What are your opinions on swing finish? Should you finish high above the front shoulder or should your finish be lower? Also what about a 2 handed finish vs. a 1 hand finish? What are the advantages/disadvantages to each?
Thanks
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
On the high school level I like a two hand finish. It allows the hitter to "stay on the ball" longer. There is nothing wrong with a one hand finish, but I feel often on the high school level the players drop that top hand too soon. I like the follow through to be above the shoulders, as I feel this is the natural progression of someone who gets full extension, someone without a flat swing. Now, hitting opinions get vicious on here, but you have mine. Please feel free to let me know if you more clarification.
I like a high finish, but believe that releasing the top hand has more to do with adjusting for pitch location and increasing extension, so releasing top hand is most effective with a pitch middle out to out.
Again, in my humble opinion.
Again, in my humble opinion.
As long as you have two hands on the bat at contact then it doesn't matter if it's one hand or two hands. The natural path of the bat should determine if it's above the shoulder or not. In the grand scheme of the whole swing the part after contact is the least important. If you're doing good things before and during the swing then the finish will take care of itself.
quote:Originally posted by Eaglecoach:
What are your opinions on swing finish? Should you finish high above the front shoulder or should your finish be lower? Also what about a 2 handed finish vs. a 1 hand finish? What are the advantages/disadvantages to each?
Thanks
I'm with comments already noted here; "it doesn't matter and let the natural path of the bat, for that hitter, determine where to finish."
To me, introducing the concept of finishing higher, at least at shoulder height, and releasing one hand, helped the hitter feel the new idea of "staying on and through the baseball." An additional benefit sometimes was increased lower half rotation.
Very quickly though, both of those intended consequences can develop "unintended consequences" like pulling off the ball.
After experimenting, most good hitters will settle upon which feels and works the best for them. My College age player has a two handed finish that is generally near shoulder height. Which, as Nicholas25 said, seems to aid him to stay in and through the baseball more often. But as floridafan say, one hand can come off during extension on away pitches.
quote:Originally posted by Eaglecoach:
What are your opinions on swing finish? Should you finish high above the front shoulder or should your finish be lower? Also what about a 2 handed finish vs. a 1 hand finish? What are the advantages/disadvantages to each?
Thanks
I (clearly) favor the low finish, with two hands. However, it is definitely correlated to the pitch location. On a pitch down the middle, I want to finish at (or below) my shoulders. When I do, I know I've kept the bat on plane as long as possible and increased my chance to make contact.
If baseballpapa is around, he'll tell you about Rob Ellis and his reasoning behind the "low finish"
quote:Originally posted by Low Finish:quote:Originally posted by Eaglecoach:
What are your opinions on swing finish? Should you finish high above the front shoulder or should your finish be lower? Also what about a 2 handed finish vs. a 1 hand finish? What are the advantages/disadvantages to each?
Thanks
I (clearly) favor the low finish, with two hands. However, it is definitely correlated to the pitch location. On a pitch down the middle, I want to finish at (or below) my shoulders. When I do, I know I've kept the bat on plane as long as possible and increased my chance to make contact.
If baseballpapa is around, he'll tell you about Rob Ellis and his reasoning behind the "low finish"
Given your user id, I'd expect you to say low finish. Isn't the low finish or high finish the simple byproduct of a fundamentally correct swing progress though the strike zone? Shouldn't that be the focus, not whether or not the finish is high or low?
quote:Originally posted by The Pitching Academy:quote:Originally posted by Low Finish:quote:Originally posted by Eaglecoach:
What are your opinions on swing finish? Should you finish high above the front shoulder or should your finish be lower? Also what about a 2 handed finish vs. a 1 hand finish? What are the advantages/disadvantages to each?
Thanks
I (clearly) favor the low finish, with two hands. However, it is definitely correlated to the pitch location. On a pitch down the middle, I want to finish at (or below) my shoulders. When I do, I know I've kept the bat on plane as long as possible and increased my chance to make contact.
If baseballpapa is around, he'll tell you about Rob Ellis and his reasoning behind the "low finish"
Given your user id, I'd expect you to say low finish. Isn't the low finish or high finish the simple byproduct of a fundamentally correct swing progress though the strike zone? Shouldn't that be the focus, not whether or not the finish is high or low?
That's both a yes and no answer. Yes, the finish (today) is mainly related to the swing plane. We both agree on that. However, with earlier players (Williams, Gehrig, many others), there is a noticeable start of both the hands and the rear hip prior to the swing's "launch". Furthermore, the old timers swung on flatter planes (partially because of the strike zone, but partially because of weight of the bat). Thus, their finishes were lower and they made more line drive contact (striking out less). I'm not saying they swung level to the ground. Relative to today's hitters, they were level to the ball for a longer period of time. Pujols is a good example of what I mean.
