Just what I expected.
jemaz,
Of course the hitter isn't going to be thinking about that during a game because he will have already put in enough practice time to get the correct swing plane that "appears" so natural.
I would agree that hitters are born. Those hitters are Little League hitters though. The hitters that are playing in professional baseball have great talent/ability, but they "learned" how to make the most of it.
Jason
quote:
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.
Of course the hitter isn't going to be thinking about that during a game because he will have already put in enough practice time to get the correct swing plane that "appears" so natural.
I would agree that hitters are born. Those hitters are Little League hitters though. The hitters that are playing in professional baseball have great talent/ability, but they "learned" how to make the most of it.
Jason
hi jemaz
The TALENT excuse is the number one most-used excuse players use to justify there lack of success when hitting. it is also a excuse for those not willing to work hard. which of the two groups do you qualify?
personally i hate to hear this specially from players more capable than me who i have outplayed just by working hard on my hitting ability.
i won a starting spot in my team-crammed with ex minor leaguers and players way younger and stronger- just by following Epstein advice. so was it worth it? you bet it was. it was worth itfor me when i saw that the coach had to open a spot for me in the infield and send one of his beloved minorleaguers- coach pet- to the outfield. that made my day.
the talent god given line you always give is full of balloney to say the least. talent is in the eye of the beholder. there isn´t anybody in my team less talented than me-i am skinny, small, etc- yet i managed to hit line drives to right and left. they couldn´t. why? i have some information they didn´t have. simple as that.
yes, i am a good glove but glove alone will not win a spot. you have to show you can drive the ball.
seriously think about the damage you are making out there with this kind of comments that only excuse your lack of drive or motivation to make something happen.
as to epstein, i believe he was involved in the hitting education of mlb players like Marcus Giles, and Eric Chavez. i can see it in Marcus, anyway.
i dont think there is much talent around, what you see at the mlb level is players that have worked on their abilities longer and harder than anybody else. the "natural swing" is just another myth, that losers embrace as their credo.
toti
The TALENT excuse is the number one most-used excuse players use to justify there lack of success when hitting. it is also a excuse for those not willing to work hard. which of the two groups do you qualify?
personally i hate to hear this specially from players more capable than me who i have outplayed just by working hard on my hitting ability.
i won a starting spot in my team-crammed with ex minor leaguers and players way younger and stronger- just by following Epstein advice. so was it worth it? you bet it was. it was worth itfor me when i saw that the coach had to open a spot for me in the infield and send one of his beloved minorleaguers- coach pet- to the outfield. that made my day.
the talent god given line you always give is full of balloney to say the least. talent is in the eye of the beholder. there isn´t anybody in my team less talented than me-i am skinny, small, etc- yet i managed to hit line drives to right and left. they couldn´t. why? i have some information they didn´t have. simple as that.
yes, i am a good glove but glove alone will not win a spot. you have to show you can drive the ball.
seriously think about the damage you are making out there with this kind of comments that only excuse your lack of drive or motivation to make something happen.
as to epstein, i believe he was involved in the hitting education of mlb players like Marcus Giles, and Eric Chavez. i can see it in Marcus, anyway.
i dont think there is much talent around, what you see at the mlb level is players that have worked on their abilities longer and harder than anybody else. the "natural swing" is just another myth, that losers embrace as their credo.
toti
Actually, I feel that the natural hitter is the good athlete who learned his swing by emulation as a little guy and it carried over to high school, college and pro ball.
All good hitters learned one way or another, but the word natural would go to the kid who has not had lessons, but has the real good swing and is a real good hitter. He learned it by observing and then copying the players he was watching, and had the talent to make it work.
So, anyway that is what I think a natural hitter is.
All good hitters learned one way or another, but the word natural would go to the kid who has not had lessons, but has the real good swing and is a real good hitter. He learned it by observing and then copying the players he was watching, and had the talent to make it work.
So, anyway that is what I think a natural hitter is.
looks like we are back on this topic again. there have been some good points made for both theories. i still think we have to meet in the middle. there is going to be downswing in the beginning of all swings, no matter if you "slot the elbow" etc. then there will be a path where the bat levels out, then start to move upward. no one says you swing straight down on the ball. pitch location determines what part of the swing where contact is made. i agree with cadad. on the outside pitch, you make contact deeper in the zone = more of the downswing component. on an inside pitch you get the ball out front = more of the upswing component. and down the middle = at the leveling out component of the swing.
too much extreme of any of the components = a bad swing.
if we drop the backside too much when, as you guys say "slotting the elbow" then you end up with pop-up pete.
too much downswing you end up with ground out gary.
we are not even going to mention the hips and shoulders etc.
too much extreme of any of the components = a bad swing.
if we drop the backside too much when, as you guys say "slotting the elbow" then you end up with pop-up pete.
too much downswing you end up with ground out gary.
we are not even going to mention the hips and shoulders etc.
bbscout,
Have to agree with most of what your last reply to me said. Your point with Maddux was the same point I was making with Glavine.
