Boo.

Geographic realignment would be such a cataclysmic event.

I assume he isn't talking about California sliding into the Pacific Ocean.

The Mayans predicted geographic realignment in baseball.

“In 10 years? I’ll be long gone by then,,

You said that ten years ago, you cockroach.

As long as there's interleague play and the DH difference between the leagues, I think the DH should be used in NL parks during interleague play, with NL rules used in the AL parks.

Why?

I'm one of the rare people in the Great DH Debates to not really give a ####, but, I enjoy the variety of having two sets of rules for the two leagues. The more important issue for me is that I do not want to hear people complaining about how baseball has been ruined for the rest of my life.

As long as there's interleague play and the DH difference between the leagues, I think the DH should be used in NL parks during interleague play, with NL rules used in the AL parks.

I disagree. I don't want to pay good money for a game ticket and then find out that they're playing with the shitty DH. That's like buying an opera ticket and then learning that the role of Don Giovanni will be played by Gilbert Gottfried.

I think the DH should be used in NL parks during interleague play, with NL rules used in the AL parks.

I think this would be neat, and just as fair as the way we do it now, but it's tough to imagine the AL teams agreeing to a set of rules that forces them to bench their star DHs at home.

up from four just 19 years ago

"just" 19 years...

I assume he isn't talking about California sliding into the Pacific Ocean.

Like the mystics and statistics say it will.

I'll take pitchers batting seriously when the teams do.

I'm one of the rare people in the Great DH Debates to not really give a ####, but, I enjoy the variety of having two sets of rules for the two leagues. The more important issue for me is that I do not want to hear people complaining about how baseball has been ruined for the rest of my life.

Ideally, I would agree with this - did for a long time. But there's a problem : We already have to put up with them incessantly whining about the DH. Maybe if we eliminate pitchers batting altogether, they'll shut up about it in 10 years or so...

I'm one of the even rarer groups of people who has changed his mind on the DH issue over the past 5 years!

I disagree. I don't want to pay good money for a game ticket and then find out that they're playing with the shitty DH.

I'm pretty sure they don't decide this on a game by game basis. There is a way to find out in advance. The people who care will know in advance and can make an informed decision whether to attend or not. Those that don't know in advance probably don't care either way. The argument put forth in #7 is more compelling.

Maybe if we eliminate pitchers batting altogether, they'll shut up about it in 10 years or so...

If I stop talking at that point, it'll only be because I'm too busy shooting and/or blowing up all the people at the league office who signed off on that piece of assholery.

No justice? No peace!

I'll take pitchers batting seriously when the teams do.

This has always been my take.

BOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

Why can't we keep herpes quarantined in the lesser league?

I'm pretty sure they don't decide this on a game by game basis. There is a way to find out in advance.

I don't want to have to pick through the schedule looking for games with no DH. That's like saying that I can still enjoy eating my box of raisin bran even though they decided to add a bunch of rat turds at the factory - I just need to go through it by hand and pick out all the turds in advance.

#### that. I want a box with no turds in it. Just like I have now.

I disagree. I don't want to pay good money for a game ticket and then find out that they're playing with the shitty DH.

Who hits a hell of a lot better than virtually any pitcher.

Why can't we keep herpes quarantined in the lesser league?

Cause Derek Jeter is sleeping with your daughters.

If you just want to watch people yanking ropes and long majestic flyballs -- go to a batting cage on a Saturday... You can watch for free and the spectacle is the same.... the beer's usually cheaper, too.

That's like saying that I can still enjoy eating my box of raisin bran even though they decided to add a bunch of rat turds at the factory

I really don't understand this take on the DH. I can get not liking it, hating it even, but why would it ruin your enjoyment of live baseball, America's most wonderful form of entertainment?

This reads like a manufactured level of grumpiness. It's not becoming when otherwise staunch fans of baseball wear their hate of the DH like a badge of honor.

As long as there's interleague play and the DH difference between the leagues, I think the DH should be used in NL parks during interleague play, with NL rules used in the AL parks.

I believe this has been suggested almost since the beginning of interleague play. I'm guessing NL owners are resistant to it at least in part out of a fear that their fans might grow to like the DH.