However, I think teaching stance (beyond a certain point), grip (as long as it isn't in the palms), and finish (or follow-through) are three of the bigger wastes of time that instructors go through. I'm far more concerned with the middle 2/3 of the swing than I am with the "style" aspects.
Well said, thank you for the reply. I agree with your assessment of the stance, grip, and finish. To bad it's still being taught so much.
Nate
Nate
I'm with coach2709 on this one. After contact, nothing the hitter does will impact the flight of the ball anymore. The ball is already gone. Finishing high, low, one hand, two hands, and any other variation is meaningless after the ball has left the bat. I think 100% of our attention should be on what a hitter does before and during contact.
BaseballByTheYard.com
BaseballByTheYard.com
quote:Originally posted by meachrm:
... I think 100% of our attention should be on what a hitter does before and during contact.
BaseballByTheYard.com
Meachrm,
I'm with you except for this last statement. During drills, for example, there are many queues that relate to points just after contact or at finish that improve the path to and through the ball. Some players come in with swings that are short-short instead of short-long. Working with thoughts such as "four balls thru the zone" (including post-contact), "finish big", etc. can help transform the swing and the results. Similarly, taking a look at balance at finish can be telling to what is occuring during the swing.
Also - While perhaps correct from a physics standpoint, from a mental standpoint if a hitter gets the idea that nothing after exact point of contact matters, they will physically tend to quit just prior to contact and this will definitely matter.
I do agree that pitch location (and hitter's intent on a given pitch) will affect finish.
Agreed cabbage dad. I look at it as a difference between observing vs teaching. I "observe" how a player finishes as a way to bring attention to a flaw that's occurring prior to contact (balance, stride, etc.) but I don't "teach" a particular finish. Teaching a finish can, as you mentioned, get the player to mentally place too much importance on the finish instead of what actually impacts hitting the ball.
BaseballByTheYard
BaseballByTheYard
doesn't matter after the ball is gone unless the finish changes something in the swing before contact. it's like stance and all the style stuff everybody thinks is so important before stride separation and the the front stride foot hitting the ground, what lau called launch position.
if you haven;t read ted williams science of hitting and charlie lau's .300 hitter with george brett they are classics. back, back, back.com has some good information too.
if you haven;t read ted williams science of hitting and charlie lau's .300 hitter with george brett they are classics. back, back, back.com has some good information too.
quote:Originally posted by cabbagedad:quote:Originally posted by meachrm:
... I think 100% of our attention should be on what a hitter does before and during contact.
BaseballByTheYard.com
Meachrm,
I'm with you except for this last statement. During drills, for example, there are many queues that relate to points just after contact or at finish that improve the path to and through the ball. Some players come in with swings that are short-short instead of short-long. Working with thoughts such as "four balls thru the zone" (including post-contact), "finish big", etc. can help transform the swing and the results. Similarly, taking a look at balance at finish can be telling to what is occuring during the swing.
Also - While perhaps correct from a physics standpoint, from a mental standpoint if a hitter gets the idea that nothing after exact point of contact matters, they will physically tend to quit just prior to contact and this will definitely matter.
I do agree that pitch location (and hitter's intent on a given pitch) will affect finish.
This is dead on.
The balance, prior to, during, and after contact all matter to the percentage of well struck balls. If a higher average is the measuring stick, then a 2 handed lower finish will have the greatest chance for success. This swing plane allows for greater incidence of solid contact thru the contact zone.
If long ball power is the measuring stick, then top hand release or a higher finish is a swing more inclined for distance.
I've looked at a lot of swing analysis of MLB batters and reading Lau's Laws on hitting I believe that the one handed finish (ie. top hand coming of toward end of swing) gives the batter a bit more power in the swing since there is more extension.
I've watched players during 12U baseball games not take the hand off and effectively apply a "brake" to the bat, losing power in the end.
What I don't like is when I hear a comment from a coach that a one handed finish is wrong.
I've watched players during 12U baseball games not take the hand off and effectively apply a "brake" to the bat, losing power in the end.
What I don't like is when I hear a comment from a coach that a one handed finish is wrong.
You can't possibly compare Williams' Science of Hitting to anything by Charlie Lau.
Williams absolutely despised Lau's teachings.
There's a very interesting script of an actual conversation that took place between Ted, Don Mattingly, and Wade Boggs. It's a great example of this.
Williams absolutely despised Lau's teachings.
There's a very interesting script of an actual conversation that took place between Ted, Don Mattingly, and Wade Boggs. It's a great example of this.
A lot of times the finish has to do with girth and flexibility, or lack thereof.
A smaller, leaner body will typically rotate a bit more after contact and the bat just follows.
Conversely, I have seen Pujols and Holliday hit oppos where I wasn't sure the bat ever crossed the plate?
