Hitting: tip & myth of the week

[ssarge]

I now know what you mean by scapula load. I think its just a natural movement that happens when you take your hands back. And, I agree with your statement that hitters shouldn't rotate back.

I have a hard time making longer posts on this site, there seems to be some limitation about how much text can comfortably gop in the editing window. Please forgive the larger number of short posts.

Scapula loading is natural in the sense that great athletes tend to find it by trial and error. I have never seen ANY hitter, regardless of athletecism do it out of the box. SO in THAT sense, I would say it is not at all natural.

The "natural" movement is the second of the two animations above - pulling the hands back without adducting (pinching) the rear shoulder (the animation labeled "Not Scap load."). I don't think doing what Guerrero does with his rear shoulder is "natural." I know for a certainity that if his actions are replicated, and if the unload sequence is also replicated, the hitter will begin to attain results that are much closer to maximizing his / her potential.

Hitting is a trial-and-error process, for sure. There are some 400 muscles involved in swinging a bat, and the permutations of sequence / comnination in which those muscles can fire is a number larger than the number of atoms in the universe. Combine that with the enormous variabilities of pitch speed, location, and movement, and it's pretty obvious that hitting successfully is NOT a random event. It is amazing that anyone does it EVER.

The greatest have figured out how to do it with a minimum of moving parts, to reduce their own contributions to variability. And a lot of what APPEAR to be moving parts are actually the RESULT of forces established by the physics of the swing.

The greatest have figured this out through the trial-and-error process. There is no elimination of this process. That is why repetition - over a lifetime, basically - is so important. The process can be short-cutted a little bit through instruction. Instruction CAN NOT eliminate the need for a hitter to learn through trial-and-error. The brain / nervous system HAS to go through that process, because of the enormous variability of the challenge.

What instruction CAN do is eliminate a LOT of those universe-challenging number of permutations. In the sense of, "this can NEVER work, take it off the table." It is a short-cut, NOT an eliminator.

Demonstrating proper scapula loading to a student is one such short-cut. Demonstrating proper scapula unloading (basically, a reverse of the loading) is another.

And of all the things that can be demonstrated, a proper loading sequence, followed by a proper unloading sequence (and they overlap slightly, as the lower body begins to unload before the upper body) is probably the one where there is greatest bang for the buck.

Regards,

Scott

[ssarge]

Im not sure we are talking about the same thing when you say 'hinge' and I say 'cocking' the wrists? If I understand you correctly, you're saying that when Aaron tilts his barrel towards the infield, that puts his wrists in a hinge position that ultimately aides in the whip? Which is increased more by pulling the hands in just before contact? the shortening of the arc?

I think the wrists are cocked by keeping the hands close, with the correct hand path, and not casting the barrel too soon.

No, we're not talking about the same thing.

First of all, Aaron hinges his bottom hand wrist, and that puts the bat in the position that it does, not the other way around. I'm not splitting hairs, and this isn't semantics. I can make any number of movements that put a bat in the same position as Aaron's without properly hinging the bottom hand wrist.

And in fact, that raises an extremely important point, that I feel is owrt discussing. CAUSE and EFFECT are very important concepts in this discussion. The predicate of the discussion - extension - is a case in point. Extension happens - IF it does, and it sometimes does - as an EFFECT of forces in the swing. If it happens, it is an outcome of the swing, not an objective of it.

Again, NOT semantics. Programming motor skills is very much a goal-oriented process, combined with trial and error. Program the brain to extend past the point of contact, and it will figure out how to do it, and it will sometimes cheat in doing it - extend too soon (before contact), thus slowing the swing.

Program the brain to hit the ball with maximum force, mix in trial-and-error to shape the program, and you'll get a different result. One where extension SOMETIMES happens, typically as a result of slight timing error (just as a hitter is sometimes late, etc.). And often, there will be a contraction of the radius of the swing arc, because the brain figures out that is desirable to attain the goal - hitting the ball hard. And with REALLY good hitters, sometimes, there will be both.

