Bat Speed -- Baseball Hitting Forum

Posted by: Sweet Steve (Drwinsthry@aol.com) on Sun Sep 15 02:41:43 2002

I think what we have here is a series of scientific responses to a philosophical take on the matter, and that's what causing the confusion. If I read S. Procito correctly, he seems to be arguing that there is one best way of hitting, regardless of whether or not we know what it is or are able to find it/apply it in real life. (In other words, there is one transcendant hitting ideal--just as there is one world's-tallest-person--somewhere--regardless of whether or not we know who he is.) Thus the supposed rebuttal argument that Griffey, Ichiro, Frank Thomas, McGwire, etc., all enjoy success despite attacking the ball in a somewhat different manner is not relevant. Who's to say that--and here's a scary thought--who's to say that, if we managed to teach Bonds a different way of swinging, he might not be even better than he is? It's possible that if we had shown McGwire a more scientifically efficient way of swinging, he could have hit 96 home runs one year, and not "just" 70. It's always a logical mistake to assume that someone's success at something constitutes evidence of the fact that he did that something in the "best" way.

I also think it's ridiculous--yes, even on a site given over to mechanics--to discount the role of not-strictly-mechanical factors in hitting, like (a) eyesight, (b) one's ability to ensure that one hits the ball on the sweet spot the greatest percentage of the time, etc. To argue, for example, that rotational mechanics were what made Williams the first great hitter of the modern mechnical era--when the guy had, like, 20-10 eyesight!--is the height of intellectual dishonesty. Bottom line, we simply don't know what makes each great hitter great; it's a combination of any number of variables that may well be unknowable. But we DO know that somewhere in the universe, there is a mechanical model of hitting that imparts greatest possible force from bat to ball. We may never learn it or be able to apply it consistently--but it's out there, somewhere, waiting to be learned.

Followups:

Post a followup:

Name:

E-mail:

Subject:

Text:

> I think what we have here is a series of scientific responses to a philosophical take on the matter, and that's what causing the confusion. If I read S. Procito correctly, he seems to be arguing that there is one best way of hitting, regardless of whether or not we know what it is or are able to find it/apply it in real life. (In other words, there is one transcendant hitting ideal--just as there is one world's-tallest-person--somewhere--regardless of whether or not we know who he is.) Thus the supposed rebuttal argument that Griffey, Ichiro, Frank Thomas, McGwire, etc., all enjoy success despite attacking the ball in a somewhat different manner is not relevant. Who's to say that--and here's a scary thought--who's to say that, if we managed to teach Bonds a different way of swinging, he might not be even better than he is? It's possible that if we had shown McGwire a more scientifically efficient way of swinging, he could have hit 96 home runs one year, and not "just" 70. It's always a logical mistake to assume that someone's success at something constitutes evidence of the fact that he did that something in the "best" way.
> 
> I also think it's ridiculous--yes, even on a site given over to mechanics--to discount the role of not-strictly-mechanical factors in hitting, like (a) eyesight, (b) one's ability to ensure that one hits the ball on the sweet spot the greatest percentage of the time, etc. To argue, for example, that rotational mechanics were what made Williams the first great hitter of the modern mechnical era--when the guy had, like, 20-10 eyesight!--is the height of intellectual dishonesty. Bottom line, we simply don't know what makes each great hitter great; it's a combination of any number of variables that may well be unknowable. But we DO know that somewhere in the universe, there is a mechanical model of hitting that imparts greatest possible force from bat to ball. We may never learn it or be able to apply it consistently--but it's out there, somewhere, waiting to be learned.

Anti-Spambot Question:

This slugger ended his MLB career with 714 homeruns?
   Tony Gwynn
   Babe Ruth
   Sammy Sosa
   Roger Clemens