Posted by: Jacek (jacekdmochowski@hotmail.com) on Mon Jul 21 11:35:21 2008

> Hi Jacek,
> I believe there are some flaws in the logic of your argument. One is that you only appear to be concerned with two dimensions, but especially the inside/outside. (Yet at the same time, you seem to think that if you swing straigth ahead that the sweet spot is going to line up with the ball, regardless if the pitch is inside.)
>
> Second is the assumption you make that one can swing in a linear fashion and stay on the plane of the pitch (which is downward, requiring a slight upswing or tilt) for any length of time. A flat or downward swing which is often produced by linear mechanics, requires that the bat must intersect the ball at exactly the right time, or in a very small zone of contact. The rotation swing when done correctly, gives you a larger zone to make contact.
>
> Chuck

Hi Chuck,

Actually, I wasn't making an argument; I was asking a question. My question was whether a rotational swing leads to the barrel of the bat spending more/less time in the contact zone. I agree that there are more factors than just the azimuth angle; like you point out, there's also the elevation of the swing. I guess I'm trying to find out if there is a tradeoff between hitting for power and hitting for average, or whether a rotational hitter that generates greater batspeeed will also maximize percentage of times making solid contact.

-- Jacek