Using Pitching Machines to Improve Hitting at Cal-Berkely

David Esquer represents the best in college baseball - first as a player, then as an assistant coach, and finally as head baseball coach at the University of California-Berkley. As a player, Esquer was the starting shortstop on Stanford University's 1987 national championship squad. As an assistant coach with Stanford and Pepperdine, he helped produce six NCAA post season teams and one World Series participant. As Cal's coach, Esquer led the Bears to the program's ninth NCAA regional in 2001 while being named Pacific 10 Conference Coach of the Year in only his second season.

Why did you decide to invest in a pitching machine?

Last year, we really struggled to get runs. We decided to focus on hitting - on getting our average up. We think the feel of a real ball at contact is key in training. At the time, the pitching machine we owned wasn't really effective. It rapidly wore out real leather balls, and they frequently got stuck in the machine. Players were frustrated by the constant interruptions. One of the first things that drew our attention to the Hack Attack was its ability to throw leather baseballs consistently and without any interruptions.

Was that the only reason you purchased a Hack Attack?

No, it was just what first got our attention. As soon as we got one in a cage, we found that many things made it incredibly effective. It's far more accurate, especially with breaking pitches. It also lets you see the ball through the throwing process like live arm motion. Not only did delays due to ball problems disappear, but changing from fastballs to curveballs or left- to right-handed breaking pitches is very easy with the speed control dials and the elevation handle. There is no slow, awkward, complicated process like we used to experience with our unbalanced two-wheel machines. The third wheel on the Hack Attack changes everything.

Exactly how do you use the Hack Attack in your practices?

We now have three Hack Attacks. We set up a hitting station for each one in a circuit that we use daily, including for batting practice on game days. One station is for right- and left-handed curveballs, the second is for fastballs, and the third is where we move the machine up and hit against a short fastball without a stride to improve bat quickness. We just ordered a fourth machine for an additional fastball station with change-of-location. We want one on the field all the time, so we plan to buy a fifth machine for defensive and bunting drills. When we take a machine on the field now, we spend a lot of time on cut-offs, and it has allowed us to double our outfield work. We've never been able to get such quality repetition on hard-to-hit fungo work until now.

The Hack Attack is a solid machine - is it easy to move around?

It is the easiest machine to set up and operate that we've ever used. It moves quickly on and off the field. One player or coach can roll it anywhere. It used to be a struggle to get players to help set up and put away machines. That's no longer a problem, and that is saying something.

What results have you seen from using the Hack Attack?

It has made a measurable improvement in our hitting - more than 40 points over the past two years. We credit much of our improvement to the Hack Attack. We think it's the best investment in our team that we could have made.

Studies Find Multiple Strategies Needed to Improve California Schools

For the past three years California Schools have been the subject of an in-depth analysis of school reform. The study, Beyond the Mountains: An Early Look at Restructuring Results in California, conducted by the Center on Education Policy (CEP), is part of a multi-year review of the effects of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) on Maryland, Michigan and California Schools.

The examination concerns specific restructuring methods used by California Schools and their success. According to CEP founder and president Jack Jennings, "While it is still too early to tell whether restructuring is working, it is clear from the experience of California and Michigan, the two states we have studied in-depth, that simply requiring schools to replace staff does not guarantee increased student achievement. Rather, success is linked to implementing multiple improvement strategies."

This is of critical concern to California Schools for a couple of reasons. California Schools have more schools facing restructuring than most other states for several reasons. School restructuring is mandated by the NCLB act for any schools unable to meet its Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) markers for five or more consecutive years. One reason that California Schools saw the number of its schools facing this mandate double to 8% in the last year is because of its massive size. Also, California Schools implemented AYP markers a year before it was federally mandated. Of the California Schools facing restructuring, over 60% are in urban areas.

The numbers don't look good. 207 of the California Schools in the implementation phase of restructuring failed to meet AYP standards for seven consecutive years. That's why the CEP study has such import. The study concluded that the California Schools that were most successful in raising student achievement were those that analyzed school data and implemented initiatives designed to meet those specific needs. This is important because the US Department of Education previously recommended replacing staff rather than other forms of restructuring.

Other reform methods in California Schools include instituting English Language Learner programs, direct coaching for teachers and principals, changes in scheduling and the hiring of a district-level coordinator. The California Schools that used the above methods, without replacing staff or changing to a charter system, were generally more successful than the other schools studied. What will this mean for the future of California Schools?

It's likely that funds for teacher planning time, instructional coaches and special instruction for at-risk students will appear on coming legislation. As noted by Jennings, the California Schools still have a long road ahead before the success of many programs can be fully evaluated. That's why California Schools need the quantifiable results of a study like this one.