| 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 |
|
|
|
Final Word On Rotational
by Dave
Friday, July 18, 2008
I guess I have gone and done it again. I'm caught dissing rotational hitting yet again! I am going to try hard not to get into this discussion anymore and I want to close the book on my opinions about it. Good enough?
OK, so now lets move on to another subject. It is championship season. Loads of teams are or shortly will be travelling to far-away locations to play against teams from all over the country. I have a little piece of advice for some of these teams, the ones which may be playing in higher level rounds. When you see teams from the east coast, you are likely to run into more than a few which hit using rotational mechanics. I want you to: 1) be able to identify them, 2) pitch them a certain way, and 3) learn to adjust to any adjustments they might make to deal with your pitching.
First of all, you need to identify the rotational swing. Ted Williams is the father (if not god) of rotational hitting. So take a good long look at his swing and commit it to memory. Here is a video of Williams: http://youtube.com/watch?v=JwogLVGtDa8.
Notice the front foot on which the heal is lifted and slammed down. The front knee turns inwards as the heal lifts and then out as it is slammed down. Next the lower half comes forwards and the hips explode open before the hands really begin. The backward loading of the hands by Williams is unimportant - most rotational softball hitters do not do this. Most of them will keep their hands stationery - the upper body load being accomplished by the flying open of the hips. If you see the front heal lift, get followed by the front knee turned inward, and then by the hips exploding open, most likely you have a rotational hitter. Actually, the only element you need to look for is the hip explosion but that has to be before the hands come forward. Every hitter should explode their hips at some point. Rotational hitters do it much earlier.
When you are in game, you may recognize rotational hitters by the movements they make in their practice swing before entering the box. Most will not make a complete swing. You won't see the foot or knee work that is evident in William's swing. But what you will notice is the hip explosion before the bat moves. They are doing this in the practice swing to remind themselves to explode open their hips. Almost every rotational hitter does this right before she steps into the box.
Please take time to watch the Williams video over and over again. You want to form an impression of the rotational mechanic so you can identify it in the heat and exhilaration of games. You want to commit it to memory so you can use a strategy against it.
Once you have identified it, you need to consider what might or might not work against it. I suggest to you that anything low and inside is a decidedly bad idea. If you are facing predominantly right handed rotational hitters, the screwball from righty pitchers is inadvisable unless you have command up and down and can bring it inside and high (at or above the hands) most of the time. If you throw it inside and low, it had better be off the plate - almost hitting the batter - or it will be sent a long distance.
Additionally, pitches which are too fat will be hit by rotational hitters. Anything out in the middle of the plate from the hitter's hands down are going to get hit. The best way to pitch these hitters is with an "inverted L" view. That is, anything outside and/or above the hands . The best pitches to use against this are drop and rise curves from same-side pitchers (righty to righty / lefty to lefty) and screwballs from opposite-side pitchers (lefty to righty, righty to lefty).
Riseballs (particularly outside ones) can be effective but how many youth pitchers do we see with a really effective rise? How many youth pitchers who have decent rises have command of it? You can also use change-ups because many rotational hitters get themselves off balance as they explode open their hips. Not all will do that but it can be an effective approach. The best rotational hitters will be schooled to keep their hands back fairly long to deal with changes If you use the change, you should still use the same "inverted L" approach. But because a change up in the hitter's eyes is a bad idea, I'd stick with the outside corner, preferably moving away from the hitter. If your change is a backhanded one with little lateral movement, I'd keep it low (below knees) and from the middle out.
If your pitcher relies on the fastball, you may struggle against these hitters unless she has very good command and the ump is giving the outside corner (maybe a little beyond it) as a strike. The fastball can be effective against rotational mechanics when it is kept on or off the outside corner. It can also be effective as a high and tight pitch. But if your command isn't all that great and you make mistakes, you are going to pay.
As the game progresses, many rotational hitters and coaches will get wise to your "inverted L" approach. They'll move in on the plate to better deal with the drop curves. The thing you'll need to do in this case is get them to move their feet - throw inside, preferably at or above the hands, without fear. I say without fear because you may have to hit a few batters to get them unsettled in the box. If they move in on you and you succeed at getting them unsettled, now it is time to make more use of the change-up. If you can't get them to move off the plate, you'll need to stick with stuff up in the zone.
If they move up in the box to catch your drop-curve before it slides away, you will also need to make adjustments. You'll have to try to get your curve further out. But with them up in the box, you may be able to sneak in a screwball, even a lower one. If the batter is at the very front of the box, you can probably throw inside and high fastballs but a better pitch might be the screwball starting just inside and moving towards the batter. Rotational hitters can deal with inside pitches very well but nobody can hit a pitch which moves from the inside part of the strike zone, thrown on an angle in, and spinning as much as a good screwball should. They may hit these but they won't hit them anything like they want.
If the hitters move both in and up, you are going to have trouble getting them with drop curves anywhere near the plate. The rise curve and fastball will be more effective, resulting in lots of pop-ups and miss hit balls. You may try high fastballs to deal with this approach by the hitter. And this approach should open up the inside corner quite a bit.
