2020?? U still there? Still interested in your answers.
Dominick, thanks. Here's a question I asked 2020 that you could probably answer... are the stats that define optimal launch angle based on MLB results or other?
cabbagedad posted:2020?? U still there? Still interested in your answers.
Dominick, thanks. Here's a question I asked 2020 that you could probably answer... are the stats that define optimal launch angle based on MLB results or other?
yes the only data we have is probably mlb data. high school or other amateur ball facilities just dont have tracking systems that track LA.
Well launch angles aren't all that hard to calculate. Don't need fancy equipment. Markings on the cage like you started this post with dom. And it doesn't really matter what level. From 12u to MLB the swing is the swing. The launch angle is the launch angle. As for the 'teach'... well cabbage that is the $64000 question isn't it? It's just not that easy. That's why I am a big believer in video and zepp etc. got to get the feel for where those angles are and then just repeat. But one thing is for sure. We have to get Way from this antiquated view of hitting it back at the screen or hitting the back of the cage.
2020dad posted:But one thing is for sure. We have to get Way from this antiquated view of hitting it back at the screen or hitting the back of the cage.
Um...why? What's wrong with line drives hard up the middle?
Goblue33 posted:2020dad posted:But one thing is for sure. We have to get Way from this antiquated view of hitting it back at the screen or hitting the back of the cage.
Um...why? What's wrong with line drives hard up the middle?
Well hitting the screen is a ground ball if the pitcher doesn't catch it the shortstop certainly might. But as stated before even if they do get through they are 100% singles. 100%. And that doesn't win games in reality.
2020dad posted:Goblue33 posted:2020dad posted:But one thing is for sure. We have to get Way from this antiquated view of hitting it back at the screen or hitting the back of the cage.
Um...why? What's wrong with line drives hard up the middle?
Well hitting the screen is a ground ball if the pitcher doesn't catch it the shortstop certainly might. But as stated before even if they do get through they are 100% singles. 100%. And that doesn't win games in reality.
I can understand lower level coaches though. at lower levels the value of extra base hits goes down and the value of getting on base goes up because defenses and batteries are not good at keeping runners where they are. we all have seen the little league games were a walk is basically a double.
at the lowest levels strategies like putting the ball on the ground or hit low liners or taking pitches/wait out the pitcher actually often work so they are used by coaches who want to win.
of course for development it is not good when Tiny number 9 hitter gets primed to look for walks but for him that might be the only chance to get on base even though it won't scale at the next level.
what is best for development and what is best for winning is not always the same at lower levels.
Goblue33 posted:What's wrong with line drives hard up the middle?
Let's look at the odds. 5 players in the infield, and only 3 in the OF covering 2-3X more ground. Wouldn't it make more sense to practice hitting the ball just over the infielder's head (approx. 10 deg launch angle)? Then you could hit hard line drives in any direction, not just in that narrow gap up the middle while missing the pitcher?
See ball, hit ball hard, run fast.
Dominik85 posted:2020dad posted:Goblue33 posted:2020dad posted:But one thing is for sure. We have to get Way from this antiquated view of hitting it back at the screen or hitting the back of the cage.
Um...why? What's wrong with line drives hard up the middle?
Well hitting the screen is a ground ball if the pitcher doesn't catch it the shortstop certainly might. But as stated before even if they do get through they are 100% singles. 100%. And that doesn't win games in reality.
I can understand lower level coaches though. at lower levels the value of extra base hits goes down and the value of getting on base goes up because defenses and batteries are not good at keeping runners where they are. we all have seen the little league games were a walk is basically a double.
at the lowest levels strategies like putting the ball on the ground or hit low liners or taking pitches/wait out the pitcher actually often work so they are used by coaches who want to win.
of course for development it is not good when Tiny number 9 hitter gets primed to look for walks but for him that might be the only chance to get on base even though it won't scale at the next level.
what is best for development and what is best for winning is not always the same at lower levels.
