Rotational vs Linear

I want to start this discussion because I would like to hear what people have to say on the subject. I have done a lot of research on the theory of rotational hitting and still do not agree with it fully for fast-pitch softball. I think that it has some great points, but I maybe missing something and that is why I want to have this discussion. A lot of people believe in it so it can not be all bad, so if I am missing something I want to know it.
Personaly I do not consider myself fully linear because I see the importants of rotation in the swing.

This is an easy subject for people to start to argue and get negative. Lets just remember we are all hear because we love softball and want to learn more. I hope that everyone will state their opinion and then explain it.

Here is my opinion stated in very simple terms, and in short order: The biggest problem I have against rotational hitting is that the hitter does not stay on plain very long. It seems that the hitter is swinging around the ball instead of driving through it. It might be a good theory if the hitters timing is perfect everytime and the pitcher never changes speed. If I coached slow-pitch softball hitters I think I might buy into pure rotional.

I have seen linear hitting go the wrong way and have girls roll-over balls and hit their front shoulder with the barrel of the bat. It seems many linear hitting coaches do not put enough emphasis on driving the ball and Texas leaguers and weak ground balls become common place.
Scott Miller
www.gaptogapsoftball.com

 

Hey Scott !!

My philosophy is transfer,transfer,transfer.... I believe in starting with a linear movement with the front shoulder driving toward the ball, and transfering the weight from the back foot to the front foot then finishing with rotational getting full impact as ball is contacted for maxium power. The key from hitting ground balls is where the barrel ends up through finishing the swing, if done correctly the barrel should end up slightly above the finished shoulder, this will lift the ball over the infielder head. I use this all the time as an example about linear / rotational swing... IE...A tornado is 10 miles away and has stalled over an area, you will get wind from the tornado,but no damage to speak of, but if the same tornado is moving toward you, and spinning you will get the full effect of the funnel as it rips a path through the area as it proceeds to its next destination !!!

Guru

 

if you want to learn a swing that will work break down frame by frame the swing of Manny Ramirez... please lets not get into his on and off the field antics or his dreadlocks! I am not talking about that I am talking about his swing mechanics. Manny is one of the great hitters in the history of the game (when he was at 400 HR's there were only 4 hitters who had a higher lifetime average than Manny who also had 400 Hr's and they were Babe Ruth, Lou Gerhig, Jimmie Foxx and Ted Williams.. pretty fair company... and his swing will work equally well for FP as it does in baseball).

Manny starts with about a 60/40 weight distribution. He starts the swing with his lower half... thereby gaining (think of the Gumby toy when we were kids) separation of the big muscles of the core... all REAL power will come from this separation. Think of stretching a rubbber band. The lower half will lead while the top half stays back. The top half catches up with the lower half thru the contact zone while weight distribution will finish at least 40/60 and sometimes 20/80 (rear/front) depending on where you are trying to hit the pitch.. more you pull the ball the less the weight transfers. The finish should be high to facilitate the barrel of the bat being in the zone as long as possible.. OTW the finish is particularly meaningless.. as Charlie Lau said the finish is all about what you are trying to do at contact.. nothing else. Let me also mention something about the finish. As many of you know I have two daughters. One all conference as a soph and the other all state as a soph. I have patterned Rachel's swing along the lines of what I mentioned above but Sarah simply cannot finish high.. her backside always collapses... no matter how much we worked at it... so the moral of this is that every kid must adapt their own style to what they are able to do physically.. even though some way may in fact be the best way it might not work for them.

Manny is a combination rotational and linear. An example of a straight rotational hitter is another guy who will probably be hall of fame.. Jim Thome and they put the shift on him big time just like they did Ted Williams who was the father of rotational hitting theory. This is a confirmation of what I mentioned above about rotational developing into a straight pull hitter. Manny on the other hand hits to ALL fields.

Frankly this whole argument was one I struggled with analysing for quite some time. We started out as straight rotational.. because thats what the guy taught who we were going to. We were able to generate a lot of power but the reality of it was my two DD's became straight pull hitters and as pitchers matured and began to change speeds and made the ball move they they found themselves in trouble. Many a rip went foul down the 3B line (for a strike I might add) to the comment of "ooooh aaaahhhh straighten it out" only to be made to look foolish with a little back hand flip change on the outside corner on the next pitch. It really was this scenario that made me start rethinking rotational hitting as an all or nothing approach and gravitating towards this hybrid linear/rotational combo.

Please also do NOT say that a baseball swing cannot catch up to the ball in FP... with a wide stance, no stride approach... one where you drop the heal and push the left hip back... my two NEVER ever had an issue with not being able to catch up.

And now to the most important part of this discussion! All this must be learned thru muscle memory repitition.... when you step into the batter's box its: SEE IT... HIT IT!

