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.
penjapenja10+ posts
Diablo-

His follow thru is an upper swing. That is what Mr Collins was telling me. The point that he was making earlier is that the Astros and Soxs could have broken down his swing and brought in his legs but he was hitting above average and with power. Why mess with success? I do not think that most kids could benefit from that. It is an ugly swing. I am fan of Bagwells but it is ugly. I respect your opinion but I have mine as well. Jim Furyk has an ugly swing but he can win with it so why take it apart?
DC Diablo con Huevos500+ posts
Penja-

i am not sure what you mean that his follow through was up... all MLB swings are on a slight upslope, therefore the power V and follow through finish out that way as well... unless pitch is across letters then swing plane would be flatter do to path of ball...

how did they want him to swing? down?

from launch to contact, he looks like just about everybody else (mechanically).

and yes, Mr. Furyk has a different swing than most PGA guys, but Bagwell doesn't... just his stance, stride... apples and oranges, i think...
P PGStaff10,000+ posts
NYDad,

You have hit on another of the old wives tales. That being hitters getting as comfortable as possible. Obviously Bagwell, Pujols and most others could find a more "comfortable" stance. Good hitters use what works, not necessarily what is most "confortable". The most comfortable position would be standing straight up with bat laying on shoulder. So there is a point where most comfortable just doesn't work. I prefer your word preference over comfort.
penjapenja10+ posts
I personally think Pujols (no matter how much Stros don't care for him :P ) batting is more a thing of beauty than Bagwells. I agree with TR what I was talking about earlier. There was alot of coaches correcting the Bagwell stance which led kids to a golf type swing. Added to what is stated above, In 1997- 43 HR 135 RBI no matter how uncomfortable or how well he finished. Hall of Famer.
Last edited by penja
penjapenja10+ posts
Cool you found some video. Look at the different hand placement bouncing around before he powers up (you need to click the slow motion) Its like he has to center it around for a sec before he gets on plane. Griffey is so smooth i like clicking that one frame at a time. he drops his hands then its smooth motion.
Last edited by penja
DC Diablo con Huevos500+ posts
PGstaff- great video.... looks to me that from launch to contact identical mechanics - relative to pitch location of course...

TRhit.. i teach a no-stride approach when working with all clients - less moving object, less room for error... once players get pretty good mechanics, will switch to stride if they want... most stay no-stride...

people need to realize that there isno relationship between stride and power...
V Vance34100+ posts
Bat speed = Torque, which is the hips starting rotation and the shoulders staying square to the plate until the stretch reflex happens. Pujols has an outstanding stretch reflex.

Swing Quickness = proper rotation. Most hitters do not rotate properly.

Momentum is important in the high level swing because of the wood bat. Most young aluminum bat hitters do not have any momentum because all the hitting coaches at all the facilities try to keep the hitter from moving his head at all. Think of momentum as being similar to a Swinging Gate on a fence.//// Think of what all the hitting instructors teach as Revolving door like in a hospital entrance or big Hotel. All the best hitters in the world are swinging gate hitters.

Now, Pujols swing as always been with a wide base. He also has great lower half swivel.

Ortiz, well this is a bad clip, He was jammed on the pitch and not a good one to evaluate. If you look, you can also find clips of Pujols getting jammed.

Beastball, I'm in your corner! Flipp J has been blind for a long time. Pujols missed the ball on the clip and that is a FACT JACK!

quote:
Either you're blind, you need new contacts/glasses, or the catchers glove distracted you because I can assure you this ball was hit over the left field wall. Watch Pujols' eyes after he hits the ball. He's watching the ball fly over the fence.


Come on Jason, use your quicktime on the clip and slow it down. Its obvious without slowing it down. Another way to tell is by watching the crowd, NOT ONE HEAD in the stands turned left!!
Last edited by Vance34
F FlippJ1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Vance34:
Come on Jason, use your quicktime on the clip and slow it down. Its obvious without slowing it down. Another way to tell is by watching the crowd, NOT ONE HEAD in the stands turned left!!
Vance34,

You're a funny guy. Why in the world would I post a clip of a hitter missing a ball? I have at least one other camera angle of this same swing. My son is playing in a tournament this weekend but if I have some free time I'll post another clip of this swing.

