Posted by: () on Sat Nov 30 09:39:19 2002

I don't have many clips of hitters in HR Derbys or taking batting practice, because, fracnkly I had never seen much value in non-game swings. However, I am now glad that I have tthe clips that I do have.
> > > > >
> > > > > Recently, Teacherman's primary (only?) defense of Paul's statement (about maximum batspeed being achieved at full XT)is that supposedly the "elite" hitters have enough time to achieve full XT but non-elite hitters do not have enough time. Therefore, these non-elite hitters sacrifice achieving full XT the "proper" way so as to have enough time to hit the ball.
> > > > >
> > > > > This argument is full of holes and I will point out two of these holes.
> > > > >
> > > > > (1) 90 per cent of the major league hitters do NOT achieve full XT on an inside pitch. Teacherman and paul would argue that none of these are "elite" hitters. This group of "non-elite" hitters who do not/did not achieve full XT includes (but obviously not limited to) Bonds, Ruth, A-rod, Camaniti, Mitchell, Canseco, Edgar, Ramirez, Delgado, Williams, Luzinski, Jackson, Brady, Tejada, Sosa, etc, etc, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > (2) If you argue that not achieving full XT is a matter of not having TIME in a game situation, then it follows that a hitter will achieve/attempt to achieve full XT if only that hitter had more TIME. This is where the clips come in. In home run derby swings and batting practice swings, I think most people would agree the hitter has more "time". But guess what? Even in these non-game situations where the hitters have more "time" , the hitters are STILL not achieving full XT!!!!! They STILL have the "L" in that top arm!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Teacherman, may I respectfully suggest that you go back and read the posts (and not just the parts you want to read, but read ALL parts)and re-think your position. Or, if you refuse to re-think your position, then at the very least you should come up with something that backs up your position.
> > > >
> > > > Bart
> > > >
> > > > Again, misquotes will not help you. You continue to state that I think the best major leaguers hit with full extension. No where have I said that. I have said that I think maximum batspeed could be at full extension. All the hitters you list could possibly/probably have batspeeds greater than their games swings. This greater batspeed may occur at full extension. However, because of the need for timing 90+ mph pitches they don't have the time needed to pull off this maximum batspeed swing. The maximum batspeed swing is often too long of a swing to catch up to elite pitching. Therefore, it is necessary to shorten their swing while at the same time they are reducing their batspeed. This new batspeed, although reduced from their maximum, is still adequate to be a good/great hitter in the major leagues because it is also a very quick swing.
> > > >
> > > > Let's say there is a kid in Stanwood, Iowa who wants to develop better batspeed. And, lets say he reads Batspeed.com and SETPRO.com. Let's say he has no intown instructor. Over the course of several weeks he does overload/underload traing and swings the bat 2000 times per week in his effort to increase his batspeed. And, lets say he is a good athlete and achieves 110mph batspeed. Would you agree that that is a good batspeed? Well, this very same kid may not be able to hit good pitching because his mechanics are so bad that he can't catch up. What good is that batspeed? Let's then say that he comes across an instructor who knows rotational hitting and all the things Jack and Paul talk about and develops better mechanics. And now he's able to hit the good pitching. Do you think he will swing the bat 110 mph with these new mechanics? NO WAY. At least not for some time, if ever. It's very likely that his swing is shortened and he's lost 10%-15% of his batspeed. That is the tradeoff that Paul is talking about. And by the way, this example is real although the town is made up. This is the context of the post you saw from Paul.
> > > >
> > > > Now, for you to find anyting wrong with this post you almost have to believe that major leaguers swing at their maximum batspeed in game situations. It's just not the case. Due to the time constaints of decision making, overcoming inertia and all the other factors involved in making a good decision and then getting the bat on the ball, it is next to impossible for them to swing at their maximum batspeeds. Their batspeeds are still very good, obviously. But they are not their best batspeeds. Coupled with quicker bats (because of shorter swings) they are the best hitters alive.
> > > >
