2 Questions about Hitting

quote:

1 – What is the major reason MLB Scouting Departments test vision?

I think I could it better if I could see, so can they. I know I could find my own golf ball

2 – Where did all these Major League hitters learn how to hit? I understand the value in

I think it is still a process for them too. They learn from all the places where they have played. Everybody looks for an edge still I believe.

I played golf today and hit it real bad. I stopped a friend and he went to the range with me.

I knew I was outside the line at the top but couldn't fix it. He watched me hit three balls and closed my front shoulder down and raised my lead arm and narrowed my stance. Got inside out & Concentrated on " ball on a rope" let the barrel work cues and .....boom.

Instantly a ball that was feeling as heavy a bowling ball started flying 285 effortlessly.

...anybodies mechanics can get off.....its a process...they have good years and not so good years

But where did they learn those mechanics that we study and use for teaching?

Did they all learn from the same person? Or is it possible there are many excellent hitting instructors? If there are many great hitting coaches who are helping these ML hitters that we study... so that we can know more about hitting... Why do we disregard what these same hitting coaches teach?

Or could it be that proper hitting mechanics also include a lot of natural ability? It has to be one or the other because I doubt these hitters got that way by reading the websites.

quote:

Or could it be that proper hitting mechanics also include a lot of natural ability?

Friend that wins AL amateur golf hasn't a clue what he does. Played for Auburn too. He practices a lot but is not really a student of the game in our sense.

I know I have benefited greating at these sites. I would have never been well versed without them . I think I have helped many kids because of others shifting what I thought was right and rethinking and testing. For many of us it is the best resource.

I have attended many clinics but often the talks are 15 minute , grip, stance, stride, swing, follow through, ....very superficial. I would not have seen whats happening at all.

OTOH...I have meet some coaches at ABCA that captivated me with their relavent knowledge. I know they are out there and plenty of them

swingbuster,

I admit... don't think I'll ever completely figure it out, but it's fun to hear what others have to say. I'm kind of old, but can still remember the many things we were taught wrong as a kid. Even seen things change that were once considered the gospel in baseball. Was always bothered by people who would not change their minds despite proven improvements in everything from training to mechanics.

I commend you and others in your search for information. The only thing I'm fairlysure of is whatever is correct now will be improved in the future. It's because there are people like those involved here who keep thinking.

I hope everyone here realizes that what appears perfection now will be improved in the future. So long as there are people who will never accept complete satisfaction in knowledge.

quote:

The only thing I'm fairly sure of is whatever is correct now will be improved in the future.

No doubt...applying the messages will always be function of how one interprets it.

I think there is a better understanding of the WHOLE swing process and it is shared to more people through modern technology.

People might follow Mankin, Epstein, NY-man, Guerry or other's teaching models but in years past( my youth) ; they seemed to operationalize the whole swing off of single cues ...hit down, roll those writs etc and many were wrong and stunted kids development.

The reason all of us come here is to avoid repeating that same mistake.

I am totally results driven...when I use something and see the ball flight( power and direction of power) I am impressed. That is why I gravitate to Guerry at time..results

Saying that vision is critical to hitting is stating the obvious. There was a case in 1984 when the White Sox selected an outfielder from Washington with the second of two first-round picks they had (23rd overall, I think). Gave him $100,000 or so, big money then. Was out of baseball withing a year and a half because he could not hit and had trouble picking up balls in the outfield. The reason - a pretty severe depth perception problem with his eyesight. I watched him take BP in Spring 1985. He couldn't tell how far away the ball was. Tough to hit and play centerfield with that problem.

Hitting has evolved and will continue to do so. Once upon a time it was taught to step in the direction that the ball was pitched to hit it that way. Not too long ago, linear concepts were state-of-the-art. Now, rotational hitting is the standard.

Coaches utilizing digital technology clearly see things that were nearly invisible to the eye only a few years go. Hitters will continue to improve as coaches continue redefining and perfecting the art of hitting.

quote:

Originally posted by swingbuster:
...That is why I gravitate to Guerry at time..results

Really....funny how he won't post any clips of his results. Englishbey destroyed him on eteamz. gJohnson destroyed him on Shawn's site. Of course, ***** destroys him at ******.

Where are the results? Clips please.

