Posted by: ssarge (ssarginson@eathlink.net) on Sun Jan 4 09:28:34 2004

>>> Bunting and slapping is an exciting part of the game. But if a player EXCLUSIVELY slaps, she'd better be sub 2.8 in speed and bat LH (so she can slap to the opposite side and still force a long throw). Otherwise, return is marginal against a good defense. Even Whatley of UCLA, arguably the fastest player in NCAA FP, added a full-swing dimension to her game last year. Her slug was around .720! (going by memory, but that's close).
> >
> > A prototype player would probably bat LH, be very fast, have one swing for slapping and placement, and another, fully rotational swing for when she wants to hit line drives and hit for power. Almost a "switch hitter from the same side." Kind of like Ichiro, if you think about it. But that player is very rare. As a coach, I can't turn a 3.2 (speed) player into a 2.8. I can't coach speed. But I can help players w/ average speed hit in a manner more suitable to their abilities. I believe almost any player who makes an ASA travel team can hit the ball hard enough (via rotational mechanics and CHP) to put a line drive in the outfield, and to once in a while "gap it" and "turn left." Why players w/ average speed would want to do anything else is mystifying to me. It's certainly a path to mediocrity, and will, IMO, limit the opportunity to play in college. Certainly D1, anyway. I realize that isn't everyone's goal, but I also don't see any reason to set artifical barriers to it either.
> >
> > Don't get me wrong, I'll take the 2.8 girl in a heart beat. In a perfect lineup, I'd have players like that batting 9, 1, and 2. I would want 3-8 to be line drive hitters, and the most powerful of those batting 3-5.
> >
> >
> > Regarding bat weight:
> >
> > My daughter just turned 13, is 5' 9", weighs 125, and would probably take no offense in my characterization of her physique as less than muscular. She swings a 32/23 Rocket Tech. She's been playing in 14U for a year or so, and this bat is on the heavy end for that level. While she is still working to improve her swing, she is pretty purely no-stride rotational. CHP for sure, never extends unless she is fooled off-speed.
> >
> > A year ago, when (Kelly) was squishing the bug, keeping her front foot fully closed, and taking her "hands to the ball" (my fault, and I'm embarassed), she was swinging a 20.5. She couldn't have handled much more weight. Today, w/ different mechanics, the RT feels very comfortable to her. She takes 250-300 swings in a typical session at the cage (30-45 continuous minutes), and maybe 150-200 in a Tee/soft toss session. Minimal reduction in bat speed throughout those sessions.
> >
> > About once a week, she takes 100 swings w/ both an 18oz bat and a 27 oz bat (not championing anyone else's technique - I actually kind of started doing this on my own). She is definitely quicker w/ the 18, and slower w/ the 27. I do find the delta is narrowing (this is naked eye, as I haven't yet invested in a measurement device), and suspect it will continue to narrow.
> >
> > I am of the opinion that any batter should swing the heaviest bat that doesn't materially affect quickness or bat speed. As this delta further narrows, Kelly might well move "up" to the 24oz or 25oz. RT. I actually would probably move her to a 24oz now, if it were available in the same length. She stands close, treats everything as middle-in, and I think additional length could hurt more than help. But I wouldn't mind the extra weight.
> >
> > However, I will probably tread cautiously. My understanding of the current (2004) ASA bat testing procedure is that it measures results of s 60 MPH pitch against a bat swiung at 60 MPH. The requirement is that exit speed not exceed 98 MPH (96 MPH after July 31 - buy your bats now)! This is true irrespective of bat weight, and I think that has implications. I am of the belief that the best bat manufacturers are right on the edge of those performance characteristics. If that surmise is true, the 24oz and 25oz bats have been "tuned" to about a 97.9 MPH result w/ a 60 MPH swing speed, just as has the 23oz. So, unless there's a hole in my logic (and I would greatly value someone pointing it out if there is), I see no value to adding weight unless the swing speed can exceed 60 MPH. At that point, there may be real value. I suspect the bats are "tuned" to reward exceptional bat speed performance, since it can apparently be done and still maintain compliance. But, you've got to get above 60 MPH w/ the heavier bat for this to matter.
> >
> > So, like I said, I've got to start measuring.
> >
> > Best wishes, Mike. Nice to hear from you.
> >
> > Scott <<<
> >
> > Hi Scott
> >
> > Great post. The message conveys very important points that could help many players. This is especially true for young boys and girls who lack upper-body strength. The best answer is not lighter and lighter bats. They would be far better off acquiring more efficient swing mechanics.
> >
> > Jack Mankin
> >
> >
> > Scott,
>
> Your daughter is the same height and approximate weight my daughter was at 13. It's probably just me, but isn't a 32" a little short for her?
>
> I've not seen bat speeds measured before, but 60 MPH does not seem that fast to me. I'm sure Jack has some good and on the mark info concerning bat speeds.
>
> On the subject of fastpitch bat weights, I still seem to think "we" are so used to these featherlite weight bats that something in the range of 26-27 oz. sounds like a ton. But based on what used to be available and what my kid used to swing, I think a good rotational hitter could easily use a 27 oz. bat, for instance, and still have great bat speed. Granted, with bats like the RT and Mikens, the extra weight is probably not needed.
>
> On the subject of slappers, I'm 100% in agreement with you. I believe any slapper should be able to hit line drives...but that may take a while. Right now, I'm busy enought just getting a natural rightie slapping and bunting from the left side. First things first! :-)
>
> Great discussing this stuff with you, Scott.


