I'm not familiar with this term/concept. Can someone explain it to me in terms a simpleton would understand (or refer me to a post that will)?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Ryno23,
Run...Run Now. I've been trying for a couple weeks to get a handle/answer on this and now I'm trapped.
It you don't run now, be sure to bring food and water...I can't last much longer.
If this warning doesn't work, I'd say just start reading any thread started over the past month. Torque is like a virus and is everywhere.
Don't blame me...I warned you.
Run...Run Now. I've been trying for a couple weeks to get a handle/answer on this and now I'm trapped.
It you don't run now, be sure to bring food and water...I can't last much longer.
If this warning doesn't work, I'd say just start reading any thread started over the past month. Torque is like a virus and is everywhere.
Don't blame me...I warned you.
At a "mechanical" as opposed to biomechanical (how living beings do it) level, the action is best described as torque applied via the hands to the handle.
For reliable interpretations of models that show how this involves "back arm/top hand inertia" which quickens the swing, see:
http://www.batspeed.com/messageboard/92831.html
for links to models and interpretation.
When humans "do it", they can actually actively/consciously apply and feel this mechanic start before the shoulders turn as part of a "running start", and see this on video.
Whether the "feel" is described as Torque or somethin else is a different matter.
It is easier to see than sorting out the tilt vs turn of the shoulders on video, but still a challenge.
For reliable interpretations of models that show how this involves "back arm/top hand inertia" which quickens the swing, see:
http://www.batspeed.com/messageboard/92831.html
for links to models and interpretation.
When humans "do it", they can actually actively/consciously apply and feel this mechanic start before the shoulders turn as part of a "running start", and see this on video.
Whether the "feel" is described as Torque or somethin else is a different matter.
It is easier to see than sorting out the tilt vs turn of the shoulders on video, but still a challenge.
Don't even waste your time on this nonsense. It isn't worth your time. If you're interested, a good rebuttal is at
http://www.******.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5282
There are also other several good posts on that website which do a great job or rebutting the pseudo-science of handle torque.
http://www.******.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5282
There are also other several good posts on that website which do a great job or rebutting the pseudo-science of handle torque.
The term 'handle torque' is a misnomer.
Torque is an external force applied to cause rotation.
One cannot applly torque to swing a bat although a batter could be spun with the application of force on the bat end.
This is a common misconception when the swing and bat speed are rationalized using the conservation of angular momentum.
Torque is an external force applied to cause rotation.
One cannot applly torque to swing a bat although a batter could be spun with the application of force on the bat end.
This is a common misconception when the swing and bat speed are rationalized using the conservation of angular momentum.
Quincy,
YOU DA MAN!!! A LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!!!
Man, somebody give me hug...I feel like crying.LOL
I hope Ryno23 reads this soon...it could save his sanity.
Next thing you know, someone will say torque is actually the rotational path the bat follows to contact.
YOU DA MAN!!! A LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!!!
Man, somebody give me hug...I feel like crying.LOL
I hope Ryno23 reads this soon...it could save his sanity.
Next thing you know, someone will say torque is actually the rotational path the bat follows to contact.
JJA-
you have admitted there is torque in the running start, you are now just quibbling over how much effect it has on trajectory, Nice try.
http://z6.invisionfree.com/Hitting/index.php?showtopic=355&st=285
Posted: Sep 26 2006, 07:32 AM
JJA to Teacherman,
"Yes, Mankin would call that top hand torque. Near the beginning of his video, he has a top view of John Elliot hitting. As Elliot starts to accelerate the bat into the bat plane, Mankin stops for a few moments and says something like "See that, that's top hand torque". So, yes, I've heard the golf club analogy, I've heard the archer on the bowstring, etc., but because of that John Elliot analysis, I conclude that would you indeed are seeing is what he would call top hand torque."
Quincy-
I think your ball on string model is a darn good one, BUT I think that human muscle action can be biomechanically applied to torque handle as the equivalent of an "outside force" as compared to passive mechanical models (or, JJA, to purposely sabotage models to discredit a perceived rival as Ny3an did when setting up his model with the forces MISdirected).
Since the bat is a rigid "lever", the arms/forearms/wrists can apply torque which fires the bathead out with the system resembling ball on string more and more as the bathead lines up with the forearm.
In any case the "string tension"/radius at the lead elbow needs to retain connection to the torso/shoulder's center of rotation.
When handle torque forces the bathead outside the radius to the hands, the bathead fires while the torso keeps turning.
you have admitted there is torque in the running start, you are now just quibbling over how much effect it has on trajectory, Nice try.
http://z6.invisionfree.com/Hitting/index.php?showtopic=355&st=285
Posted: Sep 26 2006, 07:32 AM
JJA to Teacherman,
"Yes, Mankin would call that top hand torque. Near the beginning of his video, he has a top view of John Elliot hitting. As Elliot starts to accelerate the bat into the bat plane, Mankin stops for a few moments and says something like "See that, that's top hand torque". So, yes, I've heard the golf club analogy, I've heard the archer on the bowstring, etc., but because of that John Elliot analysis, I conclude that would you indeed are seeing is what he would call top hand torque."
Quincy-
I think your ball on string model is a darn good one, BUT I think that human muscle action can be biomechanically applied to torque handle as the equivalent of an "outside force" as compared to passive mechanical models (or, JJA, to purposely sabotage models to discredit a perceived rival as Ny3an did when setting up his model with the forces MISdirected).
Since the bat is a rigid "lever", the arms/forearms/wrists can apply torque which fires the bathead out with the system resembling ball on string more and more as the bathead lines up with the forearm.
In any case the "string tension"/radius at the lead elbow needs to retain connection to the torso/shoulder's center of rotation.
When handle torque forces the bathead outside the radius to the hands, the bathead fires while the torso keeps turning.
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
The term 'handle torque' is a misnomer.
Torque is an external force applied to cause rotation.
One cannot applly torque to swing a bat although a batter could be spun with the application of force on the bat end.
This is a common misconception when the swing and bat speed are rationalized using the conservation of angular momentum.
Can the hands not be an external force on the bat??? What about a torque wrench? Does it not apply torque to the nut or bolt???
Tom,
You are confusing torque (which turns inward to an axis) with propulsion (force which sets in motion).
What you refer to as bat torque, I would call bat whip. If a batter whips the bat in conjunction with triceps flex and extension, bat speed will increase.
PTA,
If you have ever used a torque wrench, you would know and understand that you are turning externally towards a central point.
The swing is propulsion away from the body with string tension causing angular acceleration and centripetal force.
You are confusing torque (which turns inward to an axis) with propulsion (force which sets in motion).
What you refer to as bat torque, I would call bat whip. If a batter whips the bat in conjunction with triceps flex and extension, bat speed will increase.
PTA,
If you have ever used a torque wrench, you would know and understand that you are turning externally towards a central point.
The swing is propulsion away from the body with string tension causing angular acceleration and centripetal force.
The motion of the bat at go has very little to do with the motion of the body if done right. You are looking at the swing as a whole. The torque of the handle comes from the hands and only the hands. The torque is created at a point between the hands which is the center of that axis.
powertoallfields, I'm trying to think about how the hands and only the hands can create torque. I'm missing something in my physiology understanding. Pressures are being applied by various parts of the body and that knob demonstrates minimum displacement at best. Reference the jersey number.
quote:The torque is created at a point between the hands which is the center of that axis.
If this were the case then the hands could only torque the hands.
In order to torque the bat there would have to be an axis at the bat head that is being rotated.
If torque is created between the hands, from where is it being exerted?
Are you trying to say that the bat is creating the torque ?
Quincy, I think you and I are both thinking along the same lines. I apologize for that.
Why apologize?
Your point was well presented.
Your point was well presented.
There isn't an iota of evidence that handle torque is a significant contributor to swing speed. As described by Dr Adair in his book "The Physics of Baseball", force is applied to the bat along the length of the bat, not perpindicular to it. In other words, there is virtually no handle torque being applied to the bat that impacts bat speed. Tom's quotes - as usual taken completely out of context - are an attempt to obfuscate the fact that handle torque is an insignificant contributor to swing speed.
Like I said, JJA has admitted torque, as in his latest ruminations at BBF:
"...force on the handle is directed along the bat, not perpendicular to the bat, i.e. there is virtually no handle torque"
Like the old joke says, we're just arguing about the price now.
Look at the ***** sims again JJA. Note the more the back arm weighs, the quicker the swing.
That has nothing to do with force along the bat.
Nyma-n seems to be revising quite a bit these days, even taking shots at his old faithful.
"...force on the handle is directed along the bat, not perpendicular to the bat, i.e. there is virtually no handle torque"
Like the old joke says, we're just arguing about the price now.
Look at the ***** sims again JJA. Note the more the back arm weighs, the quicker the swing.
That has nothing to do with force along the bat.
Nyma-n seems to be revising quite a bit these days, even taking shots at his old faithful.
quote:Nyma-n seems to be revising quite a bit these days, even taking shots at his old faithful.
Revising?.....It's about time....
There is nothing to revise. Handle torque does not contribute significantly to swing speed. It absolutely does not contribute 50% of the swing speed as Mankin maintains, not even close. I've maintained this for many years as you know, as has "N". There hasn't been the slightest shred of evidence, not a scintilla, that contradicts this statement. Dream on. Adair explained this 17 years ago now. He was right then and he is right now. All of the baseball literature as well as the golf literature confirm these findings, as you well know. Ph.D.'s in physics, biomechanics, etc. all agree on this, yet Teacherman and Mankin - guys with no scientific background at all - believe they have the science right and all the Ph.D.'s are wrong despite having no evidence at all in support of their position. To each his own I suppose.
Oh, Adair and "N" said it.....Well, that explains it............
