Posted by: Bart () on Fri May 9 15:05:30 2003

I have read all the batspeed and swing mechanics articles on this site and I tend to agree with most of the research. However, I would like someone to explain if the exact same batspeed can
> > > > be achieved be two players of say 10 inches in size difference. For example I coach 13 year old
> > > > kids and I look at two players one 6 foot the other 5 foot. It would appear to me that the 5 foot kid is swinging the bat with much greater speed than the 6 foot kid who has a painfully slow
> > > > swing velosity. Yet the 6 foot kid with the slow swing hits the ball three times as far and with much greater force. It would appear to me that size and strength are primary factors. Could someone explain why this seems to be case and how that applies to the swing velosity theory.
> > >
> > >
> > > Batspeed before contact, not post contact. I've seen plenty of people who can generate great batspeed....85+ Mph, but couldn't hit very far, unless they hit the ball way out front and pull or push it. I've seen people look effortless at 80 Mph or less and hit bombs regularly. The difference is that the great hitters get to that speed prior to contact, the poor hitters get that speed at post contact. Taller people have longer limbs as well and with mechanics that are executed correctly, the arc of the swing would be longer creating more speed on the end. Think of a ball on the end of a string.....The longer the string the faster the ball will go when it's released.
> > >
> > > I don't know if you golf, but the radius of Ernie Els' swing is extremely long, this allows him to generate more club head speed than most, thus hitting the ball a ton. Look at how long John Daly's swing is. Now I'm not advocating we preach length......but when your limbs are longer (and the mechanics correct) you have no choice. Tall guys anatomically should have an advantage in batspeed, but their strikezone is larger and that's the trade off.
> > >
> > > There are either key elements as well, such as core strength and leg stability, but all things being equal, length builds speed (a good thing), but takes more time (not a good thing).
> > >
> > >
> > > Respectfully,
> > >
> > > Coach C
> >
> > mb said "According to the studies that have been published it is all about batspeed. You would have to get a device to measure their batspeed to find the answer. The smaller kid may have greater batpseed but not at ball contact where it counts." What studies and by who? And you say "You would have to get a device to measure their batspeed to find the answer." It would seem that these "studies that have been published" should have "a device to measure their batspeed to find the answer."
> >
> > Again, who did what studies, using what methodolgy, devices, etc? It seems that all anyone can do is SPECULATE that there are various reasins why the big kid will hit harder than the smaller kid, but much of the speculation looks for/presumes DIFFERENCES in the big & the small kid to explain why the big kid may hit harder than the smaller kid.
> >
> > But this begs the question. The question is: if there are NO DIFFERENCES in mechanics, bat weight, etc between the big & the small kid, and the ONLY difference is size/muscle/mass, etc, will the bigger kid not have the advantage? If you had a 12-year old kid who has EXCELLENT mechanics up against an 18-year-old kid who has been sucessful but has only AVERAGE mechanics, will the 18-year-old not have the advantage?
> >
> > Or, let's put the question in Batspeed.com language: you have two hitters who have played the game since they were 5 years old. One is 12 years old, weighs 110 pounds and uses "rotational" mechanics. The other is 18 years old, weighs 200 pounds and uses "linear" mechanics. And so as to not allow someone to try to complicate the question with experiences in handling the pitch speed factor, let's stipulate that the pitch speed is 60 mph. Who would fit the ball farther?
>
>
>
> It depends on who makes better contact.

If you would READ the question, without me repeating the question all over again, the question ASSUMES the two hitters make the same quality of contact. That's the nature of scientific studies, and for that matter, common sense............assumptions have to be made.

Now, based on your response, I have to make an assumption: either (1) you were meant for anyone to take your original inquiry seriously, or (2) you are now convinced your theory is full of holes, you regret having postulated this theory, yet for some reason you are too embarassed to admit it.

Whatever, I don't play games. I clearly poked holes in your theory, now you can believe what you want. End of discussion, on to another topic.