First Principles Thinking & Hitting

Understanding what has to be true in the act of hitting improved my ability to develop hitters.

I could apply this to such a wide array of topics. For the sake of time, I will focus this post to the following areas:

1. Hitting Physics & Bat Path
2. The Bat Speed Debate
3. Self-Organization and Hitting

For the first 15 years of my coaching career, my sole focus was pitching. I have, in reality only been a hitting coach for 3 years now. There is so much noise and confusion in the hitting space. There are some who create a problem within hitting, then preach that their product is the only possible solution to this problem no knew existed. I found it extremely difficult to navigate through the minefield that is #HittingTwitter. Often times, I see coaches assume connections between events in the act of hitting that are more random chance than actual direct correlation. Worst of all, coaches would affix their hitting philosophy to their identity and view any question as a personal attack. I came to the conclusion that the only way to find the right path is to examine the truth. What has to be true in order for a hitter to be successful? That question led me to discover First Principles Thinking. This frame of reference for questioning the act of hitting led me to write my first piece Baseball Bat Attack Angles and Their In Game Correlations. Which I felt created a very clear cut picture on how attack angles affect in game performance. Before we go any further we should answer these questions, “What is first principles thinking?” & “How does it apply to hitting?”

First Principles Thinking was first attributed to Aristotle. A first principle is a basic assumption that cannot be deduced any further. Aristotle defined it as “The first basis from which a thing is known.” First Principles has been associated with many well known scientists such as Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Richard Feynman, Nikola Tesla, and most notably Elon Musk. Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX and Tesla, is most commonly associated with First Principles Thinking.

The first step in First Principles Thinking is to identify the problem you want to solve. This requires careful analysis and a deep understanding of the underlying issues. By clearly defining the problem, this ensures that you are solving the right challenge and not just addressing its symptoms.

Once the problem is identified, the second step involves breaking down the problem into its fundamental principles. This involves questioning assumptions, exploring the core elements, and examining the true nature of the problem. By deconstructing the problem, you will be able to identify the key factors that need to be addressed and find unconventional solutions.

Finally, the third step: creating new solutions from scratch. Don’t rely on existing approaches or industry norms, but instead seek to build something radically different and innovative. This approach allows you to challenge conventional thinking, push boundaries, and find disruptive solutions that have the potential to revolutionize industries.

How does this apply to hitting? When I was playing high school baseball, the commonly held assumptions for hitting was to swing down, aiming for the top of the baseball and generating as much backspin as possible. This belief was not only held by my coaches, but also by numerous professional players. It was even well-documented in books and videos, which further reinforced its credibility. However, despite the widespread acceptance of this hitting style, it became evident to me as a head coach that my teams were struggling to achieve consistent success at the plate using this hitting philosophy.

This realization forced me to question these commonly held assumptions. Three fundamental questions emerged as the basis of my thesis:

1. What is the ideal batted ball outcome?
2. What type of bat-ball collision most consistently creates the ideal batted ball outcome?
3. Which bat path most consistently creates the ideal batted ball collision?

I’d recommend you read Baseball Bat Attack Angles and Their In Game Correlations to find the answers. As I already provided a detailed summary there.

The short version, Line Drives are King & Attack Angles & Bat Speed matter the most:

“Attack angle is the most influential catalyst in batted ball contact and in game offensive production followed closely by bat speed.  This is due to attack angle having the largest influence over the offset of the center of masses between the bat and the baseball at contact.  It is recommended that to optimize offensive production a hitter swing within the range of 5-15 degrees.  If bat speed optimization is the goal the recommended range for attack angle is 12-23 degrees.”

“In terms of run production, line-drives produce 1.26 runs per out, flyballs produce .13 runs per out, and groundballs produce .05 runs per out at the MLB level.  (Slowinski, 2010)”

The next thing to consider is Bat Path. If you think of path in its simplest form its directional speed and momentum of the bat or as a force vector. Force vectors are mathematical representations of forces that act on an object. A force is a push or pull that can cause an object to accelerate, change its velocity, or deform.

Force vectors play a significant role in hitting a baseball, particularly in determining the trajectory and outcome of the hit. When a batter swings a baseball bat, several force vectors come into play:

1. Bat Speed Vector: The force applied by the batter generates a vector representing the speed and direction of the bat. A faster bat speed vector increases the potential distance and power of the hit.
2. Ball Impact Vector: When the bat makes contact with the ball, a force vector is transferred to the ball. This vector determines the direction and speed at which the ball leaves the bat. The angle (commonly referred to as the offset of the center of masses) of this vector influences the launch angle of the ball.
3. Launch Angle Vector: The angle at which the ball leaves the bat creates a launch angle vector. This vector determines the ball’s trajectory and whether it will be a line drive, ground ball, or fly ball. The optimal launch angle vector range for overall offensive performance is 10-25 degrees.
4. Spin and Backspin Vectors: The way the ball spins after contact influences its movement in the air. Backspin, for example, can help the ball stay in the air longer, potentially leading to more distance on the hit.
5. Impact Location Vector: Where the ball makes contact with the bat affects the force vectors involved. Different impact locations can result in varying levels of exit velocity, launch angles, and spin on the ball.
6. Opposing Force Vector: The ball’s mass and velocity create an opposing force vector on the bat upon impact. The interaction between the bat’s force vector and the ball’s opposing force vector determines how much force is transferred to the ball.

