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.
Page 1 of 2 pages
Wouldn’t you rather see one of these guys hit than continue to watch the Cardinals send the likes of Adam Wainwright, Michael Wacha, Shelby Miller and Carlos Martinez to the plate?
Will the AL ever seriously consider sh**canning the DH, or is this just poster talk?
I don't ever understand any of the arguments for uniformity. I like the DH in the AL, and no DH in the NL.
Some people seem to think there's an inherent disadvantage to not having the DH. There's no evidence of that, but that seems to be part of it.
Well, aside from the fact that AL DH's outhit their NL counterparts much more than NL pitchers outhit AL pitchers, you mean.
I like the DH in the AL, and no DH in the NL.
I feel like this is usually a minority opinion on these threads. Maybe it's just that the people that hold this view, like myself, are comparatively thoughtful and reasonable, and the battleground is soon ceded to the frothing authoritarians that demand universal adoption of their own favored set of rules.
I don't get the viewpoint that the "middle ground" is always "thoughtful and reasonable" whereas being on one end or the other of an issue is not. Frequently the "middle ground" is worse than either of the "extreme" points of view. For example in doubles tennis the best strategy is to have both players at net. The second best is to have both players at the baseline. The worst strategy is to have one player at each. I'm not demanding that the DH be abolished everywhere in the universe and those who favor it be put to death by lethal injection. I'm just stating my opinion that the world would be a better place without it. Yes, I hate it. Hate hate hate.
No, because the DH is horseshit.
One example is to apply it to a specific player, instead of a position. When the player comes out, your DH is also done for the day. That wouldn't directly affect much, since when your starter is done its typically pinch hitting time anyways, but it makes late innings more NL like, and reduces value of DH. It also adds to value of good hitting starters. If you have a starter who can hit a little, esp. if he has a handedness advantage that day vs. the other starter, you can DH for your light hitting shortstop instead and get 3-4 PAs for your DH instead of just two.
But if say you have a pitcher or two who can hit (as some claims upthread) then wouldnt it be an advantage to start using that guy as a PH/loogy or PH/spot reliever?
Or say you have a guy like Ankiel who pitches and can field; well let's pretend he can pitch. So a guy like that might be really valuable to use to stick in LF for an inning, bring him into face someone, then put him back in LF.
I'd say that before we see the DH in the NL we might see more creative use of guys like this.
According to Giles, in the mid ’70s after the American League had introduced the DH, the National League met to decide whether they too would use it. There were 12 teams in the league at the time and a simple majority vote was all that was needed for passage. Six teams were for it. Four were against it. The final two teams to vote were the Phillies and Pirates, bitter rivals at the time.
The Phillies knew the Pirates would vote however they voted. Phillies owner Rudy Carpenter wanted the DH. His reasoning was simple, they had Greg Luzinski in left and a youngster named Keith Moreland pressing for playing time. Both were good hitters, not so good in the field. So Giles was sent to the meetings with the instructions to vote for the DH.
Carpenter goes fishing. When the measure comes up for a vote, a slight change was made saying that the DH would not go into effect for at least a year. The change made Giles pause. He wanted to contact his boss and ask if this changed his position on the DH. But it’s the 1970s. Tracking someone down who has gone fishing was next to impossible. So Giles (and the Phillies) abstained. The Pirates, following orders, did as well. The vote for the DH was 6-4-2.
Giles figured the next time they met, the owners would take up the matter and with eight teams wanting it, eventually the DH would become a part of the National League game. The owners never brought it to a vote again.
. . . good hitting starters . . .
These things do not exist.
It's also patently false that all pitchers are terrible hitters.
If having different rules is so popular, why don't we ever see anyone argue that the NBA should have one conference adopt the Olympic or NCAA rules or that the NFL should have one conference using Canadian football field lengths. The one team sport that I am aware of other than baseball which had such a rules issues eventually split into two different leagues (Rugby League and Rugby Union). So can anyone posting in this thread about the joys of having multiple rule sets in one league give examples of changes that the NBA, NFL etc can make in a single conference that would increase the enjoyment from watching that sport.
The DH robs you of so many cool things. Like when a pitcher does get a hit, especially for extra bases or an RBI. Or even just a picturesque perfect bunt. Two-way players like Owings and Kieschnick, who'd never work on their hitting if pitchers never batted. Double switches and other fun oddities - anyone remember the Mets-Cards 20-inning game where TLR managed his way into the pitcher's spot "protecting" Pujols for ten innings?
Putting limits on the DH to find a middle ground is probably the only way to standardize it across leagues.
I'm (obviously) partial to the DH, but if the NL wants to continue handicapping its teams (and I'm not making a claim as to how much that handicap is, but its existence seems pretty obvious) by making pitchers bat, I'm not going to force them to do otherwise. I just find arguments based on anything other than history or tradition to be a bit underwhelming.
I'm (obviously) partial to the DH, but if the NL wants to continue handicapping its teams (and I'm not making a claim as to how much that handicap is, but its existence seems pretty obvious)
No, having different rules in one sports league doesn't make any sense.