Those scientists and Ph.D's ever hit against MLB pitching?
Great hitters sure talked about the hands alot when discussing hitting....Probably not a Ph.D. or scientist in the bunch.......
Those scientists and Ph.D's ever hit against MLB pitching?
Great hitters sure talked about the hands alot when discussing hitting....Probably not a Ph.D. or scientist in the bunch.......
Once a batter has developed a good swing, all that is left is hand-eye coordination.
See the ball, swing at the ball and hit the ball.
Most good hitters, outside of Ted Williams, wouldn't care why they can hit well. They would only care that they hit well.
This is probably the reason that the better hitters do not make good hitting instructors.
See the ball, swing at the ball and hit the ball.
Most good hitters, outside of Ted Williams, wouldn't care why they can hit well. They would only care that they hit well.
This is probably the reason that the better hitters do not make good hitting instructors.
All Adair (and "N") is saying is that handle torque is not a significant contributor to swing speed. He's not saying that the hands aren't important for other reasons. The fact Adair was a lousy player doesn't mean his physics are wrong. It's pretty obvious for anyone with or even without a science background to see that he is right. Swing speed is generated by the large muscles in the lower body and torso, not in the hands pushing and pulling on the handle. I think that observation is intuitively obvious to anyone who has played the game, watched the game or coached the game. It certainly doesn't take a Ph.D. to figure that out.
The zero evidence, nothing, nada, that suggest that handle torque contributes to swing speed. Many scientific papers from diverse researchers confirm this obvious conclusion yet some people continue to pass off this fiction as fact. Once again, to each his own I suppose.
The zero evidence, nothing, nada, that suggest that handle torque contributes to swing speed. Many scientific papers from diverse researchers confirm this obvious conclusion yet some people continue to pass off this fiction as fact. Once again, to each his own I suppose.
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:quote:The torque is created at a point between the hands which is the center of that axis.
If this were the case then the hands could only torque the hands.
In order to torque the bat there would have to be an axis at the bat head that is being rotated.
If torque is created between the hands, from where is it being exerted?
Are you trying to say that the bat is creating the torque ?
No! The hands moving in opposite directions are torqueing the point between the two hands, they just happen to be attached to the rest of the bat and that is a good thing.
quote:Originally posted by jja:
The zero evidence, nothing, nada, that suggest that handle torque contributes to swing speed.
Agreed! But only at the point of contact. Handle torque creates early bat speed, which leads to better adjustability and the ability to wait longer. Example; Two cars are in a 1/4 mile race. One vehicle goes from 0 to 60 in 5 seconds and the other goes from 0 to 60 in 10 seconds, but both cars have a top end speed of 150 MPH. Which one gets to the finish line first?
Powertoallfields,
Sorry to disappoint you, but handle torque does not contribute significantly to bat speed period, not just at contact. Please read Adair to understand where my comments are coming from.
-JJA
Sorry to disappoint you, but handle torque does not contribute significantly to bat speed period, not just at contact. Please read Adair to understand where my comments are coming from.
-JJA
quote:No! The hands moving in opposite directions are torqueing the point between the two hands, they just happen to be attached to the rest of the bat and that is a good thing.
Is this a comedy club?
quote:Originally posted by jja:
Powertoallfields,
Sorry to disappoint you, but handle torque does not contribute significantly to bat speed period, not just at contact. Please read Adair to understand where my comments are coming from.
-JJA
Video does not lie. A hitter that does not torque the handle at go does not blur the bathead rearward. That blur is created by the bat moving fast at the start. Video yourself swinging both ways and see if you can create that blur without torqueing the hands. It can't be done, period. I was right where you are about 6 months ago and have been studying hitting for about 35 years. Yes, I've read and studied Adair, Mankin, Englishbey, Williams, Epstein, Cohen, Kennedy and a few others along the way. I will say one other thing and that is you can not create a machine to duplicate human motions in sports activities. There are too many variables.
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
[]
Is this a comedy club?
You don't believe the hands are moving in different directions when the bat tips first forward and then rearward???
What you are describing is the reason that players go to batting coaches in the first place.
In your description, a player lines up the 'knocker knuckles' only to 'torque' his grip into the box grip.
This means that the batter will keep his elbows bent, dragging the bat and not extending his arms into the swing.
You must either be a comedian or your teacher is.
In your description, a player lines up the 'knocker knuckles' only to 'torque' his grip into the box grip.
This means that the batter will keep his elbows bent, dragging the bat and not extending his arms into the swing.
You must either be a comedian or your teacher is.
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
What you are describing is the reason that players go to batting coaches in the first place.
In your description, a player lines up the 'knocker knuckles' only to 'torque' his grip into the box grip.
This means that the batter will keep his elbows bent, dragging the bat and not extending his arms into the swing.
You must either be a comedian or your teacher is.
Opposite directions front to back, not spinning on the bat, genius!
You must be describing a very sophisticated super compound diametricly opposed double hand torque.
Front to back , back to front. Either way it is baloney.
It's a box grip, bat dragging, no arm extension swing.
The propensity to make bad contact damaging a wooden bat is heightened by this poor swing execution.
Or are you describing an aluminum bat only swing?
Front to back , back to front. Either way it is baloney.
It's a box grip, bat dragging, no arm extension swing.
The propensity to make bad contact damaging a wooden bat is heightened by this poor swing execution.
Or are you describing an aluminum bat only swing?
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
You must be describing a very sophisticated super compound diametricly opposed double hand torque.
Front to back , back to front. Either way it is baloney.
It's a box grip, bat dragging, no arm extension swing.
The propensity to make bad contact damaging a wooden bat is heightened by this poor swing execution.
Or are you describing an aluminum bat only swing?
Go to sleep Quinc and be sure to take your Geritol, LOL.
powertoallfields, no sense in explaining to people who don't know how the human body works. Don't waste your breath on ignorant, close-minded people. They only see what they want to see.
Quincy, did you ever read up on muscle contractions?
Quincy, did you ever read up on muscle contractions?
JJA-
In NY&an's simulation, why does more back arm weight produce a quicker swing ?
Why can't human's consciously feel and apply this force ?
see:
http://www.******.com/stuff/rotational_simulation5.wmv
Ny$$an states:
When measuring forces at the top hand connection to the bat ("pin joint #50),force is present at right angles to the bat which creates rotation and is the purest example of top hand torque, not dependent on muscle action.
Lowering the weight of the back arm results in a later extension/rotation of the bat.
Increasing the weight of the back arm has a significant effect which causes a much quicker release of the bat and slows the torso down more, ******* momtentum out of the torso.
In NY&an's simulation, why does more back arm weight produce a quicker swing ?
Why can't human's consciously feel and apply this force ?
see:
http://www.******.com/stuff/rotational_simulation5.wmv
Ny$$an states:
When measuring forces at the top hand connection to the bat ("pin joint #50),force is present at right angles to the bat which creates rotation and is the purest example of top hand torque, not dependent on muscle action.
Lowering the weight of the back arm results in a later extension/rotation of the bat.
Increasing the weight of the back arm has a significant effect which causes a much quicker release of the bat and slows the torso down more, ******* momtentum out of the torso.
to play the link, replace the ****** with
s
e
t
p
r
o
s
e
t
p
r
o
Quincy, how does one check his swing if he is using "extension" to "power" the swing, in other words, "using the triceps" that you preach about?
How does one check his swing if he is using handle torque to power the swing?
The answers to these two questions will show what you know about a high-level swing, and how the human body works.
Hint: the answer is not the same for both questions.
How does one check his swing if he is using handle torque to power the swing?
The answers to these two questions will show what you know about a high-level swing, and how the human body works.
Hint: the answer is not the same for both questions.
You're right, video doesn't lie, but the difficulty of course is explaining correctly what is happening in the video. The blur that Richard is so impressed with is not caused by torquing the bat handle, i.e., pushing and pulling on the handle with the hands.
I'll give you a hint as to the real cause. You could take a one-handed swing and make the bat "blur" as well. With one hand you can't apply torque to the bat (except through differential pressure in the hand which is almost zero). What is causing that blur if not torque? The answer is actually easy, but requires a real understanding of the physics of swing dynamics.
Tom, "N" did the simulation in order to show that top hand torque doesn't exist. It's obvious the simulation series did that conclusively. Using his own words to claim that he supports top hand torque is irrational. I don't know why you're so impressed with the portion of the simulation where the mass of the back arm went to ZERO and it impacted the swing significantly. That's a conclusion that should be obvious to anyone.
-JJA
I'll give you a hint as to the real cause. You could take a one-handed swing and make the bat "blur" as well. With one hand you can't apply torque to the bat (except through differential pressure in the hand which is almost zero). What is causing that blur if not torque? The answer is actually easy, but requires a real understanding of the physics of swing dynamics.
Tom, "N" did the simulation in order to show that top hand torque doesn't exist. It's obvious the simulation series did that conclusively. Using his own words to claim that he supports top hand torque is irrational. I don't know why you're so impressed with the portion of the simulation where the mass of the back arm went to ZERO and it impacted the swing significantly. That's a conclusion that should be obvious to anyone.
-JJA
Ryno23,
See what you started....I warned you.
Is it any more clear now?
Sitting this one out...I'm heading to the ballfield.
This reminds me too much of the old "Square to Square" debate in golf back in the early '70s.
See what you started....I warned you.
Is it any more clear now?
Sitting this one out...I'm heading to the ballfield.
This reminds me too much of the old "Square to Square" debate in golf back in the early '70s.
This whole idea of 'handle torque' is fundamentally flawed.
Since there is universal agreement that aligning the 'knocker knuckles' produces the optimum grip, this 'handle torque' to the 'box grip' is a step backwards.
No matter what type of swing sequence a batter uses (rotational or linear) if the grip is improper, results will be less than optimal.
