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.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 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. QUOTE]
This is the running start and makes a huge difference in how quick you can get to the ball.
"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."
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. QUOTE]
This is the running start and makes a huge difference in how quick you can get to the ball.
"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."
quote:Originally posted by CoachB25:
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.
Coach,
I'm only talking about handle torque, not bat torque which is created by the hips and hands. I believe in both.
quote:Originally posted by tom.guerry:
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
----------
Young hitters and Coaches/Instructors,
It does not get any better than this post!!!
Thanks, Tom!
SB
If you have time to come into an open forum and post about Drew Stubbs, then you have time to count to 4 or 5 on quicktime. Most scouts dont bring a video camera to games, my dad did. He felt it was a valuable tool to help re-evaluate when he got home.
Scouts "Dont have time to count frames"...C'mon Jeff. How long do you think it takes to upload a video onto a laptop and then count to five?....three minutes?
Dmac used frame counting, but it was just another tool to help evaluate....Like a stopwatch. By no means was this his be all, end all in evaluating. The thing with hitters my dad loved were actions, power, and the ability to hit the friday night starter....things not often discussed in here....things most instuctors dont teach, recognize, or know anythng about.
JJA-
I think your misinformed on Bretts swing history. I appreciate your comments on how you felt Dmacs frame counting had relevance, but I feel its arguement is a little misplaced. Send beemax a pm. He likes to type and will answer any swing question you throw at him honestly.
quote: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.
If you have time to come into an open forum and post about Drew Stubbs, then you have time to count to 4 or 5 on quicktime. Most scouts dont bring a video camera to games, my dad did. He felt it was a valuable tool to help re-evaluate when he got home.
Scouts "Dont have time to count frames"...C'mon Jeff. How long do you think it takes to upload a video onto a laptop and then count to five?....three minutes?
Dmac used frame counting, but it was just another tool to help evaluate....Like a stopwatch. By no means was this his be all, end all in evaluating. The thing with hitters my dad loved were actions, power, and the ability to hit the friday night starter....things not often discussed in here....things most instuctors dont teach, recognize, or know anythng about.
JJA-
I think your misinformed on Bretts swing history. I appreciate your comments on how you felt Dmacs frame counting had relevance, but I feel its arguement is a little misplaced. Send beemax a pm. He likes to type
and will answer any swing question you throw at him honestly.quote:....there is only a small amount of torque from launch until contact.
This could be the torque that helps alot to square up the barrel of the bat on the ball, though......Perhaps, the degree of torque is less important than the fact that there is some vs. trying to square up the barrel of the bat on the ball with hands connecting to the shoulder and rotating.....
JJA, I remember reading where Ted Williams recommended to take the top finger of the top hand off the bat.....Are you aware of Williams saying this?
quote:It does not get any better than this post!!!
I have Mankin's video and I have read these posts as well as a lot of others on different forums. I think the 5 frame swing, pcr model most accurately represents what mlb hitters actually do, and I think that viewpoint is very well supported by looking at vids slowed down to frame speed.
The pcr model combines the following virtues:
1. It gives the batter the longest time to actually see the pitch before launching the swing.
2. It gives the batter the greatest bat speed through the strike zone.
3. It keeps maintains the intersection of the bat plane and the trajectory of the ball the longest of any of the models.
The kind of segmented sequential swing advocated by others sacrifice all these virtues.
quote:The kind of segmented sequential swing advocated by others sacrifice all these virtues.
That's, in your opinion.....The problem with that is, you have probably never swung a bat with this segmentation and hand torque.....
quote:I have Mankin's video and I have read these posts as well as a lot of others on different forums.
Wow!!..You're really qualified to speak about segmentation and hand torque, then....
quote:3. It keeps maintains the intersection of the bat plane and the trajectory of the ball the longest of any of the models
Is this done with posture?
quote:1. It gives the batter the longest time to actually see the pitch before launching the swing
Is the bat moving while you are seeing the pitch?
quote:2. It gives the batter the greatest bat speed through the strike zone.
Is this because the shoulders are powering the bat?....Or, being more specific, is it because the hands are connecting to the shoulder with scapula load and the pelvic muscles are powering the shoulders thus pulling the bat through the hitting zone with rotation?...Is this what you see happening?
Bluedog,
Don't forget, as Adair points out in his book, once the ball gets roughly half way to the plate, there is no more adjustability. The brain and muscles of the body can't fire fast enough to give you adjustability after that point. As Adair says with some humor, you could actually close your eyes after the ball is half way to the plate and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. So the intuitively obvious notion, something that most people would swear by, that you're changing your swing during the swing, is simply wrong. The body can't process the information in the brain fast enough and the muscles can't fire fast enough to effect these changes.
Yes, I do remember William' off hand comment. A personal preference to be sure, but if torque was so important, wouldn't you want both hands fully on the bat?
Don't forget, as Adair points out in his book, once the ball gets roughly half way to the plate, there is no more adjustability. The brain and muscles of the body can't fire fast enough to give you adjustability after that point. As Adair says with some humor, you could actually close your eyes after the ball is half way to the plate and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. So the intuitively obvious notion, something that most people would swear by, that you're changing your swing during the swing, is simply wrong. The body can't process the information in the brain fast enough and the muscles can't fire fast enough to effect these changes.
Yes, I do remember William' off hand comment. A personal preference to be sure, but if torque was so important, wouldn't you want both hands fully on the bat?
quote:.....but if torque was so important, wouldn't you want both hands fully on the bat?
JJA, I don't think so......The smaller surface area of the hands on the bat makes it much easier to torque the bat handle between the hands, IMO.....
If the grip pressure is only in the middle fingers, it makes a big difference in the ability to torque the bat handle between the hands and not allow the hands and bat to move forward to the ball as the first move....
The hands are fully in control of the bat...Just not as large a surface area on the bat, that's all.......
If you put one middle finger of each hand only on the bat, you would have to torque the handle to move the bat with any amount of control......
The fingers would have to pull perpendicular to the bat in opposite directions to control it.....
If you put two fingers of each hand, it's get even easier to control the bat with hand torque....As you add fingers, you will eventually reach a point of diminishing returns, IMO....
The fingers would have to pull perpendicular to the bat in opposite directions to control it.....
If you put two fingers of each hand, it's get even easier to control the bat with hand torque....As you add fingers, you will eventually reach a point of diminishing returns, IMO....
quote:Originally posted by jja:
Bluedog,
Don't forget, as Adair points out in his book, once the ball gets roughly half way to the plate, there is no more adjustability. The brain and muscles of the body can't fire fast enough to give you adjustability after that point. As Adair says with some humor, you could actually close your eyes after the ball is half way to the plate and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. So the intuitively obvious notion, something that most people would swear by, that you're changing your swing during the swing, is simply wrong. The body can't process the information in the brain fast enough and the muscles can't fire fast enough to effect these changes.
Yes, I do remember William' off hand comment. A personal preference to be sure, but if torque was so important, wouldn't you want both hands fully on the bat?
http://www.hittingillustrated.com/library/Posadasidebyside.gif
How in the world can you watch these two clips and believe what you are saying about the half way to the plate comment?
As far as the brain can't process fast enough and the muscles can't fire fast enough comments, I believe this is the golden statement. This is the difference between a Mankin learned swing and a PCR swing or Ted Williams vs. Rick Ankiel swing. From a dead still bat, I think this statement is right on, but from a moving bat that is being torqued with the hands it is false. This is the adjustability Mankin talks about. Good swing vs. MLB swing, if you will.
