Right.If either arm were good enough, he'd be going with that arm all the time.
If he's not, IMO it means neither is.
Because if it were, the difference between pitching with the better arm and the worse arm would completely outweigh any advantage of pitching both ways. The fact that he's not means, neither is quite good enough.
If and when either arm were to become good enough, that's how he'd pitch. But IMO don't count on it.
BTW: Vindette is not the only switch-pitcher; there's also a Drew Vettleson -- who actually was thought of (back in 2010) as a more serious MLB prospect. Not sure what has become of him since; perhaps he's fizzled out by now ...
But that's how the game goes: countless players touted by scouts as the "best thing since sliced bread", "the player to watch", "the most exciting player on the rise" end up losing focus, motivation, and discipline.
It is without doubt a highly competitive field, with a high rate of weeding out (consider all the draft picks who end up not signing, minor leaguers who wait in vain for major league rosters to open up).
OK.....I don't think high school counts for stuff like this.
With all due respect to high school :-) ....the level is so much lower that even if a guy pitches with his eyes closed or standing on his head, it doesn't tell us much.
I am not sure that I fully agree with your statement about that if either arm were good enough he would be going with it full time. Take a look at most players and you would see that most will hit right handed or left handed pitchers better or have enough trouble against one that the manager makes changes in the line up.
If Pat is decent from both sides he could really make managers go crazy figuring out the lineup and pinch hitting. The strategy of the whole game changes as he would be his own lefty specialist.
I have not seen much of Pat so I am not saying that he is all that but it would be funny to see how it would play out at the major league level if he was good.
he had his 15 minutes of fame based upon a YouTube of him facing a switchhitter, and watching them go back and forth -- MLB even instituted the Venditte rule about how it will be settled if there's another such case -- I think the "switchpitcher" has to "declare" which arm he'll throw with first, and then the switchhitter can set up accordingly, with no further changes in that AB
but I don't see how that gimmick is going to translate into MLB
True.But what I think trumps that is: When you're pitching with just the better arm, you can WORK more on your pitches with that arm, and you can devote your thinking to it more.
"Practicing" and "working out" IMO are underrated -- in just about everything. Since I've never been a pro baseball player :-) I can only guess how it applies to that, but what I can say is that it applies to just about every other high-level performance thing.
For example, it's very true for musicians. Maybe the analogy would be a musician who's real good on both piano and violin. He won't be as great on either instrument as he could possibly be unless he basically quits one and focuses on the other -- mainly because he'll be able to practice more on that instrument, but also because of being able to give more of his thinking to it. I think only relatively few players don't have to think about their game. Most of them have to constantly be figuring out better and better what they're doing and how to approach it, plus, to adjust.
And for pitchers, I would think all of these things are extra important, even more important than for hitters, because (it seems) even just small differences in how they operate can make huge differences in the results. When a pitcher gets just a little bit tired in a game, he can suddenly start getting killed. Or when a pitcher maybe gets overused during a season and loses a couple of MPH off his fastball, same thing. Or if his breaking ball starts breaking just a little less, or if he loses just a little bit on his control....
And that's why I'm saying that for a switch-pitcher, it would never be worth it to also pitch from his slightly-worse side; it's like a pitcher who has lost a little something from his pitching. If it weren't for the factors of "practicing" and "thinking" that I talked about, I could see your point, because then, sure, at least against some batters, the platoon advantage would outweigh all else. But if we also include those factors, it just wouldn't be worth devoting himself at all to his worse arm, because of how he'd be sacrificing on the arm that he REALLY might be able to pitch with.
I gotta believe that this is what the organization thinks too, and the reason they let him continue doing what he's doing is that neither arm is really any big deal, so might as well let him do this.
Sounds right to me.
And if the Yanks read this board, next week we might see him doing exactly that. :ha:
Seriously -- unless they REALLY think he's any kind of 'prospect' as a righty, what you said makes sense.
Pinchas Zukerman can play both the violin and viola; but of course, that's not the same thing as playing both the piano and violin. It's more or less comparable to playing both the cello and double bass ...
There HAVE, in fact, been versatile musicians throughout history, capable of playing diverse instruments; but it's difficult to see that playing on the one necessarily *interferes* with his ability or development in playing on the other. If anything, because the piano and violin are such contrasting instruments, it shouldn't be an issue.
It's probably just a matter of time and economics: try working out the logistics of managing two full-time careers as a traveling world-class concert pianist (e.g. Evgeny KIssin) AND a traveling world-class concert violinist (e.g. Itzhak Perlman).
I sometimes wonder, for instance, how it is that Daniel Barenboim manages both a piano and conducting career; it's probably a matter of splitting duties. If I understand correctly, Vladimir Ashkenhazy has basically abandoned his career as a performing pianist, and devotes his full time to conducting.
Changing careers happens all the time, whether in sports or music. But one thing you almost never see in today's world is great pianists turning into great composers: in the past, it was almost a given -- and in fact, nothing really builds a legacy as writing something great. So conversely, most great composers were great pianists (notable exceptions being Wanger, Verdi, and Berlioz); it's just that their composing careers overshadowed their performing.
Many professional ballplayers who find it difficult to get away from the game, after retiring, turn to coaching, managing, or broadcasting. However, what I've noticed is that they're not always good at it -- even though they may know the game well. Conversely, a number of Hall-of-Fame (or near HOF) managers had surprisingly modest -- if not pathetic -- careers as players. Examples coming to mind are Earl Weaver, Tommy Lasorda, and Sparky Anderson.
But then, perhaps this is more comparable to how great pianists don't always make great teachers. Say what you want about the piano, but there have been noteworthy violin teachers (e.g. Ivan Galaiman and Dorothy Delay) who didn't have especially remarkable playing careers.