Wow -
Actually, there has been a collective argument by academia (which I doubt ever actually had to swing a bat)
for years. Note: Not my argument or theory, I can't believe I'm actually going to type this....
The debate centers around questioning our traditional motor training methods - verbalized instruction, followed by reps, followed by feedback (pos/neg), versus what is referred to as "cognitive" effort or random training.
The cited drawback occurs when in traditional muscle memory reps, the "mind" takes a nap. Therefore, the reps become less effective, like driving on "autopilot". Traditionally, motor learning suggested motor commands (reps) and the sensory feedback (results) were all that is needed to be stored in memory for learning to occur. Learning leads to results, positive results lead success, success leads to positive feedback, feedback leads to learning... See where I'm going?? We talkin' 'bout practice, practice...
On the other hand, "cognitive" effort (random) training involves planning and recogninzing learning "sensory" indicators (cognition), and.... accepting how this cognitive effort plays an important role in executing motor skills. If you accept and take the next step, the role of cognition during practice takes on more importance = Motor skills involve more than storing sensory and motor feedback arising from the consequence of movement.
Which brings us to two absolutes:
1. This is a bunch of hoo-hoo, and
2. SCCoachs kid still blocks his hips
.... which, like some have already mentioned, I need to see to fairly evaluate.
GED10DaD