Skip to main content

198 replies

Albert Pujols

Replies sorted oldest to newest

G GFK10+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by PGStaff:
A question?

Would Pujols be as good if he didn't finish his swing that way?


PGStaff, what in particular are you referencing regarding his finish? (Please be patient with my ignorance.)

I once read a thread on the sEtPr0 site by Ny-Man describing the swing as starting with a flail and extending into a whip. More than likely I do not fully grasp the concept but Pujols swing seems to match the flail extending into a whip concept.

When I first came across the idea, it made me think of the cue “Short to the ball and long on the follow threw.”
P PGStaff10,000+ posts
GFK,

The finish of the swing is all things that happen from contact on. Including the high finish.

The only reason I brought it up is because there has been discussion where people have said it does not matter what happens after contact. While this is probable true in a scientific way, I've never seen a good power hitter who doesn't appear to finish the swing with authority.
G GFK10+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by PGStaff:
GFK,

The finish of the swing is all things that happen from contact on. Including the high finish.

The only reason I brought it up is because there has been discussion where people have said it does not matter what happens after contact. While this is probable true in a scientific way, I've never seen a good power hitter who doesn't appear to finish the swing with authority.


I guess I tried to read to much into the question.

I do know that the finish on a hitter's swing is a result of all that takes place up to contact. I would bet good money you see similarities in the finish of good hitters because they are doing lots of things the same up to contact.

I guess you could use the finish to evaluate the swing to contact. If the finish is off, the swing up to contact must have been off.
G GFK10+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Callaway:
PG

...I think that what happens after contact is a direct result of what happens before contact. While it may be true that what happens after contact may be irrelevant, the reality is that the finish was created by the start.


Callaway, you said it a lot better than I and in a lot less words!
Y YHF100+ posts
I don't have the technical knowledge that many on this board have but here's what I see in Albert's video clip (or at least what I think I see)....

Albert's weight shift and perhaps the early part of his rotation appear to create momentum that drives into his left leg and left foot. I can't tell this for sure but it looks like this momentum recoils back up through his left leg to continue the hip rotation. He doesn't appear to squash the bug...doesn't appear to drive off his back foot at all.

I can't slow the video down any further but it looks like he pulls really hard with his front side/shoulder then throws the barrel at the ball with his right hand. Though it could be that what I see as throwing the barrel actually occurs after contact. Hard to tell at this speed.

His spine angle is pretty much vertical, which differs from many power hitters whose spine angles appear to tilt back toward the catcher a bit. This might be why Albert hits so many line drive home runs, as opposed to towering fly balls (which he hits only occasionally).

Perhaps some here can tell me if what I think I see is correct.

Thanks.
Jon
B baseballpapa100+ posts
Because both hitters rotate around a firm front leg. Their hands tend to return to the plane they left. One hitting guru is teaching to flatten the finish. This would really be difficult. Go back and watch where Pujols and Ortiz hands are when the initiate and see if their hands return to the same plane.

If you built a machine and fixed the rotational axis point and started above and fed a swing lower than the starting point, it would finish on the same plane it started.
LD Line Drive100+ posts
BlueDog,

In both the clips you provided the hips are moving forward (weight transfer in the general direction of the pitcher) before the front foot plants but it appears that hip rotation (opening) does not start until after the foot plants. I would agree that the ground is not the source of energy for the swing. The hitter pushes against the ground but his body is the source of energy.
DC Diablo con Huevos500+ posts
ummm, if you think the rotation of the hips throws the foot to a plant on the ground, you are blind.

watch any of these clips and stop them at the landing of front hip.. then switch to watching hips, they happen at different times... foot then hips...

you are saying that when someone strides, that they DO NOT re-establish a balance point before they initiate hip rotation? THAT does not make sense. BLUEDOG- are you sure you took a biomechanics class in college?? If you are right, you could make a mint re-writing every college book on the Biomechanical Principles of Human Movement...

SO if I understand this right, the hips force the planting of the foot (downward transfer of energy) yet the arms, hands, bat are on a slight upslope through swing (upward transfer of energy)... so basically you have energy going in tow differnt directions at about the same time??? not very efficient.
N NYdad500+ posts
Bluedog,

Using Ortiz clip as an example, yes I am able to see hips working open into front foot planting as I mentioned but having difficulty picking up any rotation prior to toe touch and thus appears to be a straight weight transfer.

