Pulling vs. oppo theory

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:
Coach 2709,
If Blue Dog wants to define "great hitters" to exclude players like Clemente, that alone speaks to his ability and knowledge.
As Mays described in his recent book, Clemente was one of the most revered and respected hitters by his peers, including Mays. Kaline, Gwynn, and those listed before with 3,000 are in that group, HR's or not, Blue Dog ridicule or not.
If a parent wants to listen to the sales job and believe that anything Ruth said applies to their son, they sure can do that... and then look their son in eye and take full responsibility if their son turns out not to be Ruth.
There isn't much that is offered in this forum other than a lot of nonsense.

Amen and well said. I hate this forum because there are people who will come in here looking for help because their exposure to baseball is limited. All they want to do is help their child get better as a hitter - maybe get to college or whatever. But guys like BlueDog spout off stuff that is beyond useless that it can hurt these kids in their development. That hurts the game and that's the worst thing.

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:
..........................wow you really are grasping at straws here. Here is the whole quote:

quote:

If this is the case then Dave Kingman is a greater hitter than Tony Gwynn but when discussions of hitters come up nobody mentions Kingman but they do mention Gwynn.

By using "greater hitter than" in the sentence I'm comparing two hitters - in this case Gwynn and Kingman - and not these two with ALL of baseball.

Maybe I should have used "better hitter than" instead of what I did - then you might understand.

I'm not going to sit here and say that's 100% grammatically correct but it's clear enough to get my message across. I'm not saying that everyone is a great hitter. I'm saying Gwynn is a greater hitter than Kingman although using your standards of stats you think Kingman is a greater hitter than Gwynn - you are wrong. In fact you are wrong in all counts.

Coach,

How can you say that? We said an OPS of 1. was a good indicator of greatness. You list two guys, one with a .847 OPS (Gwynn) and a guy with a .780 OPS (Kingman) and say we'd think Kingman was a "greater hitter". IMO, Gwynn was a "great" contact hitter, but not great overall. He did his job, what he was best at and should most certainly be in the HOF.

I could, however, be convinced to include some of those hitters you listed over .940. One was just a good starting reference point, IMO, not a must number.

Ok when I finish this post I'm going to go back and edit the other post to say "better hitter than" instead of "greater hitter than" since people are missing my point.

Power you and BlueDog have inferred that the only great (yes I'm now using that term correctly) hitters are the one's with power numbers. In the comparision with Gwynn and Kingman you lead people to think that Kingman is a BETTER HITTER THAN Gwynn but anybody who knows baseball will never agree with you. You said you want a hitter up there late in the game who has the threat of homerun power - well that's Kingman. I'm saying you would be crazy to fear Kingman over Gwynn.

You said that 1.00 OPS is a good cutoff for "great" hitters and that implies those who are closer to 1.00 have to be better hitters than those who are farther away. Well as I said - using the 1.00 cutoff for "great" hitters you only have 9 hitters who are "great" in all of the history of baseball and the countless thousands of players who have stepped into a MLB batter's box. That is a ridiculous thing to say that there are only 9 "great" hitters. To expand on my point 2 of those 9 aren't power hitters (Hornsby and Greenburg). You both say that "great" hitters have power but using just YOUR definition you are wrong.

I expanded your concept of OPS as a reference to include around 35 MLB players - which is still a ridiculously low number - and found that quite a few "great" hitters that were not power hitters. Most of the guys I mentioned are in the Hall of Fame and if getting into the HOF doesn't make you a "great" hitter then I truly don't know what does.

Here is the problem power and I don't mean this to be an insult to you plus correct me if I'm wrong. You do not coach a team. You are not responsible for a whole group of players to be successful in a game setting. Where games are won and lost in the batters box. Well I am and let me tell you I've lost and won more games on basehits than homeruns. I've won and lost more games to average hitters than the big sluggers. I've lost and won more games with hitters that could spray the ball all over the field rather than pull the ball all the time. This includes watching games on TV at the pro level and the games I've played in. It's nice to sit around at a keyboard and say "I want a power hitter to mash the ball late in the game" but the facts of the matter is that more games are won and lost with the singles / doubles hitters than the big home run hitters.

quote:

I could, however, be convinced to include some of those hitters you listed over .940. One was just a good starting reference point, IMO, not a must number.

Forgot to mention this statement earlier.

I can respect this statement and accept that 1.00 is not a must number. I think you are selling a lot of people short of a well deserved title of "great hitter" with your definition.

I'm not trying to open the flood gates and let everone in who's put the bat on the ball. I find it naieve to leave out a whole group of people who accomplished a lot of things offensively while not putting up power numbers and won many games. If you make the HOF then I can't see how anyone can say someone is not a great hitter.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I don't have a problem with you but obviously I don't agree with you.

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:
Ok when I finish this post I'm going to go back and edit the other post to say "better hitter than" instead of "greater hitter than" since people are missing my point.

Power you and BlueDog have inferred that the only great (yes I'm now using that term correctly) hitters are the one's with power numbers. In the comparision with Gwynn and Kingman you lead people to think that Kingman is a BETTER HITTER THAN Gwynn but anybody who knows baseball will never agree with you. You said you want a hitter up there late in the game who has the threat of homerun power - well that's Kingman. I'm saying you would be crazy to fear Kingman over Gwynn.