Anyway, I'm solidly pro-DH. I have little doubt that the constant interleague play required by the 2013 15/15 realignment will lead to an MLB-wide use of the DH within a decade.

Who hits a hell of a lot better than virtually any pitcher.

Let me know when he can run, throw, and field, too, like a real baseball player.

If I was a sinister cloak-and-dagger guy at MLB HQ, looking to realize Bud's dream of ubiquitous DH, I would have a plan ready to roll out as soon as a popular pitcher hurt himself badly hitting, like the Burnett thing but with a guy that people give a #### about. "Too bad, NL fans, but safety must come first".

I really don't understand this take on the DH. I can get not liking it, hating it even, but why would it ruin your enjoyment of live baseball, America's most wonderful form of entertainment?

Because when it has the DH, it's no longer live baseball, America's most wonderful form of entertainment. It's a cheap, inferior, degenerate copy, a mockery of everything that makes baseball good.

This reads like a manufactured level of grumpiness. It's not becoming when otherwise staunch fans of baseball wear their hate of the DH like a badge of honor.

Hating the DH is a badge of honor. I'll hate it until I die.

What is the benefit to MLB enacting the DH league-wide? It's not creating any new fans, though it can certainly turn away old ones. It doesn't add any jobs, so there's no reason for the union to be terribly motivated one way or the other. Is league homogeneity really that important that the league would risk turning off one set of, in many cases as seen above, baseball fans who are pretty firmly entrenched on the issue?

The turds are the ones who stand at the plate and choose between 1) taking three and sitting down, or 2) looking laughably bad.

In all cases, if they hit the ball, we're treated to a compete-level zero "jog" to first base that is an obvious attempt to NOT reach base.

Why on earth should we want to keep this?

For that matter, why do we get on Manny for a single at-bat where he didn't try, when pitchers do this in their at-bats every day?

Let me know when he can run, throw, and field, too, like a real player.

You mean like Randy Johnson?

It doesn't add any jobs, so there's no reason for the union to be terribly motivated one way or the other.

It does create a starting job, one which is eminently suitable for veteran union reps.

Because when it has the DH, it's no longer live baseball, America's most wonderful form of entertainment.

I don't get this. Of course it is. If I took you to a college game, a game where you didn't know any of the players or cared who won, on a gorgeous day drinking beers in the sun, would you get just as grumpy?

That's like saying that I can still enjoy eating my box of raisin bran even though they decided to add a bunch of rat turds at the factory - I just need to go through it by hand and pick out all the turds in advance.

It's nothing like that. It's looking at the schedule and deciding that the 6 or 9 home games featuring an AL team are not worth attending. Takes like 16 seconds.

I really don't understand this take on the DH. I can get not liking it, hating it even, but why would it ruin your enjoyment of live baseball, America's most wonderful form of entertainment?

Multiple reasons...

1) It makes criticizing the manager in-game that much harder - if you have a DH, might as well just get of the manager. Either he spits out the right lineup card or he doesn't... end of story. In the NL, I love guessing on the double-switches... I love sitting on the edge of my seat trying to guess along with everyone else whether the starter can get one or two more outs, because you know he's due up 2nd next inning.

2) While I am not a fan of small ball, I do think it has a place in baseball -- and the pitcher batting ensures it never completely dies out. The DH completely and utterly ruins the chess game of baseball... it turns a finely crafted, almost ballet-like battle into a crass, braindead form of checkers. Why even play the games? Just sim them from your mom's basement.

3) What of the mystique, the aura of the "pinch-hitter"? Already, we've sort of lost the Thad Bosleys, the Gregs Gross's -- there's something special about rooting for a guy who's only job is to take a single late innings AB in a close game. There's an ultimate "this is it" to a pinch-hitter stepping up for the pitcher in a one-run, 9th inning game... It's just not the same when he's stepping in for your scrub SS.

4) Pitchers getting hits is FUN - Carlos Zambrano hitting homeruns was/is FUN. Even watching the inept pitchers occasionally flare a humpback over the 1B's head -- nothing beats that... Nothing beats expecting with near certainty an out, but getting a free runner.

