A guy walks into an arm bar...

[Work=wins]

As far as arm bar, I think it can hinder a swing when not adjustable. Keeping your hands close to your body w elbow flexion is what I prefer at set up. I think it helps movement w the body and intent with the hands during the load. Extend as needed for timing and or location. Craig Wallenbrock says maintain the ‘box’ at set up for as long as possible.

But like anything in hitting there are outliers.

 

[uncdrew]

In figure B you seem to be adding the 10m/s twice.

 

[Shawn]

Talking about arm bars, Perry Husband swears by them, he says the highest exit speed and batspeed is with a arm bar. So, we should try to arm bar on every swing.

 

[rdbass]

Talking about arm bars, Perry Husband swears by them, he says the highest exit speed and batspeed is with a arm bar. So, we should try to arm bar on every swing.

While this has been written about as being a very powerful swing move, which it is. It is very hard for MOST hitters to adjust to different pitch speeds and pitch locations by barring their front arm early.

The Front Arm- The Bent Front Elbow & the Arm Bar - Baseball Rebellion

If you are struggling with arm bar in the swing check out three drills that can help you fix it as well as ways the front arm benefits the bat path.

baseballrebellion.com

 

[Quasimodo]

In figure B you seem to be adding the 10m/s twice.

Well the key here is "relative to the ground". The balls speed is 15mps relative to the ground. So block out everything else. The extra 10mps is the added momentum, "mv" or p = mass x velocity, that the impact adds in this case. I think 10 is arbitrarily easy since the construction of the ball would determine how much momentum is transferred. That graphic is not really about Conservation of Angular Momentum; L = /W; which would be Angular momentum equals "moment of inertia" x angular velocity.

It is all about how the sequence of bodily physical movements and rotation affect bat speed and momentum or energy transferred to the ball. How fast does the hip rotate? Does it continue through contact? No! But it does propel the core, rear shoulder, arms, hands/wrists, and bat toward the ball. To confuse things more, where the ball is contacted on the bat is an issue, and the angle of launch is an issue for energy transfer. It is too complicated to think about except in the big picture. I made the argument because someone said the body does not act like a sequenced whipping motion. They believe it does in the arms, but no in the core. I say they are wrong. I not only did, but teach a flexible core separation between the lower and upper bodies at the waist, and the upper body acts like a phase of the whip to add energy released when required by pitch speed and location. That was the crux of it. Backside knee initiation, hip drive (not turning, rotating the front hip out of the way but linearly replacing it, driving through it so it rolls out of the way), core rotation, back shoulder, arms, wrists, top-hand driving through the ball during wrist snap.

I posted that being able to keep the upper body back or separated a little can add to plate coverage on moving pitches going toward the outside corner or help stay back on changeups. These ideas were not well received by some. I have my proof. Not only my own experience but my girls on the National Team. I have 5 girls on the National team that are less than 5'2" and can hit the ball over the 220 foot fence, and do it commonly over a 200' fence. That means I have a total of 7 girls in the lineup that hit for power, but 2 are over 5'2". Evidence? Any coach that uses the SNF drill is doing exactly what I teach.

 

[julray]

Well the key here is "relative to the ground". The balls speed is 15mps relative to the ground. So block out everything else. The extra 10mps is the added momentum, "mv" or p = mass x velocity, that the impact adds in this case. I think 10 is arbitrarily easy since the construction of the ball would determine how much momentum is transferred. That graphic is not really about Conservation of Angular Momentum; L = /W; which would be Angular momentum equals "moment of inertia" x angular velocity.

It is all about how the sequence of bodily physical movements and rotation affect bat speed and momentum or energy transferred to the ball. How fast does the hip rotate? Does it continue through contact? No! But it does propel the core, rear shoulder, arms, hands/wrists, and bat toward the ball. To confuse things more, where the ball is contacted on the bat is an issue, and the angle of launch is an issue for energy transfer. It is too complicated to think about except in the big picture. I made the argument because someone said the body does not act like a sequenced whipping motion. They believe it does in the arms, but no in the core. I say they are wrong. I not only did, but teach a flexible core separation between the lower and upper bodies at the waist, and the upper body acts like a phase of the whip to add energy released when required by pitch speed and location. That was the crux of it. Backside knee initiation, hip drive (not turning, rotating the front hip out of the way but linearly replacing it, driving through it so it rolls out of the way), core rotation, back shoulder, arms, wrists, top-hand driving through the ball during wrist snap.

