Okay. So all things being equal, including mechanics are you guys saying that if you have two guys that can create a batspeed of say 95mph and one weighs 180 and the other weighs 230 that the exit speed will be the same?
The 230 guy could be alot less...
as Mcguire says, it didn't help me hit the ball. :]
Or the best mechanics and drugs , still got to be able to hit it.
The best mechanic's in the world will not get you to the next level, alone.
But...when you have the ability to hit, combining that with the best mechanic's produces special hitters, and alot of the time they weigh 180.
as Mcguire says, it didn't help me hit the ball. :]
Or the best mechanics and drugs , still got to be able to hit it.
The best mechanic's in the world will not get you to the next level, alone.
But...when you have the ability to hit, combining that with the best mechanic's produces special hitters, and alot of the time they weigh 180.
PTOF, that is a purely theoretical argument….. Now to reality - would I want a 180lb guy punching me or a 230lb guy? I'll take the smaller guy any day. So for hitting there is probably some energy applied to the ball at contact through the hands/arms, which is probably why you want to be in the “power L” position at ball contact to maximize this force.
powertoallfields,
How do you get weight shift doesn't matter from what I posted?
A 400 pounder still has to find a effective way to transfer the momentum from the body to the bat.
How do you get weight shift doesn't matter from what I posted?
A 400 pounder still has to find a effective way to transfer the momentum from the body to the bat.
Why did Bonds hit more HRs AFTER he got to 230?
quote:Originally posted by CADad:
powertoallfields,
How do you get weight shift doesn't matter from what I posted?
A 400 pounder still has to find a effective way to transfer the momentum from the body to the bat.
Just trying to get it straight in my head. To me, if the 400 pounder can move at the same velocity of the 200 pounder, the 400 pounder should be able to hit the ball farther. That is, with all other aspects being equal.
quote:Originally posted by powertoallfields:
Why did Bonds hit more HRs AFTER he got to 230?
Ahhh I think the answer to that is obvious...
The weight argument is starting to get too theoritical, but I get the point.
quote:Originally posted by showme:
The 230 guy could be alot less...
as Mcguire says, it didn't help me hit the ball. :]
Or the best mechanics and drugs , still got to be able to hit it.
The best mechanic's in the world will not get you to the next level, alone.
But...when you have the ability to hit, combining that with the best mechanic's produces special hitters, and alot of the time they weigh 180.
I don't disagree with what you've said here. What I'm saying...okay...lets make it even more simple. If the same great hitter weighed 180 one year and 230 the next year and hit the same pitch, on the same swing, on the same part of the bat, with the same bat, would...well...okay...should the ball go farther?
That didn't make it simple. It depends on what you mean by the same swing. At 230 lbs he's probably going to generate more bat speed than at 180 lbs so the ball would go further. However, if for some reason such as an inability to move the 230 lbs as fast resulted in no difference in bat speed then no the ball wouldn't go further.
Using the analogy of the fighter there's another thing that comes into play. When I was a middleweight I sparred with a good heavyweight once. I figured I'd be able to offset his power with my quickness. What I didn't realize was that he would be able to make shorter punches and still generate as much or more power than a middleweight. That made him just as quick as me as I had to put full effort into my punches just to make him take notice. Fortunately, it was just sparring and he wasn't trying hurt me.
The guys who bulked up on steroids gained the advantage of being able to take a more controlled, shorter swing and still generate home run power.
Using the analogy of the fighter there's another thing that comes into play. When I was a middleweight I sparred with a good heavyweight once. I figured I'd be able to offset his power with my quickness. What I didn't realize was that he would be able to make shorter punches and still generate as much or more power than a middleweight. That made him just as quick as me as I had to put full effort into my punches just to make him take notice. Fortunately, it was just sparring and he wasn't trying hurt me.
The guys who bulked up on steroids gained the advantage of being able to take a more controlled, shorter swing and still generate home run power.
Is he a fat 230lbs or is it made up a muscle?
Franly not sure, Pedroia might argue with you that the 180lb'er might be better.
Franly not sure, Pedroia might argue with you that the 180lb'er might be better.
quote:Originally posted by CADad:
That didn't make it simple. It depends on what you mean by the same swing. At 230 lbs he's probably going to generate more bat speed than at 180 lbs so the ball would go further. However, if for some reason such as an inability to move the 230 lbs as fast resulted in no difference in bat speed then no the ball wouldn't go further.
