- Paul Nyman, SetPro, 2003

This is the first of two connected pages on WebBall by Paul Nyman on this topic. we encourage you to follow through to the second part. But please note the date: a lot of new research has been done in the past 3 years. We're not at all certain that Paul would still say it the same way now.


...is the HUGE gap between 'analyses' and 'instruction'. Which is pretty much the same as 'theory' vs. 'application'. And it's the same gap that exists between sports science and baseball.

The other day I was talking with Ron Wolforth and the issue of science vs. baseball came up. I asked Ron why he thought so many baseball people consider the word 'science' a dirty word (as in science and baseball don't mix). Ron said he thought it was because baseball is too steeped in tradition - fantasy and folklore. Most baseball people were too invested in their particular brand of baseball religion or politics. [Ed. note - Ron Wolforth of Pitching Central is also a contributor to WebBall]

For the most part, I agree with his views. But science has also been its own worst enemy. Because those who have attempted to bring science to baseball, or those who have professed themselves to be 'baseball scientists' have provided very little (if any) useable benefits from their science to hitting (or throwing) a baseball.

The main reason for this lack of applied science is in my opinion due to so many variables at work in hitting a baseball. It becomes a virtually impossible task for the scientist to establish meaningful 'cause and effect'. Because crucial to the scientific method is being able to control all variables except one - the one for which you're trying to establish a cause-and-effect relationship.

And what separates the scientist from the engineer is that the engineer doesn't necessarily care about (or need to know) all the science. He just needs to know enough science so that, when combined with his experience and cleverness, (all good engineers are very clever at improvising),  he/she achieves a practical solution to the problem/design/process. [Ed. Note: Paul is himself an engineer]

Good engineering (like most activities that have practical, i.e. useful, results) is as much a heuristic process as much as it is anything else. [Consider a heuristic, i.e. a seat-of-the-pants approach, as being opposite to an algorithmic approach - i.e. one reduced to a formula.]

A lot of older ideas were from the theoretical perspective of biomechanics of the swing. As of late, and having learned more about the swing process (by working with players and being a personal guinea pig), I have tried to reconcile theory vs. application.

From everything I know about biomechanics, the greatest bat speed is achieved when a player reaches full extension at contact. But this extension must be the end result of having unloaded the body properly - with little or no disconnect. And therein lies one of the great 'application' problems. Most (99%?) players achieve extension by going after the ball with their hands.

Through a lot of hard work, and trial and error, players like Griffey and Bonds have found what gives them the swing results they desire. [This then would be the application part of Paul Nyman's 2-part discussion. Click to continue.]