A New Software Standard for Objective Force Plate Data
By Ken Cherryhomes ©2025
Introduction
I spend my time in deep research so that when I challenge long-held beliefs in batting, I come armed with facts rather than narrative. Yet facts, even if backed by citations, are often not enough. A flawed notion can survive if people refuse to admit error, and in the data age, a false premise can be reinforced by selective measurement. The problem is compounded by the way current software filters out the directional data that matters most, leaving what is already captured by the plates unreported. This gap allows narratives to be upheld through selective presentation and biased interpretation. This is the problem with the theory-first, data-second approach that dominates much of baseball analysis. My work takes the opposite path: data first, theory second.
For example, force plate data is often used to validate weight shift theories. A braced shift will spike the front foot plate, and you can find hitters at every level who succeed doing this. But what the data is allowed to say is the real issue. If all comparisons assume that power comes from shifting weight forward, the output will inevitably favor one version of weight shift over another, even if neither is mechanically sound. Pressure can be measured, but contribution cannot, and treating a front-foot spike as proof of power is anecdotal and an interpretation built on a flawed premise.
Efficiency and true power come from torque created where the weight is stored. Displacing mass forward is not the most effective way to generate rotation. Conversion through the medial forefoot, where ground force has a direct rotational path into the kinetic chain, is the more efficient, more powerful model. The distinction is the same as heel loading versus medial forefoot loading: one posture wastes energy, the other channels it.
The software I have been designing, currently patent pending, removes this subjectivity. It does not simply show force plate output but interprets whether weight is converted into torque or displaced into transition. In doing so, it eliminates the bias of entrenched theory and replaces it with objective analysis.
This isn’t just a theoretical concern. I laid out this problem in a previous article analyzing the Bertec video series featuring Justin Stone, the current Cubs hitting director, as presenter, which framed weight shift as the source of power with heel loading and forefoot loading presented as the two options in play. But the forefoot example began with an inefficient setup, stacked weight simply displaced forward across the entire forefoot, and that immediately doomed the comparison. Setting something up poorly and calling it an alternative model is misleading, and it ensured that neither option reflected true torque generation through the medial forefoot. Both were weight-shift narratives compared against one another, so the data could only reinforce which version of the same flawed premise looked better. That context matters because the software solution I have been designing and protecting is built to eliminate exactly this kind of interpretive bias and expose the actual contributions that drive rotation.
A New Software Framework for Ground Force Analysis
The patent-pending software I have developed was created to remove subjectivity from ground force analysis. For years, coaches and analysts have relied on pressure maps and center of pressure traces to draw conclusions about efficiency, torque, and sequencing. These systems present images and numbers, but they leave the most important questions unanswered. Was torque actually generated? Was a foot contributing force or simply holding posture? Was a spike in pressure proof of rotation or just a collapse against the ground? The gap between what the plates measure and what the interpretations claim has been filled with narrative. My ambition is to close that gap.
This software solves the problem by converting force plate data into directional and torque-relevant information. It measures azimuth, the angle of applied force over time, exposing whether the rear foot is driving rotation or acting as an anchor, and whether the lead foot is a contributor or a brake. It tracks passive drifts that reveal the inefficiency of one-hundred percent weight stacking theories. It maps the center of mass through ground reaction angles, providing a continuous account of how the body moves relative to the forces it creates. In short, it reports contribution, not just contact.
The system is hardware-agnostic. Any six-axis or tri-axial force plate that records shear forces already contains the raw data. My software extracts it, processes it, and renders it into phase-specific interpretations. This means coaches, athletes, and trainers can see exactly when torque begins, how it builds, and whether it is sustained efficiently or delayed until the body is forced into reactive rotation. The software can be purchased and integrated outright or licensed as a sidecar option to existing platforms. In either form it does not compete with hardware, it elevates it.
Now that the system is patent pending, the shift begins. Soon, coaches and athletes will not have to choose between compelling stories about what the data “means.” The software enables the data to speak for itself, exposing how ground forces are directed, when torque is created, and where efficiency is gained or lost. This is not another interpretation. It is the record.
