Posted by: Teacherman () on Sat Feb 14 08:09:06 2004

>>> It's called cues v reality. I think my post made that very clear. Know the difference and you'll be a better teacher.
>
> And, I see no correlation between the cue "hitting the inside of the ball" and a linear hand path. Using Jim Edmonds as an example (due to his opposite field power and his hitting the ball deep in the zone) do you not believe he hits the inside of the ball when he demonstrates his opposite field power????? He's as rotational as it gets. Like I said earlier, trying to hit the inside and actually doing it are two different things. But, I can assure you, if Jim Edmonds tried to hit the outside of the ball he wouldn't be displaying any opposite field power.
>
> Another great example of a set of words meaning one thing to me and something else to you. English is a great language, huh?
>
> And, you aren't saying the hands never lead the barrel are you?????....They do near the beginning of every swing....linear or circular. "Staying inside"" or hitting the inside" are very effective cues especially when dealing with pull only hitters.
>
> I'm not claiming it's reality. I am standing up for the benefit of the cue. <<<
>
> Hi Teacherman
>
> Whenever a batter thinks of “hitting the inside of the ball” he will invariably extend the hand-path (more linear) to accomplish it. He must in order to get his hands to the contact zone ahead of the bat-head. You will see this type of mechanics occur when a batter is asked to “hit behind the runner.” This is especially true for pitches from the middle-in where he would normally keep his hands farther back and hit the ball straight-away or pull it.
>
> I can understand a coach telling his hitter to think of “hitting the inside of the ball" for outside pitches. But the cue is counterproductive to rotational mechanics for most pitch locations. It would be better to have them use their normal mechanics and think of hitting the ball hard straight-away. If they are a little early on the pitch, the ball will be pulled – if a little late, the ball will be driven to the opposite field. --- I just do not think my mind would react well to a cue whose stated goal, “in reality” is not really supposed to be achieved.
>
> I have found that dead pull hitters normally have swing mechanics that does not generate maximum bat speed until the arms reach full extension. When they work on developing bat-head acceleration farther back in the swing, so that the back-elbow is still in the “L” position at contact, they start hitting the ball more straight-away with power.
>
> Jack Mankin
>
>
>

To be fair maybe you should say....Whenever MY (Jack Mankin's) batters think "hitting the inside of the ball" they will invariably extend the hand path, because mine don't. In fact, trying to stay inside the ball requires just the opposite, keeping the hands in and connected to the rotation.

And, by the way, my hitters who benefit from the cue have their elbow slotted in the "L" position at contact. More evidence that their is no correlation between the cue "hitting the inside of the ball" and going linear.

Again, try to understand the difference between cues and reality. I want my hitters to hit. Whatever I say that helps them hit properly is good. Whether its reality or not.