Short to zone...Long through zone

Quote by Mike Epstein which applies to almost everything I feel to be absolutes in hitting we have discussed and illustrated here recently.


Start Quote by Mike Epstein:

1. Turn
2. Torque
3. Tilt
4. Tuck

“Turn” is the counter-rotational move all productive hitters must make.

“Torque” is the separation of the upper and lower torsos (“winding the rubber band).

“Tilt” allows the body to assume a position of being able to match swing plane to pitch plane.

“Tuck” is the correct slotting of the rear elbow at swing launch.
<End Quote by Mike Epstein>
Mike is Da Man!

Baseball or Softball? These two swings are rotational>click here please>

Pitch Location>click here to see an excellent comparison>

The tilt of the spine changes with pitch location in the power-v at waistline. Does everyone see it? peace Shep

Is this correct swing technique board? Click this and tell me if it is correct or incorrect?

Roberto Clemente and Hank Aaron both did this my friends. Take a look at this! Wow! Nice clip siggy. peace, Shep

It looks like we may be going there...
That looks 100% linear with no rotational power. I believe that if you will combine this motion with rotational power you will have a complete powerful swing. The clip only shows the linear hand path excluding the importance of a powerful explosive lower half.
The trouble that I have is that my Son uses this swingpath technique coupled with powerful rotating core and a strong lower half with exceptional results.

This swing was steady, consistent and rotational. It is no wonder why Pete Rose will always be the all-time hits leader. His swing was as textbook and mechanically sound as any other hitter I've ever seen play this game with passion over a long period of time. Pete Rose should be in the HOF and will be one of these days. We will all see the ban lifted soon!

There is a definite difference in styles to be sure!

floridafan

I totally agree 100%

Sounds like your son has received excellent instruction.

Peace,
Shep

Now I think Pete Rose was an awesome player and deserves to be in the HOF. But, regarding the rotational swing, I am under the impression that the rotational swing is supposed to provide the most powerful swing, and that the linear swing is described by many to be less than powerful. Wasn't Pete Rose known primarily as base hit hitter, not a power hitter. I was young then and did not follow the sport, but I thought he was known for the number of base hits he got, how he would beat out an infield hit and was "Charlie Hustle". Not a power hitter. If he is such a good model for the rotational swing why isn't he known for his power?

Shep, you do realize that I ment the "linear" swingpath, right?

Like I have said here several times, the perfect swing is a combination of both linear and rotational, in other words: Rotational core power with quickness in "Power with Flexibility" in swing paths. How does that sound? peace Shep

Pushing the handpath to the baseball is alright for fundamental or situational hitting such as hitting behind the runner; however, the action of pushing the hands takes the arms and hands out of the box working totally and seperately away from the connected body-Shep

Thanks for the clarification Shep. What about my coments regarding Charlie Hustle and rotational power?

Sometimes bodytypes limit the rotational hitter as in Pete Rose. Me too! Pete is "Charlie Hustle" with slow twitch muscle fibers with great power-Vs in his body posture and approach in tilt of spine angle matching the plane which enabled him to hit to all fields with authority. If you notice, Carew and Rose would both take what the pitcher would give them to hit; even when the pitches were low and away. Results from this approach: cut down on strikeouts and get a dozen basehits opposed to a couple of homeruns with a mountain of K's. As a manager, which hitter would you want? Harmon Killebrew or Rod Carew? Russ Branyan or Pete Rose? It's your choice but I bet I know what one recently inducted HOF MNGR Sparky Anderson would say

Hey Shep,
Do you have any clips of exeptional hitters that may demonstrate a approach to hitting that involves a less rotational approach (as we discuss it on this web site), and perhaps a bit more "linear". Or a combination of both as we discussed earlier?

