| SOFTBALL TIPS |
|
|
|
| SITE STUFF |
|
|
|
|
ARCHIVES
|
| • |
June 26, 2005 |
| • |
July 03, 2005 |
| • |
July 10, 2005 |
| • |
July 17, 2005 |
| • |
July 24, 2005 |
| • |
July 31, 2005 |
| • |
August 07, 2005 |
| • |
August 14, 2005 |
| • |
August 21, 2005 |
| • |
August 28, 2005 |
| • |
September 11, 2005 |
| • |
October 02, 2005 |
| • |
October 09, 2005 |
| • |
October 23, 2005 |
| • |
October 30, 2005 |
| • |
November 06, 2005 |
| • |
November 13, 2005 |
| • |
December 04, 2005 |
| • |
December 18, 2005 |
| • |
December 25, 2005 |
| • |
January 08, 2006 |
| • |
January 15, 2006 |
| • |
January 29, 2006 |
| • |
February 05, 2006 |
| • |
February 12, 2006 |
| • |
February 19, 2006 |
| • |
February 26, 2006 |
| • |
March 05, 2006 |
| • |
March 12, 2006 |
| • |
March 19, 2006 |
| • |
March 26, 2006 |
| • |
April 02, 2006 |
| • |
April 09, 2006 |
| • |
April 16, 2006 |
| • |
April 23, 2006 |
| • |
April 30, 2006 |
| • |
May 07, 2006 |
| • |
May 14, 2006 |
| • |
May 21, 2006 |
| • |
May 28, 2006 |
| • |
June 04, 2006 |
| • |
June 11, 2006 |
| • |
June 18, 2006 |
| • |
June 25, 2006 |
| • |
July 09, 2006 |
| • |
July 16, 2006 |
| • |
July 23, 2006 |
| • |
July 30, 2006 |
| • |
August 13, 2006 |
| • |
August 20, 2006 |
| • |
September 03, 2006 |
| • |
September 10, 2006 |
| • |
September 17, 2006 |
| • |
September 24, 2006 |
| • |
October 01, 2006 |
| • |
October 08, 2006 |
| • |
October 15, 2006 |
| • |
October 22, 2006 |
| • |
November 12, 2006 |
| • |
November 26, 2006 |
| • |
December 31, 2006 |
| • |
January 14, 2007 |
| • |
January 21, 2007 |
| • |
January 28, 2007 |
| • |
February 04, 2007 |
| • |
February 11, 2007 |
| • |
February 18, 2007 |
| • |
February 25, 2007 |
| • |
March 04, 2007 |
| • |
March 11, 2007 |
| • |
March 18, 2007 |
| • |
April 01, 2007 |
| • |
April 08, 2007 |
| • |
April 15, 2007 |
| • |
April 22, 2007 |
| • |
April 29, 2007 |
| • |
May 06, 2007 |
| • |
May 13, 2007 |
| • |
May 20, 2007 |
| • |
May 27, 2007 |
| • |
June 03, 2007 |
| • |
June 10, 2007 |
| • |
June 17, 2007 |
| • |
June 24, 2007 |
| • |
July 01, 2007 |
| • |
July 22, 2007 |
| • |
July 29, 2007 |
| • |
August 12, 2007 |
| • |
August 19, 2007 |
| • |
September 02, 2007 |
| • |
September 16, 2007 |
| • |
September 30, 2007 |
| • |
October 07, 2007 |
| • |
October 14, 2007 |
| • |
October 21, 2007 |
| • |
November 04, 2007 |
| • |
November 18, 2007 |
| • |
November 25, 2007 |
| • |
December 02, 2007 |
| • |
December 09, 2007 |
| • |
December 16, 2007 |
| • |
January 13, 2008 |
| • |
February 17, 2008 |
| • |
February 24, 2008 |
| • |
March 02, 2008 |
| • |
March 09, 2008 |
| • |
March 30, 2008 |
| • |
April 06, 2008 |
| • |
April 13, 2008 |
| • |
April 20, 2008 |
| • |
April 27, 2008 |
| • |
May 04, 2008 |
| • |
May 11, 2008 |
| • |
May 18, 2008 |
| • |
May 25, 2008 |
| • |
June 01, 2008 |
| • |
June 15, 2008 |
| • |
June 22, 2008 |
| • |
June 29, 2008 |
| • |
July 06, 2008 |
| • |
July 13, 2008 |
| • |
July 20, 2008 |
| • |
August 03, 2008 |
| • |
August 10, 2008 |
| • |
August 17, 2008 |
| • |
August 24, 2008 |
| • |
August 31, 2008 |
| • |
September 07, 2008 |
| • |
September 14, 2008 |
| • |
September 21, 2008 |
| • |
September 28, 2008 |
| • |
October 05, 2008 |
| • |
October 12, 2008 |
| • |
October 19, 2008 |
| • |
October 26, 2008 |
| • |
November 02, 2008 |
| • |
November 09, 2008 |
| • |
November 16, 2008 |
| • |
November 30, 2008 |
| • |
December 07, 2008 |
| • |
December 21, 2008 |
| • |
December 28, 2008 |
| • |
February 15, 2009 |
| • |
February 22, 2009 |
| • |
April 12, 2009 |
| • |
April 19, 2009 |
| • |
April 26, 2009 |
| • |
May 03, 2009 |
| • |
May 10, 2009 |
| • |
May 17, 2009 |
| • |
May 24, 2009 |
| • |
May 31, 2009 |
| • |
June 07, 2009 |
| • |
June 14, 2009 |
| • |
June 21, 2009 |
| • |
July 05, 2009 |
| • |
July 12, 2009 |
| • |
July 19, 2009 |
| • |
August 02, 2009 |
| • |
August 30, 2009 |
| • |
September 06, 2009 |
| • |
September 20, 2009 |
| • |
October 04, 2009 |
| • |
October 11, 2009 |
| • |
October 18, 2009 |
| • |
November 08, 2009 |
| • |
November 15, 2009 |
| • |
November 22, 2009 |
| • |
November 29, 2009 |
| • |
December 27, 2009 |
| • |
January 03, 2010 |
| • |
January 10, 2010 |
| • |
January 17, 2010 |
| • |
January 24, 2010 |
| • |
January 31, 2010 |
| • |
March 14, 2010 |
| • |
March 21, 2010 |
| • |
March 28, 2010 |
| • |
April 04, 2010 |
| • |
April 18, 2010 |
| • |
April 25, 2010 |
|
|
| SOFTBALL LINKS |
|
|
|
Jackie Be Nimble, Jackie Be Quick, Jackie Be Accurate
by Dave
Friday, April 18, 2008
I was watching a high school game when a runner from first tried to steal second and was thrown out by about two steps. One of the spectators said, "That was a good throw. I saw her throw in warm-ups. I thought her throwing was a lot weaker than that." The conclusion I drew was this guy thought they could steal the pants off this particular catcher because he watched her throw in non-game conditions and believed her throwing speed wasn't anything worth worrying about. That's not the right evaluation for a catcher. There's lots more to it than that.
