Posted by: Mike Myers (mike.myers@bell.ca) on Tue Jan 4 20:36:00 2005

>>> Jack, we must go back to one of your first principles: if there is an observed mechanic common to the most successful hitters, it is an integral component of a successful swing.
>
> If we see practically all successful major league hitters adopting some stride, then it must be an optimal swing component. If not, then we would see about 50% of successful hitters with no stride at all. <<<
>
> Hi Mike
>
> All good points. Did however, all successful major league hitters adopt some stride, or were they taught longer strides with more forward movement, but “adopted” a short soft toe touch with little to no forward movement of the body? If we look at Bonds and Bagwell ( http://www.youthbaseballcoaching.com/swings.html ) from the belt up, the batter moves his body more up and down the axis – than forward or back. We would find it hard to tell if the batter placed his foot forward (Bonds), back toward the catcher (Bagwell) or left the toe touching and used the cocking and un-cocking of the lead-knee for timing.
>
> No stride has just been taught in recent years. In the future we may, or may not, see more of them in the major leagues. Time will tell. I have not taken a position on which is best. I encourage my students to use whatever they feel most comfortable with.
>
> Jack Mankin
>
Back weightshift during the inward turn is offset with slight forward stride. In a larger hitter, this counterbalance is less obvious since the bat represents a smaller fraction of overall weight.

Another advantage is, during the pitch, a hitter can footplant 2 inches laterally for better inside/outside coverage as required.

I think we would have seen 1 random 50HR hitter with no stride if the mechanic was feasible.

Mike.