The hand torque that he refers to is the weight of the bat head exerting force on the wrists causing them to bend. (rearward first blur often seen on video)
The arms extend to react and 'catch up' to the bat head speed only to have the wrists uncocked again by the weight of the bat head in motion. (second blur on video before contact)
Notice the first move is pulling the bat down into the swing at aproximately a 90 degree angle to the bat.
The arms extend to react and 'catch up' to the bat head speed only to have the wrists uncocked again by the weight of the bat head in motion. (second blur on video before contact)
Notice the first move is pulling the bat down into the swing at aproximately a 90 degree angle to the bat.
JJA, I used to believe that ball halfway to the plate it's too late to adjust stuff....Not anymore, though...
However, if you're swinging with PCR, I think it does apply....Set your swing plane with posture and go with it...If you're off, well, you're just off, that's it.....You're either gonna miss the ball or not make good contact....Just write it off as, you got fooled...
However, if you're swinging with PCR, I think it does apply....Set your swing plane with posture and go with it...If you're off, well, you're just off, that's it.....You're either gonna miss the ball or not make good contact....Just write it off as, you got fooled...
Do we ever know if a MLB hitter had it all the way or made a late adjustment to the ball?....Probably not......But, I do think this was a late swing adjustment to the ball...Posture can't make this happen....
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
The hand torque that he refers to is the weight of the bat head exerting force on the wrists causing them to bend. (rearward first blur often seen on video)
That has to be a really heavy bat, lol. What force? From what power source? Is there something in the hips that can put force on the wrists and cause them to bend??? Wow!
The arms extend to react and 'catch up' to the bat head speed only to have the wrists uncocked again by the weight of the bat head in motion. (second blur on video before contact)
Quinc,
What put the bathead in motion in the first place?
Notice the first move is pulling the bat down into the swing at aproximately a 90 degree angle to the bat.
Pulling the bat with which hand?
Both hands.
I often refer to this action as if the batter were throwing the bat at the base on the foul line in front of him.
I often refer to this action as if the batter were throwing the bat at the base on the foul line in front of him.
quote:Originally posted by BlueDog:
Do we ever know if a MLB hitter had it all the way or made a late adjustment to the ball?....Probably not......But, I do think this was a late swing adjustment to the ball...
I happen to believe he is adjusting his swing all the way until he fires his top hand to the ball, which is about 10' from the plate, JMO though. It may even be longer or closer to the plate. In this clip, it is when you first see his top hand reappear after it has disappeared behind his left shoulder.
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
Both hands.
I often refer to this action as if the batter were throwing the bat at the base on the foul line in front of him.
Wait...let me get this straight. They always throw the bat at either the 3b foul line or 1b foul line depending on if they are right or left handed? The location of the pitch means nothing??? This sounds like casting to me.
JJA, there are two areas for late swing adjustability, pitch location and timing....This is, IMO, a timing adjustment...
Now, I've never read Adair, so, is he saying there is not time for either, or just location adjustment?
Now, I've never read Adair, so, is he saying there is not time for either, or just location adjustment?
Casting would be over extension beyond the control of the hands.
This is why Ted Williams put so much emphasis on hand and forearm strength.
This is why Ted Williams put so much emphasis on hand and forearm strength.
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
Both hands.
I often refer to this action as if the batter were throwing the bat at the base on the foul line in front of him.
Quincy,
Please answer all three questions so I can tell where you are coming from.
quote:Originally posted by BlueDog:quote:....there is only a small amount of torque from launch until contact.
This could be the torque that helps alot to square up the barrel of the bat on the ball, though......Perhaps, the degree of torque is less important than the fact that there is some vs. trying to square up the barrel of the bat on the ball with hands connecting to the shoulder and rotating.....
Run them by me again.
quote:Originally posted by powertoallfields:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Quincy:
The hand torque that he refers to is the weight of the bat head exerting force on the wrists causing them to bend. (rearward first blur often seen on video)
That has to be a really heavy bat, lol. What force? From what power source? Is there something in the hips that can put force on the wrists and cause them to bend??? Wow!
The arms extend to react and 'catch up' to the bat head speed only to have the wrists uncocked again by the weight of the bat head in motion. (second blur on video before contact)
Quinc,
What put the bathead in motion in the first place?
Notice the first move is pulling the bat down into the swing at aproximately a 90 degree angle to the bat.
Here they are Quincy. Just below each bolded area.
Thanks!
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
Casting would be over extension beyond the control of the hands.
This is why Ted Williams put so much emphasis on hand and forearm strength.
Nope!
Guys,
The decision to either check the swing or swing is made before the ball is half way to the plate (at least for the 90 mph fastball Adair is assuming in his example). Yep, I know it's totally unintuitive, but that's the phsyics of what is happening. It isn't a PCR thing, a Lau, HI, or whatever. It's method independent.
For example, in the check swing or swing example, early in the decision making process, the decision is made to swing. During the succeeding milliseconds the brain processes information and makes the decision to not swing. This decision is made before the ball is half way to the plate. By the time the brain processes this information and passes it to the muscles, the ball has had time to reach the plate and the swing checked. But the body can't physically respond any quicker than that. It's impossible.
Again, I suggest you read Adair, The Physics of Baseball, Chapter 3, end of chapter. It's an easy to follow explanation of what the body does. As an aside, this data isn't controversial. Even Epstein, not exactly a rocket scientist himself, uses this data in support of his position that you shouldn't look the ball onto the bat because there is no purpose in doing so. Your brain/muscles can't do anything once the ball reaches half way to the plate, well before you've started your swing.
The decision to either check the swing or swing is made before the ball is half way to the plate (at least for the 90 mph fastball Adair is assuming in his example). Yep, I know it's totally unintuitive, but that's the phsyics of what is happening. It isn't a PCR thing, a Lau, HI, or whatever. It's method independent.
For example, in the check swing or swing example, early in the decision making process, the decision is made to swing. During the succeeding milliseconds the brain processes information and makes the decision to not swing. This decision is made before the ball is half way to the plate. By the time the brain processes this information and passes it to the muscles, the ball has had time to reach the plate and the swing checked. But the body can't physically respond any quicker than that. It's impossible.
Again, I suggest you read Adair, The Physics of Baseball, Chapter 3, end of chapter. It's an easy to follow explanation of what the body does. As an aside, this data isn't controversial. Even Epstein, not exactly a rocket scientist himself, uses this data in support of his position that you shouldn't look the ball onto the bat because there is no purpose in doing so. Your brain/muscles can't do anything once the ball reaches half way to the plate, well before you've started your swing.
quote:The hand torque that he refers to is the weight of the bat head exerting force on the wrists causing them to bend. (rearward first blur often seen on video)
That has to be a really heavy bat, lol. What force? From what power source? Is there something in the hips that can put force on the wrists and cause them to bend??? Wow!
The arms extend to react and 'catch up' to the bat head speed only to have the wrists uncocked again by the weight of the bat head in motion. (second blur on video before contact)
Quinc,
What put the bathead in motion in the first place?
The force in question is the weight of the bat head in motion. The first move in throwing and hitting is pulling. The relative weight of the bat head is enough to put strain on the wrists.
The bat is put in motion by pulling the arms down into the swing (triceps). The wrists give or uncock because they are the weakest point on the pendulum.
You are mistaken about the need for strength in the hands and forearms in maintaining string tension.
quote:If you have time to come into an open forum and post about Drew Stubbs, then you have time to count to 4 or 5 on quicktime. Most scouts dont bring a video camera to games, my dad did. He felt it was a valuable tool to help re-evaluate when he got home.
Scouts "Dont have time to count frames"...C'mon Jeff. How long do you think it takes to upload a video onto a laptop and then count to five?....three minutes?
