Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Dayn Perry: Big idea: The designated hitter compromise

Leaner, meaner, faster, smarter, outlier…The Big Idea with Dayn Perry!

With that out of the way, here’s what I propose: Make the DH rule the prerogative of the home team. Yes, I hereby propose that in advance of each regular-season and postseason game, the home team should be able to declare whether the DH shall be used for the contest in question.

Per MLB rules, batting lineups aren’t exchanged until five minutes before game time, so there’s plenty of time in the course of the standard run-up to the first pitch to make the decision and allow the visiting manager to react accordingly. Want to force David Ortiz to wield a glove or luxuriate on the pine? The home manager can opt not to DH. Want Stephen Strasburg to hit opposite a pitcher who’s less skilled with the bat? Opt not to DH. Got a right-hander on the mound and an opponent without a quality left-handed bat to slot in at DH? Force the issue by invoking the DH rule for that game. Does your team employ a manager with an orthodox and throbbing-neck-vein hatred of the DH? Take the NIMBY approach and never allow it on your hallowed traditionalist grounds.

First and foremost, the “home team chooses” system would, a) reduce significantly the number of games in which the DH rule would be in force; and b) add another layer of managerial strategizing (and fan kvetching) to a sport that’s typically a bit light on managerial strategizing (but not fan kvetching). I also envision a handful of other consequences that can be viewed as generally positive ...

...This new structure would of course require the consent of the players union, and they’d likely want give-backs elsewhere, since this would likely result in a downward market correction insofar as primary DHs are concerned. But this effort embodies, I think, the sensible middle ground between getting rid of the DH altogether (again, not a plausible aim) and allowing the status to remain quo.

So, in summary, the home team gets to decide whether the DH rule applies. Given the breadth of my opinion-shaping powers, I expect implementation posthaste. Or not.

Repoz Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:03 PM | 104 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: history

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.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. fra paolo Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:17 PM (#4387134)
This is just a rule to make the NL adopt the DH. DH-ing makes it easier to deploy a pitching staff.
   2. smileyy Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:20 PM (#4387138)
Is there anything less compelling in baseball than managerial disagreements about rule interpretations/executions?
   3. Tim D Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:21 PM (#4387141)
Yes, let's completely change the rules because a majority of NL teams (as few as 8) don't want the DH. Every other team in organized baseball, college, minors, overseas, independents, etc have been using the DH for more or less 30 years, but let's change the rules to let this home team gamesmanship go on because at least 8 dinosaurs in the NL like to see double switches.

Or, we could just (gasp) put the DH in the NL.
   4. Shredder Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:21 PM (#4387142)
Wouldn't the default essentially become no-DH? It might take a few years for the DH/David Ortiz style players to die out, but it's a lot cheaper to carry a pinch hitter that can DH for 35 or so games per year than to carry a David Ortiz style, who by the way, becomes a hell of a lot less valuable than he was before (of course, maybe that kills that argument).

Also, I'm not sure it would really lead to any additional managerial strategizing (maybe GM strategizing). Teams are either going to be DH teams or non-DH teams. I couldn't really see a team being much of a hybrid in the their home games unless they were a DH team whose DH got hurt, turning them into a non-DH team.

The only reason I could see a team consciously deciding to be a DH team is to protect big time talent pitchers from hitting in an effort to reduce their risk of injury. But a team in that position is probably spending a bunch of money on their staff, which leaves less money available for a hitter.

   5. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:28 PM (#4387146)
but let's change the rules to let this home team gamesmanship go on because at least 8 dinosaurs in the NL like to see double switches.


As an AL-fan I'll say, the DH is stupid. Everyone else plays defense and offense, it's idiotic to have one player who doesn't.
   6. Dale Sams Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:29 PM (#4387148)
As if Ortiz's fantasy value wern't low enough.
   7. villageidiom Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:29 PM (#4387149)
No.

I mean, I like the idea of forcing more strategy, and I'm not against a "home team decides" rule.

But basically the second order effect is that each team will sign two first basemen: one who can field very well but not necessarily hit well, and another who can hit very well but not necessarily field well. If the DH is invoked, the "hitting 1B" is DH and the "fielding 1B" is in the field; if not, the "hitting 1B" plays 1B and the "fielding 1B" is his defensive replacement in later innings when ahead. (Or they'll do the same approach, but with LF instead of 1B.) That doesn't appeal to me enough to change the status quo.

If you really want to make an unnecessary rule, have each team pick one opposing player to deactivate from the roster for the day. Stipulate that the same player can't be deactivated more than once in any 7-game span.
   8. Shredder Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:31 PM (#4387152)
As an AL-fan I'll say, the DH is stupid. Everyone else plays defense and offense, it's idiotic to have one player who doesn't
I know the auto-response you'll have to my point, but the fact of the matter is that in this era of specialization, even if you eliminated the DH from the AL, there would be roughly 150 active roster spots in the majors at any given time made up of players who would virtually never bat. So no, everyone doesn't play defense and offense. Every position (in the NL) plays defense and offense, but not nearly every player does.
   9. Swedish Chef Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:32 PM (#4387153)
but it's a lot cheaper to carry a pinch hitter that can DH for 35 or so games per year than to carry a David Ortiz style, who by the way, becomes a hell of a lot less valuable than he was before (of course, maybe that kills that argument).

But some teams worry more about how they can transfer their monetary advantage to the field. I would expect the ilk of the Yankees, Red Sox and Angels to go for the DH, especially if the pinata teams have penny-pinched in that slot. A DH/pinch-hitter will get a lot of ABs as he will start every single home game and probably quite a few road games.
   10. cmd600 Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:36 PM (#4387155)
Everyone else plays defense and offense, it's idiotic to have one player who doesn't


No relief pitchers play offense, and way too many starters go up there with little interest in getting the ball out of the infield. If we enforce the "has to play both offense and defense" rule, we have to make it apply to everyone.
   11. Shredder Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:36 PM (#4387156)
But some teams worry more about how they can transfer their monetary advantage to the field. I would expect the ilk of the Yankees, Red Sox and Angels to go for the DH, especially if the pinata teams have penny-pinched in that slot.
But if you've only got a few big money teams that decide to go the DH route, that DH will almost never be in effect on the road. So you're paying big money to have that guy sit for 60 games per year. Why would the home team ever put the DH into use when the Angels, Yankees, or Red Sox were in town?
   12. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:37 PM (#4387158)
I know the auto-response you'll have to my point, but the fact of the matter is that in this era of specialization, even if you eliminated the DH from the AL, there would be roughly 150 active roster spots in the majors at any given time made up of players who would virtually never bat. So no, everyone doesn't play defense and offense. Every position (in the NL) plays defense and offense, but not nearly every player does.