5) It adds a bit of tension when it comes to HRs, retaliation, and beanballs... Pitching inside is fun. Burly sluggers staring down bearded fireballs is fun... Know what's NOT fun? Throwing a bat a pitcher because the pitcher just put one in your back, confidant in the fact that he'll never ever step to the plate. The DH is a cowardly resolution to an age-old problem of retaliation and confrontation. The pitcher batting keeps the proper balance in place.

6) Increased specialization is bad. The DH does nothing but further this... You don't need a versatile bench anymore... Might as well given everyone 5 LOOGYs and a backup catcher. BLECCCHHH!!!! SPIT!!!! PTOOEY! I want my backup OFs to be mildly fast and be able to handle all three OF spots. I want to wonder if maybe a Brooks Kieshnick type is a good 25th man. I want my utility IFs to have increased value if they can at least fake it at catcher.

In short, the DH is a cancerous pus sack on the ass of bad ideas.... You can keep it, just keep it the hell out of my league.

Just ####### adopt Blernsball and get it over with.

Maybe after you're done destroying the fabric of the grand old game, you can even start scavenging the sewers for one-eyed mutants with big breasts and control problems who sound like Peg Bundy.

There isn't a National League park near me. The Giants are the closest NL team to me, and they're 679 miles away.

Throwing a bat a pitcher because the pitcher just put one in your back, confidant in the fact that he'll never ever step to the plate.

Have you ever seen a pitcher throw at another pitcher?

Have you ever seen a pitcher throw at another pitcher?

Who has more silly beanball brawls, the AL or the NL?

#32 - I understand all of those reasons, but even when you combine them all I have absolutely no idea how they can take your level of enjoyment down from "baseball is one of the most wonderful things on Earth" to "like eating rat turd."

What is the benefit to MLB enacting the DH league-wide? It's not creating any new fans, though it can certainly turn away old ones. It doesn't add any jobs, so there's no reason for the union to be terribly motivated one way or the other. Is league homogeneity really that important that the league would risk turning off one set of, in many cases as seen above, baseball fans who are pretty firmly entrenched on the issue?

The only thing I can think of is reducing injuries to pitchers. Just think of the millions in revenues MLB is losing from not having AJ Burnett for the first few months of the season.

Have you ever seen a pitcher throw at another pitcher?

I saw Shawn Estes try. He was pretty bad at it.

The designated hitter is a gimmick. Why should I eat a #### sandwich of gimmicks and be forced to like it because pitchers aren't good hitters? #### off.

You're supposed to throw at the other team's best hitter.

I don't despise the DH. But I enjoy the NL game much more than the AL brand. Since the Expos have been gone, logic should have made me a Jay or Red Sox fan for geographical reasons, but I can't. I know it's because of the DH. Again, it's not that I despise the DH. It's just that I don't enjoy the game as much.

If the DH comes to the NL -- I will burn down every NL stadium, the mansion of every owner who votes in favor of it, the homes of every union rep who agrees to it, and lots of other things, too.

You have been warned.

PS I am not a crank.

I've grown up an NL guy, raised by an NL guy whose father was an NL guy. My mom was an NL girl, and her father was an NL guy. I've always thought that the DH was evil/bad/whatever.

I don't really think this anymore. I still prefer no DH, but I fully acknowledge that this is a romantic/nostalgic/etc. viewpoint. Intellectually I know that replacing some automatic out with a guy that can actually hit is better for the game, and if the DH spreads to the NL, I'll be OK with that.

And like PreservedFish, I agree at least partially with most of #32, other than I too cannot see how it changes the game from the most wonderful sport played by man to eating turds. If the choice I've got is to go watch an AL game or go watch a ####### NBA game, then it's the AL game and it's not even remotely close.

What is the benefit to MLB enacting the DH league-wide? It's not creating any new fans, though it can certainly turn away old ones.

Serious question - doesn't more offense generate more casual fans?

PS I am not a crank.

Yes. Yes you are.

What zonk said, with number 4 in neon. The world would be a poorer place if we'd never seen RJ or Sabathia take their cuts in the NL or if this commercial had never existed.

My question is if anybody really thinks there are enough positive value DH type players in the league to fill the NL? I know replacement level for the position will adjust, but I'm just curious how much people think it will fall, cause I don't think the DH fans will be very happy with were it ends up.

