Hitting With Backspin

quote:

---

Originally posted by TARatko:
I raised this issue in a different forum, that imparting backspin to a baseball by making contact on the lower half of the ball results in more carry and distance, as exemplified by the term "rising line drive".

---

Not a resident guru, but backspin does help the ball travel ****her. That is basic physics, not subject to opinion or meditation. Two balls hit on identical trajectories, identical initial velocity except one has no backspin and the other does have backspin - the one with backspin will travel ****her.

"Show me a guy who can't pitch inside and I'll show you a loser." Sandy Koufax

Just hit the ball hard

I wouldn't alter my swing just to add backspin. Swinging down on the ball to add more backspin will not result in greater distance traveled.

With that said, I believe I read somewhere that backspin accounts for about 15ft. on a ball hit 385ft.

Tar, That is a lot of work that was done to figure out what Ted Williams figured out years ago without a physics degree. A 5 degree upswing and hit the ball a half inch below center and you will get great carry on the ball.

Rocket, If you swing down on the ball it is not going to carry anywhere.

Tar,
I took a look at the article and after reviewing it I thought well in order to figure this out, I will have to call in my wife to interpret all those formulas. Then I thought some more and decided there was no way I was gonna do that with something related to baseball.
So I will have to take your word on it.

Knowledge is Power! Thank you Mavens and HSBBWEB!

I don't know if Will read through the entire article, but there is a statement in there that says in effect that in general (as opposed to getting the absolute maximum distance) it is much more important to make solid contact just below the center of the ball than to get the ideal swing angle. In other words, "just hit it hard."

To quote from the article:
"Thus optimal hitting is much more sensitive to bat placement than to the direction of the bat velocity at contact."

The article in effect states that as long you strike the ball solidly, the right amount below center you can swing anywhere from 17 degrees down to 40 degrees up and still hit the ball well.

Although the maximum distance will come from an upswing that doesn't necessarily result in the most consistent hitting.

As one can also see from the complexity of this article many of the simple assumptions that are typically made are not necessarily true. People have made assumptions based on empirical models (experience) such as - swinging level will result in more consistent contact - and they have made assumptions based on theoretical models such as - attempting to swing on the plane of the pitch will result in more consistent contact.

Personally, I believe that swinging closer to level will result in more consistent contact based on empirical evidence and a somewhat more sophisticated theoretical model, than will attempting to swing on the plane of the pitch. Having said that I will be the first to admit that succeeding in swinging on the plane of the pitch will result in the most consistent contact (actually parallel to and just under as we've seen in the article). (edited - and will also result in maximum distance.)

Bbscout,
Your statement that if you swing down on the ball it will not carry anywhere is in direct contradiction to a statement in the article.

The optimum angle for carry is up, but you get good carry anywhere from 17 degrees down to 40 degrees up as long as you hit the ball the right amount below center.

CADad, Take a player out and throw him BP. Film him and get him to swing 17 degrees down. Have the BP pitcher throw him fastballs 2 feet high (knee high) and see where the ball goes.

Then have your player swing 5 degrees up and hit the ball a half inch below center and see where the ball goes.

Is the hybrid conclusion then hit below center with a good rotational swing that is a slight uppercut?

Bbscout,
OK. But let's assume the ball was hit an optimum amount below center rather than any given amount of inches. The downswing will result in a low line drive that will probably have a bit of slice on it because we've made the assumption that the ball was struck below center. The upswing will result in a higher line drive with less of a tendency to slice that will carry a bit further. Neither is an ideal home run swing. The low line drive is a little more likely to be caught by an infielder. The high line drive is more likely to be caught by an outfielder. I'd take the high line drive because there's more of a chance of it going to the wall.

Now in my opinion, the player swinging 17 degrees down at contact is probably swinging too down to hit consistently, while the player swinging 5 degrees up is probably swinging more level than the plane of the pitch given that it is a low pitch and is probably closer to an optimum swing plane for consistent contact.

