Posted by: Jack Mankin (MrBatspeed@aol.com) on Thu Jan 13 09:48:42 2005

>>> I think I understand the basic mechanics of rotational hitting except for one thing. I do not understand the if there should be a stride, its length, and overall importance to sucess. Thanks. <<<

Hi Dan

In my opinion, the stride’s main contribution to the swing is for timing and rhythm to the incoming pitch. Below is a post I recently made regarding the stride

Jack Mankin

>>> Jack, I would be interested in Bagwell's 1994 stance (.368, 39HR, 400AB, 750SLG). His other years, while good, pale in comparison. <<<

Hi Mike

I do not recall Bagwell's 1994 stance. I would assume your point is that he had his best year while taking a forward stride instead of his present backward stride. I have no problem with your conclusion. Some hitters may very well perform better with a forward stride.

I do have a disagreement with thinking hitters like Bonds use the stride to obtain momentum for the swing. Linear momentum is the product of mass and velocity. Mass with little or no forward movement has little or no momentum to transfer. Hitters like Bonds may pick up the foot and place it five or six inches forward, however, there may be little or no forward movement of the axis (body mass). Therefore, there is little or no linear momentum to be converted into rotational momentum – if that were even possible.

Even with hitters like Brett who take long strides with a lot of forward movement, I do not believe the transfer of momentum plays the major role in their hip rotation. The major part of their hip rotation comes from the pelvis being thrusted around by the muscles in the thighs, hips and back – not the transfer of momentum at toe plant.

Try it for yourself. Stand up and take a long stride with your hips closed and see how much the hips tend to rotate without using the muscles to thrust the pelvis around.

Jack Mankin