I think in order to get the most out of the athletic tools you bring to the task you've gotta work with, not against yourself.

Because of this I generally hate working on mechanics with kids, as I'd rather give them a task to solve *their way*, rather than *the correct way*.

I can stare at Ruth, Bonds, Aaron, Trout like everyone else & infer from the positions they start in & finish in what positions my kids should be in.

But there's a difference kids imitating a pro hitter & a kid being forced into mechanics that aren't compatible with their body.

Whether it's training kids through mechanics or through environments & task solving, we're looking for the same thing.

Adaptation

But if there is a difference, I think adaptation to the environment is more likely to preserve athleticism than an arbitrary mechanical approach.

This idea isn't some invention of mine, as what we are driving toward in youth baseball - mainly that external cues driven by feedback from the environment are going to provide superior results - has been substantiated in sport research over & over again. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19826287/ 

What's more likely:

A child, with limited capacity for consistent motor control & proprioceptive development, will master a "correct" internal mechanical cue to solve a task

OR

That same child consistently solves the same task by deploying a variety of their movement solutions

We constantly mythologize the simplicity of the game:

See ball, hit ball
Just play catch

etc. But when we pair that desire for simplicity w/ constant klaxons going off whenever players move mechanically "wrong", regardless of the outcome, I think that dissonance hurts our kids.