User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.9178 seconds
81 querie(s) executed
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Dugout Central: Lompe: The Designated Hitter: Curse or Menace?
Hey, I remember the legendary Don Castle hitting .308 as a DH (you shudda seen what he hit in my name-scribbling Strat-O league!)...and I was sold.
At first, the DH position was mostly filled by old cripples whose legs had betrayed them. But it gradually became a refuge for those who were unwilling to learn or simply unable to field a position well enough to stay on a major league roster, but whose bat a team might be loathe to lose. Think Jason Giambi, Jim Thome, Edgar Martinez, and of course, the poster boy for the DH, David Ortiz.
Ortiz, although overweight, is probably a good enough first baseman to stand for most of the game rather than sit. But his is an interesting case, because it demonstrates the perfidious nature of the DH.
Boston chooses not to play Ortiz full time in order to maximize his value at the plate. In other words, they feel he can produce more for them by being able to fully concentrate on his hitting, absent the stress of playing in the field. The effect of that on the record book is the same as the effect of steroid-fueled home run binges. They both produce distorted results. That’s what makes it unfair to include a DH on the ballot for MVP over a player who must play the entire game, concentrating on the other team’s hitting as well as his own.
Support BBTF
My Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: washingtonpost.com: The Jerk Who Saved Baseball
(10 - 6:59pm, Jul 05)
Last: Brandon in MO (Fire Trey Hillman)
(10 - 6:59pm, Jul 05)
Last: Brandon in MO (Fire Trey Hillman)
Newsblog: tampabay.com: Tampa Bay Rays minor-league affiliate's Ladies Night promotion causing a stir
(29 - 6:58pm, Jul 05)
Last: Templeusox has reached his genetic threshold
(29 - 6:58pm, Jul 05)
Last: Templeusox has reached his genetic threshold
Newsblog: All-Star Game Rosters
(70 - 6:54pm, Jul 05)
Last: Templeusox has reached his genetic threshold
(70 - 6:54pm, Jul 05)
Last: Templeusox has reached his genetic threshold
Newsblog: Heyman: If Cleveland's willing to trade Martinez, Boston's a likely suitor
(43 - 6:35pm, Jul 05)
Last: Peter Rosegger
(43 - 6:35pm, Jul 05)
Last: Peter Rosegger
Newsblog: Steve Kettman: A review of the unmaking of 'Moneyball: The Movie'
(19 - 6:28pm, Jul 05)
Last: Monty
(19 - 6:28pm, Jul 05)
Last: Monty
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2008 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
It could be that managers are using tired or injured players at DH, instead of giving them a full day off. It could be the difference is due to players in the field staying loose and guys who sit on the bench between AB tightening up. But there is no evidence that a player improves his hitting by not having to play a position. Ortiz's situation just means that he's the worst fielder between himself, Mike Lowell, and Kevin Youkilis.
I agree with AROM that Ortiz doesn't play 1B for two reasons, he isn't a good fielder and he is more likely to stay healthy. It has nothing to do with him hitting better by not playing 1B.
1. Ortiz' weight/concern he'll hurt himself playing the field regularly
2. They figure it's easier to find a first baseman than a left fielder, and/or they already had Youkilis and found Lowell a better option than any LF they could have acquired in 2004
3. Ortiz is so terrible defensively he makes a big negative impact even at first base, and/or the Red Sox believe defense at 1B is more important than generally believed
4. The Red Sox believe Manny Ramirez isn't/wasn't quite as bad defensively as his reputation
But mainly, it's most likely the weight/injury concerns, and they figure that in Fenway, as long as they have a CF with plenty of range, they can get away with playing Manny in left.
Yeah, but then I wouldn't get to see Micah Owings hit. :-)
I think that pitchers should get more coaching and BP in the minors and arrive at the majors with a minimum level of competency. At the very least, there is no excuse for a pitcher being a lousy bunter.
1. His knees are likely a big reason for DHing
2. The didn't really seek out Lowell, taking his contract was part of the price of getting Beckett. Once they had him he proved his poor 2005 season was just a fluke.
3/4. They probably view Ortiz's defense as about equally poor to Manny's, probably no worse than 15 runs below average.
I suspect they've had Mr. James put team of analysts together to determine just how many runs Ramirez costs out there, probably using multiple datasets combined with watching video of every game. If they determined he was really 30-40 runs below average, I think they would have played Ortiz at first some more with Youkilis in left (he played a good bit out there in 2006 when Manny was hurt).