You said that 1.00 OPS is a good cutoff for "great" hitters and that implies those who are closer to 1.00 have to be better hitters than those who are farther away. Well as I said - using the 1.00 cutoff for "great" hitters you only have 9 hitters who are "great" in all of the history of baseball and the countless thousands of players who have stepped into a MLB batter's box. That is a ridiculous thing to say that there are only 9 "great" hitters. To expand on my point 2 of those 9 aren't power hitters (Hornsby and Greenburg). You both say that "great" hitters have power but using just YOUR definition you are wrong.

I expanded your concept of OPS as a reference to include around 35 MLB players - which is still a ridiculously low number - and found that quite a few "great" hitters that were not power hitters. Most of the guys I mentioned are in the Hall of Fame and if getting into the HOF doesn't make you a "great" hitter then I truly don't know what does.

Here is the problem power and I don't mean this to be an insult to you plus correct me if I'm wrong. You do not coach a team. You are not responsible for a whole group of players to be successful in a game setting. Where games are won and lost in the batters box. Well I am and let me tell you I've lost and won more games on basehits than homeruns. I've won and lost more games to average hitters than the big sluggers. I've lost and won more games with hitters that could spray the ball all over the field rather than pull the ball all the time. This includes watching games on TV at the pro level and the games I've played in. It's nice to sit around at a keyboard and say "I want a power hitter to mash the ball late in the game" but the facts of the matter is that more games are won and lost with the singles / doubles hitters than the big home run hitters.

Coach,

No, I don't Coach at the moment, but I have for several years, not sure how that's relevant, but that's what it is. Anyway, either I nor Bluedog has said that hitting a lot of HRs is the only criteria, just that it is a big one, one that needs to be there. I will say this, those 9 hitters you posted with lifetime 1 + OPS numbers are the "greatest" hitters of all time. Like I said, I would expand that list some. I personally, just don't think it's right to include a guy that many of his hits were infield hits, bunts or flares. Again, that's just my opinion.

This thread is becoming the Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits combined.....

Any hitter in the HOF is good enough for me to call him "great". HOF consists of what, less than 1% of all players ever to play MLB so I'd say they were all pretty fair country ballplayers in their day. Certainly good enough to be considered great by any of us on this site for sure.

quote:

.....people are missing my point.

Nah, don't think so....

Power, arguing with coaches is not worth the discussion....Most of 'em think they know swinging when they don't....Their thing is batting - take signs and bunting stuff....

Swingers learn from people like me and you....How to swing for the fence stuff....Hit the ball hard stuff....

Ya know, the kind of stuff that messes up the game of baseball....

quote:

Originally posted by BlueDog:
Power, arguing with coaches is not worth the discussion....Most of 'em think they know swinging when they don't....Their thing is batting - take signs and bunting stuff....

Swingers learn from people like me and you....How to swing for the fence stuff....Hit the ball hard stuff....

Ya know, the kind of stuff that messes up the game of baseball....

So power, is that who you are?... one of those with Blue Dog: "like me and you?"
You and Blue Dog..joined at the hip?

quote:

Originally posted by BlueDog:
Power, arguing with coaches is not worth the discussion....Most of 'em think they know swinging when they don't....Their thing is batting - take signs and bunting stuff....

Swingers learn from people like me and you....How to swing for the fence stuff....Hit the ball hard stuff....

Ya know, the kind of stuff that messes up the game of baseball....

This cracks me up. Last time I checked the point of baseball and players working at their game is to WIN GAMES. But the funny thing is you don't put your name out there for the wins and losses. You hide behind this "belief" that you know more than anyone yet when it comes to put up or shut up.........you got nothing and you definately don't shut up. What's your won / loss record when it comes to having the players you work with in games? I've asked you this before but you have yet to answer.

Do you lack the knowledge in pitching, fielding, strategy and / or hitting to operate a team? Probably a little bit of all of them. You have this "luxury" of having a kid come to you, pay you money for "help" and when he still keeps going 0 - 4 in games you blame others and keep getting money out of him. Must be a nice gig if you don't have the courage to truly measure your ability as a teacher of the game.

You are a private whatever (most people would say coach but you apparantly have some sort of allergy to that word) but you mislead people into thinking you have the answers but you don't. Private coaches (yes that's what you are is a private coach) can play a very huge role in the development of a player just like a coach of a team. But when the **** hits the fan you (not all private coaches but you) are nowhere to be found to be held accountable for what you do. Your off to the side helping / hurting another kid while taking money from them.

Once again - what teams have you lead, how successful were they and can you prove what you "teach" works?

I got some trophys that prove what I can do with the game. Take your own advice - step up to the plate and perform.

Infielddad I think power is an ok guy and a good teacher of the game. While I totally disagree with most of what he says I think he wants the best for his players. I can respect that even if I don't agree with him.

Reason why BlueDog is trying to phrase that above the way he did is he's starting to realize that people are figuring him out. People like yourself and others are shooting all kinds of holes in his "way of teaching the game"........oh wait I meant hitting since he seems to have no knowledge of any other aspect of the game. He's scrambling to find as many allies he can to prop up his baseless theories and ideas of hitting.

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:
Infielddad I think power is an ok guy and a good teacher of the game. While I totally disagree with most of what he says I think he wants the best for his players. I can respect that even if I don't agree with him.

