Extension, is this an action or a by-product of a good upstream movement

[FiveFrameSwing]

I have no idea. Those were two answers I found on line. I will stick to see the ball , hit the ball. LOL

But a real question: Does a hitter pull her hands in (like a ice skater) to speed up rotation and then release their hands like being thrown off the merry go round?

That is what "short to" is about. It's why you want your hitters to generate circular energy with a 'short' distance between the 'hands' and 'rear shoulder' ... which effectively reduces the moment of inertia during the early phase of the swing.

 

[Rolling Hard]

That is what "short to" is about. It's why you want your hitters to generate circular energy with a 'short' distance between the 'hands' and 'rear shoulder' ... which effectively reduces the moment of inertia during the early phase of the swing.

Do you have video of this action? I am sure you do. It would be nice to see it.

 

[FiveFrameSwing]

Do you have video of this action? I am sure you do. It would be nice to see it.

This is an example of "short to". Notice how the rear forearm remains in a Vee orientation as the shoulders become turned towards the incoming ball. The distance between the top-hand and rear-shoulder remains 'short'. This is happening as the barrel is being advanced 'to' the ball. 'Short' and 'to' ... as in "short to".

 

[_MIA_]

Further clarification please ...

I tend to think of centrifugal force as being in the opposite direction as centripetal force ... 180 degrees different. I tend to think of inertial force as being tangential to the circular path of the object being rotated ... or 90-degrees different than the centripetal force. Correct or incorrect?

The derivation portion of the wiki page I posted explains this. At the end of the day Newton's laws (e.g. second law F=ma) only hold in an inertial frame of reference (reference frame moving uniformly relative to absolute space and time) hence when positions are being measured in a non-inertial frame (e.g. a frame fixed to a rotating body) the math "pops out" this centrifugal "force" term from the acceleration term in F=ma as measured in the inertial frame. It is indeed in the opposite direction of the centripetal force.

There isn't really anything controversial about it unless you think coordinate transformations are controversial..

 

[Rolling Hard]

The derivation portion of the wiki page I posted explains this. At the end of the day Newton's laws (e.g. second law F=ma) only hold in an inertial frame of reference (reference frame moving uniformly relative to absolute space and time) hence when positions are being measured in a non-inertial frame (e.g. a frame fixed to a rotating body) the math "pops out" this centrifugal "force" term from the acceleration term in F=ma as measured in the inertial frame. It is indeed in the opposite direction of the centripetal force.

There isn't really anything controversial about it unless you think coordinate transformations are controversial..

Exactly what I was thinkin!