Linear

Is that the question many ask you?

Where are the results?

Same BS all the time-- you answer questions with questions-- Change your ID to the Spin Doctor--it will work better

quote:

Spin Doctor

Spinning hitters and cryptic instructions.

PGStaff,

Great questions. Let me throw my two cents in.

1) Eyesight - If I were an MLB team - paying an athlete - I would want to make sure the athlete had the best vision possible. I have no idea why an MLB team would want a player in the game with vision that was not optimal.
I would also be interested in all aspects of the athlete's vision - including but not limited to peripheral vision. (I know this doesnt answer your question - hopefully someone will provide a more specific answer).

2) I think alot of it has to do with great coaching. But natural athletic ability is still the key for me. You cannot teach speed - strength - agility - hand/eye coordination, etc... You can improve those attributes with hard work - but you cannot supply it and you cannot teach it.

I also believe that the more gifted you are athletically - the easier it is to make the adjustments necessary as you move up in the game and/or as you get older.

JMHO.

Its

I totally agree with point one

Point two--in my mind if the player has the talent and tools but good coaching and hard work will purely define and refine his ability

It was something bbscout brought up that got me to thinking. I agree there are some bad coaches at every level including professional. bbscout said he looks for those things that 90% of the time MLB hitters do the same. (or something like that) Linear, Bluedog, swingbuster, and many others including myself utilize video to answer questions.

Then there have been discussions regarding credentials and questions asked about proven results and naming successful hitters who have been taught by those who have expressed strong opinions. (not sure opinion is the right word here)

Guess my point is… If we can watch video of the so called great swings of MLB hitters and use them as ammunition in debating right or wrong technique… Why not simply find out how they developed this technique we all seem to agree on.

Common sense tells us they didn’t all have the same teacher. So could we accurately assume there are many great teachers out there some where. Perhaps we are studying what these great instructors/coaches already know?

Yet when all the arguments start, they always involve people who study these hitters and use them as examples on behalf of their theory. If someone didn’t teach/coach these hitters then it means it’s all about natural ability (highly unlikely). If someone did teach/coach them… Then we could simply claim those people are the true experts on hitting. After all, they must have the knowledge, the ability to teach it, the experience and the credentials/results.

So is anyone really inventing anything or are we simply trying to figure out something that many people already know? And if so... why not just pick the brain of the experts, you know... the old fashion way of learning.

Its.. made another great point. One thing that I find is a measure of a true athlete is the ability to make adjustments. Body awareness is such an important part of learning mechanics. I also believe that vision is a very important and under-exercised aspect. Many schools are doing quite a bit of vision training. I also, and will probably hear from some on this, feel that some hitters have amazing hand eye coordination and the ability to hit the ball well with poor mechanics because they have a great approach to hitting at the plate. Others may have great mechanics and poor hand-eye coordination and vision or a poor approach to hitting. It is the player that can refine and excell in all these areas that we look at and say "That's how it is done!" I am sure that all of the best hitters that we see have all of the above traits and continue to develop them throughout there careers.

quote:

So is anyone really inventing anything or are we simply trying to figure out something that many people already know?

Change last word from "know" to "do".

As far as MLB players and film we can see what they do. We do not know what they "know".

Their books so far have come short of describing it.

swingbuster,

Perhaps I wasn't perfectly clear. The players do... what the teacher knows! Who taught the players how to do? No one?

Is it possible these people who know... can't write books?

PG

or better yet they dont want to

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
...If someone didn’t teach/coach these hitters then it means it’s all about natural ability (highly unlikely)...

Invalid conclusion. IMHO.

Most mlb hitters can not point to a person who taught them. They can point to people who coached them over their lives. Each person helped a little, I suppose. Tid bit here. Tid bit there.

But, the single most determining factor is the players willingness to use trial and error. Try this. Try that. Rule this in. Rule this out. Practice, fail, pick yourself up, practice, get a hit, fail, fail, fail, pick yourself up, t work, soft toss, bp, bp, bp, trial and error over and over and over. Some will have a goal big enough to persist. Some will not.

Some are lucky, in that, for whatever reason, the first time they picked up a bat they were much closer to a mlb swing than the next guy. Why? Who knows. Emulation probably. Maybe just pure luck. But the benefit of that is earlier success, therefore, earlier confidence, therefore, more success, therefore more confidence etc. The guy who didn't swing it as well the first time had less success, less confidence, more failure, less confidence and eventually....quit.

To confuse the issue, those aren't the only two categories. Throw in the "athlete" who's technique sucked but still hit because of his athleticism. He had success to a certain point, then fails, and cannot recover because his mechancis are engrained. He hits the wall.

All good coaches try to do is reduce the trial and error period. I already know the arms are not used in the swing. Do you know how long it could take a hitter to figure that out? Especially with the well meaning but less informed coaches standing in the way?

The long and short of it is most mlb players found their swing from the "luck" of the trial and error process.

Analyzing and teaching are two different animals. Analysis is much easier than teaching. Just listen to one of these mlb hitting coaches, or for that matter, one of the mlb players, describe their swing. Then compare the video of their swing to what they say. Wow. You would be amazed at how their words don't match their actions.

One thing is for sure. They use their center different than the rest. And, they may not know it. Probably don't know it. They know what and how to do do it, but studying video of this part of the swing, how they use their center, will be inconclusive to those without the proper education. And, since they do something different "underneath" than anyone else, and they don't know it, but assume everyone else is using their center the same, when in reality they aren't, then nothing else they say applies to the other player. Until all use their center properly, the rest doesn't matter.

Linear,

Good discription, but is it possible your assuming a bit more than you know for absolutely sure. Do you really think the hitting coaches are insignificant and that no one listens to them? I do agree with your trial and error theory, that's for sure.

I listened to Lee Elia work with hitters and he used very simple terms that (for example) describing how to handle the inside pitch. His students were among the best prospects in the country. A few who we will be studying their swing before long. This all took place when he was the hitting coach for Seattle. ARod, Griffey, Edgar were on that team at the time. I thought the lessons he was providing was fairly new stuff (to me anyway) and the hitters were picking it up pretty quickly.

Also at the same time I watched Billy Connors work with top level pitchers. The terms he used were even simpler. He is the master of minor adjustments. Granted I doubt if either of these two knows anything about physics, but they know hitting and pitching inside out. And both command respect even from superstars, so they are able to get through to people.

What I have discovered is many of the very best, well known within MLB baseball, instructors and coaches... Do NOT write books, do lessons, or make instructional videos. Maybe you would actually agree with some of what those guys teach.

PG

Where did I say "no one listens to them".

Secondly, your example of Lee Elia needs to be explained. He's talking to mlb quality hitters (prospects) about how to handle the inside pitch. That is hitting instruction versus swing instruction. There is a significant difference between the two.

I would bet Billy Connors was doing the same thing but different. Teaching pitching versus teaching throwing.

There is no question that one needs to know not only how to swing but also how to hit. But, it is rather difficult learning how to hit if you don't know how to swing. And, that is where I see them break down big time.

Linear,

I agree with the difference between the swing and how to hit. They can be separate subjects though closely related.

The one thing I wish you had asked Albert Pujols was who (if anyone) helped him become the hitter he is. I saw Albert several times before he was drafted. He definitely has changed his swing and his approach in Pro Ball. Wouldn’t it be interesting to know how that happened?

PG:
That is very interesting! I have watched Pujols' swing, sitting with my son, going frame by frame, and marvelled at its beauty.

I had no idea that his approach has changed since he turned pro. In my opinion he has one of the best swings in the game.

If he has changed it since going pro, that means someone probably worked with him to do it, and that it is possible to re-tool a swing.

Tiger Woods has done it twice, so we know that the very best and most dedicated athletes are able to do such things with the proper discipline, training and help.

I always figured Pujols always swung like a dream.

There was no doubt that Pujols had outstanding hitting ability before turning pro. He also was a very talented shortstop with a strong arm and great hands. He showed great bat speed and power potential but his swing was a bit longer with more effort. There is no doubt that his swing has been improved greatly. Just curious how that happened and who (other than Albert) is most responsible.

Let's face it... Albert was drafted in the 13th round (I think) I am good friends with the scout who signed him for something like $30,000. So Albert was not really what you could call a can't miss MLB hitter back then.

As a side note, the scout who signed Albert Pujols was fired by the Cardinals a couple years ago. Talk about... What have you done for me lately!

quote:

Originally posted by BlueDog:
......Imagine talking grip with Ty Cobb......And, who influenced Mantle's long stride?......

