Posted by: Dave A () on Wed Apr 12 18:18:30 2006

> > > > > I find that hard to believe. Wouldn't a hitter with linear swing mechanics need more physical strength to get the same results as someone with rotational mechanics?
> > > > >
> > > > > The Ted Williams comment is especially comical. Alfonso Soriano, for one, is 180 lbs. Not to mention that half of the Latin American players in minor league farm systems arent 150 lbs dripping wet, and yet they consistently hit bigger bombs than Americans who weigh well over 200 lbs.
> > > > >
> > > > > One thing all of these guys have in common is an excellent CHP. If they "took the knob to the ball", most of these guys wouldnt hit a ball out of the infield.
> > > > >
> > > > > ...and it probably helps that they havent had to deal with years of coaches who teach them inefficient swing mechanics.
> > > >
> > > > Hi All
> > > >
> > > > You are correct the pure linear swing requires more muscle to hit the ball further. I have some very small individuals who hit the ball further then anyone on their team and they use more rotational mechanics combined with hip drive (back knee to the pitcher, heel to the sky).
> > > >
> > > > Understand that 54% of the power generated come from the hips and core area. The reason that players turned to steroids is for core strength and shorter recovery times from workouts and injuries.
> > > >
> > > > Dave P
> > >
> > >
> > > Dave. You bring up some interesting comments. But the primary reason the latin players fare so well is that they play year round and have played on substandard conditions. Overcoming that in itself contributes to production when encountering easier surroundings.
> > >
> > > True enough, some hitters have been trained incorrectly. But one point is that what they do well, they do not do well enough. Many players today do not work on their defense, can't work counts, can't bunt, advance runners, can't run the bases and make poor overall decisions. There used to be a time when defense at some positions could keep a player in the big leagues.
> > >
> > > In addition a linear swing with a proper angle of connection does not require massive strength if the hitter can pull the ball.
> > >
> > > #
> > > Dave. Not that I disagree with your last statement but steroids helped Barry Bonds hit 30 more homeruns than he was hitting without them. And it is likely that if he had not hit benefited from their use he would have only hit 30 or slightly more homeruns the last couple of years because he is walked so often. We should also note that in his home park, many of his homeruns to center and left are not clearing the fences by great distances. Also note that Sammy Sosa is out of baseball completely because he can't compete without steroids as shown last year and without the use of his confidence gained from cork bat issues.
> >
> > Hello Hitter Person
> >
> > I have trouble making you a Guru without understanding wher you come from and what you teach. The linear swing when hit on the proper angle (very small room for error) requires more uper body strength then a rotational swing. Biomechanical principals dictate this and though through the past some linear hitters have been successful their power numbers are very seldom consistantly high.
> >
> > It appears also that you have great issue with the steroids in the game of baseball and I do agree with you that the homerun numbers are up due to them but making the statement that Bonds would only hit 30HRs without steroids maybe a litter too general. If he was not hitting 60 HRs his walk numbers would have been down from their present point and he would have had more pitches to hit. Steroids have not made Bonds eye at the plate better or increased his eye hand coordination so you can have all the steroids in the world and still not be able to hit a baseball.
> >
> > I do agree with your point about the hitters not having the ability to read defences and play small ball but the last time I watched a game I believe that more runs are scored off HRs and Doubles combined then through any other way of scoring a run. Can small ball be used in an effective manor, Yes BUT it would take a team of those type of hitters to produce as many runs as 4-5 HR hitters.
> >
> > Continue to post on this site so we can all determine if the 'Guru' status is of substance or Ego.
> >
> > Dave P
>
>
> Dave P. No disrespect to your comments as Bonds has a seemingly great technique and for those who can benefit from studying his style more power to them. But we should also at least consider that his father was an outstanding player in his own right and Willie Mays was his relative as well. So the genes obviously had a big part to play in how successful he is today and has been over his career.
>
> Rafael Palmeiro (appearance) of steroids, was traded from the Cubs earlier in his career because he did not and was forcasted to not have enough power in his future. And over the years his swing has been the same. It was only when he met Canseco that his stats (steroids) increased. You can draw your own conclusions as to if steroids make a difference or THE difference.
>
> Steroids have allowed players to defeat "mother nature" at least in the short run. And Barry Bonds along with others have appreciated when a player like a Ken Griffey Jr. has depreciated during the later part of his career. Had Bonds not benefited from steroids it is likely he would have met a similar fate. In fact, Griffey had already passed Bonds as the better hitter and fielder prior to Griffey's injuries and Bond's feeling that he was being out shined by McGwire and Sosa (as he resorted to steroids) in an effort to pick up the slack.
>
> To further my points regarding the steroid issue, take Canseco who was the best player in baseball at one time and who used rotation mechanics etc. and compare him to his twin brother Ozzie who had basically the same mechanics as well as genes. His brother could not even stay on a club let alone put up any type of numbers. Once again, you draw your own conclusions.
>
> With regard to your comments about small ball, just refer to the White Sox of last season. They one more close games which were decided by a few runs which was why they were able to run away with the division for most of the year.
>
> Steroids may not have increased Bonds eysight, but the definitely increased his confidence as well as his ability to be fearless on pitches on the inside part of the plate. Give any good hitter that advantage and he basically cannot be pitched to.
>
> Any hitter in the top 10 in homeruns would have eclipsed Barry Bonds had they used steroids.

Frankly, your comments are comical. Ted Williams was 6'4" 190lbs, in other words a complete twig. Yet he was a great hitter for average and for power. Alfonso Soriano swings a 36/36 bat at 6' 180lbs and is one of the premier hitters in the game. Guess they are "genetically blessed" with freakish strength that we just cant see. It couldn't be that they are rotational hitters... that would just be absurd wouldnt it ? Look at a clip of Ted William and look at a clip of Barry Bonds. Their stance and swing is almost exactly the same. Coincidence? I think not.


"Any hitter in the top 10 in homeruns would have eclipsed Barry Bonds had they used steroids."

- False. All of those hitters played in a completely different era where a number of factors were different. Athletes in every other sport in the world today are better than the athletes of the past yet for some reason baseball fans still idolize players from 1920 and say they could do the same thing that players like Albert Pujols and Alex Rodriguez are doing today or do it better. That is ridiculous. Babe Ruth didn't have 6'8" monsters out on the hill every day throwing 96 with a dirty slider (a pitch they didnt even think of at his time).Yea some players back then still had good fastballs but they were throwing from a higher mound so the home run hitters swung on a higher swing gradient therefore good contact would more often result in a homerun than it would today.

You are a "hitting guru" ?