Is swinging up now generally accepted among coaches?

Son has always been taught to get bat on plane early and he has a natural upward swing.  Never heard anyone tell him to swing down and hit it on the ground.    ( other than me when he was vey young) 

 When he was about 10 I decided to get him a lesson at a local baseball school.   Coach was a former wake forest player.   He proceeded to undo everything I'd taught my son.      Why is your elbow so high?   Don't put all your weight on your back foot!   Etc etc.  that's when I realized I didn't know anything about hitting!   

This is my philosophy on it. Almost every high level hitter swings up at the ball. Ball is coming down from most pitchers so bat plane should be on ball plane. Now as you go down in levels (HS and lower) it is very easy to develop a loop when trying to get the barrel on the ball plane. At MS and HS level we teach a more level swing or a flat bat as it is called sometimes. 

There are still some coaches and even ex MLB hitters that teach swing down on the ball. Take the barrel from A to C and leave B out is a coaching point we've probably all heard. There are some VERY good MLB hitters that teach this. But if you look at their swing they swing up on the ball. I believe Don Mattingly teaches swing down. 

To answer your question in our area it's a thing of the past pretty much. I don't know of many guys that teach it this way anymore.

For us, at HS level, we teach the verbal of  "level".  It is my experience that if you teach "level" as the thought process, as the eyes track the ball, the brain will automatically adjust that "level" to slightly up, on plane with the pitch.

If you teach the verbal of "slightly up" or "on plane with the pitch", you almost always get something more upward than that and the barrel doesn't stay on plane very long.  Just my experience.  We get plenty of players who are slightly off plane one way or the other and we have various cues to help them work toward on plane.  Sometimes, this includes a temporary exaggerated adjustment the opposite way.  That's when bystanders can mis-interpret what they are hearing... i.e. - "swing path is still up, get it more down", etc.

Additionally, one has to consider the likely success/effectiveness at various levels.  Most MLB hitters are strong enough, trained enough, and more keenly aware of what their swing looks like to the point where a slightly up approach can be most effective.  Most HS hitters are not.  

... and here come the Ted Williams references...

Ignorance is king.

It's all over the map.

There's a local hitting coach who played in the minors relatively recently (he's in his early 30s) and reached AAA. Last year he started working with a local high school as the program's hitting coach. I remember him telling me that he was completely mystified -- maybe horrified is a better word -- that the high school's JV coach wanted the kids to hit grounders; the hitting coach wanted to teach them to drive the ball into the gaps. In truth, the JV coach's approach probably wins more JV games (where there are a lot of errors on grounders). But the hitting coach's approach is better for developing good hitters.

There was a guy online (Ziggy) who had some great video and graphics on hitting. Unfortunately MLB made him take down all the MLB videos. The videos show hitters swing upward because they swing with the bat parallel to their shoulders.

RJM posted:

There was a guy online (Ziggy) who had some great video and graphics on hitting. Unfortunately MLB made him take down all the MLB videos. The videos show hitters swing upward because they swing with the bat parallel to their shoulders.

He still has some stuff up

http://imageevent.com/siggy/hi...nid=e5260ge8k1.dog_s

Around here there are still a lot of high school coaches that teach swing down on the ball to create backspin. 

Great clips

http://youtu.be/Ehs-H2V6N5o

https://youtu.be/Ysq3IrHVxWQ 

I'm with cabbagedad in that I'm not a big fan of teaching "to swing up" on the ball because it will end up going too far.  We use level as well but I also like to reference that a swing should look like a Nike swoosh to a slight degree.  I'm big on the shoulder level reference mentioned above to help create "level" and stay on the plane.

Overall I think you don't focus so much on terminology but the idea of getting the barrel of the ball on the same plane as the pitch coming in.  That's something they can understand (in my experience) and allows them to leave the barrel in the zone longer.  

Oh yeah - it also helps them in Geometry class too.

cabbagedad posted:

For us, at HS level, we teach the verbal of  "level".  It is my experience that if you teach "level" as the thought process, as the eyes track the ball, the brain will automatically adjust that "level" to slightly up, on plane with the pitch.

If you teach the verbal of "slightly up" or "on plane with the pitch", you almost always get something more upward than that and the barrel doesn't stay on plane very long.  Just my experience.  We get plenty of players who are slightly off plane one way or the other and we have various cues to help them work toward on plane.  Sometimes, this includes a temporary exaggerated adjustment the opposite way.  That's when bystanders can mis-interpret what they are hearing... i.e. - "swing path is still up, get it more down", etc.

Additionally, one has to consider the likely success/effectiveness at various levels.  Most MLB hitters are strong enough, trained enough, and more keenly aware of what their swing looks like to the point where a slightly up approach can be most effective.  Most HS hitters are not.  

... and here come the Ted Williams references...

You have to consider gravity when you look at launch angles.  Many fear that a slight uppercut leads to a too high launch angle and that a line drive is zero degrees.  However due to gravity a zero degree launch angle won't go far and I read in a paper of Alan Nathan that even a ball hit at plus 6 degrees at 90 mph (I think he used contact 3 feet off the ground) only travels about 140 feet. 