I posted that being able to keep the upper body back or separated a little can add to plate coverage on moving pitches going toward the outside corner or help stay back on changeups. These ideas were not well received by some. I have my proof. Not only my own experience but my girls on the National Team. I have 5 girls on the National team that are less than 5'2" and can hit the ball over the 220 foot fence, and do it commonly over a 200' fence. That means I have a total of 7 girls in the lineup that hit for power, but 2 are over 5'2". Evidence? Any coach that uses the SNF drill is doing exactly what I teach.

Sorry Q, but that's not proof. My DD was 11 and she could hit the ball over a 200' fence. Her swing was bad, bat speed was great, mechanics were not good at all.. but she could hit 200'. Does it mean that my DD was doing everything right fundamentally? No, she was just 11 years old, was 5'1" and weighed 100 lbs could hit the ball over 200'

 

[Quasimodo]

Sorry Q, but that's not proof. My DD was 11 and she could hit the ball over a 200' fence. Her swing was bad, bat speed was great, mechanics were not good at all.. but she could hit 200'. Does it mean that my DD was doing everything right fundamentally? No, she was just 11 years old, was 5'1" and weighed 100 lbs could hit the ball over 200'

Perhaps wrists! My 16-18 year olds are facing world class pitching. They lead the 2019 little league world series in batting average, slugging percentage and home runs. I am happy for you if your daughter is amazing. All of you! Personally, the last thing that interests me is a DD's performance. Why? Because I want to know what the collective does. It is strange to me when I read here that all major leaguers to this or that, then read that this particular guy does something . Which is it? "And one example in any issue is an anomaly. Reasonable sample sizes are 30 or more.

There are only players on this team that I coached, the pitcher and the catcher. The pitcher is 5' tall, the catcher 4'8". I did not teach them fielding or hitting. It is a fairly distant team from Manila. But those two girls tried out and were on the Junior National team. The pitcher, Royevel Palma, was our second best junior pitcher in the Philippines. The catcher has no arm but does well enough behind the plate. Neither are on the national team right now. Palma is on the women's team.

If you care to watch, you will notice the team, except for Palma and Kyla the catcher, chop down on the ball. Literally swing down at the ball. They slice most of their hits to RF. Little League is big here because they pay for everything, and junior softball gets no travel money or even equipment money from the National Softball committee. Boys on the other hand . . . . .

 

[Bobby Shirer]

First off, this pitch may have been low-outside. Don't honestly know. But I have some Betts photos for you. Maybe you can give them some suggestions for that elbow.
Secondly as I have said a few times before, effective hitting, pitching, throwing, etc are governed by the laws of physics. There are no exceptions. Walking to the refrigerator and putting that cool-aid or beer to ones lips is governed by the same laws. The law of physics most closely associated with hitting is called "The Conservation of Angular Motion". And since I teach a combination of linear/rotational principles it is very relevant. The further the reach of the bat-head gets from the body, the slower the swing velocity because the swing becomes purely rotational. It is just like an ice-skater pulling their arms and legs in to make their rotation faster. It is part of why the back elbow is attempted to stay close to the side of the body. It is an effort to make the swing a little more linear. Linear energy is more efficient than rotational energy. It is the idea of a glancing blow as opposed to a direct hit. And the difference in the energy transferred can be huge. It is why the front elbow is bent, to allow projection (punch) of the back-arm or top-hand extension through the ball. A purely rotational bat-head with arm-bar is that less efficient transfer of energy, and produces an angular impact to the ball.

View attachment 18851
In figure (a) the train is not moving. The ball will bounce off at relatively 5 meters per second. In (b) the speed of the train (10mps) adds to the speed of the ball, so it is 5mps + 10mps. The ball moves at 5 m/s relative to the ground (that is 15 m/s relative to the train). It hits the train and rebounds at 15 m/s relative to the train. But the train is moving at 10 m/s relative to the ground and so the ball rebounds at 15+10 = 25 m/s relative to the ground. It is a calculation of increased kinetic energy translated into velocity. Now assume that the impact is not direct, but cuts across the flight of the ball and that the train is moving from left to right at 10 meters per second, the same speed. Because it is a glancing blow, caused by a rotational movement of the barred bat swing, the energy transfer will be less. And this is just a theory of mine, but rational. That is that a player who swings with a barred front arm may prefer an end loaded bat to compensate. A "wrist-active" hitter may prefer a more balanced bat. You think this is bad, you should see my paper on pitching velocity! My photos tell a story too. The second set with Romero are from a flyer I send in instructional materials to remote towns, villages, etc on one of the 7200+ islands here.

