Hitting and Hitters Discussion Rotational hitting

[default]

The hands stay high and tight and the arms are in a powerful position at point of contact (elbows bent at this point). Contact is optimal out in front of the thigh and arm extension happens after contact with the ball. It is the swing that most MLB players utilize.

Correct. Most MLB players are rotational hitters (with the exception of players like Ichiro).

I am a strong proponent of rotational mechanics and take considerable grief on the subject as well too bad we can no longer consult Ted Williams (even though Mike Epstein played for and coached under Ted if I recall)

Ahhhh. I couldn't have said it better myself. Ted Williams is the expert when it comes to hitting a moving ball. Without a doubt, the greatest hitter that ever lived. I highly recommend reading his book entitled "The Science of Hitting." It is a must have for serious coaches and players alike.

There is also a great SI (?) article in which Williams discusses hitting with Mattingly and Boggs. It's quite comical, and there is some great information documented straight from the greatest hitter of all time.

Williams was a scientific man. I, too, live my life with attention to scientific detail. Hitting is a science and it is the hardest task to perform in any sport. Why would anyone try to deviate from the teachings of Williams? If you want to be the best, you emulate the best. Simple. We're not re-inventing the wheel here. Hitting (good hitting) has not changed!

There are certainly differences between the male and female bodies and I certainly do not pretend to know anywhere near as much about hitting as Hitter but to keep it simple for my girls we just stick to the plan as we know it.

True, but I reject the fact that they are different enough to cause major changes in the swing. The fundamentals of a good baseball/softball swing remain the same, regardless of gender. There are countless successful female athletes who hit with identical mechanics as successful male athletes. It took softball coaches a long time to realize this.

I believe in rotational or trans-rotational, I had never heard trans-rotational used before but you learn something everyday. Rotational just makes sense to me so I'm going with it as I have for several years. It's just what I believe is best. My opinion.

I have never heard the term trans-rotational ever used with respect to hitting. It appears no where in any hitting literature I own; I cannot even find any information about trans-rotational hitting in a Google search (with the exception of this thread). Rotational hitting, however, is a term accepted by many and widely agreed upon to be the most successful.

With regard to the bit about Chris O'Leary and his expertise: he is most definitely an expert. Actually, it would be ridiculous to even comment on his credentials unless you have read this piece about his experience working with professional baseball player Andres Torres My Experience With Andres Torres

With regard to Power V or extension hitting: IT IS NOT ROTATIONAL. Nothing about having fully extended arms at contact is rotational. Rotational hitters hit the ball with bent elbows and extension happens well after contact.

And finally, with regard to the OP's question (which many of you have been avoiding completely in an attempt to use this thread to facilitate discussion about pseudo-scientific hitting jargon): baseball and softball coaches like to cling to old traditions ... even if they are no good. This is the case with the great linear vs. rotational debate. All the evidence provided by experts shows that a rotational swing can successfully keep the bat in the hitting zone for a great length of time as well as hit the ball with power and consistency. However, coaches tend to lack common sense; they especially lack the ability to evaluate swings objectively. Everyone thinks they know how to hit ... no one really knows how to hit.

In many ways, I can compare hitting philosophy to political ideology, religious viewpoint, etc. People cling to old ideas because they're afraid or lack the common sense (or knowledge) to believe otherwise. Yes, change is frightening.

Not even facts can convince many of these coaches/players. It is impossible to impose beliefs from the outside; for this reason, change (in hitting) can only come from within. When the coach or player has finally made the realization that there is only one way to hit with power and consistency, they seek the information about rotational hitting and make an effort to become a student of the game of baseball/softball.

 

[default]

Correct. Most MLB players are rotational hitters (with the exception of players like Ichiro).






Ahhhh. I couldn't have said it better myself. Ted Williams is the expert when it comes to hitting a moving ball. Without a doubt, the greatest hitter that ever lived. I highly recommend reading his book entitled "The Science of Hitting." It is a must have for serious coaches and players alike.