Reason why BlueDog is trying to phrase that above the way he did is he's starting to realize that people are figuring him out. People like yourself and others are shooting all kinds of holes in his "way of teaching the game"........oh wait I meant hitting since he seems to have no knowledge of any other aspect of the game. He's scrambling to find as many allies he can to prop up his baseless theories and ideas of hitting.

aahhh....hopefully we're about done with this thread.

Any list of great hitters leaving off Cobb, Musial (just to name a couple)is a waste of ink.

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:

quote:

I could, however, be convinced to include some of those hitters you listed over .940. One was just a good starting reference point, IMO, not a must number.

Forgot to mention this statement earlier.

I can respect this statement and accept that 1.00 is not a must number. I think you are selling a lot of people short of a well deserved title of "great hitter" with your definition.

I'm not trying to open the flood gates and let everone in who's put the bat on the ball. I find it naieve to leave out a whole group of people who accomplished a lot of things offensively while not putting up power numbers and won many games. If you make the HOF then I can't see how anyone can say someone is not a great hitter.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I don't have a problem with you but obviously I don't agree with you.

Okay, here's the bottom line, in my way of thinking. To be a great hitter, you have to square the ball consistently with a swing plane that allows you to drive the ball. Against MLB pitching, if you consistently square the ball, you will hit HRs on at least a somewhat consistent basis. If you had a choice between Ted Williams or Ty Cobb, both in their prime, who would you take? Albert Pujols or Ty Cobb? Tony Gwynn or Albert Pujols? Pete Rose or any of the top 50 guys all-time OPS numbers?

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:

quote:

Originally posted by BlueDog:
Power, arguing with coaches is not worth the discussion....Most of 'em think they know swinging when they don't....Their thing is batting - take signs and bunting stuff....

Swingers learn from people like me and you....How to swing for the fence stuff....Hit the ball hard stuff....

Ya know, the kind of stuff that messes up the game of baseball....

So power, is that who you are?... one of those with Blue Dog: "like me and you?"
You and Blue Dog..joined at the hip?

I understand what he's saying. A Coach doesn't have time to teach each hitter to have a great swing. They have other things to do, lots of other things. Their job is to win games with the team they have, it is a tough job. A hitting instructor should be a specialist, some are, some aren't, but their job is to teach a hitter to swing the bat as well as their ability allows, so Coaches can then use those skills to the best advantage of the "team". The problem with most Coaches (that I've come in contact with), is that they want to be a specialist and a Coach, but they don't have the time to study the art. Being the leader of a group, they need to sound like they do know what they are talking about (not including anyone specifically here, because some really do) and that's where they get into trouble and make things tougher for the specialists. I really don't have a problem with a Coach making a "quick fix" to help a hitter get "results" to help the "team" (if they don't have a qualified hitting instructor). I just think they should let the hitter know that it may be a temporary fix and that they need to get the underlying problem fixed by a specialist.

Bluedog, is a specialist and is one of the most knowledgeable people on the swing that I've had the pleasure to speak with. His frustration, from what I've observed, is that folks want to argue with someone that is trying to help them, for NOTHING. Most argue what they've always been taught, but never pick up a bat to try what is being offered. They also never TRY to look at videos offered and SEE what is being explained.

PTAF, unfortunately, what you say about coaches is true. They should be able to plan a practice, impliment both defense and offensive concepts and be a specialist who knows what they think they know. The problem then is that some reach their "level of competence" and can't move beyond that. Still many are good or better than those around them and so, enjoy success. Concepts like pulling the ball or going opposite is a great example. For all, take a look at all the MLB video you can and draw your own conclusions based upon what you see the best of the best do. Who could argue that?

power,

Your comments on coaching seem focused on HS, travel and lower levels rather than college and/or Milb where teams have pretty much a dedicated hitting coach/instructor. Maybe I am misreading your comments on the coaching, but there are far more coaches in college and Milb and more emphasis on hitting when players get to college and Milb.
As I posted and truly believe, if DM wants to think his son is the second coming of Bonds and gets supported by Blue Dog, that is his choice. If I were the parent of a HS player, I might suggest they look at other models/video of those in the HOF. For current players, Pedroia and Buster Posey might be good models, for instance, for those players who don't have the physical advantages of a Howard, etc.
It will be the rare hitter, very rare, who will be like Bonds. In fact, for the first 5-6 years of his MLB career, Bonds was not the same type of hitter he was in the last 5-6 years of his career in terms of this thread discussion. He changed and adjusted over time, as so many in Mlb and Milb do.
As it relates to Blue Dog, what you say may all be true.
The issue, for me, is whether the information gets communicated.
There are a wide variety of posters to this site and within the hitting forum. Reading back to the days when bbscout would post, many in this forum know there stuff, not just Blue Dog.
To me, it isn't an issue of whether Blue Dog knows his stuff.
As with every aspect of business and advising, the issue is how knowledge is communicated and whether it is done effectively.. in ways the reader can understand and see how it applies.
I have a friend who is very well known in Silicon Valley. He is a huge proponent of the critical importance of engineers. He also readily admits most/many engineers can only communicate amongst themselves.
His view is the very best engineers are those that understand the needs of their customer and are able to apply and communicate how technology meets the customer needs...in a way the customer understands. The customer needs to see the value for them and how what is being sold works...FOR THEM!
I happen to think similar considerations apply to a hitting instructor, whether in an individual lesson or posting on this site.
Knowledge is great/wonderful. If it cannot be communicated in ways that those coming to this forum understand, what good is it? If the "knowledge" cannot be questioned without sarcasm and/or ridicule in response, what good is it?
It may be great Blue Dog knows so much.
My observation is that many times there seems to be a gap between what you perceive as the knowledge and I perceive as the communication of the knowledge.