I don't know if it's the auto-response you expect, but I'm gung ho for anything we can do to reduce the number of relief pitchers used.

Maybe limit the number of pitchers that can be rostered to 10? Require an RP to face at least 3 batters?
   13. John Northey Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:37 PM (#4387159)
Well, we'd see teams who have a good DH finding themselves needing to have their pitchers hit regularly while teams with poor DH's would not (at least on the road). This would lead to seeing a lower quality of play (poor DH's or pitchers hitting more often) thus I don't see the advantage.

I actually like having the leagues with different rules - it is the only thing left that makes the NL and AL different afaik. Players hop from league to league all the time, interleague play, etc. We need something otherwise we might as well do the big shift that has been talked about - ie: putting both NY's in the same division and the like.

The one change for DH's I'd like though is to have it be that in interleague play the DH is in use in NL parks and not in AL parks just so the hometown fans in each league can see something a bit different.
   14. BDC Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:42 PM (#4387170)
À propos of very little: ten guys who might have been career DHs, if the rule had existed:

Player             Rfield OPS+   PA From   To  SLG    Pos
Frank Howard         
-109  143 7101 1958 1972 .500   *793
Roy Sievers           
-79  124 7347 1949 1965 .475 378/59
Leon Wagner           
-78  120 4950 1958 1969 .455    *79
Harmon Killebrew      
-77  149 8792 1954 1972 .527 357/49
Wes Covington         
-76  122 3291 1956 1966 .466  *7/98
Jim Bottomley         
-73  125 8354 1922 1937 .500   *3/4
Willie Stargell       
-44  145 5266 1962 1972 .522 *73/98
Jack Fournier         
-41  141 4813 1916 1927 .494  *3/17
Ralph Kiner           
-40  149 6256 1946 1955 .548  *7/83
Bob Nieman            
-36  132 3947 1951 1962 .474    *79 


And of course a couple of them did end up DHing some after the rule came in, including Killebrew in his old age, (And he maybe doesn't belong on the list; he could play an adequate 3B, and it's hard to rate him as a defender, given his multiple positions.)

One thing the list suggests is that if you can hit like Frank Howard, a DHless sport will find somewhere for you to play. Ortiz would be in that class as a hitter, I imagine.
   15. Dan Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:53 PM (#4387181)
If this rule went active, I think nearly every team would use the DH all of the time. Teams are already so risk averse with their pitchers that I think pretty much every team would avail themselves of the opportunity to protect their starting pitchers from hitting and running the bases. I don't think teams would even force guys like Ortiz to sit much; I think that would really only happen in games with the 4th or 5th starter going and a massive DH talent disparity. Front end starters would probably still be protected rather than the team attempting to gain a small tactical advantage. Plus, it would be pretty offensive to your (even part-time) DH to tell him "we're sitting you today because losing you gives us a much better chance to win since it benches Ortiz too. Basically we think David Ortiz is a far better player than you are." Managers wouldn't want to be caught in that situation. The path to least resistance for almost all teams would be using the DH for every game.
   16. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 06:00 PM (#4387187)
Or, we could just (gasp) put the DH in the NL.


If the NL ever adopts the DH, I'm going to stop following baseball, and use all my new free time to track down every person who ever suggested that the NL adopt the DH and then murder them in their sleep.
   17. Karl from NY Posted: March 12, 2013 at 06:03 PM (#4387191)
If this rule went active, I think nearly every team would use the DH all of the time. Teams are already so risk averse with their pitchers that I think pretty much every team would avail themselves of the opportunity to protect their starting pitchers from hitting and running the bases.


This, this, a thousand times this. The first time a pitcher tweaks an ankle sliding into second base, the talking heads will erupt in a frenzy of "why didn't you protect your pitcher!!!"

Managers in all sports manage to deflect criticism as much as to win the games. More so in many cases, like fraidy-cat punts in football.
   18. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: March 12, 2013 at 06:04 PM (#4387192)
This would just perpetuate the Kirk Gibson/Dusty Baker feud.
   19. Dale Sams Posted: March 12, 2013 at 06:13 PM (#4387200)
But basically the second order effect is that each team will sign two first basemen: one who can field very well but not necessarily hit well, and another who can hit very well but not necessarily field well


That's not even particularly an option *right now*. IF Ortiz is out for a substantial amount of time, I would think the Sox would be okay with Napoli at DH and a Dougie Alphabet at 1B, but I can't think of anyone out there.

I could be wrong about the Sox's assesment of Napoli's defensive prowess though.
   20. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: March 12, 2013 at 06:17 PM (#4387202)
Stupid idea is stupid.
   21. Darren Posted: March 12, 2013 at 06:17 PM (#4387204)
I really don't like the 10-minute thing. That seems kind of unnecessarily difficult for the opposing team/DH to prepare. I would say giving the home team the option is enough of an advantage. In fact, I might suggest doing it by series (or even homestand!) would make more sense.
   22. Greg K Posted: March 12, 2013 at 06:20 PM (#4387206)
It's never really occured to me before, but I just had a light-bulb go off, and can one-up this fellow's stupid idea with a stupider one.

How about get rid of the DH and pitcher's batting. 8-man lineups! No non-athletic DHs hiding from playing defence, no crappy pitchers trying to bunt. And new single-season batting records for all!
   23. Greg K Posted: March 12, 2013 at 06:23 PM (#4387211)
...This new structure would of course require the consent of the players union, and they’d likely want give-backs elsewhere, since this would likely result in a downward market correction insofar as primary DHs are concerned. But this effort embodies, I think, the sensible middle ground between getting rid of the DH altogether (again, not a plausible aim) and allowing the status to remain quo.

Maybe it's the wrong attitude, but I generally think of the status quo as the middle ground.
   24. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: March 12, 2013 at 06:25 PM (#4387215)
Why would the home team ever put the DH into use when the Angels, Yankees, or Red Sox were in town?


Because the Yankees are in town. Seriously, have you looked at that lineup?
   25. bigglou115 Posted: March 12, 2013 at 06:26 PM (#4387218)
Or, we could just (gasp) put the DH in the NL.