I have analyzed Pujols' swing several times over the years and while his bat speed is relatively average by MLB standards, he keeps the bat in the zone longer than almost anyone. But, he definitely finishes high, often with just one hand on the bat.
Very hard to teach that!
For comparison, look at the golf swings of the long hitters.
Bubba Watson has an exaggerated finish where the hands and shoulders finish extemely high.
J.B. Holmes has a finish where his hands rarely go much above his head.
While they both have extremely high club head speed and both obviously have the club at the exact same place at impact, their finishes are very much different.
Same is true for the baseball swing.
A smaller, leaner body will typically rotate a bit more after contact and the bat just follows.
Conversely, I have seen Pujols and Holliday hit oppos where I wasn't sure the bat ever crossed the plate?
I have analyzed Pujols' swing several times over the years and while his bat speed is relatively average by MLB standards, he keeps the bat in the zone longer than almost anyone. But, he definitely finishes high, often with just one hand on the bat.
Very hard to teach that!
For comparison, look at the golf swings of the long hitters.
Bubba Watson has an exaggerated finish where the hands and shoulders finish extemely high.
J.B. Holmes has a finish where his hands rarely go much above his head.
While they both have extremely high club head speed and both obviously have the club at the exact same place at impact, their finishes are very much different.
Same is true for the baseball swing.
quote:Originally posted by gitnby:
For comparison, look at the golf swings of the long hitters.
Bubba Watson has an exaggerated finish where the hands and shoulders finish extemely high.
J.B. Holmes has a finish where his hands rarely go much above his head.
While they both have extremely high club head speed and both obviously have the club at the exact same place at impact, their finishes are very much different.
Same is true for the baseball swing.
Good comparison!
quote:Originally posted by saturdayhitting:
You can't possibly compare Williams' Science of Hitting to anything by Charlie Lau
Williams absolutely despised Lau's teachings.
There's a very interesting script of an actual conversation that took place between Ted, Don Mattingly, and Wade Boggs. It's a great example of this.
Oh yes I can!
My first impression of both books is that there were similarities taught:
1) Flat hands to hitting zone
2) weight distribution
3) No forced roll of wrist
4) Pitch selection
5) Don't switch hit because your stronger hand should be closer to the point of impact.
I also found something new in Ted Williams book:
1) Loading of hips before and during stride
2) Keep bat perpendicular to ground because that it feels the lightest
3) Swing level with the travel of the ball. Meaning swing up slightly because the ball is traveling slightly downward toward the batter.
4) Take the first pitch of th game from a new pitcher to learn his style. Not necessarily the first pitch in succeeding turn at bat. Don't hit at anything you haven't seen.
5) Choke up on the bat with 2 strikes to make the bat quicker through the strike zone.
6) Because most pitchers are predictable is OK to anticipate (guess) a pitchers go to pitch.
I also learned from Ted's book about pitching because he stated he knew pitching because he knew what made it tough for him. Basically a pitcher should try to work to upset the batter's timing.
What's interesting is that Ted said "Your style is your own and don't let anyone change it".
In the end what I learned most valuable from Ted's book, and that I will be working with my son, is the hip cocking as you stride. I believe this is the key ingredient I was looking for to get my son to hit with more power.
But please show me where Ied Williams absolutely despised Lau's book on hitting?
The two are nothing alike.
Read this article by SI.
Williams believed Lau's theories may have set baseball back 25 years.
The two preached different philosophies. This is a great article.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c...MAG1064687/index.htm
Read this article by SI.
Williams believed Lau's theories may have set baseball back 25 years.
The two preached different philosophies. This is a great article.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c...MAG1064687/index.htm
quote:Originally posted by saturdayhitting:
The two are nothing alike.
Read this article by SI.
Williams believed Lau's theories may have set baseball back 25 years.
The two preached different philosophies. This is a great article.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c...MAG1064687/index.htm
Ted Williams, when asked about The Art of Hitting .300: "They should burn every copy ever printed".
Williams and Lau are both describing an MLB swing. However, they're describing different sub-types of an MLB swing. Lau works better for standing further away from the plate. Williams/Epstein are designed for guys who want to pull the ball with power.
Personally, I recommend Williams/Epstein. I respect what Lau has done, but Williams' book is far better, and he constantly talks about the 2 constants in a swing:
Hip c o c k
Hand c o c k
Williams describes something that someone else calls "c o c k, Stride, Swing". The MLB sequence.
quote:Originally posted by Low Finish:quote:Originally posted by saturdayhitting:
The two are nothing alike.
Read this article by SI.
Williams believed Lau's theories may have set baseball back 25 years.
The two preached different philosophies. This is a great article.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c...MAG1064687/index.htm
Ted Williams, when asked about The Art of Hitting .300: "They should burn every copy ever printed".