That scenario also varies with the pitch location, inside or outside. I'd like to see contact made more down on the outside pitch counting on hitting it below center to get the ball up and more up on the inside pitch where contact is made out front. It is kind of funny to hear people say that you should always swing on the plane of the pitch in one sentence and then say that history is made on the inside in the next sentence. Your swing angle tends to vary with pitch location and the optimum swing angle for consistent contact is different depending on pitch location. If I'm a pitcher than can keep the ball low and away I'd much rather face a big swinger than someone trying to punch a low line drive.

In any case, the statement you made still directly contradicts an article that you were using to support your position.

Now since you wanted to look at a single case at one end of the spectrum let's take the opposite case of a fastball at the top of the strike zone with the ball struck solidly (just below center) with a level swing vs a ball struck solidly with a 40 degree upswing. I'd have to go through the data to see which one goes further but I don't have to look at the data to know that the player with the 40 degree upswing is going to swing and miss a whole lot more often.

Swingbuster,
I want to see a hitter that can adjust his swing according to pitch location. A hitter that can turn on the inside pitch and go deep and that can swing down or level at an outside pitch and drive it the other way. Williams struggled with the low outside pitch relative to his overall ability because for much of his career he wasn't willing to go the other way with it.

I realize that with the umpires and body armor taking the inside part of the plate away from pitchers there are hitters that turn the outside corner into middle-away and can turn on that pitch and pull it but that doesn't generally apply to very many HS hitters.

This is another area where the cues that tend to work are not always the same as the reality. You'll hear "get on top of the ball and drive it" around ML batting cages because it helps keep the hitters from uppercutting too much on high pitches. The reality is that you can't drive the ball anywhere but into the ground if you hit it above center. Generally speaking you want to teach hitters to try to hit right through the middle of the ball. The feedback they get from seeing if the ball goes up, down or on a line will get them to actually hit the ball just below center over time when they try to hit it dead on.

This article tends to make me think the approach I'm currently taking with my son is the right one. We're reinforcing line drives. I don't care if they're high line drives or low line drives as long as they aren't high flies or bouncing or rolled ground balls. If he can do that he's hitting the right part of the ball and the swing angle really isn't all that important, given that he doesn't have home run power.

Perhaps this is a drastic oversimplification, but... if a primary goal of hitting an outside pitch the other way is to let the pitch get deep, then is it possible that the exact same swing actually is capable of hitting both the inside and outside pitch?

For example, consider the following swing. I'm not sure where the pitch location was, but judging from the out-front contact position, I'd guess it was inside. Of course, he made contact on an upslope, in this case ~20 degrees. Now, if that same swing were used on a more outside pitch (assuming excessive casting wasn't necessary to reach it), would he have made contact while still on his downslope (~4 degrees)?

CAdad,

What you say sounds most logical to me, the layman!


Knowledge is Power! Thank you Mavens and HSBBWEB!

Wouldn't his shoulders be tilted more on the outside pitch? This might change the angle at contact.

Sandman,
Great graphic. Exactly my point. The plane of the pitch tends to be around the 5 degrees that bbscout used, depending on pitch location. The same swing will result in swinging more up than the plane of the pitch on an inside pitch and more down on a an outside pitch although hitters will adjust some. You'll very seldom swing "on the plane of the pitch".

quote:

---

Originally posted by CADad:
Bbscout,
OK. But let's assume the ball was hit an optimum amount below center rather than any given amount of inches. The downswing will result in a low line drive that will probably have a bit of slice on it because we've made the assumption that the ball was struck below center. The upswing will result in a higher line drive with less of a tendency to slice that will carry a bit further. Neither is an ideal home run swing. The low line drive is a little more likely to be caught by an infielder. The high line drive is more likely to be caught by an outfielder. I'd take the high line drive because there's more of a chance of it going to the wall.

Now in my opinion, the player swinging 17 degrees down at contact is probably swinging too down to hit consistently, while the player swinging 5 degrees up is probably swinging more level than the plane of the pitch given that it is a low pitch and is probably closer to an optimum swing plane for consistent contact.

That scenario also varies with the pitch location, inside or outside. I'd like to see contact made more down on the outside pitch counting on hitting it below center to get the ball up and more up on the inside pitch where contact is made out front. It is kind of funny to hear people say that you should always swing on the plane of the pitch in one sentence and then say that history is made on the inside in the next sentence. Your swing angle tends to vary with pitch location and the optimum swing angle for consistent contact is different depending on pitch location. If I'm a pitcher than can keep the ball low and away I'd much rather face a big swinger than someone trying to punch a low line drive.