I recall a game of my youth in which I threw out the only two baserunners who attempted to steal against me. I learned an important lesson in that game. My team's pitcher had a slow release, an important consideration in baseball which doesn't enter the discussion in fastpitch. Our opponent was going to try to push every baserunner with decent speed.
I knew every kid on the other team and knew absolutely which ones would try to run. The first kid on base was a running back for the football team. I had seen him run a 4.6 forty yard dash. He was fast enough to steal. He was also a good baserunner. He would get a decent jump. I knew I had to be quick, not just make a hard, accurate throw. When he went, I didn't waste any time getting rid of the ball. The pitch was a ball below the knees. I couldn't come totally up if I wanted to shoot the runner down. My throw was not as strong as I would have liked it but it was probably the quickest and most accurate one of my life to that point. Our second baseman caught it on the front, first-base-side corner of the bag and the runner tagged himself out.
The next guy on base wasn't nearly as fast as the first nor was he as skilled a baserunner. But he was fast enough to steal in 16U Babe Ruth tournament ball. I knew he would be going but I was far less stressed about it this time. I caught a pitch about waist high, just off the outside corner (a catcher's dream!), cocked and fired as hard as I could. This throw was online but a little high, about at the fielder's shoulder. It was a lot stronger than the first one, probably 3 mph or more faster. Luckily this guy hadn't gotten a good jump and our fielder tagged him out. But the play was a lot closer than it should have been and many thought the ump made a bad call, the runner had been safe.
My first throw was a quick, accurate one but arguably pretty weak. My second one was less quick and accurate but far stronger. Which was the better throw? The quick, accurate one. It always is.
The way by which catchers' throws down to second are usually evaluated is called "pop time," the amount of time between the pop of the catcher's mitt and the pop of the shortstop's glove when she catches the throw. I agree with Dave Weaver of CatchingCamp.com, our favorite catching coach, that evaluating a catcher's throw based on pop time is incomplete. But for today, I'd like to look only at this aspect because it is important and, in isolation, it tells at least a decent part of the story.
I've gone through some recorded pop times at NFCA recruiting camps and the Elite showcase camp. From what I can glean from these, a pop time of very good high school aged softball players is something just under 2 seconds or thereabouts. Some very good times come in around 1.75 seconds. Also, the range of catcher's throwing speeds clusters around 54-59 mph, with the best in the 60s and a few above 65. Those are some pretty scary numbers. But I don't want the focus of this discussion to be on elite players. I am only using their data because it is available. And reviewing this data provided me with precisely the examples I wanted to use.
Without going into all the details, as I perused the data, I found several good pop times so I traced these to recorded throwing speeds to see how they compared. What I found was one catcher whose throwing speed was 7 mph slower than another but whose pop times were consistently as good as or better than the stronger-armed girl. I kept looking and found one example after another of the same thing. Sure, there were girls whose throwing strength and pop times were both better than other girls. But there were too many examples of girls with weaker arms who truly out-threw their competition. I continued looking and found numerous girls with identical throwing speeds whose pop times varied as much as .2 or .3 seconds. That's quite a big difference.
In order to look more closely at pop times, I have to get out my slide rule and a copy of the Pythagorean theorem so I can judge how throwing speed relates to pop times. Basically, if you're not out at the field, the distance to second from homeplate is determined by applying the Pythagorean theorem. In numerical terms: (60 feet x 60 feet) + (60 feet x 60 feet) = distance to home x distance to home. This yields approximately 85 feet between home and second. Sorry but I had to show off my geometry knowledge!
Now to algebra - I have to convert miles per hour to feet per second, something with which I have had trouble in the past! The conversion factor is 1.4667 (please check it) which means 1 mile per hour equates to 1.4667 feet per second. A throw which averages 60 mph (88 ft./sec.) takes .965 second to reach 85 feet. For comparison purposes, a throw at 55 mph (80.67 ft./sec.) takes 1.054 seconds and one 50 mph (73.35 ft./sec.) takes 1.159 seconds. The difference between the highest (60) and lowest (50) speeds I'm considering is .194 seconds and that's not even close to the .3 second pop time differential I saw between girls throwing at identical speeds.
50 is very slow relative to the times I examined. Often that speed was achieved on a first throw after which 55 and up was generally recorded. If we compare the time of a throw at a top speed of say 67 (98.27 ft./sec.) with one at 55, that yields a differential of less than .2 seconds. In order to get to the high end of the range differential, .3 seconds, we have to compare throwing speeds of 50 mph with those at 67!
I have never actually sat there watching players who throw 67 and compared them to those who throw 50 but I can guess that the difference is rather stark. I'm more familiar with catching pitchers who are getting gunned at 40 feet. The difference of even a single mile per hour is detectable, if not precisely measurable, by the naked eye. 10 miles per hour is a dramatic difference. I can only deduce that 17 miles per hour is so stark a difference that the two are virtually incomparable. It would be like comparing an average 10 or 12 year old with a high school varsity player.
And yet, the pop times are what they are. Girls who threw identical speeds had pop times which span .3 seconds. And girls who throw 60 can make the throw down to second in an equal time to girls who throw 67. So evaluating one's opportunities to steal involves more than simply watching the catcher's throwing speed during non-game conditions.
