Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best right-handed hitters of all time?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Bill Burgess View Post
    My candidates for the Greatest Right-Handed Hitters of All Time:

    1. Rogers Hornsby
    2. Honus Wagner
    3. Willie Mays
    4. Hank Aaron
    5. Nap Lajoie
    6. Cap Anson
    7. Harry Heilmann
    8. Alex Rodriguez
    9. Jimmy Foxx
    10. Joe DiMaggio

    Honorable Mentions:
    Mike Schmidt, Frank Robinson, Ernie Banks, Al Kaline, Roberto Clemente, Hank Greenberg, Manny Ramirez, Jackie Robinson, Kiki Cuyler.
    What about Big Ed Delahanty?
    You have to suffer a revolution to know what are you talking about.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Bill Burgess View Post
      I think that there are some things that one doesn't even have to think about. Batting RH/LH is one such thing. It's like writing. How many sit down and think about which hand to write with? No too many I'd imagine.

      Same thing with sexual orientation. I know I never thought about it. I never asked myself if I liked girls or boys. Just naturally wanted to look at girls, think about them, fantasize about them, etc. Some things just happen, and we go with the path of least resistance. Who makes a conscious choice anyway? Few. Maybe some, but not most.

      I don't think Dad's try or make their kids bat a particular way. Batting is determined by which side of one's brain is more dominant. If one's left side of their brains are more dominant, they write right-handed, bat RH, bowl RH, shoot a gun with their right hand, etc. The left side of the brain concerns order, organization, structure, while the right side of the brain concerns art, subjectivity, love, emotion, passion, etc.

      That is not to say that anyone is all one side or the other. We're all all both, but one side will predominate. Like 60/40. We go back and forth all day long, every moment. It's called balance.
      You may have missed my point Bill. I didn't mean that dads make "try" to make kids bat in a particular way. What I said was that dads and most older persons are more likely to teach sons and other youngsters to bat "the way they do." I can still remember my dad putting a bat in my hand for the very first time, standing behind me and putting me in the RH batting stance, holding my hands on the bat. Guess what, without even thinking left or right hand years later doing exactly the same to my 3 sons, right handed.

      Don't know much about todays youngsters but I would bet that anyone 50 years of age or older will tell you there were always more RH batters and throwers when they were playing ball on sandlots or playgrounds, with no doubt. There was always a greater number of RH mitts in pick up games.

      I won't get into the part the brain plays in this and I accept what you have said on that issue. But with that aside there have always been in modern baseball more right handed throwers and batters and thats probably because it's the same in the population. Dating myself, I can recall teachers and nuns discouraging pupils from writing with their left hand and at times taking the pen or pencil out of your left hand, not so in recent years.

      Some numbers from a chart at Baseball Almanac in 1997.

      Thowers in MLB
      Left------18.75
      Right-----75.30
      Both--------.02
      Unknown---5.93

      Batting Stances MLB
      Left------25.79
      Right-----61.89
      Both------6.18
      Unknown--6.14 What is meant by unknown, I don't know.Too small to matter.

      Not sure if they meant throwers or batters but another stat from the year 1876 there were 97 right handed players and 10 left handed players.

      One more short story Bill, my first mitt. My dad took me to a sporting goods store picked up a mitt and put it on his left hand, he threw right handed. Pounded his fist into the mitt and said. try this. I am sure the thought left or right entered his mind, he was right handed so he picked out the same for me. From then on I was a right handed thrower.
      Now I would bet that most lefthanders, not all learned the same way. Not because those that taught them wanted them to be LH or RH but because without even thing they passed on their handedness.

      Brain aside and not disputing the studies, it's more simple, there are more right handers in the world and they often pass it on.
      Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 03-26-2008, 09:47 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Bill Burgess View Post
        Batting is determined by which side of one's brain is more dominant. If one's left side of their brains are more dominant, they write right-handed, bat RH, bowl RH, shoot a gun with their right hand, etc. The left side of the brain concerns order, organization, structure, while the right side of the brain concerns art, subjectivity, love, emotion, passion, etc.