Using the analogy of the fighter there's another thing that comes into play. When I was a middleweight I sparred with a good heavyweight once. I figured I'd be able to offset his power with my quickness. What I didn't realize was that he would be able to make shorter punches and still generate as much or more power than a middleweight. That made him just as quick as me as I had to put full effort into my punches just to make him take notice. Fortunately, it was just sparring and he wasn't trying hurt me.
The guys who bulked up on steroids gained the advantage of being able to take a more controlled, shorter swing and still generate home run power.
Okay! Just one more analogy. I think I probably know the answer, but I want to know for sure. If two cars, both the same size, both traveling 95 mph, but one weighs 1000 lbs. and the other weighs 1400 lbs. and they hit a brick wall. Which one would do the most damage? Anticipating what you might say, what if each car had an aluminum bat (same exact bat) attached to the side of the car and it hit a ball sitting on a tee (in the exact same spot on the bat and ball). Would one ball go farther than the other?
The whole thing I'm trying to get to, is why do College and Pro teams want bigger kids if size doesn't make a difference?
Not trying to say anything rearding this subject, but this is kind of interesting.
Top 5 HR hitters of all time.
Barry Bonds -
Hank Aaron - 6'0/180
Babe Ruth - 6'2/215
Willie Mays - 5'11/180
Ken Griffey Jr - 6'3/205
Other all star players not in the top 50
Frank Howard - 6'7/255
Dave Parker - 6'5/230
Mo Vaughn - 6'1/235
Cecil Fielder - 6'3/250
Frank Thomas - 6'5/257
Top 5 HR hitters of all time.
Barry Bonds -
Hank Aaron - 6'0/180
Babe Ruth - 6'2/215
Willie Mays - 5'11/180
Ken Griffey Jr - 6'3/205
Other all star players not in the top 50
Frank Howard - 6'7/255
Dave Parker - 6'5/230
Mo Vaughn - 6'1/235
Cecil Fielder - 6'3/250
Frank Thomas - 6'5/257
Should also add...
The longest HR I've ever seen in person was hit by Frank Howard.
The longest HR I've ever seen in person was hit by Frank Howard.
quote:Originally posted by powertoallfields:
Okay! Just one more analogy. I think I probably know the answer, but I want to know for sure. If two cars, both the same size, both traveling 95 mph, but one weighs 1000 lbs. and the other weighs 1400 lbs. and they hit a brick wall. Which one would do the most damage? Anticipating what you might say, what if each car had an aluminum bat (same exact bat) attached to the side of the car and it hit a ball sitting on a tee (in the exact same spot on the bat and ball). Would one ball go farther than the other?
Interesting but in this case the difference would most likely not be measurable. In the case of a batter the larger player is probably exerting additional force on the bat at the time of contact.
Submit it to mytbusters, might be a fun episode!
quote:
The whole thing I'm trying to get to, is why do College and Pro teams want bigger kids if size doesn't make a difference?
a) Because a bigger player is generally going to generate more bat speed. b) Like Puljos he can get the bat on plane sooner and longer and has more strength to control the bat c) Probably something to do with your size argument in applying power to the bat at time of contact.
quote:quote:
Originally posted by showme:
The 230 guy could be alot less...
as Mcguire says, it didn't help me hit the ball. :]
Or the best mechanics and drugs , still got to be able to hit it.
The best mechanic's in the world will not get you to the next level, alone.
But...when you have the ability to hit, combining that with the best mechanic's produces special hitters, and alot of the time they weigh 180.
I don't disagree with what you've said here. What I'm saying...okay...lets make it even more simple. If the same great hitter weighed 180 one year and 230 the next year and hit the same pitch, on the same swing, on the same part of the bat, with the same bat, would...well...okay...should the ball go farther?
Mark M Did just this went to 249 and increased his hr's per balls in play from 16 to 11.
