HRs with bad swings

[jbooth]

The link below links to a 4 meg file, just to warn you.

Anyone care to explain how the first swing by Vlad got the ball out of the park, or the first swing by Eric Byrnes?

The swings look pretty ugly, but they went out of the park. The last swing by Byrnes is your more typical high-level HR swing.

The guy that follows Vlad, hit the wall with a bit of disconnection.

I will tell you my theory as to why the balls went out, after I hear the real expert of this forum tells us.

http://firstpickclub.com/video/badswinghrs.mpg

[CoachZee]

I didn't have time to download these videos but I have noticed quite a few hits and HRs that are hit without ideal mechanics. My "theories" are that any good MLB or softball pitcher will be putting a lot of movement on the ball wheter its sideways, down, in or up for a riseball (I had to see if Ssarge is paying attention). When the ball has good movement, it will "fool" the batter as the pitcher wants. When the batter gets "fooled" he or she resorts to less than ideal mechanics. When the batter resorts to less than ideal mechanics their athleticism still allows them to adjust and put the bat on the ball. Depending on where on the bat it is hit or how poor the mechanics will depend how far it is hit.

If you are still rotating and getting the bat speed going you will lose some power by disconnecting but not all your power. I'm sure the aluminum bats and short fences help in softball.

[bbjunkie]

If you are still rotating and getting the bat speed going you will lose some power by disconnecting but not all your power. I'm sure the aluminum bats and short fences help in softball.
I don't think most of us realize just how much power is in a high level MLB swing. I was watching a recent Yankee game when the bat slipped out of Jeter's hands and went into the stands on a swing. The thing that astonished me was just how far the bat flew. I don't think ordinary mortals could throw a bat that far no matter how much rotational mechanics they put into it. Even on a bad swing these guys still have a lot of power.

[GFK]

Jbooth, I downloaded the video and took a quick look frame by frame in Animation Shop. I noticed the bat was perpendicular to the spine on all four hits. What I think I see in the first two swings is a swing that starts connected as a flail. Then the hitter rotates into extension. The hitter allows the bat momentum to pull the bat out into full arm extension instead of pushing the bat out with the arms.

What impresses me is the size of Vlad’s hittable zone. He goes after a lot of stuff out of the strike zone and has considerable success at getting to it. It is almost as if he would rather kiss his sister than take a walk.

Not trying to get in the middle of you and Ohfor having at it. He doesn’t need me to take up for him and I am not looking to work your last nerve.

[Rennie Stennett]

Edgar Martinez used to get broken bat hits. Not exactly line drives, but they would make it over the infielders. He used Maple bats, always. I always wondered about it. Edgar usually put a pretty good swing on it. As mentioned earlier here, the movement of the pitched ball might have something to do with it.

I understand that this is not exactly what this thread is about. Any ideas ?

[Chris O'Leary]

I noticed the bat was perpendicular to the spine on all four hits.

I agree.

I think the location of the pitch (down and in) actually helped with this process; the ball (coincidentally) ended up in the middle of the swing plane.

It was also a curveball, which will tend to come off the bat with the opposite spin (e.g. backspin) which will tend to hold it up in the air.

A different pitch (e.g. fastball) to a different location (e.g. up and in) would probably have yielded a very different result.

[Steve Englishbey]

I could not more agree with BBJunkie's point about most not really understanding how much force/momentum big league hitters are really generating.

Tv ,video , and even being at a game does not in any manner really capture the physiology [the kinetics as opposed to the kinematics],if you will, of elite hitters .

If you have not been up close to this kind of physical prowess---if you have not worked with really elite type of athletes that exhibit high rates of force ,and extremely good reactive strength, it is almost impossible to fully appreciate the quality of the movement,and the energetics involved with regards to elite athletes in general.

And my "bias" ----I have worked with and among some really quality athletes----is part of my "trainers perspective" that informs how I go about teaching hitting.

Certainly at the elite level ,these hitters are exhibiting very good biomechanical efficiency AND high level functioning of the neuromuscular system ,ie display very good speed strength and reactive strength capabilities.


The physical prowess of really good athletes [hitters included of course] cannot be overlooked or devalued when attempting to analyze the components involved in elite performance.

But it many times is -------and one reason I think is because of the illusory nature of watching these kinds of athletes from "afar" [Tv ,video, etc].

