Before I start, I want to thank "Hitters Edge" for putting this up. The real value of a clip like this is that it gives you a rapid compilation of a single hitter swinging at a variety of pitch speeds and locations.
Thus allowing a quick comparison and analysis of the kinds of similarities and differences --within 1 great hitter---that can be gleaned.
Let me add a little context to this clip by saying that these are most certainly not the first clips of Kenny that I have tried to analyze. My guess would be that I have spent at least 100 hrs. [starting at Setpro around 2001] looking at Kenny's swing via slo-mo and real time.
ANDI have spent hundreds of hours physically working at executing some of the functional parameters which are typical of his really good swings.[I'll describe some of these shortly].
One more bit of context. The great cold war historian John Lewis Gaddis once categorized historians in binary fashion by saying that some are "lumpers" and others are "splitters."
Meaning that "lumpers " seek to find similarities of historical patterns, wherein "splitters" tend towards trying to see distinctions of historical patterns.
In the context of trying to analyze elite level hitters, I fall into the "lumpers" category. [When comparing elites to non-elites I typically fall into the "splitters" category].
With this in mind, what I find VERY interesting about this series of swings from Kenny is how remarkably SIMILAR they are. in a number of important ways.
And I'll talk about these now:
1] Note as to how the upper lead arm aligns ABOVE the letters---regardless of pitch speed or location.
2]Note as to how "tight" [close] the upper lead arm is to the chest--regardless of pitch or location.
3] Note as to how---by foot plant---the barrel aligns with the shoulder line.
4] Note --if you stop these at max lag and prior to starting the "out and around" of the barrel 2 key functional parameters of the back arm:
One is that of how CLOSE the back arm elbow is to the back side oblique region. AND note that the FLEXION ANGLE of the elbow approximates or is at about 90 degrees.
And again, these parameters I am seeing/describing are happening regardless of pitch speed or location.
In other words even though there is considerable variability of pitch speeds and locations, there is remarkably LITTLE variability of the arms/barrel.
Said another way: Kenny is showing remarkable consistency and STABILITY of the distal components [arms/bat].Again regardless of pitch speed or location.
From my vantage point, this makes perfect sense from both a motor learning and biomechanical perspective.
From a motor learning/motor control perspective it makes sense in that if one can REDUCE variability, it follows that one has a better chance to reduce ERROR.
And most certainly from a biomechanical perspective, in order to maximize momentum transfer from body to bat, one HAS to minimize distal actions, i.e., arm actions independent of the optimal "pulling effects" upper trunk.
I will further add that what Kenny is showing here----in terms of the parameters I described above---is VERY consistent with my observations of many elite hitters, e.g., Bonds, Aaron, Mantle, Manny Ramirez, et al.
Those consistent observations over the years led me to using cues/phrases such as ..."elite level hitters no how to create arm IN-action."
And: "Good hitters know how to bury the deltoid/upper lead arm into the chin."
Lastly this--and I'll only broach the subject here: It seems a bit en vogue to talk about variability being something one should emphasize i.e., variable practice, variable constraints, etc.
Much of this flows from aspects of dynamical systems or ecological motor learning THEORIES. Theories which, I dare say, I have a pretty decent grasp/working knowledge of,ie., dozens of books/hundreds of hours looking at said info.
And I would hasten to add that there are numerous aspects of this domain which I certainly tried to utilize,e.g., various constraint based methods done so as to better "guide" performance outcomes.
But. To return to the "lumper" analogy, and in the SPECIFIC context of trying to consistently create good "lift" of a baseball pitch ......
...that transpires within "a blink of an eye" I think that Ted Williams notion of ...."trying to take the same swing on every pitch", is both a worthy goal. And is consistent with my observations of elite hitters.
To add some context to my following comments, I would suggest looking at some of my ending comments about motor learning theories in my most recent threadreader post.
Let me say at the outset that I am no novice to books on motor learning/motor control THEORIES [my emphasis because I want to denote that MUCH of the research is simply that ----theory---as opposed to well established physics views on how things work, so to speak].
[Yes I do realize that various aspects of quantum mechanics has muddied the waters, so to speak, but for now I'll simply assert that Newtonian physics is more grounded relative to motor learning theories].
First this: Based on long experience [that includes "book learning shit", working with all kinds of players, empirical research, thousands of hrs. practicing "doing it"] ,the question of "if" is settled ,i.e., this IS a defining of elite hitters!
And as regards this: "then we must find additional ways to train this skill.”
Well, I can only say that I have been addressing this question [as a teacher] for about 15 or so yrs.
The plate as a frame of reference is thoroughly erroneous. From my vantage point, in the context of assessing the contact point in terms of efficiency [conforming to the "Pcrw" standard] THE frame of reference is the hands/knob alignment, relative to the base of support.
"Base of support" meaning the lead leg [half of the base of support], i.e., the lead foot, knee, and upper thigh the combination of which create stability/support of the trunk/arms/bat's rotary motion.
A very key parameter of measuring efficiency or said another way----optimizing connection/maximal momentum transfer from body to bat--- is limiting the displacement of the hands/knob.
Well, first things first and conforming to my developed sense of "questioning the premise" I'll say this: The "lean back" is a RESUALTANT, i.e., it is an EFFECT of prior movements/muscle actions. And as such, it has ZERO "contribution" to any so-called "adjustment."
Thus, the obvious implication of what I am saying is this: From a causal---and most importantly---a TEACHING perspective THE most important question is along the lines of:
What movements/muscle actions/postural dynamics are involved in optimally "lining up" with a low/outside location?
A recent comment from "slay" asking as to how to 'weed out' subjectivity" prompted me to cite this interesting/relevant chart that very much pertains to this question.
The context of slay's question was me stating my skepticism as regards the so-called "fact-checkers."
I said this: ""fact checkers" ...one should be highly skeptical of those who claim this as an objective category. Recently [in court] Facebook admitted that their so-called fact-checkers were protected under 1st amendment OPINION interpretations [see Stossel vs. Facebook].
This is a clip that has been around awhile [I'm reasonably sure that someone put it on the Setpro website likely around 2004 or so]. It's a clip illustrative of things I have learned to see ---and try to teach-over the yrs.
I'll list/describe some of these functional characteristics.
1] Note hip rotation INTO foot plant ,ie., the hip rotation actually starts AS the lead heel starts to drop. That, as opposed to getting to full heel plant, stabilizing the lead knee, THEN starting to rotate.
2] Note that the lead heel drop and the back heel lift/back knee flexion happen essentially simultaneously. And these actions occur essentially simultaneously with the hip rotation.