Skip to main content

I've gone through countless topics over the past few months and have found nothing but Rotational love and Linear hate. Im not really biased, I do hit linear, but I'm not one to defend my mechanics to the death. But what i want to know is why you all like rotational so much... If you can help me see the light (I guess)on rotational it would help clear some blurry areas I have (I dont really know what they are, but i just dont get some of it). The Madison Warhawks of Vienna, VA hit ONLY A to C, no rotational at all, they are nationally ranked and have been state contenders since '02 when they won states, so that seems like you can have sucess hitting linear. Short to it, Long through it... you should be able to get the picture now... Please answer truthfully. Oh and im not trying to start a flaming argument or anything.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Shantzee,

Forget Linear, rotational. Those terms mean different things to different people. Posters here are past that debate, but at this point you've got to understand that video has completely debunked any of this "A to C" stuff, or straight to the ball, or whatever. Study the countless videos that are posted on this forum. No one swings straight to the ball.

http://media.putfile.com/sotaguchi

This is the quickest and most efficient path to the ball, and it is not "A to C".
Last edited by LevelPath19
LevelPath,

I agree that no one swings straight to the ball and that you want to be quick and efficent to the ball.

That is a great super slo mo clip, but you aren't saying that this So Taguchi swing is the quickest, most efficient swing in the Major Leagues, are you? No offense to So, because he is a fine big leaguer, I just disagree that it is the be all and end all for the quick, efficient swing. It is a good swing, nonetheless.
I'm not saying that this is the one and only model, it's simply the best illustration that I have that a MLB swing is not "A to C". This swing resulted in a Home Run off of a 98 MPH Fastball from Billy Wagner.

From a side view, "straight to the ball" is not best method because: 1. doesn't develop as much batspeed, so although it is a shorter path in distance it does get to the zone as quickly, and 2. is not in the plane of the pitch as long, so it is harder to hit the ball squarely.
Last edited by LevelPath19
I think straight to the ball needs to be defined. If we're talking about the barrel, that's almost impossible and nobody does that.

The hands don't take the same path as the barrel to the ball. Even in the clip shown, some might say Taguchi's hands are fairly straight to the inside of the ball. Not exactly straight, but a very short path, which some might define as straight to the ball.

BTW, I do think that is a great "swing"! Anyone see anything negative about it?
PGStaff,

Good points. As you metioned, terms like straight to the ball have to be defined. Isee that hands moving more "out" towards the ball, or towards the Pitcher, so that can be defined as straight. However, I believe that most people teach this ideas as straight to the point of contact, which is more of a diaganol straight line towards the ground. If you look at the path of Taguchi's hands, they stop moving down and start moving "out" towards the ball very early.
A hitters hands will naturally move outward from the body. I believe that the better hitters control this tendancy and work on keeping their hands in closer, in a more direct path to the direction the pitch is coming from. Any movement out, or away from the body as you are trying to bring the bat into the hitting zone will have to take longer since it is not a direct path.
The quickest hands should by definition take the shortest route, without sacrificing power.

I believe that when the term "hands moving out" is used it is implied that the hands are extending away from the hitters "core" not "out toward the pitcher", or "out towards the ball". imvho.
Last edited by floridafan

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×