And why can't you do that just because you have a platoon? Seriously, you are making zero sense. I don't think I am being clear. There are a number of variables to consider. However, one cannot just use career splits to determine if a platoon will be effective. Using career splits assumes regular playing time. This is one case (perhaps the only case) where I agree with the conventional wisdom crowd. I cannot see how a straight platoon would be better than just having one guy who hits reasonably well against both lefites and righties. If a team has to use a platoon, I'd like to see the short end guy be pretty cheap, have a good power and good plate coverage at the very least. IMO, that rules out the vast majority of bench players becuase if the guy had all those things he would likely be starting. My thinking is that in a platoon situation it is axiomatic that one guy is going to be relativiely inefective for some portion of the time. For that portion of the time it really doesn't matter that he's on the bench at all unless he's going to hit for the pitcher. In which case I would assume that there is better option to use off the bench. I am not saying a bench player shouldn't ever start. I am not saying a team should never use a platoon. Necessity may dictate that they should. What I am saying is that why would a team like the Cubs, flush with cash, and with tradeable assets go into a seaon plan to use a platoon.