How were these photos post processed?

I am having trouble recreating that "commercial/lifestyle" look to photographs. For example:
http://www.asmith.phot​ography/baseball-teens
All the exif data are in the jpg's, and I can see I shoot with the same exact gear. I feel that if I was there taking the same shot, mine would turn out radically different and be missing that "look". I post process my photos, am knowledgable of LightRoom, but my photos lack the "punch" that these ones have.
What I am missing here?

Are you lighting your shots with an enormous softbox above your subject? Chances are the lighting is the bigger difference.

EXIF data says no flash fired. Looking at the sky, it looks like it was shot with natural light.

The exif woulnt record a studio strobe. The rim lighting is just too consistent to be natural light.

I personally think these photos scream "VSCO". My guess is they were all edited using VSCO Film presets from one/many of the Film packs. As gonzo says too the lighting in the photos is perfect, either via large softbox or natural light with diffusers.

But yeah, I'm voting VSCO. As someone who edits some of my photos using the presets as a starting point, these photos scream of it.

EDIT: I really dig this guys photos, you chose someone good to strive for. His composition and lighting are phenomenal.

Is anyone else using Firefox able to view that site successfully? It goes haywire on me once the images load. They all zip by and then end up in a pile. I'm using the latest FF on a MacBook Pro running Yosemite.

Question though. On the EXIF date, the History Action / Parameters shows multiple conversions to TIFF. Why is this?

I'm not viewing the EXIF data so can't comment, but perhaps photographer is using multiple software for his work. I have the Nik Complete plugin set and when going that route you can end up with multiple TIFF conversions, for example if I want to do some editing in Viveza, some in Color Efex Pro or some in Analog Efex pro. The look though can be achieved much simpler though I would think.

Ya if he's using lighting, it's super subtle. It looks fantastic however. Thanks for posting.

At least on some level, his treatments are softening the light a bit.. (curves...raising the blacks, lowering the whites, etc)

Some of them definitely have added lighting - for instance, the fourth image (girl in red pants, holding the glove, looking off-camera) there's a hard light source pointed at her face, look at the shadow hast by her chin onto her neck, and the shadow cast by the shirt onto her upper arm. But that's not the only light - it looks like the main light is overcast bright sky.

Later on there's one with the same girl arriving at one of the bases, there's a hard light source out of the frame to the left, look at the shadow cast by her arm onto her torso.

Right; I see that now.

My advice is to step up your PP game.

This just looks like traditional editing. Nothing Lr can't handle.

And hire fashion models for your casual sandlot baseball game.