-
antinous I can't wait to read your "bats right throws left" column. The only one I could come up with off the top of my head was Rickey Henderson.
Another interesting note is that Barry Bonds bats left, throws left, and is right-handed.
-
Lefti Being left-handed, I've always been rather intrigued by this. Once I realized that very few players throw lefty and bat righty (Henderson is one of about only 3 non-pitchers ever, I believe Wikipedia says), it started to click. I think the key is that hitting is a skill you must learn, and it doesn't really matter which is natural, just which you actually learn. The difficulty with switch-hitting isn't so much to ambidexterity involved, but rather the fact that you're learning to hit twice--i.e., if you're naturally right-handed, the hard part about switch-hitting isn't learning to hit left-handed, it's having to learn to hit all over again. If you started out learning left-handed, you'd have just as hard of a time learning to hit right-handed. Ergo, because left-handed hitting is believe to be advantageous, many people who would naturally hit right-handed learn to hit left-handed, but virtually no one who naturally hits left-handed tries to learn to hit right-handed.
Also, I think, oddly enough, that the same is somewhat true for pitching. I read somewhere that Billy Wagner is actually right-handed and grew up pitching that way, but injured his right arm, and so learned to pitch left-handed while recuperating from that injury.
And, as an aside, in the spirit of the Barry Bonds comment above, I noticed from watching tons of Brewers games this year, that CC Sabathia pitches and bats left-handed, but writes right-handed, and Eric Gagné pitches right-handed (I don't believe he batted all year), but writes left-handed.
-
woychuk One thing to consider in this topic is the extremely high percentage of Canadian baseball players that fall into this category. Back in 2004 I did a little article for the Batter's Box in which I found that 28 of the 46 Canadian position players who reached the majors after 1920 batted left and threw right. The normal explanation for this is the transfer of skills from hockey where left handed shooting is common for righties.
Unfortunately I can't post a link here but if you go to the Batter's Box and do an advanced search looking for articles from 2004-08-24 you should be able to find it. -
gotowarmissagnes I'm a lefty batter, righty thrower and the explanation is simple. I was the fourth brother. My oldest brother is lefty. The next two are righties. When I came along and showed I was a righty, my brothers decided they needed a balanced line-up. So, they'd make me bat lefty. I just grew up doing it that way, and by the time I knew any better, batting righty felt unnatural. I can switch hit, but am much, much more comfortable just going lefty all the time. As Lefti says, it's learned. You see it all the time in LL now, as dads make their kids become lefty or switch-hitters by starting them out young. -
jf Echoing Woychuk and Lefti, I think that batting handedness really is different than simple dominance. After all, Hank Aaron grew up hitting crosshanded! Was he really a natural lefty and didn't know it? personally, I am very right-hand dominant, but left-handed hitting always felt as natural right-handed hitting to me, not that I was ever world-class either way. -
tman I liked your article on bats left, throws right although your data gathering is too much. I have always batted left and thrown right. I believe in my case it is simply because I was a natural left hander as a child, but only had right handed gloves to use. Overall this has helped me to be ambidextrious at other sports. -
earthdyedred According to B-Ref's Play Index, there are 58 non-pitchers since 1871 who were TL/BR and 41 TL/BB non-pitchers in that same time span. Of these, 1 TL/BR and 4 TL/BB are active players. This doesn't count the players who came up batting one way and then gave it up; a quick look through The Sports Encyclopedia: Baseball reveals that through 2002, Rich Becker, Reggie Jefferson, and J.T. Snow came up as TL/BB and gave up hitting right-handed mid-career. I had remembered Jefferson and Snow giving it up but not Becker, though I think I remember his Topps '94 card saying he was a switchie.
Also, the two Brian Hunters of the 1990s both batted right-handed despite having different throwing hands. Brian L. Hunter threw R-handed and Brian R. Hunter threw L-handed. That's the way I keep them straight.