Jason

P.S. Watch the coach in the dugout on the lower right of the clip. At the tail end of the clip you can see him turning his head to his left. Also, if you look at the clip frame by frame in quicktime go to frame 22. That's the frame just before contact. You can see the blur of the ball just in front of his bat. One frame later you can see the blur of the ball as it leaves his bat.
Last edited by FlippJ
L LevelPath1910+ posts
The ball was hit.

1. We never see the blur of the ball into the catcher's mitt. You can clearly see it coming in before Pujols hits it, and then it re-directs.

2. In the last frame of film, you can see Puljols, and two coaches in the dugout looking to the outfield. The fans do not react as quickly perhaps beacuse they are not paying attention as closely. The last frame of film is less than 1/2 second after the ball was hit (roughly 10 frames, about 1/3 of second if the film is 30 frames per second). I've slowed down HR clips where the spectators don't turn their heads until the ball is in the outfield.

3. I think you're distracted by the catcher closing his mitt. This happens on every pitch, whether the ball is hit or not. You can see this happen here: http://www.youthbaseballcoaching.com/mpg/sosa_sammy2.mpeg
Last edited by LevelPath19
LD Line Drive100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Vance34:

Think of momentum as being similar to a Swinging Gate on a fence.//// Think of what all the hitting instructors teach as Revolving door like in a hospital entrance or big Hotel. All the best hitters in the world are swinging gate hitters.


I didn’t follow your point this time. Both the swinging gate and the revolving door turn on a stationary axis. This is the concept that the hitter needs to understand and emulate. What do you see as the significant difference in the two analogies as they apply to proper hitting technique?
L LevelPath1910+ posts
To add to Line Drive's post, if we use the swinging gate analogy, his front hip would never move. Everything would turn around the front hip as it remains closed. Pujols front hip clearly turns away from the pitcher, much like...a revolving door or a merry-go-round.

...Here's a clip of a front hip (properly) rotating away from the pitcher. This is rotation, not keeping the front hip "in" as in the swinging gate model.
http://www.youthbaseballcoaching.com/mpg/Guerrero01.mpeg
Last edited by LevelPath19
V Vance34100+ posts
Linedrive and Levelpath, good question. Watch the clip of Pujols. Draw a line through the center of his body (head to bellybutton to ground) while he is in his stance. Does he move his center from this line? YES, if he were to not move away from that line this would be called (REVOLVING DOOR). NOW, draw another line (same direction) once he plnats his lead foot (stride foot) heel. Once he plants that heel his backside now rotates against and around that planted front side foot and leg (SWINGING GATE).

All hitters rotate the hip and it only has one way to go. However, the front hip doesn't work away from the pitcher, BUT the back hip does work towards the pitcher! you can either be a spinner and have no momentum in the swing(revolving door) or you can have momentum in the swing (swinging gate). The number 1 reason why good hitters in HS and college don't make the big leagues. They can never grasp the ability to hit with momentum.

I would say keep on spinning to the softball leagues, but hell, they use momentum to!
Last edited by Vance34
L LevelPath1910+ posts
I think everyone understands that a hitter's center line moves forward during the stride...but once he plants that front foot, his center is not his front side but the line from his chin to his belly button.

Again, if it is a swinging gate, then the front hip wouldn't move. The center of rotation can't move. How can the back side rotate around the front side when the front side is moving as well? Please adrress Vladimir Guerrero's rotation and tell me the the front hip is not being pulled away from the pitcher, at the same rate that the back hip is peing pulled around towards the pitcher. The center of rotation is not the front hip, but a point between the front hip and the back hip...that point remains fairly stationary.
Last edited by LevelPath19
L LevelPath1910+ posts
How am I not seeing what I think I am? This obviously boils down to definitions and semantics, but please state how I am incorrect. The way I see it (and I've seen alot more film that you have, believe me) the front hip pulls back, away from the pitcher at the same rate and direction that the back hip "pushes" toward the pitcher. Is this true? Do the hips not move opposite one another, much like two opposite ends of a merry-go-round? Try this clip http://www.youthbaseballcoaching.com/mpg/Rose.mpeg and tell me if it's more "swinging gate" than merry-go-round. Watch the "R" on the jersey go backwards...

BTW, still feel that Pujols missed the ball? Freeze the last frame of film and tell me why the two coaches are looking in LF...
LD Line Drive100+ posts
Vance34,

An interesting theory but I don’t think it is supported by the video or kinesiology. The front hip is being forced away from the pitcher by the powerful extension of the front leg. The back hip moves forward too because it is attached to the other side of the pelvis and is on the opposite side of the axis of rotation. Pelvis rotation (not hip rotation) is really a better description of what is happening. Of course other smaller muscle groups besides the front leg are involved too but the axis of rotation is still the spine (approximately), not the front hip.

quote:
Originally posted by Vance34:
Once he plants that heel his backside now rotates against and around that planted front side foot and leg (SWINGING GATE).



If what you say is true, what causes his backside (hip) to move forward? Where does the rotational force come from? The back leg does not extend and it can’t be the force of his front leg extension if the front hip is now the axis of rotation and does not move away from the pitcher.
Last edited by Line Drive
V Vance34100+ posts
Correct NYDAD. Now your talking! and Dog yes the power source is the momentum and then the start of rotaton from the hips.

The pelvis rotation and not the Hip rotation? Oh really Linedrive? Kiniseology, well the pelvis is the cavity in the posterior part of the body that is formed by the HIP bones. The hip is the thigh bones and joined they create the cavity called the pelvis. SO you rotate the pelvic cavity and I'll rotate the HIPS.

You may very well be correct on the missed ball visual. But when I slow it down I can clearly see the ball enter the mitt.

The front leg straighting is a result of rotation more than its a cause of rotation. I don't see the hip moving back away from the pitcher towards the catcher, Sorry. What I do see is the backside leg/knee/thigh/hip moving forward towards the pitcher.
Last edited by Vance34
L LevelPath1910+ posts
quote:
But when I slow it down I can clearly see the ball enter the mitt.


How do you "slow it down"? Try this...right click on the clip. Then click on "save picture as" and save it to your computer. Then play it in either Real Player or Quicktime. You can play it frame by frame, stopping on any frame that you choose. There are 34 frames in this clip, frame 23 shows the ball leaving the bat, frames 24 and 25 show Pujols following through, but do not show that ball passing Pujols toward the catcher. Frame 26 show the catcher's mitt closing. Frames 33 and 34 show the two coaches in the dugout starting to turn their head towards the OF. I have still frames of these, but don't know how to post them...
Last edited by LevelPath19
N NHFundamentalsDad100+ posts
TR,

I will give one of the good reasons to teach the no-stride approach to younger hitters

Look at the video clip of Jeter's Swing. Watch how much head movement their is. No look a Pujols' head movement in his swing.

Young hitters will struggle to keep their head steady with any kind of big leg lift.
This is much bigger problem to fix for a young player than learning to hit with no-stride. more than

The more movement and extra motion you give a 9 to 12 yr old to deal with the more problems that will develop.

I am not saying you have to use an extreme wide stance. if they stride now, watch them swing and place a pice of tape (assuming your in a batting cage) where there foot lands. Use that as the point for them to set-up with no-stride. Use a simple heel lift or even a very small lift of the foot off the ground at that point to start up their swing.

Their head will be steadier and they will able to track the pitch much easier.
N NHFundamentalsDad100+ posts
TR,

I dont see any logic to your statement, your going to have explain to me exactly how you would teach a young hitter who is to weak to with no-stride to hit with all that extra body movement.

I watch so many kids being taught this way (with a stride or Jeter-like leg lift) who can't control their bodies and end-up with their upper body out over the front foot. Also especially with young hitter, they will bail out.

I have no idea how you think they are strong enough to hit with all that extra motion, but not with a simple no-stride sytle.
CoachB25CoachB25Honorary "Old TImer"
We do a winter long camp with players grades 4-8. Not only do we teach them this style of hitting, each of these teams have won tournaments and are already qualified for their various "World/National" tournaments. That from a very small community says a lot since they've won those tournaments in St. Louis.
CoachB25CoachB25Honorary "Old TImer"
quote:
Originally posted by NHFundamentalsDad:
CoachB25,

St. Louis...was it the AAYBA World Series ?


NHFybdanebtaksDad, I really don't know. 3-4 of these teams have qualified while we were still in our season and so, I was concentrating on the high school team. The name of the program is Troy Thunder if that helps.
LD Line Drive100+ posts
Hey Vance,

No attempt on my part to discredit you or the swinging gate concept. I still just want to make sure I understand what you are saying, and why. I haven’t reached any conclusion yet. My comment about rotation of the pelvis (the combined bone structure, not the cavity created by it) was not meant to reinvent the wheel or turn into an anatomy lesson. It’s just that hip rotation has become a pretty generic term on this site and has been used to describe independent movement of one leg in the hip socket or movement of both hips at the same time as well as a number of other seemingly random definitions that continue to cause confusion. Maybe my attempt to clarify the description just added to the confusion.

quote:
Originally posted by Vance34:
The front leg straighting is a result of rotation more than its a cause of rotation. I don't see the hip moving back away from the pitcher towards the catcher, Sorry. What I do see is the backside leg/knee/thigh/hip moving forward towards the pitcher.


