Swing Debate

[Ted]

One last bit, I've been reading a lot of scouting reports and watching video for the last couple years. When scouts talk about ability to turn raw power into game power, they do seem to discuss the swing a lot. And even when discussing guys who don't appear to have much raw power, they seem to talk about the type of swing. I've seen some pretty slight guys drive the heck out of the ball simply by having a better swing. I think our ideas that you have to be big to hit the ball far is probably a misconception based on when we all started watching baseball. Back then, only super big guys could hit homers because they weren't trying to. So yeah, smaller people can probably do more than we think. 9U though? That's questionable.

I think some common ground you could find is in the bit Scott brought up about swing angle vs launch angle. When I was a kid, we are all taught to hit down on the ball. No one should probably be teaching this anymore. It does produce more ground balls, which are great when people can't field, but its harder to make strong contact. Even if we're just playing to have fun, it's more fun to square the ball up than it is to rattle it to the shortstop. The ball is always heading down already on its way to the plate. So a swing that gives the bat the most surface are that can make good hard contact has a slight upward stroke (And as Scott mentioned, the actual launch angle will vary based upon how much backspin the ball has). You can argue about whether level swings or big uppercuts are better, but trying to actually chop down on the ball is probably not the best teaching. Situation-ally maybe this is fine, but then you get back to the argument about how hitting is hard enough, do you actually want someone trying to learn to do different things?

[Spiccoli]

I have one question and one half baked answer. Aside, I don't play baseball. I never did, and sure as hell can't now.

The question is: Is it realistic to ask a 13-15 year old to change their swing? How much can you not unlearn once you start doing it a certain way? I really don't know. If the answer is that it's really not hard, then year, teaching young kids to hit the ball in the air when that's not their natural stroke is dumb. If it's really hard, then maybe not. I guess what I'm really asking is what does it mean to teach a kid to hit. As someone who doesn't, I just don't know how much is universal, and how much is swing specific.

The half baked answer also interplays with this. Why are the kids playing? I guess at their current get, the answer would be for fun. If that's the purpose, they should b learning to hit to win (at their age the most efficient hits are probably low line drives, hard hit balls on the ground). If their are trying to become pros, and hat's the only reasons they are playing, then they should be learning "better" swings, even if they don't produce much now. Treating kids that young as a bunch of pro prospects seems rather dumb, an unrealistic.

Anyway, this guy seems like an asshat.

Yes, he’s an asshat... agreed.

Changing your swing is tough. I self taught myself as a kid and was a terrible front foot hitter. I was great at getting contact, but rarely hit the ball hard.

I made it that way to my sophomore year where they redid my footwork to stay back.... It was rough for awhile. I fought it a lot, because I struggled.

It actually took me a couple years until I was able swing without having to think about everything, then it clicked and I could hit for some power.

Then in my mid 20’s I hit another gear... a late bump you could say.

[agrudez]

I know with my golf swing I constantly fall back into bad habits I "learned" growing up from being improperly taught - and that is with a ball standing completely still. I imagine with something coming at you 70+ MPH with instantaneous reaction time required, that dynamic is multiplied quite a bit.

[7teen]

One last bit, I've been reading a lot of scouting reports and watching video for the last couple years. When scouts talk about ability to turn raw power into game power, they do seem to discuss the swing a lot. And even when discussing guys who don't appear to have much raw power, they seem to talk about the type of swing. I've seen some pretty slight guys drive the heck out of the ball simply by having a better swing. I think our ideas that you have to be big to hit the ball far is probably a misconception based on when we all started watching baseball. Back then, only super big guys could hit homers because they weren't trying to. So yeah, smaller people can probably do more than we think. 9U though? That's questionable.

I think some common ground you could find is in the bit Scott brought up about swing angle vs launch angle. When I was a kid, we are all taught to hit down on the ball. No one should probably be teaching this anymore. It does produce more ground balls, which are great when people can't field, but its harder to make strong contact. Even if we're just playing to have fun, it's more fun to square the ball up than it is to rattle it to the shortstop. The ball is always heading down already on its way to the plate. So a swing that gives the bat the most surface are that can make good hard contact has a slight upward stroke (And as Scott mentioned, the actual launch angle will vary based upon how much backspin the ball has). You can argue about whether level swings or big uppercuts are better, but trying to actually chop down on the ball is probably not the best teaching. Situation-ally maybe this is fine, but then you get back to the argument about how hitting is hard enough, do you actually want someone trying to learn to do different things?

I had another conversation yesterday with the softball coach at the HS Im at who also gives hitting instruction. He said that their approach is to drive it over everyone's head. I told him that I agree with that mindset. No one would object to that. It's the mindset of the angle that I still don't agree with. Their swing philosophy is to have your bat on an upward plane at contact. I'm more in favor of a flatter approach (no one advocates swinging down or chopping. That's just wrong) But rather than dipping down to get your bat at the proper angle, I still like the hands to the ball approach. What my old coach always said as "knock the glasses off the table" approach. Where your bat is level through the zone.