Shoe, were you the one who declared last year that watching Owings hit was the best single thing in baseball? I'd be inclined to agree.
One of the great things about watching pitchers hit is that once every 9 at bats we are reminded of how tough a job hitting is. It makes me appreciate the real hitters more, as well as the pitchers who can contribute a little up there.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm pretty sure if there were no DH, Giambi, Thome, Edgar, and Ortiz would be able to stick on a major league roster. In the case of Giambi and Thome, the first time either played more DH than field was 2006.
I think somebody else said that, but it's a sentiment I agree with. Even though I know that he put up 8 of his 20 hits and 18 of his 41 total bases in 2 games against Buddy Carlyle and John Van Benschoten and the Pittsburgh bullpen, those were the two most fun games to watch all year, (except for the playoff series vs. the Cubs of course)
Of course. Before the DH was invoked, guys like Leon Wagner, Hank Sauer, Gus Zernial, Rudy York, Zeke Bonura, Babe Herman, and Smead Jolley had careers. If you can really, really hit, teams will find a place for you to play.
That tradeoff of runs gained vs. runs given is a dilemma the DH removes (or at least minimizes), and its reason #29 why the rule lessens the quality of the sport.
In fact, one way of looking at the DH is that it has improved defense. No way would Dick Stuart play in the field in today's game, though he could obviously have been a good DH for a while. McCovey, Killebrew, Howard – guys who were such good hitters that you would accept pretty big defensive deficits to get them in the lineup – would have been DHs for most of their careers, and better glove men would have gotten onto the field.
Edit: or, what Steve said, though I spin it differently. I kind of like the DH not just because it incidentally puts better defensive players on the field, but also because it increases the pressure on those defenses, since there's no automatic out in the lineup.
Well, that's just your opinion. Others would argue that having less bad defenders in the field, and less bad hitters in the lineup, improves the quality of the sport.
Of course it's just my opinion. This entire issue is nothing more than a matter of opinion.
And I would disagree with others, because the point of the sport isn't to merely maximize technical quality of play: if that were the case, we should just go to complete offensive and defensive platoons and be done with it.
The point of the sport, its beauty and interest, is challenge, not mastery: the challenge to players to play as well as they can in both halves of the inning, and the challenge to teams to juggle their difficult options accordingly.
That caused me to look up Smead Jolley. His entire major league career is < 500 games, < 2000 PA, all between the ages of 28 and 31. He didn't embarrass himself with the bat in the majors, even once drew a stray MVP vote or two, but he didn't hit like Manny or Ortiz. (Jolley's OPS+: a SLG-heavy 111.) But he is a legendary figure in the game, not for his major league play but for what he did in PCL. That league, with that status, doesn't really exist any more.
What would happen to the likes of Jack Cust or Roberto Petagine if we put then in the time machine and sent them back to Jolley's times? Would they have been PCL legends?
What do you think of the NCAA DH rule, which allows a P who is also a DH to stay in the game as DH after he's removed as P?
And also for his spectacular defensive ineptitude.
That league, with that status, doesn't really exist any more.
It doesn't, but the Japanese Leagues are a very rough equivalent.
What would happen to the likes of Jack Cust or Roberto Petagine if we put then in the time machine and sent them back to Jolley's times? Would they have been PCL legends?
Quite likely, as Petagine has been a JL legend.
What do you think of the NCAA DH rule, which allows a P who is also a DH to stay in the game as DH after he's removed as P?
It takes one dumb rule and dumbs it down some more.
So, historians present: when did the DH start in the minor leagues? Did it exist prior to inclusion in the AL?
Most people probably don't have this problem but that's what comes with adult-onset ADD.
The game has grown too serious and admires itself too much. There's very little funny that happens with the DH, other than the occasional chance of seeing someone like... I don't know... Jack Cust be shamed into a triple.
That said, watching Livan Hernandez do the same thing is 100x more amusing. Get rid of the DH. Put Jason Giambi at 1st and let's get him to cut off every ball he possibly can. I miss him throwing.
Well, the direct purpose was to boost offense. But the underlying fundamental reason was to do something, anything, to boost attendance in the AL, which had drastically lagged that of the NL for more than 10 years, the league's viability was beginning to be questioned.