If they were all like CoachB25, people like me and Power wouldn't be needed.....

I get the feeling that you may well know your stuff, but you are way too vague/cryptic for me to decipher what you mean. A shame, it is...

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:
power,

Your comments on coaching seem focused on HS, travel and lower levels rather than college and/or Milb where teams have pretty much a dedicated hitting coach/instructor. Maybe I am misreading your comments on the coaching, but there are far more coaches in college and Milb and more emphasis on hitting when players get to college and Milb.

You are exactly right with what you've said here.

quote:

Originally posted by BlueDog:
If they were all like CoachB25, people like me and Power wouldn't be needed.....

Who said you are? BD, you may the the smartest *** out there but no one knows casue you speak in silly little riddles. Makes me think you really don't know so much.

As far as PTAF, he's Richard Schenk's boy. You know if he thinks that the pool hall owner/beer league softball wannabe is the end all and be all of hitting then he has no interest in what a bunch of coaches who actually COACH think.

Interesting view of hitting when looking at the 9 players with OPS over 1....several 1B and the rest OF except for Hornsby. All of the 9 were considered large, strong men during their era (Bonds after he discovered Balco). No SS,C,3B (we'll consider Hornsby a 2B even though he played 3B and SS during some years) and one 2B. Basically over half of the positions have no 1.0 OPS guys.

Is it even possible for an infielder (outside of 1B) to ever be considered a "great hitter"? Would Arod be considered "great" due to his HR totals (certainly not his defense or BA)? Would any of the "great hitters" with 1.0 OPS numbers been able to play, at a MLB level, any of the missing positions and maintain their offensive production? Where does Piazza stack up in this debate due to his position?

Should power hitters try to be mostly pull hitters? Of course but it has nothing to do with what they can do when they hit the square or solid...rather it is what they can still do when they mis-hit or don't hit the ball square; due to their power the mis-hits can still go out while the mis-hit of a smaller infielder won't even be at the warning track. The power guy has much more margin of error than the little guy does.

OBP has proven to be a better indicator of run production than OPS (bad formula)but OPS is in vogue these days. But this discussion is about power versus run production; let the coaches worry about run production and winning games.

Based on the OPS system of grading, any player that played primarily before 1921 (end of the dead ball era) has virtually no chance to be considered "great"...even Hornsby's great years were after 1921. Then comes the debate in changing the height of the pitching mound in the late '60s or the smaller dimensions of the ballparks built during the '60s plus the Astroturf fields' effect on team makeup and what bearing that had on baseball. Makes it virtually impossible to compare players of various eras with objectivity or fairly.

The top 9 OPS guys were/are all great hitters...put them onto a team by themselves and you have a defensive disaster brewing. 3 lefthand arms (Ruth,Bonds,Gehring) limits the infield; Ramirez, Greenberg and Williams not the best of gloves in their prime;Foxx, Hornsby and Pujols are the best chances to round out an infield of some sort. Not alot of speed anywhere except a pre-Balco Bonds but then he wouldn't have made the OPS list.

[Then you have Gehrig or Hornsby or Foxx beating the h#ll out of Ramirez for one of his stunts (probably Hornsby or Foxx) and the team is down to 8. LOL.]

The 9 OPS guys listed are all great hitters no doubt but to even begin to say they are the only great hitters is kinda ignorant of baseball history and how the game itself is played on the field versus it being played on a high school baseball message board. Leaving off Musial, Wagner, Cobb, Lajoie, Sisler, Speaker (plus about another 30) from any list of great hitters shows a lack of knowledge of the game.

quote:

Originally posted by S. Abrams:
Interesting view of hitting when looking at the 9 players with OPS over 1....several 1B and the rest OF except for Hornsby. All of the 9 were considered large, strong men during their era (Bonds after he discovered Balco). No SS,C,3B (we'll consider Hornsby a 2B even though he played 3B and SS during some years) and one 2B. Basically over half of the positions have no 1.0 OPS guys.

Is it even possible for an infielder (outside of 1B) to ever be considered a "great hitter"? Would Arod be considered "great" due to his HR totals (certainly not his defense or BA)? Would any of the "great hitters" with 1.0 OPS numbers been able to play, at a MLB level, any of the missing positions and maintain their offensive production? Where does Piazza stack up in this debate due to his position?

Should power hitters try to be mostly pull hitters? Of course but it has nothing to do with what they can do when they hit the square or solid...rather it is what they can still do when they mis-hit or don't hit the ball square; due to their power the mis-hits can still go out while the mis-hit of a smaller infielder won't even be at the warning track. The power guy has much more margin of error than the little guy does.

OBP has proven to be a better indicator of run production than OPS (bad formula)but OPS is in vogue these days. But this discussion is about power versus run production; let the coaches worry about run production and winning games.

Based on the OPS system of grading, any player that played primarily before 1921 (end of the dead ball era) has virtually no chance to be considered "great"...even Hornsby's great years were after 1921. Then comes the debate in changing the height of the pitching mound in the late '60s or the smaller dimensions of the ballparks built during the '60s plus the Astroturf fields' effect on team makeup and what bearing that had on baseball. Makes it virtually impossible to compare players of various eras with objectivity or fairly.

