Bat Speed -- Baseball Hitting Forum

Posted by: Rick Lingsch (rlingsch@eapps.com) on Sat Feb 15 14:30:04 2003

"This is based on one sample, and is not necessarily optimal. However, it is pretty close."
>
>
> Rick, I commend you on your "intensity" of efforts.
>
> But I don't think there is any way that you can know what is or is not optimal for McGuire. Or any other hitter for that matter. Optimal for what? Hitting a 98 MPH fastball. Or a 68 MPH curveball. Or with a 0-2 count with 2 out in the bottom of the 9th with men on 1 an 3rd, down by 2 runs. And then there's the principle of individual differences.
>
> Which is what is part of what I was attempting to convey in my response to Zig. I was also trying to show why the non science types have very little use for the science types especially when the science types try to brow beat others with their "alleged" brain power (attitude).
>
> And why bad science keeps baseball instruction in the dark ages. By not only providing suspect information but also alienating people in the process.
>
> And usually the science types (could have been accountants & bean counters in a previous life, no offense meant to the accountants and bean counters) attempt to use reductionism, that being if they make enough measurements they will somehow capture the essence of the perfect swing. Even if they could there's still the SMALL issue of "how do you teach it"?
>
> But I'm sure Zig (others) have that all figured out. Or if they don't, they just have to make one or two more measurements.
>
> And above all else these exchanges, while usually short on content, do at times provide entertainment.
>
Agreed - "what to teach" and "how to teach" are the two most important things.

My belief is that if you look closely at the highly effective "non-science" people (instructors and players) you will find that the underlying "science" supports what they are doing. So if you are effective at what you are doing you don't need the science - its already there - and good for you. Some of us just want to be sure, because we hear a lot of "expert" knowledge that doesn't make sense.

Here's to your and my success at teaching hitting!

Followups:

Post a followup:

Name:

E-mail:

Subject:

Text:

> "This is based on one sample, and is not necessarily optimal. However, it is pretty close."
> > 
> > 
> > Rick, I commend you on your "intensity" of efforts.
> > 
> > But I don't think there is any way that you can know what is or is not optimal for McGuire. Or any other hitter for that matter. Optimal for what? Hitting a 98 MPH fastball. Or a 68 MPH curveball. Or with a 0-2 count with 2 out in the bottom of the 9th with men on 1 an 3rd, down by 2 runs. And then there's the principle of individual differences.
> > 
> > Which is what is part of what I was attempting to convey in my response to Zig. I was also trying to show why the non science types have very little use for the science types especially when the science types try to brow beat others with their "alleged" brain power (attitude).
> > 
> > And why bad science keeps baseball instruction in the dark ages. By not only providing suspect information but also alienating people in the process.
> > 
> > And usually the science types (could have been accountants & bean counters in a previous life, no offense meant to the accountants and bean counters) attempt to use reductionism, that being if they make enough measurements they will somehow capture the essence of the perfect swing. Even if they could there's still the SMALL issue of "how do you teach it"?
> > 
> > But I'm sure Zig (others) have that all figured out. Or if they don't, they just have to make one or two more measurements.
> > 
> > And above all else these exchanges, while usually short on content,  do at times provide entertainment.
> > 
> Agreed - "what to teach" and "how to teach" are the two most important things.  
> 
> My belief is that if you look closely at the highly effective "non-science" people (instructors and players) you will find that the underlying "science" supports what they are doing.  So if you are effective at what you are doing you don't need the science - its already there - and good for you.  Some of us just want to be sure, because we hear a lot of "expert" knowledge that doesn't make sense. 
> 
> Here's to your and my success at teaching hitting!

Anti-Spambot Question:

This pitcher had over 5000 strikeouts in his career?
   Nolan Ryan
   Hank Aaron
   Shaquille O'Neal
   Mike Tyson