43 feet at 14U?

[AlwaysImprove]

If there is even a hint of suspicion that the 104 was from shaving those officials should immediately remove the end cap, and saw the bat in half. If there is evidence of shaving, the coach should be charged, fired and made an example.

[Gone in 2.6]

If there is even a hint of suspicion that the 104 was from shaving those officials should immediately remove the end cap, and saw the bat in half. If there is evidence of shaving, the coach should be charged, fired and made an example.

Well said.

[ontheblack]

If one could get SIX MPH out of bat rolling, I question why anyone would bother shaving a bat and risk the 'ole cap popping off frequently scenario.

Rolling a 2008 or earlier bat can get you in the 101-102 range, which equates to an extra 25'+ in distance. 104 isnt really doable by just rolling, but bat compression with some of the older bats can get you there easily, and with some, like the Miken or the Synergy, as much as 8 mph more.

@2.6 - just to be clear, it isnt my opinion that cheating with a bat is the equivalent to leaving early. That comment originated with some coaches and dads in a well known TB org who had no problem with cheating unless they got caught, which never happens in TB.

IMO the first thing to do is remove all 2008 and earlier bats from the approved list. Then your only real option to cheat is shaving. I think NCAA and even ASA hasnt dont this because they know it is a self limiting event as these older approved bats are rapidly disappearing. Not to mention that they are probably the first bats to be tested.

[Gone in 2.6]

@ontheblack,

Thanks for all the information and insight.


This board is awesome.

[anonlooker]

One side of this we likely won't hear much about is the kid blasting HRs in TB but then can't go yard in college. If anything, they'll dismiss it (publicly) as facing better pitching, when in reality there are some college coaches getting duped in taking players they might otherwise pass on. Guess it's just another reason why some prospects don't pan out.

[Gone in 2.6]

One side of this we likely won't hear much about is the kid blasting HRs in TB but then can't go yard in college. If anything, they'll dismiss it (publicly) as facing better pitching, when in reality there are some college coaches getting duped in taking players they might otherwise pass on. Guess it's just another reason why some prospects don't pan out.

The funny thing is, I've seen the reverse, power numbers actually going up when they get to college. Some of that could be the harder ball, weight training and other factors.

But I've seen some examples of disparity between what was done in youth and what is happening in college (power wise) that are absolutely cartoonish. But again, they are lifting weights 5 days a week.

[ssarge]

I agree with Kevin that this is a great discusion, and I am learning a lot.

One side of this we likely won't hear much about is the kid blasting HRs in TB but then can't go yard in college. If anything, they'll dismiss it (publicly) as facing better pitching, when in reality there are some college coaches getting duped in taking players they might otherwise pass on. Guess it's just another reason why some prospects don't pan out.

Some kids have great power against ordinary pitching, but are very inconsistent against quality pitching. Not susprising.

I will agree that there IS an element of caveat emptor in recruiting, for coaches who look once, and don't do their homework beyond that. Anything can happen in one AB, one day, or one weekend. I would go so far as to say it is not unheard of that a kid obviously being recruiterd will occasionally get a pitch in a position that will help her in the middle of a meaningless showcase game. And by that, I mean not by accident. No recruiter worth her salt should be fooled by this. SHOULD be.


Also, I would add that some kids get worse in college because their hitting mechanics were originally good, but they were steered a different direction by the college instructor(s). THAT phenomenon can run the gamut from just outright bad instruction (not all hitting instructors are created equal, at ANY level - including college), to an undue emphasis on "style" elements (rather than mechanics).

An example: Some kids do things in their "pre-launch" which feel right to them, or do so in the follow through. Things which look funny, and which many instructors may well endeavor (sometimes at all costs) to change. But the kid may well LAUNCH from the correct position, and from there, more-or-less maintain appropriate mechanics through contact. It's just that they GET to the launch position in a different, even unique way. Their process for laoding is a little different, but they attain the correct (loaded) position as they launch the swing. And do so with the correct timing moving into the unloading potion of the swing.

An emphasis on changing pre-launch stuff can result in a kid struggling to get the right feel. Struggle to "get the right feel" for a month at the start of Freshman year, and the die can be cast. From the kid's perspective, this is a disaster. From the coaching perspective, this is not a good roll of the dice anyway, assuming that changing the style element had little chance of improving actual performance. And in my experience, that is DEFINITELY sometimes the case.

Pre-launch, my own kid is in a pretty unique position that would not be my first choice for her or anyone else. But she moves from there to a pretty strong launch position, times the launch pretty solidly, and and the whole thing seems to serve her well. Over the years, we've tried a LOT of other pre-launch positions / movements that just didn't work with her unique pathologies. And today, she's doing OK against college pitching with her swing. Better by far, IMO, than she'd be doing if someone had tried to "cookie cutter" her pre-launch movements. This is not a phenomenon unique to my daughter, either.

I will add that if the significant differences are POST-launch (actually during the swing), and hence are a matter of mechanics, rather than the style involved in getting to the launch position in a timely manner, I would feel much differently. There is a reason why the world's best hitters greatly resemble one-another between launch and contact. What happens BEFORE the hitter launches the swing can look a LOT different, and does among elite female and MLB hitters.

I guess a more concise way of saying this is that it is important for an instructor to know what is REALLY important to change in a swing, and what doesn't ultimately matter much. Other elements include the ability to fix flaws without breaking something else, and knowing the sequence with the best probability for success in fixing multiple flaws. Because you can't fix 5 things at once (and trying to do so often creates a slippery slope of declining performance.


Finally, the biggest difference between hitting in high-level TB and hitting in D-1 - my opinion - is not how much better the best pitchers in D-1 are. Escobedo won last year, and people were facing her in TB mere months previously. I won't argue this to an extreme, but I think folks know what I mean. That said, I think the bigger difference is that a hitter almost never gets a "game off" in college. By that I mean that in D-1, just about every pitcher is respectable, and almost every #1 pitcher is pretty darned good. In TB, that is not always the case. And a lot of player stats in TB are built on performance against pitchers who frankly, are throwing some meatballs. It is rare to see those kinds of pitches in D-1. It happens, and hopefully you capitalize on it as a hitter. But there are games in TB where as a hitter you are pretty sure you are going to hit the ball hard every AB. Rare at the next level that you feel that way. Or are able to do that.

Best regards,

Scott

[ontheblack]

I guess a more concise way of saying this is that it is important for an instructor to know what is REALLY important to change in a swing, and what doesn't ultimately matter much.

Crstal Bustos says the same thing. She can get pretty brutal when talking about coaches who "cookie cutter" swings.