See, the problem is your looking at it as a fan of the DH. As someone who isn't, your argument that only 8 NL teams don't want the DH doesn't compel me at all. Its not about what the teams want, its about what the fans want, and there certainly isn't a consensus among fans that the DH is better.

The problem with the DH v no DH argument is that both sides wildly overestimate the fan support for their side. I'd imagine the split is about 50/50. Why is it such a crime that those of us who don't like the DH get to watch DH free games? I'd make the same argument the other way, I don't begrudge AL fans for watching baseball the way they prefer to watch it.

I also think the pro-DH guys miss the train by arguing that "relief pitchers still won't hit." I think most anti-DH fans would prefer to see starters go longer or relievers pitch multiple innings. Just because we can't have the game exactly the way it was doesn't mean we should have to give in to everything. I think we mostly would just prefer that every baseball player was as well rounded as possible.
   26. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 06:36 PM (#4387225)
How about get rid of the DH and pitcher's batting. 8-man lineups! No non-athletic DHs hiding from playing defence, no crappy pitchers trying to bunt. And new single-season batting records for all!

I've got a better idea, if we're going full-blown mutant.

You can use a DH, but each of the 9 batters must spend 8 innings in the field. One batter sits on D every inning. No batter can sit twice until everyone has sat once. So, you can have your David Ortiz bat, but he's got to field too.

The position switching mayhem would be awesome :-)
   27. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 12, 2013 at 06:40 PM (#4387229)
The position switching mayhem would be awesome :-)


There are specialty websites for this sort of thing.
   28. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 06:52 PM (#4387235)
You can use a DH, but each of the 9 batters must spend 8 innings in the field. One batter sits on D every inning. No batter can sit twice until everyone has sat once. So, you can have your David Ortiz bat, but he's got to field too.

The position switching mayhem would be awesome :-)


I still prefer real baseball, but at least that's fair from a structural standpoint.
   29. willcarrolldoesnotsuk Posted: March 12, 2013 at 06:56 PM (#4387237)
I really don't get the idea that the DH rule is "stupid" because every other player plays both offense and defense (which is not true in the first place, of course, but whatever). Lots of team sports have very specific rules for very specific players who are treated differently than others.

An absurd number of games like soccer and hockey have goalies. Rowing's got the slavedriver guy (OK, I admit I just looked it up and he's the "coxswain", but I'm leaving it as "slavedriver guy"). Football is essentially nothing but a huge mess of specific rules for specific people.

Hell, even ignoring the DH rule, baseball itself has specific rules for the pitcher, catcher, and first baseman.

If you don't like it, that's fine, but it doesn't imply that it's somehow stupid.
   30. bigglou115 Posted: March 12, 2013 at 07:11 PM (#4387240)
If you don't like it, that's fine, but it doesn't imply that it's somehow stupid.


And I don't think its stupid. My preference is that the games I watch don't feature it. I think there's enough of us around that letting us keep the NL DH free makes sense. Forgive us for being defensive, but you have to admit the odds seem to be 75% or higher that we'll lose that sometime in the next decade.
   31. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: March 12, 2013 at 07:15 PM (#4387242)
Surprise, some of us support the DH and some don't. In other news, water is still wet.

I like the idea that the AL and NL are different. The uniqueness of the situation was always best exemplified in the world series, unfortunately for me, interleague play kind of ruined that.
   32. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 07:16 PM (#4387243)
An absurd number of games like soccer and hockey have goalies.


So what? A goalie can score goals at any time if he's in position to do so (it does happen once in a while), and a non-goalie can block shots if he wants. A team always has six players on the ice - how it assigns those players is up to it.

Football is essentially nothing but a huge mess of specific rules for specific people.


Yes, and football was much better and more interesting when players played both ways, back in the olden days. A desire to keep baseball from being cheapened in the way football was is one of the best reasons to oppose the DH.
   33. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: March 12, 2013 at 07:22 PM (#4387246)
The problem with the DH v no DH argument is that both sides wildly overestimate the fan support for their side. I'd imagine the split is about 50/50. Why is it such a crime that those of us who don't like the DH get to watch DH free games? I'd make the same argument the other way, I don't begrudge AL fans for watching baseball the way they prefer to watch it.


This is why I think it's ridiculous for baseball to ever consider changing from what we have now. You've got your Vlads and his pro-DH equivalents. Whether either set would truly give up the game if the DH was universally adopted is debatable, but why the hell would baseball chance it? The sport offers something for each type of fan as is. Alienting one set just for homogeneity's sake makes no sense.

As for me, I like differences between the leagues, and wish there were more of them, not fewer. Go status quo.



   34. bigglou115 Posted: March 12, 2013 at 07:26 PM (#4387248)
This is why I think it's ridiculous for baseball to ever consider changing from what we have now. You've got your Vlads and his pro-DH equivalents. Whether either set would truly give up the game if the DH was universally adopted is debatable, but why the hell would baseball chance it? The sport offers something for each type of fan as is. Alienting one set just for homogeneity's sake makes no sense.


Well, there are a lot of people who are genuinely offended at watching a pitcher swing the bat. They see no reason why they should be subjected to it. I see Tim Hudson hit his first MLB HR at 35 to give himself the lead and I figure its worth it.
   35. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: March 12, 2013 at 07:30 PM (#4387251)


Well, there are a lot of people who are genuinely offended at watching a pitcher swing the bat. They see no reason why they should be subjected to it.


Well there's a pretty easy solution to that problem.
   36. willcarrolldoesnotsuk Posted: March 12, 2013 at 07:33 PM (#4387255)
So what? A goalie can score goals at any time if he's in position to do so (it does happen once in a while), and a non-goalie can block shots if he wants. A team always has six players on the ice - how it assigns those players is up to it.
So my point is that lots of games have different rules for different players, and the fact that a goalie can score does not change that fact? Is this a trick question?
Yes, and football was much better and more interesting when players played both ways, back in the olden days.
Right, right, it was so much more interesting before you ever saw it.
   37. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: March 12, 2013 at 07:42 PM (#4387263)
Well, there are a lot of people who are genuinely offended at watching a pitcher swing the bat.


Really? People are offended! It really raises their ire? They are genuinely cross about the whole thing? That's just silly.

If you want to take offense to something at least pick something meaningful like starving children or humanitarian issues. Or maybe Republicans, steroid abusers and over rated closers!
   38. willcarrolldoesnotsuk Posted: March 12, 2013 at 07:45 PM (#4387265)
And I don't think its stupid. My preference is that the games I watch don't feature it. I think there's enough of us around that letting us keep the NL DH free makes sense. Forgive us for being defensive
What do I have to forgive you for? I'm perfectly fine with you not liking it, and I never said that you think it's stupid. I was writing in reference to another poster who did in fact say that it is "stupid", and that the reason it is "stupid" is because all players besides the DH play both offense and defense.
   39. bigglou115 Posted: March 12, 2013 at 07:49 PM (#4387266)
What do I have to forgive you for? I'm perfectly fine with you not liking it, and I never said that you think it's stupid. I was writing in reference to another poster who did in fact say that it is "stupid", and that the reason it is "stupid" is because all players besides the DH play both offense and defense.


Sorry, I should have phrased that better. I should have said, "I don't think its stupid..." And then moved on to "I think a lot of the anti-DH vitriol, i.e. calling the DH stupid, is really defensiveness because we're quite likely going to lose this fight sometime before 2020."
   40. Mayor Blomberg Posted: March 12, 2013 at 07:49 PM (#4387267)
So what? A goalie can score goals at any time if he's in position to do so (it does happen once in a while),


6 times in NHL history on shots. My guess is that all six were empty net.
   41. bigglou115 Posted: March 12, 2013 at 07:52 PM (#4387268)
Really? People are offended! It really raises their ire? They are genuinely cross about the whole thing? That's just silly.


Please. You've been around here enough to know that watching a pitcher hit really does cause people's ire to rise. It's silly to pretend that just because its silly it doesn't happen. Just like some of the most angry people I've ever seen in my life have been arguing about the DH.
   42. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 12, 2013 at 08:00 PM (#4387269)
8-man lineups! No non-athletic DHs hiding from playing defence, no crappy pitchers trying to bunt. And new single-season batting records for all!

No DH, no pinch hitting for the pitcher - might only need a 23-man roster. Players union wouldn't agree unless you tripled the minimum salary or provided other significant tradeoffs.
   43. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 12, 2013 at 08:02 PM (#4387272)
The problem with the DH v no DH argument is that both sides wildly overestimate the fan support for their side.


Fans of teams in the AL like the DH. Fans of teams in the NL don't. Fans root for teams.
   44. Tim D Posted: March 12, 2013 at 08:06 PM (#4387275)
"The problem with the DH v no DH argument is that both sides wildly overestimate the fan support for their side. I'd imagine the split is about 50/50."

Right. It was 99-1 against back in '73. If the NL would just put it in like EVERY OTHER ORGANIZED LEAGUE ON THE PLANET, the number of people who missed seeing the pitcher hit instead of David Ortiz would be, in about 5-10 years, roughly equivalent to the number that are still pissed the A's left Philadelphia.
   45. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 12, 2013 at 08:11 PM (#4387281)
Right. It was 99-1 against back in '73. If the NL would just put it in like EVERY OTHER ORGANIZED LEAGUE ON THE PLANET, the number of people who missed seeing the pitcher hit instead of David Ortiz would be, in about 5-10 years, roughly equivalent to the number that are still pissed the A's left Philadelphia.


And if the AL stopped playing by college and Little League rules, the number of people who missed seeing David Ortiz crawl out of the dugout to swing three or four times a game while his teammates played baseball around him, in 5-10 years, would be roughly equivalent to the number that are still active members of the New Kids On The Block fan club.
   46. SoSH U at work Posted: March 12, 2013 at 08:21 PM (#4387284)
I suspect you're both probably right, which is why there is no reason for baseball to do it. Making both leagues use the DH or both let the pitcher bat gains the sport nothing. It just soothes some goofballs who are bizarrely bothered by the idea that the two leagues aren't identical. #### those people.

If the NL would just put it in like EVERY OTHER ORGANIZED LEAGUE ON THE PLANET


The use of ALL CAPS doesn't make this true.
   47. Tim D Posted: March 12, 2013 at 08:26 PM (#4387286)
Disagree vehemently. Ortiz can hit; someone would stick him at 1B even if we didn't have the DH. Ortiz is fun to watch, even when he strikes out. Watching a pitcher bunt with one out or hit away with 2 out and two on is B-O-R-I-N-G. The so-called NL "strategy" is a load of crap. In the AL the pitcher is the game is dictated by pitching considerations only, not other extraneous stuff. The DH format is vastly superior; otherwise you would be able to find another league besides the dinosaur NL that doesn't use it. Purists, move the mound in to 45 feet and make the pitcher throw underhand. Baseball fans, get in the game.
   48. Tim D Posted: March 12, 2013 at 08:28 PM (#4387289)
So what leagues in organized baseball don't use the DH?
   49. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: March 12, 2013 at 08:28 PM (#4387290)
Please. You've been around here enough to know that watching a pitcher hit really does cause people's ire to rise. It's silly to pretend that just because its silly it doesn't happen. Just like some of the most angry people I've ever seen in my life have been arguing about the DH.


I'm not pretending the anger doesn't exist, I'm suggesting it's silly to get really upset about it. I don't like pitchers or batters who take too long between pitches, I don't like interleague play and I don't like guys wearing their pants down to the cleats and not show any socks, but I don't get angry about it.

still active members of the New Kids On The Block fan club.


hey, whoa, where do I sign up?
   50. JJ1986 Posted: March 12, 2013 at 08:29 PM (#4387293)
So what leagues in organized baseball don't use the DH?


The NPB Central League, for one.
   51. Greg K Posted: March 12, 2013 at 08:32 PM (#4387294)
Disagree vehemently. Ortiz can hit; someone would stick him at 1B even if we didn't have the DH.

True, though if getting rid of the DH convinces the Jays they have no more use for Adam Lind I may just get behind it.

Until then though, what I get from #44 and #45 is that the whole DH or no DH thing is just one gigantic tempest in a tea pot. If the game gets standardized one way or another within 5 years the only people who would notice would be the ones who made it their full time job to notice.

Not to get all Locutus on everyone, but we live in the best of both worlds...enjoy it people!
   52. Tim D Posted: March 12, 2013 at 08:33 PM (#4387295)
"It just soothes some goofballs who are bizarrely bothered by the idea that the two leagues aren't identical. #### those people."


By all means keep the leagues different and insure that every single WS game involves both teams making awkward adjustments they haven't done the entire year.

And #### U2.
   53. SoSH U at work Posted: March 12, 2013 at 08:34 PM (#4387296)
The NPB Central League, for one.