Other than the odd exhibition-game experiment here and there, no it didn't exist prior to its adoption by the AL in 1973. It was instituted on a partial basis in some minor leagues that season, but began to become standard throughout the minor leagues over the next several years.
Bingo. And I think the studies have shown that in fact the NL game is much more predictable in terms of the percentage of the time that they bunt or hit n run etc. etc. in certain situations. The DH actually injects MORE variability and more decison-making into the game.
So anyway, I prefer to think of it this way. DH: Great? Or terrific?
You're not the only one who sees it that way. Roy Blount Jr. wrote the following in 1970:
On a sustained basis?
And it makes your bench less important, and allows managers to think less, never having to make any decisions of the ilk of "my starter's in trouble, but there's two outs and he's due to lead off our half of the inning -- do I leave him out there or burn a good reliever now?" and "my starter's pitching well, but it's 1-1 with a runner on second and one out in the bottom of the sixth and my bullpen's shaky -- do I pinch hit or leave him in?"
Those kinds of tactical decisions are interesting. Managers are already less involved in the games than any other sport's head coach. The DH just makes it worse.
EDIT: Just wanted to cast my vote for "Dr. Strageglove" as the coolest nickname in baseball history, or at least in the 20th century. I've been trying to hang it on Ryan Howard, but it isn't catching on.
This stale chestnut is predictably hauled out in every one of these discussions ...
The truth is that "studies" have "shown" no such thing. Bill James presented one greatly flawed half-assed piece in his original Historical Abstract that was provocatively titled "DH Increases Strategy," when in fact the data supported no such conclusion. That's the extent of such "studies."
I look at it from the other perspective -- If you want to bat more than once in a game, you should be required to play the field. If a manager really wants to get a good bat in the line up, he has to figure out where to hide him, and when to pull him for a defensive replacement.
I also agree that there is now plenty of offense in the game. I would like to see things swing back just a little toward the pitcher.
Good. Great nicknames should not be recycled.
Invent a new one.
The approximate 67% of the position players' plate appearances isn't enough of a reminder? If you need to see flailing to be reminded of the difficulty of hitting, look no further than Robb Quinlan.
Thanks for the info. I stand corrected.
Interesting that they dropped it after the 1-season trial. The adoption by the AL in 1973 was officially dubbed an "experiment," but it was hastily re-affirmed at season's end.
This isn't as true for a couple reasons. One others have noted: Giambi, Thomas and Thome are the "old school" DHs -- good hitters who played the field until they got old but could still hit. There are probably a number of guys out there right now who will end up the same -- Manny, Vlad, maybe even someone like Chipper Jones.
But the other reason is that there were only 6 players in the AL last year who had enough PA at DH to qualify for the batting title. Those were all fearsome hitters (plus Jose Vidro ... and 4 of the 6 had spent most of their careers in the field) but the other teams are rotating a gaggle of players through that spot. The Twins were amazingly pathetic -- 7 guys got 50+ PAs including Mike Redmond and Jason Tyner.
With 12 and maybe even 13 man pitching staffs, it's not easy for a team to carry an all-hit, no-glove player unless they can hit like David Ortiz (or Jose Vidro! :-). That's not to suggest that the list of names one finds at DH are good defenders but most of them are still spending a good chunk, even a majority, of their time in the field. Today's DH is about as likely to be a 4th OF (or the regular OF with the 4th OF in the field) as he is David Ortiz.
I think that is a very good thing. I want to see the players win and lose the game, not the manager.
(holding hands over ears) i don't care! and besides, they should be pulling their pants up to show their socks!
Well, I respectfully disagree. Without dwarfing the contributions of the players, I think managerial strategy/tactics has a place in baseball.
Not just a place. It's an enormously integral element in what makes the game fascinating. Everything from lineup selection to pitching staff management to bunt/steal/infield in/pitchout questions are debatable, and just as fundamental to an enjoyment of the sport as the manner in which players execute their assigned tasks.
My idea is to say that a player can only DH as many innings/games as he fields. That way every player is required to play at least half the time in the field. This would require more strategy and less full-time hitters, like Hafner and Ortiz.
Of course it has a place in baseball -- I never said otherwise. However, the game is about the guy with the ball versus the guy with the stick and what follows after that. Sure, the managerial tactics influence the game, but I am more interested in the players' infuence on the outcome rather than the manager's. Because the managers are "less involved", they don't "dwarf" the players' contributions.