I don't want to provide a complete guide to making the quickest throw possible here. You can go through Dave Weaver's video tapes or get his personal instruction if you want to do that - something I highly recommend. I'm actually looking at this today more from the point of view of a coach deciding whether or not to steal. You don't really need to observe the strength of her arm in order to make the decision. In fact, that might give you bad information.
The things you want to observe before deciding to steal are the way the catcher receives the ball (body posture and hands), how quickly she makes her exchange, her quickness of release, and, very importantly, her accuracy. You might just as well turn off the camera and radar gun, or close your eyes, during the period between pops. There's almost no information provided by her throwing speed.
Get it?Labels: baserunning, catching, defense, Offense, throwing
Permanent Link: Jackie Be Nimble, Jackie Be Quick, Jackie Be Accurate
 
Ball Four, Thank Goodness!
by Dave
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Here's the situation:
You're up 3-2 in the last inning with two outs and runners on 2nd and 3rd. The only kid your pitcher hasn't been able to get out is stepping to the plate. She launched balls into the woods in her previous two at-bats, the only blemishes in what would otherwise be a perfectly good no hitter. The two runners on are the only other baserunners your opponent has had this game. They walked and were bunted over. Everyone else has whiffed, except this kid coming to the plate. It took 5 minutes to find a usable game ball after this kid's last at-bat because the first home run was never found and the more recent one was hit further than that into the brush. What should you do?
Walk her, of course. That's easy enough, right?
There's more than one way to skin a cat but let's assume that you want to issue an intentional walk for any reason at all. What is a relatively simple matter in baseball seems to be one of the most difficult plays to pull off in fastpitch softball. Why is that?
I was watching a game between team USA and Arizona, broadcast on ESPN2 a few nights ago. Arizona wanted to walk the most dangerous hitter on the planet, Bustos. The freshman pitcher for AZ set up to issue an intentional walk. She went into a normal wind-up, spun and issued her first offering. The catcher stood in proper position and stepped out to catch the pitch at the right moment. The first one sailed ... right down the center of the plate about waist high! Bustos wasn't ready to swing. She never anticipated a strike. There's a lesson in that but not one we have time for today. The umpire was barely looking at the pitch, missed the call, and, of course, called it a ball. The attempt to just put a runner on base nearly ended in disaster.
The USA vs. Arizona game was not a close affair. A mistake in that situation would not nearly have changed the outcome of the game. But hey, it was Team USA. It was an exhibition. What if this had been the NCAA championship series or some kind of elimination game?
Last year my team found themselves needing to walk a batter intentionally. The father of the pitcher, one of my assistant coaches, told his daughter to walk her. The 12 year old pitcher looked back at her dad as if to say, "what the heck are you talking about?" We had never gone over what an intentional walk is, let alone practiced it. We'd never seen another team issue one. I dare say the entire concept was foreign to every kid on that field.
So the father explained what he wanted the girls to do. He told his daughter to throw four balls. he told the catcher to stand up, reach out and make sure to catch every pitch. The two girls continued to stare at him as if his head were rolling around on the ground.
I sat there on my bucket feeling like I was about to be eaten by a grizzly bear. I coupled my fingers, placed them on the back of my neck to protect against claws, curled my body into the fetal position, closed my eyes, and began repeating the Lord's Prayer silently in my head.
The first pitch in this "intentional walk" was thrown for a strike, right down the middle. Our umpire was paying attention and bellowed STRIKE. Several coaches turned away so as not to see the rest of this disaster-in-the-making. One laughed nervously then hung his head to stare at a colony of ants. I gripped my neck more tightly, sped up my prayer, and began rocking uncontrollably on my bucket. The father nearly collapsed. He exhaled more air than I thought his lungs could hold, gathered himself, called timeout and went out to the mound.
I don't know what the father told the girls but I think it was something along the lines of "forget what I just told you. Now what I want you to do is just throw an ordinary pitch but it has to be outside. I want you to keep throwing outside until this girl walks, OK?" And he probably told the catcher just to set up for a normal outside pitch. Somehow we got through that experience. The girl was "successfully" walked.
We did not end up winning the game but we all learned a pretty important lesson. You are in serious trouble when you tell a couple kids to issue an intentional walk and their reply is, "OK. We can do that. So what's an intentional walk?"
Issuing an intentional walk is only an easy task if everyone understands what is going on and knows how to execute it. Trying this without ever discussing it in practice or at a scrimmage, without ever walking through it, is inadvisable. Every coach who anticipates his team having the slightest chance of ever playing in an important close game ought to take a look at the difficulty in issuing an intentional pass. The coach ought to explain the objective and required steps to his pitchers, catchers, and everybody else for that matter. Then the team ought to give it a go in practice.
There are some considerations which should be addressed when you go over this. First, and most importantly, the pitch has to be a legal pitch. That is, the pitcher must stand with both feet on the pitcher's plate (or whatever is required under the rules by which you play). The catcher must be within the catcher's box. Everything regarding what constitutes a legal pitch must be followed.
Generally, the catcher can step outside the catcher's box once the pitch is released just like on any other pitch. As an aside, many rulebooks provide that the pitcher cannot intentionally drop, roll, or bounce the ball along the ground in order to prevent the batter from hitting it. She has to throw it just like any other pitch.
If the pitcher fails to make a legal pitch, the plate umpire should and probably will call it illegal, award a ball to the batter, and advance any baserunners to the next base. That kind of, sort of defeats the purpose for issuing the intentional walk and that's why we're spending so much time now going over it.
So the pitch must be legal. You want it to be a ball. You want your catcher to catch it cleanly. And you want a clean throw back to the pitcher. Repeat three times! That's the recipe.
The catcher, as I said, needs to position herself in the catcher's box. There is no prohibition against her standing as opposed to squatting. I suggest standing in a ready position with one hand extended to the target zone. If there is a righty batter, extend the right hand out beyond the strike zone and hold that position until the ball is released. The pitcher may, even if she has practiced this, throw a bad ball which is in the dirt or very high. The catcher muct be ready to deal with that. So she shouldn't "just stand there." She needs to assume an athletic stance.