Passive Drift Versus Active Torque Engagement
One of the critical distinctions the software exposes is the difference between passive drift and active torque engagement. Traditional pressure traces can show when weight appears to move forward, but they cannot show whether that movement was an intentional drive into torque or simply the passive relief of the center of mass off the backside. The difference is decisive. Passive drift creates the illusion of movement without contribution. Active torque, by contrast, engages ground force directionally, pushing against the surface to initiate rotation from the ground up.
In rotational sports, the most efficient vector is posterior, pushing through the medial rear foot toward the catcher. This vector does not inherently shift weight forward, rush the hitter into an early advance, or reduce adjustability, as is often claimed. Instead, it coils the system into torque. By measuring shear, the horizontal component of ground reaction force, the software makes this visible. Shear is where rotation begins, and without it torque cannot be distinguished from mere pressure.
Friction is the other missing piece. As the rear foot torques against the ground, friction resists the slip. That resistance is the counterforce that allows the hitter to create angular momentum. Measuring its effects matters because without friction, ground forces dissipate instead of transferring. The system captures this interaction, identifying when the rear foot is acting as a lever versus when it is merely stacked vertically as an anchor.
Loading patterns also deserve clarification. Stacking weight over the rear heel can spike a plate reading and suggest a powerful load, but the appearance is misleading. Both heel loading and medial rear foot loading can create a counter rotated posture, but only the medial load maintains lengthening while keeping the chain active. Heel stacking locks the system vertically, delaying torque until the body has no choice but to drift forward and brace. Medial forefoot loading primes torque early while still holding separation, making it the more efficient and adjustable option.
This is where conventional analysis falls short. Pressure alone cannot tell whether a spike is load, drift, or torque. By capturing shear and friction and by labeling the direction of applied force, the system draws the line between postural illusions and actual contributions to rotation.
Rear Foot Torque Versus Front Side Bracing
It is true that all swings eventually rotate around the front leg. The difference lies in how that rotation is initiated. Weight shift models place the burden of rotation on the front foot and leg, using bracing as the trigger. This approach creates rotation void of any meaningful rear foot torque contribution. Hitters can and do succeed with this method, but it is not the most efficient way to generate power. The greatest power hitters consistently relied on the rear leg not only as a storage center for weight but as the true origin of torque. In these swings, the rear foot is not passive support but the engine that drives rotation into the front side, and my software makes this distinction visible by tracking the direction of force through the rear side instead of reducing it to pressure under the front.
This is the difference between reading ground reaction forces (GRFs) and analyzing ground reaction angles (GRAs). GRFs quantify how much force is present, but not how it is directed. GRAs reveal the orientation of that force, whether it is bracing vertically or engaging rotationally, and that orientation is what my software captures. Likewise, center of mass (COM) and center of pressure (COP) should not be confused. COM describes where the body is actually moving, while COP only describes where pressure is being applied. Conflating the two has led to models that mistake forward pressure shifts for proof of rotational power. The software resolves this confusion by reporting COM tracking alongside GRAs, so that forward relief of mass can be separated from true torque generation.
Controlled weight shift is part of mechanical timing, but it is not the same as torque engagement. The claim that activating the rear foot for torque inevitably causes rushing forward, poor tempo, or premature transfer is grossly misleading. Rear foot activation does not transition weight forward, it anchors it, converts it into torque and initiates rotation. When the rear side engages correctly, rotation begins without compromising adjustability or forcing an early advance. The software removes subjectivity from this claim by distinguishing between passive shifts of pressure and active torque engagement, proving when torque begins, how it is sustained, and how it transfers into the braced front side. The front side still receives the rotation, but it does so as the endpoint of a torque-driven system, not as the origin of power.
Conclusion
The patent-pending software I have developed resolves the core problem in force plate analysis: subjectivity. Force plates already capture the azimuth, shear, and other directional components that matter most, but until now no one thought to report them. My system extracts and interprets what has always been present in the data, distinguishing torque from pressure and contribution from drift. It is hardware agnostic, capable of integrating with any system that records shear forces, including widely used providers such as Bertec, AMTI, and Kistler. It transforms that raw input into phase-specific insights that remove bias from interpretation, delivering clarity for coaches, biomechanics labs, professional organizations, and training facilities alike. Having been through the patent prosecution process three times before, with three granted patents and three more currently in the pipeline, I know how to draft strong claims that defend methodology robustly and powerfully. With this framework in place, baseball no longer has to debate how rotation and power are created. The data itself settles it.