As an aside, rotational hitters generally, though not always, pull the ball. It is when good rotational hitters make adjustments, in their second and third at-bats, that they sometimes will hit balls to the opposite field. A few very strong rotational hitters may actually hit the ball pretty far to the opposite field. But most will hit it weakly there. So position your players in accordance with this expectation.
If you've got a smaller, apparently weaker hitter coming up for her second at-bat, you are pitching her outside, and she is making adjustments, expect balls hit to the opposite field to mostly be little dinkers. Move the opposite field outfielder in a bit. If the girl is big and strong, keep them at regular depth and move your 2B back a few feet to cover pop-ups that might normally be expected to fall out of her range. The balls rotational hitters hit to the opposite field will usually not be line drives. Most of the time they will be pops and grounders. Balls that end up being well hit to the opposite field will almost always be mistake pitches in a little too far and find the opposite field - center gap. They'll have some air under them. So, if you are making use of this strategy, I suggest moving your CF a bit towards that gap.
I offer this tip sheet as a way to deal with the kinds of hitters you are likely to see from certain areas of the country in which the Ted Williams approach has become very popular. It is relevant to note that Williams, a lifetime almost .350 hitter who blasted more than 500 home runs, struggled against lefties. In fact, he hit far less than 100 homers against lefties (as opposed to Babe Ruth who hit nearly 200). He also hit for a sub-.300 batting average against lefties. Why do you suppose that is? I am of the opinion that any lefty who can't hit lefties is vulnerable to outside pitches, particularly curves. My approach is based on that analysis. It has been ratified in high school and 18U games I have observed over the years.
Finally, the real reason I wrote this piece is not for you. Rather, it is for my wife because she will be with my daughter at a tournament this weekend. I cannot be there so I initially wrote this into an e-mail for her use in my absence. My daughter has been schooled in this approach but she is a bit slow to identify rotational hitters. I want my wife to become a second set of eyes for her - a set that is adept at identifying rotational hitters.
I hope this helps someone besides my daughter!
Best of luck to you at whatever nationals you attend. Please forward your stories from nationals. Let me know how many pure rotational teams you saw. Let me know if you beat them. Let me know what strategies helped you get their hitters out.Labels: game strategy, pitching, rotational
Permanent Link: Final Word On Rotational
 
Dispensing With A Few Myths
by Dave
Thursday, July 17, 2008
In my travels I come across a number of myths used to argue one position in the debate between the various hitting styles. Unfortunately, the myths are usually created and used by advocates of rotational hitting. Here are a few and my responses intended to debunk them:
1) Most Major League Baseball hitters (95% is often used) adhere to rotational mechanics.
This argument is often made citing hitters such as Ken Griffey, Jr., A-Rod, Manny Ramirez, Albert Pujols, and others who are big names in baseball. Unfortunately, it is also rather incorrect. Anyone who has been schooled in rotational hitting mechanics, who is honest with him or herself, will have great difficulty identifying what they have been taught, and what they have seen others from their school practice, in any of these hitters. I know I have watched countless rotational hitters on the softball field and after a while, they have fit into a mold, an impression of what their swings look like. I watch Ted Williams and I think Ana. These girls have been schooled at many different hitting academies, some travelling far to be taught by experts. I have yet to see anyone outside of maybe slick-fielding, weak-hitting Doug Mientkiewicz and .229 overall / .196 vs. lefties, "designated hitter" Jack Cust (5 teams in 8 years) who looks anything like the rotational hitters from all the various schools. As far as these big name MLB hitters go, read on.
2) Charlie Lau's theory of hitting is old and only works for truly gifted hitters.
One forum poster wrote:
"And Charlie Lau? Yeah, someone with (George) Brett's skills could do well with it, but few adults and no kids have the arm and wrist strength to emulate it, and the lengthy swing it promotes is an invitation to getting fooled with breaking balls and changeups. And certainly not as much power can be generated; maybe the book should have been entitled, 'The Art of Hitting .300 if you're a Natural .375 Hitter, and Slugging .300 Too!.'"
George Brett, when he met Charlie Lau in the mid 1970s, was hitting just off the interstate (slightly above .200) and headed back for minor league oblivion in his rookie MLB season. The rest is history but the year he met Lau, he turned it around and hit just under .300 with 2 homers in almost 500 at-bats. The next year he hit .300 with 11 homers. The year after, his batting average went up again. His slugging percentage climbed steadily and his career became a Hall of Fame story. Was Brett endowed with all the talent necessary to become a Hall of Famer? Maybe. But there's no denying that Lau's signature was all over his swing.
3) Lau is old school. His understanding of swing mechqanics dates back to the 1980s. You remember the 1980s. That's when pitching ruled the game. Rotational is the new philosophy, the one which dominates today's hitting-dominated game.