Since there is universal agreement that aligning the 'knocker knuckles' produces the optimum grip, this 'handle torque' to the 'box grip' is a step backwards.
No matter what type of swing sequence a batter uses (rotational or linear) if the grip is improper, results will be less than optimal.
S. Abrams,
Don't worry, I'm done now. We're all sick of this discussion believe me. The answers are the same as they were 15 years ago: handle torque is fiction. Unfortunately, the physics are too difficult for many people to fully understand (and rightly so, we're supposed to coach baseball and not teach physics), hence the confusion.
Off to the field as well.
-JJA
Don't worry, I'm done now. We're all sick of this discussion believe me. The answers are the same as they were 15 years ago: handle torque is fiction. Unfortunately, the physics are too difficult for many people to fully understand (and rightly so, we're supposed to coach baseball and not teach physics), hence the confusion.
Off to the field as well.
-JJA
I have to laugh at the explanations and excuses for bat handle torque.
The box grip is usually accompanied by a swing with the hands facing up and down. This by its very nature is inferior.
Look at the Aaron clip. His hands are facing sideways allowing the greatest range of motion in the wrists. This along with the 'knocker knuckles' grip exerts the greatest bat speed.
What you are endorsing is a bent elbow half swing that would only allow home runs to be hit by the largest and strongest of batters, or brute force swing.
The science that you claim along with the pseudovideo evidence is inferior.
It is not only inferior mechanicaly but further inferior biomechanicaly.
The box grip is usually accompanied by a swing with the hands facing up and down. This by its very nature is inferior.
Look at the Aaron clip. His hands are facing sideways allowing the greatest range of motion in the wrists. This along with the 'knocker knuckles' grip exerts the greatest bat speed.
What you are endorsing is a bent elbow half swing that would only allow home runs to be hit by the largest and strongest of batters, or brute force swing.
The science that you claim along with the pseudovideo evidence is inferior.
It is not only inferior mechanicaly but further inferior biomechanicaly.
JJA-
***** admits there is Top hand torque. He demonstrates there are handle forces perpendicular to the bat at the attachment of the top hand.
You have gotten off into the batSPEED argument and also sight of the fact that bat quickness is an important factor (s is starting the quick acceleration rearward behind the bater which is another topic).
The ONLY adjustment in *****'s models that quickens the unloading/rotation/extension of the bathead is more back arm weight which produces more handle torque via the top hand.
Ny4an proved THT in spite of trying to disprove it.
And you fell for his fog machine that tries to explain it away.
***** admits there is Top hand torque. He demonstrates there are handle forces perpendicular to the bat at the attachment of the top hand.
You have gotten off into the batSPEED argument and also sight of the fact that bat quickness is an important factor (s is starting the quick acceleration rearward behind the bater which is another topic).
The ONLY adjustment in *****'s models that quickens the unloading/rotation/extension of the bathead is more back arm weight which produces more handle torque via the top hand.
Ny4an proved THT in spite of trying to disprove it.
And you fell for his fog machine that tries to explain it away.
That is ridiculous in my opinion.
You are apparently claiming that tightening the grip is handle torque.
That is quite a stretch.
You are apparently claiming that tightening the grip is handle torque.
That is quite a stretch.
quote:Since there is universal agreement that aligning the 'knocker knuckles' produces the optimum grip,.......
Quincy, can you show us a video, or picture, of a MLB hitter swinging with this grip?
How in the world do you explain "torque" to student younger than 12 years of age? For that matter how many HS kids will understand it?
Hitting should be in english and one on one not on a website---every body is different and reacts differently
I have said it before and I say it now---all the fancy and new "catch phrases" are nothing but jibberish---hitting is not that difficult--the more "catch phrases" the more confusion
Hitting should be in english and one on one not on a website---every body is different and reacts differently
I have said it before and I say it now---all the fancy and new "catch phrases" are nothing but jibberish---hitting is not that difficult--the more "catch phrases" the more confusion
quote:The hands moving in opposite directions are torqueing the point between the two hands,
Yep!...This isn't so hard to explain...If you feel it, you should understand it....
quote:.....hitting is not that difficult--the more "catch phrases" the more confusion
I have to say, I agree with this statement...
Tom,
Once we establish that torque is not a significant contributor to swing speed, that the big muscles of the body are the primary contributors (as expected), then the importance of torque starts to diminish rapidly. We're now starting to argue about second order effects that although they are important in their own regard, the importance is far less critical than items like good rotation, good synchronization of the upper body to the lower body, etc.
We've argued about the importance of "torque" on swing quickness for years as you know. Unfortunately, you have stated on numerous occasions that you don't believe that swing quickness can be measured, only that you know it when you see it. I believe swing quickness is easily measured by frame count. If you've got less than 5 frames of delay, you've got MLB like quickness. If you don't, then you don't have an MLB swing. It's really that simple. But given you don't agree in measurables, I don't see much value in debating this any longer.
TRhit, you've got it right. Please don't mention torque to your students. It serves absolutely zero value. There isn't any merit to any of these arguments.
-JJA
Once we establish that torque is not a significant contributor to swing speed, that the big muscles of the body are the primary contributors (as expected), then the importance of torque starts to diminish rapidly. We're now starting to argue about second order effects that although they are important in their own regard, the importance is far less critical than items like good rotation, good synchronization of the upper body to the lower body, etc.
We've argued about the importance of "torque" on swing quickness for years as you know. Unfortunately, you have stated on numerous occasions that you don't believe that swing quickness can be measured, only that you know it when you see it. I believe swing quickness is easily measured by frame count. If you've got less than 5 frames of delay, you've got MLB like quickness. If you don't, then you don't have an MLB swing. It's really that simple. But given you don't agree in measurables, I don't see much value in debating this any longer.
TRhit, you've got it right. Please don't mention torque to your students. It serves absolutely zero value. There isn't any merit to any of these arguments.
-JJA
quote:Once we establish that torque is not a significant contributor to swing speed,......
I think Tom established the opposite.......
The Ortiz clip is a good example of the 'knocker knuckle' grip.
This one?...I don't see door knocking knuckles grip?
Bluedog,
Sorry, Tom has completely backed away from that position. He won't agree with Mankin that torque supplies 50% of the bat speed. I have asked him that question repeatedly, and he won't answer it. Feel free to ask him again, but I guarantee he won't agree that 50% of the swing speed is due to torque.
No, he knows that all of the data that has been presented in the last 5 years proves that position wrong. He has now been pushed into the corner that says that torque helps with swing quickness, though once again with no data to support that position. Even that position has grown so tenuous that he was recently forced to assert that swing quickness can't be measured, as once he agrees with that, it will be easy to show that torque doesn't help with swing quickness either. Of course, those of us who know that swing quickness can be quantified via frame count reached that conclusion long ago.
-JJA
Sorry, Tom has completely backed away from that position. He won't agree with Mankin that torque supplies 50% of the bat speed. I have asked him that question repeatedly, and he won't answer it. Feel free to ask him again, but I guarantee he won't agree that 50% of the swing speed is due to torque.
No, he knows that all of the data that has been presented in the last 5 years proves that position wrong. He has now been pushed into the corner that says that torque helps with swing quickness, though once again with no data to support that position. Even that position has grown so tenuous that he was recently forced to assert that swing quickness can't be measured, as once he agrees with that, it will be easy to show that torque doesn't help with swing quickness either. Of course, those of us who know that swing quickness can be quantified via frame count reached that conclusion long ago.
-JJA
quote:Originally posted by jja:
You're right, video doesn't lie, but the difficulty of course is explaining correctly what is happening in the video. The blur that Richard is so impressed with is not caused by torquing the bat handle, i.e., pushing and pulling on the handle with the hands.
I'll give you a hint as to the real cause. You could take a one-handed swing and make the bat "blur" as well. With one hand you can't apply torque to the bat (except through differential pressure in the hand which is almost zero). What is causing that blur if not torque? The answer is actually easy, but requires a real understanding of the physics of swing dynamics.
Tom, "N" did the simulation in order to show that top hand torque doesn't exist. It's obvious the simulation series did that conclusively. Using his own words to claim that he supports top hand torque is irrational. I don't know why you're so impressed with the portion of the simulation where the mass of the back arm went to ZERO and it impacted the swing significantly. That's a conclusion that should be obvious to anyone.
-JJA
I never said you can't make the bat blur. What I said was "you can't make it blur rearward" and that is the key.
quote:Of course, those of us who know that swing quickness can be quantified via frame count reached that conclusion long ago.
But, frame count won't do it........You can only guess as to the intent of "go" in a swing....
powertoallfields,
Would that do the trick for you? If I could show you a one handed swing that makes a rearward blur, would that convince you that handle torque as described by Richard et al does not describe the swing adequately?
Would that do the trick for you? If I could show you a one handed swing that makes a rearward blur, would that convince you that handle torque as described by Richard et al does not describe the swing adequately?
quote:Originally posted by jja:
powertoallfields,
Would that do the trick for you? If I could show you a one handed swing that makes a rearward blur, would that convince you that handle torque as described by Richard et al does not describe the swing adequately?
I'm open minded, but separation will still need to be in the swing when that blur occurs. Post it and we'll see.
Bluedog,
Only Richard defines frame count from "go". Ironically your post agrees with the position of most of us who believe his definition is inferior to the definition used by MLB scouts because there is too much uncertainty involved. Scouts, including of course the late DMac who introduced many of us to this important concept, define frame count from when the front foot comes down. Using this definition, swing quickness is easily quantified.
