The CHB on Ted, and Launch Angle

[Frobby]

20 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Well, when others stop waxing poetic about how "natural" the old-timey guys were I'll stop talking about it.

Not that I want to go down this rabbit hole, but here’s an interesting article on how the military used amphetamines during WWII and how war veterans likely introduced their use in baseball.    The article mentions Williams as a likely candidate due to his fighter pilot background, but doesn’t cite any specific evidence about him.    https://www.ozy.com/the-huddle/did-bostons-favorite-slugger-bring-meth-to-major-league-baseball/78569

[weams]

https://www.hitterish.com/single-post/Ted-Williams-Swing-Analysis

 

Ted Williams Swing | The Science of Hitting

 

 

 

 

 

Ted Williams dominated his era like no one else.  The true measure of a dominant hitter is the ability to hit for power AND average.

 

Williams was a dead pull hitter, but because of his ability to create bat speed deep in the swing, he was able to adjust to off speed pitches.

 

 

The image above illustrates centripital force.  Williams was able to use this to his advantage in his swing.

 

Watch his barrel go from the tipped position to level with the incoming pitch.  This movement happens before the shoulders turn. This movement is the swing.  Without it, we lack the adjustability needed to hit all pitch speeds and locations.  

 

Elite hitters do not start from a dead stand still.

 

They create momentum and give their barrel a running start.  Young players are taught to hold the bat at a 45 degree angle.  From there, they are taught to be short to the ball and "swing down."  

 

How are we supposed to hit the best pitchers on the planet if we have to start from zero?  Needless to say, it's very difficult.  That won't stop traditional hitting coaches from limiting all movement, creating "short" swings and robbing players of their potential.

[weams]

In his book "The Science of Hitting"  Ted Williams introduced the idea of matching the swing plane to the plane of the pitch.  This book was published in 1971.  Somehow, even in 2016 there are still coaches out there who teach "swing down."

 

 

According to this study, the optimal launch angle for batting average is 12 degrees.  The optimal launch angle for home runs is 28 degrees.  

 

If the ball approaches the plate at 12 degrees, and the optimal launch angle for batting average is 12 degrees.  Doesn't it make a ton of sense to hit the ball with a swing plane of 12 degrees?

 

Having zero offset at impact is how you optimize BALL EXIT SPEED.

 

Aim to hit the ball EXACTLY where it came from.

[Il BuonO]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

You’ve beaten this subject to death in many other threads.    I don’t feel like engaging in the debate here.   I was just paying Ted Williams a compliment, not trying to reopen this topic.    

Exactly 

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

Well, when others stop waxing poetic about how "natural" the old-timey guys were I'll stop talking about it.

Problem with that is you tend to paint them all with the same brush. And for the umpteenth time ‘greenies’ are performance enhancers the way coffee is times a factor of five. Maybe.

[Il BuonO]

Another really good book about his life by a really good writer is The Kid by Bradlee, Jr.

There’s no shortage of stories about his moral character, but I like my heroes flawed like we all are anyway.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Il BuonO said:

Exactly 

Problem with that is you tend to paint them all with the same brush. And for the umpteenth time ‘greenies’ are performance enhancers the way coffee is times a factor of five. Maybe.

If you would like to provide proof supporting that statement I'll gladly look at it.

[Tony-OH]

4 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

It is silly to say they may have lacked "natural ability" simply because they used PEDs.  Did Ruth lack "natural ability"?  Did all those Hall of Famers that used Greenies lack "natural ability"?

 

Seriously, why are you derailing this thread? 

[weams]

13 minutes ago, Il BuonO said:

Another really good book about his life by a really good writer is The Kid by Bradlee, Jr.

There’s no shortage of stories about his moral character, but I like my heroes flawed like we all are anyway.

I like that book. 

[weams]

4 hours ago, Frobby said:

I’m not getting into Ted’s morals at all.     But I did say “natural ability” in my OP.    If Bonds and ARod had never used PED’s, I don’t know that I’d be comparing them to Williams.    Maybe I would, but I don’t know.   They both were very talented.

I agree with you on this subject. Ted was a freak. A flawed freak. Not an enhanced freak. 

[Can_of_corn]

13 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Seriously, why are you derailing this thread? 

Because people who should know better lauding players who played in a certain age as being somehow more natural, pure or moral than players who played in the steroid era irks me.

Lots of guys " combined natural talent, hard work and a desire to study the game".  I would say someone like Cal Jr, who didn't ignore defense, better fits the description than Ted does.

Yes Arod and Bonds used steroids they both had tremendous natural ability, worked very hard and were serious students of the game.

 

That is why.  Like it, don't like it, that's the reason.  Since you asked for one.

 

Also, I'm not the one who started talking about steroids.  I simply said that Arod and Bonds "combined natural talent, hard work and a desire to study the game".  It was Frobby who decided he needed to disqualify them from the discussion.

 

[weams]

Anyway, the Idea that Dan Shaughnessy was projecting is that launch angle is and has been a thing. And why the science behind it is solid. 

[Il BuonO]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

If you would like to provide proof supporting that statement I'll gladly look at it.

How bout you provide proof? And stop with the condescending ‘people who should know better’ bs. 

Last I checked, you’re no authority on the subject. It’s your opinion which we’ve all heard ad nauseum.

[Moose Milligan]

Always thought the whole "launch angle" trend recently was weird.  I remember The Science of Hitting and Williams talking about how a slight upswing is best.  Seems to be common sense to me as someone who played baseball and has watched a ton of it.  

[Tony-OH]

25 minutes ago, Il BuonO said:

How bout you provide proof? And stop with the condescending ‘people who should know better’ bs. 

Last I checked, you’re no authority on the subject. It’s your opinion which we’ve all heard ad nauseum.

Yet he feels derailing a positive thread that was interesting was worth hearing once again.

[Tony-OH]

1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:

Always thought the whole "launch angle" trend recently was weird.  I remember The Science of Hitting and Williams talking about how a slight upswing is best.  Seems to be common sense to me as someone who played baseball and has watched a ton of it.  

Yet I was taught to swing down on the ball in high school and we were taught the "Orioles Way" because my headcoach was an Orioles associate scout.