A fastball dropping from about 7' to about 2' averages about a 5 degree angle. The actual angle at the contact point is a little steeper since the ball is going a little slower and has lost some of it's spin. I doubt that it is dropping at an 8 to 15 degree angle though unless it is a good sinker. One of the points I was trying to make was that although the best hitter of all used the cue of swinging on the plane of the pitch he actually adjusted that depending on what he was trying to accomplish and on pitch location.
What some people aren't realizing is that within reasonable swing angles the ball gets in the air due to striking the ball below center, not due to the swing angle. Yes, it is possible to swing up the back of the ball and get the ball in the air with topspin like a tennis player but that is an extreme case requiring a big time uppercut or rolling hands. What the article also points out is that if you strike the ball the right amount below center the swing angle isn't that important when it comes to carry.
What the article doesn't even try to consider is how likely a hitter is to hit the ball the right amount below center with a given swing angle. I believe that a 40 degree upswing is far too excessive an uppercut to make consistent contact and that a 17 degree downswing is far too much down to make consistent contact.
Personally, I believe that a swing somewhere between level and 5 degrees up will produce the most consistent contact due to timing issues. I also believe that the 5 degrees up will provide more power with still pretty consistent contact. The 5 degrees up or even a bit more is the optimum for most major league hitters. I believe that for pure power hitters the 20+ degrees up is the optimum. I believe that somewhat less than the 5 degrees up and possibly as low as level will provide the best results for hitters who don't have home run power (Let's say less than 10 home runs per 500 at bats when swinging up.)
Have to agree with most of what your last reply to me said. Your point with Maddux was the same point I was making with Glavine.
A fastball dropping from about 7' to about 2' averages about a 5 degree angle. The actual angle at the contact point is a little steeper since the ball is going a little slower and has lost some of it's spin. I doubt that it is dropping at an 8 to 15 degree angle though unless it is a good sinker. One of the points I was trying to make was that although the best hitter of all used the cue of swinging on the plane of the pitch he actually adjusted that depending on what he was trying to accomplish and on pitch location.
What some people aren't realizing is that within reasonable swing angles the ball gets in the air due to striking the ball below center, not due to the swing angle. Yes, it is possible to swing up the back of the ball and get the ball in the air with topspin like a tennis player but that is an extreme case requiring a big time uppercut or rolling hands. What the article also points out is that if you strike the ball the right amount below center the swing angle isn't that important when it comes to carry.
What the article doesn't even try to consider is how likely a hitter is to hit the ball the right amount below center with a given swing angle. I believe that a 40 degree upswing is far too excessive an uppercut to make consistent contact and that a 17 degree downswing is far too much down to make consistent contact.
Personally, I believe that a swing somewhere between level and 5 degrees up will produce the most consistent contact due to timing issues. I also believe that the 5 degrees up will provide more power with still pretty consistent contact. The 5 degrees up or even a bit more is the optimum for most major league hitters. I believe that for pure power hitters the 20+ degrees up is the optimum. I believe that somewhat less than the 5 degrees up and possibly as low as level will provide the best results for hitters who don't have home run power (Let's say less than 10 home runs per 500 at bats when swinging up.)
CADad
So that I clearly understand, are you saying that the bat should be parallel to the ground? Is that what you mean by a level swing?
If that is your contention then I absolutely disagree. I believe that the barrel of the bat should be down at contact. I would further submit that it should never be level because that would indicate that the batter has dropped his lead elbow which creates a linear hand path and loss of power.
I have studied hundreds of MLB clips and the bat barrel is always down at contact on a properly hit ball. I have also studied many, many clips of rec ball batters and the bat barrel is rarely down. It seems the proper swing mechanics are seldom taught to young hitters.
R.
So that I clearly understand, are you saying that the bat should be parallel to the ground? Is that what you mean by a level swing?
If that is your contention then I absolutely disagree. I believe that the barrel of the bat should be down at contact. I would further submit that it should never be level because that would indicate that the batter has dropped his lead elbow which creates a linear hand path and loss of power.
I have studied hundreds of MLB clips and the bat barrel is always down at contact on a properly hit ball. I have also studied many, many clips of rec ball batters and the bat barrel is rarely down. It seems the proper swing mechanics are seldom taught to young hitters.
R.
No. I'm saying that in a level swing the sweet spot of the bat is traveling somewhere near parallel to the ground at the point of contact. For example on a low outside pitch the barrel of the bat would be well below the hands yet the swing could be "level" at the point of contact.
Go back and look at the graphic sandman posted. The barrel is down but the arc the bat is traveling through is down at one point, level and then up.