When a good pitcher needs to be removed for a pinch hitter, it makes me cringe. Let 'em throw nine if he has the stuff for it.
When a good pitcher needs to be removed for a pinch hitter, it makes me cringe.
I'm a big fan of pitching too, and my take is just the opposite of yours. The agonizingly tough decision a manager faces in a non-DH league of whether or not to remove a good pitcher who's pitching well for a pinch-hitter is exquisite, precisely because it's so agonizing and can be second-guessed all day long.
In a league of 12-year-olds, the pitcher who eventually will make the majors is probably his team's best hitter as well. There are plenty of high school seniors who scouts can't decide whether they should project him as a pitcher or a hitter. There are plenty of pitchers at College World Series-caliber programs who DH on the days they don't pitch. So the fact that there was a DH in their league way back didn't hurt their ability to hit. All the way through to college you'll find pitchers that are also their team's best hitters.
The problem comes up in the minors. If a player is making it to the majors on his arm, that's where he is going to focus his training. As much as we like to think a pitcher can help himself with his glove or bat, that's not what's going to get him to the bigs.
I actually like that the two leagues play by different rules. And if an NL manager can restructure his line-up for the DH and an AL manager can't figure out the double switch, they're not smart enough for the job.
Most "correct" managing is nothing more than "playing probabilities". Most of the time, getting geeked up over the manager is like standing behind a blackjack table and "debating" whether a player should have hit or stayed. Granted, baseball is more complex than blackjack, but most of the time, the "correct/incorrect" decision is cut and dried. Yes, there is the "human element" to be considered, but over the course of a 162 game season, the play on the field dictates the winning or losing much, much more than the manager, and I think that is one of the best things about baseball. Of course, the managerial outcomes don't always mesh with probability, which spawns debate, but the correct/incorrect doesn't change. Since not all managers follow probablities consistently, more debate often ensues. However, those debates are often more noise than substance.
I don't see why the author is having so much trouble with this. Why do we need to leave the DH off the MVP ballot and pretend that he had no value? What is wrong with the standard analysis of penalizing a DH for not providing value in the field? That properly recognizes that his overall value was reduced because he didn't provide any defensive value -- but that he still had value.
As for the unfair "effect on the record book": Yawn. Wake me up when all of the ballparks have the same dimensions in an effort not to "distort records." To say nothing of the whole host of other factors throughout baseball history that created uneven results and "distortions" to the records. Then maybe I'll start to care.
As for the aesthetics, it's purely subjective, of course. There's nothing morally superior to a non-DH game, or to a DH game. I happen to think watching pitchers hit is one of the silliest aspects of the game, but if you like it, good for you.
Which manager can't figure out the double switch? What is so complicated about it?
Right -- because it is one of the few things that isn't cut and dried in terms of probability. However, people can argue to the cows come home about the decision, but no one is closer to the "correct" answer. I don't consider that exquisite in the least bit; I consider it a train wreck that rends the fabric of the game being played.
Ya think?
but most of the time, the "correct/incorrect" decision is cut and dried.
Often it is. But sometimes it isn't, and in real baseball (as opposed to table-top or computer), the human element is always there and often damn complicated.
I happen to agree with Steve -- I find it excrutiating watching the decision play out. And I mean excrutiating in a good way, like the fight scenes in Raging Bull. I thoroughly enjoyed watching Charlie Manuel try to squeeze wins out of a fairly wretched Phillies pitching staff last year. Some decisions were no brainers, like taking out Jose Mesa when it's Light Up Joe Table Day at the ballpark but there were so many pinch-hit possibilities that were really tough decisions, especially when you have to dip into a beaten up bullpen early in the game.
And I would bet that most people who grew up (since the 70s) watching an AL team prefer the DH, and those who grew up watching an NL team prefer to watch pitchers bat despite being so overmatched at the plate it looks like they've never picked up a bat before in their life. :-)
I would just point out that when we're watching pitchers hit, we're not really watching "major league baseball" -- we're watching something else. The pitcher looks absolutely ridiculous trying to hit major league pitching; it's not a competitive matchup, and in that sense is really not competition at the highest level, which is what major league baseball is supposed to be.
Many Nats fans will tell you Frank Robinson couldn't handle the double switch in 2005-2006.
I don't think it's complicated. On the other side, how hard is it for an NL manager in an AL park to figure out who his best-hitting bench player is? Then maybe put one of the regulars at DH who is a liability with the glove.
