Skip to main content

103 replies

"Lost Secrets of Hitting"

Low FinishLow Finish500+ posts
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?
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Jimmy33Jimmy3310+ posts
The article is pretty good. It explains the way a hitter needs to swing to have a higher chance of success.

The old "Rotational" vs. "Linear" battle cracks me up. As if labeling a swing or instruction method matters. The truth is that there are both rotational AND linear components to a good swing at different moments throughout the sequence.

This article is not advocating either styles, what it states is some facts about what hitters feel within the swing to come to the result that we see on video.

What the hitter feels vs. what is actually on video matters.
P Prime91,000+ posts
I enjoyed the article, thank you for the post.

Hang on for the "expert backlash" regarding terminology; "swinging down and resulting backspin, not swinging on an upward plane", etc.

The argument here seems to be more than just a difference in semantics although that is a huge part of the disagreements, IMO.

I agree with most everything there and it's simply written and well researched. Interestingly, the other big point of contention in hitting discussions on the HSBBW centers around linear vs. rotational force applications.

Like Jimmy33, I've always felt there is an element of both in great swings as they are in any movement required to generate power.

BlueDog, Sultan, where are you on this as if I don't know.
Last edited by Prime9
Low FinishLow Finish500+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by SultanofSwat:
quote:
The truth is that there are both rotational AND linear components to a good swing at different moments throughout the sequence.


You think the stride defines the rotational/linear debate?

One question. If I don't stride, can I use a linear swing?


Yes, because we see it more than we care to. Linear implies a lack of lower body involvement more than anything else. I would be so bold to say that between 80-90% of all hitters below NCAA level are linear. There are some hybrids. I simply don't see a lot of lower body involvement in many younger hitters.

About the article, for those saying that he advocates a "level to the ground" swing, he says "To the man, they displayed a nearly flat swing plane"
SultanofSwatSultanofSwat10,000+ posts
I hope I can be so bold as to skip a few steps ahead now.

Linear has nothing to do with the "stride" or with the "lower body".

Anything you can do with the stride or lower body can be done with either rotational or linear swings.

Now, let's skip to the final step. Smile

Rotational/linear differences are about the action of the arms - mostly the back arm.

Pure linear - notice how her hands get in front of her back hip immediately. Watch how the bat speed is generated only at full arm extension.
Last edited by SultanofSwat
Low FinishLow Finish500+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by SultanofSwat:
I hope I can be so bold as to skip a few steps ahead now.

Linear has nothing to do with the "stride" or with the "lower body".

Anything you can do with the stride or lower body can be done with either rotational or linear swings.

Now, let's skip to the final step. Smile

Rotational/linear differences are about the action of the arms - mostly the back arm.

Pure linear - notice how her hands get in front of her back hip immediately. Watch how the bat speed is generated only at full arm extension.


I guess you proved me wrong. Jack Mankin (not sure how many of you like/dislike his work) talks about how linear and rotational are basically about the action of the arms.

What do you think about the article?
Jimmy33Jimmy3310+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by SultanofSwat:
Sorry, I was trying to save us all a few steps. Smile Let me start at the typical beginning.

What's the "linear component"?


Well, it sounds like you have very strong feelings on this so I'll try to keep it simple. Also, it should be known that to take the word "linear" and literally mean in a perfect line is not realistic.

Much like a pitcher tries to throw the baseball into a "linear" path to the catcher, the hitter is trying to throw his barrel through the pitch for as long a period of time as possible (with bat-speed and accuracy of course).

In my opinion one of the linear components of the swing is the path the sweet spot takes through the hitting zone. I know that it doesn't travel in a straight line but the longer the sweet spot stays through the pitch, the better.
SultanofSwatSultanofSwat10,000+ posts
The article is confusing and confused, I guess.

I can't make heads or tails out of this, his "lost secret".
quote:
This was accomplished by swinging on the same plane as the incoming pitch (which is going down) - level plane (level?), almost a chop (which would be opposite of the pitch plane?), in order to deliver the bat on a linear collision course with the pitch
Last edited by SultanofSwat
Jimmy33Jimmy3310+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by SultanofSwat:
quote:
The truth is that there are both rotational AND linear components to a good swing at different moments throughout the sequence.