Well ... there's nothing new about rotational mechanics. If honesty prevails, one can admit that rotational mechanics were the invention of Ted Williams whose last day in the big leagues was in 1960. Calling that style new as opposed to the "old school" of 1980s Charley Lau is a bit insincere. It's a bit like switching to the "new-fangled" CFL lightbulbs from the "old kind" because they were invented in 1879. CFLs were first invented in the 1890s. Switch bulbs but not to be "new." Also, the light-hitting years in MLB were dominated by pull hitting - a Ted Williams attribute - while the more recent years are dominated by plate coverage and hitting to all fields.
Think about this for a moment. How many times have you heard praise heaped on a MLB player because he covers the plate and hits to all fields? I hear this all the time. When somebody is in a slump, what I hear most often is "he is trying to pull everything." Pull hitting is what rotational hitters do. They don't usually use the entire field. Rotational hitters, Lau hitters and others use the whole field. MLB hitters could not use rotational mechanics or they wouldn't be hitting to all fields.
4) All the big power hitters use rotational mechanics in both softball and baseball.
I think it is fair to say that of the baseball hitters, many big names actually practice Lau mechanics. According to St. Louis Cardinals manager Tony La Russa, "All these guys that are being successful now, and all that success that's bringing them fame and fortune, don't know that they should attribute it, in a very large part, to Charley ... To me, the two most significant men of the last 40 years I've been in uniform are Marvin Miller and Charley Lau, in that their actions caused revolutionary changes in the game."
Pujols' swing is far more similar to Brett's than it is to the classic rotational style of Ted Willliams. It is also very similar to the swings of Manny Ramirez and the other folks listed above.
5) All the big name college coaches teach rotational hitting and recruit kids who have been schooled in it.
There are definitely some college coaches who teach rotational mechanics. It may be more than half of them. But some of these are necessarily Div III and Div II coaches. I've never seen a poll which shows a percentage of coaches at top Div I programs who teach rotational. It is plain to anyone who watches games among the top teams that not all that many of these coaches teach it. The concept is irrelevant to slapping. And there are easily as many non-rotational top levels hitters in these programs as there are other kinds (including slap hitters). We'll develop this further in a moment.
6) This "west coast swing" (defined as rotational) is the reason why California and other west coast teams dominate softball. All the girls in CA are taught rotational mechanics beginning at a young age.
Well, there are reasons why west coast girls are better softball players than those from other places but I'm not sure anyone has really identified what those reasons are. If they had, that would no longer be the case, would it? I've known plenty of west coast girls from places that produce many of the dominant college players and they are not taught rotational mechanics. They, like kids everywhere are taught all the different methods depending on where their parents take them for instruction.
There is no predominance of rotational hitting in CA softball. I believe I told you recently that my kids attended a clinic run by a big name California organization whose kids routinely populate PAC 10, Big 12, and other top conference softball programs. There were all these rotational kids from up and down the east coast taking swings in the cages with the coaches. I overheard one such coach getting rather exhausted by all these hip-trigger swings. He told one girl, "you know, if you let your hips fly open like that, you aren't going to get very good plate coverage." He proceeded to demonstrate what she was doing (clearly rotational) and what he wanted her to do (clearly a linear technique). I thought he should have known better than to try to convert a rotational hitter to a linear style, particularly in one quick lesson. But the man had become very frustrated by all the rotational swings before him.
Later that same day I had the opportunity to watch some showcase games in which west coast pitchers ripped apart rotational east coast batters. I'm sorry but I have to tell you that I saw exactly zero rotational hitters on the several CA and other western state teams I watched. If rotational mechanics predominate California hitters, I have not witnessed it.
7) Coaches for the US Olympic team teach rotational mechanics.
The last time I checked, Mike Candrea has been and continues to remain not only the Olympic softball coach but the largest figure in the sport. You can view a video of his thoughts on softball hitting fundamentals here. Candrea is clearly not a rotational advocate.
If you are in a discussion with a real rotational disciple and reveal this most obvious of facts, sometimes you will get lucky and get a reaction like one I saw recently. Rotational advocates say Candrea is either confused or confusing on video. He says things which he must know are wrong. His videos are not useful. he may not be all that talented as a hitting instructor.
What? ROFLOL!
This comment is followed with something along the lines of Candrea gets such talented girls, he doesn't need to teach them hitting. Well, it wasn't I who claimed that the Olympic coaches teach one kind of hitting or another. You did that. I merely refuted it. Now you want to claim that the Olympic coach is confused? Now you want to claim that the Olympic coaches don't actually teach anything about hitting because they have such talent that they don't need to? Which is it?
By all acounts, Candrea is a great coach. That goes for every aspect of the game. If you've ever heard members of Team USA talk about him and his coaching, it would just about make you want to puke. I mean, somebody could sometime maybe just offer one bad thing about the guy. But they don't. Every person on the team has only good things to say about him and his coaching. I've never heard anybody associated with the team or his other softball endeavors say anything like "Mike is confused about hitting mechanics."
8) All the big hitters on the Olympic team practice rotational mechanics. This claim is often accompanied by some videos which show what appear to be rotational mechanics as marked by hip rotation.