Distance determind by how fast a ball is pitched, or spins in the pitch, what angle it is hit. .39 45 degree off the bat for max carries.
just read the conclusions, wrist roll no help, upswing is best...
so the 180 guy that centers the ball with good batspeed at the right angle or can hit curves better... wins.
http://webusers.npl.illinois.e...an/pob/AJP-Nov03.pdf
just read the conclusions, wrist roll no help, upswing is best...
so the 180 guy that centers the ball with good batspeed at the right angle or can hit curves better... wins.
http://webusers.npl.illinois.e...an/pob/AJP-Nov03.pdf
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:
Not trying to say anything rearding this subject, but this is kind of interesting.
Top 5 HR hitters of all time.
Barry Bonds -
Hank Aaron - 6'0/180
Babe Ruth - 6'2/215
Willie Mays - 5'11/180
Ken Griffey Jr - 6'3/205
Other all star players not in the top 50
Frank Howard - 6'7/255
Dave Parker - 6'5/230
Mo Vaughn - 6'1/235
Cecil Fielder - 6'3/250
Frank Thomas - 6'5/257
Okay! Since I KNOW you've been around lots of scouts, why do you think they want the bigger guy? To me, it makes sense to get a shorter guy because his strike zone should be smaller than the bigger guy. Of course, with Pujols, you get the best of both worlds, lol.
quote:Originally posted by powertoallfields:
Okay! Since I KNOW you've been around lots of scouts, why do you think they want the bigger guy? To me, it makes sense to get a shorter guy because his strike zone should be smaller than the bigger guy. Of course, with Pujols, you get the best of both worlds, lol.
Why? Quite simple, because they look better in the uniforms....
quote:a) Because a bigger player is generally going to generate more bat speed
I'm not sure that's anymore true in hitting than it is in pitching! To your question though, why do Scouts so covet size? It must just look "sturdier and stronger to them???"
If you want, you can just GOOGLE; The Dynamics of the baseball-bat collision ... and wade through all the Physics. The net result goes back to the Power formula where the value of Speed is squared! Bat speed matters most.
To the earlier poster that said "he would rather take a hit from a 180lb guy evertime over a 225lb man." News flash; if the 180lb guy is properly trained, with good technique (mechanics) and the 225lb guys isn't, look out cuz you're gonna get "jacked-up."
Measuring a bat speed from a dead stop a hitter roughly will swing at about the ball speed of a pitcher. I have measured high school kids from a tee in the mid-90s.
If you throw a ball against a wall at 30 MPH vs. 90 MPH the ball will exit faster off the wall at 90 MPH. The same when a ball is hit on a bat.
Velocity of the bat, velocity of the ball and mass are critical components to distance. It is not just bat speed but size of the bat.
The ball isn't hitting a 180 or 270 pound person, but the bat. That bat speed, the ball speed and the mass of the bat are the critical elements.
However, just like in boxing, the heavyweight tends to have more force. They tend to have more mass behind the punch. Although the punch is hitting the other boxer, what is behind it is important. A bigger hitter has more behind the punch. The efficient transfer of weight and timing of the "punch" of the bat is important. That is why and inefficient swing won't produce the same power even if the bat speed is the same.
One other factor I doubt has ever been measured is recoil. A big guy will hit through the force of the ball with little recoil. The smaller arms (see little kids in cages) will possibly not go through the mass of the ball as well.
If you throw a ball against a wall at 30 MPH vs. 90 MPH the ball will exit faster off the wall at 90 MPH. The same when a ball is hit on a bat.
Velocity of the bat, velocity of the ball and mass are critical components to distance. It is not just bat speed but size of the bat.
The ball isn't hitting a 180 or 270 pound person, but the bat. That bat speed, the ball speed and the mass of the bat are the critical elements.
However, just like in boxing, the heavyweight tends to have more force. They tend to have more mass behind the punch. Although the punch is hitting the other boxer, what is behind it is important. A bigger hitter has more behind the punch. The efficient transfer of weight and timing of the "punch" of the bat is important. That is why and inefficient swing won't produce the same power even if the bat speed is the same.
One other factor I doubt has ever been measured is recoil. A big guy will hit through the force of the ball with little recoil. The smaller arms (see little kids in cages) will possibly not go through the mass of the ball as well.
quote:
Originally posted by powertoallfields:
Okay! Just one more analogy. I think I probably know the answer, but I want to know for sure. If two cars, both the same size, both traveling 95 mph, but one weighs 1000 lbs. and the other weighs 1400 lbs. and they hit a brick wall. Which one would do the most damage? Anticipating what you might say, what if each car had an aluminum bat (same exact bat) attached to the side of the car and it hit a ball sitting on a tee (in the exact same spot on the bat and ball). Would one ball go farther than the other?