 

Great Example

Manny is a great example of a great swing, I would though agrue that Thome is also a combo and not pure rotational. The video that I have broken down on him is that he gets connection much like Manny. I have watched one of the great hitting guys in country break down video on hitters from Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, Lisa Fernadez to Bustos and they are all the same from connection to release, so is the linear vs rotaional a question of approach or real question of mechanics? I ask this to get other opinions, I have mine but that and $.50 gets me a coffee. Also, would you guys or gals do you consider Candrea and Don Slought Linear.
Scott Miller
www.gaptogapsoftball.com

 

G2G.. I dont see any linear movement in Thome's swing... IOTW... I see no movement back towards the pitcher... concerning weight distribution. If he starts out 80/20 he finishes 80/20. I also dont see him keeping his upper and lower halves seperated as much as Manny does at contact. I would be interested to hear you describe the linear movements in his swing.. perhaps I am missing it.

I agree that most hitters will look onstensibly the same at point of contact In a freeze frame scenario.


Oh.. and Don Slaught is NOT linear!!! lol

 

Thome swing does not have the weight transfer as many hitters like Manny but there is a transfer of weight, but for me that is not what makes a hitter rotational or linear, not saying that I am right. It is about the throwing of the elbows/hands/shoulders that makes it one way or the other. To me that is what makes this debate about the two so interesting is that people disagree but sometimes it about terms and not about the fundamentals themselves. Thome does a great job staying on plain and his wieght does not transfer the weight as obvious as some but if you go frame by frame you can see a negative move and then a positive move. After contact there is a slight reverse pivot that makes it look as if no positive move was made. For me rotational hitting is more than weight transfer, it is also an approach to the ball.

I also would not consider Don Slaught or Coach Candrea linear coaches but when talking to die hard rotational hitting guys they would. I threw the queastion out to see what others thought. I learned the finer points of hitting under Coach Candrea and it amazed me how people catagorized him as a linear guy.
I would also like to say bothsportsdad we are on the same page. The change that you decided to make with your DD is the same thing I saw when trying to find my way in coaching hitting.

Scott Miller
www.gaptogapsoftball.com

 

Different Strokes...Literally

Both styles have their place, it all depends on what kind of results you are looking for from what you have to work with. I teach both styles and I want a variety in my line-up. Both executed properly can cover both sides of the plate. As you are analyzing swings, to determine which is linear and which is rotational, the main thing to consider is where is the weight at contact.

 

I maybe wrong but this is the reason why I brought this thread up to learn about, but to me the difference between the two is not about weight transfer it is the approach to the ball. If I am wrong on this conclusion please let me know.

 

G2G.. the way I have always understood it is that any movement whatsoever, back towards the pitcher by any part of your body is considered linear.

good point about Thome's reverse pivot.....

When we first started out rotation was just seeing its genesis. There was a tremendous amount of resistance to it as everyone was coming from the Lau/Hriniak school which had dominated hitting for some time... think George Brett, Tim Raines, Frank Thomas et al. And I dont even take into account some of the absurd teaching we ran into from those who had come from only a FP background. It pleases me to no end not to have to see these girls hit themselves in the back with the bat anymore!!!.. that was all the rage with their follow thru when we were 11 and 12. It seems as though, G2G, that Rotation has fallen our of favor a bit for more of a compromise approach that we are seeing now. However, any pure rotation guy is going to scream about any type of linear movement whether it be hands, weight etc etc as useless in regard to the generation of power and in fact it probably is but there needs to be some linear movement to enhance the ability to make contact... linear movement, particularly weight transfer, translates into the barrel of the bat staying in the contact zone longer.. the same applies to the high finish which in essence is also a linear move.

I also think that pure rotation is also much more suited to baseball because of the angle or plane of the pitch. I dont think your swing plane can have a slight upward angle in FP with the rise ball being such a big part of a good pitchers arsenal. Pure rotation will result in a slight to exaggerated upward swing plane. This was Ted Williams big thing.. matching the swing plane of the bat to the plane of the incoming pitch. In fact, there is a famous clip I have seen of he and Bobby Doer (also a hall of famer) on a fishing trip after they retired having a heated discussion about the swing plane and Ted giving it to Bobby over his insistence that you swing down at the ball.. its hilarious. Of course, Ted was a take no prisoners kinda guy... lol.

G2G.... are you familiar with a book: THE PHYSICS OF BASEBALL by Robert Adair... all science... no agendas.

BTW, I mentioned on this Board sometime back during a discussion about Candrea's hitting approach that I was aware of who was influencing him. I knew it was Slaught.. do you have his software?

 

I have not read the book, but I have had it explained to me. With that comment I guess I have to let everyone know I can read, just not had a chance to read that one.
I will say the more I learn and break down swings the more I realize that there is not any difference between the softball swing and the baseball swing. The approach may be different but the swing is not. There were a lot of people for a long time that made good money making people believe that there was difference but with new tech. has shown us that the great hitters of any league swing the same after the negative move. That is why I wonder why there is such a heated debate on theories.