Posted by: Teacherman () on Sat Nov 22 09:17:38 2003

>>> Jack....Pete Rose vs. Ken...Griffey who's swing is longer? Who generates more batspeed, who hits the ball farther. If you say less shoulder turn or shorter stride that works for me, but there is no denying somebody see's the ball longer....is there? You can make the same argument with Boggs, Carew and several others. Does less batspeed sometimes mean higher average? I talked to a guy that play's within the A's organization the other day...he stated that he become a .300 hitter (vice .220 hitter)and increased his power when his swing went from 100% effort to 80% effort. This philosophy is rampid through the entire A's organization. He doesn't want max batspeed he wants smooth flowing body parts, that can only be destroyed with max batspeed on the brain. I think Max batspeed discourages smooth flowing parts, in fact the slower the batspeed the smoother the swing. This should be the baseline of all swings and work up from there. Not the other way around. I'm not being confrontational either, but Batspeed emphasis is why some people have trouble understanding your philosophy. I am not disputing how we obtain batspeed (you deserve a lot of credit for that), but striving for it soley is missing the point of great hitters. Ted Williams said every home run he hit surprised him. Most kids would not be surprised when they hit a home run, in fact the home run ball soon becomes there downfall, because they then try to hit harder the next time. This doesn't work in any sport when consistancy is the goal. Do big league oraganizations carry batspeed indicators in there clubhouses?
>
> I love what you say on this site, but until you've tried 80% effort at 90 plus MPH, you will never know the difference. I do not want more Batspeed when the ball is blowing by me....I WANT LESS!! <<<
>
> Hi Coach C
>
> I did face 90 mph pitching at the University of Missouri and I was taught basically the linear approach to batting you advocate with mediocre results. – Rose, Boggs and Carew were all good single hitters. But I will take the swings of Mantle, Brett, or Bonds against a 95 MPH fastball anytime. They not only led the league in batting average many times, their swings generated enough bat speed to clear the fences when they got lift on the ball. – If you feel their trying to hit the ball hard makes them inconsistent, I will take inconsistency every time.
>
> Coach C, below is an article I wrote that expresses our difference in coaching philosophy.
>
> "Swing For the Fence - Ruin Your Mechanics"
>
> Subject: Pushing the limits of flawed mechanics.
>
> I think all coaches would agree that "setting goals" is an important tool in the development of good athletes. The goals should challenge the athlete to be the best he can be. The setting of a goal that does not place the athlete far ahead of his past achievements is an insult to his courage. My dad used to say, "Son, it is far better to shoot for the moon and reach only the peak of a mountain; than to aim for the foothills an attain it."
>
> When setting goals for hitting the baseball, a strange inconsistency arises. By far, the number one prize of batting is that gratifying sensation a player experiences in hitting a long home run. The soothing vibes of power the bat resonates through the hitter's body is something a player will never forget. However, many batting coaches have discovered that the mechanics they are teaching will breakdown if the hitter attempts to swing with home run power. The player must be made to understand that home runs should not be sought after. They are something that just happens when the hitter least expects it.
>
> The coach must convince the players that to be successful they must "hit the ball on the ground back up the middle." His most worrisome time is right after a player hits a home run. How can he make sure that he and other players do not strive for another one? He has spent weeks convincing the players to forget about the fence and just "hit it up the middle." If the hitter should endeavor for something more than mediocrity it could ruin his mechanics forever.
>
> I can think of no other sport where striving to attain it's most prized goal is declared mechanically taboo. The paradox is so sad but true. With the mechanics coaches have been given to teach, the more power the hitter attempts to achieve the weaker the results. But the real sad part is, we have found it easier to lower the goals than to perfect the mechanics. When the seven-foot high-jump couldn't be attained with the mechanics being used, they didn't advise the athletes to settle for a lower mark or they might ruin their form. Records from the four minute mile to a twenty foot pole-vault would never have been achieved by teaching that adversity should lead to the lowering of expectations.
>
> I feel there is a touch of arrogance in claiming that since a coach can't teach an average player to hit with power, those that have power must have been born with "pop" in their bat. Is it possible the top hitters may not using the mechanics they teach? It may be time to acknowledge that teaching linear mechanics will not allow a hitter to attain the bat speed required to consistently hit the ball hard.
>
> By initiating the bat properly with torque and rotational energy, the average tension free swing of the hitter carries plenty of bat speed to clear the fence in most any direction. His main concern is timing and getting the plane of his swing in line with the ball. If he is a little high on the ball, it will be a sizzling grounder. Hit it square and you have a frozen-rope to the gaps -- a little low and bye, bye.
>
> Jack Mankin

How about apples to apples? Not oranges?
>