Soriano = Straight hands

[Sonny Schmidt]

http://imageevent.com/siggy/hitting/pro?p=27&n=1&m=12&c=4&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=9


Now tell me who is wrong!

[Aussie Al]

Yep,he is also Chinese and wears a blue uniform.

[FindAGap12]

http://imageevent.com/siggy/hitting/pro?p=27&n=1&m=12&c=4&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=9


Now tell me who is wrong!

Why, you're right! Hands straight to the pitcher!

http://media.putfile.com/sorianohands

[Sonny Schmidt]

Why, you're right! Hands straight to the pitcher!

http://media.putfile.com/sorianohands


Look at the fish-hook effect: the hands line straight at initiation.

[FindAGap12]

Look at the fish-hook effect: the hands line straight at initiation.

You can not tell that line from the camera angle. The camera is in left-center field. If you did have an overhead camera on this swing, it would look like this: http://media.putfile.com/rosedoublepath

If you want to call that straight, go ahead. I guess it's all relative.

[jbooth]

http://imageevent.com/siggy/hitting/pro?p=27&n=1&m=12&c=4&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=9


Now tell me who is wrong!

You are. What makes you think you are correct? Are you blind? His arms extend AFTER contact with the ball.

http://firstpickclub.com/images/soriano2.jpg

[Sonny Schmidt]

You are. What makes you think you are correct? Are you blind? His arms extend AFTER contact with the ball.

http://firstpickclub.com/images/soriano2.jpg


Well, I know Tony Gwynne keeps his hands straight.

[jbooth]

Well, I know Tony Gwynne keeps his hands straight.

Look, Sonny, I'm not saying you can't hit the ball the way you describe. You can. It just isn't the BEST way to do it. To get the optimum combination of quickness, bat acceleration and batspeed, and hit the ball HARD, you need to do it the way 95% of the MLB players do it.

MAYBE 5% of MLB players hit the way you describe, MAYBE. And those that do, have low slugging percentages and don't usually have above average, averages.

Gwynn hit for average, but he was a weak hitter. He had no power because his self-described hitting method guarantees that you won't create optimum bat acceleration. He says the hands go first, and they go to the ball, as YOU apparantly believe. You can hit like that, but you won't hit many doubles or HR's.

76% of Gwynn's hits were singles. He had a career .459 slugging pct.
Compare that to the 65% and .577 of Hornsby who is one of those great .400 hitters you talk about, and he played in the days when HR's weren't hit like they are today, yet he had 301 in his career in 8173 AB's whereas, Gwynn had 135 HR's in 9288 AB's. Less than half the HR's in 1,000+ more AB's.

You simply cannot hit the ball as hard your way, or Gwynn's way, as you can when you swing like the vast majority of the MLB players do.

[Jake Patterson]

Look, Sonny, I'm not saying you can't hit the ball the way you describe. You can. It just isn't the BEST way to do it. To get the optimum combination of quickness, bat acceleration and batspeed, and hit the ball HARD, you need to do it the way 95% of the MLB players do it.

MAYBE 5% of MLB players hit the way you describe, MAYBE. And those that do, have low slugging percentages and don't usually have above average, averages.

Gwynn hit for average, but he was a weak hitter. He had no power because his self-described hitting method guarantees that you won't create optimum bat acceleration. He says the hands go first, and they go to the ball, as YOU apparantly believe. You can hit like that, but you won't hit many doubles or HR's.

76% of Gwynn's hits were singles. He had a career .459 slugging pct.
Compare that to the 65% and .577 of Hornsby who is one of those great .400 hitters you talk about, and he played in the days when HR's weren't hit like they are today, yet he had 301 in his career in 8173 AB's whereas, Gwynn had 135 HR's in 9288 AB's. Less than half the HR's in 1,000+ more AB's.

You simply cannot hit the ball as hard your way, or Gwynn's way, as you can when you swing like the vast majority of the MLB players do.
Jim,
How would you place Matsui in the above discussion?
Jake

[jbooth]

Jim,
How would you place Matsui in the above discussion?
Jake

64% of Matsui's hits are singles. Similar to Hornsby but, with a lower slg%. But, his slg% is higher than Gwynn's.

Matsui turns a long box, but he doesn't shoot his hands to the ball.

[ssarge]

Jim Furyk just became (last week) the number two ranked golfer in the world.

Great golfer, great guy, well deserved.

If you want to teach your kid to swing w/ a figure-8 in the backswing, by all means, have at it.

It is clearly possible to swing like this and become the number two golfer in the world.