        That is not to say that anyone is all one side or the other. We're all all both, but one side will predominate. Like 60/40. We go back and forth all day long, every moment. It's called balance.
        Another thing Bill if that is true it could be that there are more people whose left side of the brain is more dominant.

        There is one thing that can't be disputed here, there always was and still are more RH throwers and batters. And years ago the gap was even wider between right and left handers.

        Also influenced by other factors, the word sinister derived from a foreign word meaning evil or on "the left side." Also going way, way back warriors holding weapons in their right hand. This was so they could hold a shield on their left side to protect what they believed was their most vulnerable, most important organ, their heart.

        We can try and get into the brain and include that to Bill but no matter what the bottom line is there have been and still are more right handers, baseball and I would think the general population and it keeps getting passed on.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Minstrel View Post
          I see a difference in the players' talent. It shows why Cleveland was a superior team to Montreal. It has no effect on what kind of hitters Manny Ramirez or Vladimir Guerrero were.
          Manny is going to get easier pitches to hit because thome was right behind him

          if you really don't think that helps then i feel bad for you

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
            I'm putting that one on the top the greater number of RH pitchers.

            One more thats probably minimal but over the course of a whole careeer could mean more hits over the long haul.

            In the case when there is a runner on first and they choose to hold the runner on, the LH batter has a bigger hole to hit through, between the first and second baseman.
            Good points, ShoelessJoe. The number of right-handed pitchers likely is the most prominent factor. And the bigger hole observation has to play some role. Maybe even more so in preceding generations, when the game was played with greater awareness of such important subtleties. Today it's more everyone-swing-for-the-fences, no matter what the circumstances. And why not, with today's advantages?

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by blackout805 View Post
              colin cowherd was the first to say it, then the 2nd was one of the afternoon guys (on the mike tirico show or steven a smith)


              i don't know if Manny is better than Vlad, it's easy to put up big numbers in a star studded lineup. Vlad had nobody in montreal.
              It's not easy. And that doesn't make up for the big advantages in numbers that Manny has.
              Ball game over. World Series over! Yankees win thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Yankees win!

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by blackout805 View Post
                Manny is going to get easier pitches to hit because thome was right behind him
                Not the case, no matter how intuitive it seems. Ramirez's numbers haven't been affected by whether David Ortiz was hitting behind him or not. Studies of all other players who had better and worse hitters behind them throughout history have also failed to turn up that protection effect.

                Ramirez has superior numbers to Guerrero because he's a superior hitter.

                if you really don't think that helps then i feel bad for you
                Thank you for your sympathy. It's very sweet of you.
                "In the end it all comes down to talent. You can talk all you want about intangibles, I just don't know what that means. Talent makes winners, not intangibles. Can nice guys win? Sure, nice guys can win - if they're nice guys with a lot of talent. Nice guys with a little talent finish fourth and nice guys with no talent finish last." --Sandy Koufax

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Minstrel View Post
                  Not the case, no matter how intuitive it seems. Ramirez's numbers haven't been affected by whether David Ortiz was hitting behind him or not. Studies of all other players who had better and worse hitters behind them throughout history have also failed to turn up that protection effect.
                  So you say. It just may be your interpretation of the results.

                  You may not be able to point something out in the numbers all the time, but if you watch the game, just look at how pitchers pitch to a person, depending on who is behind them. Many pitchers have said this same thing.

                  As an example that I am more familiar with:

                  Seattle in the '90's. They had the great Ken Griffey Jr.

                  But hitting right behind him was Edgar Martinez. This afforded Griffey the protection he needed. Other pitchers would be more willing to pitch to Griffey, than say walk him and face Edgar with a man on. This allowed Griffey to see more good pitches (instead of a pitcher nibbling at the corners and having a greater chance of walking him). And then because Edgar was a feared hitter (and had a better batting eye) and didn't have the same protection that Griffey had from him, was in turned walked more.

