Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

While a lot of what is in that article is good, I would hesitate to take it too far.  Even towards the end, Brandon Moss talks about getting his hands "down" to the zone.  And all the backspin chart shows is that there is a law of diminishing returns -- more backspin doesn't necessary equate to farther flight.  But you'll need some to create carry. 

Originally Posted by Golfman25:

While a lot of what is in that article is good, I would hesitate to take it too far.  Even towards the end, Brandon Moss talks about getting his hands "down" to the zone.  And all the backspin chart shows is that there is a law of diminishing returns -- more backspin doesn't necessary equate to farther flight.  But you'll need some to create carry. 

Even if it is true that you need SOME backspin, I think we can agree that hitting a baseball very rarely results in NO backspin. The bottom line is that this strongly suggests that the idea that MORE backspin = MORE carry is an unsupported myth. Therefore, any batting mechanics aimed at attempting to creating maximum backspin produces no results toward that end and is a waste of time to try and learn.

the world is flat...or round...whatever. this is the single most over done argument, backspin is not bad, it only helps even if in limited amounts...chopping behind any ball with any type of bat, club, stick or whatever is not the way to get max distance....in type of sport - hell even in golf with a driver where the ball is made to support flight with its dimples they teach you to hit it slightly on the upswing.

 

hit thru the object (any freakin object if you want to break it) - period end of debate.

Backspin may be fine -- even beneficial -- but I don't think hitters should be thinking about how can I impart backspin? Someone above mentioned hitting through the ball, and I think that is a better visual than thinking about backspin. JMO. 

 

I'm helping coach my younger son's (class of 2025!) fall ball rec team, and it's amazing how many kids swing down or, at best, level. 

Originally Posted by SultanofSwat:

hmmm. quit chopping wood - agree

 

backspin is bad - sorry, but Alan Nathan, great guy, but made some bad conclusions here (he artificially induced his backspin)

 

Please explain 20-40 deg preferred launch angles.

 

I don't think anyone has said backspin is bad, just that it's useless to chase it because its affect on distance is negligible. I fail to see how one artificially induces backspin. Backspin created by any means is still backspin. The physics don't change based on the force that causes it. Bottom line is that, discounting rare exceptions that produce a knuckle ball-type flight, simply hitting through the ball will get you all the backspin you need.

I follow Nathan closely.  And he himself has espoused the cause of backspin.  Here is where it gets lost in translation.  Just like there is an optimum launch angle there is also optimum backspin.  For example if you pop up that has crazy backspin but its not going anywhere.  So the chart showing massive backspin probably takes some shallower fly balls into consideration.  There is no doubt you want backspin but all that really means is you struck the ball at the correct spot.  Hitting 'top half' will result in top spin ground balls.  Don't focus on backspin, focus on hitting just below center of ball with a 10 to 20 degree uppercut.  And golf I think what he means about getting hands down is to drive them down while barrel is still up and then once in strikezone bat starts to make its swing path.  There is no correlation between this movement and the chopping motion.
Originally Posted by roothog66:
Originally Posted by Golfman25:

While a lot of what is in that article is good, I would hesitate to take it too far.  Even towards the end, Brandon Moss talks about getting his hands "down" to the zone.  And all the backspin chart shows is that there is a law of diminishing returns -- more backspin doesn't necessary equate to farther flight.  But you'll need some to create carry. 

Even if it is true that you need SOME backspin, I think we can agree that hitting a baseball very rarely results in NO backspin. The bottom line is that this strongly suggests that the idea that MORE backspin = MORE carry is an unsupported myth. Therefore, any batting mechanics aimed at attempting to creating maximum backspin produces no results toward that end and is a waste of time to try and learn.

I am unaware of anybody promoting creating maximum backspin and arguing that it yields more carry.  However, "Backspin" does get mentioned from time to time as the sign of a good swing. 

 

You are right:  round bat + round ball = backspin.  No reason to really try to "create" it.

Originally Posted by 2020dad:
And golf I think what he means about getting hands down is to drive them down while barrel is still up and then once in strikezone bat starts to make its swing path.  There is no correlation between this movement and the chopping motion.