Since 99.9 percent of the top 1000 golfers in the world swing differently from Furyk - but remarkably like each other - I would make a different decision.

Different strokes for different folks - literally.


Not much different in baseball. There were certainly a few like Gwynn who had success w/ a straighter hand path, at a time where Astroturf sometimes made ground balls triples, and the strike zone was 30" wide (pre Sandy Alderson and the mass umpire "resignation." As demonstrated most ludicrously in the playoff game where Eric Gregg called strikes in the middle of the opposite batters box, as stunningly revealed by an overhead camera).

There are less like Gwynn today. In fact, it's a REAL short list. And most of the league swings in a manner remarkably similar to one another. This is compelling, when you consider the variety of influences and hitting styles / mechanics to which kids are exposed. Despite that, there is virtual uniformity at the top of the pyramid.

That makes a persuasive statement.

Maybe Ichiro is different today, for one. Maybe. He seems to be self-directed - or asked by his team - to try for 260 hits. And he has the speed (and is LH), and obviously can do some remarkable things.

However, if you watch him take BP, his swing looks like evry other MLB swing. And his results are impressive - hits as many BP HRs as anyone else on the Mariners. Really sound swing.

If you want to find an example of someone holding the barrel and hitting the ball w/ the handle, he's probably out there.

If you want to maximize the probabilities of success for the kids with whom you work, the optimal mechanics seem to be pretty clearly defined.

Best,

Scott

[Chris O'Leary]

http://imageevent.com/siggy/hitting/pro?p=27&n=1&m=12&c=4&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=9


Now tell me who is wrong!

You are.

If his hands were moving straight from initiation, they would finish in front of the catcher's mask.

They obviously do not.

[chesspirate]

Well, I know Tony Gwynne keeps his hands straight.
Even though you spelled his name wrong, i'll give you a pass on that.

Unfortunately, you're still wrong. Gwynn 'thought' that he took his hands straight to the ball. It was a swing thought, but if you can get ahold of video, he most certainly does not take his hands straight to the ball.

[Jake Patterson]

That makes a persuasive statement.

Maybe Ichiro is different today, for one. Maybe. He seems to be self-directed - or asked by his team - to try for 260 hits. And he has the speed (and is LH), and obviously can do some remarkable things.

However, if you watch him take BP, his swing looks like evry other MLB swing. And his results are impressive - hits as many BP HRs as anyone else on the Mariners. Really sound swing.
Scott

I think we have talked about form, fit and function before.
I would be surprised if anyone here would argue that when we teach we not teach proper methods (as we understand them) when training (Form) and then make adjustments based on the player (Fit).

Were I struggle is every once in a while I run a cross a player whose physical limitations restrict him from becoming anything more than a decent HS player, but is able to create a less than perfect swing that works (Function). He does what he has to do to make it work, much like Matsui and his many varieties of a swing.

Thoughts????

[PullFactor]

I think we have talked about form, fit and function before.
I would be surprised if anyone here would agrue that when we teach we not teach proper methods (as we understand them) when training (Form) and then make adjustments based on the player (Fit).

Were I struggle is every once in a while I run a cross a player whose physical limitations restrict him from becoming anything more than a decent HS player, but is able to create a less than perfect swing that works (Function). He does what he has to do to make it work, much like Matsui and his many varieties of a swing.

Thoughts????
I think fit is a poor concept created only to encourage acceptance of other, less credible opinions. No swing should ever be taught besides the most physically efficient one, unless the batter had some sort of physical disability, in which case most of the time he shouldn't be playing baseball if his disability is so serious that it prevents him from following a good swing path anyways. I see form as what the batter is doing, and function an explanation of how and why it (doesn't) work(s).

[Jake Patterson]

No swing should ever be taught besides the most physically efficient one, unless the batter had some sort of physical disability, in which case most of the time he shouldn't be playing baseball if his disability is so serious that it prevents him from following a good swing path anyways.
My point was that Matsui does not always follow a good swing path. What makes the singles he hits with poor form any less effective than a single he hits with good form?

I also disagree with your physical disability comment. Most young players have physical limitations that are due to age and body type, not disabilities.

I say work with what's effective and build.

I see form as what the batter is doing, and function an explanation of how and why it (doesn't) work(s).

Function - when using the term from an engineering or scientific standpoint is what. Form is how.

[PullFactor]

My point was that Matsui does not always follow a good swing path. What makes the singles he hits with poor form any less effective than a single he hits with good form?

The fact that with proper form, those singles could be more than singles.
Nobody always follows a good swing path.

I also disagree with your physical disability comment. Most young players have physical limitations that are due to age and body type, not disabilities.

