[ About ]
[ Batspeed Research ]
[ Swing Mechanics ]
[ Truisms and Fallacies ]
[ Discussion Board ]
[ Video ]
[ Other Resources ]
[ Contact Us ]
Re: SKIPPER, question about timing

Posted by: Shipper (csu2727@yahoo.com) on Wed Jan 5 09:18:07 2000

> Hi all,
> I've addressed this question to Skipper because it relates to a point he brought up in a previous thread, however, I'd like other input on this as well.
> In the discussion regarding the fence drill, Skipper said:
> "If the ball was stationary or traveled at relativly the same speed and location each time, I would be remis not to agree with a big, circular and accelerating (because: F=MA) swing. This would be a good swing if we were building an experiment or hitting slowpitch softball (which is an experiment all it's own). The problem is in the player's ability to make quick, late adjustments in his swing because the pitcher makes the ball do funny things at different speeds."
> What, in your opinion, is there about a circular hand path that dictates inherent inability to make late swing adjustments? Also, would the fence drill help a hitter learn how to make these late adjustments, and if so, how?
> Now, I don't want to put words in your mouth because I believe when you first made this post, you were referring to a longer, hand-casted swing. As a few people pointed out in response, we're talking about a hand path that is a little tighter. So don't feel fettered to this statement. If you were simply cautioning against a big swing from the heels, I agree with your point. In fact, I try to point out here and elsewhere that raw batspeed is not the only consideration a hitter must make.
> But I was wondering if you see some inherent advantage in terms of adjustment that a linear hand path has over a circular one.
> Regards,
> Jeff

Thanks for thee question and it is a good one. I'll be brief and not use any sarcasm (sorry - just my nature). You are right in your evaluation of my statement. I am refering to a long swing where the hands move away from the body (towards the fence, if you will) rather than rotate with the circular movement of the trunk. As the arms move "away" or get long eairly, adjustments in the swing comes from the larger muscles of the deltoids, trapezius and rhomboid groups.

Because of the "relative or preceived" increased bat weight in the disital head of the bat (through centripetal force) the larger muscel groups must dominate the bat head adjustments. This promotes slower response time for those adjustments.

By using the fence drill (or mechanices of simular result)this inhibits premature disital bat speed at the head of the bat - allowing the felxor and extensor muscle groups in the forearm along with the abductors and adductors of the wrist and hand to make adjustments in the bat head angle.

This allows also for acceleration through the contact area with maximum velocity just after contact, which I think we would all agree that reaching maximum velocity before contact (even if maintained through contact) is not in the best interest of applying maximum force to the baseball.

If in a controlled environment, you could predict ball speed and path, you could take advantage of the larger muscle groups raw power obtaining maximum, accelerated bat speed at contact utilizing the dynamics of both linear and circular momentimum. Thus, the bigger swingers (Klesco's - did I spell that right?) but less ability to make the fine adjustments late in the swing. Which brings us to another question: do we sometimes sacrifice power for consistancy and vice versa depending on the roll we play on the team or what the situation of the game may dictate?

Thanks for the time.


Post a followup:

Anti-Spambot Question:
This slugger ended his MLB career with 714 homeruns?
   Tony Gwynn
   Babe Ruth
   Sammy Sosa
   Roger Clemens

[   SiteMap   ]