Dmac used frame counting, but it was just another tool to help evaluate....Like a stopwatch. By no means was this his be all, end all in evaluating. The thing with hitters my dad loved were actions, power, and the ability to hit the friday night starter....things not often discussed in here....things most instuctors dont teach, recognize, or know anythng about.
1st of all...Have you been to a high profile amatuer players game?
2nd 15 of 20 scouts will have a video camera.
3rd Do they know what to do with what they videoed?
NO
4th They video and then send the tape in to the office every two weeks and then start a new tape.
5th The season hasn't started so I can sit a type about whatever I choose to.
6th As you said...the camera is a tool. It didn't tell you or your Dad or any scout if that guy could play in the big leagues.
7th Come on, are you kidding! How many scouts do you think know how to upload a video clip and then count to 5. Do they have seperate computers from their work ones? We aren't allowed to add or delete anything from ours.
8th MY POINT TO A T !!!!!
DOUG DIDN"T HAVE TO USE IT. HE KNEW A SWING AND HITTER WHEN HE SAW IT....AND YOU, being his son, KNOW THIS!
The thing with hitters my dad loved were actions, power, and the ability to hit the friday night starter.... NOW THAT IS SCOUTING. SAVE THE VIDEO FOR THE SCOUTING BUREAU!
quote:.....(at least for the 90 mph fastball Adair is assuming in his example).....
Swing adjustments definitely would be more of a non-factor at this speed, and above...Rarely, would a hitter want to make a late swing adjustment at this speed.....The ball is coming fast and with not alot of movement....
The late swing adjustments that need to be made are at slower pitches with more movement....Fastballs aren't as unpredictable as offspeed pitches....And, fastballs aren't disguised as another pitch...Offspeed pitches are disguised as fastballs, so, you need to be able to adjust as late as possible...
quote:The bat is put in motion by pulling the arms down into the swing (triceps). The wrists give or uncock because they are the weakest point on the pendulum.
Quincy,
This action will make the bat blur rearward???
yup
Pulling the bat handle down at aprox a 90 degree angle to the bat will cause the bat head to whip.
Pulling the bat handle down at aprox a 90 degree angle to the bat will cause the bat head to whip.
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
yup
Pulling the bat handle down at aprox a 90 degree angle to the bat will cause the bat head to whip.
Pulling it down with which hand?
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
Both hands.
I often refer to this action as if the batter were throwing the bat at the base on the foul line in front of him.
Paralysis by Analysis
Great hitters are born.
Said Whitey Lockman, who has touched all the bases and is approaching his 60th season in the grand old game:
"Only God can make a great hitter!"
Al Lopez, the Hall of Fame manager now retired after 40 years in the big leagues, if he knew of a batting coach who improved any hitters?
Lopez laughed.
I asked again.
"No, I can't think of any," he replied.
"If someone swung at a bad ball, they'd say `You're swinging at a bad ball.' That was the extent of their instruction."
Ted Williams, the best left-handed hitter since Babe Ruth, was mentioned.
"Ted tried to impart his knowledge," Lockman said. "He wrote books. He spent a thousand hours instructing hitters. But who could hit like Ted Williams or Stan Musial? You can get all the help you can but you can't get it done. Most players, 99 percent of them, aren't that good,"
It was Lockman's turn to ask a question.
"Ichiro (Suzuki) led the American League in hitting. Who helped him? Nobody. He helped himself because he's a natural hitter. Do you suppose the Seattle batting coach screwed around with him? I hope not."
Lockman mentioned Charlie Lau and Walt Hriniak, two of the better known recent batting coaches.
"What kind of hitters were they? Yet, a lot of people said they made great hitters out of poor hitters. I never believed it. The best batting coaches are the ones who have the best hitters."
Chuck Tanner agreed,
"If a guy is a .250 hitter, he's going to hit .250. It's as simple as that."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCI/is_3_61/ai_82472895
COACH: Are great hitters born or made? What made Tony Gwynn great?
GWYNN: I think it's a combination of both. I think great hitters are born but you still have to work at it. My dad used to tell me when I was little that I had the God-given ability to put a bat on the ball. But if you don't work at it and turn it into something consistently good, you're not going to make it.
"Playing baseball is all that I ever wanted to do with my life," Palmeiro, 38, said. "I could always hit, even as a kid."
Thirty years later, the skinny youngster with that cool thin mustache from Miami is all grown up. The sweet swing he developed as a young boy has carried him to 500 home runs and the annals of Major League Baseball history. His next stop could be 600 homers.
"He's a home run hitter, always has been," said San Francisco's Barry Bonds, one of only four members of the 600 Homer Club. "He was that way in college along with Will Clark (at Mississippi State). A good hitter is a good hitter. He's strong and he has a good swing. He's been a home run hitter since he was born."
Great hitters are born.
Said Whitey Lockman, who has touched all the bases and is approaching his 60th season in the grand old game:
"Only God can make a great hitter!"
Al Lopez, the Hall of Fame manager now retired after 40 years in the big leagues, if he knew of a batting coach who improved any hitters?
Lopez laughed.
I asked again.
"No, I can't think of any," he replied.
"If someone swung at a bad ball, they'd say `You're swinging at a bad ball.' That was the extent of their instruction."
Ted Williams, the best left-handed hitter since Babe Ruth, was mentioned.
"Ted tried to impart his knowledge," Lockman said. "He wrote books. He spent a thousand hours instructing hitters. But who could hit like Ted Williams or Stan Musial? You can get all the help you can but you can't get it done. Most players, 99 percent of them, aren't that good,"
It was Lockman's turn to ask a question.
"Ichiro (Suzuki) led the American League in hitting. Who helped him? Nobody. He helped himself because he's a natural hitter. Do you suppose the Seattle batting coach screwed around with him? I hope not."
Lockman mentioned Charlie Lau and Walt Hriniak, two of the better known recent batting coaches.
"What kind of hitters were they? Yet, a lot of people said they made great hitters out of poor hitters. I never believed it. The best batting coaches are the ones who have the best hitters."
Chuck Tanner agreed,
"If a guy is a .250 hitter, he's going to hit .250. It's as simple as that."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCI/is_3_61/ai_82472895
COACH: Are great hitters born or made? What made Tony Gwynn great?
GWYNN: I think it's a combination of both. I think great hitters are born but you still have to work at it. My dad used to tell me when I was little that I had the God-given ability to put a bat on the ball. But if you don't work at it and turn it into something consistently good, you're not going to make it.
"Playing baseball is all that I ever wanted to do with my life," Palmeiro, 38, said. "I could always hit, even as a kid."
Thirty years later, the skinny youngster with that cool thin mustache from Miami is all grown up. The sweet swing he developed as a young boy has carried him to 500 home runs and the annals of Major League Baseball history. His next stop could be 600 homers.
"He's a home run hitter, always has been," said San Francisco's Barry Bonds, one of only four members of the 600 Homer Club. "He was that way in college along with Will Clark (at Mississippi State). A good hitter is a good hitter. He's strong and he has a good swing. He's been a home run hitter since he was born."
quote:Originally posted by powertoallfields:quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
Casting would be over extension beyond the control of the hands.
This is why Ted Williams put so much emphasis on hand and forearm strength.
Nope!
power,
If you know why Williams said that, instead of just saying "Nope" why don't you enlighten us. Please richard
quote:Originally posted by ShawnLee:quote:Originally posted by powertoallfields:quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
Casting would be over extension beyond the control of the hands.
This is why Ted Williams put so much emphasis on hand and forearm strength.
Nope!
power,
If you know why Williams said that, instead of just saying "Nope" why don't you enlighten us. Please richard
Hand strength comes from forearm strength. Doing drills or exercises to strengthen your grip, in turn, strengthen your forearms.