View attachment 18864 View attachment 18863
View attachment 18856
View attachment 18858

You've added the speed of the train twice. The ball relative to the ground is 5m/s. The train relative to the ground is 10m/s. That's total energy. The train relative to the ball is just the combination of the two. If you want to get precise. The ball relative to the train is negative 5 and the train is positive 10 so the total is positive 5 in the direction of the train travel if the masses were equal. They are not equal and the ball may have a coefficient of return. There is also some energy lost as heat due to compression. Regardless, your assumption of 25m/s is erroneous.

An understanding of conservation of angular momentum dictates that the energy in a small radius, fast turning object is the same as a proportionally larger radius, slower turning object. There are mathematical formulas for the calculating the effect of angular speed and radial length on circumferential speed that would indicate that arm bar is a good thing. (ever see those large, slow turning windmills? The tips of those blades are traveling really fast, from 130 to 180 mph in only a 20mph wind at 15 to 20 rpm)

As for alignment of the circular path, the larger radius would create a shallower arc and allow the bat to align more perpendicular to the ball path for a longer period than would a smaller radius path.

As for linear vs. rotational... ever heard of leverage, torque....mechanical advantage? Why not just use a 12" long bat? Maybe just eliminate the "swing" altogether?

 

[Quasimodo]

You've added the speed of the train twice. The ball relative to the ground is 5m/s. The train relative to the ground is 10m/s. That's total energy. The train relative to the ball is just the combination of the two. If you want to get precise. The ball relative to the train is negative 5 and the train is positive 10 so the total is positive 5 in the direction of the train travel if the masses were equal. They are not equal and the ball may have a coefficient of return. There is also some energy lost as heat due to compression. Regardless, your assumption of 25m/s is erroneous.

An understanding of conservation of angular momentum dictates that the energy in a small radius, fast turning object is the same as a proportionally larger radius, slower turning object. There are mathematical formulas for the calculating the effect of angular speed and radial length on circumferential speed that would indicate that arm bar is a good thing. (ever see those large, slow turning windmills? The tips of those blades are traveling really fast, from 130 to 180 mph in only a 20mph wind at 15 to 20 rpm)

As for alignment of the circular path, the larger radius would create a shallower arc and allow the bat to align more perpendicular to the ball path for a longer period than would a smaller radius path.

As for linear vs. rotational... ever heard of leverage, torque....mechanical advantage? Why not just use a 12" long bat? Maybe just eliminate the "swing" altogether?

That graphic and analogy came from a physics page in Wikipedia, not me! And your math would work if the train and ball were moving in the same direction varying speeds, not opposite directions. Think about it!

Also the main point is what energy does when struck at an angle. Let's take the sport of billiards for example. Keep in mind that energy is not lost, but simply is transferred. it can be transferred into friction, from air or a surface. It can be transferred by impact like above. Not hit the 8-ball at a deflected angle and measure the speed of the 8-ball as a percentage of the original speed of the cue ball. The angle will determine the transference as well as the speed maintained by the cue ball. If struck at an angle, both balls fly off in equal directions exhibiting a total of the original energy of the cue ball. Now hit the cue ball solid, straight on impact. The 8-ball flies off the same speed as the original speed of the cue ball, and the cue ball sits still on the table (yes, some one-upmanship smart guy is going to say but what if you put top-spin or back-spin on the ball). Stick to the point!

One more point to ponder. It is said, through physics research that the speed of the pitch only adds 5% to the difference in distance a ball carries if the pitch is 70mph or 95mph. Why? And this is related to the train illustration which I think could have better made it's point if it said the train speed was 15 or 20mph instead of 10. But you have heard of the "dead ball era"? Live ball era? What it is specifically saying is a more solid object will have that energy transferred better than a squishy object, which wastes energy (not lost) through expansion. So we do not know exactly the composition of the ball that hit the train. I do not have a degree in physics. I just have physics books and books on many other subjects, even advanced math which I hate!