You think the stride defines the rotational/linear debate?

One question. If I don't stride, can I use a linear swing?


Yes, your swing can have linear aspects without striding.
Jimmy33Jimmy3310+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by SultanofSwat:
The article is confusing and confused, I guess.

I can't make heads or tails out of this, his "lost secret".
quote:
This was accomplished by swinging on the same plane as the incoming pitch - level plane, almost a chop, in order to deliver the bat on a linear collision course with the pitch


He is explaining that the hitter has to keep his bat on course with the pitch (linear) by feeling like he is almost chopping.

I don't agree that every hitter has to "feel" this but some definitely do.
Jimmy33Jimmy3310+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by SultanofSwat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy33:
In my opinion one of the linear components of the swing is the path the sweet spot takes through the hitting zone.


So, you think people are arguing over whether to take the bat to the ball?


No, I said the argument cracks me up.

Too much of a circular bat path through the pitch is not good, so I would describe a more linear path through the ball to be better.
P Prime91,000+ posts
quote:
Better for what? All current MLB hitters use a rotational bat path.


Really, all of them? When did all MLB hitters adopt this style exclusive of any other?

In what way is the article discussion about swing plane and finish, related to rotational or linear styles?

Are we saying they are mutually exclusive? Are you saying that the hitters cited have mechanics peculiar to current MLB hitters?

By the way Sultan, I always love to hear you (and just about everyone, even Blue, talk hitting). Loved the video explanation and the quick to the essence approach. Unusual here, sometimes!
Last edited by Prime9
P Prime91,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by BlueDog:
The arms don't swing the bat....They turn the bat.....The hands swing the bat....The hands and the hips should provide the power in the swing....

These clips show the beginning of the arms turning the bat....



Can't argue that Blue. Thank you for the clip.

Now, what about the authors comments regarding old stars swings compared to more modern hitters?
P Prime91,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by BlueDog:
The hands stay torqued and the arms turn the bat into the swing plane....If the hands take over too early, the swing plane will be changed...



Can't quite read your marking but looks like your saying, and video shows, a swing down to meet the plane of the pitch then moving up to contact in this case? To me it looks like an arc as straight to the ball as possible with a finish thru, probably around shoulder/number height?
Last edited by Prime9
BlueDogBlueDog1,000+ posts
The reason for the arc in the swing plane is 'cause the arms are turning the bat.....When the arc bottoms out, the hands and the hips fire and the bat goes to the ball...

The hips and hands take over around the third and fourth red dots....The telltale sign is the hands go forward and the rear hip goes upward....

It took me a long time to learn the rear hip and the hands don't fire till later in the swing....

I've, also, learned that everyone knows something and nobody knows it all....
Last edited by BlueDog
Jimmy33Jimmy3310+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by SultanofSwat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy33:
Too much of a circular bat path through the pitch is not good, so I would describe a more linear path hrough the ball to be better.


Better for what? All current MLB hitters use a rotational bat path. There must be some advantage.


Did you know that they actually work very hard to lesson that rotation you speak of as the barrel travels through the hitting zone?

As I said, of course you can call it "rotational" because it doesn't travel in a perfectly straight line, but come on.

If watching from overhead would you desire the bat path to be more of a circle or an oval?

Do you believe that MLB hitters have the same path through the ball regardless of the location of the pitch?
Jimmy33Jimmy3310+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by SultanofSwat:
Pete Rose



You were telling us about a straight linear line?

Here is my previous quote
quote:
All current MLB hitters use a rotational bat path.


If you use a "linear" swing, the circle above would be more straight, or even an oval shape.


I was hoping you'd use this played out video.

Didn't I state that the sweet spot is thrown into a more linear path? You are showing the hand path. Watch the clip and see how many frames the "sweet spot" of the bat is in line with the incoming pitch.

You will see that his "sweet spot" is in line (linear) with the incoming pitch for 11 (ELEVEN) frames! 6 frames before contact and 5 frames after contact.

Thanks for the video.
Jimmy33Jimmy3310+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by SultanofSwat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy33:
Major League hitters do not think "Boy do I need to let my arms turn the bat more". I'm sorry. If any do, they are in the extreme minority.