You need both for good batspeed. To torque the bat handle to catch up with 95+ Pitching and MLB type off speed, you need strong hands and forearms to manipulate the bathead, FNJMO.
quote:"If a guy is a .250 hitter, he's going to hit .250. It's as simple as that."
I don't believe that for a minute...unless he is unteachable, like some on this site! Jorge Posada is a prime example.
quote:I don't believe that for a minute...unless he is unteachable, like some on this site!
You don't torque the bat handle. the bat head torques the hands and wrists.
You don't seem to be able to grasp what torque actually is.
quote:Originally posted by powertoallfields:quote:"If a guy is a .250 hitter, he's going to hit .250. It's as simple as that."
I don't believe that for a minute...unless he is unteachable, like some on this site!
I guess all those top-line Pro's who share the same opinion/conclusion are all wet !!
Example:
Premier summer program head coach who also helps develop hitters has a nice group of players that include one born a natural hitter. They all go through the same drills and methodology. The result.
You have a group of nice hitters, and one who still stands out way above the rest.
quote:You don't torque the bat handle. the bat head torques the hands and wrists.
Quincy, the barrel of the bat doesn't swing itself....Would be nice if it did, but, it doesn't....If it did, Posada would be able to hit!
quote:Example:
Premier summer program head coach who also helps develop hitters has a nice group of players that include one born a natural hitter. They all go through the same drills and methodology. The result.
You have a group of nice hitters, and one who still stands out way above the rest.
I will admit, this is the norm.....You have made an excellent point!!
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:quote:I don't believe that for a minute...unless he is unteachable, like some on this site!
You don't torque the bat handle. the bat head torques the hands and wrists.
You don't seem to be able to grasp what torque actually is.
You can manipulate the bathead by dropping the bat, other than that.....something else has to manipulate direction and speed.
quote:Originally posted by OLDSLUGGER8:
I guess all those top-line Pro's who share the same opinion/conclusion are all wet !!
Example:
Premier summer program head coach who also helps develop hitters has a nice group of players that include one born a natural hitter. They all go through the same drills and methodology. The result.
You have a group of nice hitters, and one who still stands out way above the rest.
It is true that all hitters, even if they are using perfect mechanics, can't hit .350 or better, even .300 or better. It then comes down to natural ability, eye sight, strength, hand/eye coordination, ability to handle stress, pitch selection, and many other factors. But, in your example, if this group of hitters did not have perfect mechanics and were taught them (which means they learned them and could apply them) they WOULD get better. That, my friend, is what an Instructor is SUPPOSED to do.
quote:Great hitters are born.
True, but if they have bad mechanics, they won't make it to the MLB. How many have been lost due to poor instruction or the lack of quality instruction??? That is the big question.
quote:You can manipulate the bathead by dropping the bat, other than that.....something else has to manipulate direction and speed.
Once the method is established all that is left is aim.
This holds true in all things from catapults to bullets to baseball.
Swing method would establish swing speed and direction of swing to where you are aiming.
If you are born a great hitter you just need to refine what you do---
I'm still looking for the Yogi Berra School of hitting.
quote:Great hitters are born with great mechanics
That's just stupid!
Jeff
Yes. I watched Blake Bleaven last year. I was recording along with an agent. The other scouts were all in the bleachers with thier radar guns...understandably so. (There was one tri-pod behind the plate recording that may have been a scouts). Scouts should/could use video more. It makes to much sense not to.
Im sure they appreciate your vote of confidence. What are you refering to, how to load it up/ or what to look for?
Not every team does this. Maybe yours does (good for them if they do), but I know for a fact its not all teams.
OK, but the JUCO season started yesterday. Maybe your a pro coverage guy, I dont know. Even when the season get further along you will have time to post. It takes less time than reading the paper.
Your right, I do know this....but, he still used video. He trusted video, and didnt want to make an unessessary mistake.
I went on many scouting trips with my father. Some as a boy, and some as a man. I learned a ton from him, and with any luck I will be able to pass some of that onto my boy.
I forgive your cold remarks you made last month, and hope you continue to post in this forum....It could use more professional opinions.
-Dale
quote:1st of all...Have you been to a high profile amatuer players game?
2nd 15 of 20 scouts will have a video camera.
Yes. I watched Blake Bleaven last year. I was recording along with an agent. The other scouts were all in the bleachers with thier radar guns...understandably so. (There was one tri-pod behind the plate recording that may have been a scouts). Scouts should/could use video more. It makes to much sense not to.
quote:3rd Do they know what to do with what they videoed?
NO
Im sure they appreciate your vote of confidence. What are you refering to, how to load it up/ or what to look for?
quote:4th They video and then send the tape in to the office every two weeks and then start a new tape.
Not every team does this. Maybe yours does (good for them if they do), but I know for a fact its not all teams.
quote:5th The season hasn't started so I can sit a type about whatever I choose to.
OK, but the JUCO season started yesterday. Maybe your a pro coverage guy, I dont know. Even when the season get further along you will have time to post. It takes less time than reading the paper.
quote:DOUG DIDN"T HAVE TO USE IT. HE KNEW A SWING AND HITTER WHEN HE SAW IT....AND YOU, being his son, KNOW THIS!
Your right, I do know this....but, he still used video. He trusted video, and didnt want to make an unessessary mistake.
I went on many scouting trips with my father. Some as a boy, and some as a man. I learned a ton from him, and with any luck I will be able to pass some of that onto my boy.
I forgive your cold remarks you made last month, and hope you continue to post in this forum....It could use more professional opinions.
-Dale
Trying to read through this thread.
I wanted to read it to see if Tom could finally explain the ML pattern. Usually it involves absolutly nothing to do with with a ML swing. I wanted to see if anything has changed.
But, getting through the first pages I came across somone advocating door knocking knuclkes, palms forward and back, and tricep extension. I didn't know dinosars existed anymore. Just goes to show all things will become anew no matter how bad it was the first time around.
To each their own, I will not agrue over useless information, what you believe is what you believe and you can only teach what you can understand. Everyone has to believe in something, how else could you teach anything. That goes for Tom to, whatever makes up the ML pattern this month. I need to read on to find out.
I wanted to read it to see if Tom could finally explain the ML pattern. Usually it involves absolutly nothing to do with with a ML swing. I wanted to see if anything has changed.
But, getting through the first pages I came across somone advocating door knocking knuclkes, palms forward and back, and tricep extension. I didn't know dinosars existed anymore. Just goes to show all things will become anew no matter how bad it was the first time around.
To each their own, I will not agrue over useless information, what you believe is what you believe and you can only teach what you can understand. Everyone has to believe in something, how else could you teach anything. That goes for Tom to, whatever makes up the ML pattern this month. I need to read on to find out.
I'm glad that you appreciate a swing that could allow a 5'8" catcher to hit 358 homers lifetime to go along with his three AL MVP's and World Series rings for every finger. (That's both hands.)
Must be something about that swing.
Must be something about that swing.
quote: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.
I lost my post Tom, anyways, I had to read this twice because he might have finally seen the light. Let's see who explained this to him many years ago?
The rest of it is just dogma. That I don't feel like going back over at this time(I hate it when posts get messed up)
Oldslugger,
I think your right, ultimately it's a gift from God.
However I have heard many great hitters say they worked very hard, Hank Aaron being one of them. He just had more to work with then most.
Giambi reminds of someone, Tino Martinez. Tino played for us first before he left to replace Don Mattingly. I did at one time have a swing when he was a Mariner and I compared to when he was a Yankee when his hitting started to go south. He had many good years with the Yankees. His swing was much more fluid when he was a Mariner. When he started to go south, it looked like he was very tight. Like he tried to force/muscle the swing.