I would argue that many of these "bad swing " HR's are a function of their "strength and coordinative reserves."


I would also argue that developing greater physical prowess-----what I have often times referred to by citing what Mel Siff has referred to as the development of "functional fitness" specific to your sport-----is something that should be understood as being vital to the process of development and performance enhancement.


This emphasis on "functional fitness " specific to your sport ,is from my perspective ,just as important understanding the biomechanics of a good swing .

In fact I would argue that they are thoroughly related and interrelated in terms of developing as an athlete [hitter included of course].

Meaning for example[in the context of functional fitness and hitting] that most young hitters will not learn how to move the body in ways that Jim Dixon talks about with regards to the torso,unless they train in ways that facilitate the development of this kind of control and coordination of the torso.

Nor will you develop the capacity to use the torso in very efficient ways if you practice swinging the bat like most people do naturally-------use the arms and legs to move the bat.

Most young hitters will need both a better understanding of the biomechanics involved in a good swing [ "understanding " meaning physical understanding ,meaning practicing inways that lead to greater efficiency .]

And they also need to be engaged in developing greater levels of "functional fitness" that is specific to swinging a bat [or foundational to development in terms of swinging a bat.]

Again I would argue that these "bad swing " HR's are many times an example of good enough biomechanics and underlying functional fitness specific to hitting[they are still generating force very quickly/ powerfully ,they are still managing to create good momentum transfer even though it is not optimum performance] . And it is this combination that allows for the ability to get the job done -----without having to be absolutely perfect in terms of biomechanical perfection.

steve

[tom.guerry]

I vote for the GFK factor where there is a LONGGGG contact zone because Vlad knows how to shape an optimal swing plane.And he knows how to get to max batsped at contact within the plane.

The others have a plane that cuts across location much more making the contact zone smaller and compressing the ball less efficiently.

[jbooth]

The link below links to a 4 meg file, just to warn you.

Anyone care to explain how the first swing by Vlad got the ball out of the park, or the first swing by Eric Byrnes?

The swings look pretty ugly, but they went out of the park. The last swing by Byrnes is your more typical high-level HR swing.

The guy that follows Vlad, hit the wall with a bit of disconnection.

I will tell you my theory as to why the balls went out, after I hear the real expert of this forum tells us.

http://firstpickclub.com/video/badswinghrs.mpg

Both of these players have the ability to hit the ball 420 feet or more with their best swings. The reason that they and any other MLB player with that capability, can make swings like these and still hit the ball 330 feet, is this;

MLB players START their swings with incredible effeciency and apply great force IMMEDIATELY that creates a high rate of acceleration.

It isn't just the fact that their bat is traveling at 80mph (for example) at ball contact. Many hitters can get the bat up to 80mph, and there are many ways to do it, but unless you can do it quickly and get it to that speed with high acceleration you probably won't hit a MLB pitch. You could hit a BP pitch as well as an MLB player, but in a game, you won't get to the pitch.

Approximately 80 percent of what the batspeed will be at contact, has been reached just after the hands start to uncock from their 90 degree angle, and the bat is accelerating.

When these two hitters got fooled, they didn't put the brakes on the bat, they simply let it go which prevented the bat from getting to max speed and the acceleration rate dropped, so that they probably only got 80 percent of their potential into the ball.

80 percent of 420 (not necessarily their max Vlad's is higher) is 336.

A bat moving 80mph can hit the ball about 450 feet. 80 percent of that is 64mph. A bat moving at 64mph can hit a ball about 360 feet.

Therefore, the balls that Byrnes and Vlad hit out, went out because they got their batspeed up to 64 very quickly, and before they gave up their swing.

Poor hitters can't accelerate the bat that quickly, so when they get fooled the ball doesn't go very far at all.

It isn't just strength that gets the acceleration rate up, although it is a factor, and I agree with all that Steve E stated in his post. But, another big factor is the effecient and effective manner in which the MLB sluggers get the swing started.

Look at the video again of Byrnes and notice how similar his bad swing and his good swing are, just prior to ball contact. He started them both the same way, the bad swing simply didn't finnish well, but the good start was enough to get the ball 330 feet or so.

