No Products in the Cart
Velocity-focused training (“velo phase”) has become a core element of modern pitcher development. However, rapid increases in throwing intensity and the widespread use of weighted balls have raised legitimate concerns about elbow and shoulder injury risk. Prospective and cross-sectional studies demonstrate that while velocity-oriented programs can produce meaningful fastball gains, they also alter shoulder range of motion, increase elbow varus torque, and are associated with higher rates of throwing-related injury when workloads are not controlled. (PMC)
This article synthesizes current literature on workload, tissue stress, and implement training to outline:
Key risk mechanisms during velocity phases
Athlete preparation strategies to reduce injury risk
Workload-balancing principles within the training cycle
Implementation techniques that have empirical support
The goal is a pragmatic, medical-grade framework that coaches, strength staff, and clinicians can use to make velo work safer and more effective.
Increased pitch velocity correlates with increased elbow varus torque, which elevates stress on the ulnar collateral ligament (UCL). (PMC)
High-level pitchers also experience substantial loads on the latissimus dorsi and teres major during late cocking/acceleration; these muscles are now recognized as important generators and controllers of high-velocity throwing and a growing site of injury in professional pitchers. (PMC)
In other words, anything that meaningfully increases ball velocity (pitch design, plyos, weighted balls, intent days) is also increasing joint torque and soft-tissue demand. Period.
Several key studies:
Cross-sectional data in U.S. high-school pitchers show that 63% reported using a weighted-ball program; users had significantly higher average and peak fastball velocity than non-users. (ScienceDirect)
Professional pitchers also increasingly use weighted-ball training; early data suggest possible associations with altered shoulder ROM and injury risk, but definitive causal conclusions remain limited. (ijspt.scholasticahq.com)
Athletes themselves perceive weighted balls as both effective and risky; survey data highlight notable concern about medial elbow and shoulder injury. (Henry Ford Health Scholarly Commons)
Key takeaway: Weighted-ball programs work for velocity, but they can amplify tissue stress. They are not inherently “bad,” but they are unforgiving if applied to under-prepared athletes or poorly managed workloads.
In youth pitchers, throwing >75 pitches in a game or >400 pitches in a season significantly increases odds of shoulder and elbow pain/injury (odds ratios ~1.6–2.8). (PMC)
High acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR) is associated with upper-extremity injury in collegiate pitchers; an ACWR ≥1.27 over a 7-day vs. 28-day period has been linked with higher injury incidence. (International Journal of Sports Therapy)
A 2024 workload model in high-school pitchers showed that higher pitch velocity, higher throwing intensity, and older age were independent risk factors for pitching-related injury. (SAGE Journals)
The velo phase typically combines sudden workload spikes with higher intensity and sometimes new implements—a perfect recipe for ACWR overshoot if not carefully controlled.
You reduce risk before the first high-intent day. Think of this as prerequisite criteria.
Evidence consistently links abnormal shoulder ROM—particularly loss of internal rotation or total arc—with throwing-related symptoms. (Physiopedia)
Before a velocity phase, pitchers should demonstrate:
Glenohumeral ROM
Symmetric or near-symmetric total arc (ER + IR) compared with the non-throwing arm
Manageable levels of glenohumeral internal rotation deficit (GIRD) with no concurrent loss of total arc
Scapular and thoracic mobility
Adequate upward rotation, posterior tilt, and external rotation of the scapula
Thoracic extension and rotation sufficient to avoid compensatory lumbar extension or early trunk rotation
Hip and trunk capacity
Hip internal rotation and extension adequate to allow normal stride length and pelvic rotation
Trunk rotation mobility without painful constraints
Deficits at any of these levels increase proximal-distal load transfer to the shoulder and elbow, especially at high intent.
Kline et al.’s 2025 review emphasizes modifiable risk factors such as rotator cuff and scapular strength, fatigue resistance, and prior injury. (ScienceDirect)
Programming priorities before velo work:
Rotator cuff: eccentric ER/IR strength in 90° abduction; high-rep low-load endurance work plus moderate-to-heavy loading in mid-ranges.
Scapular stabilizers: lower trapezius, serratus anterior, rhomboids; closed-chain and open-chain loading.
