Should we use MLB hitters as examples?

[Ken Krause]

There's been some discussion about this on other threads, and I think everyone is waiting for someone to make the call. I'll step in.

In my opinion, it is fine to use the core mechanics of MLB hitters as examples of what to do. It is good to study successful hitters. But, and this is a huge but, it should be done with a couple of things in mind.

One, as I stated before, there is a huge difference between a 12 year old girl who is playing softball in between going to school, taking dance lessons, hanging out with her friends, playing another sport, etc. and a 28 year old MLB hitter who has access to professional trainers, high-level hitting coaches, video analysis equipment worth thousands of dollars, a weight room that would put most local health clubs to shame, access to live BP using brand new balls every day and all the other things that go with making it to the Show. Not to mention the MLB player having millions of dollars at stake since hitting a ball is his JOB and not something he does solely for the love of the game.

It is patently unfair to think that 12 year old girl (or even your typical college player) is even going to come close to what that MLB hitter is doing. If her ability to execute the swing is based on that standard, and nothing else will be considered good, the comparison probably won't be helpful because she'll need another 16 years to catch up on experience alone. A better comparison as far as reality goes would be to see what that 28 year old MLB hitter did when he was 12 and playing solely for the love of the game and the dream of becoming a professional player. We know he has the talent to make it since he already has. What was he doing then? You might find that 12 year old girl looks pretty darned good in comparison.

Another is the difference in strength between males and females. Why did the steroid era throw everyone into such a tizzy? Because the numbers skyrocketed, and suddenly the standards changed. I've read that it hurt Andre Dawson getting into the Hall of Fame because the numbers he put up, excellent as they were, got skewed by the sudden jump and suddenly he didn't look so good. It was only after the light was shown on steroid abuse that the numbers came back down and he got in. So it's obvious that more strength = better performance. Particularly upper body strength, which is where most of the steroid gains were realized. Females are being asked to hit a ball with greater mass using a lighter bat and with less upper body strength. Sure, they don't have to hit it as far to go yard, and they get some help these days from technology, but it's still a huge mismatch. Of the big hitters in MLB and women's softball, I know who I'd bet on in a bench press contest or arm wrestling match.

Ultimately, though, it still comes down to activity versus job. Those MLB hitters are a lot more incented to improve their swings that softball players. Even the most serious ones.

So yes, we can look at MLB hitters, but it's not a 1:1 comparison. Look at general principles, but make sure they apply to a youth player and that they can be translated into terms that will help a parent or volunteer coach teach her. As I've said in another thread, there are plenty of places to go to debate the fine points of MLB hitters. Keep it simple and practical -- and again, unless you're that MLB player's hitting coach remember that it's just your opinion, not some fact etched in stone -- and we should be fine.

 

[Chris O'Leary]

I'd love to know who people would advise copying, or what compromises you would make, when teaching a swing to a girl if not the MLB pattern?

The only difference in how I teach is that I show flipbooks of girls to girls and flipbooks of major leaguers to boys. The principles are all the same, generally because physics are physics. Also, I think rotational hitting is highly applicable to girls because it's about tapping into the muscles of the core and not the muscles of the arms, and levels of core strength are more proportional between boys and girls. Linear hitting is inherently more arm-y and thus harder for girls to pull off due to their lower levels of upper body strength.

 

[FiveFrameSwing]

Ken …. Good post.

IMO, the MLB swing is the blue print that we as instructors should be following.

Will many hitters get there? No.

Should we still use it as a blue print? Yes.

Is anyone expecting a 12yr old female to hit like a 28yr old MLB pro? No.

But as we work on developing skills, it helps to look to how the best perform. They are where they are, in part, because they have learned to use their body with high efficiency for the task at hand.

I would argue that highly efficient mechanics are just as important for a girl struggling to move up from a B-level ASA team to an A-level ASA team.

Who better to learn efficient mechanics from than the cream of the crop?

It doesn’t mean we’ll duplicate the end product exactly …. But the that’s the target we set our eyes on. We get students as far as they can climb … as long as they are willing to climb …. And they keep climbing …. Because in my opinion, when dealing with a competitive sport, you are either “growing” or you are “fading away” …. The transition between the two is incredibly brief.

 

[Ken Krause]

I think blueprint is the right term. It's a place to look for ideas -- see what the most successful have done and then see if there's anything we can learn from it. That being said, the more high-level you can keep the discussion the more useful it will be. Where things seem to bog down is when it gets to complex, or too trivial. There's a lot of stuff that gets talked about that is just low priority. Far more important to get certain core movements or techniques down than to look at the twitch of this muscle or that muscle, if you know what I mean. When the shell of the building has gone from blueprint to real life we can start worrying about what color to paint the bathrooms.

There is also a tendency to dismiss the swings of college players because they don't follow the ideals. I think that's wrong. Consider them a step along the path. They may not be perfect, but for all we know they could be a whole lot better than the MLB player was at a like age. They also provide certain clues as to how to approach the swing when teaching younger females. They may not be perfect, but get them to that point first, then see if you can improve upon them from there.

 

[Ken Krause]

I'd love to know who people would advise copying, or what compromises you would make, when teaching a swing to a girl if not the MLB pattern?

The only difference in how I teach is that I show flipbooks of girls to girls and flipbooks of major leaguers to boys. The principles are all the same, generally because physics are physics. Also, I think rotational hitting is highly applicable to girls because it's about tapping into the muscles of the core and not the muscles of the arms, and levels of core strength are more proportional between boys and girls. Linear hitting is inherently more arm-y and thus harder for girls to pull off due to their lower levels of upper body strength.

Chris, I think I answered some of this in my post just before this one. The problem with going too deep into the MLB swing is it's far distant from the starting points of many of the players we all deal with. The core ideas are there, though, and that's why I don't think we should dismiss them out of hand.

I wouldn't say we compromise. But we start with the big picture first and keep the discussion there. Get the major stuff done first and don't sweat the small stuff as much as many seem to. For example, make sure the hitter gets a load at all before worrying about her bat angle at load. Work the funnel of information from the wide end to the narrow end. But for the purposes of this forum, spend more time at the wide end since that's where you'll do the most good. Most people come to the hitting forum to figure out how to help their daughters or players hit the ball out of the infield, not to gain a deep technical knowledge of how MLB hitters hit.

Agree that rotational hitting will produce better results than so-called linear hitting. But let's also keep in mind that those MLB hitters are pretty danged strong, with or without the steroids. Some of what they can do physically is the result of a more stable platform and more strength overall. Another 10-15 years' experience. Living in Chicago, I can tell you that I don't believe Sammy Sosa's swing changed all that much, but his output sure did. For a while.

 

[tom.guerry]

yes(post has to be longer than 3 letters).

 

[tom.guerry]

understanding patterns in golf is very helpful too, 2 different patterns and "postures":

Plane Truth Blog - Video Analysis Tutorials - Two Plane from Down the Line

Plane Truth Blog - Video Analysis Tutorials - One Plane from Down the Line

 

[tom.guerry]

understanding overhand throw is even more important.

 

[FiveFrameSwing]

yes(post has to be longer than 3 letters).

What is the alternative?

Seems logical to use a database of the most accomplished hitters.

 

[JC heir]

Thats some nice food for thought Ken. I am not happy with DD's swing, & havecome to believe that she will probably never get it right/perfect, at least not in the near future. That doesnt mean we cant go out, & compete & have fun with what she has now , while still working for improvement. Its very easy to come to the mindset that if she doesnt get this swing perfected, she wont be able to hit this year.