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.