That's the thing about a swing, you could be great one year and not the next. You never know when it will disappear, you might have it 5, 10, 15, 20, years. You just never know. There might be thousands or even millions that experienced it over a year or two and lost it. At all levels of play.
Many people experience it, few have it as long as the great hitters.
I think your right, ultimately it's a gift from God.
However I have heard many great hitters say they worked very hard, Hank Aaron being one of them. He just had more to work with then most.
Giambi reminds of someone, Tino Martinez. Tino played for us first before he left to replace Don Mattingly. I did at one time have a swing when he was a Mariner and I compared to when he was a Yankee when his hitting started to go south. He had many good years with the Yankees. His swing was much more fluid when he was a Mariner. When he started to go south, it looked like he was very tight. Like he tried to force/muscle the swing.
That's the thing about a swing, you could be great one year and not the next. You never know when it will disappear, you might have it 5, 10, 15, 20, years. You just never know. There might be thousands or even millions that experienced it over a year or two and lost it. At all levels of play.
Many people experience it, few have it as long as the great hitters.
powertoallfields,
Quincy does not know what he's talking about nor does he know how the human body works. That is why you have to keep asking him questions. His answers will not be clear enough for you because he cannot explain what high level hitters do. He does not understand supination and pronation of the forearms. All he sees is triceps and biceps.
Quincy,
So first I need to accelerate the bat and THEN aim?
And how does the bat torque the hands if it is the hands that get the bat to the ball? Are you saying the bat gets the hands to the ball? What force that does the bat produce that "torques" the hands?
bbdoug,
How can you put Mankin in the same sentence as PCR? Makin is far from PCR. Mankin is a separation and handle torque guy. PCR is rotate your shoulders and hips at the same time and hold on to the bat. PCR does not believe in separation. High level MLB hitters exhibit separation and use their hands to get the bat to the ball.
Quincy does not know what he's talking about nor does he know how the human body works. That is why you have to keep asking him questions. His answers will not be clear enough for you because he cannot explain what high level hitters do. He does not understand supination and pronation of the forearms. All he sees is triceps and biceps.
Quincy,
So first I need to accelerate the bat and THEN aim?
And how does the bat torque the hands if it is the hands that get the bat to the ball? Are you saying the bat gets the hands to the ball? What force that does the bat produce that "torques" the hands?
bbdoug,
How can you put Mankin in the same sentence as PCR? Makin is far from PCR. Mankin is a separation and handle torque guy. PCR is rotate your shoulders and hips at the same time and hold on to the bat. PCR does not believe in separation. High level MLB hitters exhibit separation and use their hands to get the bat to the ball.
Dale
I never made a cold remark, especially about Doug. I thought alot of your father and like any two scouts or two coaches or two baseball minds, we didn't always agree. I don't find it disrespectful to disagree over a game. I always did and will respect his experience and valuable points of view. I know it was a devastating loss to you and Brett and the family. Let me add, I was at the SEC baseball tournament in Alabama when I got the news. I sat right there in the stands and cried and I had never met your Dad except through these hitting forums. I was shocked.
As for scouting, I do mostly amatuer, like your Dad did. And do the typical pro stuff in the summer around some college summer league assignments with big league stuff in September along with advance work if we happen to be contending for the playoff's.
As for other scouts. Most video, only a few do not. Does the area scout spend the time to break it down? Maybe some do, still doesn't mean they break it down correctly or even do break it down. They just may watch it in slow motion. I'd say that the frame counting in pro baseball is infant at best.
And the season starting thingy. You watch any Juco baseball lately? especially in Tx.? Good scouts have a pulse on the talent and where to be. They spend the fall doing that. I have been at a game everyday since Jan. 25th. And the newspaper thingy. Dale, not many guys in the game spend as much time on the internet doing baseball stuff like your Dad or you or I do. They are doing other things.
And a last note, Good scouts do video. They just don't want all the other scouts seeing them video. It tips the hand. You can not slow motion instincts and game awareness on a video tape.
And as I said in a PM to you. I'm sorry if you felt bad about any comment I made. It was not my intent. SO please accept my public apology now. Thanks, Jeff
I never made a cold remark, especially about Doug. I thought alot of your father and like any two scouts or two coaches or two baseball minds, we didn't always agree. I don't find it disrespectful to disagree over a game. I always did and will respect his experience and valuable points of view. I know it was a devastating loss to you and Brett and the family. Let me add, I was at the SEC baseball tournament in Alabama when I got the news. I sat right there in the stands and cried and I had never met your Dad except through these hitting forums. I was shocked.
As for scouting, I do mostly amatuer, like your Dad did. And do the typical pro stuff in the summer around some college summer league assignments with big league stuff in September along with advance work if we happen to be contending for the playoff's.
As for other scouts. Most video, only a few do not. Does the area scout spend the time to break it down? Maybe some do, still doesn't mean they break it down correctly or even do break it down. They just may watch it in slow motion. I'd say that the frame counting in pro baseball is infant at best.
And the season starting thingy. You watch any Juco baseball lately? especially in Tx.? Good scouts have a pulse on the talent and where to be. They spend the fall doing that. I have been at a game everyday since Jan. 25th. And the newspaper thingy. Dale, not many guys in the game spend as much time on the internet doing baseball stuff like your Dad or you or I do. They are doing other things.
And a last note, Good scouts do video. They just don't want all the other scouts seeing them video. It tips the hand. You can not slow motion instincts and game awareness on a video tape.
And as I said in a PM to you. I'm sorry if you felt bad about any comment I made. It was not my intent. SO please accept my public apology now. Thanks, Jeff
XV
I went back and reread my post. I see how you got your impression. My intention was to contrast mankin and pcr. I just did it badly.
I went back and reread my post. I see how you got your impression. My intention was to contrast mankin and pcr. I just did it badly.
quote:Originally posted by XV:
powertoallfields,
Quincy does not know what he's talking about nor does he know how the human body works. That is why you have to keep asking him questions. His answers will not be clear enough for you because he cannot explain what high level hitters do. He does not understand supination and pronation of the forearms. All he sees is triceps and biceps.
Quincy,
So first I need to accelerate the bat and THEN aim?
And how does the bat torque the hands if it is the hands that get the bat to the ball? Are you saying the bat gets the hands to the ball? What force that does the bat produce that "torques" the hands?
Your Socratic method will only expose your attempts to baffle with bull shoes rather than dazzle with brilliance.
So first I need to accelerate the bat and THEN aim?
This a mere attempt at distortion. Once the swing style is established, the method, all that is left is to aim.
And how does the bat torque the hands if it is the hands that get the bat to the ball?
Once the arms fire the bat to the point aimed at, the bat is a projectile. The weight of the bat head causes torque (external force causing the center to rotate) on the hands and wrists. I'm sure you have heard the term 'wrists uncocking'.
Are you saying the bat gets the hands to the ball?
By causing the wrists to uncock, yes.
What force that does the bat produce that "torques" the hands?
The weight of the bat head in motion produces an external force on the hands and wrists. That force is called torque.
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
Once the arms fire the bat to the point aimed at, the bat is a projectile. The weight of the bat head causes torque (external force causing the center to rotate) on the hands and wrists. I'm sure you have heard the term 'wrists uncocking'.
Are you saying the bat gets the hands to the ball?
By causing the wrists to uncock, yes.
What force that does the bat produce that "torques" the hands?
The weight of the bat head in motion produces an external force on the hands and wrists. That force is called torque.
So...the arms fire the bat??? Not the hips and hands? Then, the weight of the bathead uncocks the wrists? So...the hands must kind of hold onto the bat lightly, huh? How fast do the arms have to get the bat moving and how heavy does the bat have to be in order to hit a 98mph fastball out of the infield with light grip pressure? Just give me the math part, since you must be a Physics Professor.