Sounds like a "chopping" motion to me.  But yes, the hands have to stop going down and "level out" in the hitting zone.

Also from FanGraphs:

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/offense/batted-ball/

 

Why Batted Ball Stats:

Batted ball stats are extremely useful for determining the type of hitter at which you’re looking. There is no ideal batted ball distribution, but batters who hit a lot of line drives typically perform better than hitters who hit lots of fly balls or ground balls. Generally speaking, line drives go for hits most often, ground balls go for hits more often than fly balls, and fly balls are more productive than ground balls when they do go for hits (i.e. extra base hits). Additionally, infield fly balls are essentially strikeouts and almost never result in hits or runner advancement. Here are the numbers from 2014:

TypeAVGISOwOBA
GB.239.020.220
LD.685.190.684
FB.207.378.335

 

So, my take is why not focus on line drives which looks like the sweet spot. I've spent hours watching MLB games tracking swings: over, under and on (bat relative to ball). Roughly 60% of swings are under resulting in misses, pop ups, fly balls and the occasional home run.The remaining 40% of swings seem to be divided somewhat evenly between "over" (resulting in ground balls) and "on" resulting in line drives. If players can hit consistently under the ball 60% of the time why can't they hit consistently "on" the ball 60% of the time? The answer, I think, is they can but as the original article in this thread points out players have been taught for decades that backspin is the goal and that requires hitting the lower half (under) of the ball. Why not hit the middle half of the ball? The stats show a much higher chance of success offensively and every once in awhile you'll screw up and hit one out. Win win.

Originally Posted by snowman:

Also from FanGraphs:

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/offense/batted-ball/

 

Why Batted Ball Stats:

Batted ball stats are extremely useful for determining the type of hitter at which you’re looking. There is no ideal batted ball distribution, but batters who hit a lot of line drives typically perform better than hitters who hit lots of fly balls or ground balls. Generally speaking, line drives go for hits most often, ground balls go for hits more often than fly balls, and fly balls are more productive than ground balls when they do go for hits (i.e. extra base hits). Additionally, infield fly balls are essentially strikeouts and almost never result in hits or runner advancement. Here are the numbers from 2014:

TypeAVGISOwOBA
GB.239.020.220
LD.685.190.684
FB.207.378.335

 

So, my take is why not focus on line drives which looks like the sweet spot. I've spent hours watching MLB games tracking swings: over, under and on (bat relative to ball). Roughly 60% of swings are under resulting in misses, pop ups, fly balls and the occasional home run.The remaining 40% of swings seem to be divided somewhat evenly between "over" (resulting in ground balls) and "on" resulting in line drives. If players can hit consistently under the ball 60% of the time why can't they hit consistently "on" the ball 60% of the time? The answer, I think, is they can but as the original article in this thread points out players have been taught for decades that backspin is the goal and that requires hitting the lower half (under) of the ball. Why not hit the middle half of the ball? The stats show a much higher chance of success offensively and every once in awhile you'll screw up and hit one out. Win win.

No one has ever advocated hitting "the lower half of the ball" to create backspin. The goal has been to hit down through the upper half and that is the issue. The timing has to be perfect compared to staying through the ball as long as possible with a swing path that mimics the plane of the pitch.

Last edited by hogheadjoe
Originally Posted by hogheadjoe:
Originally Posted by snowman:

 

No one has ever advocated hitting "the lower half of the ball" to create backspin. The goal has been to hit down through the upper half and that is the issue. The timing has to be perfect compared to staying through the ball as long as possible with a swing path that mimics the plane of the pitch.

I have never heard that "goal" -- hit down and thru.  In my world, the "swing down" or hit the "top half" cue is to help eliminate swinging under the ball.  The forces of the swing and gravity are pulling the barrel down.  You need to aim "high" to hit is solid. 

