Linear vs Rotational which is better?

Hitting is neither purely rotational nor linear. It consists of elements of both.

It is a matter of semantics & emphasis.

Texan is a wise man. If asked, I would answer that we teach rotational. We attempt to limit any linear movement. I believe that to be impossible at least in degrees.

well if you wanna get technical bbscout, yeah there's no such thing as linear. But generally linear means someone who doesn't rotate their hips and shoulder as much, and they throw their hands straight at the ball. I think Luis Castillo is a prime example of a linear hitter, while Bonds is purely rotational. I find that the vast majority of pro ballplayers are rotational hitters, therefore logic would suggest that the rotational approach is the better way to go. I have the Final Arc DVD and it has helped a bunch, I'm now finally becoming the hitter I've been trying to be, I hit very well this summer and everyone on my time this past summer were always commenting me on my "professional technique", and I haven't even mastered the technique yet, I still have lots of work to do. So rotational to me is the best way to go, and should make you a better overall hitter as the technique helps not just with bat speed and power, but contact hitting as well, while linear is simply making contact without much power (prime example, Luis Castillo). Follow the booklet in the Final Arc DVD and do the drills and you just develop well. Good luck.

...just in time for the holidays.

indeed.

heheheheehhehe!!!!!

i do not understand the statement there is no such thing as a linear hitter.i go with tex,s statement.bbscout the hands better be linear to the ball.teaching pure rotation does not work in my opinion.dropping back shoulder,pulling off the ball etc all develop teaching pure rotational.

This discussion goes on and on-- but does it matter how the hitter does it as long as he hits with success?

Exactly.

Forget the semantics and find the mechanics that provide the hitter with success.

if he can hit we dont mess around alot. we dont coach just to coach. we have a philosophy but we are not stubborn with it. with most kids we start the swing with the hands. thats the emphasis. we use our hips, squash the bug and all that stuff - but we emphasize hands. if you emphasize the other we have found that you get lots of strikeouts and alot of flyball outs. when we started our system 3 years ago our strikeouts have went way down and our on base% , power numbers and batting average have went way up. if you havent already take a look at our hitting technique and philosophy on our website. go to handouts under menu.
http://www.leaguelineup.com/raiderbaseball
im not going to argue with anybody about a different way. this is just our way and we like it. its not the only way. we are constantly studying and learning. thanks - steve

Steve

Good to see your bottom lines in the post--- We fully agree---if it aint broke we do not tinker-- and there are multiple ways to teach this game and not all methods work for all players---we keep it simple and talk with players individually-- there is now way you line up 15 players on your roster and say to them "this is what you do"

quote:

This discussion goes on and on-- but does it matter how the hitter does it as long as he hits with success?

Yeah really. I just got Ripkin's book on fundamentals and he emphasizes for coaches to "celebrate the individual" and teach them and experiment with them. With hitting, if he can't hit beans with linear, try rotational.
However I find that the better hitters at any level are rotational. Just my observation. And the technique has worked for me. That don't mean everyone has to do it, Luis Castillo isn't rotational and if I was his hitting coach, I wouldn't change a thing.

Guys thanks for all the info. After watching many clips of my son I will not change a thing. I did purchase the Final Arc DVD and it has some great drills. But once again if it aint broke don't fix, right?

Thanks for all the info and this is a hot topic.

quote:

the hands better be linear to the ball.

This statement is why so many players can't hit............

bluedog,
go get a video clip of a professional hitter and tell me that his hands dont go directly linear (meaning on a down-ward path) to the ball. Every professional hitter does this and also see how much they spin (as in rotational).

When will "the BlueDog Tapes" be in the video stores?

.

Trying to get a grip....Tell me why I am wrong please...

A slightly more linear hitting approach results in the bat head being in the hitting zone (a linear to linear match) longer which means a better chance of contact, BUT at the expense of some power which is to a great extenht generated by rotation.

A slightly more rotational style means more bat head speed, but at the expense of shortening down the time that the bat head is in the contact zone making the process more powerful... but more difficult.

It would seem that more professional players use it becasue they have superior timing and CAN, while other less talented players may find more success because they have to stay in the zone longer to achieve better contact.

