Posted by: Coach C () on Fri May 2 13:46:37 2003

I think someone previously made a distinction between the two (maybe Teacherman?). I think the distinction was in connection with full x-t vs. less-than-full x-t.
>
> I hope whoever it was might rearticulate their view, as I have reason to believe it might be a topic worth discussing. I say this knowing or thinking that at the time I myself was scoffing at the notion. But I would like to hear the idea once more.

I believe I've brought this up before, it is something I feel strongly about. Baseball is a game of time, as a hitter we need to always find ways of gaining more time. To coin a phrase, "short in the back....long in the front". It is my contention that the majority of hitters don't account for the length of time a hitter needs to make good decisions. One could argue the most efficient batting mechanics are this or that, but are the use of those mechanics gaining you time or making you lose time. Great hitters (IMO) see the ball longer than poor hitters. If I generate great batspeed, but take to long to develop them, then I need to be quicker. This is where Jack and I don't see eye to eye. I don't believe we should swing for the fences, becasue the implication is that I will swing as hard as I can. If I swing as hard as I can, then my length will exponentially increase, but if I swing with those same mechanics at 80% to 90%, I will have decreased my length and been quicker with a little less batspeed. Ted Williams felt he always had something left in his lower body and boy was he quick.

I would contest that on a regular basis there are no modern hitters that intentionally swing for the fences on every at bat. Inexperienced hitters try to do more (power) when they struggle, great hitters try to do less (power) when they struggle.

Home runs come from hitting the sweet spot on the right plane, even with moderate batspeed.

Let me know if you want to talk more.

Respectfully,

Coach C