By the way the barrel isn't always down. It can even be level or even slightly up on a high pitch. I've seen a clip on here where Williams has the barrel up when hitting a high pitch.
Please read the whole post instead of trying to pick on a single thing that I never even came close to saying. I've got to believe you knew that wasn't what I was trying to say.
Go back and look at the graphic sandman posted. The barrel is down but the arc the bat is traveling through is down at one point, level and then up.
By the way the barrel isn't always down. It can even be level or even slightly up on a high pitch. I've seen a clip on here where Williams has the barrel up when hitting a high pitch.
Please read the whole post instead of trying to pick on a single thing that I never even came close to saying. I've got to believe you knew that wasn't what I was trying to say.
Ross (Callaway) you have a PM.
CADad
Not trying to argue. I have read the whole post and I was still unclear what you were trying to say. I doubt that I am alone. Although, I'm not the "sharpest knife in the drawer".
Sorry.
Not trying to argue. I have read the whole post and I was still unclear what you were trying to say. I doubt that I am alone. Although, I'm not the "sharpest knife in the drawer".
Sorry.
Callaway,
Over reaction on my part. It isn't the first and won't be the last time that I don't explain myself clearly enough. My last sentence wasn't necessary.
Sorry.
Over reaction on my part. It isn't the first and won't be the last time that I don't explain myself clearly enough. My last sentence wasn't necessary.
Sorry.
No worries, we're all just trying to figure it out! 
I was just checking the stats from this past year, and there were 108 major league hitters who had 500 or more at bats this past season. 96 of them hit 10 or more home runs, which tells me that if you are not a flyer, or a guy who can hit .330, you had best hit some home runs or you won't ever play at the highest level. 8 guys in the National League and only 4 in the American League who did not hit 10 or more homers with at least 500 AB's.
I will go back and check the .300 hitters and see who are rotational compared to linear.
I will go back and check the .300 hitters and see who are rotational compared to linear.
36 guys hit .300 or better in the big leagues last year. 33 of them are rotational hitters and the 3 that are not are Ichiro-13 HR's, Castillo--6 HR's and Pierre--1 HR.
36 guys who hit .300 or better in the Big Leagues last year. Only 3 are not true rotational hitters. Ichiro, Castillo and Pierre, and they hit 13, 6 and 1 home runs for the year.
I just repeated myself......getting old timers disease.
I just repeated myself......getting old timers disease.
bbscout,
Good info, worth repeating.
Thanks.
Good info, worth repeating.
Thanks.
bbscout:
I think we essentially agree. Maybe not. But I think you just said it a little more clearly. Of course all hitters learn how to hit somewhere and somehow. The good ones either don't have to work so hard for the same results or get super results out of super work. Still, I doubt very seriously that any of the top level hitters are thinking about angle degrees in such a precise way as I have seen described here. Maybe coaches, but not the hitters, at least none that I have seen.
My head is spinning just reading half this stuff.
I think we essentially agree. Maybe not. But I think you just said it a little more clearly. Of course all hitters learn how to hit somewhere and somehow. The good ones either don't have to work so hard for the same results or get super results out of super work. Still, I doubt very seriously that any of the top level hitters are thinking about angle degrees in such a precise way as I have seen described here. Maybe coaches, but not the hitters, at least none that I have seen.
My head is spinning just reading half this stuff.
jemaz, I don't think that we do agree, but that is ok. Most of the good ones have either been taught well or have watched the good hitters and copied their moves. Good hitters talk about hitting all the time and so do good coaches.
I don't think that hitters sit around and talk about angles either. They do talk about the swing, and they spend a lot of time watching tape of their swings, and it is to learn and improve. They also spend a lot of time hitting balls in practice.
I have said this before, and I will say it again. If you want to improve as a hitter and you don't use video, you are shortchanging yourself and will not be as good as you can be. If a coach does not use it, he is either stupid or lazy and should be let go.
I don't think that hitters sit around and talk about angles either. They do talk about the swing, and they spend a lot of time watching tape of their swings, and it is to learn and improve. They also spend a lot of time hitting balls in practice.
I have said this before, and I will say it again. If you want to improve as a hitter and you don't use video, you are shortchanging yourself and will not be as good as you can be. If a coach does not use it, he is either stupid or lazy and should be let go.
bbscout:
I'm not about to say that I don't believe video is a valuable tool. Of course it is, albeit not universally available (for instance, I doubt Albert Pujols had access to a lot of video growing up). I'm also sure that some great hitters didn't have much use for video because it got in their way mostly (unless things were going really bad).
Where I thought we agreed was the part where you mentioned great athletes observing and then putting into practice what they saw (regardless of the terminology) and making it work. These guys -- the best I have encountered -- benefited from coaching for sure, but they were going to hit and hit well regardless. Others could take every lesson in the world and still struggle once the pitching reached a certain level.
