How many days a week should I long toss? Ive heard two or three, or something like every other day...
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Hmm... *sniffs the air* I feel like being in a debating mood.. thus
Unless you're using long toss to build up your intensity before you go onto the mound (and keep it to less than 180 feet, I'll tell ya why in a sec), it's a waste of time.
Why?
Pitching downhill from an elevated surface with the goal of throwing various types of pitches to a specific location. Long toss has nothing in common with pitching from a mound.
"What are the skill elements in long-toss that match those of pitching? If there are similar elements how does the body learn to transfer those elements between the two activities? What is the mechanism that provokes the body to make such a transfer? Of course, the answer is that there is no transfer. The body is equipped to tell the difference between activities and is not equipped to realize similarities. Because of this, similar activities lead to performance confusion/degradation rather than performance refinement. When activities are similar, such as with different pitches, many specific trials with discriminatory feedback are required to teach the pitcher the subtle differences between the activities so that the individual pitches can be thrown with admirable levels of control and not display irrelevant elements of the others."
Dr. Brent Rushall, Ph.D
Basically, due to the Principle of Specificity, it won't transfer over.
Now, you can say "Well it worked for my 14 year old son who's just started pitching." But realize, if you take someone who's just starting out, or from an unconditioned state, and have them pitch, they'll improve. And look, you'll have them long tossing too. Many people would say it was because of long toss that improvements happened.
It's kind of like, "Lose 30 pounds in 4 months by taking this pill." While the people could be taking the pill (which turns out to do nothing), exercising, and watching what foods they eat, they can claim the pill helped, because hey! They were taking it, so it must have helped.
Now, have you noticed that the people who say long toss has increased their velocity are:
a) Unconditioned people
b) People who are growing
c) People who have been doing other specific training, but relate the increase to long toss
The specificity of movement patterns and control is a scientifically established principle of human exercise. There has been no wavering on this scientifically validated phenomenon over the past century, although minor theoretical incursions have been attempted. Yet, baseball practitioners persist in violating this basic principle of performance with dubious arguments, false premises, and distortion on facts. It is too well proven to concede that the scientists might be wrong. It is time for the practices and programs of pitching coaches to be brought into line with what is established fact. The training of the pitching skill and its variants has to be specific and whole. The programming of appropriate transferable-to-game practice activities in an enriched milieu of correct pitching instruction is a challenge for modern baseball coaching.
Task difficulty. Kreuger's work (Kreuger, 1947) is recounted to clarify some features in understanding a skill task. This is a very old study but its import is still very relevant and valid today. There is a wealth of "old" studies that have valuable implications for modern coaching. Using a ring-tossing skill, rates of skill acquisition were determined for the "same skill" from different distances that were supposed to be variations in skill difficulty.
[If you can find the performance curve for the ring tossing task on the internet, it'll help ya]
The performance curves obtained indicated several things.
1. The most simple of tasks, dropping rings on a peg from a distance of two feet, is not performed to precision immediately. Possibly 20 to 50 trials for such a simple task are necessary to yield perfection.
2. Using the "same task" but from a greater distance, lowers the performance level. The lowering is much greater than the proportional change in distance. In Kreuger's data, after the same number of trails, the distance was increased by four and a half times but performance was reduced to one twentieth of the previous level. After five times as many trails, performance was still one tenth of the previous level.
3. The more difficult the task, the slower the rate of improvement. Not only was the rate changed, but so too was the shape of the performance curvel.
A more exact interpretation of these data is that each "level of difficulty" is not the "same" skill.
Although simple descriptive similarities exist between each task, they are, to all intents and purposes, very different skills.
A number of coaching implications can be drawn from this type of study. In the past, coaches have failed to realize the complexity and difficulty of physical activities. Changes in a skilled task produce a "new" task. For training content, the greater then umber of departures from the competitive skill, the less valuable is the training. This is but one more reason why throwing weighted balls, strength training, and long-toss do not working for pitching, despite what "believers" proselytize."
And for why to throw less than 180 feet:
A study by the American Sports Medicine Institute on the difference between flat ground throwing and long toss was done. What it showed was the there was actually more elbow stress during long toss throws of 180 feet and many long toss advocates encourage much longer throws in order to "air out" the arm apparently to build more strength.
Flat-Ground Throwing
While pitchers throw from a mound, all other players throw from flat ground. To identify differences between these throws, 27 college pitchers were tested throwing from flat ground (60, 120, 180 ft) and pitching from a mound (60.5 ft). The crow-hop technique (similar to an outfielder's throwing motion) was used for all flat ground throws. At the instant of foot contact, a shorter stride and less shoulder external rotation were present when throwing from flat ground. At ball release, the trunk was most upright during long-distance (120 and 180 ft) throws. Deceleration forces in the shoulder and elbow after ball release were lowest during long-distance throws. This may help explain why non-pitchers experience less overuse throwing injuries than pitchers. However, elbow varus torque was greatest during 180′ throwing, implying that the lower incidence of elbow injury in non-pitchers is probably due to other factors, such as number of throws, intensity of throws, and type of throws (e.g., fastball, curveball). Copyright 2000, American Sports Medicine Institute, October 05, 2004.
With more elbow stress during 180′ throwing, one has to wonder if long toss contributes to the increase in arm injuries today.
