If you've been around baseball for more than five minutes, you've heard the mantra: throw harder. Velocity is king. Every mile per hour you add to your fastball opens doors, improves your draft stock, and gives you margin for error when your command isn't sharp. It's gospel in player development, and it makes intuitive sense. The harder you throw, the less time hitters have to react, right?

But here's the uncomfortable question that's been sitting in the corner of the room for years: what if we've been optimizing for the wrong thing? What if velocity, for all its glory and all its measurability and all its attention in recruiting and scouting, is actually less important than the thing we've been treating as secondary? What if accuracy matters more?

A recent study published in The Sport Journal in 2025 tried to answer exactly that question. The researchers analyzed over 1,000 Major League Baseball at-bats from 17 randomly selected games during a single season, and what they found should make every velocity-obsessed coach, scout, and athlete take a step back and reconsider what actually predicts success on the mound.

The headline finding is this: pitchers who hit their intended target were 3.28 times more likely to produce a successful outcome in that at-bat, regardless of how hard they were throwing, what pitch type they used, or where the pitch was located. Accurate pitches reduced batter success by over 50%. Batting average and slugging percentage both dropped significantly when pitchers executed to their target. And perhaps most importantly, pitch velocity wasn't significantly associated with preventing hits. In fact, throwing harder was associated with lower accuracy.

To be honest, this reminds me of the old debate in strength training about whether you should focus on absolute strength or power. Everyone wants to talk about how much you can lift or how high you can jump, but if you can't express that strength in the specific context of your sport, it doesn't matter. Velocity without accuracy is a lot like raw strength without coordination. It's impressive in isolation, but it's not optimized for the task at hand.

Let's dig into what this study actually found, why it matters, and how we can apply it without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

What the Study Found

The researchers set out to determine whether pitch accuracy, independent of velocity or pitch type, predicted success in Major League Baseball. They reviewed video footage from 17 games and coded each at-bat for whether the final pitch hit the catcher's intended target. A pitch was considered "accurate" if it landed within six inches of where the catcher set up. Then they tracked the outcome of each at-bat and correlated accuracy with things like batting average, slugging percentage, and overall pitcher success.

The results were striking. When pitchers hit their spot, batters struggled. Batting average dropped, slugging percentage dropped, and the likelihood of the pitcher recording an out or otherwise succeeding in that at-bat increased by 3.28 times. This held true across different pitch types, different locations in the strike zone, and different levels of velocity. The effect of accuracy was consistent and powerful.

Now, here's where things get interesting. When the researchers looked at pitch velocity, they didn't find a significant relationship between throwing harder and preventing hits. That doesn't mean velocity is useless (we'll get to that in a minute), but it does mean that in this dataset, accuracy was the stronger predictor of success. And when they dug deeper, they found something even more revealing: pitchers who threw harder were actually less accurate. Pitch velocity explained 21.5% of the variance in accuracy, and the relationship was inverse. More speed, less precision.

The study also broke down accuracy by pitch type. Sliders were the most accurate pitch, followed by changeups, curveballs, and then fastballs. The fastball, the pitch that gets the most attention in player development and the pitch that scouts obsess over, had the lowest location accuracy of any pitch type. Fastballs were harder to command, and when they missed their target, they were less effective.

Location within the strike zone also mattered. High-in and high-middle pitches had the best accuracy rates, while low pitches tended to miss their target more often. This could reflect a combination of factors (pitchers struggling with release point consistency on lower pitches, or catchers having a harder time receiving low pitches without movement), but the takeaway is clear: not all parts of the zone are equally easy to command.

The researchers also found that when they controlled for accuracy, traditional variables like pitch type, pitcher handedness, and batter handedness had minimal effect on outcomes. In other words, once you account for whether the pitcher hit his spot, the other stuff matters a lot less. A well-located fastball from a right-hander to a right-handed batter was just as effective as any other combination, as long as it went where it was supposed to go.

So that's the core finding: accuracy predicts success better than velocity, pitch type, or matchup variables. If you execute to your target, you win. If you don't, you're vulnerable, no matter how hard you're throwing.

Now, before we run off and declare that velocity doesn't matter and everyone should just focus on painting corners at 85 mph, we need to talk about the limitations of this study, because they're significant.

First, pitch accuracy was determined by subjective video review, not by precise tracking systems like Trackman, Rapsodo, or Hawkeye. The coders watched video and decided whether the pitch landed within six inches of the catcher's glove. Six inches is a huge margin in the context of elite pitching. A pitch that's six inches off target can be the difference between a called strike on the corner and a ball off the plate, or the difference between a weak contact grounder and a line drive. Using such a wide definition of "accurate" almost certainly understates the true importance of precision. If anything, this study is giving us a conservative estimate of how much accuracy matters.

Second, the researchers only analyzed the final pitch of each at-bat. They didn't account for pitch sequencing, deception, or how setup pitches influence hitter decision-making. A fastball that misses its spot on pitch three might still be effective if it sets up an offspeed pitch on pitch four. Or a slider that hits its spot might be less effective if the hitter was sitting on it because of what came before. By looking only at the final pitch, the study is missing a huge part of what makes pitching effective at the MLB level.

