Skip to main content

19 replies

linear hitters

T turnin2100+ posts
Been doing lots of reading, studying, of the linear vs rotational and have taken part in several conversations. Personally, I wonder if there is just too much terminology trying to teach hitting. Anyway, I'm curious as to which hitters you guys think have a more linear approach, than rotational, that we can look at and relate too. Curious because most people state that rotational hitting is what MLBers do. Any linear hitters you can name??
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Z Z-Dad10+ posts
I think the only concrete definition of linear vs. rotational hitting is the movement or lack thereof of the batter's spine from launch to contact.

Every other element can really be interchanged between the two types of hitting. Spine movement is a key element because in a rotational batter, the spine must be stationary to act as the axis for maximizing torque whereas in a linear hitter, the forward movement of the spine is needed to shift weight at the incoming pitch.

We know torque gives more power than weight shifting. But linear gives the batter a significant jump to run to first base. Who has the better average though is really up to the individual hitter and his talents, i.e. a fast runner would get a bigger bump in batting average with linear than a slow runner.

Ichiro Suzuki is the prime example of a modern linear hitter. And his style isn't lacking in power. Just this weekend he hit a homerun, watch the video and you see his spine movement slam his body into the pitch. Classic linear hitters will power include Roger Maris, Roberto Clemente and maybe even Hank Aaron.

Again, what's best depends on the hitter. For example, if you are a lefty batter with great speed but not too strong, I think linear would be a great choice.
S SBK500+ posts
I'm not sure all would concede Ichiro is linear and certainly not all the time, but for the sake of argument, let's say he is.

Now with several hundred big league hitters to choose from, let's start compiling a list of all the others....

Let's see if the silence will be deafening.


On the other hand, if we started a list of all the coaches in the lower ranks that still subscribe to linear mechanics, the list would be large.

So it beckons the question... What do the best hitters in the game know that these other guys don't? or versa-visa?
Last edited by SBK
BlueDogBlueDog1,000+ posts
Swings differ as for as level of efficiency......But, the linear - rotational debate is a waste of time because it really doesn't exist....

Segmentation vs. swing plane matching shoulder plane does exist.....But, both camps claim to believe in weight shift momentum.....They both lay claim to connection although they differ as to what connection is.....

But, rotational vs. linear? Nah!!

Them days are long gone!!
Last edited by BlueDog
S SBK500+ posts
So there you have it.... you can take your hands in a more direct route to the ball or you can load your hands so that you take a more circular route as you swing the bat. I guess it's all the same.

Now according to Bluedog, it's segmentation and angle of the dangle that now matters.

Doesn't it make you long for the "good old days" when it was just about elementary things like scap loading and top hand torque.
Z Z-Dad10+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by SBK:
I'm not sure all would concede Ichiro is linear and certainly not all the time, but for the sake of argument, let's say he is.

Ichiro I've seen can and will do both. The HR I mentioned was linear per my definition but I have seen him stay back, keep the spine still and rotate into home runs too.

My definition is simple and narrow but, easy to observe and has real world differences that are less nebulous that other terms that are often tossed around.

For example, even when Ichiro is launching his body forward for a ground ball, beat the throw type hit he will use a CHP, rotate the body, etc. type swing that rotational folks claims as theirs. Truth is, most batters use that.

So the thinking that rotational vs. linear are 2 separate schools of thought is incorrect. The only real difference that is concrete is what the batter does with his body by observing the spine.
Z Z-Dad10+ posts
SBK, IMHO hand path isn't as definitive an attribute of linear vs. rotational as much as spine movement.

Here's my reasoning, in linear a.k.a. weight-shifting, the hands do not have a lot weight or mass to shift. And a circular HP vs. linear HP has been observed in all types of MLB batter based on the situation, i.e. sometimes it's straighter, sometimes it's curvier, for say inside vs. outside pitches.

Physics-wise that extra power from a little extra torque in the hand in a CHP vs. a straight HP isn't going to be significant, there isn't enough mass to drastically affect the hit. CHP = more power but it's proponents tend to overstate the benefit.

I focus on the spine because it basically tells you what the mass of the entire upper body is doing and what the lower body is doing to move that mass. If the spine of a 250 lb. hitter moves 2-3 ft. in 5 frames, well that is a lot of mass going in 1 linear direction. If the spine axis is motionless, then that is a lot of rotational force being generated.

And thus there is one clear benefit for each method. Linear gets a huge running start to first base while rotational generates more bat speed. Who gets the better average? Well we can let other people argue that...

Hope that helps.
Last edited by Z-Dad
S SBK500+ posts
I guess that's where we differ.

Rotation hitters generally fall into two camps. Some like Bonds prefer to get their hands in a preloaded position early and when they load their lower body, move their "spine" forward little. Others, say like a guy like Renteria, choose to "walk" their hands back into a loaded position. Their forward movement of their body is not done in order to throw their weight into the ball. In fact if you watch these players in slow motion, you will see that although they may have significant forward motion, they do not start their hands forward until their movement ceases.

The difference between hitters that really make a difference is the path of their hands. Of course the path is more circular on the inside pitch. If you follow your reasoning that linear hitters have an advantage getting to first base, then the biggest advantage would go to left handed rotational hitters because you could argue their rotation takes them towards first base.


Regards,
Z Z-Dad10+ posts
SBK, I think you are focusing too much on the hands and placing too much importance on them. There just isn't enough mass or energy in the hands to make that big a difference.

