Posted by: O'Really () on Sun Feb 16 05:36:42 2003

For those who have little or no “stomach” for the science. Or now have science “jitters” and uncertainty due to either my or Zig’s posts, the importance of this study is (to me) in these statements:

“The results of this investigation suggest while performance of stabilization tasks on either firm or multiaxial surfaces is related, they are unrelated to postural control performance during voluntary reaching and hopping movements. Inherently important is the lack of any significant relationships between any of the tasks with the functional performance task (SLHST). Clinically these results support the utilization of a battery of tasks to determine overall postural control performance. Future research should be directed towards identifying which aspect of the postural control system each tasks optimally targets. S-77 Journal of Athletic Training”


Which says (based on this and other research studies) that posture/stability training AND measurement are specific to the task at hand. In other words training to improve you balance on an unstable surface (all balance training that is not task specific?) most likely will not improve your ability to swing a baseball bat on a stable surface. And it is highly questionable that it would help swinging a bat on an unstable surface.

And as important that attempts to “quantify” whether a person exhibits good balance or attempts to “measure” balance improvement is also task specific. In other words putting too much emphasis on specific measurements (reductionism) without regard for understanding the entire process (biomechanical, physiological, neural, etc) may have little or no meaning.

Resulting in at best unproductive activity.

And at worst never allowing the player to find what works best for him/her.

For most (including the "experts"), attempts to “quantify” a good vs. bad swing starts to break down once the swing moves from beginner to intermediate in terms of proficiency. It’s “relatively” easy to see less than proficient (unproductive movements) swings in young players. Progressing (attempting the quantification of what is and what is not a good swing) to becoming virtually impossible to quantify what is an “optimum” swing at the Major League level.

Most of the swing commentary (analysis?) as to what constitutes a good vs. not so good swing that I see on web sites, books, video’s is geared for the 0-12 year old market place. And has questionable relevance to what Division 1, ML players do. Or should I say "need to do" to survive at that level. And then to try to figure out what the really good players are doing at this level, well that's a whole 'nother story (to me anyways).

And while the analytical is questionable, the instructional (the how to do it part) is far worse. Which lends support to those who view much of what is posted here and other places as hitting paralysis by analysis. Their belief being that hitting (the swing process) is really nothing more than see the ball, hit the ball. Or as Nike says “just do it”. Which at the highest levels of hitting may be true when comparing results obtained vs. instructional methods.

With respect to McGuire, just his physical size as compared to the “standard” player should raise a the question/issue in everyone’s mind that what is best for McGuire may not be best for the majority of other players.

And while Zig's doing his one camera, two dimensional analysis on a 180 x 120 resolution gif clip of McGuire shouldn’t he factor in McGuire’s bone mass to muscle mass ratio, moment of inertia ratio of thorax to thighs, shoe size vs. height (as in base of support for the center of gravity which is a function of the thorax to thigh ration of inertia’s), etc. (yes I am kidding…sort of).

This is not to say that there are certain swing “principles” that McGuire and most (all?) ML players exhibit. But “principles” are quite far removed from absolutes such as “the best” or the “optimum” swing based on attempts to quantify torque angles, hip to shoulder displacement times, etc. and then attempting to apply them "across the board”.

This is some of what skills vs. abilities are about. That skill is built from abilities. Much of ability being God given (genetics) such as body type (endomorph, ectomorph, mesomorph), tendon-bone attachment point locations (a fraction of an inch means significant increase in joint leverage), reaction time, etc. But certain abilities can be improved (response time can be improved but reaction time cannot). Which then changes the skill “picture”.

Some baseball professionals (as in those who are paid because of their “perceived” hitting knowledge) say that Ichiro has at least 5 different swings that he uses depending on what the task at hand is. Which again “begs” the question of what is and “optimum” swing???

All of which is may help explain why there are so many “experts”.

And is also the beauty (as in eye of the beholder) of what makes baseball, “baseball”.

"Kiitos, näkemiin ja onnea"