See the HSBBW thread started by FlippJ on Will "The Thrill" Clark....a couple of nice links on a linear hitter:

http://hsbaseballweb.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/8291034941/...891066251#2891066251

wayback

I'm glad you posted that link from way back about the linear examples we discussed. It shows me the following key points:

1)My hitting philosophy has not changed(consistent)

2)I must have learned more from my own experience as a hitter while playing that is permanently engrained in my subconscious memory(muscle memory)

3)The knowledge I attained through my own road traveled as a hitter seeking knowledge and making adjustments through real-life experience at the college and professional level segued into a proven and effective end-result of my own scientific method of how to become the greatest hitter ever(potential)

4) The knowledge-base I have acquired has grown and been reinforced through the help of many others experience and research(confirmation)

5) I am fortunate and should take full advantage of this blessing I have been given(opportunity)

Of course, the road to success as a teacher/hitter/coach/instructor etc is a culmination of knowledge from many others and no one person can achieve greatness without listening and learning from those other great professionals. Baseball people with unity can achieve greatness-Shepism#1

My advice to readers here is to take what you need and leave the rest. Take what is proven and apply that to hitting. Much can be accomplished through those with similiar agendas-Shepism#2 peace

Shep,

I see his hands staying connected as his shoulders begin a spin with the hips. I do see a disconnection but not unlike an example of the phrase, "getting off of the merry go round." One must let the ball get to you and then according to the pitch location, match it. If you are talking about the stride, I don't know any rotational hitting coach that disallows stride. The head stays in the same plane. In fact, if you put your curser just behind his ear, you'll find that he comes back to that. If you are talking about "tilt" then the pitch is high and a rotational hitter must adjust tilt to match pitch plane.


For discussion purposes and not argument, now please state what you see linear. Thanks a bunch!

Tought I'd come back and add, do you see any "weathervaning" per Epstein?

There is no such thing as "flying off the merry go round"

Hitters do not rotate their shoulders.

The barrel rotates in the hands.

Does anyone have clips of J.D.Drew or Louis Gonzolaz? I understand that they may have a swing that may be interesting for this discussion of linear and rotational. My Son had his hitting instruction last night so I asked his coach what major league swing are you trying to have my Son emulate. He indicated the hitters above. He in fact worked with J.D Drew a number of years ago and J.D. acknowledged this coach as being instrumental in his development as a player. A number of other players have worked with him as well including David Roberts and Gary Shefield, although years ago.
I just say this to reiterate what I stated earlier which was that this coach told me flat out that he teaches a combination of linear and rotational mechanics. So if someone has clips of J.D. Drew or Louis Gonzolaz maybe we could look to see what was the linear movement and what was the rotational movement in their swing.

quote:

Originally posted by Chameleon:
There is no such thing as "flying off the merry go round"

Hitters do not rotate their shoulders.

The barrel rotates in the hands.

I know better than to post this but, ironically, if I'd made your post a year ago, or even a few months ago, you'd have been the first one to step up and argue. You would have defended this point to the death. Please note, you are more than welcomed to post a link to your site where you discuss this. If you can post your theory without attacking others, then make a new thread on your theory.

floridafan, if you haven't spent any time here, take a look at this site:

Siggy's Hitting Site

Thanks CoachB25,

I've got Siggy's site saved under favorites, but was unable to find any clips of JD Drew or Louis Gonzolaz there. I am hoping that others may have access to additional resources. I just realized that I had not viewed the part of the site that deals with the mechanical flaws...

Okay-here is Louis Gonzalez from swingbusters site.
http://www.youthbaseballcoaching.com/mpg/L._Gonzalez03.mpeg
Is this a pure linear swing or does anyone see any rotational tendencies.

Just to be clear, I am told by my Son's instructor that this is the swing he is trying to teach (although he has not seen this specific clip). Furthermore, he indicates that his philosophy includes both rotational and linear aspects. What do you guys see in this clip?

Here is another one from Swingbuster's site as well.

http://www.youthbaseballcoaching.com/mpg/L._Gonzalez02.mpeg

The hitting coach really emphasizes “quick hands”. That is his “mantra”.

