Re: Re: Re: Linear in the pros
>>> I think a lot of people are sick of this thread of discussion: "He LOOKS like XYZ or ABC or linear or rotational, etc."
No criticism intended toward the original poster here. Just bringing the trend and the language into question.
Linear and rotational are subjective terms. They are no different than the words "good" and "bad." They are so broad as to be meaningless.
I think most people who have watched a lot of videotape would say Sheffield rotates around a stationary axis once the stride is finished, uses a circular hand path and lots of preliminary bat movement that accelerates the head before a swing decision is made.
We typically call that a rotational swing.
But to be precise, we can't just say, "He looks rotational or linear."
We need concrete, objective information to support any opinions.
It is easy to draw lines on the screen with cursors and so forth and determine if he uses a circular hand path and rotates around a stationary axis.
He does. You can call that linear, rotational, frankenpanzer, mitterwaltish or swadley if you want.
But you also have to call it rotation around a stationary axis, with a circular hand path and bat movement before a swing decision is made. <<<
You may be right. I am open to suggestions on how to improve our hitting discussions. Why donít you give us your definition of how to compare different swing types without using what you consider to be those loose, silly terms like linear, rotational, straighter vs circular, stationary axis and etc.
And there may be those who think there are better and more easily understood baseball terms to describe torque (top and bottom-hand) and the transfer of rotational momentum by an angular displacement of the hands (circular hand-path). If you have baseball terms that can adequately describe these mechanics, now would be a good time for you to weigh in as well.
Post a followup: