Pulling vs. oppo theory

I don't know the exact number but my best guess would be somewhere between 10% to 20%. It's all over the map for different hitters. Johnny Damon almost never hits one out to the opposite field. Roberto Clemente has very similar career power numbers to Damon (ignoring for the moment that he played in bigger ballparks), but Clemente hit a very high percentage of opposite field home runs.

So maybe Howard is the exception to HR guys. Seems like most just look to pull it out.

Some could argue that alot of people have a "seems" issue when they talk hitting a baseball.

Until they make themselves look deeper.

Are you arguing against the 10-20% of HR's are oppo or do you just not like the language? If 80-90% of HR's are pulled, it is a fact that most power hitters are looking to pull the ball. 80-90% is a very convincing number and good enough for me.

No just "seems" that Howard pulls all his HR's. LOL

60% still means that he pulls most of his HR's. If the numbers are 80-90% of HR's are pulled then you can honestly say that the vast majority of HR's are pulled. Power guys pull.

Teaching kids to hit opposite field is a mistake....It's arrogant and foolish....

CleveDad, learn this....OK?

It's not just pull vs. oppo. There is also center. Howard's numbers are roughly 30% pull, 30% center and 40% oppo. More typical numbers might be 60% pull, 20% center and 20% oppo. But remember, these are only home run numbers so they are probably more skewed to the pull side, especially for hitters who are not real power guys.

We are using Howard as an example of a pull hitter...ok, I'll go along with that to a degree.

Are we also inferring that Howard is a "great hitter" as he is a HR guy that pulls the ball?

Their people will get in touch with your people and decide.....Might do lunch, or something.....

My people said lunch would be good as long as his people are buying...he pays his people better than I do.

Or they could all go Dutch at the golden arches.

quote:

Originally posted by ClevelandDad:

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:

quote:

Originally posted by BlueDog:

quote:

are you saying that great hitters absolutely HAVE to be homerun hitters?

Yes, that's what I'm saying....

Sorry, cannot agree with this, at least how it reads to me,at face value.
It looks like at least 1/2 of those with 3000 hits would not be classified as home run hitters:
Roberto Clemente September 30, 1972
Al Kaline September 24, 1974
Pete Rose May 5, 1978
Lou Brock August 13, 1979
Carl Yastrzemski September 12, 1979
Rod Carew August 4, 1985
Robin Yount September 9, 1992
George Brett September 30, 1992
Paul Molitor September 16, 1996
Tony Gwynn August 6, 1999
Wade Boggs August 7, 1999
Cal Ripken Jr. April 15, 2000
Rickey Henderson October 7, 2001
Craig Biggio.

We can throw Jeter, Mauer and Ichiro and quite a few others in there also.
Seems to me that studying video of guys like Bonds, Thome, Adrian Gonzalez and the like and suggesting one size fits all for hitting is a huge mistake.
From the time he was 15-16, Bonds was different than any hitter of his age in Northern CA, as well as most who were 4-5 years older.
Great hitting is as much mental as it is physical in college and Milb. Unless someone has the skills and talent of a Bonds, taking one size fits all approach in college and Milb creates a recipe of success...for the pitcher strength.
Great hitters work themselves into hitters counts more often than not.
They adjust to and beat scouting reports more often than not.
In college and Milb, great hitters don't miss pitches thrown into their strength very often.
In college and Milb, great hitters still hit .280 to .300 when it is a pitcher's count like 0-1; 1-2.
Few if any will ever do it like Bonds or Thome or Gonzalez. In my opinion, for those in high school and younger, they don't have the strength and skill to be able to emulate Bonds in any meaningful way from AB to AB.
One of the best discussions of mental and physical aspects of hitting that I have seen recently was that done on MLB TV with Joe Mauer and his approach/success with 2 strike counts. He was not talking about hitting home runs.

One of the best posts I've seen in the hitting forum. Bluedog - you are a snake-oil salesman - nothing more imho...

I saw the Mauer piece and it was outstanding. Approach is everything at the upper levels.

could someone post a link to the piece mentioned or in the alternative give a detailed description? I have googled for it with no luck, Thx!

You forgot Uecker on your list.....

quote:

......Bonds was different than any hitter of his age in Northern CA, as well as most who were 4-5 years older.