That's the only other organized league I know of for players above the age of 13 (though there probably are some others at the lower levels). Of course, most baseball is played by kids, and Little League does not use one either. It probably wasn't what screamin' Tim had in mind, but as organized baseball leagues go, they don't get any bigger than Little League International.

   54. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: March 12, 2013 at 08:36 PM (#4387299)
Not to get all Locutus on everyone, but we live in the best of both worlds...enjoy it people!


So there are actually 3 groups. Pro DH, anti-DH and guys like you and I who don't mind the variance. Funnily enough, I'd say most supporters would be in this camp. No, I have no stats to back this up.
   55. SoSH U at work Posted: March 12, 2013 at 08:39 PM (#4387300)

By all means keep the leagues different and insure that every single WS game involves both teams making awkward adjustments they haven't done the entire year.


The horror.*

Teams have been doing this for 30-plus years. It's not a big deal, other than to the perpetually aggrieved set.

I get it. You like the DH. You don't like pitcher's hitting. So watch the AL, and consider yourself superior to those backwardass NL fans. It's a win-win.

* Of course, since we have interleague play (NOW EVERY DAY), teams aren't doing something they haven't done the entire year.

   56. Skloot Insurance Posted: March 12, 2013 at 08:49 PM (#4387309)
Wouldn't the perfect compromise between AL and NL rules be that both teams use the DH but he must bat ninth?
   57. AndrewJ Posted: March 12, 2013 at 08:51 PM (#4387311)
I'd put the DH in both leagues but with this proviso: He can only bat for the starting pitcher. As soon as the starter's knocked out of the box, the DH has to leave the lineup.
   58. cardsfanboy Posted: March 12, 2013 at 08:55 PM (#4387314)
I'm in the camp that says just leave it as it is. I prefer non-DH baseball, but it's not a big deal to me either way. I do wish that during interleague play, that the second game of every series would be played by the visitor's rules. It's way past time for that to have happened already.

If this rule went active, I think nearly every team would use the DH all of the time.


I was thinking the same thing. Given a choice, I find it hard to imagine a team is going to go with the pitcher batting, the DH is a great way to get one of your better bats into the lineup, and give him a days rest.


And #### U2.


U2 isn't that bad of a band, sure pompous and self righteous, etc... but they produced a good album about 20 years ago.
   59. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 12, 2013 at 09:10 PM (#4387323)
And #### U2.

This is the first sensible thing anybody has said in this thread.
   60. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 09:31 PM (#4387343)
Or, we could just (gasp) put the DH in the NL.


This would be the most sensible solution, so of course it will never happen. Because people want to pretend every player on the field is a two-way player, and because some people think the double switch is the most interesting and difficult thing in the majors.
   61. cardsfanboy Posted: March 12, 2013 at 09:33 PM (#4387345)
Because people want to pretend every player on the field is a two-way player, and because some people think the double switch is the most interesting and difficult thing in the majors


Or maybe they have a brain, and don't think that watching a guy whiff, or homer and jog to first on a routine double(because he doesn't have the speed) is interesting baseball.
   62. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 09:33 PM (#4387346)
I know the auto-response you'll have to my point, but the fact of the matter is that in this era of specialization, even if you eliminated the DH from the AL, there would be roughly 150 active roster spots in the majors at any given time made up of players who would virtually never bat. So no, everyone doesn't play defense and offense. Every position (in the NL) plays defense and offense, but not nearly every player does.


And pitchers can't hit, anyway, nor are they selected for that skill, nor does anyone care that they can't hit. So the notion that every position plays offense is essentially fiction.
   63. cardsfanboy Posted: March 12, 2013 at 09:35 PM (#4387348)
And pitchers can't hit, anyway, nor are they selected for that skill, nor does anyone care that they can't hit. So the notion that every position plays offense is essentially fiction.


And in the era of the non-complete game, it's a matter of who cares, after the 5th inning, the pitcher very rarely bats anyway.
   64. Nasty Nate Posted: March 12, 2013 at 09:39 PM (#4387353)
That's the only other organized league I know of for players above the age of 13 (though there probably are some others at the lower levels).


Pitchers hit in high school ball, right? But maybe they have a 10-man lineup with a DH too, I'm not sure.
   65. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 09:43 PM (#4387355)
As for me, I like differences between the leagues, and wish there were more of them, not fewer. Go status quo.


Why is being different a virtue in and of itself?

The fear is that if given a choice, teams would always opt for the DH. And in this case the fear is the reality; everyone knows that would happen.

   66. SoSH U at work Posted: March 12, 2013 at 09:43 PM (#4387356)

Pitchers hit in high school ball, right? But maybe they have a 10-man lineup with a DH too, I'm not sure.


When I played HS ball, we used to DH for one of our two primary starting pitchers, but let our other starter (who was also our best player, and future Tiger/Ranger farmhand) hit and play first base (and go without a DH). The DH was optional, and could be used in place of any other player in the lineup, not just the pitcher.

It may vary by state.

And yes, there are lower leagues that use the 9 players + the DH option.

Why is being different a virtue in and of itself?


I didn't say it was (though it seems there are plenty of folks who believe having identical rules is a virtue in and of itself).

I simply like the fact that each league offers something different to the baseball fan (and wouldn't mind if the leagues differed in more ways than just that*).

I don't really find one absolutely superior to the other, like many of you do (to ridiculous degrees, IMO). But if baseball absolutely had to go with just one rule, I'd opt for no DH. I don't see a reason for baseball to do that.

* For instance, I'd love it if one league decided to test drive my preference to get rid of the infield fly rule for a few seasons, even if the other decided to preserve it.
   67. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 09:44 PM (#4387357)
Pitchers hit in high school ball, right? But maybe they have a 10-man lineup with a DH too, I'm not sure.

No, they usually DH for the worst hitting position player (since pitchers are typically among the better athletes).
   68. Tim D Posted: March 12, 2013 at 09:44 PM (#4387358)
Well in Little League there isn't much point as the pitchers are generally the best athletes and also the best hitters. NPB Central teams do use the DH, since they don't play their entire schedule within that league. They don't use the DH at home.
   69. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 09:48 PM (#4387362)

Pitchers hit in high school ball, right? But maybe they have a 10-man lineup with a DH too, I'm not sure.


When I was last in high school in 1991, the pitcher batted AND we had a DH.

Softball teams can often use an EH and bat 11.
   70. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 09:49 PM (#4387365)
No, they usually DH for the worst hitting position player (since pitchers are typically among the better athletes).