 

[Bobby Shirer]

First off, this pitch may have been low-outside. Don't honestly know. But I have some Betts photos for you. Maybe you can give them some suggestions for that elbow.
Secondly as I have said a few times before, effective hitting, pitching, throwing, etc are governed by the laws of physics. There are no exceptions. Walking to the refrigerator and putting that cool-aid or beer to ones lips is governed by the same laws. The law of physics most closely associated with hitting is called "The Conservation of Angular Motion". And since I teach a combination of linear/rotational principles it is very relevant. The further the reach of the bat-head gets from the body, the slower the swing velocity because the swing becomes purely rotational. It is just like an ice-skater pulling their arms and legs in to make their rotation faster. It is part of why the back elbow is attempted to stay close to the side of the body. It is an effort to make the swing a little more linear. Linear energy is more efficient than rotational energy. It is the idea of a glancing blow as opposed to a direct hit. And the difference in the energy transferred can be huge. It is why the front elbow is bent, to allow projection (punch) of the back-arm or top-hand extension through the ball. A purely rotational bat-head with arm-bar is that less efficient transfer of energy, and produces an angular impact to the ball.

View attachment 18851
In figure (a) the train is not moving. The ball will bounce off at relatively 5 meters per second. In (b) the speed of the train (10mps) adds to the speed of the ball, so it is 5mps + 10mps. The ball moves at 5 m/s relative to the ground (that is 15 m/s relative to the train). It hits the train and rebounds at 15 m/s relative to the train. But the train is moving at 10 m/s relative to the ground and so the ball rebounds at 15+10 = 25 m/s relative to the ground. It is a calculation of increased kinetic energy translated into velocity. Now assume that the impact is not direct, but cuts across the flight of the ball and that the train is moving from left to right at 10 meters per second, the same speed. Because it is a glancing blow, caused by a rotational movement of the barred bat swing, the energy transfer will be less. And this is just a theory of mine, but rational. That is that a player who swings with a barred front arm may prefer an end loaded bat to compensate. A "wrist-active" hitter may prefer a more balanced bat. You think this is bad, you should see my paper on pitching velocity! My photos tell a story too. The second set with Romero are from a flyer I send in instructional materials to remote towns, villages, etc on one of the 7200+ islands here.

View attachment 18864 View attachment 18863
View attachment 18856
View attachment 18858

You've added the speed of the train twice. The ball relative to the ground is 5m/s. The train relative to the ground is 10m/s. That's total energy. The train relative to the ball is just the combination of the two. If you want to get precise. The ball relative to the train is negative 5 and the train is positive 10 so the total is positive 5 in the direction of the train travel if the masses were equal. They are not equal and the ball may have a coefficient of return. There is also some energy lost as heat due to compression. Regardless, your assumption of 25m/s is erroneous.

An understanding of conservation of angular momentum dictates that the energy in small radius, fast turning object is the same as the objects radius grows larger.

That graphic and analogy came from a physics page in Wikipedia, not me! And your math would work if the train and ball were moving in the same direction varying speeds, not opposite directions. Think about it!

Also the main point is what energy does when struck at an angle. Let's take the sport of billiards for example. Keep in mind that energy is not lost, but simply is transferred. it can be transferred into friction, from air or a surface. It can be transferred by impact like above. Not hit the 8-ball at a deflected angle and measure the speed of the 8-ball as a percentage of the original speed of the cue ball. The angle will determine the transference as well as the speed maintained by the cue ball. If struck at an angle, both balls fly off in equal directions exhibiting a total of the original energy of the cue ball. Now hit the cue ball solid, straight on impact. The 8-ball flies off the same speed as the original speed of the cue ball, and the cue ball sits still on the table (yes, some one-upmanship smart guy is going to say but what if you put top-spin or back-spin on the ball). Stick to the point!

One more point to ponder. It is said, through physics research that the speed of the pitch only adds 5% to the difference in distance a ball carries if the pitch is 70mph or 95mph. Why? And this is related to the train illustration which I think could have better made it's point if it said the train speed was 15 or 20mph instead of 10. But you have heard of the "dead ball era"? Live ball era? What it is specifically saying is a more solid object will have that energy transferred better than a squishy object, which wastes energy (not lost) through expansion. So we do not know exactly the composition of the ball that hit the train. I do not have a degree in physics. I just have physics books and books on many other subjects, even advanced math which I hate!

Attach that Wikipedia link.