Yeah, great hitters are different.....

quote:

Great hitting is as much mental as it is physical in college.......

How 'bout the great hitters in Little League and Kindergarten playgrounds?

quote:

Originally posted by BlueDog:
You forgot Uecker on your list.....

Takes quite a poster to ridicule the ability of Clemente, Molitor, Gwynn and the others with 3,000.
With the rest of your posts, talking with yourself, I can feel pretty darn good being included in your "ridicule."
I guess if you have nothing to contribute, you contribute your ridicule.

BlueDog- I just read through this thread for the first time, word by word in every post and I must admit I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and have no idea where you get your information

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:

quote:

Originally posted by BlueDog:
You forgot Uecker on your list.....

Takes quite a poster to ridicule the ability of Clemente, Molitor, Gwynn and the others with 3,000.
With the rest of your posts, talking with yourself, I can feel pretty darn good being included in your "ridicule."
I guess if you have nothing to contribute, you contribute your ridicule.

There is a HUGE difference between a "good" hitter with longevity and a "great" hitter, IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by powertoallfields:

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:

quote:

Originally posted by BlueDog:
You forgot Uecker on your list.....

Takes quite a poster to ridicule the ability of Clemente, Molitor, Gwynn and the others with 3,000.
With the rest of your posts, talking with yourself, I can feel pretty darn good being included in your "ridicule."
I guess if you have nothing to contribute, you contribute your ridicule.

There is a HUGE difference between a "good" hitter with longevity/durability and a "great" hitter, IMO.

Lifetime stats,is this a good hitter with longevity or a great hitter period.

20 Seasons 2440 (ga) 10232(pa) 9288 (ab) 1383 (r) 3141 (h) 543 (2b) 85 (3b) 135 (hr) 1138 (rbi) 319 (sb) 125(cs) 790 (790) 434 (so) .338 (ba) .338 (ba) .388 (obp) .459 (slg) .847 (ops) 132 (ops+) 4259 (tb) 259 (gdp) 24(hbp) 45 (sh) 85 (sf) 203(ibb)

So is a player good because they were great for a short period of time or are they great because they were good for a long period of time?

Any player that gets a cup of coffee in MLB is a good hitter. Some are great. I just want my son to be a power hitter. That is why I started the thread. Scouts love power and they can teach him to go oppo. I just want him to pull it out to get noticed.

quote:

I just want my son to be a power hitter. That is why I started the thread. Scouts love power and they can teach him to go oppo. I just want him to pull it out to get noticed.

This is purely a rhetorical question: What if you are wrong about your son and wrong about the scouts and how they view your son and the way you want him to play the game?
What if he isn't like Bonds, Williams or even Howard for that matter?

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:
So is a player good because they were great for a short period of time or are they great because they were good for a long period of time?

They need to be great for a long period of time to be considered one of the greatest hitters of all time, IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by powertoallfields:

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:
So is a player good because they were great for a short period of time or are they great because they were good for a long period of time?

They need to be great for a long period of time to be considered one of the greatest hitters of all time, IMO.

Well you give me a bunch of good hitters for a long time and we will win a ton of games. In the grand scheme of things that's what we're here for - to win games.

Infielddad,
It is all about potential, I thought. If a kid can hit it 450 and another can hit it 250, who has better potential in a scouts eye? Plus he wants to hit it 500 feet. And for the record, I would be insanely happy if he had Uecker's career.

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:

quote:

Originally posted by powertoallfields:

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:
So is a player good because they were great for a short period of time or are they great because they were good for a long period of time?

They need to be great for a long period of time to be considered one of the greatest hitters of all time, IMO.

Well you give me a bunch of good hitters for a long time and we will win a ton of games. In the grand scheme of things that's what we're here for - to win games.

You're changing the subject. I never said you couldn't WIN with a bunch of good hitters. I also never said they weren't extremely valuable. It just doesn't match my definition of "great". A great hitter, IMO, is someone no one wants to pitch to if a HR wins the game in the late innings. That's just my opinion and others are entitled to their opinion as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Doughnutman:
Infielddad,
It is all about potential, I thought. If a kid can hit it 450 and another can hit it 250, who has better potential in a scouts eye? Plus he wants to hit it 500 feet. And for the record, I would be insanely happy if he had Uecker's career.