There is also a great SI (?) article in which Williams discusses hitting with Mattingly and Boggs. It's quite comical, and there is some great information documented straight from the greatest hitter of all time.

Williams was a scientific man. I, too, live my life with attention to scientific detail. Hitting is a science and it is the hardest task to perform in any sport. Why would anyone try to deviate from the teachings of Williams? If you want to be the best, you emulate the best. Simple. We're not re-inventing the wheel here. Hitting (good hitting) has not changed!



True, but I reject the fact that they are different enough to cause major changes in the swing. The fundamentals of a good baseball/softball swing remain the same, regardless of gender. There are countless successful female athletes who hit with identical mechanics as successful male athletes. It took softball coaches a long time to realize this.



I have never heard the term trans-rotational ever used with respect to hitting. It appears no where in any hitting literature I own; I cannot even find any information about trans-rotational hitting in a Google search (with the exception of this thread). Rotational hitting, however, is a term accepted by many and widely agreed upon to be the most successful.

With regard to the bit about Chris O'Leary and his expertise: he is most definitely an expert. Actually, it would be ridiculous to even comment on his credentials unless you have read this piece about his experience working with professional baseball player Andres Torres My Experience With Andres Torres

With regard to Power V or extension hitting: IT IS NOT ROTATIONAL. Nothing about having fully extended arms at contact is rotational. Rotational hitters hit the ball with bent elbows and extension happens well after contact.

And finally, with regard to the OP's question (which many of you have been avoiding completely in an attempt to use this thread to facilitate discussion about pseudo-scientific hitting jargon): baseball and softball coaches like to cling to old traditions ... even if they are no good. This is the case with the great linear vs. rotational debate. All the evidence provided by experts shows that a rotational swing can successfully keep the bat in the hitting zone for a great length of time as well as hit the ball with power and consistency. However, coaches tend to lack common sense; they especially lack the ability to evaluate swings objectively. Everyone thinks they know how to hit ... no one really knows how to hit.

In many ways, I can compare hitting philosophy to political ideology, religious viewpoint, etc. People cling to old ideas because they're afraid or lack the common sense (or knowledge) to believe otherwise. Yes, change is frightening.

Not even facts can convince many of these coaches/players. It is impossible to impose beliefs from the outside; for this reason, change (in hitting) can only come from within. When the coach or player has finally made the realization that there is only one way to hit with power and consistency, they seek the information about rotational hitting and make an effort to become a student of the game of baseball/softball.

All that from a first time poster! The things that make you say Hmmm.

 

[default]

fourts we know where they are drifting over from. You would think they have enough debate on the other site! I'm sure Bear has the e mail address.

 

[default]

I saw that too and left it alone. Tired of stating the obvious...

Fourts... you are da' man though!

 

[default]

It had to happen sooner or later.

 

[default]

Correct. Most MLB players are rotational hitters (with the exception of players like Ichiro).

Not correct. Most MLB players' swings involve both translational and rotational actions, especially in handpath.

Ahhhh. I couldn't have said it better myself. Ted Williams is the expert when it comes to hitting a moving ball. Without a doubt, the greatest hitter that ever lived. I highly recommend reading his book entitled "The Science of Hitting." It is a must have for serious coaches and players alike.

I own it and have read it a few times and it is a great book. Ted Williams was indeed an expert at hitting a moving ball. However, neither he nor John Underwood was truly verse in Physics.

There is also a great SI (?) article in which Williams discusses hitting with Mattingly and Boggs. It's quite comical, and there is some great information documented straight from the greatest hitter of all time.

Williams was a scientific man. I, too, live my life with attention to scientific detail. Hitting is a science and it is the hardest task to perform in any sport. Why would anyone try to deviate from the teachings of Williams? If you want to be the best, you emulate the best. Simple. We're not re-inventing the wheel here. Hitting (good hitting) has not changed!

Actually, I have spouted the same thing before on this forum, and you are correct. The problem is it has not been explained properly (from a physics point of view) when it is said that the swing is rotational. It is NOT just rotational.

