"Lost Secrets of Hitting"

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.

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.

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?

Who said anything about stride?

Sorry, I was trying to save us all a few steps. Let me start at the typical beginning.

What's the "linear component"?

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"

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.

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.

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.

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?

quote:

Originally posted by SultanofSwat:
Sorry, I was trying to save us all a few steps. 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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy33:
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'm confused. Swing down like this "/" when the ball is coming in like this "\"?

BTW, this is a good discussion to have. Prime9 suckered me into this

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!

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....