Skip to main content

103 replies

"Lost Secrets of Hitting"

Jimmy33Jimmy3310+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by tfox:
Mike epstein pretty much coined the phrase rotational hitting. Here is a video clip of it being explained along with the linear aspect of a rotational swing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...youtube_gdata_player


This is exactly why I said this debate between these two words cracks me up.

By the way, the negative (backwards) head and axis movement while hitting soft toss (the college player in the video) is a sure sign of disaster against game speed pitching.

To coin the term rotational hitting doesn't matter here. The term "rotational" alone as well as "linear" alone are poor hitting cues.

We shouldn't be all or nothing here. Both words can be and should be used when teaching kids how to hit properly.

Should we describe the aspects in a pitcher's delivery as rotational or linear? Both?

Also how would extension be categorized? Rotational or linear?
Last edited by Jimmy33
SultanofSwatSultanofSwat10,000+ posts
The Epstein video is a little confused, at best.

He thinks linear hitting is primarily lunging. You can tell he doesn't really know, he says "we don't have a video of a linear hitter".

You can use linear with or without lunging. You can use rotational with or without lunging.

Lunging is a swing fault.

Some hitters in the 80s and 90s used linear and also lunged. One of my kids took lessons from a MILB player that used linear and also lunged exactly as Epstein describes.
Last edited by SultanofSwat
BlueDogBlueDog1,000+ posts
quote:
Who needs to read minds when I can speak to players and listen to what they tell me?


This is what this guy Jimmy says.....Then, he goes on to belittle Mike Epstein.....

Well, Mike Epstein was quite a hitter in MLB playing under Ted Williams as his manager.....Well, here's what I'm thinking...I'm thinking this guy Jimmy should be listening more and talking less! Big Grin
Last edited by BlueDog
Jimmy33Jimmy3310+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by BlueDog:
quote:
Who needs to read minds when I can speak to players and listen to what they tell me?


This is what this guy Jimmy says.....Then, he goes on to belittle Mike Epstein.....

Well, Mike Epstein was quite a hitter in MLB playing under Ted Williams as his manager.....Well, here's what I'm thinking...I'm thinking this guy Jimmy should be listening more and talking less! Big Grin


Never belittled anyone. Mike Epstein has earned everything he's done and created in the game.

I just have different views than you do when it comes to being a well rounded coach.
P Prime91,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Low Finish:
I read this the other day, and I'd like to know what you guys think about it.

http://baseballtips.com/lostsecrets.html

He says a lot of stuff that is agreed with by the rotational instructors, but he also writes about a "chopping motion" that seems to be linear. I'm kind of confused about it. Opinions on the article?


Again, I thought the premise of the article as posted above, makes for interesting debate.

However, as I predicted, the discussions here haven't really addressed the question; "did the power hitters of old have a flatter arc/swing that accounts for their higher BA's and lower strikeouts than the "modern sluggers?"
Low FinishLow Finish500+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by BlueDog:
quote:
"did the power hitters of old have a flatter arc/swing that accounts for their higher BA's and lower strikeouts than the "modern sluggers?"


I explained this earlier in this same thread....


I think that your explanation makes a lot of sense. Hitting with a forward tilt (DiMaggio, Williams, Aaron, Musial) will result in a lower finish than swinging with a backwards tilt.

However, the people he refers to in his article are nearly IMPOSSIBLE to get decent video of. If anybody has footage of Ralph Kiner, Vern Stephens, Pete Reiser, or Ken Boyer swinging a bat, I'd love to see it.

Here are some clips that I think have some important lessons. Not anything fancy, but what great hitters said they did (They have some good lessons in there)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35kzleq4KwM (Gehrig)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lyu7Y3bR7Ck (DiMaggio)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uieLlwfBoyQ (Hornsby)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ufCEuM9ZY (Foxx)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5-3iRezq1I (Batting practice film of players I can't identify) Looks like Williams is in there, along with Ruth.
Low FinishLow Finish500+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by SultanofSwat:
The Epstein video is a little confused, at best.

He thinks linear hitting is primarily lunging. You can tell he doesn't really know, he says "we don't have a video of a linear hitter".

You can use linear with or without lunging. You can use rotational with or without lunging.

Lunging is a swing fault.

Some hitters in the 80s and 90s used linear and also lunged. One of my kids took lessons from a MILB player that used linear and also lunged exactly as Epstein describes.


