- Paul Nyman, SetPro

Understanding the Difference Can Make or Break Your Baseball Career. (A commentary on issues such as the use of weighted baseballs, flatground, long-toss or other non-mound training components.)

  What pitchers should do and when they should do it with respect to their training seems to be more confused and controversial than ever. As compared to the other positions, pitchers receive much greater special throwing and training attention. When examined with anything resembling rigor, logic, and common sense, much of this attention reveals itself as opinion and speculation with very little factual support. Opinion and speculation influenced by 'after-the-fact' reasoning and rationalization, much of which is driven by fear of injury or attempts at pitching science, which are then a used to play upon the fears and ignorance of the uninformed and unsuspecting.

Definitions: Ability 1. The quality of being able to do something physical, mental, financial or legal power to perform. 2. A natural or acquired skill or talent. 3. A being able; power to do (something physical or mental).
Skill: 1.proficiency, ability, or dexterity; expertness. 2. An art, trade, or technique, particularly one requiring the use of the hands or body. 3. Great ability or proficiency; expertness that comes from training, practice etc. (American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition and Webster's New World Dictionary, Second College Edition.)

From these definitions it's easy to understand why skill and ability are confused. Understanding the difference between skill development and ability enhancement is critical to not only unraveling the confusion and controversy surrounding pitcher training but also creating the best possibilities for maximizing a players baseball potential.


The issues of weighted baseballs, flat ground, long toss and other non-mound related training components are a relatively recent "phenomena", as in not being issues 20 or so years ago. 20 years ago (and for 150 years prior to that) players (players-kids) threw weighted baseballs. How can this be you ask?? When you only had one baseball, or what might pass as a semblance of a baseball, there was rarely such thing as a regulation weight (5 oz.). Many of the baseballs we used were either waterlogged or they had several ounces of tape wrapped around them. As for flat ground throwing, that's pretty much all we had nothing close to resembling a mound where we played. And long tossing was what we did to have fun or occupy our time when we didn't have enough players or didn't feel like having a game, and playing catch and seeing how far we could throw the baseball (natural competitiveness). And not too many (parents, coaches) cared what we threw, how much we threw or how we threw. As long as we were outdoors with a baseball glove to our parents, that meant we were safe in not getting into trouble. Aches and pains were an indication that we had 'trained properly' (put forth enough effort to stress our bodies adequately). Only when there was more blood than Band-Aids could handle or definitive broken bones protruding was medical attention considered. Usually it was aspirin, Ben Gay, Ace bandages and a good night's sleep.

All in all, a different time with a different set of belief systems and priorities.

 Compared to the above, today's baseball training and instruction experience bears little resemblance to that of years gone by. Changes brought about by technology, affluence, other alternatives and an environment perceived as being much more dangerous than ever before. In this country, the days of players developing their baseball skills and abilities on the playground ('playing' baseball) or long gone, having given way to organized play, practice, instruction and training. And as one might suspect/expect, change creates new opportunities as well as pitfalls. The transition from playground to structure (organized baseball) creates a need for new information and methods to replace (or 'attempt' to replace) what previously occurred on the playground.


Of all sports baseball, pitching and hitting a baseball represents the greatest challenge because it asks the player to deal with two diametrically opposed factors, precision and power. Baseball demands maximizing both, more so the than any other sport. Understanding the desired results of your training is critical to pitcher training. The difference between skill (precision) and ability (power) require different practice and training approaches. I find that few people understand the difference between the two. Understanding this difference allows you to make better decisions with respect to weighted balls, long toss, flat ground throwing and other 'nontraditional' methods for training and preparing a pitcher.

The Building Blocks of Skill Are Ability, Practice and Knowledge.

Ability has its foundation in individual genetic traits. This includes body structure type (mesomorph, endomorph, ectomorph) and nervous system structure to name a few. Arm speed is a classic example of what most consider ability (God-given). In reality ability is not totally genetic; it can also be developed-improved further through training. Some reading this may be surprised when I say that we frequently add 10-15 mph within six months to a player's throwing abilities. Pitching a baseball is a skill. Pitching is the skill of defeating the batter. If the player on the mound CONSISTENTLY defeats the batter with great velocity or precise location or both, then we might say that this player has mastered the skill of pitching.

