Switch Hitting: Why nobody should bother anymore

[sturg1dj]

is it just me or is switch hitting not needed in baseball. Sure its impressive if you can do it, but does it really help any? Name the greatest switch hitters ever......Mantle, Murray....then who. There are other fine switch hitters, but it doesn't seem to be an advantage as some people think.

IMO here is why it is a waste of time.

1) growing up it is hard to practice both. The idea is to hit right handed against LHP and left against right. Well how many lefties do you face growing up? I can say in 13 years of baseball growing up I hit against maybe 10, but probably less than that. So unless you go up hitting RH against RHP, you probably won't get the practice you need RH.

2) sure many lefties may have problems hitting other lefties, but how much advantage does it give them going right handed when most people don't face lefties much anyways.

I say if you are going to mess with your kids swing, its ok to make them a lefty hitter, but don't waste your time making them a switch.


ANY COMMENTS??

[Jesse]

You make good points. In general, learning to switch hit is more trouble than it's worth for most kids. However if a kid really wants to do it and they're naturally ambidextrous enough to pick it up without too much trouble (BIG ifs), I say let them. If it gets to be too much work and/or they find they're really not hitting very well from one side or the other, they can always stop.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Couldn't agree more. The lefty/lefty and righty/righty matchups in todays game are overblown imo, and are only as effective as they are, because the majority of hitters are trying to go yard from strikes 1 through 3. Take a good approach, try not to do to much, take what is given when the situation calls for it and it doesn't matter what hand the pitcher is and what direction the curve is breaking. Being great from one side is better than being good on one side and mediocre on the other.

[csh19792001]

is it just me or is switch hitting not needed in baseball. Sure its impressive if you can do it, but does it really help any? Name the greatest switch hitters ever......Mantle, Murray....then who?

Actually, Chipper Jones is set to break Paiul Waner's 79 year old record tonight, and his career line is .304/.402/.539. He's probably a better hitter/offensive player than Eddie Murray was, but Murray played for 47 years, so...

From An Article Written in 2004 (http://braves.mostvaluablenetwork.com/2004/05/)

Chipper Jones

Although there may be a couple of legends whose numbers will stack up more closely with Chipper’s in the long run, almost everyone compares him to the only switch-hitter with more home runs: Mickey Mantle. It will take Chipper longer to hit as many home runs as the Mick hit, but thanks to hundreds more doubles in the long run and otherwise consistent numbers, they both will be remembered as the two greatest switch hitters to play major league baseball — at least until another great one comes along. Consider these numbers:

(see the article)

If Chipper manages to play as many seasons as Mantle did, his career totals will look very similar to Mantle’s, except Chipper will have come to the plate a couple thousands more times and probably hit 300 more doubles than the Yankees great. Chipper also will not strike out nearly as much as Mantle did. These should be the only significant differences between them, just enough for a hearty, futile debate over which will be remembered as the greatest switch hitter in MLB history.

While I don't agree with the author that Jones is (or ever will be) in the class with Mantle, he IS one hell of a hitter, and if he can remain healthy, he could put together some outstanding career totals.

It's brutally difficult to do, so there haven't been many that could do it at the Major League level.... but there have been some very good (at times great) switch hitters.

Others:
Tim Raines
Frankie Frisch- yeah, but he didn't walk, so he couldn't have been a great hitter :rolleyes:
Pete Rose
Reggie Smith
Roberto Alomar
Bernie Williams
George Davis
Ken Singleton
Ted Simmons (VERY underrated player)
Max Carey
George Davis

[Sultan_1895-1948]

HoJo gets no love Chris? Three 30/30 and two 20/20 seasons ;)

And Bobby Bo also says hello :p

[hellborn]

While I don't agree with the author that Jones is (or ever will be) in the class with Mantle, he IS one hell of a hitter, and if he can remain healthy, he could put together some outstanding career totals.


One thing that article ignores is that Jones has about 1000 walks and 6000AB, while Mantle had about 1700 BB and 8000 AB. Mantle's superior BB rate gave him a .421 OBP compared to Jones' .401, and Mantle actually has a substantially higher slugging ratio, too.
Jones has been an awesome player, but he has played in an era that has featured a lot more offense than Mantle's and still doesn't quite match up to Mick's numbers. I agree with csh's comment that Chipper isn't in Mick's class.