PTOF, I see what you are saying. Let me see if I understand. In the car hitting the wall I would think the 1400 lb car would do more damage to the wall, because all the mass of the car would be transfered to the wall. Now when you hang a bat off both cars and run the bat into a ball, then it would be around the same. Not all of the mass is transfered to the bat then ball, since most of the mass is still with the car that is traveling down the road. Same with a player swinging the bat. Unless they can transfer all of the weight to the bat then the ball, then weight may have nothing to do with swinging the bat. It comes down to efficiency, how much engery or mass can be transfered to the bat, then the ball. this is my simple thinking, and could be way off target. Most times simple does not work with science
Originally posted by powertoallfields:
Okay! Just one more analogy. I think I probably know the answer, but I want to know for sure. If two cars, both the same size, both traveling 95 mph, but one weighs 1000 lbs. and the other weighs 1400 lbs. and they hit a brick wall. Which one would do the most damage? Anticipating what you might say, what if each car had an aluminum bat (same exact bat) attached to the side of the car and it hit a ball sitting on a tee (in the exact same spot on the bat and ball). Would one ball go farther than the other?
PTOF, I see what you are saying. Let me see if I understand. In the car hitting the wall I would think the 1400 lb car would do more damage to the wall, because all the mass of the car would be transfered to the wall. Now when you hang a bat off both cars and run the bat into a ball, then it would be around the same. Not all of the mass is transfered to the bat then ball, since most of the mass is still with the car that is traveling down the road. Same with a player swinging the bat. Unless they can transfer all of the weight to the bat then the ball, then weight may have nothing to do with swinging the bat. It comes down to efficiency, how much engery or mass can be transfered to the bat, then the ball. this is my simple thinking, and could be way off target. Most times simple does not work with science
Let me summarize...
If a 400 lb man who is exceptionally strong swings a 100 oz. bat 100 mph against a 100 mph fastball... and he hits the ball squarely with solid leverage and some lift in his swing with perfect mechanics and timing... The ball might travel quite a distance.
If a 400 lb man who is exceptionally strong swings a 100 oz. bat 100 mph against a 100 mph fastball... and he hits the ball squarely with solid leverage and some lift in his swing with perfect mechanics and timing... The ball might travel quite a distance.
It is the speed and mass of the bat. In an effective swing the hands/wrists act mostly as a pivot point and do not significantly contribute to the mass of the bat.
Studies have shown that there's very little difference in how far a ball travels off a bat that is clamped and one that isn't.
Studies have shown that there's very little difference in how far a ball travels off a bat that is clamped and one that isn't.
PG, King Kong swinging this will work also.
quote:Originally posted by baseballpapa:
That is why and inefficient swing won't produce the same power even if the bat speed is the same.
One other factor I doubt has ever been measured is recoil. A big guy will hit through the force of the ball with little recoil. The smaller arms (see little kids in cages) will possibly not go through the mass of the ball as well.
This has been studied. Start with Alan Nathan - he would disagree with you.
quote:Originally posted by CADad:
It is the speed and mass of the bat. In an effective swing the hands/wrists act mostly as a pivot point and do not significantly contribute to the mass of the bat.
Studies have shown that there's very little difference in how far a ball travels off a bat that is clamped and one that isn't.
True dat.
another twist is when bat speed is applied...
Does Bat Speed = Pop
Most batting instructors would agree that there is a correlation between the velocity of the bat and how far a hit ball will travel. Yet, I have noted that two players swinging the same bat on about the same plane with comparable bat speeds may vary greatly in the power they display. One might hit balls well over 400 ft. while the others would carry only 300 ft. This would seem to be contradictory until you take into account when the maximum bat speed occurred during the two swings.
The bat speed that really counts is that attained at (or by) contact. Swing mechanics of a great hitter allows him to generate higher bat speed much earlier in the swing than average hitters. Players with a lot of "pop" in their bat expend all of the body's rotational and torque energies before and at contact. After contact their limbs and torso are how in a relaxed and coast mode. The follow through portion of the swing is from the momentum of the bat pulling the arms up and through.