100% correct again dom. I got roped into coaching my sons team just once - when he was 10. I refused to do any of the crazy 1st and 3rd stuff or any other crap that isn't done on upper levels. As stewards of the game we have a responsibility to teach the game the right way. Not the way to win a 10 year old baseball game. Same with the swing. Groove the correct swing. Don't develop a swing geared to youth baseball that will have to be changed later.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...-science-of-hitting/
I encourage all to study this in depth. This is indisputable evidence that launch angles need to be above 10 degrees. In fact that 10 degree mark we keep talking about doesn't become productive at all til at least 90mph exit velocity. With today's technology there is no longer room for difference of opinion. There really is a right and wrong. We need young people like dom to get involved with coaching and push the lazy old coaches out who don't want to study the game and learn these things. Hitting the back of the cage = bad A lot of the time. At best it is an incomplete picture. Hitting the very upper left corner in the back of the cage at 105mph exit velocity = really good! Hitting the back of the cage 4 feet off the ground = ground ball. If you really are serious about setting a launch angle goal 10 degrees is not the answer. You want that to be your 'mistake' on the low end that might just squeak through the infield. Anything below 10 as you can see is almost purely bad unless there is tremendous exit velocity. Interestingly enough notice there is a lot more production from Texas leaguers with low exit velocity and high launch angle than from under 10 degrees. That would be a dangerous and unproductive line to hang your hat on.
P.S. For all the exit velocity critics we can see from the chart that high exit velocity - IN GAMES - does pretty much guarantee success. And 'squaring it up' at a lower exit velocity does not.
http://www.hittraxbaseball.com...y_Elite_Baseball.pdf
another good one. See that increasing launch angle also increases line drives and significantly increases slugging pct. what amazes me is the plethora of scientific and statistical information out there and yet some cling to old myths. I have many times changes my teachings when proven incorrect. It's no big deal to be wrong and make a change. In fact it's the right thing to do. But stubbornness in hanging on to your own beliefs in the face of overwhelevidence to the contrary... well we need to get away from that.
BTW the batting average in play on those 0-5 degree grounders in MLB is not bad (around .400) but the Overall production is much lower because you don't get extra base hits except the rare down the line ground ball double. for example for 0-4 degrees the BA was 419 and SLG just 465, meaning the ISO was just 0.05 (MLB average is around 0.15). with a 5-9 degree angle BA was .570 but again ISO only .076. the first time ISO gets above league average is 10-14 degrees (.19). it is very hard to be an average or better hitter with a below average ISO because that not only lowers your SLG but often also means you don't walk at higher Levels even if you are Patient because pitchers will not be afraid to attack you because the worst that can happen is a single. to be above average with the bat with a below average ISO you basically have to contend for batting titles (see Ichiro).
above 14 degrees BA starts to go down but ISO goes up. for example at 15-19 degrees BA is down to .619 but ISO is up to .343. Slugging at both angles is about similar (around 960).
That means above 15 degrees is probably were no power guys start to lose. maybe low power guys with Speed should aim for 10-15 degrees instead of 15-20 but that still means that the back of the Cage is still the very lower end of the Launch angle range for those guys.
Data is statcast data from 2015
http://diamondkinetics.com/hig...g-vs-home-run-swing/
I think an analogy you could use is that tennis players don't practice hitting into the net. baseball seems to be the only sport were coaches preach practicing something different than what you do in games (swing down, hit low line drives).
It can work for some. there are guys who hit 35 bombs despite saying they swing down or try to hit it low the other way. however there are also many prospects and even mlb hitters were the reports read "swing is lacking loft". there are cases of no power hitters hitting too many fly balls (Billy hamilton) but it doesn't happen often. way more often a strong hitter is not reaching his potential because he can't hit productive launch angles.
Recently quite a few average pro players turned into stars by raising their launch angle (Murphy, dozier,lamb) but many don't make that jump.
Maybe it would be good to learn that skill early, because few can learn that at 29 like Murphy. I'm not saying you need to learn that right away, for a 10 year old low liners are probably OK but no reason to not start that at 12 to 13.
Could bunts be included in the 0-4 deg numbers?
SultanofSwat posted:Could bunts be included in the 0-4 deg numbers?
