Posted by: Lorenzo () on Mon Jul 21 07:39:41 2003

>>> 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. <<<
>
> Hi Melvin
>
> You may be right. I am open to suggestions on how to improve our hitting discussions. Why don’t 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.
>
> Jack Mankin
>

No criticism taken. I just want to learn and I'll stumble on the way but will get this down 100%.

Why does Sheffield have that huge dive into the ball? Although he is very successful (.330 #7 in MLB). I'm wondering if he shortened that up he'd be even more succcessful.

Pujols with the short stride is (.371 #1 in MLB) and I feel like I should teach all my kids that short step way before even considering a dive into the ball like Sheffield. When I use to play, 10 years ago, I always had that long stride.

Almost all the kids (in my area)in Little League softball/baseball have that long stride into the ball.

So what Im trying to say is....What is the advantage of having a big stride to the ball? I dont see any.

Im going to order the video and keep learning. Im sure after the video, I will get this down to the max. Im actually thinking about hitting when I go to sleep and when I wake up.

How lucky are we to be alive and playing/teaching baseball/softball?