radial deviation

[ssarge]

In this light, I think slaught's definition of the "swing starting" when the back starts down is a good one,

No reason to change his quote, Tom. The RVP instructional materials clearly indicate the rear elbow "keys rotation."

Which it doesn't.

As a true physics of baseball expert, Alan Nathan says:

the physicist's model of the game must fit the game

Yes. My issue is you apparently want to CHANGE the game, and say that throwing and overhand hitting are the same thing. I disagree.

AND, I think if you understand how the throw is like the swing, you will learn/teach an MLB/live and independent hands swing, not a gated core controlling appendages swing.

I'm waiting for you to tell me how the OVERHAND throw IS like a swing. Maybe we can have that rear forearm trailing the rear elbow at a near 90 degree angle as a starting point. We'll get a LOT of whip, then.

Englishbey quote from eteamz for reference:

"As opposed to those radical ,out of the box types like myself and Paul Nyman [and I suspect there are some others out there who are starting to catch on to this "out of the box stuff" ]who are seeking and using non-traditional sources ,to both explain and teach throwing and hitting."

Yep, non traditional. In the same time frame, on the same website, you were pointing kids and parents to Dusty Baker's site, where cues like "hands to the ball" and "squish the bug" were prominantly displayed.

Englishbey is non-traditional in that he DOES NOT use cues like that. He was using a hammer a long time before Slaught and Candrea, to pick yet another example. Who BTW, also have achieved considerable success by using non-traditional cues. And apparently, meet with your approval.

So what is your point, exactly?

And BTW, I'd appreciate it if you would react to what I write, rather than to tell me what Englishbey believes. My beliefs are my beliefs, and I have stated them above and here.

let's all remember this is just "theoretical".

I have no idea why that is funny to you.

 

[ssarge]

Scott: I kind of laughed when I read your response on the Left Handed hitters that throw right. The DD is a student of Hitters. She is a good hitter, but a a local college camp they had them throw , as part of a hitting drill. They had to throw the ball to the area they were trying to hit the ball. First base, Third base. She about takes off the coaches head, thowing to first. She turns to the coach and tells her I'm right handed I can't throw with a Sh!!! left handed. She won the hitting contest, as a freshman at this camp against mostly Jr's. So watching her throw in this drill setting , was kind of funny!

That is a great story, thanks!

Sure sounds as if your DD is doing very well. Keep up the good work.

Regards,

Scott

 

[HittingGuru]

I see that there is a vast difference of opinions on hitting. Lots of very different and confusing terms used by each individual. I have learned how to teach power to both sides of the field from the same side of the plate. Maybe I am confused with the terms but I don't believe from the videos that some promote or the mechanics that are explained on here that a lot of what is taught here can deliver opposite field power.

 

[Jeff_H]

I see that there is a vast difference of opinions on hitting. Lots of very different and confusing terms used by each individual. I have learned how to teach power to both sides of the field from the same side of the plate. Maybe I am confused with the terms but I don't believe from the videos that some promote or the mechanics that are explained on here that a lot of what is taught here can deliver opposite field power.

Define opposite field, are you refering to down the line or to the gaps?

 

[ssarge]

I see that there is a vast difference of opinions on hitting. Lots of very different and confusing terms used by each individual. I have learned how to teach power to both sides of the field from the same side of the plate. Maybe I am confused with the terms but I don't believe from the videos that some promote or the mechanics that are explained on here that a lot of what is taught here can deliver opposite field power.

Point to specifics, and let's talk about it.


IMO, HRs to the opposite field in softball, even college softball, are not all that common. I track my own daughters workout sessions more closely than other kids, including how many HRs she hits in each BP session, and where they leave the yard. (I have a very long, very anal spreadsheet spanning her entire career). In practice, she hits about 1 HR oppo for every 7 or so to the left side of center (distribution on the "7" is maybe one near the LF line, 2-3 near left center, and maybe 3 between left center and center). Of the 8 HRs in her first college season last year, two were to the right of center. I suspect all but a couple of the pitches on her HRs were on the outer half or further out than that. She plays in the same part of the country where she played most of her Gold ball, and kids are just so well scouted and known these days. Pitchers still miss occasionally, but not often enough!

The oppo HR IS becoming more frequent for her, as she has tuned her swing more for the outside pitch. It is SO rare to see inside pitches to power hitters in college SB. With the exception being the Pac10 and SEC, where the culture IS to challenge hitters inside. Best pitchers in the country in those conferences too, but also the best batting averages (Pac10 was .300 last year, against a .26X for D-I as a whole). I digress. Normally, a pitch thatis middle-out to outside-blackis a ball that she hits to roughly straight-away CF (she is 5' 11" and uses a 34" bat). Pitches outside of the black, which may not be strikes but might be called for strikes (VERY common in Gold and college) are the balls she tends to hit oppo.