From this lifelong scout, who made his living scouting and signing players, he stated that he wouldn't sign guys who had a frame count greater than 5 frames. Having a guy who fed his family based on his ability to scout to make such a strong statement obviously means this statement has VERY high value. To me, it's obvious. If your swing has less than 5 frames of delay, MLB scouts will look at you. More than 5 frames, they pass. Whether you or I like his definition or not is irrelevant. If you want MLB scouts to like you, it's in your interest to play by their rules.
That's why I could care less what Richard, Tom or anyone says about swing quickness. Show me the swing. If it's less than 5 frames, it's MLB like at least in terms of quickness. More than 5 frames, I pass. That's pretty easy reasoning to follow for anyone don't you think.
The only reason Tom won't agree with this is that he knows that Englishbey has many students with less than 5 frames of delay and his personal animosity towards Englishbey won't allow him to admit that Steve E teaches MLB like swing quickness. Unfortunately that's all there is to it.
-JJA
Only Richard defines frame count from "go". Ironically your post agrees with the position of most of us who believe his definition is inferior to the definition used by MLB scouts because there is too much uncertainty involved. Scouts, including of course the late DMac who introduced many of us to this important concept, define frame count from when the front foot comes down. Using this definition, swing quickness is easily quantified.
From this lifelong scout, who made his living scouting and signing players, he stated that he wouldn't sign guys who had a frame count greater than 5 frames. Having a guy who fed his family based on his ability to scout to make such a strong statement obviously means this statement has VERY high value. To me, it's obvious. If your swing has less than 5 frames of delay, MLB scouts will look at you. More than 5 frames, they pass. Whether you or I like his definition or not is irrelevant. If you want MLB scouts to like you, it's in your interest to play by their rules.
That's why I could care less what Richard, Tom or anyone says about swing quickness. Show me the swing. If it's less than 5 frames, it's MLB like at least in terms of quickness. More than 5 frames, I pass. That's pretty easy reasoning to follow for anyone don't you think.
The only reason Tom won't agree with this is that he knows that Englishbey has many students with less than 5 frames of delay and his personal animosity towards Englishbey won't allow him to admit that Steve E teaches MLB like swing quickness. Unfortunately that's all there is to it.
-JJA
powertoallfields,
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. You believe that rearward bat blur is caused both by separation and handle torque or just handle torque? Please explain how separation would cause bat blur in the absence of handle torque.
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. You believe that rearward bat blur is caused both by separation and handle torque or just handle torque? Please explain how separation would cause bat blur in the absence of handle torque.
quote:Originally posted by jja:
Tom,
Once we establish that torque is not a significant contributor to swing speed, that the big muscles of the body are the primary contributors (as expected), then the importance of torque starts to diminish rapidly. We're now starting to argue about second order effects that although they are important in their own regard, the importance is far less critical than items like good rotation, good synchronization of the upper body to the lower body, etc.
We've argued about the importance of "torque" on swing quickness for years as you know. Unfortunately, you have stated on numerous occasions that you don't believe that swing quickness can be measured, only that you know it when you see it. I believe swing quickness is easily measured by frame count. If you've got less than 5 frames of delay, you've got MLB like quickness. If you don't, then you don't have an MLB swing. It's really that simple. But given you don't agree in measurables, I don't see much value in debating this any longer.
TRhit, you've got it right. Please don't mention torque to your students. It serves absolutely zero value. There isn't any merit to any of these arguments.
-JJA
http://www.hittingillustrated.com/library/HowardAnkiel.gif
This side by side is about as plain as it gets, IMO. Does Ankiel have separation at the start of his swing? Yes! Does he have it at go? I think the answer is no. I think by the time he commits to the swing most of his hips are lost. This is also why he strikes out so much. I think there are a few in MLB with this swing, but not many and not too many successful ones.
One quick question, could Jimmy Rollins or Brian Roberts hit the ball out of the park with this swing?
quote:Originally posted by jja:
powertoallfields,
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. You believe that rearward bat blur is caused both by separation and handle torque or just handle torque? Please explain how separation would cause bat blur in the absence of handle torque.
Put up the clip and we'll see if it is happening. That's about as open minded as I get without seeing something happen.
Gotta go out for a few hours, talk to you guys later.
quote:Originally posted by jja:
powertoallfields,
Would that do the trick for you? If I could show you a one handed swing that makes a rearward blur, would that convince you that handle torque as described by Richard et al does not describe the swing adequately?
I'd like to see this. Make sure you tie the top hand behind your back. And not "load" it against your bottom hand like Englishbey did.
Quincy, why are you avoiding my questions? You must not know the answers.
quote:Only Richard defines frame count from "go". Ironically your post agrees with the position of most of us who believe his definition is inferior to the definition used by MLB scouts because there is too much uncertainty involved.
No, I do define frame count from "go"......The only irony in my post is the irony you dreamed up........
Richard's "go" theory is superior to any scout's definition who disagrees with him, IMO.......
powertoallfields,
It appears that several topics are being mixed up here. I thought the topic was rearward bat blur, not other topics like separation. The assertion (I believe) was that bat blur was caused by torquing the handle, not that bat blur was caused by torquing the handle and separation. If I'm incorrect in this assumption, please let me know now. What I can show is "rearward bat blur" in a one handed swing which thus proves conclusively that the "rearward bat blur" is not caused by handle torque.
I'll agree Howard has a better swing than Ankiel. Both have "rearward bat blur" though, don't you agree?
It appears that several topics are being mixed up here. I thought the topic was rearward bat blur, not other topics like separation. The assertion (I believe) was that bat blur was caused by torquing the handle, not that bat blur was caused by torquing the handle and separation. If I'm incorrect in this assumption, please let me know now. What I can show is "rearward bat blur" in a one handed swing which thus proves conclusively that the "rearward bat blur" is not caused by handle torque.
I'll agree Howard has a better swing than Ankiel. Both have "rearward bat blur" though, don't you agree?
quote:Originally posted by XV:
Quincy, how does one check his swing if he is using "extension" to "power" the swing, in other words, "using the triceps" that you preach about?
How does one check his swing if he is using handle torque to power the swing?
The answers to these two questions will show what you know about a high-level swing, and how the human body works.
Hint: the answer is not the same for both questions.
The answer is actually quite different for each.
In the tricep swing, a batter does not check swing. He follows Joe McCarthy's advice. If you're gonna swing, swing.
In the box grip swing, the bat is in the check swing position for the majority of the travel. Swing is initiated late by rear arm tricep flex.
JJA, please post that swing. I think many people would love to see it.
Bluedog,
I guess you're missing my point. It doesn't matter what you think, I think, Richard or anyone else for that matter. If you're trying to get your player drafted, you need to please the scouts. Period. This isn't rocket science. If the scouts use that measure, then you need to use that measure as well. You might want to use something else in addition for other reasons, but it isn't going to do your player any good to tell the scout that his measure is bad, to use Richard's instead. Good luck with that one.
For all the non-participants out there, this really is very simple. If your player/child has a swing with less than 5 frames of delay (as defined by DMac or bbscout), then the scouts will look at your player/child. If it's over 5, they'll pass. That's all there is to it. If your player/kid has a 6 frame swing, you'd better work on swing quickness if you want your player/child to get to a higher level. All of this other blather out there is just noise. You need to develop a quick (less than 5 frames of delay) and power (greater than ~75 mph swing speed) or you're out. It's as simple as that.
-JJA
I guess you're missing my point. It doesn't matter what you think, I think, Richard or anyone else for that matter. If you're trying to get your player drafted, you need to please the scouts. Period. This isn't rocket science. If the scouts use that measure, then you need to use that measure as well. You might want to use something else in addition for other reasons, but it isn't going to do your player any good to tell the scout that his measure is bad, to use Richard's instead. Good luck with that one.
For all the non-participants out there, this really is very simple. If your player/child has a swing with less than 5 frames of delay (as defined by DMac or bbscout), then the scouts will look at your player/child. If it's over 5, they'll pass. That's all there is to it. If your player/kid has a 6 frame swing, you'd better work on swing quickness if you want your player/child to get to a higher level. All of this other blather out there is just noise. You need to develop a quick (less than 5 frames of delay) and power (greater than ~75 mph swing speed) or you're out. It's as simple as that.
-JJA
So, are you saying if you're basically considered one of the top two hitters in college, and your frame count is more than five as per your way of counting frames, you won't get drafted?
Quincy,
Are you a great straight man or what! I hope everyone can see the "rearward bat blur" in the link your provided even with that young man who isn't even trying for power. It doesn't take much imagination to see that a similar swing from an adult could produce a swing speed in the 70 mph range. RQL says he can still get over 70 mph and he's in his 50's.
All I would have provided is a similar swing but with a radar measuring the swing speed to show one can get 70+ mph in a one handed swing. This video I think gets the basic idea just fine.
With a one handed swing, the torque is basically zero. If torque was such a huge factor, contributing 50% of the swing speed as Mankin maintains, then that kid should be able to put his other hand on the bat, start torquing and double his swing speed. That notion is obviously ludicrous.
Are you a great straight man or what! I hope everyone can see the "rearward bat blur" in the link your provided even with that young man who isn't even trying for power. It doesn't take much imagination to see that a similar swing from an adult could produce a swing speed in the 70 mph range. RQL says he can still get over 70 mph and he's in his 50's.
All I would have provided is a similar swing but with a radar measuring the swing speed to show one can get 70+ mph in a one handed swing. This video I think gets the basic idea just fine.
With a one handed swing, the torque is basically zero. If torque was such a huge factor, contributing 50% of the swing speed as Mankin maintains, then that kid should be able to put his other hand on the bat, start torquing and double his swing speed. That notion is obviously ludicrous.