I can't think of any linear hitter playing in the MLB today. If you can, who?
P Prime91,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Low Finish:
quote:
Originally posted by SultanofSwat:
The Epstein video is a little confused, at best.

He thinks linear hitting is primarily lunging. You can tell he doesn't really know, he says "we don't have a video of a linear hitter".

You can use linear with or without lunging. You can use rotational with or without lunging.

Lunging is a swing fault.

Some hitters in the 80s and 90s used linear and also lunged. One of my kids took lessons from a MILB player that used linear and also lunged exactly as Epstein describes.


I can't think of any linear hitter playing in the MLB today. If you can, who?


Ichiro?
B baseballpapa100+ posts
The Lost Secrets of Hitting is also a video by Ellis. He's a great guy & has significantly contributed to hitting theory.

His premise from looking @ old video is the finish should be flatter to match the plane of the pitch with that of the swing instead of the V-shaped swing being taught by many if not most.

The older hitters he has in the tape have significant linear head movement which facilitated a flatter finish. As with older golfers, there was a tendency to swing with the head moving from the back foot to the front foot. This resulted in a flat finish. Aaron's head moved over 20 inches as he strode into the ball and hit with his back foot often off the ground.

The modern hitter fixes the rotational axis point. Therefore, just a if you built a machine to fix a rotational axis point, the finish will go to the same plane it left. Thus the V-shaped swing.

If this is truly post-steroid, I think you will see more momentum into the ball with more head movement. If you do, you will see a flatter finish. I don't teach finish. It is a result of what precedes it. If you fix the rotational axis off the front foot and strive for a flat finish, you would have to fight over the contact area, force the hands over and would slow the swing down and lose power.
Low FinishLow Finish500+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by baseballpapa:
The Lost Secrets of Hitting is also a video by Ellis. He's a great guy & has significantly contributed to hitting theory.

His premise from looking @ old video is the finish should be flatter to match the plane of the pitch with that of the swing instead of the V-shaped swing being taught by many if not most.

The older hitters he has in the tape have significant linear head movement which facilitated a flatter finish. As with older golfers, there was a tendency to swing with the head moving from the back foot to the front foot. This resulted in a flat finish. Aaron's head moved over 20 inches as he strode into the ball and hit with his back foot often off the ground.

The modern hitter fixes the rotational axis point. Therefore, just a if you built a machine to fix a rotational axis point, the finish will go to the same plane it left. Thus the V-shaped swing.

If this is truly post-steroid, I think you will see more momentum into the ball with more head movement. If you do, you will see a flatter finish. I don't teach finish. It is a result of what precedes it. If you fix the rotational axis off the front foot and strive for a flat finish, you would have to fight over the contact area, force the hands over and would slow the swing down and lose power.


IMO, a V-shaped swing would involve 1. High hands,
2. Sharp downswing 3. High Finish.

But you do raise some interesting points. Most old-timers had more of a linear movement forward than today's hitters. (Musial, Aaron, Ruth, even Williams had some)
B baseballpapa100+ posts
I think I understand head movement. First I think the head tends to center between the feet when a hitter fixes their rotational axis. So if the hitter starts 2 inches back of center & strides 8 inches, the head will tend to move 2 + 8/2 = 6 inches in my example.

Also, I believe there was more linear head movement because of greater stride lengths until the steroid era. The average head movement linear according to one author was about 9 inches.

I also don't think the head moving is a big problem as long as it is moving toward the ball.

Lastly, I believe if there is less use of steroids you will see more stride into the ball & therefore more head movement.
Low FinishLow Finish500+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by baseballpapa:
I think I understand head movement. First I think the head tends to center between the feet when a hitter fixes their rotational axis. So if the hitter starts 2 inches back of center & strides 8 inches, the head will tend to move 2 + 8/2 = 6 inches in my example.

Also, I believe there was more linear head movement because of greater stride lengths until the steroid era. The average head movement linear according to one author was about 9 inches.

I also don't think the head moving is a big problem as long as it is moving toward the ball.

Lastly, I believe if there is less use of steroids you will see more stride into the ball & therefore more head movement.


Stride length and power are unrelated. Power comes from the core muscles. However, I do agree with you that the head moving toward the ball (as long as it isn't excessive) is not horrible. Then again, the old-timers swung logs compared to today's bats. Perhaps the stride helped them move the bat.