VERY few balls she hits cut or slice. It's a bad miss when it happens. OTOH, her pulled balls don't hook, either.

If you are going to be a power hitter in Gold ball and in college, generally, you are going to have to be able to handle the outside pitch pretty well. It is a big part of what I work on and teach to students. If what I taught did not allow good results with the outside pitch, I'd be in trouble. It is about all anyone sees these days.


If something I have written would cause you to believe otherwise, please bring it to my attention. Similarly, any terms you find confusing. You'd be doing me a favor if you did this, as my desire is to clarify, NOT confuse.

Thanks,

Scott

 

[tom.guerry]

sarge -

I have been through how throw and swing are similar and how they are different in great detail over and opver for more than 5 years. You really need/want me to go through that again ?

The VERY short version is that ALL MLB pattern swings sequence through:

rhythmic preswing activity
inward turn/neg move/cock hips
positive move/cock hands
wind rubber band/sit
drop and tilt/swing.

overhand throw has a more symmetric arm action rather than the bback and forth alternating rhythm of the swing, so a big advantage of the rhythmic preswing activity is to prepare the body for an overall motion/sequence that will be different from throwing, but the next several parts are extremely similar and in fact, the throw is where kids "traditionally" learn how to windup (get sideways,inward turn,negative move) and "cock the hips" and "cock the hands"/carry the weight/positive move and coil/sit into toe touch.

All of that and the detail of back arm action/moiton sequence is extremely similar between overhand throw and swing.

things totally diverge at GO/launch/drop and tilt, but the prepartion prior to this is what is the same and is best forst learned in throing and carried over to swinging.


With regard to the trouble with the radfical science guys like Nyman, the trouble is that science is SO inadequate in explaining what hitters do that CUES are far superior. I would agree that MOST of the time, cues that abviously directly violate understandable scientific properties of the swing are undesirable.

The problem comes when inadequate/dumbed down science is mistaken for reality, resulting in ridiculous teaching approaches like some of the PCR guidelines.

"rearward acceleration"/THT/early handle torque is a prime example. Nyman and others claim that they have run or seen evidence that proves that this does not exist, but that is not true.

As Cross's study suggests, an early handle torque/"positive couple" is necessary to produce trajecties seen in real life wood bat/MLB type swings.

As Jorgensen's golf emopirical analysis showed, a "stop" was necessary to keep inertia from starting the shaft reactively in the wrong direction, this "STOP" (holding torque/hinge holding) needs to be in place BEFORE the swing starts (which is early).

Even Nyman's own model proves that handle torque exists from the moment the double pendulum (fused torso/arm) starts to turn in his ironnyman model.

Then he WRONGLY asserts this "PROVES" that tht does not exist because a human could never feel this force.

Then he goes on to RIGHTLY assert, in his next model, that such an early force can NOT be effectively applied using either back arm extension of IN ternal rotation.

Then he proceeds to WRONGLY assert that this porves there is no early handle torque when in fact it does nothing of the kind. The force can be actively applied early BEFORE the hips and torso turn the shoulders via back arm EXternal rotation and back forearm SUPINATION as demonstarted by BUSTOS swing and Mankin's THT clips.

That is not just radical science/out of the box thinking. That is just wrong.

The burden is on SCIENCE to DEFINITIVELY prove a cue is incompatible or harmful.

In this case, I would assert the THT cue is CLOSER to reality than Nyman's models, and in general time tested "traditional" cues are superior to attempts to describe the swing motion "scientifically".

 

[Hitter]

failure to teach a good overhand throw is the single biggest opportunity/area for improving player skill development. if you can throw, you can hit in the high level MLB type pattern.

overhand throwing development is PITIFUL in fastpitch. way worse than any hitting learning/coaching.

with respect to head action, chin tuck is very important to stabilize the upper end of the axis. turning head back too much inhibits rotation.

chin tuck fine, but do niot turn the head back trying to follow the ball all the way in or tey to see ball hit bat.

Tom we say and teach it a little differently and it has nothing to do with how we teach tracking the ball...we ask if they are stronger with their head up or down at contact. We have them stand with their elbows tucked into their side and the palms are facing each other and have them keep their chin slightly above the horizon and then tell to resist me as I push downward on their hands...they can not stop me. Now repeat as if they are tracking a ball with the chin slightly below the horizon and you will find it most difficult to push them down. The intrinsic muscle group (some call it the gutter muscles) is engaged with the head tilted down slightly. You can feel it yourself if you take your thumbs and reach around your back just above the belt line on either side of your spine and when you raise your head and you feel nothing and then lower it and you will feel them bulge or engage. We have the hitters bring the bat to contact and ask then to keep the head up slightly and then try to push the bat rearward with our little finger on the end of the bat and they can not stop us. Now repeat with the head slightly down as if tracking the ball and you will feel the resistance. How you grip the bat is the next opportunity for improvement.

 

[ssarge]

I have been through how throw and swing are similar and how they are different in great detail over and opver for more than 5 years.

You have. And I DO see SOME similarities. What I don't see is the universalism you claim / infer. That this is an absolute, or that failure to learn to throw to your standard will doom a kid to not being able to hit. And you still haven't answered my specific objections which I say disprove your assumptions. Namely RH thrower / LH hitters. MLB pitchers. And the plethora of college FP hitters who throw great, but can't hit a lick.

Also, the first few times you went through it, you were referencing a side-arm throw. You only recently have changed to an overhand throw. I wondered if that changed anything. In reading your description, I see it didn't.

With regard to the trouble with the radfical science guys like Nyman, the trouble is that science is SO inadequate in explaining what hitters do that CUES are far superior. I would agree that MOST of the time, cues that abviously directly violate understandable scientific properties of the swing are undesirable.

I appreciate the last sentence, thank you. As I have said repeatedly, and on this very thread, the importance of an INSTRUCTOR understanding the science a little is that he needs to be able to come up with cues that work for all hitters. Many cues are required; the same ones absolutely DO NOT work for everyone. As an instructor, you need guardrails to do that. I know of NO ONE who teaches with scientific material. EVERYONE uses cues. The best instructors use many different ones with different hitters, and at different times with the same hitters. And know how to use cues to fix problems without creating other problems. Either intuitively - based on LONG experience, or their understanding of the science. And in many cases, both. This is why it is SO important to work with kids in person.


You have also repeatedly posted your criticisms of Nyman's model. JJA, a physicist by profession, says Nyman is right, and you are not. I understand you believe you are right, but most people are going to accept the word of a physicist when it comes to physics. Certainly, I am. I would NOT accept JJA's word over yours in matters medical, where you are an obvious SME.


As always, I renew the point that it is impossible for anyone to know what works with kids unless you work with kids. And that ultimately, credibility towards method should be applied maximally to those people who have personally tested theories in the field. Repeatedly, over time, with many subjects. That, IMO, is how theories become something more than that. As near as I can determine in this discussion, only one participant lacks this.

The problem comes when inadequate/dumbed down science is mistaken for reality, resulting in ridiculous teaching approaches like some of the PCR guidelines.

Tom, you were a GLOBAL MODERATOR at the site that authored PCR. How can you reconcile your current scathing criticism (to which you are entitled, if that is your opinion) with your insistence that you have always believed just what you believe now?

The burden is on SCIENCE to DEFINITIVELY prove a cue is incompatible or harmful.

I could not disagree more. Science has NO burden here.

The BURDEN is on the author of the cue. He needs to know either that it works based on considerable experience actually working with kids, or know it is based on the physical realities of the universe and at least has a reasonable CHANCE of working.

In this case, I would assert the THT cue is CLOSER to reality than Nyman's models, and in general time tested "traditional" cues are superior to attempts to describe the swing motion "scientifically".

Do I sense some acknowledgment that THT is not exactly reality? And BTW, mentioning THT is not really a "cue." How WOULD you put it in a cue for a 12 YO hitter??

Again, we are miles apart here. "Traditional" cues are "squish the bug." "Hands to the ball." "Keep your shoulders level." Many traditional cues are HORRIBLE if interpreted as most would interpret them - i.e. the common English usage of the words. Again, and I can't believe you don't understand this point, so I can only assume you aren't reading what is being posted, NO ONE advocates using scientific material with hitters. The point is to use reality as a BASIS for cues. So you DON'T end up with "keep your shouders level." And so that when an ex-pro baseball player like Dusty Baker says to "squish the bug," you can either know that he was a world-class hitter who is a sub-par instructor, OR that he means something different than the obvious with the cue. Absent that, anyone would assume he minds to grind the sole of the rear foot into the ground, because THAT IS WHAT THE WORDS MEAN.


Anyway, I have no issue with cues anyone might choose to use. Any given cue, any given kid, any given day. However, I do not see cues much in your material, Tom. What I seem to read is in fact, explanations based on science. The problem I have is that your science doesn't dovetail with other people's. (See JJA example above, to name one of many. You can repost your tirade against him from the other site, but it doesn't change the fact that he is an accredited expert who risks his vocational credibility when he posts. Knowing that, he has enormous credibility, no matter how irritating you personally may find it.)