Yes, but none of those physical limitations prevent a student from learning the proper, most effective swing.

I say work with what's effective and build.

Again, I say work with what's proven, and adapt.


Function - when using the term from an engineering or scientific standpoint is what. Form is how.
Thanks for the clarification. Will note that in the future.

[ssarge]

It isn;t just about hitting the ball harder by keeping the hands / arms connected to the body. It is also a question of swing quickness.

When the hands disconnect, they begin to slow. Meaning that the total elapsed time of the swing will be greater.

Might still attain the bat speed - different deal.

When the swing takes longer from initiation to contact, obviously, the hitter must start sooner. Which means he has "read" the pitch for a shorter time, and has ledd pitch telemtry.

Now, it could be that the mechanics - while elongating the swing - also permit a later adjustment. MAYBE. Which would not necessarily be bad. But it IS hard to maintain optimal swing speed while adjusting.

So I would say the disadvantage is probably a combination of less quickness and less power. The exceptional athlete might still have a high contact percentage, but almost certainly won;t hit the ball as hard. And the merely GOOD athlete will see contact percentage decline as well.

Regards,

Scott

[swingbuster]

Gwynn takes a very soft stride on thin ice and from there was a " front foot hitter".

How? .... He went more linear and got into his front side blocking out hip turn and taking the ball to the oppo field.

8 batting titles getting base hits.

The hands to the ball discussion is ridiculous and the Soriano swing on a ball on the black inside offered up as an example of a straight line hand path is not qualifying.

Mankins response

" I will show a couple clips of Soriano and some clips of drills that should help you develop the straight hand-path you hope to achieve. However, the clips of Soriano I have will not be of much help to you. Both of these clips show his hands taking a circular path. Therefore you obviously must have been viewing one of his swings that I have not seen."

[tom.guerry]

Handpaths from above:

http://www.peavynet.com/news/handpaths.htm

remember there may be a "circular handpath", but the body is also moving forward and coiling and uncoiling with any center of rotation migrating as segments are whipping/transferring momentum.

[wogdoggy]

Handpaths from above:

http://www.peavynet.com/news/handpaths.htm

remember there may be a "circular handpath", but the body is also moving forward and coiling and uncoiling with any center of rotation migrating as segments are whipping/transferring momentum.


advocates PULLING knob to ball//NO NO NO..rotate knob to pitcher using middle..middle starts the swing by turning the knob..you pull the knob..might as well take up ping pong.

[tom.guerry]

woggy-

I would say a better interpretation of Lau Jr's cue, and also more what he means by the cue is to turn the knob or rotate the knob with arm action. This is done, in his opinion primarily by lead arm pull, NOT the middle or the shoulders attached to the middle, which is why Jr. goes to great pains to say THAT THE PULLING IS DONE WITH THE LEAD ARM NOT THE SHOULDERS.

Peavy describes it as an important move prior to driving the swing by hip rotation, the result permitting a "full transfer swing" that is better than just rotating or turning. The new way of saying this is it optimizes cusp. Cusp is tantamount to "xfactor stretch".

In "fact" Garrett was able to quicken his swing quite a bit using the Peavy cue AFTER going to school on Mankin and Epstein and the PCR crowd:

see reference in point #2., post #45 at

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=40829&page=2

While it might seem like a nice idea to try to speak in more neutral/functional terms, there is a lot of truth in the Lau/Peavy "cue".

I would say the hands need to control how the scaps work with the lower body torso (scaps are NOT functionally part of torso, see Dixon definition) to optimize cusp timing and direction of swing plane. The hands can do this because "arm action is king".

You can't learn how to swing at a high level by trying to make the scaps the primary focus of adjustment. You can't get early batspeed and good plane matching by trying to adjust direction of momentum by middle out/scap turning knob "impulse" control.

Universal arm action includes the external rotation of the back arm which is the primary enabler of "slotting" immediately followed by the internal rotation of the lead arm (pull knob with arm not shoulder) both of which are torquing the bat handle before and after the lead arm and front scap "connect".

Slotting is essential. It is not the latest/greatest "deadly sin".

Upper and lower body can be timed/synched by back arm and front leg externally rotating in concert.

Arm action well synched with opposite leg action during loading is a sign of high level pattern and can percieved/used for accelerating learning.

It also exists in the high level swing.

But you have heard all that before.

[swingbuster]

Tom...I think you said something of the nature of

" it is not the motor control of the scap holding the shoulders back as it is arm action at the cusp that maximizes elasticity and shoulder resistance to the hip turn.