The top 9 OPS guys were/are all great hitters...put them onto a team by themselves and you have a defensive disaster brewing. 3 lefthand arms (Ruth,Bonds,Gehring) limits the infield; Ramirez, Greenberg and Williams not the best of gloves in their prime;Foxx, Hornsby and Pujols are the best chances to round out an infield of some sort. Not alot of speed anywhere except a pre-Balco Bonds but then he wouldn't have made the OPS list.

[Then you have Gehrig or Hornsby or Foxx beating the h#ll out of Ramirez for one of his stunts (probably Hornsby or Foxx) and the team is down to 8. LOL.]

The 9 OPS guys listed are all great hitters no doubt but to even begin to say they are the only great hitters is kinda ignorant of baseball history and how the game itself is played on the field versus it being played on a high school baseball message board. Leaving off Musial, Wagner, Cobb, Lajoie, Sisler, Speaker (plus about another 30) from any list of great hitters shows a lack of knowledge of the game.

You keep changing the subject. It takes more than great hitters to make a "team"! Have you ever seen a "team" with 8 great hitters on it? 7? 6? 5? Even 4? The whole idea of you trying to field a "team" out of the guys with OPS numbers over 1 is insane.

quote:

Makes me think you really don't know so much.

Hey, my buddy Shawn Lee showed up......Hey there, old buddy....

Power, as you already know, if any of these people wanna learn about swinging a bat, they will understand what me and you and a few others are saying....

Now, Coach2709 could never understand....He's a coach and is heavily invested in his old and tired instruction....He has to stay the course....All he can do is try to get others to listen to him and his coach buddies.....

People like me and you are here for the parents and kids to learn some good stuff about swinging a bat....We don't go over to the coach's threads.....But, they come over to the hitting threads and stir it up....The coaches feel threatened by us....The real backbone of baseball, the kids and parents, know the score....And, that's who we're here for....

Relax PTAF...it was a a bit of satire about the lack of various positions in the 1.0 OPS ranks that you totally missed. That, and a little history about various eras of baseball many aren't considering in this discussion. You are getting way too worked up about something that won't be decided by you, me or anyone on a high school message board.

Good swings are easy to teach...hitting is a seperate issue. Those that believe one leads to the other automatically hasn't played much baseball or taught many good hitters. Getting wrapped up in the search of the perfect swing has killed alot of careers of hitting instructors (specialists?) over the years, particularly those that don't have the ability to clearly convey what they are trying to teach. Doesn't matter what the teacher knows or believes...it is what the student understands that is important.

quote:

Originally posted by S. Abrams:
Relax PTAF...it was a a bit of satire about the lack of various positions in the 1.0 OPS ranks that you totally missed. That, and a little history about various eras of baseball many aren't considering in this discussion. You are getting way too worked up about something that won't be decided by you, me or anyone on a high school message board.

Good swings are easy to teach...hitting is a seperate issue. Those that believe one leads to the other automatically hasn't played much baseball or taught many good hitters. Getting wrapped up in the search of the perfect swing has killed alot of careers of hitting instructors (specialists?) over the years, particularly those that don't have the ability to clearly convey what they are trying to teach. Doesn't matter what the teacher knows or believes...it is what the student understands that is important.

I'm relaxed, just stating my views. Having a good discussion. I don't have a problem with anything you've said here. The thing is, I and many others have the goal of teaching a "great" swing, not a "good" swing. My search has been to try to understand the high level swing and what makes it high level. That quest is over, I've found that. My quest now is how to BEST relay that to others, which is why I agree 100% with your last statement. If you were to make a formula for a "great" hitter, what would it be? Using your formula, how many hitters would be on that list?

...........BlueDog I'm sorry but I still didn't see where you put anything that resembles success in what you do. Maybe I overlooked it for like the third time. I know I've asked you to prove that you've had success (other than you spouting hot air) but for some reason I can't find anything about what you have accomplished as a hitting "instructor" - since the term "coach" is taboo for you.

How about this - I'll keep coaching my kids, getting them into college (or further) and sticking to the ultimate goal of winning games. I'll do that and you keep cashing checks of kids who may or may not get better because you get paid either way. Don't stick your neck out there too far when it comes to being responsible for the customer.....I mean player.

Power,

While the OPS is good, it is flawed in how it is weighted towards slugging and total bases. Let me think a bit about the the weighting of slugging/total bases so that BOTH contact oriented and power oriented hitters are reasonably rewarded. Probably would end up with something like the wOBA formula.
While OBP is better for run production, it is unfair to the power guys and not a great basis for grading hitters.
Personally, I believe it is better to perhaps to look at this discussion of great hitters by the position they played as usually the MIFs are smaller in stature and catchers get too beat up to realistically ever be an OPS leader. For instance, who was the greatest hitting SS or 3B or 2B? While different eras still taint the stats somewhat, it makes more sense comparing George Brett to Mike Schmidt to Eddie Matthews to Pie Traynor than throwing Bonds/Ruth/Pujols into the equation . JMO

quote:

Originally posted by S. Abrams:
Power,

While the OPS is good, it is flawed in how it is weighted towards slugging and total bases. Let me think a bit about the the weighting of slugging/total bases so that BOTH contact oriented and power oriented hitters are reasonably rewarded. Probably would end up with something like the wOBA formula.
While OBP is better for run production, it is unfair to the power guys and not a great basis for grading hitters.
Personally, I believe it is better to perhaps to look at this discussion of great hitters by the position they played as usually the MIFs are smaller in stature and catchers get too beat up to realistically ever be an OPS leader. For instance, who was the greatest hitting SS or 3B or 2B? While different eras still taint the stats somewhat, it makes more sense comparing George Brett to Mike Schmidt to Eddie Matthews to Pie Traynor than throwing Bonds/Ruth/Pujols into the equation . JMO

Okay! That's cool! I'm anxious to see what you come up with. Heck, I may agree too!

quote:

Originally posted by BlueDog:
Power, as you already know, if any of these people wanna learn about swinging a bat, they will understand what me and you and a few others are saying....

Now, Coach2709 could never understand....He's a coach and is heavily invested in his old and tired instruction....He has to stay the course....All he can do is try to get others to listen to him and his coach buddies.....

People like me and you are here for the parents and kids to learn some good stuff about swinging a bat....We don't go over to the coach's threads.....But, they come over to the hitting threads and stir it up....The coaches feel threatened by us....The real backbone of baseball, the kids and parents, know the score....And, that's who we're here for....

I don't know coach2709 personally, so I'll reserve judgment on him for now, but that has certainly been my experience with the Coaches I've come in contact with. On the other hand, I also understand their predicament. They KNOW what has worked for them in the past and it is a huge leap of faith to change from what they've been doing to something vastly different. The reason I say that, is because even if they think they understand, but don't totally, they could be screwed big time. They all still have current players that they taught one way, we are expecting them to try to change that to something drastically different. If he doesn't TOTALLY understand how to teach what we are saying and it doesn't work, he HAS to go back to what he was doing. If that were to happen, he may very well lose the respect of that kid and if that happens, he has big problems. Kind of like a ship Captain making a wrong turn and getting lost. Like you say though, if someone wants to learn it, they can, but it takes lots of time and commitment.

quote:

Posted August 18, 2010 12:08 PM Hide Post
Power, as you already know, if any of these people wanna learn about swinging a bat, they will understand what me and you and a few others are saying....

Ok, so if I want to LEARN, I will already understand..??? Does that make sense to anyone else, or is it just me? If I want to learn, that means I don't already know. If I understand, then that means I know it and comprehend it. How can you do both? What am I missing?
PTAF-where is this Nirvana where the high-level swing is unearthed and taught???

whatever.........I know what I teach in hitting works. It's not quick fixes, it's not temporary solutions and it's not stuff I pull out of stinky orafices. What I teach is information that I get from listening to people I consider credible. That includes - college HITTING COACHES, MLB / MiLB hitting coaches, private hitting coaches like yourselves and other coaches who are successful. I don't just throw up drills that mass produce hitters because each hitter is different and my staff will work with them to maximize each kids potential as a hitter. It's tough and will always be tough but it's my job to do what's best for each of my players. If that's not good enough for you then come to a practice and watch our staff work and watch my kids perform. You will be impressed.

I am a student of the game and that includes hitting. I want to learn everything that I can about hitting as well as fielding, pitching, baserunning and strategy. That is baseball and I love teaching the whole game.

Hitters I work with will hit the better pitchers. Let me work with a kid and he will be able to hit a potential draft pick. I know because my teams have faced these guys and did well.

Maybe I'm too sensitive but I get really sick and tired of this holier than thou attitude by the private instructors on here (BlueDog and yes even you Power) because they just say coaches don't know what they're talking about and people just believe them. Maybe I need to be more mature and let things slide but I'm not going to sit here and have people throw a blanket across all coaches and say they aren't very good at teaching hitting. You say "in my experience coaches don't know enough and can't teach things correctly. They tend to put band aids on problems" but in my experience I've seen private coaches who were absolutely terrible. They charge kids tons of money to get results and get nothing in return. I could get a homeless drunk guy off the streets to teach hitting better than what these guys do. In return I don't think there needs to be a blanket thrown on all private coaches because I've also worked with guys who are private instructors that were phenomenal.

Your arrogant attitudes, less than adequate explanations and condescending attitude to those who disagree with you kill the hitting message board. I truly do not think that we as a group actually help that many people as we could if we would all change our attitudes towards each other. Yes that includes me.

As for the topic at hand - it is ridiculous to say that the great hitters are the only ones who who pull the ball with power. Baseball is more than power. A great hitter uses the bat to hurt the other team. That might be jerking a pitch down the line that goes 400 feet but to have the ability to drive the ball in the gap and score a runner from first is the sign of a GREAT hitter. To say those guys who can let the ball get deep and drive it 400 feet to the opposite field are not as good as those who pull it is ridiculous.

I'm going to quote Scott Rolen about Joey Votto from a Sporting News article in the Aug 16 2010 issue that has the college football preview with Alabama's Mark Ingram taking the handoff from the mascot.

quote:

He's too good a hitter to be called a power hitter, but he has power. What's good about his power is that it's to the middle and opposite fields. Those are his best swings without a doubt.We'll be in batting practice and I'll hit a ball out of the ballpark . The he'll hit it farther to what is the opposite field for him.

So here is an established MLB player talking about a young MLB player. He talks about power and Votto does have it but he also is a pure hitter.