Never have I heard any on these guys (all of whom relish discussing hitting) mention rotational swings or angles or the Mike Epstein stuff. I will be the first to admit that they might have been discussing it but it simply went over my head.
The terms I have heard -- in addition to staying short and staying inside (apparently a difficult concept, much to my surprise) -- also include "finish high," which is another place where I thought we might agree, "keep your head still," and "bottom hand extension."
I will add that many, many of the men to whom I am referring are guys you probably work with. In fact, I show them this stuff and ask them what they think and the response I get frequently is that it is too much thinking and not enough hitting.
But, again, I have no doubt to a certain degree that my words here represent an oversimplification and they probably to a certain extent don't have the inclination to get too technical with an "outsider."
Maybe what I am trying to describe, as well, is the conviction that many parents have that the next lesson will be THE one to get their son to the next level, although I see that occur more often in hockey with skating lessons.
I guarantee you that all the lessons in the world aren't going to get most kids outside of a certain God-given envelope. I encourage them to keep working at it if they love the game, but don't be disappointed when miracles fail to develop.
I'm not about to say that I don't believe video is a valuable tool. Of course it is, albeit not universally available (for instance, I doubt Albert Pujols had access to a lot of video growing up). I'm also sure that some great hitters didn't have much use for video because it got in their way mostly (unless things were going really bad).
Where I thought we agreed was the part where you mentioned great athletes observing and then putting into practice what they saw (regardless of the terminology) and making it work. These guys -- the best I have encountered -- benefited from coaching for sure, but they were going to hit and hit well regardless. Others could take every lesson in the world and still struggle once the pitching reached a certain level.
Never have I heard any on these guys (all of whom relish discussing hitting) mention rotational swings or angles or the Mike Epstein stuff. I will be the first to admit that they might have been discussing it but it simply went over my head.
The terms I have heard -- in addition to staying short and staying inside (apparently a difficult concept, much to my surprise) -- also include "finish high," which is another place where I thought we might agree, "keep your head still," and "bottom hand extension."
I will add that many, many of the men to whom I am referring are guys you probably work with. In fact, I show them this stuff and ask them what they think and the response I get frequently is that it is too much thinking and not enough hitting.
But, again, I have no doubt to a certain degree that my words here represent an oversimplification and they probably to a certain extent don't have the inclination to get too technical with an "outsider."
Maybe what I am trying to describe, as well, is the conviction that many parents have that the next lesson will be THE one to get their son to the next level, although I see that occur more often in hockey with skating lessons.
I guarantee you that all the lessons in the world aren't going to get most kids outside of a certain God-given envelope. I encourage them to keep working at it if they love the game, but don't be disappointed when miracles fail to develop.
jemaz, Have you studied what Mike Epstein teaches? A lot of what he teaches is what he learned from Ted Williams, and when Ted talked all the guys listened. I have never argued that just because a player takes lessons from a good hitting coach that he will be a big leaguer. I argue that if a player learns the proper way to swing a bat, he is giving himself the chance to be as good as he can be. Puljos probably did not use much video, but Bonds and Will Clark did. Ted Williams did too.
bbscout:
I don't dispute any of that, except for the fact that I doubt Ted used video much until after he retired. He certainly didn't use it as a kid, nor did Joe DiMaggio or Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle, et al. Not because it wouldn't have been valuable, but because back then it simply didn't exist (as I know you know).
When I was a kid, I consumed everything there was to consume about baseball. I read books, watched games, attended clinics, asked questions, took notes, studied the notes and even practiced in front of the mirror.
I could do everything nearly perfect. And I guarantee that I worked harder at baseball than anyone I knew, including some very, very good players in the limited realm of Lynchburg, VA.
The problem was the speed of the game. I could do it perfectly, but not fast enough. Which, in the end, is what I believe separates the players between different levels and even in the Big Leagues.
The best hitters are quick enough to overcome mistakes relatively often and the greatest hitters don't make a whole lot of mistakes in the first place. I know they work at it and I know they discuss it, but so do I. The difference is their talent, which I will never have. Nor will millions just like me. And that talent didn't come in the form of a lesson or all the hard work in the world. It was a gift from God.
Maybe my problem here is the terminology. It just seems more complicated than necessary. And in response, I say just see the ball and hit it hard.
I don't dispute any of that, except for the fact that I doubt Ted used video much until after he retired. He certainly didn't use it as a kid, nor did Joe DiMaggio or Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle, et al. Not because it wouldn't have been valuable, but because back then it simply didn't exist (as I know you know).
When I was a kid, I consumed everything there was to consume about baseball. I read books, watched games, attended clinics, asked questions, took notes, studied the notes and even practiced in front of the mirror.
