Is a rotational swing a good swing to have as a young hitter?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
It depends on your definition of rotational...
..what is rotational to you, cibaseball?
..what is rotational to you, cibaseball?
I don't have a definition. That's why I am asking. Just trying to learn.
Path19- level swing? what does the level path mean?
Ci- if you had to choose between Linear or Rotational, from a physics standpoint, you better go with Rotational...
Ci- if you had to choose between Linear or Rotational, from a physics standpoint, you better go with Rotational...
quote:Originally posted by cibaseball:
Is a rotational swing a good swing to have as a young hitter?
Yes.
Why learn a swing that doesn't work as you get older? Why not learn the right swing from the start?
In my experience, linear hitting mechanics start to run out of gas around 3rd or 4th grade as infielders get better.
only 29 days until November.
There is no such thing as Linear hitting mechanics.
All swings have Lateral movements and also rotational ones too.
Linear is to suggest a hitter is lunging and gets his COG out over and in front of his Landing leg.
All swings have Lateral movements and also rotational ones too.
Linear is to suggest a hitter is lunging and gets his COG out over and in front of his Landing leg.
quote:Originally posted by Vance34:
All swings have Lateral movements and also rotational ones too.
Yep.
We coach/teach a rotational swing. However, any swing isn't exclusive of both forces. It then comes down to what your coach believes in. If your coach doesn't believe in either approach, then what is best for you? We use terms such as connection, power V, knee chase, heel - toe, posture, ...
Do some research and you've begun to do that here on this site. Ask opinions from those you trust about various hitting guru's advice. There are a million DVDs... on the market. Watch yourself in videos and try to determine what you percieve to be your flaws. What "latest greatest guru's" concepts best fits you regarding technique and your basic understanding of what they are saying? I've tried to study them all. I'm still ignorant. Based upon what I've been exposed to I am amazed that I've found someone that explains hitting in ways that I've always tried to teach it. Do enough research and you will be able to find that person that makes the lightbulb go off for you. JMHO!
Do some research and you've begun to do that here on this site. Ask opinions from those you trust about various hitting guru's advice. There are a million DVDs... on the market. Watch yourself in videos and try to determine what you percieve to be your flaws. What "latest greatest guru's" concepts best fits you regarding technique and your basic understanding of what they are saying? I've tried to study them all. I'm still ignorant. Based upon what I've been exposed to I am amazed that I've found someone that explains hitting in ways that I've always tried to teach it. Do enough research and you will be able to find that person that makes the lightbulb go off for you. JMHO!
What ever happend to "grab a bat and hit the ball?" Be careful gentlemen not to over teach hitting and confuse these young players. That is great advice coachb25. Keep it simple. Forget terms like rotational and linear. We are teaching a bunch of robots instead of baseball players. What happens when you have two stikes and he throws you a nastly slider that you have to some how stay on and get the barrel to? Are you worrying about linear or rotational approaches? If you are, it is strike three. The game now teaches swingers intstead of hitters. There is a big difference. I am currently coaching an 18 and under travel team, my first experience outside professional baseball in 12 years, and I am appalled at the way the game has changed. We are developing showcase players instead of baseball players. Not many gamers out there anymore. They all have what they think are pretty swings, but they don't hit. So, my advice, find something that makes sense for you, work your tail off and when you get in the batter's box, it is game on! Forget mechanics, and focus on the baseball and what the pitcher is trying to do to you. See it and try your darndest to put the barrell on it!
www.baseballpros.net
www.baseballpros.net
bubandbran, that slider you refered to has made an idiot of me more than once!
Hear, hear!
I often wonder how the average 10-year-old would react if a coach actually tried to use some of the terminology we see on this site with him.
Actually, I know how. There's a guy here locally doing it and he confuses the heck out of most of his pupils, for a handsome fee no less.
Why not start a kid out with major league swing instruction? For the same reason we don't teach calculus to first graders. They have to learn the basics first, then get more sophisticated as they progress. It's easier to learn incrementally over time than all at once, especially when some of the concepts are pretty complex for a young mind to embrace.
IMHO, you're doing well if you can get your Little Leaguer to put the sweet spot on the ball consistently. Most kids don't. Until they master that, the rest of this is over their heads.