First of all, if you've ever been present at any kind of coaching or hitting clinic with Olympic hitters as instructors and anyone dared to bring up this subject, you'd drop it as an argument. I watched Stacey Nuveman and Jessica Mendoza field that question less deftly than they do a live ball. Mendoza actually laughed and then tried to stop herself. Nuveman took over (catchers like to take charge of difficult situations) and proceeded to try to demonstrate a rotational swing to see if that's what the people were asking. After a couple failed attempts, Mendoza cut in and tried describing it in words. She said something about hip first .... then she replied, no, I don't do that, nobody does that. She was struggling so again Nuveman took charge. She said, "look anybody who wants to hit has to rotate their hips. You just don't start your swing there." She then went on to demonstrate a linear swing. Mendoza chimed back in, my swing is a little different" and proceeded to show hers. It was clearly linear.
Secondly, if you've ever seen Bustos hit, it is quite a stretch to call her rotational. Go ahead and locate some of her on vid and come back here but before you go, read the next paragraph.
I've been sent links to hundreds of videos which purport to demonstrate this or that hitter is rotational. Usually these videos have a couple characteristics in common. First of all, they are often demonstrations of hitters dealing with inside pitches. I dare say that even George Brett would look like a rotational hitter when faced with an inside pitch. But that's an adjustment. It says nothing about a hitter's basic mechanics. To judge whether a swing is rotational, you have to look at them hitting a pitch which is not on the inside corner. Next, these videos often do not show the hitter below the knee. You can see hip rotation but you cannot judge what triggers it. If the feet trigger the rotation, you don't have a rotational hitter. Last, the videos often focus on the hip rotation. As the Olympians noted, you can't hit without hip rotation - that's not the mark of a rotational hitting mechanic. Any decent hitter will rotate their hips. You can't prove something by looking for it and finding it. You have to start from the ground up - look at everything, look at the feet.
Well, that's it for today. I hope I haven't been overly repetitious or brought up too many concepts I have discussed in the past.Labels: hitting mechanics, linear, rotational
Permanent Link: Dispensing With A Few Myths
Some Good Links
by Dave
Thursday, July 17, 2008
I have nothing I feel motivated to post today but thought I'd pass on some links to sites I have found over the years. Many of these sites provide expert commentary or the best videos and other products I have found. This list is necessarily very short because there is so much out there I believe to be wrong. In some cases, I will give you a few words describing why I find this or that particular site to be so useful:
Ernie Parker:
http://www.ernieparkervideos.com/
Ernie is the top pitching coach on the planet, IMHO. I've taken my daughters to see him and plan to continue to do so whenever possible. I haven't used his videos but I imagine they would have to be good. Give them a try and let me know if you do not find them to be useful. If you've never been to Ernie, I strongly urge you to pay him a visit. I know you won't be disappointed.
Howard Kobata:
http://softballskills.com/
Howard is THE defensive softball guru. He has trained some of the top teams in the country at all ages. There's not a huge amount of information on the site but you can order his videos. I do own those and use them often. By the way, no, you cannot borrow them. I lent out one set and have never seen them again. I purchased a second set because I value them that much. You can have those assuming you can dodge bullets from my automatic weapon. I have taken one of my daughters to Howard on a few ocassions and been very pleased with the clinics. We were told to bring copious amounts of water but my daughter never got a break long enough to take a drink. And when we attended one supposedly 2 and a half hour clinic, our after clinic plans changed because the thing never ended. Howard extended it by an hour on each day because he hadn't finished. Howard likes to finish. You are advised to allow him that privilege.
Dave Weaver:
http://www.catchingcamp.com/
Dave is the best catching coach I have come across. There is a ton of information on this site plus you can get to his videos. I always suggest Dave's videos to any catcher I come into contact with. They are that good. They are also a tremendous bargain. Some day, dave will become more expert, more expert at video sales. Then he will break apart his single product into many the way all the rich guys do. Then he will charge hundreds of dollars for what now sells for about 40 bucks. Buy yours today and join the effort to keep Dave poor.
Ken Krause:
http://fastpitchlane.softballsuccess.com/
Ken is a softball expert who runs a blog filled with interesting articles. The majority of these pertain to coaching and general softball interest. There are some funny stories and some interesting anecdotes. Whatever tickles your fancy, you will not be disappointed and will invariably come away with some good information.
Marc Dagenais:
http://www.softballperformance.com
http://www.softballperformance.com/blog
http://www.discussfastpitch.com
Marc is a softball coach and also has some great web sites. I was familiar with his work but tried to stay away from it because there is just so much there one would have to give up the day job in order to read a small portion of it.