> > > > It appears to me that the biggest disagreement here is not if the major leaguers hit at full extension. I have never made that comment. It is quite clear that they don't reach full extension. The disagreement is over their batspeed. I contend that their maximum batspeed is at full extension but that swing is useless due to the need for timing. Therefore, the tradeoff of some batspeed for swing quickness.
> > > >
> > > > Teacherman
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > Teacherman, you very selectively use quotes that suit your purposes and ignore everything else (like Jack's question to you). Again, it might not be scientific, but I offer the following as an indication that hitters do not hit with less-than-full XT simply because of the "time" factor. I will repeat: "In home run derby swings and batting practice swings, I think most people would agree the hitter has more "time". But guess what? Even in these non-game situations where the hitters have more "time" , the hitters are STILL not achieving full XT!!!!! They STILL have the "L" in that top arm!!!!"
> > >
> > > Now, what evidence do YOU have to support your theory that hitting with less-than-full XT is due to "time"? Yes, we all recognize that batspeed in a game may be less than batspeed in a non-competitive situation, but what evidence do you have that full XT or non-full XT is the reason? Answer: nil, zero, zilch, none, nada. No evidence, just speculation. To be honest with you, I think Paul would be better served by he himself trying to defend his position.
> > >
> > > By the way, Jack asked you a direct question, not once, but twice. Rather than evading his questions with non-answers, why not simply give a shot at giving a direct answer to a direct question?
> >
> > Bart
> >
> > Your statement that....."Yes, we all recognize that batspeed in a game may be less than batspeed in a non-competitive situation, but what evidence do you have that full XT or non-full XT is the reason?" is evidence that you don't read or listen or something. I didn't say extension or non full extension is the REASON for reduced game batspeed. (by the way, earlier you would not agree that game swings had less batspeed than dry swings... Why the change?) The reason for reduced game batspeed is the need to be quicker to the ball. This is accomplished by shortening the swing by maintaining connection through contact. Therefore the swing is shorter and therefore extension is not reached. Therefore ones maximum batspeed is not reached.
> >
> > I'm glad you finally agree that maximum batspeed is not very useful in a game situation. Because that was the context of Paul's quote.
> > The tradeoff of batspeed for bat quickness.
> >
> > As for hitters not hitting with full extension in bp and hr derby, why would a hitter practice a swing he won't use in a game? Do you really think hitters that make millions of dollars as long as they can produce will jack around with their swings in bp and hr derby. That is the most ridiculous thing you've said among many ridiculous comments!! If what you suggest is true, a professional hitter should take bp with a fully extended swing and then go to the game and use a different swing. Or they should use a swing different from the one they've spent thousands of hours perfecting in a hr derby competition. They use and practice and try to perfect the connected, rotational, nonfull extension swing that is necessary to hit productively in the major leagues. And they can not afford to mess around with it. As I've mentioned before, even though it is not their maximum batspeed, it is more than adequate for them to be productive. They will hit their best with this swing regardless of bp, hr derby or game situation. It's enough batspeed to do well in each sitution. It's just not their maximum.
> >
> > Teacherman
> > >
>
> Teacherman: No matter how hard you try to defend Paul's position you can't. It boils down to this: you say maximum batspeed can be achieved better at full XT than non-full XT. Problem is, you are like a cat running in circles chasing his tail. You made a statement with nothing to back it up, and each subsequent statement you make digs you into a deeper hole.
>
> If Paul selected you to defend his change in philosophy, Paul made a poor choice. I will turn you over to Jack since you don't have anything new to say, but somehow I don't think your philosophy will work any better with Jack than it did for me or anyone else.

Bart

No one selected me to defend anyone. I happen to believe that the maximum batspeed one can generate is at full extension. Do you ever swing a bat? Do you have a SwingMate? Do some tests on you own. Record your "game" swing. Then just cut loose, let the arms extend and swing hard. Record that batspeed. Then do some live hitting with a radar device testing your live swings against good pitching. Make sure to record the batspeeds of the balls hardest hit. Compare all the swings and you'll find in order to catch up to good pitching you have to swing with less batspeed and more bat quickness.

Teacherman