The more important issue for me is that I do not want to hear people complaining about how baseball has been ruined for the rest of my life.

You're going to have to hear this anyway, no matter what is done with the DH. You can change (or leave as is) the rules but you can't change people, and most will always find something to complain about. This is the actual basis of the internet.

How about this rule: DH is allowed in either league, but is a game by game decision of the home team manager. Strategically, he'd say no DH if his starting pitcher was someone like Dan Haren, Micah Owings, Livan Hernandez, or Carlos Zambrano. He'd say yes to the DH if he was starting someone like Aaron Harang.

Then those who hate to see a pathetic pitcher bat would be spared. At least at home, and when you do see a pathetic pitcher bat, it will be your home team striking him out so it's OK. It would reduce the best DH's like David Ortiz to 81 game players plus PH duties. I have no objection to that.

I like having both leagues with different rules. If I had to choose, I choose leaving the pitchers bats at home. Let the professionals hit.

PS I am not a crank.

But you seem to be Gaelan, with the fire and the burning and the overkill. But I agree.

#### that. I want a box with no turds in it. Just like I have now

Aren't you a Pirates fan?

(I'm sorry, it was right there.)

Vlad, I will ask again, where is your outrage over LOOGY's and ROOGY's who go entire seasons, or even careers, without having a plate appearance or running the bases? These fake players currently infest both leagues so maybe they should be more of a target of your "manufactured level of grumpiness."

I am anti-DH in theory but I grew up in an AL city, going to AL games, so I realize that it doesn't spoil baseball.

How about this rule: DH is allowed in either league, but is a game by game decision of the home team manager. Strategically, he'd say no DH if his starting pitcher was someone like Dan Haren, Micah Owings, Livan Hernandez, or Carlos Zambrano. He'd say yes to the DH if he was starting someone like Aaron Harang.

This wouldn't work. How do you think Edgar Martinez would react if his manager kept electing to keep him on the bench in favor of having the pitcher hit? He'd be pissed off. If you make this a manager's call and have one of the manager's two options alienate one of his veterans, you are creating a choice-in-name-only.

It doesn't add any jobs, so there's no reason for the union to be terribly motivated one way or the other.

As the Chef points out, the numbers say that it doesn't create any more jobs, but it's not conceiveable that the union wouldn't care about a high-paid starting role for an accomplished hitter. If the union could make the market for Manny Ramirez, Johnny Damon, and David Ortiz twice as broad (and get some or all of them a significant salary bump with more possible bidders), I would expect that they would.

I am pretty certain that, in the vast majority of cases, one can predict a fan's preference/hatred of the DH based on which team they were a fan of when they were 10 years old.

This probably only applies to fans currently under 50 or so. Older folks who were long-time fans of AL clubs probably had to make some sort of decision when the league adopted it.

As the Chef points out, the numbers say that it doesn't create any more jobs, but it's not conceiveable that the union wouldn't care about a high-paid starting role for an accomplished hitter. If the union could make the market for Manny Ramirez, Johnny Damon, and David Ortiz twice as broad (and get some or all of them a significant salary bump with more possible bidders), I would expect that they would.

I'm skeptical it works that way. Teams have budgets, to be spent across a fixed number of players. NL teams don't necessarily pocket the cash just because they don't have a DH to spend it on.

If I took you to a college game, a game where you didn't know any of the players or cared who won, on a gorgeous day drinking beers in the sun, would you get just as grumpy?

If they're using the DH? Yes. I'd rather clean out my basement.

It's looking at the schedule and deciding that the 6 or 9 home games featuring an AL team are not worth attending. Takes like 16 seconds.

Because nobody ever gets off of work and decides, hey, the weather's nice, maybe I should drive to the park and catch a game in the $5 seats...

Not to mention that you're effectively taking away a double-digit handful of home games that I can't attend anymore, because they're playing DH-ball instead of baseball on those days.

Anti-DHers have already lost this battle ... it's just a matter of time before they realize it.

Also ... zonk's list: parody or not? Leaning towards the former.

Do those who oppose the DH insist that Eddie Van Halen should sing and David Lee Roth play guitar on one out of every four Van Halen songs?