                  Are you telling me that if you replaced Edgar Martinez with an average everyday hitter, that the pitchers wouldn't me slightly more inclined to walk Griffey and face the next batter? Or at least they wouldn't give him as many good pitches to hit - make him work more (which again, can lead to being walked more frequently).

                  Maybe I'm totally off, but this is how I see it - as well as a LOT of others as well.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
                    Some numbers from a chart at Baseball Almanac in 1997.

                    Thowers in MLB
                    Left------18.75
                    Right-----75.30
                    Both--------.02
                    Unknown---5.93

                    This one is simple to understand, it would have to be this way, a far greater number of RH throwers in MLB.

                    Of the 8 position players, 4 of them could be LH or RH throwers, 3 outfielders and 1 first baseman. Most would prefer a LH throwing first baseman.

                    The other 4, SS, 2nd and 3rd baseman and catcher all RH thowers. When is the last time we saw LH thowers in those position as every day players

                    Has to be the reason why there are so many more RH throwers in the game. Half of the position player in the infield, the catcher and the left side are RH throwers 99.99 percent of the time, while the 3 outfielders and first baseman could be left or right handed throwers.
                    Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 03-27-2008, 05:13 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by blackout805 View Post
                      why are right handed hitters in general not as good? 1 in every 9 people is left handed, so there's 8 times the talent pool of righties to choose from right?
                      Well as you can see Blackout the input on this thread has answered that one. It's not that they are not as good, left handed hitters have more favorable hitting conditions and the biggest is that there have always been more RH pitchers in the game. Some other factors but the big one, all those RH pitchers.

                      What you point out, the bigger pool of RH hitters makes it even more amazing, that LH hitters dominate the charts.

                      Of the top 10 modern career batting averages 7 are LH.

                      Get this one, with a minimum of 7500 plate appearances. Here are some stats from 1930-2006, thats 76 years.

                      one LH hitter at .340.......Williams .344
                      two LH hitters at .330---Gwynn .338---Musial .331
                      four LH hitters at .320--Boggs .328-Carew 328- P. Waner .326 Gehringer .322

                      One RH hitter at .325 Joe Dimaggio The highest career ave RH... 76 years
                      One RH hitter at .324 Medwick
                      One RH hitter at .324 Foxx.

                      Seven LH hitters at .320 or better and only three RH hitters, in 76 years, not even close and more RH hitters in the game on top of that, way bigger talent pool rightys.
                      No question about it, the game is geared for LH hitters.
                      Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 03-27-2008, 05:41 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
                        ...
                        Of the top 10 modern career batting averages 7 are LH.

                        Get this one, with a minimum of 7500 plate appearances. Here are some stats from 1930-2006, thats 76 years.

                        one LH hitter at .340.......Williams .344
                        two LH hitters at .330---Gwynn .338---Musial .331
                        four LH hitters at .320--Boggs .328-Carew 328- P. Waner .326 Gehringer .322

                        ...
                        And, of those 7 hitters, 4 (Splinter, Boggs, Carew, and Gehringer) threw righty. Plus Cobb, Eddie Mathews, Brett, Thome, etc. Other than the platoon advantage, also helps that the dominant eye (usually right in a righty) is in front that way.
                        "I throw him four wide ones, then try to pick him off first base." - Preacher Roe on pitching to Musial

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Edgartohof View Post
                          So you say. It just may be your interpretation of the results.
                          It's not "my interpretation," it's what the numbers say. A player's performance level (over a number of games) doesn't change whether he has a great hitter behind him or not.

                          To be clear, I am not saying it doesn't exist. I am saying that there is no evidence for it. In many ways, that's essentially the same thing, but the difference is that it is not 100% impossible that evidence for such an effect could be found.