Maybe but I doubt it plays a big role. most busts are sacrifice busts and I think those are excluded. also most bunts are probably more like negative 10-15 degrees
2020dad posted:http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...-science-of-hitting/
I encourage all to study this in depth. This is indisputable evidence that launch angles need to be above 10 degrees. In fact that 10 degree mark we keep talking about doesn't become productive at all til at least 90mph exit velocity. With today's technology there is no longer room for difference of opinion. There really is a right and wrong. We need young people like dom to get involved with coaching and push the lazy old coaches out who don't want to study the game and learn these things. Hitting the back of the cage = bad A lot of the time. At best it is an incomplete picture. Hitting the very upper left corner in the back of the cage at 105mph exit velocity = really good! Hitting the back of the cage 4 feet off the ground = ground ball. If you really are serious about setting a launch angle goal 10 degrees is not the answer. You want that to be your 'mistake' on the low end that might just squeak through the infield. Anything below 10 as you can see is almost purely bad unless there is tremendous exit velocity. Interestingly enough notice there is a lot more production from Texas leaguers with low exit velocity and high launch angle than from under 10 degrees. That would be a dangerous and unproductive line to hang your hat on.
Well, 2020, I'm sure this will come as no surprise to you but I don't completely agree.... call me a lazy old coach I guess. I believe there is definitely room for difference of opinion and that is fully taking into consideration today's technology and data.
The data is from MLB. My line of questioning has been how that may relate to the average HS player. I think it is important to use ALL the data and also take into account all the different factors that come into play when comparing the MLB game to the HS game. Here is an excerpt from the article that you encourage everyone to study in depth...
"...the success of a ball struck at a more intermediate angle is extremely sensitive to its exit velocity. For instance, at a launch angle of about 25 degrees,3Specifically, I selected all balls with launch angles of between 22 and 28 degrees, somewhere between a line drive and fly ball. run values can vary sharply depending on how fast the ball leaves the bat. Low exit velocities tend to result in short-hoppers to the infielders, which are easy outs. But as batters hit the ball slightly harder, those liners get progressively stronger, eventually sailing over infielders’ heads for bloop singles. Then the run value drops again, as those line drives begin to travel within reach of the outfielders."
Translation - a hitter with exit velo that is not above average (most average HS hitters) will not garner the same positive results from that 25 degree launch angle like a MLB power hitter will.
I'll combine that point with some other facts. HS infielders are not nearly as consistent with fielding and throwing, nor are they nearly as agile and athletic as MLB infielders. Also, HS infield surfaces are never as well groomed as MLB fields. I'm not saying that most HS infielders won't make the routine plays. But I am saying that hard ground balls (any GB's for that matter) are much more likely to result in hits or errors and tilt the scales as compared to the results you get from your MLB data. I am NOT proposing to teach hitting ground balls or hit down on the ball (more on this later).
Regarding exit velo, obviously, hitting the ball hard matters. Average HS hitters are not nearly as strong as MLB players. They also don't have the timing or swing mechanics that help maximize swing speed. Nor do they have the ability to consistently get the sweet spot of the barrel on the ball. So, we work with them to improve strength and mechanics. But we also try to teach them a swing path that is roughly on plane with the pitch. This maximizes their ability to barrel the ball more consistently and, thus, hit the ball hard with more frequency. It is effective and, guess what? The desired positive result for many players with that in mind is a hard line drive to the back of the cage! When the average HS player has an upward swing plane, the result is often inconsistent contact because the barrel is on plane with the ball for a shorter period of time. Now, by all means, if I have a more advanced player with power, we will work with that player with an elevated launch angle in mind.
Other excerpts from the article in your link even reference specific speedsters in the MLB who benefit from a much lower (even negative) launch angle.
I am NOT proposing to teach hitting ground balls. But I am pointing out that the scale shifts considerably when you consider the skill set of the average HS player and the nature of the average HS game. Often, it is most beneficial for the player and team that the "hard line drive" is the optimal objective.
We have plenty of players who move on to the next level with no issues succeeding with that approach as their base. One of the more recent power hitters went to a JC that tried to get him to shift from a fairly level swing to an uppercut. He struggled. He transferred to another school, went back to his original swing and became one of the top hitters and leading HR hitters in the league. Others have encountered successful college coaches who have asked them to maximize their speed and get the ball on the ground.
Even so, many HS players will never have a high exit velo. The idea of teaching them to work toward a higher launch angle for the future power that will never come doesn't ring true with me. If HS will be the end of the line, shouldn't we help them maximize their performance?
So, to summarize, I actually agree that the launch angle should be 10 degrees plus. I just don't buy the blanket statement that hitting the back of the cage is bad and that any coach teaching this should be put out to pasture.
BTW, I do also agree that Dominick will be a good addition to the coaching ranks.