You were watching Major League Baseball, but you weren't watching major league baseball -- not when the pitchers were hitting, anyway, except for the ones who weren't completely overmatched.
Didn't they say this about Spike Owen in his early days with the Mariners? Then again, I guess you could make the case for almost everybody in the awful 1983 Mariners lineup.
Yes, I do.
Even at it most complicated, baseball is hardly rocket science or even the arcane, even with the human element.
Ray, I had no idea you were a fascist. :)
Are we watching major league baseball when a weak hitting shortstop who is only on the team because of his glove hits? What about when a hitter hits a line drive at a LF who is only on the team because of his bat? Anyone who plays baseball is a player and brings positives and negatives. By saying one guy's negatives are so bad we don't want to watch, you're just giving up. I could do the same with any player. I mean, is it major league baseball when a guy hits a ground ball to Jeter's left? Major league baseball is baseball being played at its highest level. That doesn't mean that every individual action is completed at its highest level.
Besides, with the DH, Rick Camp never hits that home run. But I guess that was just a minor league game anyway; not exciting at all.
Glad to help.
Of course, there is some charm in sports to people having to do things they wouldn't be otherwise remotely qualified to do, like a placekicker trying to tackle a ball-carrier, or Shaquille O'Neal attempting a free throw.
Of course. If the weak-hitting SS never -- ever -- got a hit, he wouldn't be on the team. But if Derek Lowe never ever gets a hit, he's still on the team.
Of course that's major league baseball. But if the LF never caught a ball -- dropped every one of them -- he wouldn't be in the field. He'd be either DH'ing or -- if there were no DH -- pinch hitting. But we wouldn't be watching him drop fly ball after fly ball in the field. That's the point.
But we do watch pitchers strike out time and again. Because it -- quite literally -- is not their job to hit. Remember how often we hear an announcer say about a catcher, "Oh, he's only there for his defense, so anything he contributes offensively is a bonus?" As we know, that's silly; it's simply not true for a catcher. He'd be off the team if he struck out every time up. But it is true for pitchers hitting. Anything pitchers contribute offensively is, truly, a bonus.
It was great watching Clint Hurdle manage down the stretch, when the Rockies needed every game and had a bunch of rookies and rummies in the rotation. I've never seen a manager be more aggressive about pinch-hitting for his starting pitcher, as early as the third inning.
I respect your point of view, but this is an exaggeration. Yes, some pitchers look totally clueless at the plate and clearly just want to get back to the dugout as quickly as possible (Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez come to mind), but many major league pitchers were good hitters up until they became pros and quit batting, and the average major league pitcher reaches base 15 percent of the time. Given 100-150 plate appearances, J. Random Good High School Player would not reach base 10 percent of the time, and you or I would reach base 0 percent of the time. Major league pitchers, on the whole, can hit.
I dunno. Who here is in favor of a rule that Neifi Perez is allowed to play shortstop but doesn't have to come to bat?
You say that like it's a bad thing.
It is drama, but I think the better drama is the good pitcher remaining in the game. Same thing with relievers. And while I was being a wee bit hyberbolic with the train wreck, I do think the continuum of a well pitched game is wrecked when the manager's is forced to hit for the pitcher before the pitcher is ready to come out of the game. I don't think the drama of the forced situation trumps the drama of a pitcher's duel, especially since the manager's decision is often just a crap shoot.
To each his own, I suppose.
I say we require fielders to rotate after every plate appearance.
Pitcher(1) -> catcher(2)
catcher(2) -> first base(3)
…
rightfielder(9) -> pitcher(1)
On second thought, they should rotate after every pitch.
This idea is at the heart of a lot of sandlot games, "work-up" and "cat" and their allies. I would imagine that in the prehistory of baseball (and in informal ballgames long after) there were a lot of games played by the principle of changing positions every inning, and I have sometimes wondered whether the provision for nine innings and nine men on a side is a vestige of that principle.
It might be if the manager was indeed forced to hit for the pitcher. But he isn't forced; it's a decision he's allowed to make. And the difficulty of that decision is a test of the manager that makes the game more intriguing.
It might be. But before 9 innings was the regulation game length, it was played until one team scored 21 runs, regardless of how many innings.
According to Clay's numbers, the average pitcher last year hit .146/.178/.187, for a .116 EqA. Show me a position player -- Neifi Perez, David Howard, Rafael Belliard -- anyone -- who hits that poorly.
