I had always assumed that the stronger the ballplayer, the better chance of hitting homeruns. While this may seem obvious looking at MLB history (McGwire, Ruth, Aaron, et al), I don’t understand why it requires power, per se, to do so consistently. Does it not seem logical that quicker bat speed produces more energy transferred from the bat to the ball? That being said, wouldn’t a leaner athlete have a better chance of achieving greater bat speed based upon his ability to swing his shoulders and roll his wrists quicker?
Looking at it from another angle, wouldn’t a taller player have an edge considering the length of the arc created, assuming a taller athlete has longer arms and is fully extended? If I hold this theory to golf, it seems equally logical that a taller, leaner player would hit the ball somewhat longer considering the advantages stated above.
Taller players often have a hard time putting together a consistent swing, as they have longer arms, legs and torsos to coordinate in the act of swinging. Tall players are apt to have “long swings,” which hurts when the batter needs to make an adjustment, i.e. swinging at what looked like a fastball but is in fact a slider. Having a longer swing makes it difficult to adjust to that change. Also, a tall player has a bigger strike zone, making it easier for a pitcher to throw strikes.
Keith Hernandez wrote a book about baseball that touched on this subject some and another book, “The Physics of Baseball,” broaches the subject as well.
I don’t think Mark McGwire has been hurt too much by his size. He still has pretty good bat speed.
I believe the fastest who have been measured and are still playing are Barry Bonds and Gary Sheffield, both of whom hit a lot of home runs, but don’t necessarily hit a lot of tape measure shots.
If you want to draw a comparision to golf (the principles behind the swings are the same), you will notice that Tiger Woods is tall and lean. There really aren’t any muscular golfers, but there are plenty of fat ones.
The first athlete I thought of when reading the OP was Tiger. Yes, he is tall and slender. But, he has quite a bit of strength as well (as far as golfers go). That being said, his greatest asset in his long ball hitting is the club speed that is a result of a few factors:
-Long arms, tall body = larger arc.
-His overswing, which increases the arc even more and allows the club more time to reach a maximum speed right as it hits the ball.
-Years of practice which have allowed him to control the ball with this overswing.
(Compare this to John Daly, who certainly has the overswing, but, having shorter arms, still must muscle it, and doesn’t have near the control as Tiger. When John Daly drives, you can almost feel the strength and exertion he’s putting into the swing. With Tiger, he looks smooth and relaxed. The ball flies off the tee and it look easy and fairly “muscle free.”)
A key difference between Tiger and a baseball player is that Tiger’s ball isn’t moving. He can swing away without having to get his club there a certain time. A baseall player with long arms and a large arc doesn’t have that comfort.
Remember that carnival game where a lever was struck with a mallet to drive a weight upwards with the hope of “ringing the bell”?
My tree-trunk of a Scotsman Uncle [sub](who could squeeze the features off of a copper penny)[/sub] rather enjoyed taking his five nephews to places where the cost per hour netted the most “ring” for the buck. At a point in life when I could still get high-centered on a cigarette butt, he decided that it was time to teach the lads how to regularly win cheap useless prizes and aclaim, at a manly activity.
Our training consisted of swinging homemade mallets that were very similar to those used in croquet, at a plank laid across a small branch which served as the lever, with softball sized rocks as the projectiles.
When the carnival next came to town, there were five scrawny little tykes who could baffle and amaze the home-grown farm boys who had previously thought that tightening up all those well cultivated muscles and letting loose a manly grunt, would send the weight fairly high up the steel rod.
My prefered method was a multi-orbit roundhouse swing.
Artificially garnered respect was quite a thrill, at one time.
Hehe…that strength meter game is the only one I can win almost every time. I’m strong, but not overly strong. It depends almost entirely where you hit the thing. Hit it dead center…win. Hit it off-center. Lose.
Acceleration is provided by a combination of bat speed and pitch speed (bunts seldom result in home runs, nor do knuckleballs). Mass is often misunderstood as being only a component of the bat itself. However, the bat and the batter are functioning as a system in the swing, so the batter’s mass is part of the equation as well. In other words, the more massive the batter, the more immovable an object he his, the more of the force that is created in the hit will be transferred into the ball itself.
The result? Mark McGwire can hit home runs easier rate than, say, Rafael Belliard could.
I think your theory is borne out by the #1 and #3 HR hitters of all time, Aaron and Mays. Neither was a particularly imposing specimen–they both went about 5’11", < 200 lbs. I understand that the most impressive muscles on Aaron’s body were his wrists. It’s all about timing and bat speed.
Keep in mind that hitting a home run is a lot more than just brute strength and bat speed. The key, of course, is timing.
When a ball is coming at you at 90+ miles per hour you have to start your swing almost before the pitch starts… not an easy proposition.
My experience from watching pro and college players al close range is that those who can hit home runs have some kind of special ability that is a combination of keen eyesight, upper body strength, and bat speed. Add to that the ability to second guess the pitcher so you swing at hittable pitches and you can see why most players can’t do this that often…
Just like Tiger Woods worked really hard as a kid to learn to hit the long ball… he obviously had some kind of special ability that 99.999% of us don’t.
Keep in mind that hitting a home run is a lot more than just brute strength and bat speed. The key, of course, is timing.
When a ball is coming at you at 90+ miles per hour you have to start your swing almost before the pitch starts… not an easy proposition.
My experience from watching pro and college players al close range is that those who can hit home runs have some kind of special ability that is a combination of keen eyesight, upper body strength, and bat speed. Add to that the ability to second guess the pitcher so you swing at hittable pitches and you can see why most players can’t do this that often…
Just like Tiger Woods worked really hard as a kid to learn to hit the long ball… he obviously had some kind of special ability that 99.999% of us don’t.
I don’t think there is any one factor that makes someone a long ball hitter. There are a combination of factors that allow you to hit homers – strength, bat speed, timing, basic coordination, a sense of the strike zone – and a champion home run hitter usually has a few of these, but doesn’t need to have them all.
The classic example is Dave Kingman. He led the leagues in homers (and hit 442 of them) solely on the basis of his arm strength. He had a lousy batting eye, but anything he did get ahold of went to the warning track or beyond. One year (1982), an astonishing 35% of his hits were home runs and he managed to lead the NL despite batting .204.
So there really isn’t a good generalization. You just have to have the right two or three elements. Strength is important, but you can compensate in other ways.
I’ve read that Ted Williams felt the key to solid hits was bat speed. Babe Ruth, on the other hand, would use a heavy, 42-ounce bat. It’s probably a combination of the two, i.e., if all bats weigh the same, more speed helps. If the bat speed is always the same, the heavier bat will provide more power.
