Rotational swing

Coach O-

Muscle Insertion Points? If that plays a part in a player not being able to perform a certain swing, in baseball, then mechanically they would never play at even a high school level anyways...

Biochemical processes?? Umm if the amount of AA's consumed override a players a ability to use physics properly in a baseball swing and make on the fly adjustments, then John Kruk, Cecil Fielder, Babe Ruth, and a host of others would never have been able to even play at a college level...

Type II muscle fibers? well, as far as I know The two fiber types (I and II) generally produce the same amount of force per contraction. And i am sure you know that human muscles contain a genetically determined mixture of both slow and fast fiber type. And that on average, we have about 50% slow and 50% fast fibers in most of the muscles used for movement.

Granted most world class sprinters might have 80% fast and world class marathoners have 80% slow... but if that is going to keep someone from using proper mechanics (from a physics standpoint) then that would be a joke in itself...

By your physiology report.. you would be concluding that the HR hitters, who are pure rotational hitters, have more Type II - so Griffey Jr. and babe Ruth had the same muscle makeup?? Howard and Canseco and Mcgwire and Andruw jones are the same? Vlad and Soriano?


Bottom line is physics is physics... if you think some HAS to drag the hands to meet the ball because of a physiological situation in their muscle fibers or muscle insertion points, then we have problems... that would be silly.

Of course, IMO.....

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Diablo con Huevos:




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??



Actually, the above is way off. 23 of the top 30 all time home run hitters weighed above 190 lbs.In fact, most weigh well over 200 lbs. The stat comes from Baseball Reference and it is probably closer to 27-30 if the guys were weighed in their prime.

The stat about 42 of the top 50 was figured out in about 1965 when all the guys were a lot smaller than today.

quote:

Originally posted by bbscout:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Diablo con Huevos:




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??

-----------------------------------------------

Actually, the above is way off. 23 of the top 30 all time home run hitters weighed above 190 lbs.In fact, most weigh well over 200 lbs. The stat comes from Baseball Reference and it is probably closer to 27-30 if the guys were weighed in their prime.

The stat about 42 of the top 50 was figured out in about 1965 when all the guys were a lot smaller than today.

Diablo-

Just something to think about as far as muscle-tendon insertion point are concerned.
The farther away from the joints center the attachment of the tendon usually means that I can handle more weight. The advantage that I gained here also means that I had a reduction in maximal speed. At the further insertion point means that my muscle has to contract
more to get it to move through a desired range
of motion.
As far as force production in the fiber types there is significant differences between type I and type II.
Type I fibers are limited in the ability for rapid force production. This is shown by low actomyosin myofibrillar ATPase
activity. Type I fibers also produce low
anaerobic power.
Type II fibers have faster contraction speed as
shown by higher actomyosin myofibrillar ATPase
activity, not to mention high anaerobic power.
In addition type II fibers can be broken into
subdivisions of a and b. Type IIa having more of an affinity for aerobic metabolic activity
meaning that it does not have the force production of TypeIIb but more than Type I.
If you are training someone to hit or even to condition them for playing what fiber
recruitment do you want to be primarily
involved and what energy pathways do you
think are used to achieve the desired results?
Essentially what I am saying is that as teachers, coaches or examples to young players
is that we need to understand, to the best
of our abilities, what it is that we are trying
to pass on to those that put their trust and
faith in us. Then we have to find the best way
to relay this information on to the player(s)
involved for it to become rewarding for them.
Respectfully, I am not going to get into the rest of your post, unless you want to.

"If you are training someone to hit or even to condition them for playing what fiber
recruitment do you want to be primarily
involved and what energy pathways do you
think are used to achieve the desired results?"

If you are typing from memory - you are too much a science guy, and no where near being an athlete...

and if you are training kids based on Type I and Type II fibers, you are close to being an Id*ot... tell me how in the worl anyone can test all kids they work with of muscle fiber types, and then work with them that way...

If you are saying a kid can not have a great rotational swing and have increased batspeed - relative to your "hands to the ball" theory, because of his muscle fibers... well, you are lost.

Fell free to respond to anything... I have the time...

