Posted by: BHL (Knight1285@aol.com) on Tue Apr 6 21:29:12 2004

Dear Henry,
>
> Various concepts about what field to aim towards disturb me. The most frequent advice that individuals receive is strive to hit pitches towards centerfield, since well-hit balls will not slice or hook foul, and since that is the most spacious part of the field in which to defend against base-hits. A less popular spin-off of this logic is opposite field hitting, since waiting longer affords the batter the least chance of being fooled, in addition to the benefit of a shorter fence, and the chance for weak flies to fade into the stands as harmless fouls, rather than being caught as outs. Finally, the last choice, pull hitting, draws criticism from the rapier tongues of the baseball elite, but, as well be shown, offers the greatest amount of bat-speed, the same short dimensions as the opposite field, the security of the sideline stands, and the best opportunity to increase home run output.
>
> Before embarking on my argument proper, let me give you some brief information about myself: I hold an M.A. in English Literature, and am in the process getting my doctorates. I do not wish to come across as a pedant, but my training in this field predicates itself upon concise, if not esoteric, terminology. If I come across as too bombastic, I apologize in advance.
>
> I need to utter but one more idea before returning to the locus of my discussion. The idea is more of a concern about coaches who are handed pre-packaged thoughts to freeze for further use—specifically, during the season, when the instructor can thaw out instructional clichés for others to graze on. This can only cause biomechanical indigestions. I will now return to my argument.
>
> The primary objective of coaches is centerfield hitting, making this the choice for the philosophical erudite within this realm.
>
> It is true that the hitter need not be concerned about being “down a strike” as a result of pulling or pushing one foul. Yet, the dimensions that allow some fly balls to land safely are also, ironically, the measurements that allow many more flies to be caught.
>
> Although less apparent, the bat-head rotates less on hits to center than hits to the “natural” field, meaning that the hitter will not have obtained maximum bat velocity; ergo, their balls will not carry as far as pulled hits, and will often be caught short of the fence.
>
> The next alternative posits that waiting longer will allow the batter the least chance of deception. What perplexes me is how these individuals internalize rhetoric that can cause a pitch to zoom past them if they wait too long.
>
> No one can argue that the opposite field fence is shorter than the one in center; yet, the bat-head rotates even less on opposite field hits than on centerfield hits, which is why even hard-hit rising line drives end up in the opposite-fielder’s glove. If these hits were pulled, they would most likely clear the “natural” field fence.
>
> The lack of bat-speed also suggests that balls slicing foul will not have enough velocity to make it to the sideline stands; rather, such hits will probably end up retiring the hitter.
> Finally, pull hitting may seem insidious to teachers of the former strategies, but, when employed properly, allows the bat-head the greatest amount of rotation. This means that the ball will leave the bat with the greatest velocity, and the distance alone ensures many of these hits will result in home runs.
>
> Another reason for advancing this unpopular theory is that even if the ball is hit on too high of a trajectory, it still has the chance of making it over the short “natural” field fence.
>
> Moreover, if the ball is hooked, it has a greater chance of pulling away from the “natural”-fielder’s hands, and into the foul territory stands.
>
> Combine the two home run factors, as well as the safety of the sideline, and individuals can understand why pull hitting facilitates home run potential.
>
> In the end, it has been proven that centerfield hitters sacrifices bat-speed and field space. Opposite field hitters sacrifice even more bat-speed, which makes it easier for their fouls to be caught. However, pull hitting offers the greatest amount of bat-speed, the shortest field dimensions other than the opposite field, and the best “insurance” that fouls hook into the stands, rather than wade into a fielder’s glove. Clearly, the last choice has all the benefits.
>
> Sincerely,
> BHL
> Knight1285@aol.com
>
> P.S. In the movie rendition of The Natural, Roy Hobbs proves in an anecdotal way, that the only way to send stadium lights into convulsions is to the pull the pitches that you hit.
>
> One more thing:

It is becoming evident that Barry Bonds is using THT to pull outside pitches.

He pulls it to the "natural" field, in which the hitter gets the double advantage of aiming at one of the shortest fences while attaining the highest bat-speed at contact. Therefore, any hard-hit ball is a home run. Even soft-hit mistakes loop over the fence.

If there is any doubt to my theory, let me supply anecdotal proof. Here is an account of Bond's 559th home run:

"'I threw the ball outside. I thought I was going to get him to hit it to center field, but you throw it away and he (pulls) it to right field. What are you going to do?' said Oswalt, who chastised himself for throwing a 'dumb pitch'" (Source: Mark Babineck, AP Sports).

He is a pull field "orientee."

I rest my case, at least for a couple hours.

BHL