Posted by: swb (batspeed@integritycorp.com) on Tue Apr 23 21:41:30 2002

Scott,
> You mentioned the tee drill where the front ball is lower than the rear tee, thus promoting the downward swing. Question is:
> What do the linear writers say about the notion of a swing that allows for such a small "impact zone"? The rotational swing on the plane of the pitch allows for a large impact zone. A level swing allows for a much smaller impact zone, while a down swing allows for an impact zone the size of a ball. (See Epstein's tips section for a diagram)
> Also, our down-swinger HS coach lauds the imparting of backspin on the ball. Good for flies (which he doesn't want), I agree. But why do they want grounders with backspin? I always hated those topspin grounders digging holes in my chest.
>
> Hope you don't mind being the linear poster boy of batspeed.com. I figger you can handle it with aplomb (or at least good humor)!
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Linear poster boy??" Naw, I don't mind at all. I've got some kids with real hitting problems, and my goal is to learn enough to help them (and not harm their game). My "ego" level is at zero. I figure that the better I understand BOTH traditional hitting methods (what Jack calls "linear") and rotational, the better I'll be able to distinguish between what works, what doesn't, and why. I've spent quite a bit of time and effort studying this stuff in the past six weeks or so. I wrote Jack today with a response to his retorical questions, and added some of my conclusions, on this thread (http://www.batspeed.com/messageboard/output/6474.html).

To answer your question regarding the limited impact zone of a "down swinger" (or linear, called "L") versus that of "rotational mechanics" (called "R"), I don't think traditional hitting coaches adequately address the issue. I think you've nailed it with your reference to backspin resulting from hitting slightly downward on the ball. That's one point they make. They are also emphasising quick hands and (hopefully) a quicker bat to the impact zone, and are willing to trade off the smaller impact zone for added batspeed. In fact, as I told Jack in my referenced post, I'm not sure a batter can operate under tolerances of 1/1000th of a second. While I'm very attracted to the argument that with R mechanics, that the bathead stays in the zone longer on a trajectory level to the path of the ball, I'm just not sure it really matters. I don't think human reflexes can react to those tolerances.

However, Mike Epstein also addressed the fallacy that "hitting down" causes desired backspin. He states that the path of a pitched ball normally drops downwards, so a level (ground reference) swing will in fact impart some backspin on the ball anyway. Dusty Baker teaches hitting the "top half" or "bottom half" of the ball for top-spin or back-spin, which appears to be a better way to effect the desired result.

I think Jack's emphasis on keeping the hands back (to develop top hand torque), and STARTING the swing with hip and trunk rotation, rather than ENDING it with hip rotation, as with L mechanics, really makes all the difference. I think that L mechanics actually succeeds in producing a circular hand path from the right shoulder (RH batter) to the impact zone (it'a an angular path, not a linear path), but that the moment for transferring lower body torque to the bat is so small (coming at about the time the ball is hit), that most batters are always fighting either "opening early" or late. Plus, the R method produces more hand torque as well (top hand at start, bottom hand at finish). It's not impossible to hit well with traditional machanics, but it takes near-perfect timing.

Nice chatting with you.

- Scott