Weighted Balls Velocity Program

I would suggest searching the topic on this forum. You will see plenty of threads. Some people are big proponents (me) while others are more leary or don't think they offer much benefit. You can read through all the discussions, which have been quite extensive and educational.

The owner of Driveline Baseball (Kyle Boddy) is a member here and a regular contributor. I'm guessing Driveline is probably one of the weighted programs you are considering. My son has been doing Driveline's remote training since March. This is a little different than the free weighted ball program they offer on their site (you buy the supplies, it's just the written program that's available at no cost). But the overall concept is the same. He's picked up 10 mph in velocity since the Spring. He's 15, so it's hard to know if it's because of the program or growth. Most likely, a combination. The biggest upside is how strong and healthy his arm feels. He had zero pain through the Spring and summer seasons.

Feel free to PM me if you have any questions. Good luck!

I would like to see a study that compares weighted balls with the same volume of Regulation throwing.

 

of course the weighted balls help velocity but a max effort throwing program with Regulation balls will probably help too.

 

Players gain x mph is hardly a proof, especially when we are talking 12-16 year olds who are still growing.

 

I'm not against weighted balls and I have gained about 15 mph of batspeed in an overload underload program (from 65 to 80+in my late 20s) but I don't really know how much I would have gained had I swung a normal bat at full effort every day.

 

I would definitely not start it before the mechanics are good.

 I like the 4oz. and 6oz weighted balls. A regular baseball is 5oz, and when you work out with a 6oz it will strengthen the arm but its not so heavy that it changes arm mechanics. the 4oz ball teaches your arm to speed up without changing arm mechanics again. I have never liked the heavy balls that kids struggle to throw.

Concur, as well as the long term impact. It is for that reason joemktgson has not used weighted balls, and instead uses the Throwers 10 program.

I actually have one and will go find it and post it. The original study on them goes back to John Bagonzi who got his PHD based on using weighted balls. Ron Wolforth perfected it and now Kyle Boddy continues to further refine the program(s).

 

There are a whole bunch of reasons to do them and they are rapidly becoming standard programs in colleges. It is not only about velocity, but arm care and control. Go to kyle's website and you can get some good background on them.

OK here it is:

 

https://drive.google.com/file/...b28/view?usp=sharing

 

This is the first of two studies, I don't have the second one, but it was pretty controlled given it was a HS, anyway there is clear evidence a proper program, and this includes the program and instruction are beneficial for pitchers.  

All great. One more thing. Would it be okay if I was doing the weighted balls while doing offseason lifting for football (3x per week)? I don't want to damage my arm. (Note: If I were to pick one, it would be football. I play NG/OG and weigh only 215 pounds. Need to bulk up.)

I only read the first few pages but this study seems not be controlled at all. 

 

A correct setup would include a comparable group doing the same volume of throws and the same accessory exercises but using standard balls. seems more like an advertisement than a study.

 

btw I don't believe that using 4-7 ounce balls can hurt a player more than a standard ball ( the baseball just has an arbitrary weight) but I would also like to know if it is really better than throwing normal balls.

 

i don't rule it out that it is better either, just would like to see a real study.

Until it's out of my control, I'm going with Dana Cavalea and no weighted balls.  This is one of those things that seem to split people on this board.  To each his own.

All I'll say is that I find it funny how many people require rigorous blinded studies on weighted ball throwing before they'll consider it yet will put tons of unhealthy stuff into their body and train for baseball in any number of untested non-peer reviewed ways.

 

Must be something about them.

 

Everyone knows my love for science and adherence to data. No one in the velocity development world has the sports science tools that I have to evaluate training techniques (and I've even run control vs. two A/B groups of velocity testing, you can find the data on my blog). I've come to accept that it's not enough for some people. All I can do is do right by the 50+ pros (6 big leaguers) and 40+ colleges that use our stuff. I don't waste a lot of time defending my program to others; it's time I could use supporting and researching the work I already do.