" it is the bats rotation around the hands accelerating the barrel breaking the inertia as it creates resistance.

[wogdoggy]

I would say a better interpretation of Lau Jr's cue, and also more what he means by the cue is to turn the knob or rotate the knob with arm action. This is done, in his opinion primarily by lead arm pull, NOT the middle or the shoulders attached to the middle, which is why Jr. goes to great pains to say THAT THE PULLING IS DONE WITH THE LEAD ARM NOT THE SHOULDERS.


wrong wrong..pull the knob and your swing gets disconnected and your arms become the driving force..nobody can hit the ball hard just using their arms..maight as well just be a wrist hitter

[ssarge]

In "fact" Garrett was able to quicken his swing quite a bit using the Peavy cue AFTER going to school on Mankin and Epstein and the PCR crowd:

Tom:

Why do you insist on using this qoute out of context?

Garrett has siad repeatedly what he meant by this. Namely, that without great, pelvic/middle based rotation, "pulling the knob" would have been a HORRIBLE cue.

That in fact, he had gptten in a pattern of leaving his hands "behind;" that he consequently wasn't keeping the box; and that the "feeling" of connection (and the actuality of it) was restored by the "pulling" cue.

Obviously, "pulling" the lead arm so that it rotates beyond the shoulders is simply trading one problem of box non-maintenance for another.

What you are infering is NOT what I believe Garrett to have said. His comments in their totality do NOT make your point. You should find another quote.


Scott

[swingbuster]

Conscience lead arm pull can go bad and is harder to teach than many think. I don't teach it when I can create it in the " hand set" . Why did Pujols say his hand set was so key to his success? I wish people luck in understanding this....apparently they miss this point over and over

If the rotation of the shoulders begins and the top hand is pronated then the resistance is transferred by default to the lead shoulder 100% of the time.

That is the reason for a weighless bat / BHUT

[wogdoggy]

just look at the pete rose overhead and tell me were he pulls the knob to the pitcher TOM? tell me were arm action is king TOM? stick to golf digest Tom.

pull the knob to the pitcher and play ping pong

[tom.guerry]

sarge-

I suppose thisd is more evidence of my intellectual dishonesty.

I guess those testiminials at Peavy's site are just out of date like the one's at Epstein's and the only ones that havent become outdated are the PCR related ones,eh ?

[tom.guerry]

woggy-

lau did not say pull the knob to the pitcher.

any cues can be well or poorly interpreted.

all high level swings have torque and chp,though as a mechanical principle, even Pete's

[ssarge]

I suppose thisd is more evidence of my intellectual dishonesty.

I think you may have me confused with someone else, Tom. I don't recall ever making that statement. Can you refresh my memory?



I guess those testiminials at Peavy's site are just out of date like the one's at Epstein's and the only ones that havent become outdated are the PCR related ones,eh ?

Video is always a better "testimonial" that words, because the assumption is that the author of the site selects video to show what he is "REALLY" saying. In the case of Epstein, he seems to have selected video that supports exactly what he appears to be saying. Put less euphemistically, it would appear that his desrciptive words mean to him just what they appear to the average reader to mean, and that he has chosen them carefully. By extension, that means they DON'T have the expanded meaning you ascribe to them. For example, to Englishbey, counter-rotation MEANS counter-rotation.

As for Peavy, I can't get past the diagram on his site of the dead-straight handpath illustrating that ideal contact happens AFTER full extension. So I admit that I haven't spent a lot of time, there.


Regardless, is the exercise to find a quote that supports an antecedent point of view, or is it to really understand the context and what the author was saying?

I believe that you are aware of what Garrett said subsequent to the quote at Peavy's site. And of the context of both sets of remarks.

Or do you feel I did not report it accurately? (That could be I guess.)

Or are you questioning whether he even said it?


If not, I wouldn't term it "intellectual dishonesty," but I would say it is trying too hard to find support for a point.


My belief is that what feels like "pulling" with the bottom hand to a pro-level hitter is actually the feeling of maintaining connection with the hands after developing enormous rotational force with the body / torso. I think that if the hand were ACTUALLY pulling, the shape of the box would change early in the swing, and I don't think that it does.

I completely accept what elite hitters "feel." But I interpret it consistently with the other available evidence to shape my opinion of what I think is actually happening.

Further, I think it is an emphasis point that will ruin a young hitter, who should be concentrating on far more foundational developmental elements. And who at any rate does not "feel" anything like what the pro hitter is feeling.