In any event, enjoy these links. We'll see you after you drain these resources of their value. See ya in a year, possibly longer.Labels: catching, coaching, defense, hitting mechanics, product reviews
Permanent Link: Some Good Links
My New Favorite Pitch
by Dave
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
I have a new favorite pitch. OK, so that's not entirely accurate. I can't say that I have any "favorite pitch." I like almost as many different kinds of pitches as I do various kinds of musical genres. (For the record, I appreciate Mozart as much as I do Hendrix, punk rock, progressive and everything in between but no, I don't like gansta rap or any other rap.) I have about equal appreciation for all pitches but when I see a particular one thrown very well, I usually proclaim that it is my "new favorite pitch." So that's what I'm doing today.
My "new favorite pitch" is a backdoor, underhand curveball. I saw it thrown well and used properly the other day. The girl who threw it is a high school sophomore who is known to be a very successful pitcher, even at high levels for her age. A few years back, she and her team went pretty deep at NSA nationals. The girl is not the fastest pitcher around. She is known to have good movement, use the screwball very well, and to throw moderately fast. Her fastest pitches usually come on those with which she hits a batter!
The girl was working against a very well schooled rotational-/western-/hip-first-load-/Ted Williams-style hitting team. This pitcher has a good screwball but I do not believe she has command up and down with that pitch. She also has a good riseball but she sometimes leaves it down too low. Those two pitches, when thrown badly, can be death when facing a good rotational team. So she resorted to the backdoor curve and cut them down, one by one.
The girls who were facing this pitcher, while well-schooled, were pretty young. Ordinarily one might expect a rotational team to hit anything inside very well. But these girls were unaccustomed to this pitch. Many backed out of the box and then were stunned when blue called it a strike. They made adjustments as each one fell in succession. They either positioned themselves further from the plate or stepped in the bucket as pitches were released. This opened the outside corner and the pitcher continued to mow them down, using her other stuff. This made the backdoor curve even more effective.
To my knowledge, there are two ways to throw a curve. One is with the hand coming over the ball and the other is with it beneath the ball. In either case, the hand finishes in front of the lower belly. I believe it is possible to use any curve through the backdoor. I'm not partial to the underneath version per se. But what I observed the other day was one thrown underneath so that's what I am talking about.
I have worked my daughters on curveballs (underhand and over) for a couple years. One throws a good one, the other is still struggling to get any sort of command. The one throws more drop curves in games than any other pitch at present. The other does not have a curving pitch which is ready for primetime - she has only thrown a few in games, usually with bad results.
With my older one, the one with decent curves, we are now going to work on the backdoor variant. I believe this pitch takes a lot of work to perfect. Most young girls work curveballs which land from the middle of the plate out. Ideally, a girl should be able to clip the outside, front corner of the plate with some of her curveballs before the pitch is game ready. Getting the backdoor variant takes still more work.
When curveballs are thrown, the right-handed pitcher lands her front foot just slightly to the right of her power line. She then swings her arm back towards and beyond the power line after she begins to release the ball. The backdoor curve needs, obviously, a little more distance to the right in order to get to where you want it. From what I can tell, that involves a slightly more to the right step and a slight change to the arm angle. Big changes to either or doing one without the other seems to yield bad results. If you step too far to the right, you are probably going to hit the batter and/or not get enough sideways torque on the ball to make it move back to the left. Similarly, changing the arm slot too much is going to result in stress and strain to the arm and shoulder as well as less torque and an overly inside pitch. Doing one adjustment and not the other is going to mess up the pitch entirely. You need a slight adjustment to both to get what you are after. I'd say start with a one inch step to the right and very slight modification of the arm angle and work from there.
You really need to find ways to practice this pitch off the field of play. I suggest getting your life-sized cardboard cutout of Jeter, A-Rod, Bustos, or some other right hand batter and setting it up in the right-handed batter's box. As an alternative method, set up the batting tee where a righty usually stands. Then try adjusting your curveball pitch delivery ever so slightly and see if you can get a good moving curveball to land gradually to the right of its usual spot. Set a goal of moving the pitch back to the right a couple inches at a time and be happy when you get it to go where you want. Over a lot of time and effort, you should be able to have a curveball which curves and which you can use on the inside corner.
It is difficult to find an aim point which suits your backdoor curve without seeing it in person. Everybody's curve moves a bit differently. If it swings two feet to the left, I suppose you want to throw it as if you are trying to hit the batter in the side. If your movement is less, you might want to aim at the front knee of the batter - obviously depending on where she positions herself. That will bring the pitch to the inside corner or just off it on the inside.
Remember, you still want the thing to catch corners. There's a term for a curveball used in games which lands in the center of the plate. That is "extra-base-hit." It is OK to throw the pitch too far inside in games but you don't want to hand anyone a free trip to first. While there is definite value to landing the thing for an inside strike, it's OK to get a very close ball call since the batter presumably can see just how close she was to getting punched out. But if you are not able to ever land the pitch for a called strike, it definitely loses much of its effectiveness. Batters need to know that they have to guard against it rather than just letting it go by.
Also, as you move up, I caution against a low inside backdoor curve thrown to rotational hitters. That one time the hitter does not step into the bucket or positions herself at an optimum location, she is going to hit this pitch a very long way if it lands in her hitting power slot. Most hitters of whatever variety strugle to hit a backdoor curve that is thrown along the height of their hands or just below them. Anything belly button down should probably be avoided, particularly when throwing against rotational hitters.