That means if you hit a ball flush with a plus 5-7 degree uppercut the natural outcome is a hard one hopper or low liner to short,  you won't hit the ball too high. 

Too much uppercut can be bad but a small uppercut won't lift the ball much unless you hit the ball below center. 

I remember an era where hitting discussions almost always get personal and vicious. I wonder how many people saw the opening question and thought, "I'm not touching this thread." I thought twice before responding.

I know what you mean but is the swing path really still controversial? 

Dominik85 posted:

I know what you mean but is the swing path really still controversial? 

Even if they buy into the idea, Just look at college/HS/travel drills.  They continue to use 2 tee drills (downswing).  They practice hitting the ball into the L screen (which is a zero degree uplift with a 50 ft max distance). etc.

SultanofSwat posted:

Dominik85 posted:

I know what you mean but is the swing path really still controversial? 

Even if they buy into the idea, Just look at college/HS/travel drills.  They continue to use 2 tee drills (downswing).  They practice hitting the ball into the L screen (which is a zero degree uplift with a 50 ft max distance). etc.

Yes I was just wondering how present that kind of teaching still is among higher level travel, hs, college and even pro coaches. Are there now more coaches teaching the "modern way" or is the majority of higher level coaches still old school? What are your sons higher level coaches teaching? Up, down or level?

I wonder because now the swinging up group is getting more mainstream media attention compared to 15 years ago when mankin or Epstein who already talked about the swinging up mostly were an Internet phenomenon with most mainstream coaches having never heard about that.

Dominik85 posted:

I know what you mean but is the swing path really still controversial? 

I don't think the swing path is controversial, I think the teaching methods and the terminology used is what gets controversial.

My boys swing straight to the ball, we don't ever discuss a slight upper cut, there is a reason for this. IMO when you start your swing it has to go down, as you start your turn it has to go straight, when your front side stiffens it creates a different plane and turns your swing into a slight upper cut....IMO it is fairly straight forward. My experience has taught me that teaching a slight upper cut leads to a big one and the dreaded loop...maybe there are different methods of teaching but they are after the same result.

The body is an amazing machine, if you figure out how to get in position at the beginning and the end of the swing the middle will take care of itself...and bat plane for any reasonably advanced hitter is in the middle and we honestly don't discuss it very much.

Dominik85 posted:

SultanofSwat posted:

Dominik85 posted:

I know what you mean but is the swing path really still controversial? 

Even if they buy into the idea, Just look at college/HS/travel drills.  They continue to use 2 tee drills (downswing).  They practice hitting the ball into the L screen (which is a zero degree uplift with a 50 ft max distance). etc.

Yes I was just wondering how present that kind of teaching still is among higher level travel, hs, college and even pro coaches. Are there now more coaches teaching the "modern way" or is the majority of higher level coaches still old school? What are your sons higher level coaches teaching? Up, down or level?

I wonder because now the swinging up group is getting more mainstream media attention compared to 15 years ago when mankin or Epstein who already talked about the swinging up mostly were an Internet phenomenon with most mainstream coaches having never heard about that.

paragraph 2 here is about 10 years late, IMO there is little debate on this. I have heard heated debates of where ball contact should be, forward movement being good or bad, if your hands should be an active part of the swing, do the hips fire before the hands, the importance of extension or not....swing plane just hasn't been on the list in any recent years conversation.

2019Dad posted:

It's all over the map.

There's a local hitting coach who played in the minors relatively recently (he's in his early 30s) and reached AAA. Last year he started working with a local high school as the program's hitting coach. I remember him telling me that he was completely mystified -- maybe horrified is a better word -- that the high school's JV coach wanted the kids to hit grounders; the hitting coach wanted to teach them to drive the ball into the gaps. In truth, the JV coach's approach probably wins more JV games (where there are a lot of errors on grounders). But the hitting coach's approach is better for developing good hitters.

Then, that same JV coach will walk over to the pitching staff and preach how important it is to get batters to hit the ball on the ground. So, which is it coach? Is hitting the ball on the ground good or bad?

I honestly don't know how he does it, but joemktgson creates backspin by hitting it a tad below the ball midpoint.

old_school posted:

Dominik85 posted:

SultanofSwat posted:

Dominik85 posted:

I know what you mean but is the swing path really still controversial? 

Even if they buy into the idea, Just look at college/HS/travel drills.  They continue to use 2 tee drills (downswing).  They practice hitting the ball into the L screen (which is a zero degree uplift with a 50 ft max distance). etc.

Yes I was just wondering how present that kind of teaching still is among higher level travel, hs, college and even pro coaches. Are there now more coaches teaching the "modern way" or is the majority of higher level coaches still old school? What are your sons higher level coaches teaching? Up, down or level?

