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.
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.