Posted by: Mister X () on Sat May 10 09:55:52 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?
> >
> > Whoever has the greater batspeed at impact.
> >
> >
> > These studies have been done in golf, but they call it clubhead speed instead of batspeed.
> >
> >
> >
> > Respectfully,
> > Coach C
>
> Hey guys, let's not let this discussion get too silly. Look, without any science, just a little common sense, it boils down to this: with all else being equal (mechanics, how well contact is made, size of bat, etc), the larger size guy will out hit the smaller guy.To be honest with you, I haven't spent much time at your site because there is a propensity for you all to get bogged down in the linear versus rotation thing. I have further noticed that the "rotation" guys drown out the "linear" guys. I'm not complaining, it's not my site and I don't care, but here is my point: I have seen the "rotation" guys say Mcgwire was "linear" because he used full extension. So, what made up for this "flaw" in his mechanics? Answer: strength!


Your size does not determine how far you hit a ball. Your batspeed and how well you make contact with the ball determines that. You can't tell me that a 6'4" 225lb guy would hit the ball farther than a 5'10" 190lb guy if they have equal batspeed and made perfect contact with the ball. There is no basis for that. Your body weight/strength does not have any effect on how well/hard/far you can hit. All your body weight/strength determines is your potential. A stronger guy has the POTENTIAL to swing with greater batspeed (and therefore hit the ball farther) than a weaker guy. But potential doesn't mean results.

As for Big Mac, yes he had a lot of strength. Which means he had a big potential to hit the ball very well. And I would say he cashed in on his potential and probably hit the ball as well as he possibly could. But the only reason he cashed in on his potential was by using proper mechanics. In their prime, who was a better hitter: Griffey of Mac? For me it's too close to call, but I do know this. They both were among the best ever, yet Mac outweighed Griffey by at least 50 pounds (I know have the exact numbers).

Weight/Size/Strength is NOTHING without the ability to hit the ball squarely with maximum batspeed (through rotational mechanics of course).