Who Should Give Up Switch-Hitting?
Published June 16, 2006
In theory, switch hitting makes a player immune to the handedness of pitchers so a manager will get no distinct advantage out of bringing in a specialty reliever from the bullpen in an attempt to increase the percentages of the reliever recording an out. If a left-handed reliever comes into the game, then the hitter can bat from the right-handed batter's box or vice versa.
The same holds true for switch hitters versus opposing starting pitchers. A left-handed switch hitter need not have been taken out of the lineup when facing vintage Randy Johnson. That being said, switch hitting is only effective when a hitter performs equally well or close to it from both sides of the plate.
Understandably, there is an element of comfort involved in always looking at a right-handed pitcher from the same angle. But even comfort, at some point, is trumped by a large drop-off in production. And that threshold comes when there is a 10% or greater difference between the OPS in one batter's box versus what the OPS is in the other.
After looking at the list of active switch hitters, I weeded out the ones who had not accumulated, since 2002 up to however many at-bats they have had this season, at least 500 at-bats as a right-handed better and 500 at-bats as a left-handed batter. When that was completed, I looked at their splits over the aforementioned time span and then took the percent difference between their higher OPS and their lower one. These are the hitters with whom switch hitting does not agree.
Lance Berkman
As LHB: .424 OBP/.592 SLG/1.016 OPS in 1,789 at-bats
As RHB: .392 OBP/.425 SLG/.818 OPS in 543 at-bats
Lance Berkman's inclusion on this late is certainly no indictment on his talent. His career line of .302 BA/.414 OBP/.560 SLG is impressive any way you look at it and he is one of the elite players in MLB right now. However, an interesting question to ask is how good those numbers would be if he did not consider himself a switch-hitter and stuck only to the left-handed batter's box. They probably would not be any worse.
The most glaring difference between these two splits is with what little power Berkman hits with from the right side. His OBP is similar and so is his BA, but for a power hitter like Berkman to only slug .425 from the right side is embarrassing. The only thing more embarrassing is that he continues to bat right-handed when doing so makes him 80% of the hitter he is from the left side of the plate.
- Who Should Give Up Switch-Hitting?
- Published: June 16, 2006
- Type: News
- Section: Sports
- Filed Under: Sports: Baseball
- Writer: David Barbour
- David Barbour's BC Writer page
- David Barbour's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Odd that last week Gary Gillette tabbed Varitek and Berkman each as one of the top five switch hitters in each league. (Link requires subscription).
Berkman: "A natural lefty, Berkman is much more dangerous from the left side of the plate. He has a good swing and handles the bat very well, especially for a hitter with power, which makes him one of those rare sluggers who are also excellent on the hit-and-run."
Varitek: "An aggressive switch-hitter, Varitek has plus power to all fields. He consistently pounds left-handed pitching but is no slouch against right-handers, either. While he is a tough out, he can be seduced into chasing breaking pitches and high fastballs as evidenced by his 349 strikeouts in the past three seasons."
It is odd considering that his wording seems to indicate even he realizes those two batters are much better hitting on side of the plate.
Correction: When you place the mouse over Mark Bellhorn's image, the caption should read "Try the Right Side, Bellhorn." Apologies.
I saw that too. Probably an indirect assertion that the plate appearances on that side is a net benefit for the batter's production.
Example: Adam Dunn bats left-handed. In the past three years his slugging is .100 points lower against lefties, total OPS down by about .150. If he hit on both sides of the plate and his OPS from the right was still down by .100, it would still be seen as poor performance from the right hand side.
I'm sure there's examples of people who quit the switch hitting and dedicated himself to one side (thus benefitting his batting), but it's Saturday night and I don't have the resources to use my memory.
I agree Brian Roberts should try batting lefty all the time, but you are dead wrong about his defense. He's significantly above average in all stats except the seriously flawed range factor and in watching him on a regular basis as an Orioles' fan he certainly looks above average and is by far the best defensive infielder the Orioles have. His glove is certainly far superior to the aging Chris Gomez who would be his likely replacement if he were benched against some lefties. Giving up switch hitting might be difficult for him because his father who was the baseball coach at UNC for many years taught him to switch hit before he taught him to read, so it's not like most switch hitters who picked it up in high school or junior high. I still think he should give it a shot in Spring Training though.
If you are a batting against a pitcher that pitches the same arm you are batting, there is a huge difference in the angle from which you see the ball. Seeing the ball better from the other side of the plate makes a huge difference. I think their numbers would be far lower if they stopped switch hitting.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/49345)
If this a rhetorical question? Oops, this is about baseball. Never mind.