All other abilities being equal, the 450 guy gets picked every time.

Power,
That are my thoughts. Power gets you a chance. And that is what I want for my son. The best possibility to get a chance to play after HS.

quote:

That are my thoughts. Power gets you a chance. And that is what I want for my son. The best possibility to get a chance to play after HS

The starting line ups as ASU, UofA, UCLA, Texas, Cal, Stanford, Oregon and OSU all make me question what you are referencing with your thoughts.
Kenny Diekroeger from Stanford turned down $1,500,000 from the Rays and his power is oppo.
Buster Posey has about $6,500,000 in his pocket, made it to MLB in one year and he does not have "pull" power.
About only Pac 10 player I saw all year who meets your definition is Oropesa from USC. Now that kid has pull power.
That is one out of an awful lot of real fine college players.
Maybe your focus is Milb. If so, that would be a different analysis and one which also might show you the mistake in relying on the guys mentioned in this thread for success. For every Bonds, there are probably 1,000, if not more, who don't make it very far in Milb trying to be a pull power hitter.

BTW, I am not saying you are wrong or I am right, as to your son. Your reference point seem very different than my reference point and I am just sharing where my reference points are based. Personally, I don't view Bonds as a good reference point.
It sure isn't because he was not a great hitter. It is because Bonds could do anything he wanted at the plate just about. He had talent that 99.9% of the hitters don't. Personally, I don't think 99.9% of the hitters could be taught to hit like Bonds with Bonds' like pull power results.
Bonds does not think so either.

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:

It sure isn't because he was not a great hitter. It is because Bonds could do anything he wanted at the plate just about. He had talent that 99.9% of the hitters don't.

This is why I define him as a "great hitter".

Well of course he is. You don't get any argument from me.
But, for me, "great" isn't defined by Bonds. His picture isn't in the dictionary next to that word. He is an illustration of a great hitter, but the game of baseball allows other types of hitters to be great, also.
Mays was "great" in my view.
Clemente was "great" in my view.
Ichiro is "great" in my view.
Those guys, as illustrations, could/can do things with a bat that 99.9% of the hitters cannot, but they are different than Bonds.

quote:

Originally posted by powertoallfields:

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:

quote:

Originally posted by powertoallfields:

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:
So is a player good because they were great for a short period of time or are they great because they were good for a long period of time?

They need to be great for a long period of time to be considered one of the greatest hitters of all time, IMO.

Well you give me a bunch of good hitters for a long time and we will win a ton of games. In the grand scheme of things that's what we're here for - to win games.

You're changing the subject. I never said you couldn't WIN with a bunch of good hitters. I also never said they weren't extremely valuable. It just doesn't match my definition of "great". A great hitter, IMO, is someone no one wants to pitch to if a HR wins the game in the late innings. That's just my opinion and others are entitled to their opinion as well.

I like to think I'm expanding the subject. I agree that a great hitter is someone you don't want to face with the game on the line because they can go deep and that everyone has their own opinion. I just have to disagree that your definition is much too narrow. If hitting a homerun is the only way you could lose a game then yes I would agree with you but you have to factor in many things to determine a great hitter (yes this is my definition but I believe most people will agree with most of my definition).

Things that make a great hitter

1. Power to make pitchers scared late in games
2. Ability to hit for a good average
3. Number of wins they help their team get

These three areas determine if someone is a great hitter or not but there are degrees of variance in them. Late in the game I want someone who can hit - I don't care if it's for power or average. If I'm the defensive coach and a power hitter is up - I'm scared. If a high average hitter is up - I'm scared.

Trust me a pitcher who has the tying run at third and winning run at second is just as nervous facing Tony Gwynn as he would be facing Mark McGwire.

To say that only power hitters make the great hitters is too narrow (this is aimed more at Bluedog than you Power but I believe it's safe to say that you are of this thought as well).

quote:

Originally posted by BlueDog:
My opinion, to be a great hitter, you gotta hit alot of homeruns

If this is the case then Dave Kingman is a EDITED SECTION better hitter than Tony Gwynn but when discussions of hitters come up nobody mentions Kingman but they do mention Gwynn.

