Bat Speed & Swing Styles

Batspeed is not the only factor to consider when developing a swing. Direction of the swing is an equal factor in judging a swing effiency. I coached in college, and one year we measured all of our hitter's batspeeds. Our best hitter was in the middle of the pack, and one of our worst hitters had the fastest batspeed. The good hitter had a very level swing path, coupled with excellent quickness and timing. The poor hitter with good batspeed did not have these skills.

The actual time period of a swing is about .13 seconds. Using Rightviewpro, I have measured most MLB hitters at .13 from initiation to contact. Believe it or not, most amateurs are in this range as well. A typical stride takes around .5 seconds (there is variance) , and the swing .13 (no variance). Since a fastball take .4 seconds to travel to home plate, and the entire process of swinging takes. .65-.7 seconds, all MLB hitters start moving before release. From my experience many amateurs do not start on time, and that is why they struggle as they do.

Quincy,

First, we can't all agree that the purpose of the swing is to generate the greatest batspeed at contact (at least I don't). A hitter can swing 120mph, but if his swing path is incorrect, bat speed means little.

A little anecdote here that my Dad would always refer to;

When John Olerud and Derek Bell were with the Blue Jays, they had someone cme in to measure bat speed. For all the hitters on the team, Olerud had the slowest bat speed, int he low 70s, and Bell had the fastest, in the high 90s.

This isn't meant to knock Derek Bell's career; he was a .276 career hitter with 134 home runs. However, Olerud was a career .295 hitter with 255 home runs and a batting title in 1993 (.363) while having a significantly slower batspeed than Bell and countless others.

Last year I read a great article in GQ about hitting and the studies that a group put together with Albert Pujols. They put him through a number of coordination tests similar to those that Babe Ruth was giving during his playing days. Like Ruth, Pujols tested at the highsest levels in most tests. They also tested his batspeed, which if I remember correctly was in the high 80s. The highest batspeed they had ever tested was from some career minor leaguer who had never been to the big leagues. Again, batspeed was not shown to be a defining factor in being an elite hitter.

Don't get me wrong, if you can combine the correct swing path and timing with great bat speed, you are in great shape. I'm just not buying that EVERYONE in here agrees that the purpose of the swing is to create the greatest batspeed. IMO the purpose of the swing is to get in the best position you can at the right time to hit the ball HARD.

As for styles, I believe that each hitter has their own. I believe that a hitter's STYLE is how they get into the position to hit until their stride foot comes down. Once the foot comes down, I believe that all the good hitters share many, many similarities that make them who they are. IMO they all get there in their own way. That is their STYLE.

I do agree that no one swing is perfect for everybody, but IMO all good swings share many similarities, from high school to college to pro ball.

LevelPath19, great post. I agree with all that you have said.

Granted bat speed without contact is worthless. That is why I qualified that we want the greatest bat speed at contact.

In an attempt to increase the efficiency of the swing, I contend and your data confirms that the advantage can be gained by minimizing the duration of the stride or weight shift.

What style or technique can minimize the .65 - .7 seconds of the swing as it is at present?

.

quote:

Originally posted by LevelPath19:
Batspeed is not the only factor to consider when developing a swing. Direction of the swing is an equal factor in judging a swing effiency. I coached in college, and one year we measured all of our hitter's batspeeds. Our best hitter was in the middle of the pack, and one of our worst hitters had the fastest batspeed. The good hitter had a very level swing path, coupled with excellent quickness and timing. The poor hitter with good batspeed did not have these skills.

The actual time period of a swing is about .13 seconds. Using Rightviewpro, I have measured most MLB hitters at .13 from initiation to contact. Believe it or not, most amateurs are in this range as well. A typical stride takes around .5 seconds (there is variance) , and the swing .13 (no variance). Since a fastball take .4 seconds to travel to home plate, and the entire process of swinging takes. .65-.7 seconds, all MLB hitters start moving before release. From my experience many amateurs do not start on time, and that is why they struggle as they do.

Good information.

The running start is one of the most misunderstood aspects of the swing.

DMac talked about it all the time.

Check out this hitters running start.



IMO, the lower body dances within the hitters rhythm and is synced with the pitcher's rhythm. Leaving the hands a large window from which to launch.

The key is to learn how to get the barrel moving, in the swing plane, without committing.

In effect, starting, without commitment, yet being able to commit when needed.

I agree totally.

It is better for a batter to be prepared to hit every pitch and leave the only decision to be made as whether not to swing.

Batters who wait to make a decision to swing as compared to not swing can be compared to a batting practice star, but strike out king in game situations.

What style or technique is best suited to this line of thinking?

.

quote:

Originally posted by Quincy:
In an attempt to increase the efficiency of the swing, I contend and your data confirms that the advantage can be gained by minimizing the duration of the stride or weight shift.

What style or technique can minimize the .65 - .7 seconds of the swing as it is at present?

.

I'm not sure, but I think that you are suggesting that this time period should be shortened. So it is suggested that the duration of the load/stride should be shortened, correct?

