Where should you hit the ball?
- Thread starter julray
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
FWIW:
The vision approach often suggested (on DFP, often by FFS) is a 'soft focus' out front -- a field of vision approach to see not only the ball but it's movement and (if you can, harder) it's spin -- ie, where it's going and how it's going to get there.
When a hitter launches a swing against a moving pitch they are trying to anticipate *where it's going to be* at impact, which IMO means they aren't trying to hit a specific point on the ball because the ball isn't even 'there' yet.
It is different off the tee, agreed. We've all pointed to a spot on the ball on the tee and said 'hit it there' -- but I think that's more about training the bat path to that spot than training the vision to see that spot.
I think in general you want to hit the ball square with a solid path to the ball (ie, not slice or hook or overly downward or upward). I've always had an issue with trying to generate a lot of backspin (I think a well hit fly ball, ie, a home run, will have some backspin that helps lift it but it also will get lifted by the path to impact). I've said this before, in other sports you TRY to hit backspin when you want a soft shot that travels LESS not more, ie, a pitch shot in golf that is high and tracks back on contact; a slice or dink in tennis that floats over the net or bites with backspin to stay on the court).
As for TM 'lasering' it isn't about contact but upticking the knob and imagining a laser running out from it that would cut through the *approaching* ball with the barrel following through in a 12-to-6 path. It's not, as far as I know, about cutting the ball in half at contact.
Again, my two cents.
The vision approach often suggested (on DFP, often by FFS) is a 'soft focus' out front -- a field of vision approach to see not only the ball but it's movement and (if you can, harder) it's spin -- ie, where it's going and how it's going to get there.
When a hitter launches a swing against a moving pitch they are trying to anticipate *where it's going to be* at impact, which IMO means they aren't trying to hit a specific point on the ball because the ball isn't even 'there' yet.
It is different off the tee, agreed. We've all pointed to a spot on the ball on the tee and said 'hit it there' -- but I think that's more about training the bat path to that spot than training the vision to see that spot.
I think in general you want to hit the ball square with a solid path to the ball (ie, not slice or hook or overly downward or upward). I've always had an issue with trying to generate a lot of backspin (I think a well hit fly ball, ie, a home run, will have some backspin that helps lift it but it also will get lifted by the path to impact). I've said this before, in other sports you TRY to hit backspin when you want a soft shot that travels LESS not more, ie, a pitch shot in golf that is high and tracks back on contact; a slice or dink in tennis that floats over the net or bites with backspin to stay on the court).
As for TM 'lasering' it isn't about contact but upticking the knob and imagining a laser running out from it that would cut through the *approaching* ball with the barrel following through in a 12-to-6 path. It's not, as far as I know, about cutting the ball in half at contact.
Again, my two cents.
Last edited:
Putting backspin aside, as a hitter would you ideally try to hit the center of the ball? Yes I agree we anticipate, but we still follow the path of the ball to the barrel of the bat. That's what we've been taught, see the ball all the way to contact. So if I am seeing the ball all the way to contact, my intent is to hit that ball in the center... which is the central point of reference.
Lasering the ball.. "knob and imaging a laser running out from it that would cut through the *approaching* ball with the barrel following through in a 12-to-6 path. It's not, as far as I know, about cutting the ball in half at contact." That's the same thing I am saying, "cut through the approaching ball". Again when cutting through, optimally we should want the laser to cut through the ball (equal halves), the barrel would follow again hitting the center of the ball. Again, having the intent here to laser a central point of reference which the barrel would follow splitting that ball in two. Whether you believe in TTB or not, wouldn't every hitter want to hit the center of the incoming pitch? So having a central point of contact is a bad thing,
Last edited:
Not trying to play word games but as I think about what I think about when hitting a moving pitch...I think about hitting 'as much of it as I can' ... 'as well as I can' -- so I guess the short answer is, no, I don't think about hitting the *center* of the ball. Not dodging, just giving you my own swing thought. But also yes, I would tend to think ball-center impact would give you the best results, slightly below center gets the ball a bit more elevated but hard-hit, slightly above center is hard-hit but slightly down.
As another example, when hitting infield outfield fungos. I toss the ball up to myself and don't think I really ever SEE it again. My brain calculates the down (infield) or up (outfield) bat path and I guess the contact point to achieve the kind of hit I want. But I think it's an algorithm that's running somehow BEYOND my explicit vision and thought, not a geometry problem I'm actively solving (distance, path, point).
Adding to address your addition: no, I've never been taught to "follow the path of the ball to the barrel of the bat. That's what we've been taught, see the ball all the way to contact" nor have I taught that. I don't think you SEE contact. Again, just my opinion. Tks.
One final add: I have no idea what believing or not believing in TTB has to do with this question, but it seems to get brought up regardless.
As another example, when hitting infield outfield fungos. I toss the ball up to myself and don't think I really ever SEE it again. My brain calculates the down (infield) or up (outfield) bat path and I guess the contact point to achieve the kind of hit I want. But I think it's an algorithm that's running somehow BEYOND my explicit vision and thought, not a geometry problem I'm actively solving (distance, path, point).
Adding to address your addition: no, I've never been taught to "follow the path of the ball to the barrel of the bat. That's what we've been taught, see the ball all the way to contact" nor have I taught that. I don't think you SEE contact. Again, just my opinion. Tks.
One final add: I have no idea what believing or not believing in TTB has to do with this question, but it seems to get brought up regardless.
Last edited:
- Dec 5, 2017
- 514
- 63
Joey Meyers has a video about seeing the ball. It's a talk he's giving to a group about the science behind seeing the ball and how our brain actually guesses where the ball will be at contact, basically negating the whole "see the bat hit the ball" que. Don't know the accuracy of his info but it's pretty interesting, at least to me anyway.
I don't think anybody can actually see the ball come off the bat, but there are many, many shots showing hitters seeing point of contact.. basically seeing the pitch all the way in. I understand what you mean when you say you are trying to hit as much of the ball as possible. When somebody gives you front toss with a ping pong sized ball.. what's the purpose of this? I believe in these instances we are training eyes to aim small, miss small. If I see a 12 inch softball coming at me, but swing for 4 inch inner central area, I believe you put yourself in the best position to hit as much of the ball at a higher %. Not for you specifically, but again, where is the harm with intending to hit a central point of reference vs the entire ball?
I'm not sure anyone said it is harmful to aim for a central point. If someone did I missed it. I think the point many people are trying to get across is that hitting a ball at all is difficult. The odds of hitting an exact point are nearly zero.
Actually some people did...
I've said right from the beginning "Intent", whether you hit that spot is a different story. Anyway, hitting that exact spot wouldn't be a measure of success in this scenario, hitting the ball would, that's why focusing on a central point of reference makes sense. If you are going to focus on hitting a ball, why not intend the center?