You have to get your hips going early and wind up the spring and hold the hands back so that they get whipped around. Holding the upper body back as the hips turn, does two things; it allows you to wait a fraction to read the pitch speed and creates huge tension so that when you do commit to the swing, the bat accelerates at a huge rate.

The physics formula for force is; Force = Mass * ACCELERATION.

It isn't just mass * speed. Amateurs can get speed, but their acceleration is usually less than that of the MLB hitter. The MLB slugger has more acceleration than the MLB average hitter.

In the post I made of Bonds' 715th homer where his arms are extended, which is not his best swing, he didn't give up on the swing and the LATE disconnection at the front elbow had very little effect on the acceleration rate and the batspeed that he had already achieved by the time he extended his arms.

That's why MLB hitters hit the ball out with swings where the arms extend. They extend AFTER great acceleration has been achieved. A poor hitter who extends early, practically eliminates all accleration. And, depending on how and when he extended the arms, he never even got much force applied to begin with, in order to create much acceleration.

Keep the hands at the shoulder as long as possible and turn the hips hard and let them start the shoulders. The hands follow along with the back shoulder and explode away from the shoulder as they get whipped around by the rotation of hips and shoulders.

[Ohfor]

Very good Jim

Now compare that to HG's initiation.

http://www.teachersbilliards.com/1a.gif

http://www.teachersbilliards.com/2a.gif

http://www.teachersbilliards.com/3a.gif


What say you.......................................now.

[jbooth]

Very good Jim

Now compare that to HG's initiation.

http://www.teachersbilliards.com/1a.gif

http://www.teachersbilliards.com/2a.gif

http://www.teachersbilliards.com/3a.gif


What say you.......................................now.

I agree with you and I always did. The argument came about over the fact that I said, I didn't think it was being done so badly that it was a huge concern. And the MAIN point I was trying to make was that this was evidence of the fact that an imperfect swing, could still produce acceptable results.

I never intended to imply that his swing was perfect, or that he shouldn't strive to improve it. I just didn't see it as the huge flaw you did, and I was emphasizing that he had success with it.

Richard, you DO have a lot of knowledge about the swing, and you are VERY good at detecting flaws, I just wish you would be more professional and mature in your discussions. Almost always, your response to someone who you think has made a statement that is incorrect according to your view, is to talk down to them, or insult them. You rarely justify your point scientifically, or disprove theirs scientifically. All you ever do is rudely tell them their full of it. Even if you are correct and they are wrong, why do you have to do that? When it's a debate you should present facts and discount the other person's premise, not insult their character. And when it is a case of someone trying to learn from you and not debate, why don't you teach, instead of just telling them they have a lot to learn, and go figure it out?

Yes, David is obsessed with his arms and hands and he thinks about them and uses them too much, but even though he is overusing them, he still gets the hips and shoulders going, he just doesn't let the hands stay back and get pulled around. They start to get pulled around and then he applies force to hurry them up because he thinks he needs to, and then his shoulders slow down. He still hits the ball hard because the shoulder slow down is late in the process and he kind of made up for what that did by applying force with the arms. It isn't the best way to do it, but it works pretty well.

Will that swing work consistently at the MLB level? I don't know, but at the risk of offending him, it probably won't.

So, there. I agree with you. Are you happy now? :) And do you now understand where I was coming from?

Of course, a hitter needs to strive for perfection, I was just trying to provide some insight as to how a less than perfect swing can still produce results. And whether it can keep you in the majors or not, is an unknown, and the MLB team is more interested in results, than how good your swing looks. Of course, they have enough knowledge to be able to predict whether a certain swing even has a prayer in the majors, and you won't even get a try, if your swing stinks. But, HG is on the fence. His swing is pretty darn good, and his results are pretty good, and he's had some success in the bigs.

I would guess he's at a point in his career that those in power are looking more for results than technique at this point.

Can we bury the hatchet and just move on? I agree with you more often than I disagree and I think you could say the same, so let's just talk baseball and leave out the personal stuff. I apologize for getting personal. Let's move on.

[tom.guerry]

My opinion is that Oaffie does not know what he is talking about. What is being discussed here is early batspeed and late adjustability being key attributes of a high level swing. As Jim describes it, the best mlb hitters can wait the longest, adjust the swing the best then get quickly to max batspeed. They also need an optimized contact zone which comes from a swing plane that cuts across the path of the ball as little as possible.

