Skip to main content

29 replies

Rotational vs linear article

T turnin2100+ posts
Good article IMO. What are your thoughts??




50 / 50 HITTING by Dave Hudgens
Weight Transfer
Some hitters may be more weight transfer then rotational. They want to get on top of their front foot and transfer their weight through the ball. You'll see these hitters on top of their front leg more dramatically than others. The hitters who use a greater percentage of weight transfer, generally speaking, hit more singles and doubles. I have racked my brain to try to give you an example of a Major League weight transfer hitter and I can't think of any. Some might argue that George Brett was a pure weight transfer hitter - this is a misconception. If you can get a hold of old footage of George, he is definitely a combination of the two. While editing this section, Jordan thought Frank Thomas was a good example of a hitter who utilizes more weight transfer then rotation. I agree, however, he is not purely weight transfer. If you were to arbitrarily assign percentages to his swing, he would be more of a 60% weight transfer, 40% rotational - he uses both.
Rotation
A total rotational hitter will have more power than the weight transfer hitter simply because he uses his hips and legs more and of course you know that is the core part of the body from which power comes. However hitters who are rotationally dominant will generally have a longer swing, pull off the ball more and be more inconsistent - therefore they will have more holes in their swing. They will not be able to use their hands to react to different locations and types of pitches. Dave Kingman, who played in the 1980's, is a good example of a pure rotational hitter. Dave would hit 40 homeruns a year and hit .200 for average. I can't think of any Major League hitter who hits purely rotationally, although both Barry Bonds and Greg Vaughn utilize more rotation then weight transfer. Now they would be more in the percentages of 60% rotational, 40% weight transfer. They still use both.

Ted Williams - Charlie Lau
I frequently am asked questions about the all time great hitter, Ted Williams and the late Charlie Lau. Williams is thought of as being a pure rotational hitter, while Lau was a pure weight transfer teacher. Both are misconceptions and misrepresenting the swing. Percentage wise, Ted teaches more rotation but if you look at his old videos and still shots, you clearly see his weight going from back to center which is weight transfer. Lau embraced a pure weight shift philosophy and many of his still shots in his book do show hitters on top of their front leg, however, that isn't what happened to those same hitters in real game action swings. If any of you have Ted William's book, The Science of Hitting, turn to the very last page and you will see a perfect swing. However, look closely. Ted has gone to the center position, with his back heel in the air, and his toe - NOT the ball of his foot - on the ground. This clearly shows you the weight has transferred to the center position and therefore, it is not a pure rotational swing. A pure rotational swing would involve no weight transfer and would consist of the weight spinning on the ball of the back foot. It is clear cut - he is definitely not spinning. The swing is definitely a combination of both rotation and weight shift. However, there are varying degrees of this combination. Speaking in mathematical terms, look at it as a matter of the percent used of each. Some hitters will use a greater percentage of rotation, while others will use a greater percentage of weight shift. Ideally the swing should be 50/50. Fifty percent rotational and fifty percent weight transfer. Most great Major League hitters are at 50/50 - A-Rod is a good example.

The effect of having a pure rotational approach is that the hitter will be guaranteed to have a less effective, more inconsistent circular hand path. When taking a circular hand path through the zone, the barrel of the bat stays on the contact plane for a very short time. This leads not only to an improper hand path but also to inconsistent contact. In addition to that, these hitters will have a greater likelihood of rolling over the ball with their top hand which in turn leads to more weak ground balls being hit. Contrast that to a hitter using a strict weight transfer or linear path. Despite the fact that he will stay on the ball longer, he will in fact have more of a chopping type swing. That is why a combination of the two is what leads to the most success. The proper hand path will start out linear or straight to the ball. On the finish or follow through, the swing becomes more circular. In other words, the swing is more linear on the approach to the ball, and more circular on the follow through. Remember to keep it simple because this truly isn't a difficult concept, people make it much harder then what it is.