When you practice this, I would suggest picking a pitch which the pitcher has a lot of control over. If you're dealing with young kids, that may not be the fastball but in most cases it is. You want to encourage the pitcher to throw a normal fastball but since you don't need a hard one, encourage her to throw very relaxed without a full stride and little real effort. I say this with some hesitation because to the extent that you alter anything normal about your pitcher's delivery, you increase the chance that she'll throw a really bad ball which gets by the catcher and then allows the runners to advance. This is probably the single most important reason to go over this in practice. The pitcher must be comfortable with what she is throwing.
Another consideration is you don't want your pitcher to get out of her normal rhythm. You know your pitchers better than I do but for some reason, many windmill pitchers can lose their release point or otherwise get out of sorts after doing anything other than trying to throw strikes on the corners. You have to be able to read a kid and know that if she loads the bases with an intentional walk, she is going to be able to survive the experience intact.
Once you have executed one deliberate ball successfully, the catcher needs to A) check the lead runner and B) return the ball to the pitcher successfully. Some aggressive teams, particularly at younger age levels, will look to catch the defense napping and run a delayed steal at this time. So don't forget to address that in your practice.
Your middle infielders need to make themselves available to retrieve any returned ball which might somehow get away from the pitcher. The SS should position herself about where she would be if the infield were pulled in to try to nail a runner from third on a grounder but pinched in towards the pitcher a little more. The second baseman ought to be behind the pitcher in order to catch any overthrows. The first baseman should be positioned opposite where the SS is. These fielders must be ultra-aware that a ball returned from the catcher could be missed and roll far enough away from the pitcher to allow the runner from third to advance. I'd go so far as to say your centerfielder should be positioned right on the edge of the outfield grass, but set off from where the second baseman is located ... just in case something bad happens. Your third baseman should also be aware of the possibility of the ball getting away but she should be back holding the runner between pitches in order to discourage the delayed steal. The left fielder must be in fair territory (or the pitch could be illegal) but it certainly doesn't hurt to have her closer to the infield just in case "anything happens." Remember, anything can and will happen in fastpitch. You never know when your catcher or pitcher might become demonically possessed and try to nail the runner at third. So your left fielder shouldn't be left out of the joke. Finally, if I may be so bold, I suggest encouraging your rightfielder - the only player without a real job to do - to engage in whatever sort of prayer, religious or non-religious, she uses in times of high stress.
That's about all I can tell you about issuing an intentional walk. It is an important part of the game which is possibly the most overlooked aspect. You need to explain it. You need to practice it. You need to execute it as effortlessly as any easy aspect of the game.
There's really no reason to get stressed out about this. If you don't ever practice it and then try to get your pitcher to execute one in a big game, just think of all the funny stories you'll have to tell your friends.
Follow-up:
It looks like I forgot to add one important fact to this discussion on intentional walks. Let's not forget one very specific way in which a softball field layout varies from a baseball diamond. Behind homeplate, the catchers box is far narrower in baseball (almost 4 feet wide) than it is in fastpitch (more than 8 feet). This means that the catcher, while setting a target for an intentional ball, can set up right behind the lefty batter's box when pitching to a righty (behind the righty box when pitching to a lefty). This should make it easier to execute an intentional walk.Labels: defense, game strategy, practice
Permanent Link: Ball Four, Thank Goodness!
Pappas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Righties
by Dave
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Pappas, don't let your babies grow up to be righties, at least not at the plate. There's a decided advantage to batting from the left side, at least in girls fastpitch softball there is. There's nothing about ordinary right-handedness per se which requires kids to hit from the right side. If you're about to raise yourself a softballer, I advise you to start out by teaching her to hit lefty. It is not only easier to raise a kid to bat lefty, doing so will provide her with almost too many advantages to list.
Before we examine many of the issues involved in being a left-handed hitter, let's talk about "handedness" generally. Lots of scientific studies have examined "handedness" in humans and non-humans in an effort to explain it and determine its roots. To date, nobody has succeeded in adequately doing either.
There are many theories but no established fact which gives us the reason for one's "handedness" or which adequately describes physiological causes and related characteristics of those who are either right- or left-handed. Let's just skip right over ambidexterity (the quality of being equally good with both hands, or at least, close to it). That really confuses the issue! As an aside, ambidextrous lierally means having two right hands!
According to one article in Scientific American I found, "most humans (say 70 percent to 95 percent) are right-handed, a minority (say 5 percent to 30 percent) are left-handed, and an indeterminate number of people are probably best described as ambidextrous." I don't think there is any question that right-handedness is dominant in all human societies.
To my knowledge, no ethnicity, society, tribe, or even family is predominantly left-handed. Left-handedness can run in families. The Brit royals have a lot of lefties in their line. But having a lot of lefties does not mean everyone or even a majority of individuals in the family are left handed. Scientists have identified a gene which is correlated to an increased chance of being left-handed. But that doesn't mean the presence of the gene causes a person to be a lefty or that a person who has the gene is always a lefty. There is just a tendency for the gene and left-handedness to be present in the same individuals.
For the trivia buffs out there, this gene also has a correlation to the presence of certain mental illnesses. I suppose the folklore which claims lefty baseball pitchers are usually more colorful than righties might be explained by this. I'm just kidding. I don't believe that folklore, or do I?
Humans do not have any subgroup which is predominantly left-handed but the same tendency is not necessarily present in other species. Most species do not display a "handedness" because they don't use their "hands" the way humans do. Of those which do, there doesn't seem to be a trend similar to that found in humans. Polar bears tend to be left-handed. Some lobsters are left-handed and some are right - this being determined by the larger claw which is used in combat. One web site claims "in zoo research, apelike animals, like lemurs and galagos, are primarily left-handed." Put that in your whatever and do whatever!
Scientists have tried to explain causes of left-handedness by looking at evolutionary theory. The leading left-handed theory within this category is called the "warrior and his shield" and it tries to explain the predominance of right handedness by claiming that a warrior holding his shield in his left hand with spear in his right, has an advantage because the heart is on the left side of the chest. So the warrior holding his shield with the left hand is better able to protect his heart from becoming impaled on the opponent's spear than his lefty counterpart! Thus he lives to pass on his genes while the left-handed warrior presumably dies childless.
