In Part 1 of this article, we covered the information we gathered from the initial assessment on this specific college athlete and how we addressed the disconnects we felt could be easily improved. Part Two will now dive into the work this athlete put in through the remainder of the summer, as well as the information we gathered from reassessments and the changing landscape of our training environment.

Month 1 – Reassessment

After several weeks, we put the athlete through several re-assessments to make sure that we were on the right path.

Blast Analysis – Upon reassessing this athlete on July 9^th, a few weeks after his initial evaluation, the ability to create more stretch at launch (improved scap load) was evident. The targeted Blast metrics improved except for average attack angle which remained higher than we would have liked at 17.55. This is something we would take into consideration with our ensuing work in the cage.

K-Vest Analysis – Even though sequencing could still be improved, we saw better peak speeds and speed gains throughout the swing.

Our next targets for improvement centered on solidifying the axis of rotation to allow a faster, more efficient transfer of energy. The specific area of focus would be the starting position of the pelvis in the setup and understanding how to engage the glutes to maintain hip hinge into toe touch. At this point, at toe touch, his pelvis was essentially “slipped forward” too much. In a game of milliseconds, every bit of extra time counts.

Month 2 – Game Plan

Next Drill Work Phase – Our cage work would now include two foundational drills within our hitting program at RPP, the coil drill and continuous pinch.

“Coil Drill”

“Continuous Pinch Drill”

We used K-Vest to analyze pelvis and torso positions while also using Blast to give us metrics on rotational acceleration, connection at impact, net connection, and attack angle during drill rounds and blended rounds (alternating drill rep with full swing rep). The athlete responded very well to the constraints of the coil drill, demonstrating improved sequencing and speed gains.

Training Environment – Now that the athlete had a good foundation and showed more efficient moves in the box, we want the “conscious competence” to become “unconscious competence.” So, the next month would focus on engraining these moves in the hitter’s game swing. Here is a glimpse of what the environment looked like during the month that followed:

- Prep work on front toss (this athlete came in with a basic prep routine which he continued throughout the summer – we added the coil drill to this phase)
- Short toss – coil drill, continuous pinch, short box mix, angled work
- Machine – straight on with plus spin, RHP & LHP angled fastballs with arm-side run, varying pitch shapes
- BP – mixing, angled work
- Live Abs beginning July 30^th

Once again, body improvements facilitate growth in the net, so improving hip mobility and continued front shoulder mobility improvements remained a focus in his strength program.

Final Assessment

During the week of August 23^rd, the last of the summer, we did a final assessment to see the progress and paint a picture of the latest profile of our hitter in the box. The athlete’s strengths at this point would begin to shape his approach in-game. Below are the results of the reassessment with references to the metrics from the initial assessment and the midpoint assessment.

Blast Analysis

- Rotational Acceleration: 14.7 → 19.8 → 20.2
- On-Plane Efficiency: 65.2% → 74.1% → 79.2%
- Attack Angle: 16.7 → 17.6 → 12.4
- NET Connection (diff btw. early connection and connection at impact): 16.3 → 12.8 → 7.0
- Bat Speed: 67.4 → 70.5 → 68.2 mph

We primarily attributed the slight dip in bat speed at the end to timing (catching balls deeper in the zone); as the athlete continued to build comfort with his repatterned swing, we expected him to impact the ball out front more consistently without “cheating” to do so. And you’ll see in a bit that the batted ball production showed evidence of an improved swing path and more frequent flush contact.

K-Vest Analysis

Following our midpoint assessment, our focus had been to improve pelvis bend at foot strike by making adjustments to the setup, providing space for the hitter to make a cleaner move to the baseball. So, let’s take a look at the visuals below from K-Vest:

The hitter’s graph now shows more rapid peaks and a more efficient transfer of energy. There is still room for more growth though: the hitter made a slightly late swing decision here as you can see the lead arm peaking right at contact (again, future timing adjustments should yield even better results) and his bat is “leaking” a bit early in the sequence, indicated by the brown line on the graph accelerating in front of the other body parts.

Here are the notable improvements when looking at the body positions below:

- Pelvis and torso bend at Heel Strike
- Torso bend at contact
- Pelvis and torso rotation at contact

Heel Strike

Contact

The side bend of the pelvis at heel strike is still slightly out of range, as is torso rotation at contact; nonetheless, we were thrilled to see this athlete grow in several of the areas we were focused on.

HitTrax Analysis

When it comes down to it, we don’t want our hitters to get really good at drills or reach certain metrics just because the technology says we should. We want our athletes to compete in games and hit the baseball hard as often as possible. Joey Votto said it best: “Let the ball be your feedback.”

During the last month, his peak exit velocity increased from 98.1 to 100.6 and his average exit velocity went from 85.8 to 88.5. Additionally, his velocity on contact to the opposite field increased from 82.1 to 83.4 with a lower line drive trajectory on average.

You can see in the zone visuals that his ability to make a clean turn and drive the inner-third improved immensely; what were previously weak fly balls (low-80s exit velocity, mid-20s LA) are now well struck line drives. And while the low and away pitch is still a work-in-progress, he showed gradual improvement from what was previously a negative launch angle on average.

Laying off the up and in pitch in-game can neutralize the hitter’s struggles there. This is one of the most difficult pitches to hit because the perceived velocity is higher for the hitter, but it’s also a location that not many college-pitchers command consistently.

Power Profile

Finally, we will observe this athlete’s power profile to gauge how his growth in the weight room facilitated his improvement in the nets. Assessing power is part of the initial and final assessment done by our strength staff. Here is the initial assessment:

You will see in the highlighted areas from the final power assessment below a notable improvement in jump height, power output (PPO), and Lateral RSI (reactive strength index). This athlete’s lean body mass % also went from 14% to 12%.

Wrap-up

This athlete already came in with a powerful engine, he just needed some fine tuning so his engine could run a little smoother. When you get to the college level and above, your tools represent your potential. Putting those tools together to produce in game is what separates guys.

At RPP, we work with the individual and use our resources to guide the player’s development in whatever areas they need most, while also taking into consideration the time of year. We can’t wait to watch this young man’s continued growth as he returns to school. And to any other In-betweeners out there who are looking to make a jump towards becoming a better version of yourself, you’re always welcome here.

By Ethan Newton (Director of Hitting at RPP Baseball)

Enter your email below to be added to our email list!