The difference is in how you get there, and the swing plane (in my opinion). Baseball pitchers release point is higher so the ball travels in a downward angle to the batter. Softball pitchers let go of the ball lower, and the ball (on most pitches) is going to travel on a slightly upward angle. So it would make sense, for the batter to put the bat in a position to make solid contact through the entire path of the ball as it traverses the strikezone, that the swing-plane should mimic the plane in which the ball travels.
I hope you don't mind me challenging a couple of your assumptions - please take it for what it is worth.
The baseball pitcher does release the ball from about 2 feet higher than the typical FP pitcher. Most people think it is more of a delta than that, but by actual measurement, it really isn't. But it is a difference.
Gravity takes its toll. In 0.45 seconds (approximately the time of pitch flight in EITHER BB or FP), gravity ALONE will cause a ball to drop about 3 feet. (the effects of gravity being a measure of elapsed time, and nothing else. A bullet will fall the same 3 feet in 0.45 seconds of its flight, though this will obviously happen over a much greater span of distance).
Meaning that in EITHER BB or FP, the ball must be released slightly UPWARD if the desire is to have it cross the plate as a strike. A perfectly level release - with no downward spin - by a BB pitcher (usually at about 5' above the ground) might JUST get the bottom of the strike zone. But probably would just miss. Anything above that HAS to be launched slightly upward.
A FP pitch has to be launched more steeply upward. But it crests, and then is moving downward through the hitting area, just like a BB pitch. Excepting the riseball for a second, the typical FP pitch at the letters is moving downwards from 3-5 degrees, just like a BB pitch. And both pitches are about 5-10 degrees at the waist, and maybe 15-25 degrees downward at the knees. (The baseball pitch at the knees often is moving downward more significantly than the FP drop, and I would speculate that this is because there are more revolutions of the baseball over 60 feet than for a softball over 43 (greater RPM), and so the magnus effect has more time to build up). That's just a guess, though.
The measurements aren't a guess. There are incredibly accurate video analysis tools out there now, and a lot of us use them.
ALL FP and BB pitches that I have ever seen - ASSUMING they are strikes - are moving downward through the strike zone. In the case of a really, really good riseball at the top of the strike zone (or a letter-high fastball thrown with appropriate backspin and at about 100mph) the pitch might only be moving downwards degree or so at the top of the zone, but still it is downward.
And of course, either could still be slanting up if they are above the zone (anyone can throw a ball over the backstop), but I am talking about if they actually were a strike.
And of course, the riseball discussion has been engaged in many times on every discussion forum out there. We all know what it looks like when it comes at you (it looks like it rises), but suffice it to ay that profile angle video of the same pitch shows something completely different, and the ball's trajectory can be clearly measured as it goes through the zone. Since there is NO chance of optical illusion n profile angle video, it trumps the naked eye experience we have al felt when catching a riseball. There just is no other explanation.
If it is a strike, it is downward moving through the zone. And if somone can find a profile angle video of ANY pitch (BB or FP) moving upwards through the strike zone, you'll be the first. Seriously. That video has never been posted on the internet. And those who doubt it should reserach that.
In the meantime, for those who do accept the predicate, there are some reasons why ANY swing should be slightly upwards:
1) It is mechanically much more efficient, because it "connects" better with the torso and shoulders. We could spend a few years on this, but I don't think there is much - if any - argument on this point among serious students of hitting mechanics.
2) A downwards swing will hit the downwards moving pitch downwards about 9% of the time. Those who think you can hit downwards against a downwards moving pitch and hit the bottom half of the ball to impart topspin would do well t heed Ted William's advice when someone suggested this to him: "If you're that ****ng good, why don't you just hit the middle of the ball every ****ing time?
3) The intersection (contact) point of a downward moving swing against a downward moving ball is basically an X. Pretty minimal margin for error. If the swing is on the SAME plane as the pitch - obviously in reverse - the intersection point is potentially as long as the swing. As much as 2-3 feet of swing where contact could be reasonably made. As opposed to less than a foot with the downward moving swing. That s WAY too big of an advantage to give away.
BTW - my final point - if a ball was traveling level to the ground, and was struck squarely with a swing also traveling absolutely level to the ground, that ball would not clear the infield. Gravity works coming out of the batters box as well as it does coming towards it. And there is nothing wrong with a ball that bounces at the back of the infield. Thoe are ingles, sometimes doubles. They are NEVER HRs, though. And of course, this predicate is flawed. The pitch i NOT level to the ground, it is downwards. Strike it with a level swing, and you WILL hit a ground ball the VAST majority of the time. About 25% of the time, ground balls are hits. So if a hitter is successful with this approach 100% of the time, she will bat .250. With a slugging percentage that isn't much higher. Of course, she won't be successful 100% of the time, so the actual number will be a little lower. maybe a lot lower. Hopefully (assuming she wants to play into her 20s), she can field.
My .02. But I think to seriously challenge most of my assumptions, someone would have to demonstrate that what appears to be an overwhelmming body of video evidence is wrong, and that a significant percentage of the FP pitches are moving upwards - rather than downwards - through the strike zone. If someone can show profile angle video (no chance of illusion) of pitches doing that, I'll not only challenge my own assumptions, I'll repudiate them.
Best regards,
Scott
I think the other point that is begging to be made here is.....uhhhh....uhhhh....good hitters.....uuhhhh.....almost always.....uhhh...uhhh....hit....uhh...uuuhhhh....good. There...I said it....anybody got a problem with that???!!!!
