Trout and Harper Baseball Swings

[dominik]

You guys realize that's Harper swinging a heavy bat, right? Like I said way earlier in this thread, post up some game swings. Stop posting irrelevant images and videos of practice.

Of course Harper has a very good swing or he wouldn't be that good even with his kind of natural power.

but if that heavy bat does alter his swing, doesn't that mean that kind of training is kinda pointless? swinging a heavy bat sounds great (williams advocated that too) but if it even alters harpers swing it might not be the best idea.

[Standballdad]

Your language is interesting, and these types of discussions fall apart quick without slow motion video with fast shutter speeds and a common language. Care to describe what you mean by his hands go very directly down to the ball? and do they do this independently of the other elements of the swing? or are they connected to other supporting elements throughout the swing? or are they connected at points, and disconnected at points?

You also refer to the barrell's path, care to describe how his barrel path is different than others using this "very direct and down to the ball" hand path? It's not elliptical? It doesn't first swing towards the catcher? it's out of relation with torso tilt (above, below, etc.), it takes a turn somewhere differently, it starts and ends differently, but looks similar at contact? Are the hands going down at contact, up, or level with pitch plane? Is the barrel going down at contact, up, or level relative to pitch plane? etc.

BTW: This is the challenge in teaching/learning hitting, everyone's language is different, unless you sit down for a 1-2 hour kinesology 101 session and define terms, movements, positions, getting on the same page, and never talk to anyone that isn't using different terms.

But, taken literally, "hands very directly down and to the ball" is crazy, I'd hit the ball with my hands instead of the barrell. Further, my hands except for very high pitches, are way above the ball vertically, with only the barrel being at the level of the ball. So enjoy the language challenge if you will. If not, it's hard to offer meaningful comment on such an elementary statement.

Cheers

Boy I'm impressed, another internet expert. Read my original post, I was asking about barrel path. Don't claim to be an expert myself just asking what people think about Trout and Harpers swing and the path of their barrel prior to contact.

[dominik]

Boy I'm impressed, another internet expert. Read my original post, I was asking about barrel path. Don't claim to be an expert myself just asking what people think about Trout and Harpers swing and the path of their barrel prior to contact.

so what is your point? hand path or barrell path?

as for the barrell path it does go down initially but it will level out and start going up before contact. this shouldn't happen too early but also not too late. I would say usually the low point is about 1 foot to 1,5 before contact. if it happens farther back the swing will be long and loopy and if it happens later you don't got on plane with the pitch long enough.

[Standballdad]

so what is your point? hand path or barrell path?

as for the barrell path it does go down initially but it will level out and start going up before contact. this shouldn't happen too early but also not too late. I would say usually the low point is about 1 foot to 1,5 before contact. if it happens farther back the swing will be long and loopy and if it happens later you don't got on plane with the pitch long enough.

Sorry, barrel path as I mentioned I am no expert. Lot of folks talk about high level MLB swings have the barrel on path early by turning it. Trout and Harper do not appear to do this. It is more direct. Just an observation on my part. People get all excited when the hitting topic comes up. I ask because I am trying to wade through all this stuff and understand what is really important to hitting so that I can steer my son in the right direction. IMO a more direct barrel path to the ball seems much simpler to me than some of the other stuff that's is being pushed on the Internet. I might be wrong but I need to understand why I am wrong not because someone says so. Dominik this is not pointed at you, you actually are trying to be helpful without pushing a specific approach.

[dominik]

Sorry, barrel path as I mentioned I am no expert. Lot of folks talk about high level MLB swings have the barrel on path early by turning it. Trout and Harper do not appear to do this. It is more direct. Just an observation on my part. People get all excited when the hitting topic comes up. I ask because I am trying to wade through all this stuff and understand what is really important to hitting so that I can steer my son in the right direction. IMO a more direct barrel path to the ball seems much simpler to me than some of the other stuff that's is being pushed on the Internet. I might be wrong but I need to understand why I am wrong not because someone says so. Dominik this is not pointed at you, you actually are trying to be helpful without pushing a specific approach.