He's a career .313 avg with a .949 OPS and 81 HR's. But here's what makes him a great hitter without relying strictly on power.

He is averaging for a season 181 hits, 38 doubles adn out of his 81 HR's 49 of them were to CF or LF (he's a LH hitter for those that don't know).

So this kid is considered a power hitter but he's doing his damage as a line drive hitter that is going to opposite field.

So if anyone can explain to how this is not a great hitter (granted he's young and needs to keep producing like this but it's still pretty impressive) I would appreciate it. If anyone can explain to why is it when I talk to or hear MLB coaches speak they all want guys who can hit the other way. They talk about letting the ball get as deep as possible and drive the ball back up the middle. So if the guys at the higest level who perform want up the middle / opposite field and the guys who teach the best players up the middle / opposite field - then why should we listen to those who say great hitters pull the ball with power?

quote:

Originally posted by handyrandy:

quote:

Posted August 18, 2010 12:08 PM Hide Post
Power, as you already know, if any of these people wanna learn about swinging a bat, they will understand what me and you and a few others are saying....

Ok, so if I want to LEARN, I will already understand..??? Does that make sense to anyone else, or is it just me? If I want to learn, that means I don't already know. If I understand, then that means I know it and comprehend it. How can you do both? What am I missing?
PTAF-where is this Nirvana where the high-level swing is unearthed and taught???

hittingillustrated.com

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:
whatever.........I know what I teach in hitting works. It's not quick fixes, it's not temporary solutions and it's not stuff I pull out of stinky orafices. What I teach is information that I get from listening to people I consider credible. That includes - college HITTING COACHES, MLB / MiLB hitting coaches, private hitting coaches like yourselves and other coaches who are successful. I don't just throw up drills that mass produce hitters because each hitter is different and my staff will work with them to maximize each kids potential as a hitter. It's tough and will always be tough but it's my job to do what's best for each of my players. If that's not good enough for you then come to a practice and watch our staff work and watch my kids perform. You will be impressed.

Coach, like I said in my post, I didn't include you. I don't even know you and if you do the things you say, then you aren't one of the "Coaches" I'm talking about.


I am a student of the game and that includes hitting. I want to learn everything that I can about hitting as well as fielding, pitching, baserunning and strategy. That is baseball and I love teaching the whole game.

Hitters I work with will hit the better pitchers. Let me work with a kid and he will be able to hit a potential draft pick. I know because my teams have faced these guys and did well.

but in my experience I've seen private coaches who were absolutely terrible. They charge kids tons of money to get results and get nothing in return. I could get a homeless drunk guy off the streets to teach hitting better than what these guys do. In return I don't think there needs to be a blanket thrown on all private coaches because I've also worked with guys who are private instructors that were phenomenal.


Coach, again, I said, "most" not all and only the ones I've come in contact with, which is not that huge of a list, relatively speaking. The % of Private instructors that haven't got a clue is higher than the Coaches that don't have a clue and I agree with everything you've said above concerning them also.

Your arrogant attitudes, less than adequate explanations and condescending attitude to those who disagree with you kill the hitting message board. I truly do not think that we as a group actually help that many people as we could if we would all change our attitudes towards each other. Yes that includes me.

As for the topic at hand - it is ridiculous to say that the great hitters are the only ones who who pull the ball with power.

Coach, I didn't see anyone say that. What Bluedog has said many times, is that you shouldn't try to change a hitter that is already a pull hitter. I haven't had an experience like that to judge from, so I'll take his word at what his experience has been. My screen name is not "powertoallfields for no reason, I believe that's a good thing, but if someone is making it happen by pulling only or mostly pull, my first inclination is not to teach them to hit to all fields (like it used to be). His other thought of "having to hit a lot of home runs to be a GREAT hitter", I happen to agree with 100%. That doesn't make you wrong or me and Blue right or vice versa, it's just an opinion.
Baseball is more than power. A great hitter uses the bat to hurt the other team. That might be jerking a pitch down the line that goes 400 feet but to have the ability to drive the ball in the gap and score a runner from first is the sign of a GREAT hitter. To say those guys who can let the ball get deep and drive it 400 feet to the opposite field are not as good as those who pull it is ridiculous.


Coach, I agree with what you're saying here 100%.

I'm going to quote Scott Rolen about Joey Votto from a Sporting News article in the Aug 16 2010 issue that has the college football preview with Alabama's Mark Ingram taking the handoff from the mascot.

quote:

He's too good a hitter to be called a power hitter, but he has power. What's good about his power is that it's to the middle and opposite fields. Those are his best swings without a doubt.We'll be in batting practice and I'll hit a ball out of the ballpark . The he'll hit it farther to what is the opposite field for him.

So here is an established MLB player talking about a young MLB player. He talks about power and Votto does have it but he also is a pure hitter.

He's a career .313 avg with a .949 OPS and 81 HR's. But here's what makes him a great hitter without relying strictly on power.

He is averaging for a season 181 hits, 38 doubles adn out of his 81 HR's 49 of them were to CF or LF (he's a LH hitter for those that don't know).

So this kid is considered a power hitter but he's doing his damage as a line drive hitter that is going to opposite field.