I often wonder how the average 10-year-old would react if a coach actually tried to use some of the terminology we see on this site with him.
Actually, I know how. There's a guy here locally doing it and he confuses the heck out of most of his pupils, for a handsome fee no less.
Why not start a kid out with major league swing instruction? For the same reason we don't teach calculus to first graders. They have to learn the basics first, then get more sophisticated as they progress. It's easier to learn incrementally over time than all at once, especially when some of the concepts are pretty complex for a young mind to embrace.
IMHO, you're doing well if you can get your Little Leaguer to put the sweet spot on the ball consistently. Most kids don't. Until they master that, the rest of this is over their heads.
bubandbran,
That sounds like the advice my husband used to have for my son on the way out the door to his game: "See the ball, hit the ball!" Very simple statement, but there is a lot of truth to it. But hubby was also known to say "Keep your stick on the ice!", and I'm not sure that was very helpful in baseball.
That sounds like the advice my husband used to have for my son on the way out the door to his game: "See the ball, hit the ball!" Very simple statement, but there is a lot of truth to it. But hubby was also known to say "Keep your stick on the ice!", and I'm not sure that was very helpful in baseball.
I hear you. For the younger guys especially, simple is better. It is hard to hit a round ball that is moving with a round bat. Then when you are thinking about your hands, hips, head, toes, lips, heel, right eyelid, that makes it even more confusing. I am all for teaching. I have a cage in my backyard and do private instruction. The younger guys get taught the basics over and over and I drill them on making solid contact. Then with all kids, the last 15 minutes of the lesson, we play a simulated game, where I throw to them and they have to compete to win a game. We usually play three innings and I am the pitcher, other team, score keeper, umpire, and cheerleader. The kids love it and they learn more about themselves and how to hit to win in those 15 minutes then any mechanics I can teach them.
www.baseballpros.net
www.baseballpros.net
quote:Originally posted by Vance34:
There is no such thing as Linear hitting mechanics...Linear is to suggest a hitter is lunging and gets his COG out over and in front of his Landing leg.
I disagree.
In my opinion, linear hitters emphasize swinging with the arms, wrists, and hands while rotational hitters emphasize swinging with the body (I make this distinction between both linear and rotational hitters can take a stride).
IMHO, linear mechanics are not compatible with how the body works best (because the arms, wrists, and hands aren't strong enough) and will not maximize the power in the swing.
quote:Originally posted by bubandbran:
What ever happend to "grab a bat and hit the ball?" Be careful gentlemen not to over teach hitting and confuse these young players.
I agree.
The problem is that some "linear" clues like "drive the hands at the ball" and "make the power V" will ruin a kid's swing.
It's not harmless advice.
Very well said Florida Fan. There is no exact right or wrong answer, but in my opinion, this assesment is right on. Great post!
www.baseballpros.net
www.baseballpros.net
thepainguy, the "power v" I'm referring to is the result of a rotational swing and has nothing to do with a linear approach. It is the result of the power generated from the swing and is, in essense the product after the ball has been struck. I've discussed this concept with many rotational guys and to a person, they all agree that once that power has been generated, it has to result in the arms moving away from the body. Again, only after the ball is struck. You can see this in numerous players. One professional well cited on this site has a different and more accurate phrase for this but he and I have discussed it and we agree that the result is the same. BTW, I'm not talking about "extension."
quote:Originally posted by CoachB25:
thepainguy, the "power v" I'm referring to is the result of a rotational swing and has nothing to do with a linear approach.
I have no problem with a player making the "power v" after contact (since that's what guys like Pujols do).
The problem is that some kids (like I was) are taught that they need to make the "power v" at the point of contact.
In my experience that creates disconnection, which results in less batspeed and thus less power.
quote:Originally posted by floridafan:
When drilling a hitter to have quick hands, it seems that alot of emphisis is placed on having the quickest path to the location of the ball. I believe that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line...There seems to be alot of reference to lines, projecting power to point of contact (lines), extension (lines)...all indicating lines.
The problem is that the whole "shortest distance betweem two points..." argument doesn't hold up. The head of the bat will actually move faster if it is whipped out as a result of the hands moving in a circular path.