The underhand curve is a nice pitch even when it is thrown as a slider, a dropping pitch (though again, not too low) or a flat sweeping curve. And it can be even more effective when its got a bit of rise. The girl I saw throwing the underhand backdoor variety could throw it on each plane. One hitter saw it drop, another saw it rise, and some saw it remain flat (slide) as it curved back into the inside corner, right at their hands. Nobody hit one of these. Discussing the rise curve in detail is beyond the scope of what I wanted to discuss today. Suffice it to say that if you can throw curves which rise, sink and slide, you could consider learning how to make any of these come through the backdoor. You decide which you want to try first. Perhaps a little experimentation will indicate which is easiest to do first. But I think the rising curve is probably the most effective. That's just an observation. Feel free to disagree. And anytime you can get the curve to come in via the backdoor, it is going to make your other pitches, including a curve on the outside corner, more effective.
Having a good inside backdoor curve can open up the outside corner for fastballs. It can also confuse hitters when you rely on a nice tight screwball in at the hands but off the plate. It can make a batter unsettled in the box causing her to move her feet around. Everybody wants to adjust to a pitch they are having trouble hitting. The beauty of an inside backdoor curve is the adjustments most hitters make to deal with it are really bad for their hitting mechanics.
As I said earlier, this is merely my "new favorite pitch." I have seen some top level college pitchers use it effectively. This well-known experienced high school soph. used it effectively more recently. But all these pitchers already had sound mechanics and were throwing effective curveballs before they tried the pitch. One should not simultaneously try to learn a curveball (or general pitch mechanics) and the backdoor curve. You've got to have a good curve before trying to make it come in via the backdoor. I have observed coaches try to teach the backdoor curve while just really teaching the curve. The result is a girl who can't throw a curveball that actually moves but thinks she has something because she is hitting the inside corner with her non-moving curve. Get the curve down first to a useable-in-games degree and then work on bringing it to the inside corner.
Sometimes when you try to learn a new pitch, the old ones feel neglected, get angry and leave. I haven't experienced this per se with the backdoor curve. But I caution against ignoring the curve you use to punch out most hitters on the outside corner when you try to land the thing inside. If anything, you need more repetitions with your old reliable curveball once you start trying to land it inside. Give it more love and attention than ever before so it won't leave you for being unfaithful. Let both pitches and all your other ones know that you are one big happy family and nobody here is unloved.
Best of luck!
Follow-up posting
Steve writes in to comment:
"A 'backdoor' curveball and/or 'backdoor' slider has always meant a pitch from a LHP to a RHB or from a RHP to a LHB that starts OUTSIDE the plate and breaks BACK into the plate. Thus ... breaking in the 'backdoor.' This is opposed to, as you note, starting into a batter and breaking out over the plate. Backdoor is an 'old school' definition that shouldn't have any difference in softball as it has in baseball. However, I've heard this mis-definition now 2-3 times in softball. I believe what you describe is just a good old fashioned inside curve. I can cite many articles, definitions etc. from a quick google search, but I am assuming you can do that on your own if you so choose. The oldest definitions and MLB notes/articles always demonstrate the opposite handed pitcher throwing to a batter (Left to Right or Right to Left) ....therefore the 'backdoor' pitch must be how I described."
Steve, I wonder about the "mis-definition" you've heard "now 2-3 times in softball." I disagree with your characterization of the backdoor. I'd prefer not to Google this in order to prove a point since it seems to be a difference in symantics but here goes:
Performing a Google search of the "back door curveball" yielded me:
1) Entirely irrelevant result - not sports related
2) According to "The Language of Baseball - Dictionary and Research Guide"
a curveball that appears to be outside the strike zone but curves in to cross the corner of the plate.
3) A video called "Vin Scully gets his first chance to broadcast Clayton Kershaw's curveball" in which a lefty pitcher back doors a lefty batter.
4) A Wikipedia article briefly discussing the slider which makes no mention of backdoor.
5) A forum with nothing much on point.
6) An article entitled "4 Reasons to Throw the Backdoor Curveball" written by former college All-American and professional softball player, Cindy Bristow, which refers exclusively to the backdoor consistent with the way I have defined it.
7) Entirely irrelevant result - not sports related
8) An article about a pitcher trying to make it to the big leagues which does not describe what is meant by backdoor curveball.
9) An article and video describing the result of a backdoor curveball consistent with your definition.
10) Entirely irrelevant result - not sports related
So much for Googling terms. The results in no way resolve the argument. My definition of back door curveball is not right because I found consistencies on Google. Your definition is not right because I found an instance consistent with it. I believe what we have is disagreement over a slightly ambiguous term.
