Re: SHOULD JED LOWRIE CONSIDER JUST HITTING FROM THE RIGHT SIDE?
posted at 6/7/2011 1:08 AM EDT
In Response to Re: SHOULD JED LOWRIE CONSIDER JUST HITTING FROM THE RIGHT SIDE?
[QUOTE]I am at a loss as to why the Red Sox employ Magadan and pay him so much money with so much free advice available on community chat boards. Obviously switch hitting is not "pointless." Equally obvious is that many of the experts here haven't got a clue what they are talking about when suggestions like these arise.
Posted by ZILLAGOD[/QUOTE]
Will you accept the words of the late Charlie Lau?http://www.beabetterhitter.com/text/coaches/lau/lawsonhitting.htm"I want to close this chapter on the mental approach to hitting with a discussion on the theory of switch-hitting. The longer I’ve been around baseball and the more I have studied the concepts of hitting, the more I have questioned the basic theory behind switch-hitting. In fact, I have reached the point where I don’t see the value of switch-hitting at all.
Think about this: Every switch-hitter who has ever played the game always has had a stronger, natural side of the plate from which he hits. Why would anyone purposely waste any at bats from their weaker side? Yes, yes, I know all the old-school theories on the value of switch-hitting: It is always better to have a breaking ball come toward you than move away from you, for vision purposes. And yes, it has been believed for years that it is far better to have right-handed hitters match up against left-handed pitchers (at least for offensive strategy) and vice versa...
...Let me explain it another way: The reason switch-hitting really became popular in the ‘40s, ‘50s, and ‘60s was because the primary school of hitting was the pull school of hitting, the Ted Williams pull school of hitting. Almost every hitter in the game was taught to be a dead-pull hitter. Of course, it’s a little tough to be terribly successful as a pull hitter against intelligent pitchers who are running curve balls away from you. As we have explained previously, when a pull hitter attempts to hit a curve ball away from him, the result is usually a weak ground ball. This is why switch-hitting rose in popularity. The dead-pull hitters found they could be more successful if they always had that curve ball coming toward them rather than moving away. So they switched sides of the plate. And even by hitting with their ``weaker’’ side of the plate, they improved their overall average slightly...
...To further illustrate my point, let me ask you this: Who was the last switch-hitter to flirt with hitting .400? Yet George Brett has. Larry Walker has. Tony Gwynn has. None of these great hitters are switch-hitters. ... It makes little difference to any of those hitters whether they are facing a lefty or a righty because they have or had the ability to cover the entire plate. Here’s a more recent example. Chipper Jones, one of the more well-known switch-hitters today, is far better from his dominant side, his left side. From the left side, he hits .320 with 25 to 30 homers a year. From the right side, he hits about .220 with homers. So why does he continue to switch hit? Only he can tell you. Another example is Royals rookie of the year Carlos Beltran, who in 1999 hit .300 with 15 home runs and 88 RBIs from his dominant left side, but hit only .265 with two home runs and 20 RBIs from his right side.
It seems to me that switch-hitting is yet another old-school philosophy that needs to be put on a shelf, right next to back-foot hitting and rolling the wrists over."
I took out some of the sales-y stuff. That website is basically selling the tips of a man who died 20 years ago (through a book authored by his son). But you get the idea.
So what are Madigan's thoughts on the subject?