It is not obvious. In fact, I don't believe it exists at all. I have not seen any evidence the competitive advantage the AL has enjoyed over the last 10 years is the byproduct of the existence of the DH, nor is there a logical reason to believe that to be the case.
if the NL wants to continue handicapping its teams (and I'm not making a claim as to how much that handicap is)
That said, there's a pretty big difference in talent level between shortstop and pitcher. Shortstops had a 91 tOPS+ in 2013. I think there's a pretty wide gap between -6 and 93 through which to draw a line without resorting to maximalist arguments about letting a DH replace any traditionally poor-hitting position. Heck, we could even make a rule – "If the OPS+ of any position falls below 50 for three consecutive years, teams may replace their representative from that position with a designated hitter for his turn in the lineup" – and it would only ever apply to pitchers. Also, the best-hitting shortstops of all time (Wagner, Rodriguez, Ripken) blow the best-hitting pitchers of all time out of the water.
I like the DH in the AL, and no DH in the NL.....I feel like this is usually a minority opinion on these threads.
If the anti-DH people were consistent, they'd demand a rule forbidding non-pitchers from pinch-hitting for the pitcher. That they don't shows how the whole debate is mostly tribal silliness.
My own anecdotal impression is that, like a lot of political holy wars, one side (pro-DH) has a significant majority of supporters, while the other (anti-DH) has fewer but much more vehement supporters.
Would you guys rather have a DH, or just have the lineup be the 8 fielders? I think I'd lean toward the latter, save for the fact that 27 is not a multiple of 8. That really only matters in perfect games, though, so only like 25 times a year.
I think I'd lean toward the latter, save for the fact that 27 is not a multiple of 8.
No, the pro-DH side is the side that divides the baseball world into "pitchers" and "non-pitchers". The anti-DH position is that there is one class of "baseball players" who should all be capable of contributing in all facets of the game as necessary.
That's really silly, because as Kiko says, it creates an artificial dichotomy between pitchers and non-pitchers, which is precisely what the DH does.
NL teams typically utilize a de facto DH multiple times per game (with non-pitcher pinch hitters), with zero outcry from the alleged anti-DH purists.
This is ridiculous. A pinch-hitter is not a DH. He comes into the game to bat, at which point the pitcher is removed from the game. When it's time to take the field, the pinch-hitter is removed (or someone else is) in order for the new pitcher to enter. The rules governing pinch-hitters for the pitcher in the NL are the exact same as they are for all substitutions on the baseball diamond, which is why there's "zero outcry."
They're just "players." It's no different that pinch-hitting for your starting SS with a player that can't field the position, forcing you to replace him in the next half-inning (burning two players). Nothing stops that pinch-hitter from pitching, and in fact, until you replace him, he IS the pitcher.
Nothing stops that pinch-hitter from pitching, and in fact, until you replace him, he IS the pitcher.
I'd like to see some experimentation in the pre-season.
these same Cardinals gave 448 PA to a 54 OPS+ SS last year in Pete Kozma. Did anyone want to see HIM hit?
This is one of the arguments I really have no strong opinion on (I only "prefer" the DH since I follow the AL more closely), but I don't think this statement is true. Otherwise, you'd see a good amount of pitching wins attributed to non-pitchers every year
Switched the NL to a DH league in OOTP when I had 3 first basemen who were rated 78 to 80. My DH has won the RoY award and has been a 3 time MVP. Love the DH in OOTP. Makes things so much easier. Nothing is worse than having to change 4 lineups when a player goes down with an injury.
If the anti-DH people were consistent, they'd demand a rule forbidding non-pitchers from pinch-hitting for the pitcher.
The anti-DH people are putting way too much emphasis on the nomenclature — DH vs. PH — while ignoring that a non-pitcher PH has essentially if not exactly the same on-field role/impact as a DH.]
This is dumb, and you knew it was dumb when you wrote it.
You are really confused by pinch hitters. There is no PH position, a pinch hitter is just a substitute player who is obligated to take the field unless he also is replaced.
There IS an actual DH position. They are never obligated to take the field, in fact, the are forbidden from pitching or fielding a position.
Pinch hitting is what baseball should be. No artificial positions for specialists, just ball players treated equally, whatever their limits and warts.
The idea that pinch-hitting Joey Votto for Aroldis Chapman is exactly the same thing as pinch-hitting Raul Ibanez for A-Rod is absurd. In the latter case, a hitter is hitting for another hitter, roughly akin to bringing in a lefty reliever to face a lefty. In the former case, however, a hitter is hitting for a non-hitter. Call it what you want; the net on-field, offensive effect of a non-pitcher PH in the NL is roughly if not exactly the same as the AL DH.
A pinch hitter is a conscious decision to sacrifice a bench bat for ONE plate appearance. A DH is a non-decision that sacrfices nothing. There is zero similarity to it.