This like many other disproven theories sounds good on its surface. We readily believe it when we hear it. But the heart isn't that far from center, humans haven't used shields in combat for a few years, it doesn't adequately account for the tendency of males to have a higher probability of being left-handed than females, and cave paintings (made before shields and spears) also show a predominance of right-handedness.
But enough of the information I gleaned at the local leftorium reading room. Let's get back to the game.
There is a decided advantage to being a left-handed batter. For one thing, lefties stand a lot closer to first base than righties - easily a full stride, perhaps more. From what I can find, a female stride length is about 6 feet at full speed. Obviously, the first stride one takes is a short one to accelerate. Typically a right-handed batter will reach the area right in front of homeplate with her first step. At that point, she hasn't even yet reached the lefty starting line. If an average stride is about 6 feet at full speed, that means there are something like 8-12 steps to get to first, 60 feet from home. These steps are taken over a period of something like 2 - 4 seconds, depending on the age group and level of play. So a lefty with one less step to take will generally get to the bag at least 10% faster, .2 - .4 seconds before the righty. That's significant, far more significant than the advantage in baseball which is, however, frequently discussed as being significant.
Additionally, left handers need to sacrifice bunt less! That's not precisely true but my point is, when you're standing in the left-handed batter's box, you partially obscure the catcher's view of the runner on first making it easier for her to steal. If she steals successfully, you're not going to have to sacrifice her over!
Finally, you cannot be a complete offensive threat from the right side the way you can from the left. Righties can do almost anything but they cannot totally mess with the defense the way a lefty can. The thing about a girl standing in the left box is the defense is almost always going to assume she slaps. The infield cannot play back as deeply as they would have for a righty, unless of course, they expected the righty to drag or sacrifice. This makes things very interesting to say the least.
We used to be involved with a team on which two girls were fairly well practiced slappers/draggers from the left side. They were our first two batters. The first girl would try to get on via a slap or drag bunt, often succeeeding. The second girl would also stand in lefty and do something, sacrifice, drag, slap to move the runner to second. Then our third batter, a natural left-handed power hitting kid, would come up with one or more runners on and usually somebody in scoring position. She wasn't a slapper, however. But often defenses would fail to make the adjustment. Having just been burned by slaps or bunts two times previously, they generally were not back at full distance when the next lefty stood in. This made it easier for her to smack balls through infield holes or hit balls over outfielders' heads.
To sum up to this point, righties are predominant in human populations. Causes aren't clear. Being a left-handed hitter in softball has decided advantages both because first is closer and because it can make the defense play you differently.
Many articles out there claim there is another advantage to being left handed in sports. This you can think of as the experience or practice theory. Basically, most players are right handed. That means most pitchers and batters are right-handed. Batters are far more accustomed to seeing right handed pitchers so they deal with them more easily. A left handed pitcher is, therefore, harder to deal with. And, of course, a left-handed batter should be more difficult to pitch to.
I don't think this holds all that much water, at least not in fastpitch softball. You can disagree with me, if you like. I don't mind. I have seen kids have trouble hitting against lefty pitchers but that trouble evaporates pretty quickly after they have seen one. And while I have seen some pitchers get confounded by having to try to hit corners against a lefty, I haven't seen a lot of trouble and that also evaporates with a minimal amount of experience.
The first time my older daughter faced a good lefty pitcher, she struggled. The second time she saw her, she drilled the ball like it was batting practice. She said, after the first game, "Dad, I've never faced a lefty before." After the second game, she said, "hitting lefties is no big deal." We don't see that many lefties over the course of a season. She has sometimes struggled in her first at-bat against one. But invariably, after that, she doesn't have any trouble picking up the ball.
In baseball, particularly high level baseball, I think this theory or observation may hold some truth though we do see a higher percentage of lefty pitchers in baseball than we see left-handers in the general population. If you examine MLB platoon situations, usually we find that righty batters can deal with righty pitchers fairly well. Lefty batters can too. Many, though not all, platoons involve lefty hitters who struggle against lefty pitchers. There are reasons for this which are somewhat complicated. I could skip over this but I think I'll delve into it a bit just to explain why this issue isn't as evident in softball.
Some say that the reason a baseball batter has trouble with a same-handed pitcher (righty vs. righty / lefty vs. lefty) has to do with curveballs. In baseball, a curveball thrown by a righty to a righty moves away from the hitter. The same is true of a lefty curveball thrown to a lefty batter. Conversely, a lefty curveball thrown to a righty batter moves towards him as does a righty curveball to a lefty batter. Curveballs are a prevalent pitch in baseball. Screwballs (with reverse motion to the curveball) do the opposite but are much more prevalent in fastpitch softball than they are in baseball. There aren't many screwballs thrown in baseball. The only pitch which tends to move in the opposite direction from a curveball is a tailing fastball, usually a two seamer, and sometimes a splitty or forkball.
Yet I don't think the sideways movement of the curveball is the only thing at work here. For one thing, some curveballs do actually curve - move laterally - but many are really a different sort of sinker. Baseball fanatics are fond of describing a "12 to 6" curveball or referring to its movement as "dropping off the table." The reason for this is the downward movement on a baseball curveball is the more important plane. The slider (a less prevalent pitch) often, though not always, moves sideways. But a slider is difficult to throw and not all that many pitchers, even at the major league level, use it effectively.
I watched a baseball game last night in which a very famous right-handed batter struggled mightily against a curve-throwing left-handed pitcher. It did not matter to this batter that the ball was moving towards him, at least on one plane. He looked foolish and struck out. So what, if any, advantage do same-handedness baseball pitchers really have?
Pundits often say that inn baseball, with its overhand pitching motion, the advantage of a same-handed pitcher has to do with "hiding the ball." The way the general movement of a baseball pitcher functions provides an opportunity for the pitcher to keep the ball out of the hitter's view until the last moment - as the ball is released. But a left handed pitcher can hide the ball more easily and for a fraction of a second longer against a left handed hitter as a righty can do against a righty batter. I don't actually get this since a right handed hitter should see the ball a fraction of a second sooner against a right handed pitcher since his vision isn't obcured by the pitcher's head as much as a lefty's vision should be.