If the hands move in a linear path, you won't end up with as much batspeed because the hands aren't strong enough to whip the head of the bat around on their own. IMO, the hands are much better suited to holding onto the end of the bat as is naturally whips out as a result of the rotation of the body.
It's a little known fact, but...
The purpose of the knob at the end of the bat is to assist in this process of holding onto the bat as it whips around. Try cutting the knob off the end of a bat and then swinging the bat hard (don't try this inside). It's hard to hold onto the bat and keep it from flying out of your hands without the assistance provided by the knob.
Is a rotational swing a good swing to have as a young hitter?
Yep... sure is.
Only 82 days until Christmas!!!
Yep... sure is.
Only 82 days until Christmas!!!
If linear mechanics stress moving the hands straight to the ball why do 99% of major leaguers use a load as a part of their swing? Wouldn't they be better served by getting rid of this "unnecessary" motion?
If linear mechanics are best, how can hitters like Albert Pujols generate such power with a little stride? It's true there are a few (maybe 3) inches of forward movement in his body but why doesn't he generate less power than, say, a Sean Casey?
Why did Gary Matthews Jr. attribute his improvement in hitting this year to letting his bat lag, a movement you cannot duplicate in linear mechanics?
Why does a boxer get more power from an uppercut, which requires a turn of the hips and a circular hand path? Shouldn't a straight, short linear path jab generate more power if linear mechanics are best?
Why does a skater spin faster the closer his/her hands are to the body? Why do they move their hands away from their bodies to slow the spin?
If hitting from a closed front foot is best why do a number of the best hitters fully open their feet?
Rotation is the key to bat speed and bat speed is the key to success. Now I'm the first to admit that there are plenty of successful major leaguers who combine mechanics of both styles. Sean Casey, Juan Pierre, etc.
Here's the problem, however. Pro and college scouts are always looking for guys who can drive the ball and the more rotational mechanics you use, the more you drive the ball. If you are a more linear hitter you had better have plus, plus skills in other areas or you are not going to get a shot.
If linear mechanics are best, how can hitters like Albert Pujols generate such power with a little stride? It's true there are a few (maybe 3) inches of forward movement in his body but why doesn't he generate less power than, say, a Sean Casey?
Why did Gary Matthews Jr. attribute his improvement in hitting this year to letting his bat lag, a movement you cannot duplicate in linear mechanics?
Why does a boxer get more power from an uppercut, which requires a turn of the hips and a circular hand path? Shouldn't a straight, short linear path jab generate more power if linear mechanics are best?
Why does a skater spin faster the closer his/her hands are to the body? Why do they move their hands away from their bodies to slow the spin?
If hitting from a closed front foot is best why do a number of the best hitters fully open their feet?
Rotation is the key to bat speed and bat speed is the key to success. Now I'm the first to admit that there are plenty of successful major leaguers who combine mechanics of both styles. Sean Casey, Juan Pierre, etc.
Here's the problem, however. Pro and college scouts are always looking for guys who can drive the ball and the more rotational mechanics you use, the more you drive the ball. If you are a more linear hitter you had better have plus, plus skills in other areas or you are not going to get a shot.
floridafan,
I hope you don't think my post is referring to yours. However, I'd guess from your description of your son's movements that rotational mechanics are more prominent in his swing than linear ones. As I said in my post some are successful using a combination of both. And I'd guess an analysis of most swings would find that there might be a little linear in a lot of good swings.
However, I cringe when people talk of bringing the bat straight (linear) to the ball or holding the hands high and swinging down to the ball, hitting with a closed front foot, etc.
Show me more than a couple (there are always exceptions) of moderate to great power hitters with those mechanics and I'd be shocked.
Perhaps the problem with the discussion of linear and rotational mechanics is a matter of semantics. It might be best to describe the difference between the two as "rotational emphasized" and "linear emphasized" styles of hitting.
Obviously I advocate an almost purely rotational style of hitting because I think it serves most kids best. Most do not have the speed of Pierre or the uncanny ability of Ichiro to emphasize rotational or linear mechanics based upon what he wants to do with the ball.
I hope you don't think my post is referring to yours. However, I'd guess from your description of your son's movements that rotational mechanics are more prominent in his swing than linear ones. As I said in my post some are successful using a combination of both. And I'd guess an analysis of most swings would find that there might be a little linear in a lot of good swings.