True - And can you imagine talking about "chaos" - or the "hands and arms going along for the ride"?

They would rip your head off.

LOL

quote:

My guess is, they talked about how to move the body to create momentum and then control it......

And maybe their new IPODS and cell phones too.

The main reason I see so few hitters swinging the bat like a major leaguer is that it is not the way a young kid would do it naturally. Left to their own resources, it is more natural for a young kid to step into the ball and use their own momentum to swing their heavy bat.

Unless someone has the know-how and the kid has the desire to undo this natural mechanic, it becomes engrained and is near impossible to ever overcome. Most kids never do and therefore continue to advance until their flawed mechanics catch up to them.

It’s been my personal observation that a lot of instruction out there just reinforces some of the mechanic flaws. Most advice I’ve seen revolves around the mantra, “Every one is different so it’s wrong to teach the same mechanics to everyone”. Another is, “Leave little Johnny alone because he is hitting the ball just fine”.

The truth is usually closer to Little Johnny is hitting the ball because his athletic ability is so far keeping ahead of the pitching. It’s just a matter of time until he reaches a level where his flawed mechanics allow him to advance no further.

By the time Johnny might actually find an instructor that has the knowledge and fortitude to really help the kid, it’s probably too late. The only way the kid could ever have a big league swing would be to break both his arms and legs and start over.

SBK,

I have living proof that you are correct!

Interesting topic. I think the importance of excellent vision can't be over-stated, but just as inportant, in my opinion, is a high quality hitting coach and I believe there are too few of them.

We have a kid on our team with phenomenal eyesight. At the AAU Jr. Olympics a few years ago, the American Optometric Association was providing complimentary vision screening to all athletes who wanted to go through the tests. I had my entire team go through the screening that included something like 15 or more different vision tests. Most of the kids tested pretty much along average, but one kid stood out. His visual acuity was 20/15, depth perception was in the top 5% of all people, hand-eye coordination again in the top bracket, and speed of recognition was in like the top 1 or 2% of all people. Every vision test that was given, this kid scored right up near the top.

This kid who has exceptional vision is also an outstanding hitter, one of the very best high school hitters in our city. This will be his 4th season starting varsity for his high school, and he'll probably hit around .500, like he did last year. Most important, he nearly always makes hard contact. He's already signed a NLI for a very nice scolarship with a good D-1 school and has a very bright future. I firmely believe he sees things that most of us miss, also that he sees and recognizes them quicker.

As far as hitting coaches are concerned, I don't think the value of a quality hitting coach can be minimized. A good coach picks up on minor flaws in a swing, or ways to make a swing more efficient and teaches that to his hitters. There are many hitting coaches out there, not all of them can do this.

Here's a video clip of a pretty good hitter, with narration by a another pretty good hitter, who's also a pretty good hitting coach.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/gallery/bonds/flash.htm

Of course, I'm joking about "pretty good". Here's a chance to watch the best, with commentary from the best. Enjoy, and learn.

Do you buy bridges?

I think Gwynn has a lot of important things to say in spite of his lack of "scientific correctness".

Among other things in Gwynn on Bonds, I like the:
"Don't force the bottom half. Get in position (the "first part of hitting" as he describes earlier frame #3) then pull with the bottom hand and keep the hands in."

quote:

Originally posted by tom.guerry:
...then pull with the bottom hand and keep the hands in."

And just how do you pull with the bottom hand and keep the hands in????? He has to mean something other than what he says. You think he means turn the torso? Do you think he means "turn the bottom hand on"?

How do you pull with the bottom hand and leave the hands in?

A great reason not to listen to their words.

Watch what they do. Don't listen to them speak.

tom.guerry, I think you see it pretty much correct. Gwynn may or may not describe things the way some people can relate, but he's seeing and identifying things that he likes in Bond's swing. Of course, some people will attack that commentary or subject of the video clip, but I'd rather listen to and watch those two guys than most others who have opinions, especially the ones who emulate ****** orifices.