Yes, BlueDog, you got it!!! If you recall, DMac talked about Drew Stubbs of Texas, who had a 5.5 frame swing coming out of Texas. The guy is fast as a deer, with a cannon of an arm, with incredible athleticism, and DMac forbid his organization from drafting the guy. The Reds did in fact draft Stubbs at 7th in the draft anyway, but so far his minor league career has been poor due to his hitting. So, yes, DMac's organization refused to draft him despite the fact he was widely considered to be the finest athlete in college baseball at the time all because the frame count of his swing was 5.5 frames.
Hand torque supplies a higher batspeed than powering with the shoulders.........That is what we are saying........
The extra advantage is late swing adjustabilty, also.......
You certainly may argue with Mankin if you so choose on the 50% stuff........
The extra advantage is late swing adjustabilty, also.......
You certainly may argue with Mankin if you so choose on the 50% stuff........
quote:Yes, BlueDog, you got it!!!
I must not have gotten what you are saying......He was drafted very highly after all...
quote:then you need to use that measure as well.
Obviously, not all Scouts use that measure.......
Many top College hitters with a five frame swing, as per the way you count it, can't hit in the Minors........
Bluedog,
In actuality, Richard does not believe that torque enhances bat speed, at least significantly. At least that's what he believed the last time we engaged on Shawn's site. His belief was that it was good for late adjustability, swing quickness and the like, but power wasn't the primary purpose of handle torque. He may have changed his opinion again here, but he was right to begin with. There is no data, none whatsoever, that supports the position that torque significantly impacts swing speed.
Ah, yes, having a 5 frame swing or better does not GUARANTEE success. You're absolutely right there. That's why DMac was working on Brett's swing despite the fact he had a 4 frame swing. But if you don't have a 5 frame swing, you would never have been drafted by DMac's team. So a 5 frame swing and a 75+ mph swing is not a sufficient condition for being a great MLB hitter, but it is a necessary one.
In actuality, Richard does not believe that torque enhances bat speed, at least significantly. At least that's what he believed the last time we engaged on Shawn's site. His belief was that it was good for late adjustability, swing quickness and the like, but power wasn't the primary purpose of handle torque. He may have changed his opinion again here, but he was right to begin with. There is no data, none whatsoever, that supports the position that torque significantly impacts swing speed.
Ah, yes, having a 5 frame swing or better does not GUARANTEE success. You're absolutely right there. That's why DMac was working on Brett's swing despite the fact he had a 4 frame swing. But if you don't have a 5 frame swing, you would never have been drafted by DMac's team. So a 5 frame swing and a 75+ mph swing is not a sufficient condition for being a great MLB hitter, but it is a necessary one.
JJA-
Changing the subject again. You have no other alternative.
Handle torque exists at the mechanical level in mlb pattern swings.
N$$an's model shows how this force can quicken the swing.
Without handle torque there is no early batspeed, nor is there a control mechanism for late adjustment/plane matching.
Frame counting is not useful unless you know first you are comparing apples to apples, that is, counting frames comparing hitters who are already sorted into pattern, mlb or non mlb (such as "PCR").
Once sorted into pattern, landmarks can be identified consistently enough to apply some frame counting, BUT in any case whether or not the hitter has an MLB pattern swing is FAR more important than frame counting.
You should learn to recognize the pattern which bluedog is trying to explain to you.
No amount of swing quickening can enable a PCR swing to work in MLB. MLB requires early batspeed and late adjustment. Batspeed alone or trying to calculate percentage of batspeed due to torque is a waste of time. As Mankin says (below) you need quick acceleration around the entire swing plane, beginning with rearward acceleration.
PCR hitters who adhere to the PCR guideline that says torque does not exist in the swing are FORCED into a non mlb pattern which lacks early batspeed and can not be effective no matter how short you make the swing in terms of frame count. This is why PCR or "PCRW" is always OBSESSED with bat drag. There is no other alternative if you adhere to the guidelines.
How you conceptualize the pattern/goal at the mechanical level can have a big influence on how you communicate for teaching as Mankin's points out here:
http://www.batspeed.com/messageboard/14865.html
-----------
"When practicing your swing, it is important to keep in mind that the purpose of swing mechanics is not to get the hips to rotate ahead of the hands and shoulders, or even to take the hands to the zone. The ultimate purpose of all swing mechanics is to attain maximum acceleration of the bat-head around the 'entire' swing plane.
"With this in mind, when setting up your practice program, I would suggest that one of the most limiting factors to a hitter’s development is his tendency to only concentrates on those mechanics that swing the bat-head forward toward the ball. However, in a high level swing, before the bat-head arcs forward toward the ball, it must first be accelerated rearward from its launch position behind the head back to the lag position (first 90 degrees of acceleration).
"Therefore, as you prepare to initiate your swing, I would suggest you envision mechanics that would accelerate the bat-head around the entire 180+ degrees to contact -- instead of just concentrating on mechanics that accelerate the bat forward the last 90 degrees (from the lag position).
"As a hitter initiates the swing, it is very tough to keep his hands back when he is concentrating on swinging the bat-head forward. If a coach would have the hitter envision the bat-head first accelerating back toward the catcher at initiation, the batters hands would have to stay back to accelerate the bat-head in that direction.
"When we ask the body to perform an athletic movement, the sub-conscious mind will set up a motor program for the rest of the body to aid in accomplishing the task.
"Therefore, I have found that if I can get the batter to correctly envision the bat-head first accelerating rearward to the lag position before he directs his energy toward the ball, the more likely he will generate the most productive hip and shoulder rotation to accomplish the task.
"If, on the other hand, the batter’s vision of the swing is only forward, he will have the tendency to first extend the hands. This is mainly accomplished by using the arms to thrust the hands and knob, which does not require good hip and shoulder rotation. With this vision of the swing, keeping the hands back is at odds with his forward vision. He now has to consciously think, “Hips First.” -- Using cues to override a batter’s natural tendency to think forward is not as effective as changing how they invision the swing.
"Once I feel the batter is starting to have the correct vision of the swing, I use the cue, “Rotate the heel (initiate lower-body rotation) – Rotate the bat-head (initiate the acceleration back toward the catcher”). I ask the student, “what must you do with the top-hand as your elbow lowers to accelerate the bat-head back at the catcher?” After a few attempts, they learn to hold back (or pull back) the top-hand at the shoulder and allow shoulder rotation to accelerate the bat-head back. When they start to get the bat to accelerate correctly, the hips just naturally rotate ahead of the hands and they have the “L” in the back-leg at contact."
Jack Mankin
----------
Changing the subject again. You have no other alternative.
Handle torque exists at the mechanical level in mlb pattern swings.
N$$an's model shows how this force can quicken the swing.
Without handle torque there is no early batspeed, nor is there a control mechanism for late adjustment/plane matching.
Frame counting is not useful unless you know first you are comparing apples to apples, that is, counting frames comparing hitters who are already sorted into pattern, mlb or non mlb (such as "PCR").
Once sorted into pattern, landmarks can be identified consistently enough to apply some frame counting, BUT in any case whether or not the hitter has an MLB pattern swing is FAR more important than frame counting.
You should learn to recognize the pattern which bluedog is trying to explain to you.
No amount of swing quickening can enable a PCR swing to work in MLB. MLB requires early batspeed and late adjustment. Batspeed alone or trying to calculate percentage of batspeed due to torque is a waste of time. As Mankin says (below) you need quick acceleration around the entire swing plane, beginning with rearward acceleration.
PCR hitters who adhere to the PCR guideline that says torque does not exist in the swing are FORCED into a non mlb pattern which lacks early batspeed and can not be effective no matter how short you make the swing in terms of frame count. This is why PCR or "PCRW" is always OBSESSED with bat drag. There is no other alternative if you adhere to the guidelines.
How you conceptualize the pattern/goal at the mechanical level can have a big influence on how you communicate for teaching as Mankin's points out here:
http://www.batspeed.com/messageboard/14865.html
-----------
"When practicing your swing, it is important to keep in mind that the purpose of swing mechanics is not to get the hips to rotate ahead of the hands and shoulders, or even to take the hands to the zone. The ultimate purpose of all swing mechanics is to attain maximum acceleration of the bat-head around the 'entire' swing plane.
"With this in mind, when setting up your practice program, I would suggest that one of the most limiting factors to a hitter’s development is his tendency to only concentrates on those mechanics that swing the bat-head forward toward the ball. However, in a high level swing, before the bat-head arcs forward toward the ball, it must first be accelerated rearward from its launch position behind the head back to the lag position (first 90 degrees of acceleration).
"Therefore, as you prepare to initiate your swing, I would suggest you envision mechanics that would accelerate the bat-head around the entire 180+ degrees to contact -- instead of just concentrating on mechanics that accelerate the bat forward the last 90 degrees (from the lag position).
"As a hitter initiates the swing, it is very tough to keep his hands back when he is concentrating on swinging the bat-head forward. If a coach would have the hitter envision the bat-head first accelerating back toward the catcher at initiation, the batters hands would have to stay back to accelerate the bat-head in that direction.
"When we ask the body to perform an athletic movement, the sub-conscious mind will set up a motor program for the rest of the body to aid in accomplishing the task.
"Therefore, I have found that if I can get the batter to correctly envision the bat-head first accelerating rearward to the lag position before he directs his energy toward the ball, the more likely he will generate the most productive hip and shoulder rotation to accomplish the task.
"If, on the other hand, the batter’s vision of the swing is only forward, he will have the tendency to first extend the hands. This is mainly accomplished by using the arms to thrust the hands and knob, which does not require good hip and shoulder rotation. With this vision of the swing, keeping the hands back is at odds with his forward vision. He now has to consciously think, “Hips First.” -- Using cues to override a batter’s natural tendency to think forward is not as effective as changing how they invision the swing.