True, but I reject the fact that they are different enough to cause major changes in the swing. The fundamentals of a good baseball/softball swing remain the same, regardless of gender. There are countless successful female athletes who hit with identical mechanics as successful male athletes. It took softball coaches a long time to realize this.

Yup.

I have never heard the term trans-rotational ever used with respect to hitting. It appears no where in any hitting literature I own; I cannot even find any information about trans-rotational hitting in a Google search (with the exception of this thread). Rotational hitting, however, is a term accepted by many and widely agreed upon to be the most successful.

Trans-rotational, or transrotational, is a physics term for something that posesses the properties of both linearity and rotation. You're correct that you probably cannot find the term in any of your literature. You probably will not find it in a Google search pertaining to hitting either. However, you can Google search "translational and rotational swing" and I guarantee you will get some hits for baseball/softball. The term transrotational is nothing more than a portmanteau combining translational and rotational. The term "Rotational Hitting" might be an accepted term however the term does not fully explain the swing and it could also represent an entirely different swing. It is a term open for debate.

With regard to the bit about Chris O'Leary and his expertise: he is most definitely an expert. Actually, it would be ridiculous to even comment on his credentials unless you have read this piece about his experience working with professional baseball player Andres Torres My Experience With Andres Torres

I did nothing more than quote what was stated in articles from links in his own website.

With regard to Power V or extension hitting: IT IS NOT ROTATIONAL. Nothing about having fully extended arms at contact is rotational. Rotational hitters hit the ball with bent elbows and extension happens well after contact.

This is from Chris O'Leary's website. It is titled "George Brett Demonstrating Extension And The Power V At Point Of Contact". I mentioned in an earlier post that Power V at point of contact is rotational. If it is linear as you state, where in the heck were his hands to begin with? Near the umpire's face? How can this move be linear? You are dead wrong on this one Dominic. Hand movement closer to the body and extension well after contact is much more linear than this ROTATIONAL move.

And finally, with regard to the OP's question (which many of you have been avoiding completely in an attempt to use this thread to facilitate discussion about pseudo-scientific hitting jargon): baseball and softball coaches like to cling to old traditions ... even if they are no good. This is the case with the great linear vs. rotational debate. All the evidence provided by experts shows that a rotational swing can successfully keep the bat in the hitting zone for a great length of time as well as hit the ball with power and consistency. However, coaches tend to lack common sense; they especially lack the ability to evaluate swings objectively. Everyone thinks they know how to hit ... no one really knows how to hit.

In many ways, I can compare hitting philosophy to political ideology, religious viewpoint, etc. People cling to old ideas because they're afraid or lack the common sense (or knowledge) to believe otherwise. Yes, change is frightening.

Not even facts can convince many of these coaches/players. It is impossible to impose beliefs from the outside; for this reason, change (in hitting) can only come from within. When the coach or player has finally made the realization that there is only one way to hit with power and consistency, they seek the information about rotational hitting and make an effort to become a student of the game of baseball/softball.

Well, the experts you have clung on to do not use the correct term for the swing in my opinion. It is actually both linear and rotational mechanics combined in the hand path that keeps the bat in the hitting zone for the maximum length and time for consistency while the large muscle groups (shoulders, torso, legs/hips) provide power. Hand path does not provide much in the way of power. The experts are just not using the correct term...only half of it. Maybe you are the one that needs to open up their mind and you sir are the one afraid of change in thought process.

Len

 

[default]

The Power V thing is getting taken a little out of context. O'Leary I don't think is suggesting in any way that you are at the power V at the point of contact in a rotational swing or endorsing it in any way and even said that this concept ruined his swing, so he certainly is not a champion of this train of thought. O'Leary describes hitting as a three horse race with "Extension Hitting" as a form of swing sandwiched in between, and different than, both Linear and Rotastional as it's own classification. Hopefully this doesn't broaden the scope of this argument to involve a third discipline at this point. Just felt more clarification needed to be provided on the whole Power V and it's whole relationship within Chris O'Leary's programs were involved

Rotational Hitting 101 by Chris O'Leary
[h=3]Extension Hitting[/h]The defining cue of the philosophy of Extension Hitting, which is a big favorite of baseball television color commentators, is that you should extend and make the "Power V" at the Point Of Contact. That's what I was taught, and that is the cue that ruined my swing. This school of thought grew out of the words and pictures in Charley Lau Sr.'s book The Art of Hitting .300.