Unfortunately, it gets coached out of kids. You know what I'm talking about (short stride, you must not move your head, you must finish high, you must swing in a shallow "U" type plane, and of course, your hands should never drop from the launch position).

It ruins kids. I've seen well intentioned fathers ruin their sons because of some nonsense they read in a book.
B baseballpapa100+ posts
I hesitate to post the following, but...
I don't think most power is from the core & I do believe stride, depending upon how you define it does contribute to power.

Before I explain I agree with both of you on a couple of comments. Let the stride happen & many lessons are killing the ability to hit. (I took the liberty to paraphrase).

Power numbers are significantly down in MLB. This is probably due to (1) less ped use & (2) the current players swing was better tailored to ped use.

Players had more momentum into the ball when Aaron played. He did not have power in spite of his stride length & head movement, they contributed.

Most power is not from the core. A 90 mph swing speed starts from the ground, chains through the legs and core and ends with delayed wrists bringing the barrel through the ball with significant rotational force. You can't move your core 15 mph. The whole chain is important &it is OK to tell the hitter that most of the power is from the core, but know that it is not. Most rotational speed is from the delayed wrists that were put in the proper position by the whole chain.

The stride can be negative (Bagwell), rotational knee turn in (Pujols), linear (Aaron), or leg kick (Arod). The weight transfers to the heel, all stops on the front & the backside comes through. This stride does contribute to power. However, there is a trade-off. Watch video of hitters in the home run contest versus their normal swing, you will see more exaggerated strides or leg kicks.
B baseballpapa100+ posts
Hey Bluedog.

I am sitting in a restaurant watching hitters stride in the MLB on TV. They stride for timing and additional power. I'm not saying much power comes from the stride. It really comes from the stop then rotate. And power is chained. I don't think it is a problem to tell a hitter most of the power is from the core, but it is not physically true. It is a misconception that has bred through time.

It is the same reason that a catcher can throw 75+ from his knees and a shortstop can wheel and throw in the air pretty hard to first, but a pitcher chooses to stride out to pitch. The catcher does not get lower body rotation from the knees and the short stop is not "connected."

The pitcher creates momentum towards the plate, the foot plants and the forward momentum stops, the backside momemtum continues, it chains up and through the body, then the pitch is delivered with the HAND going 90+ MPH.

What power hitters don't stride? As I tried to imply it is not the forward push or stride, but the transfer to the front side that stops, whether rotational or a linear step that matters. The transfer is not when the foot lands, but when the heal becomes connected. Also, Casey pointed out in the last home run contest the hitters exaggerate their normal stride (trigger) during the contest. That is why it is a trade-off. They can't do that during regular games because they will swing and miss too often, but it does translate to more power.

It is fun to post again, it has been a while.

Hope all is well.
Last edited by baseballpapa
BlueDogBlueDog1,000+ posts
quote:
What power hitters don't stride?


First of all, all is well...May the same be for you!

Well, there have been a few who started off with feet spread wide and basically lift the front foot and put it back down in virtually the same place who had power......Probably not a true no-stride, but, considered to be, anywyay!

These are the same guy, of course!



Last edited by BlueDog
Low FinishLow Finish500+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by baseballpapa:
I hesitate to post the following, but...
I don't think most power is from the core & I do believe stride, depending upon how you define it does contribute to power.

Before I explain I agree with both of you on a couple of comments. Let the stride happen & many lessons are killing the ability to hit. (I took the liberty to paraphrase).

Power numbers are significantly down in MLB. This is probably due to (1) less ped use & (2) the current players swing was better tailored to ped use.

Players had more momentum into the ball when Aaron played. He did not have power in spite of his stride length & head movement, they contributed.

Most power is not from the core. A 90 mph swing speed starts from the ground, chains through the legs and core and ends with delayed wrists bringing the barrel through the ball with significant rotational force. You can't move your core 15 mph. The whole chain is important &it is OK to tell the hitter that most of the power is from the core, but know that it is not. Most rotational speed is from the delayed wrists that were put in the proper position by the whole chain.

The stride can be negative (Bagwell), rotational knee turn in (Pujols), linear (Aaron), or leg kick (Arod). The weight transfers to the heel, all stops on the front & the backside comes through. This stride does contribute to power. However, there is a trade-off. Watch video of hitters in the home run contest versus their normal swing, you will see more exaggerated strides or leg kicks.