- Dave Hudgens has been involved with the best of baseball for over 30 years. He is currently the Minor League Hitting Coordinator for the Cleveland Indians. Prior to that he was a longtime hitting coach in the Oakland Athletics' organization.
Last edited {1}
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

CoachB25CoachB25Honorary "Old TImer"
I disagree with much of what is presented. To say that a rotational hitter keeps his back heel on the ground is nonsense. Pujos, who is rotational in my opinion, often brings his entire foot off of the ground. To say that the swing must involve a linear movement of the hands is also false. Think of this in terms of how quickly I can bet the bat through the zone while also maintaining speed and quickness. Simply put, the fastest way, and I believe this is indisputable, is to keep the hands connected to the upper body. If you don't believe that, use video and frame counts. People that use their hands linear simply can not match the speed.

When I hear anyone speak on their philosophy, I try to listen, understand, and then measure that against what I believe in while also asking if the presenter has an agenda. Coach Hudgens does. He has videos he wants to sell with his philosophy. Of course you can ask what my qualifications are compared to his. Everyone knows I don't know anything and I prove it daily. However, I hope I provided at least a couple of good examples for you to think about. Everything I presented here is JMHO!

PS, I think another falicy about rotational hitting is that the "middle" is absent from the swing. Nothing is more false. Good rotational hitters know that using the middle and working with/against (tension) it allow for a more effecient swing.
Last edited by CoachB25
floridafanfloridafan5,000+ posts
Hey turnin2 -
Thank you very much for a clear view of Rotational and Linear hitting. I guess Dave Hudgens failed Physics also since he is an obvious proponent of a combination of Linear and Rotational mechanics, and points out that quite a few of the best hitters in the game utilize the best aspects of both philosophies. I don't think it is taught too much. I think it is an adjustment that great hitters make after they find "consistant" success at the plate.
L LevelPath1910+ posts
If Hudgens is still defining rotational as a back-foot, spinning method that brings the bat out of the zone too soon, he is way behind the times.

Singles hitters and HR hitters are not seperated solely by their mechanics (say, the Kingman method vs. Luis Castillo method). Another myth.

Throw away the roational and linear methods, just decribe what good hitters do. Husgens is not accurately doing this. He should stick to just telling his hitters to "stay inside the ball" and "let it get deep".
CoachB25CoachB25Honorary "Old TImer"
floridafan, the problem continues to be that each proponent of each type of swing uses the same players to represent their perspective. What I'd love to see and would pay to see is each proponent present their case, give examples of their belief system without interruption from others and then a question and answer session afterwards.

Regarding physics, you then disagree that the end product of that swing depends upon the laws of physics and that those laws never change?

FYI, some of the leading proponents of the rotational swing have more than enough science involved with common sense to make their points should you ever care to check them out. In fact, one "good ole boy" uses more "Hell yeahs" than any physic terms in his presentations. JMHO!

This has the makings for some real good debate!!!
Last edited by CoachB25
YankeelvrYankeelvr100+ posts
Always an interesting topic, I like alot of what Hudgens has to say about hitting though the above article isn't one of his better efforts to communicate. The thing that really amuses me is when someone actually on a MLB payroll attempts to share some info automatically we hear of their "agenda". The naysayers will then expound on their own theories and tangental knowledge to poke holes in anyone else's beliefs.
Hopefully we are all here to learn more about the game and find ways to pass that knowledge and passion on to the next generations. If hitting was all physics and fancy talk, SAT scores would be a good indicator of a kids batting average. Don't get stuck on the way something is said, use your brain and at least try to figure out the intent before ripping it. My impression of the article is that all hitters employ rotational and linear movements, not really a revelation. Like I said earlier, not one of his better efforts.
Last edited by Yankeelvr
T thepainguy1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by turnin2:
However hitters who are rotationally dominant will generally have a longer swing...


This doesn't make sense. In this case, a rotational swing is actually a shorter swing since the hands don't have to move forward toward the pitcher. They just rotate with the torso.


quote:
The effect of having a pure rotational approach is that the hitter will be guaranteed to have a less effective, more inconsistent circular hand path.


Why? This doesn't make any sense.


quote:
When taking a circular hand path through the zone, the barrel of the bat stays on the contact plane for a very short time.