If this is true what is the technique used to turn his weight transfer momentum into enough power to hit home runs?
V Vance34100+ posts
LD, not a problem. Turn it into enough power? Not sure I get your point.

Technique wise, the hitter must land with a flexed front leg and he must push the weight or carry the weight forward to a flexed leg landing. Now the post is established when he lands on his heel and as he does the back heel comes up. However, that back heel does not pivot or turn to make the hips rotate. Notice the Pujols clip. He is driving his backside forward towards the pitcher. He is not sitting on his backleg nor does he have weight on his back leg. The weight is on the front leg and more correctly against the front leg. He has stopped his momentum from continuing forward with the flexed leg. Now the energy moves from the middle out to the hands (kinetic Link) and into the barrel for power. Much like a whip.
LD Line Drive100+ posts
Maybe I’m reading too much into what you said originally. My questions started with the comment about using momentum from his weight transfer being critical to the power of his swing. Pujols doesn’t stride but he does lift his front foot and appears to give a slight push with his back foot and does create some forward weight transfer before rotation. Momentum is a measure of the motion of a body equal to the product of its mass and velocity. I asked how the amount of energy Pojols generates by weight transfer before rotation is enough to hit home runs because it seemed to be the only source of energy you see in his swing. You did say he is driving his backside forward toward the pitcher but seemed to attribute this energy to his initial momentum instead of additional work being done by another muscle group, his core for example. Your explanation also indicates that you don’t think his front leg is adding energy to the swing. I guess that brings us back to Bagwell. Earlier in this thread it was pointed out that Bagwell’s weight transfer before rotation is back instead of forward. This would mean he needs to overcome his momentum instead of it being the critical source of power for his swing and he was a pretty good power hitter too. For the moment let’s set aside the issue of whether or not Pujols hip moves away from the pitcher. If you look at the clip of Griffey I think you would agree that his hip does move away from the pitcher. I don’t know if this swing resulted in a home run but it looks typical for him and he has hit his share of long balls. My point is that Bagwell’s swing may be an anomaly or it may be an important clue to what is really critical. Pujols’ weight transfer and momentum before rotation may be typical but not critical for power hitters. Is it possible the same is true for revolving door and swinging gate rotation? Maybe hip rotation is critical but both axis points work. For the moment I have an open but somewhat skeptical mind about your description of Pujols’ swing. I hope you will post more info in support of what you believe. Maybe I’ll be able to put the pieces of the puzzle together then.

BTW: One of the things that seems strange to me is that we are eight pages into this thread and I don’t remember anybody pointing out that all these hitters follow the same circular path with their hands. It is not the same path used by many other less powerful hitters.
V Vance34100+ posts
Pujols may use a non striding technique, BUT he is stridng. I think the definition of striding is rather simple. Any movement of the front foot leaving the ground. Even Bagwell had a stride.

Momemntum is created by movement. Make Pujols stay in his stance and not move his foot or transfer his weight against his frontside. Make him just turn/ rotate and hit, Revolving door, and the results wouldn't be what they currently are. All good hitters have MOVEMENT, that movement results in momentum. Momentum results in more power or an increase in the ability to drive the ball with authority. His core, line drive, would be the cause of the rotation.

Yes, I'm saying the front leg straighting is NOT ADDING ENERGY to the swing. The front leg straighting is not making the hip rotate. BUT, the hip/ core rotating IS making the leg straighten. Its a result and NOT a cause!

OK, line drive. Now CHP (a Mankin term) There is no such thing as Circular hand path as defined by Mankin. The hands working in a CHP path is AGAIN the result of proper Connection and Rotation. NO GOOD HITTER, ever cast his hands out and around.

I encourage you to study the swing knowing that the swing is driven by the core/ hips and not the legs and arms.
L LevelPath1910+ posts
Vance, I agree with you on the striding subject. Striding is not just moving the foot forward, it's generating momentum. Pujols doesn't move the foot forward much, but he generates momentum perfectly into his swing.