How the bat travels through three dimensional space to align with the flight of the incoming pitch will either increase or decrease the area available for contact. So reasoning up, as a hitting coach I should prioritize creating the most area available for contact in the swing arc. A pitch thrown from a pitcher will travel downward within a range of -4 to -21 degrees. The average MLB fastball crosses the plate at -6 degrees and the average curveball crosses the plate at -10 degrees. So not only will the attack angle matter, but excessive movements such as counter rotation of the shoulders could create a sharp horizontal plane of entry for the barrel. Improper hand loads can create a push in the swing with little space for the back elbow to slot. Contact is also heavily influenced by vertical bat angle (VBA). Hitter’s with a flatter VBA tend to have a higher rate of infield flies. The reason I bring all this up is early in this journey I made the mistake of only looking at the data from collision. How the bat arrives to collision matters just as much as the collision itself. Hitting coaches (including myself) can sometimes confuse random success with consistency. One of the biggest lessons learned at this point in my career, data without context is meaningless.

The Bat Speed Debate I don’t fully understand. Especially since 1mph of pitch velocity only translates to .2mph of exit velocity. The bat typically has 5 times the mass of the baseball. 1mph of bat speed translates to 5-6ft of distance. There is clearly a threshold of bat speed required to play professional baseball. As you can see in the chart below there is a clear advantage to having higher exit velocities which are directly correlated to bat speed.

The act of hitting is often oversimplified, neglecting its complexity and various factors that influence its success. While many focus solely on one aspect, such as bat-to-ball skills or swing decisions, it is important to recognize that these fundamentals are interconnected and dependent on each other. Consistent contact is crucial for a hitter, however it becomes less valuable with poor bat speed. On the other hand, having great bat speed loses its value if it doesn’t result in consistent contact.

To recap, does bat speed matter? Yes. Is it the most important part of a hitters swing? That will depend upon how you define success for the hitter. I still hold to my conclusion that the attack angle and swing arc matter just slightly more than bat speed. However, these two components of the swing will always interplay with each other. In my opinion you shouldn’t examine one without the other. Line drives are King and if you reference back to the chart 10-20 degrees is the most offensively productive range for batted balls.

Self-organization and Ecological Dynamics in hitting has gained traction in the hitting world lately. I’ll be honest, we jumped head first into this training style at Heavy Mettle. Forsaking that there are any “ideal mechanics” or that “the move” was a fallacy. However, lets take a closer look at this commonly held belief. The argument I commonly see is that its Biomechanics vs. Self-organization and Ecological Dynamics. Can one exist without the other or can a coach apply lessons from both? Let’s start at the beginning Bernstein’s Blacksmith (see picture) and the Degrees of Freedom Problem. This understanding that there is movement variability in motor performance shaped by the task, environment, individual, and no two repetitions will ever be identical is completely true. This has led some coaches to believe that there is no “perfect technique” and wasting time on technique or examining an athletes biomechanics is a waste of time that would produce suboptimal results.

Efficient force production is dependent upon using the body’s biomechanical structure. Maintaining proper posture, alignment, and balance during movement allows for more efficient energy transfer and helps mitigate unnecessary strain or injury. There are constraints to joint movements, as well as governing principles such as Ground Reaction Forces, Segmental Sequencing, and Muscle Synergies that provide the most effective ways for the body to produce force. Even the stance of the blacksmith and the muscles used during the hammer swing itself didn’t change. It was the path the hammer took that allowed for “Degrees of Freedom”.

“…The organism tries to realize the essential variables by completely overcoming any difficulties and influences from the environment; as for the parameters of nonessential variables, the organism, on the contrary, is yieldingly adaptable”

Nikolai Bernstein

So where does that leave us in regard to hitting? Clearly there are essential variables required to hit. Placing the athlete in the best position possible with a repeatable move to optimize offensive performance seems to be the most logical path. I believe Self Organization and Ecological Dynamics should come in after the athlete has a firm grasp of required movements. If the athlete can’t properly produce force, maintain their posture, balance, or align their body in the best position possible to hit, then they are adding more variables on top of an already complex task. Perception-Action Coupling, affordances, adaptability/variability, a constraints led approach, and direct learning all become easier when we have increased the athletes ability to efficiently initiate and complete the task. Scaling up the difficulty and managing the failure thresholds of the learning environments should guide how we progress each hitter.

A hitter can create more “affordances” by becoming a better athlete, specifically in the weight room and increasing their mobility. Where we failed early on with our hitters at Heavy Mettle was we would throw them into environments and tell them to figure it out. Believing they would “Self-Organize” into a solution. The problem was our hitters had no idea what they were searching for, nor did they have the ability to put themselves in the best positions to solve the task. To compound the problem, they weren’t as athletically developed as they should have been. Variability had become so broad inside the problem, that development of the hitter stalled.

As I have developed and continue to develop as a hitting coach these are the hard lessons I have learned over the past 3 years. Hitting is a dynamic and complex system with a lot of moving parts. Gaining a better understanding of how the parts of the system interplay with each other will help you develop a better understanding of the system as a whole.