Vlad, I will ask again, where is your outrage over LOOGY's and ROOGY's who go entire seasons, or even careers, without having a plate appearance or running the bases?

And I will answer, again, that if a team doesn't want a LOOGY or ROOGY to bat, the team has to pay an opportunity cost by sacrificing one of their bench bats as a PH. The team doesn't just have license to work around their player's crippling weakness for free.

I'm fine with MLB teams carrying on their rosters players with gaping holes in their skill sets, as long as those weaknesses come into play in game action. If you want to carry David Ortiz on your roster, fine, but stick his fat ass at first base and live with him tripping over himself trying to field, or use him once a game as a PH and then pull him before he has a chance to #### you with his glove.

Allowing the DH devalues five-tool players with well-rounded skill sets, which are IMO the best thing the game has going for it.

I really don't understand this take on the DH. I can get not liking it, hating it even, but why would it ruin your enjoyment of live baseball, America's most wonderful form of entertainment?

This reads like a manufactured level of grumpiness. It's not becoming when otherwise staunch fans of baseball wear their hate of the DH like a badge of honor.

To be fair, I think Vlad is the only person making all these extreme pronouncements. He makes about fifty in every DH-related thread so it seems like it's a whole school of thought.

Like Yankee Redneck's patented "Poor put-upon Steinbrenners, they give and give and get nothing in return" shtick.

Not to mention that you're effectively taking away a double-digit handful of home games that I can't attend anymore, because they're playing DH-ball instead of baseball on those days.

Almost every Pirates game features a relief pitcher who will not have a single plate appearance or ever run the bases during the season, what happens to your faux-rage during those games?

edit:

And I will answer, again, that if a team doesn't want a LOOGY or ROOGY to bat, the team has to pay an opportunity cost by sacrificing one of their bench bats as a PH. The team doesn't just have license to work around their player's crippling weakness for free.

It's not for free, they lose a bench spot (a team with a DH starts 10 people versus 9). It's a no-brainer to choose that, just as its a no-brainer for NL managers to never have their short relievers bat or run the bases. I was just curious why your dogma about real players and having to play all phases of the game conveniently disappears when talking about relief pitchers.

Older folks who were long-time fans of AL clubs probably had to make some sort of decision when the league adopted it.

Indeed, I was in the process of being raised a Detroit Tigers fan when, at age 12, the owners suddenly changed the rules on me. Being a traditionalist-minded chap even at that age, I promptly switched to the Cincinnati Reds, since I could get their radio broadcasts on WLW.

I didn't stay with the Reds, though. I drifted around some NL teams for a few years until I got interested in the Dick Williams' Expos, and stuck with them thereafter. Of course, now I've had to go through the whole business all over again.

Do those who oppose the DH insist that Eddie Van Helen should sing and David Lee Roth play guitar on one out of every four Van halen songs?

Do people who support the DH love Milli Vanilli? They should: The ugly session musicians who recorded the actual songs were just using Designated Fronters to cover for their inability to look good on an album cover.

Like Yankee Redneck's patented "Poor put-upon Steinbrenners, they give and give and get nothing in return" shtick.

It's not a shtick, though. I genuinely hate the DH that much.

I've never seen a DH supporter say, "Watching baseball with those pathetic pitchers hacking like little leaguers is disgusting, it makes me want to die a slow and painful death", but DH haters say such things all the time. I don't know if this means pitchers hitting is objectively better, or if it just means anti-DH people are whiny, melodramatic #######.

Anti-DHers have already lost this battle ... it's just a matter of time before they realize it.

Also ... zonk's list: parody or not? Leaning towards the former.

What's parody about it?

DH games are just inherently stupider... watching AL games reminds me of simming an OOTP... it's nothing but next pitch... next pitch... next pitch... next pitch. The boxscores are boring pablum.

An NL game simply has more flavor, more variety, more wonder -- and the box scores really tell a story.... I used to -- and still do, though modern digital publishing has made them much easier to do without 'footnoting' -- love to follow the little x/y/z/etc down to see that "x pinch-hit for player A in the 7th, etc".

Not to mention that you're effectively taking away a double-digit handful of home games that I can't attend anymore, because they're playing DH-ball instead of baseball on those days.