One thing I see that is glaringly obvious in the 03mpg clip is the way Gonzalez pinches toward the center with his left leg in his right medial ligament & anterior cruciate ligament or in layman's term, the right & top side of his left leg knee. Instructors call this pinching in to keep center of rotation of the lower core balanced and together as a unit as body comes forward by turning. Nice clip floridafan! peace, Shep

So...would you call that a linear or rotational movement?
By the way, thank you Shep for finding the link for me.

Here is Griffey. I know that this is a tough pitch but it looks like linear mechanics that allow him to handle it.
http://www.youthbaseballcoaching.com/mpg/Griffey03.mpeg

I think that this clip shows the extension which may be where the term "long through the ball" comes from also.

One thing I have noticed with linear hitters, there are many nike slash marks on baseballs after hitting with this style. As Andy B. said here a long time ago, a half-moon mark will not be left behind on a ball hit by a hitter who does not square up. I'm going back to a clip from earlier that is a perfect example of squaring up on ball as hitter. Look at this board>Now this is squaring up on baseball, textbook style. In fact, I can almost see the half-moon impression forming off da bat

Show me a clip of a hitter who rotates his shoulders and keeps his lead shoulder in there.

Sounds like a trick question to me
But if you have one lets see it.

Turn the shoulders my friends turn the shoulders, not rotate the shoulders correct RS peace Shep

Come forward by turning

This looks a bit more rotational to me, but if you advance the frames one by one, at the point of contact with the ball, the bat speeds way up. It looks as though this is the instant where the top hand "flicks" the bat dramatically increasing batspeed at point of contact. This would be an example I believe of what has been called "quick hands".
http://www.youthbaseballcoaching.com/mpg/griffey_ken1.mpeg

In the 03mpg of Griffey, it is easy to see the lead arm flexing that bar rather quickly relying more on upperbody hitting against a solid front side. Instead of changing posture in the spine tilt, Griffey extends his "arms" to lower pitch. This will drain you quickly if you get away from the lower core which comprises the strongest muscles in your body. I'm sorry, but the upper body is working entirely too hard in this swing with the ligaments and tendons of the arms taking the brunt of the impact. Just what I see...peace

I agree that it is not an ideal swing at all. But hitters must hit under less than ideal circumstances on occasion. I see major adjustment to pitch location. I was wondering if anyone thought that this kind of adjustment was easier for a rotational hitter or a linear hitter. I think that strong arms, wrists and hands were required to make the adjustment. In other words, the question could be posed as "are the hands just along for the ride"? The 03mpg.

Shep,

Years ago the discussion was rotational (Williams) vs. weight-shift (Lau). One distinguishing difference was a trading of the shoulders (Williams) with a 90 degree turn to face the pitcher (Lau). Now the distinction has been lost. Griffey was a "rotational" hitter, Gwynn a weight-shift, etc.

The problem with assuming today's definition of linear has (1) limited power and (2) too much head movement to be successful is most in the Hall of Fame would be classified as linear as opposed to today's rotational hitter (definition). Another problem I have is a guy like Will Clark has almost no chance of reaching the major leagues today because of the assumption that one with so much head movement cannot hit. He would have been changed before he made the major leagues and we would never have hearf of him.

My son is a hitter that everyone on this thread would say is linear. He kills the ball but will be a pitcher. EVERYONE who has him tries to change his hitting. I've encouraged him to just pitch, it's not worth the effort because of the bent against his style of hitting.

Let me ask, would you change Griffey, Will Clark, Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, Tony Gwynn, etc.? Just wondering?

baseballpapa,

How would you classify the Louis Gonzalez clips that I posted earlier?

Sorry floridafan, I'm in a coffee shop with extremely slow internet. It looks more weight-shift, but my point was who cares?

I find that hitters and hitting coaches believe in hitting in a box -- I don't. There are some absolutes, but not a still head.

About 10 years ago, according to one major league hitting coach, the predominant trigger was a leg kick. The average stride lenth 17.1" and the average head movement 8-10". THis is changing. There is a knee (or foot or hip) turn in and a rotation low that chains up. Any stride is linear, causes head movement, and should be avoided. I'm just saying most in the hall of fame, if broken down like this thread, would be considered linear --- and I'm saying so what?