Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can Argument Be Made That Hitting Instruction Is No Better/ Worse Than Ever?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by dominik View Post

    ... swing (especially attack angle)
    You think attack angle is a holy grail, relatively speaking, for hr guys and non-hr guys? It's a big teach?
    Major Figure

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by dominik View Post

      If they had changed their approach/swing and hit the weight room so they weighed 195 instead of 170 they probably could have hit 20. But the average middle infielder probably weighed like 165-170 back then, now it is about 190. It's both strength and swing (especially attack angle)
      I was watching part of a Red Sox game last week. Jerry Remy and Dennis Eckersley were talking about the difference in the size of players when they played compared to now. Rent was a banjo hitting, speed on the bases second baseman at 5’9” 165. They commented when they were kids Mickey Mantle was considered a physical brute. He was 5’11” 195. Then Remy started laughing while commenting Mantle was the size of Brock Holt (Sox 2b).

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by JettSixty View Post

        I was watching part of a Red Sox game last week. Jerry Remy and Dennis Eckersley were talking about the difference in the size of players when they played compared to now. Rent was a banjo hitting, speed on the bases second baseman at 5’9” 165. They commented when they were kids Mickey Mantle was considered a physical brute. He was 5’11” 195. Then Remy started laughing while commenting Mantle was the size of Brock Holt (Sox 2b).
        Yeah it's obvious when you watch those old games. Creatine alone adds 10-20 lbs and usually not a concomitant loss of speed.
        Major Figure

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by omg View Post

          You think attack angle is a holy grail, relatively speaking, for hr guys and non-hr guys? It's a big teach?
          Anyways, the "new" thinking, as many have written, is that the sweet spot (barrel) goes initially down (sorry) and back some towards the catcher so that the sweet spot can get on plane early giving an increased chance of collision and maybe more authority (bat speed) as well. 1) Did the guys in the 80's generally not do this? If so, does video show them not doing this? And 2) If that sweet spot does not initially go down and back in a batter's swing then where would it go?
          Major Figure

          Comment


          • #20
            Regarding Attack angle definitely most elite hitters are around + 10-15 degrees at impact.

            there were always guys who did that but I think it is more consistent now that it is monitored so almost all hitters are the same in that regard.


            Back then it was more of a coincidence, some where natural uppercut guys and some more flat swing guys which probably still meant chop down but more like +2 degrees or so
            I now have my own non commercial blog about training for batspeed and power using my training experience in baseball and track and field.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by dominik View Post
              Regarding Attack angle definitely most elite hitters are around + 10-15 degrees at impact.

              there were always guys who did that but I think it is more consistent now that it is monitored so almost all hitters are the same in that regard.


              Back then it was more of a coincidence, some where natural uppercut guys and some more flat swing guys which probably still meant chop down but more like +2 degrees or so
              I'm talking (I guess this is not attack angle) about the "down and back" which occurs earlier in the swing, before the sweet spot begins to go up. Is that part "measured" and is it consistently different "now" as opposed to '80's?
              Major Figure

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by omg View Post

                I'm talking (I guess this is not attack angle) about the "down and back" which occurs earlier in the swing, before the sweet spot begins to go up. Is that part "measured" and is it consistently different "now" as opposed to '80's?
                I think the down and back crowd has been around for a while but just masked in different language. The bonk the head of the catcher. Knob to the baseball. Swing down and level. The cues have their purpose but at the same time, when it's based on feeling over reality, there's a high chance it will not have the desired affect.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by omg View Post
                  I'm talking (I guess this is not attack angle) about the "down and back" which occurs earlier in the swing, before the sweet spot begins to go up. Is that part "measured" and is it consistently different "now" as opposed to '80's?
                  The "down and back" as you call it, or the "behind and through" terminology I use, or "turn the barrel" as others call it...has been around a long time, because IMO, Ted called it a "loop in the swing" back in 1970 when he wrote the book on hitting.
                  Originally posted by Ted Williams - The Science of Hitting
                  My feeling was if I stayed more vertical, thereby increasing the loop in the swing, I could get the ball in the air better, which is advantageous to a power hitter—and no advantage at all to a guy who can’t put it in the seats.