I would disagree with that idea. Tnis is the most effiecient period of time to get a swing started quickly and powerfully. If you shorten this time period with a quicker stride/load, I think the swing itself will actually lose quickness. The .5 seconds of the stride and the .125 of the swing is a 4 to 1 ratio. This is similar to the backswing/swing ratio of an efficient golf swing. Any tempo that is too quick loses control and power.

Yes, I am suggesting that the swing duration could be shortened while still maintaining power and control.

With the constant search for pitchers who can throw at 100 mph and the ever evolving human body, higher pitch velocity could be the norm rather than the exception in time.

This would skew the equation somewhat by shortening the duration of the pitch to the plate and the duration of pitch recognition and swing execution.

What style would be able to handle the 100 mph fastball with reasonable certainty of controlled contact?

.

quote:

Originally posted by Chameleon:

The running start is one of the most misunderstood aspects of the swing.

DMac talked about it all the time.

Check out this hitters running start.



IMO, the lower body dances within the hitters rhythm and is synced with the pitcher's rhythm. Leaving the hands a large window from which to launch.

The key is to learn how to get the barrel moving, in the swing plane, without committing.

In effect, starting, without commitment, yet being able to commit when needed.

Chameleon,

I'm glad this post isn't copy written, because it's getting hung on my son's wall! I have always known that the forward **** of the bat by Williams and Bonds were very important, but until the "snap the pole off drill" you showed I didn't know why.

"bat float"
"instantaneous launch and spend"
"handle torque"

I get them all now! IMO, not only are you the KING of the video clip, but now you are the KING of hitting understanding too!

I know how much work it had to take to get to where you are because I know how much I've done and wasn't there! Thanks again!

quote:

Originally posted by Quincy:
Yes, I am suggesting that the swing duration could be shortened while still maintaining power and control.

With the constant search for pitchers who can throw at 100 mph and the ever evolving human body, higher pitch velocity could be the norm rather than the exception in time.

This would skew the equation somewhat by shortening the duration of the pitch to the plate and the duration of pitch recognition and swing execution.

What style would be able to handle the 100 mph fastball with reasonable certainty of controlled contact?

.

Quincy, I specifically asked if you thought that shortening the duration of the stride/load was the correct approach. I understand that shortening duration of the swing itself would be beneficial.

One of the points of my first post was that amateurs take less time to stride/load. I have hundreds of students on video, and we watch each swing frame by frame. One constant is that amateurs take less time to stride/load, more like .3 seconds, but take more time to swing, more like .15-.18. Their ration of stride to swing is more like 2 to 1, whereas pros are about 4 to 1. So all evidence that I have seen supports that there is no correlation between shortening the time that it takes to stride/prepare and the quickness of getting the bat to the ball at decision.

The stride should take as long as the hitter needs it to take......

How long should it take to stride?.....Depends on the hitter's read on the speed of the pitch....

You recognize fastball, the front foot comes down sooner.....You recognize offspeed, the front foot comes down later.....

Maintaining the momentum and stretch in the swing is every bit as important as creating them......Donnie said this many times and it's so true.....

If you miss the read by a bit, float the bat till it's time to torque the handle.....

Yes, my thought was that minimizing the stride would save time in the swing.

My thinking is based on the evolution of the swing (including the stride or weight shift) over the years.

Shoeless Joe Jackson

http://www.shep1.hittingillustrated.com/joefullbat.mpeg

Ortiz and Manny

http://mlb.mlb.com/media/player/mp_tpl.jsp?w_id=604501&...l=&type=v_free&_mp=1
.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Quincy:
Yes, my thought was that minimizing the stride would save time in the swing.

My thinking is based on the evolution of the swing (including the stride or weight shift) over the years.


I can see where this theory may have taken shape. Hitters have minimized the movements before the swing in the last 100 years, and I do believe that the current examples are more managable. But I don't think that it's reasonable to think that minimzing these movements more would lead to even more quickness. There is a point of diminishing returns.

Look at Chameleon's Chipper Jones clip closely. Look at the movements done before the Pitcher releases the ball. This is not common to amateurs. Many don't make their first move until the ball is released, and they never establish the proper rhythm or momentum to launch the bat quickly and powerfully (the running start that Chameleon mentions). From my experience, and again this is not a guess, I haver hundereds of video examples, hitters that take less time to stride have poor quickness and other ineffieciencies.

I agree with the Chipper Jones analysis and again commend you on the fine research you have done.

What gave rise to the question is that one report that I came across stated that no present day swing can hit a ball pitched between 103 mph and anything faster.

Since 103 is only three mph more than the current day top flame throwers, what would enable batters to remain competitive?

.

To be honest, I don't think hitters will have to worry about that because the human body is not capable of throwing above 103. The tendons and ligaments in the arm are not capable of handling the stress, so weightlifting and steroids can not raise the ultimate capacity for velocity.

I remember when the accepted belief was that pitchers could never throw 100 for the same reasons.

There was a high school game down here where a pitcher was throwing high 90's which seems crazy for the age.

Others were over 90 at 18 and still growing.

Amazingly there must have been 50 or better in the '07 high school class alone that were above 90.