Am I wrong?

Rotational hitting is, in my opinion, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Think about this.. why have MLB batting averages dropped so much compared to the "old days"? It's the "Babe Ruth" Syndrome.

Power hitters are sought out. They are "prospects" for good (and obvious) reasons: Slugging percentage, RBI's, etc.
But the basic problem is that rotational hitters, as a rule, suffer due to more complicated mechanics than linear hitters. A lot can go wrong. Think about it, why is it that so many rotational hitters can't hit a curve ball? And conversely, if 10 or 20 times more players are being schooled in rotational hitting, and they are, why is it that LINEAR hitters (Ichiro, Pujols, etc.) are over-represented in the hitting stats?

The fact is, Americans want the home run. They don't want small ball. Linear hitters move the runners, hit behind the runners, hit for average, etc. This is boring to all but baseball people.. real baseball people.

Look, if you are training your son to be a rotational hitter, he has a one in 10,000 chance of making it. If you are training your son in linerar mechanics, the odds may be one in
1000, but his contract will be 10 times smaller.

There is good reason why the Japanese are beginning to prosper here. Wake up, America!

Whatever works!!!!

quote:

...why is it that LINEAR hitters (Ichiro, Pujols, etc.) are over-represented in the hitting stats?

Pujols...linear?

quote:

But the basic problem is that rotational hitters, as a rule, suffer due to more complicated mechanics than linear hitters.

...more complicated mechanics?

Great post.

Yes, a rotational and circular hand path increases bat speed meaning the bathead is in the contact zone longer. Meaning you can't hit curveballs? If your bat speed is quicker, then you can wait longer on a pitch and see where it breaks, meaning you have a batter chance of hitting breaking balls and offspeed stuff.
If contact hitting is a result of a slower bathead in the hitting zone for a longer time, then why isn't everyone bunting at every at bat?

how can you possibly say that Pujols isn't linear to the ball? Isn't that what makes a hitter linear?

My son did very well hitting this year in 14U travel ball. I am always looking for an edge for him. I have read the forum on http://www.batspeed.com for a couple of years, and I decided to purchase The Final Arc dvd and just got it the other day. After reviewing it I've learned that my kid is much more linear than rotational, and he ain't changing.

You don't have to be 100% of either one to be considered "linear" or "rotational" to be 100% of either is virtually impossible. Hank Aaron was a "linear" hitter... Bonds is "rotational". Basically figure out whatever works for you and disregard all the nonsensical baseball jargon.

quote:

...After reviewing it I've learned that my kid is much more linear than rotational, and he ain't changing.

Couldn't agree more. There is no way to hit the ball hard consistently if you don't have a straight line hand path.

Circular hand path hitters pull off the ball, can't hit opposite field and generally are feast or famine. Home run or strike out.

Give me 9 Ichiro's please.

I'd rather have nine Barry Bonds's

I'd rather have nine Albert Pujol's (linear).

quote:

There is no way to hit the ball hard consistently if you don't have a straight line hand path.

There is no such thing as a truly straight hand path. If you think there is, you've never seen video. Try viewing this clip: http://www.youthbaseballcoaching.com/mpg/Rose.mpeg. One of the greatest singles hitter of all time (Pete Rose), from overhead, watch his hands curve around his body. It is physically impossible to direct the hands on a straight line towards the pitcher. What are they going to do, go straight at the pitcher, then make a 90 degree turn, at full speed, towards the front shoulder? That's like taking a car straight at a corner at full speed and expecting to take a 90 degree turn...physically impossible. There are no straight lines in the swing. Anyone with a VCR can figure that out. Tape any swing, play it in slow mo, see for yourself.

quote:

A slightly more rotational style means more bat head speed, but at the expense of shortening down the time that the bat head is in the contact zone making the process more powerful... but more difficult.

Observer
Coaches, scouts, owners, AD's don't care how difficult it is for MOST players. They don't want those players.

They want the players that make it look easy to hit it far and often.