Average hitters are still expending energy to gain bat speed for 20 to 40 degrees (poor hitters past 60 degrees) of bat travel after the bat passes the contact point. Some coaches would contend that gaining speed after contact is beneficial because of the "driving through the ball" effect. --- The facts do not support this theory. --- The ball is in contact with a 35 oz. wood bat moving at 70 MPH for about 1/2000 of a sec. During this time the bat moves less than 1 in. (about 3/4 in.) --- Not much space for "driving through" or (I might add) "wrapping around" the ball.
http://www.batspeed.com/research06.html
Does Bat Speed = Pop
Most batting instructors would agree that there is a correlation between the velocity of the bat and how far a hit ball will travel. Yet, I have noted that two players swinging the same bat on about the same plane with comparable bat speeds may vary greatly in the power they display. One might hit balls well over 400 ft. while the others would carry only 300 ft. This would seem to be contradictory until you take into account when the maximum bat speed occurred during the two swings.
The bat speed that really counts is that attained at (or by) contact. Swing mechanics of a great hitter allows him to generate higher bat speed much earlier in the swing than average hitters. Players with a lot of "pop" in their bat expend all of the body's rotational and torque energies before and at contact. After contact their limbs and torso are how in a relaxed and coast mode. The follow through portion of the swing is from the momentum of the bat pulling the arms up and through.
Average hitters are still expending energy to gain bat speed for 20 to 40 degrees (poor hitters past 60 degrees) of bat travel after the bat passes the contact point. Some coaches would contend that gaining speed after contact is beneficial because of the "driving through the ball" effect. --- The facts do not support this theory. --- The ball is in contact with a 35 oz. wood bat moving at 70 MPH for about 1/2000 of a sec. During this time the bat moves less than 1 in. (about 3/4 in.) --- Not much space for "driving through" or (I might add) "wrapping around" the ball.
http://www.batspeed.com/research06.html
bat speed (flaky) vs exit speed (preferred)
Wow love the topic and lots of good discussion here on Bat speed and distance. There are a lot of factors to be considered regarding distance:
Pitch speed
Bat speed
Launching angle/trajectory – under normal conditions a 35 degree angle creates the proper backspin for maximum force and distance.
Air resistance
Environment – Wind, humidity, temperature, elevation
Some data to consider:
The distance an 85-mph fastball can be hit by bats swung at different velocities at standard conditions, with a 35 degree exit angle (which is caused by striking the baseball ¾” below it center:
Bats speed (MPH) Distance in feet
50 280
55 325
60 340
65 360
70 400
75 425
80 450
85 475
90 500
For those who think I am making this up. I had the priviledge to study under the author of this information and it was extracted from an excellent book, “The Physics of Baseball”, written by Robert K. Adair. Ph.D. of Physics at Yale University. There is MORE than enough detailed research and facts in this book to satisfy any information search on this topic!
Pitch speed
Bat speed
Launching angle/trajectory – under normal conditions a 35 degree angle creates the proper backspin for maximum force and distance.
Air resistance
Environment – Wind, humidity, temperature, elevation
Some data to consider:
The distance an 85-mph fastball can be hit by bats swung at different velocities at standard conditions, with a 35 degree exit angle (which is caused by striking the baseball ¾” below it center:
Bats speed (MPH) Distance in feet
50 280
55 325
60 340
65 360
70 400
75 425
80 450
85 475
90 500
For those who think I am making this up. I had the priviledge to study under the author of this information and it was extracted from an excellent book, “The Physics of Baseball”, written by Robert K. Adair. Ph.D. of Physics at Yale University. There is MORE than enough detailed research and facts in this book to satisfy any information search on this topic!
quote:Some data to consider:
The distance an 85-mph fastball can be hit by bats swung at different velocities at standard conditions, with a 35 degree exit angle (which is caused by striking the baseball ¾” below it center:
Bats speed (MPH) Distance in feet
50 280
55 325
60 340
65 360
70 400
75 425
80 450
85 475
90 500
I believe what you are saying about the 35 degree trajectory of the ball producing the furthest hit. I have read this before and computer models seem to substantiate this as well. I also agree with the distances that you post.