So if anyone can explain to how this is not a great hitter (granted he's young and needs to keep producing like this but it's still pretty impressive) I would appreciate it. If anyone can explain to why is it when I talk to or hear MLB coaches speak they all want guys who can hit the other way. They talk about letting the ball get as deep as possible and drive the ball back up the middle. So if the guys at the higest level who perform want up the middle / opposite field and the guys who teach the best players up the middle / opposite field - then why should we listen to those who say great hitters pull the ball with power?
Again, I agree with what you're saying and I doubt Bluedog would disagree with much of the last part of what you're saying. He believes in hitters having their own personal best contact point and says, "DON'T MESS WITH IT".

Power I'm going to apologize to you because vast majority of what I said really wasn't directed at you. I don't have a problem with personal hitting instructors unless they are terrible but I know it's the same for guys like who aren't fond of working with kids who have terrible coaches. Those two combonations make teaching anything very difficult.

Vast majority of what I'm saying is aimed at BlueDog because there is just a personality conflict between the two of us. I don't see us ever seeing eye to eye. Mainly because he has this extremely biased attitude towards coaches. Not sure where that comes from but he's got it and I don't think it's ever going to change. In my opinion (and others) he doesn't give any advice that's practical or useful. The purpose of teaching is to communicate ideas / concepts so the learner can understand it. I feel he just throws things out there to make people who don't know any better to sound impressive. A lot of this goes back to that thread a couple of months ago.

So once again I do apologize to you because although I don't agree with you I do respect your opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:
Power I'm going to apologize to you because vast majority of what I said really wasn't directed at you. I don't have a problem with personal hitting instructors unless they are terrible but I know it's the same for guys like who aren't fond of working with kids who have terrible coaches. Those two combonations make teaching anything very difficult.

Vast majority of what I'm saying is aimed at BlueDog because there is just a personality conflict between the two of us. I don't see us ever seeing eye to eye. Mainly because he has this extremely biased attitude towards coaches. Not sure where that comes from but he's got it and I don't think it's ever going to change. In my opinion (and others) he doesn't give any advice that's practical or useful. The purpose of teaching is to communicate ideas / concepts so the learner can understand it. I feel he just throws things out there to make people who don't know any better to sound impressive. A lot of this goes back to that thread a couple of months ago.

So once again I do apologize to you because although I don't agree with you I do respect your opinion.

Coach,

No need to apologize, we're just talking here and giving opionions. But, there is a reason why Bluedog made the statement, "Power, as you already know, if any of these people wanna learn about swinging a bat, they will understand what me and you and a few others are saying....". I was in the same frame of mind you are concerning Blue not so long ago, but I finally understood two things, one was that he actually knows what he's talking about and two, he believes what he knows has value and is something someone needs to work for to understand. He will give you clues to the right path, but you have to be paying attention and you then have to swing a bat and figure out what he's saying. If you ask a specific question that shows you have been working on what he advised, he will answer. At least, that was my experience.

Please, if learning the most about the swing is your goal, don't let personality get in the way. I've started out with personality conflicts with two individuals and to this point, I have learned more USEFUL information from both of them, than I learned in the previous 40 years combined. Bluedog is a good guy, but he isn't going to waste his knowledge or time on someone that isn't committed.

Blue Dog may be a good guy, but he ain't making much sense here.

Coach/PTAF;

I've followed the thread and enjoy the "banter" until it becomes personal.

Sultan's Title: "Power vs. Oppo Theories" would seem to suggest that conventional wisdom says a hitter MUST be one or the other and many are.

However, as Coach says; a good hitter can be either or preferably a "hybrid" of both - IMO.

I'm not sure anyone taught Ted Williams to "Pull." I've read quotes of him saying he could have been better had he used more of the field (the great ones always think about what else they could have, or should be doing).

My son is a great hitter to me at this stage of his development. He's just a Freshman. Even now his Coaches are telling him, and other teammates, "he's here to hit."

I would like to take credit for his stance, approach, quick bat and "power to all fields." I know looking back that I gave his "god given skills" an opportunity to bloom, but he could hit the first time he picked up the bat.

Like Blue Dog has said" don't let anybody mess with that."

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:
That is a ridiculous thing to say that there are only 9 "great" hitters. To expand on my point 2 of those 9 aren't power hitters (Hornsby and Greenburg).

Just to set the record straight, Greenberg was one of the premier power hitters of his day. Don't be fooled by his career homerun total. If you take into account only his full seasons of play and subtract those years of injury and military service, he averaged 38 homers a year.

Marklaker,


Was wondering if anybody was going to mention Greenberg and power in the same sentence.

Greenberg played only 9 full seasons due military and wrist injury. Was drafted at end of 1940 season and re-enlisted after Pearl Harbor. 58 HR in 1938; 331 HR in 9 seasons. First player ever to hit HR into CF bleachers at Yankee Stadium (bit of trivia for the trivia guys). .300+ career BA.

Fought anti-Semitism entire career...on the field and with thge front office. Hands down 1935 A.L. MVP...no All Star game; 1937 All Star game...manager basically refused to play him. Physically imposing man that never backed down to a challenge; fought more one player or entire team (Yankees; they wouldn't come out of the clubhouse).
Everybody knows of Robinson and Aaron's struggles with racism but Greenberg went through basically the same abuse as similar and identical racial slurs were commonly used towards Jews during that era.

Imagine hitting 33 HRs one season and being asked to take a pay decrease and also change positions for another rising "star"(star wasn't as bright as front office thought).

Greenberg was definitely power personified.