As for the "best" hitting pitchers, I think most people cite Mike Hampton. He hit .242/.292/.354, for a .225 EqA. From one of the best hitting pitchers.
And, yet, we wouldn't lose our jobs if we could pitch. That's the point.
So can I, if the game is beer league softball. If the game is major league baseball?
Not so much.
In Charlie Manuel's first few months with the Phillies, he admittedly forgot to make obvious double switches or otherwise botched them (by taking the ball from the pitcher without reporting the switch to the umpire first) on more than one occasion.
To _you_, Steve. And that's fine.
But not to others.
In the early years of the DH, there did seem to be more CG and higher IP totals in the American League, but that may be my imagination, and it may be just the effect of the insane workloads that Chuck Tanner and Johnny Sain and Billy Martin were demanding of pitchers (which started before the DH was adopted, in any event). But it seems to me that strategies for when to pull pitchers are pretty uniform now, and (in the NL) almost entirely dependent on defensive considerations rather than when the pitcher is due up.
It is also the heart of pee wee ball in which score isn't kept because everyone is supposed to be a winner.
But not to others.
Who ever said that this is anything other than a matter of opinion?
Point taken.
By the way, part of the reason I don't like watching pitchers hit is because they look inept up there. They flail away, for the most part. If the pitchers looked like Brian Jordan at the plate -- but hit .150 anyway -- it would be more palatable to me. But they look every bit as inept as their numbers suggest. That's what reminds me that I'm not watching major league baseball when they hit.
Rotation of positions per se has nothing to do with the keenness of competition, though. It's central to volleyball, which is pretty intense.
What are technically the same positions get played differently by different people. A setter is going to play the front line differently from a towering middle blocker, and there are plays designed to give attacking players shots from the back line. I'm wondering how to translate that into baseball terms? Put your best defender in the rotation next to your slowest guy so that when the slowpoke is playing SS there's a nimble 3B poised to cut in front of him? How do you cope with your southpaw throwers?
I see it completely differently.
I greatly enjoy watching pitchers hit, precisely because they in fact don't all look inept up there. Pitchers at the plate come in a wide variety of forms:
1) Don't give a crap. The sort who languidly strolls to the plate and then is only too happy to take 3 called strikes.
2) Gosh darn it, I can DO this! The sort who makes a valiant effort, but is hilariously overmatched.
2a) Gosh darn it, I can SWING HARD! Strikes out a ton, but once in a blue moon gets ahold of one and hits it a mile.
2b) Gosh darn it, I can MAKE CONTACT! Does a good job of avoiding strikeouts, but never hits the ball hard enough to break a pane of glass.
3) I was a pretty good hitter once. The sort who looks like a hitter up there, until he sees a breaking ball.
4) What the hell is that? The sort who doesn't look like he has a clue, but somehow hits the ball well fairly often.
5) Oh please don't pinch-hit for me. The rare sort who looks like a hitter, and actually is a viable major league hitter.
Steve Treder's 2a: I'll never forget Trevor Wilson getting hold of one against the Mets in 1991. Everything about his swing went right, and it sailed into the "Family Pavilion".
Okay -- not forced, but "prodded into."
I don't think that much, if not most of the time, it is a test of the manager. I think the outcome is often chance, and the manager receives too much credit or blame depending on the outcome.
Not necessarily. Some pitchers, especially the tall, angular ones, feature gorgeous long swings. The fact that it's primarily a matter of randomness as to whether that swing will ever make contact with a pitched ball doesn't make the spectacle any less pleasing to behold. I'm thinking of a guy like John Montefusco, or Jason Schmidt.
ATM, I just don't see any correlation to this assumption.
I think if you're on the field, playing the game, you should hit. I'm surprised no one has mentioned accountability to the pitcher as a reason for to remove the DH... I suppose this is because we're all highly civilized individuals?
I think Jason Schmidt has one heckuva an ugly swing, by the way.
And Carlos Zambrano. In 2006 when he hit 6 HR, he had an OPS+ of 35 with a 27/1 K/BB ratio.
I looked this up for 2005 and 2006 over a year ago. In both years, AL pitchers averaged barely under 6 IP a start (seriously, about 5.99 IP or so) and NL hurlers went about 5.84 IP/start.
Do you mean "accountability" in that the pitcher should suffer if he can't hit?
I think that would be a really dumb reason to have or not have the DH.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main