In my four years in HS baseball, both JV and V, I never saw this happen. Every man hit for himself and the DH was the DH.
   71. SoSH U at work Posted: March 12, 2013 at 09:56 PM (#4387367)
NPB Central teams do use the DH, since they don't play their entire schedule within that league. They don't use the DH at home.


That's no different than the set-up for National League teams.

   72. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 09:57 PM (#4387368)
In my four years in HS baseball, both JV and V, I never saw this happen. Every man hit for himself and the DH was the DH.

Funny, I'm only 2 years older than you, and we never had more than a 9-man lineup. We had two 1B, and one of us would DH for the 2B.
   73. SoSH U at work Posted: March 12, 2013 at 09:58 PM (#4387372)

Funny, I'm only 2 years older than you, and we never had more than a 9-man lineup. We had two 1B, and one of us would DH for the 2B.


As I noted above, it may vary by state.

   74. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 10:01 PM (#4387374)
As I noted above, it may vary by state.


That's probably it.
   75. bigglou115 Posted: March 12, 2013 at 11:08 PM (#4387394)
Why is being different a virtue in and of itself?


The virtue of being different as far as DH or no DH goes is that half the fans like not having a DH, and half the fans like the DH. I don't see what the point is in making half of them unhappy, even if they would get over it.
   76. John Northey Posted: March 12, 2013 at 11:20 PM (#4387397)
Checking PA by position in the NL for 2012...
Pitchers = 5,566
DH = 542
next lowest position is catchers at 10,318

Pitchers plus DH (thus covering the non-NL rule games) = 6,108 PA or 59% of the next lowest position for PA. Batting 9th doesn't cover that big a spread. PH for DH = 10 PA, PH period = 4140. Add PH to pitchers/DH and you get 10,248 which is in eyeshot of catchers. Clearly around 40% of the time pitchers are hit for which would cover the 6th inning on plus about 1/2 the time in the 5th. In the AL only 323 times did a pitcher actually come to bat and they were horrid (124/148/135) but the NL were almost as bad (129/162/168). Talk about your automatic out.

Just for curiosity lets see the NL pitchers stats for a few decades...
2012: 129/162/168
2002: 148/180/194 - interleague play
1992: 137/166/170
1982: 151/184/191
1972: 147/185/185 - year before the DH came into being
1962: 148/193/187
1952: 153/188/196

No splits are listed for pitchers or other positions for 1942 or earlier.

So the stats from 2012 are similar to 1992, and 2002 is in eyeshot of 1952. Bit of a surprise to be honest as I figured once the DH showed up pitchers hitting in the NL would go down due to pitchers coming over from the AL and not hitting for years, plus how the DH has taken over in most (if not all) minor leagues. Yet there you go, a simple sample showing no real decrease since the 50's. A full chart would show more but I don't have time or patience for that right now.

Digging a little more 1945 is the oldest year B-R has position by position offensive stats for the NL listed. That year (the final war year) the pitchers hit 171/217/218 so a bit better, a 435 OPS which would work out to a 25 OPS+ vs the league as a whole. Ugh, that is as good as it gets? A war year where the talent was grossly diluted with a one armed outfield and one legged pitcher (he had a wooden leg for the other iirc) yet pitchers still couldn't outhit Omar Vizquel in his final season, heck they barely reached 1/2 of his OPS+ (49 for Vizquel - 546 OPS) or be within 100 OPS points of him. Yikes.
   77. John Northey Posted: March 12, 2013 at 11:28 PM (#4387403)
As far as what fans like... attendance in 2012...
6 of the bottom 7 teams in per game attendance were AL clubs. The NL was the horrid Houston Astros who are now an AL club. Then you get Pittsburgh followed by 2 more AL clubs (Toronto & Baltimore). 4 of the top 6 were NL clubs (exceptions are #2/3 NYY and Texas).

Of course, if you go by payroll, the top 9 clubs all were over $100 million, while 2 of the rest were over $100 million (Miami and the White Sox). There were 7 teams below $75 million, they were ranked #19 to #30, covering 7 of the 12 slots - the other 5 were the White Sox, and 3 teams between $76 million and $78 million plus the Jays at $82. Just one team with a sub-$80 million payroll was higher than #19 - Colorado at #13.

So being in a DH league does not help attendance it seems (at least not last year) but boy does payroll help (unless you spend very poorly like in Miami or are the White Sox).
   78. bigglou115 Posted: March 12, 2013 at 11:33 PM (#4387405)
So being in a DH league does not help attendance it seems (at least not last year) but boy does payroll help (unless you spend very poorly like in Miami or are the White Sox).


I think those two have more to do with their fans not trusting them even when they spend, the White Sox because the fans don't seem to think they're very smart and Miami because Loria is a terrible human being who feeds on the souls of the damned.
   79. valuearbitrageur Posted: March 12, 2013 at 11:52 PM (#4387416)
Right. It was 99-1 against back in '73. If the NL would just put it in like EVERY OTHER ORGANIZED LEAGUE ON THE PLANET, the number of people who missed seeing the pitcher hit instead of David Ortiz would be, in about 5-10 years, roughly equivalent to the number that are still pissed the A's left Philadelphia.


The majority of organized baseball leagues on the planet USE ALUMINUM BATS!!!!!!

How long are those hidebound traditionalists who run MLB baseball going to be stuck in their Wood Age mind-set!

Some level of specialization is always necessary in sports. But sports are always better if they work to minimize it. Don't like watching pitchers hit? What about short-stops? Most are terrible hitters, lets have 2 DHs. Or even better, designated fielders, after all who wants to watch some below average defender butcher a play? Why have pitchers ever pitch to their weaker side, let managers use both a left handed and right handed pitcher and alternate them based on each batters handedness (while the other rests in the dugout) not only does that allow fans to see better pitching but could lower injury rates so better pitchers can pitch more often. Maybe leave a designated fielder behind the pitcher he can step in front of the pitcher and handle the fielding so fans don't have see an easy play butchered by the "throwing specialist". Who wants to see pitchers or first basemen or fat DHs run the bases, we must have designated runners, imagine the excitement!

Generalization is better because a player can't hide behind an amazing skill in a single area without giving back some of their advantage if they are deficient in other areas. Mike Trout's year last year was so amazing because he truly dominated in every part of the game, hitting, hitting for power, base-running, defense. Imagine if the Angels were allowed to run Bourjos out on D for Trumbo every game, how awful would that be?