As I read and think about these discussions of hitting I really think about semantics. I think that a number of people out there could work with a group of kids and achieve identicle results all the while using very different terminology. I feel that in many cases it is not the terminology that matters as much as how well you relay that terminology. Good instructors and coaches can use up to date methods and learning and teach them in a very simplified manner. Complex results through simplified teaching. Someone that can translate 8 pages of hitting or pitching mechanical analysis in to a small simple number of steps is the person that will have the most success. I think of the Pujols conversation with the young players. He is relating complex ideas in a very simplified and correct approach that will yield results. THe destination is the goal whether you take the highway or winding backroad is up to the individual.

In reality, Gwynne is saying all the right things.

A quick translation would be that Bonds is not swinging the bat but pulling the weight of the bat head through the zone.

It is the very basis of the principle of leverage and the use of the fulcrum.

Once the bat is raised and the greatest amount of potential energy is set, the combined use (pulling down) of that energy (gravity and weight) will bring about the greatest result.

Making contact is the next step where repetition comes into play. The enduring expressions are 'know your pitch' 'develop your hitting zone'.

Most children, if given the right weight bat, will use a very near perfect 'swing'.

Tuning that swing up and adding the principles of leverage just allows the batter to generate greater power.

Most great hitters were either never coached while young or were able to overcome that coaching.

If coaching as it is being done were successfull, more hitters would be making more contact and hiting more home runs (without the benefit of performance enhancing substances).

quote:

Originally posted by WillieBobo:
In reality, Gwynne is saying all the right things.

A quick translation would be that Bonds is not swinging the bat but pulling the weight of the bat head through the zone.

It is the very basis of the principle of leverage and the use of the fulcrum...

If it's so basic and so simple tell me this.

Can the bat angularly displace around the hands while the hands are moving forward? The answer is no. It won't displace until the hands stop.

So, as you move your hands forward....by pulling the knob with your lower arm......you are delaying the angular displacement of the bat. Just what a hitter needs......slop.....slack.....a delay in his barrel coming around.

No, sir, it's not basic use of a fulcrum to pull the knob with the bottom hand. You don't have time for this to happen. If the bat doesn't angularly displace immediately upon launch, you're going to have it sawed off in your hands.

The angular displacement is a natural.

Gravity brings the bat down.

By pulling with the lower hand, the upper hand becomes the fulcrum initially.

Once the bat is in motion, the fulcrum then becomes the body.

Hitters who rely solely on the wrists as the secondary fulcrum are usually high average, good contact hitters.

Hitting and early pitching machines had this double fulcrum principle.

The contact point and the follow thru are in reality after-effects of pulling the bat down with the lower hand.

Seeing that you are in the Mid West, I ask if you ever used an ax or mall to split fire wood. If you have, you understand the double fulcrum.

Sometimes I don't know how to respond or comment to some of this jargon. Some may say that I shouldn't. SBK, Guerry and cathcersdad made some great comments and I, like PG have living proof. In my case its workng tirelessly with young hitters to retrain or as I phrase, adjust to improve, there swing mechanics. I have seen many kids pick up the trainng and go on to be fine hitters. There are some super athletes out there that could excel in any sport, but may still have trouble hitting. I believe its still the hardest thing to do successfully in sports. A young hitter can be taught to be successful in high school, but may not be talented enough for the college level. Many college hitters will never play in the minors, but they still know how to do it. Talent can always be enhanced and refined, vision can be medically adjusted or enhanced, if its found to be faulty. A combination of talent, training, coaching, heart and desire will give a player the most advancement opportunities.

Coachric

quote:

So, as you move your hands forward....by pulling the knob with your lower arm

Who said this was "how" to pull the knob. Pulling the knob is primarily via lead arm internal rotation. This acts with the back arm to TURN the bat and accentuates coil, and keeps the hands back. It does not push the hands forward. Mankin is also very clear on avoiding pushing/extending the handpath.Epstein also describes keeping the hands in well.

(this was one point in the ironnyman demonstrations testing mankin's tht that was clearly misunderstood or misrepresented by N.he was claiming the only way of applying active force with the back arm was by extension which pushes the handpath out,this is obviously not the case and I would suspect N knows that, but maybe he is unable to grasp it)

Lau would make the point that you are "pulling the knob with the arm (lead arm) not the shoulders" (which avoids drag/disconnection).

You are turning not dragging the bat as the twist works up to turn the shoulders.