The hitters that you study video of do not try to do what you are describing.


Jimmy is a mind reader. What am I thinking right now?


Who needs to read minds when I can speak to players and listen to what they tell me?
Jimmy33Jimmy3310+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by SultanofSwat:
quote:
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.


This was your first post. Seems like you are asking people to clear up confusion you have with rotational and linear. Now I'm confused.


The comment that created this mess brings up the fact that there are both rotational and linear aspects to a good Major League swing.

Do coaches disagree with this notion? If so, why?
Last edited by Jimmy33
Low FinishLow Finish500+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by SultanofSwat:
quote:
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.


This was your first post. Seems like you are asking people to clear up confusion you have with rotational and linear. Now I'm confused.


Sorry, I was vague. I meant that he uses contradictory language in the article that makes it very difficult to interpret. I would like to have some type of discussion about the article.

I don't have confusion with rotational and linear.
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!
getagoodpitchtohitgetagoodpitchtohit100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Low Finish:
quote:
Originally posted by BlueDog:
Gehrig.....



Technically speaking, he should be out. He's out of the box.

Notice the long stride and the resulting low finish.
The "tip and rip" motion probably helps him move the log that he's swinging.


Notice the bat is on a slight upswing thru the zone. Pronounced wrist roll-over shortly after contact. Contributes to flatter finish with both hands still attached to bat.

I think a lot of these old videos misrepresent the finish. They show pitches up and well out of today's strike zone, which affects the swing and the finish.

Look at the pitch location in this video. It is almost 2 feet from being a strike today. There are only a handful of hitters that would even offer at this today. The pitch location contributes to the flat finish. A pitch at the letters, which is no where close to a strike anymore, leads to a flatter finish.
T tfox100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Low Finish:
quote:
Originally posted by BlueDog:
Gehrig.....



Technically speaking, he should be out. He's out of the box.

Notice the long stride and the resulting low finish.
The "tip and rip" motion probably helps him move the log that he's swinging.


Actually his heel is still touching white which is still in the box.
SultanofSwatSultanofSwat10,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by redbird5:
quote:
Originally posted by SultanofSwat:
Watch any fastpitch softball game, or any youth baseball game from T-Ball to 12U.


I am a volunteer assistant at a college for FP. No one swings that way.



Former UCLA coach demonstrating the "perfect fastpitch swing".


You are seriously going to tell us that FP players aren't instructed to swing like this?
Last edited by SultanofSwat
P PGStaff10,000+ posts
If that is a linear swing by the former UCLA coach it's the worst example I've ever seen. She is displaying everything bad in a swing. And why is she starting the swing with her head in that position?

Would anyone actually teach this "weak" swing? I think she should be embarrassed, seriously! I would be willing to bet that her best hitters never used this swing.
P PGStaff10,000+ posts
I actually went to Sue Enquist's site and watched a video. She seems like a tremendous coach. On another site she describes the swing and what she writes makes sense. She even makes a point to mention... Make sure you don't roll over. Unfortunately she shows roll over in the clip.

I still say the swing she is displaying should embarrass her. Could anyone get the ball out of the infield with that swing?
SultanofSwatSultanofSwat10,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by PGStaff:
Could anyone get the ball out of the infield with that swing?


Not many do in FP. However, they are transitioning slowly to rotational. Most FP instructors use the right words, but still use mostly linear.

quote:
And why is she starting the swing with her head in that position?


Actually, she is is just looking at the video camera and talking, so that's not a problem.
Last edited by SultanofSwat
G gslack10+ posts
I am a new comer here and found this topic interesting so I hope you don't mind me putting in my 2 cents...

My father (big Ted williams and Joe D fan)taught me rotational style hitting from my first swing of a bat.He explained it to me as a process of getting the bat around through the strike zone as quickly as possible by using the torque generated by the twist of the hips, the weight shift from back to front, and the arms from shoulders to wrists and hands all acting as one unit.

I like to think of it like that of a boxers right cross. Good right cross gets its power from nearly the same process. A longer stride, or deeper bend in the back leg, or even tip of the head or back shoulder will do more for setting the trajectory or angle of a hit ball. Like throwing a right cross to a crouching opponents chin; a good puncher may close his stride a little and bend the back leg slightly more. This gives a better chance to hit with power on the chin of a opponent taking a lower plane.

