When data goes against common sense and/or the laws of physics, it's worth checking to see if the source of the data is accurate. This has nothing to do with me liking or disliking certain data to support my position. I have stated clearly that I don't trust the ACCURACY of Zepp's data (impact point placement, specifically) based on the graphs I have seen because they don't match with my understanding of the laws of physics. I'm not "sweeping data under the rug". I'm questioning the validity of the data. Blindly following data without applying a filter to verify its accuracy is just as foolish as ignoring valid data. I'm certainly open to being educated on why I'm off base regarding the topic of rapid deceleration before/during impact. At this point, it's going to take something a lot more convincing than a Zepp graph.
As I have also stated, from the standpoint of hitting a ball with a stick, nothing makes sense to me about wanting rapid deceleration of the bat to start prior to impact (which is what I understand that you are advocating as being correct). I'm open to being shown the error of my ways on that issue, too.