But it isn't even that simple, because it isn't JUST about creating bat speed. It is also about quickness. Quickness is a different concept than bat speed. It is a measurement of elapsed time. MLB hitters DO NOT generate the most bat speed of all hitters on the planet. Their tip bat speed is in the 90mph ranhge (which is about 15-20 MPH more than elite female FP hitters). But about 20-25MPH LESS than elite male SP hitters.

Because the MLB hitter has optimized his swing for quickness, NOT for bat speed. To survive at that level, a hitter needs to be maximally quick, and THEN needs to work in as much bat speed as possible without sacrificing that quickness. He can't "ramp up" like the SP hitter, because the constraints of the window of time he has available don't permit it. The MLB hitter has to build a swing that takes 0.15 seconds (5 frames of 30fps video), or less. Some are 0.12. Every hundredth of a second is precious, because it represents about 1.5 feet of pitch movement for an MLB hitter, and about 1 foot of movement for an elite female FP hitter for every hundredth of a second that the swing takes.

Put more simply, a female hitter with a six video frame swing - typical - has to start her swing when the pitch is 6 feet further away than does an elite female hitter with a four video frame swing. That is huge.

So the brain must be programed first for quickness, and second for maximum bat speed within the constraints quickness places on the hitter.

Which is absolutely why extraneous movement HAS to be eliminated. And why a swing which begins to slow before contact is deadly. And a hitter TRYING to build extension into the swing will sometimes extend before contact. That will slow bat speed, clearly, but the biggest issue isn't power leak. It is loss of quickness.

Program the brain instead to build a really quick swing, and impart maximum force as well, and the body will begin to do different things. It will absolutely begin to tighten the swing arc. And it may also sometimes extend - both as a result of timing error, and also to minimize the effect of timing error (in some cases). But again, it ISN'T the desired outcome of the swing. It is an EFFECT of other forces in the swing.


Back to the original point. I don't think the bottom hand wrist is cocked by keeping the hands close. There are a number of ways a hitter can keep the hands close, without cocking the bottom wrist.

And for that matter, there are a number of ways a hitter can cock his wrists without establishing a proper hinge angle. The wrists can cock in as many variations along an X / Y axis as there are (a lot, but let's say 4 for the purposes of easy discussion).

I also don't see how the correct hand path cocks the wrists. It is almost a non sequitar to me.

Not casting the barrel is a good outcome, and in fact, a hitter should maintain the hinge angle of the bottom hand wrist until after he is around the corner and the hands have gotten flat. For sure.

The EFFECT of that is not to cast, FOR SURE.

But not casting does not have the effect of setting an appropriate hinge angle of the bottom hand wrist. It is an effect, a result, that is obtained BY setting the bottom hand wrist.

The loading sequence is the last chance a hitter has to be really deliberate in the actions of the swing. It is proactive, but everything becomes reactive after that. He / she can start the loading whenever desired. Optimally, he does so in a manner that insures continuous motion throughout the load / unload of the swing (important for a number of reasons) but still, it can be initiated whenever.

Scapular loading (stretching of front shoulder, pinching of rear shoulder), setting the hinge angle of the bottom hand wrist, load of the hips / torso, weight moving to the INSIDE of the back leg (weight is ALL on the back leg for hitters who stride, obviously), etc., are all causal actions that generate some effects. AMONG those effects are keeping hands close, not casting, etc.

But, IMHO, telling a hitter to keep her hands close and not cast, while appropriate guardrails for a swing, does not help shorten the trial-and-error process. It is not instruction so much as telling a hitter what the outcome should be. The brain will figure it out eventually - that is what trial-and-error will accomplish. But again, IMO, instruction is about slicing off huge chunks of trial-and-error possibilities.

That means programming the hitter in the "Causes," not in the "Effects."