These new guys say that is wrong because you're not meeting the ball at the proper angle. As a coach, my argument to them is that their approach, while yes can lead to more balls being hit as homeruns and perhaps over the infield, is leading to more fly ball outs and strikeouts. At the ages I coach, popups and fly balls are caught for outs. The level swing approach leads to more line drives and the negative of ground balls. But at our level, there are so many variables that come into play on ground balls (bad hops on our HS fields, bobbled balls, bad throws, etc...) that can be a positive for our team while 95% of the fly balls that are hit that aren't "driven" over the OF's head go for outs.

As a coach, give me line drives and ground balls to help us win over easy fly baalls

[agrudez]

Wait, how would a flat swing (assuming this means a swing that is perpendicular to your posture in relation to the ground) produce a line drive over someone's head? I know next to nothing about baseball swings, but I have some knowledge on physics and if the ball has a velocity magnitude with a negative z-axis component (cause, you know... gravity and stuff) and your bat has no z-axis component to its velocity (ie. is completely perpendicular to your posture with no positive/negative angle in its x-y plane whatsoever), the only motion along the z-axis the ball could possibly take is along the negative z-axis (ie. towards the ground).

[RonCo]

How much does the question about whether you can change your approach have to do with the increase of pitcher velocity that's happening around the MLB as relief pitcher and third-time through the order philosophy takes hold? The difference in a couple miles an hour is not much, but it's also a lot.

There's no question that a lot of great hitters used to change their approach situationally in the old days. Players today are better trained and better physically. If they can't do it now, it's not because of a skill set deficiency.

Personally, I'm wondering if baseball is due for another major change on the order of reducing the mound size or the inclusion of the DH. I'm thinking something like moving the mound back six inches or a foot, and possibly altering the ball. A lot of this topic has been focused around what's best for players or the idea of how to score runs, but baseball really doesn't care about that. What they care about is attendance and revenue, both of which are not showing positive signs. The question then becomes: what kind of baseball do people like to watch. High K-games as a default are not particularly fun to me. And it seems that people voting with their wallets tend to agree.

[RonCo]

Wait, how would a flat swing (assuming this means a swing that is perpendicular to your posture in relation to the ground) produce a line drive over someone's head? I know next to nothing about baseball swings, but I have some knowledge on physics and if the ball has a velocity magnitude with a negative z-axis component (cause, you know... gravity and stuff) and your bat has no z-axis component to its velocity (ie. is completely perpendicular to your posture with no positive/negative angle in its x-y plane whatsoever), the only motion along the z-axis the ball could possibly take is along the negative z-axis (ie. towards the ground).

I think a more flat angle is one that's flat with respect to the plane the ball is traveling on. Flat swings hit the ball square. At least that's how I've interpreted the language, but I'll admit to being an outsider since High School. What do I know?

[Ted]

Wait, how would a flat swing (assuming this means a swing that is perpendicular to your posture in relation to the ground) produce a line drive over someone's head? I know next to nothing about baseball swings, but I have some knowledge on physics and if the ball has a velocity magnitude with a negative z-axis component (cause, you know... gravity and stuff) and your bat has no z-axis component to its velocity (ie. is completely perpendicular to your posture with no positive/negative angle in its x-y plane whatsoever), the only motion along the z-axis the ball could possibly take is along the negative z-axis (ie. towards the ground).

The spin on the ball plays a factor in the "launch angle". 4 seamers have more backspin, which makes more likely them go in the air after contact. 2 seamers have less, which is why they are through of as more likely to get ground balls. Breaking balls have different types of spin, obviously.

This possibly also accounts for the "they harder they throw, the farther I can hit it" thing we all heard growing up more than we think. Harder thrown 4 seamers tend to have more spin as well, making even more likely they can be launched when made contact with squarely with the more level swings players had when we were growing up.

[7teen]

Wait, how would a flat swing (assuming this means a swing that is perpendicular to your posture in relation to the ground) produce a line drive over someone's head? I know next to nothing about baseball swings, but I have some knowledge on physics and if the ball has a velocity magnitude with a negative z-axis component (cause, you know... gravity and stuff) and your bat has no z-axis component to its velocity (ie. is completely perpendicular to your posture with no positive/negative angle in its x-y plane whatsoever), the only motion along the z-axis the ball could possibly take is along the negative z-axis (ie. towards the ground).

Look at a swing like Rose, Gwynn, etc and compare it to someone like Josh Donaldson. By flat swing I mean flat through the hitting zone