Cabbage here is what I like about debating you - we always keep it civil and if you notice we pretty much always come to at least some sort of consensus at the end. I don't think this will be any different! First you agree 10 degrees should be a minimum - but remember 10 degrees is at the very tip top of the back of the cage. And if your cage is a bit smaller than 12 ft high then 10 degree already puts you to the top net not the back net. Also as you mention exit velocity is the key. But just as 25 degrees with poor exit velocity is bad the back of the cage with poor exit velocity is a ground ball! Now I know when these posts get technical and long we don't want to read everything again before we post (I sure don't). But if you did scroll back I think I suggested launch angles from 15-25. Recognizing not everyone is a power hitter. I do think though 10 is too low and the back of the cage is bad. As a former high school coach I can testify with 100% accuracy that you are absolutely correct - hard ground balls and low line drives are much more effective at that level than they would be at the MLB level. But I am just a big believer in training kids for the next level even if it harms my success some in the present. And kids are getting bigger and stronger. Those that care at least. Don't underestimate them! My son is a marginal baseball talent and is creeping up on 90 off the tee. Wouldn't surprise me if he got there next time we measured. Some of these kids can hit and they need to be taught the MLB/D1 swing. Frankly I am not as concerned about the underachievers. Just like the good lord I want to help those that help themselves! I think there is too much coddling of the underachievers in this country and not enough encouraging of the hardest workers. The fact you are in this conversation tells me you are open to new knowledge and new ways of thinking. So let's not put you out to pasture just yet!
A lot of really good dialogue in this thread, and as I'm reading it I had some thoughts about development.
First an observation. My son is 5 and played t-ball this fall. Not long after Josh Donaldson was on MLB Network talking about his swing, a teammate came to the next game sporting a huge leg kick and drastically different swing. Very obvious that someone watched Donaldson, and went in the backyard with his son to teach his kid to be a big leaguer. But it was entirely too complicated of a swing - way too much motion and coordination for a 5-year old to handle, when they should be taught nothing more than making contact (after the "having fun" requirement is satisfied, but that's a tangent...).
My point is, and I know that a 5 year old and a MLB player are on extreme ends of the spectrum, but what MLB players do shouldn't always be emulated by younger players. What works for a major leaguer doesn't necessarily make it optimal for a college/high school/little leaguer. Different levels of athleticism, development, hand-eye coordination, strength, etc. Cabbagedad has made that point about exit velos of HS vs MLB.
USA Weightlifting has a 3 phase technique development model. Forgive me for not remembering the specifics, but the idea is that early in technique development is when you get your engrained motor patterns that will last forever. Make technical tweaks early on, because it is easier to get out of old habits and train the new pattern. In the later two phases, it takes much more work to correct an incorrect movement. So - as a counter to what I said earlier about not emulating MLB players - do you train younger kids to emulate an MLB swing since it may be difficult to reprogram the movement pattern after years of a slightly different pattern?
cabbagedad posted:So, to summarize, I actually agree that the launch angle should be 10 degrees plus. I just don't buy the blanket statement that hitting the back of the cage is bad and that any coach teaching this should be put out to pasture.
The back of the cage is less than 10 degrees.
SultanofSwat posted:cabbagedad posted:So, to summarize, I actually agree that the launch angle should be 10 degrees plus. I just don't buy the blanket statement that hitting the back of the cage is bad and that any coach teaching this should be put out to pasture.
The back of the cage is less than 10 degrees.
I wanted to give every benefit of doubt to my worthy adversaries in this debate. So I assumed batter being only 50 feet from back of cage and cage 12 feet high. So yes if cage is longer or not as high even the very top of the back of the cage would be less than 10 degrees. But we are still not ready to put cabbage out to pasture!!
I don't ever see me really ever discussing a actual launch angle in degrees with a HS kid. We talk ball flight, and what we want it to look like, and we have marks in the cage to aim for, but my kids already lock up from thinking too much at times. If I start using numbers God knows what will happen.
I got into baseball to avoid science and math!!!