Unless you're using long toss to build up your intensity before you go onto the mound (and keep it to less than 180 feet, I'll tell ya why in a sec), it's a waste of time.
Why?
Pitching downhill from an elevated surface with the goal of throwing various types of pitches to a specific location. Long toss has nothing in common with pitching from a mound.
"What are the skill elements in long-toss that match those of pitching? If there are similar elements how does the body learn to transfer those elements between the two activities? What is the mechanism that provokes the body to make such a transfer? Of course, the answer is that there is no transfer. The body is equipped to tell the difference between activities and is not equipped to realize similarities. Because of this, similar activities lead to performance confusion/degradation rather than performance refinement. When activities are similar, such as with different pitches, many specific trials with discriminatory feedback are required to teach the pitcher the subtle differences between the activities so that the individual pitches can be thrown with admirable levels of control and not display irrelevant elements of the others."
Dr. Brent Rushall, Ph.D
Basically, due to the Principle of Specificity, it won't transfer over.
Now, you can say "Well it worked for my 14 year old son who's just started pitching." But realize, if you take someone who's just starting out, or from an unconditioned state, and have them pitch, they'll improve. And look, you'll have them long tossing too. Many people would say it was because of long toss that improvements happened.
It's kind of like, "Lose 30 pounds in 4 months by taking this pill." While the people could be taking the pill (which turns out to do nothing), exercising, and watching what foods they eat, they can claim the pill helped, because hey! They were taking it, so it must have helped.
Now, have you noticed that the people who say long toss has increased their velocity are:
a) Unconditioned people
b) People who are growing
c) People who have been doing other specific training, but relate the increase to long toss
The specificity of movement patterns and control is a scientifically established principle of human exercise. There has been no wavering on this scientifically validated phenomenon over the past century, although minor theoretical incursions have been attempted. Yet, baseball practitioners persist in violating this basic principle of performance with dubious arguments, false premises, and distortion on facts. It is too well proven to concede that the scientists might be wrong. It is time for the practices and programs of pitching coaches to be brought into line with what is established fact. The training of the pitching skill and its variants has to be specific and whole. The programming of appropriate transferable-to-game practice activities in an enriched milieu of correct pitching instruction is a challenge for modern baseball coaching.
Task difficulty. Kreuger's work (Kreuger, 1947) is recounted to clarify some features in understanding a skill task. This is a very old study but its import is still very relevant and valid today. There is a wealth of "old" studies that have valuable implications for modern coaching. Using a ring-tossing skill, rates of skill acquisition were determined for the "same skill" from different distances that were supposed to be variations in skill difficulty.
[If you can find the performance curve for the ring tossing task on the internet, it'll help ya]
The performance curves obtained indicated several things.
1. The most simple of tasks, dropping rings on a peg from a distance of two feet, is not performed to precision immediately. Possibly 20 to 50 trials for such a simple task are necessary to yield perfection.
2. Using the "same task" but from a greater distance, lowers the performance level. The lowering is much greater than the proportional change in distance. In Kreuger's data, after the same number of trails, the distance was increased by four and a half times but performance was reduced to one twentieth of the previous level. After five times as many trails, performance was still one tenth of the previous level.
3. The more difficult the task, the slower the rate of improvement. Not only was the rate changed, but so too was the shape of the performance curvel.
A more exact interpretation of these data is that each "level of difficulty" is not the "same" skill.
Although simple descriptive similarities exist between each task, they are, to all intents and purposes, very different skills.
A number of coaching implications can be drawn from this type of study. In the past, coaches have failed to realize the complexity and difficulty of physical activities. Changes in a skilled task produce a "new" task. For training content, the greater then umber of departures from the competitive skill, the less valuable is the training. This is but one more reason why throwing weighted balls, strength training, and long-toss do not working for pitching, despite what "believers" proselytize."
And for why to throw less than 180 feet:
A study by the American Sports Medicine Institute on the difference between flat ground throwing and long toss was done. What it showed was the there was actually more elbow stress during long toss throws of 180 feet and many long toss advocates encourage much longer throws in order to "air out" the arm apparently to build more strength.
Flat-Ground Throwing
While pitchers throw from a mound, all other players throw from flat ground. To identify differences between these throws, 27 college pitchers were tested throwing from flat ground (60, 120, 180 ft) and pitching from a mound (60.5 ft). The crow-hop technique (similar to an outfielder's throwing motion) was used for all flat ground throws. At the instant of foot contact, a shorter stride and less shoulder external rotation were present when throwing from flat ground. At ball release, the trunk was most upright during long-distance (120 and 180 ft) throws. Deceleration forces in the shoulder and elbow after ball release were lowest during long-distance throws. This may help explain why non-pitchers experience less overuse throwing injuries than pitchers. However, elbow varus torque was greatest during 180′ throwing, implying that the lower incidence of elbow injury in non-pitchers is probably due to other factors, such as number of throws, intensity of throws, and type of throws (e.g., fastball, curveball). Copyright 2000, American Sports Medicine Institute, October 05, 2004.
With more elbow stress during 180′ throwing, one has to wonder if long toss contributes to the increase in arm injuries today.
quote:Originally posted by XFactor:
Unless you're using long toss to build up your intensity before you go onto the mound (and keep it to less than 180 feet, I'll tell ya why in a sec), it's a waste of time.