But let's say this is true for the sake of argument. Couple this with the lower frequency of experiences against left-handed pitchers for all batters and it's easy to see why all baseball batters struggle with lefties and lefty batters really struggle.
I realize I've confused the issue for you as well as myself. But my point here is the same dynamic at work in baseball pitching (whatever it is) cannot be quite as evident in fastpitch. That's because the release point in fastpitch is next to the leg. The opportunity to "hide the ball," if that's what's at work, is available but to a much lesser extent than it is in baseball. Lefty softball hitters can struggle against lefty pitchers but I believe this is not as drastic a struggle and more easily overcome.
Pitchers tend to have an easier time dealing with opposite-side hitters in softball than the pitchers in baseball do. That's partly because they can move the pitch away and also because the disadvantages to the batter of facing a same side pitcher (advantages of facing an opposite side pitcher) are not as great.
While the screwball is more prevalent in windmill pitching, it tends to move less laterally than the curveball. A righty windmill pitcher facing a lefty batter is more likely to have a pitch which moves away from the hitter in her arsenal than her baseball counterpart.
Also, the release point in baseball vs. softball has a completely different visual field dynamic. If you think of the field of vision like a dart board, the small space in which release takes place is sort of two dimensional. There are horizontal and vertical planes. The eyes can focus on something near or far in the field of vision nearest the release point but they can't simultaneously focus on both. And any movement within the target area is confusing to the hitter's brain.
In a two dimensional sense, looking out at the pitcher, the baseball pitcher is going to release the ball at a point near where his head just was. He winds up, strides down the vertical space and the balls comes out of a place in which there is movement - his head dropping down as he strides. Obviously, nobody throws directly overhead but within that approximate space in one moment there's the guy's head, then nothing but background, then the ball being released. The background is an important aspect. That's why many stadiums have been forced to remove seats in the centerfield bleachers and replace them with a monotone background, usually black. It should be noted that baseball pitchers work on varying their release points on pitches for precisely the reason of taking advantage of the confusion of movement which comes in the batter's two dimensional visual field.
In softball, pitchers generally release the ball at a point on their leg near their knee. Where they actually release the ball depends, obviously, on how long their arms are relative to the rest of their bodies. But every pitcher releases the ball at or near the same point on her own body on every pitch. There is some variability depending on the pitch but this isn't necessarily a good or desirable thing for the pitcher. Softball pitchers do not work hard to release the ball at different places because this provides visual clues to batters about what sort of pitch is coming. Rather, they work for sameness of release point in order to confuse the batter.
Also, there is little real movement on the two dimensional plain when a windmill pitcher is throwing. The ball comes out of someplace near her thigh or knee. That part of her body is in motion but it's motion isn't up, down or sideways - it isn't in the two dimensional space. The movement of a windmill pitcher's leg is towards the batter. Her legs do not drop out of the picture frame and get replaced by the ball being released. Rather, the pitcher's legs form a solid color, relatively stationery background against which the ball can more easily be seen.
So it doesn't matter quite as much that you are facing a lefty or righty. The windmiller can't hide the ball the way a baseball pitcher can. There isn't as much visual confusion in the target (two dimensional) space in which release will take place. The advantages on an opposite side hitter are not as great in softball as they are in baseball from a purely hitter vs. pitcher point of view.
The differences I have just gone over at length explain why I am not advocating that fathers and mothers try to make theuir kids into switch-hitters, those who hit equally well from each side. In baseball, it is extremely desirable to learn to hit from both sides since there are disadvantages to a lefty facing a lefty pitcher. That is really why I wasted so much time and space talking about lefties hitting righties and righties hitting lefties.
My focus is on convincing you to teach your darling daughters to hit from the left side period. The thrust of my argument is there are many reasons for it and not very many against. I've explained several reasons in favor and disposed of a few against, as well as against being a switch hitter. Now let's look at what's involved in learning to hit from the left.
The first element I would like to address is the issue of a batter's "natural side." I do not believe anyone really has a natural side per se. What I mean is I do not think there is anything about hitting from the "right side" which necessarily has anything to do with right-handedness. I do not fully believe that what we refer to as a "right-handed stance" is in fact right-handed. I believe it is just the way which we have become accustomed to seeing as and calling right handed.
The only element to swinging a bat which might lend itself to be called right-handed has to do with using the back arm as the generator of power. If your right arm is the stronger one, you use it as the main source of power, and that source of power is critical to hitting, then I suppose so-called right handed hitters are doing things properly if they are truly right arm dominant. Yet, swing mechanics are not so simple. One arm is not necessarily do important to one's power. In fact, we have a termn which describes the mechanical flaw caused when a right hander tries to generate all hitting power with their right arm. That is "top hand dominance." And it is to be avoided.
Further to the point, there are a slew of right hand dominant (right hand throwing) softball and baseball players who always hit from the left side. Many of these left handed hitters who throw righty are power and/or line-drive hitters. For example, in baseball we have Joe Morgan and on Team USA Softball, we have Jessica Mendoza as two examples of right-hand dominant, lefty hitters who drive the ball. I just named two, one from each sport. But if I had all day, I could go on with this for a very long time. And I think my point is made.
The only physical characteristic which might lend itself to indicating some sort of "natural side" from which to hit would be present if one eye were to be dominant over the other. As it happens, one of the few characteristics besides "handedness" in which humans have a "dominant side" is vision. That is, humans each typically have a dominant eye. This is known as "ocular dominance." So this could be a consideration.
Ocular dominance is not actually like handedness in which we tend to do everything important with our one dominant side. Rather, in ocular dominance, we tend to do different things using different eyes. One side of our brain is used to see the entire visual image and the other for details. The eye which feeds into the side of the brain which does each function is, obviously, used for that function. This would be important for deciding which side to hit from if one side was more well suited to lead the way, or follow, when hitting. That would tell us righty dominant kids are better off hitting from the right side and lefties from the left. But the correlation between handedness and which eye is dominant is very weak. Left-handed people and right-handed people alike tend to use the same side of their brain for the various functions. That is, lefties and righties generally have the same dominant eye - not reversed the way they are with their hands.