I could do everything nearly perfect. And I guarantee that I worked harder at baseball than anyone I knew, including some very, very good players in the limited realm of Lynchburg, VA.
The problem was the speed of the game. I could do it perfectly, but not fast enough. Which, in the end, is what I believe separates the players between different levels and even in the Big Leagues.
The best hitters are quick enough to overcome mistakes relatively often and the greatest hitters don't make a whole lot of mistakes in the first place. I know they work at it and I know they discuss it, but so do I. The difference is their talent, which I will never have. Nor will millions just like me. And that talent didn't come in the form of a lesson or all the hard work in the world. It was a gift from God.
Maybe my problem here is the terminology. It just seems more complicated than necessary. And in response, I say just see the ball and hit it hard.
jemaz,
I don't want to sound like a jerk but if you think this stuff is unnecessary then why don't you just ignore it? There are many of us who enjoy this stuff because it gets us thinking, which helps us learn, and in the end it helps us teach. I could be wrong but I don't think anyone is holding a gun to your head making you read this discussion.
Do yourself, and the rest of us, a favor... Move on to another discussion. I don't mean to be a jerk jemaz. I really don't. I'm just trying to say that there are a number of people who enjoy this type of discussion. We're adults. It's not like we're having these discussions with our 10 year olds.
Take care!
Jason
I don't want to sound like a jerk but if you think this stuff is unnecessary then why don't you just ignore it? There are many of us who enjoy this stuff because it gets us thinking, which helps us learn, and in the end it helps us teach. I could be wrong but I don't think anyone is holding a gun to your head making you read this discussion.
Do yourself, and the rest of us, a favor... Move on to another discussion. I don't mean to be a jerk jemaz. I really don't. I'm just trying to say that there are a number of people who enjoy this type of discussion. We're adults. It's not like we're having these discussions with our 10 year olds.
Take care!
Jason
I tell my 10 year old to "See the ball and hit it hard!" as well, during a game. But, that is after hours and hours of rotational technique and mechanics training, video taping, tee work, soft toss, etc. Practice, practice, practice to develop proper muscle memory and then during a game just "See the ball and hit it hard!"
He has to know "how" to hit the ball properly to be successful later. In rec ball it doesn't take much to get a hit, but as he advances further, it takes the correct swing to be effective. He is learning rotational now and it will be the only swing he will ever need. Whether he has the talent to go to the next level only time will tell, but he will have the tools necessary if he has the ability.
Ross.
He has to know "how" to hit the ball properly to be successful later. In rec ball it doesn't take much to get a hit, but as he advances further, it takes the correct swing to be effective. He is learning rotational now and it will be the only swing he will ever need. Whether he has the talent to go to the next level only time will tell, but he will have the tools necessary if he has the ability.
Ross.
quote:
Originally posted by jemaz:
bbscout:
I don't dispute any of that, except for the fact that I doubt Ted used video much until after he retired. He certainly didn't use it as a kid, nor did Joe DiMaggio or Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle, et al. Not because it wouldn't have been valuable, but because back then it simply didn't exist (as I know you know).
When I was a kid, I consumed everything there was to consume about baseball. I read books, watched games, attended clinics, asked questions, took notes, studied the notes and even practiced in front of the mirror.
I could do everything nearly perfect. And I guarantee that I worked harder at baseball than anyone I knew, including some very, very good players in the limited realm of Lynchburg, VA.
The problem was the speed of the game. I could do it perfectly, but not fast enough. Which, in the end, is what I believe separates the players between different levels and even in the Big Leagues.
The best hitters are quick enough to overcome mistakes relatively often and the greatest hitters don't make a whole lot of mistakes in the first place. I know they work at it and I know they discuss it, but so do I. The difference is their talent, which I will never have. Nor will millions just like me. And that talent didn't come in the form of a lesson or all the hard work in the world. It was a gift from God.
Maybe my problem here is the terminology. It just seems more complicated than necessary. And in response, I say just see the ball and hit it hard.
jemaz, Williams used film back in the 40's. I have an instructional tape he made in 1946 using three tees. Golfers have used film since the 40's to analyze their swings, and they are way ahead of baseball players in swing technique.
It takes talent to play the game at a high level, but if you have not learned how to hit as a youngster, you will have zero chance of being as good as you can be. Ben Hogan once said that practicing the wrong way was worse than not practicing at all.......he was right.
If you had a good hitting coach as a kid, you would have then gotten to be as good as you could be. If you were practicing the wrong way, it was then just like spitting into the wind.
bbscout:
I don't want to belabor this, which I can see is exactly what I am doing.
However, I will not argue against learning anything properly. I clearly did not when I was young. But neither did any of my friends, and some of them went on to play at a high level, including professional baseball and the Big Leagues. They undoubtedly did it the way you described -- by watching high-level guys and then emulating them.