[h=4]George Brett Demonstrating Extension
and the Power V at the Point Of Contact[/h]​

Scattered throughout Charley Lau Sr.'s book are a number of pictures, like the one above, of George Brett demonstrating extension and the Power V at the point of contact. While some people argue that Charley Lau Sr. didn't actually intend for people to look like this at the POC on every swing, the fact is that this is how people are interpreting his work and how they are teaching hitters to hit. There's also the fact that on page 93 of his his book, Lau says...

At the moment of contact, the bat should be straight out in front of you, your arms should be fully extended...​

The problem is that this isn't what most major league hitters, including George Brett, actually look like at the POC in their best swings.




So...Just out of curiosity back to the original question that started this thread... Why are those that are proponents of a rotational or trans-rotational swing basically treated or looked upon as Lepers?

 

[default]

The Power V thing is getting taken a little out of context. O'Leary I don't think is suggesting in any way that you are at the power V at the point of contact in a rotational swing or endorsing it in any way and even said that this concept ruined his swing, so he certainly is not a champion of this train of thought. O'Leary describes hitting as a three horse race with "Extension Hitting" as a form of swing sandwiched in between, and different than, both Linear and Rotastional as it's own classification. Hopefully this doesn't broaden the scope of this argument to involve a third discipline at this point. Just felt more clarification needed to be provided on the whole Power V and it's whole relationship within Chris O'Leary's programs were involved

Rotational Hitting 101 by Chris O'Leary
Extension Hitting

The defining cue of the philosophy of Extension Hitting, which is a big favorite of baseball television color commentators, is that you should extend and make the "Power V" at the Point Of Contact. That's what I was taught, and that is the cue that ruined my swing. This school of thought grew out of the words and pictures in Charley Lau Sr.'s book The Art of Hitting .300.

George Brett Demonstrating Extension
and the Power V at the Point Of Contact

​

Scattered throughout Charley Lau Sr.'s book are a number of pictures, like the one above, of George Brett demonstrating extension and the Power V at the point of contact. While some people argue that Charley Lau Sr. didn't actually intend for people to look like this at the POC on every swing, the fact is that this is how people are interpreting his work and how they are teaching hitters to hit. There's also the fact that on page 93 of his his book, Lau says...

At the moment of contact, the bat should be straight out in front of you, your arms should be fully extended...​

The problem is that this isn't what most major league hitters, including George Brett, actually look like at the POC in their best swings.




So...Just out of curiosity back to the original question that started this thread... Why are those that are proponents of a rotational or trans-rotational swing basically treated or looked upon as Lepers?

It did not get taken out of context. I never said O'Leary or Brett coveted the Power V at contact. However, there are some people that teach it. Your boy Dominic states it's a linear move and clearly it is not....nothing more.

To answer your original question, the majority of travel coaches I know here in SWO teach what is known as the "Elite Swing". The Elite Swing incorporates both translational and rotational (or trans-rotational) mechanics. BTW, I checked out O'Leary's website. He says that if someone asks if he teaches linear or rotational hitting, he says neither. He teaches the "High Level" swing. It appears O'Leary is coming to the Dark Side. He also mentions there are problems with Mike Epstein's understanding and explanation of the High-Level Swing that create problems with how he teaches Rotational Hitting. So, in essence O'Leary is saying that Epstein himself does not fully understand the high level (read Elite) swing that many people/coaches believe to be correct. However, O'Leary will still sell you his Rotational Hitting DVD. I'm starting to like this O'Leary guy......

Len

 

[default]

Oh...I was just using the wrong jargon...why didn't somebody talk about the Elite Swing in the first place? How can you not use the "Elite Swing"? I'll just tell all the haters in my neck of the woods I'm going with the Supercharged Nitrous Injected Steroid Abusing Amped Up Elite Swing...how in the heck are they gonna argue with that?