Finally, I will add that the term "back door" does not really refer to the fact that the pitch starts "OUTSIDE" the strike zone and breaks back in, but rather that it catches the back end of the strike zone, over the back corner of the plate, rather than clipping the front corner.Labels: pitching
Permanent Link: My New Favorite Pitch
More Numbers
by Dave
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
For those of you looking to kill time via anything having any relation to the sport of softball, you may want to peruse the results from some of the National Fastpitch Coaches Association (NFCA) Administered and Endorsed Recruitment Camps. Just pick a camp that has already taken place and then take a look at "Camp Quick Links," go down a bit and click on "2008 Camp Results." There are other interesting pieces of information accessible here aside from the results. Enjoy!
Several camps have not yet taken place and, as such, have no results posted. In these instances, the names of participants are usually listed. If you want to spy on your friends and neighbors to see exactly who may aspire to a college softball scholarship, take a look! Actually, that's a joke. What is interesting about the lists of participants is the graduation years. This is a good way to understand what aged girls usually participate in case you are contemplating applying for acceptance to a camp.
There are few 2012s, a few more 2011s, many more 10s and 9s signed up for one camp I looked at. In my many perusals over the years I do not think I have seen very many girls at these camps who are just going into their freshman years in the upcoming school year. Those are a relative rarity and for good reason. As soon as they set foot onto a high school campus, they are untouchable to college coaches. They'll mature and ripen into prospects late in their sophomore years, become approachable July 1 after their junior years, and while there is a lot of buzz about those early "verbals," I suppose one must really be a standout, approach the coach on their own, or otherwise catch the attention of a coach to attain that kind of status. What I mean is college coaches, to my knowledge, don't jump out from underneath their radar guns (reading 67!) at recruitment camps, walk by next year's freshmen, and pretend to drop their business cards and piles of papers detailing their programs' attributes. A little birdy tells me that there are other ways to skin that cat.
Another piece of information concerns the teams these girls play for. Lots of times I hear from people looking to find a team which can garner their kid some exposure to college coaches. The list of teams who have players at the NFCA camps doesn't really provide that information but it does show you some teams which might be a bit more serious about the college recruitment process. I believe all of these camps conduct a tournament in addition to the recruitment camp so you can cull out which of the teams with participants don't play the tournament. From there you can supplement this limited information by looking at which of these teams play some of the more serious showcases. This should give you at least a snapshot of teams from your area which may be of interest to you.
I suppose some of the more important figures folks might be interested in viewing are pitchers' pitch speeds, catchers' pop times, and all players' throwing and running speeds. The available stats vary depending on whether you look at administered or endorsed Camps. The administered camps list 20 yard dash results under the SPARQ testing results. Some of the endorsed camps list results for times from home to first. I don't have much knowledge regarding SPARQ but from what I can tell, the 20 yard dash does not resemble the home to first runs. I say that because there are few sub-3 20 yard SPARQ runs and many sub-3 times to first.
One of the things I like to do with data like this is pull it out of the charts and combine multiple camps results for a particular position, like catcher, and then post it into an Excel spreadsheet which allows me to manipulate the data. Once everything is pulled into a single spreadsheet program, you can sort the data fields by listing pop times, throwing speed, etc. by fastest to slowest. You can determine an average for all participants, pull out the fastest and slowest 10% (or whatever) and then see how that impacts averages, or a whole host of other numbers crunches just to see where your kid stacks up.
In case working with spreadsheets is beyond your capabilities or just plain bores you, there are other pieces of information which the NFCA publishes, not having anything to do with the camps, which can provide some of what you are looking for. For instance, there is a PDF page in the "Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Recruiting Camp Results" which answers the question: "How do my daughter's results compare to that of a NCAA Division I athlete?" But I'm not entirely sure I trust the information provided therein.
The pitching speed range for Div I athletes looks like this:
66 & above Excellent
63 - 65 Good
59 - 62 Average
58 & below Needs Work
To me, this is not all that valid or valuable. I've watched a lot of college games and I'd have to say "66 & above" may very well be excellent but it is also quite rare. The past couple of years I would hazard to guess that there were but a handful of pitchers whose top speeds in games were recorded at or above 66. Those few were not merely "Div I athletes" but athletes at elite Div I programs. It may not be commonly discussed but there are actually run of the mill and even some very weak "Div I programs." Those kinds of programs do not always attract the sort of pitcher who records 66 and up. Besides, there are effective pitchers who never get close to that speed but who have superior location and great movement.
Additionally, while the chart lists 63-65 as "good," I'd have to say that at least in my limited experience, it is a bit better than merely good. if you watched any of the ASA Gold national championships last year on TV, you saw very effective pitchers throw in this range and below. Some of them had already signed or received verbal commitments to top Div I programs. Can you imagine someone approaching you and noting that your or your daughter's recorded speed of 65 after her junior year of high school is "pretty good, keep working and maybe one day you'll be excellent, you're a pretty good little pitcher, keep working hard and maybe, if you're lucky, you might get into a mediocre Div I program."