Originally Posted by snowman:

Also from FanGraphs:

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/offense/batted-ball/

 

Why Batted Ball Stats:

Batted ball stats are extremely useful for determining the type of hitter at which you’re looking. There is no ideal batted ball distribution, but batters who hit a lot of line drives typically perform better than hitters who hit lots of fly balls or ground balls. Generally speaking, line drives go for hits most often, ground balls go for hits more often than fly balls, and fly balls are more productive than ground balls when they do go for hits (i.e. extra base hits). Additionally, infield fly balls are essentially strikeouts and almost never result in hits or runner advancement. Here are the numbers from 2014:

TypeAVGISOwOBA
GB.239.020.220
LD.685.190.684
FB.207.378.335

 

So, my take is why not focus on line drives which looks like the sweet spot. I've spent hours watching MLB games tracking swings: over, under and on (bat relative to ball). Roughly 60% of swings are under resulting in misses, pop ups, fly balls and the occasional home run.The remaining 40% of swings seem to be divided somewhat evenly between "over" (resulting in ground balls) and "on" resulting in line drives. If players can hit consistently under the ball 60% of the time why can't they hit consistently "on" the ball 60% of the time? The answer, I think, is they can but as the original article in this thread points out players have been taught for decades that backspin is the goal and that requires hitting the lower half (under) of the ball. Why not hit the middle half of the ball? The stats show a much higher chance of success offensively and every once in awhile you'll screw up and hit one out. Win win.

It seems to me, there has been a greater focus on the home run these days.  Guys that can really pound the ball into orbit seem more desirable than those who can hit for average and get on base. 

Originally Posted by 2020dad:
I follow Nathan closely.  And he himself has espoused the cause of backspin.  Here is where it gets lost in translation.  Just like there is an optimum launch angle there is also optimum backspin.  For example if you pop up that has crazy backspin but its not going anywhere.  So the chart showing massive backspin probably takes some shallower fly balls into consideration.  There is no doubt you want backspin but all that really means is you struck the ball at the correct spot.  Hitting 'top half' will result in top spin ground balls.  Don't focus on backspin, focus on hitting just below center of ball with a 10 to 20 degree uppercut.  And golf I think what he means about getting hands down is to drive them down while barrel is still up and then once in strikezone bat starts to make its swing path.  There is no correlation between this movement and the chopping motion.

Barry Bonds, when asked how he hit the old apple replied that he swung down on the ball. The frame by frame slow motion videos showed that he swung 5-10 degrees up. This is the "level" swing Ted always talked about and that is to mirror the path of the pitch.  

Originally Posted by CoachJackE:
Originally Posted by 2020dad:
I follow Nathan closely.  And he himself has espoused the cause of backspin.  Here is where it gets lost in translation.  Just like there is an optimum launch angle there is also optimum backspin.  For example if you pop up that has crazy backspin but its not going anywhere.  So the chart showing massive backspin probably takes some shallower fly balls into consideration.  There is no doubt you want backspin but all that really means is you struck the ball at the correct spot.  Hitting 'top half' will result in top spin ground balls.  Don't focus on backspin, focus on hitting just below center of ball with a 10 to 20 degree uppercut.  And golf I think what he means about getting hands down is to drive them down while barrel is still up and then once in strikezone bat starts to make its swing path.  There is no correlation between this movement and the chopping motion.

Barry Bonds, when asked how he hit the old apple replied that he swung down on the ball. The frame by frame slow motion videos showed that he swung 5-10 degrees up. This is the "level" swing Ted always talked about and that is to mirror the path of the pitch.  

You need to distinguish his hands from the barrel and account for the physical forces on the barrel of the bat.  The reason he (and many others) says he "swung down" was his hands started with that downward path and he is doing everything he can to keep the barrel "up" (while gravity and inertia pull the barrel down) and not swing under the ball.  So the "feel" they have is "swinging down" or "staying on top" or any of the other sayings which are purportedly discredited. 

