Posted by: JJA (jjanagnost@worldnet.att.net) on Thu Nov 27 08:48:47 2003

The Pete Rose clip has always been interesting to me. I don’t think there is any doubt he was a rotational hitter. My memories of him are not of a punch and judy hitter, but of someone who scorched a lot of line drives to all fields. I think RQL is right that he decided at some point to forego home runs for average and as a result did not attempt to get much lift. Now on to the theoretical and my poor version of a Tom Guerry analysis: the swing we see of Pete is almost a perfect circle. I think that for the guy who hits with power we would see a shortening of the swing radius as we got near the hitting zone. This is the “fish hook” and I think and it causes the bat to come around with more energy. In my mind I have envisioned what would happen if the bat was attached at the handle to a merry go round. The bat head would have the same speed as the merry go round. However, if the merry go round were to stop or be derailed the bat head would come flying around. This, I think is what reducing the radius accomplishes. However, I am far from certain. Hopefully Tom can step in here and help.
> >
> > Nick
>
> Folks
>
> I agree with Nick. The Rose clip has always been fascinating.
>
> Let's look at a couple of Nick's statements.
>
> 1. There is no doubt that Rose was a rotational hitter.
>
> This has to be true. The tendency is to equate singles with linear.
> There is no mutual exclusivity between singles and rotational hitting. Of course Rose was rotational. We have lots of video evidence. We have his record. You don't get 4,000 hits and hit in 44 straight games by pushing your hands at the ball.
>
> 2. He scorched a lot of line drives to all fields.
>
> Yep. Tough to luck into 44 straight bloopers and nubbers.
>
> 3. He gave up home runs conciously.
>
> Yep. It's called a searching inventory of his own ability.
>
> Most hitters should emulate Rose. And let's dispense with the disparaging, vauge labels such as "judy" and 'slap." He was a singles hitter. Most of his hits were singles. That is an objective description of his approach.
>
> Why did he not hit more homers? We could debate that forever. He obviously did something different from Tony Perez and John Bench. And he did so with a rotational swing, even if it was a cut-down version of the power rotational swing.
>
> Which raises another point. Jack has wonderfully described what the best hitters do - the ones who hit for both power and average. It has been a breathtaking body of work he has produced.
>
> But just because we have decoded the road map doesn't mean everyone can take the voyage. Knowing the techniques doesn't mean that it still takes an enormous amount of athletic ability to hit for power to all fields.
>
> It's still a hellish assignment for all but the most talented. I know Jack feels that it's easier now that we know what to do. I say it still takes a lot. Getting the bat moving early while deciphering the pitch takes a lot of coordination. Being able to direct the top hand pull in the correct direction while reading the pitch is kind of like patting your head and rubbing your stomach while dribbling a soccer ball. It's tough.
>
> Heavy pull hip and shoulder rotation takes a lot of strength. Taming your hands from shoving forward with full rotation takes a lot of coordination.
>
> Rose just looked at his talent and decided to do less. He went with the circle and the rotation and forgot the bat waving. He took the extra time derived from hitting the ball late, foraking pulling.
>
> Most hitters should emulate him. Most players out of high school have Division III caliber talent. The Bell Curve tells us that. They can turn the Bell Curve on its ear by adopting rotational singles hitting.
>
> Most hitters should forget pullling. Take the hits, lose the strikeouts and the mis-hits.
>
> A final opinion. The best hitters, the ones with high averages and with power to all fields, hit homers while swinging far below their maximum effort. They hit homers without trying. Anyone who can't hang with the best power hitter on his team in a BP long ball contest needs to consider the rotational singles swing. I bet that's what Rose figured out while a first year pro back in the 1960s.
>
> There is no shame in it. There is honor in making a rational inventory of your talent and getting the most of it. There is folly in fooling yourself.
>
> Rose had a great swing. Most hitters should copy his approach. I venture that most would hit more homers with his little circle swing than they would by doing anything else, if only because they will be on the center of the bat more often. If you can do that little circle swing in games, maybe, maybe, you are a candidate to add THT after months or years.
>
> I think Jack has said as much himself, that BHT and CHP are the first steps. Most hitters, who by their majority can't all be the most talented, should probably stick with that approach permanently.
>
> Melvin
>

Melvin and everyone,

Thanks for the insightful analysis by everyone. Sandman's jpg's reinforced a lot of Melvin's analysis. Is it too much to say that Rose was actually a rotational hitter? I think we're in agreement that the lack of THT and pre-launch sweep contributed to his lack of power, but he sure looks like a rotational hitter based on his clearly circular hand path and bottom hand torque. That sounds almost heretical!

If the prototypical singles hitter of all time didn't have linear mechanics, then who does? Does anyone know of a hall of famer, or even a good major leaguer that doesn't have rotational mechanics?

Thanks for the help - JJA