When a pitcher makes a tough defensive play, gets a key hit, or makes a good base running decision, its amazing! Even just getting the bunt down us a battle, never automatic and always important and interesting. The idea that a slightly worse pitcher can make up value by excelling in other parts of the game means it is far less one dimensional, and more complex. The idea that a 140 ERA+ pitcher with a dynamite arm but a terrible bat and a base running game built on making dumb outs gets to be more valuable than a 135 ERA+ pitcher who can hit, bunt, and run the bases competently is abhorrent to me, might as well allow top pitchers to ride Segways back and forth to the mound.

There are almost no reason to have the DH. We don't need it to increase scoring, which is high enough, and even if we wanted more scoring there are many minor rule tweaks that could do it without disrupting the character of the game.

We need to speed the game, but can do it other ways. Just forcing relievers to get an out, or face multiple batters, or reduce/eliminate warmup pitches, or batters stepping out, or shortening (god forbid) commercial breaks. Having the game depend upon single role specialists is the worst option.
   80. base ball chick Posted: March 13, 2013 at 12:19 AM (#4387427)
vlad ROOLS

   81. Bourbon Samurai in Asia Posted: March 13, 2013 at 02:45 AM (#4387444)
I quite like the different league rules. It adds character.

If forced to choose, however, no dh is obviously the superior way.
   82. BrianBrianson Posted: March 13, 2013 at 04:15 AM (#4387449)
I strongly prefer one DH league, one no-DH league to either two DH leagues or two no-DH leagues. Homgenizing the leagues would just reduce the interest, by making everything the same. Just like how baseball stadiums are far better than other sport stadiums because they're varied, baseball leagues are far superior to say, hockey conferences, because they're varied.

Frankly, I'd love to see the league move apart more, although I don't know what's possible. Ground rule triples? 500 ft centerfields?
   83. Greg K Posted: March 13, 2013 at 05:48 AM (#4387453)
Why is being different a virtue in and of itself?

It's weighted against other priorities of course, but variety is a virtue in my mind. It's funner to watch a team that has a mix of player types...speed guys, power guys, contact guys, great fielders. I suppose watching a team of 9 guys who are excellent at everything would also be entertaining, but overall team talent being equal, I'd rather watch a team with a bunch of different styles of players than one with all the same guy*.

Same goes for league rules and diverse stadiums (coke to #82)

Of course diversity isn't the only virtue. If every field was different, with outfield fences ranging from 200 feet to 1600 feet, then I'd say you're sacraficing too much for the sake of variety.

At the risk of further destroying this thread, it's like playoff structures. There's the MLB system which emphasizes the regular season (to a smaller extent than it used to, but to a larger extent than most other sports), the NBA/NHL mass tournaments, the NCAA Basketball SUPER mass tournament, the round robin then playoff of various international tournaments, the separate league and cup structure of soccer. I don't see a reason to pick one out as the best and remove all others. Always nice to have options.

*By watch I mean, if I'm sitting down to watch any old game of baseball. If it's the Blue Jays then my priority is how many games are these guys going to win and stuff the rest of it.
   84. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: March 13, 2013 at 07:24 AM (#4387462)
I'm an A's fan who abhors the DH and thinks rugby is better than American football because all players have to be able to run tackle and kick and carry the ball at least a little bit and you don't have endless stoppages of play. Also agree that Vlad rools. It's simply not true that all pitchers can't hit. I agree that none of them would make the HOM for their hitting alone but there is a wide variety of hitting ability among pitchers -- from guys like Bob Lemon, Red Ruffing, Wes Ferrell, CC Sabathia, Rick Ankiel, and Greg Smith who can/could legitimately hit to guys like Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux, John Smoltz, Orel Hershiser, Robin Roberts, Gaylord Perry and Jerry Reuss who were excellent bunters and could hit a little bit to Barry Zito who is utterly useless with a bat. The idea that just because someone doesn't do something as well has his teammates should mean that he should never have to do it is stupid.
   85. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 13, 2013 at 07:27 AM (#4387463)
I completely agree with Brian and GregUK. All this "big idea" would do would be to #### off one set of fans, for no real purpose. I like the DH, but I have no interest in forcing it on the NL by this back door method, and I also like the fact that at least in this one minor** area there's some distinction between the two leagues.

**And it is very much a minor area, in spite of all the bluster surrounding it. There's no evidence that it's either helped or hurt competitive balance or attendance. The AL has dominated interleague play in recent years, but just like attendance (which has favored the NL), this has much more to do with ownership skills than it does with the DH rule.
   86. The Robby Hammock District (Dan Lee) Posted: March 13, 2013 at 08:05 AM (#4387471)
6 times in NHL history on shots. My guess is that all six were empty net.
Admittedly there are approximately eleventy gajillion soccer leagues in the world, but goalkeepers score with some regularity in soccer. I saw it happen live (on television) once.

Oh, and I'm a fan of an American League team, but that's an accident of geography. I can't stand the DH.
   87. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: March 13, 2013 at 09:47 AM (#4387517)
Pro-DH, but not going to go crazy about it. Suspect that this rule would lead to the DH being used the majority of the time, with occasional non-use for strategic reasons. Dorks would then be more likely to be anti-DH, decrying that it's not being withheld at an optimal rate, apart from aesthetic preferences.
   88. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 13, 2013 at 10:30 AM (#4387541)
Disagree vehemently. Ortiz can hit; someone would stick him at 1B even if we didn't have the DH. Ortiz is fun to watch, even when he strikes out. Watching a pitcher bunt with one out or hit away with 2 out and two on is B-O-R-I-N-G. The so-called NL "strategy" is a load of crap.


The fact that you don't like it, or that you have the attention span of a fruit fly and can't be bothered to SQUIRREL! doesn't mean it's boring. It means you don't like it. AL baseball bores me to tears. There's no distinction up and down the lineups, no wondering if a starter who has pitched well twice through the rotation but down by one run is going to get pulled for a pinch hitter in the sixth. Just a bunch of overweight sluggers who can't even field 1B for #### swinging for the fences and then trotting to first if it doesn't leave the park. *That* is B-O-R-I-N-G! Baseball is not boring.
   89. zack Posted: March 13, 2013 at 10:30 AM (#4387542)
The DH-less NL probably has a limited life, sadly, so let us enjoy it's sunset years. I can't imagine it'll be too long until MLB re-alings along geopgraphic lines, and then it will be impossible to have a DH league and a no-DH league. MLB is kind of unusual in that it added it's rival league fully-formed rather than absorbing a degenerate remnant of it, but it's been a century and I can't see that difference lasting too much longer.

