San Francisco Chronicle - (Sunday)
Ban on shifting may help revive switch-hitting
CINCINNATI — When new San Francisco Giants catcher Michael Papierski began switch-hitting, he was just a tyke.
“My dad had a cage in our basement,” Papierski said. “I’m naturally righty, and when I was 8 years old, I’d take one swing righty and two swings lefty. When I was 12, I started hitting from both sides in games.
“My junior year of college, they tried to make me just a righty, and I struggled. Every slider, I thought it was going to hit me right in the head. It was shell shock. I did about a month of that and went back to switchhitting. Yes, I do think it helps me.”
Papierski is a rarity, the only player on the Giants’ 40-man roster who switch hits. The Oakland Athletics have only Jed Lowrie and Skye Bolt. The Giants have two minor-league switch-hitters above Class A. The A’s have one.
The days of the 1980s Cardinals, who had five switch-hitters in their everyday lineup, are long gone. Even the Giants’ championship teams had a good chunk of switch-hitters playing every day: Pablo Sandoval, Angel Pagan, Melky Cabrera and Andres Torres.
But these days, why would anyone want to switch hit? Why would anyone want to bat lefthanded when there is an equal ability to bat right-handed?
Yes, it’s a benefit when it comes to matchups and avoiding platooning. A switch-hitter, when batting left-handed against a right-handed pitcher — and vice versa — wouldn’t see a curveball break away from him.
In the modern game, however, it’s as if switch-hitting is a detriment. With teams routinely aligned in exaggerated shifts when lefties come to bat, hitting ’em where they ain’t is a lot tougher. With at least five defenders clogging the right side, a lefty is facing what a righty doesn’t face.
“The strategic advantage that used to exist as a left-handed hitter right now is the exact opposite. It’s a disadvantage,” Lowrie said. “It’s harder to put a ball on the ground for a base hit left-handed than it is right-handed.”
The good news is, a ban on shifts seems to be coming to major-league diamonds. In 2021, Double-A infielders were prohibited from shifting — all four infielders needed to be on the dirt with two on one side of second base and two on the other. This year, the ban has extended to both Class A levels.
Next season, so long as the reconstituted Competition Committee gets it right, Major League Baseball will adopt the shift ban (along with a pitch clock and larger bases), to which we say hallelujah. It’s a better game competitively and aesthetically to have lefties have their way again — plus the Brandon Crawfords of the world could showcase their defensive excellence when playing a traditional position.
Righties don’t see those overshifts in part because it’s a far longer throw to first base from short left field than short right field. It was a cool occurrence when teams shifted against Hall of Famers Ted Williams and Willie McCovey, but nowadays, teams shift against a .200 hitter if only to turn him to a .195 hitter.
While teams have the right to view it as a worthwhile competitive advantage, we have the right to say get rid of it. Lowrie is on board.
“Not just because as a hitter, it would benefit me,” he said, “but for the entertainment value of the game. That’s a significant issue.”
Indeed. Without shifts, more balls would drop for hits. More players would run the bases. More runners would cross the plate. There would be less of the three-true-outcome brand of ball: homers, strikeouts, walks, which has stunted the game. There would be more on-field activity.
“In my estimation, as a human being, your actions are based on incentives,” Lowrie said. “They don’t value base hits, right? It’s all extra-base hits, it’s all walks. And so I have no incentive to try to hit the ball the other way. My incentive lies as a hitter in trying to drive the ball for extra bases.
“If it’s more beneficial to not do the things that make the game entertaining, that’s a problem.”
Switch-hitting has become somewhat of a lost art but not just because of the shift. In travel ball, where too often the emphasis is more on winning than developing, kids don’t always get a chance to experiment. The idea is to get as good as possible from one side. Plus, switch-hitting is extremely difficult and time-consuming.
There is hope. Jose Ramirez, Francisco Lindor, Wander Franco, Ketel Marte, Tommy Edman, Josh Bell, Ozzie Albies and Ian Happ are among those leading the MLB switch-hit brigade, and a significant number of recent international signees swing from both sides.
One is Robert Puason, signed by the A’s in 2019 out of the Dominican Republic for $5.1 million, though he has struggled at the plate and been instructed to bat just right-handed for now so he could experience as many reps as possible on one side, his natural side. He’s 19 and has time to figure it out. If J.T. Snow can give up switch-hitting at age 31, there’s no shame in Puason stepping back for a while.
Papierski, acquired in this month’s trade that sent Mauricio Dubón to Houston, isn’t known for his bat. Through Friday, he was a .223 hitter in pro ball but with a .361 on-base percentage. Sure, he could stop switch-hitting, but there’s value to a catcher who can swing left-handed. The Giants don’t have another one close to reaching the majors. Switch-hitter Patrick Bailey is catching at High-A Eugene.
“It’s obviously not easy to do,” Papierski said. “It takes a lot to maintain both swings, and catch. I definitely want to put catching first, take care of my pitchers as much as I can, work my butt off for them. And then get in the cage and go to work.”
Perhaps when the shift is outlawed, teams will put greater value on switch-hitting. In this day of versatility and players taking on more roles than ever, it should be embraced and encouraged.
“You would think based on the math used now, switchhitters would have more value, right?” Lowrie said. “Because you’re essentially carrying two guys on the roster instead of one.”
If a kid asked Lowrie about switch-hitting a couple of years back, the veteran infielder might not have been too encouraging. But now, with the shifts going away, Lowrie would fully recommend giving it a try.
“Yes, because I think the writing is on the wall that it’s going to change,” Lowrie said. “And I think those types of rules will filter down. So I would say it’s probably worth it, but I’d also say you’re going to have to put in twice as much work.”