This article answers the question and gives you the math.
http://webusers.npl.uiuc.edu/~a-nathan/pob/AJP-Nov03.pdf
http://webusers.npl.uiuc.edu/~a-nathan/pob/AJP-Nov03.pdf
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
This article answers the question and gives you the math.
http://webusers.npl.uiuc.edu/~a-nathan/pob/AJP-Nov03.pdf
There is nothing in this paper about grip pressure or weight and length of the bat. It does take batspeed into account, but not different weights at the same batspeeds.
Those are non-issues because they all vary based on the size, weight and strength of the batter.
Establishing the proper grip pressure is established through trial and error or practice.
Determining the proper bat to produce the most effective bat speed also is a trial and error process. Today there are sports labs where bat speed can be measured as well as force produced at contact.
The bat that produces the greatest bat speed with the greatest corresponding force at contact is the proper bat.
Establishing the proper grip pressure is established through trial and error or practice.
Determining the proper bat to produce the most effective bat speed also is a trial and error process. Today there are sports labs where bat speed can be measured as well as force produced at contact.
The bat that produces the greatest bat speed with the greatest corresponding force at contact is the proper bat.
quote: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).
JJA.
I have been giving this quote some thought along with the video supplied by Quincy. What I figured out through trial and error by swinging the bat, was that it is possible to torque the handle with one hand. The point being torqued is in the center of the hand holding the bat. The only way to do this though, is to **** the bathead forward first and rotate the forearm (which is the action I have been trying to explain as handle torque) pronation of one and supination of the other. There won't be as much torque applied obviously, but there is torque applied.
This is my arguement for bat tipping in the first place. If you teach bat tipping, it is my opinion that the hitter will naturally torque the handle to get back to contact position in time (if the tipping is done in front of the head as opposed to behind the head).
pta,
you would do better to use a different term rather than 'torque'.
I'm sure there is something that you are feeling, but 'torque' is not serving your purpose in clarifying the point that you are trying to convey.
you would do better to use a different term rather than 'torque'.
I'm sure there is something that you are feeling, but 'torque' is not serving your purpose in clarifying the point that you are trying to convey.
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
pta,
you would do better to use a different term rather than 'torque'.
I'm sure there is something that you are feeling, but 'torque' is not serving your purpose in clarifying the point that you are trying to convey.
As I've said before, I'm an open minded person. What would you call the force being applied to the point between the hands by them moving in opposite directions? The knob is going one way and the head is going the other, but it isn't happening on it's own. It is being manipulated by the hands to initiate this action.
That is propelling the bat head.
Ideally, the knob would move as little as possible in relation to the bat head. This would be the lever action sought.
The same principle applies when using a hammer.
Ideally, the knob would move as little as possible in relation to the bat head. This would be the lever action sought.
The same principle applies when using a hammer.
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
That is propelling the bat head.
Ideally, the knob would move as little as possible in relation to the bat head. This would be the lever action sought.
The same principle applies when using a hammer.
But, the bathead can be propelled in numerous ways. How do you specify that to get a running start, you have to manipulate the bat by using your hands? I agree that just before contact you would want the knob to have very little if any movement. Yes, it is like using a hammer. To effectively use a hammer, you need to manipulate the handle with your hand and forearm to help propel the head.
The running start has to do with the combination of hip turn, stride and weight shift to gain propulsion. The more weight pulling down on the bat head, the greater the speed.
Consider now the relaxed wrists. In pulling down the bat, the bat head would travel in an arc chasing the handle. This would be the rearward movement or first blur.
In the arm extension, we allow the greatest speed to be gotten on the downward travel of the hands. Note not forward travel of the hands as many people recommend, but the full extension should take place just before the bat and hands are directly in front of the hitter.
When the hands are directly in front of the hitter, the increase in angular accelleration and centripetal force on the bat head will cause the wrists to uncock. (second blur)
Ideal contact would be right after wrist uncock, just in front of the plate.
Then allow the follow through.
Full extension is not fully straightening the arms, but extending them as much as possible while still maintaining control of the handle.
Consider now the relaxed wrists. In pulling down the bat, the bat head would travel in an arc chasing the handle. This would be the rearward movement or first blur.
In the arm extension, we allow the greatest speed to be gotten on the downward travel of the hands. Note not forward travel of the hands as many people recommend, but the full extension should take place just before the bat and hands are directly in front of the hitter.
When the hands are directly in front of the hitter, the increase in angular accelleration and centripetal force on the bat head will cause the wrists to uncock. (second blur)
Ideal contact would be right after wrist uncock, just in front of the plate.
Then allow the follow through.
Full extension is not fully straightening the arms, but extending them as much as possible while still maintaining control of the handle.
http://chrisoleary.com/projects/Baseball/Hitting/Profes...lysis_DavidOrtiz.pdf
Please observe this frame by frame. His left arm is bent in a 45 degree angle at contact, which is the optimum position. His wrists are nowhere near uncocked. I admit that this ball may have ran in on him, but he still hit the ball out of the park. He used his hands and hips to create batspeed and because he torqued the handle at go he was still able to adjust to this pitch. This would have been a wiff if he had not used his hands and forearms to adjust to this pitch.
Please observe this frame by frame. His left arm is bent in a 45 degree angle at contact, which is the optimum position. His wrists are nowhere near uncocked. I admit that this ball may have ran in on him, but he still hit the ball out of the park. He used his hands and hips to create batspeed and because he torqued the handle at go he was still able to adjust to this pitch. This would have been a wiff if he had not used his hands and forearms to adjust to this pitch.
You are mistaken.
In frame 35, when he starts his arms down to the ball the handle follows causing the bathead to arc backwards (first blur). Notice his hands continue to contact.
On the inside pitch, the forearms would keep the bat inside. I have said this. This is the need for strong forearms and hands.
The wrists uncock in frame 42. Notice the second blur or the appearance of the bat disappearing in frame 44.
This is not torque. It is leverage.
In frame 35, when he starts his arms down to the ball the handle follows causing the bathead to arc backwards (first blur). Notice his hands continue to contact.
On the inside pitch, the forearms would keep the bat inside. I have said this. This is the need for strong forearms and hands.
The wrists uncock in frame 42. Notice the second blur or the appearance of the bat disappearing in frame 44.
This is not torque. It is leverage.
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
You are mistaken.
In frame 35, when he starts his arms down to the ball the handle follows causing the bathead to arc backwards (first blur). Notice his hands continue to contact.
On the inside pitch, the forearms would keep the bat inside. I have said this. This is the need for strong forearms and hands.
The wrists uncock in frame 42. Notice the second blur or the appearance of the bat disappearing in frame 44.
This is not torque. It is leverage.
What are you talking about??? His front arm never moves! His back elbow is starting to tuck as he starts to torque the handle. The wrists are not uncocked until the top hand passes the bottom hand. They are maintaining the angle!
Powertoallfields,
With one hand, you can't have torque caused by the hands. As described by Mankin, this so-called handle torque is caused by one hand pushing in a direction perpindicular by the bat, the other hand pulling in a direction opposite to what the other hand is doing. That's handle torque as defined by Mankin and thus isn't torque without two hands on the bat.
The reason the bat head moves one direction while the handle the other is due to rotation of the torso. As the body rotates, the figure skater tends to do exactly what you described, the bat head flies out while the handle goes the other direction. This isn't due to the hands manipulating the bat. You can't have this effect without rotation of some kind. But you could, for example, just rotate your arm to whip the bat much like when trying to crack a towel or a whip and the bat head would also try to fly out. But that effect is absolutely, 100% not caused by active manipulation by the hands. That's why one hand can cause this effect despite the fact there isn't active torque acting on the bat by the hands.