Throwing is ability. Throwing is characterized by the ability to impart speed and accuracy to objects (throwing rocks, apples, baseballs, footballs, etc.). There have been many great pitchers who threw hard (Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove, Bob Feller, Sandy Koufax to name a few). There have been many unsuccessful pitchers who threw hard (Steve Dalkowski: Those who saw Dalkowski pitch believe he was the hardest thrower in baseball history." In a Newsday article from 1979, several baseball men discussed Dalkowski's and his blazing fastball.) There have been many great pitchers who did not throw hard (baseballs Hall of Fame's Hoyt Wilhelm, the Perry brothers, Whitey Ford). And as one might suspect there have been, are and will continue to be many more unsuccessful pitchers who did/do/will not throw hard.

So the ability to throw hard is not necessarily a requirement for developing successful pitching skill. But it is generally believed an accepted, that all other things being equal, and the important statement here is 'all other things being equal', that the ABILITY to throw a baseball hard predisposes a pitcher to potentially greater success at developing the skill of pitching.

How many understand the rationale-reasoning behind this?

It is not that hard throwers are more difficult to hit. Rather it is that the harder a pitcher throws, the more mistakes he can get away with.


The use of weighted baseballs ranks right up there with the controversy over who shot JFK. Most of the controversy is based on ignorance and opinion. These anti-weighted baseball feelings are fueled by 'medical rationale' and logic. What I would call a 'rehab' versus 'prehab' mentality. Many of those who oppose weighted baseball training do so based upon their common sense. Common sense which says to them throwing something heavier than a regulation baseball exposes the player to greater risk of injury because it creates greater stress on the arm and body. Which is exactly opposite as to the common sense I had 40 years ago when I believed that throwing something heavier would better prepare me to throw something lighter.

To sort out which common sense makes sense requires and understanding of training physiology i.e. how the body responds to stress. This is embodied in the first principle of training and I quote from Nueralmechanical Basis of Kinesiology, 2nd Edition, Roger M. Enoka: "Substantial effort has been focused on determining the nueral mechanical basis of muscle strength. As a result of these efforts, several rules for the prescription of exercise have been elaborated. These rules are often referred to as the principles of training. One such rule is the overload principle (DeLorme, 1946) which may be stated as follows: To increase their size or functional ability, muscle fibers must be taxed toward their present capacity to respond. This principle applies that there is a threshold point that must be exceeded before an adaptive response will occur."

There are at least a dozen research studies on throwing/training with the use heavier and lighter of the baseballs and I quote (ASMI): Seven overweight and four underweight training studies (6 - 12 weeks in duration) were conducted to determine how throwing velocity of regulation baseballs was affected due to training with these overweight and underweight baseballs. The overweight baseballs ranged in weight between 5.25-17 oz, while the underweight baseballs were between 4-4.75 oz. Data from these training studies strongly support the practice of training with overweight and underweight baseballs to increase throwing velocity of regulation baseballs.

It is also important to note that none of the studies report any incidence of injury. The studies involved at least 500 to 600 players primarily aged high school and older. Anecdotally there are many success stories associated with throwing objects heavier than a 5 oz. baseball. The following quote is from an article by Pat Jordan, September 14, 2003 issue of the New York Times Magazine entitled The Hardest Stuff quoting Billy Wagner: "There's no way I should throw a baseball 100 m.p.h.," he said. "I'm small. I see guys 6-foot-8 throwing 88. There's nothing I did to get it. Maybe throw a football a lot. I have the short, quick arm motion of a quarterback. Some say it's in my legs, or my wrist. But I don't know why."

A football weighs 15 oz., three times the weight of a regulation baseball.

"When he was little he grew his strong arm by throwing rocks at chickens." Describing how Satchel Paige developed his arm: Satchel Paige by Lesa Cline-Ransome.

Bottom-line is that a well-designed weighted ball training program improves the ability to throw a baseball. This improved ability to throw many times translates to improving the skill of pitching.