However, I cringe when people talk of bringing the bat straight (linear) to the ball or holding the hands high and swinging down to the ball, hitting with a closed front foot, etc.
Show me more than a couple (there are always exceptions) of moderate to great power hitters with those mechanics and I'd be shocked.
Perhaps the problem with the discussion of linear and rotational mechanics is a matter of semantics. It might be best to describe the difference between the two as "rotational emphasized" and "linear emphasized" styles of hitting.
Obviously I advocate an almost purely rotational style of hitting because I think it serves most kids best. Most do not have the speed of Pierre or the uncanny ability of Ichiro to emphasize rotational or linear mechanics based upon what he wants to do with the ball.
quote:Originally posted by floridafan:
Thank you for clarification. I am sure that rotation on the core is critical for power. (it seems obvious). A whole philosophy based around a linear approach must have at least a point or two to offer (or the concept could not have survived) that when combined with the power of rotation at the core will only make a great swing greater. IMHO
In my experience the linear hitting model works in certain circumstances (e.g. young kids who can't handle grounders and older teams that play on Astroturf infields) which is why it persists.
However, it doesn't scale.
quote:Originally posted by floridafan:
I respectfully disagree.
My Son is not being instructed with an approach intended to result in ground balls (who would pay for that?). Nor do the results of his efforts reflect ground balls. The instructors purpose is specifically intended to result in power. That is the goal. Having a fast bat coordinated with a powerful expoding hip employing full rotation is the goal. I have watched the instruction for years and I have witnessed the result. The instructor indicates that his approach (the instructors) is both linear and rotational. The goal and the results all point to a much more powerful swing for my Son who will very likely have an attention getting Spring season this his Junior year.
All of this suggests that what your son is learning are rotational mechanics, not linear mechanics.
FloridaFan, don't sweat it. Your kid sounds lke he has it going on. If he understands as well as hits, as a high schooler, he is ahead of the game.
BudandBran and CoachB25 (as usual) said some great things. We constantly hear from the experienced hitting teachers and coaches about simplification. Then we go right out and talk and write all of the most complicated techno-jargon we can come up with.
We must not forget to teach Hitting.
That is the situational hitting, the ability to adjust and to compensate at the last second. Some kids will get it and some will find it harder, but hitting is just not all mechanics. Hitters can learn to think in the cage and in the on deck circle, then they must train to adjust and hit in the box.
BudandBran and CoachB25 (as usual) said some great things. We constantly hear from the experienced hitting teachers and coaches about simplification. Then we go right out and talk and write all of the most complicated techno-jargon we can come up with.
We must not forget to teach Hitting.
That is the situational hitting, the ability to adjust and to compensate at the last second. Some kids will get it and some will find it harder, but hitting is just not all mechanics. Hitters can learn to think in the cage and in the on deck circle, then they must train to adjust and hit in the box.
Florida-
You think a MLB manager would rather lead the league in batting average and be middle of the pack in runs scored, or lead the league in runs scored and be middle of the pack in batting average...
i.e. Ryan Howard: 149 RBI or batting avg. leader; Freddy Sanchez: 85 RBI
You think a MLB manager would rather lead the league in batting average and be middle of the pack in runs scored, or lead the league in runs scored and be middle of the pack in batting average...
i.e. Ryan Howard: 149 RBI or batting avg. leader; Freddy Sanchez: 85 RBI
hey Ichiro had almost 700 AB's and he only drove in 49 guys this year....
I'd rather take the .288 hitter, over Ichiro, who would drive in 137 guys
but that is just me...
I'd rather take the .288 hitter, over Ichiro, who would drive in 137 guys
but that is just me...
Florida Fan ,
Whatever you son is doing he is doing it right. I too feel the same way about my son's current swing. He is leading the team in Average, Contact, rarely strikes out, and can hit the ball where it is placed. (Inside he can pull the ball , outside he can take it the other way).
He is currently 13 years old and plays up against 16 year old HighSchool Players. Keep plugging and this whole Rotational vs Linear thing is very overrated!
Whatever you son is doing he is doing it right. I too feel the same way about my son's current swing. He is leading the team in Average, Contact, rarely strikes out, and can hit the ball where it is placed. (Inside he can pull the ball , outside he can take it the other way).