Oaffie and friends describe quickness that comes from eliminating key phases of the mlb swing so that there can only be late batspeed and early adjustability, a suboptimal combo.

The Oaffie swing and the mlb swing are very different critters, not the same destination.

[jojab]

I agree with you and I always did. The argument came about over the fact that I said, I didn't think it was being done so badly that it was a huge concern. And the MAIN point I was trying to make was that this was evidence of the fact that an imperfect swing, could still produce acceptable results.

I never intended to imply that his swing was perfect, or that he shouldn't strive to improve it. I just didn't see it as the huge flaw you did, and I was emphasizing that he had success with it.

...I just wish you would be more professional and mature in your discussions. Almost always, your response to someone who you think has made a statement that is incorrect according to your view, is to talk down to them, or insult them....

...Yes, David is obsessed with his arms and hands and he thinks about them and uses them too much, but even though he is overusing them, he still gets the hips and shoulders going, he just doesn't let the hands stay back and get pulled around....

...Will that swing work consistently at the MLB level? I don't know, but at the risk of offending him, it probably won't....


That is not how I remember the discussion starting. I actually thought Richard was behaving quite nicely in the discussion early on. I just read through the first page again:

Jim Booth:

“The angular momentum was already generated by his excellent act of keeping the hands near his back shoulder and the 90 degree bat/forearm angle for a long time before he extended the forearm into the ball.”

To which Richard politely responded:

You can't have it both ways Jim.

These two swings are vastly different.

One is very high level. The other has a flaw.

Jim Booth again:

“They are different, and HG's is not "perfect", but he hit it out of the park, so what's the beef? And they are NOT, "VASTLY" different. They are more alike than you seem to understand.

You seem to think that there is only ONE way to apply enough forces to the ball, to get it out of the park. You are wrong.”

Jim Booth again:

Yes, I am a student and teacher and I believe I have now gotten an understanding of the swing, that is beyond that of many here who seem to think they know it all.

Now you're saying that what Richard saw is enough to keep him from performing consistently at the MLB level? That sure wasn't the way I was reading your reaction to his comments earlier.

All this took place before Richard finally appeared to have had enough and took off the gloves (and even then he only took off one of them). I'd say he was provoked.

So, Jim, perhaps some of your own advice might apply to you in the future? Perhaps a little humility from the man who claims to know more than Nyman and everyone else here might be forthcoming as well? Yep, let's just talk baseball.

[jbooth]

Jim Booth:

“The angular momentum was already generated by his excellent act of keeping the hands near his back shoulder and the 90 degree bat/forearm angle for a long time before he extended the forearm into the ball.”

OK, I overstated keeping his hands back long enough, but they don't push off that early, and he DOES keep the 90 degree angle a long time, which compensates somewhat for the hands leaving the shoulder a LITTLE early.

To which Richard politely responded:

You can't have it both ways Jim.

These two swings are vastly different.

One is very high level. The other has a flaw.

I still say they aren't VASTLY different. HG's swing gets the hands started with a correct pull from the front shoulder, but then he starts accelerating the hands and they get ahead. He doesn't start them ahead of the shoulders.

Jim Booth again:

“They are different, and HG's is not "perfect", but he hit it out of the park, so what's the beef? And they are NOT, "VASTLY" different. They are more alike than you seem to understand.

I stand by that.

You seem to think that there is only ONE way to apply enough forces to the ball, to get it out of the park. You are wrong.”

And that.

Jim Booth again:

Yes, I am a student and teacher and I believe I have now gotten an understanding of the swing, that is beyond that of many here who seem to think they know it all.

And that.

Now you're saying that what Richard saw is enough to keep him from performing consistently at the MLB level? That sure wasn't the way I was reading your reaction to his comments earlier.

You're right, I minimized it earlier.

So, Jim, perhaps some of your own advice might apply to you in the future? Perhaps a little humility from the man who claims to know more than Nyman and everyone else here might be forthcoming as well? Yep, let's just talk baseball.

OK.

[fungo22]

Will that swing work consistently at the MLB level? I don't know, but at the risk of offending him, it probably won't.

I would guess he's at a point in his career that those in power are looking more for results than technique at this point.

I'm a little confused. On one hand you seem to be saying his present "technique" is one that "probably won't work consistently at the MLB level" (suggesting that technique needs to improve), and on the other hand you say that those in power are looking more for results than technique (suggesting that he should focus on results).