Regards,

Scott

[ssarge]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8lnSXP9 ... re=related
This video shows IvanR hitting. One of the comments says he looks fooled. Maybe so? but that good extension is what kept him on the ball and still made pretty good contact.
Also, if you stop the video when his hands are in the middle of his torso, the barrel is still close to his shoulder, not casted. then as his hands continue the barrel accelerates to the ball. It didn't have anything to do with the tilt of the barrel or the scapula load imo.
Here's Giambi getting one a little more out front then he would have liked, but his extension was good and he still made good contact, hr. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_o8fUraANE&NR=1

Here is a clip of Uribe making contact much earlier and not the best extension. I have seen other clips of him getting much better extension.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oHDCedW ... re=related

Here's one of Jack Cust going oppo. A lot of times a hitter will not follow through as far when going oppo although Cust does on this one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkMtdAb8 ... re=related

These are all fine clips, showing great results by great hitters. Thanks for posting them.

If you REALLY want to make your case, find the clip of Manny in late 2009, who was fooled so badly off-speed it was amazing he made contact at all, and he actuallyy hit a HR. It looked like his bat was extended past the pitcher's mound, and the swing was talked about for weeks on every hitting web forum. An amazing act of athletecism.

And for every clip posted of a great hitter with great post-swing extension, I'd be pleased to break open the library and show the same hitter NOT extending to hit a HR, but instead shortening the swing arc.

This is hard on this site with a 250KB attachment limitation, and it is a lot of work to convert the clips to appropriate size without losing resolution.

So instead of playing dueling clips, let me simply summarize my position.

1) Great hitters almost NEVER extend prior to contact. If they do, they were fooled.

2) Great hitters often don't extend even AFTER contact.

3) Great hitters have figured out ways to make the swing quicker, while maximizing bat speed. SHortening the swing arc is one of these ways, and while not the antithesis of extension, it is a different pre-programmed goal.

4) YOUTH hitters who STRIVE for extension will have much more timing difficulty than MLB hitters in insuring that the extension is ONLY after contact. And it is particularly difficult for young female hitters, because it takes arm strength. Which they don't have. And a 24-25 oz bat to a 16 YO female hitter is a LOT heavier (relatively) than a 32 oz bat in the hands of an MLB hitter. Like about twice as heavy.

Because of the timing difficulty, youth hitters AIMING for post-swing extension will often end up with pre-swing extension.

5) Extension PRIOR to contact (probably no one's objective, but IMO, an inevitable outcome fairly often if there is an emphasis on extension) will absolutely take a negative affect on swing quickness and bat speed (again, two separate concepts, related, but separate. And BOTH are crucial).

6) The hitters brain must be programmed to attain an objective, an EFFECT. In this case, swing quickness and bat speed (in that order). To CAUSE that effect, the hitters brain / nervous system / body precipitate and complete certain actions.

7) Proper instruction shortens the trial-and-error process of building these actions.


Put even more simply, and obviously, this is just my opinion, but it's a pretty experienced opinion - giving a hitter a GOAL of extending will insure the hitter extends. And over time, she'll extend more and more, often before contact. This is impossible to avoid, no matter the hitter's skill. And the hitters I work with do it too. But I'd be willing to bet they do it less than some other hitters, because they aren't STRIVING for extension. Hopefully, if I've done my job, they are striving to be quick. And within the constraints of optimal quickness, are maximizing bat speed. Sometimes, they will miss the perfect timing on a bat / ball collision that takes a mere 1/1000 of a second. Sometimes they'll be early, sometimes late. Sometimes they'll extend after contact, and occasionally before.

But extension is NOT their goal. Their goal is to wait as long as possible to launch the swing, in order to gather more pitch data. And then to launch a swing that will be maximnally effective to hit the pitch, and drive the ball as far as posisble.

THAT is their objective. And ANY extension before contact marginalizes the result. It happens, but it isn't the goal. And it should happen less and less as the hitter improves. But it will still happen. If the INTENT is extension - even post-contact extension,, it will happen a lot more often.

I know this probably sounds like "how many angels are on the head of a pin." I really get that. And I post at some risk of looking argumentative or obstinate.

I'll live with that.

In the business of building hitters, it is vital to understand cause and effect, and very, very easy to mistake the two, and build a strategy based on a misunderstand or mis-labeling of the two. I do it all the time. But it is vital for all of us to strive to better understand this.