However, I conceptually struggle with hitting the ball 3/4 of an inch beneath the centerline of the ball. A baseball is only about 2 1/2 inches and if you divide this in two then you get 1 1/4 inches as the centerline. Further if you deduct 3/4 inch from 1 1/4 inch you are at 1/2 inch mark on the ball.
If you lay a baseball on a table and get at eye level then you are only talking about the 5th visible seam if the ball is layed on the table in a position like a 2 seam fastball. This seems awful low to produce the maximum trajectory on a ball.
What angle would the swing be to produce a 35 degree trajectory on the ball?
I think I'm going to set a tee up and measure off 35 degree angles against the hitting net to see what this looks like visually when tee hitting.
I agree with showme, sure bat speed will help to drive the ball but if the ball has top spin it will not go really as far as if it did have back spin.
"What angle would the swing be to produce a 35 degree trajectory on the ball?"
In Dr. Adair's analysis he states:
"The inclination of the arc of the swing does not strongly affect the velocity of the struck ball, but it does affect the mean angle at which the ball leaves the bat and, hence, the probability of hitting a very long ball and a home run."
To summarize, he states that if a batters swing plane travels upward to meet and match the downward plane of the pitch, which is approximately 8 to 10 degrees, they will hit the ball squarely which will result in a line drive. He states, "Players call this a level swing."
If you have a slight uppercut or hit the ball below center you will increase backspin and also distance. To quote, "Roughly speaking, every 10 degrees extra, i.e. beyond 10 degrees, of uppercut sends the squarely hit ball at an upwards added angle of about 16 degrees. So Rod Carew with an upward swing angle of 10 degrees hits a line drive that leaves his bat at 10 degrees. Reggie Jackson with an upward swing angle of 20 degrees hits a home run because his ball leaves his bat at an angle 26 degrees due to the increased uppercut causing backspin.
That is some additional information from his book. it is quite detailed and I am sorry if I did a poor job summarizing some of the points.
So basically matching the plane of the pitch with the plane of the swing produces more line drives. Adjusting the plane of the swing up or down result in more long flys or ground balls due to where on the ball the bat makes contact. He also mentions sweet spot, vibration, metal bats etc. etc. an dhow they affect distance, bat speed etc. Good read!
In Dr. Adair's analysis he states:
"The inclination of the arc of the swing does not strongly affect the velocity of the struck ball, but it does affect the mean angle at which the ball leaves the bat and, hence, the probability of hitting a very long ball and a home run."
To summarize, he states that if a batters swing plane travels upward to meet and match the downward plane of the pitch, which is approximately 8 to 10 degrees, they will hit the ball squarely which will result in a line drive. He states, "Players call this a level swing."
If you have a slight uppercut or hit the ball below center you will increase backspin and also distance. To quote, "Roughly speaking, every 10 degrees extra, i.e. beyond 10 degrees, of uppercut sends the squarely hit ball at an upwards added angle of about 16 degrees. So Rod Carew with an upward swing angle of 10 degrees hits a line drive that leaves his bat at 10 degrees. Reggie Jackson with an upward swing angle of 20 degrees hits a home run because his ball leaves his bat at an angle 26 degrees due to the increased uppercut causing backspin.
That is some additional information from his book. it is quite detailed and I am sorry if I did a poor job summarizing some of the points.
So basically matching the plane of the pitch with the plane of the swing produces more line drives. Adjusting the plane of the swing up or down result in more long flys or ground balls due to where on the ball the bat makes contact. He also mentions sweet spot, vibration, metal bats etc. etc. an dhow they affect distance, bat speed etc. Good read!
According to United States Patent # 4256304, baseballs are allowed to be have a diameter of between two and seven-eighths inches and three inches.
So you would have a bit more area to connect with to create backspin and and exit angle of 35 degrees. Half the ball would be approximately 1.5 inches so if you hit the ball 3/4" from center as Dr. Adair states, you are basically hitting the lower half of the ball on center to create maximum back spin/distance.
So you would have a bit more area to connect with to create backspin and and exit angle of 35 degrees. Half the ball would be approximately 1.5 inches so if you hit the ball 3/4" from center as Dr. Adair states, you are basically hitting the lower half of the ball on center to create maximum back spin/distance.
quote:Originally posted by Baseba777:
"What angle would the swing be to produce a 35 degree trajectory on the ball?"