 

[Hitter]

Scott: I kind of laughed when I read your response on the Left Handed hitters that throw right. The DD is a student of Hitters. She is a good hitter, but a a local college camp they had them throw , as part of a hitting drill. They had to throw the ball to the area they were trying to hit the ball. First base, Third base. She about takes off the coaches head, thowing to first. She turns to the coach and tells her I'm right handed I can't throw with a Sh!!! left handed. She won the hitting contest, as a freshman at this camp against mostly Jr's. So watching her throw in this drill setting , was kind of funny!

Scott watching Dan's daughter switch from right to left was made easier by her learning how to throw better. The hitter, especially girls, exhibit poor weight shift techniques because their front knee does not flex upon landing like in a male where the glutes fire the knee in a male. Now add to it that the hamstrings are for the most part not as strong as the quad in females and we are on to why they do not shift their weight as well and the classic they throw like a girl comment is made. They throw basically stiff legged and the back leg never leaves the ground behind them and their arm finishes downward and not across their body to their glove side thigh. They do not flow to throw the ball and it hurts their arm at the elbow to shoulder. While teaching them how to throw and it is not as complicated as Tom makes it out to be and neither is hitting in my opinion, we are teaching them how to transfer their weight and build momentum. When we load and go to toe touch we go negative to positive and in throwing we want to build that momentum to explode to throw the ball. For many of the girls this is their first time in feeling that weight shift or changing of direction and hips and legs working. You have to develop your own data base however my observations have been at 10 to 16 years old if you soft toss a ball inside, middle and away you will most likely see little weight shift and they pull off the ball a lot. I know of some hitting instructors who do not teach a stride or and pre load because and I did not say this, THE GIRLS ARE TOO STUPID TO LEARN THIS! Now look at the their throwing technique and observe to see if they exhibit a weight shift by flexing the lead foot leg, or the back leg releasing from the ground and my experience shows they do not. This was the exact reason Crystl and I changed the format at our clinics to show balance and throwing first in 2004 and it was based on what we saw the girls doing and it has proved to be very successful. You can be a successful slapper and not be a hitter with using a poor weight shift technique and then ask them to throw and see what they do. Ask Dan as we have taught his daughter how to be a legitimate left handed hitter first. I like Dons two handed ball throwing and this is a staple for our conversion of beginning to get them to feel left handed when they are right handed and of course getting them see it, feel it and fix it.

I am repeating myself when I say this is more applicable to the girls verses the boys and have found it helpful in teaching the girls basic neuro muscular skills that many have never been exposed to. We buy them 300 to $400 bats and they can not even use a hammer to drive a nail and we talk with scientific terms they do not even understand on what the wrist does or does not do and elbows etc. Why can't they drive a nail with a hammer? Ask any of your students to drive a 16P nail and then tell me your story and we will both have a big laugh. Try to instruct them on how to use a hammer that cost $7 dollars before you explain how to use a $400 hundred dollar bat when they can't even drive a nail without bending it! I would love to hear some stories from the parents and coaches telling us how this little experiment goes.

 

[HittingGuru]

[ In practice, she hits about 1 HR oppo for every 7 or so to the left side of center (distribution on the "7" is maybe one near the LF line, 2-3 near left center, and maybe 3 between left center and center). Of the 8 HRs in her first college season last year, two were to the right of center. I suspect all but a couple of the pitches on her HRs were on the outer half or further out than that. She plays in the same part of the country where she played most of her Gold ball, and kids are just so well scouted and known these days. Pitchers still miss occasionally, but not often enough!

No matter what that is awesome. I am impressed. Based on your description I would say she is good at making contact on the inside corner of the ball, second she may not crowd the plate but is a little tight. A young lady with her length has an advantage when used properly because of that length. Thats why most MLB players are 6' 1" and taller. They are able to address both sides of the plate with basically the same swing.

What I teach is basically the same inside and outside except for depth and the where extension is done and applied. The ball is pitched outside, the ball is hit oppo intentionally and hard. By oppo I mean for a RH batter right center gap to the line. And you can not do this without tophand push from contact to extension in the right direction. Extension is always achieved in the direction you want the ball to go. Even though it will still seem like from the momentum of the bat head after full extension that is not what is happening. Like I said before Sarge I am very impressed. We have slight differences of mechanics but really not that much. it sounds like we teach alot of the same things but different terms and beliefs in actual forces.