This is also true for a linear hand path. The bat lags back and then whips out due to the rotation of the torso (rotational swing) or the action of the hands (linear swing). I believe that muscles of the torso are better able to whip the bat around.


quote:
The proper hand path will start out linear or straight to the ball. On the finish or follow through, the swing becomes more circular. In other words, the swing is more linear on the approach to the ball, and more circular on the follow through.


This is a very common misconception. In a rotational swing, the hand path is circular with respect to the torso. IOW, the hands maintain a fairly constant distance from the spine through the point of contact. However, if you combine a circular hand path with a big stride, then the hand path will be distorted due to the lateral movement and look like a J or a C. However, the hand path is still circular with respect to the axis of rotation.

I think this "optical illusion" may be where the whole idea of linear hitting came from. To keep from being fooled by this, when looking at a pro's swing you have to look at the relationship of the hands to the back shoulder and the axis of rotation (in most cases it's a pretty constant distance).

Otherwise, you'll end up getting fooled into thinking that the hitter is throwing the hands at the ball.
Last edited by thepainguy
Z Z-Dad10+ posts
IMHO, it's a pretty awful article in many ways.

To me there is a clear difference in linear vs. rotational and as I have said before the key difference is what the spine is doing.

If the spine is moving forward after foot plant, that is a linear weight shift. If the spine stays on the same axis then it is rotational.

Circular hand path, flicking the wrists, striding, loading, etc. - both linear and rotational can incorporate these elements in their swing.

Take Ichiro for example. He is mostly a linear hitter that incorporates many elements the rotational crowd says is theirs. At foot plant you can see the rather obvious linear movement of the spine forward. But his hands follow a circular path and his spine rotates really fast too. So to me, circular hand path and torso rotation is not the key element that defines linear vs. rotation.

Here's the kicker, if you ever watch Ichiro's homers you can see him stay back and punch it like a pure rotational hitter. The spine axis stays still.

Of course, I have no idea what is going on in Ichiro's mind. But it seems he recognizes the fact that with no linear movement it maximizes his power while linear movement maximizes his jump to 1B. So he chooses one style over the other based on what he wants to do.
CoachB25CoachB25Honorary "Old TImer"
I've been very busy and wanted to add this. Rotational hitters are often viewed as ones that rotate on the ball of their foot and spin. I've never seen that taught! For lack of better phrases, we've taugh "heel - toe." In other words, we are centered, with what we hope is proper posture, our hands do not extend out away from the body until after contact and we seem to be able to hit any pitch due to adjustments in posture as well as "allowing the ball to get to you." Further, in this age of technology, posters often present pictures/video of hitters who have either been fooled by a pitch or ... and then they swear that this extension of the hands is what this hitter typically does. As we all know when we are fooled by a pitch, we have horrible swings/techniques... Quite often these views do not show the result of those swings. Many years ago, I taught hitting from Lau's book. In fact, I took that book to the former Soviet Union when I coached over there. We were playing a team one year and we just couldn't get their kids out. In a conversation with that coach, I was convinced that if we were going to beat him and have a chance to advance in the playoffs etc, then I'd have to change. We did and have had tremendous success with rotational mechanics.

