[ About ]
[ Batspeed Research ]
[ Swing Mechanics ]
[ Truisms and Fallacies ]
[ Discussion Board ]
[ Video ]
[ Other Resources ]
[ Contact Us ]
Re: Re: The swing finish

Posted by: Thorpe Facer (tfacer@yahoo.com) on Sat Feb 2 19:07:19 2002

> > although this article has been out for a while, http://www.baseballtips.com/lost_secrets_of_hitting.htmnd and there has been some discussion on it, I would like to resurrect it. The older players did have flatter swings and if these stats are correct how can one refute the benefits of a low finish. Can we rule out today's pitching as be a factor for the high finish? Do you have to be so far back on the axis and lift to have home run power? Looking at clips of today's sluggers I find there are still some who consistently finish low, even on pitches down in the zone. Juan Gonzales and Gary Sheffield are two.
> > as a baseball coach this is one issue that still plagues me.
> > your thoughts ?
> > regards, bob
> The Hitman
> Well I guess the hitting instructors have a totally new way of teaching the swing, i guess ever since Charley Lau and Walt Hriniak players have been taught to finish high with a one handed follow through. Home Runs werent as popular as they are now, but their is no one set swing. So i think of it as more of a style thing than technique . Most people with a two handed swing will naturally finishe lower.

I agree that Ellis is confusing style with technique. Some players finish lower because they hold on to the bat with both hands and to do that, the lead arm has to fold into the body. If you let go of the bat with the top hand then the lead arm doesn't have to fold and the finish can be higher. In addition, high or low finish is partially dependent upon pitch location. I have clips of Cobb, Ruth, Hornsby Gehrig, Dimaggio, Williams, Schmidt, etc., and they do the same fundamental things that the great hitters of today do. There are no lost secrets of hitting except in Ellis' mind.

I have attended a presentation by Rob Ellis. He advocated swinging so that the bat was always level as if on a tabletop. Absurd of course. He totally dismisses the fact that the ball is on a downward angle when it arrives at the plate by saying that the ball has flattened out by then so it's no longer going down. That's wrong too as anyone who watches clips frame by frame can verify for himself. I thought his presentation was a recipe for hitting disaster for anyone who followed it.


Post a followup:

Anti-Spambot Question:
How many innings in an MLB game?

[   SiteMap   ]