He is currently 13 years old and plays up against 16 year old HighSchool Players. Keep plugging and this whole Rotational vs Linear thing is very overrated!
Mr. Deviled Eggs, I could not resist the temptation to respond to your statement about Howard and Sanchez in regards to the power numbers. I find it amusing that you seem to perceive baseball as more of a slugfest. I just browsed over each players major stats and was pleased to see some glaring differences between the two players as hitters other than HR's and RBI's.
There were areas that I would consider as important to a teams success that you did not address. If you look at BB's, 31 for Sanchez and 108 for Howard and look a little inside those numbers, how many of those were intentional to Howard. The bat was taken out of his hands. Another probability might be how many DP situations did those walks create.
In Sanchez's case this shows a player that put the ball in play.This might be better noted by his 52 K's in 582 ABs comapared to Howard's 182 in 581 ABs. Granted this does not exhibit their plate discipline.
I don't know what Sanchezs BA was with RISP nor do I know what Howard's BA w/RISP was either. I do think that 53 2B out of 200 H by Sanchez shows that he provided as much pressure by either driving someone in or putting himself in scoring position as Howard does with his power. Howard, by the way had 25 2B out of 182 H.
If you want to think in terms of MLB, I think your comparison really translates into paychecks not actual value to a ballclub in terms of team contribution.
Teach a player to work within a team concept and not set him up for a fall if being driven by what you seem to be implying is not what will work best for a young player. Personally I would love to have a blend of contact and power but it doesn't always work that way. You play the game with the talent pool that is available and develop it the best you can.
There were areas that I would consider as important to a teams success that you did not address. If you look at BB's, 31 for Sanchez and 108 for Howard and look a little inside those numbers, how many of those were intentional to Howard. The bat was taken out of his hands. Another probability might be how many DP situations did those walks create.
In Sanchez's case this shows a player that put the ball in play.This might be better noted by his 52 K's in 582 ABs comapared to Howard's 182 in 581 ABs. Granted this does not exhibit their plate discipline.
I don't know what Sanchezs BA was with RISP nor do I know what Howard's BA w/RISP was either. I do think that 53 2B out of 200 H by Sanchez shows that he provided as much pressure by either driving someone in or putting himself in scoring position as Howard does with his power. Howard, by the way had 25 2B out of 182 H.
If you want to think in terms of MLB, I think your comparison really translates into paychecks not actual value to a ballclub in terms of team contribution.
Teach a player to work within a team concept and not set him up for a fall if being driven by what you seem to be implying is not what will work best for a young player. Personally I would love to have a blend of contact and power but it doesn't always work that way. You play the game with the talent pool that is available and develop it the best you can.
Coach O - I am not sure what you are actually talking about... I wasn't ripping anyone in the big leagues... I merely stated would you rather have a team with a high RBI total or a high average. That is it. I used Sanchez and Howard as examples.
I see baseball as a slugfest? No, I see that the biggest paychecks go to those who drive in runs... good or bad - that is how it is. Juan Pierre doesn't take home the big bucks (relatively speaking). Not a bad thing just a fact.
I'm not sure about your point of Howard's 108 walks - you asked how many DP's that could of led to??? IS it a bad thing to be walked? But just to answer - if there were less than two outs when Howard was walked the they led to 100% of the possibility of having a DP turned...
No one is saying Sanchez is a poor player... but if you would take a guy who would give you 53 dbls and 85 Rbi over a guy who would hit only 25 dbls and give you 149 Rbi you would lose many more games... not a good thing..
And your value to a team comment??? Who was in the tops for MVP???
Sanchez was more valuable to his team than Howard was to his?????
What was I implying that would not work best for a young player?
contact vs power??? why decide on one over the other... are you familiar with the fact that 42 of the top 50 HR hitters of all time weighed less than 190 lbs??
MY WHOLE QUESTION WAS WOULD YOU RATHER LEAD THE LEAGUE IN BA OR RUNS SCORED???
I see baseball as a slugfest? No, I see that the biggest paychecks go to those who drive in runs... good or bad - that is how it is. Juan Pierre doesn't take home the big bucks (relatively speaking). Not a bad thing just a fact.