Good discussion, keep it coming. Floridafan??? turning2 - more???
Last edited by CoachB25
T turnin2100+ posts
what i liked about the article was just hearing some of his explanation, whether we judge it as right or wrong is irrevelant, you rarely find someone who paints a cleared picture of what they think. as a coach i teach a rotational approach, but have been intrigued by many of the articles discussing linear vs rotational...IMHO i think what Z-dad said with Ichiro changing slightly to what he wants to do is the trait of an excellent hitter, making the adjustment for that particular at-bat and situation. i understand clearly that rotational hitting has a more solid base, the balance generally is possibly 50-50, maybe 45-55 front to back, 40-60 on load, and 45-55 at contact (which generally is what I was taught and teach). I teach lift/load, step softly on the front foot (to the baseball, or about 1.5-2 inches towards the plate), hips lead hands, pulling the knob to the ball (which many say is a linear term, but I feel brings the bat head on the best path for contact), body tilt to location, stay tall on backside going backside, and that the back foot DOES NOT have to stay still or even planted, but that it rotates to the toe on extension, and even have some hitters whose back foot is almost rotated in their stance (IE Louis Gonzalez, Diamondbacks.) I think weight shift depends a lot on the hitter (Jim Edmonds as probably 75% of his weight back in his stance, comes forward with his weight shift, but certainly is rotational) but also think different situations call for different approaches. i don't teach two swings, but when my hitters get to two strikes, we keep our same stance, but move the bat head from our regular starting point (slighty above the back shoulder) to a more flat position (imagine your hands/shoulders at contact, rotate back to a normal stance but keep the bat on that plane, it should rest off the biceps, ie Cal Ripken.)which help us cut down on strikeouts, and theoretically, probably gives us a "linear" approach in that swing because we are using more wrist and hands to make contact than we are loading to drive the ball.

I'm sure many coaches will disagree with what I have said, but I try to keep it simple for my kids. I have shared info with many coaches only to find out that once I use a dictionary and thesaurus to understand them and their terminology, we generally believe the same thing.

As for the article, I do believe that if you sat there and went frame by frame on 1000 swings, and have 5 coaches with you, they would see traits of rotational/linear in many of them depending on what they believe and their vocabulary. Speaking of vocabulary, the definition:
Linear
Of or pertaining to a line; consisting of lines; in a straight direction; lineal.
Looking at that simple definition, many motions of every swing lead into a "straight direction." again, interpretation.

As Coachb25 said, great discussion, keep it coming!!!
T thepainguy1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by turnin2:
i understand clearly that rotational hitting has a more solid base, the balance generally is possibly 50-50, maybe 45-55 front to back, 40-60 on load, and 45-55 at contact (which generally is what I was taught and teach).


For the record, at the point of contact a rotational hitter is more like 95-5 (95% front foot and 15% back foot) at the point of contact. Virtually all of the weight is born by, and rotating around, the front foot and the hitter is on the toe of their back foot. In fact, it's sometimes 100-0, with the back toe up in the air.

Having said that, much of the weight is still OVER the back foot even if it isn't being born by the back foot.

Last edited by thepainguy
T thepainguy1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by turnin2:
...pulling the knob to the ball (which many say is a linear term, but I feel brings the bat head on the best path for contact)...


The problem with pulling the knob to the ball is that you can end up with the hands getting too far ahead of the body. As a result, when the body starts to rotate, the head of the bat cannot whip out as quickly as it could if the hands were closer to the body.
jemazjemaz1,000+ posts
Dave Hudgens has no agenda except to help young hitters get better and professional hitters get better. Same with his son Jordan. Of course they get paid. It is how they make their living. Maybe the debate is in the terminology. All I know is this: Dave and Jordan Hudgens have worked with my youngest son and a number of other hitters. All of them hit the hell out of the ball. Would they do it anyway? Probably, but no doubt they are more consistent now than otherwise would have been the case.

I would not call Dave Hudgens behind the times. I would call him on the cutting edge. And I bet that in actuality, the point of his article is dead on.
T thepainguy1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by turnin2:
If any of you have Ted William's book, The Science of Hitting, turn to the very last page and you will see a perfect swing. However, look closely. Ted has gone to the center position, with his back heel in the air, and his toe - NOT the ball of his foot - on the ground. This clearly shows you the weight has transferred to the center position and therefore, it is not a pure rotational swing. A pure rotational swing would involve no weight transfer and would consist of the weight spinning on the ball of the back foot.


This is garbage.

Rotational hitters do not spin on the balls of their back feet. They get their weight onto their front feet and end up on the toes of their back feet.