To the extent causes and effects are understood by the instructor, it is his / her responsibility to build a set of swing objectives which wiill help the individual hitter optimize her swing, and will maximize her results and her opportunities in the sport. In my experience, EXTENSION would almost never be one of those swing objectives. I understand others disagree, and that's cool.

Whatever the objectives are, there should be some. The OBJECTIVES should de deriviatives of results, not of the mechanics deployed to retain those results. And once objectives are defined, the instructor has to then find a way to find a way to communicate to the hitter in terms she will understand.

While I don't use terms like scapular loading with hitters, I do demonstrate to them and describe what the shoulders should look like as they load and unload. With the ultimate intended objectives of shortening the swing arc to minimize the swing's elapsed time even while building maximum bat speed.

Just as any airplane landing you walk away from is a good one, any swing which results in hard contact is a good one. In the business of optimizing swings though, we HAVE to aim for the wheels making the landing.

In THIS discussion, I would summarize my position by saying that as an instructor, I personally am not AIMING for extension. I am AIMING for a quick swing with high bat speed. IMHO, an EMPHASIS on extension is in conflict with that goal.

And at the risk of sounding argumentative, I would further state that understanding this distinction is important. It is NOT sematics. It is far more than that.


But truthfully, the point of all this discussion is NOT the argument over whether hitters should optimally extend. It's a fairly minor point, although it has served as a vehicle for making a number of good sub-discussions on mechanics. But I believe the real point is the importance (for an INSTRUCTOR, not a kid) of understanding the forces in play in the swing. Understanding how the body can optimally create those forces. And understanding what cues / demonstration / drills to use to assist the hitter in doing it. If she understands it a little too, all the better. Certainly, she's going to be on her own when she gets to college, as you can't count on getting good instruction there. You can't count on it in MLB baseball, for that matter, not that MLB hitters listen to their instructors anyway.


In learning motor skills, programming the brain to solve the problem is job one. IMO,that task starts with the principles I've outlined above.

Best regards,

Scott

[ssarge]

JTat:

Thank you for the kind words. Great points on the distinction between hinge angle and cocked wrists.

Best regards,

Scott

[ssarge]

Greg:

One last point before I head off to work, for which I am already late.

With my previous posts, I don't mean at all to impugn your approach or skill as an instructor. I'm not inferring you don't understand cause and effect, in fact, I'm not inferring anything. I chase my own demons as an instructor. The daughter of a poster on this very thread sees me for instruction, and I missed a fairly obvious flaw in her swing the other night, which Phil saw basically when he was walking by. Instant improvement. And he'd probably say there are times when this has gone the other way, and I've chimed in with one of his hitters.

The point is not to demonstrate who is a better instructor. I'm going to lose that battle a lot of the time, in many comparisons.

I DID however, want to impart an instructional philosophy, core principles, and guardrails for the process that I think will serve any of us in the instructional community well. And I hope I've done that.

Best wishes to you and your students,

Scott

[MrHittingCoach]

Scott,

I read every word of your posts. I respect your opinion and enjoy the discussion. Rather than post a reply to every detail that I see differently, I think I'd rather focus on what we do agree on. Which, btw, is a lot more than it may appear to observers. Of which many more are familiar with you being that I'm new to this forum. And, then summarize my position.

Keep in mind I'm not a typist, I'm a hen-pecker. The other night I hen-pecked a very long reply and then inadvertently did something to erase it and couldn't retrieve it. So I didn't even look at the computer for 2 days.

We certainly want the same thing when it comes to hitting instruction; to help every hitter who comes to us reach their full potential. Or at least point them in the right direction.

I think we agree that the quicker a hitter is at getting the barrel to the ball, the longer they are able see the ball which allows them to process more information giving them a better chance to hit the ball squarely.

I think we agree that the goal is to hit the ball hard as often as possible.

I think we agree that we disagree on some things, especially the E word.

We agree that proper instruction shortens the trial and error process.

I think we agree that 90% of hitting is half mental.

I think we both want the best for the players we have the privilege to coach, both on and off the field.

We agree that extension is a word. We agree on palm up/ palm down some what?

We probably agree that seeing the ball from release to contact is good.