I'm not sure about your point of Howard's 108 walks - you asked how many DP's that could of led to??? IS it a bad thing to be walked? But just to answer - if there were less than two outs when Howard was walked the they led to 100% of the possibility of having a DP turned...
No one is saying Sanchez is a poor player... but if you would take a guy who would give you 53 dbls and 85 Rbi over a guy who would hit only 25 dbls and give you 149 Rbi you would lose many more games... not a good thing..
And your value to a team comment??? Who was in the tops for MVP???
Sanchez was more valuable to his team than Howard was to his?????
What was I implying that would not work best for a young player?
contact vs power??? why decide on one over the other... are you familiar with the fact that 42 of the top 50 HR hitters of all time weighed less than 190 lbs??
MY WHOLE QUESTION WAS WOULD YOU RATHER LEAD THE LEAGUE IN BA OR RUNS SCORED???
FLA and Coach O -
Linear, defined by MLB, refers to the concept that bat speed is derived from the batters forward weight shift and extension of his hands. Batters are instructed to direct their energies in a fairly straight line back in the direction of the pitcher. Common phrases that go with the term linear:
"Step into the ball,"
"Transfer your weight from back to front,"
"Keep your shoulder in there,"
"Pop your hips at contact,"
"Throw the hands or heel of the bat at the ball," and so on.
For Example: Charley Lau's rule #6 in his book, "The Ten Absolutes of Good Hitting," states, "Making a positive, aggressive motion toward the pitcher." It was also believed that in order to develop the required kinetic energy for the swing, the body (axis) had to move forward 12 to 18 inches. But over time MLB has conceded that a hard, aggressive move is not only unnecessary, but it can be counterproductive.
Now for rotational mechanics...
Test after test done by MLB concludes that the forces required to accelerate the bat head into its arc are not generated from lateral movement of the hands and body (linear). The bat's rate of angular displacement (bat speed) is derived from the amount of torque (push/pull action of the arms) and how much of the body’s rotational energies are transferred (via a circular hand-path).
But that is just the Dept. of Physics speaking there... surly they are wrong???
If you think someone is both linear and rotational in the same swing... then you never studied physics, and I'd be willing to bet someone's paycheck -you did not get a degree in the field either.
But that is JMO
Linear, defined by MLB, refers to the concept that bat speed is derived from the batters forward weight shift and extension of his hands. Batters are instructed to direct their energies in a fairly straight line back in the direction of the pitcher. Common phrases that go with the term linear:
"Step into the ball,"
"Transfer your weight from back to front,"
"Keep your shoulder in there,"
"Pop your hips at contact,"
"Throw the hands or heel of the bat at the ball," and so on.
For Example: Charley Lau's rule #6 in his book, "The Ten Absolutes of Good Hitting," states, "Making a positive, aggressive motion toward the pitcher." It was also believed that in order to develop the required kinetic energy for the swing, the body (axis) had to move forward 12 to 18 inches. But over time MLB has conceded that a hard, aggressive move is not only unnecessary, but it can be counterproductive.
Now for rotational mechanics...
Test after test done by MLB concludes that the forces required to accelerate the bat head into its arc are not generated from lateral movement of the hands and body (linear). The bat's rate of angular displacement (bat speed) is derived from the amount of torque (push/pull action of the arms) and how much of the body’s rotational energies are transferred (via a circular hand-path).
But that is just the Dept. of Physics speaking there... surly they are wrong???
If you think someone is both linear and rotational in the same swing... then you never studied physics, and I'd be willing to bet someone's paycheck -you did not get a degree in the field either.
But that is JMO
quote:Originally posted by floridafan:
There is no reason that hands cannot be moved in a linear path to the hitting zone coupled with the power generated from a rotational swing, Strict and limiting definitions aside.
No, but then you'll get disconnection and won't maximize the transfer of power from the body to the bat.
quote:Originally posted by floridafan:
It dosn't work that way IMHO...the top hand syncronizes with the hip and all power is projected at the round object in the hitting zone. No disconnection at all in the swing that I know and love.
But by trying to make a linear move toward the ball with the hands you lose that synchronization with the hip.
Then the only thing that can whip the head of the bat around is the muscles of the hands, wrist, and forearms and they're too small to get the job done.
