Posted by: Jimmy () on Wed Feb 21 12:08:13 2007

> > Nice effort on the clip.
> >
> > You draw the line of the pitch. Then you show the arc of the barrel through contact and then claim "see the large hitzone", or something to that effect, that the circular path creates.
> >
> > With the circular path you have drawn, the hitzone is actually quite small, not large. It's quite small because of the "horizontal swing plane"...the "around the shoulders swing plane"...that you promote. You do want to hit the sweet spot don't you?
> >
> > With what you've drawn, the sweet spot lines up with the ball twice. The point early in the arc (if the hitter was late) and the point later in the arc (if the hitter was early). For John to hit that pitch, with that swing, at all the possible spots that you claim exist, besides the two mentioned above, he will make linear hand/arm adjustments. They are absolutely required to line up the sweet spot.
> >
> > By your theory, it's ok for the hitter to hit the ball on the handle, slightly up from the handle, the sweet spot, toward the end, and the end. And all points between.
> >
> > There is most definitely linear components to the swing. A purely rotational swing does not allow the adjustability a hitter needs to align the barrel with the ball, given the time crunch he is under.
> >
> > Finally, the swing plane of MLB hitters is not mostly horizontal as demonstrated here. It is diagonal. The diagonal plane allows high adjustability for both in/out adjustment and up/down adjustments.
> >
> > Up/down adjustments with the mostly horizontal swing plane you promote are very limited....limited to the point no high level hitter swings that way.
>
> Teacherman:
>
> First, as I mentioned to Jimmy, John was demonstating hitting an outside pitch. Second, the twos frames at issue show the swing well before contact and well after contract, but the difference between pulling the ball and going the opposition way is only about 20
degrees of bat angle. Even you don't deny that the hands move at most a couple of inches during this time. The hands basically pivot around a point, which allows the bat to hit the ball to either field in the sweet spot.
>
> As a side point, it is somewhat ironic that Jimmy says there is too much rotational in John's swing, and you say "there is most definitely linear components to the swing." It appears that in your quest to standout you guys are creating your own definitions of
rotational and linear. Jack Mankin was the first person to define "linear" and "rotational" mechanics about 20 years ago to address how the pure linear teachings back then contradicted the rotational mechanics of the best hitters of the day.
>
> If you now want to create your own definitions (to be different from BatSpeed.com) and claim that either of these swings are in any way linear, then congratulations for whatever you want to accomplish, but understand that both swings in the clips fit squarely within Jack's definition of rotational mechanics.
>
> Anyone, including you, who sees linear in these swings need to get "back to basics" and review the FUNDAMENTAL differences in rotational and linear swings where this whole debate started when baseball players were first introduced to the difference between what Jack defined as a rotational ("circular" or "arching") swing and an ("A to B") linear swing.
>
> Brian

Brian,

If you would actually read Teacherman's post, you would understand it a little more accurately.

He stated that there are linear components to THE swing NOT the swing that you tried to use as an example. I'm sure Teacherman would agree with me when I state that (the swing that "rotational" mechanics promotes is not in the hitting zone long enough. And to
actually hit the ball on the sweet-spot, the hitter has to apply a more linear path to the barrel in the hitting zone.)

Jimmy