Posted by: BHL (Knight1285@aol.com) on Sun Jun 11 22:52:02 2006

Hi Sam R.

Ken Griffey Jr., who did not use steroids, used PFO, as did Ted Williams, and Mel Ott.

It has been proven from an anecdotal, logical, and geometric perspective.


From an anecdotal perspective:

Hi all,
> >
> > I unearthed an integral concept that will allow individuals will poor power to center and to right to increase the amount of home runs that they will produce. At this point in time, this idea is simply in its hypothetical form; therefore, I cannot offer quantitative quotes as to how this method will increase a hitter's productivity. Nevertheless, I can explain the delineation behind the proposition.
> >
> > Let's assume that a right-handed batter has the capability to hit a ball 375 feet to left field, 360 to left center, 345 to center, 330 to right center, and 315 to right. Now, let's suppose the home run distance to right is 330; to left center, 365; to center, 400; to right center, 365, and to right, 330. If the player hits 25 fly balls--5 balls as hard as he can to each field--he clears left by 45 feet, but falls 5 feet short on his hits to left center; 55 feet short on his shots to center; 35 feet short on his shots to right center; and, finally, 15 feet shorts on his fly balls to right.
> >
> > Now suppose he pulls every ball...Obviously, every hit would wind up a home run, and he would wind up hitting 20 more home runs than he did the previous year. What this hitter discovered is that the placement of fly balls is just as significant as how hard they are hit. By attempting to pull every pitch--a hitting taboo--this individual has given himself an advantage over other hitters. As a member of my family once said, a 375 foot fly ball does no good when directed toward center field.
> >
> > For this reason, I disagree with Mankin's belief that balls should be directed towards center field. He should, instand, encourage batters to take advantage of a system that allows them to pull both inside and outside pitches.
> >
> > Eventually, once a hitter masters batspeed.com's theories, he should try to pull all his balls.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > BHL
> > Knight1285@aol.com
> >
> > P.S. Mac's 62nd home run was an outside pitch pulled to left, into his power field (Ted Williams terminology).
>
> I suggest you write poetry.

Actually, I would guess BHL is too busy instructing future baseball stars to write poetry. Keep up the good work, BHL!



From a logical perspective:

Hi KStevens,
>
> The easiest way to become a bonafide pull hitter is to move closer to the plate, as SBK suggested. Good mechanics should afford you the opportunity to pull all inside and outside piches, regardless of whether the pitch is a fastball, an offspeed pitch, or a curve. All that one needs to understand is that to pull an outside pitch, one must use what Mankin calls THT effectively. Let's assume that the hitter has mstered the technique of pulling inside pitches, and figured out how to wait longer to pull a change-up or curve.
>
> Suppose that you get a fastball on the outer half of the plate. Everybody urges an opposite field mentality, but I disagree. In fact, one of Griffey's first home runs in 1998 was an outside fstball that he yanked to the shortest part of the Kingdome--which was approximately 310 feet down the line.
>
> I am also hearing critics admonish suggestions that one should pull low-and-away change-ups; yet McGwire did just that, hitting a similar pitch 340 feet down the left field line to break Maris' record in 1998.
>
> Vladimir Guerrero is another example of someone who can pull outside curves into the left field stands.
>
> Pulling every pitch--as Vern Stephens, and Mel Ott did--is not recommended by Ted Williams. Yet, Stephens put up some big power numbers, and Ott used the 250 foot fence in the Polo Grounds (i.e., on the pull side of the field) to gain immortality.
>
> Getting your pitch is crucial, but if you look for a fastball, any other pitch should be easy. If a pitcher throws you an inside fastball, use BHT; if it is slower, do what Ferroli suggests: wait longer, and pull it.
>
> On outside pitches, you use the same method as inside pitches, except you apply as significant amount of THT.
>
> If the pitch is wholly unexpected, then "take it!" as Williams would say. Here is where Epstein's idea of looking middle-in or middle-away on a certain pitch is applicable.
>
> With two strikes, Ferroli argues that you should aim your hits towards center field, and, given this situation, I would have to agree him, as well as the critics on batspeed.com. However, if you can pull every pitch, one will find himself or herself in this predicament far less often, since a hitter using this approach needs only to look for location, rather than location and speed.
>
> But on all other pitches, heed the advice of Mantle,"and swing for the fence" in your "natural field" (as Hank Aaron calls it) field!
>
> Sincerely,
> BHL
> Knight1285@aol.com
>
> P.S. I hope I answered your questions. As for the biomechanics of this approach, perhaps Jack can fill us in on hitters pulling outside pitches for home runs when he returns. Cheers!