Originally Posted by Golfman25:
Originally Posted by snowman:

Also from FanGraphs:

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/offense/batted-ball/

 

Why Batted Ball Stats:

Batted ball stats are extremely useful for determining the type of hitter at which you’re looking. There is no ideal batted ball distribution, but batters who hit a lot of line drives typically perform better than hitters who hit lots of fly balls or ground balls. Generally speaking, line drives go for hits most often, ground balls go for hits more often than fly balls, and fly balls are more productive than ground balls when they do go for hits (i.e. extra base hits). Additionally, infield fly balls are essentially strikeouts and almost never result in hits or runner advancement. Here are the numbers from 2014:

TypeAVGISOwOBA
GB.239.020.220
LD.685.190.684
FB.207.378.335

 

So, my take is why not focus on line drives which looks like the sweet spot. I've spent hours watching MLB games tracking swings: over, under and on (bat relative to ball). Roughly 60% of swings are under resulting in misses, pop ups, fly balls and the occasional home run.The remaining 40% of swings seem to be divided somewhat evenly between "over" (resulting in ground balls) and "on" resulting in line drives. If players can hit consistently under the ball 60% of the time why can't they hit consistently "on" the ball 60% of the time? The answer, I think, is they can but as the original article in this thread points out players have been taught for decades that backspin is the goal and that requires hitting the lower half (under) of the ball. Why not hit the middle half of the ball? The stats show a much higher chance of success offensively and every once in awhile you'll screw up and hit one out. Win win.

It seems to me, there has been a greater focus on the home run these days.  Guys that can really pound the ball into orbit seem more desirable than those who can hit for average and get on base. 

Yup, that seems to be, but. . .

 

. . . look at the Giants over the last 5 years.  

Originally Posted by snowman:

Also from FanGraphs:

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/offense/batted-ball/

 

Why Batted Ball Stats:

Batted ball stats are extremely useful for determining the type of hitter at which you’re looking. There is no ideal batted ball distribution, but batters who hit a lot of line drives typically perform better than hitters who hit lots of fly balls or ground balls. Generally speaking, line drives go for hits most often, ground balls go for hits more often than fly balls, and fly balls are more productive than ground balls when they do go for hits (i.e. extra base hits). Additionally, infield fly balls are essentially strikeouts and almost never result in hits or runner advancement. Here are the numbers from 2014:

TypeAVGISOwOBA
GB.239.020.220
LD.685.190.684
FB.207.378.335

 

So, my take is why not focus on line drives which looks like the sweet spot. I've spent hours watching MLB games tracking swings: over, under and on (bat relative to ball). Roughly 60% of swings are under resulting in misses, pop ups, fly balls and the occasional home run.The remaining 40% of swings seem to be divided somewhat evenly between "over" (resulting in ground balls) and "on" resulting in line drives. If players can hit consistently under the ball 60% of the time why can't they hit consistently "on" the ball 60% of the time? The answer, I think, is they can but as the original article in this thread points out players have been taught for decades that backspin is the goal and that requires hitting the lower half (under) of the ball. Why not hit the middle half of the ball? The stats show a much higher chance of success offensively and every once in awhile you'll screw up and hit one out. Win win.

I think you'll find near universal agreement -- from Little League coaches through the pros -- that line drives are the best. The disagreement comes in the form of ground balls vs. fly balls. Lots and lots of coaches, particularly at the high school and below levels, believe that ground balls are better.  In the majors, the evidence clearly shows that fly balls are more productive (wOBA of .335 for fly balls is way, way better than the wOBA of .220 for ground balls). Now, the lower the level of baseball it is, the more those ground balls will results in errors (say, below high school), so there may be some short term gain from hitting ground balls. But in terms of teaching kids how to play, for me the preference is (1) line drives, (2) fly balls, (3) grounders. And that means a slight uppercut swing path, as Ted Williams pointed out in his book 50 years ago.

Originally Posted by 2020dad:
Amen 2019.  So much garbage out there.  And surprisingly many so called experts teaching it.  Funny how science is now proving almost everything Ted Williams knew intuitively!

Had the opportunity to play at 10 years old, coach my son at this age, and observe three grandsons play at this age; and I came to the following conclusion, that they all had natural sweet swings even though they (incl me) couldn't hit for beans. I see a lot of coaches (dads) giving bad advice because the 10 yr old can't hit. More often than not, if they couldn't 10, they will catch up soon enough. 

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×