Quote:
> Hi,
> I've been wanting to get some more distance out of my hits. I tend
> to be a singles hitter, and I see the outfield pull up sometimes. I'd
> love to suprise them and knock it over their head, but every time I try,
> I hit a regular fly ball which they easily catch.
> If I wanted to get more distance, would better bat speed or using a
> heavier bat (more mass behind the hit) do the trick? I guess I could
> lift weights too...:-).
Scott,
Whichever bat you choose, you need to swing it as fast as you possibly
can. No one will argue with that. The question of optimum bat weight,
however, is still asked constantly. Everyone from players to coaches to
equipment designers to sports physiologists to physicists has tried to
answer it, and (as far as I can tell) there's still no definite
conclusion.
The conventional thinking (currently) is that distance is maximized by
maximizing bat speed, and therefore, the lighter the bat, the better. Most
people, however, temper that conclusion with the notion that your bat
speed will remain essentially constant up to a certain bat weight, so you
should use the weight at which your velocity first begins to decline
(somewhere around 28 ounces, give or take a few). I suspect that both of
these views are a little too simplistic, however. They don't take into
account such factors as: kinetic energy, angular momentum, moments of
inertia, elasticity, vibration, etc.
Suppose you plotted maximum distance versus bat weight. For a bat weight
of zero (no bat at all), your maximum distance would be zero (no matter
_how_ fast you could swing it). For a bat weight of, say, one ton, your
maximum distance would be about 15 feet (you certainly couldn't swing such
a bat, but the ball might hit it and bounce off). Somewhere in between
zero and one ton (probably in the range of 20 to 60 ounces), is the
optimum. That optimum will depend on the batter's physiology and
technique, as well as the bat's materials and construction, and it may or
may not correspond to the conventional thinking. You also have to worry
about sacrificing control in your quest for distance, but that's another
issue.
In his 1990 book, "The Physics of Baseball", Robert K. Adair (Sterling
Professor of Physics, Yale University) makes a compelling argument (based
on a model of the combined kinetic energy of the batter and the bat) that
the optimum bat weight (for distance alone) is at the high end of the
practical range -- higher than most players end up using. He also backs
his analysis with the following experimental results:
"Many years ago, 'This Week' magazine (May 20, 1962) reported the results
of an experiment in which Roger Maris batted for distance with five
different bats that varied from 33 ounces to 47 ounces. The bats were
copies from Hillerich & Bradsby records of the bats of previous great home
run hitters (Ruth used the 47-ounce bat to hit his 60 home runs). The
pitcher was a veteran Yankee batting-practice pitcher who expertly served
up hittable pitches. Though there were fluctuations in the length of the
drives, of course, a statistical analysis confirmed the trend seen
casually: the heavier the bat, the farther Maris hit the ball."
Of course, how Roger Maris hit a baseball with a solid wooden bat may not
have much bearing on how _you_ hit a softball with a hollow but plugged
bat made of aluminum, but it's worth thinking about (especially since the
theoretical analysis remains the same). On the other hand, I wouldn't be a
bit surprised if there were other theoretical models and/or experimental
results that showed different trends.
The bottom line is that everyone has an optimum bat size/weight/material,
but it's not necessarily the same as anyone else's. You need to experiment
to find your own optimum.
Oh, and lifting weights is still probably your best bet for hitting the
ball over the outfielders' heads.
Aaron Zick
Zick Technologies
P.S. Personally, if I'm trying to hit for distance (which is normally not
my best strategy), I seem to have the best luck with one of the
state-of-the-art, thin-handled, thin-walled, end-loaded, aircraft aluminum
bats weighing around 28 or 30 ounces. If I'm trying to hit for _average_
(and my share of doubles), however, I have much better success (around
.650) with my old Goliath. I bought this bat in 1978 for about $20. It's a
heavy monster -- the weight was never marked on the bat, but it's at least
35 ounces. It's thick-walled (it thunks instead of pings) and evenly
balanced (as opposed to end-loaded), which gives it a good-sized sweet
spot. It also has the thickest handle of any bat I've ever seen. This,
along with the even balance, is great for control, despite the bat's
weight. I can hit the ball hard with this bat, but I rarely fly out (or,
heaven forbid, pop up) with it. I can usually manage to "hit 'em where
they ain't" -- on a line or on the ground, normally pulling the ball. If
the outfield cheats up, I just aim for extra bases through the gaps or
down the baseline. I wouldn't enter this bat in a distance contest, but I
have yet to find one that works better (for me) in a game.