2020dad posted:... As a former high school coach I can testify with 100% accuracy that you are absolutely correct - hard ground balls and low line drives are much more effective at that level than they would be at the MLB level. But I am just a big believer in training kids for the next level even if it harms my success some in the present. And kids are getting bigger and stronger. Those that care at least. Don't underestimate them! My son is a marginal baseball talent and is creeping up on 90 off the tee. Wouldn't surprise me if he got there next time we measured. Some of these kids can hit and they need to be taught the MLB/D1 swing. Frankly I am not as concerned about the underachievers. Just like the good lord I want to help those that help themselves! I think there is too much coddling of the underachievers in this country and not enough encouraging of the hardest workers. The fact you are in this conversation tells me you are open to new knowledge and new ways of thinking. So let's not put you out to pasture just yet!
Yup, there is certainly some common ground. I keep referencing "the average HS player" as my point of reference for discussion. I coach a HS program. I directly coach V but responsible for the coaches and players at JV as well. At the present time, we haven't yet split squads and have everyone together. We are not a big school so I don't have an abundance of high level players in the system. This is more the norm (or "average") for HS as opposed to those programs loaded mostly with college bound players. 2020, I know your son is fairly big and you and he put a lot of work into his swing and use some of the current tools. All of those points are slightly outside of the norm so I think your thought process may be influenced accordingly.
I cannot afford to be unconcerned about the underachievers (or just the typical average HS players). I need to help them become achievers. I need to do so within the realistic scope of their abilities and optimal future development within the game. Remember the numbers. For most, this is as far as it goes. We teach for each to maximize his own level of skill, strength, abilities and level of commitment. For some, that means high level goals and corresponding techniques. For many others, it's something different.
FWIW, we have the full size 75' tunnels. A hard line drive to the back of the cage would usually translate into something other than a routine GB.
Matt Reiland - Yes, I cringed when I saw the Donaldson interview and some of our players were sharing it. There are things some MLB players do that can be detrimental to most HS players, particularly as it relates to balance and timing. "Learn the MLB swing" is another dangerous blanket statement, IMO. Many parts of the mechanics are fundamental necessities and some are not.
Ironhorse - I totally agree and almost never use numerical degrees when discussing this with the players. Depending on the individual and the purpose of the drill or focus, we too will use various visual targets. I only used numbers here as it related to the discussion.
"Yes, I cringed when I saw the Donaldson interview and some of our players were sharing it. There are things some MLB players do that can be detrimental to most HS players, particularly as it relates to balance and timing. "Learn the MLB swing" is another dangerous blanket statement, IMO. Many parts of the mechanics are fundamental necessities and some are not.'
I'm 54 and I still throw batting practice either as Luis Tiant or Juan Marichal. And hit like Mark Belanger.
Go44dad posted:"Yes, I cringed when I saw the Donaldson interview and some of our players were sharing it. There are things some MLB players do that can be detrimental to most HS players, particularly as it relates to balance and timing. "Learn the MLB swing" is another dangerous blanket statement, IMO. Many parts of the mechanics are fundamental necessities and some are not.'
I'm 54 and I still throw batting practice either as Luis Tiant or Juan Marichal. And hit like Mark Belanger.
Haha... you shoulda picked a better hitter. And, watch out for those muscle pulls, Juan.
As kids, in the winter, my brother and I used to play a foam ball basement baseball game where we would emulate each player from a given team with each different AB. The 70's Reds and Pirates made for a great assortment. Morgan, Rose, Geronimo, Perez, Bench, Concepcion, Griffey Sr, Stargell, Parker, Madlock, Sanguillen, ...
Don't tell my players.
Someone tell Andrew he's doing it wrong!!! (first video)
ironhorse posted:Someone tell Andrew he's doing it wrong!!! (first video)
I have no idea what he is working on there. Could be anything. But I can guarantee you he is not working in learning to hit the ball back at the pitcher for game conditions. Could there be a reason he is aiming for the screen? I suppose. But those aren't well hit balls in a game situation I can tell you that. Seeing as though he is a power hitter this is not really how he hits a baseball. If we were actually speaking to him he may have. Reason he is doing what he is doing. I would love to hear it.
2020dad posted:ironhorse posted:Someone tell Andrew he's doing it wrong!!! (first video)
I have no idea what he is working on there. Could be anything. But I can guarantee you he is not working in learning to hit the ball back at the pitcher for game conditions. Could there be a reason he is aiming for the screen? I suppose. But those aren't well hit balls in a game situation I can tell you that. Seeing as though he is a power hitter this is not really how he hits a baseball. If we were actually speaking to him he may have. Reason he is doing what he is doing. I would love to hear it.
