Hand Action at Contact

[Greenmonsters]

I truly have enjoyed the debate here. I have spent the better part of my day reading ALL of the debate and referenced materials which Ihave enjoyed.

With all due respect I have an observation that I have sliced out of a small portion of the conversation.

Ray Demarini and Pobguy have a scientifically fundamental flaw IMHO as a researcher. Both refer to a singular activity as a correlation to their desired results. (Rays single test and Pobguys homerun gif). I feel there are so many variables not considered here.

For a study to be sound its validity has to be proven and repeatable by others. There has to be more than 1 data point.

In short could the correlations in both examples be anomalies rather than the norm? Just because 1 guy hit a homerun with no grip it doesn't necessarily trump all other data (the thousands of grip related homeruns).

The photo/clip is just a visual confirmation! I bet you haven't explored the link Dr. Nathan provided to his Physics of Baseball - all the links there would take a little longer than a day to read in my estimation. And if you run out of material there, you can always check out Rod Cross' and Dr. Russell's sites.

 

[KCPRK]

So your saying that Pobguy is cross referencing previous studies to validate the gif and the gif is not meant to stand alone as proof for his theory?

Im excluding what I agree and disagree with (neutral) at the moment. I am one verify the validity of information before I form an opinion of it.

Now for the original posters intent-Hand action at contact is a discussion that I have had many times and I do agree with a lot of its logic which is why the new information presented is important to verify before we continue IMHO.

 

[Eric F]

So your saying that Pobguy is cross referencing previous studies to validate the gif and the gif is not meant to stand alone as proof for his theory?

Im excluding what I agree and disagree with (neutral) at the moment. I am one verify the validity of information before I form an opinion of it.

Now for the original posters intent-Hand action at contact is a discussion that I have had many times and I do agree with a lot of its logic which is why the new information presented is important to verify before we continue IMHO.

The clip of Frazier is not stand-alone proof for Pobguy. If this stuff interests you, I highly suggest you dig a little deeper.

The following is how this discussion has been understood by a dumb guy...

Pobguy's conclusion is that the critical factor in hitting a baseball is bat speed a the moment of impact, and that the duration of contact is so short that anything done at the handle during contact time will not have an effect on the the force of the impact. In the case of Frazier's "no hands" HR, enough bat speed had already been generated prior to contact to crate a collision sufficient to send the ball out of the yard.

Part of what I get out of this is that hand position is critical for efficiently generating early bat speed and delivering the barrel to squarely contact, but not so important after that has taken place...

...when hitting a baseball with a heavy wooden bat.

When we're talking about hitting a softball with a much lighter bat, the equation changes. The contact time is different (largely due to ball compression and rebound time), the mass of the ball is different, and the mass of the bat is different. All of these factors make a difference. How much of a difference, I'm not sure.

The bottom line - with baseball or softball - is delivering the bat to contact efficiently and with early bat speed. If the bat is still accelerating after impact, you're too late.

 

[pumpkinbear]

So your saying that Pobguy is cross referencing previous studies to validate the gif and the gif is not meant to stand alone as proof for his theory?

I believe Greenmonsters is saying that. That (your statement above) is what I believe.

 

[pobguy]

I truly have enjoyed the debate here. I have spent the better part of my day reading ALL of the debate and referenced materials which Ihave enjoyed.

With all due respect I have an observation that I have sliced out of a small portion of the conversation.

Ray Demarini and Pobguy have a scientifically fundamental flaw IMHO as a researcher. Both refer to a singular activity as a correlation to their desired results. (Rays single test and Pobguys homerun gif). I feel there are so many variables not considered here.

For a study to be sound its validity has to be proven and repeatable by others. There has to be more than 1 data point.

In short could the correlations in both examples be anomalies rather than the norm? Just because 1 guy hit a homerun with no grip it doesn't necessarily trump all other data (the thousands of grip related homeruns).

I should make it clear that I have been preaching the same story for over 10 years *before* the Frazier home run. The Frazier home run was the "icing on the cake", in the sense that it was an event that is a dramatic example of what I had been saying all along. My own work in this started by developing a computational model of the ball-bat collision. From the calculations, it became clear almost immediately that the grip doesn't matter. Perhaps more importantly, the calculations provide for me a very good understanding of *why* the grip doesn't matter. Since my own work, others have done laboratory experiments that provide convincing (at least, to me) evidence for the notion that "the grip doesn't matter." I earlier referred to Dan Russell's web site where he summarizes all of the evidence for this idea. It is certainly not based on the Frazier home run...not even close. It is really a good example of how science works. So, with respect, I disagree with what you have said.

 

[Eric F]

Pobguy - KCPRK revised his position...

So your saying that Pobguy is cross referencing previous studies to validate the gif and the gif is not meant to stand alone as proof for his theory?

Im excluding what I agree and disagree with (neutral) at the moment. I am one verify the validity of information before I form an opinion of it.

 

[pobguy]

Pobguy - KCPRK revised his position...

Thanks...I was responding to the first post and had not yet seen the revision.

 

[FiveFrameSwing]

Okay TJ, I have a brief period of time to make a shot at a re-start. I'm going to go back and find a post from earlier today and comment on it. Give me a moment to find it.

 

[FiveFrameSwing]

While I’ve deleted the majority of the post below … such miscellaneous information on things like Newton’s Cradle, etc. ... information that may have had folks eyes glossed over … the final conclusion IMO is a gem.

[ .... miscellaneous content removed ....]

That would explain the better hits, bat speed AND better contact, squaring the ball, is required. So chasing bat speed alone can actually be detrimental.

Think about it. There has been a big focus on “driving the ball”, but at what cost?

First and foremost you want to square the ball …… and that isn’t going to happen if you're using the bottom hand to drive through contact. As has been suggested since the beginning of the thread … the bottom hand should not be pulling hard through contact, or hammering through contact …. The bottom hand’s action starts earlier than that …. In a sense it is responsible for starting the action of ‘finding the ball' and placing the handle where it needs to be. Those that ‘hammer’ or ‘pull hard’ through contact are more apt to take a “hard left turn” (RH hitter reference) ... to inhibit the action of the top hand ... and to use their hands unwisely earlier on.

At one point here we spoke of 12/6-ing the ball and releasing to extension. Not a bad idea really. That implies getting the feel correct in the hands at the start of the swing … and not having a misguided goal downstream of hammering through contact with the muscles in the wrists. If you are using the bottom hand unwisely downstream, then you used the bottom-hand unwisely at swing initiation also … and if you are using the bottom hand unwisely, then the chances are good that you are curtailing the job of the top hand as well.

If you use the bottom hand correctly, you'll greatly increase your odds of squaring the ball .... and get this ... you'll also benefit from allowing the top hand to work correctly, and that will have you driving the ball just fine.

Have a mindset of hitting doubles to the gap.

More in a moment … but first, LD’s comments above are pretty much spot on regarding the primary objective. Square the ball first.

 

[FiveFrameSwing]

This college girl's Youtube video was recently posted on the pitching forum here at DFP. I've cut out the tee section because it highlights an important issue. Multiple swings are included so that we can see that this isn't a one-swing mishap.

Palm-up/palm-down to extension is not a healthy goal.