I am not sure why this is even a topic for debate. Contrary to some "experts" who claim long toss is a relatively recent phenomena, attempting to throw baseball as far is you can is a genetic trait. It's called survival instinct otherwise known as competitiveness. Show me someone who doesn't want to try and throw the baseball as far as they possibly can and I will show you someone who has virtually no chance of making it to the higher levels of baseball competition never mind that they will never maximize their baseball throwing capabilities.

There is a very good scientific (as in motor learning and control, motor in this case means how the body learns and acquires movement abilities and skills) rationale for long toss especially with respect to pitchers. Long tossing or throwing as far as you can creates a high level of intent to throw the baseball without the constraints of trying to hit a target 46-60 feet away. In the language of motor control goal formation, i.e. that all volitional body movement is driven by goal achievement and that throwing for distance allows one to maximize their intent to throw hard. Throwing off the mound to a catcher and/or batter does not necessarily achieve the same goal formation. It would be nice if it did but in many instances it does not.

Alan Jaeger and Jim Vatcher of Jaegersports (www.jaegersports.com) are two people who have done the most would long toss (since 1985). Many professional players use their long toss program and here's what they have to say: "Working with Alan the last four years has made my arm very strong, durable and flexible and that's something every pitcher wants and looks forälong toss is definitely the biggest part of my game." -Barry Zito, Pitcher, Oakland Athletics.

"I've seen where Alan has taken a fringe, high school pitcher and turned him into a Division I caliber pitcher. If a kid is serious about baseball, this program will definitely increase his velocity and arm strength." -Dale Sutherland, Scout, Anaheim Angels.

Bottom-line is that a well-designed long toss program improves the ability to throw a baseball. And improving a pitchers ability to throw baseball can improve pitching skill.


Again, I'm also not sure why there's so much controversy regarding flat ground versus mound throwing/training. Much of the controversy is due to attempts by unscientific people attempting to be scientific. The pseudo scientists believe that developing pitchers must rigidly in here to their interpretation of the principle of training specificity. In this case their interpretation is that if you are not throwing off the mound you are violating the specificity of pitching principle. First, there's no such thing as the law of specificity. For those who are not aware of the specificity principle, it can be simply stated as if you want to get good at something you must practice that something. The potential problem with trying to apply the specificity principle is the inability to distinguish between skill and ability development.

One of the best examples of this is demonstrated by the following research study The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 198-203, Baseball Throwing Velocity: A Comparison of Medicine Ball Training and Weight Training, Robert U. Newton and Kerry I. McEvoy Centre for Exercise Science & Sport Management, Southern Cross University, Lismore NSW 2480, Australia, and I quote:

ABSTRACT: This study examined the effect of upper body plyometric training, using medicine balls, and upper body conventional weight training on baseball throwing velocity and strength levels as assessed by a 6-RM bench press. Twenty-four junior development baseball players took part in an 8-week training study in conjunction with their baseball training. They were randomly allocated to one of three groups: a medicine ball training group, a weight training group, and a control group. The first group performed explosive upper body medicine ball throws, the weight training group performed conventional upper body weight training, and the control group only performed their normal baseball training. Pre- and post-training measurements of throwing velocity and 6-RM bench press were recorded. The weight training group produced the greatest increase in throwing velocity and 6-RM strength. The medicine ball group showed no significant increase in throwing velocity but did show a significant increase in strength. For this group of non-strength-trained baseball players, it was more effective to implement a weight training program rather than medicine ball training to increase throwing velocity.

The reason why I consider this such a good example how specificity can be 'over specific' is that medicine ball training is considered by many to be superior to weight training with respect to training pitchers. The specificity people believe that throwing medicine balls is much more specific to pitching than lifting weights. This the same pitching specific rationale you used by those who believe that pitching off a mound is much more specific than throwing off a flat ground. The other issue with respect to flat ground versus mound training is the stress of throwing off flat ground versus the stress of throwing off a mound. The general baseball consensus/mentality is that throwing off a mound is MUCH MORE STRESSFUL on the arm versus flat ground throwing. And in a rehab environment flat ground throwing is considered to be much safer than throwing off a mound.