"Once I feel the batter is starting to have the correct vision of the swing, I use the cue, “Rotate the heel (initiate lower-body rotation) – Rotate the bat-head (initiate the acceleration back toward the catcher”). I ask the student, “what must you do with the top-hand as your elbow lowers to accelerate the bat-head back at the catcher?” After a few attempts, they learn to hold back (or pull back) the top-hand at the shoulder and allow shoulder rotation to accelerate the bat-head back. When they start to get the bat to accelerate correctly, the hips just naturally rotate ahead of the hands and they have the “L” in the back-leg at contact."
Jack Mankin
----------
quote:
Are you serious? How far is he hitting the balls? Looks like it won't get past the infielders. Show me someone who can hit a ball 400 feet with a one-handed swing. Show me someone who can adjust to a pitch he is not looking for with a one-handed swing. Pick any hand, it doesn't matter because it is not possible. You need both hands to "do work" in the high-level swing.
JJA, I know you're a smart person.....Smarter than me, for sure....I like to swing a bat and test stuff.....
I'm not sold on the bat quickness thing.....Give me batspeed when I need it and I'll take that.....I don't think I'm too interested in quickness, as I'm floating the bat before I "go".......I do believe hand torque helps a hitter to square up the bat on the ball.....IOW, to make better contact....
If I swing with a PCR type of swing, then swing with a hand torque swing, I make more solid contact with the ball with the hand torque swing......I, also, hit the ball farther...So, maybe it's quickness or something else, but, it does happen....
I'm not sold on the bat quickness thing.....Give me batspeed when I need it and I'll take that.....I don't think I'm too interested in quickness, as I'm floating the bat before I "go".......I do believe hand torque helps a hitter to square up the bat on the ball.....IOW, to make better contact....
If I swing with a PCR type of swing, then swing with a hand torque swing, I make more solid contact with the ball with the hand torque swing......I, also, hit the ball farther...So, maybe it's quickness or something else, but, it does happen....
You asked for blur, not distance.
Blur never did interest me...Blur can be anything....
Now, distance does interest me....
Now, distance does interest me....
Blur is a good indicator of acceleration.
Most of the swings being described would not serve a 5'11" batter weighing 190 pounds as a power hitter.
What would be the difference in Mickey Mantle's home run total if he were as big as Frank Howard?
Most of the swings being described would not serve a 5'11" batter weighing 190 pounds as a power hitter.
What would be the difference in Mickey Mantle's home run total if he were as big as Frank Howard?
quote:If you recall, DMac talked about Drew Stubbs of Texas, who had a 5.5 frame swing coming out of Texas. The guy is fast as a deer, with a cannon of an arm, with incredible athleticism, and DMac forbid his organization from drafting the guy. The Reds did in fact draft Stubbs at 7th in the draft anyway, but so far his minor league career has been poor due to his hitting. So, yes, DMac's organization refused to draft him despite the fact he was widely considered to be the finest athlete in college baseball at the time all because the frame count of his swing was 5.5 frames.
1st of all Stubbs was the 8th overall pick.
2nd he signed for 2 million dollars.
3rd Dmac was the only scout who uses that gage. Scouts don'y count frames. Heck they don't have time to sit and count frames if they did.
Scouts want BAT SPEED period. They don't care if its 10 frames as long as it results in consistently hard contact. Dmac may have told you he counted frames. I'll bet he didn't have to. Good swings are easy to pick out. Hitters is another story.
quote:For all the non-participants out there, this really is very simple. If your player/child has a swing with less than 5 frames of delay (as defined by DMac or bbscout), then the scouts will look at your player/child. IF IT"S OVER 5 FRAMES, THEY WILL PASS. That's all there is to it. If your player/kid has a 6 frame swing, you'd better work on swing quickness if you want your player/child to get to a higher level. All of this other blather out there is just noise. You need to develop a quick (less than 5 frames of delay) and power (greater than ~75 mph swing speed) or you're out. It's as simple as that.
4th guess that makes the above comments FALSE and from someone who doesn't really know.
5th in Stubbs 1st full season of pro baseball he hit 29 doubles and had 5 triples and 12 HR's and hit .270.....thats pretty darn good.
6th the player wasn't in Dmac's area and he didn't have that kind of pull.
7th The Nationals picked 15th so you will never know if they would have picked Stubbs.
8th Stubbs is a true centerfielder with plus power.True centerfielder means a 70-80 runner on 80 scale with 60-70 power on 80 scale with a 50-60 arm on 80 scale. His avg will not be a big issue with the extra bases that he will get. Those kinds of guys don't come along everyday. The Reds feel like they can help him improve as a hitter.
9th any scout who didn't see Stubbs that was in his area would have been fired.
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:quote:Originally posted by XV:
Quincy, how does one check his swing if he is using "extension" to "power" the swing, in other words, "using the triceps" that you preach about?
How does one check his swing if he is using handle torque to power the swing?
The answers to these two questions will show what you know about a high-level swing, and how the human body works.
Hint: the answer is not the same for both questions.
The answer is actually quite different for each.
In the tricep swing, a batter does not check swing. He follows Joe McCarthy's advice. If you're gonna swing, swing.
In the box grip swing, the bat is in the check swing position for the majority of the travel. Swing is initiated late by rear arm tricep flex.
At what point then do you decide to swing? There is only "swing"? There is not a "no swing" At what point do you decide to take?
This guy is using a "box grip". He also does not use tricep flex. He uses supination of the hand to "turn" the barrel. He does NOT extend his elbow. He tucks his elbow. He does this with his bicep and back muscles. The bicep also supinates the forearm and is a "better" supinator when the elbow is bent. Why would you even post a video in which you don't even see what is happening? Why would you post a video that, once again, proves yourself wrong?
It should be noted that when anyone in this thread comments on what constitutes a "Major League Swing," it is simply their opinion on that. Each of us have our own opinions on that. Few posting in this thread have actually provided coaching support to anyone that has ACTUALLY played in the Major Leagues. Just wanted to clarify that. All of our opinions, including mine, and $6 will get us an extra value meal at Micky D's.
Of course, anyone that disputes this is welcome to mention those that they have coached that have made it to MLB so that they can stake their claim.
Of course, anyone that disputes this is welcome to mention those that they have coached that have made it to MLB so that they can stake their claim.
Coach, Jed asked Ned if he had a million dollars would he give him half.....Ned said you know I would us being such good friends and all........
Then, Jed asked Ned, if he had two pigs would he give him one....Ned said, now that ain't fair 'cause you know I got two pigs...
I don't eat red meat...I'll take the McSalad....
Then, Jed asked Ned, if he had two pigs would he give him one....Ned said, now that ain't fair 'cause you know I got two pigs...
I don't eat red meat...I'll take the McSalad....
quote:This guy is using a "box grip". He also does not use tricep flex. He uses supination of the hand to "turn" the barrel. He does NOT extend his elbow. He tucks his elbow. He does this with his bicep and back muscles. The bicep also supinates the forearm and is a "better" supinator when the elbow is bent. Why would you even post a video in which you don't even see what is happening? Why would you post a video that, once again, proves yourself wrong?
How can he be using a box grip with only one hand?
For that matter, how can one align the knuckles of both hands when using one hand?
The video is not what I say is a good swing, it is an example of good bat speed with one hand.
He is short to the zone and long through it. I couldn't guess at his swing with two hands since it isn't shown.
Coach B,
Although I have had conversation with many players who have made a few dollars playing ball, every player is different so what works for a Sheffield, Burgess or Gomez may not help the next hitter.
I'd be a few fries short of a Happy Meal.
Hide Post
quote:
If you recall, DMac talked about Drew Stubbs of Texas, who had a 5.5 frame swing coming out of Texas. The guy is fast as a deer, with a cannon of an arm, with incredible athleticism, and DMac forbid his organization from drafting the guy. The Reds did in fact draft Stubbs at 7th in the draft anyway, but so far his minor league career has been poor due to his hitting. So, yes, DMac's organization refused to draft him despite the fact he was widely considered to be the finest athlete in college baseball at the time all because the frame count of his swing was 5.5 frames.
1st of all Stubbs was the 8th overall pick.
2nd he signed for 2 million dollars.
3rd Dmac was the only scout who uses that gage. Scouts don'y count frames. Heck they don't have time to sit and count frames if they did.
Scouts want BAT SPEED period. They don't care if its 10 frames as long as it results in consistently hard contact. Dmac may have told you he counted frames. I'll bet he didn't have to. Good swings are easy to pick out. Hitters is another story.
quote:
For all the non-participants out there, this really is very simple. If your player/child has a swing with less than 5 frames of delay (as defined by DMac or bbscout), then the scouts will look at your player/child. IF IT"S OVER 5 FRAMES, THEY WILL PASS. That's all there is to it. If your player/kid has a 6 frame swing, you'd better work on swing quickness if you want your player/child to get to a higher level. All of this other blather out there is just noise. You need to develop a quick (less than 5 frames of delay) and power (greater than ~75 mph swing speed) or you're out. It's as simple as that.
4th guess that makes the above comments FALSE and from someone who doesn't really know.
5th in Stubbs 1st full season of pro baseball he hit 29 doubles and had 5 triples and 12 HR's and hit .270.....thats pretty darn good.
6th the player wasn't in Dmac's area and he didn't have that kind of pull.
7th The Nationals picked 15th so you will never know if they would have picked Stubbs.
8th Stubbs is a true centerfielder with plus power.True centerfielder means a 70-80 runner on 80 scale with 60-70 power on 80 scale with a 50-60 arm on 80 scale. His avg will not be a big issue with the extra bases that he will get. Those kinds of guys don't come along everyday. The Reds feel like they can help him improve as a hitter.