                          You may not be able to point something out in the numbers all the time, but if you watch the game, just look at how pitchers pitch to a person, depending on who is behind them. Many pitchers have said this same thing.
                          Players say lots of things that aren't necessarily true. They are experts at how to play the game, but not necessarily always right about what matters and what doesn't. Being humans, they are just as prone to "feeling" something is true, when it isn't, as any other humans.

                          As an example that I am more familiar with:

                          Seattle in the '90's. They had the great Ken Griffey Jr.

                          But hitting right behind him was Edgar Martinez. This afforded Griffey the protection he needed. Other pitchers would be more willing to pitch to Griffey, than say walk him and face Edgar with a man on. This allowed Griffey to see more good pitches (instead of a pitcher nibbling at the corners and having a greater chance of walking him). And then because Edgar was a feared hitter (and had a better batting eye) and didn't have the same protection that Griffey had from him, was in turned walked more.

                          Are you telling me that if you replaced Edgar Martinez with an average everyday hitter, that the pitchers wouldn't me slightly more inclined to walk Griffey and face the next batter? Or at least they wouldn't give him as many good pitches to hit - make him work more (which again, can lead to being walked more frequently).
                          Yes, he might get more walks. But walks are a good thing...you're acting like those are pitcher wins. They're not. Except for maybe Bonds at his steroid peak, there hasn't been a player for whom a walk represents a win for the pitcher. In your example, Griffey may get fewer pitches to drive for extra bases, but it will be made up in getting more walks. Overall, his offensive production won't dip. But in the main, pitchers will still be trying to get Griffey out, so he'll mostly see as many good or bad pitchers.

                          I recognize that it is intuitive that having a great hitter behind a player will lead to that player seeing better pitches but that offensive benefit just can't be found. Using thousands of players across history who had changing lineup circumstances during their primes, there is no trend of the hitters performing better when they had an excellent hitter behind them. Some performed better, some performed worse, most just remained the same...exactly as you'd expect from random variation.
                          "In the end it all comes down to talent. You can talk all you want about intangibles, I just don't know what that means. Talent makes winners, not intangibles. Can nice guys win? Sure, nice guys can win - if they're nice guys with a lot of talent. Nice guys with a little talent finish fourth and nice guys with no talent finish last." --Sandy Koufax

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by hellborn View Post
                            And, of those 7 hitters, 4 (Splinter, Boggs, Carew, and Gehringer) threw righty. Plus Cobb, Eddie Mathews, Brett, Thome, etc. Other than the platoon advantage, also helps that the dominant eye (usually right in a righty) is in front that way.
                            Just want to make sure I understand. Are you saying that Rh throwers who bat left would have their dominant eye in front because when batting left handed that right eye would be in front and that could be part of the reason LH hitters hit higher on average.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by mtortolero View Post
                              What about Big Ed Delahanty?
                              Lots of good hitters I forgot. Added him to my HMs.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
                                Just want to make sure I understand. Are you saying that Rh throwers who bat left would have their dominant eye in front because when batting left handed that right eye would be in front and that could be part of the reason LH hitters hit higher on average.
                                Yes. But, I was just doing a little research and found that, while 2/3 of people are right eye dominant, it doesn't really correlate with handedness. So, it sounds like most left-handed AND most right-handed people are right eye dominant.

                                Anyway, I did mean to say that a righty thrower batting lefty would have an advantage from the dominant eye being in front. It sounds like what is really the case is that 2/3 of ALL people would have the dominant eye in front while batting lefty. It would not be uncommon for a lefty thrower to have a right dominant eye, nor for a righty thrower to have a left dominant eye.

                                As a righty batter with a dominant right eye, I feel that this is a big reason why I like lefty pitchers...I don't like to have a very open stance and feel like I'm looking at a righty pitcher across my nose, while looking at a lefty feels much more comfortable.
                                "I throw him four wide ones, then try to pick him off first base." - Preacher Roe on pitching to Musial

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X