I think we're all closer on the mechanics than anybody wants to admit and we're all just nit picking this to death. Geographically speaking what I see and hear directly around me, it's mostly all lineal so I am unfamiliar with SWO or your name for your version of this slight hybrid swing. I don't see a huge difference between my version, dominics, hitters or yours...minor tweaks on any would turn them into the other persons preferred swings and fundamentally they are significantly closer to Epsteins Rotational than the standard lineal.

Gunners1 must be in an area like I am where lineal is overwhelmingly taught and if you aren't teaching lineal people think you're abusing bath salts.

 

[default]

...And now you use sarcasm. I would too if I could not refute my post.

It's not a slight hybrid swing. It's a swing that's been around longer than your or me. Watch Ruth, Aaron, Foxx, Williams, A-Rod, Griffey Jr., McCovey, etc......you know, the swing guys like you call rotational, because that is what Epstein calls it.

Len

 

[default]

Oh well by all means let me retort (just seemed like a nice place to plug in a little Pulp Fiction)

Lenski you post "Your boy Dominic states" ...geez that doesn't sound a bit like stirring the pot huh? Rhetorical question coming up...where did you think that was gonna take us?

Sarcasm from me?...what can I say it's a gift

I would have to check this but I think I was the first one to use Ted Williams as an example to illustrate my point...now you're gonna use Williams on your side of the discussion to dispute my point supporting Williams?????

This started with a guy wondering why he was cast out regarding rotational...it morphed into a discussion about terminology going to trans-rotational which I guess you are coining for your upcoming DVD, just in time for the Christmas season I suppose, and then we threw in "Extension Hitting" which then ended up with the Elite Swing...which you are using Williams as an example of...which is where I started this with Williams swing being the basis for Epstein coining the term rotational.

I think we are all looking at or describing very similar swing mechanics and are totally caught up in minor tweaks and terminology. I like Ted Williams swing, without putting words in your mouth you seem to like Ted's swing, I think Dominic likes Williams swing...now if we could get our daughters to swing like Ted with a little tweak here or there for the subtle or not so subtle differences between baseball and fastpitch we would all be pretty happy. I like being happy...

Gotta go to work now but this has been alot of fun...

 

[default]

Give up Len this is the type of arguments you get on the baseball sites. Bobby Tewksbarry, Slaught and many others have moved away from this the old argument is it Rotational or Lineal. Even Epstein has came out with new material that corrects some of his old comments. It's called progress. Yes Ted was a great hitter, but he didn't have slow motion computer generated data that we have today. Good example is weight shift. No one had pressure plates back then, today we have instant computer generated data on how each foot moves during a swing. Grip, current studies have changed how we even grip a bat. In the business world we call in continous improvement. If you don't change you are left behind. Debate like this are very common on sites like hitting illustrated and baseball debate. It is almost as bad as talking politics!

 

[default]

Oh I know. I was just having some fun. I will end with this:

Anyone can write a book, make a video, or create a website. The beginner, intermediate, and advanced player or coach will cling to what they think is correct, and most will not truly understand what is really happening versus what they think happens. It's just how it is. There will be a few that truly understand, think beyond terminology, and call it what it truly is and those people will be the one's that will benefit the most.

Len

 

[default]

So, since this thread has moved to Ted Williams how many people would actually teach his swing the way he performed it? Ted does have an amazingly consistent swing but the way he drops his hands and all the added movement before his load isn't something anyone would teach. It worked for him but how many young players could do all that and still hit the ball?

 

[default]

Wow
Len can hang!!! I know who to call when I need back up



SL

 

[default]

Len has the stamina of many beasts. I hate it when he's opposing me ;-).

For the record, I teach rocking the baby while chopping wood.... and still throwing in the some bug smashing and sqwushin' and rolling the hands over at contact and then upper cutting to the moon. And I change every time a player comes to see me. So there... figure that mess out and I'll be impressed.

