Loading... Please wait...

On Deck

Over the past few years I've read many tweets and articles written about on-deck activity and timing. None of them ever mention the neuro-physiological components involving timing and how the brain processes the interference patterns within our electromagnetic field or (space). Their focus seems to always be on the "process" or mental preparation involved while in the on deck circle. Examples include; breathe deep, stare at the bat, self-talk, think good thoughts, study the pitchers release point, practice anticipation, clear the mechanism, take practice swings with intent etc, etc, etc, hopefully you get the picture. I recently received a small amount of opposition to a tweet I made concerning the value of practicing timing in the on- deck circle. My goal in making the statement wasn't to be argumentative but simply factual and educational.

The subjective nature of the fore mentioned processes lead me to post the following tweet. "There has never been quantifiable data of a correlation between on-deck activity increasing offensive output and never will be. Entirely old school tradition with zero batters box value" The implication that there was zero value to the multiple processes seemed silly and off key to several engaged in the back and forth conversation. Eighteen years ago I would have agreed with them but I'm not who I was 18 years ago. The many years of brain based research and product development has changed me. I've been blessed to work with some great neuro based researchers and they taught me neuro-accountability. Which means, the brain always wins.

Within the scientific community there are various levels of zero and I suppose I should have clarified my statement but it's hard to do in 140 characters. If a researcher were to undertake the task of quantifying the value of the multiple "processes" that hitters go through in the on-deck circle he or she would find the task virtually impossible to quantify objectively. The chance of a true positive outcome would likely resemble (0.000000000000001). A coach could choose to round the math up but the chances are slim to none that a correlation exist. They would be rounding up zero after zero.

There are so, so many variables to consider when trying to pin down tangible correlations in regard to this "process" that it is unrealistic to blame poor offensive performance on what occurs in the on-deck circle. Likewise, it is impractical to imply that on-deck activities have a distinct, undeniable positive value. The subjective bias associated with both is the reason why hitting analytics begin and end in the batter’s box. It is the place where actions are measured. Regardless of one's mindset or mental focus approach, the tangible and quantifiable information comes when a swing occurs during a plate appearance. 

For instance, did a particular player swing at a strike or swing at a ball? Actions that occur in the batter’s box give us insights as to what the hitter’s brain is seeing and processing. Telling a hitter to try a new mental or physical "approach" while in the on-deck circle doesn't meet the requirements for quantifiable science. It is just an over reach by a coach to impose his or her will to the ultimate degree. 

It's not my objective to prove to anyone that I'm right. I'm merely sharing pieces of information that are relevant to the process of how a hitter’s brain "times" a pitch. There are certain things I will share with the public and certain classified things that I won't. If you want to go deeper into the impact associated with on-deck activity I would suggest beginning with the first pitch in the at bat. Since it is the first measurable event after a hitter leaves the on-deck circle it should provide the best information concerning the hitter’s readiness to hit. If that is the case then on-deck activity whether mental or physical is insignificant.  Data suggest that the first pitch in the at bat has the least amount of impact on wins than any pitch in the pitch count. Its correlation value is in the non-significant range. Which suggest there are lots of zeros associated with it.  I'll let you figure out what that means. 

On Deck

Over the past few years I've read many tweets and articles written about on-deck activity and timing. None of them ever mention the neuro-physiological components involving timing and how the brain processes the interference patterns within our electromagnetic field or (space). Their focus seems to always be on the "process" or mental preparation involved while in the on deck circle. Examples include; breathe deep, stare at the bat, self-talk, think good thoughts, study the pitchers release point, practice anticipation, clear the mechanism, take practice swings with intent etc, etc, etc, hopefully you get the picture. I recently received a small amount of opposition to a tweet I made concerning the value of practicing timing in the on- deck circle. My goal in making the statement wasn't to be argumentative but simply factual and educational.

The subjective nature of the fore mentioned processes lead me to post the following tweet. "There has never been quantifiable data of a correlation between on-deck activity increasing offensive output and never will be. Entirely old school tradition with zero batters box value" The implication that there was zero value to the multiple processes seemed silly and off key to several engaged in the back and forth conversation. Eighteen years ago I would have agreed with them but I'm not who I was 18 years ago. The many years of brain based research and product development has changed me. I've been blessed to work with some great neuro based researchers and they taught me neuro-accountability. Which means, the brain always wins.

Within the scientific community there are various levels of zero and I suppose I should have clarified my statement but it's hard to do in 140 characters. If a researcher were to undertake the task of quantifying the value of the multiple "processes" that hitters go through in the on-deck circle he or she would find the task virtually impossible to quantify objectively. The chance of a true positive outcome would likely resemble (0.000000000000001). A coach could choose to round the math up but the chances are slim to none that a correlation exist. They would be rounding up zero after zero.

There are so, so many variables to consider when trying to pin down tangible correlations in regard to this "process" that it is unrealistic to blame poor offensive performance on what occurs in the on-deck circle. Likewise, it is impractical to imply that on-deck activities have a distinct, undeniable positive value. The subjective bias associated with both is the reason why hitting analytics begin and end in the batter’s box. It is the place where actions are measured. Regardless of one's mindset or mental focus approach, the tangible and quantifiable information comes when a swing occurs during a plate appearance. 

For instance, did a particular player swing at a strike or swing at a ball? Actions that occur in the batter’s box give us insights as to what the hitter’s brain is seeing and processing. Telling a hitter to try a new mental or physical "approach" while in the on-deck circle doesn't meet the requirements for quantifiable science. It is just an over reach by a coach to impose his or her will to the ultimate degree. 

It's not my objective to prove to anyone that I'm right. I'm merely sharing pieces of information that are relevant to the process of how a hitter’s brain "times" a pitch. There are certain things I will share with the public and certain classified things that I won't. If you want to go deeper into the impact associated with on-deck activity I would suggest beginning with the first pitch in the at bat. Since it is the first measurable event after a hitter leaves the on-deck circle it should provide the best information concerning the hitter’s readiness to hit. If that is the case then on-deck activity whether mental or physical is insignificant.  Data suggest that the first pitch in the at bat has the least amount of impact on wins than any pitch in the pitch count. Its correlation value is in the non-significant range. Which suggest there are lots of zeros associated with it.  I'll let you figure out what that means.