I think that long toss can be a decent conditioning tool, and is definitely better than weightlifting, because it won't lead to muscle imbalances.
In terms of the distance/injury risk thing, the reason this is the case is that ball velocity is related to distance. Guys who can throw the ball 300 feet on the fly are throwing close to 90 MPH.
Of course, outfielders can throw with better mechanics (e.g. crow hop), which is why it is relatively less stressful (but not completely benign).
It's also why big-armed outfielders are so often successfully converted to pitchers.
The Science and Art of Baseball Pitching 5.10
Height of release. The higher a ball can be released relative to the ground, the further it will go if it lands on ground of a similar level to that from which it was thrown. Thus, for a maximum distance throw, the release position should be at the correct angle with the ball at the highest point possible that can be attained in a movement that maintains good mechanics.
Rather than alter the angle of release, it is also a common variation to alter the height of release for different pitches. Curveballs often are released higher than fast balls. The extra height compensates for the gravitational pull that is of greater effect in curveballs (Atwater, 1977, 1982). The choice of modifying height or angle of release or both should be largely influenced by the preference of the pitcher. Because of individual variations in many factors between pitchers, it is of no benefit to advocate one over the other. Only experimentation and demonstrated better performances will indicate the appropriate coaching recommendation.
Velocity of release. The faster a ball is released, the further it will go. Because of changes in skill requirements, it may not be possible for a player to obtain similar release velocities over a wide range of release angles or heights. The human body is constructed so that forces and higher velocities can be developed better in some directions than in others.
What has this to do with pitching? Why talk about throwing a ball as far as possible when a pitcher needs actions that are controlled to perform in a certain way at the greatest velocity possible? The answer is a sneaky one. A common practice activity for pitchers is the "long-toss". The long-toss involves honing in on an elevated angle and maximized height of release. These are action components that do not exist in pitching a baseball. Pitching requires throwing down from a mound to a target at a set distance. It is not a maximum distance throw but is a maximum velocity throw. The only common characteristic between a pitch and long-toss is the attempt to achieve a maximum throwing velocity. However, even that differs between them. The preparation for a throw and pitch are not the same. The throw involves preparatory steps or hops whereas a pitch allows only one stride. Thus, the movements needed to accelerate the ball in a pitch (an exaggerated wind-up) are very different to that of a maximal throw (an exaggerated lean back after preparatory steps). Consequently, there is very little to nothing in common between a maximal throw, the long-toss, and a baseball pitch. The three release factors are different between the two.
8.7
The specificity of movement patterns and control is a scientifically established principle of human exercise. There has been no wavering on this scientifically validated phenomenon over the past century, although minor theoretical incursions have been attempted. Yet, baseball practitioners persist in violating this basic principle of performance with dubious arguments, false premises, and distortion on facts. It is too well proven to concede that the scientists might be wrong. It is time for the practices and programs of pitching coaches to be brought into line with what is established fact. The training of the pitching skill and its variants has to be specific and whole. The programming of appropriate transferable-to-game practice activities in an enriched milieu of correct pitching instruction is a challenge for modern baseball coaching.
Height of release. The higher a ball can be released relative to the ground, the further it will go if it lands on ground of a similar level to that from which it was thrown. Thus, for a maximum distance throw, the release position should be at the correct angle with the ball at the highest point possible that can be attained in a movement that maintains good mechanics.
Rather than alter the angle of release, it is also a common variation to alter the height of release for different pitches. Curveballs often are released higher than fast balls. The extra height compensates for the gravitational pull that is of greater effect in curveballs (Atwater, 1977, 1982). The choice of modifying height or angle of release or both should be largely influenced by the preference of the pitcher. Because of individual variations in many factors between pitchers, it is of no benefit to advocate one over the other. Only experimentation and demonstrated better performances will indicate the appropriate coaching recommendation.
Velocity of release. The faster a ball is released, the further it will go. Because of changes in skill requirements, it may not be possible for a player to obtain similar release velocities over a wide range of release angles or heights. The human body is constructed so that forces and higher velocities can be developed better in some directions than in others.
What has this to do with pitching? Why talk about throwing a ball as far as possible when a pitcher needs actions that are controlled to perform in a certain way at the greatest velocity possible? The answer is a sneaky one. A common practice activity for pitchers is the "long-toss". The long-toss involves honing in on an elevated angle and maximized height of release. These are action components that do not exist in pitching a baseball. Pitching requires throwing down from a mound to a target at a set distance. It is not a maximum distance throw but is a maximum velocity throw. The only common characteristic between a pitch and long-toss is the attempt to achieve a maximum throwing velocity. However, even that differs between them. The preparation for a throw and pitch are not the same. The throw involves preparatory steps or hops whereas a pitch allows only one stride. Thus, the movements needed to accelerate the ball in a pitch (an exaggerated wind-up) are very different to that of a maximal throw (an exaggerated lean back after preparatory steps). Consequently, there is very little to nothing in common between a maximal throw, the long-toss, and a baseball pitch. The three release factors are different between the two.