Double digit handful? What are you, Alfonseca's mutated brother?

The Pirates played 9 home games against AL teams last year, 6 the year before. And balance that out with the ability to go see them play Indians in Cleveland. Win-win.

And I will answer, again, that if a team doesn't want a LOOGY or ROOGY to bat, the team has to pay an opportunity cost by sacrificing one of their bench bats as a PH. The team doesn't just have license to work around their player's crippling weakness for free.

What? If this was really true, wouldn't we expect fewer pitching changes in the NL than the AL, since there's a real cost to switching pitchers in the NL?

Allowing the DH devalues five-tool players with well-rounded skill sets, which are IMO the best thing the game has going for it.

Actually I think the reverse is true - it makes those players more valuable, because teams with players like that can load up their rosters with even more players that have specialized skill sets.

Almost every Pirates game features a relief pitcher who will not have a single plate appearance or ever run the bases during the season, what happens to your faux-rage during those games?

Why should I be upset about that? If the team doesn't want those relievers to bat, it needs to pay an opportunity cost by sacrificing a bench player as a PH, and thus limiting its tactical options later in the game. That's a real penalty, just as tangible as a pitcher's inability to hit.

No free lunch.

Basically it is ruining your entire life that Jeremy Giambi had a better career than Ruben Rivera?

(EDIT: Actually there's pretty much no difference)

I don't know if this means pitchers hitting is objectively better, or if it just means anti-DH people are whiny, melodramatic #######.

The later.

Double digit handful? What are you, Alfonseca's mutated brother?

The Pirates played 9 home games against AL teams last year, 6 the year before.

The Pirates' number of home games against AL teams was reduced in the past by the NL Central's status as a six-team division, a restriction that won't exist after 2012 since the Astros are moving to the AL.

And balance that out with the ability to go see them play Indians in Cleveland.

You're suggesting that as a Pittsburgher I'd want to deliberately travel to Cleveland?

I technically have the option of punching myself in the balls, too, but I can't see why I'd choose to exercise it.

Basically it is ruining your entire life that Jeremy Giambi had a better career than Ruben Rivera?

Jeremy Giambi is a player who could do one thing well (hit), and Ruben Rivera is a player who could do one thing well (field). I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I would prefer a player who can't hit quite as well as Giambi and can't field quite as well as Rivera, but doesn't have their crippling weaknesses, either.

It's not for free, they lose a bench spot (a team with a DH starts 10 people versus 9).

That's not a real cost, and you know it.

What's parody about it?

Well for one thing, I don't believe for a second that a Cubs fan thinks that watching managers fumble through late-inning personnel changes is fun.

Then, there's also insipid ridiculousness like this:

The DH completely and utterly ruins the chess game of baseball... it turns a finely crafted, almost ballet-like battle into a crass, braindead form of checkers. Why even play the games? Just sim them from your mom's basement.

"Almost ballet-like", eh? OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOK.

The bottom line of the DH debate for me is this (and I'm an NL guy only recently converted to the DH cause) - NL games now are a race by managers to get their worst players into the lineup. It's like an All-Star Game, only these games count.

In a world where starters were regularly expected to pitch 7+ innings, having them hit made sense. Now, it fractures the rhythm of the game, and for what? To get a bunch of guys who aren't good enough to start into the game. Woohoo, sign me up for that kind of empty-headed traditionalism!

To get a bunch of guys who aren't good enough to start into the game.

By definition, the DH puts a guy who isn't good enough to start into the game right from the beginning.

I'd prefer no DH, but I won't set anything on fire about it.

I'll leave that to Zonk.

Also, I am looking forward to hearing about Jack Keefe's first at bat this season, now that he's a Marlin.

Oh, and post 9 was a wonderful reference.

Does anyone know of baseball fans out there who cheer for a particular team because of the DH (or lackthereof)? Like, is there somebody born in Kansas City who has decided to root for the Cardinals because they don't use the DH?

It seems like this entire argument is based on where you were born.

That's not a real cost, and you know it.

So how exactly is 1 bench spot a "real cost" in NL games, but the same 1 bench spot isn't a "real cost" in AL games? It's the exact same cost!