[csh19792001]

Agreed. How many people are in Mantle's class, though? About 10 out of the 14,500 people that have played in the Major Leagues.

[onbaseball]

Ted Williams was always anti-switch-hitting, and in fact I vaguely remember him forcing Reggie Smith to bat only righthanded (?) for a year or two while coaching the Bosox.

I agree that the lefty-lefty / righty-righty matchup theory is overblown. However, as long as the "geniuses" in MLB continue to believe in these matchups, and continue to employ "LOOGYs" (and now "ROOGYs", such as Chad Bradford), then a switch-hitter has value in that he'll remain in the lineup. Also, a lot of managers will take a switch-hitter for their roster when it comes down to two players to choose from, for the same "matchup" reasons.

[tominct]

Name the greatest switch hitters ever......Mantle, Murray....then who.

Uuuuuhhhhh...does the name Pete Rose ring a bell? Let's see, maybe Chipper Jones? Bernie Williams? Roberto Alomar? Jorge Posada, Jason Varitek, Reggie Smith, Time Raines, Lance Berkman?

Are we talking about the same game?

[tominct]

Jones has been an awesome player, but he has played in an era that has featured a lot more offense than Mantle's and still doesn't quite match up to Mick's numbers. I agree with csh's comment that Chipper isn't in Mick's class.

How many players are in Mantle's class? To compare anyone to Mantle is unfair. That being said...let's look at the the flip side.....How often in Mantle's career did he face four different pitchers? How many of them threw 92-96 mph? How many threw split fingered fastballs? how many "closers" did he face? What percentage of night games did he play? How many cross-country trips did he have to make in a season? And lets not forget the short porch in Right at yankee Stadium, and I suppose, although I cannot confirm right now, that Mantle had more AB's lefty.

I will concede that Jones is not Mantle, but who is? But I am sick of hearing that the players of way back when are better than today's player. Were the old timers better in basketball? Football? Hockey? NO! Then why do so many insist that today's baseball players aren't better than yesteryear's players?

[virg]

Were the old timers better in basketball? Football? Hockey? NO! Then why do so many insist that today's baseball players aren't better than yesteryear's players?

Tom I share your pain just as every generation has and the rest surely will including,(if you don't behave, that after you). Was still pitching fps ten years out of high school when it occurred to me that sprinters 10% faster were also 10% heavier. Young set (9.7 100 yd) of twins on my crew, playing on unfenced fields where I had always thrown too many homerun balls. With just one in the OF, no more homers for years.

Old guys couldn't move that fast- young ones couldn't hit it that hard. And there's the rub. Jocks are still jocks, still take a while to wean off brute force, and few will ever do it.

Another angle is the size of that talent pool today. The population in 1900AD was 70 million: subtract 10% from the talent pool a/c race. The pool is immeasurable now.
It may be as easy to tally who isn't playing baseball.

[sturg1dj]

Uuuuuhhhhh...does the name Pete Rose ring a bell? Let's see, maybe Chipper Jones? Bernie Williams? Roberto Alomar? Jorge Posada, Jason Varitek, Reggie Smith, Time Raines, Lance Berkman?

Are we talking about the same game?

ok fair enough...but look at the top 100 batting averages of all time and tell me how many switch hitters there were....then think if they only batted from one side would their numbers been much different?

[hellborn]

Uuuuuhhhhh...does the name Pete Rose ring a bell? Let's see, maybe Chipper Jones? Bernie Williams? Roberto Alomar? Jorge Posada, Jason Varitek, Reggie Smith, Time Raines, Lance Berkman?

Are we talking about the same game?
Don't forget Mark Bellhorn!!!
Oh, wait...everybody really HAS forgotten Mark Bellhorn.
:ughh

[VIBaseball]

Carlos Baerga and Ruben Sierra could have been up there among the all-timers and were great for a few seasons. Chili Davis is worth mentioning too. Carlos Beltran isn't all that well balanced between his two sides but is also wortthy.