So, there doesn;t seem to be anything per se which requires a right handed thrower to bat from the right or a left handed thrower to bat lefty. It isn't about power. There are too many examples to counter that point. Hitting is about learned mechanics, not about some sort of "natural side." And while vision may play into it, there are too many refutations to claim one side is necessarily more natural than others.
Now let's move on to a brief discussion about teaching a very young kid to hit lefty. One of the most difficult parts about teaching a kid to hit a ball with a stick, whether the objects involved pertain to tennis, softball, golf, etc., is we can't do and look at the same time. If I had a dollar for every time I stood in back of a kid and tried to mimick her movements, then tried to show her a mirror image! On the other hand, if you are a righty hitter facing and teaching a lefty hitter, things become quite a bit easier. You can talk, watch and demonstrate all at the same time. It is easy to be a mirror image for a kid while giving hitting lessons when the two of you hit from the opposite side. So, all I'm going to say about this is it should be easy for any righty to teach a kid to hit lefty.
Finally, I'm going to anticipate some feedback and questions which I'm going to get regarding this article. To answer your question, no, I haven't taught my daughters or any player, for that matter, to hit lefty. I'm too lazy for that. My kids have been hitting right handed for too long. That alone has sometimes been a struggle. And I don't have the patience (nor do they) to start over from square one. They're also not such fast runners that I think it would make a difference. Really, they're about average, not burners. They have only just learned a tiny bit about slapping and I don't think we'll take it any further since they'll never be fast enough to make that a habit. The real answer is the one I gave first which is I'm too lazy. I guess what I'm saying is, if I had it to do over again, I would teach my daughters to hit from the left side.
I don't think I got completely into this earlier on but the advantages to being a genuine lefty hitter are truly amazing. I would add to what has preceded this by saying, you should not only raise a lefty hitter but you should be sure to teach her skills such as slapping, bunting, dragging, etc. What we're after in all this is the "perfect" offensive softball weapon. Don't see what I mean? Watch some of the kids on Team USA via ESPN2. Those are, I think, on Wednesday nights for the next several weeks. There are players on that team who can slap for an infield hit, power slap the ball over the fence, over infielders' and/or outfielders' heads pretty much at will, drill one down either sideline, or just power the ball over the fence or into the gaps, all while having a one step advantage to their right handed counterparts. How do you defense against those capabilities? Intentional walk!?!
Even just in age group ball, the opportunities which are available to a kid who can hit from the left side including bunt and maybe even slap just a little are extraordinary. Ignore this post at your own peril.Labels: batting
Permanent Link: Pappas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Righties
Altered Perceptions
by Dave
Monday, April 14, 2008
I hope you played a tournament of some sort this past weekend. Maybe it was a "friendly" with 3 or more games, perhaps it was your first true tournament of the spring, or maybe you played some qualifier at which tensions were high and games were tight. Maybe it was your team's first foray into the next age bracket. Or maybe you took a seasoned team from last year, when you were young, into a competition where every other team seemed small and young. But whatever sort of competition you might have been involved in, there were a couple categories of perceptions regarding the level of play.
I guess I noticed a phenomenon a few years ago but really didn't examine whether my observations were correct or not. As the years pass, I become more and more convinced about a tendency which parents, coaches and perhaps players have to view the level of competition this year as different from last. What I mean is, when your daughter or team is one of the younger ones in an age class she is playing for the first time, you have a tendency to see the level of play as better than it really is, while, if your daughter is playing her second year as an older member of a particular age class, you tend to see play level as diminished when compared to the previous year.
I struggle with this because I'm not entirely certain about my own perceptions. I do think that in a given geographic area (say within a single state or a couple of states in one corner of the country or another), some classes are better than others. We see some group of very skilled and competitive girls at say age 12 or 14, and then watch was they reach high school and then push the upper classmen out of starting jobs. It is easy to conclude that the particular class of kids is better than anything that went before them or anything waiting in the wings. Sometimes, at least within a given area, I suppose that's true. But we shouldn't be so quick to conclude that the play level has always degraded substantially just because our kid is one of the bigger dogs in the fight now or one of the more impactful players this year while a mere bench warmer in the previous one.
There was one particular class of girls I watched over several years beginning when they were about 10-11. These girls are now in their freshman, sophomore and junior years of high school. There are more underclassmen starting for the better high school varsity teams in my area than there are seniors. Many of these kids, aside from the freshman, have been starting varsity for a couple years. It stands to reason that this "class" of kids was better than the girls who went before them.
At the same time, I had an opportunity to watch a team of girls from far outside my state compete with this particular class of kids. The out-of-state kids were young for their age category. But at a major competition, they easily defeated the kids with whom I was familiar. The young girls were an incredible force. I had never seen a team made up entirely of girls from the bottom of an age category defeat a bunch of teams made up of girls at the very top of the category before. But it happened right before my eyes so I know it is possible.
The rub came the next year when this once young team was still competing in this age group. From what I could tell, the team was entirely intact though much more seasoned and far more physically developed than they had been the year before. The names in the scorebook were identical to those the year before but the kids didn't look much like they had. They all seemed a foot taller and 30-50 pounds heavier. I had no doubt that this was the same team but they had all grown bigger, faster, stronger.
I was absolutely certain that play within the age group in question had significantly degraded. I was sort of disappointed in the level of play I observed. Last year was so much better, I lamented. I was sure that last year's champions would repeat because there just couldn't be any team this year which would stand in their way. I would have been convinced that the kids in this class just weren't as good as the kids from last year were it not for one simple reality. The team of younger girls came back to this major competition that next year and failed to win the championship. It turns out play had not degraded. Rather my perceptions of play level were wrong.
When we take a team of young girls, say 9 at 10U, 11 at 12U, etc. into a bunch of better tournaments in which there are a lot of "older girls," we have a tendency to hold our breath and just hope our kids survive. We are impressed at the level of play and know our team is not up to it. Then they do alright, survive, maybe win a couple games and we count our blessings. Those older teams didn't hit the ball the way we feared they would. Our kids played above themselves this time. We got lucky. Our kids summoned the courage to stand their ground.