IMO, there is no such thing as a no-stride method. Even Paul Molitor used some momentum into his swing. Bagwell is striding (or loading, or coiling or whatever you want to call it) even though his foot goes backwards. Striding is any movement into foot plant.

The trick is generating the right amount of momentum at the point of decision. Too much, and you can't lay off the pitch easily. Not enough, and you can't get the bat started easily.
Last edited by LevelPath19
LD Line Drive100+ posts
Thanks Vance,

The additional info was very helpful in filling in the gaps.

quote:
Originally posted by Vance34:
Pujols may use a non striding technique, BUT he is stridng. I think the definition of striding is rather simple. Any movement of the front foot leaving the ground. Even Bagwell had a stride.


I agree. I think you could probably even go a step farther. This movement, weight transfer, and momentum could be created without lifting the front foot but that would not be typical.

quote:
Originally posted by Vance34:
Make him just turn/ rotate and hit, Revolving door, and the results wouldn't be what they currently are.


I agree again. However I think we may have discovered one of the points that caused my confusion. I thought we were defining revolving door and swinging gate hitters solely by their axis of rotation. In other words do they revolve around the spine vs. the front hip. Both styles of rotation can be combined with a stride, movement, weight transfer, and momentum. Both styles would be much less effective if they tried to hit without these techniques.

quote:
Originally posted by Vance34:
His core would be the cause of the rotation.


Yes! This was omitted from your earlier explanations and I was concerned that you had excluded this source of power in the same way that you excluded the front leg. That is why I said the initial momentum alone was not enough power to hit home runs.

quote:
Originally posted by Vance34:
Yes, I'm saying the front leg straighting is NOT ADDING ENERGY to the swing. The front leg straighting is not making the hip rotate. BUT, the hip/ core rotating IS making the leg straighten. Its a result and NOT a cause!


I suspect that if a poll was taken at the upper levels of the game (and they told the truth) you would find power hitters and hitting coaches on both sides of this issue. The problem is getting them to talk because many consider access to this kind of information a competitive advantage. For example Rudy Jaramillo is generally seen as one of the best in the business and the Rangers pay him a ton of money for his knowledge. But don’t expect to find any useful information in his video, “5 Simple Steps... A Professional Approach to Hitting”. It is a complete waste of money. Maybe he will share what he knows after he retires and isn’t under contract to a team but it sure isn’t in this video.

quote:
Originally posted by Vance34:
There is no such thing as Circular hand path as defined by Mankin. The hands working in a CHP path is AGAIN the result of proper Connection and Rotation. NO GOOD HITTER, ever cast his hands out and around.


Yes, CHP is the result of doing other things correctly but it is not an automatic result. Lots of hitters still seem to get this last step wrong. Looking at Mankin’s teaching as a whole I don’t think he intends to teach casting but while teaching hitters to maintain a CHP and avoid a linear path he does use some exaggerated motions and descriptions that could give this impression.

Language can be a tricky thing. As you have probably noticed I try to move past what people initially say and get to the core of what they mean. I’ve enjoyed the discussion with you and hope you found some value too.
Last edited by Line Drive
V Vance34100+ posts
Sure Linedrive, anytime.

No, I don't see the rotation being around the spine. I see it being around the frontside. Sorry.

The hip must open and the hip openning isn't solely a reason to say that the swing is rotational and especially from the spine. I would encourage you to slow some swings down and notice that the rotation isn't on a center of body axis when it comes to hitting. At least if your doing it correctly.

Creating the movement and momentum without lifting the foot has to deal with Timing and probably the most important aspect of hitting. Jim Edmonds Lifts his heel and keeps his toe on the ground. Some other guys also do this with 2 strikes. Its very difficult to be able to create pop, power,drive the ball without the good swivel in the lower half. By sliding the hips forward to do so really affects timing and also affects rotation if that timing isn't perfect. In the lower levels its about contact and not about being balistic or taking a good hack at the ball. Its result driven at the lower levels like little league and junior leagues and even high school and college. But in the pro game its about driving the baseball without cutting down the swing or diseleration of the barrel. By using a no stride swing you take away the most important aspects of the swing that are important to driving the ball.

I'm wondering if Clemens could throw as hard or as well as he does if we were to take his stride out of his pitching. His velocity comes from the stride and from proper torque. Its his ability to open the hips 1st and to keep the shoulders closed. If he were to not stride to a landing and if he were to turn his shoulders with his hips he would have been out of the game before he was ever in it!