Posterior shoulder / decelerators: eccentric horizontal abduction and extension (e.g., reverse throws, manual eccentrics).
Latissimus/teres major: progressive loaded shoulder extension and adduction combined with trunk rotation to build tolerance in positions similar to late cocking/acceleration. (PMC)
Global strength / power: posterior chain (hip hinge patterns), vertical and rotational power (jumps, med-ball throws) to reduce reliance on distal segments.
Several baseball-specific workload studies suggest that the risk profile improves when athletes accumulate sufficient chronic throwing load before high-intensity phases, and avoid large acute spikes. (PMC)
Practical criteria before starting a velo phase:
At least 4–6 weeks of progressive throwing volume (submaximal)
Stable ACWR between 0.8–1.2 for at least 2–3 weeks—i.e., the current weekly workload is roughly similar to the preceding month’s average
No unresolved shoulder/elbow pain; no worsening trend in subjective arm health scores
Mehta et al. (2021) reported a significant relationship between higher chronic load, poorer subjective arm health, and increased throwing-related injury in high-school pitchers. (PMC)
Use a brief daily or session-based questionnaire:
Pain (0–10) at rest, during warm-up, at max intent
Perceived soreness/stiffness the morning after throwing
Perceived recovery (well-recovered vs. fatigued)
Declining subjective arm health is an early warning sign that should trigger load adjustment, even if objective workload metrics look “acceptable.”
Common practical metrics:
External load:
Total throws per day/week
High-intensity throws (≥90–95% intent, including plyo throws)
Pitches in bullpens/live ABs by intensity band
Internal load:
Session RPE × duration
Heart-rate-based metrics (if available)
The acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR) compares the last 9 days (“acute”) to the last 28 days (“chronic”). In multiple sports, ACWR >1.3–1.5 is associated with heightened injury risk, whereas <0.8 indicates under-training and decreased readiness. (Kinetic Sports Medicine and Performance)
Based on available baseball data and broader workload literature:
Aim to keep ACWR for total throws and high-intensity throws between 0.8–1.3. (International Journal of Sports Therapy)
Avoid weekly increases >20% in total or high-intent volume. (Kinetic Sports Medicine and Performance)
If velocity work requires an unavoidable increase in intensity, compensate by controlling total volume (fewer total throws, tighter intent windows).
In high-school pitchers, higher velocity and intensity were independent risk factors for injury, reinforcing the need to offset intensity gains with volume discipline. (SAGE Journals)
For a pitcher with an established chronic base:
2 “true velo” days/week
Low-to-moderate volume of high-intent throws (e.g., 20–30 high-intent throws within a ~60–80 total-throw session)
1–2 submaximal constraint-driven days
50–85% intent, mechanical constraints, plyo drills, patterning
2–3 low-intensity catch play / recovery days
~50% intent, short to moderate distance
1 complete off or very light day
Across the week, total throws and high-intent exposure should be calculated and compared to the previous four weeks to avoid ACWR spikes.
Classic and modern implement-weight research:
DeRenne et al. (1994) showed that training with slightly over- and underweighted baseballs (e.g., ~4–7 oz) improved pitching velocity compared to standard-only programs. (Lippincott Journals)
Erickson et al. (2020) reported that a 15-week program emphasizing lighter baseballs significantly increased velocity without reported injuries in a cohort of pitchers. (SAGE Journals)
Clinical implication:
Favor modest implement variation (especially underload or slightly over-weight) over extreme overload. Use heavy balls appropriately, at controlled volumes or intensities and only in well-prepared athletes who have passed ROM/strength/workload screens.
If weighted balls are included in the velo phase:
Athlete selection
No current pain, normal or near-normal total shoulder ROM, no significant GIRD, adequate cuff and scapular strength. (Physiopedia)
Load parameters
Start young pitchers with implements near regulation before progressing to heavier balls. (Lippincott Journals)
Limit heavy overload throws (e.g., ≥7 oz) to a small fraction of total session volume with controlled intensities.
Integrate underload throws with caution and only on high intent days to emphasize arm speed without additional joint torque and appropriate recovery cycles.