In Dr. Adair's analysis he states:
"The inclination of the arc of the swing does not strongly affect the velocity of the struck ball, but it does affect the mean angle at which the ball leaves the bat and, hence, the probability of hitting a very long ball and a home run."
To summarize, he states that if a batters swing plane travels upward to meet and match the downward plane of the pitch, which is approximately 8 to 10 degrees, they will hit the ball squarely which will result in a line drive. He states, "Players call this a level swing."
If you have a slight uppercut or hit the ball below center you will increase backspin and also distance. To quote, "Roughly speaking, every 10 degrees extra, i.e. beyond 10 degrees, of uppercut sends the squarely hit ball at an upwards added angle of about 16 degrees. So Rod Carew with an upward swing angle of 10 degrees hits a line drive that leaves his bat at 10 degrees. Reggie Jackson with an upward swing angle of 20 degrees hits a home run because his ball leaves his bat at an angle 26 degrees due to the increased uppercut causing backspin.
That is some additional information from his book. it is quite detailed and I am sorry if I did a poor job summarizing some of the points.
So basically matching the plane of the pitch with the plane of the swing produces more line drives. Adjusting the plane of the swing up or down result in more long flys or ground balls due to where on the ball the bat makes contact. He also mentions sweet spot, vibration, metal bats etc. etc. an dhow they affect distance, bat speed etc. Good read!
What is interesting is to set up a tee and then mark where you need to hit the ball to produce a 35 degree trajectory. It is a very steep angle and convinces me that most amateur hitters do not swing up enough.
couple of things...
Doing this from a T is tough, cannot duplicate the incoming 7 to 10 degree downward angle the ball comes in with off a flat T.
Swinging down or attempting to put backspin on a pitch borders insanity.
.4 tenths of a second to swing, the last 25 feet you're mind can't communicate with your body fast enough to make changes, and is basically blind the last 25 feet,. So attempting to hit the bottom might work in soft toss but science say's it won't live.
When you match the plane of the pitch with your swing, being early to the plane, intersects the top half and you hit a ground ball with top spin, getting to the plane late intersects the lower half and you hit a fly ball with back spin.
Spin on a ball, or in the air, or on the ground, has nothing to do with swinging up or down...all to do with being early or late to matching the plane of the pitch with the plane of you're swing.
Doing this from a T is tough, cannot duplicate the incoming 7 to 10 degree downward angle the ball comes in with off a flat T.
Swinging down or attempting to put backspin on a pitch borders insanity.
.4 tenths of a second to swing, the last 25 feet you're mind can't communicate with your body fast enough to make changes, and is basically blind the last 25 feet,. So attempting to hit the bottom might work in soft toss but science say's it won't live.
When you match the plane of the pitch with your swing, being early to the plane, intersects the top half and you hit a ground ball with top spin, getting to the plane late intersects the lower half and you hit a fly ball with back spin.
Spin on a ball, or in the air, or on the ground, has nothing to do with swinging up or down...all to do with being early or late to matching the plane of the pitch with the plane of you're swing.
Clearly timing is the bigger issue; however, a lot of amateur hitters really spend a lot of their time swinging too level. They swing level with the ground. The 35 degree trajectory off the tee does give you an idea of what kind of angle that you are looking for on the long ball. If you set a tee up the first thing you notice is that it is a very very steep angle.
It is even steeper than I conceptually visualize. Now I have no clue what practicing a 35 degree angle off a tee will do to a hitter but I'm going to practice it some.
I will say this though. When you measure batspeed it appears that a level swing produces the highest batspeed. My question is whether or not the higher bat speed on a level swing is the result of players constantly swinging level and developing better muscle memory and responses? Or is it just harder to swing fast on an upward plane? I haven't seen any hitting instructors suggest swinging upward and maybe it would be a good idea to suggest an upward swing to produce more realistic muscle memory and condition the muscles. Ten to 25 degrees. If maximum distance is produced this way then why not practice this way or spedn some time practicing this way.
It is even steeper than I conceptually visualize. Now I have no clue what practicing a 35 degree angle off a tee will do to a hitter but I'm going to practice it some.
