"Slight Uppercuts" vs "Level Swings" and "Chopping Wood"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plowshareredfan

If X is Ted Williams and Y is Paul Janish and they both spent their younger years learning (being taught) to hit why doesn"t Janish (Y) hit .300 every year as did Williams (X)

---

A. we dont know how much time each actually spent
B. we dont know janish learned proper technique
C. Ive already acknowledged now 2 separate times, this is sentence is the 3rd, that there is a maximum capacity of talent for hitting, that somehow you cant comprehend that Ive said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plowshareredfan

(X)anyone can be taught, even a dog (roll over, sit, etc). Being teachable doesn't mean you can be taught to do everything. My dog will never to be able to hit MLB pitching.

---

if this is really where you want to take this discussion, theres no point even talking about it.

Yeah,if you saw my dog you would know right away he wouldnt be good at anything. We dont know how much time was spent practicing. But is there a proper technique. Williams says Cobb was wrong yet both were tremendous hitters. Bretts approach was completely differnt yet he was a tremendous hitter. Williams couldnt teach his approach to his Senators/Rangers to become better hitters. I still say this is because these great hitters were born with the capacity to hit just like a great surgeon, lawyer, musician,etc.
I dont beleive the average player could spend the same amount of time and learn the same technique as Williams would ever be the hitter Williams was. There are too many other variables involved that just are not teachable.

I was always a line drive hitter... my dad made me go to the cage every freaking night to work on a level swing. I could spray liners everywhere and I seldom connected on a home run. I was a average guy... whenever I broke my swing plane is when I made outs.

Like I said... I'm biased. Level swings are all I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plowshareredfan

Yeah,if you saw my dog you would know right away he wouldnt be good at anything. We dont know how much time was spent practicing. But is there a proper technique. Williams says Cobb was wrong yet both were tremendous hitters. Bretts approach was completely differnt yet he was a tremendous hitter. Williams couldnt teach his approach to his Senators/Rangers to become better hitters. I still say this is because these great hitters were born with the capacity to hit just like a great surgeon, lawyer, musician,etc.
I dont beleive the average player could spend the same amount of time and learn the same technique as Williams would ever be the hitter Williams was. There are too many other variables involved that just are not teachable.

---

bolded is the definition of a straw man argument. I have now said 4 separate times that hitters have a max talent level. that does not prevent hitting from being taught.

Hitter A is an average hitter with good potential. Hitter B is a good hitter with great potential. Both hitter A and B make adjustments to their hitting mechanics that maximize their hitting potential. Hitter A is now a good hitter, and Hitter B is a great hitter.

Each "hitter" has a certain maximum "level" that they can reach. Joey Votto is one of the best pure hitters in baseball. He was born with that innate ability, however, it was through thousands of swings, changes to his hitting mechanics, and years of hard work that he became the hitter he is today.

The idea that you cannot improve your swing through adjustments to your hand position, foot position, etc. is crazy.

Exactly. Joey Votto is one of the best pure hitters in MLB. He was BORN with that inate abitlity. And yes he took thousands of swings and had his technique tinkered with to become the hitter he is. Paul Janish has also taken thousands of swings and hads his technique tinkered with as well by the same instructors in Reds organization yet he wasnt BORN with the inate ability to be a hitter, thus the .210 career avg.