Progression
Build from low-intent patterning with implements → moderate intent → limited sets at >90–95% intent.
Monitor ACWR over the course of the entire on ramp and build and hit certain workload units before progressing.
Red-flag criteria
When these appear, reduce load immediately and consider medical evaluation.
A 2024 interval throwing program for pitchers was developed explicitly using workload data and ACWR principles. It structured progressive throwing days, monitored 9-day and 28-day workloads, and adjusted progressions when ACWR exceeded recognized risk thresholds. (International Journal of Sports Therapy)
Practical translation for a velo phase:
Use incremental ramping of distance, volume, and intensity (not all three at once).
Advance only when:
ACWR is within target range
Subjective arm health is stable
No increase in post-session pain or next-day soreness beyond baseline
Kline et al. emphasize a multifactorial approach: manage external load, optimize strength/ROM, account for injury history, and monitor fatigue. (ScienceDirect)
Practical elements during velo blocks:
Maintain 2–3 upper-body strength sessions/week, prioritizing scapular/cuff endurance and posterior-chain strength but avoiding extreme fatigue within 24 hours of a velo day.
Include daily low-dose arm-care (ER/IR at 0° and 90°, scapular control, soft-tissue work) rather than only on “recovery days.”
Maintain lower-body and trunk power training, but taper volume slightly on weeks where high-intent throwing load increases, to keep total systemic stress manageable.
This outline assumes an adequately prepared collegiate/advanced high-school pitcher with a stable throwing base.
High-intent days (2/week)
10–15 high-intent throws (90–95%) within ~50–70 total throws
Mostly regulation and underload balls (e.g., 4–5 oz); very limited heavier balls (if at all)
Constraint days (1–2/week)
70–85% intent, focus on mechanics and movement constraints (driveline-style a constraint led approach with plyos, figure 8’s, step-behinds, etc.)
Recovery / low-intensity catch days (2–3/week)
ACWR target: 0.8–1.1 (slightly above base, no large jumps)
High-intent days (2–3/week)
15–25 high-intent throws within ~70–90 total
Limited use of moderate overload (e.g., 6–7 oz), still heavy emphasis on underload and regulation
Live or simulated ABs once weekly at controlled pitch counts
ACWR target: ≤1.2–1.25 for total throws and high-intent throws
High-intent mound days (2/week)
20–30 game-like high-intent pitches each (e.g., 3–4 short “competition” innings)
1 submaximal pattern day, 1–2 low-intensity recovery days
Implement use: primarily regulation and underload; heavy implements minimized or removed as game specificity increases.
ACWR target: maintain ≤1.3; if weekly load or subjective arm health trends worsen, de-load for 5–7 days. (International Journal of Sports Therapy)
Throughout all 6 weeks:
Daily subjective arm health check
Weekly ROM screens (especially ER/IR and total arc)
Immediate modification or pause if new elbow pain, posterior shoulder pain, or rapid ROM change arises.
A velo phase is not inherently dangerous—but it is inherently high-demand. The literature suggests:
Velocity-oriented and weighted-ball programs can reliably increase fastball velocity. (PMC)
These same interventions increase joint torque, alter shoulder ROM, and, when layered on top of poorly controlled workloads, are associated with elevated injury risk. (PMC)
Modifiable risk factors—ROM, strength, chronic workload, fatigue, and subjective arm health—can be addressed systematically to make a velo phase safer. (PMC)
The most effective velo phases are built like good rehabilitation progressions: screen first, build a base, progress load systematically, and monitor response obsessively. When those principles are respected, velocity gains and durability are not mutually exclusive outcomes—they are two sides of the same training process.
Players - looking for this type of approach in your training? Train in house or remotely with our team.
Coaches - looking to take this type of intentional process with your players? Join our training network for access to Boost.
premierpitching.com
#DominateTheZone
This article summarizes current literature on workload, tissue stress, and implement training to outline key risk mechanisms during velocity phases, athlete preparation strategies to reduce injury risk, workload-balancing principles within the training cycle and implementation techniques that have empirical support.
In this research article, the PPP team breaks down the role the hamstring plays in the pitching delivery and some issues that could occur if there isn't enough capacity.
Plyo balls are weighted training...