                  As a left-hand batter, I kept my left elbow straight back, the upper arm perpendicular to the body. I felt it gave me that umph, that little extra something to get the bat moving. This also helped create a wider loop to the swing, the opposite of a chop.
                  When he talked about "I stayed more vertical", he was talking about holding his bat more vertical in his stance if you were wondering.

                  It was also Ted who first put the "slight upstroke" or as we call it to today "attack angle" into the swing...
                  Ted-Williams-Bat-Path.jpg
                  ...although some still insist on swinging "down and to" the ball instead. Some guys just never learn...how to analyze video of what they actually did at the plate.
                  In memory of "Catchingcoach" - Dave Weaver: February 28, 1955 - June 17, 2011

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by omg View Post

                    I'm talking (I guess this is not attack angle) about the "down and back" which occurs earlier in the swing, before the sweet spot begins to go up. Is that part "measured" and is it consistently different "now" as opposed to '80's?
                    there's lots of video to show that many of the great hitters did this -Stan Musial, Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle.......It's not a new fad, just a new emphasis on what these guys were doing. Don't forget that strike zones have changed over the years -it's called lower than it used to be and pitchers attack that part of the zone -groundballs are outs. Flat swings are tough against the bottom of the zone. The mound height has also changed. All of these things influence the batter's attack angle.

                    And don't forget that players no longer have to juice since they started juicing the ball....

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by dominik View Post
                      It's both strength and swing (especially attack angle)
                      Strength aside, I think that the main "improvement" to swings since the 80's isn't attack angle. It's the fact that almost all modern batters have mastered "tilt" as the means of adjusting to pitches in the lower 2/3 of the zone.

                      Skip

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by bluedawg View Post
                        And don't forget that players no longer have to juice since they started juicing the ball....
                        Ha! I wonder if there was some secret behind the scenes deal like: "Look we know players are still juicing and we don't want them or mlb to be embarrassed so how 'bout we just juice the balls."
                        Major Figure

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by skipper5 View Post

                          Strength aside, I think that the main "improvement" to swings since the 80's isn't attack angle. It's the fact that almost all modern batters have mastered "tilt" as the means of adjusting to pitches in the lower 2/3 of the zone.
                          Yeah, golf the low pitch.

                          It's a good point. I myself do go with much of the modern terminology and emphasis; I've always gone with what's in vogue and I'll do whatever works. Among other things, I like the bottom of the ball emphasis.

                          So there was a lot of practicality in people's replies, not much "this is the only way...". Next I'm wondering about today's technologies: the hittrax, rhapsodo,zepps, ground force contraptions, etc... I know in theory these may be helpful. Just wondering how helpful? I wouldn't mind hearing some more practicality from some long time users.
                          Major Figure

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            You have to consider that pitching uses the same stuff too. Hitters probably got better but so did defense and pitching. This means we will never see hitting stats get a ton better no matter how good hitting development gets. Maybe hitting can gain the upper hand for aome time but then pitching will adjust and vice versa.

                            Usually pitching is a little ahead so every once in a while mlb changes a rule to help hitters (lower mound, shorter fences, smaller zone, juiced ball).

                            I don't believe juiced ball is a coincidence, mlb didn't like the lack of offense 2010-14.

                            Sure hitting dev in that time also got better with the launch angle in game measurement, swing sensors and weighted bats, but most of it is probably the juiced ball.

                            once pitchers adjust to that mlb will help out the hitters again, the next changes like banning the shift and even moving the mound back are tried out in indy ball currently.
                            I now have my own non commercial blog about training for batspeed and power using my training experience in baseball and track and field.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by omg View Post

                              Yeah, golf the low pitch.

                              .
                              Not just tilting to golf the low pitch.
                              Almost all MLB batters are using lateral tilt to adjust to pitches in all heights of the zone, from the belly button (which seems to be the top of the zone nowadays) to the knees.
                              Not talking about attack-angle/uppercut.
                              shoulder.tilt.for3.diff.pitch.heights.png
                              Last edited by skipper5; 09-16-2019, 07:19 AM.
                              Skip

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Ripken golfing, mid-thigh, no tilt ripken.homer.thigh.high.zero.tilt.png
                                Skip

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X