I think we agree that using terms like; scapula loading, abduction, hinge, etc in the cage or on the field wouldn't be productive.

I know we agree Katie Cochran is a stud!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dfWDSNeyaE

Please don't take the humor I injected into some of these as me making light of any aspect of our discussion. I take hitting very seriously, but I strive to keep it fun as well. I'll summarize my position on mechanics when I have some more time. I'll leave you with this: (going by our discussions bcuz I've never seen you coach) it appears to me that you make hitting more complicated than it needs to be. key word: appears. I sense a lot of Nyman & Slaught influence of which I don't agree. Both of which have 1 thing in common among others; they make it too complex imo. They both also have their own vocabulary which imo they created to make themselves appear smarter than most everyone else thereby appearing to be more of an expert than they really are. (maybe its just marketing?) I get it with Nyman being that he's a MIT professor or was? But, I've always thought that highly intelligent people should know how to talk so everyone understands. With Slaught, I don't get it, he's an ex major leaguer. They don't say toe touch, launch, bat lag, swing arc, negative move, etc in MLB. Don't get me wrong, I'm not judging. Maybe it is just marketing? His RVP software is awesome! I prefer JC Video and DartFish though.

One last thought, I don't believe Slaught's Bond's story. I at least think he's embellishing to say the least. (I believe he told you)
Maybe that could be our next topic?
No offense intended!

Have fun!

Greg

[MrHittingCoach]

My Dad was in a rival "car club" to George Lucas, American Graffiti in Modesto 1962-3 (til Mom got pg w/me)
George was a Pharaoh and my Dad was a Chancellor. Dad quit the Chancellors and turned down a tryout invitation from the Giants when my Mom dropped the bomb & he sold the car. Boy was I mad when he told me... sorry a little family trivia, I know who cares..

my new avatar was my Dad's car... chromed rims were rare back then

[ssarge]

Please don't take the humor I injected into some of these as me making light of any aspect of our discussion. I take hitting very seriously, but I strive to keep it fun as well.

I appreciate the humor.

it appears to me that you make hitting more complicated than it needs to be. key word: appears.

I suspect others feel that way, as well.

The thing is, hitting is incredibly complicated, and incredibly difficult to explain with the written word. Undoubtably I fail to describe it well. However, words mean things, and I strive to use them correctly so that I can be as accurately descriptive as possible.

HITTERS do NOT need to understand the complexities of either hitting, or of language. But by and large, hitters aren't among the audience here. And obviously, the need for understanding of the complexities and subtleties is greater for instructors. I think the biggest single reason for that is that an instructors job is to personalize instruction. No one way of communication works for every student. No one drill works for every student, or any series of drills. Every student's pathology and problems are different.

And the approach needs to be different with every student as well.

I've found that the single most dificult aspect of hitting instruction is to fix any one student's problem(s) without creating unintended consequences. In other words, to fix things without breaking something else. That takes experience, but it also takes an understanding of the forces and physics of the swing. And it takes undersanding bio-mechanics and the kinetic chain - IOW, understanding how the body works.

And understanding it REALLY well, IN ORDER TO describe it simply to the hitter in simple terms.

The challenge in talking to hiters is NOT merely to use simple language. It is to use simple language that accurately conveys the complexities involved AND produces the desired outcome. My own limitations in communication require me to understand things pretty well at a reasonably technical level to express them simply. with any one kid, sure. But with a variety of kids who have different problems and understand things differently and in differnt ways - nope. When my understanding was superficial, I had only one way of expressing what I believed about hitting,. The kid either got it, or she didn;t. That is less true today, because my understanding has grown a little, and it allows me to try different ways of expressing things simply weven while maintaining the integrity of the material. And so to click with different and unique kids a reasonable percentage of the time.

I sense a lot of Nyman & Slaught influence of which I don't agree.

The largest single influence on me is Steve Englishbey. Who HAS been influenced by Nyman, for sure. So have I. Englishbey is a former #1 draft pick of Houston, who never got above AAA ball. His language and technical knowledge of hitting makes me look like an absolute neophyte.