9th any scout who didn't see Stubbs that was in his area would have been fired.
quote:
If you recall, DMac talked about Drew Stubbs of Texas, who had a 5.5 frame swing coming out of Texas. The guy is fast as a deer, with a cannon of an arm, with incredible athleticism, and DMac forbid his organization from drafting the guy. The Reds did in fact draft Stubbs at 7th in the draft anyway, but so far his minor league career has been poor due to his hitting. So, yes, DMac's organization refused to draft him despite the fact he was widely considered to be the finest athlete in college baseball at the time all because the frame count of his swing was 5.5 frames.
1st of all Stubbs was the 8th overall pick.
2nd he signed for 2 million dollars.
3rd Dmac was the only scout who uses that gage. Scouts don'y count frames. Heck they don't have time to sit and count frames if they did.
Scouts want BAT SPEED period. They don't care if its 10 frames as long as it results in consistently hard contact. Dmac may have told you he counted frames. I'll bet he didn't have to. Good swings are easy to pick out. Hitters is another story.
quote:
For all the non-participants out there, this really is very simple. If your player/child has a swing with less than 5 frames of delay (as defined by DMac or bbscout), then the scouts will look at your player/child. IF IT"S OVER 5 FRAMES, THEY WILL PASS. That's all there is to it. If your player/kid has a 6 frame swing, you'd better work on swing quickness if you want your player/child to get to a higher level. All of this other blather out there is just noise. You need to develop a quick (less than 5 frames of delay) and power (greater than ~75 mph swing speed) or you're out. It's as simple as that.
4th guess that makes the above comments FALSE and from someone who doesn't really know.
5th in Stubbs 1st full season of pro baseball he hit 29 doubles and had 5 triples and 12 HR's and hit .270.....thats pretty darn good.
6th the player wasn't in Dmac's area and he didn't have that kind of pull.
7th The Nationals picked 15th so you will never know if they would have picked Stubbs.
8th Stubbs is a true centerfielder with plus power.True centerfielder means a 70-80 runner on 80 scale with 60-70 power on 80 scale with a 50-60 arm on 80 scale. His avg will not be a big issue with the extra bases that he will get. Those kinds of guys don't come along everyday. The Reds feel like they can help him improve as a hitter.
9th any scout who didn't see Stubbs that was in his area would have been fired.
quote:Scouts want BAT SPEED period. They don't care if its 10 frames as long as it results in consistently hard contact.
I believe Swingbuilder should know this stuff.......
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
How can he be using a box grip with only one hand?
For that matter, how can one align the knuckles of both hands when using one hand?
The video is not what I say is a good swing, it is an example of good bat speed with one hand.
He is short to the zone and long through it. I couldn't guess at his swing with two hands since it isn't shown.
Coach B,
Although I have had conversation with many players who have made a few dollars playing ball, every player is different so what works for a Sheffield, Burgess or Gomez may not help the next hitter.
I'd be a few fries short of a Happy Meal.
He needs two hands for a "box grip". He also needs two hands to "work the barrel". Maybe I should have said "this player is in the check swing position until contact"?
This is not a good swing because he is not using two hands. It is a poor example of batspeed because the ball only gets to the pitchers mound. It a good example of what it is: one-handed drills.
He is not "long through the zone", however you define it. He never extends his elbow into contact.
Bluedog,
I hear what you're saying. All I am saying is that, strictly speaking, what you're feeling isn't torque. In any powerful swing, forces are applied to the bat along the length of the bat. A batter does not push/pull the bat with the hands as described by Mankin. I know this is a nit, but when people start using the term torque it has a very precise meaning. Torque is not what is happening, that's all. Use of the running start, tip and rip, etc. can have value. But the foundation of the swing is the proper sequencing of the lower body and torso that doesn't rely on the hands.
I just got done with 107 girls at tryouts and the great bulk of them used their hands. Very few if any rotated their hips properly, the upper body finished rotation way too early (i.e., disconnection), etc. Sure, DMac's son may very well need tip and rip to get to the bigs, but that problem is in the 99.999% percentile. The kid was captain of a strong Pac-10 school on a full ride. He got that far without tip and rip. He would not have gotten that far without the rest of the fundamentals. That's all that guys like me are getting at. The vast majority of kids we work with need the basics, and basics like maintaining the box can be useful for getting beginners to an intermediate stage. But the same drills I give a 9 year old beginner girl at 4'6" and 60 lbs isn't the same advice I would give a 6'4" 210lb Brett McMillan.
-JJA
I hear what you're saying. All I am saying is that, strictly speaking, what you're feeling isn't torque. In any powerful swing, forces are applied to the bat along the length of the bat. A batter does not push/pull the bat with the hands as described by Mankin. I know this is a nit, but when people start using the term torque it has a very precise meaning. Torque is not what is happening, that's all. Use of the running start, tip and rip, etc. can have value. But the foundation of the swing is the proper sequencing of the lower body and torso that doesn't rely on the hands.
I just got done with 107 girls at tryouts and the great bulk of them used their hands. Very few if any rotated their hips properly, the upper body finished rotation way too early (i.e., disconnection), etc. Sure, DMac's son may very well need tip and rip to get to the bigs, but that problem is in the 99.999% percentile. The kid was captain of a strong Pac-10 school on a full ride. He got that far without tip and rip. He would not have gotten that far without the rest of the fundamentals. That's all that guys like me are getting at. The vast majority of kids we work with need the basics, and basics like maintaining the box can be useful for getting beginners to an intermediate stage. But the same drills I give a 9 year old beginner girl at 4'6" and 60 lbs isn't the same advice I would give a 6'4" 210lb Brett McMillan.
-JJA
Oh, and yes, bat speed is of course important, at least as important as swing quickness. But it isn't everything. The guys with the best bat speed play slow pitch softball, where they hit nearly 120 mph compared to approximately 100 mph as the best MLB speeds. That's what makes baseball so tough. You have to have quickness to hit a 100 mph Joel Zumaya fastball, but if you don't have any power, it's a tough road to the bigs. Our challenge as coaches is to teach both swing quickness and good bat speed.
Anyone who has coached little league or fastpitch softball knows the value of swing quickness. The typical game is dominated by an oversized pitcher blowing fastballs by little guys. Rarely is the problem too many warning track fly balls that additional power could solve. Once a player gets enough swing quickness (fewer frames) and can hit the best fastball, the player can now play for a long time. The player can then concentrate on improving power to get the complete package, power and swing quickness. Then you've got a player.
Anyone who has coached little league or fastpitch softball knows the value of swing quickness. The typical game is dominated by an oversized pitcher blowing fastballs by little guys. Rarely is the problem too many warning track fly balls that additional power could solve. Once a player gets enough swing quickness (fewer frames) and can hit the best fastball, the player can now play for a long time. The player can then concentrate on improving power to get the complete package, power and swing quickness. Then you've got a player.
quote:He is not "long through the zone", however you define it.
Yep, but he is long out of the zone to the pull side.
This one hand drill encourages shoulder spinning.
Lastly, Swingbuilder, your comments about Stubbs are very telling. Yes, the Reds think they can make him a player, but they made a multi-million dollar bet on it that has yet to pan out. His hitting stats so far are dreadful as you know so DMac's admonitions were spot on, and this was before the draft. Maybe others were unimpressed, but his foresight made a huge impression on me and from then on I've been very sensitive to frame counts.
As you are also aware, the line of Stubbs (from Baseball America) was that he was an athletic freak, but there was a concern from "a few scouts" that he had a slow bat. OK, many scouts don't use DMac's techniques but I have been told that other organizations do count frames identically to DMac. It's an easy decision for me. I want the frame count of my players under 5 (I am very proud my 14 year old son is now at 4.5), and a swing speed above 75 mph. I'll take my chances with that. A quick, powerful swing isn't a bad thing to have, even if it doesn't meet the Tom Guerry seal of approval.
-JJA
As you are also aware, the line of Stubbs (from Baseball America) was that he was an athletic freak, but there was a concern from "a few scouts" that he had a slow bat. OK, many scouts don't use DMac's techniques but I have been told that other organizations do count frames identically to DMac. It's an easy decision for me. I want the frame count of my players under 5 (I am very proud my 14 year old son is now at 4.5), and a swing speed above 75 mph. I'll take my chances with that. A quick, powerful swing isn't a bad thing to have, even if it doesn't meet the Tom Guerry seal of approval.
-JJA
I challenge you to ask a ML hitter if he knows the difference between bat speed and swing quickness.
Think a scout has ever put on a player report " Said player has a quick bat yet he lacks bat speed"
He would get a phone call as soon as it was read. The guys who wait the longest to swing don't have bat speed? They just have quick swings? Come on. Have you ever seen a guy who was quick on the base paths but couldn't run with some level of foot speed?
Slow pitch softball, bat speed? or leveraged strength and timing?
He was already a player...a very talented one at that.
Dreadful???
Lets see, I would not call it dreadful....
He was the 8th pick in 2006
so he has played 1 short season and 1 full season
187 hits 132 runs 35 doubles 8 triples 18 HR's 68 RBI's 42 Stolen bases and a .264 avg
That is far from Dreadful.
Tell you what JJA....I'll buy dinner if he doesn't make it to the big leagues and he according to you from according to Dmac didn't have a 5 frame swing. That frame counting can get you in trouble. Watch out.
Was it a slow bat or no swing quickness? LOL
Name them.
Good scouts put the radar guns and the stop watches and the video camera's down alot of times and they watch a player play. Watch Stubbs play and you too would have liked him.
Think a scout has ever put on a player report " Said player has a quick bat yet he lacks bat speed"
He would get a phone call as soon as it was read. The guys who wait the longest to swing don't have bat speed? They just have quick swings? Come on. Have you ever seen a guy who was quick on the base paths but couldn't run with some level of foot speed?
Slow pitch softball, bat speed? or leveraged strength and timing?
quote:the Reds think they can make him a player,
He was already a player...a very talented one at that.
quote:His hitting stats so far are dreadful as you know so DMac's admonitions were spot on, and this was before the draft.
