing, its collecting dust or he uses after lifiting weights on occasion. I will report back in about 8 weeks to see how it is going on the plan. The one thing i did notice though last time we used plan was a more consistent pitching motion, tighter spin, breaking ball and changeup much more effective with a lot more bite. seems like the arm path after throwing balls was much more efficient.
As a follow up i saw the study your talking about and what stood out to me was the max effort throws 3 times a week which is excessive, saw Brent Porciaou (sp) talking about it on twitter and went back and forth with him as well. I dont think the plan they used in the study is safe and I wouldnt do something like that. Brent's throwing plan is predicated on lifting weights getting stronger, movement training and proper mechanics which I also think are important and Im sure what they are doing on sight at Driveline as well.
gunner34 posted:As a follow up i saw the study your talking about and what stood out to me was the max effort throws 3 times a week which is excessive, saw Brent Porciaou (sp) talking about it on twitter and went back and forth with him as well. I dont think the plan they used in the study is safe and I wouldnt do something like that. Brent's throwing plan is predicated on lifting weights getting stronger, movement training and proper mechanics which I also think are important and Im sure what they are doing on sight at Driveline as well.
It wasn't actually Brent's plan - Brent would never even try it. It was a program initiated by Mike Reinhold for his study. I believe he built a strawman program, taking the most brutal, problematic pieces he could find and stitching them together. Recovery is such an integral part of any strength-based program and this one had none.
On another note, speaking from experience - make him use the MarcPro after every session of throwing whether he thinks he needs it or not. It speeds up recovery and I have noticed a remarkable difference in the speed of velocity development when comparing my pitchers who use it and those that don'r.
Journey On posted:Rynoattack: Son sat @ 86-89 since soph yr in HS. Touched 90 a few times in college. Going into Sr. yr in college, spent the entire first week of June @ Driveline in Seattle. Fall ball had him sitting consistently in low 90's. He is still following their regime thru the fall & winter. Anxious to see what happens this spring! As a side note, his roommate LHP, was in the low 90's Freshman year. Started Driveline on his own fall of Soph. yr. Left D1 after soph yr 94-95mph. Dropped down to D2, continued Driveline program and 95-97mph Jr. year. He was drafted & signed this past June by the Yankees in the 6th round. And yes, both these players started the program at age 20, grown men.
That is great info! Please keep me posted!
yes i knew Brent was talking about the Reinhold results. I tend to agree with you on the marc pro will renew efforts to get him to use it.
roothog66 posted:gunner34 posted:As a follow up i saw the study your talking about and what stood out to me was the max effort throws 3 times a week which is excessive, saw Brent Porciaou (sp) talking about it on twitter and went back and forth with him as well. I dont think the plan they used in the study is safe and I wouldnt do something like that. Brent's throwing plan is predicated on lifting weights getting stronger, movement training and proper mechanics which I also think are important and Im sure what they are doing on sight at Driveline as well.
It wasn't actually Brent's plan - Brent would never even try it. It was a program initiated by Mike Reinhold for his study. I believe he built a strawman program, taking the most brutal, problematic pieces he could find and stitching them together. Recovery is such an integral part of any strength-based program and this one had none.
On another note, speaking from experience - make him use the MarcPro after every session of throwing whether he thinks he needs it or not. It speeds up recovery and I have noticed a remarkable difference in the speed of velocity development when comparing my pitchers who use it and those that don'r.
Like I said, I normally don't comment, but yeah, if you own a Marc Pro you should be using it every single high intensity day at the very least. The results are incredible, and this comes from someone who is a huge skeptic about these things.
Kyle Boddy posted:roothog66 posted:gunner34 posted:As a follow up i saw the study your talking about and what stood out to me was the max effort throws 3 times a week which is excessive, saw Brent Porciaou (sp) talking about it on twitter and went back and forth with him as well. I dont think the plan they used in the study is safe and I wouldnt do something like that. Brent's throwing plan is predicated on lifting weights getting stronger, movement training and proper mechanics which I also think are important and Im sure what they are doing on sight at Driveline as well.
It wasn't actually Brent's plan - Brent would never even try it. It was a program initiated by Mike Reinhold for his study. I believe he built a strawman program, taking the most brutal, problematic pieces he could find and stitching them together. Recovery is such an integral part of any strength-based program and this one had none.
On another note, speaking from experience - make him use the MarcPro after every session of throwing whether he thinks he needs it or not. It speeds up recovery and I have noticed a remarkable difference in the speed of velocity development when comparing my pitchers who use it and those that don'r.
Like I said, I normally don't comment, but yeah, if you own a Marc Pro you should be using it every single high intensity day at the very least. The results are incredible, and this comes from someone who is a huge skeptic about these things.
Is that the case whether or not you have any soreness -- should kids who "feel fine" and have no soreness still use it?
Different perspective: Randy Sullivan at FBR is a Master Physical Therapist, Pitching Coach and a pretty good guy to see if you are experiencing arm pain. When my son was 15, I asked Randy what his thoughts where on having him start wieghted balls..... he was quick to say not until he felt that my son was physically mature enough, had demonstrate a certain level of profciency with his mechanics, strength to support the associated stress, as well as, what he considered an acceptable level of mobility and flexibility.
In Janaury of 2018 my son (17 years old) will incorporate a less intense version of a "standard" wieghted ball, long toss and wieght lifting program into his reqular FBR routine as I am not yet sold on (overly cautious) weighted balls, long toss and wieght lifting. My stance on being overly cautious is driven by the fact he went from sitting 72-73 and touching 74 to sitting 85-89 and touching (90 at PG) and (91 at UA/BF) in less than 2.5 years while training at FBR....all without wieght lifting, using wieghted balls or long tossing. My son is a 2019 LHP 5' 10" @ 185lbs.