Wide Stance .vs. Narrow Stance

A wide stance will generally give you a well balanced foundation to swing from. It is more of an "Athletic" position. A narrow stance provides an opportunity to "stride" and end up into the "Athletic" position as well. The bigger the stride the more opportunity for error in my opinion, but it works for some. I am not convinced that a stride generates a lot more power than no stride.

so which one gives more power?

Some will say that a stride will generate more power, I have seen power with no stride as well. I believe that there is not a lot to be gained from a big stride, and much to lose. A small stride, or pick up set down stride seems to work well for my son.

Interesting thread because I instantly think of two Cardinal players with very opposite approaches....

Stan Musial and Albert Pujols. My favorite player as a kid and my current favorite player.

I think it is all based on preference. No matter where you start, all good hitters will end up in an almost identical launch position.

With a shorter stance, there is more room for error because of the further distance that must be traveled. On the topic of more power, Florida seems to be right. I have seen power with both so it is more about the hitter than the actual stance.

I think it's easier to create momentum with a stride. Some need more momentum than others. Not sure Pedroia could create the power he has with a no stride approach.

There is to wide and there is to narrow. All players need to get in a stance so that their stride length will put them in a good athletic base. I do not believe in the no stride and I can not think of a MLB hitter that no strides and yes that also means Puljos. I have seen enought slo mo video on him to know he takes a stride. By no stretch of the means am I a genius and I do no quote physics to much but here goes. A body in motion stays in motion and a body at rest stays at rest. This is why to stide 101.

quote:

A body in motion stays in motion and a body at rest stays at rest. This is why to stide 101.

Yes, and a rhythmic movement of the hands/bat, and picking the foot up and setting it down, are all motion(s) conforming to the laws of motion.

To stride or not .... matters not as they occur or not, before the stride foot hits the ground ..... then the stuff that matters, happens!

This is all comfort. You can get a positive move with both. Evan Longoria comes to mind when thinking narrow. Pujols for wide. Both seem to do alright.

For a high school player, comfort will come with practice. If you don't take enough swings to get comfortable with your swing style, you're probably going to be in trouble regardless of if you are wide or narrow.

A longer stride does provide opprotunities for error, and I see no pint to a longer stride. the whole point of striding is just timing. There isn't really a measurable difference in power between a huge stride and i pick up put down.

It all depends on who is pitching
and the size and weight of your bat and of course your objective. "To survive or to control"

Bob

stride does nothing more than break inertia and re-establish a balance point...

Stride is absolutely vital to the swing...

Stride is only for power... who needs it.

Some say you gotta stride, some say you don't....

Some say the stride gives you momentum, some say it just gives you a new balance point.....

Some say a narrow stance, some say a bit wider.....

quote:

Originally posted by BlueDog:
Some say you gotta stride, some say you don't....

Some say the stride gives you momentum, some say it just gives you a new balance point.....

Some say a narrow stance, some say a bit wider.....

Style has many flavors, but can he hit the ball, and how far does it go, seems to a questions not asked.

If you are working on developing a swing that is repeatable and is effective, in other words, you are not hitting for power and average yet, then it may make more sense to take a wider stance and have little or no stride. This will remove a significant amount of movement, movement that is debatable as to what it brings to the table. With this movement eliminated a hitter is in a better position to focus on the aspects of a effective swing that most everyone ( ) understands. Focus and master these things, then if you are inclined add a stride if you like.

Nobody is even paying any attention....

Stride and stance are merely smokescreens to learning how to swing a bat......

I gotta admit, people do like to talk about smokescreens, though......I will say, it's most people's favorite subject.....

I would say that the majority of the best hitters will be more spread out than narrow. In fact, depending on what one defines as narrow, there are not very many narrow stance, long stride, hitters in the Major Leagues or Pro ball or college ball.

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
there are not very many narrow stance, long stride, hitters in the Major Leagues or Pro ball or college ball.

I'm dead now, but I had a narrow stance.

A narrow stance would make it easier to get away from a bean ball. Wider is a shorter strike zone.... obviously.

Smokescreen, I tell 'ya.......

quote:

Originally posted by BlueDog:
Smokescreen, I tell 'ya.......

I'll agree with BlueDog on this and take it even further. If you stay back and load properly, stance width, toe touch, and even heal plant can (should?) occur independent of the rear hip thrust/drive without losing power or consistency. IMO, this is a comfort and personal style aspect of the swing.

In an instruction environment, you can use a wide or narrow stance to promote a feeling. For example, I worked with a HS player last night who severely bent his lead leg during his swing. It looked like he sank/dropped into his swing. I had him take some swings with his feet together and no stride so he could feel "staying tall."

I originally googled "players with wide stances" and came across this thread. Slightly late but I'd like to add my two cents because I find this interesting enough. From what I know about baseball stance is preference. Every great player finds their "spot" in which their original stance and their stride gel correctly to give them the right balance throughout their swing. However, a wide stance is much more practical in several ways. First, it gives you a much smaller strike zone. It gives you a better ability to take any ball and hit it where you want to. Obviously simple logic is that a larger base is more stable. With a larger base, you will have more control over your body. It may take some time to adjust to, but once you get used to a wider base, you will have all of these advantages. As for the disadvantages of a narrow stance it's pretty simple. A narrow stance means you must get to that wide position when it comes time to start your swing and bring your bat to the ball. This step that gets you to that wide position leaves some room for error. One, you might lower your body when you step, lowering your head, and your eyes, ultimately changing your perception of the baseball. You will miss the ball constantly if you make this mistake. Two, you might begin to step out of the box or towards the pitch. This will reduce your ability to hit the ball, also changing your perception of the ball horizontally, unless you move only your lower half, but this may affect your body swinging towards where you stepped and could also mess you up when you begin to face better competition. One thing I saw mentioned was that a step provides power by allowing your body to get momentum towards the ball. This may be true, but relying on your momentum to come at just the right  moment will cause you to get fooled on many pitches, and unsubstantial contact on most of them. Now I am not talking about a nine inch or so step, I'm comparing a large step with no step at all. A small step is beneficial for weight shift, and you will not get all the disadvantages of a large step, or no weight shift of no forward step at all. A step is needed for contact, it's how long the step is that matters. In conclusion a small step is highly beneficial, and will result in hitting the ball not only for contact, but for some power.