Posted by: J () on Wed Mar 19 06:31:16 2003

I'm wondering what it taks to qualify as an "expert" on hitting? Not trying to bash anyone, but among Epstein, Lau, and Baker, none ever broke the .300 mark, yet they are the premiere experts on hitting instruction. How can that be?
> >
> > Just as Tiger Woods has a golf coach who doesn't play near as good as him, people who don't or haven't led the bigs in hitting can learn the basics of the baseball swing. From the use of video, which is relatively new, the mechanics have been and will be studied. People can learn the mechanics and become "experts" at what causes the swing of mlb hitters to work. But not all can execute the good mechanics efficiently or as quickly as necessary or they don't have the mental discipline that the greats have. The difference is talent.
> >
> > I really don't see it as an issue. The great golfers, tennis players, bowlers, billiard players and more all have coaches who know and see things that the athlete doesn't/can't see. And none of them play as well as their student.
>
> Hello
>
> There is no certification system. Anyone can call himself a hitting expert. It is a case of buyer beware. Some famous players and coaches support downright foolishness and some "laymen" make a lot of sense to many people and appear to speak logic with respect to the demands of the task. The opposite is also true. But it is all anecdotal.
>
> Mechanical, electrical and other old, old forms of engineering, law, medicine and perhaps a couple of other disciplines such as biology and physics are the only ones that can truly say they have an objective, empirical and consistent certification system. That doesn't mean that engineers or physicists make good hitting experts across the board.
>
> Sports have components of science to them because anatomy and physics govern human motion.
>
> Sports also have components of competition to them. That is probably the most important part. At their heart, sports are competitions, not laboratories.
>
> The experts, in my opinion, are the athletes themselves who have the drive, will to succeed and competitive intelligence to figure out the demands of the task and adapt to them. They also have a heavy dose of raw talent - aptitude. All in all, that is a beautiful testament to the wonder of human achievement, the combining of amazing physical gifts and intellectual gifts to achieve a stated task. That is sports.
>
> The "scientists" of the baseball world, who work often work under pretentious, meaningless, hyperbolic titles such as "biomechanical engineer" or "exercise physiologist," have it backwards. They think there is a model for performance that can be quantified and defined and communicated.
>
> It would seem there is a standard that can be defined under very, very, very broad terms. I don't believe it can be universally communicated. Athletes who ever amount to ANYTHING learn with their hands and head and nervous system. They do it the other way - by evaluating the demands of the task in relation to THEIR particular talent and learning method. I guess a very, very skilled coach could learn the broad standard and find a way to instruct each athlete in the way that best appeals to that athlete. But that isn't science, it's art.
>
> In reality, the best coaches and athletes do it the opposite from the "biomechanical engineers," which is a very, very new psuedo-academic discipline held in general contempt by the engineering world as a whole, which considers it a fraud and no more of a science than history or political theory. The best athletes and coaches look at the task and figure out a way to meet it.
>
> They are educated by competition and not collated, charted and dissected data collected by pretenders to the academic throne. In fact, there is anecdotal evidence that the latter approach kills the athletic, competitive instinct.
>
> In other words, Johnny Unitas learned it on rock-strewn semi-pro football sandlots after being cut by two NFL teams.
>
> Todd Marinovich wound up a surfer with drug problems.
>
> Melvin
>
> An expert is one who has substantially more knowledge than most others.Some people who have never played the game have more communicatable knowledge than some who have played the game.However, I think it is a safe assumption that one would initially have more confidence in the one who played the game than in someone who didn't play the game. The one who didn't play the game has a greater burden to prove his credentials, but the one who played the game is certainly subject to being knocked down a peg or two.
For example, Epstein played the game and so did Schmidt, so did Macgwire, and yet I have seen all three being praised and in being scorned at one time or another.
Lau Sr played the game; he has been praised and scorned. Lau Jr did not play the game; he has been praised and scorned.
So in the end, it comes down to a hitter taking a chance on who's philosophy he feels most comfortable.
Also, one might consider who is doing the praising or scorning. For example, I have seen Tim Mccarver being bashed. But who was doing the bashing, his peers or some internet geeks? In other words, it's not just the expert who has to prove himself. The one who is doing the praising or scorning has to prove himself as well, and if this person has never played the game, I say he needs more credentials than simply being able to say that he has studied video clips.