And there lies the disconnect (no pun intended), Tom, between you, and some who believe as I do. You are amazingly skillful - and from my perspective, often right - in the detail you see in video of a pro swing. Valuable skill.

However, factoring what the pro says to describe his swing and applying it to a young hitter is NOT effective, unless this approach is severely tempered w/ knowledge of the action / perception gap obviously existing between the pro and youth hitter, and without understanding the developmental process inherent in young athletes. IMO - and maybe someday, someone will persuade me that I am wrong, although to date, no one has come close - the ONLY way to understand this is to work with kids learning to hit. A LOT.

It is even less likely that someone can persuade me that professional hitters - and various instructors - are all describing the same thing. And that the "thing" can be distilled and easily communicated to youth.

You believe differently, and I respect that. Obviously, you would have to conclude that I am underqualified to implement an approach such as yours, and that therein lies the only problem. And you may well be right. I think I am underqualified as a hitting instructor, too. The thing is, I suspect I am nontheless in an upper percentile among the audience to which you post - so where does that leave your efficacy?


There is a further difference. Which is that I've got a lot of observational and personally experienced evidence from the youth ballfield. If you do, it would be useful to share it, because I think it would add enormous credibility to your approach.

Regards,

Scott

[ssarge]

lau did not say pull the knob to the pitcher.

Peavy's handpath diagram (from his site) sure SEEMS to say that.

Regards,

Scott

[ssarge]

Duplicate post, sorry.

Regards,

Scott

[JJA]

Scott,

Just a little clarification on what Tom said, or at least what I think he meant to say. Lau (and I'm grouping Peavy in here as well since my understanding of what Peavy teaches is pretty close to what Lau teaches) says pull the knob to the ball, not the pitcher. The difference being that this is how Lau teaches adjustment to different pitches. If the ball is outside, pull the knob to the outside pitch. If inside, then pull the knob there. That is different than just pulling it at the pitcher.

-JJA

[ssarge]

Just a little clarification on what Tom said, or at least what I think he meant to say. Lau (and I'm grouping Peavy in here as well since my understanding of what Peavy teaches is pretty close to what Lau teaches) says pull the knob to the ball, not the pitcher. The difference being that this is how Lau teaches adjustment to different pitches. If the ball is outside, pull the knob to the outside pitch. If inside, then pull the knob there. That is different than just pulling it at the pitcher.


Fair point, John. Thanks. I'm actually aware that it is what Lau said.

Peavy, I'm less sure about, and would again cite the handpath diagram on his site.

Best regards,

Scott

[swingbuster]

Pull the knob to the ball can be misleading as there can be confusion as to definition of the ball location.

Taking the knob to the oppo batters box or away from the belly button is a better thought.

For you golfers , turning the handle of the club at the cusp slowly and taking it to the oppo rough will unhinge the club with half the swing effort.

As Tom has said, the forward shift at the cusp makes room for the arms to swing if they are on an inside / outside path

[tom.guerry]

Scott-

Important point.

"pulling knob" happens BEFORE connection to help form cusp/last quick coil of torso muscles/measurable as xfactor stretch on motionanalysis. it is not "maintaining" connection.

Kinesiologically, knob pulling is primarily by internal rotation of the lead arm.It follows right after the back elbow begins "slotting",primarily by back arm external rotation

This is the same action as when the lead arm stays internally rotated as the back arm externally rotates creating "stepover" as the merryground gets started if you follow Nyman's throwing model where even he recognizes that arm action is king.

torso as "functional unit" does NOT include scaps/shoulders (see Dixon).

Connection can THEN be though of either as when the lead arm connects in the front shoulder socket as cusp formation finishes, OR as when the cusp reverses as the connected bat/hand/arm/shoulder link is accelerated by elastic soft tissue reversal and uncoiling of torso muscles (which is why it's best not to think of scaps as part of torso function - better to think of scap/arm/hand/bat link creating direction and cusp by how it works with lower body hips/legs/feet link.

If you are not doing it this way, you have a poor cusp in the wrong place.Poor cusp and poor ability to direct momentum.Not high level pattern.

This is a BIG point.

[ssarge]

"pulling knob" happens BEFORE connection to help form cusp/last quick coil of torso muscles/measurable as xfactor stretch on motionanalysis. it is not "maintaining" connection.

Kinesiologically, knob pulling is primarily by internal rotation of the lead arm.It follows right after the back elbow begins "slotting",primarily by back arm external rotation


As you know, the context of my comments were Peavy.


Attached is a quote from Peavy's site.

How is centripetal (towards radius) force applied by pulling the know AWAY from the body (towards catcher)? Which would seem to be away from the radius?