Dreadful???
Lets see, I would not call it dreadful....
He was the 8th pick in 2006
so he has played 1 short season and 1 full season
187 hits 132 runs 35 doubles 8 triples 18 HR's 68 RBI's 42 Stolen bases and a .264 avg
That is far from Dreadful.
Tell you what JJA....I'll buy dinner if he doesn't make it to the big leagues and he according to you from according to Dmac didn't have a 5 frame swing. That frame counting can get you in trouble. Watch out.
quote:As you are also aware, the line of Stubbs (from Baseball America) was that he was an athletic freak, but there was a concern from "a few scouts" that he had a slow bat.
Was it a slow bat or no swing quickness? LOL
quote:OK, many scouts don't use DMac's techniques but I have been told that other organizations do count frames identically to DMac.
Name them.
Good scouts put the radar guns and the stop watches and the video camera's down alot of times and they watch a player play. Watch Stubbs play and you too would have liked him.
JJA, I hear what you're saying....
But, I do pull in opposite directions on the bat handle and very consciously.....Now, that I'm thinking about it, that does give me alot of quickness.....But, there is batspeed when I need it, too......So,.......
I don't downplay the rest of the body in the swing.......I just don't believe you can move the middle by trying to move the middle....The middle torques by pulling on both ends above and below the middle, IMO.....
But, I do pull in opposite directions on the bat handle and very consciously.....Now, that I'm thinking about it, that does give me alot of quickness.....But, there is batspeed when I need it, too......So,.......
I don't downplay the rest of the body in the swing.......I just don't believe you can move the middle by trying to move the middle....The middle torques by pulling on both ends above and below the middle, IMO.....
quote:Originally posted by jja:
Oh, and yes, bat speed is of course important, at least as important as swing quickness. But it isn't everything. The guys with the best bat speed play slow pitch softball, where they hit nearly 120 mph compared to approximately 100 mph as the best MLB speeds. That's what makes baseball so tough. You have to have quickness to hit a 100 mph Joel Zumaya fastball, but if you don't have any power, it's a tough road to the bigs. Our challenge as coaches is to teach both swing quickness and good bat speed.
This is false. Assuming quickness and speed is already there, you need great timing when they bring in a reliever who's fastball is faster than the starter you have been dealing with for the previous 3-4 at bats. You start your swing process sooner in relation to the the release point. Not the swing itself.
Does this guy on the right have no "quickness"? Or is he simply "starting his swing process later" in relation to the release of the ball, whereas Sheffield is "starting his swing process sooner"?
JJA, I have to agree with XV.......
I believe it's really important for fastpitch and baseball players to be able to hit slowpitch........So important, that I pitch them both even though they don't play slowpitch.....
I see both of those swings as identical.....Front hip opening in the stride........Hands loading against the hip creating torque in the middle.....And, hands torquing the handle of the bat.........These guys are controlling the bat barrel with their hands, IMO....
If one swing has quickness, then, so does the other, IMO...
I believe it's really important for fastpitch and baseball players to be able to hit slowpitch........So important, that I pitch them both even though they don't play slowpitch.....
I see both of those swings as identical.....Front hip opening in the stride........Hands loading against the hip creating torque in the middle.....And, hands torquing the handle of the bat.........These guys are controlling the bat barrel with their hands, IMO....
If one swing has quickness, then, so does the other, IMO...
quote:Originally posted by BlueDog:
I don't eat red meat...I'll take the McSalad....
The McSalad might be more dangerous! LOL!
JJA opined:
But when he discussed this with DMAC:
http://z6.invisionfree.com/Hitting/index.php?showtopic=355&st=285
DMAC said about tip and rip:
"My oldest son sent me the clips and I loved the last 3-4 that they showed. He holds the bat away from his body, points it at the sky, tips it towards the pitcher and then lets it fly.
1. better bat speed
2. better barrel position at contact
3. gets ball in the air more consistantly "
and
"If you can teach a youngster how to hit a home run, you will make him and his parents happy. The running start IMO is easier to learn for a youngster than a high leg kick or good rotation and can provide some home runs for the average guy. I think where we may disagree is that I don't think that you have to be an above average athlete to learn how to do it."
and
"Timing it for a good athlete is not hard, what has happened is that nobody has taught it to anybody. What is really hard is setting your bat behind your shoulder, go from a dead start and then expect rotation to bring the bat around and magically hit the ball. That has been taught to many kids.......good luck"
quote:Sure, DMac's son may very well need tip and rip to get to the bigs, but that problem is in the 99.999% percentile. The kid was captain of a strong Pac-10 school on a full ride. He got that far without tip and rip. He would not have gotten that far without the rest of the fundamentals. That's all that guys like me are getting at. The vast majority of kids we work with need the basics, and basics like maintaining the box can be useful for getting beginners to an intermediate stage. But the same drills I give a 9 year old beginner girl at 4'6" and 60 lbs isn't the same advice I would give a 6'4" 210lb Brett McMillan
But when he discussed this with DMAC:
http://z6.invisionfree.com/Hitting/index.php?showtopic=355&st=285
DMAC said about tip and rip:
"My oldest son sent me the clips and I loved the last 3-4 that they showed. He holds the bat away from his body, points it at the sky, tips it towards the pitcher and then lets it fly.
1. better bat speed
2. better barrel position at contact
3. gets ball in the air more consistantly "
and
"If you can teach a youngster how to hit a home run, you will make him and his parents happy. The running start IMO is easier to learn for a youngster than a high leg kick or good rotation and can provide some home runs for the average guy. I think where we may disagree is that I don't think that you have to be an above average athlete to learn how to do it."
and
"Timing it for a good athlete is not hard, what has happened is that nobody has taught it to anybody. What is really hard is setting your bat behind your shoulder, go from a dead start and then expect rotation to bring the bat around and magically hit the ball. That has been taught to many kids.......good luck"
Five pages of meandering.
It seems that we have a very hard time maintaining focus on a topic.
There has been a move among former MLB great hitters endorsing a triangular shaped handle bat to eliminate handle torquing into the box grip.
I wonder where they got that idea.
It seems that we have a very hard time maintaining focus on a topic.
There has been a move among former MLB great hitters endorsing a triangular shaped handle bat to eliminate handle torquing into the box grip.
I wonder where they got that idea.
XV,
That's the problem. Very few kids that any of us of work with have quickness and speed already present. Of course timing is important, no question. Many slumps at the big league level are caused by poor timing, not swing mechanics issues. But at lower levels, quickness and bat speed have to be taught.
Swingbuilder,
With Stubb's talent, he should obviously make the big leagues. Will he make it as a defensive outfielder and runner - in which case DMac was right - or will he be a premium hitter? That's the big question. Remember, he's a 23 year old now and yet last year in low A ball he hit 0.270 with a pathetic 12 home runs in almost 500 at bats, a lousy 0.364 OBP, and of course his old friend due to his 5.5 frame swing, an incredible 142 K's. The guy got a multi-million dollar signing bonus. It's safe to say that if the Reds were to re-draft at this point, he wouldn't have been selected at 8 in the draft. Time will tell and I would be happy to have dinner with you anyway, but I'm 100% with DMac on this one. Lastly, for the team with the frame count, I actually don't know first hand but will try to find out.
I agree Quincy. A lot of meandering. And a lot of rehashing which is getting old awfully quick.
-JJA
quote:This is false. Assuming quickness and speed is already there,
That's the problem. Very few kids that any of us of work with have quickness and speed already present. Of course timing is important, no question. Many slumps at the big league level are caused by poor timing, not swing mechanics issues. But at lower levels, quickness and bat speed have to be taught.
Swingbuilder,
With Stubb's talent, he should obviously make the big leagues. Will he make it as a defensive outfielder and runner - in which case DMac was right - or will he be a premium hitter? That's the big question. Remember, he's a 23 year old now and yet last year in low A ball he hit 0.270 with a pathetic 12 home runs in almost 500 at bats, a lousy 0.364 OBP, and of course his old friend due to his 5.5 frame swing, an incredible 142 K's. The guy got a multi-million dollar signing bonus. It's safe to say that if the Reds were to re-draft at this point, he wouldn't have been selected at 8 in the draft. Time will tell and I would be happy to have dinner with you anyway, but I'm 100% with DMac on this one. Lastly, for the team with the frame count, I actually don't know first hand but will try to find out.
I agree Quincy. A lot of meandering. And a lot of rehashing which is getting old awfully quick.
-JJA
Bluedog,
If I had to hazard a guess based on what you're writing (but of course never having seen you swing) is that you're actually pulling on the bat handle with your bottom hand, possibly some with your top hand as well. You're pulling in a direction along the bat, not pushing with the top hand and pulling with the bottom hand in a direction perpindicular to the bat. If this is so, this would be consistent with all of your observations. Of course what I'm referring to is the start of the motion of the bat towards the ball at launch. Any pre-motion (bat tipping, etc.) could have many different push-pull actions that of course would require video to see what you're doing. But once you start towards the ball (i.e., after reaching the launching position with the front foot down), there is only a small amount of torque from launch until contact.
If I had to hazard a guess based on what you're writing (but of course never having seen you swing) is that you're actually pulling on the bat handle with your bottom hand, possibly some with your top hand as well. You're pulling in a direction along the bat, not pushing with the top hand and pulling with the bottom hand in a direction perpindicular to the bat. If this is so, this would be consistent with all of your observations. Of course what I'm referring to is the start of the motion of the bat towards the ball at launch. Any pre-motion (bat tipping, etc.) could have many different push-pull actions that of course would require video to see what you're doing. But once you start towards the ball (i.e., after reaching the launching position with the front foot down), there is only a small amount of torque from launch until contact.