From what you've said (and I agree), it seems to me that results - even at the MLB level - depend to a great extent on "technique."

Your post seems to dismiss the idea that "technique" should have priority and imply that he focus on improving his results. And yet it would seem to me that better PCR "technique" is a prerequisite for better results on the road to and at the MLB level.

Or have I misunderstood you?

[ssarge]

So, Jim, perhaps some of your own advice might apply to you in the future? Perhaps a little humility from the man who claims to know more than Nyman and everyone else here might be forthcoming as well? Yep, let's just talk baseball.
JoJab:

You raise some good points in your post. I'm inclined to cut some slack on this point, and hope I can persuade you to do so as well.

It seems to me that Jim has offered a sicere apology and asked to move on.

Good enough for me (not that my opinion means much), but I hope for others as well. I would urge that we do move on. I know that Jim has been willing to question his beliefs in the past year, and from my perspective, has grown dramatically in his understanding. For a professional hitting instructor of many years, those are not common attributes. I respect him a great deal.


Richard may - on occasion - revel in his "personna" as the "bad boy." Although in actuality, I have found few on the online community more willing to help. He has extended help to me personally via eMail, and he is willing to analyze - with meat - any clip that is posted. Which takes time, and for most of us creates vulnerability, in that the opinion is out in the public domain and subject to peer scrutiny. Richard is also willing to post clips of his own kids, even when he is aware of flaws. Because it gives HIM a chance to learn, and because it advances the discussiion for others. Not many are willing to do that, either.

I have also found Richard to be right a great percentage of the time. And very consistent. He is unwavering in his beliefs. Some might feel this is true to a fault. But he has his convictions, and many of us share most of them.


While I am on the Kumbayah parade, I'd also like to point out what I know all of us feel - an admiration for David - who is willing to participate on a board like this - both to give back, and also because he wants to improve himself. Who knows where his journey will end - hopefully, one level higher and not for a while - but being willing to question your beliefs and apply new concepts is pretty rare in his circle. I have nothing but kudos for him.


I completely realize how Pollyannic all of the above sounds, know that it piegon-holes me even further as a mamby-pamby, and I don't care. I don't want disagreements among those trying to understand this stuff to allow the relationships to degenerate to the point where there is no one left to maintain dialog. I also DO have genuine admiration for all parties involved.


Let's move on to the business of learning something about hitting.

Best regards,

Scott

[fungo22]

Let's move on to the business of learning something about hitting.
Right after we address the business of you telling me where my quote came from.

[jbooth]

Or have I misunderstood you?

Yes, you have. I THOUGHT I made it clear, but obviously I didn't, that a hitter should strive for perfection and if he gets near it, or to it, he will most likely succeed, but there are MLB hitters who have been in the league a long time, and had enough success to keep their job, without having perfect technique. Therefore, logic would say that it is POSSIBLE (not easy though) to get a job in MLB without having perfect technique.

Is that more clear?

I'm not an idiot, and it would be idiotic to suggest that a person could think he could make it to MLB without striving for perfect technique, as his first priority. That person MIGHT still make it though, even when he has not achieved the highest level of technique.

[fungo22]

Yes, you have. I THOUGHT I made it clear, but obviously I didn't, that a hitter should strive for perfection and if he gets near it, or to it, he will most likely succeed, but there are MLB hitters who have been in the league a long time, and had enough success to keep their job, without having perfect technique. Therefore, logic would say that it is POSSIBLE (not easy though) to get a job in MLB without having perfect technique.

Is that more clear?This part was already clear.

I'm not an idiot, and it would be idiotic to suggest that a person could think he could make it to MLB without striving for perfect technique, as his first priority. That person MIGHT still make it though, even when he has not achieved the highest level of technique.This is the part that wasn't clear. Now it is. Thanks.

[hiddengem]

DMAC..Got a question for you. I've been there, so I've formed my own opinions, but I'd like to hear yours. How big of a difference(on average) is there from AAA to the Big leagues?

[ssarge]

Right after we address the business of you telling me where my quote came from.

Which quote, Fungo? (you lost me).