Are you certain you have accurately summarized what Peavy means? Or are we more concerned w/ ecumenicalizing?


Doesn't make sense to me.

Regards,

Scott

[JJA]

Thanks Scott. Good find.

All I can say is that baseball people need to stay from physics as much as physicists should stay away from baseball. :) His statements make zero sense to me.

-JJA

[ssarge]

Well, John, since you are literally about 10X as smart as me on this stuff, I feel better.

It seems Peavy has introduced a lot of physics jargon to make a point, then added disclaimer s which state that phyicists won't see where his postulate makes sense.

Guess he is right about the second part.

But slamming Peavy was not my point. At least not today. I think it is important for all of us - me included - to read WITHOUT an anecedent assumption. Otherwise, the danger is that we will build a foundation based on "agreement" that really doesn't exist.


More importantly - and I'll dwell on MY semnal point - how does any of that help teach a young hitter how to hit?

Best regards,

Scott

[swingbuster]

Scott,

I cannot say I understand the intent of Preston Peavy's text either.

I think from converstions with him that he likes weight shift, lead arm pull , release the bat out front type hitting. He likes his hitters to get off the back side.

I guess I am obligated to further explain what I surmised that he did not like which was purely rotation drop /tilt and possibly getting trapped on a hinged back leg trying to swing with the weight still back.

I would think Preston and Tom might have common ground at shifting at the cusp and the lead arm connection and movement of the COG forward that results

If that is what he means by not relying on pure C-force and turning in his text then I would not be surprised

Personally, I have seen players pick the front foot up and put it back down and turn hinging the back knee as it still bears weight. They think they are exhibiting a good rotation swing but they have a wrapping upper cut.

As always...the best to you

Donny

[ssarge]

Thanks, Donny, best to you, too.

He likes his hitters to get off the back side.

Good.


I guess I am obligated to further explain what I surmised that he did not like which was purely rotation drop /tilt and possibly getting trapped on a hinged back leg trying to swing with the weight still back.

I have levied criticism against this myself.



I would think Preston and Tom might have common ground at shifting at the cusp and the lead arm connection and movement of the COG forward that results

I guess Tom can respond to that, but I suspect it is incongruous to virtually every reader that there can be common ground between Peavy and Tom's swing model of choice (Epstein) when Peavy is obviously CRITICIZING Epstein.

Personally, I think both miss important points. I certainly don't think 1) both are right; 2) merely expressing things differently; and, 3) worthy of "ecumenicalizing." Nor do I think it is possible to "ecumenicalize" two such divergent hitting philosophies. And I don't understand why it is desirable anyway. Most parents, coaches, and even instructors are seeking simplicity in communicating to and developing hitters, NOT further complication.


A reader can take all the fancy language away from Peavy that he cares to. Peavy obviously knows it is suspect, because it is impossible to copy and paste the text from his web site - extremely rare. I had to use a "screen scraper" program to reproduce it above.

Be that as it may, the language is so obtuse and convuluted that it is meaningless for understanding what he really believes.

So you have to look for other cues.

Like the picture he posts on his site, below (labeled "RIGHT!"). Any time ANYBODY posts a picture, they are showing you what they "really" believe.


Not sure how words can get in the way of THAT picture.


Not sure how you can hit at a high level with that kind of arm extension, either.


But be that as it may, it is certainly obvious that Peavy and Epstein are NOT saying the same thing, and to try and pick crumbs from both to build a cogent, blended hitting system is an exercise in. . . .I don't know what it is an exercise in, but it seems to me less than productive.


It certainly could be that there is value to such an approach, and that Tom gets it, and I just don't. And if the value is demonstrated, I'll stand down. But I will never concede that it is valid to change what someone appears to be saying - or ascribe to it a different meaning than the obvious - solely to attempt to seamlessly integrate their comment / belief with those of others. THAT is not fair to anybody.


Regards,

Scott

[Mark H]

That series of pictures looks like Marshall's description of what he thinks a swing ought to look like. Looks a lot like the quick hands video clip as well.

[swingbuster]

Mark ,

The Quick Hands Product is the one you occassionally promote right? :laugh

[Mark H]

I personally get him more website hits than everyone else combined I think. ;)

[ssarge]

Yes, it's very linear, for lack of a better word. And I hope JJA has opportunity to weigh back in here, again. My impression is that this illustration is NOT representative of Lau. I understand the premise of setting swing radius to be more wide if the pitch is outside. I think it arguable whether this is best acocomplished by pulling the knob towards the ball. Personally, I think there are more efficient mechanics for accomplishing this. But regardless, I would have hoped and assumed that all agree that the handpath is still circular.