If NL managers supposedly have to weigh pros-and-cons of using that spot, how come most LOOGY's and ROOGY's go years on end without the manager choosing to let them hit? Where has your dogma about complete players gone to?

I prefer no DH, but a baseball game with a DH is still a baseball game. Any claim otherwise is just trollin'.

By definition, the DH puts a guy who isn't good enough to start into the game right from the beginning.

Well, that's not true "by definition". For example, last year Michael Young started 69 games at DH and 90 in the field. Lots of DHs would still have starting jobs if the DH rule went away tomorrow; it's just more advantageous under the current rules to have them at DH instead of in the field.

I mean, it's not like NL teams don't put up with awful fielders who can hit a ton. Obviously it's better to have players who can both hit and field, but that's true whether the DH exists or not.

The DH will come and I'll keep watching. 20 years from now, or perhaps 50 years from now, baseball will be much like football, with an offensive squad and a defensive squad. Pitchers, hitters, and fielders. The most valuable players will be those who can hit and field, and they will slowly dwindle in number.

In a thousand years, they'll call it blernsball.

I don't want to have to pick through the schedule looking for games with no DH. That's like saying that I can still enjoy eating my box of raisin bran even though they decided to add a bunch of rat turds at the factory - I just need to go through it by hand and pick out all the turds in advance.

You mean that you would actually consider going to the stadium for the abomination that is inter-league play?

Philistine.

The DH will come and I'll keep watching.

What! Even with slightly different ramifications of spending identical opportunity costs in order to use specialists! That makes it an entirely different sport and you are better off cleaning your basement!

Also, they will call it honkbal in a thousand years if I have anything to do with it.

To be fair, I think Vlad is the only person making all these extreme pronouncements. He makes about fifty in every DH-related thread so it seems like it's a whole school of thought.

Hey!

I might not compare watching a DH game to ingesting turds... but I'm equally as pissy about it!

I just think that it destroys the flow of a game -- it's like taking a wonderfully winding, some places choppy, some places calm, but carved out by nature river -- and instead, just dredging the hell out of a straight point A to point B channel.

All else being equal -- it comes down to this:

Would you rather raft through the Suez Canal or down the Colorado River? Would you rather a float a barge down the mighty Mississippi -- pilot it down the Eerie Canal?

That's the difference between a DH and non-DH game... One is natural, has variety, living, requires some navigational skill -- the other is just floating, mechanized, sterile.

So how exactly is 1 bench spot a "real cost" in NL games, but the same 1 bench spot isn't a "real cost" in AL games? It's the exact same cost!

No, it's not. In the AL, that "bench player" gets to use all of his skills throughout the course of an entire game without exposing any of his weaknesses, whereas in the NL that player only gets one "free" PA before he needs to take the field or be replaced by another player.

If NL managers supposedly have to weigh pros-and-cons of using that spot, how come most LOOGY's and ROOGY's go years on end without the manager choosing to let them hit?

Because NL managers generally make the rational decision that they'd rather sacrifice future tactical flexibility than have their relievers bat in those situations.

That said, both of the Pirates' main situational lefties ended up batting at least once last year, as did three of their other relievers. Jose Veras even drew a walk and scored a run. The year before that, the Pirates' top three situational lefties all batted at least once (with Jack Taschner drawing a walk in one of his two trips to the plate), as did six other relievers (leading to a walk and a run scored for Sean Gallagher, a hit for Evan Meek, and a stolen base and a run scored for Dan McCutchen). So much for "years on end" without coming to bat, eh?

Well, that's not true "by definition".

Yes, it is. There are eight position players in a DH-less lineup. Therefore, a lineup with a DH includes at least one player who wasn't good enough to crack the DH-less lineup, be it the DH himself or the fielder whose position he'd take if the DH rule weren't in use.

#83 amen. I'm anti-DH but it's pretty far down my list of worries.

I just think that it destroys the flow of a game...

But you understand that this "flow" that you speak of only came about very recently in the game's history, right? It's not like this is baseball distilled to its pure essence.

20 years from now, or perhaps 50 years from now, baseball will be much like football, with an offensive squad and a defensive squad. Pitchers, hitters, and fielders.

Heh.