Gwynn played 20 seasons with a .338 avg, 135 HRS and an OPS of .847 - struck out 434 times in 20 years

Kingman played 16 seasons with a .236 avg, 442 HRS and an OPS of .780 - struck out 1816 times in 16 years

Using these numbers (yes there are other numbers that are just as important but this gives a pretty clear story) I would rather face Kingman than Gwynn with the game on the line.

You both agree that an OPS of 1.0 is the cutoff for a great hitter then using that we only have 9 great hitters in the history of the game.

quote:

Taken from baseballreference.com

1. Babe Ruth+ 1.1636 L
2. Ted Williams+ 1.1155 L
3. Lou Gehrig+ 1.0798 L
4. Barry Bonds 1.0512 L
5. Albert Pujols (30) 1.0497 R
6. Jimmie Foxx+ 1.0376 R
7. Hank Greenberg+ 1.0169 R
8. Rogers Hornsby+ 1.0103 R
9. Manny Ramirez (38) 1.0002 R

Those are some great hitters but two of them (Greenberg and Hornsby) don't even rank anywhere near the top in power numbers. Then if you expand the list to the ones with a 0.940 OPS you find guys like Todd Helton, Joe Dimaggio, Stan Musial, Johnny Mize, Mel Ott, Ralph Kiner, Lefty O'Doul, Ty Cobb, Dan Brouthers and Shoeless Joe Jackson in the top 30 for OPS but aren't near the top for homeruns hit. In fact 9 of the ones I mention with a .940 OPS or higher are in the hall of fame.

Great hitters are guys with power but they are also the guys who don't have very high HR totals. To just say that great hitters are the only the ones with power is ridiculous. Great hitters can hit no matter how far the ball goes - period.

Great hitters use the whole field and they do this by hitting opposite field. Guys who hit for a high average can still hit the ball hard even if it doesn't go over the fence. I think it's a safe bet that Gwynn got several hits that were screaming line drives over the shortstop for a single.

BlueDog you do realize the more you post on here the more people realize you have no idea what you're talking about.

Power, do you realize you're trying to reason with someone who said this?.....

A greater hitter?????

quote:

Originally posted by BlueDog:
Power, do you realize you're trying to reason with someone who said this?.....

A greater hitter?????

What are you trying to prove?

Here's what he said......

quote:

.....is a greater hitter....

Anyone with any common sense knows there are a few great hitters and there are the rest....

We're living in a world where everyone gets a trophy, no matter where you finish....And all players are great hitters....Now, so-and-so is a greater hitter than old so-and-so.....

What's next?

quote:

"If I'd tried for them dinky singles I could've batted around six hundred."

Babe Ruth

quote:

"Ruth made a grave mistake when he gave up pitching. Working once a week, he might have lasted a long time and become a great star."
-- Tris Speaker on Babe Ruth's future, 1921

Don't let anyone change you....Go with your strengths....If it's pull with power, then, do it...

*******************EDITED*********************

..........................wow you really are grasping at straws here. Here is the whole quote:

quote:

If this is the case then Dave Kingman is a greater hitter than Tony Gwynn but when discussions of hitters come up nobody mentions Kingman but they do mention Gwynn.

By using "greater hitter than" in the sentence I'm comparing two hitters - in this case Gwynn and Kingman - and not these two with ALL of baseball.

Maybe I should have used "better hitter than" instead of what I did - then you might understand.

I'm not going to sit here and say that's 100% grammatically correct but it's clear enough to get my message across. I'm not saying that everyone is a great hitter. I'm saying Gwynn is a greater hitter than Kingman although using your standards of stats you think Kingman is a greater hitter than Gwynn - you are wrong. In fact you are wrong in all counts.

Coach 2709,
If Blue Dog wants to define "great hitters" to exclude players like Clemente, that alone speaks to his ability and knowledge.
As Mays described in his recent book, Clemente was one of the most revered and respected hitters by his peers, including Mays. Kaline, Gwynn, and those listed before with 3,000 are in that group, HR's or not, Blue Dog ridicule or not.
If a parent wants to listen to the sales job and believe that anything Ruth said applies to their son, they sure can do that... and then look their son in eye and take full responsibility if their son turns out not to be Ruth.
There isn't much that is offered in this forum other than a lot of nonsense.