In any case, the statement you made still directly contradicts an article that you were using to support your position.

Now since you wanted to look at a single case at one end of the spectrum let's take the opposite case of a fastball at the top of the strike zone with the ball struck solidly (just below center) with a level swing vs a ball struck solidly with a 40 degree upswing. I'd have to go through the data to see which one goes further but I don't have to look at the data to know that the player with the 40 degree upswing is going to swing and miss a whole lot more often.

---

CADad, I was not using any article to support my position. My position started years ago with reading Williams book and has continued through today with my own filming.

Why is it that so many people think that to impart backspin on the ball, you should swing down?

Bbscout,
I stand corrected. You actually said that the article was a lot of work to support what Williams wrote. The implication is that the article supports what you wrote. The fact is that it doesn't. (edited - It doesn't contradict Williams.) It directly contradicts the last sentence in the reply to Rocket.

People believe that you have to swing down to impart backspin because it is harder to impart backspin with an excessive uppercut and still hit the ball fair.

The reality is that you can probably continue to produce a fair amount of backspin all the way up to the 40 degree upswing and that anything more down than 17 degrees down starts to result in excessive backspin.

Keep in mind, my comment was against swinging down on the ball!

I do believe that swinging down would contribute to more backspin, but the power that you lose by swinging down would contribute to a lose of distance that is greater than the backspin would gain. Not to mention the contact problems that are created from swinging down.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bbscout:
Tar, That is a lot of work that was done to figure out what Ted Williams figured out years ago without a physics degree. A 5 degree upswing and hit the ball a half inch below center and you will get great carry on the ball.

Rocket, If you swing down on the ball it is not going to carry anywhere.

---

CADad, This is what I wrote. I could not understand what they wrote if I spent a month reading it. What I quoted was what Williams said."a 5 degree upswing and hit the ball a half inch below center".

Bbscout,
5 degrees up is certainly well in between 17 degrees down and 40 degrees up. The article certainly doesn't disagree with that part of your statement and to a great degree supports it. I didn't look to see where the optimum distance below center was but it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't just about 1/2". I was disagreeing with the last sentence replying to Rocket. Based on the article it doesn't make much difference if you hit the ball with a level swing or a 5 degree upswing and based on the graphics that Sandman posted I'm guessing that when Williams pulled those inside pitches into the bleachers he was making contact during a part of his swing where the angle was more up than 5 degrees. Williams was more in tune with the reality of the swing than anyone else, but if he was playing today and hadn't published his book he'd be considered a player with a very "level" swing.

If you are hitting a low pitch (like bbscout asked) you have to swing down to the ball, but even so you have to think about the whole swing. It is not way to hit a low pitch with a direct down swing to the ball and hit it in the lower part and have a real good contact. But if you look at a complete swing at that pitch, you start the swing doww but the contact with the ball got it be when your swing is starting to go up. The swing on a low pitch have to be an almost vertical arc, depending if the pitch is inside or outside. Answering the original question, yes, the back spin produces more distance, so in baseball, golf, kicking a field goal in football, or whatever.

"Peace is, the respect for the other people's rights".
Benito Juarez

Racab,
Agreed. Pretty much the only way to hit a low pitch below center with a downswing is to also hit the inside part of the ball producing slice spin in addition to the backspin.

It is difficult to swing up on a low outside pitch because of where it is in the swing. You'll usually see the ball hit solidly into the ground or sliced the opposite way in the air. That is one reason Glavine was so successful for so long. Not too many home runs are hit with either of those results.

This of course assumes the hitter isn't hanging over the plate turning it into a pitch down the middle.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CADad:
Bbscout,
5 degrees up is certainly well in between 17 degrees down and 40 degrees up. The article certainly doesn't disagree with that part of your statement and to a great degree supports it. I didn't look to see where the optimum distance below center was but it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't just about 1/2". I was disagreeing with the last sentence replying to Rocket. Based on the article it doesn't make much difference if you hit the ball with a level swing or a 5 degree upswing and based on the graphics that Sandman posted I'm guessing that when Williams pulled those inside pitches into the bleachers he was making contact during a part of his swing where the angle was more up than 5 degrees. Williams was more in tune with the reality of the swing than anyone else, but if he was playing today and hadn't published his book he'd be considered a player with a very "level" swing.

