Posted by: Jeff (kidd@islc.net) on Tue Jan 4 16:22:35 2000

Hi all,

I've addressed this question to Skipper because it relates to a point he brought up in a previous thread, however, I'd like other input on this as well.

In the discussion regarding the fence drill, Skipper said:

"If the ball was stationary or traveled at relativly the same speed and location each time, I would be remis not to agree with a big, circular and accelerating (because: F=MA) swing. This would be a good swing if we were building an experiment or hitting slowpitch softball (which is an experiment all it's own). The problem is in the player's ability to make quick, late adjustments in his swing because the pitcher makes the ball do funny things at different speeds."

What, in your opinion, is there about a circular hand path that dictates inherent inability to make late swing adjustments? Also, would the fence drill help a hitter learn how to make these late adjustments, and if so, how?

Now, I don't want to put words in your mouth because I believe when you first made this post, you were referring to a longer, hand-casted swing. As a few people pointed out in response, we're talking about a hand path that is a little tighter. So don't feel fettered to this statement. If you were simply cautioning against a big swing from the heels, I agree with your point. In fact, I try to point out here and elsewhere that raw batspeed is not the only consideration a hitter must make.

But I was wondering if you see some inherent advantage in terms of adjustment that a linear hand path has over a circular one.

Regards,
Jeff