The Truth About Long Toss
Few topics in baseball development create as much quiet disagreement as long toss. Some coaches swear by it. Some clinicians are wary of it. Many pitchers feel great doing it, then get to the mound and feel… different.
So what are we actually comparing when we talk about long toss versus throwing off the mound?
Is long toss truly “lower stress” on the elbow?
Does perceived effort tell us anything useful?
And how should this influence how we program throwing—for healthy pitchers and those returning from injury?
Let’s unpack what the research actually says, and then talk about how to apply it in the real world.
Why This Question Matters
I’m going to rip the bandaid off and jump right into this.
Throwing is inherently bad for your arm.
We know this from decades of biomechanical research. During pitching, the valgus torque placed on the elbow routinely meets or exceeds the native tensile strength of the ulnar collateral ligament (UCL). If the UCL were the only structure resisting this load, it would fail on nearly every pitch.
Cadaveric and in-vivo studies have repeatedly demonstrated this mismatch between ligament strength and throwing stress. Pitchers are able to throw not because the UCL is “strong enough,” but because valgus load is shared across a system that includes:
Dynamic muscular contributions from the flexor–pronator mass
Joint compression forces at the elbow
Precise neuromuscular timing and coordination
Pitching is, by definition, a controlled tissue overload.
So the goal of training, rehab, and throwing programs is not to make throwing safe.
The goal is to prepare the system to tolerate known, unavoidable stress.
That preparation includes:
Building tissue capacity
Gradually exposing the arm to increasing stress
Managing how that stress is distributed across a week, month, and season
With that framework in mind, the discussion around long toss versus mound work becomes far more productive.
What the Research Has Looked At
Two biomechanical studies are particularly useful when discussing this topic:
A laboratory-based motion analysis study comparing elbow valgus torque during long toss at increasing distances
A study comparing flat-ground throws and mound pitching while also capturing perceived effort
While the methodologies differ, the take-home messages align surprisingly well.
Elbow Valgus Torque: Distance Changes Everything
One consistent finding across studies is this:
As long toss distance increases, elbow valgus torque increases.
At shorter long toss distances (roughly 60–90 feet), elbow torque tends to be lower than mound pitching.
However, once athletes begin throwing at extended distances—commonly reported around 120 feet and beyond—elbow valgus torque often approaches, and in some cases matches, mound-level torque.
This is critical.
Because many throwing programs treat 120 feet as a “moderate” day, when mechanically it may no longer be moderate at all.
Key point:
Long toss is not inherently low-stress. Distance dictates stress.
Velocity vs. Torque: An Important Distinction
One reason this topic gets confusing is that velocity and torque do not scale perfectly together.
Pitching off the mound typically produces higher ball velocity
But long toss—especially at greater distances—often requires:
Greater arm speed variability
Increased trunk extension
Higher release angles
Those mechanical changes can drive elbow torque without the same velocity output.
In other words:
You can place mound-level stress on the elbow without throwing mound-level velocity.
This matters when athletes say things like:
“It didn’t feel that hard.”
Which brings us to perceived effort.
Perceived Effort: The Trap We Fall Into
One of the more clinically relevant findings from the research is the mismatch between perceived effort and measured elbow torque.
At distances around 120 feet, athletes frequently report:
Moderate perceived effort
Sub-maximal intent
Yet biomechanical analysis shows elbow valgus torque that is comparable to pitching.
This disconnect is dangerous if we rely too heavily on RPE alone to guide throwing volume.
Why does this happen?
Several reasons:
Long toss often feels rhythmic and relaxed
The athlete is not throwing “through” a strike zone
There is less psychological pressure compared to the mound
But tissues don’t respond to psychology—they respond to load.
The Mound Isn’t the Villain
Another important takeaway from the literature is that pitching off the mound is not uniquely harmful.
Yes, mound pitching produces high elbow torque—but it is also:
More mechanically consistent
More repeatable
More specific to the task
Long toss introduces variability in:
Arm slot
Trunk position
Timing
Variability isn’t bad—but it does change stress distribution. That can be useful in healthy arms and problematic in recovering ones.
Clinical and Programming Implications
This is where evidence meets decision-making. But before we talk about how to program throwing, we need to clear up a common misconception.
More Throwing Does Not Build Arm Strength
Throwing more—whether by increasing distance, volume, or frequency—does not make the arm stronger.
It makes the arm more fatigued.
Throwing is not a strength exercise in the traditional sense. The loads involved are extremely high, the velocities are extreme, and the recovery demands are significant. From a tissue standpoint, throwing is a stress exposure, not a strength stimulus.
This matters because fatigue changes everything:
Mechanics drift
Motor control degrades
Passive structures take on a greater share of load
If simply throwing more made the arm stronger, we would have pitchers throw off the mound every day.
We don’t—because we intuitively understand that mound pitching is too stressful to be performed daily without consequence.
Here’s the key connection:
If long toss—particularly at extended distances—can produce elbow valgus torque comparable to throwing off the mound, then it deserves the same respect.
That means:
It should not be performed at high distances every day
It should not be treated as automatic recovery work
It should be dosed intentionally within the week
Strength for throwing athletes is built off the field—in the weight room, through targeted tissue loading, and through gradual exposure strategies—not by endlessly accumulating throws.
Throwing prepares you to throw.
It does not make you strong enough to tolerate unlimited throwing.
What This Means for Rehab and Performance
For healthy pitchers, long toss can be an excellent tool for:
Building arm capacity and opening up ROM, especially mid off-season and prior to mound work
Encouraging natural movement variability
Developing confidence
For pitchers returning from injury, long toss must be:
Intentional
Measured
Contextualized within the week
The biggest mistake isn’t using long toss.
The biggest mistake is using it casually.
Final Thoughts
1. Stop Labeling Long Toss as “Recovery” by Default
Long toss beyond ~90 feet should not automatically be considered a recovery or light day.
If an athlete is throwing at or beyond 120 feet:
Treat it as a stress exposure
Manage volume accordingly
2. Distance Is a Progression Variable
Distance should be progressed just like:
Volume
Intensity
Frequency
Not jumped arbitrarily because the athlete “felt good.”
3. RPE Is Useful—but Incomplete
Perceived effort is valuable, but it should be interpreted alongside:
Distance
Number of throws
Recent mound exposure
Low perceived effort does not guarantee low elbow stress.
4. Match the Tool to the Goal
Early return-to-throwing phases: shorter distances, controlled intent
Mid-phase buildup: gradual distance increases with strict volume control
Late-phase preparation: mound work for specificity, long toss used strategically—not reflexively
The research doesn’t tell us to abandon long toss. It tells us to stop oversimplifying it. Long toss is not automatically safe. The mound is not automatically dangerous.
Stress is stress—regardless of where it comes from.
When we respect distance, volume, and context, long toss becomes a powerful tool instead of a blind habit.
And that distinction is what separates intentional development from accidental overload.