Question sir - From the moment forward momemtum begins, at what point during the sequence do you detect rotation, or are you saying that it's not a matter of weight transfer momemtum into rotation but the entire sequence of forward momemtum is created by rotation?
N NYdad500+ posts
Bluedog,

Think you may have misunderstood me as hips opening is certainly beginning of rotation... just don't see hips working open any earlier than toe touch...thus appears to be a straight weight shift until at least toe touch.

Since we've established that it's weight shift momentum first, then rotation just before footplant...Are you saying "just before" is even prior to toe touch?
NL Nolan LeesMember
I realize that this may sound like hitting blasmephy, but I think that the reason Ortiz and Pujols hit the ball so far is BECAUSE they didn't extend their arms. Think about it like this: when a figure skater wants to start spinning faster, they pull their arms close into their bodies. Less drag = More Bat Speed = Home Runs. Like I said, just a thought.
P PGStaff10,000+ posts
quote:
Think about it like this: when a figure skater wants to start spinning faster, they pull their arms close into their bodies.


Nolan Lees,

I've heard this explanation before. To me the biggest difference is... The figure skater doesn't have to hit a mid 90s fastball or change of speed pitches while he/her is spinning. Just being able to spin fast won't make someone a good hitter.
Z Z-Dad10+ posts
quote:
Think about it like this: when a figure skater wants to start spinning faster, they pull their arms close into their bodies.
That is called conservation of angular momentum and the physics are applicable here. The more weight that is transferred near the axis of rotation the fast the potential spin. The faster the spin the greater the bat speed and thus you can hit the ball further.

You can see in the Aaron clip that his back foot actually lifts off the ground (and you can see Pujols and others do the same in other vids) meaning all weight is on the front foot at the time of contact. Of course for hitting outside pitches that short swing isn't possible but for middle-in pitches such a compact swing is ideal for maximizing bat speed. It also bring the sweet spot of the bat closer to the point of contact.

In all these HR vids its pretty consistent that the forward rotation of the hips begin AFTER the front foot comes down. There may be counter rotation of the hips before the foot plants to help load the batter.

It's not possible to forward rotate the hips well while striding because the weight is all on the back foot. You can rotate only in the direction the weight is. Thus the loading/counter rotation happens when the front foot is up in the air so all weight is on the back foot. Once the front foot touches down the weight shifts and forward rotation can commence but not before.
Last edited by Z-Dad
S swingbuster1,000+ posts
quote:
Weight shift momentum is chaos


Doggie..I love ya man but hey....

chaos ?? I suspect it must be a ***** intellectual superiority term to confound and cause submission.

Chaos used in this context helps nobody.

You have to know that is a cooked up word he dug out of some text that he liked and regurgitated up for the " koolaid drinkers"

The more he could confuse and refute; the more control he felt he exerted on others.

It is a syndrome for those needing a superior feeling of pretending to have information people want and giving it to them a drop at a time AFTER they beg you enough.

SICK STUFF MAN..it always makes me laugh when you can type his name and it gets blocked out like profanity...that is kind of a sad tale

On another note

"I realize that this may sound like hitting blasmephy, but I think that the reason Ortiz and Pujols hit the ball so far is BECAUSE they didn't extend their arms."

I don't think they would agree with that, think of that, or use that as a teaching point. Ortiz most posted clip has him jammed . If you poled 1000 MLB players they would say" they want the ball where they can extend on it" You would have to define it another way to get them to agree with that statement.
Last edited by swingbuster
BlueDogBlueDog1,000+ posts
PGStaff, what they're all overlooking is this fact.....The mind and body's intent to swing begins before front footplant.....And, the physical act to begin the swing does to.....