They don't get to this position by transferring their weight, they get there by rotating around their front leg.
T turnin2100+ posts
PAINGUY: not sure i agree with your weight %, if 95-100% is on the front foot at contact, wouldn't that be a more linear swing by definition? in your pujols picture i think i understand what you mean by his weight being "over" his back leg, but if you removed the leg he'd fall back. so yes some weight is forward, but not as much in this picture. i'd bet if you could move that picture two or three frames we'd see the shift forward you're talking about but we'd see more extesnion/follow through and his leg explosion.
with the pulling the knob, what i try to tell my kids is see the ball on a tee, imagine a small hole between your load and the ball, and pull the knob through and to, which should keep the hands in, but that is a GREAT POINT. Think of Jeter...thats what I'm looking for!!

JEMAZ...good point too. Some may say Hudgens isn't "cutting edge" but I have read Williams boo, Gwynns book, had a great college coach, worked personally with Elrod hendricks (son was our 2nd basemen in college)had 2 successful high school coaches, some legion coaches, and some great little league dads, and nobody ever used these "linear/rotational" terms with me. So if you have the vocabulary of a physics teacher he'd probably bore you, but I think he describes his theory well.
T turnin2100+ posts
PAINGUY...I AM NOT HUDGENS!!!!! i found this article in relevance to another forum topic. and rotation is around the axis of the spine, not the front foot, that would be an ice skater on one of those triple lindsey's ! hahaha. seriously, i have always heard you should be able to drive a spike through the hitters head and out the knee, hence an "axis" or center of rotation...wouldn't you "roll over" your front foot like Ichiro if that was your center?? Maybe I'm not following you because these kids won't be quiet!!
T thepainguy1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by turnin2:
PAINGUY: not sure i agree with your weight %, if 95-100% is on the front foot at contact, wouldn't that be a more linear swing by definition?


No, because his Center Of Gravity is still well behind his front foot. It's not over his front foot even though his weight is being born by his front foot.

Pujols isn't a linear hitter, if you define linear as weight shift, since he doesn't take a stride and thus can't shift his weight much.

All of this points out that some of the terminology that people use starts to confuse people. "On" and "over" can mean very different things to different people.


quote:
in your pujols picture i think i understand what you mean by his weight being "over" his back leg, but if you removed the leg he'd fall back.


Technically, in the case of the Pujols pic his COG (basically his belly button) is in the middle of his stride.

Also, at this particular moment he wouldn't fall back if his back foot was up in the air because the mass of the bat counterbalances his mass that is behind his front foot. The mass of the bat rotating around in front of the body allows guys like Ted Williams to actually have the back foot up in the air at the point of contact.
T thepainguy1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by turnin2:
PAINGUY...I AM NOT HUDGENS!!!!!


I know.

But IMNSHO what Hudgens is saying is still largely garbage.


quote:
and rotation is around the axis of the spine, not the front foot, that would be an ice skater on one of those triple lindsey's ! hahaha. seriously, i have always heard you should be able to drive a spike through the hitters head and out the knee, hence an "axis" or center of rotation...wouldn't you "roll over" your front foot like Ichiro if that was your center?? Maybe I'm not following you because these kids won't be quiet!!


Based on what I see in the clips of big leaguers, the axis of rotation generally runs up from the front foot and through the front leg. That means it's tilted maybe 30 to 45 degrees off the vertical and back toward catcher.

In some cases the hitter's spine is also aligned with the axis of rotation. In other cases (e.g. Pujols) their torso is relatively more erect (but still tilted back toward the catcher).
T turnin2100+ posts
NOW I GOT YA!! in that description i understand you just fine!!! still wish we had a pic during extension (i'll look for one), but one thing i see looking back, his instep slighty raising definately indicates the shift forward you stated early...good point!!

as far as pujols being linear i agree, he is not, but i think linear is much more than just weight shift.
Z Z-Dad10+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by thepainguy:
In fact, it's sometimes 100-0, with the back toe up in the air.

Yep, I was rather amazed when I looked at a clip one time and noticed the back foot was completely off the ground. Then as I looked at more videos, I found that occurrance again and again. i.e. Clemente, Yazstremski, Aaron, Pujols to name a few.

But this isn't limited to rotational hitters though. Ichiro definitely has like 90-99% of his weight on the front foot in most of his at bats. Of course, he might be doing that to get his big jump down first base but he has cracked many off the wall doubles doing that too.