I think this is a pretty apt analogy. Of course, football was a lot more interesting when the players had to go both ways...

With the DH, I would have been deprived of one of my very favorite baseball memories. I was at a Montreal Expos game, and got to see Jon Rauch hit a home run off of Roger Clemens. It was great. I went to the game because I was in Montreal in August, so why not? I had no real interest in who won. And yet, that game is high on my list.

“In 10 years? I’ll be long gone by then,” said commissioner Bud Selig

Selig added, "When a man comes to this point in his life, he wants to turn over the things he's been blessed with. Turn them over to friends, as a reward for the friends he's had and to make sure that everything goes well after he's gone. At the time of my retirement, or death, I turn over all my interests in the Havana operation to his control. But, all of you will share. The Nacionale will go to the Lakeville Road Boys, the Capri to the Corleone family, the Sevilla Biltmore also, but Eddie Levine will bring in the Pennino brothers, Dino and Eddie, for a piece and to handle the casino operations. We've saved a piece for some friends in Nevada to make sure that things go smoothly back home. I want all of you to enjoy your cake. So, enjoy!"

Does anyone know of baseball fans out there who cheer for a particular team because of the DH (or lackthereof)? Like, is there somebody born in Kansas City who has decided to root for the Cardinals because they don't use the DH?

It seems like this entire argument is based on where you were born.

Interesting case study, especially if you studied Milwaukee/Wisconsin natives.

AL, NL, AL+DH, NL

I assume every 1st generation AL (Brewers fan) is dead, 2nd generation (Braves fans, the Harveys of the world) '53-64, then you have a CHI(A) play a handful of games at Co. Stadium before the Pilots moved to Milwaukee, to reintroduce the AL brand, as the DH is introduced a couple years later for the very first time, with the AL brand carrying on until '98. We are now in year 15 of NL ball the 2nd time around in Milwaukee.

I am a product of the 3rd wave, the AL +DH era, and I loathe the DH, and didn't like it as an AL Brewers fan, and my feelings have strengthened in the 15 years since they joined the DH less NL. I don't forsee myself burning anything related to the future of the DH. If given a choice to either 'ban the DH everywhere' or go back to 2 leagues, and no divisions, I'd rather see 2 Leagues/0 divisions.

Yes, it is. There are eight position players in a DH-less lineup. Therefore, a lineup with a DH includes at least one player who wasn't good enough to crack the DH-less lineup, be it the DH himself or the fielder whose position he'd take if the DH rule weren't in use.

No, you're just confused about what the term "by definition" means. It does not mean "the manager decided to give his third baseman a day without having to play the field," and it does not mean "player A is a good hitter but a lousy fielder, and player B is the opposite, hey why choose let's play both".

When forced to only choose 8 batters for NL games, until recently the Red Sox frequently put David Ortiz at 1B over not playing him at all. That does not mean that David Ortiz was "by definition [not] good enough to start into the game" when he was DHing. It means the opposite.

Hanrahan had no PA's in either '10 and '11.
Veras had 1 PA in 11, and before that none in his 5 years in the majors (i.e. years on end)
Resop had no PA's in 2011 for the 5th year in a row (i.e. years on end)

on other teams: Trever Miller hasn't had a PA over his last 6 NL years (i.e. years on end)
Bill Bray hasn't had a PA since 2006 (i.e. years on end)
J.C. Romero hasn't had a PA since 2007 (i.e. years on end)

So what happened to the dogma of complete players who have to play all facets of the game? Where is your faux disgust at these fake ballplayers?
Now it's the difference between how much you get to use a specialist for the same cost of a roster spot that completely changes a sport?

When forced to only choose 8 batters for NL games, until recently the Red Sox frequently put David Ortiz at 1B over not playing him at all. That does not mean that David Ortiz was "by definition [not] good enough to start into the game" when he was DHing. It means the opposite.

No, it means that in games Ortiz was DHing, the Red Sox were using a 1B who wasn't good enough to be in the lineup in a non-DH game. Or another player who wasn't good enough to be in that lineup, if you assume that the non-Ortiz 1B would've been shifted to another position in turn.

i don't like the DH because it offends my sense of order about the game. everybody on the field should have to take a turn at bat. its that simple. that's the game.