On extension....Some MLB hitters extend at ball contact.....And, pitch location matters on this, also....The big deal is, when does the extension begin?.....There is a point in time in the swing when extension is O.k.....
DC Diablo con Huevos500+ posts
Zdad, swingbuster.... you got it right guys...
besides the actual weights and differences, blah blah blah... we just finished a research project here at local university on angular momentum... on ice skater, with one arm extended and one leg (let's not get into the weight and distance) the ice skater went into a rotation and was spinning at 2 revolutions per second... and without changing anything, except bringing in arms, the ice skater was spinning at 14 rev. per sec....

so, the closer the hands the quick the bathead...

an naturally hands will tend to work away on pitches away... but if player is 13-15 inches off plate.. they can hit pitch low and away with hands slotted the same as inside pitch... just must let the ball travel deeper across th plate...
DC Diablo con Huevos500+ posts
PGstaff-

doesn't matter if skater isn't swinging a bat, that is mute. you want the bathed traveling as fast as possible, yes? two identical swings, one hands away, one hands in - hands in wins every time... physics is physics...

hitting the fastball is going to be accomplished by someone with ability... the person can be more efficient if hands repeatedly stay inside...
P PGStaff10,000+ posts
My reference to the figure skater was simply to say just creating bat speed or spinning does not make some one a better hitter. Besides… when figure skaters spin aren’t they on one foot/skate? Most hitters are fairly spread out at contact rather than every part of their body in tight to revolve faster. I understand the theory behind, hands in tight, creating more bat head speed. However, everyone is stating the obvious here. You simply can’t hit a pitch on the inner half correctly with out the hands staying in. If your hands aren’t in close a hitter will wrap around the ball and hook it. The point is… All pitches are not on the inside half.

All this stuff makes sense, but timing and getting the sweet spot to the ball are the most important things. Without that, bat head speed or how fast someone can spin just doesn’t matter. We hardly ever talk about it here, but to me the thing that most separates the best from the rest is “accuracy”! The best hitters simply are more accurate with their timing and contact. While bat speed is important it is meaningless by itself. There are many hitters with great bat speed who can’t hit with Olerud.

Actually my biggest problem here is using figure skaters as an example or argument. Why not use something closer like ice hockey. How do hockey players hit those hard slap shots? The difference between the figure skater, the hockey player and the baseball hitter is one of them does things the same exact way every time, the other two need to make adjustments based on the ball or the puck.

Bottom line… If you’re using female figure skaters as an example… OK!
I just can’t stand men’s figure skating!
DC Diablo con Huevos500+ posts
PGstaff..

okay, agree... we are saying the same thing... that was my point as well.. the hitter has to be a good enough player to be consistent with a good swing and make the proper adjustments on incoming pitch... i was stating (or trying to) that with the hitter being equal, then with hands in, circular hand path, using angular momentum, hitter transfers more energy into ball, ball travels further...
DC Diablo con Huevos500+ posts
Any hitter trying to be long through the ball (I have a problem even saying that) is losing efficiency in a big way.....They max their batspeed after the ball is hit, waste their batspeed, and can't transfer swing momentum properly.....


here Dog talks about efficiency and max batspeed, transfering momentum properly...

but how can you transfer momentum EFFICIENTLY if you transfer some through your leg to get a foot plant and then some through your arms to carry bat through swing??? How is it efficient to try and get momentum (energy going in two different directions at same time..???

just curious.
Z Z-Dad10+ posts
PGStaff,

Faster batspeed = better hitter. Here is why:

A faster bat allows a hitter to wait longer before committing, more time to read the pitch, more time to adjust, etc. In essence, faster batspeed enables all those attributes you named - accuracy, timing, contact.

Conversely, the slow batter with the best timing and accuracy in the world would be forced to commit to the ball early and thus is going to be hopelessly fooled if the ball has any significant movement.

The skating example still applies. Look at some home run vids and you can see some batters actually lift their back foot off the ground completely while rotating. 100% weight on front foot at the time of contact. Think of the batter's foot as the ice and the legs/hips as the skates.

While some will debate linear vs. rotational hitting as to which produces better averages (and I am not going to get into that) the physics are pretty much in favor of rotational for fastest theoretical batspeed.

Bluedog, the batter doesn't commit to a pitch until the hips begin rotating and that is after foot plant. Most batters plant the foot at the time a pitch is released, there is no way the batter committed to a pitch prior to being released.
Last edited by Z-Dad
P PGStaff10,000+ posts
Z-Dad,

With all due respect. I do understand the advantages involved.