I will add that with all that I have learned as an adult from the guys working with my sons (Brian Harper, Jim Lefebvre, Ken Phelps, Robin Yount, Lou Klimchock, Tommy Jones, R.J. Harrison), I actually have better mechanics today than I have ever had before.
But, as an example, what Calloway has described is all well and good. For a 10 year old, though, that, in my opinion, is way more than is needed and still won't result in the boy advancing behind his inherent talent. He might maximize it, or he might just tire of baseball, but he won't get to the next level without the talent.
And, to repeat myself, I have never heard any of these guys use the word rotational. They might be teaching it, but they sure aren't talking about it. The video is used from time-to-time, but that is mostly determined by availability and surely is more and more important as you move up the ladder.
Strong hands, balance, bat speed and vision are the key. Beyond that, it gets over complicated. "I'm a simple man, Jim, and it's a simple game. You just go out and play and figure a lot of this out on your own." That quote came from an assistant scouting director for a Major League team just a few minutes ago. I asked him if I was misguided on this view. Take it for what it is worth.
Work hard at the game, have fun, get good coaching to be sure, and then let your talent take you as far as it can and then a little further.
I don't want to belabor this, which I can see is exactly what I am doing.
However, I will not argue against learning anything properly. I clearly did not when I was young. But neither did any of my friends, and some of them went on to play at a high level, including professional baseball and the Big Leagues. They undoubtedly did it the way you described -- by watching high-level guys and then emulating them.
I will add that with all that I have learned as an adult from the guys working with my sons (Brian Harper, Jim Lefebvre, Ken Phelps, Robin Yount, Lou Klimchock, Tommy Jones, R.J. Harrison), I actually have better mechanics today than I have ever had before.
But, as an example, what Calloway has described is all well and good. For a 10 year old, though, that, in my opinion, is way more than is needed and still won't result in the boy advancing behind his inherent talent. He might maximize it, or he might just tire of baseball, but he won't get to the next level without the talent.
And, to repeat myself, I have never heard any of these guys use the word rotational. They might be teaching it, but they sure aren't talking about it. The video is used from time-to-time, but that is mostly determined by availability and surely is more and more important as you move up the ladder.
Strong hands, balance, bat speed and vision are the key. Beyond that, it gets over complicated. "I'm a simple man, Jim, and it's a simple game. You just go out and play and figure a lot of this out on your own." That quote came from an assistant scouting director for a Major League team just a few minutes ago. I asked him if I was misguided on this view. Take it for what it is worth.
Work hard at the game, have fun, get good coaching to be sure, and then let your talent take you as far as it can and then a little further.
I see both sides of this debate. I'm glad that Jemaz brings up the points he's making, though I am a big believer in using video. On the other hand, some of the language used to discuss hitting causes me to read real hard. Many things could be described in much simpler terms IMO. We are not all scientists. Some of us (me) aren't very smart at all.
It does help to understand how the body works and the physics involved, but can those that understand it all, HIT? For that matter, can they all teach hitting? You can know what all the movements are, but you can not teach timing. If you could, there would be a lot more great hitters.
Still I enjoy reading the scientific explanations. Even though we use the word "rotational" more than MLB hitting coaches do. They don't use the word "linear" either. I do hear the word "back spin" used a lot.
That said, I can't argue against the value of learning and practicing the real good swing. The longer a bad habit exists, the harder it is to break it.
It does help to understand how the body works and the physics involved, but can those that understand it all, HIT? For that matter, can they all teach hitting? You can know what all the movements are, but you can not teach timing. If you could, there would be a lot more great hitters.
Still I enjoy reading the scientific explanations. Even though we use the word "rotational" more than MLB hitting coaches do. They don't use the word "linear" either. I do hear the word "back spin" used a lot.
That said, I can't argue against the value of learning and practicing the real good swing. The longer a bad habit exists, the harder it is to break it.
bbscout,
I found the stats you posted interesting so I checked a much smaller sample by looking at a good hitting team and a poor hitting team.
The Red Sox had 1 of 9 starters, Johnny Damon, that hit fewer than 10 home runs per 500 ab and one, Todd Walker who barely made it. 2 of their 5 reserves who had 100 ab or more hit fewer than 10 home runs per 500 ab.
The Dodgers had 4 of 8 starters who hit fewer than 10 home runs per 500 ab. Only 1 of their 7 reserves who had over 100 ab had fewer than 10 home runs per 500 ab.
Makes one wonder if the Dodgers were playing the wrong people. They probably should have given up a little on defense in order to score a few more runs.
My guess from looking at this very limited sample and from looking at the stats you posted is that about 15 to 20% of big league hitters don't have home run power. These are the only ones I'm saying should be swinging somewhat more level than the plane of the pitch.