Pain Guy - I could not have said it better myself... if someone thinks that you are moving your hands to the ball and then you have a rotational swing after that - well, physics doesn't work that way... like PAIN said you have already had a breakdown in the laws of physics and you can't fix it... until your next swing...
FLA??? TOP HAND SYNCHRONIZES WITH HIP???? if you are saying they are moving together in the same pattern... geez... wake up... have you heard of torque?
If you truly believe what you are saying, you have never really wayched a batter hit with a high-level swing...
FLA are you also teaching don't dip your shoulder and keep the barrel of the bat above your hands??? OUCH!
FLA??? TOP HAND SYNCHRONIZES WITH HIP???? if you are saying they are moving together in the same pattern... geez... wake up... have you heard of torque?
If you truly believe what you are saying, you have never really wayched a batter hit with a high-level swing...
FLA are you also teaching don't dip your shoulder and keep the barrel of the bat above your hands??? OUCH!
Well, human beings being the odd and unique individuals we are, some may make better contact with linear vs. rotational swings.
That said, it's pretty much settled physics that the fastest bat speed that can be achieved is with rotational mechanics. If that is your goal, then rotational mechanics is for you.
Hands to the ball may be the fastest way for the hands to get to the ball but it isn't the fastest way for the bat to get to the ball. A circular hand path torquing the bat head is going to the fastest way for the bat to meet ball. Having the whole body rotate with the hands as close to the body as you can generates even more bat speed.
Look up Conservation of Angular Momentum. It's the reason ice skaters spin faster when they bring their arms into their body. Vice versa, they lose speed when their arms flay out. Batting is the same; hands to the ball slows rotation speed, hands tight to the body generates more speed.
As for kids, they can benefit from rotational mechanics if faster batspeed is your aim. And faster batspeed is a good thing, especially for weaker/smaller kids. The question is whether any player's body/mind will take to rotational hitting and you simply won't know.
If your son is hitting well the way he is, then he is performing well. If later on as he matures he finds he needs more batspeed, then he will need to change his hitting style and that may or may not hurt his average.
A lot of people here are saying go rotational because it's a known fact you get more batspeed. I say it is worth a shot, if they can't hit well with rotational then try something else that your player will respond to.
That said, it's pretty much settled physics that the fastest bat speed that can be achieved is with rotational mechanics. If that is your goal, then rotational mechanics is for you.
Hands to the ball may be the fastest way for the hands to get to the ball but it isn't the fastest way for the bat to get to the ball. A circular hand path torquing the bat head is going to the fastest way for the bat to meet ball. Having the whole body rotate with the hands as close to the body as you can generates even more bat speed.
Look up Conservation of Angular Momentum. It's the reason ice skaters spin faster when they bring their arms into their body. Vice versa, they lose speed when their arms flay out. Batting is the same; hands to the ball slows rotation speed, hands tight to the body generates more speed.
As for kids, they can benefit from rotational mechanics if faster batspeed is your aim. And faster batspeed is a good thing, especially for weaker/smaller kids. The question is whether any player's body/mind will take to rotational hitting and you simply won't know.
If your son is hitting well the way he is, then he is performing well. If later on as he matures he finds he needs more batspeed, then he will need to change his hitting style and that may or may not hurt his average.
A lot of people here are saying go rotational because it's a known fact you get more batspeed. I say it is worth a shot, if they can't hit well with rotational then try something else that your player will respond to.
FLA- hands to the ball? awful. You DO NOT understand even simple physics if you think because your son is spinning around with a bat in his hand that he is using rotational forces.
You can not be both linear and rotationl in the exact same swing... physics won't allow it. Call your local University ask to speak to anyone, including a student, in the physics dept. They'll explain it hands on if need be.
No one in knocking your son, congrats on all he has accomplished. But you keep spitting out stats... here is one: I know this guy who drowned in a river which the AVERAGE depth was only 3 feet... Doesn't matter what the average was if there was a ten-foot whole somewhere in the river...
I am sure your son has great batspeed for his age... but if he is hands-to-the ball, as you say, then he could have quicker batspeed, therefore allowing him to read pitches slightlty longer, therefore allowing him be more selective... and in MHO that would be a good thing...
Call the Physics Dept.