8.7
The specificity of movement patterns and control is a scientifically established principle of human exercise. There has been no wavering on this scientifically validated phenomenon over the past century, although minor theoretical incursions have been attempted. Yet, baseball practitioners persist in violating this basic principle of performance with dubious arguments, false premises, and distortion on facts. It is too well proven to concede that the scientists might be wrong. It is time for the practices and programs of pitching coaches to be brought into line with what is established fact. The training of the pitching skill and its variants has to be specific and whole. The programming of appropriate transferable-to-game practice activities in an enriched milieu of correct pitching instruction is a challenge for modern baseball coaching.
quote:Originally posted by XFactor:
The only common characteristic between a pitch and long-toss is the attempt to achieve a maximum throwing velocity. However, even that differs between them. The preparation for a throw and pitch are not the same. The throw involves preparatory steps or hops whereas a pitch allows only one stride. Thus, the movements needed to accelerate the ball in a pitch (an exaggerated wind-up) are very different to that of a maximal throw (an exaggerated lean back after preparatory steps).
While I agree with a lot of what Mills says, I disagree with him in this.
Because both a pitch and a long toss are max-effort throws, the muscle activation patterns are the same, which means that there will be some conditioning benefit transfer from one to the other.
I would agree with your statement on the basis that you used the term "conditioning benefit transfer", which distinguishes itself from "skill" transfer. I agree with Rushall in his reference to skill transfer.quote:Originally posted by thepainguy:Because both a pitch and a long toss are max-effort throws, the muscle activation patterns are the same, which means that there will be some conditioning benefit transfer from one to the other.
quote:Originally posted by dm59:I would agree with your statement on the basis that you used the term "conditioning benefit transfer", which distinguishes itself from "skill" transfer. I agree with Rushall in his reference to skill transfer.quote:Originally posted by thepainguy:Because both a pitch and a long toss are max-effort throws, the muscle activation patterns are the same, which means that there will be some conditioning benefit transfer from one to the other.
I agree.
Long toss is good for conditioning and control, but won't do much for your command.
IOW, pitchers still need to throw bullpens and work on their specific pitches.
Rushall is a paid shill. Intellectually dishonest. Long toss has benefitted many a player over a long time. The release point is different from pitching so you make sure you re-establish your release point while working your way back in. It clearly helps condition the arm and that is why it is used in throwing rehab. Keeping the distance down to 180' and trying to throw on a line is dangerous. When you throw only hard enough to reach a given distance by throwing on an arc you can safely control how hard you are throwing and be sure that you are increasing the intensity of your throws gradually. You can't do that trying to throw on a line. Long toss done properly, ie throwing on an arc, is prehabilitation.
If you want an example just look at Barry Zito and tell me that playing long toss has thrown off his release point.
If you want an example just look at Barry Zito and tell me that playing long toss has thrown off his release point.
quote:Originally posted by CADad:
Rushall is a paid shill. Intellectually dishonest. Long toss has benefitted many a player over a long time. The release point is different from pitching so you make sure you re-establish your release point while working your way back in. It clearly helps condition the arm and that is why it is used in throwing rehab. Keeping the distance down to 180' and trying to throw on a line is dangerous. When you throw only hard enough to reach a given distance by throwing on an arc you can safely control how hard you are throwing and be sure that you are increasing the intensity of your throws gradually. You can't do that trying to throw on a line. Long toss done properly, ie throwing on an arc, is prehabilitation.
If you want an example just look at Barry Zito and tell me that playing long toss has thrown off his release point.
Got any proof to that bolded section? How is he any different from any other of the self proclaimed experts out there that you may follow? I'm not a follower of any of these guys, but the one thing I do like about Mill's and his posse' is that they are using documented scientific studies to advocate what they're teaching.
Where are your studies proving your claims? Do you have any proof backing what you've stated? I'm supposed to believe you because you said so and you've "seen the results"? I could make the claim that every person that has eaten pickles in 1850 is dead. Therefore pickles caused them to die. Obviously that is ridiculous, but you are essentially using the same logic. There is no way to prove what you claim as there are too many variables that could positively or negatively affect your conclusions.
Basic 6th grade science classes teach you about scientific method.
* Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry.
* Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).
* Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.
* Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.
* Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.
* Causal explanation. Many scientists and theorists on scientific method argue that concepts of causality are not obligatory to science, but are in fact well-defined only under particular, admittedly widespread conditions.[attribution needed] Under these conditions the following requirements are generally regarded as important to scientific understanding:
* Identification of causes. Identification of the causes of a particular phenomenon to the best achievable extent.
* Covariation of events. The hypothesized causes must correlate with observed effects.
* Time-order relationship. The hypothesized causes must precede the observed effects in time.
I challenge ALL of these experts to follow this tried and true method before they make any claim. I'm really tired of hearing people with all of this "knowledge" from playing 16 years in the bigs say "OH, I'VE SEEN IT WORK!" and then expect people to fork out hundreds of dollars to share in something that has no proof whatsoever or even to expect me to bow down to their vast knowledge. Obviously there are many aspects of the game that can only be learned by playing it, but things like this are not limited to the people who played at that elite level. There are hundreds of HOFers and probably none of them did things the EXACT same way. So who is right? I'm sure they would disagree on many things. Who do you believe then? The one that has the better career averages?
The sad thing is that it will probably continue like this for as long as the game is played.
Wrstdude is right on
If the mechanics are different, such as release point, shorter stride, oh, and it's on flat ground as opposed to the mound, do you think the body doesn't interpret that as two different skills?
Each "level of difficulty" is not the "same" skill.
