Posted by: georger () on Mon Mar 3 10:32:20 2003

>>> I have been looking at my hitters in slo mo and find that often on balls middle out that they drop their back shoulder in a waythat keeps it facing the plate longer and subsequently makes their arms appear to go forward toward the ballbut it also seems to get them under the ball more,fouling it back or popping it up.However on quality swings at this pitch it appears that the front[anterior] of the rear shoulder begins driving and turning faster toward the pitcher which allows the top hand to drive the barrel toward the ball better and more perpendicular to the ball,as well as keeps them on plane with the ball better.Has anyone noticed this in swings with hitters,it seems to me the back side is more important on the o.s. pitch and this is a flaw that is common on this pitch.
> >
> > rql-
> >
> > I have been fooling around with this since you mentioned the "loading back more" description and elbow in slot further away from body for outside. I think keeping good rotational mechanics for the outside location is a challenge. Overall you get more separated/stretched/loaded. You have to execute with more "THT" and less torso turn. The "good" feel is more hitting with the back shoulder (Nyman likes this cue)than pulling with the bottom hand(which I like for inside stuff).I think the key is how the handpath/launch gets started with the longer swing radius/loaded back further. If I think of this as the whole body being more stretched/bigger with elbow wider in slot, then more hitting with back shoulder, this feels better/more solid/less likely to get under ball(?late vs dropping bathead past power plane).See if any of that feels right to you.
>
> RQL...My son drops his shoulder a bit more on an outside pitch. The reason he does this is that it somehow makes it easier for him to hit the "inside" part of the ball on an outside pitch. I can't explain the details of the why/how, and I know this conflicts with batspeed's theory of how to hit an outside pitch. Nevertheless, all I can say is that this approach of dropping back shoulder/hitting the inside part of the ball (os pitch) helps him get more power and elevation.
>
> Of course, he is a right-hander who bats left. Since his top hand is the weaker hand, I think this may explain why Batspeed's theory won't work with him.
>
> Hi Gentlemen
>
> Below is one of my post from the archives that I think fits in with your discussion.
>
> > I think one of the main reasons rotational hitters (chp & torque)are leading the performance stats is because there is less need for the batter to change his swing mechanics or timing due to pitch placement. He is able to use the same basic rotational mechanics regardless of where the pitcher throws to him - and still hit the ball hard. The adjustment he needs to make is a slight change in how he initiates the swing. Once that change is made - his mechanics for the balance of the swing is on autopilot regardless of where the pitch is.
>
> The change in the batter’s initiation that programs the swing is controlled mainly by the direction of pull of the top hand. In other words, the direction of pull of the top hand at initiation sets up trajectories that control the balance of the swing mechanics.
>
> As an example - say the pitchers mound is at 6 o’clock and the plate is at 12 o’clock. On an inside pitch, the direction of pull of the top hand is in tight, say at 1 o’clock. This causes the back elbow to come almost straight down to the batter’s side. This also keeps the lead arm across the chest and generates a tight hand-path and thus a low-load resistance to shoulder rotation. The back elbow coming more straight down with little body rotation during initiation, means top-hand-torque was applied over a limited amount of time. But with full shoulder rotation (lead shoulder pulling back toward catcher) at contact, the batters finishes the swing with a lot of bottom-hand-torque.
>
> On a pitch more in the middle of the plate, the pull of the top hand is more straight-away or at 12 o’clock. With a more straight-away pull the shoulders rotate a few degrees as the back elbow lowers to the batter’s side allowing a greater amount of time to apply top-hand-torque. This direction of pull also causes the lead arm to cast slightly away from the chest and generates a somewhat wider hand-path. A wider hand-path generates greater bat speed and a higher load resistance to shoulder rotation. Less shoulder rotation means less bottom-hand-torque. So on the pitch in the mid part of the plate, what we wind up with is greater bat speed from a wider hand-path and more balance between bottom and top-hand-torque being applied.
>
> On recognizing an outside pitch, the batters pull of the top hand is more away from center - or at 11 o’clock. This direction of pull causes the back elbow to sweep in a wider path and slows body rotation. This allows top-hand-torque to be applied over a much greater portion of the swing. This direction of pull also causes the lead arm to cast out farther and develops a wide hand-path and thus a heavy resistant load to shoulder rotation. A more limited shoulder rotation equates to little bottom-hand-torque being applied. So, on the outside pitch the swing produces a wider hand-path with a lot of top-hand-torque and little bottom-hand-torque. <
>
> Jack Mankin

-------------
RQL

I think you are exactly right. The cue "DROP & TILT" causes most hitters to do exactly what you described, while the elbow and back shoulder are dropping and tilting the shoulder remains square to the plate and the appearance is that the knob is coming linear before the shoulders rotate causing a lot of pop ups and making it very difficult to hit the UP pitch (riseball in softball).

All that pulling the top hand to different postions on the clock - sounds alot like "throwing your hands at the ball" Jack. I would never tell my hitters to do that - it is inconsistent with everything you advocate. If you tell a hitter about the clock, I guarantee you are asking for trouble. Do you have video or examples of MLB hitters that do what you say, Jack?

I think, try the Bonds approach.
>