[hellborn]

I agree that comparing across eras is problematic, but most of us give it a shot, anyway. I guess another way to look at it is that Mantle was clearly one of the best few players of his time, while I would say that Jones is probably more like a top 10-20 guy for his time. That argument has nothing to do with Jones being a more recent player, just that he was not as dominant as Mantle.
Regarding some of your particular points, Bill James has argued that pitchers in the 50s probably threw harder than modern pitchers because they did not have to worry about the running game and used longer, more powerful motions. I'm sure that travel in Mantle's time was MORE stressful and less convenient than now, even if most teams were still in the East then. And, you can't seriously make a point of Mantle having an advantage at Yankee when Chipper has had two different launching pads for home parks!!!!

[tominct]

Regarding some of your particular points, Bill James has argued that pitchers in the 50s probably threw harder than modern pitchers because they did not have to worry about the running game and used longer, more powerful motions.

I don't believe that for a minute! Just thing about that whole idea for a second....with all the video tape, kinesiology, etc....does Bill James think that we haven't figured out how to use our bodies to throw harder?

[hellborn]

I don't believe that for a minute! Just thing about that whole idea for a second....with all the video tape, kinesiology, etc....does Bill James think that we haven't figured out how to use our bodies to throw harder?
Well, this is really hard for me to judge, but I'd give Bill James a lot of credit for knowing something about how modern coaching and training works, seeing how he works as a top advisor for the Bosox...plus, he knows a bit about the history of the game, too.
From what little video I've seen of '50s baseball, I'd say that many pitchers then clearly had very high energy motions that allowed them to really get their bodies into their pitches. And, guys like Bob Feller and Steve Dalkowski clearly were able to get something on their fastballs without video analysis and kinesiology consultation...
Can some Feveranians who have seen baseball from the '50s until now chip in here? I can't make a call here, I was just pointing out what a highly respected baseball analyst had said.

[virg]

Can some Feveranians who have seen baseball from the '50s until now chip in here? I can't make a call here, I was just pointing out what a highly respected baseball analyst had said.

Is it not true that at speeds beyond 50-60mph air resistance multiplies exponentially with speed increase? This inhibits both thrown and batted balls and in effect imposes strict limitations. I'd say we've got about all we'll ever get except for all the blown arms.

Mightn't pitching form in earlier years express the higher strike zone? Did the lower zone along with bigger players, shorter fences, and juice bring in the diagonal swing?

[Stumanji]

I chose three hitters with pretty similar stats, one is a right-handed hitter, one is a left-handed hitter, and the third is a switch hitter.

Righty:
.319 avg, 26 HRs, 78 RBIs, .979 OPS

Lefty:
.323 avg, 29 HRs, 97 RBIs, .983 OPS

Switch:
.318 avg, 29 HRs, 94 RBIs, 1.024 OPS

Here are their splits:

Righty (73% ABs vs Righty):
L: .355 avg, 4 HRs, 17 RBIs, .952 OPS
R: .311 avg, 22 HRs, 61 RBIs, 1.011 OPS

Lefty (64% ABs vs. Righty):
L: .319 avg, 11 HRs, 32 RBIs, .969 OPS
R: .327 avg, 17 HRs, 62 RBIs, .980 OPS

Switch (76% ABs vs. Righty):
L: .329 avg, 4 HRs, 19 RBIs, .945 OPS
R: .319 avg, 25 HRs, 75 RBIs, 1.058 OPS

This doesn't really support any one argument, Switch vs. Non-Switch... but I dug up the stats anyway - so enjoy. :dance

[Jake Patterson]

What would be more interesting to compare is how many Switch hitters there are in the MLB and how many of them were players who decided to switch hit or were ambidextrous.

Does anyone have clips of the same hitter from both sides of the plate hitting the same pitch location???? It would interesting to compare the two to see if it's a mirror image.

[LousivilleSlugger]

Doesnt Roy Smalley get any respect?

[sturg1dj]

there are exceptions to all rules....but my main point is the bulk of major league switch hitters and really the bulk of all swith hitters have a stronger side, thus making it useless to switch hit.

You guys can bring up Beltran, Mantle, Murray or whomever all you want, but then bring up Chipper Jones who may hit pretty much for the same average, but his power and SLG take a huge hit. Or Gary Templeton who nearly hit 20 points higher right handed. Or how about this....wouldn't it be easier when you are slumping to work on one swing and not two?

The point of this is not saying that someone who bats only one way is superior than a switch hitter, it is that making someone a switch hitter may be a waste of time, when hitting one way could be just as good.