According to the study, Kinematic And Kinetic Comparison Of Baseball Pitching From A Mound And Throwing From Flat Ground, G.S. Fleisig, R.F. Escamilla, S.W. Barrentine, N. Zheng, J.R. Andrews, American Sports Medicine Institute, Birmingham, AL 35205, the difference in stress on the arm from throwing off the mound versus flat ground is as follows (first number represents defeat from mound mound/second number represents 60 ft. on flat ground)

• Arm cocking phase:
  • Elbow varus torque 54 ± 7/51 ± 8,
  • Shoulder internal rotation torque 55 ± 10 /54 ± 10,
  • Shoulder anterior force 330 ± 40 /340 ± 70
• Arm acceleration phase:
  • Elbow flexion torque 52 ± 7/52 ± 8
• Arm deceleration phase:
  • Elbow compressive force 800 ± 90/780 ± 100,
  • Shoulder compressive force 910 ± 110/890 ± 110,
  • Shoulder posterior force 360 ± 200/350 ± 150
• Instant of ball release:
  • Ball speed (mph) 79 ± 4/76 ± 4

From these numbers we see that there's virtually no difference with between flat ground and mound with respect to stress represented by torque and force on the arm. From a percentage standpoint there is a significantly greater percentage increase in velocity throwing off the mound as compared to the present difference of stress on the arm in other words it appears that can throw with greater velocity with less stress off the mound you can on flat ground. Which makes sense, i.e. the additional dropping distance due to the mound versus flat ground allows more energy to be developed from the falling potential to kinetic energy of the body. Bottom-line, flat ground throwing is neither a significant negative or significant positive with respect to its effect on throwing ability. How and when its used as part of a larger training program, training plan.


The human body is a complex system. Complex systems do not follow or adhere to linear principles. Linear principles are based on a one-to-one correspondence, double your effort you should double your results. Young players will typically show much greater improvement/response to training than older more experienced players. Therefore the type of training needs to be chosen according to the need to develop skill or ability or both.

  Along with this is the simple fact that most children (players) in the United States are in poor physical condition with respect to throwing a baseball. As an example, only 2% of the 18 million school children taking the President's Physical Fitness Test last year were physically fit enough to receive the award. The sometimes religious fervor that is attached to pitch counts and limiting the number of pitchers per unit of time is in my opinion a symptomatic knee-jerk response and does not address the underlying problem i.e. lack of physical conditioning necessary to throw baseball.

  The human body was never designed for throwing an object with an overhand motion, which in itself puts the player at jeopardy every time he throws. Combine this with lack of conditioning and that possibly, just possibly, much of the injury problem associated with today's youth/players is due to under training or should I say inadequate conditioning. And that attempts to limit throwing is actually making players more susceptible to injury.


Much of the fog and controversy that surrounds pitcher training can be attributed to a lack of knowledge and understanding of SKILL DEVELOPMENT versus ABILITY ENHANCEMENT. Presently there is no one magic recipe for maximizing a player's abilities and skills to throw baseball. But there are training techniques and methods that will enhance a player's ability and skill to throw a baseball. Training techniques proven successful in other sports such as track and field.

  We must also take into account that in some (many??) ways today's player is at a greater disadvantage than yesterday's players in spite of all of the so-called "advances" in baseball instruction and training primarily due to the disappearance of playground baseball and the overall decline in general fitness.

   It is also my opinion, an opinion supported by motor learning and physiology that much of today's baseball instruction and training is an attempt TO CATCH UP AND MAKE UP for what used to be, i.e. young kids playing baseball (throwing and swinging) day in and day out. And that most of today's pitching instructional and training information is primarily the opinion of the person selling the instruction. These opinions on pitcher training range from personal professional playing experience to scientific sounding jargon, little of which is supported by any form of rigorous investigation and actual scientific fact.

   All of this makes it virtually impossible for a parent or coach to NOT BECOME INVESTED in a belief system in their attempts to deal with something as complex as training the human body to throw a baseball 100 MPH with movement and pinpoint location. I should know because I was one those parent-coaches.