Could you imagine a SS throwing to 1st without a stride and a transfer against his front leg/ frontside to give him the ability to throw the ball with max velocity?

What so many forget and don't understand in the game of baseball is its a game of movement. Not a game of NO movement. Movement allows for a player to do it easy and without effort. Take it away and the game now requires a tremndous amount of effort and energy. Remember its the guys who do it easy who continue to climb the food chain.
LD Line Drive100+ posts
I agree with you about the stride and timing. I just meant that the movement and weight transfer could potentially happen without lifting the front foot off the ground. But could is not the same as should. I certainly wouldn’t advocate doing it that way. The stride is one of the easiest ways to adjust timing. Without timing you are just a batting cage queen.

Throw from SS without a stride? I wouldn’t even try to field the ball without that first step to put the body in motion as the pitch is delivered.

I know we are beating this axis thing to death but did you look at the clip of Griffey that was posted earlier in the thread? Do you think his front hip moved away from the pitcher on this swing? Correct form or not, what did he do on this swing?
T tom.guerry100+ posts
In a good mlb swing, efficient momentum trnasfer requires dceleration of one link when the next receives the momentum.To really help sort out what you are "seeing" it helps to be familiar with motionanalysis of the swing such as by the skilltechnolgies folks (company now bought out and changed name).

Ideally the shoulders stop rotation briefly right about at contact. The hips about a frame before (30 fps). You can see this in jeter and the others. Although the hips have decelerated, the front hip continues to turn/rotate/move back into contact as the ongoing shoulder turn pulls it around, moreso the more inside the location/more hands are in/quicker player is turning on ball.

This more detailed "reality" of what is happening in the high level swing makes video landmarks like swinging gate vs revolving door somewhat inadequate since the center of rotation is shifting as the links in the kinetic chain accelerate and decelerate.
LD Line Drive100+ posts
No problem, Vance. I’m taking a second look at this whole thing with the perspective you have provided. That’s why I asked. I looked at some of the clips of other hitters you had referred to as spinners. Most of them did have a pretty exaggerated movement of the front hip away from the pitcher. I just wondered if you thought Griffey fell somewhere between them and Pujols. I’ll take your last post to be a definitive no.

quote:
Originally posted by tom.guerry:
This more detailed "reality" of what is happening in the high level swing makes video landmarks like swinging gate vs revolving door somewhat inadequate since the center of rotation is shifting as the links in the kinetic chain accelerate and decelerate.


Hi Tom, I was about to ask Vance if we completely hijack this thread and ran off everyone else. Then you added a new wrinkle that might help explain some of the differences we have been discussing.
itsinthegameitsinthegame5,000+ posts
luv,

Power is generated a lot of different ways and from several sources.

Any source that helps your bat speed (and assuming you have good hand-eye coordination) is a power source.

Some skinny guys do it one way - others do it another way.

From Olerud to Stargell - from Mantle to Clemente.

There is no one answer - contrary to the **** that BlueDog has been spewing for almost 3 years now.

Does that qualify as a blast fest?

luvthegame08luvthegame0810+ posts
its,

I agree completely with you about strength. There are plently of bodybuilders who can't hit, but if you have the best hand-eye coordination in the world you still might not hit it more than twenty feet. Neither one of these would do you any good.

I think that is what we are all looking for. That thing that sets apart the great swings from any other. It probably isn't one thing, but a series of events that brings about the results.

I know I don't know what it is.
Last edited by luvthegame08
itsinthegameitsinthegame5,000+ posts
And if you have the best weight shift into rotation with out hand-eye coordination - you hit .023

Maybe.

I was not singling out any one aspect - EXCEPT for hand-eye coordination.

As I said - a variety of sources - for a variety of players - many different in how they hit.

But one key element that you have to have to hit a baseball is hand-eye. Without it - you are done. IMO.
Last edited by itsinthegame
itsinthegameitsinthegame5,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by luvthegame08:
its,

i think that was acceptable. LOL

Ok now another question.

What is it all these hitters do that makes them so great? What is it that the other guys seem to be missing?


NYDad - are you just kidding with me - or have I lost the ability to read a ****** post?

How about this - Luv - sorry I answered your question with my opinion. I take it back. LOL

Have a blast folks.
Last edited by itsinthegame

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.
×