Actually many mlb hitters work on swinging down, hitting low liners and so on. works for them but for many it doesn't .
Dominik85 posted:2020dad posted:ironhorse posted:Someone tell Andrew he's doing it wrong!!! (first video)
I have no idea what he is working on there. Could be anything. But I can guarantee you he is not working in learning to hit the ball back at the pitcher for game conditions. Could there be a reason he is aiming for the screen? I suppose. But those aren't well hit balls in a game situation I can tell you that. Seeing as though he is a power hitter this is not really how he hits a baseball. If we were actually speaking to him he may have. Reason he is doing what he is doing. I would love to hear it.
Actually many mlb hitters work on swinging down, hitting low liners and so on. works for them but for many it doesn't .
Dom they may work on that for some strange reason but. One of them actually swing like that. Fan graphs did a hand path study. Look it up. All hand paths and barrel paths are positive not negative
2020dad posted:Dominik85 posted:2020dad posted:ironhorse posted:Someone tell Andrew he's doing it wrong!!! (first video)
I have no idea what he is working on there. Could be anything. But I can guarantee you he is not working in learning to hit the ball back at the pitcher for game conditions. Could there be a reason he is aiming for the screen? I suppose. But those aren't well hit balls in a game situation I can tell you that. Seeing as though he is a power hitter this is not really how he hits a baseball. If we were actually speaking to him he may have. Reason he is doing what he is doing. I would love to hear it.
Actually many mlb hitters work on swinging down, hitting low liners and so on. works for them but for many it doesn't .
Dom they may work on that for some strange reason but. One of them actually swing like that. Fan graphs did a hand path study. Look it up. All hand paths and barrel paths are positive not negative
I know. but for some reason many mlb players actually think they swing down. I feel that many pro coaches know what a good swing looks like, they can spot an elite swing but they don't know what happens physically. They know the desired end result so the process is basically a try and error process trying a lot of cues that don't have anything to do with the problem. sometimes it works by coincidence but often it doesn't. that might be the reason why many think it cannot be taught.
Dominik85 posted:2020dad posted:Dominik85 posted:2020dad posted:ironhorse posted:Someone tell Andrew he's doing it wrong!!! (first video)
I have no idea what he is working on there. Could be anything. But I can guarantee you he is not working in learning to hit the ball back at the pitcher for game conditions. Could there be a reason he is aiming for the screen? I suppose. But those aren't well hit balls in a game situation I can tell you that. Seeing as though he is a power hitter this is not really how he hits a baseball. If we were actually speaking to him he may have. Reason he is doing what he is doing. I would love to hear it.
Actually many mlb hitters work on swinging down, hitting low liners and so on. works for them but for many it doesn't .
Dom they may work on that for some strange reason but. One of them actually swing like that. Fan graphs did a hand path study. Look it up. All hand paths and barrel paths are positive not negative
I know. but for some reason many mlb players actually think they swing down. I feel that many pro coaches know what a good swing looks like, they can spot an elite swing but they don't know what happens physically. They know the desired end result so the process is basically a try and error process trying a lot of cues that don't have anything to do with the problem. sometimes it works by coincidence but often it doesn't. that might be the reason why many think it cannot be taught.
The work on that to counter act the forces in the swing. The swing forces are pulling the bat head under the ball. In order to get the angles you guys are talking about you need to counteract those forces. In other words. If your lauch angle is too high resulting in pop ups working on overemphasing a shallower angle helps correct the problem.
I'll also add that for most high school players the shallower angle is prefered. If they have higher angles, many times the have just enough strength to make it a catchable out. My kids team last year was this. The kids had nice swings that resulted in a ton of outs. Everything hit in the air was an out.
Golfman25 posted:Dominik85 posted:2020dad posted:Dominik85 posted:2020dad posted:ironhorse posted:Someone tell Andrew he's doing it wrong!!! (first video)
I have no idea what he is working on there. Could be anything. But I can guarantee you he is not working in learning to hit the ball back at the pitcher for game conditions. Could there be a reason he is aiming for the screen? I suppose. But those aren't well hit balls in a game situation I can tell you that. Seeing as though he is a power hitter this is not really how he hits a baseball. If we were actually speaking to him he may have. Reason he is doing what he is doing. I would love to hear it.