I wonder because now the swinging up group is getting more mainstream media attention compared to 15 years ago when mankin or Epstein who already talked about the swinging up mostly were an Internet phenomenon with most mainstream coaches having never heard about that.

paragraph 2 here is about 10 years late, IMO there is little debate on this. I have heard heated debates of where ball contact should be, forward movement being good or bad, if your hands should be an active part of the swing, do the hips fire before the hands, the importance of extension or not....swing plane just hasn't been on the list in any recent years conversation.

old_school posted:

Dominik85 posted:

SultanofSwat posted:

Dominik85 posted:

I know what you mean but is the swing path really still controversial? 

Even if they buy into the idea, Just look at college/HS/travel drills.  They continue to use 2 tee drills (downswing).  They practice hitting the ball into the L screen (which is a zero degree uplift with a 50 ft max distance). etc.

Yes I was just wondering how present that kind of teaching still is among higher level travel, hs, college and even pro coaches. Are there now more coaches teaching the "modern way" or is the majority of higher level coaches still old school? What are your sons higher level coaches teaching? Up, down or level?

I wonder because now the swinging up group is getting more mainstream media attention compared to 15 years ago when mankin or Epstein who already talked about the swinging up mostly were an Internet phenomenon with most mainstream coaches having never heard about that.

paragraph 2 here is about 10 years late, IMO there is little debate on this. I have heard heated debates of where ball contact should be, forward movement being good or bad, if your hands should be an active part of the swing, do the hips fire before the hands, the importance of extension or not....swing plane just hasn't been on the list in any recent years conversation.

In the early days of the "rotational hitting" discussion things like Swinging up and "linear Hand path" were quite controversial, however in the last 10 years those things have been pretty much accepted in the community and the arguement has since moved to finer Points ("micro moves" - not sure if it really makes sense to worry about all those micro moves...).

however among many coaches that has never arrived and they still argue to move the knob to the ball in a linear line and swing down.

I was just wondering how present that still is at higher Levels.

I can see what some People are coming from when they say teach Level and the shoulder tilt and rearward lean make it a slight Uppercut. that can work for Kids and sometimes it even works to tell a kid with an extreme Uppercut to swing down and he Ends up still with a slight Uppercut.

however there are also Kids who take that advice very literally and then those Kids always have doubts in their minds. for me those conflicting thoughts caused me to have Trouble with my swing for many years.

what I teach now is to start the swing down behind you , bottom out around at the rear hip and from there swing very slightly up while trying to stay on the pitch plane. I even sometimes span a rope from a Point as high as the pitchers Hand to the catchers glove and then put a tee on that rope. then I let the Kids swing down to the rope behind the rear hip (I say land soft on it like a plane) and then stay on the line as Long as possible.

at least know the Kids really know what they should do and they don't have conflicts in their mind.

Just hit the ball over the L screen.  The pitcher releases the ball at 6' height.

Dominik85 posted:

I can see what some People are coming from when they say teach Level and the shoulder tilt and rearward lean make it a slight Uppercut. that can work for Kids and sometimes it even works to tell a kid with an extreme Uppercut to swing down and he Ends up still with a slight Uppercut.

however there are also Kids who take that advice very literally and then those Kids always have doubts in their minds. for me those conflicting thoughts caused me to have Trouble with my swing for many years.

what I teach now is to start the swing down behind you , bottom out around at the rear hip and from there swing very slightly up while trying to stay on the pitch plane. I even sometimes span a rope from a Point as high as the pitchers Hand to the catchers glove and then put a tee on that rope. then I let the Kids swing down to the rope behind the rear hip (I say land soft on it like a plane) and then stay on the line as Long as possible.

at least know the Kids really know what they should do and they don't have conflicts in their mind.

Any swing teach can have conflicting thoughts.  You say "land soft on it like a plane".  I get the purpose and understand the message (I think I've even used it once or twice) but there is nothing soft about a the bat moving into the hitting zone once the swing starts forward.  Also, taken literally, a plane decelerates coming into landing and that is the last thing you want the bat to do.  This, too, can be a conflicting thought to many young players. 

I think the key is finding the right teach for each individual player at that particular time.

I once saw a guy at the batting cages swing down and make great contact in the "very fast" cage, which is about 90mph.  I couldn't hit it myself, so I thought he was doing the right thing.  Apparently a lot of minor league players swing down, but very few MLB players do.  I think it's a weird thing to teach.  If you gave a kid new to baseball a heavy bat and told him to take a swing he'll likely swing down.  So what does that tell you

hsbaseball101 posted:

I once saw a guy at the batting cages swing down and make great contact in the "very fast" cage, which is about 90mph.  I couldn't hit it myself, so I thought he was doing the right thing.  Apparently a lot of minor league players swing down, but very few MLB players do.  I think it's a weird thing to teach.  If you gave a kid new to baseball a heavy bat and told him to take a swing he'll likely swing down.  So what does that tell you

It tells me the swing down / swing up conversation is an exercise in futility.  The hands move, the barrel moves.  At some point you are swinging "down" and some point swinging "up."  None of which matters if you can't hit barrel.