So I guess it supports my position that many batting attributes are shared by linear and rotational hitters and isn't evidence for either. Which is why I focus on the spine.

Torque is everything to a rotational hitter. And torque is great for a linear hitter too but by having the spine in movement, basic physics will tell you he cannot rotate as fast as a rotational hitter with a fixed axis. Again, this is only related to power which is rotational's most concrete benefit.

Batters being individual human beings may find one technique or the other better suited for hitting for average.
T thepainguy1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Z-Dad:
Torque is everything to a rotational hitter. And torque is great for a linear hitter too but by having the spine in movement, basic physics will tell you he cannot rotate as fast as a rotational hitter with a fixed axis. Again, this is only related to power which is rotational's most concrete benefit.


A linear hitter also cannot...

1. Rotate as fast as a rotational hitter since a linear hitter's arms are farther away from his body (the spinning ice skater concept).

2. Bring the bat around as fast as a rotational hitter because the muscles of the arms, wrists, and hands aren't strong enough to overcome to inertia of the bat as it lags behind the hands.
Last edited by thepainguy
floridafanfloridafan5,000+ posts
The linear hitter keeps his hands in and rotates bringing his hands to the ball. A linear hitter must have bat control...therefore, strong forearms and wrists are of utmost importance.
If in rotational hitting, the hands are along for the ride, then strong arms and wrists are not required.
This is the purpose of the Dynamic Pepper drill I mentioned in another post in this forum.
Last edited by floridafan
T thepainguy1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by floridafan:
The linear hitter keeps his hands in and rotates bringing his hands to the ball. A linear hitter must have bat control...therefore, strong forearms and wrists are of utmost importance.
If in rotational hitting, the hands are along for the ride, then strong arms and wrists are not required.
This is the purpose of the Dynamic Pepper drill I mentioned in another post in this forum.


What you're describing (keeping the hands in and and rotating) isn't what most people would describe as linear hitting; it's rotational hitting. That's why your guy is able to hit the heck out of the ball despite using "linear" mechanics.

Also, strong forearms and wrists are still required for a rotational hitter. They provide the centripetal force that keeps the hands in close to the body and that overcomes the centrifugal force that is generated by the bat.
Last edited by thepainguy
floridafanfloridafan5,000+ posts
I believe that what is the root of the problem understanding the differences and similarities between linear and rotational is the language employed.
The hitting instructor that we employ has played Major League ball for 10 years, played in the World Series. He has provided instruction for 20+ years and runs an organization that is highly reputable and recognized in the baseball community, both college and professional.
He has told me when asked point blank, "do you teach a linear or rotational philosophy?", his reply has been that he teaches a combination of both.
This is why I have been adamant and longsuffering in my belief that it is possible to, and beneficial to have aspects of rotational and linear mechanics in a high level swing.
Last edited by floridafan
T turnin2100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by shortstop:
Dave Hudgens is just trying to help hitters: He is the hitting coach for Oakland Athletics, he does not need the money. Our son is now in pro ball and Dave's CD'S are fine. Our son is not in the Oakland organization.



i agree. we as "hitting guru's" LOL are going to buy into the guy that preaches the "party line". i liked the article and felt it defined the differences more than most. Also I have enjoyed many of the responses to it, thanks for your input.
D Diamondboy10+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by shortstop:
Dave Hudgens is just trying to help hitters: He is the hitting coach for Oakland Athletics,


Uh, no. Not for several years. They replaced him when their hitters were struggling.

[/QUOTE] he does not need the money.[/QUOTE]

He is currently a minor league instructor. Last I looked, these guys are paid a pittance. He has never been a manager at the major league level and to my knowledge has never made the big bucks. His videos are heavily marketed. I suspect he needs the money.


[/QUOTE]Our son is now in pro ball and Dave's CD'S are fine. Our son is not in the Oakland organization.[/QUOTE]

Dave's CD's may be fine, but are they effective? Do they improve a hitter's chances at the hightest level of competition? Harder questions to answer, but in my opinion, the only ones worth asking when you're laying out the cash.

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.
×