Actually many mlb hitters work on swinging down, hitting low liners and so on. works for them but for many it doesn't .
Dom they may work on that for some strange reason but. One of them actually swing like that. Fan graphs did a hand path study. Look it up. All hand paths and barrel paths are positive not negative
I know. but for some reason many mlb players actually think they swing down. I feel that many pro coaches know what a good swing looks like, they can spot an elite swing but they don't know what happens physically. They know the desired end result so the process is basically a try and error process trying a lot of cues that don't have anything to do with the problem. sometimes it works by coincidence but often it doesn't. that might be the reason why many think it cannot be taught.
The work on that to counter act the forces in the swing. The swing forces are pulling the bat head under the ball. In order to get the angles you guys are talking about you need to counteract those forces. In other words. If your lauch angle is too high resulting in pop ups working on overemphasing a shallower angle helps correct the problem.
I'll also add that for most high school players the shallower angle is prefered. If they have higher angles, many times the have just enough strength to make it a catchable out. My kids team last year was this. The kids had nice swings that resulted in a ton of outs. Everything hit in the air was an out.
I agree it can make sense for pros because the high level pitches are flatter and almost seem to rise compared to the stuff you face in amateur ball. sometimes it makes sense to work to stay on top.
Problem is that many kids take swing down literally (same can happen with swing up too). thus I would prefer to say swing almost level but slightly up. If he then swings up too much you can tell him to swing a little more level and if he doesn't swing up enough you can tell him to swing up a little more.
Last two posts... Golf and Dom, now we're coming full circle as this all relates to most HS level players. Thanks for connecting the dots more eloquently than I have.
Additionally, at the HS level, if you "teach" level, most often the hitter's eyes tracking the ball will cause an automatic physical response that results in the desired slightly elevated path.
And yes, some are swinging down and they think they are swinging level. Some are swinging up and they think they are swinging level. So a quick video clip of themselves and some reverse instruction usually gets them going in the right direction.
Cabbage let me put the question back to you on this. What attack angle do you want to teach at the HS level? I might be able to agree to knock off the high end of attack angle for HS for most players. But I could never be persuaded to the point of 'level swing' which i believe leads to failure at just about any level.
My intented teach for most is "on plane with the pitch" which results in just slightly above "level". I do not teach to adjust that angle based on the pitch speed (off speed vs FB, for example) but find that the eye and brain automatically make that adjustment. I understand that the actual pitch plane will be slightly steeper than perceived and I think that works out OK.
In drills, we want hitters hitting hard line drives. Depending on the adjustments a given hitter needs to make, or their strengths/weaknesses, we may adjust the sights slightly up or down. We have a line drive contest that we utilize frequently in the cages. A player "scores" when the ball is hit hard and the Hi/low marks are bottom of the L-screen and top of the net beyond the L-screen (so probably about 25-30 degrees). Ideally, the bottom would be raised to middle of L-screen but we do this, in part, to make for easily delineated parameters. When I work individually with hitters, I will adjust specifically to the hitter's capabilities, natural swing and other factors.
One area you and I disagree on - I do think an HR should be a mistake as opposed to an objective for most HS hitters. As Golfman pointed out, attempt to lift and/or hitting fly balls almost always results in outs. A more successful/appropriate plane thought I will use is "dent the fences". "Drive it hard". "Where it's pitched" (which, BTW, has not been a factor in this conversation in regards to launch angle and it needs to be). "Drive the gaps". When you combine these swing thoughts with teaching to be on plane with the pitch (keeping the barrel in the hitting zone longer) and seeing on-field results, you end up with hitters who hit hard line drives and tend to miss ever so slightly under the ball (eventually becoming subconsciously purposeful backspin) with low line drives and gap shots as the objective. A squarely hit line drive, albeit not always over the IF, is usually a good result. A very slight miss under is usually a good result. A very slight miss hard one/two hopper is usually a good result.
You said.. But I could never be persuaded to the point of 'level swing' which i believe leads to failure at just about any level. There is a difference between "level swing" and "level" teach. As I mentioned in previous post, often, if your "teach" is level swing, the hitter's eye adjusts to pitch plane and result is a swing that is on or very nearly on pitch plane. Whereas, if you "teach" an upward swing or a swing on pitch plane, the result is most often something more upward than pitch plane and undesirable, IMO - the results I see are excessive rollovers, popups and otherwise inconsistent contact.
