Posted by: The Hitting Guru () on Thu Sep 28 21:55:45 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.
>
> Hi Hitting Guru,
>
> While I agree with your hypothesis on some of the more prominent "linearists," I find that the smaller sluggers are less likely to use a linear approach than the larger sluggers, and for very good reasons. Probably the most obvious reason is that no one wants to be a table setter that is blocked from public view by the accomplishments of a larger slugger reaping the benefits of the smaller individual getting on base. A less obvious reason, though, does not cater to egoism as much as it does to size. The undersized individual does not possess the brute strength to succeed at accumulating bat-speed through a powerful linear thrust; he /she must therefore find another method. Consequently, anatomical necessity usually leads the hitter to the path of rotational hitting.
>
> BHL

---------------------------------------------------------------------
BHL. You make some good points with regard to the strength factor. But the small guy is going to have a problem trying to make a living hitting the ball in the air. If he does not hit the ball exactly on the center of percussion the ball is not going out of the park. This means he is hitting into almost a certain out. If the ball is on the ground the fielder has to pick it up, throw it accurately, and the first baseman must catch it. In the air only the fielder has to catch it. 3 vs 1. The leadoff hitter and last place hitters help the team more with execution. There is still room in the game for the contact hitter. Marcus Giles and Brian Roberts (and similar players) are rotational, but their teams cannot afford for them to strike out 100 times or more. I am not against rotational but some type of adjustment has to be made. A player like Scott Podsednik cannot make it in the air.