Posted by: () on Sun May 16 16:40:17 2004

Hi Teacherman
>
> You stated, “Now, stand in the box in a very relaxed state, bat on your shoulder if need be (similar to a pepper stance) and try to contact the ball by simply playing pepper. Forget about generating batspeed. Just make solid contact. Making contact is easy. Making solid contact is possible. Why???????????????????????????”
>
> Common sense should tell you that everyone discussing this topic is saying there is no difference between “bat speed” and “bat quickness” from a batters normal launch position.
>
> Questions:
>
> (1) Are you saying that from your pepper stance, a bat can get to the ball “quicker” without also increasing “bat speed?”
>
> (2) Are you saying a bat moving 64 mph at contact can hit a ball farther than a bat moving 80 mph (both in the sweet spot)?
>
> You stated, “As far as THT is concerned, I don't have ability to post clips but I can swing and create the bat movement that you label THT and not do it with my hands. It comes out of efficient rotation, not any torquing in the hands. The pressure felt in the hands, that you are labeling THT, is simply a reactionary force to the efficient rotation of a well trained and mechanically sound hitter.”
>
> You do have the ability to view clips of many great hitters. If you would take the time (and have an open mind), you would note that there is bat-head acceleration taking place well before rotation takes place. Therefore, only the arms and hands are moving to apply force to the handle of the bat – no reactionary force from rotation.
>
> Let us use Gary Sheffield as an example. As he prepares for the swing, he keeps his bottom-hand fairly stationary at his back shoulder. He bobs the bat-head up and down at the pitcher by pushing and pulling with the top-hand. He then accelerates the bat-head from a nearly horizontal position in an arc up and over the knob back toward the launch position.
>
> Teacherman, the shoulders remain motionless – there is no reactionary force from rotation. The bottom-hand remains at the back-shoulder – there is whip effect. The bat-head was accelerated from a static position (no momentum), up against gravity by the top-hand pulling up and over the bottom-hand. (Note: The cocking or un-cocking of the wrist also apply forces from opposing directions at the handle.)
>
> (3) What force, other than torque, could have been applied at the handle that caused the bat-head to accelerate up and over the knob?
>
> With your answers to these three questions, we may be able to come to an agreement and move on.
>
> Jack Mankin
>
> P.S. HBL, Milt and Bill made good points regarding this topic. However, I did not OK them as I do not want Teacherman to be distracted from my question to him.

Jack

I'm disappointed in your answer. You are careless with our language. You asked me about THT. Then, you respond with an answer about prelaunch torque.

The example I gave about the quickness difference between a pepper stance and a game stance was used to show the difference exists. I'm not suggesting a player go to bat with the pepper stance although I see many successful hitters who do. That example was to demonstrate that a swing whose goal isn't batspeed is quicker. Go ahead an take that to its obvious conclusion and you have to deduct that quickness is increased as the effort level to generate batspeed is decreased. Quickness is just that. Being quick. Getting the bat to contact quickly. As soon as possible. It has nothing to do with how fast the barrel is moving. It has everything to do with the mechanics of rotation.

These are probably not the best examples, but again, I'm not a scientist. Have you never seen a sprinter who wins the 40 but loses the 100? Why do they time the 40 for football and not the 100. Has to do with quickness doesn't it? Have you never seen a car who can win the first 100 yds but gets overtaken by the faster vehicle in a drag? I was a slow runner. But could beat almost anyone for 10-15 yds. The difference is it takes time to get up to speed. Quickness doesn't take much time. My daughter is a state champion (13 yrs old) at the long jump. She doesn't reach the speeds other jumpers reach as she approaches. Not bad at all but not as fast. But, she has the quickest explosion, therefore the longest jump of all of them. If she could run faster, she'd jump farther. But she still wins. She has the quickest unload at launch. Again, not the best example but another example of the difference between quickness and speed.

Stand a catcher at home and have him throw to 2B. Have a pitcher do the same thing. Get a pop time on each. Guaranteed the catcher is quicker. Yet, the pitch may throw 85+ mph. He's faster, but slower.

And that is the same for the good mlb swing. It's quick, not exactly fast. Although, many have learned to improve their speed to join their quickness.

I have reviewed every clip I can find on the internet for the prescence of the top hand pulling the bat back toward the catcher. It is not there. The movement you see and have mislabeled has more to do with the slotting of the elbow than any "pulling back toward the catcher". What you see is simply the bat uncocking. Today more hitters than ever have the barrel toward the pitcher over top of their head in their stance. They all have to slot the elbow to hit. As the elbow slots the bat uncocks. Very simple. Since the bat is in the hands of course there is pressure on the handle. That would be true of any effort to move the bat. But the pressure is reationary to the slotting of the elbow it is not from the fingers pulling like a bow and arrow. Same event, better explanation of cause and effect.

Get in your hitting stance. Rear elbow up. Bat cocked toward the pitcher over head. Slot the elbow. What did the barrel do? It rotated up over top the knob. Nothing the hands did caused that movement. For the hands to have played a causal role the allignment of the two hands would have to change. I have reviewed 1000's of swings. Very few, if any, change the relationship between the top and bottom hand in this part of the swing.

The movement you see is legit. The barrel arcing behind the hitter is a key. But, it isn't done with the top hand. To teach we need a better understanding of cause and effect.

As far as your comments about two bats hitting the sweet spot one moving 64mph and the other moving 80 mph, I ask this. Why do you want to cloud the issue? Is this another attempt at avoiding the tough quesitons? We are not talking about ball exit speed or the impact of different batspeeds on hit length. We are talking about quickness v speed. And, along those lines, I can stand and simply drop the bat to the ball (using gravity) quicker than you can get the bat to the ball with your best swing. Granted, mine won't go anywhere. But, yours won't go very far without hitting the sweet spot. To hit the sweet spot you have to tone it down some and get control and quickness. When you've mastered that, learn to generate as much batspeed as you can without changing the swing. Then and only then do you have a chance to be a good hitter. I say a chance because you still have to learn to time a pitch which is another topic that will relate to quickness v speed.

You like to use extremes to support your theories. (Sheffield) Let me do the same. How do you explain John Olerud's career with the reported lowest batspeed in the game? I've heard 60-70 mph. He's had a pretty good career. Career slugging % .471. Career BA .297?????