Although simple descriptive similarities exist between each task, they are, to all intents and purposes, very different skills.
I have a Child and Adolescent Developmental Psychology class.
Children who hold (ie. a wall, railing) when they walk is a completely different skill from actually walking, though it may look relatively the same.
Please tell me how throwing to someone 100 feet away translates to throwing off the mound to a defined target at 60'6''. It doesn't.
If long toss worked for pitchers, the logical assumption would be that pitching works for outfielders.
8.6
"A shortstop would not want to throw with a long-toss action to a catcher. That is also true for a pitcher. That long-toss movements are different to pitching movements, and therefore making long-tossing potentially harmful to pitchers, was shown by Einheber (1986). Baltaci, Johnson, and Kohl (2001) showed that position players ("long-tossers") develop different shoulder mechanics to those displayed by pitchers. This supports the assertion that long-toss is not useful for pitchers, no matter what the long-toss advocates espouse. In fact, long-tossing trains a different skill to pitching and should not be expected to have any long-term beneficial transfer effects for pitching. It is more likely that too much long-toss practice will interfere with pitching mechanics [due to negative transfer].
8.7
"To conclude this introduction to the central theme of developing, improving, and increasing consistency in a complex two-phase motor skill such as pitching, the following quote from one of the world's most foremost motor learning/control scientists, Dr. Richard Schmidt, author of Motor learning and performance: From principle to practice is most pertinent.
'A common misconception is that fundamental abilities can be trained through various drills and other activities... For example, atheltes are often given various "quickening" exercises, with the hope that these exercises would train some fundamental ability to be quick, allowing quicker response in their particular sport. There are two correct ways to think of these principles.
First, there is in general ability to be quick, to balance, or to use vision... Second, even if there were such general abilities, they are, by definition, genetic and not subject to modification through practice... A learner may acquire additional skill at a drill... but this learning does not transfer to the main skill of interest" (Schmidt, 1991, p. 222).'
The specificity of movement patterns and control is a scientifically established principle of human exercise. There has been no wavering on this scientifically validated phenomenon over the past century, although minor theoretical incursions have been attempted. Yet, baseball practitioners persist in violating this basic principle of performance with dubious arguments, false premises, and distortion on facts. It is too well proven to concede that the scientists might be wrong. It is time for the practices and programs of pitching coaches to be brought into line with what is established fact. The training of the pitching skill and its variants has to be specific and whole. The programming of appropriate transferable-to-game practice activities in an enriched milieu of correct pitching instruction is a challenge for modern baseball coaching."
Realize, if long toss improved velocity and decreased injury, we'd be seeing MLB pitchers injury free and gaining MPH every year.. yet this doesn't seem to be the case
If the mechanics are different, such as release point, shorter stride, oh, and it's on flat ground as opposed to the mound, do you think the body doesn't interpret that as two different skills?
Each "level of difficulty" is not the "same" skill.
Although simple descriptive similarities exist between each task, they are, to all intents and purposes, very different skills.
I have a Child and Adolescent Developmental Psychology class.
Children who hold (ie. a wall, railing) when they walk is a completely different skill from actually walking, though it may look relatively the same.
Please tell me how throwing to someone 100 feet away translates to throwing off the mound to a defined target at 60'6''. It doesn't.
If long toss worked for pitchers, the logical assumption would be that pitching works for outfielders.
8.6
"A shortstop would not want to throw with a long-toss action to a catcher. That is also true for a pitcher. That long-toss movements are different to pitching movements, and therefore making long-tossing potentially harmful to pitchers, was shown by Einheber (1986). Baltaci, Johnson, and Kohl (2001) showed that position players ("long-tossers") develop different shoulder mechanics to those displayed by pitchers. This supports the assertion that long-toss is not useful for pitchers, no matter what the long-toss advocates espouse. In fact, long-tossing trains a different skill to pitching and should not be expected to have any long-term beneficial transfer effects for pitching. It is more likely that too much long-toss practice will interfere with pitching mechanics [due to negative transfer].
8.7
"To conclude this introduction to the central theme of developing, improving, and increasing consistency in a complex two-phase motor skill such as pitching, the following quote from one of the world's most foremost motor learning/control scientists, Dr. Richard Schmidt, author of Motor learning and performance: From principle to practice is most pertinent.
'A common misconception is that fundamental abilities can be trained through various drills and other activities... For example, atheltes are often given various "quickening" exercises, with the hope that these exercises would train some fundamental ability to be quick, allowing quicker response in their particular sport. There are two correct ways to think of these principles.
First, there is in general ability to be quick, to balance, or to use vision... Second, even if there were such general abilities, they are, by definition, genetic and not subject to modification through practice... A learner may acquire additional skill at a drill... but this learning does not transfer to the main skill of interest" (Schmidt, 1991, p. 222).'
The specificity of movement patterns and control is a scientifically established principle of human exercise. There has been no wavering on this scientifically validated phenomenon over the past century, although minor theoretical incursions have been attempted. Yet, baseball practitioners persist in violating this basic principle of performance with dubious arguments, false premises, and distortion on facts. It is too well proven to concede that the scientists might be wrong. It is time for the practices and programs of pitching coaches to be brought into line with what is established fact. The training of the pitching skill and its variants has to be specific and whole. The programming of appropriate transferable-to-game practice activities in an enriched milieu of correct pitching instruction is a challenge for modern baseball coaching."