Thanks,

Scott

[fungo22]

Which quote, Fungo? (you lost me).
_____________________________________________

This one

[Mark H]

My opinion is that Oaffie does not know what he is talking about. What is being discussed here is early batspeed and late adjustability being key attributes of a high level swing. As Jim describes it, the best mlb hitters can wait the longest, adjust the swing the best then get quickly to max batspeed. They also need an optimized contact zone which comes from a swing plane that cuts across the path of the ball as little as possible.

Oaffie and friends describe quickness that comes from eliminating key phases of the mlb swing so that there can only be late batspeed and early adjustability, a suboptimal combo.

The Oaffie swing and the mlb swing are very different critters, not the same destination.

Whatever Tom. Steve's leaving for CA tomorrow, will you be meeting with him?

[dougmac]

DMAC..Got a question for you. I've been there, so I've formed my own opinions, but I'd like to hear yours. How big of a difference(on average) is there from AAA to the Big leagues?


I think that the biggest difference that I see between "AAA" and the big leagues are the late inning relievers and the short stops.

[hiddengem]

I think that the biggest difference that I see between "AAA" and the big leagues are the late inning relievers and the short stops.


I would agree with that. Late inning relievers are tough on anybody, I don't care if you are minor league or major league.

[hellborn]

............

The physics formula for force is; Force = Mass * ACCELERATION.

....
Most true, but the analysis of the collision of independent bodies is based upon momentum, which is Mass*Velocity.
And, a bat that is experiencing tremendous acceleration (like at the very beginning of a swing) but is only travelling 10mph at the time of collision is not going to hit a ball far at all.
Crashing into a wall at a constant 120mph is going to be far worse than hitting one in a car that is accelerating through 30mph.

[fungo22]

Most true, but the analysis of the collision of independent bodies is based upon momentum, which is Mass*Velocity.
And, a bat that is experiencing tremendous acceleration (like at the very beginning of a swing) but is only travelling 10mph at the time of collision is not going to hit a ball far at all.
Crashing into a wall at a constant 120mph is going to be far worse than hitting one in a car that is accelerating through 30mph. If the bat is only traveling 10 MPH, how tremendous can the acceleration be?

Interesting post, but Jim Bob is right on here. Tremendous acceleration is one of the main things we're after. It is achieved with the creation of angular momentum generated by ballistic action (great force over short period of time or "large impulse," as Steve would say) of the big muscles of the body and efficiently transfered to the bat. The greater the acceleration, the less time it takes to both get the barrel around with enough bat speed to create the momentum of which HellBorn speaks.

Or so it would seem to me.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

I am way in over my head here with al you swing pros, but the fact that both were completley extended gave them use of all their power. Thats all.

[swingbuster]

Force = Mass * ACCELERATION


Angular acceleration is a function of the radius squared and other considerations. How efficiently you maintain the CHP makes a difference. Maintaining the hinge angle makes a difference

Very complex stuff. Means little when you make secondary adjustments

[fungo22]

Angular acceleration is a function of the radius squared and other considerations. Triangular acceleration is a function of the gear ratio and the amount of horsepower under the hood of the triangle ... and other considerations.

[swingbuster]

Glenn..give your computer back to your wife and I will go to bed :clapping

[jbooth]

Most true, but the analysis of the collision of independent bodies is based upon momentum, which is Mass*Velocity.
And, a bat that is experiencing tremendous acceleration (like at the very beginning of a swing) but is only travelling 10mph at the time of collision is not going to hit a ball far at all.
Crashing into a wall at a constant 120mph is going to be far worse than hitting one in a car that is accelerating through 30mph.

You may be right about the formula, but the bat has accelerated to about 60-65 and then ceased to accelerate, but it still has 60mph velocity. That's what I meant. I try to keep things simple, I wasn't trying to justify being absolutely precise in my physics speak, as if I was speaking to a physicist. I was trying to keep it in simple laymans terms.

The point is; the bats accelerated to a velocity high enough to apply sufficient force to knock the ball over the fence.

[hellborn]

If the bat is only traveling 10 MPH, how tremendous can the acceleration be?

Interesting post, but Jim Bob is right on here. Tremendous acceleration is one of the main things we're after. It is achieved with the creation of angular momentum generated by ballistic action (great force over short period of time or "large impulse," as Steve would say) of the big muscles of the body and efficiently transfered to the bat. The greater the acceleration, the less time it takes to both get the barrel around with enough bat speed to create the momentum of which HellBorn speaks.

