Posted by: BHL (Knight1285@aol.com) on Wed Mar 21 22:25:25 2007

> > Hi All
> >
> > Sorry I have not been available to respond to your questions and comments posted on the board lately. The last few weeks, most of my time has been devoted to getting our new “Swing Analysis DVD” and “Analysis Software“ ready to bring on-line.
> >
> > I think you will find that using analysis software can help shed light on many of the controversies surrounding the baseball and softball swing. One of the first topics I would like to cover is the “bat speed” vs “swing quickness” issue. Many seem to think that batters who generate great bat speed and power are not as “quick to the ball” as a good singles type hitter. – Basically, many would say that “rotational” mechanics may produce more bat speed – but “linear” mechanics is quicker to the ball.
> >
> > My analysis has not shown this to be true. I find that hitters who generate great bat speed are just as quick (in most cases quicker) to the ball than the best singles hitters. – However, if someone can provide a clip of a linear or singles hitter that is quicker from the launch position to the ball than a good rotational hitter, I will congratulate you and stand corrected.
> >
> > Jack Mankin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Jack. David Eckstein is widely thought of as a singles hitter. As such he could be considered quick to the ball.
>
> Alex Rodriguez on the other hand is a homerun hitter who likely has more pure batspeed than Eckstein as well as much more power. Also Rodriguez has a better life time batting average.
>
> But I would much rather have Eckstein, at the plate with a runner on third with less than 2 outs. Why? Because he in my opinion would have a better chance against a top closer when contact is warranted.
>
> This does not directly answer your question, but it is food for thought.

Hi Jack,

In actuality, a bunt is the quickest way to hit the ball, but it provides the least power, as Paul Nyman suggests. On the other hand, a long, loping swing provides the most power, but is slower swing in view of the factor of time. While you are right to promote the idea of acceleration over time, please do not equate acceleration with bat quickness. Suppose, for example, I let my bat rotate over a 180 degrees. This will allow the bat to accelerate over a faster rate than a gyration that occurs over 90 degree, but will afford me the added benefit of additional power. On the other hand, suppose I set up my swing so that it arcs only 90 degrees. Since an arc of 90 degrees is 90 degrees closer to the ball than 180 degrees, that particular truncated swing will reach the ball faster, but at the expense of power. This is because that shorter arcs take less time to accelerate than longer arcs.

This simple geometric demonstration implies that bat speed and bat quickness are inversely related. Perhaps the best way, then, to approach this problem is to sacrifice some bat quickness for some bat speed, and vice versa, as Jeff Albert suggests. Instead of a 90 or 180 degree arc, what about experimenting with a 135 degree arc for average league throwers. Of course, if the pitcher is named Joel Zamaya, it might be wise to reduce the swing to 90 degrees. However, for pitchers who just lob balls towards the plate, you are right to consider that using a 180 degree arc can be quite efficacious.

Jack, if you have any problems considering my argument, just point them out. I will be more than happy to consider them, and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses.

Best,
BHL, Erudition of Literature and Black Holes
Knight1285@aol.com