Bat Speed -- Baseball Hitting Forum

Posted by: BHL (Knight1285@aol.com) on Thu Mar 22 23:56:36 2007

> >>> 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. <<<
>
> Hi BHL
>
> You state, “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.”
>
> Your statement indicates that, regardless of how fast the pitcher throws, major league hitters find “bat speed” far more important than “bat quickness.” They all seem to prefer a 180+ degree arc. Can you show us a clip of a MLB that follow your 90 to 135 degree suggestions.
>
> Jack Mankin

Hi Jack,

I want you to appreciate the distinct characteristics of Ty Cobb's batting style. Notice his split grip, and his bat being close to the contact zone than most power hitters. It should be duly noted that Honus Wagner also used this style to his advantage, as did Tris Speaker and other high average hitters in his day. Although this clip barely does justice to my argument, it does provide a basic illustration of what I am trying to convey:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWkvafpugFw

Also, before dismissing my suggestion, please take this quote by Joe Sewell in Arthur Mann's "How to Play Winning Baseball" under consideration: "With my bat not to far away, I was able to bring it around on a pitch that suddenly broke over the strike zone. And I could wait until the last instant to pass up a ball that wasn't in the strike zone" (105). According to Mann, Sewell averaged "7.6 strikeouts per season" (104). While one can argue that, in view of average and home runs, his .312-1 output paled in compare to Babe Ruth, who turned a season of .350+-60, Babe Ruth also struck out 89 times, whereas Sewell whiffed under 10 times in 1927 (104).

When analyzed thoroughly, Sewell correctly suggests that a player who has less of an arc to his swing has a greater potential of hitting the ball than one who does not. Like Sewell, I would daresay that high-average hitters of his ilk sacrificed power for accuracy. This is precisely what you want to do against a flame-thrower. Wade Boggs, Tony Gwynn, and Pete Rose also showed this inclanation whenever they went "the other way" with a hard thrower. To hit doubles down the third baseline (i.e., for a lefthanded hitter), I would estimate that that bat must traverse at a 90 degree arc to hit down the third baseline, whereas the bat must undergo a 180 degree gyration to gyration to hit to centerfield. Hitting to left-center would demand angular displacement of 135 degrees. Pulling the ball to right, on the other hand, necessitates that the bat circle around 270 degrees. If the ball is his straight away to right, the arc would be 225 degrees. (Note: From leftfield around to rightfield, the arc increases in incremenrs of 45 degrees. You should also be mindful of the fact that I am assuming that the hitter's bat-head parallels the third base line.)

Best Wishes,
BHL

Followups:

Post a followup:

Name:

E-mail:

Subject:

Text:

> > >>> 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. <<<
> > 
> > Hi BHL
> > 
> > You state, “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.”
> > 
> > Your statement indicates that, regardless of how fast the pitcher throws, major league hitters find “bat speed” far more important than “bat quickness.” They all seem to prefer a 180+ degree arc. Can you show us a clip of a MLB that follow your 90 to 135 degree suggestions.
> > 
> > Jack Mankin
> 
> Hi Jack,
> 
> I want you to appreciate the distinct characteristics of Ty Cobb's batting style.  Notice his split grip, and his bat being close to the contact zone than most power hitters.  It should be duly noted that Honus Wagner also used this style to his advantage, as did Tris Speaker and other high average hitters in his day.  Although this clip barely does justice to my argument, it does provide a basic illustration of what I am trying to convey:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWkvafpugFw
> 
> Also, before dismissing my suggestion, please take this quote by Joe Sewell in Arthur Mann's "How to Play Winning Baseball" under consideration:  "With my bat not to far away, I was able to bring it around on a pitch that suddenly broke over the strike zone.  And I could wait until the last instant to pass up a ball that wasn't in the strike zone"  (105).  According to Mann, Sewell averaged "7.6 strikeouts per season"  (104).  While one can argue that, in view of average and home runs, his .312-1 output paled in compare to Babe Ruth, who turned a season of .350+-60, Babe Ruth also struck out 89 times, whereas Sewell whiffed under 10 times in 1927 (104).
> 
> When analyzed thoroughly, Sewell correctly suggests that a player who has less of an arc to his swing has a greater potential of hitting the ball than one who does not.  Like Sewell, I would daresay that high-average hitters of his ilk sacrificed power for accuracy.  This is precisely what you want to do against a flame-thrower.  Wade Boggs, Tony Gwynn, and Pete Rose also showed this inclanation whenever they went "the other way" with a hard thrower.  To hit doubles down the third baseline (i.e., for a lefthanded hitter), I would estimate that that bat must traverse at a 90 degree arc to hit down the third baseline, whereas the bat must undergo a 180 degree gyration to gyration to hit to centerfield.  Hitting to left-center would demand angular displacement of 135 degrees.  Pulling the ball to right, on the other hand, necessitates that the bat circle around 270 degrees.  If the ball is his straight away to right, the arc would be 225 degrees.  (Note:  From leftfield around to rightfield, the arc increases in incremenrs of 45 degrees.  You should also be mindful of the fact that I am assuming that the hitter's bat-head parallels the third base line.)
> 
> Best Wishes,
> BHL

Anti-Spambot Question:

This is known as hitting for the cycle in a game?
   Single, double, triple, homerun
   Four singles
   Three homeruns
   Three stikeouts