Now please explain how John Olerud became a lifetime .295 hitter with over 250 Hrs and over 1200 RBI in 17 years in the big leagues. Was it because he had better "bat speed = better hitter" than most everyone else? Bat speed by itself means nothing. Bat speed by a good hitter might be another story. In any event your formula (bat speed = better hitter) is not necessarily true.

quote:
Bluedog, the batter doesn't commit to a pitch until the hips begin rotating and that is after foot plant. Most batters plant the foot at the time a pitch is released, there is no way the batter committed to a pitch prior to being released.


Did I miss something here? Did someone say a hitter commits before the pitch is released? I've seen lots of hitters start to open their hips and not swing.
Z Z-Dad10+ posts
PGStaff, perhaps it's just semantics. The way I look at it, better batspeed ALWAYS improves a hitter's toolset. It is never a disadvantage. And I don't disagree with you that batspeed is only one element of the toolset. But developing faster batspeed does not take away from other elements of the hitter's toolset, i.e. it's not an exclusive pursuit.

Remember I said faster batspeed = better hitter and not = good hitter. All things being equal, faster = better.

I don't know Olerud's hitting too well (I never perceived his swing to be slow) but I suspect he would say he would always welcome more batspeed.
Z Z-Dad10+ posts
I was reading another forum where one poster was a MLB scout. One of his methods for gauging hitters was capturing them on video in fastball situations and counting the number of frames from the beginning of the swing to contact. (Personal digital video cameras I am told all record frames at the exact same speed, some technological limit.)

If it was 5 or more frames, he would pass on the prospect no matter what the kid's average was. 4-4.5 frames would meet the test. Thought that was a pretty interesting way to judge a prospect.

That got me thinking that this method isn't a bad way to check how fast your kids are swinging. It's always been hard to judge since some kids seem fast but that could be after contact. If 4 frames is a MLB speed swing, then we got something to shoot for. Smile

EDIT: P.S. The scout defined the beginning of the swing as bathead starts moving towards the ball.
Last edited by Z-Dad
P PGStaff10,000+ posts
Z-Dad,

Quickness to the ball and optimum bat speed are not exactly the same thing. I've been around for a long time and know it is possible for a hitter to have MLB quickness to the ball and still not be able to hit a lick!

In fact, there are those who have beautiful swings, create plus bat speed, show quickness to the ball, but can't hit. I've seen a lot of them.

It's kind of like the guy with plus speed who doesn't have the ability to use it in the game because of poor instincts.

Video is very helpful, but you can't draft a kid because of the number of frames it takes him to get to the ball. That can be important of course, but picking hitters can't possibly be as easy as just counting frames on the video.

I do agree that, that method can be very valuable when working with hitters.
BlueDogBlueDog1,000+ posts
NYdad, batspeed is something you need not concern yourself with.....Concentrate on proper technique and the batspeed will be more than adequate....

Bat quickness you do need to concern yourself with.....It is of the utmost importance and is a very big contributor to why MLB hitters are the best in the world.....

To be perfectly clear......Batspeed and bat quickness are not of equal importance..... no

Bat quickness reigns supreme...... good
Last edited by BlueDog
Z Z-Dad10+ posts
PGStaff, you keep talking about faster batspeed as if it is a mutually exclusive trait. It's not. Take two batters with EQUAL skills in everything EXCEPT batspeed. The one with the faster batspeed is going to be better. That's all I am trying to communicate when I say faster batspeed = better hitter. And every batter would like to have faster batspeed if nothing else is sacrificed.

Why?

Batspeed is going to dictate the maximum distance a batter can hit with all other variables held EQUAL.

Having faster batspeed enables batters to wait longer on pitches = more time to read a pitch = better adjustment to pitch = accuracy. If people want to argue that bat quickness is different and offers the same benefit I won't argue that but point out that both are not mutual exclusive.

Now if that poster I mentioned really is a MLB scout well that's one scout who has verbalized that slow batspeed is going drop a kid from consideration.