As others have pointed out, just "see ball, hit ball hard" has a lot of merit. This should be the objective once mechanics are in reasonable order. We also do drills that focus solely on getting the sweet spot to the ball. This is, I think, maybe even more important than launch angle at this level - becomes more of a given at levels beyond HS.
This year, I probably have two players who are strong enough to benefit from trying to drive with lift. I have another who is strong enough but currently overly exaggerates staying inside to the extent that he gives up too much of his potential power so that needs fixed before we go toward lift.
I do my best to keep up on all new information, data, mechanic teaches, game strategies, etc. But I also realize that most originates from the top (MLB). So, I am careful to examine what applies and to what extent to the HS game that I coach.
ok cabbage... I think we have done it again. We have come to a concensus for the most part. I am ok with about everything you said there. sometimes its just about boiling down to terminology. I will still stick with home run as the objective believing even if you fall short you will find enough extra base hits to make up for the fly outs. But I think that a relatively minor disagreement. I think given your open mind and willingness to talk things out we can officially say you are not ready to be put out to pasture!!
Some more to consider....
This weekend, I was watching highlights of a few of son's current college team from LY games when they won 40 (= successful). Both games were similar. One, a 9-3 victory - lot's of scoring. Every RBI was a single, most of the GB/low line drive variety. I don't recall a ball in the air that wasn't caught, except for one double over the top - didn't factor in to scoring. The only other XBH hits I saw were low line drive to the gap that SS, 2B lept for. 2nd game was similar. While a few examples is certainly anecdotal, I did attend a LOT of college games the last several years and there is a heck of a lot of offense being generated in this same manner (and, yes, of course I saw deep balls as well). I am also in tune with what approaches are being taught at several other successful colleges. Many are teaching approaches that result in what I am describing. There is a place for both. Different approaches for different types of hitters.
MLB - while the spray chart indicates the most effective range may be in that 10-25 degree area, the total MLB average (I believe for the 2016 season) is actually under 10. What do we attribute that to? I think pitch location, pitch movement and the reality that there are still different types of hitters at the MLB level all factor in. Other??
Sorry for reaching the "beating dead horse" level.
cabbagedad posted:Some more to consider....
This weekend, I was watching highlights of a few of son's current college team from LY games when they won 40 (= successful). Both games were similar. One, a 9-3 victory - lot's of scoring. Every RBI was a single, most of the GB/low line drive variety. I don't recall a ball in the air that wasn't caught, except for one double over the top - didn't factor in to scoring. The only other XBH hits I saw were low line drive to the gap that SS, 2B lept for. 2nd game was similar. While a few examples is certainly anecdotal, I did attend a LOT of college games the last several years and there is a heck of a lot of offense being generated in this same manner (and, yes, of course I saw deep balls as well). I am also in tune with what approaches are being taught at several other successful colleges. Many are teaching approaches that result in what I am describing. There is a place for both. Different approaches for different types of hitters.
MLB - while the spray chart indicates the most effective range may be in that 10-25 degree area, the total MLB average (I believe for the 2016 season) is actually under 10. What do we attribute that to? I think pitch location, pitch movement and the reality that there are still different types of hitters at the MLB level all factor in. Other??
Sorry for reaching the "beating dead horse" level.
Right, mlb average is 9 degrees. but of course pitchers try to get you to roll over and hit the ground so that doesn't mean that is the ideal angle. you will also have some pop ups at 60 plus degrees and too high fly balls but at that level there are probadly more misses towards the ground.
Don't get me wrong 9 degrees is probably a hit 60 plus percent of the time in mlb but the best result is probably a higher liner over the infield that has a chance to go for extra base hits.
I would agree that a home run is a slight mistake under the ball but I think the ideal target is not a low liner but a high liner at around 15 to 20 or so. in college or hs ball that might be different.
cabbagedad posted:My intented teach for most is "on plane with the pitch" which results in just slightly above "level".
The pitcher releases the ball at 6'. This is the typical height of an L screen. This is roughly 10 deg.
Is there more back spin on the ball at higher launch angles or does it just depend on how squarely you hit the ball? My son has had the chance to use a hit trax machine but I don't know if it measures the spin of the ball.