I think it's something in between. people now always talk about uppercutting and getting the barrell below the ball ("on plane") early. this is true but the uppercut is not as severe as people think. just because video has shown that pros do uppercut somewhat some people think the more uppercut the better.

the barrell path while certainly not linear or straight down is still RELATIVELY direct and short. rotational hitting and circular hand path (the thing mankin promoted so aggressively compared to the old "hands move on straight line") does not mean wide, sweeping arcs and huge uppercuts. it still has to be tight and relatively direct.

[Standballdad]

I think it's something in between. people now always talk about uppercutting and getting the barrell below the ball ("on plane") early. this is true but the uppercut is not as severe as people think. just because video has shown that pros do uppercut somewhat some people think the more uppercut the better.

the barrell path while certainly not linear or straight down is still RELATIVELY direct and short. rotational hitting and circular hand path (the thing mankin promoted so aggressively compared to the old "hands move on straight line") does not mean wide, sweeping arcs and huge uppercuts. it still has to be tight and relatively direct.

I think what you are saying is barrel direct to ball but it will get on plane with ball path just before contact. If this is what you are saying then I kinda of agree with you. I am not a big fan of the terms linear and rotational. I think a good swing has both. IMHO

[The Uncoach]

Of course Harper has a very good swing or he wouldn't be that good even with his kind of natural power.

but if that heavy bat does alter his swing, doesn't that mean that kind of training is kinda pointless? swinging a heavy bat sounds great (williams advocated that too) but if it even alters harpers swing it might not be the best idea.

No. It doesn't mean it's pointless. It could very well be that without that kind of training he would not start slower and earlier. Or he could simply be building up muscle. Yes, one has to be careful that doing something like that a lot could alter a swing in a non-constructive way, but we don't know how often, how much or why he was doing this. That's why observing practice swings and commenting on them makes very little sense.

[songtitle]

I think a good swing has both. IMHO

Keep studying. They are mutually exclusive terms.

Linear has nothing to do with striding/not striding.

You either throw your hands, or you keep them back. You either slot your elbow to contact, or you throw your arms out like a maniac. That's it.

[mudvnine]

Watch his hands, very direct and down to the ball

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WnHX...eature=related

Here is video of Harper, around 15 seconds into his swing it appears he loads up with the hands and takes a direct path to the ball. No film on Trout, just what I saw last night. Harpers does not seem as downward as Trouts after looking at this video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm7EG...eature=related

Stop looking at their hands and look at their barrels (paths) instead.....

[Standballdad]

Stop looking at their hands and look at their barrels (paths) instead.....

Yes barrel path, I corrected myself a couple of times.:headbeat:

[Standballdad]

Keep studying. They are mutually exclusive terms.

Linear has nothing to do with striding/not striding.

You either throw your hands, or you keep them back. You either slot your elbow to contact, or you throw your arms out like a maniac. That's it.

You lost me

[mudvnine]

Yes barrel path, I corrected myself a couple of times.:headbeat:

Well then.....no, their barrel paths are not, "down and through".

Their barrel path are both "behind and through".....

CCabrera.gif

.....like basically every other decent MLB hitter.

Don't know what else you expect them to do for "getting on plane early turning the barrel etc".....their barrels are doing basically the same thing(s) as Cabrera's above, with a slightly different handset.

[Standballdad]

Well then.....no, their barrel path is not, "down and through".

Their barrel path are both "behind and through".....

[ATTACH]108192[/ATTACH]

.....like basically every other decent MLB hitter.

Don't know what you else you expect them to do for "getting on plane early turning the barrel etc".....their barrels are doing basically the same thing(s) as Cabrera's above, but maybe from a different handset.

I wish I had a good clip of Trouts swing. What I thought I saw was not what your clip shows.

[trschnell]

So use the Pujols still in this thread, and describe to us how the pink and yellow dots of the barrell traced on Trout's swing would be postioned differently as compared to Pujols ... representing Trout's more direct barrel path you witnessed.
We can edit the still to represent what you saw, label that picture Trout's more direct barrel path (as compared to Pujols), and when we get an acceptable video, we can trace it to see if video supports your eye.

[mudvnine]

Granted, Mike might not load his hands as "rearward" as Cabrera or some other MLB hitters....or has yet to get as good as "stretch/separation" as the more experienced (refined) professional hitters, and is currently relying a lot in his athleticism, but his barrel still turns from "behind" and swings "through" the ball, more than it goes "down and through".