Posted by: Jack Mankin (mrbatspeed@aol.com) on Thu Aug 21 14:46:07 2003

>>> No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying that the model isn't perfect in the first place if great hitters don't conform to it.

This is a very clear point of disctinction among people that says a great deal about their outlook on life, the search for truth and their ability to think logically.

There are often contentious, petty arguments here that become personal and insulting and I am not on that road here. Behind your statement lurks some truth that I will acknowledge shortly. But for now:

One group of people who sometimes post messages here frequently insist that Hall of Fame hitters should NOT be emulated because the very achievement they garnered - stardom - certainly means Godhood, the possession of gifts that allowed for an individual technique, a personal method of hitting, that would be dangerous and foolhardy for the average person to attempt.

Another group disagrees and says that excellent performance is the product of excellent technique and that tecnhique can be described, quantified and recorded. Further, that investigation has shown that all good hitters use the same technique and all bad hitters avoid the techniques of the superior ones.

So I am not trying to be stubborn. It is an important point. If you can say Ted Williams had less than ideal mechanics, you, perhaps without knowing it, logically following from the principles I proposed a paragraph ago, are saying that Ted's superior performance comes not from the same technique he shares with all other Hall of Famers. You seem to be saying, by positing that statement, that his superiority is derived from some magical dust, call it athletic ability or whatever you want. But the fact remains, there have been thousands of Major League baseball players with identical native gifts as Ted, and far different swings, who performed far worse than he did.

Now. Was Ted's swing idiosyncratic, somewhat flamboyant in its posture and body language? Sure. So is Sheffield's. The purpose of Jack's work, I think, has been to strip away those non-essentials and create the model you are talking about. Ted fit it. Sheffield fit it. How do we know? By reasoning. All good hitters look like Ted at the crucial moments, and no bad hitter does.

Would you show a kid a tape of Ted and say swing like that? No. I agree. Neither would you show a 14-year-old a 1966 Mustang with a V-8 and say drive it. It takes training. The big ideas, however, that governed Ted's approach to swinging the bat are perfect for anyone to try. <<<

Hi Melvin

Well stated.

Jack Mankin