Posted by: Mark H. () on Fri Sep 13 21:12:21 2002

To All,
> > > > >
> > > > > Hitting is a very standard activity. There are differences in the size of balls (softball and baseball), distances vary from game to game. Bats are different but within a very narrow rang. The material the bat is made of makes little difference in mechanics. We have a round ball and bats that are the same shape with insignificant differences in size when it comes to mechanics.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, we have a very standardized universe of equipment. Hitters are all basically the same shape. Everyone's arms are in the same place as are their head and legs. They all operate the same. There are differences in size but the fundamental structure is the same for all hitters.
> > > > >
> > > > > The idea is to use the bat to hit the ball as hard as possible. Because of the physical characteristics of the bat and ball, hitting it hard requires more then a hard/fast swing. Maximum force comes from a balance between control and power. Hitting the ball in the middle is just as or all most important has the power from the bat speed.
> > > > >
> > > > > The act of hitting a ball is a physical act which is governed by the laws of physics. There are almost no situations is natural law where there are two equally best ways to do something. Because all the factors (equipment and the body) are almost identical, there is only one method for apply maximum force to a sphere with a bat. The differences that do exist are of no relevance to the basic mechanics of hitting the ball. The size of the batter or the bat the speed and size of the ball, etc, etc, etc, will have an impact on the results. But there is only one method of swinging that will give the control to hit the ball in the best place with a bat speed that will produce maximum force to the ball.
> > > > >
> > > > > I make this statement not because I intend to say what the best method is. But this issue is fundamental to the entire discussion. If you cannot agreee that there is a "one best method" then anything goes and all ideas are equal. This is unscientific and illogical.
> > > > >
> > > > > S. Procito
> > > >
> > > > S. Procito,
> > > >
> > > > Your statement "There are almost no situations in natural law where there are two equally best ways to do something" is false.
> > > >
> > > > Consider projectiles in free-fall physics: "What is the optimal angle to launch an object (of mass m and initial velocity vi) such that the final velocity vf (at time of ground impact) is maximized.
> > > >
> > > > This:
> > > > 1. Is a natural situation.
> > > > 2. Equates to EVERY angle yields maximum results. Why? Because energy of the system is FIXED. Regardless of launch angle, the system must conserve energy until the object impacts the ground. When the ball impacts ground all energy is kinetic, as it was when the object was launched, so initial and final speeds are equal.
> > > >
> > > > You conclude that since mass of bat, ball, and person are simple variables, they only affect result, not the optimal method. This is not necessarily the case. Basically, any equation model (polynomial incorporating all of the variables you introduce) can have multiple maxima, depending on behaviour. In fact, if you take the derivative of your model, and set it to zero, ignoring minima, you will see exactly how many equally optimal possibilities exist.
> > > >
> > > > Since, in baseball, you are looking at a transform of fixed energy into optimal batspeed, it is not necessarily clear that one and only one mechanic exists to optimize this result. Humans can move many body parts in different angles and sequences such that net batspeed is no different after time t.
> > > >
> > > > The fact that this is the case would not discourage me from learning a variety of hitting tactics of reasonable logic.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Mike.
> > > >
> > > >Hey when I was on my sabatikal I lerned a lot of new things.You guys were right on some stuff and wrong on a lot of stuff.I can say unakwivikably theres a right way to hit and a wrong way and maybe just me and a few others really know the master plan.
> >
> > Thanks for coming back, Joe. I have always learned something new from you and I'm sure I will in the future as well. Welcome back!
>
> Ah, my imposturator. Very good, you even get the email address now!
> Do you also do the JoeA posts you answer?

While this is all undeniably funny, I don't think it is subtle enough to be the authentic original Joe A. Or maybe he's just rusty. In any case, I enjoyed it.

Mark H.