 

that's what the old School coaches who have their pitchers run poles say too. you are becoming one of those guys.

 

just kidding I know you put a ton of Research into it but you have to understand that People are more carefull with weighted balls than they are with other stuff like running poles because that Kind of Training is very stressfull and often considered dangerous. and I would actually agree with that asuming that many of the Kids doing weighted balls are not as well conditioned as your guys.

 

in short what were your findings regarding OL/UL Training vs just throwing Baseballs?

 

I know you would not suggest a Training form that is not proven but I think you understand as well as anybody that "pitchers improve 5 mph on average" that many programs Claim don't say much when they are done by pretty much untrained Teenagers.

 

of course you don't Need to defend your stuff but I think it would be sad if a mind like yours would revert to "my big league Clients are proof enough" (which is the same many old mlb coaches who teach to swing down and other stuff you frown upon say) although I can understand that your time is limited and you have better stuff to do.

I'd like to read your studies too. Thanks.

I think you put this pretty well.  I don't doubt the validity of what he says, but the "my big league players" proves I am right stuff is really off putting.  It basically says, that I am the smartest guy in the room, and you are all idiots if you don't believe every word I say.  That's not really a good way to convert people.  He may believe that he doesn't need to convert people, and frankly, he may not need to; but, it would be cool if he took a different approach and tried to help those that may be stuck in the old ways.

I wanted to address the notion that when proponents claim increases in mph that it might be explained by physical growth. With most programs this can be dismissed. Most programs are time contained. I use a program (much of it stolen from Kyle) that I run once a year for eleven weeks. Most programs are run on anywhere from a 6 week to 12 week time. When you are showing average improvements over that short of a period, growth can't be that big of a factor. Last year, I showed a 5.5 mph average increase. That is from the start to the end of the program. However, I only had seven participants and there is another factor that could be a contributor with my kids. At least half were new to me and I completely overhauled their mechanics which could have led to increases without the weighted balls. In fact, of those whose mechanics were not tinkered with during the program, the average was probably closer to 2.5 or 3 mph, which I still consider substantial. 

I know I have mentioned this before, but it applies to this thread as well. (I am not talking about Kyle's program in particular, just about any velocity gain studies overall)

 

Personally, I would primarily be interested in looking at proven gains above 85 mph.

 

Many, many kids can reach 80 or so depending on growth, age, strength improvements, weight gains, technique improvements, etc.  Many kids can have 10 mph improvements in a year, below 85 mph.

 

 

What exactly is the 6oz ball designed to do?  Does it simply add strength to the entire pitching motion or is it supposed to provide benefit (i.e. added strength) to some specific portion (I assume much of the leg and core do not gain any real benefit but interested in back, shoulder, arm and hand type stuff)?  Does the 6oz ball get thrown 100% - if so, does this provide additional stress (additional - not necessarily catastrophic) on the UCL?  Also, keep hearing comments about decelaration - how does the 6oz and 4 oz ball affect decelaration?  Lastly, assuming you have a home scale, can you save some bucks by using your waterlogged balls (always looking for a good use for these)?

There are some ten muscles that run across the ucl and provide support. It has been shown that the human ucl can only really withstand somewhere around an 85 mph (I'm working from memory here) throw without breaking. What allows a person to throw harder without tearing the ucl is support provided by those muscles. Unfortunately, little we do outside of actual throwing does much to increase the strength of those muscles. Throwing a 5oz. ball can only build the muscles up to a certain point. Adding one ounce or 20% to the load helps to build them up a little more. It would be like doing curls for building the bicep. At some point you flatten out any gains in muscle mass/strength and have to increase the weight/load to see further gains.

the human ucl can only really withstand somewhere around an 85 mph

Didn't Fleisig et al forget to factor in the rotating/lunging torso?

Right. That study, by itself, was misleading because it took into account nothing but forces on unsupported ucl tensile strength.  Interesting, but not really helpful.