- Jul 29, 2013
- 1,200
- 63
You're misinterpreting early. Get the barrel on plane early in space, but later in time. Getting the barrel on plane early (deep) allows you to swing later, commit later, and keep the barrel on plane for a longer distance.
Adjustability is not required because you can see more of the pitch and commit later + Timing offspeed is less of an issue because the bat stays on the ball path longer + Faster bat speed = The less need for perfection.
As for adjustability, are you saying with a crack the whip swing you can change the target of the swing after launching the swing?
Keep the barrel up and you'll swing down across the path of the ball. Less than perfect timing will result in pop ups and ground balls.
This is a lot different
than this. JD rotates into the ball. Pete strikes the ball
Pete knows. But more importantly Pete matches.
Some like that one piece swing. Not what the best do/did. One piece limits adjustability and force production.
I think you are seeing things that aren't there. Like staring at a cloud long enough and you swear it looks like Abraham Lincoln. If you freeze frame the Donaldson pick and Pete's pick at the point of contact they are basically identical considering pitch location.
View attachment 15744
View attachment 15745
Are we arguing over intent? It seems like there could be many different ways to skin the cat here. If Pete's intent is to "strike" the ball but it gets him to this spot and JD intent is to "rotate into the ball" and it gets him to this point why is either of them wrong? Seems like both could be right but just a different view point.
Everybody's hands move in an arc. It may "feel" like straight/ short to the ball but it is not. Even on this low (Pete) and away pitch (which a straighter hand path will occur) if you had the overhead gif of that swing, his hands would arc.
Come on @Work=wins you get on a certain somebody for saying his methods are a match and then you say this. This isn't mathematics, you cannot prove that what you are ascribing to is what "HOF'ers do" anymore than that other person can prove that what he teaches is a match to the "HOF'ers" You do a pretty good job of explaining what you teach (a lot better than when you first started on here) so just leave it at that.I think there are many ways to get it done. I’m just a fan of the HOF pattern.