And his language in describing things hitting to kids could not be more simple. He adopts a country bumpkin demeanor that serves him well. In that too, he is a role model for me.

I have also been influenced by Slaught, though less so. Also had opportunity to meet and interact with Epstein and Mankin, and a couple of others. I would hope that no one influence has shaped me, and that I have been able to bring a critical eye to multiple influences, and to build a methodology based on those influences, and ultimately, on what works to put female hitters into college. Meaning that experience is key, too.

I am surprised to hear you say that you don't agree with Slaught / RVP instruction. Not in the sense that I think Slaught has everything right. I don't. But I DO think that RVP methodology is almost ubiquitous in college softball, especially D-I. And I note that earlier, you indicated that what you teach is consistent with what hitters learn in college and pro ball. You've got me a little confused. The language of RVP IS the language of D-I softball today.

Both of which have 1 thing in common among others; they make it too complex imo. They both also have their own vocabulary which imo they created to make themselves appear smarter than most everyone else thereby appearing to be more of an expert than they really are. (maybe its just marketing?)

You are right about the vocabulary. And you are right about the marketing. A case in point would be RVP's mantra "a linear start to a rotational finish." Total pap, invented IMO to insinuate the material between the rotational and linear "camps." But in the process, bastardizing language and vernacular that for years had common understanding in hitting circles. To the point where the terms "linear" and "rotational," once accurate descriptors of the difference between Charley Lau's and Ted Williams's approaches to hitting into complete meaninglessness.

One example, and there are many others. You have the marketing part right.

On the other hand, Williams is an interesting case in point. InThe Science of Hitting, Williams's now 50 year old book, he uses language more technical than anything I use. And has influences a lot of people with that language.

Ultimately, everyone finds a place in the pragmatic vs. technical continuum that works for their instructional methodology and approach. Perhaps that is a little different place for everyone, and perhaps I am a little further towards the technical side than others. I would continue to contend that is NOT true in my conversations with actual hitters. But more so with the written word. Which is out there forever and needs to withstand time and peer review.

But I totally get that others adopt a style that is less technical, and that this does not necessarily reflect a lack of understanding of the complexities involve in what has been described as the single most difficult thing to do in all of sports - hit a round ball, with a round bat, squarely.

That said, there are many out there who cling to the mantra of "see ball, hit ball" as appropriate simply because they haven't made the effort to understand what IS involved in hitting and teaching kids to hit. In other words, for SOME, it is a cop-out.

Put another way, nobody discusses pitching be saying "grasp the ball, throw the ball." It is widely accepted that there are incredibly complex mechanics involved, and that it takes years to master.

I get it with Nyman being that he's a MIT professor or was? But, I've always thought that highly intelligent people should know how to talk so everyone understands. With Slaught, I don't get it, he's an ex major leaguer. They don't say toe touch, launch, bat lag, swing arc, negative move, etc in MLB. Don't get me wrong, I'm not judging. Maybe it is just marketing?

Nyman is an electrical engineer, not a professor.

I take your point about being able to communicate in simple terms. I work to do that every day, with youth hitters. And I believe they (and their parents) would give me decent marks on this. In conversation with instructors, I have a different objective in mind, and make assumptions that frame my own comments and the technical nature of the material.

His RVP software is awesome! I prefer JC Video and DartFish though.

I think RVP software is klugey and pretty unsophisticated. I use MotionPro and V1 at least as often. or simply load two QuickTime clips on the screen next to each other, and compare the hitters frame-by-frame. I can screen capture the two, throw the snapshot into PPT and mark it up graphically faster than I can do it using RVP.

What IS good about RVP, though, is the availability of clips taken from consistent angles at 60fps (rather than 30 fps). That is unique. Historically, RVP has also been great because it "tricks" the deinterlace on the camera abd captures the video you take at 60fps as well, so the comparison with the pro clips is stellar. Now that inexpensive video cameras are available that actually RECORD video at 60fps (or better), this is less of a big deal. The pro hitter clips available with RVP are pretty useful, though.