Third, the study didn't measure spin rate, horizontal or vertical break, or induced vertical movement. These are all variables that we know influence pitch effectiveness and deception. A fastball that "misses" its target by riding higher than expected might actually be more effective than one that hits the target but sits flat in the zone. Without measuring these characteristics, we can't fully separate command from stuff quality.

Fourth, the study excluded batter tendencies, count leverage, fatigue, and in-game context. A pitcher who misses his spot on a 3-0 count with a runner on third is in a much more vulnerable position than a pitcher who misses on an 0-2 count with the bases empty. Similarly, a hitter who's been struggling all game might not capitalize on a mistake pitch the same way a locked-in hitter would. By not accounting for these factors, the study is painting an incomplete picture of what drives outcomes.

And fifth, the sample was limited to 17 randomly selected games from one season. That's a decent sample size for an observational study, but it's not comprehensive enough to capture the full range of pitcher profiles, hitter profiles, or game situations that occur across an MLB season. It's possible that the findings would look different if we expanded the sample to include more games, different teams, or different eras of play.

So yes, the study has limitations. The methodology is imperfect, the measurement tools are crude compared to what's available now, and the scope is narrow. But even with all those caveats, the core finding holds up: accuracy matters. A lot. More than we've been giving it credit for.

Why This Information Is Important

Okay, so accuracy predicts success better than velocity in this dataset. Why does that matter? What does that mean for how we think about player development, scouting, and training?

The first thing it means is that we've probably been overindexing on velocity as the primary marker of pitching talent. Don't get me wrong, velocity is important. It absolutely creates margin for error, it reduces reaction time for hitters, and it opens doors in scouting and recruiting. A pitcher who throws 95 with mediocre command is going to get more opportunities than a pitcher who throws 85 with elite command, at least initially. That's just the reality of how the game is evaluated.

But once you're in the door, once you're competing at a high level, execution becomes the separator. The pitcher who can consistently hit his spots is going to outperform the pitcher who can't, even if the second guy has more raw velocity. And if we're being honest, we've seen this play out over and over again in real life. Greg Maddux didn't throw hard, but he was one of the most dominant pitchers of all time because his command was absurd. Kyle Hendricks isn't lighting up radar guns, but he's been one of the most effective pitchers in baseball for years because he executes. On the flip side, we've all seen flame-throwers who can't find the zone and end up washing out because they can't control their stuff.

The second thing this study tells us is that the velocity-first development model might be leaving gains on the table. If accuracy is the stronger predictor of success, but we're spending most of our development time and energy chasing velocity gains, we're not optimizing for the outcome we actually care about. And if throwing harder actively makes it harder to command the ball (which this study suggests it does), then we might be creating a tradeoff that hurts pitchers in the long run.

Now, to be clear, I'm not saying we should stop training for velocity. Velocity is a foundational quality that makes everything else more effective. A 95 mph fastball with good command is more dangerous than an 85 mph fastball with good command, all else being equal. But the key phrase there is "all else being equal." If chasing velocity comes at the cost of command, if it disrupts mechanics in ways that make it harder to repeat your delivery, if it leads to overthrowing and loss of feel for secondary pitches, then we're not actually improving the pitcher. We're just making him throw harder in ways that don't translate to better outcomes.

The third takeaway from this study is that pitch type selection and development might need to be reconsidered. The fastball had the lowest accuracy of any pitch type in this study. Sliders, on the other hand, were more accurate and more effective. That doesn't mean every pitcher should ditch their fastball and become a slider-heavy guy, but it does suggest that we should be paying more attention to which pitches a given athlete can actually command, rather than forcing everyone into a four-seam-heavy pitch mix just because that's the conventional wisdom.

If a pitcher has elite slider command but struggles to locate his fastball consistently, maybe the development plan should focus on maximizing the slider and using the fastball as a setup pitch, rather than the other way around. That's not how most organizations think about pitch development, but maybe it should be.

And finally, this study highlights a measurement problem. We've gotten really good at measuring velocity. Every pitcher knows exactly how hard they throw, and they can track changes in velocity across outings, across seasons, and across different pitch types. But we haven't been as good at measuring accuracy in a way that's accessible, actionable, and repeatable. Subjective video review within six inches of the target is a start, but it's not good enough. If accuracy is as important as this study suggests, we need better tools to measure it, track it, and train it.

That brings us to the application section, where we can talk about how to actually use this information in ways that make pitchers better.

How Can This Information Be Applied

The key insight from this study is that accuracy training should be a priority in athlete development, not an afterthought. And the good news is that we now have tools that can measure location precision far more accurately than the subjective video review method used in this research. Technologies like Trackman, Rapsodo, and Hawkeye provide real-time feedback on where every pitch lands, down to the inch. These systems can track whether a pitcher is consistently hitting their target, where their misses tend to go, and how different mechanical cues or training interventions influence command.

If you have access to these tools, use them. Make accuracy a measurable, trackable outcome in your training. Set targets for location precision (for example, percentage of pitches within three inches of the intended target), and monitor progress over time just like you would with velocity. Create drills that reward hitting spots, not just throwing hard. Integrate command-focused work into every throwing session, rather than treating it as something you work on separately.

For pitchers who don't have access to high-tech tracking systems, there are still ways to train accuracy. Use colored targets on a net or wall, and track how often you hit them across different pitch types and arm angles. Film your bullpen sessions from behind the catcher, and review where your pitches are landing relative to the target. Have your catcher give you immediate feedback on whether you hit the spot, and keep a running log of your accuracy rate. It's not as precise as Trackman, but it's better than nothing, and it keeps accuracy front of mind during training.

Now, here's the critical nuance that this study doesn't fully capture but that we need to be honest about: velocity still matters. There's a threshold of velocity that must be achieved for accuracy to be effective at competitive levels. A pitcher who throws 75 mph with perfect command is still vulnerable at the college or professional level because hitters have more time to react and adjust. Even if the pitch is exactly where it's supposed to be, if it's not moving fast enough or if it doesn't have enough life, good hitters will still make solid contact.

So the goal isn't to choose between velocity and accuracy. The goal is to develop both in tandem, without sacrificing one for the other. Velocity creates the margin for error that makes elite command truly dangerous. It reduces reaction time, it increases the perceived speed differential between pitches, and it forces hitters to commit earlier. Accuracy, on the other hand, maximizes the effectiveness of that velocity by placing pitches in locations where they're hardest to hit, even when hitters know they're coming.

The practical application, then, is this: use technology to make accuracy measurable and trainable, prioritize command development throughout the training process, but recognize that velocity remains the foundation that makes elite command truly effective. Build velocity first, then layer in command work as the athlete's mechanics stabilize and their ability to repeat their delivery improves. And critically, don't chase velocity in ways that blow up mechanics and make it impossible to throw strikes. There's a balance to be struck, and the pitchers who figure out how to walk that line are the ones who succeed long-term.

One more thing worth mentioning: this study found that sliders were more accurate than fastballs, and that high-in and high-middle pitches had the best accuracy rates. If you're working with a pitcher who struggles with fastball command, consider whether developing a secondary pitch with better feel (like a slider or changeup) might actually be the path forward. And if you're working on fastball location, pay attention to which parts of the zone the athlete can consistently hit. If someone has great feel for elevated fastballs but struggles to locate down in the zone, lean into what they do well rather than forcing them to master something they struggle with.

The idea is to build around strengths, not to force every pitcher into the same mold. Command is individual, and what works for one athlete might not work for another. The tools we have now (Trackman, Rapsodo, etc.) give us the ability to identify those individual patterns and tailor training accordingly, rather than applying one-size-fits-all command drills that may or may not address the specific issue.

Conclusion

The question of whether velocity makes up for missing your spot has been lurking in the background of player development for years, and this study gives us a pretty clear answer: no, it doesn't. At least not at the Major League level, where even elite hitters struggle when pitchers execute to their target, regardless of how hard the ball is traveling.

Accuracy is a more powerful predictor of pitching success than velocity, pitch type, or matchup variables. Pitchers who hit their spot are 3.28 times more likely to produce a successful outcome than pitchers who don't, and that advantage holds across different pitch types, different locations, and different game situations. Meanwhile, throwing harder doesn't significantly reduce the likelihood of giving up a hit, and in fact, higher velocity is associated with lower accuracy, creating a tradeoff that many pitchers and coaches haven't fully reckoned with.

Now, does this mean we should stop caring about velocity? Absolutely not. Velocity is still foundational. It creates margin for error, it reduces reaction time, and it opens doors in scouting and recruiting. But velocity without command is incomplete. A pitcher who throws 95 and misses his spots is less effective than a pitcher who throws 92 and executes. And if we're being honest, we've probably been overinvesting in velocity development at the expense of command work, because velocity is easier to measure, easier to market, and more immediately impressive.

The path forward is to integrate accuracy training into every phase of development, to use modern tracking technology to make command measurable and actionable, and to recognize that the best pitchers aren't the ones who throw the hardest. They're the ones who can consistently execute to their target while maintaining enough velocity to be dangerous. That's the balance we should be striving for, and studies like this one are helping us understand what that balance actually looks like.

The caveats are real. The study's methodology has limitations, the sample size is small, and the measurement tools were crude. But even with all those limitations, the signal is clear: accuracy matters. A lot. More than we've been giving it credit for. And if we want to develop pitchers who don't just throw hard but who actually get outs, we need to start treating command as a primary outcome, not a secondary skill that you work on after you've built velocity.

So yes, velocity is important. But accuracy might be more important. And the pitchers who figure out how to develop both, without sacrificing one for the other, are the ones who are going to have long, successful careers.

References

Author unknown. Does Velocity Make Up For Missing Your Spot? The Sport Journal. 2025. Analysis of over 1,000 MLB at-bats examining pitch accuracy and outcomes.