A year later we return to the same group of tournaments and find all the older girls are gone. The whole place is populated with these muchkins from munchkin land and our girls are going to clean up! Then we run into one of those pesky "little" teams and they eat our lunch. We didn't go one and done but we were knocked out of the competition perhaps in the quarter- or semi-finals by an apparently much younger team. I guess we choked. It wasn't our girls' day. We just couldn't hit their pitcher because she was too slow. We should have, would have beaten that team if we played our game.
And we remain convinced that the level of play this year just isn't as good as it was last year. If we are parents of a single child, maybe last year we thought she just barely survived. And this year we see her slapping the ball all over the yard, dominating with her pitching, or making all the plays while the other, younger girls on our team just don't measure up to what we thought the caliber of kids ought to be in "travel." We feel somewhat cheated because our daughters were on a really good team last year which had bigger, more aggressive, and better skilled kids. Yet, if we look back on how the team did in this particular tournament this year vs. last, we find they did about the same! How is that possible? It must be because the level of play degraded!!!
I believe this is the tendency of parents in age group ball. But there's another, related tendency. That is the tendency to see a particular level of play as less impressive now than it was in the past.
I've watched a fair amount of play well above my own daughter's heads over the past several years. I love a good game so if there is high school games between two good teams or college games with reasonably good teams, I go watch. The NPF moved out of my area a couple years ago so I really don't get to those games often, unfortunately. But the first time I saw an 18U game, a high school game, an ASA Gold tournament, or a college game, I was so very impressed that there's no way to adequately describe the feeling.
Because my daughters are pitchers, I probably focused on that aspect of the game more than others initially. That's no longer true because I have always had a great appreciation for the play of catchers and every other player on the field during my time as a baseball fan. I love to watch a gifted fastpitch player no matter what position she plays. But initially I was taken by the skill of pitchers.
One of the first things which struck me while watching high level fastpitch games was the speed of the pitch, not to mention the slowness of change-ups! Early on, I watched an NPF game which went into extra-innings tied 0-0. Batter up, batter down swinging, looking, whatever. Once I sat behind homeplate and just couldn't believe my eyes. In my high school days, I had caught a few pitchers who topped out in the mid-80s and who had good hop on their pitches. I've watched a lot of college baseball and seen several kids who made it to the bigs, up close and personal. But I had never seen anything like a fastpitch thrown from 40 feet (really 32). That was amazing.
And the change-ups were more shocking than anything I had seen in the brother sport. if a baseball pitcher throws 85, his change is going to range (depending on how good it is and what he's trying to accomplish) from around 70-78. It is much slower than his fastball but, because it needs to make the batter commit to a swing with not enough time to recoup, reload and recommit, it can't be that slow. It comes in like any other pitch but sort of slower. The softball counterpart is a far more elegant and impressive thing. I can think of nothing quite as baffling as, more recently, a Taryn Mowatt backhand change-up.
A softball change seems to hang there like some sorty of UFO. The best analogy I can think of is the change-up Bugs Bunny throws when he is pitching against the "Gas House Gang" in the cartoons. In that program, our hero Bugs throws a change-up so slow that 3 batters in succession strike out on a single pitch. That was what the softball change-up looked like to me the first time I saw it. I nearly fell off my lawn chair at the time. I had to brace myself against gravity.
I say these were my first perceptions of softball pitching. Those were the good ole days. Nowadays, I find myself watching the same caliber of play and thinking it just doesn't seem nearly as impressive. Instead of being blown away by the pitcher's speed, movement, or qulity of changed speeds, I find myself thinking about her mechanical flaws and weaknesses. I think about how I would tell a team or a player to hit against this pitch or that one which this pitcher seems to rely upon. Everything has become watered down, not quite as good. I watch the catcher with a great arm and wonder why she doesn't do this or that to speed up her release. I watch the infielders or outfielders side arm a throw past the first baseman or perhaps get their feet tangled up because their mechanics are less than optimal.
Lest you think I'm being arrogant or believe myself to be some sort of an expert who thinks he can tell everyone what they are doing wrong, please understand that I'm still very much impressed by the majority of players I see at high level games. I've just become a little immune to my "wonder" at the skill these players exhibit. I've become more seasoned.
At first I questioned whether the skill level at this or that tournament or game had degraded. The I realized it could not have. I was just watching through inexperienced eyes. Now I have become accustomed to the speed of pitch and play and everything has slowed down for me. I imagine that's the way everyone is. After all, I cannot begin to count the number of times when people have made comments to me about how the level of play this year just doesn't seem to match up to last year. I know we all have a tendency to not recognize the degree to which we become immune to our previous wonder. And I believe this is why so many girls will play two years at one age category and then the following couple of years, their parents demand that they play up. In other words, an 11 year old plays her first year of 12U ball and then stays in that age group when she is 12. But after the following year at 14U, the parents insist she play up at 16U when she is 14. That's not necessarily a bad thing. But I believe the cause has something to do with altered perceptions.
I've tried numerous times to write something about "playing up" without success. I think I've written several tens of thousands of words on the subject but never published a single article. I've never been able to bring something on the subject to a successful conclusion. But this time I think I can accomplish the task within the context of these altered perceptions.
I beliebe many of us recognize that an athlete (or a student, artist, etc.) needs to be challenged. Our biggest growth spurts happen when we are most challenged. In youth age group softball, we see our daughters grow in the sport most when they play with the best girls against the best opponents. They improve the most when it is a question of survival rather than an issue of whether they will thrive and be the biggest stars in their category. Survival breeds out laziness. Success is important as it encourages confidence - a necessary element in any player's game. But when a girl must expend all her energy just to survive, her skill set tends to increase to meet the challenges. When the game becomes too easy, her progress retards.
So I'll close this little musing by saying that the level of play has not degraded. Your perceptions are altered by experience. Whether you are a coach, parent or player, you are subject to this phenomenon. if you have the opportunity to play up - in an older age group, against better competition, etc., go ahead and do it, provided the possibility of survival exists. if you survive a year of playing up, chances are pretty good that you'll have altered perceptions the following year. The game will have slowed down for you. And your chances for success at this level will be greatly improved.Labels: youth tournament teams
Permanent Link: Altered Perceptions
|
|
|