Diablo con Huevos, I'm sure you would agree then that what it really comes down to regardless of what theory a coach/person says that they believe in, when viewing a video of that hitter then how fast can that hitter get the barrelhead through the zone and make contact. In other words, frames in that video process. When given this criteria, I think it would be hard for anyone to argue that linear taught hitters get their barrel head into and through the zone faster than rotational taught hitter. JMHO!

BTW, I can't stand Devil Eggs!

quote:

Originally posted by CoachB25:
Diablo con Huevos, I'm sure you would agree then that what it really comes down to regardless of what theory a coach/person says that they believe in, when viewing a video of that hitter then how fast can that hitter get the barrelhead through the zone and make contact. In other words, frames in that video process. When given this criteria, I think it would be hard for anyone to argue that linear taught hitters get their barrel head into and through the zone faster than rotational taught hitter. JMHO!

CoachB25, it is the complete opposite. Rotational hitters get their bat head into and through the zone faster. Linear hitters only get their hands into and through the zone faster.

Because a rotational hitter is rotating his entire upper body, the path of the bat head through the zone is circular. That additional torque adds more batspeed that the linear hitter's straight line through the zone.

Both linear and rotational hitters can flick their wrists and arms to snap the bat through the zone. So that energy is about the same. The difference is in the use of body weight.

Let's say both batters can generate the same amount of energy with just their body. A linear hitter applies his energy in a straight line at say force of 10. A rotational hitter's force is dependent on distance and that is key. If you measure the rotational hitter's force at the axis (his spine), its almost zero. But measure it at the hands and the force will be say 10 x 1. It just grows farther out so further along to the bathead and it will be 10 x 3 or something like that. Distance is a multiplier of rotational force.

That is why you really can't be linear and rotational at the same time. Ignore what the hands/wrists/arms do because both types of batters to the same thing. It's what the body does that makes the difference.

Z-Dad, am I having a "Brain ****?" I thought that is what I typed. If not, I apologize. You'd be correct. Of course, I could have and perhaps should have added that the hands have to stay "connected."

Diablo-
That really hurt, implying that I have gray matter that might be science oriented, but
I'll get over it. My respone was geared toward your continual reference to pro level players.
I do like the rotational style but not every
player is capable of performing in that mode.
Believe it or not I once was a very good
athlete. I used to pitch and was clocked at
92-93 consistently but arm problems ended my
playing days. It was not mechanical problems that ended my playing days but switching positions during a scrimmage that did me in.
I did get to play basketball in college though.
Baseball was and always will be my first
love. I do so enjoy visiting this site even if
things do get a little competitive at times.
It is a great resource for me and I treat it
that way because I like to learn.

quote:

Originally posted by CoachB25:
Z-Dad, am I having a "Brain ****?" I thought that is what I typed. If not, I apologize. You'd be correct. Of course, I could have and perhaps should have added that the hands have to stay "connected."

LOL CoachB25. Yep I agree, hands need to stay connected.

Coach O - to end this, ALL PLAYERS CAN HAVE ROTATIONAL MECHANICS - if given the blue print for them and then burn them in through muscle memory - just like anything else...

How quick one gets their bathead going - outside of mechanics - is physiological.

In other words, you can teach someone to run with Olympic-form mechanics (EVERYONE CAN LEARN THAT) but to what degree you can get your body moving (actual speed) is dependent on physiological criteria.

I think someone on here once said that you can't get a donkey to be a racehorse, but you can get a donkey to be a pretty **** good Donkey - if taught right, and you do not assume that because someone doesn't have a given "body type" that they can't be taught...

"More players never reach their potential because of a lack of quality instruction,
rather than a lack of ability."
-Rod Dedeaux
Legendary University of Southern California Baseball Coach
N.C.A.A Division I “Coach of the Century”

I hit 145mph today.

Stong like bull.

No. It will teach you bad habits of pulling off the ball. It will quickly turn you into a 100% pull hitter. Not good!

quote:

Originally posted by Franchise7:
No. It will teach you bad habits of pulling off the ball. It will quickly turn you into a 100% pull hitter. Not good!

Rotational mechanics won't turn anyone into a 100% pull hitter unless they want to be.

To hit opposite field or up the middle, batters just need let the ball get in deeper.

Not that there is anything wrong with pulling the ball, as Adair stated, you hit further with pull hits.

Franchise 7 - I won't even comment on your comment of Rotational = pull-hitter...

Z-dad stated it correctly.. if you are pulling everything (or trying to) you need to work on timing of swing initiation... if one's batspeed is so quick, because of mechanics, that he is pulling everything... then start later (good thing because you have a split second longer for pitch recognition/location)

learn to let the ball travel (get deeper)...

you DO NOT hit a ball in the same place (relative to distance from plate) if it is middle or outside as you do for the inside pitch...

160 today

I'm on my way.

youve really got to understand the concepts of linear hitting to teach it. linear hitters are weight shift hitters who hit off a stiff front leg, the tend to hit the ball to all fields and a sharp to oppo. rotational hitters "spin" off the ball, making many vulnerable to pitches away, either missing or hitting dinkers backside. linear hitters stand off the plate and stride to the ball, rotational hitters stand on the plate and try to turn on it before it gets inside. Mattingly, Gwynn, Edgar Martinez, Boggs, Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez are all LINEAR hitters...they stayed inside the ball and drove it all over the yard! Linear hitters use the entire field and can produce plenty of power. The difference is their hip explosion is relevant to the location of the pitch, which is affected by their stride to the ball. linear hitters will use terms like "down and hard" pull the knob. IMO the only positive in rotational hitting is the inside pitch, where the hips and hands have to be. get some tape on Jeff Kent, notice the differences between his position off the plate vs a righty or lefty, and you'll see linear hitting.

Huh? What??

Sorry, I had to leave this topic for a short time. turnin2, are you saying that this is a LINEAR swing?



In an absolute simplication of rotational hitting, it requires that the hitter's hands be connected to an area around the armpits/shoulder area. Through various body movements including but not exclussive to, body angle or posture, the bat is then generated through the hitting area. At some point, the hands have to leave that area due to other forces and the hitter finishes the swing. Rotational hitters also have a platform to hit off of and so, their front leg will go straight/stiff for a moment. To say that a rotational hitter "spins" is in no way representative of what they are doing. To suggest that rotational hitters can only pull the ball and are suspect on any balls away is also inaccurate. My high school team had as many balls leave the yard oppo last year as they did pulling it and we hit a bunch last year.


I also disagree that 99% of the big leaguers hit LINEAR. I know that you can find countless experts more knowledgable than I that are willing to make that point.

Another pretty good rotational hitter:

quote:

Originally posted by CoachB25:
To say that a rotational hitter "spins" is in no way representative of what they are doing.

The way I think of rotational hitting, and explain it to people, is that a rotational hitter swings with his entire body while a linear hitter swings with his arms, wrists, and hands.

The "rotational" in "rotational hitting" represents the rotation of the body.

Due to the size of the muscles involved, there is no way to generate as much power swinging with the muscles of the arms as you can generate swinging with the muscles of the body.

The same principle applies to pitching. Rotational pitchers throw the ball with their entire bodies (especially their torsos) by rotating their hips well before their shoulders.

You guys just refuse to understand that linear hitting in no way excludes rotation of the body. Without rotation of the body there would be no discussion, the linear concept would not exist if it lacked power. Everyone knows that in order to generate power rotation is necessary. And yes B25, I see linear moves in the swings above, quite obvious actually.

quote:

get some tape on Jeff Kent, notice the differences between his position off the plate vs a righty or lefty, and you'll see linear hitting.

That's pretty funny...

I have dozens of Kent's swings, I've never seen much linear...

This is all a matter of defintion...

Let's try this...Rotation is actually defined as turning about an fixed axis. The center of rotation does not move...Look at the Ramirz clip, his axis does not move while the bat is moving...

Spinning is when the centerpoint of the turn is moving...as in spinning like a top. If you are defining rotational as a pull-only style, then you are thinking of spinning, or pulling off the ball. In these swings, the center of rotation is being pulled away from the ball during the swing.

From watching tape, I'd say the over 90% of MLB rotate in place during the swing...their center of gravity holds place while the body turns...
Here's some swings, including that Ramirez clip, with the axis animated...
http://media.putfile.com/axisofrotation

COACH B25...I didn't mean hitters don't rotate, and I said they become more rotational on an inside pitch, which what video you showed the ball was inside. if they didn't clear their hips and get their hands through they'd have struck out! I'm talking about the approach, the stride, the way the hips lead the hands to the ball. rotational hitters tend to keep more weight back, linear hitters almost hit off their front foot. linear hitters let the front hip follow their stride to the ball. i also said "many were vulnerable to pitches away." again a generalization to the tendencies.

