Power hitters vs contact hitters

I was just curious to find out what other people think about the power hitters vs contact hitters. If you had two players trying out and you only have one position, with everything else equal except the hitting. Which one would you pick and why?

Power vs. contact is irrelevant, IMO. It's production that counts. That's a combination of getting on bases and hitting for extra bases, either very good at one or the other, or a little of both.

Every team needs a mix of both I believe...if you can hit, I don't think anyone really cares if hitting hr's or singles. It will boil down to what a team needs for balance. Every team needs table setters just as much as power hitters. Hard to win consistently without both..JMHO. Im sure there are plenty that can say otherwise, but I believe balance is key.

One recruiter explained it to me this way.

Not the exact wording, but the basic gist was as follows ….

What I’m looking for are hitters that drive the ball. I can find all the singles hitters I need all over the place, but what I'm looking for are RBI producers, those that can drive the ball.

As SB puts it … strive to be a Chauffeur … a driver of the ball.

grounded said:

Every team needs a mix of both I believe...if you can hit, I don't think anyone really cares if hitting hr's or singles. It will boil down to what a team needs for balance. Every team needs table setters just as much as power hitters. Hard to win consistently without both..JMHO. Im sure there are plenty that can say otherwise, but I believe balance is key.

Click to expand...

This is an interesting question. It's assumed that you want balance, but I wonder if it would stand up to research.

Let's take the University of Florida. They had a team OPS of .867. Would nine hitters with the exact same statistics, including an .867 OPS, perform any differently, any less, than a lineup of nine diverse hitters with an OPS of .867? We assume that you need diversity, that everybody needs a few table-setters, a few power hitters, but I don't know if that would be the case or not. Maybe even today, at age 70.

FiveFrameSwing said:

One recruiter explained it to me this way.

Not the exact wording, but the basic gist was as follows ….

What I’m looking for are hitters that drive the ball. I can find all the singles hitters I need all over the place, but what I'm looking for are RBI producers, those that can drive the ball.

As SB puts it … strive to be a Chauffeur … a driver of the ball.

Click to expand...

I agree with this philosophy, but I think it answers the question of what type hitter you should strive to become, or the ideal hitter. Since 1920, when Babe Ruth first hit 50+ home runs, the most valuable hitters in baseball and softball have been power hitters.

When I said that it was irrelevant, I meant that in the context of picking between two players in a tryout. Some contact hitters are much better hitters than some power hitters. In other words, I would take Pete Rose in a tryout ahead of Adam Dunn.

Cb..idk. I honestly dont know how to quantify that question...I have no clue how you would judge other than generalizations. .. think we would both agree that you can have contact hitters that can hit hr's...limited, but can go yard occasionally.(Just thinking in terms of good hitting mechanics). Think most of your power hitting girls lack speed on the bags. I know there are some that dont follow those generalizations. Im thinking overall, OBP being equal, you end up giving up on runners ability to advance themselves.
Overall, I think the power hitter gets more looks, but I think table setters are just as important. Though its nice, I hate the solo hr. Can it be important? Absolutly...but overall feel like its such a waste. Not a baseball geek, but i would assume that MLB has already tried to stack a power hitting team. I dont think we see them now, though everyone in lineup can on occasion hit the long ball.

There's probably some way to study it by looking at MLB lineups, finding a formula that determines which ones are the most 'homogenous' and the ones that are the most 'diverse', then determining which ones over- or under-achieve their 'expected runs' based on their team stats. Hope that makes sense. I think it could be done, but might take someone smarter than me, though.

I'm a Braves fan, and lots of folks say they failed to score runs this year because of too many all-or-nothing hitters. IMO, the problem was not that they were all-or-nothing. It was that they were just bad hitters. If they'd had nine very good all-or-nothings, like Justin Upton, they would've been fine.

Haha...as a Phillies fan, you're not getting any support from me. We've already worked thru the mostly all or nothing lineup in past...though there were what I call "contact" hitters involved. Some bad hitters in there too..didnt pan out for us

It is a double edged sword. You need runners on, but you need power hitters to produce the big hit that can change momentum. How many times have you seen that big hit change the course of the game. Hitting is contagious. But on a personal note, my dd is not going to be a contact hitter. She hasn't practiced all these years on her swing to just make contact, all out is how she rolls.

It is indeed a tough question - but unless you are a slapper you should strive to be a hitter that drives in runs. I am fortunate to have a lead off hitter that can put us up 1-0 on the first pitch. But, she can also turn a BB into a double.