Posted by: Alan () on Wed Oct 23 10:17:56 2002

>>> It was great that these two hitters had home runs with slo-mo replays so you could take a good look at their swing mechanics. First let me say they both just crushed the ball and you can't argue with either one's mechanics based on the outcome.
>
> Both are big and equally strong, both hit the ball on the sweet spot, both swung equally hard, and both hit 95 MPH fastballs, so why did Salmon's travel 410 ft (est) and Bonds' 485 ft, could it be their swing mechanics?
>
> In looking at both in slo-mo Salmon's hands drove out and through the ball, while Bonds' were more circular around his body. Salmon's hip, torso, and shoulder rotation were definitely less than Bonds'. Mechanics looked like it played a part in the distance the two balls were hit.
>
> I'd like to see batspeed's comments on this, since their main message is rotational mechanics = batspeed = distance. <<<
>
> Hi Alan
>
> I am sure there may be other factors involved but I will give you my take on a key difference in the two swings. – First, it is important to understand that the path the hands take during the swing determines how much of the body’s rotational energy is transferred into bat speed. A straighter or more sweeping hand-path cannot develop as much bat speed as a hand-path whose radius is constantly decreasing and finishes with a tight hooking motion at contact.
>
> Bonds developed more bat speed from his rotation because his transfer mechanics generated a greater “hook” effect in the hand-path. As you pointed out, Bonds rotated his shoulders 15 to 20 degrees passed the “facing the pitcher” position. I refer to it as the 105 position (15 to 20 degrees turn passed a 90-degree turn). This pulling back of the lead-shoulder causes the lead-hand (and knob) to also be pulled back toward catcher, which creates a greater “hook” in the hand-path.
>
> Greater bat speed is generated by the “hook effect” due to the rapid decrease in the arc radius of the hand-path and the larger amount of bottom-hand-torque being applied to the bat. --- Salmon had less shoulder rotation (less pull back) and resulted in a more sweeping hand-path, which required more extension of the back-arm to bring the bat to contact.
>
> The pulling back motion of the lead-shoulder is a more powerful force than can be generated from extending the back-arm. This is because the “pulling back” motion of the shoulder is powered by the larger muscle groups – the extension of the lead-leg and the large muscles of the back and torso.
>
> Jack Mankin
>
> Thanks for the response cause I can use this to make a point with my daughter's coach. First of all let me say he is a great hitting coach and has repeated success with his approach. He wants static hips, minimal upper body rotation, knob to the ball, extend the hands out and through the ball. Swing is very quick and controlled - lots of singles. The team is a top 5 18U gold so this is as good as it gets, with the exception of college ball. So what is the problem?

My daughter switched to rotational mechanics approximately one year ago. She went from being a good hitter to a great hitter, from good power to great power. Now this year (since we joined this team) we have a hitting coach telling her that swing can't work this is much better. Guess what, the change he is asking her to make is not working and we're gong back to rotational mechanics. Believe me, you can physically see the reduction in batspeed using linear mechanics.