LEVEL Path...look at how he is off the plate, strides to the ball, and cam either turn on it or hit it oppo...that is a linear approach!

quote:

Originally posted by floridafan:
You guys just refuse to understand that linear hitting in no way excludes rotation of the body. Without rotation of the body there would be no discussion, the linear concept would not exist if it lacked power. Everyone knows that in order to generate power rotation is necessary. And yes B25, I see linear moves in the swings above, quite obvious actually.

YOU GUYS? Please don't turn this into a you guys versus us guys type of thing. I'm not one of those that has to be right. Exactly where do you see linear movement? I see his hands "connected" to that area around the shoulder until the ball leaves the bat. Then, I see the hands release from the body. What I've called the "power V" but others much more in tune with terminology for rotational hitting call something else. I see the foot plant, the hips and core in sync and the upper body rotating in conjunction with proper posture to produce a powerful swing.

Also, I'm not trying to cause confrontation with turnit but do note that Manny Ramirez is sort of a "Poster Boy" for the rotational swing. When his name is mentioned as a linear hitter, I want to know why.

Floridafan, please explain to me what you see.

Epstein defines "linear hitting" as, "the weight begins coming forward in the stride and coninutes coming forward through contact and finish." He further states that in the rotational swing, that weight is "blocked" and the axis is generated to enable the hitter to rotate throughout contact and finish.

The hands are another issue. They leave the body in the "linear" swing and are locked in the "rotational swing" until after the ball is has made contact.

coachb25 i definately don't think of myself as an "i'm right your wrong guy," i just love talking baseball!!! wish we could do it over a cold one versus this cpu!!

as a coach i'd say i teach a linear approach with rotational concepts. let me explain...from our stance, we are balanced, pressure on our back foot instep, hands somewhere around our ears to shoulders, bat at about a 45 degree angle to comfort. when we see the release point, we stride to the ball (i hate that step to the pitcher ****) which can change our front foot landing point depending on where we see the ball going (maybe an inch inward for an away pitch)and we load our hands as that foot lifts. next our front hips following in the same line. we then teach to pull the knob of the bat to the ball and hit through the ball with a follow through level with or slightly above our front shoulder. the back foot will rotate with pitch relation (inside we crunch the bug, away the foot actually points to where the ball travels backside. if i was technologically advanced i'd put a picture of manny on here to show you, but on his website www.mannyramirez.com and got to 2006 gallery, there is a picture almost from the top of manny vs the yankess...is that a rotational swing???? keep it coming, i'm loving this talk!

turnin2, pm sent.

turnin2, this picture is exactly what a proponent of rotational hitting would point out to you as rotational technique. Notice that the barrel of the bat or even the bat in general matches a plane that extends through the shoulders. That plane is maintained by "connection." Notice that the hands have not been, "taken to the ball" but rather the relationship of the hands and shoulder area are locked. Noticed that there is a slight "tilt" or change in posture from vertical that has been maintained in the swing. In other words, he is hitting a ball up in the zone but he is not moving forward to a positon where he is standing up. BTW, rotational hitters/coaches want a situation to exist where the hitter "sits down on the ball" and not stand up which promotes pulling off of the ball. Notice that the location of the back (right) elbow is close to the body and so, again, the hands haven't moved from the body.

Anyone else want to chime in on this feel free. I'm not wanting a battle but a good discussion is always welcome.

quote:

LEVEL Path...look at how he is off the plate, strides to the ball, and cam either turn on it or hit it oppo...that is a linear approach!

We will have to disagree with the defintion of linear then...

I also define rotaitonal as rotating around a stationary axis...a point you did not address. Linear to me is either; shifting the axis forward during the swing (Ichiro), or disconnected the hands from the body turn...reaching for the ball...

Manny does neither...

Also, I have never heard the idea that linear hitters stand off the plate, rotational hitters get up on the plate, nor do I think that video evidence would support that idea.

Interesting discussion. Personally, I have never heard a definitive explanation of "linear" and "rotational" hitting. Is there such a definition? I've heard it said that the terms "linear" and "rotational" are marketing terms. I've also heard that all batters have a little of both.