In the NL, one or more of those bench bats typically exist almost exclusively to PH for a P. A non-pitcher PH is a difference in name, but hardly a difference in kind.
There is a significant difference between a PH and a DH in terms of how they can be deployed (and, correspondingly, how the pitcher can be used).
Ignoring the latter, which you've consistently done since Post 40, is in fact, quite dumb.
I'll stick with zero similarity.
A dh is a position in which a player is chosen to be the designated batter for a fielding position, in which the player at that position will remain in the game in the field. (in the majors, that position is only allowed to be the pitcher positions, at other levels that rule isn't always required to be a pitcher)
A Ph is another player taking over a spot in the lineup at the time of that players at bat. The player being pinched hit for is removed from the game. The pinch hitter is now one of the nine lineup spots in the field when it comes time for the team to go out to the field(in which he might be replaced by another guy, but at that point in time he cannot reappear in the game)
I believe decisions about pitcher/hitter match-ups tend to be more important than the "Do I or don't I pinch-hit for the pitcher?" decisions in the NL. The former is underrated and the latter overrated. (Likewise, double-switches aren't exactly rocket science, either.)
Good for you.
It still doesn't keep Post 40 from being dumb.
Strange that so much focus/emphasis is placed on the PH coming out of the game rather than on his role when he's in the game.
Also strange how the anti-DH types gloss over the fact that a PH who hits for the P and then comes out of the game is just as much a "specialist" as those dreaded AL DHs.
I am curious about the baseball of pure specialization, just as a thought experiment. If you completely removed the need for any hitting ability at all, how much better would the standard of fielding get? Would a solid fielder like Jay Bruce be good enough to ever play in the field? There might only be a handful of two-way players, guys like young Ken Griffey Jr. Or would you bench Mike Trout to preserve his health?
Call it dumb all you want. Doesn't make the anti-DH tribalists any more consistent.
Because part of the game is about roster management. You have a 25 man roster and it's a tactical decision to decide when you are going to use those bullets.
Strawman argument. Nobody has ever in the history of anti/pro dh arguments talked about specialist. It's about a 9 position players batting for themselves. That is all. You can have a specialist relief pitcher, runner, etc... but that means removing a player for another player. A DH doesn't do any of that.
There is literally one Anti-DH argument put out there, the rest is just extraneous crap.
and the argument is.
There are nine position players, those players should have to play offense and defense.
That is it. No other argument exists or needs to exists, because that is the entire argument. If you want to talk about your personal fetish with specialists, then you need to argue against a 25 man roster and not about the DH.
Call it dumb all you want. Doesn't make the anti-DH tribalists any more consistent.
I really hope you aren't seriously this dense.
A pinch hitter replaces, a designated hitter doesn't.
NL fans believe baseball is played by nine individuals at a time, each expected to perform in an offensive defensive capacity (regardless of ability). If it is determined that a team does not want to use a player on one side or another, such as a pitcher at the plate, that pitcher must be removed from the game in order to use someone with a better set of skills. Similarly, to reinsert a pitcher back into the game, that hitter (or someone else) must be removed from the contest. But at all times, the game is played by nine men per side.
But your continued assertion that there's something inconsistent about the NL fans' views on the PH vis-a-vis the DH is simply foolish.
LOL. You think I don't understand that? My point is those PH decisions and the double-switches aren't remotely the rocket science that anti-DH types tend to think they are.
Not foolish at all. A lot of religious types don't like it when their inconsistencies and hypocrisies are exposed. The DH debate is no different.
Logic: every player on the field plays both defense and offense.
aesthetics: I don't want to see really crappy players bat.
Both are valid arguments, but only one is logical, the other is about personal preference.
DH and PH are absolutely 100% completely different jobs and non-similar unless you just don't have a functioning brain. A ph is a player replacing another player, which if you have a roster over 9 players makes sense. A DH is a guy replacing a function of another guy while keeping the other guy in the game. Other than them batting there is no similarity. If we are going to use that as an argument for a similarity, then on the same retarded analogy scale that you are using, the pitcher batting for himself is similar to a dh...because the pitcher is batting.
"Every player on the field plays both defense and offense"?
Hundreds and hundreds of NL relief pitchers have never logged a plate appearance.
Wow you are ####### dumb.
That is a function of 25 man rosters and the rules that allow you to replace players in game, if you want to have a problem with that, then take up that argument. It has nothing to do with the dh argument.
If you like one better, fine, but until relief pitchers start grabbing bats a whole lot more often, the idea that NL baseball is more logical or more pure is just silly.
What do the rules and the roster size have to do with it? If it was understood that pitchers hitting was part of baseball, then NL tradition would call for pitchers to always hit, regardless of situation, roster size, rules, etc. That NL managers — and NL fans — have absolutely no problem with non-pitchers pinch-hitting for the pitcher puts the lie to the idea that in the NL, there are no "pitchers" and "non-pitchers" but, rather, only "players," as people tried claiming above.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (2 members)
Page rendered in 0.9618 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed