Limitless

I think throwing is the only skill in ultimate that is infinitely improvable.  There are infinite ways to get the disc from point A to point B.  As a thrower, you are only limited by your imagination and your technique.  You can do anything.  No rules.

As with many infinite subsets, there are some important parameters.  If you are stationary, you must have a pivot, as the rules state.  There are environmental concerns (wind, rain).  The defense is trying to stop you and limit you to options you are less comfortable with.  Your receiver has to be able to see the disc and catch it.  Maybe your offense is geared around specific kinds of throws.  You have a time constraint (the stall).

Technique

Then you have parameters based on your own body.  As with most physical skills, I think this comes back to patterns.  Patterns will generally dictate how you are able to move and control your body with consistency and precision.  I think throws are no exception to pattern theory.  In order to be comfortable with a throw, a player has to spend time practicing/grooving that pattern.  An example of a single pattern might be "flick released from waist height with a flat flight path and a 30% lateral step out to a target 20 yards away".  Another example of a single pattern might be "backhand released from below R knee with a OI flight path and a quick 100% lateral step out to a target 15 yards away".  I think a player can work on any virtually any pattern they can imagine.  Patterns can also be broken into component patterns, isolated, and practiced.  I think there is often overlap and carryover between sufficiently similar patterns.  Obviously the usefulness of a pattern to a players game should be considered as well.

I think that young players watching Nethercutt throw lefty scoobers in his Callahan video get excited without realizing that he has probably spent more time grooving that pattern than they have on their own dominant hand backhands.  No throw is inherently bad.  It's badness depends entirely on the thrower.  The question that has to be answered is "do you have that throw?" or "are you comfortable with that pattern?".  Can you complete lefty scoobers at a same consistency or better than your backhand?

Imagination

I think another parameter is your ability to see opportunities on the field.  People usually call this "field vision".  I think grooving different patterns can unlock different spots on the field for you as a thrower.  As patterns get added to the toolbox, the picture gets sharper and the lanes become more clear.  Where you can put the disc, how you want your receiver to catch it, how you can use the wind and avoid the defense, etc.  Seeing opportunities feels like the obvious first step towards exploiting them.

Obviously I'm leaving a lot out on field vision.  I think one piece that complicates field vision for throwers is that the pace of the game (and range of defenders) increases as throwers improve.  So how the field is interpreted should grow dynamically as players move to higher levels of play.

-----

Throwing is the nature of the game.  I think strategy in general is mostly built on how the disc can be thrown and received.  If I spent all season coaching Bolt to run an ambidextrous scoober-based offense, we'd walk all over other dev teams by April.  How players set up, cut, defend, where they look, what they expect in virtually every aspect of the game is meshed tightly with an estimation of usable throws.

Why even bother teaching flicks and backhands?  Well, the disc is most stable right side up.  This matters in the wind.  Grip change between flick and backhand is minimal and can occur quickly.  Bio-mechanically, backhands are easy to throw far and with touch.  And of course the status quo: all modern offenses are based on them.  So in order to be successful, foundational pattern development of flick and backhand is vital.

I think college ultimate is dominated by throwers.  Obviously having athletes matters at the national level, but having dominant throwers matters more, in my opinion.  Maybe this is confirmation bias talking, but recent college national champ winners would largely support this argument I think.  Maybe the questions that matter for a college team are: "Across the roster, what level of throwing ability does your team have?" and "How do your best throwers make your team dangerous?".

-----

More reading on throwing:
Adam
Matt
Carol
808
KB