---

Hi CADad, I see the great hitters at about 5 degrees upswing when they get a good pitch to hit. I don't see great hitters at 17 degrees down or 40 degrees up unless they got fooled on the pitch. As far as I know, I have as much film on Williams as anyone, and he was more in the 8-15 upswing on good pitches to hit.

As far as getting a ball to carry a long way, the slight upswing and hitting the ball about a half inch below center will do the trick better than any kind of downswing. I have so much film of hitters, it makes me ill sometimes, and the only guys who swing level or down are guys like Pierre, Damon and Castillo, who have no power at all. Every good hitter in the big leagues who has pop swings with an upswing.

The nasty sinking fastball down on the outside corner gets groundballs, because it is hard for the hitter to make the good upswing on that pitch. That is why Maddux makes the money he does.

Anyone smart enough to figure out those formulas could never hit a baseball.They would still be thinking when the catcher was throwing it back to the pitcher.I think Ted Williamns said that the plane of your swing should match the plane of the pitch.

bbscout

quote:

---

Every good hitter in the big leagues who has pop swings with an upswing.

---

AMEN!

As I said once before, I talk to a lot of guys who have hit in the Big l
Leagues. A lot of them hit a couple of hundred or more home runs in the Majors, some of them still play and hit home runs prolifically, and a few are in the Hall of Fame.

Not a single one of them has said anything about any of this. In fact, if you spoke to them about it, everyone would say you are thinking too much. So ask them for advice and they keep it simple -- and as already was posted in this thread. Hit the ball hard -- consistently.

The guys who can hit just do it. The guys that can't are the ones worrying about this, fun though it might be to discuss.

I will add, however, that the two things every one of them has said to young hitters are:

1. Stay short to the ball.

2. Keep your hands inside the ball.

And, if you think about it, they are the same, or nearly so.

By the way, if you watch them (and has been said here already) everyone of them swings up just a little.

quote:

---

...the two things every one of them has said to young hitters are:

1. Stay short to the ball.

2. Keep your hands inside the ball.

---

That is excellent advice. And completely worthless unless you can teach a player HOW to do those things. I think Epstein does a good job of teaching hitters how to do this. And, as most of you know, Epstein promotes matching the swing plane with the pitch plane.

Jemaz

I also talk to players that played in the Big Leagues and they do talk about this stuff.

They've watched a lot of video and are trying to describe with the verbal or written word what they see.

This discussion is not about who can hit and who can't. It's more about who can describe the swing better and teach what they see on video properly.

I would assume your players don't watch video. Because if they do they are either lying about what they see or they don't know what they are looking at. This doesn't mean they couldn't hit.

Pick any 100 big league players and 90-95 of them do what bbscout says.

And if you think you can teach a kid to hit by saying "hit the ball hard" you are out of touch.

How do you stay inside and stay short to the ball without doing the things bbscout is talking about? You can't. So, maybe it's ok to start at the beginning when teaching instead of starting in Chapter 7.

I have had first hand experience with 11 ex mlb players trying to teach hitting. Epstein is one of the few who starts at the beginning. He's one of the few who can relate to a beginner.

And, it is very difficult to find a sincere ex mlb player when it comes to teaching hitting. Most all are interested in getting what's in your pocket into there's and making you feel good about it. They take advantage of the respect and admiration their customers have for them and really don't like to get down and dirty. That is my interpretation of "keeping it simple".

CADad

Yes, you can hit the ball hard by swinging down. You won't hit it consistently and when you hit it perfectly (as squarely as you can) you'll beat it into the ground.

You quote the article to say you can hit the ball hard by swinging between this degrees up and that degrees down. Of course you can. But can you get a hit? Or will you hit it straight into the ground for the shortstop or second baseman to throw you out.

I can't tell if you use your science background to help your baseball or hinder it.

"Hit the ball hard" is quite insufficient advice when teaching hitting........