The next question is how many HS hitters have home run power? I'd guess the percentage is much smaller than 80 to 85%.
Should the HS hitters without home run power be swinging more level than the plane of the pitch. More level than the plane of the pitch does not mean swinging down through the ball. I agree that actually swinging down through the ball could turn a hitter with home run potential into a hitter without power.
I feel that for many HS hitters without home run potential a swing between level and the plane of the pitch will result in more short term success. I believe if those hitters do end up gaining more power they will naturally tend to swing more on the plane of the pitch.
I'm guessing that we differ on that point. You probably believe that even the HS hitters without home run potential should be swinging on the plane of the pitch because if they do gain power they'll already have the correct swing for the future.
I still believe what I believe but I can't say that you are wrong either.
I found the stats you posted interesting so I checked a much smaller sample by looking at a good hitting team and a poor hitting team.
The Red Sox had 1 of 9 starters, Johnny Damon, that hit fewer than 10 home runs per 500 ab and one, Todd Walker who barely made it. 2 of their 5 reserves who had 100 ab or more hit fewer than 10 home runs per 500 ab.
The Dodgers had 4 of 8 starters who hit fewer than 10 home runs per 500 ab. Only 1 of their 7 reserves who had over 100 ab had fewer than 10 home runs per 500 ab.
Makes one wonder if the Dodgers were playing the wrong people. They probably should have given up a little on defense in order to score a few more runs.
My guess from looking at this very limited sample and from looking at the stats you posted is that about 15 to 20% of big league hitters don't have home run power. These are the only ones I'm saying should be swinging somewhat more level than the plane of the pitch.
The next question is how many HS hitters have home run power? I'd guess the percentage is much smaller than 80 to 85%.
Should the HS hitters without home run power be swinging more level than the plane of the pitch. More level than the plane of the pitch does not mean swinging down through the ball. I agree that actually swinging down through the ball could turn a hitter with home run potential into a hitter without power.
I feel that for many HS hitters without home run potential a swing between level and the plane of the pitch will result in more short term success. I believe if those hitters do end up gaining more power they will naturally tend to swing more on the plane of the pitch.
I'm guessing that we differ on that point. You probably believe that even the HS hitters without home run potential should be swinging on the plane of the pitch because if they do gain power they'll already have the correct swing for the future.
I still believe what I believe but I can't say that you are wrong either.
PGstaff,
Good points. I enjoy discussing hitting on this site and will argue with those who know more than I do but I leave my son's instruction almost entirely to my son's hitting instructor. When I work with the young kids I try to limit it to very basic stuff such as getting them to pivot and to keep their heads fairly still. I'll correct an excessive uppercut or a kid chopping down at the ball but I won't try to get each and every kid on the perfect swing plane. If I see a kid that is really interested in the game I'll refer the parents to local hitting instructors that I respect.
Good points. I enjoy discussing hitting on this site and will argue with those who know more than I do but I leave my son's instruction almost entirely to my son's hitting instructor. When I work with the young kids I try to limit it to very basic stuff such as getting them to pivot and to keep their heads fairly still. I'll correct an excessive uppercut or a kid chopping down at the ball but I won't try to get each and every kid on the perfect swing plane. If I see a kid that is really interested in the game I'll refer the parents to local hitting instructors that I respect.
CADad:
Are you talking about "squishing the bug?"
Are you talking about "squishing the bug?"
I would like to ask this question: If you have two hitters who are 10 years old and they have the same tools, hgt, wgt, desire, talent etc. and one works with a good hitting coach and the other works with a poor hitting coach......which one do you think will become the better hitter as time goes on?
Of course the kid (as you described) with the good hitting coach will do better. I have always subscribed to that concept and philosophy. Part of what needs to be determined is exactly what consitutes a good hitting coach. The guy who keeps it simple, teaches the basics, goes on to recognition of pitches and the right approach and who instills in the player the desire to move forward on his own versus the guy who does the same things but gets so immersed in theory and technical issues that the hitter loses spontanaity and begins thinking too much.
Probably, there are many shades of gray, but I get back to my original point that many of us parents are driven by the hope that it is the next lesson that will make everything fall into place. I just don't think that's true.
Probably, there are many shades of gray, but I get back to my original point that many of us parents are driven by the hope that it is the next lesson that will make everything fall into place. I just don't think that's true.
jemaz,
That scouting director's view isn't worth much to me. He isn't trying to teach kids how to hit he's in the business of finding the kids that can.
Times are changing jemaz... Is that change positive or negative? It depends where you're standing I guess. If you want to lecture or name drop you're more than welcome to do so. Just do it in a seperate thread.