I don't dispute that 59-62 is average though I haven't crunched the numbers or seen where anyone else has. I do believe I've seen a number of Div I pitchers who seldom hit 59. These girls usually have movement and command on their side, not to mention good mental toughness and loads of experience pitching high level games. 58 and below probably does "need work." But, on the whole, I'd say this chart could use some work. Not that many high school aged pitchers throw at or above 59.
As an aside, I feel the need to mention two things lest I get a bunch of e-mails "informing" me of some facts. Yes, I do know that pitchers in college throw from 43 feet while kids in high school and younger levels of youth softball throw from 40. This should not have any effect on the top recorded speed of any pitch. Obviously, when throwing longer distances, the ending speed of the pitch will be sloser. That is, a single pitch will record a slower speed when it is say 43 feet from the pitcher than it will when it is 40 feet from her. The pitch's top speed, however, is the same whether it is thrown from 40 or 43. If you do not understand that, please do not write to me for a clarification. I can't help you understand this.
Additionally, the way radar works, the gun (assuming you have a good one) will register a more accurate reading if it is pointed on the same line as the pitch. If the catcher were to hold a gun instead of a mitt and the pitch were to come in and hit the gun directly, the reading should be very accurate - though perhaps the gun would be broken! If the radar gun were held by somebody in the on-deck circle, the reading would be relatively inaccurate. That's because of the Cosine Effect which is "called this because the measured speed is directly related to the cosine of the angle between the radar gun and the target's direction of travel." If you want a more accurate reading of your daughter's pitch speed, stand behind the catcher and use a good gun. Don't sit in the stands and get discouraged because she is pitching too slow. Don't stand to the side and measure your daughter's overhand throwing speed from a point not pretty much in a direct line with the throw.
It often amazes me how many people don't understand the Cosine Effect. In fact, it is apparent to me that many, many people have never heard the term. I have been to many tournaments including showcases and watched as somebody, sitting 10 or more feet to the side of the direct pitch line, lifts the gun and takes a reading. You can imagine the lower echelon college coach doing this, looking at the gun and thinking to his or herself, "gee whiz, just 62, that's only average, I'm not interested in her."
So, be careful to not be concerned about getting speed measurements of pitches only at 43 feet, checking speeds from a "safe distance" from the line of the pitch, and/or spending too much time getting stressed out because your poorly taken measurements don't stack up well enough with the recruitment camp crowd or the NFCA's chart of typical Div I pitchers!
I can't say that I've ever timed pop times for some of the best catchers I've seen either in college or high school (or anywhere else for that matter). But if you compare pops at the recruitment camps with the NFCA chart, I do believe that while there are a few 1.8s, precious few are below that mark. And, interestingly, one girl who threw beneath a 1.8 pop also threw one try above 2.0. Her overhand throwing speed was 58 mph which happens to just barely make the mark of "good" found at another location on the NFCA's chart. I cannot judge this girl's prospects because for all I know she could be an 8th grader. She might have had a stomach virus or a bout of insomnia the night before the camp. But the important thing is that there is not a lockstep correlation between throwing speed and pop times. Using the chart, you might come to the conclusion that your throwing speed is so good, anybody would be nuts not to pick you for the Olympic team. Or, alternately, you might conclude that whikle your pop time is better than anybody else, your throwing speed is just average so you might just as well join the chess team and give up this stupid softball dream.
I saw one catcher who threw successively 1.72, 1.78 and 1.65. Those are some great figures. But I've never seen this no-name player catch a game. I can't say if her overall catching mechanics are good, if she is a good, average or poor receiver, if she blocks pitches in the dirt well, etc. I don't know if she can hit. I don't know if she can run to first in under 5 seconds. I expect a kid with that much throwing talent probably has the whole thing together but there's no way to be sure. Besides, while dry pop times are one measure, there's no way to tell if she tenses up too much in games, especially big important ones. That's not even to mention that she might stand, after hours of traction, at no more than 5 feet tall or maybe weigh less than 100 pounds. She may be a gifted 5 foot 11 athlete who plays better under real competitive pressures but whose school grades average around C+ in relatively remedial or basic courses. Pop times are a valuable measure but, as always, just one of many considerations.
The average pop for a Div I catcher may very well be in the range of 1.91-2.00 but I question the usefulness of some straight-A high school honors student freshman (just beyond puberty, who starts varsity, hits the heck out of the ball in competitive Gold games, calls pitches for the all-America, 67-mph-throwing pitcher on her elite travel team, and rarely suffers a PB) using this chart to get discouraged because her still youthful, muscularly-undeveloped arm throws only 57 and her dry pop times come in around 2.05.
Anyways, that's my rant for the day. I get so many questions about numbers that I thought I'd direct everyone to places where I would ordinarily obtain my understanding of them. It is easy to get discouraged by looking at the NFCA's chart. It is also possible to get unwarrantedly optimistic based merely on pitch, running or throwing speeds. These things represent a measurement. They, in and of themselves, should not encourage or discourage anyone.Labels: catching, coaching, college, parenting, pitching, players
Permanent Link: More Numbers
|
|
|