I hate this argument, but I only have one counter-example: Joe DiMaggio

Pujols strides from time to time. Every player strides, it's just a question of if he moves forward.
B baseballpapa100+ posts
I think we've looked too much at hitters and their styles in the PED era and should look at the hitters with power before this time.

Too many expensive lessons to (1) spread out the legs, (2) deaden the hands, (3) deaden the legs, throw metal in hitting area and if you can't hit like that there is something wrong with you not my lessons.

By the way, the Pete Rose circle swing picture is over-used for me. He had 24% extra base hits and the AVERAGE major league hitter has 33%. Don't really like his slap swing for teaching my kids. I would rather they hit through the ball with as much bat speed as possible and not slap or circle the ball like Rose did.

Show me Tony Gwynn also. When he was winning batting titles he was not even the 30th most productive hitter in the league. Same goes for Boggs and Carew. I'm not disrespecting them, they just don't have the run production as other hitters in the same era they played. You don't win by batting average, on-base or slugging stats, you win by scoring more runs than the other team. The stat that most explains runs scored is OPS.

By the way, if you have not read Ellis' The Mike Schmidt Study, it is worth the read. It's a great blend between Williams and Lau.
Last edited by baseballpapa
Low FinishLow Finish500+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by baseballpapa:
I think we've looked too much at hitters and their styles in the PED era and should look at the hitters with power before this time.

Too many expensive lessons to (1) spread out the legs, (2) deaden the hands, (3) deaden the legs, throw metal in hitting area and if you can't hit like that there is something wrong with you not my lessons.

By the way, the Pete Rose circle swing picture is over-used for me. He had 24% extra base hits and the AVERAGE major league hitter has 33%. Don't really like his slap swing for teaching my kids. I would rather they hit through the ball with as much bat speed as possible and not slap or circle the ball like Rose did.

Show me Tony Gwynn also. When he was winning batting titles he was not even the 30th most productive hitter in the league. Same goes for Boggs and Carew. I'm not disrespecting them, they just don't have the run production as other hitters in the same era they played. You don't win by batting average, on-base or slugging stats, you win by scoring more runs than the other team. The stat that most explains runs scored is OPS.

By the way, if you have not read Ellis' The Mike Schmidt Study, it is worth the read. It's a great blend between Williams and Lau.


Tell me, are you also in favor of emulation being the primary teaching technique rather than lessons? I sure am. As I've said, the modern system of teaching appears to involve taking Junior to the nearest "certified" instructor. Certified can mean a lot of things, so don't think I'm bashing Epstein (I like Epstein). "Pay $500, and your nonathletic child can look vaguely like a big-leaguer when he hits too!"

I've read the Mike Schmidt Study about five times.
I wish Ellis had written his own book. I'm not sure that Schmidt understood the difference between what he called "weight-shift" and "Williams Rotation System". The main distinctions seem to center around swing plane and weight shift. Schmidt erroneously calls an uppercut a bad thing. He extols the virtues of the "level swing" and then supports it with inaccurate science. I prefer The Science of Hitting.

Old time hitters took bigger strides. This much is obvious. They also used heavier bats. I think the longer stride was a result of this. Of course, the factor of having a larger bat also led to the "tip and rip" that parents try to coach out of their children today.
getagoodpitchtohitgetagoodpitchtohit100+ posts
How about a foursome then?
Did the old-time hitters train year-round honing their skills and their bodies into finely tuned, highly skilled athletic machines?
Did old-time hitters face virtually every pitcher throwing fastballs in the 90's and upper 80's sliders?
Did the old-time hitters simply use the bats that were available at the time and adapted their swings accordingly?
Did the pitchers they faced train year-round to perfect their mechanics, arms and bodies?
Did the pitchers they faced have every pitch of every at-bat charted of every hitter charted?
Did the pitchers they faced have video and detailed scouting reports of every of hitter?
Players have evolved. The game has evolved.
Key things that haven't/won't change.
Weight shift. Momentum to and through the ball. Bat head on plane at contact.
There's no exact blueprint. Players come in all shapes and sizes, different strengths and weaknesses.
Get player comfortable (key!) in stance and approach to ball (big stride, no stride, small stride, whatever), then you're well on your way. Tweak and adapt the core components as necessary from there.
Then, work really hard!
PreviousNext

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.
×