Awesome video and definately an example of rotational hitting as defined by Mankin. Roses swing looks almost identical to what Mankin is teaching in his Final Arc DVD on rotational hitting. Rose's front shoulder has cleared and passed 90' when he makes contact with the ball, bottom hand and front shoulder pulling, top hand helping a little but mostly a long for the ride. I think the rotational side thinks that linear hitter's shoulders are no where near as open at contact. This seems to be the biggest difference to me.

Here's another clip from a hitter that people would probably consider linear...Luis Gonzalez...http://www.youthbaseballcoaching.com/mpg/L._Gonzalez02.mpeg
Notice the hands being pulled towards rightfield BEFORE contact. And if I had clips of Ichiro or Pujols, it would show the same thing..the hands traveling on a slightly curving path, around the body, to meet the ball. Beacuse that is the one and only way to hit a baseball correctly...

Gonzalez's swing is rotational by definition of Mankin also. It is even a better example than Rose's video. Gonzalez drops his back elbow down right to his side. If you go back and look at Rose's video, his back elbow stays in the same location to his back side through almost the entire swing. I'm not a proponent of rotational hitting, as I'm the one that said that my kid is linear and he ain't changing. But in my opinion, these videos are very good examples of rotational hitting as I learned about last night from watching Mankin's Final Arc DVD video.

I just showed my kid the video, and he thinks so too.

quote:

It is impossible to be 100% linear.

I agree... you'd hit the pitcher with the bat if you were..

I agree with bbscout. A rotation has to occur at some point in the swing; before, at or after contact with the ball. These video's show these major leaguer's top half fully rotated at the point they make contact with the ball. This is rotational hitting. I'm going back to the IL forum now. Have fun.

Pretty good video of the hand path to the ball for a pitch away from the all-time hits and bets leader. lol.

Yet when did hand path to the ball become 100% a part of the late 70's discussion with respect to lower half hitting mechanics?

Or will linear vs rotation hitting mechanics turn into the hands vs hips debate of the 60's?

Bottom line: A player can either hit (or NOT hit) big league pitching. Those that hit, play.
With that said, there are three types of hitters:
1) The Masher
2) Hits yet can't run.
3) Runs

A Jones is becoming a masher (if not there already).

Oh no, I found my kid down stairs working on hitting drills from the rotational hitting dvd. Cr**!

I don't know. I saw the clips and I saw linear.

Maybe this link will help...
http://www.grand-illusions.com/woman.htm



Kidding aside, is the "straight" hand path more of a relative thing? I.e., take a "straighter" approach to the ball than simply following the rotation of your body?

Anyway, my son just started lessons with a respected teacher who played college ball for an ACC team and 7 seasons professionally. His claim to fame was being a hitter. I saw his showcase team play and each player could put wood on the ball quite well.

So, at the lesson, they matched up a video of my son to video of an MLB hitter and tweaked a number of things. One of the first things they wanted to adjust was to make him more of a "linear" hitter than a "circular" hitter. What I saw on the Rose clip looked like what my son described to me that he was being taught.

Whatever they did, my son is now hitting balls off the tee on a rope to a small target on the back of the cage (a very long cage). He's also seen dramatic improvement in hitting pitches. He seems happy with it.

Thanks SnowBall. I see a beautiful woman, but she doesn't seem to be looking at me.

Maybe the rotational guru's don't know that they are really teaching linear hitting. Or maybe they do know and are just pulling an old Obe Wan Jedi Mind Trick on us, "How do you like my linear hitting style master ..... That is rotational hitting you are doing young Skywalker ..... Oh, yes, rotational hitting, thank you master."

I think you guys bring up a good point about perspective. Personally, I don't like labels. The words "rotational" and "linear" are like "conservative" and "liberal," use them and half the people will cringe on response. So it's not about whether rotational or linear "cues" are better, it's about figuring out what actually works. Just teach it the way it's actually done correctly.

Myself, I can't stand instructors who rely entirely on over-compensation. "You have to attempt to swing straight down to avoid upper-cutting". "If you stay back on ground balls, charge them all at full speed". Imagine if you went for Golf lessons with a slice, and your teacher told you to hook the ball? That's what "staight to the ball" is to me. "You want to avoid a sweeping swing by going straight at it"...Give the hitter enough credit to learn and repeat the correct swing!