[ About ]
[ Batspeed Research ]
[ Swing Mechanics ]
[ Truisms and Fallacies ]
[ Discussion Board ]
[ Video ]
[ Other Resources ]
[ Contact Us ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: no such thing as linear hitting

Posted by: Scott W. (stwinton@netzero.net) on Mon Jun 26 23:39:07 2006

> >>> ...what comes first the chicken or the egg?
> Are these hitters good because they have good bat speed or does their bat speed make them good hitters?
> Are all hitters that have great bat speed good hitters? Hell No! Are there some great hitters that have average to below aver bat speed, yes. You can be a good hitter without great bats peed…you can have great bat speed and still not hit a lick.
> Will increased bat speed give you a better chance at success, sure, it will allow you to wait longer, it will allow you to be more on time with a greater percentage of pitched balls, you’ll get fooled less often the longer you can wait on a pitch…however, bat speed is one (in my opinion) small component of being ABLE to actually hit…
> I think my point is, bat speed and good hitting are separate entities…I think their could just as easily be a site on how to see the ball better, how to approach different counts, situational hitting, dealing with offensive pressure- internal and external…. These being other component that are just as important to good hitting. <<<
> Hi Scott
> I guess it all depends on how you define a great hitter. To fit my definition, the batter would need to hit for both power and average – say, 300+ average and 30 + HR. For many of the top power hitters like Ruth, Williams, Mantle, Brett, Musial, Bonds, Pujols, …. not only did these great hitters bat speeds allow them to hit for power, it also helped them placed high (or win) in the BA and RBI categories as well.
> I grant you that hitters with mechanics that generate less power (bat speed) can serve a very valuable team role in getting on base, advancing runners, and etc. However, I think the record books will show their chances of reaching the “Hall of Fame” status to be much lower than the hitters whose mechanics generate great bat speed.
> Jack Mankin


Your talking about 1st ballot hall of famers (Ruth, Williams, Mantle, Brett, Musial, Bonds, Pujols)…The FACT is, less then 2% of all MLB players will ever make it to the Hall, of the list you threw out there now were talking about the ultra ultra elite, amongst the elite…for every hitter you mention, there are probably 5 players actually IN the hall of fame that don’t come close to those guys (statically speaking).

Hitting is hard… there’s a reason Barry and A-rod make millions, there are only a select few on the planet that can consistently achieve at this task…some might disagree with the a-rod suggestion. For every Barry and Mantel and Marris there is a hall of famer like Ray Schalk, a lifetime .253 who hit 11 HR’s 11 seasons! This guys in the HALL! How about these guys…Bat speed does not equill Hall of Fame...

Roger Bresnahan, lifetime .279, 26 HR’s in 18 seasons

Buck Ewing, .311, 71 HR’s in 15 seasons.

Rick Ferrell , - hit .281. 18 years, 28 HR’s

Ernie Lombardi, - 17-year career, .306, hit .300 or better 10 times. 16 years, 190 HR’s.

Mickey Cochrane batted .320 during his 13-year career, 119 Hr’s.

Eddie Collins played 25 seasons in the major leagues, 47 HR’s, .333 B.A.

Johnny Evers, 18 years, .270 BA, 12 HR’s.

Billy Herman, 15 seasons 47 HR’s, .304

Bid McPhee, 17 season, 53 Hr’s, .281 BA.

Rod Carew hit over .300 in 15 consecutive seasons, achieving a .328 B.A., 92 HR’s in 18 season, never more then 14, twice.


Post a followup:

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

[   SiteMap   ]