Lamber:

My point is this: Good hitters are good hitters naturally. Sure, work can improve a player to a certain extent but ultimately talent is the limiting factor and all the talk in the world is not going to change it. But, by all means, continue the discussions. They are fun, for sure, and certainly the fundamental reason for websites like this.

But this last point I am sure of: If a hitter goes up to the plate thinking of all this stuff, he'll never hit.

And, MHS, I don't think the two points mentioned in my earlier post are difficult concepts. I totally agree that someone needs to show a player, but only once with a good player and the very best hitters -- the ones who hardly ever strike out and with mind-boggling bat speed -- swing that way naturally.

I guess the quandry is this: It's not rocket science, but nearly impossible to learn at the highest levels.

As for Mike Epstein, he has great theories for sure, but I seriously doubt he "taught" anyone to hit at a Major League level. At best, he has shown players how big leaguers do it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jemaz:
As I said once before, I talk to a lot of guys who have hit in the Big l
Leagues. A lot of them hit a couple of hundred or more home runs in the Majors, some of them still play and hit home runs prolifically, and a few are in the Hall of Fame.

Not a single one of them has said anything about any of this. In fact, if you spoke to them about it, everyone would say you are thinking too much. So ask them for advice and they keep it simple -- and as already was posted in this thread. Hit the ball hard -- consistently.

The guys who can hit just do it. The guys that can't are the ones worrying about this, fun though it might be to discuss.

---

jemaz, You are right about many hitters being natural and not having to spend time studying their swing. They are not the hitters that I worry about. The guy I worry about is the big strapping kid who can run and throw but has a poor swing. He can be helped and he can become a major league hitter if he is helped. Ted Williams is a HOF hitter who took the time to study the swing, because he had the drive and determination to get better.

With the advances in video that we have today, if a hitting coach does not use it and study it he should not be a hitting coach. If a player does not use it, he is shortchanging himself. I know a lot of major leaguers too, and many of them run down the tunnel between AB"s to see their last AB on tape.

Jemaz, all great hitters learned from someone.......There is no such thing as a natural great hitter......They don't exist....

Great hitters became great by emulation or instruction and many long, hard hours of practicing "right" technique to build muscle memory......Their greatness didn't happen overnight.....And, not one of them was ever born with this greatness.....They acquired their greatness with knowledge and sweat......

Jemaz

Epstein is used by several mlb clubs to work on their players who need help. Too bad the player didn't get to him sooner.

And, a well instructed hitter will take ALL this info with him to the cage and think about it and work on it on every pitch so it becomes natural to him. Then he won't have to think in the game. But to think he can just go to the plate in a game and think "hit the ball hard" without ever practicing the techniques in a cage is absurd.

And, why is mlb the only goal of a hitter or an instructor. Obviously, the mlb players are the creme of the crop. They have a level of talent or skill better than everyone else. But, if I knew these things 25 years ago, I wouldn't have topped out at DII. Maybe I would have played DI. Maybe I would have played minor league ball. Maybe I would have been the best player in the men's league or in the fastpitch softball league. It's all about being the best you can be.

Every kid can raise his results and therefore his enjoyment and therefore his final level of play if he would study this information.

And, since it's an easy concept, can you describe what it means to "stay inside the ball".

sandman-

thanks again for the great visuals.

it mat be that the adjustment a good hitter makes for outside/looking outside may create a trajectory that slopes up "sooner" (sooner in a spatial/back front sense-even though contact might be slightly deeper for outside,trajectory will be upsloping more at this point than for inside).

Don't know if a reliable visual can be produced to look for this.

Bluedog:

We definitely disagree on whether hitters are born rather than made. The best hitters were born, from my view. I see it all the time.

That is not to say that practice is not important, and if I have inferred so, then that is my mistake. It is to say, however, that it's ludicrous to think that a truly gifted hitter is going to think much about whether his swing plane is 5 degrees up vs. 17 degrees down. The great hitter is going to see the ball and hit it with violence and consistency and his swing will be a thing of beauty.(And, as I said earlier, that swing will finish a little up nearly every time).

Lamber, I'm sure you don't need any definitions, and, of course, I would have to show you anyway. Maybe things are just different in Texas.