Certainly, that is what the kinetic video representations on Peavy's own site show.

But then he put up the diagram. So I guess we can all make of that what we will.


Regards,

Scott

[ssarge]

And to Tom's original point that Peavy is referencing a pull of the knob EARLY in the swing, not late, again, I can't concur based on the pictoral evidence Peavy himself offers.


To me, there does not appear to be any way that the hands can get from the position in the 2nd (of the 3) pictures to the 3rd without PULLING. The second diagram shows hips fully rotated, and shoulders almost so. And then in the next diagram, the bat has rotated 90 degrees while the hips have rotated no further, and the shoulders have rotated only an additional 10-15 degrees. What else causes that additional 75 degree rotation of the bat (with elbows already unhinged), if not a "pulling" of the hands?

If the answer is that "rotational force" causes it, I think that is a poor assessment. The arms have already lost any hinge by the second diagram, much less the third. Connection has clearly been lost. Not much that rotational force can do to "whip" at that point.


And even if it WERE the answer, it would be dependent on the amount of rotational force generated. Meaning that once again, a kid would never achieve the same result as a much more powerful pro hitter. Quite simply, the amount of force a young hitter generates could NEVER get the bat from the position in the second diagram to that in the third.

Regards,

Scott

[swingbuster]

I think it arguable whether this is best acocomplished by pulling the knob towards the ball.

Looking back over the kids I have watched and coached I wonder about the pulling the knob cue in any form. I will never use it again personally

Whether you connect and rotate to pull it or whether you shift to pull it I question the focus on that mechanism.

While I know the hips work against the shoulders in a broad sense I now believe that the shift/ in time with the forearm loading/ unloading action yields a quicker , more powerful, better adjustable swing with less total energy applied.

Ofher used a term in his enlightened new life " bypassing the shoulders". While we know that is not entirely possible, it warants an attempt at understanding. I immediately " got it" as that is what I feel when I achieve the proper load and unload of the forearms.

The term involves rotation of the bat around the hands as the swing begins. You lose the feel/ need to PULL anything. especially the front shoulder which is vulnerable to getting badly out of position and taking the head off the ball in the process

If the swing gets focused to a " pull from the lead shoulder" hitting the ball the other way is next to impossible.

[ssarge]

Sounds as if you are deviating from Tom's position. . . .


I don't know if this is a real or semantical difference.

I definitely see the swing as more of a "pulling" action than a "pushing" action.

But "pulling" in the sense of maintaining connection between the front shoulder and the bottom hand.

Regards,

Scott

[swingbuster]

Scott,

I feel a "turning the bat over into plane".... or "the body's attempt to swap ends with the bat" or "rotate the barrel around as the hands get flat" when my mind says GO!

I feel neither push nor pull. I feel handle torque generated by the rapid elbow positional changes and the hands and forearms. I am less aware of the front shoulder force . It does in a sense " bypass that feeling" .

We have all seen the kid that steps , looks like a ton of bricks is being drawn by his lead shoulder and strains his neck/ pulls and the barrel is not moving into the hitting zone.

I can maybe compare the incorrect " stride to the toe and drop the heel being a slow two stage trigger" and shift/ connect the lead shoulder and pull vs the better turn the barrel as you turn the body.

It is a quicker linkage.

I think everybody should play with this and wake up the forearms and incorporate them if they are able.

[jbooth]

Sounds as if you are deviating from Tom's position. . . .


I don't know if this is a real or semantical difference.

I definitely see the swing as more of a "pulling" action than a "pushing" action.

But "pulling" in the sense of maintaining connection between the front shoulder and the bottom hand.

Regards,

Scott

There isn't really any pulling OR pushing (with the arms.) The problem is; your brain wants to make the bat move, and since the bat is in your hands, it wants to move the bat with the arms and hands. IMO, the arms are used to "keep the hands back", meaning; keep the knob of the bat near the shoulder during most of the rotation of the shoulders. Don't push it away from the shoulder, and don't pull it away from the shoulder. TURN the shoulders, while leaving the hands where they started (in relation to the shoulder.) This is what Epstein's version of the fence drill is supposed to enforce. If you don't keep the hands at the shoulder, and keep the wrist/forearm angle, and keep the bathead back, all until you get the chest facing the pitcher, and then move the hands away from the ball, you will hit the fence. His method of doing the drill may be questioned, but what it is teaching is absolutely essential. ie. don't don't do anything with the hands, arms and bat, until you have rotated the shoulders.