I mis-posted on the current ASA bat certification testing process. The new test is based on the ASTM f2219 standard, which measures a 110 MPH collission, based on variables of .47 COR, .375 compression, and striking the bat COP (6" from end). Under these conditions, ball exit speed can not exceed 98 MPH. I think the best bats are manufactured to butt right up against that 98 MPH ceiling. Further, I think that if a player can generate a greater than 110 MPH collission, the best bats (Miken, RT) are engineered to dramatically out-perform the mass market bats.

At the least, all studies do indicate the trampoline effect of the bat increases as speed increases, so the clear advantage seems to be what is also intuitive - swing the heaviest bat you can w/out a significant drop-off in bat speed. If that is a 26 or 27oz bat, than the player should certainly swing that.

The problem is that no fastpitch bat is manufactured which weighs over 25oz (the heaviest RT). The 26-27oz bats are slow pitch bats. Perfectly fine under the rules, but it seems those bats are "tuned" and balanced differently. They are also more expensive - pushing $400 instead of the $225 price point established for the top FP bats. All that said, once I gain the capability to measure (rather than estimate) my daughter's bat speed, I intend to experiment.

In terms of length: adding the length is the only way to add weight to the FP bats. All of the RTs are -9, the Mikens are -10. They only manufacture about 4 models each. So, I suspect my daughter will add the length, because I think she can handle the extra weight. Personally, I would prefer to add weight w/out adding length. The 32 is plenty long for my daughter. She sets up about 6-8" off the plate, and treats most pitches as middle-in - the Bonds-type approach, as he uses the same length bat, even choking up a little. (Not much desire by ASA umpires to call the inside pitch, and surprisingly little desire by pitchers to throw it.) Setting up where she does w/ a 32, my daughter has no trouble covering the outside, even while maintaining rotational mechanics and CHP.

Assuming full plate coverage, I'm not sure I see an advantage to the longer bat. Clearly, a centrifuge can generate more bat speed w/ a longer "lever." I do understand that. However, that assumes unlimited power at the interior part of the circle - the source (an engine in a centrifuge, the player's body in a swing). Won't the same amount of force applied by the source require more time to bring the (tip of the) longer lever to maximum force than the shorter lever? This seems intuitve to me - although I don't understand all of the physics, so my intuition could be laughable. But, if my surmise is true, I'm not crazy about the longer bat - time is the one thing I don't want to sacrifice.

Based on what I think I know today, my desire would be a 32/24 or 32/25 RT. Unfortunately, that critter just doesn't exist.

Thanks, great discussing w/ you as well.

Scott