Coachb25's explanation above is clear. But is it correct? I don't know. Do people agree with it? It seems to me that all batters at some point in their swing and to varying degrees will brace the front leg to help transfer linear momentum into rotational momemtum. Some will take big strides before bracing, some will take small strides, and some will take no stride (but will still have a weight shift). Does what a batter does before the front leg braces distinguish him as a linear or rotational hitter? Someone help me out here.

Man, what a nebulous topic.

I think the easiest way to look at rotational vs. linear is the focus on the batter's spine. A rotational hitter will use his spine as his axis of rotation and put everything into rotating as fast as he can. To a linear hitter, the spine is free to shift during the swing.

Why is this an important distinction? Because the application of energy is vastly different. Shifting the axis of rotation during a swing results in a large loss of energy so maximum bat speed is greatly decreased. This is just basic physics. Some of that energy loss will be made up by going in a linear back to front movement but definitely not all.

So while a linear hitter will also rotate his body, by shifting his weight that rotation is necessarily inefficient. Thus, the fastest bat speed is still obtained by a pure rotation of the spine.

So both types of batters can and will do similar things like stride, snap wrists, load, etc.

Striding to the ball I think is commonly misunderstood to be linear. It's still rotational with stride which can shift the spine forward as long as rotation begins after the spine stops moving (i.e. foot planted). It's linear if the spine is in motion when rotation begins.

As for results, again just because rotation produces the fastest bat speed does not mean it is the best method for every individual player. And most MLB players will come off pure rotation to hit outside pitches. The difference is a rotational hitter initially intends to whack each ball with a rotational spin whereas a linear hitter never does.

Having a rotational focus does not mean the hitter is doomed to outside pitches and breaking balls. They know how to adjust to their hitting style. Rotational hitters crowd the plate because they know they can turn on inside pitches, on outside pitches they wait longer letting the ball get deep, etc.

Similarly, linear hitters can take advantage of their forward momentum to beat out infield singles and stand further from the plate to handle the more difficult inside pitches.

quote:

I think the easiest way to look at rotational vs. linear is the focus on the batter's spine. A rotational hitter will use his spine as his axis of rotation and put everything into rotating as fast as he can. To a linear hitter, the spine is free to shift during the swing.

Very well put...

MLB hitters have both rotational and linear elements in their swing. Forward weight shift would be considered a linear movement. However, weight shift stops as rotation begins. Virtually all MLB hitters shift their weight into rotation as they rotate around their front leg which will firm up at contact.

For the most part people look at hand/swing path in categorizing rotational vs linear.

Rotational being shoulders/arms/hands staying connected as opposed to linear where hands take a straight path to the ball i.e disconnect.

Many have this misperception of rotational mechanics being a revolving door i.e. center axis...the proper description or analogy would be a swinging gate where the front leg/side is established as the post and the shoulders/arms/hands are the gate that whips around the front side post.

NYDad,

The problem I have with that analogy is that it assumes that the front side/hip/leg is stationary...like the post on a swinging gate. Hitters front legs are NOT stationary, or blocked during an efficient swing. The front side rotates backwards. Like these... http://media.putfile.com/hipturn

To me, if you state that you must rotate around a point, that point must be fairly stationary. The front side is almost never stationary in a MLB swing,it is rotating away from the pitch.
The spine and head are almost always stationary.

Level,

In transfering weight forward the front foot plants and "establishes" the front leg as the post hinging the front side in the process. This is why the front leg is critical as it must support the force created from weight shift momentum into rotation. With proper use of the front leg the hitters weight will become suspended against the front side as the upper body rotates around the post. This explains why the back foot comes up and the front leg firms up at contact.

I understand this, but to me, the phrase "rotate around the front side" implies that the front stide is stationary, which it is not. The front side rotates away from the ball and does not actually act like the hinge on a swinging gate...

Level,

The front leg (post) is stationary once rotation begins as the upper body (gate) which is hinged whips around that post bearing in mind that the hinge rotates along with the gate.

I have to disagree with the idea that the front leg is stationary during rotation...

Look at Sarahada Oh in the link that I posted...

quote:

The hands are another issue. They leave the body in the "linear" swing and are locked in the "rotational swing" until after the ball is has made contact.

Darrell, I disagree. In your clip of Ramirez his hands have moved away from the shoulder area at contact.