Is criticism of "free swingers" sometimes unfounded?

[TDs3nOut]

Whenever I read criticism of a good hitter for not being selective enough about the pitches he swings at, I always wonder if the guy would be as effective a hitter if he were to be less aggressive and more selective. I'm sure that the answer to that varies from hitter to hitter, but it seems to me that it's a point commonly overlooked by some fans. For example, I sometimes read people criticizing Adrain Beltre for being too much of a free swinger. Would a hitter like Beltre be better if he were to be more selective about the pitches he swings at?

 

[Chef99]

Whenever I read criticism of a good hitter for not being selective enough about the pitches he swings at, I always wonder if the guy would be as effective a hitter if he were to be less aggressive and more selective. I'm sure that the answer to that varies from hitter to hitter, but it seems to me that it's a point commonly overlooked by some fans. For example, I sometimes read people criticizing Adrain Beltre for being too much of a free swinger. Would a hitter like Beltre be better if he were to be more selective about the pitches he swings at?

I can think of a lot worse free swingers than Beltre. As far as i'm concerned, he can swing however he wants.

 

[steveringo]

The answer definitely varies. If a 'free swinger' has .900 OPS, let him swing... If a free swinger can't seem to get on base, maybe he should be more patient...

This should all be worked out in the minors, so if there aer ML free swingers, they are there for a reason, so let them be...

I don't know why this reminded me of Mike Napoli. He leads the majors in pitches per plate appearances (4.53), but also in strikeouts (155).... Is he a patient free swinger?

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

The answer definitely varies. If a 'free swinger' has .900 OPS, let him swing... If a free swinger can't seem to get on base, maybe he should be more patient...

This should all be worked out in the minors, so if there aer ML free swingers, they are there for a reason, so let them be...

I don't know why this reminded me of Mike Napoli. He leads the majors in pitches per plate appearances (4.53), but also in strikeouts (155).... Is he a patient free swinger?

This. There's no problem with being a free swinger as long as you're an effective hitter, but not many free swingers are Vlad Guerrero, Robinson Cano or Adrian Beltre. And the overall point that guys shouldn't alter their approach if their aggressiveness makes them successful is also very, very accurate. Very few guys can go from being a free swinger to a more patient hitter and maintain the same level of success. Cano is going through it now, and he's struggling as a result.

As for the Napoli comment, he's not a free swinger at all. There's a great potential for selective hitters to strike out very often because they find themselves in so many 2-strike counts.

 

[TDs3nOut]

The answer definitely varies. If a 'free swinger' has .900 OPS, let him swing... If a free swinger can't seem to get on base, maybe he should be more patient...

This should all be worked out in the minors, so if there aer ML free swingers, they are there for a reason, so let them be...

I don't know why this reminded me of Mike Napoli. He leads the majors in pitches per plate appearances (4.53), but also in strikeouts (155).... Is he a patient free swinger?

Nap's numbers suggest that he is in fact a "patient free swinger". LOL Looks as if trying to classify guys as one or the other is probably not ideal.

Guess my point (to the extent that I have one) is that it seems obvious to me that certain guys should be relatively patient and certain guys should be more aggressive. I just figure that in most instances the player and his coaches ought to know better than fans which type of hitter he is, so I'm skeptical of the criticism that good "free swinging" hitters should be more patient. Seems pretty certain that such hitters could be less productive if they were more patient.

 

[Villain]

 

[BigDDude]

The answer definitely varies. If a 'free swinger' has .900 OPS, let him swing... If a free swinger can't seem to get on base, maybe he should be more patient...

This should all be worked out in the minors, so if there aer ML free swingers, they are there for a reason, so let them be...

Nail on the head here. It is not, or should not, be about how many pitches you swing at, or how often. It should be about how much contact you make, and how often you get on base.

 

[TDs3nOut]

Nail on the head here. It is not, or should not, be about how many pitches you swing at, or how often. It should be about how much contact you make, and how often you get on base.

I'm not sure that it "should be about" OBP, though. While OBP is important, I think that some guys could improve their OBP, but the sacrifice they would have to make, in say slugging percentage, might not be worth it.

 

[fordman84]

Free swingers are usually called that because they guess and miss. if he is guessing and defending the plate more often, he's probably going to have a lot less power.

So I say it is unfounded, and players and teams are ok with that. I'm ok with a guy getting 100K's, as long as he is putting up 40+ HR's and has a decent OPS. I could care less about walks unless he all of a sudden stops seeing good pitches. So having protection in the lineup behind him is key as well.