The hands are a point at which the bat handle pivots. The hands/pivot point moves WITH the shoulder. The hands/pivot point doesn't change its relationship to the back shoulder until well into shoulder rotation.

The shoulders only make a 1/4 turn (move 90 degrees) from launch to contact. In MLB swings, the hands remain with the shoulders for approximately half, or more, of that turn (45 to 50 degrees). After about 45 degrees; if the ball is down the middle or inside, the front arm pulls at that moment. At that moment; the momentum of the bat wants to go in the direction of the pitcher, so a "pull" by the front arm, is used to apply force to change the direction of the momentum (conserve it) and make the hands/pivot point move in an arc just an instant before contact. The momentum of the bat wants to "pull" your hands out toward the pitcher, and some instructors want to let that happen and add force to it. That isn't what you want. You want to apply force (centripetal) to keep the bat handle going in an arc around your body. The feeling of "pulling your hands in" is actually just an application of force to keep them where they were, and counteract the force of the bat's momentum, that is pulling the hands away from the body.

All of this happens in less than 0.18 seconds, so it is nearly impossible for the brain to sense what is happening at the exact instant that these different things are happening, so each individual develops his/her own "feel" or sense of the forces and movements. That's why we have dozens of different cues and theories. With the technology available today, the actual movements, and when they occur, can easily be determined. The difficulty is in figuring out what it "feels" like to do it correctly, and then the REALLY hard part is; if you're lucky enough to do it correctly, AND get a sense of how it feels; describe it in a way that someone else can learn to do it.

MOST of the people who post on this forum, know what a MLB swing looks like, and understand why it works, and some people understand the physics related to why it works most effectively. Very few, (including me) know how it "feels."

The arguments on this board, IMO, are all about different ways to describe the movement and feeling. We are, in most cases, in agreement as to what is needed in the elite swing, we then get heated because of each individual's different translations of the words being used to describe the "feeling."

Look again at my little clip of "just turn the box." The "arms" of the box aren't changing position or angle, and the pipes don't have muscles or springs attached to them to apply force. The point where the bolt attaches the bat to the box is moving. And, the force to move it is coming from my body, not from MY arms.

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

The "arms" of the box aren't doing anything and neither should, a hitter's. The hitter's arm muscles should be used to maintain the shape of the box, and to control the pivot point of the handle, they should not push or pull.

The hands/pivot point is accelerated and moved toward the hitting area, by the muscles that move the shoulders. You have to learn to accelerate your hips and shoulders. That should be the emphasis; not pushing or pulling the knob with the arms. The primary goal is to set the hands near the shoulder and leave them there as you try to accelerate the hand/shoulder unit around through the hitting zone with maximum effort.

When you set the hands, and then turn from the body, force is transferred to the arms and hands. This what a hitter "feels." The hitter then instinctively fires the muscles in the arms in reaction to this transfer of momentum and force. The secret is; the MLB hitter handles the transfer in an effective fashion, and the amateur or beginner student, doesn't.

[swingbuster]

Hello Jim,

We both cut some teeth on Epstein . I always think about Mike pushing up the lead elbow and pushing down the rear elbow.

That is the position he likes and describes as you go the ball . I like the reverse at the top of the load which is the higher rear elbow and the lower lead.

The Hand Torque I feel is the reversal to Mike's position as the shoulders turn.

I agree about leaving the hands at the shoulder as you turn the barrel on plane. I do think for me that I feel the hands / forearms but I know I have patterned the elbows to do what Mike shows months and years ago

[ssarge]

Jim:

Running, read very quickly, and I think I agree. Will read in more detail later.

I hope you caught the sub-text of my post, which is that the "pulling" is in the sense of maintaining connection between front shoulder and bottom hand, not an actual pulling.

Regards,

Scott

[jbooth]

Jim:

Running, read very quickly, and I think I agree. Will read in more detail later.

I hope you caught the sub-text of my post, which is that the "pulling" is in the sense of maintaining connection between front shoulder and bottom hand, not an actual pulling.

Regards,

Scott

Yes, I got that, and I agree, but by the same token, there is a connection between the back shoulder and the top hand. The force is coming out from the spine. Just as a spinning ball has forces going toward the batter and toward the pitcher, the front shoulder/arm is; for lack of a better word, "pulling" and the back shoulder/arm, is "pushing." Elite hitters apply equal forces well, and rotate with a high rate of acceleration. Guys like me, don't get the shoulders going at maximum, and one side or the other dominates the application of force.

My large post was not intended to disagree with your post, it was an elaboration of the point, with my .02 thrown in.