You also misunderstand my point about the jump to first base. No rotational hitter has any momentum toward any base at all because they swing on an axis. Look at any video and you see that the body of a rotational hitter upon completion of the swing is still stationary in relation to the bases. Take a video of Ichiro and you can easily see him already half a step towards first and accelerating.
S SBK500+ posts
Z-Dad

Let's get the running to first out of the way because it's not a reason to base a hitter's technique on. However a left handed rotational hitters momentum is to first because that's where the momentum of the follow through takes them.

I have to disagree, you can't place enough importance on the arms and hands during a swing since they are ultimately the last link to the bat. With all due respect, I don't think you understand the physics of rotation and I am not the best person to explain it to you. Go to batspeed.com where Jack Mankin has already explained much in a very understandable way. Others have too but I find that he has done it the best I've seen.

Regards
Z Z-Dad10+ posts
Actually I understand physics quite well but it looks like this discussion is going nowhere so it isn't worth pointing out the flaws.

EDIT: OK I will give it one more shot. Take a spinning top. How much momentum does this spinning top have in any one direction? Answer - none, it's rotational energy centered on the axis.
Last edited by Z-Dad
S SBK500+ posts
I'm not sure what the corelation is between a top's momentum going in one direction and swinging a bat.

I know if you had a merry go-round rotating and you tied a bat to it, I doubt if you would want to get close to it.

And since you admit to understanding physics quite well, you are probably aware of how efficient of a machine a spinning top can be?

Or how about a tether ball who gains speed as it rotates around the pole?

Or how about a figure skater who gains speed rotating as they pull their hands in?

Or the last person on the end of roller skaters rotating around an axis?

If you are not taking advantage of rotational forces in swinging a bat you are not taking advantage of physics.
Last edited by SBK
floridafanfloridafan5,000+ posts
I like the definition of rotational being determined by the spine. I also believe that hands are very important, and if you have strong hands, strong wrists, strong forearms etc. there will be some mass behind those quick hands. I think that this is where the linear/rotational debate falls apart. Some will argue that if you teach "quick hands to the ball" you are "linear", when in fact done correctly you are rotating on your axis while bringing the hands to the ball.
Z Z-Dad10+ posts
SBK, I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are trying to say in your last post.

I'm not sure what the corelation is between a top's momentum going in one direction and swinging a bat.
SBK, my point is a spinning top has NO momentum going in any direction. It's spinning in place. Therefore, a rotational hitter has no jump to first base whereas a linear hitter does.

If you are not taking advantage of rotational forces in swinging a bat you are not taking advantage of physics.
I think you are completely confusing the concept of momentum vs. torque or rotational energy. They are not the same.

Both linear and rotational hitters use rotational force in the swing. However, a rotational hitter focuses on maximizing torque by rotating around an axis at the expense of bodily momentum toward the pitch. This is why you focus on the spine movement or lack thereof.

floridafan, don't get me wrong. I also believe hands and arms are important but just not as important as most people think it is. (P.S. I agree with your last comment.)

On arms, think of all the pictures of MLB batters hitting a homerun at the moment of contact and you will often see both arms bent. Logically, if arms were so important you would see more arm extension. Also Adair in his "Physic of Baseball" book made a compelling argument that the total mass of muscle in the arms and hands is a fraction of the legs/waist muscle mass.

Which brings us back to the issue of hand path. Like I said before, in the linear vs. circular hand path debate, circular has more power but it just isn't all that much more. And even CHP hitters must learn to go linear hand path to reach pitches on the outside.

I really focused on the spine because so much mass and muscle is involved in moving (or rotating) the body.
M micmeister500+ posts
How in the world does a spinning top not have momentum in "any" direction??? No momentum in "any" direction is a top lying on the ground! If I am a left handed hitter I am spinning toward first base in my finish, therefore my shoulders will be closer to being parallel to first. If I am a right handed hitter the momentum is to third base. I have to completely stop my momentum and change direction to first (Well...unless you teach running to first base side ways). WOW!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Z-Dad:
SBK, I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are trying to say in your last post.

I'm not sure what the corelation is between a top's momentum going in one direction and swinging a bat.
SBK, my point is a spinning top has NO momentum going in any direction. It's spinning in place. Therefore, a rotational hitter has no jump to first base whereas a linear hitter does.

If you are not taking advantage of rotational forces in swinging a bat you are not taking advantage of physics.
I think you are completely confusing the concept of momentum vs. torque or rotational energy. They are not the same.

Both linear and rotational hitters use rotational force in the swing. However, a rotational hitter focuses on maximizing torque by rotating around an axis at the expense of bodily momentum toward the pitch. This is why you focus on the spine movement or lack thereof.

floridafan, don't get me wrong. I also believe hands and arms are important but just not as important as most people think it is. (P.S. I agree with your last comment.)

On arms, think of all the pictures of MLB batters hitting a homerun at the moment of contact and you will often see both arms bent. Logically, if arms were so important you would see more arm extension. Also Adair in his "Physic of Baseball" book made a compelling argument that the total mass of muscle in the arms and hands is a fraction of the legs/waist muscle mass.

Which brings us back to the issue of hand path. Like I said before, in the linear vs. circular hand path debate, circular has more power but it just isn't all that much more. And even CHP hitters must learn to go linear hand path to reach pitches on the outside.

I really focused on the spine because so much mass and muscle is involved in moving (or rotating) the body.

Add Reply

Post
Baseball Sale Canada

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×