For younger players who did not naturally swing with their bodies, my dad used to have them imagine entering the low outside corner of the strike zone and exiting the high inside corner on every swing. This gave them a longer period with the barrel in the strike zone and often resulted in more contact which gave them confidence. Confidence which gave them the desire to do more with their batting resulting in better performance.

Any swing that gets power only from one set of muscles in the body is going to be less powerful than a swing using multiple muscles groups in proper sequence. be it a linear path or rotational.
B brute66100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by SultanofSwat:
quote:
Originally posted by redbird5:
quote:
Originally posted by SultanofSwat:
Watch any fastpitch softball game, or any youth baseball game from T-Ball to 12U.


I am a volunteer assistant at a college for FP. No one swings that way.



Former UCLA coach demonstrating the "perfect fastpitch swing".


You are seriously going to tell us that FP players aren't instructed to swing like this?


I agree the UCLA coach is displaying poor swing mechanics. The most obvious flaw is seen in her hips which do not lead her swing. Ideally (as noted here by others), the hips should turn first with the upper body following and the bat passing through the hitting zone last.

She is also rolling her wrists through the hitting zone. This is a serious flaw that reduces bat speed and alters the swing plane. Wrist rolling creates a TON of opportunities for middle infielders though...they love it.

There is (still) no better book on the subject of hitting mechanics than Ted Williams' brilliant and well-written "The Science of Hitting". He doesn't try to differentiate between rotational and linear since a proper swing is neither one or the other. He goes into great detail on how to generate optimum bat speed and swing path.

http://books.google.com/books?...#v=onepage&q&f=false

These techniques are more important than ever today for young players who no longer swing the cheater sticks of the past 15 years.
Last edited by brute66
G gslack10+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by SultanofSwat:
quote:
Originally posted by redbird5:
quote:
Originally posted by SultanofSwat:
Watch any fastpitch softball game, or any youth baseball game from T-Ball to 12U.


I am a volunteer assistant at a college for FP. No one swings that way.



Former UCLA coach demonstrating the "perfect fastpitch swing".


You are seriously going to tell us that FP players aren't instructed to swing like this?


Not knowing the coach or the context of the video, (perhaps it is an attempt to show a linear path to the ball) I have to say I had a 15 yr old player with nearly the same swing. He swung it much faster causing his back leg to lift to keep his balance, but the swing was the same path.

He told me this was how he was taught to swing by his coaches and parent before coming to my team this season. I tried to explain to him the problem with it now that the kids throw much harder and often throw breaking pitches, but he just would not change. His BA was pathetic and when he did hit the ball won the war of attrition at the plate resulting in little dingers to short, second or pitcher. He got on base from a hit twice the entire season.

Sadly their are many coaches and parents out there attempting to teach the power "V" and follow the Charlie Lau/Cal Ripken method but have little to no experience or applicable knowledge of it. And the results are kids who can't hit past the infield if they hit at all once the pitches start coming harder and break.

With softball even FP, the larger ball and thinner, lighter and faster bats allow for a lot more linear a path to the ball. A 27 ounce 34 or even 36 inch bat can be swung with just the arms and result in at least a single.

Sadly a baseball swing like that results in garbage. But as long as softball players and coaches have success in softball swinging like that, they will all too often coach the same to a baseball team. Also when players are younger and the pitches rarely break 65 mph, they can often get decent results and a high average with it if their hands are fast enough and their coordination permits it.

I had no less than 4 other players who told me they were taught that at one point as well when they were younger.
G gslack10+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by SultanofSwat:
Just so there is no confusion...

Power V is rotational + extension of the back elbow at contact.

Linear is not just extension + wrist flip. Notice how her hands immediately get in front of her back shoulder and hip.



Agreed and as I said, the well meaning parents and or coaches often teach the power "v" incorrectly resulting in the type of swing we see in the video. Many times the logic may be "it works in softball so why not here". Which as anyone can see is not going to cut it once the ball is coming in above 70+ regularly.
Next

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.
×