Pitcher's mostly suck at hitting, yeah, but a big part of the joy of watching sports are those transcendent moments, and pitchers hitting tend to provide those regularly (Mr. Koo, Bob Welch or Odalis Perez throwing a shutout and hitting a HR in a 1-0 game, Shawn Estes failing to hit Clemens but then hitting a HR off him).

And I hope Tim D is not a Nationals fan.
   90. OsunaSakata Posted: March 13, 2013 at 11:54 AM (#4387612)
I with the people who prefer the different rules. I agree that pitchers hitting will eventually be phased out. Probably the next step will be DH in all interleague games regardless of the home team.

I thought that maybe the MLBPA might agree to elimination of the DH in the American League, given a 3-5 year lead-time. In exchange the owners might give them two expansion teams or an additional player on the active roster. But I think this is highly unlikely.
   91. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 13, 2013 at 12:09 PM (#4387622)
I thought that maybe the MLBPA might agree to elimination of the DH in the American League, given a 3-5 year lead-time. In exchange the owners might give them two expansion teams or an additional player on the active roster. But I think this is highly unlikely.

Eliminate the DH in exchange for a $1M minimum salary. Total payroll doesn't go down, and marginal veteran players get a boost to their employability by narrowing the cost gap to rookies.
   92. cardsfanboy Posted: March 13, 2013 at 01:30 PM (#4387684)
The DH-less NL probably has a limited life, sadly, so let us enjoy it's sunset years. I can't imagine it'll be too long until MLB re-alings along geopgraphic lines, and then it will be impossible to have a DH league and a no-DH league.


I agree that if they ever aligned on geographic lines, then it would be difficult to maintain the status quo, what I don't get, is why they would ever do that?

Of the 30 teams, a good portion are not going to ever change leagues, and it makes zero sense to put two teams in the same city in the same league. In the age of the airplane, geographic concerns are not really a concern.
   93. Rennie's Tenet Posted: March 13, 2013 at 02:16 PM (#4387721)
The proposal would have to take account of the ability to activate or promote a player between games. I can't see that happening unless a team had to choose DH/no DH before the start of the season.
   94. BDC Posted: March 13, 2013 at 02:28 PM (#4387736)
I consider myself a traditionalist, but I'd love a geographic realignment of MLB. Lots more games one could see with less travel.

Hell, I reckon they've already accommodated me by moving the Astros to the AL.
   95. smileyy Posted: March 13, 2013 at 02:59 PM (#4387771)
I'm just going to have to get over my love of baseballs 3/9/27 symmetry, huh?
   96. cardsfanboy Posted: March 13, 2013 at 03:06 PM (#4387779)
I consider myself a traditionalist, but I'd love a geographic realignment of MLB. Lots more games one could see with less travel.


???? How does it make a difference? I mean if you are only going to watch your team play, then I guess that could make a difference, although with interleague play that really doesn't stop it too much.


Are you proposing leagues by geography? So the Yankees, Mets, Phillies, Red Sox, Orioles, Nationals, Marlins, Rays, Braves (among others) would all be in the AL?

   97. SoSH U at work Posted: March 13, 2013 at 03:06 PM (#4387780)
I'm just going to have to get over my love of baseballs 3/9/27 symmetry, huh?


Yeah, any DH+ or 8-player configurations that get tossed out bother me to no end, and one of my biggest beefs with the DH is how it disrputs the existing 9 players, 9 innings, 27 outs system. One of the many things I love about baseball is how wonderfully balanced it is (and, in fact, self-corrects in a lot of ways when the balance gets out of whack).
   98. Gaelan Posted: March 13, 2013 at 03:46 PM (#4387812)
KT absolutely crushed it. His argument is an irrefutable maxim of the natural law of sports. I notice how no one is trying to refute it because they can't. They aren't interested in rational arguments, they are interested in their preferences. Here's a news flash, preferences are not reasons. If you live by preferences instead of reasons you aren't merely wrong, you aren't a human being in the full sense of the word.

Plus, I like watching Zach Greinke hit. Micah Owings is awesome. That Korean getting a hit off of Randy Johnson. That 18 inning game with the pitcher (Rick Camp?) getting a HR. If you don't like these things you don't like baseball.
   99. Nasty Nate Posted: March 13, 2013 at 03:50 PM (#4387814)
Plus, I like watching Zach Greinke hit.


That's a preference so you aren't a human being in the full sense of the word.
   100. smileyy Posted: March 13, 2013 at 03:55 PM (#4387820)
Two-platoon baseball would be the most awful sport ever.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Martin Hemner
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogJoe Girardi: ‘Pitch the right way’
(56 - 9:59am, Sep 18)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(3047 - 9:59am, Sep 18)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogJoe Girardi put Derek Jeter’s farewell tour ahead of the team
(15 - 9:58am, Sep 18)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

NewsblogMcCarthy’s immaculate inning highlights Yankees win
(3 - 9:57am, Sep 18)
Last: DL from MN

NewsblogPedro pens a letter to Clayton Kershaw
(46 - 9:56am, Sep 18)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogWith 8-2 win Tuesday, Orioles clinch first American League East title since 1997
(30 - 9:54am, Sep 18)
Last: Joey B. "disrespects the A"

NewsblogRASMUS OPENS UP ABOUT JAYS TENURE, FUTURE, PAST
(3 - 9:49am, Sep 18)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogOT: September 2014 College Football thread
(252 - 9:44am, Sep 18)
Last: CFBF Is A Golden Spider Duck

NewsblogChris Davis Rescues Man Pinned Under Truck
(46 - 9:05am, Sep 18)
Last: Benji Gil Gamesh Rises

NewsblogRyan Zimmerman Watches Nats Celebrate From Afar
(14 - 8:38am, Sep 18)
Last: bunyon

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(266 - 7:54am, Sep 18)
Last: Moses Taylor World Re-Tour 2.0: Warszawa

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-17-2014
(88 - 2:41am, Sep 18)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogA’s lose Triple-A Sacramento affiliate
(83 - 1:20am, Sep 18)
Last: Toothless

NewsblogJays pitcher Stroman suspended 6 games
(9 - 1:05am, Sep 18)
Last: Shibal

Hall of Merit2015 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(28 - 12:18am, Sep 18)
Last: Ardo

Page rendered in 1.0848 seconds
52 querie(s) executed