Or so it would seem to me.
Acceleration is a measurement of rate of change. If a bat was still and then raised to a speed of 10mph in 0.001 seconds, that would be tremendous acceleration. If a ball is moving towards a batter at 100mph and he sends it right back where it came from at 100mph, the batter has applied a tremendous near-impulse (a true impulse occurs in zero time, it's a mathematical tool) of force that accelerated the ball from -100mph to +100mph, so to speak, in a very short time.
BUT, that force itself is basically determined by the weight and speed of the bat, not its acceleration. Of course, angular effects are huge (must hit near the sweet spot of the bat and not right by the hands) and the fact that the batter is constraining the handle end of the bat with his muscles through his hands is important, too.
I do agree with you 1000% that being able to accelerate the bat quickly to its final speed is critical to a top baseball hitter, in order to be able to turn on a good fastball or adjust to pitches that weren't expected. There are certainly guys like Strawberry who could seem to take a while to get the bat going and still be top hitters, but they seem to be the exception.

[hellborn]

You may be right about the formula, but the bat has accelerated to about 60-65 and then ceased to accelerate, but it still has 60mph velocity. That's what I meant. I try to keep things simple, I wasn't trying to justify being absolutely precise in my physics speak, as if I was speaking to a physicist. I was trying to keep it in simple laymans terms.

The point is; the bats accelerated to a velocity high enough to apply sufficient force to knock the ball over the fence.
OK, just saw this. We are completely on the same page.

[fungo22]

Acceleration is a measurement of rate of change. If a bat was still and then raised to a speed of 10mph in 0.001 seconds, that would be tremendous acceleration. If a ball is moving towards a batter at 100mph and he sends it right back where it came from at 100mph, the batter has applied a tremendous near-impulse (a true impulse occurs in zero time, it's a mathematical tool) of force that accelerated the ball from -100mph to +100mph, so to speak, in a very short time.
BUT, that force itself is basically determined by the weight and speed of the bat, not its acceleration. Of course, angular effects are huge (must hit near the sweet spot of the bat and not right by the hands) and the fact that the batter is constraining the handle end of the bat with his muscles through his hands is important, too.
I do agree with you 1000% that being able to accelerate the bat quickly to its final speed is critical to a top baseball hitter, in order to be able to turn on a good fastball or adjust to pitches that weren't expected. There are certainly guys like Strawberry who could seem to take a while to get the bat going and still be top hitters, but they seem to be the exception. I can't see that we disagree on any point. As an aside, I recently had an opportunity to do a little reading on the subject of "impulse" - both as it is used in physics as a mathematical tool) and as it is used in kinesiology (by Siff, Englishbey and a host of others) in the context of applying a large amount of force over a short amount of time. In other words, resulting in rapid development of batspeed: tremendous acceleration of the bat head. It is used by the latter crowd in a slightly different sense than that used by engineers and conductors.

[CanadianKid]

I don't think most of us realize just how much power is in a high level MLB swing. I was watching a recent Yankee game when the bat slipped out of Jeter's hands and went into the stands on a swing. The thing that astonished me was just how far the bat flew. I don't think ordinary mortals could throw a bat that far no matter how much rotational mechanics they put into it. Even on a bad swing these guys still have a lot of power.


ya I saw a clip off some guy (can't remember who) but he swung and missed the pitch but his swing was so hard his bat broke.

[ssarge]

Jim Rice is one guy that happened to.

Regards,

Scott

[swingbuster]

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/sports/video.adp?id=20040320204809990001

Unbelievable stuff....

I think you would have to be an aol user maybe?

Bo Jackson clip ...he broke one on a check swing

[virg]

There's enough power in the pitch alone to reach 1/3 of the way to the fence. Everyone's seen it proved. Anyone who's seen tape of a Yogi Berra bad-ball (head-high-Plus)homer and thinks it through knows it doesn't demand bat speed to get there.

[ssarge]

Bo Jackson clip ...he broke one on a check swing

He snapped one over his knee one time when he was pissed off, too.

A VERY strong man.

Regards,

Scott

[CanadianKid]

He snapped one over his knee one time when he was pissed off, too.

A VERY strong man.

Regards,

Scott

and head:eek: ...man I'd hate to make him angry