P.S. Unlike Bluedog I can admit I am wrong about timing of the footplant. But that was to emphasize the point that in no way does a hitter commit to a pitch prior to footplant. When the hips move, that's the commitment.
BlueDogBlueDog1,000+ posts
quote:
Unlike Bluedog I can admit I am wrong about timing of the footplant. But that was to emphasize the point that in no way does a hitter commit to a pitch prior to footplant. When the hips move, that's the commitment


You are wrong about all of what you say.....

A hitter doesn't have time to commit to a swing after foot plant.....Foot plant happens to late to begin the swing....And, the hips begin rotating before foot plant....If they didn't, the swing would be way late....
Last edited by BlueDog
TRhitTRhit10,000+ posts
THE BATTING G-O-D has spoken but none of us know who or what he has taught outside of cyberspace--and what were the results-- all he does is tell everyone else they are wrong

I am sure glad I had my dad and the coaches I had in my youth because they talked to me in a language I could understand and they spent hour sin the cage pitching to me as they taught me
Z Z-Dad10+ posts
quote:
A hitter doesn't have time to commit to a swing after foot plant.....Foot plant happens to late to begin the swing....And, the hips begin rotating before foot plant....If they didn't, the swing would be way late....

You must teach some pretty slow a$$ batters if they have to commit before foot plant. You cannot swing with any speed unless you plant the front foot.

http://imageevent.com/siggy/hitting/pro?p=11&n=1&m=24&c=4&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=9

Does anyone believe this nonsense???
Last edited by Z-Dad
Z Z-Dad10+ posts
Every high level swing I see in MLB shows forward rotation after foot plant. IMHO, forward rotation is commitment to a pitch. Everything before that is setting up the swing - stride, loading, counter-rotation, etc. That is not commitment and isn't swinging.

I won't disagree that the above elements are part of the swing process. But swing process <> swing. There's no logical sense in that either, if the batter commits prior to foot plant then my original point stands, the batter would be forced commit to a pitch just as it is released and that is ridiculous.

In Pujol's vid on the first page, I can't see this momentum. The front foot barely moves forward. I see weight transfer and I see counterrotation. If anything, momentum seems backwards on the hips and arms. But most of all I see the hips moving forward only after foot plant.
penjapenja10+ posts
quote:
Question: would teach kids to hit with their feet spread as far apart as Pujols does ?

It works for him but I do not think it is for everybody anymore than to teach kids to use a stance like Stan Musial had

TRhit


TR,

This kinda spurred a memory. I was talking to Terry Collins who managed the Astros in the 90s. We were talking about Bagwell's swing. He told me "you know, Bagwell has one of the ugliest swings I have ever seen. (he pauses here with a smile). He hit 40 homeruns and was our RBI guy. So would you mess with his swing?" I replied heck no (laughing). He then said "But, man I hope alot of kids aren't patterning his swing"
N NHFundamentalsDad100+ posts
Good Morning All,

First

My applogies that the individual frames from the AP swing didnt post correctly.

Second

I would have no problem teaching a young player the approach that AP is using. Go to any batting facility, practice or game at the LL level or even younger. It is a very simple swing with all the correct fundamentals.

Why not teach it to young players? I hav eseen so many kids using messed up mechanics over the years. 9 to 12-yr old kids using the big front leg lift and then having the back leg not even pivot and usually come off the ground before contact.

Why go through all that? Why add things like a big lig lift or stride that takes them off balance? The approach used by AP still uses an initial movement of the front foot to start things up, but its a much more controllable movement, especially for a young hitter.
N NHFundamentalsDad100+ posts
Gents,

My fault, bad wordsmitihng on my part....

I meant to convey that i would prefer to have a young hitter start in the position you want him to be in as he swings. Not necessarily as wide as AP, but wide enough to provide the proper balance.

Why ask a young player to try to control his body with a stride or leg lift. If you think they can't control there body with a wide stable stance, then certainly they cant control their body with all the extra movement a stride or leg lift entails.
CoachB25CoachB25Honorary "Old TImer"
NHF, my child hits very similar. We call it "Heel - Toe." She is 12. She seems to be able to "let the ball get to her" and does well with the bat. Since I'm the Dad and biased, Just_Learning has seen her swing as well. Perhaps he can post the positives and negatives of watching a younger player attempt that swing.
Next

Add Reply

Post
Baseball Sale Canada

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×