 

[default]

I teach that when the umpire rings you up for a called third strike, you are to give the umpire a Burmese roundhouse sphincter kick followed by a three-fingered eye jab. I learned that combination move on Planet Kick-A$$.

Len

 

[default]

So, since this thread has moved to Ted Williams how many people would actually teach his swing the way he performed it? Ted does have an amazingly consistent swing but the way he drops his hands and all the added movement before his load isn't something anyone would teach. It worked for him but how many young players could do all that and still hit the ball?

Many great hitters over the years have done many different things in order to prepare themselves for the start of their positive move, but once the positive move starts the best hitters are very similar.

Len

 

[default]

Why does it seem so taboo in the softball world when a girl hits with rotational mechanics? I have been teaching this style and have seen great success, when I talk with other coaches they look at me like im crazy. WIthout getting into the technical aspects of hitting, why is this the mindset of most?

I would say what I think looks different in the swings between rec/travel/high level has alot to do with hand path.
They all would be rotational just after heel plant, or just before heel plant.
If you take the arms off the body and posted swings, what would look different?

The amount the hitter torks the shoulders around the corner on the load...
Weight shift...
The amount that hitter stays tilted...

Any others?





SL

 

[default]

I found this on the net and it is not the entire article by Larry Stone I found it to be a good read.

With all the internet hitting gurus with slow motion swing capability, better understanding of how the body works you would think the MLB payers would be hitting over .300 and they could get a job as an MLB hitting coach or a top tear college team and quit their day job.

I went back over the kids we have helped take it to the next level and it is now at 117 both boys and girls and I consider that data and most are girls. A few years ago Hitter23 and I were at Beaver Creek and they had a 23 and under tournament. He gave me a pen and we counted 22 girls I had worked with including his daughter. For me the debate is over about what works or does not work and how to teach it is up to the person who feels they know more than someone else.

Since I never knew Ted Williams however I did read his book, I found the next best thing and that was working with Crystl Bustos and her friends. Working with an elite player such as her is and was the best thing I ever did to help the kids and coaches we have worked with. I still think it is funny how they describe what she does or how she does it and yet they can not duplicate it.

Chris O'Leary actually came to Springfield, Missouri as a guest of mine for a clinic a couple years ago and got to see for himself how we teach and what we teach. Not sure if it helped him or not however he got to ask questions and see other kids who actually train that way.

Bobby Tweeks was here a few years ago and we learned from each other....there are people out there that actually have an open mind.

Howard


From the net..."The fact is, baseball's history has been marked by ever-changing cycles of offense and pitching dominance, and it's prudent not to overreact to either. Baseball finally felt the need to act in 1968, when pitching supremacy reached the point of absurdity. Bob Gibson had an ERA of 1.12, Denny McLain won 31 games, 21 percent of all games were shutouts, and Carl Yastrzemski won the AL batting title with a .301 average — the only hitter over .300.


With baseball deeply concerned about competition from the rock 'em, sock 'em NFL, the decision was made after the 1968 season to lower the mound from 15 inches to 10 inches and tighten the strike zone. Four years later, the designated hitter was instituted, and the result was a swing of the pendulum toward the hitter — aided by expansion in 1969, '77, '93 and '98 that diluted the pitching and pharmaceuticals that puffed up the hitters.


It got to the point at the turn of the century, shortly after McGwire hit 70 homers and Barry Bonds topped it with 73, that there was a serious movement to raise the mound back to 15 inches. You don't hear much about that anymore.
Now the concern is ramping back up the offense. I say, relax and let it happen naturally (hopefully, it's natural, anyway, though Melky Cabrera et al shows that the urge for an edge is never-ending). What we have now is closer to real baseball than the pinball offense of the steroid years.


I'll leave with the lament of a baseball superstar: "Where have all the .300 hitters gone? ... Everybody's unloading for home runs. I'll admit they're hitting a lot of those, but the batting averages are having the hell kicked out of them. I don't care how light their bats are and how fast they can whip them around. If only they would stop swinging away on every pitch. That was Joe DiMaggio — in 1964."