I'm not so amazed that there are ambidextrous people out there who can throw a ball righty or lefty, but to throw a ball well enough to play baseball as a pitcher competitively all the way through HS/College and into the minors is simply amazing. I wonder if this guy has the talent to make it to the majors. Switch Pitcher Have you ever seen this Corey?
I haven't seen this kid, thanks for the story. I have seen some in the past. One kid wanted to pitch for me and his father insisted that he could take the spot in the rotation of 2 pitchers. I disagreed. He was only 'talented' from the left side. He threw maybe 8 mph slower from the right hand side. His father didn't like that and the kid transferred schools. We pounded him every time we faced him. My issue with it all is that pitching uses the legs, back and ass as much as it does the arm... If not moreso. While you can switch arms, you don't get fresh legs or a new back.
In relief, he potentially could take the place of more than two pitchers. In L-L and R-R matchups, the manager would not need to bring in new pitchers. This guy could just trade glove hands with his specially made glove. I would imagine his presence in the bullpen would take a lot of pressure off the relief arms. Several guys with whom my 1959 Babe Ruth team won the New Jersey state championship had played 2 years in a row in the final game of the LL World Series and lost both (I moved to South Jersey at the age of 13, one year later). In one of those years, they faced a team from NM with an ambidextrous pitcher. Corey, LOL! Yet another example of a pain in the you-know-where parent who wasn't careful what he wished for and paid the price. So did his kid.
8) re: switch pitcher I never had one or saw one and that's good. I'm a firm believer in giving nicknames. If I had a pitcher like that, I would call him "Sybil."
Well he got into the game at Boston last night and had a couple of good innings. Threw from both sides depending on which side the batter was hitting from. Looked good/sharp.
He just became the new darling of the 24-hour news cycle. Excerpt from today's SI article on last night's game written by Cliff Corcoran: It should be noted that the "five innings later" in the above excerpt refers to the lady along the 3rd base line being hit by a broken bat and seriously injured. She was rushed to the hospital.
I haven't seen anything about her progress. That restarted the debate though over what protection to provide the fans. On the AM drive time, there were those who said that if you go to a baseball game and have seats in harms way it's your duty to pay attention to the game, broken bats, line drives, etc are very dangerous. One of the hosts said when he takes his kids he stay's vigilant and they are taught to tuck and cover when he says incoming! Others said they need to extend the netting further down he lines to better protect the fans. It does have to be noted that while I don't know how many fans are injured at baseball games, I think I read that only 1 fan has been killed by a bat/ball at a game. Now don't know how far they go back with that and I know they don't include incidents like the fan who fell out of the stands trying to get a ball hit his direction and was killed in the Rangers stadium a few years ago.
The only thing I've heard about her is that she will survive. One of the major issues is the increased use of maple bats, which shatter at an alarmingly hight rate and cause a higher frequency of dangerous flying objects. Perhaps the biggest problem, other than being unprotected by some form of safety netting, is fan attention (lack of). I once had front row season tickets between the backstop and the home dugout (1st base line) at the Ft. Wayne minor league club's stadium. I could not count the number of times my friend and I gently reminded kids and adults near us to be attentive, exspecially when a RH batter was up. More often than not, we got looks which revealed the fans' ignorance of the dangers. I say this not knowing the circumstances of the Boston incident. Re: netting. There's a case to be made both for and against the netting. I've often sat behind the backstop netting. I was so focused on the field action that my eyes adjusted to the point where I didn't even notice it. I've read that the owners don't want to hinder the enjoyment of fans paying high prices for field-level seats by partially obstructing their view of the field. To me, that's an understandable concern. I sure don't have any answers.
Maybe Maple bats should be banned, why do players like them in the first place? Also those bats and line drives come at you so fast, just take your eye off the game for a minute and you could get one in the face. Upper decks, outfield, they all have plenty of time to get ready for a homerun or long foul ball. But those behind the dugouts and down the lines are really at risk.
Great story I saw pitch in Trenton when he was in the Yankee system. I hope he can stick in the majors. BTW, he'll be 30 on June 30th.
Didn't realize he was that old, so he's been in the minors a long time. Reading up on him, a lot of people think he won't make it big due to his age and his mediocre fast ball. Maybe he could develope a knuckler and pitch till he's a 100 like Franco! There is also a rule that was made specifically to deal with his ambidextrous ability. Bastards!!
:arrow: I don't like that switch pitcher rule either. It sure looks like a rule that's aimed at one guy... BTW- age 29/30 is not too late to begin a pitching career. Hall of Fame pitcher Hoyt Wilhelm began at that age and finished his career 20 years later, with the Dodgers, at age 49... http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/w/wilheho01.shtml
I don't like the switch pitcher rule either but there has to be some way to keep the hitter and pitcher from continuously switching. The alternative would be to give the original advantage to the switch pitcher, making the batter commit to a side when he steps into the batter's box. He's not allowed to switch thereafter. However once the pitcher throws a pitch to this batter, if there is than a pitch hitter from the other side, the pitcher must continue to throw from the same side.
I don't mind requiring the pitcher to pitch the same side for the entire at-bat, but why does the pitcher have to commit before the batter? I don't think the batter can switch sides during an at-bat, but my thinking is the batter should commit to a side prior to the pitcher, not the other way around.
Actually, the batter is allowed to switch sides of the plate during an at-bat as many times as he wants, but he cannot do so after the pitcher has taken the ready-to-pitch position. You'll have to read through the rule to get the entire coverage of the situation. Here is the link: http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/batter_6.jsp Practically speaking, it makes no sense for the batter to do that. A switch hitter is going to take his batting position based on which side is his strongest against that pitcher. If the pitcher can't change arms during the at-bat, why would the batter want to change? IMO the pitcher restriction is a valid rule intended to eliminate time-consuming stand-offs between switch-pitcher and switch-hitter.
Kes, it's a tempest in a teapot. He's the second one in MLB, the first being sometime aroud 1880. If history holds, the next time we see a switch pitcher will be sometime around the year 2150. You may be here to see it, but I'm pretty sure I won't be.
Realistically, the effect on the game is nil. However, I hate seeing such a rare talent hamstrung. In my opinion, that rarity should be rewarded. Option 1: Remove option for pitcher to change throwing arm. Historic effect on MLB is pretty much nil. Real effect on switch pitcher is pretty crippling. Option 2: Allow option for pitcher to change throwing arm. Historic effect on MLB is pretty much nil. Real effect on switch pitcher is fantastic, if he's good. There had to have been another way to prevent the switching standoffs. In the end, tempest in a teapot, but we're still two months from football, so whuddayado??