Velocity Based Throwing Programs - Are We Measuring Intensity Wrong?

This past week I attended a presentation by Kevin Wilk, Dr. Keith Meister, and Drew Jenk at the American Physical Therapy Association Combined Sections Meeting in Anaheim, CA. They provided an update on UCL surgery techniques, evolving rehab timelines, and what they’re seeing clinically. It was a fantastic 90 minutes highlighted by clinical expertise from a few of the leaders in the sports medicine field.

At the end of the session, they debated how we should prescribe intensity during return-to-throwing programs. Some favored velocity-based prescriptions. Some did not.

That debate is happening everywhere right now and it’s worth talking about.

The Appeal of Velocity-Based Programs

We now live in a world where radar guns are extremely affordable and accessible. Take it a step further and every high school kid seems to have access to a Trackman or Rapsodo device allowing their bullpens to be filmed, tracked, and uploaded immediately, giving them access to hundreds of performance based data points. Showcases post leaderboards and stats to keep driving competition. Velocity is visible, objective, and tied directly to opportunity.

So the logic makes sense: if velocity is measurable and performance-driven, why not use it to prescribe throwing intensity?

Throw at 60% this week.
Progress to 70% next week.
Gradually build back toward max output.

It sounds clean. Controlled. Quantifiable.

But it assumes something that isn’t entirely true.

Velocity Is Output. Torque Is the Cost.

Velocity is the result of a complex sequencing pattern. Elbow torque is one of the prices paid to produce it. They are related — but not interchangeable.

Two athletes can both throw 85 mph. One may produce that velocity with efficient sequencing and refined mechanics, starting from the ground up. Another may have poor sequencing and a lack of body control, relying on arm speed to catch up. The number that shows up on the radar gun is 85 in both cases. If you quantified the amount of stress on the elbow, that number may not be as comparable.

Even within the same athlete, 85 mph can be attained in 2 completely different ways. A smooth, rhythmic 85 on a good day is very different from a fatigued, grind-it-out 85 at the end of a week. Especially during a rehab plan. Perceived effort, mechanical quality, and cumulative workload all influence stress. Velocity alone doesn’t capture that complexity.

When we prescribe “throw 75% velocity today, then 80% next week,” we’re assuming a linear relationship between speed, perceived effort, and ligament stress. That relationship isn’t perfectly linear. The difference between 90% and 95% of 85mph is 4mph. On any given day, that 4mph jump may look more like a 10% increase in effort based on a multitude of factors.

That matters.

The Psychology of Chasing Numbers

There’s another layer to this that isn’t biomechanical — it’s behavioral.

If you tell an athlete to throw at 80% velocity, the radar gun becomes the goal. The number becomes the target. Instead of focusing on movement quality, rhythm, or workload exposure, the athlete starts calibrating effort to hit a metric.

Intent shifts. Mechanics can subtly change. Effort creeps upward to meet expectations.

That’s not inherently bad in a performance setting. But in a rehabilitation setting, chasing numbers too early can change how stress is distributed through the arm. If we give the example of completing a throwing program after Tommy John surgery, we can’t forget that this athlete likely hasn’t hit their peak velocity in ~8-10 months. Putting the expectation on them, or their body, that they must be able to increase their velocity every week can be stress inducing both physically and mentally. 

There will be plateaus in velocity as mechanically efficiency gradually returns. If their perceived effort of 80% intensity on a given day is the same velocity as the 75% intensity that was prescribed the week before, all of the sudden they start to panic and their intent increases to 90% to hit the set velocity for the week. This becomes suboptimal in my opinion.

In rehab, i don’t think our objective with throwing should be performance based. As a clinician who works with high level athletes, do I care about their performance? Of course. But is their performance, i.e. their velocity, my number 1 goal? No. My goal is to build capacity and tissue tolerance to avoid unmanageable workload spikes. Velocity will come as a product of a gradual progression.

Why I Prefer Distance to Guide Intensity

As i’ve written before, I use distance to dictate the level of effort needed to complete a throw. I’ve heard the arguments against this – but if performed properly I do still believe this is the best way to manage intent. 

Distance creates a natural task constraint. If I ask an athlete to throw from 60 feet, the required output is absolutely going to be less than 120 feet. We know that torque on the elbow is absolutely less too, given that these throws are kept on an arc. When distance gradually increases, they instinctively adjust intensity to accomplish the task. The environment regulates effort.

As distance gradually increases, so does stress. The progression becomes exposure-based rather than number-driven. The athlete focuses on completing the throw with good intent and shape, not on manipulating a radar reading.

I want to be clear – I am not anti-radar gun — we have one at Champion that I use during almost every catch play session. But I use it as a ceiling, not a floor. 99% of the time I'm relaying to the athlete that they are throwing too hard. Not that they need to throw harder.

Once the athlete transitions back to the mound and performance becomes the goal, velocity becomes more relevant. But during early and mid-stage return-to-throwing, the primary objective is restoring tolerance to workload. Velocity can re-enter the conversation when chronic workload is high enough.

Performance vs. Capacity

Listen – I know I probably sound like an old man yelling at a cloud. You probably think that I hate the recent spike in performance metrics that these athletes and teams have access to. I want to make it clear that this isn’t true – but I am a rehab professional. My goal is to safely, effectively, and efficiently facilitate return to sport – it isn’t to push the boundaries on performance at the risk of injury. But I get it. Velocity matters in baseball. There’s no denying that.

But rehab is not a velocity-building phase. It’s a capacity-building phase.

The radar gun measures output. It does not measure fatigue, tissue adaptation, mechanical breakdown, or cumulative stress. If we rely on velocity alone to dictate intensity, we risk oversimplifying a system that is far more nuanced.

For me, distance-based progressions with velocity ceilings strike a better balance between restoring arm speed and protecting the elbow.

Eventually, performance demands velocity. But the arm – or whatever this injured tissue is – needs time to adapt. I’ll leave optimizing velocity to pitching coaches.