From a geometric perspective:

> > > Hi Jack,
> > > >
> > > > I am going to present a geometric argument for my viewpoint, specifically as it pertains to bat length, plate size, and increasing radial arc, based on the assumption that the bat-head will travel the same number of degrees on all three pitches (i.e., 225 degrees on inside, middle, and outside pitches). Early tomorrow morning, I will post the specific calculations. I can't wait until tomorrow...
> > > >
> > > > BHL
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I will now post my calculations that show why pull hitting does not exacerbate swing tendencies. We will see that, by keeping the rate of angular displacement at a constant (i.e., 225 degrees), the batter need only widen the circumference of bat-head rotation to ensure that he or she can hit to the “natural” field with regularity.
> > >
> > > Nevertheless, effective pull hitting dictates that the batter stand at the proper distance from the plate. Suppose, for instance, a softball player uses a 34-inch, 26-ounce Worth EST Extra. My recommendation is that he or she stand at least 34 inches off the back edge of the inside corner. Now, many individuals are going to posit that such a move will make it more difficult to hit outside pitches. If we put geometry before instinctual criticism, the distance of the plate with actually force the batter to realize that, in order to be successful, the bat-head must be accelerated in a circle.
> > >
> > > For the sake of simplicity, all pitches will be thrown around shoulder height, since the clearest way to demonstrate my argument is to depict a way arcing parallel to the ground. Functionally, though, the hitter would most likely hit pitches in which the bat head swept in arc tilted 45 degrees to the ground.
> > >
> > > In all scenarios, the batter is a right-handed hitter whose bat-head begins pointing in the direction of the third base line, but, at contact, swings all the way around 225 degrees to a position 45 degrees between the first and third base line.
> > >
> > > Since I advocate looking in, and adjusting out, for the reason that the hitter does not gain as much angular displacement on these pitches, and, hence, must be quicker with the bat. The finer details as to why this true will surface near the conclusion of my argument.
> > >
> > > On all pitches, the bat must travel 225 out of 360 degrees to pull pitches to left, or .625 of a whole circle. The number must be multiplied by the product of twice the radial lever--the whole circumference—times pi.
> > >
> > > 2(34 in.)(.625)(pi) = 42.5 in (pi), or a circumference of approximately 133.52 inches.
> > >
> > > On the pitch over the plate, the only variable in the calculation will be the increased width of the circumference, resulting from a moderate amount of casting. Hence, the bat-head will travel out half the length of a seventeen-inch plate, or 8.5 inches, which, when added to 34 inch bat, increases the lever-arm to 42.5 inches.
> > >
> > > 2(42.5)(.625)(pi) = 53.125 in (pi), or a circumference of approximately 166.90 inches.
> > >
> > > On outside pitches, since the entire plate must be covered, the circumference will widen even more. Specifically, if we take the sum of the length of the plate, and the plate, we get a radial arm of 51 inches.
> > >
> > > 2(51 in.)(.625)(pi) = 63.75 (pi), or a circumference of approximately 200.28 inches.
> > > According to the rules of physics, since the outside pitches necessitate using a wider circumference than those middle-in, the bat has more time to accelerate, meaning that these balls will pulled harder than inside pitches. This means that all pitches can be pulled. It is advantageous to use this modality all the time.
> > >
> > > Case closed.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > BHL
> > > Knight1285@aol.com
> > >
> > > As for who I am, my name is Geoff, and I hold an M. A. in English Literature, and am going into doctoral studies in this very area. I remember that when I started the Independent League, there were many athletes better than me. One of nicest compliments I ever received though, was how I used the gifts the Lord gave me to achieve.
> > >
> >
> > Don't factor in the very short reaction times a baseball hitter has, his ability to process what he sees, where it is and what swing is needed where and how. Of course, those calculations may not be in your favor. Those calculation would not lead to 'case closed' so let's leave them out.
> >
> > And, how many times will you close the case. It's been 3 or 4 already. Sounds to me like even you aren't convinced.
>
> Hi Teacherman,
>
> I am convinced, and my next step happens to be arguing for hitters to use longer bats in order to enhance the proper circulat hand path.
>
> Sincerely,
> BHL
> Knight1285@aol.com
>
> P.S. Here, on Batspeed.com, facts substantiated by calculations are far better than obstinate opinions supported by gut premonitions.



Jack, can we get the dialog back on track? One person has dismissed BHL's calulations without commenting on any specific disagreement with his calculations. Another person has suggested that BHL has made a a good case. What I would like to see is YOUR evaluation of his calcs.I would love to see other people's evaluation as well, as long as the evaluation addresses specifics of his math & not just a general agreement or disagreement. This is a golden opportunity for us to discuss FACTS (pro or con) for once instead of the same old stuff about personalities, credentials, etc.BHL has made a presentation based on math & science, now Jack, can you lead the way in evaluating his analysis based on science and math? Thanks so much, let's have a great discussion!

I hope you understand my theory is supported by facts, not by hunches.

Best,
BHL