-
duckyvas Aspects of this topic have always intrigued me. First, it should be understood that the "natural" batting approach for a right-hand dominant person would be to hit left-handed. That's because the hand that is required to the the major part of the work in the swing is the top hand (the hand at the end of the bat). The other hand, the bottom hand largely goes along for the ride. If your top hand is your dominant hand, you will have more power and control. That's why you should teach your right-handed dominant child to golf left-handed shoud he/she express interest in the sport. I've always paid extra attention to RHbat/LHthrow players since they are so unique. And I've been impressed with their ability to drive the ball surprisingly far when they connect. For example, Ricky, Ryan Ludwick and Cody Ross. Now in his posting above about the tendencies of Canadian-born players, Wolchuk has advanced some statistics of which I was unaware. But, this definitely fits in with my "natural" theory, because it's probably true that when these guys were tykes on the pond, they were permitted to use their hockey sticks as they saw fit. And, at least from my personal experience, they'll put their dominant hand at the top of the stick. I'm RH all the way, hit RH, throw RH, eat RH -- but when I want to shoot a puck, I want to do it LH. Also, I believe the NHL has a majority of LH shooters. Fits with the stats of the world. Just some observations and conclusions -- excited with the confimation of some of my theories by Wolchuk's posting. -
Lahinch Have you considered what percentage of LH batting/RH throwing ("LH/RH") are batting LH to benefit from the fact that they are right-eye dominant. I recall reading that there was some sort of study of the same done in the SEC Conference (Baseball) in the '60s and '70s and the result was that a player that batter cross-dominant (e.g., right-eye dominant, LH bat - so that dominant eye was closer and more open to pitcher) hit about .30 to .40 points higher than players who did not bat cross-dominant. While I remain a 2-handicap golfer at age 61, I was able to teach myself to bat LH and become a switch-hitter while in grade school. What I discovered, but didn't understand was that I could see the ball better, especially in fast pitch Little League, etc. and that consequently my reaction time was quicker. I got so good hitting LH that I gave up hitting RH - to the benefit of my golf game. I was never a power hitter, but shortly becme as strong a LH batter as I was a RH batter. Today, I can still hit a baseball well LH, but not RH. I can also hit a golf ball faily well LH, but there is no advantage in golf because the ball is still at impact. Again, the point of all of this is that batting cross-dominant is, I believe, a significant advantage for a batter. So, if you have a right-eye dominant kid who likes baseball/softball, teach him how to bat LH quickly. He/she will be a better hitter. (With girls, because of strength and slow-pitch issues, I'm not sure the "return" from this switch will be as great as with boys.) -
stevet Lots of interesting comments. Thanks! Sorry I can't respond to everything.
One thing I will take issue with is this:
the hand that is required to the the major part of the work in the swing is the top hand (the hand at the end of the bat). The other hand, the bottom hand largely goes along for the ride
I agree with this, but I would say you have the definitions of "top" and "bottom" hands reversed. I would say that the top hand is the hand, not only higher up as the bat is cocked, but closer toward the bat's center of gravity. It's that placement, as opposed to being at the end of the bat, that allows the top hand to provide the guidance and control to the swing.
Thus it's consistent that the top hand is and always has been the dominant hand for the majority of ballplayers.
-
GuyM Very nice piece, Steve. Looking forward to part two. One question and one theory.
Question: what's your source for the estimate that 20% of population is left-handed? I've always heard it was about 10% (Wikipedia says 7-10%, FWIW).
I think the big drop in LHB by catchers reflects not a "golden age" of the 1950s, but the big rise in stolen bases in the 1960s. A good arm became more essential for a catcher, and that meant more right-dominant players who couldn't hit left-handed (similar to what you observe for SSs).
-
duckyvas Steve,
Had a little trouble conveying the top and bottom hand concept because of my golf analogy - baseball (bat up) golf (club down). But you are correct - for baseball the bottom hand is the one nearest the nub of the bat.
