Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why rotational hitter strike out alot
Posted by: Jimmy (
) on Sat Jan 6 15:46:23 2007
> > Hi coach13,
> > Please read my post responding to Dave P. and you will see that I am not advising a
strictly linear approach. I also think the coach that you used as an example could have
had more offensive production if she hadn't been strictly rotational. Disconnection of the
hands from the body is what gives you more barrel control along with power. This is why
when you use a hammer to a nail (which you need to control with as well), you disconnect
the use of your hands from your body. Your body doesn't move with your arm and the
hammer head as you swing it.
> > I do agree that pitching dominates fast-pitch softball because of the way hitting is
taught. Strictly "linear" swings will never produce the most consistent quality at-bats, but
neither will strictly "rotational" swings. It is a combination of the two that is the most
productive in game situations. So who is aking "blanket" statements in this discussion. I
don't think that it's me.
> > Jimmy
> Hi Jimmy
> Ok you talked me into it I will use blanket statements as you do.
> 1. Why do linear hitters hit into so many double plays?
> answer- because the swing plain is more of a downward path and
> they generate less bat speed so they have less power.
> 2. Why do linear hitters strike out so much?
> answer- because they cant catch up with the fast ball.
> This requires them to start sooner and makes them
> vulnerable to off speed pitches. The swing plain allows
> little margin of error for being late or early on a pitch.
> 3. Why do linear hitters pop up so much?
> answer- they dont match the plane of the ball. The ball is
> traveling in a downward path the bat is traveling in a
> downward path if they hit it on the bottom of the ball it
> pops straight up.
> 4. Why do linear hitters rarely get extra base hits.
> answer- because they disconnect from the power that the core
> muscles procuce.
> Jimmy your example of using a hammer with your arm is a good example.
> If I wanted to break a rock using a claw hammer how many blows would
> have to be delivered to break a rock 12 inches in diameter? VERSES
> using a sledge hammer and using the core muscles as the source of power.
> In boxing if we compared the knock out ratio between the jab and the hook I wonder
which punch has the best knock out ratio.
> PS I asked the coach if the combination of rotational and linear would have
demonstrated better results for her. She said the coaches she knows that have tried this
have had less than desireable results. Well there you have it Jimmy some blanket
statements. I have one passing question can you present a linear hitter that has a career
batting average higher than .402 and a career slugging percentage higher than 700?
Almost every single Major League hitter tries to incorperate "rotational" AND "linear"
qualities to thier swing. Do you need all (350 or so) of thier names or should I just
mention Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, Grady Sizemore, Albert Pujols, Travis Hafner,
and JimThome...need more.
Just because you THINK you know what you see doesn't mean you know what the hitter is
actually trying to feel or accomplish by having that feel. Maybe that softball coach you
were talking to might understand that statement because it sounds like she has some
what of an idea.
I know for a fact that Pujols tries to have a feel of a linear action like taking his barrel
straight down on top of the baseball to hit it nine miles. Does this mean that it actually
looks like he does this if you watch his film? No. I'm sorry that his numbers aren't as good
as your softball coaches but I'd say they're o.k.
Post a followup: