Posted by: THG () on Sun Jan 13 11:18:50 2008

> Hi All
>
> I received an e-mail regarding an article I wrote on the rise in batting stats starting in the mid 1990s. In the article I stated that a good portion of the rise in offence, the number of home runs in particular, was due to the availability of VCRs with frame-by-frame capabilities. This allowed average MLB batters to study and emulate the swing mechanics of the most productive hitters.
>
> I think the question the e-mail asks and my reply may be a good topic for discussion. I would be interested in your thoughts.
>
> Jack Mankin
> ##
>
> >>> Jack,
>
> comments: In the section labeled "Increase in Batting Stats - Research"
> you stated:
>
> “ In 1993, I predicted (on videotape) that the number of homeruns would sharply rise and the 60 home run level would be challenged by a number of players.”
>
> Based on the recent findings in Major League Baseball do you still feel that this artical is accurate if so why if not what would you say differently.
> Thanks for your time <<<
>
> Hi XXX
>
> As you pointed out, I wrote that article in 1993. Since then, the availability of motion analysis software has reinforced that finding.
>
> I assume by “recent findings in Major League Baseball,” you are referring to the use of steroids in baseball to enhance batting performance. I agree that when a greater force is applied to a mechanic, greater results can be achieved. However, the amount of gain depends on the efficiency of the batter’s mechanics to convert the added energy into bat speed. Little is achieved by adding greater force to an inefficient mechanic.
>
> This is true whether the added force comes from a batter’s hard work in the weight-room or attained through steroids. A hitter with average mechanics will not become a great hitter however he attains great strength. Hitters, like Bonds, exhibited very efficient swing mechanics long before they started taking steroids. Steroid alone cannot account for their achievements.
>
> On the other hand, there have been a number of average MLB hitters who become great hitters by acquiring more efficient mechanics. Let us use the rise of Terry Pendleton as just one example I found during my study. – For the six years Terry was with the Cardinals, he had the average mechanics I saw exhibited by hitters that produces his 260, 6 HR range of performance.
>
> A year later, Terry showed up in Atlanta with a very different swing. He now exhibited mechanics that closely resembled the swing of Barry Bonds. With those mechanics, he hit in the 330, 30 HR range and was named MLB’s MVP. – My point is, even had he taken steroids, they could not have made him a super star had he retained his old mechanics.
>
> Since 1993, I have witnessed a growing number of batters, like Terry, who for years put up average numbers and then suddenly jumped to the top of the charts. In almost every case, video analysis of their swings showed there was a substantial improvement in their swing mechanics.
>
> As I stated in the article: “Hitters having the ability to study (frame-by-frame) the efficient mechanics of the games most productive hitters has allowed them to emulate those principles in their swings.”
>
> Jack Mankin
> ##


With regard to the rise in batting stats, better mechanics as you said are a signicant contributor. But we have to consider that expansion of the number of teams has always produced increase production for hitters. Why? Clearly there are less talented pitchers in MLB. Also they do not pitch inside effectively which is why hitters can dive over the plate and hit the outside pitches more effectively.

Granted your top of the line pitchers we see in the playoffs can still succeed, the rest of the non elite often have trouble throwing for strikes. The result is 2-0, 3-1 counts and even fat pitches down the middle because the diluted talent cannot close out the hitter. Basically the only time you see clear dominance by the pitcher is in the allstar games. Why? Because those guys can pitch to good hitters. But unfortunately there is a trenmendous gap between a teams number 1 guy and there number 3, 4, and 5 starters.

Lastly through the evolution of weights regarding the fit athlete and the willingness to accept the strike out, there is no wonder that hitting stats are up. But more than likely the majority of those stats are up against the weaker starters and games that are out of reach.

##
Jack. Granted you may be correct in that Terry Pendleton improved his mechanics he was never a 30 homerun hitter as evidenced by baseball reference (but that is a mere technicality.)

I happened to follow the Cardinals a bit and what was significant about Terry was that he was open to improving his game which may go in line with what you suggest above.

But he never was a huge homerun hitter but was instead a clutch hitter throughout his career. Moreover Pendleton was a smart hitter and unafraid of the spotlight or being the power threat of the team.
Much like George Brett he learned how to look for pitches and maximize his personal strike zone.

For the record, steroids do not make a player hit homeruns (as you know). But they do help maximize the players recovery time and ability to gain strength through weightlifting. Thus the players who benefit most are the ones who put the most work in in the gym (with or without steroids). This is why Bonds went from a 30-35 homerun guy to a maxed out 70+ homerun guy. Bonds was always a homerun threat but, with steroids he was much better than Babe Ruth because without so many intentional walks he would hit 100 or more homeruns. And that is why steroids make a difference and cannot be discounted as they make a HUGE DIFFERENCE to a good and or great hitter.