It seems more inevitable than improbable.

.

2 words.... uhhh...errr... one name ZUMAYA

Of course, there are many pitchers that 90+, and even a handful of MLB Pitchers that can touch 100, or 103 like Zumaya. Quincy's claim is that hitters are not capable of timing anything above 103 (it's pretty obvious, of course they can not), I am stating that we will never see anything above 103.

I don't remember where I read this study, but I saw one that stated that Fastball velocity is permanently capped where it is at the present time. The max for human capability of slightly above 100. Although other activities have seen records broken, such as weightlifting and sprinting, the study claimed that no further strength or explosiveness could raise fastball velocity because the tendons and ligaments in the arm could never support the strain of, say, a 105 mph Fastball. So, 100 years from now, the world record for the clean and jerk may have gone up 50%, bbut the Fastball is permanently stuck at 100-103 MPH as the limit.

BTW, I personally clocked Tigers number one pick Rick Porcello at 100 MPH this season, so I am aware that velocity is out there and rising. Kids throw harder now than they ever have. But twenty years from now, it won't be a common sight for Pitchers to throw 105 and for hitters to invent some new style to stay competive.

quote:

Originally posted by Quincy:
I remember when the accepted belief was that pitchers could never throw 100 for the same reasons.

When was this a common belief? Bob Feller was clocked at around 100 MPH 60 years ago. Nolan Ryan and Goose Gossage were clocked at 100, so people obviously knew that it was possible. It's more common nowadays because of strength and conditioning, and yes, steroids...

I think there are hitters who already have eliminated much of the pre swing. Their called no striders, but even they have rhythm/tempo to the preparation phase of the swing.

I long time student of the game, Jim Dixon, said that elite hitters were slow to prepare. Meaning they took more time in the preparation phase, as compared to average hitters. We can all see this in toe tapers or knee lifts. They start to load early, maintain that load, and then initiate the swing quickly. If you compare different loading patterns (strides), you will find that knee lifters and the likes of toe tapers take about the same amount of time.

From a scientific point of view, a quicker load and unload cycle should result in the most force produced. However the load of the lower body can start early in many great hitters without any lose in performance.

Batspeed and quickness is what you want. In a motor learning book they talk about spatial accuracy. In theory and in tests they found that performing a task at around 80% maximal effort was better in spatial accuracy. The swing should be performed as quickly/powerfully as possible.

quote:

Originally posted by LevelPath19:
Of course, there are many pitchers that 90+, and even a handful of MLB Pitchers that can touch 100, or 103 like Zumaya. Quincy's claim is that hitters are not capable of timing anything above 103 (it's pretty obvious, of course they can not), I am stating that we will never see anything above 103.

I don't remember where I read this study, but I saw one that stated that Fastball velocity is permanently capped where it is at the present time. The max for human capability of slightly above 100. Although other activities have seen records broken, such as weightlifting and sprinting, the study claimed that no further strength or explosiveness could raise fastball velocity because the tendons and ligaments in the arm could never support the strain of, say, a 105 mph Fastball. So, 100 years from now, the world record for the clean and jerk may have gone up 50%, bbut the Fastball is permanently stuck at 100-103 MPH as the limit.

BTW, I personally clocked Tigers number one pick Rick Porcello at 100 MPH this season, so I am aware that velocity is out there and rising. Kids throw harder now than they ever have. But twenty years from now, it won't be a common sight for Pitchers to throw 105 and for hitters to invent some new style to stay competive.

Travis Haefner hits BP at 120mph.

Feller wasn't really clocked but his fastball won a race with a motorcycle. Some say it was 104 and others claim 107.

The theory concerning the 100 mph ceiling has to do with pitch speeds by radar. There have been claims before radar was used to gauge pitch speed but they have been discounted.

I guess it is the same logic as the tree in the woods. If a pitch is thrown at a speed higher than 100 mph but no official agency is there to record it, it never happened.

I guess only time will tell.

What swing or batting styles that you are aware of can handle the 100 mph fastball?

.

quote:

Originally posted by micmeister:
Travis Haefner hits BP at 120mph.

This is the current trend being used to counter the higher pitch speeds.

There should be a clip of Hafner homering

http://mlb.mlb.com/media/player/mp_tpl.jsp?w_id=604061&...l=&type=v_free&_mp=1

.

quote:

Originally posted by Quincy:
Feller wasn't really clocked but his fastball won a race with a motorcycle. Some say it was 104 and others claim 107.

This is what I was referring to. He was measured at 98.6 MPH.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=aMPxpOapRuU

Thank you for posting the clip.

I love them old black and white news reels.

.

I don't know if that contraption is measuring velocity at the plate or averaged over the pitch.

newer ways of measuring suggest the speed out of hand is about 7mph higher than across plate for heaters.

The photo-electric screen uses an electronic photo sensitive element that is focused on a Lumiline or other suitable light source.

The ball passes between the light source and the photo cell, causing an interruption of the light.

This is detected by circuitry, which starts the chronograph counter.

A similar light interruption at the closing gate stops the counter.

.