I will say this though. When you measure batspeed it appears that a level swing produces the highest batspeed. My question is whether or not the higher bat speed on a level swing is the result of players constantly swinging level and developing better muscle memory and responses? Or is it just harder to swing fast on an upward plane? I haven't seen any hitting instructors suggest swinging upward and maybe it would be a good idea to suggest an upward swing to produce more realistic muscle memory and condition the muscles. Ten to 25 degrees. If maximum distance is produced this way then why not practice this way or spedn some time practicing this way.
Because they have been taught to swing down and cut the ball for back spin. Hitting has a hard time moving out of the this is what I've been taught by such and such and this star say to do this staged.
On then there's the 60 frame video stage that every one interrupts the way they want too to justify or prove that what they've thought for 30 years is right stage.
To one day soon, well this is what they do and there's no subjective interpretation stage.
Shoulders tilt and open early hitters swing up, front feet open 180 and sometimes flop open hand do move back....sacrilege to many a hitting garu and or coach, problem is video. Now in the I interrupt video to my advantage stage.
If you really want to cause a stir with a T, set two up, the back one 35 degree's lower than the front, with the ball on the front one.
On then there's the 60 frame video stage that every one interrupts the way they want too to justify or prove that what they've thought for 30 years is right stage.
To one day soon, well this is what they do and there's no subjective interpretation stage.
Shoulders tilt and open early hitters swing up, front feet open 180 and sometimes flop open hand do move back....sacrilege to many a hitting garu and or coach, problem is video. Now in the I interrupt video to my advantage stage.
If you really want to cause a stir with a T, set two up, the back one 35 degree's lower than the front, with the ball on the front one.
Showme! Good additionregarding a late or early swing!
Adair uses the Carew-jackson analogy again when describing this. Asuming the same swing planes etc. in my last post.
If they both missed their timing by swinging 9 inches to early on a fastball, Carew, batting left-handed would still hit a the ball squarely, but now a line drive over the 1st baseman's head. While Jackson, also batting left-handed would top the ball and hit a weak grounder to the 1st baseman. If they both swung equally late, Carew would hit a line drive over the infield between third and short while Jackson, hitting under the ball would hit a high pop fly to the 3rd baseman.
I think that practicing a swing the meets the plane of the ball with the plane of the bat is best. I think this discussion indicates why power comes late to a lot of great line drive hitters or why some never project consistant power even though they are physically capable. Or that some hitters who consatntly hit the ball with backspin hit more deep balls.
A lot of great "high average" MLB hitters can put on a show during pre-game BP but return to the line drive high average hitter during games. They know they can hit more HR's but at a sacrifice to their average because they have to upper cut a bit more which reduces the chances of a line drive swing as referenced earlier in the post, Wade Boggs is one hitter who said he "could" have hit a lot more HR's but at the detrement of his high BA.
Adair uses the Carew-jackson analogy again when describing this. Asuming the same swing planes etc. in my last post.
If they both missed their timing by swinging 9 inches to early on a fastball, Carew, batting left-handed would still hit a the ball squarely, but now a line drive over the 1st baseman's head. While Jackson, also batting left-handed would top the ball and hit a weak grounder to the 1st baseman. If they both swung equally late, Carew would hit a line drive over the infield between third and short while Jackson, hitting under the ball would hit a high pop fly to the 3rd baseman.
I think that practicing a swing the meets the plane of the ball with the plane of the bat is best. I think this discussion indicates why power comes late to a lot of great line drive hitters or why some never project consistant power even though they are physically capable. Or that some hitters who consatntly hit the ball with backspin hit more deep balls.
A lot of great "high average" MLB hitters can put on a show during pre-game BP but return to the line drive high average hitter during games. They know they can hit more HR's but at a sacrifice to their average because they have to upper cut a bit more which reduces the chances of a line drive swing as referenced earlier in the post, Wade Boggs is one hitter who said he "could" have hit a lot more HR's but at the detrement of his high BA.
quote:Baseba777
Your on to how long a hitter stays get on the plane of the pitch, more than early or late...
Albert Pujols Dan Slaught has measured gets and stays on plane for five amazing feet of the 60.6 feet of the pitch, allowing him tons of extra time to still hit the ball well even it his timing was off.
Swinging up more than the angle of the pitch, cut's feet on plane with the pitch, and how much you timing can be off and still come out ok. Not if it's in the air or on the ground.
