D6L posted:I think one thing we are forgetting on these studies are alot of statistics are coming from players who are not FULLY developed, especially long toss. As the players grow and develop eventually they should get stronger and throw harder. So, are we saying that it was just the long toss or weitghted balls or lifting weight, I don't ever see biological transformation reference from one season to next for the players.
To the proponents of professional clubs not using the weighted balls, yes I would like to know why as well, a sport that's been around since 1845, the mecca of all that have touched, thrown, caught or hit a baseball. With almost limitless resources to find that franchise pitcher, if weighted ball is the answer for the pitchers then why do these ball clubs search outside the boundaries and spend millions of dollars to find the next Cy Young, instead of developing within. The ball clubs are gravitating to areas that baseball is played the most, the arms are used the most and the balls are hit the most.
If the professional pitchers are at their peak therefore they do not need to throw the weighted balls, this doesn't make sense, if you have an equipment that helps you get to the top level, once you get there stop using it?
In football you don't throw, curve, slider, surve, cutter, 2seam, 4seam, change, screw, gyro or a knuckle. The arm action and the grip for a QB is slightly different then a Pitcher.
The things I like to question, I hear stress, strain and tear, but are these the good ones or the bad ones. I know that to build the muscle you need to tear it down, but is this muscle there to be built, our chest and leg muscles are definitely have space to grow, but some of muscles we are talking about are in places where massive growth can't happen or shouldn't.
I just read an article recently, Tampa Bay organization was trying to find "new" method for developing and training, so their low minor league affiliate was the test dummy. One idea was the weighted balls, for proprietary reasons the group didn't divulge what exactly was done with the weighted balls, but the success story was that this 34th round pick was going to be released, if I read the article correctly he was throwing in the 90s but lost the velocity. With the weighted ball program he got his velocity back to the 90s not increased his velocity since losing it but got it back. But the sad thing was that the very next year, he had arm problems and needed surgery. Now was this injury because of the weighted ball program, or just pitching too much. I am not sure. But one thing the parent club made it absolutely clear is that they will NOT use this method on their "TOP" prospects for now.
There are a lot of common misconceptions concerning weighted ball work in this post. First is the idea that MLB clubs don't use weighted balls. It's just not trues. A lot of them do. Even with clubs that may not formally incorporate programs, many very durable mlb'ers do use weighted balls as very important components to their personal programs. You don't have to look any farther than this World Series. If you watched Chapman warm up in the bullpen, you will see him use a weighted ball. In fact, one of the earliest proponents was Rivera.
A second misconception is that you can probably put off much of the velocity gains to natural growth. While this has some merit concerning long toss, where reports of gains come over longer periods of time, it just doesn't work for weighted ball gains. Every documented study concerning this deals with velocity gains over a very short period of time - usually no more than three months. Over such a short period of time, natural growth cannot be a factor. Additionally, this is an area where it is possible to separate out the numbers as they apply to younger players. One has to look no farther than Kyle Boddy's work in Washington to see a pattern of fully physically developed pitchers experiencing remarkable velocity gains over a relatively short period of time. Such developments couldn't possibly be the result of natural growth in subjects of this classification.
An anecdotal story of a single pitcher who needed surgery a year after using weighted balls is not very useful to the conversation. However, a long term comparison of injury rates among pitchers who use weighted ball programs and pitchers who don't would be useful. Of course, the conclusions of any such story would have to take two competing notions into account; 1) the idea that increased velocity inherently increases risk factors and 2) the idea that weighted ball work can actually increase the strength the smaller muscle groups surrounding the elbow, therefore allowing it to withstand greater stress factors. So, for example, if you saw increased velocity in our weighted ball subjects, but similar injury rates, you could certainly conclude that it has substantial positive effect. The same conclusion could be reached if you saw no increase in velocity gain rates of change, but substantially lower injury rates in weighted ball pitchers. However, if you saw only slight changes in increased velocity and substantially greater injury rates in weighted ball pitchers, you could conclude the opposite.
edit: Another misconception is that weighted balls as a general concept are a new untested training method and that the old timers didn't need them. In reality, weighted balls have been around for more than a hundred years. IN the old days, pitchers would soak balls in water to weight them down for throwing "programs."