Francona told 93.7 The Fan that it wasn't fair he had to keep one of his most dangerous hitters and highest paid players out of the game.

Boston's Ortiz not a real baseball player if he can't play the field

John Steigerwald writes a Sunday column for the Observer-Reporter. His column will not appear next week.

Boston's Ortiz not a real baseball player if he can't play the field

Hey, Terry: When in Rome, you have to do what the Romans do. Deal with it and STFU.

That "not a real baseball player" has a triple crown line of .311 / 17 / 48 in 74 games.

The real issue is that putting him at first would bench Adrian Gonzalez.

DH is not a position. You can tell this by looking at the field when the team is playing defense.

40 years ago, he would have played the field. He isn't because there's a rule that allows him not to, not because is not a "real" baseball player.

So the line up doesn't mean anything?

I wasn't aware that NL rules preclude unconventional defensive alignments; I'm pretty sure that you can play two first basemen if you really want to, as long as you abandon some other defensive position.

Maybe if Francona spent more time thinking about tactics and less time complaining about the unfairness of baseball's traditional rules, he'd be better at his job.

There certainly are a handful of full-time DHs who literally can't play any defensive position at this point in their careers, but Papi isn't one of them.

Then why wasn't he in the lineup yesterday? Is he allergic to Jeff Karstens?

The question is "what does it mean to be a baseball player?" And many of us would answer that question something like "the ability to play a position and take your hacks in the lineup."

The designated hitter has been in the official rules for almost half a century. Longer than any active player has been alive. If you don't like it, that's fine, but maybe consider the possibility that it's time to stop watching instead of to continue complaining.

Whenever inter-league play rolls around, and the NL purists start in about "real baseball players" they always neglect to comment on the scores of National League short-relievers who go months, years, and even careers without a single Plate Appearance as a batter. Why no carping about how these guys aren't real players? E.G. David Ortiz has played the field more recently than the excellent Joel Hanrahan has stepped into the batter's box.

Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: June 26, 2011 at 01:58 PM (#3862724)

I love the Sox, but this is not Francona's shining moment. It's kind of whiny.

And this writer covers the Pirates...and he's talking about who "real" players are and are not? There have been more than a few Pirates who had a glove on their non-throwing hand, standing in the field, over the last 15 years, who were far less of a major-league player than David Ortiz.

Go .500 for a season, then you start talking about other teams' "real" players. Geesh.

#44. Actually, yeah, NL teams whine about it sometimes, usually to the effect that, gee, we don't have a guy on our roster just for that job.

As for David Ortiz not playing in NL parks, the Red Sox and David Ortiz has known for years that they have to play in NL parks for a number of games. This is the solution they came up with, and whining about it is asinine.

There are no "natural" parts of the game, which is defined by its rules.

"The lineup" isn't a position.

The complaint wasn't about playing under NL rules was unfair. The argument is that having to play nine straight under NL rules wasn't fair, since they normally split the NL/AL home series. This season, the Red Sox have to play nine straight interleague on the road. Francona's been saying this for a few weeks now, the concern is with Papi getting out of his groove by not playing regularly for a week and a half.

I don't see that complaint being valid next year, there is a very good chance that they will enact a rule to force the home team to play by the visiting team rules in the second game of the series. It may not fix the inherent design disparity of the two leagues, but it should eliminate this particular problem.

MLB rule 1.01: "Baseball is a game between two teams of nine players each, under direction of a manager, played on an enclosed field in accordance with these rules, under jurisdiction of one or more umpires."

The DH experiment should therefore be ended because it is effectively unconstitutional: it violates the FIRST rule of Major League baseball.

I guess we have to eliminate benches, then. Bullpens, pinch-runners...

I was under the impression that the DH could hit for anybody; they hit for pitchers because generally pitchers are the worst hitters on the team

I'll ask for the removal of the DH when pitchers prove they can hit.

I was under the impression that the DH could hit for anybody; they hit for pitchers because generally pitchers are the worst hitters on the team

The question is "what does it mean to be a baseball player?" And many of us would answer that question something like "the ability to play a position and take your hacks in the lineup."

So are pitchers in the AL not players either, since they don't get to take their hacks in the lineup?

Do you lose the DH if the pitcher moves to another position?

In the bottom of the 8th on July 15, 1993, the Seattle Mariners' Jeff Nelson was moved from the pitcher position to left field. The strategy allowed Nelson to stay in the game while left-handed pitcher Dennis Powell came in to pitch to Mike Greenwell in a game at Boston. By moving the pitcher into a defensive position, Nelson was put into the designated hitter's spot in the batting order while the new pitcher (Powell) was placed into the left fielder's place in the batting order. (It is very uncommon to see this particular move in an American League ballgame due to the DH.) Powell's turn in the batting order came up in the top of the ninth: Pete O'Brien pinch hit for him. Left fielder Nelson was then moved back to pitcher, and pitched in the bottom of the ninth.[22]

You're going to go all haywire here, I know, but no. They're not complete players. Baseball players field a position and bat when their turn in the order comes up. That's the game.

Of course you're then implying that when they get traded or sign with a NL team, they're suddenly players. Strange stance to take.

I don't think this is a strange stance to take. When Tim Hudson was with Oakland he wasn't a complete baseball player, because he played for a franchise that didn't require him to play baseball. He pitched for an AL team, which is like baseball but not quite. When he was traded to Atlanta he started playing baseball again.

I'll ask for the removal of the DH when pitchers prove they can hit.

I don't think this is a strange stance to take. When Tim Hudson was with Oakland he wasn't a complete baseball player, because he played for a franchise that didn't require him to play baseball. He pitched for an AL team, which is like baseball but not quite. When he was traded to Atlanta he started playing baseball again.

When the NL adopts the DH, will you stop watching Braves games?

The rules used to require persons of West African heritage play in a different league.

When Tim Hudson was with Oakland he wasn't a complete baseball player, because he played for a franchise that didn't require him to play baseball.

So I assume you also feel that NL relievers who never have plate appearances (Craig Kimbrel etc) are also incomplete because their franchises don't require them to play baseball?