You can not be both linear and rotationl in the exact same swing... physics won't allow it. Call your local University ask to speak to anyone, including a student, in the physics dept. They'll explain it hands on if need be.
No one in knocking your son, congrats on all he has accomplished. But you keep spitting out stats... here is one: I know this guy who drowned in a river which the AVERAGE depth was only 3 feet... Doesn't matter what the average was if there was a ten-foot whole somewhere in the river...
I am sure your son has great batspeed for his age... but if he is hands-to-the ball, as you say, then he could have quicker batspeed, therefore allowing him to read pitches slightlty longer, therefore allowing him be more selective... and in MHO that would be a good thing...
Call the Physics Dept.
P.S. Good input ZDAD.
My swing recently hit 135mph on my batspeedometer.
I'm only 17 years old.
I can throw too.
I'm a sure fire first rounder. Anyone want to be my agent?
I'm only 17 years old.
I can throw too.
I'm a sure fire first rounder. Anyone want to be my agent?
Diablo, It's good that you have conviction in what you believe but IMO I think that we can sometimes become caught up entirely in something and not see other pieces to the puzzle. I personally think hitting goes well beyond pure physics.
What allows some to perform well using one method will not always work for someone else and another approach may work better for them.
What about considerations of other aspects involved including details about muscle insertion points and the multitude of biochemical processess? Don't these deserve consideration as to the type of swing a player might use?
What about the types of food or supplements that were consumed the day of the game, were they not instrumental in that days performance?
What do you think aided in allowing a player to use the type of swing he does?
There are a ton of bodily functions that have to be initiated before you can even think about the type of swing that is best for any given player. Take as an example L-Caratinine(sp), an AA that delivers fatty acids from the blood to the mitochondria to be used in an energy pathway and to also remove toxins to the urinary tract for disposal. Also Taurine is an
essential AA that we do not know exactly how it effects the brain but all the while is involved
in nuero-transmission processess. For a final example I will use CoQ10 which aids in O2 transportation to the mitochondria which might translate into extending a muscular response.
To make any of the types of hitting work there is plenty of other criteria to be met.
IMO, if I do not have enough type 2 fiber developed or if I am not genetically predispositioned or if I am defecient in any of
the previously mentioned requirements then I will not be successful with one approach or the other. I have to be resourceful enough to figure out what may potentially work for me.
My point in my previous post was to serve as an indicator that stats do not always translate into the win column. For example say I have a team BA of .290 and yours is .240. I average 4.0 rpg to your 5.5 rpg. If I look for consistency I might see something like 11,0,10,1 and have 2-2 record to show for it. On the other hand I might see 6,,2,5,3 and be
3-1 for those 4 games. Just some of my thoughts on the matter.
What allows some to perform well using one method will not always work for someone else and another approach may work better for them.
What about considerations of other aspects involved including details about muscle insertion points and the multitude of biochemical processess? Don't these deserve consideration as to the type of swing a player might use?
What about the types of food or supplements that were consumed the day of the game, were they not instrumental in that days performance?
What do you think aided in allowing a player to use the type of swing he does?
There are a ton of bodily functions that have to be initiated before you can even think about the type of swing that is best for any given player. Take as an example L-Caratinine(sp), an AA that delivers fatty acids from the blood to the mitochondria to be used in an energy pathway and to also remove toxins to the urinary tract for disposal. Also Taurine is an
essential AA that we do not know exactly how it effects the brain but all the while is involved
in nuero-transmission processess. For a final example I will use CoQ10 which aids in O2 transportation to the mitochondria which might translate into extending a muscular response.
To make any of the types of hitting work there is plenty of other criteria to be met.
IMO, if I do not have enough type 2 fiber developed or if I am not genetically predispositioned or if I am defecient in any of
the previously mentioned requirements then I will not be successful with one approach or the other. I have to be resourceful enough to figure out what may potentially work for me.
My point in my previous post was to serve as an indicator that stats do not always translate into the win column. For example say I have a team BA of .290 and yours is .240. I average 4.0 rpg to your 5.5 rpg. If I look for consistency I might see something like 11,0,10,1 and have 2-2 record to show for it. On the other hand I might see 6,,2,5,3 and be
3-1 for those 4 games. Just some of my thoughts on the matter.