Hope this helps. This is tricky stuff, which is why most people don't get the details right.
-JJA
With one hand, you can't have torque caused by the hands. As described by Mankin, this so-called handle torque is caused by one hand pushing in a direction perpindicular by the bat, the other hand pulling in a direction opposite to what the other hand is doing. That's handle torque as defined by Mankin and thus isn't torque without two hands on the bat.
The reason the bat head moves one direction while the handle the other is due to rotation of the torso. As the body rotates, the figure skater tends to do exactly what you described, the bat head flies out while the handle goes the other direction. This isn't due to the hands manipulating the bat. You can't have this effect without rotation of some kind. But you could, for example, just rotate your arm to whip the bat much like when trying to crack a towel or a whip and the bat head would also try to fly out. But that effect is absolutely, 100% not caused by active manipulation by the hands. That's why one hand can cause this effect despite the fact there isn't active torque acting on the bat by the hands.
Hope this helps. This is tricky stuff, which is why most people don't get the details right.
-JJA
If what you claim is true, then why is his first move with his arms moving downward instead of the 'hand torque' that you believe exists?
From frame 33 both arms are in motion.
If you think that wrists uncock when the top hand passes the bottom hand, you are in need of some very basic lessons in leverage.
In plain english, you just don't get it.
You have some preconcieved notion that you are trying to give credence to, but are failing miserably.
From frame 33 both arms are in motion.
If you think that wrists uncock when the top hand passes the bottom hand, you are in need of some very basic lessons in leverage.
In plain english, you just don't get it.
You have some preconcieved notion that you are trying to give credence to, but are failing miserably.
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
You are mistaken.
In frame 35, when he starts his arms down to the ball the handle follows causing the bathead to arc backwards (first blur). Notice his hands continue to contact.
On the inside pitch, the forearms would keep the bat inside. I have said this. This is the need for strong forearms and hands.
The wrists uncock in frame 42. Notice the second blur or the appearance of the bat disappearing in frame 44.
This is not torque. It is leverage.
Leverage and torque are the same thing. Here is the definition of lever:
quote:
1. Mechanics. a rigid bar that pivots about one point and that is used to move an object at a second point by a force applied at a third.
The Rigid bar is the handle, not the whole bat.
The pivot point can be either hand, depending on pitch location, or between the hands on a "perfect swing".
The object at a second point would be the bat head. The bat head is what we are trying to move.
The force applied at a third [point] would be either hand, depending on pitch location. In the case of a "perfect swing" on a fastball in the middle of the plate, both hands would be doing equal work pivoting the bat handle between the hands.
As I said different pitch locations will move the pivot point. On an outside pitch, the pivot point would move closer to the bottom hand with the top hand doing more work (applying force). On an inside pitch, the pivot point would move closer to the top hand because the bottom hand must be pull in towards your body. You are not pulling "on the knob". Pulling on the knob is accomplished with the triceps. Pulling in toward the body is accomplished by the biceps and forearm pronation.
I don't know who taught you English, but this is "torque" to me.
Here is the definition of torque.
quote:
1. Mechanics. something that produces or tends to produce torsion or rotation; the moment of a force or system of forces tending to cause rotation.
quote:Originally posted by jja:
Powertoallfields,
With one hand, you can't have torque caused by the hands. As described by Mankin, this so-called handle torque is caused by one hand pushing in a direction perpindicular by the bat, the other hand pulling in a direction opposite to what the other hand is doing. That's handle torque as defined by Mankin and thus isn't torque without two hands on the bat.
The reason the bat head moves one direction while the handle the other is due to rotation of the torso. As the body rotates, the figure skater tends to do exactly what you described, the bat head flies out while the handle goes the other direction. This isn't due to the hands manipulating the bat. You can't have this effect without rotation of some kind. But you could, for example, just rotate your arm to whip the bat much like when trying to crack a towel or a whip and the bat head would also try to fly out. But that effect is absolutely, 100% not caused by active manipulation by the hands. That's why one hand can cause this effect despite the fact there isn't active torque acting on the bat by the hands.
Hope this helps. This is tricky stuff, which is why most people don't get the details right.
-JJA
I can torque/turn/twist, whatever word you want to use, the bat with my top hand. It's called supination. I can torque the bat with my bottom hand. It's called pronation. It's what that guy is doing in the one-handed drills video. But those balls are going nowhere, because he's not using BOTH hands to work in OPPOSITE directions.
make a good lumberjack I suppose
somebody make a graph
somebody make a graph
Thank you for proving that torque and leverage are not one and the same.
Tension is not torque.
You spend too much time doing things one handed it seems.
You should learn what terms mean before using them.
Tension is not torque.
You spend too much time doing things one handed it seems.
You should learn what terms mean before using them.
quote:Originally posted by XV:quote:Originally posted by jja:
Powertoallfields,
With one hand, you can't have torque caused by the hands. As described by Mankin, this so-called handle torque is caused by one hand pushing in a direction perpindicular by the bat, the other hand pulling in a direction opposite to what the other hand is doing. That's handle torque as defined by Mankin and thus isn't torque without two hands on the bat.
The reason the bat head moves one direction while the handle the other is due to rotation of the torso. As the body rotates, the figure skater tends to do exactly what you described, the bat head flies out while the handle goes the other direction. This isn't due to the hands manipulating the bat. You can't have this effect without rotation of some kind. But you could, for example, just rotate your arm to whip the bat much like when trying to crack a towel or a whip and the bat head would also try to fly out. But that effect is absolutely, 100% not caused by active manipulation by the hands. That's why one hand can cause this effect despite the fact there isn't active torque acting on the bat by the hands.
Hope this helps. This is tricky stuff, which is why most people don't get the details right.
-JJA
I can torque/turn/twist, whatever word you want to use, the bat with my top hand. It's called supination. I can torque the bat with my bottom hand. It's called pronation. It's what that guy is doing in the one-handed drills video. But those balls are going nowhere, because he's not using BOTH hands to work in OPPOSITE directions.
Thank you for clarifying my position. I was going to reply, but I'm pretty sure you covered it all, lol.
Quincy, you lack reading comprehension if you think leverage and torque are different. I don't THINK they are the same. I KNOW they are the same. The definitions I quoted says they are the same. You think they are different because you refuse to be wrong. Your ego is too big. It does not allow you to say "oh you're right, I take that back".
You need to spend more time reading a dictionary it seems.
You need to spend more time reading a dictionary it seems.
quote:The reason the bat head moves one direction while the handle the other is due to rotation of the torso.
Okay, I lied. I am going to respond to this one. If the torso is causing this blur, can you then lay the bat backwards toward the Catcher in these two drills and cause this same blur?
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
If what you claim is true, then why is his first move with his arms moving downward instead of the 'hand torque' that you believe exists?
From frame 33 both arms are in motion.
If you think that wrists uncock when the top hand passes the bottom hand, you are in need of some very basic lessons in leverage.
In plain english, you just don't get it.
You have some preconcieved notion that you are trying to give credence to, but are failing miserably.
Quincy,
His right arm stays across his letters throughout the swing. He tucks his elbow and tilts his shoulders to get down to the ball while manipulating the bat with his hands.
Quincy, it's a good thing you don't teach karate. You would have your students breaking their hands left and right, lol!
The more you type, the more you prove that you don't know what you are talking about.
It seems your posts have become keyboard flatulence.
lev·er·age (lvr-j, lvr-)
n.
1.
a. The action of a lever.
b. The mechanical advantage of a lever
torque 1 (tôrk)
n.
1. The moment of a force; the measure of a force's tendency to produce torsion and rotation about an axis, equal to the vector product of the radius vector from the axis of rotation to the point of application of the force and the force vector.
It seems your posts have become keyboard flatulence.
lev·er·age (lvr-j, lvr-)
n.
1.
a. The action of a lever.
b. The mechanical advantage of a lever
torque 1 (tôrk)
n.
1. The moment of a force; the measure of a force's tendency to produce torsion and rotation about an axis, equal to the vector product of the radius vector from the axis of rotation to the point of application of the force and the force vector.
JJA,
One other thing, if the torso is causing this blur (which is the batspeed) why would you need to do one handed drills???
One other thing, if the torso is causing this blur (which is the batspeed) why would you need to do one handed drills???
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
The more you type, the more you prove that you don't know what you are talking about.
It seems your posts have become keyboard flatulence.
lev·er·age (lvr-j, lvr-)
n.
1.
a. The action of a lever.
b. The mechanical advantage of a lever
torque 1 (tôrk)
n.
1. The moment of a force; the measure of a force's tendency to produce torsion and rotation about an axis, equal to the vector product of the radius vector from the axis of rotation to the point of application of the force and the force vector.
XV,
Is he for real with this??? Is this not what you just said??? Geez!
quote:If the torso is causing this blur
Your ego is too big
By causing the wrists to uncock, yes
the weight of the bathead uncocks the wrists
torque the handle with one hand
pronation of one and supination of the other
manipulate the handle with your hand and forearm to help propel the head
bat head would travel in an arc chasing the handle
greatest speed to be gotten on the downward travel of the hands. Note not forward travel of the hands as many people recommend....
increase in angular accelleration and centripetal force
In frame 35,
*******************************************************************
I hope you guys work for Myth Busters and don't teach hitting......right click to MSWORD, and read this in 10 years.............you'll get the same chuckle
You really don't get it.
I'm shocked at the lack of understanding of the simplest terms. If you think that leverage and torque are the same thing after looking at the definitions, then you are blinded by your false belief.
I sincerely hope that no one is paying you for this pseudo-science that you preach.
I'm shocked at the lack of understanding of the simplest terms. If you think that leverage and torque are the same thing after looking at the definitions, then you are blinded by your false belief.
I sincerely hope that no one is paying you for this pseudo-science that you preach.
That wasn't meant for you. That was for the 'Leverage and Torque are the same thing' crew.
Archimedes would be laughing hysterically.
Archimedes would be laughing hysterically.
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
You really don't get it.
I'm shocked at the lack of understanding of the simplest terms. If you think that leverage and torque are the same thing after looking at the definitions, then you are blinded by your false belief.
I sincerely hope that no one is paying you for this pseudo-science that you preach.
You refuse to use your brain to "see" what we are talking about. You're only using your eyes.
Torque = Lever arm x force
Is that in plain enough english for you? Or maybe you don't understand math/physics either?
Read these:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/torq.html#torq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque
I will have to assume you are blind if you still think they are different. I guess the Wiki is wrong again, huh? You have better not use leverage anymore then, because the word leverage connotes torque and vice versa.
You don't know what torque is and what a lever is. When you understand them both, you can "put them together" to get the bigger picture. You cannot have one without the other.
Either you know that powertoallfields and I know what we are talking about and you refuse to see it, or you just really don't understand. If it is the latter, just say "I don't understand, please explain more." No, you're stuck in the mode of "who are these guys, I know what I'm talking about, screw them, let me find stuff that says they are wrong even though I don't know what the heck I'm posting."
You're less inteligent than I had imagined.
Lever + force exerting rotational pressure on an axis.
I'll break it down to its simplest form.
If leverage and torque are the same, where is the torque in a simple lever?
Lever + force exerting rotational pressure on an axis.
I'll break it down to its simplest form.
If leverage and torque are the same, where is the torque in a simple lever?
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
You're less inteligent than I had imagined.
Lever + force exerting rotational pressure on an axis.
I'll break it down to its simplest form.
If leverage and torque are the same, where is the torque in a simple lever?
The torque is at the pivot point.
You're losing status.
You are going from less inteligent to not inteligent at all.
A simple lever does not create torque.
By your own examples of external force on an axis, you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have no clue.
You are going from less inteligent to not inteligent at all.
A simple lever does not create torque.
By your own examples of external force on an axis, you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have no clue.
I never said a simple lever creates torque. Who would think that? A simple lever by itself is just a lever. DUH!?
quote:The torque is at the pivot point.
Guys,
Although this is physics, it isn't rocket science. In the one handed bat experiment, just hold onto the bat and rotate. Watch the bat head. Then repeat the experiment but rotate twice as fast. What happens to the bat head? The barrel goes forward and the handle goes backward twice as fast as in the first experiment. Since you're not actively torquing the bat, how come the bat head is moving? It's the centifigual force acting on the bat head to drive it forward derived from the rotation of the body, much like the force you feel in a car as you drive around a curve. It isn't active torque on the handle of the bat applied by the hands.
Although this is physics, it isn't rocket science. In the one handed bat experiment, just hold onto the bat and rotate. Watch the bat head. Then repeat the experiment but rotate twice as fast. What happens to the bat head? The barrel goes forward and the handle goes backward twice as fast as in the first experiment. Since you're not actively torquing the bat, how come the bat head is moving? It's the centifigual force acting on the bat head to drive it forward derived from the rotation of the body, much like the force you feel in a car as you drive around a curve. It isn't active torque on the handle of the bat applied by the hands.
quote:Originally posted by OLDSLUGGER8:
I hear there is a great sale on lab coats on ebay.....just make sure you ain't late for science club, and don't get any diamond dust on them.
You guys never played baseball
You should have stayed in school, maybe you could apply what you learned in physics class, eh? Isn't this site HIGH SCHOOL Baseball Web? We don't want our kids to better their minds, huh? That must be it.
I hear the short yellow school bus stopping outside your house.
Make that centripetal force since you are maintaining string tension.
I've played a bit. Had the money been better, I may have even had a baseball card.
I've played a bit. Had the money been better, I may have even had a baseball card.
JJA and Quincy,
As least one of those buffoons is Richard, probably both. You know there's no point in arguing with stupid people. They just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. That's how Richard always seems to think he's winning the argument. He's not smart enough to tell the difference.
As least one of those buffoons is Richard, probably both. You know there's no point in arguing with stupid people. They just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. That's how Richard always seems to think he's winning the argument. He's not smart enough to tell the difference.
Thanks Shawn for the advice. Sure, I've tangled with Richard for a while now, and it definitely gets old. Still, I periodically drop in so that some people unfamiliar with these arguments can see the other side of the coin. In reality most of these arguments are actually quite easy to refute as hopefully some have noticed.
That's why Mark H's recent advice is good. Boards like this are a good place to learn where to find good information, but not necessarily where to actually do the learning.
That's why Mark H's recent advice is good. Boards like this are a good place to learn where to find good information, but not necessarily where to actually do the learning.
quote:Originally posted by ShawnLee:
JJA and Quincy,
As least one of those buffoons is Richard, probably both. You know there's no point in arguing with stupid people. They just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. That's how Richard always seems to think he's winning the argument. He's not smart enough to tell the difference.
I think I hear the short yellow school bus outside your house too. Have you even bothered to read Quincy's posts? This guy doesn't even know that torque and lever arm go hand in hand. Do you even know yourself? This guy doesn't even know you're suppose to use your quads in the eccentric phase of a squat. Go tell a strength coach that! He will laugh in your face.
Why would you defend someone that you didn't even know posts things he does not even understand?
