Posted by: Alan (alan_lupinetti@toyota.com) on Thu Apr 11 15:42:51 2002

I am very uncomfortable with all the softball hitting coaches telling my daughter to move all the way to the front of the box. All this does is reduce reaction time (40 ft)which I feel is a very precious commodity (the more the better). In fact I've done some basic calculations (95mph @ 60 ft = 63.3mph @ 40ft)and of course we know how difficult it is to hit 95mph, but if we move them even closer to the pitcher (38 ft) it gets to the 100mph (equivalent) and how many people can effectively hit that. Is there something I'm missing here?
>
> There are several things you are missing, but not your fault.
> First, girls fastpitch softball is full of ridiculous concepts, strategies and techniques that are foolish but institutionalized.
> Apparently the art of fastpitch pitching is pretty evolved. Consequently pitchers dominate. Consequently all sorts of strange distortions grow out of the imbalance of pitcher and hitter.
> Since pitching dominates hitting, hitting coaches try strange, wrong things in endless variations.
> - Since the pitch arrives too soon, move the batter up in the box (that takes away the decision about breaking balls, fastballs, rises,etc. even though a softball breaks less than a baseball)
> - turn rightys into lefties until 2 strikes, and have them slap instead of hit, esp. if they are fast. In other words, we can't hit righty so lets run fast and hope for an error.
> - hit the ball on the ground even though the infield is standing on top of the hitter waiting for a ball on the ground. go figure???
> - don't hit like in baseball (where batters do hit 90 mph fastballs), do less effective things like two-piece swings with wrist snapping instead of rotational mechanics
> - there are more but let it suffice that if you discuss this with fastpitch people they will tell you to 'stop making sense' in some form or another.
>
> by the way, while 95mph @ 60 ft = 63.3mph @ 40ft in terms of flight of ball, they are difinitely not the same. We did the same calcs for 46' vs 60'6" (small to big field in baseball). Found that the 60 mph equivalent of a 40 mph LL pitch was still going 60 mph when it went by the batter. Ball appeared to speed up at the end (illusion). you have more time to get ready for that 60 mph pitch, but its still going that fast.
> In fastpitch, you have less time to read the pitch but it is still going 63.3 mph at homeplate, not 95.
> BTW, who throws 60+mph? our HS leagues have almost nobody that fast in MA. Maybe a few on top travel teams. 50's is pretty good.
> The Olympic team pitchers are high 60s, sometimes 70. D1 Colleges are in the 60s.
>
> My daughter, 17, HS junior, has been hitting rotationally for several years despite all the 'fastpitch swing' coaches she has had.
> Last year, 2nd coference all star, 2nd in BA (.408). This year, 4 for 11 so far with 4 huge bombs (200+ feet). And two were caught by CF playing deep. She outhits everyone on every team they play.
> And she really isn't miss jock. Her game sense is at times lacking. She never knows what she hits - location or spin. Just see ball, crush ball.
> Love that swing, the coaches say, but if you snapped your wrists, you'd be better.... and blah, blah, blah
> Jack - you did a swing review of Jodie over a year ago. She is progressing and your input made a difference. 70+ mph batspeed on dry swings. I'd like to get it up to 80 for next year if she'll work hard enough at it. Thanks.
>
> I agree with you about some of the odd techniques that have developed in softball. I'm convinced (batspeed)is the way to go because the best hitters use these hitting principles. It is hard for me to convince travel ball coaches that they should be doing something different, because they have had such success in the past (national championships). I'm a proponent of constantly trying to improve and batspeed makes sense to me; I wish others would be more open to these principles.

Anyway I was trying to make a point of reaction time because if I pitched a ball at 90mph from 40 ft, it would be MUCH more difficult to hit than from 60ft. When I was playing you moved back farther in the box against the hard throwers and yes it did help. Now my theory on this was there was a certain amount of reaction time from batting against the average speed pitchers, that you were making adjustments for by moving back on the harder throwers.

To compound matters when you move closer to the pitcher in baseball 1 ft = 1.66% of the total distance in softball 1 ft = 2.5%, in other words why do I want to give any of my reaction time back to the pitcher? By the way in S. California we have kids on travel teams that throw in the 60's so the window of time is pretty short.

By the way I agree with you that softball people have widely exagerated claims on how much a softball can break in only 40 ft. I've caught some of the best softball pitchers (before games) and their pitches don't break anywhere near as far as the baseball pitchers from 60 ft. But my real point is do we just think girls can't hit the breaking pitch, even if it breaks less, are they just unable to do this? That is why everyone wants them to move up in the box. I just don't agree with them, but I have nothing to prove my point. And I think this is one of the reasons there is much less scoring in softball.

P.S. If the closer is better theory in softball works, why did we move the mound to 43 ft in college, wouldn't this make it harder to hit since the ball will move more and we wouldn't want that.

>
>