Posted by: The Hitting Guru () on Wed Sep 27 11:40:37 2006

> > > > Criminy BHL, I know I promised that I wouldn't pick on you anymore and I won't. But I now realize why its so fun to do so. You try to pick fights in you posts by taking such a pompous, know it all attitude. I'll leave it to others to debate your comparison of hitting a stationary object with a foot to hitting a baseball thrown by a pitcher trying to disrupt your timing.
> > >
> > > Hi jima:
> > >
> > > The analogy is just that: a comparison between two similar ideas.
> > >
> > > By the way, I am really pompous, or am I surrounded by individuals who cannot understand navigate rhetorical devices?
> > >
> > > I no longer will mock anyone; however, I will leave you with the query listed above.
> > >
> > > How you answer it is up to you.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Our Erudition Excellency, BHL
> > > Knight1285@aol.com
> > >
> > > P.S. By the way, picking fights is never my intention, although some people are embarrased that I am matchless in terms of rhetorical flourish and analysis.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > BHL. No offense, but hitting is not an exact science. There is no 100% right of wrong with regard to its discussion. And though certain principles help some more than others, the fact remains that there is and will never be one blueprint with regard to hitting. This is true because there is so much of hitting that cannot be picked up in person or by video tape. In fact, most of the people who actually speak on hitting were not top major league players. This is an inherent limitation in the discussion. And until the George Bretts, Barry Bonds, etc. break it down in laymans terms, (especially the mental side of hitting) there will never be the best connection between what happens and what those who observe think happens. I do applaud your effort with regard to believing in yourself despite so many darts being thrown your way. But as you continue debating, so do you only prove my original statement.
>
> Hi All,
>
> I appreciate you toning down your attacks a bit and apologize if I sounded a bit confontational at first. you have to understand, though, that I am approaching hitting as an acedemic, and, as one, I do my best to substantiate every statement I make with statistical evidence.
>
> While abberations (i.e., tremendous success) do occur in place-kicking and hitting among linear stylists, these individuals constitutes exempla of the exception, rather than the rule. Tom Dempsey had only half a foot; however, this meant the surface area of his foot that he got into the ball was larger than the ordinary toe kickers. While I am sure Frank Thomas and A-Rod are also Lau enthusiasts, one should take their size into consideration. Does Miguel Tejada hit this way? Did Mel Ott? Did Hack Wilson?
>
> In short, I am not doubting that anomalies are successful. Rather, I think that people should be aware of the main factor (i.e., size) that makes "linearists" successful before emulating them.
>
> I hope I am becoming increasingly clear on my original position.
>
> Let's keep the erudition going folks!
>
> Best,
> BHL
> Knight1285@aol.com
>
> P.S. I am sometimes described as archaic, antiquated, and anachronistic, but never "behind the times." Sometimes I like to think myself as an individual that links conventional with contemporary books. Well, it's back to my research now...
---------------------------------------------------------------------

BHL. With regard to the linear component of Frank Thomas and Arod, what should be emphasized more with successful hitters who apply linear forces is the fact that they hold the swing angle. This is something that A-Rod did well even when he was 190lbs. Jason Giambi who is probably as strong or stronger than A-Rod goes down and sweeps his bat through the zone using more backward tilt. The result is more of a towering fly on most occasions. Thus the size factor exists but is not necessarily the determining factor as both players have the relative same size and strength.