Realize, if long toss improved velocity and decreased injury, we'd be seeing MLB pitchers injury free and gaining MPH every year.. yet this doesn't seem to be the case
What is it about steroids that would enhance pitching performance?quote:Originally posted by baseballpapa:Why do steroids enhance play if it is only specific training that does?
Long toss twice a week. If you're in season, you can long toss to warm up during practice.
I think it would be best to stay focused on the original question. If the responses don't stay on topic with the question, I will delete those responses and lock this thread.
The studies done by DeRenne were acceptable to ASMI (ie peer review). They were well run studies with adequate controls and anyone trying to refute them as Rushall has done based on their not being done according to the "scientific method" is being intellectualy dishonest.
Please don't try to lecture me about the scientific method since application of the scientific method and review of experiments is part of what I do for a living.
What did the ASMI study quoted above actually say? It said that deceleration forces were less in long distance throwing. It said that acceleration forces were greater. Given that they were throwing with full effort in each case where the max loads were determined (just takes a little research) and that they were crow hopping it is probable that they were simply throwing harder at 180' than they were off the mound and that the acceleration forces were greater simply because they were throwing harder and that overall long distance throwing is safer because even when throwing harder the deceleration forces are less. It isn't really hard to figure that they are more upright at release when throwing longer distances and can therefore use the trunk more for deceleration.
Full effort throwing at relatively short distances such as 180' is not what proper long toss is about. When one throws 180' on an arc that is a very low effort throw for an accomplished pitcher and the distance controls the amount of effort allowing the thrower to progress in a controlled manner.
Please don't try to lecture me about the scientific method since application of the scientific method and review of experiments is part of what I do for a living.
What did the ASMI study quoted above actually say? It said that deceleration forces were less in long distance throwing. It said that acceleration forces were greater. Given that they were throwing with full effort in each case where the max loads were determined (just takes a little research) and that they were crow hopping it is probable that they were simply throwing harder at 180' than they were off the mound and that the acceleration forces were greater simply because they were throwing harder and that overall long distance throwing is safer because even when throwing harder the deceleration forces are less. It isn't really hard to figure that they are more upright at release when throwing longer distances and can therefore use the trunk more for deceleration.
Full effort throwing at relatively short distances such as 180' is not what proper long toss is about. When one throws 180' on an arc that is a very low effort throw for an accomplished pitcher and the distance controls the amount of effort allowing the thrower to progress in a controlled manner.
quote:Originally posted by cap_n:
Long toss twice a week. If you're in season, you can long toss to warm up during practice.
Cap_n's advice (as usual) is right on.
I would only add that possibly in the offseason, depending on how well you and your arm is conditioned, you may be able to add a third day of long toss.
quote:and that they were crow hopping
I've always long tossed without a crop hop. Do those here think I am not benefiting from my long toss as much as I could then?
If you're a pitcher, then IMO you're doing yourself a favor by NOT crow-hopping.quote:I've always long tossed without a crop hop. Do those here think I am not benefiting from my long toss as much as I could then?
I believe strongly that, pitcher or not, you should always use either a shuffle step or crow hop when throwing long toss.
Clash of the titans.
Yes, I am a pitcher (primarily), and I feel the same way you do Cap_n. Grateful, I'd be very interested to hear you elaborate on why you feel that a crow hop should be used. I always felt that I don't crow hop on the mound or from 1B, so why do it when building up my arm? but I am open to other thoughts.
Okay CA, if you're so for long toss, then please tell me how it'll benefit a pitcher.
And don't say build up arm strength, because pitching velocity comes from elastic energy.
And remember, if the neuromuscular patterns are different, it won't transfer over.
So go ahead and explain away, and please back up what you're saying.
To the OP and others
The level of skill of a player governs the potential rate of improvement. For example, it is much easier to improve from 70 to 75 mph in pitching velocity than it is to improve from 85 to 90 mph although the absolute differences are equal. Improvements or a specified magnitude will be more difficult to attain for more advanced pitchers. Consequently, the amount of time that is allocated to activity development will be determined by the skill level and specific goals for improvement. The higher the skill level, the greater the amount of time required to produce deomnstrable improvements in pitching skill.
The more difficult or complex the skill, the greater is the amount of time required to reach specific proficiency levels.
So why waste time on things that won't transfer over?
Please help me understand where you're coming from at least
And don't say build up arm strength, because pitching velocity comes from elastic energy.
And remember, if the neuromuscular patterns are different, it won't transfer over.
So go ahead and explain away, and please back up what you're saying.
To the OP and others
The level of skill of a player governs the potential rate of improvement. For example, it is much easier to improve from 70 to 75 mph in pitching velocity than it is to improve from 85 to 90 mph although the absolute differences are equal. Improvements or a specified magnitude will be more difficult to attain for more advanced pitchers. Consequently, the amount of time that is allocated to activity development will be determined by the skill level and specific goals for improvement. The higher the skill level, the greater the amount of time required to produce deomnstrable improvements in pitching skill.
The more difficult or complex the skill, the greater is the amount of time required to reach specific proficiency levels.
So why waste time on things that won't transfer over?