Williams and Lau are both describing an MLB swing. However, they're describing different sub-types of an MLB swing. Lau works better for standing further away from the plate. Williams/Epstein are designed for guys who want to pull the ball with power.
Personally, I recommend Williams/Epstein. I respect what Lau has done, but Williams' book is far better, and he constantly talks about the 2 constants in a swing:
Hip c o c k
Hand c o c k
Williams describes something that someone else calls "c o c k, Stride, Swing". The MLB sequence.
Agree completely.
Again, I read both books thoroughly and I found nothing between the two where I would have said "Lau is full of ****".
In fact I believe both complimented each other.
So it mystifies me why Ted Williams would be against Lau's method?
But in the end I really don't care as I learned a lot just reading each book. And my son's swing has improved from implementing techniques taught in both books.
In fact I believe both complimented each other.
So it mystifies me why Ted Williams would be against Lau's method?
But in the end I really don't care as I learned a lot just reading each book. And my son's swing has improved from implementing techniques taught in both books.
There is a hitting instructor that I value that put's both Ted Williams and Charlie Lau Jr.'s methods to shame.
I encourage you to review his techniques.
Hitting for Average
I encourage you to review his techniques.
Hitting for Average
quote:Originally posted by tradosaurus:
There is a hitting instructor that I value that put's both Ted Williams and Charlie Lau Jr.'s methods to shame.
I encourage you to review his techniques.
Hitting for Average
Best post of the day, he definitely knows what he's talking about!
first of all, thank you for the wonderful article of williams, mattingly and boggs with gammons in the background. i think gammons got it right, they are using different semantics to describe the same movement. what willams calls hip action, lau calls weight shift. i played with mike moore the righty they mention while i was at oral roberts in college, they are right, he and roger clemens were the only pitchers i faced where you could not see the seams on the ball when they threw because they got so much rotation. you had to hit arc which is double tough.
i also spent 3 days with don "sluggo" slaught who developed the right view pro software and played with mattingly in new york. when slaught went to the yankees he hit around 260, he met mattingly and asked him how he hit. mattingly pulled out some progression pictures of lou gehrig and told him you have to get off that back foot before you rotate to keep the bat on plane longer and generate more leverage. slaught retooled and hit around 300 the rest of his career (check his stats). he credits this to working with mattingly.
the other article talking about williams and mantle as rotational hitters is also interesting. when you slow williams down and watch him as i have 100s of times, he gets his weight off the back foot (by hip action or shifting his weight) and into a firm and locked front side before he goes into rotation. mickey mantle drags his back foot farther than the length of home plate before he goes into rotation and he finishes with his rear foot sliding behind his front foot through contact.
no doubt in my mind after reading both books and watching william's science of hitting film and slow motion clips of him and other great hitters they are doing the same things described differently by two legends of hitting. lau took some things to extreme, but his back to go forward, shifting your weight into a firm front side and getting off the back foot are parallel in my mind to williams and cocking the hips, opening the hips, and swinging slightly up through the hitting zone. i didn't realize how they were similar until i learned getting the front foot down early and timing the swing with the back foot and i've read lau over 7 times and can't believe i missed it until now.
thanks for the discussion and the articles, this is valuable. i also believe a boxer's speed bag, swinging along a rope or strap at a slight incline, and hitting a tire properly are some of the best things you can do to learn to hit a baseball effectively.
i also spent 3 days with don "sluggo" slaught who developed the right view pro software and played with mattingly in new york. when slaught went to the yankees he hit around 260, he met mattingly and asked him how he hit. mattingly pulled out some progression pictures of lou gehrig and told him you have to get off that back foot before you rotate to keep the bat on plane longer and generate more leverage. slaught retooled and hit around 300 the rest of his career (check his stats). he credits this to working with mattingly.
the other article talking about williams and mantle as rotational hitters is also interesting. when you slow williams down and watch him as i have 100s of times, he gets his weight off the back foot (by hip action or shifting his weight) and into a firm and locked front side before he goes into rotation. mickey mantle drags his back foot farther than the length of home plate before he goes into rotation and he finishes with his rear foot sliding behind his front foot through contact.
no doubt in my mind after reading both books and watching william's science of hitting film and slow motion clips of him and other great hitters they are doing the same things described differently by two legends of hitting. lau took some things to extreme, but his back to go forward, shifting your weight into a firm front side and getting off the back foot are parallel in my mind to williams and cocking the hips, opening the hips, and swinging slightly up through the hitting zone. i didn't realize how they were similar until i learned getting the front foot down early and timing the swing with the back foot and i've read lau over 7 times and can't believe i missed it until now.
thanks for the discussion and the articles, this is valuable. i also believe a boxer's speed bag, swinging along a rope or strap at a slight incline, and hitting a tire properly are some of the best things you can do to learn to hit a baseball effectively.
