[ About ]
[ Batspeed Research ]
[ Swing Mechanics ]
[ Truisms and Fallacies ]
[ Discussion Board ]
[ Video ]
[ Other Resources ]
[ Contact Us ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jack Mankin linear?

Posted by: The Hitting Guru (hitman3527@aol.com) on Thu May 4 21:05:15 2006

> >>> Jack, having read "The Mike Schmidt Study" there is significant emphasis on the importance of an "elongated swing path" to allow more time for the bat to remain square to the ball bath. The alternative suggests the need for perfect timing. There is a compromise implied here but it would appear to have a reasonable rationale. The compromise suggested is "more strike outs in exchange for power vs. better average yet since rotation is also emphasized the compromise is not extreme. The Schmidt Study suggests as you know a mix of Lau "weight shift" with Ted Williams "pure rotation". I have not seen this issue discussed in your site, however I may well have missed it. Would you please help me with this? Ed Z <<<
> Hi Ed Z
> Hitters do not shift their axis forward during rotation. They rotate about a stationary axis. Therefore, weight shift is prior to rotation and has no bearing on the length of the hand-path. How “elongated” the hand-path becomes is governed by how far the hands are extended by contact. Keeping the back-elbow back at the side during rotation produces a tighter CHP with a hook pattern at contact. Extending the hands (and back-elbow) during rotation produces a more elongated path with little or no hook pattern.
> "Elongated swing path" to allow more time for the bat to remain square to the ball bath may sound reasonable. However comparing the batting stats of hitters I charted for my study (over 200) shows just the opposite. With few exceptions (Tony Gwinn for one), the longer the hand-path, the lower the batting performance (especially slugging percentage).
> Jack Mankin

Looking at this argument in layman's terms, Albert Pujols would be an example more in line with the Mike Schmidt study. He uses a swing approach extension and follow through more like Winfield, Schmidt, and Ripken. Jim Thome and Bonds have more of the high release uppercut which one might think would compromise contact for power. But Bonds has such exceptional ability (and or benefit of steroids)that he probably distorts the typical models results. And since he has no trouble catching up to anyone's fastball and along with being exceptionally quick he will not strike out like a typical hitter using uppercut dynamics as illustrated in the Mike Schmidt study. Knowledge of the strike zone of course is key to how one fares with regard to striking out along with the unwillingness to give in to the pitcher like the late Ted Williams.


Post a followup:

Anti-Spambot Question:
Three strikes is an _____________?
   Stolen base

[   SiteMap   ]