Please help me understand where you're coming from at least
XFactor..........If you have no direct answer to the original question, then don't post. If you want to voice your opinion on why you think long toss is of no useful purpose, then start a new thread.quote:Okay CA, if you're so for long toss, then please tell me how it'll benefit a pitcher. And don't say build up arm strength, because pitching velocity comes from elastic energy. And remember, if the neuromuscular patterns are different, it won't transfer over. So go ahead and explain away, and please back up what you're saying. To the OP and others...The level of skill of a player governs the potential rate of improvement. For example, it is much easier to improve from 70 to 75 mph in pitching velocity than it is to improve from 85 to 90 mph although the absolute differences are equal. Improvements or a specified magnitude will be more difficult to attain for more advanced pitchers. Consequently, the amount of time that is allocated to activity development will be determined by the skill level and specific goals for improvement. The higher the skill level, the greater the amount of time required to produce deomnstrable improvements in pitching skill. The more difficult or complex the skill, the greater is the amount of time required to reach specific proficiency levels. So why waste time on things that won't transfer over?
Please help me understand where you're coming from at least
quote:Yes, I am a pitcher (primarily), and I feel the same way you do Cap_n. Grateful, I'd be very interested to hear you elaborate on why you feel that a crow hop should be used.
Andrew..........I said the crow-hop should not be used. One reason for long toss is mental....the goal is to throw a much farther distance. IMO that conditioning the body to throw farther, requires the thrower to develope quicker loads to unload in order to increase velocity to cover the distance.
The reason I don't like crow-hops for pitchers is because I feel it's important that long toss mechanics (for pitchers) closely represent mound mechanics, the same as the under 13 crowd.
quote:Originally posted by Texan:
Clash of the titans.
I like your style.............but no titan here.
cap_n.... sorry for the confusion. that question at the end of my previous post was directed twoards another person, Grateful, who had suggested the use of a crow hop.
****..............I made a mistakequote:Originally posted by Andrew:
cap_n.... sorry for the confusion. that question at the end of my previous post was directed twoards another person, Grateful, who had suggested the use of a crow hop.
I always liked to long toss, and especially worked on it in the off season leading up to spring training. At that time (40 years ago) there were no doctors, long toss experts, or trainers telling us what, why and for what muscle groups. We did it to exercise the arm and make it feel strong and durable. Some guys crow hopped and some did not and nobody really cared one way or another. You started playing catch and worked your way up over time to good long tosses. When your arm got to the point where it felt strong, you then started throwing bullpens and from there you progressed to throwing in games and then it was off to spring training.
I never for one moment thought that long toss was about pitching mechanics.....just about getting my arm where it felt good and strong.
I never for one moment thought that long toss was about pitching mechanics.....just about getting my arm where it felt good and strong.
bbscout,
But then again, you aren't trying to sell anything.
But then again, you aren't trying to sell anything.
We are back to square one--kids today do not play catch enough\\
As kids we used to play a game on the side of the house called "climb the ladder" where we kept elevating the throws that we had to jump for--even had a point system--- not only did we play catch but we leanred to time line drives over our heads---and if you missed it you chased it-- got the legs and arm in shape all at the same time
As kids we used to play a game on the side of the house called "climb the ladder" where we kept elevating the throws that we had to jump for--even had a point system--- not only did we play catch but we leanred to time line drives over our heads---and if you missed it you chased it-- got the legs and arm in shape all at the same time
XFactor,
I am curious about the arm strength comment. What are your feelings on resistance training for the shoulder? Do you feel that it is of no value?
I am curious about the arm strength comment. What are your feelings on resistance training for the shoulder? Do you feel that it is of no value?
I think this makes good sense to determine the "long Toss" debate
Performance/Work Load and Longevity Assessment
4 factors that show work-load ability, stamina and injury risk. Use this equation: FS + ME + GP + MM = PWL
FS = Functional Strength (advanced movement strength...balance, stability, range etc.. and the look at effortlessness)
ME= Mechanical Efficiency (release leverage, head square/up, glove up, head over front foot, late external rotation.)
GP= Genetic Predisposition and Age (laxity/stability in shoulder, bone structure, maturity, arm speed)
MM=Metabolic Management (nutrition, ATP recovery, energy level, blood/cellular chemistry, antioxidants, etc.)
_____________________
PWL= Performance Work Load, Longevity, Injury Risk (pitch counts, stamina, energy maintenance, recovery etc.)
* Put an approximate number from 1-10 on all 4 areas and add them up.
Here is a sample of a typical high school or college pitcher’s evaluation:
FS= 4
ME=5
GP=7
MM=2
_______
PWL=18 * Note the weak link is usually metabolic (nutrition). Fast food, soda, beer etc. bring it all way down!
Scale
0-9 Very low (will usually decrease in performance quickly, need lots of time between games, very high injury risk!)
10-19 Low (will usually decrease in performance after 40-50 pitches, need long recovery, high injury risk)
20-29 Medium (performance usually drops at around 75 pitches, recovery is average to ok, injury risk is average)
30-40 High (performance usually stays strong till around 100 pitches or more, recovers fast, very low injury risk)
Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens
FS= 9
ME=9
GP=8 (Johnson, Clemens are lower due to age)
MM=7 * note weakest link is still nutrition
______
PWL=33
*You can have all the talent in the world, the best coaching and training program there is, but if your engine isn’t fueled right, YOU WILL NOT GET PEAK PERFORMANCE! Pitchers must take care of their bodies at the cellular level!