Once again, though, when the bottom hand is the batter's dominant hand, he has much greater bat speed, power and control of his swing. And as for guidance, when he wants to go inside-out or opposite field, he just lets his bottom hand fire early.
When a batter is fooled, which hand does he keep on the bat in an attempt to bail himself out? The bottom hand. The top hand doesn't really do much.
And Guy, I must respectfully disagree that these RH dominant catchers "couldn't hit" left-handed. It's just that they were taught to hit RH in tee-ball. I'll bet a lot of them, had they been given a hockey stick at 4 years, would have opted to shoot left-handed.
-
GuyM Duckyvas: I was talking about the rapid decline in LH hitting by catchers in a short period, from the late 50s to mid-60s. I don't think it's plausible that this reflected a change in how these players were taught to hit (which happened 10-20 years earlier). Differences in teaching also can't explain the very low level of LH hitting by shortstops -- surely they were taught by the same fathers and coaches as the second basemen!
-
-
jdmurphy315 I bat right and throw left- didn't realize it was so odd until a few years ago. I'm a natural lefty, so I figure I throw L because I more or less taught myself how to throw- you don't need a coach to throw things, starting as an infant. Swinging a bat, specifically a baseball bat, on the other hand, is generally something that someone shows you. My dad, who taught me how to play, is right-handed. He taught me how to swing by showing me himself, so I do it like him. Maybe that's not what it is, but that's how I've always figured it. -
FlimtotheFlam How odd just got in a big discussion about this yesterday talking about Bryan Anderson. He is a minor league catching prospect in the Cardinals organization. He is a catcher that bats left handed and throws right handed. It got me talking about the rarity of left handed throwing catchers. Did you know there has been only 4 left handed throwing catchers since the AL and NL merged with the last one happening in 1983. I don't think you see left handed throwing catchers because the lack of right handed mitts. I don't even think you could find one if you tried especially for someone just getting in the game. -
stevet I think the big drop in LHB by catchers reflects not a "golden age" of the 1950s, but the big rise in stolen bases in the 1960s. A good arm became more essential for a catcher, and that meant more right-dominant players who couldn't hit left-handed (similar to what you observe for SSs).
A plausible theory, indeed one I considered myself. But the empirical data don't support it: in actuality there was no sudden rise in stolen base rates; they gradually and steadily increased in the late '50s before finally leveling off in the late '60s (and then taking a big jump in the mid-'70s). And while I don't have complete data to populate the graph, I'm pretty confident that there weren't as many LHB catchers in the '30s and '40s as there were in the '50s and early '60s.
Honestly I think it was just an anamoly.
-
stevet Once again, though, when the bottom hand is the batter's dominant hand, he has much greater bat speed, power and control of his swing. And as for guidance, when he wants to go inside-out or opposite field, he just lets his bottom hand fire early.
I disagree. While there are cases in baseball in which hidebound tradition outweighs self-interest, none is as egregious as what you suggest. If what you say is true, then the great majority of batters in the major leagues today and all through history are batting from the wrong side of the plate, and I simply don't find that to be plausible.
-
Mulligan I think the problem is that the terms batting righthanded and batting lefthanded are arbitrary. When someone throws lefthanded it's obvious to everyone, even someone who knows nothing about baseball. Defining someone who bats with their left hand on the bottom and right hand on top as hitting righthanded is not natually obvious at all. It somehow became known as hitting righthanded but there is no reason for it besides tradition. In my experience most kids step into the righthanded batters box starting tee-ball because most of the other kids do. The kids who have fathers into baseball are much more likely to bat lefthanded as the fathers attempt to give them an advantage later on. -
jamz Hitting, being two handed, does not lend itself to the normal dependance single-hand skills require. Starting early enough, there are only subtle differences in the result. Mantle started switching after he established his right handed hitting, and he said it was awkward and difficult for years. It is common knowledge high and tight is the left-handed hitters usual weakness, but not the true left-handers weakness. Right-handers are slower to power the bat through that zone batting left-handed because it is the most difficult swing to get up to speed. Even throwing opposite-handed is no great trick if you start early. Who knows if Jim Abbot was actually left-handed? Mickey Lolich was not. He broke a collarbone and switched when he was a kid. There are many others. But as for Bonds being right-handed, I doubt it. You see Ruth signing autographs right-handed, but that is because it was demanded of him as a child. -
Lefti I don't think that what we call hitting left-handed is an arbitrary distinction; it's always felt more natural to me (as a lefty) even though my dad and most people I've played with are right-handed and hit right-handed. It is possible, I'm sure, as duckyvas points out, that I might actually have a stronger swing right-handed, but hitting left-handed is just what feels natural. I think it's kind of analogous to playing guitar--pushing down the strings is arguably harder than strumming, yet playing right-handed means pushing down the strings with the left hand and vice versa. That's another one where playing left-handed always felt completely natural to me, even though right-handed is natural for most people, and I never even realized that I was thinking of it backwards until I learned to play guitar. Come to think of it, most left-handed things are like that for me--I never realize I'm doing it backwards till someone points it out. -
GuyM Steve, you may be right that the 1950s LHB catchers were an anomaly. Looking again at the RHB chart, the increase in the proportion of RHB catchers is quite modest. So it's not that catchers became "more right-handed", but they became much more likely to switch hit than to hit purely LH.
In fact, that seems to me to be the main story in your data: players at the RH positions learned the lesson that Terry Kennedy wished he had: if you're a natural righty, it makes more sense to switch hit than hit only LH. And this move to switch-hitting has even produced a slight decline in RH hitting. Over all the years you covered, it looks like these are the changes for C/IF: RHH -9%, LHH -7%, SWH +16%. So the main story, I think, is the rise of switch-hitting at the expense of both LHH and RHH.
I think this also calls into question your theory about dominant righties having an advantage at SS (which I found quite plausible). SSs are no more likely that Cs or other infielders to be pure RHH. However, SSs are more likely to switch than to hit LH, and they made that move earlier than other positions. That could be a function of SSs being such weak hitters and thus seeking out an edge more aggressively, or perhaps a cultural difference (is switch-hitting encouraged more in the Carribean?).
-
stevet Question: what's your source for the estimate that 20% of population is left-handed? I've always heard it was about 10% (Wikipedia says 7-10%, FWIW).
I consulted a few different online sources (doing unsophisticated searching, and not rigorous research, to be sure) and found several different estimates. The 80/20 righty-lefty split, very loosely, seemed to be about the consensus.
-
GuyM That's odd. I checked about a half-dozen sources online, and every one puts the number between 7% and 13%, most at 10%. I'm quite sure it's far below 20%. Which makes the incidence among baseball players (c. 40%) all the more remarkable.
-
-
stevet I think the issue is whether you ask the question as "what percentage of the population is left-handed?", in which case you'll get an answer of 7-to-13%, or whether you ask, "what percentage of the population is right-handed?", in which case you'll get an answer (at least I did) of 70-to-90%. The fudge factor is the proportion of the population exhibiting some degree of ambidextrousness.-
GuyM Fair enough -- maybe it's something like 80-10-10 (R/L/Bi). Did you happen to calculate the proportion of players (non-pitchers) who throw LH? I think that would tell us the proportion of natural lefties in MLB, separate from natural righties who learn to hit LH or SW.
-
-
stevet Did you happen to calculate the proportion of players (non-pitchers) who throw LH?
I didn't. It's just one of the gazillion intriguing directions for research in this area.
Matthew Namee and I have been talking about this, and I think the next thing we're going to do is look closely at various aspects of switch-hitting.
-
strosrays FWIW, a couple of years ago I got curious about the proportion of left-handed to right-handed pitching over the years. Starting pitching, that is. I was under the anecdotal impression, I guess you'd call it, that teams from my youth ('68-'80, roughly) in general carried more lefty starters on their staffs than teams have in the last 15-20 years.
By way of investigation, I did a pretty crude study using retrosheet, basically counting how man starts for each team were made by LHP each season, and how many by rightys. I also aggregated the stats by league.
I really wish I could be more specific, but the results are on my PC at home, and I am not. A couple of things I do recall - there was a significantly different percentage of starts made by leftys and rightys in different time frames. It appeared to go in cycles. But the 60s and 70s definitely had a higher percentage of starts made by LHP than say, the mid-1990s to present. And overall, it was a gradual decline. In some instances in the 1970s, the percentage of starts made by left-handed pitchers, league-wide, got above 35%, which was really high in comparison to the overall numbers in the time period I looked at. Another thing that I recall was that the AL consistently gave a higher number of starts to lefties than the NL did, at least in the 1960s and 1970s for sure.
Why the AL started more lefties is a question I haven't thought about much. One off-the-top-of-my-head theory for why there has been an overall decline in left-handed starts is that it is at least partially due to the recent/current emphasis on staffs manned almost exclusively by big, hard-throwing guys. Hard-throwers have always been at a premium, at least as long as I can remember; but a decent number of those lefty starters of yore were what we called "crafty" back then; they could succeed on strategy and guile, but no way could they "bring it", even if they really, really needed to in a certain situation. Other than Moyer and a few others, you don't see many of that type now (BTW, this carried over into the bullpens, too - a good many of the top firemen back then were not coming in there every night and blowing fastballs by everyone.) Now a guy almost has to throw pretty hard to get a decent shot (and be 6' 2" or above, too), so there are less soft tossers overall. And my math skills suck, but I assume an overall reduction in numbers and/or falling out of favor of any one type of pitcher will hurt the % of LHP starts more than RHP, just because there are fewer lefties in the prospect pool to begin with.
If I can fin that study I did when I get home this evening, I'll send it along.
-
stevet Interesing stuff, strosrays.
There was a clear preference of lefty hitters and lefty pitchers in the AL vs NL in the 1940s and '50s, and apparently it carried over into the '60s and '70s. One of the old Strat-o-Matic "historical seasons" I bought years ago was the 1956 season, and in that season the AL is about twice as lefty-oriented as the NL.
Why? I suspect it stems from Yankee Stadium, which distinctly favored both LHBs and LHPs. The Yankees loaded up their rosters to take advantage, and other AL teams had to add LHPs to try and counteract the Yankee hitting.
Meanwhile there was no ballpark in the NL so strongly favoring lefthanders.
-
jamz Where do people get ideas like 80-20? Lefties are clearly less than 10% of the population. Just look around you and pay attention to it for a day.
But being two-armed and two legged, we can learn to use the one as well as the other or very nearly so if we do it at an early enough age. That will not change at all which is the dominant side of the brain.
Lefties are more athletic, and visually calculate better than righties as well. Whether you actually hit or throw left or right is not the issue.
A very high percentage of architects are lefties. One major school of architecture reported 50% of students were left-handed. Similarly, a high percentage of competitive pool players are left-handed. I would assume pro golfers must be very high in left-handedness, and only swing from the right side for convenience and because the courses favor righties.
I don't know the percentage of baseball players that are lefties, but I would suppose offhand that the number of lefties in the Hall of Fame is high.
Watch the high number of long-jumpers that jump right-footed, as did Carl Lewis--which makes them left-handed. They get more out of their bodies than righties. Every big-league pitcher who had broken his arm pitching was left-handed. Every one. Forget the crafy lefty stuff. Those are more often just guys who lost their big fastball, like Tanana, and Moyer also. I never played a level of baseball without a dominant lefty with a huge fastball that was the standard.
The real flip side to left-handedness is that they live nine years less long than righties, and are over-represented in prisons. Three of our last four Presidents are left-handed, which makes a good case for prison. Might be that it is a job only suitable for a convict nowadays.