I understand what you're saying. I'm sure we all do. You make some valid points. I don't think anybody is disputing them. We're just trying to have a technical discussion about the swing. We're not talking about taking an 8 year old to the Major Leagues. It's about learning as much as we can about the swing so we can teach our kids how to swing propertly and get the most out of their abilities. Where that ability takes them is irrelevant.
Again, I'm not trying to be a jerk. I enjoy many of your posts. I just think it would be best for you to ignore these types of discussions. Not because you don't understand them, but because you don't find any value in them.
Have a good day!
Jason
That scouting director's view isn't worth much to me. He isn't trying to teach kids how to hit he's in the business of finding the kids that can.
Times are changing jemaz... Is that change positive or negative? It depends where you're standing I guess. If you want to lecture or name drop you're more than welcome to do so. Just do it in a seperate thread.
I understand what you're saying. I'm sure we all do. You make some valid points. I don't think anybody is disputing them. We're just trying to have a technical discussion about the swing. We're not talking about taking an 8 year old to the Major Leagues. It's about learning as much as we can about the swing so we can teach our kids how to swing propertly and get the most out of their abilities. Where that ability takes them is irrelevant.
Again, I'm not trying to be a jerk. I enjoy many of your posts. I just think it would be best for you to ignore these types of discussions. Not because you don't understand them, but because you don't find any value in them.
Have a good day!
Jason
jemaz, If a coach films the best major league hitters, and gets to understand what they do correctly, it then is not very confusing. It is confusing to people who don't study it, the way Algebra and Geometry are confusing to me.....I did not study them. The words that are used in writing on the net make some things confusing, because the people talking about them are not standing next to each other.If they were, the teaching aspect would be much easier to understand.
I would ask the Asst. Scoutng Director if he has spent any time studying film of hitters and breaking down their swings? I would bet that he has not.
I would ask the Asst. Scoutng Director if he has spent any time studying film of hitters and breaking down their swings? I would bet that he has not.
Well said Doug!!!
P.S. Doug, I sent you an email the other day. When you get the chance I'd love to get your feedback.
P.S. Doug, I sent you an email the other day. When you get the chance I'd love to get your feedback.
jemaz you have a PM.
To add my $.02, I certainly believe that Jemaz had the conversation he mentioned and his account of the substance is accurate.
This leads me to another point. We live in an area here that is full of MLB and Ex-MLB players (as we said in Texas, you can't swing a dead cat without hittin' one). However, I've developed the opinion that former players are not necessarily good instructors, and it seems like everyone assumes that they are.
For example my son plays on a team where one of the coaches is a retired 12 year MLB vet....great defensive infield instructor. However, I do have some issues with his hitting beliefs.
I agree with BBscout. Video viewed frame by frame is a great tool. With the technology at our disposal today, I don't think I would pay for hitting instruction from anyone who does not include video analysis in his program.
This leads me to another point. We live in an area here that is full of MLB and Ex-MLB players (as we said in Texas, you can't swing a dead cat without hittin' one). However, I've developed the opinion that former players are not necessarily good instructors, and it seems like everyone assumes that they are.
For example my son plays on a team where one of the coaches is a retired 12 year MLB vet....great defensive infield instructor. However, I do have some issues with his hitting beliefs.
I agree with BBscout. Video viewed frame by frame is a great tool. With the technology at our disposal today, I don't think I would pay for hitting instruction from anyone who does not include video analysis in his program.
jemaz
Would you make a list of the words we can use while we discuss hitting.
Would you make a list of the words we can use while we discuss hitting.
I go back to Will--hit the ball hard--
Are we getting to detailed about hitting?
Is it that scientific ??
Hit line drives with a level swing and it works?
Yes I am Old School but I don't need a list of words nor do I care about rotational nor linear
TRhit
Are we getting to detailed about hitting?
Is it that scientific ??
Hit line drives with a level swing and it works?
Yes I am Old School but I don't need a list of words nor do I care about rotational nor linear
TRhit
TR
I'm sorry, but weren't you the one that started the "Negative" thread? Some of us have actually learned things from members like bbscout. Sorry that we don't know everything like you.
Perhaps Bob should start an "Idiots Forum" and give you the power to stick all of us in it!
quote:
...I don't need a list of words nor do I care about rotational nor linear
I'm sorry, but weren't you the one that started the "Negative" thread? Some of us have actually learned things from members like bbscout. Sorry that we don't know everything like you.
Perhaps Bob should start an "Idiots Forum" and give you the power to stick all of us in it!
Lamber:
Use all the words you like. I really don't mind. My point in this instance -- and I think it is a legitimate one to be considered by all who teach hitting -- is that if all the words cause a player to think too much, then perhaps the results won't be what is desired.
Use all the words you like. I really don't mind. My point in this instance -- and I think it is a legitimate one to be considered by all who teach hitting -- is that if all the words cause a player to think too much, then perhaps the results won't be what is desired.