Note: Mental/Emotional factors DO play a role in all this but we’ll keep that separate for now. Remember, you are only as strong as your weakest link!!
written by: Joe Fletcher www.fletchspen.net
Performance/Work Load and Longevity Assessment
4 factors that show work-load ability, stamina and injury risk. Use this equation: FS + ME + GP + MM = PWL
FS = Functional Strength (advanced movement strength...balance, stability, range etc.. and the look at effortlessness)
ME= Mechanical Efficiency (release leverage, head square/up, glove up, head over front foot, late external rotation.)
GP= Genetic Predisposition and Age (laxity/stability in shoulder, bone structure, maturity, arm speed)
MM=Metabolic Management (nutrition, ATP recovery, energy level, blood/cellular chemistry, antioxidants, etc.)
_____________________
PWL= Performance Work Load, Longevity, Injury Risk (pitch counts, stamina, energy maintenance, recovery etc.)
* Put an approximate number from 1-10 on all 4 areas and add them up.
Here is a sample of a typical high school or college pitcher’s evaluation:
FS= 4
ME=5
GP=7
MM=2
_______
PWL=18 * Note the weak link is usually metabolic (nutrition). Fast food, soda, beer etc. bring it all way down!
Scale
0-9 Very low (will usually decrease in performance quickly, need lots of time between games, very high injury risk!)
10-19 Low (will usually decrease in performance after 40-50 pitches, need long recovery, high injury risk)
20-29 Medium (performance usually drops at around 75 pitches, recovery is average to ok, injury risk is average)
30-40 High (performance usually stays strong till around 100 pitches or more, recovers fast, very low injury risk)
Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens
FS= 9
ME=9
GP=8 (Johnson, Clemens are lower due to age)
MM=7 * note weakest link is still nutrition
______
PWL=33
*You can have all the talent in the world, the best coaching and training program there is, but if your engine isn’t fueled right, YOU WILL NOT GET PEAK PERFORMANCE! Pitchers must take care of their bodies at the cellular level!
Note: Mental/Emotional factors DO play a role in all this but we’ll keep that separate for now. Remember, you are only as strong as your weakest link!!
written by: Joe Fletcher www.fletchspen.net
Please start a new thread if there's gooing to be a long toss debate.
Thanks,
Thanks,
Why start a new thread? This one is long toss. What is the problem, I like both or the many viewpoints. I find it constructive.
quote:Originally posted by Knocturnal:
How many days a week should I long toss? Ive heard two or three, or something like every other day...
knocturnal asked a direct question, give Knocturnal a direct answer. If anyone wants to expand on the pro's or con's of long toss, then start a new thread. It's as simple (or as hard) as that to prevent the original thread from being hijacked.
Thanks,
quote:Originally posted by Knocturnal:
How many days a week should I long toss? Ive heard two or three, or something like every other day...
There is no set rule on how many days in a row you should long toss.I can tell you what I did and that was to start out playing catch every day and increasing the distance a little each day. When I could throw the ball a long way about 10-12 times and my arm felt good and strong, I would head to the bullpen and start pitching off a mound. I would do that every other day and throw long toss every other day. I would take one day off every week and go to the beach.
After the combination of bullpens and long toss, I would start pitching on a scouts team until it was time to go to spring training. This all took place over a two month period after which time I was ready to pitch about 5 strong innings.
Also, I would run every day on the beach at the waters edge. When I left for spring training, my arm and legs were ready to go.
hsballcoach I sent you a PM (so this thread wouldn't get hijacked)
I also agree with bbscout, as if one wants to use long toss to build up intensity before heading off to the mound, then by all means.
I just disagree with using it to improve the two-phase motor skill of pitching a baseball.
So to answer the OP, don't substitute pitching off the mound for long toss, but if you want to use it to build up your intensity before you go to the mound, then go ahead.
I also agree with bbscout, as if one wants to use long toss to build up intensity before heading off to the mound, then by all means.
I just disagree with using it to improve the two-phase motor skill of pitching a baseball.
So to answer the OP, don't substitute pitching off the mound for long toss, but if you want to use it to build up your intensity before you go to the mound, then go ahead.
Xfactor, When I talked about using long toss,it was on a daily basis or on an every other day basis. I did not do it on the days I threw in the pen or in games. I did not use it to build up intensity, I used it to build up strength and stamina in my arm. It made my arm feel good and strong after a few weeks of doing it.
As far as pitching goes, every thing I ever did was off a mound.
As far as pitching goes, every thing I ever did was off a mound.
Well we all know how I feel about the first part. I don't want to sound like a broken record
But that's good that everything pitching-wise you did off the mound
But that's good that everything pitching-wise you did off the mound
Thanks bbscout. There's no substitute for longevity and real world experience information in the discipline.
(quote by xfactor)
So to answer the OP, don't substitute pitching off the mound for long toss, but if you want to use it to build up your intensity before you go to the mound, then go ahead.
----------------------------------------------------
why didn't you say this the first time?
So to answer the OP, don't substitute pitching off the mound for long toss, but if you want to use it to build up your intensity before you go to the mound, then go ahead.
----------------------------------------------------
why didn't you say this the first time?