One last thought, I don't believe Slaught's Bond's story. I at least think he's embellishing to say the least. (I believe he told you)

I appreciate your position on that. The story has the feel of an Urban Myth, enhanced and improved over the years.

First, I assure you I have related it accurately as Slaught told it to me.

Slaught is NOT an "embellishment" kind of guy, I actually find him pretty matter-of-fact, almost binary. Not a lot of shades of grey in his world.

Ultimately, the account as related is ENTIRELY consistent with my observations and experience. As you yourself indicated in your last post, ballplayers don't use complex language. They are incredibly skillled athletically. And most face limitations in language and communication that make it hard for them to teach others. Perhaps because it seems so effortless for them. at the MLB level, they also don't listen to their instructors, as I suspect Hudgens has told you in your conversations with him. Consequently, their own understanding of the actions they perform so superbly well can be very superficial.

In fact, I would bet that if you surveyed the 400 or so MLB hitters today, a very sizeable percntage would tell you that they strive to hit down through the ball to impart backspin, and in fact would tell you that they ACTUALLY hit down through the ball. No matter WHAT video shows.

We tend to build a mystique around ballplayers because we are amazed at what they can do. I could probably cite a dozen examples of personal conversations with ballplayers that I found stunning in the same manner as Bonds's comment to Slaught.

And I would bet the mortgage on the accuracy of his conversation with Bonds as he related it to me.

Regards,

Scott

[ssarge]

my new avatar was my Dad's car... chromed rims were rare back then

Nice. It was a '56 Dodge in my family.

My own avatar is my daughter in a college AB. After years of incredibly hard work - she is modestly gifted, athletically, and had the further challenge of needing to overcome her instructional influence - I cried (with pride and joy) when I saw her first college AB, which was in Utah. And BTW, was against Washington and Danielle Lawrie. A pinch hit, with the game on the line. "Grab a bat, Kelly, show us what you can do." I don't think she went up there thinking this was a girl who had just pitched in the Olympics (and later that season would be the NCAA POY and lead her team to the WCWS championship). I think she went up there thinking, "I'm going to get a hit." And she put a couple of very nice swings on the ball, before K'ing. I'll remember that AB - suspect she will, too - long after I've forgotten the successes, HRs, and walk-offs.

I couldn't have been more proud. A week later, when she got a couple of hits against Illinois, then cracked the starting line-up, I had tears in my eyes again. And I came pretty close when she hit her first college HR two weeks after that against South Florida in Tampa. A game that was televided locally - I've tried for two years to track down a clip, but haven't been able to. It was a SHOT, though (says dad).

Two more years, and then it is over. What I will truly remember, what I will miss beyond belief, is walking out onto a field with her when it is 100 degrees in the summer. Knowing NO ONE else is practicing. Rolling out the machine, and taking 150 swings while sweat drips down your face. The days she absolutely exasperated me. The days I completely infuriated her. Exhulting in the good swings. Suffering through the days when nothing is going right, and you both feel like giving up. The joy you both feel when it all pays off.

There are some memories there that are just precious to me. We have been blessed, and I am very grateful.

To some extent, I feel the same things as other students fulfill their dreams and step on to a college field. There are few who know the sacrifices required for most to do that, and it is a privilege to be a part of it.

Something special when it is your own kid, though. The joy is in the journey, and it is why we do what we do.

Best wishes to you,

Scott

[MrHittingCoach]

The thing is, hitting is incredibly complicated,

I completely disagree.

The largest single influence on me is Steve Englishbey.

I'm not surprised. I think he makes hitting more difficult so he can charge more. imo

or simply load two QuickTime clips on the screen next to each other, and compare the hitters frame-by-frame.

Thats funny. I do the same thing most the time...

clips taken from consistent angles at 60fps (rather than 30 fps).

I use a digital camera because it records 60 fps. 30 sucks

As you yourself indicated in your last post, ballplayers don't use complex language.

I can't find where I said that, but they don't need to, hitting isn't hard to understand imo.



Here's a hitting tip: do what works for you!

Have Fun!


PS. "see the ball, hit the ball" is a mindset for when you're in the box. don't think, just react!