Watching pitchers hit is like watching the bathing suit competition in a senior citizen beauty pageant.

heck, now I'm leaning against the DH if this is the "for" side....

So the question is whether a fan wants 2-3 different PHs who usually have other duties on the team or concentrate those ABs in a one-dimensional player. Its purely an esthetic argument and anyone who suggests otherwise is being silly, but my personal preference is away from the DH.

It looks like Craig has cleaned this up a bit since he first posted it. I don't see some of the "these guys got hurt because the NL is stupid and makes pitchers hit" stuff that was up there originally. If so, it wouldn't hurt to have an "edited/updated" flag at the bottom of it.

In the less than 24 hours since I posted this, I have seen a lot of weird and emotional reaction to it, a LOT of it clearly based on people not having read it or not having read it closely. I think your observation in this regard falls under that category.

my search isn't working, but I can't find the ridiculous line about old people and beauty pageants anymore. was that a typo?

why is pitcher the only specialized defensive position you want to have a DH for?

THere is one good aeshetic argument against the DH: some people like watching pitcher's hit, either because it introduces more small ball, because the occasional pitcher hit is fun, etc.

Because there are limits to how many roster spots a team can have? We have 42 years of experience showing us that one extra guy is not disruptive to a team, roster construction or team finances. We are not going to see any club want to go to 35-man rosters.

More fundamentally, because pitcher hitting is leaps and bounds worse than any other position player hitting. There are tons of all-star and league average hitters at every position. None at pitcher. It's a pretty obvious stopping point.

"And "clickbait" is something disingenuous or sensationalistic that teases people into clicking on something when they might not have. My headline is pretty damn representative of what's in the post. I specifically say pitchers batting is dumb in there and that I think the DH should be universal. Your finding an argument shocking or unwelcome does not render it "clickbait""

You can't have your arbitrary traditionalism a la carte, just because it's convenient to you. You've already done away with the notion that traditionalism is a valid argument in the original piece.

The primary difference between the DH in the professional and amateur games is that the DH may bat in place of one player in any position in most amateur baseball leagues such as those that use National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) rules. Most high school coaches use a designated hitter in place of the weakest hitter in the lineup, if they use one at all. In amateur baseball, many pitchers are also good hitters and will often play another position (or even DH) when not pitching.

And "clickbait" is something disingenuous or sensationalistic that teases people into clicking on something when they might not have. My headline is pretty damn representative of what's in the post.

I had really expected better from you, Craig. You used to be cool, man. What happened?

But as for my roster construction/42 years of DH comments, those aren't traditionalist arguments. The former is one of practicality, noting that it is not unlikely that MLB would ever expand rosters like that. The latter is to rebut the notion that adding the DH in the NL would somehow be disastrous. It's a citation to data.

Seriously, though: what's disingenuous about my post? You may disagree with it. I may simply be wrong. But disingenuous? Really?

I'm not sure about this.

Using a single word allegedly said by an anonymous dude that none of us have ever met

37 and 38 are a fantastic juxtaposition.

If I end up coaching a bunch of eight-year-olds in order to get my fix, rather than sitting in front of the TV at home, that's hardly the worst thing in the world. More DH ball for you to enjoy.

Nobody is suggesting that there should be more than one DH.

That's Chris Dial. Many of us have met him.

And if you think his view on that is singular, head over to Twitter and check out my replies for the past two days. A HUGE number of them are one-word responses like "no!" and "never!" And there is a TON of stuff about the DH being "unnatural" and "against the essence of baseball" and stuff like that.

I have never, in my life, seen as much reflexive negative sentiment to any topic as I have seen to the DH.

OK, so how many people don't watch any games with the DH? No interleague games at AL parks. No World Series games at AL parks.

Which might be good grounds for a column, if you felt like putting the actual work in, rather than posting lazy, sensationalistic clickbait.

And "clickbait" is something disingenuous or sensationalistic that teases people into clicking on something when they might not have. My headline is pretty damn representative of what's in the post. I specifically say pitchers batting is dumb in there and that I think the DH should be universal. Your finding an argument shocking or unwelcome does not render it "clickbait"

There is one good philosophical argument against the DH: baseball is played by nine players, all of whom have both defensive and offensive reasons.

OK, so how many people don't watch any games with the DH? No interleague games at AL parks. No World Series games at AL parks.

I'm amazed that people who have followed this game all of their lives don't see that.

The idea is to get rid of the farce that is pitchers batting. I don't care how you do it.

The brand of baseball 8 YOs play is far different than MLB with the DH. Players are freely substituted on defense. Everybody bats in the lineup, regardless if they are in the field. Runners cannot leadoff and cannot leave their base until the pitch crosses the plate. There is no dropped third strike rule. There is a 10 run mercy rule. Pitchers have a strict daily pitch limit and mandatory days of rest depending on how many pitches they throw on a given day. And so on.

So I have to hire Gallup every time I make an observation about the interactions I have with people every day?

The beer league brand of DH Moneyball with little bunting, little pinch hitting, and little running is far and away the least aesthetically pleasing brand of baseball in my lifetime.(*)

Why does it have to be absolute? Even if rabidly anti-DH Vlad doesn't give up the game completely, if his interest in MLB's product diminishes because the NL adopts the DH, then baseball loses. In contrast, there's no reason to think people will be suddenly more interested in NL ball with a DH, because if they're so fervently anti-pitcher hitting, they've got at least six options nightly to satisfy their cravings.

Anti-DH people are flat earthers here, insisting that X is true when everyone else knows that X is false.

If the DH were instituted in the NL tomorrow, there would be no discernible impact on attendance or ratings. None.

head over to Twitter and check out my replies for the past two days. A HUGE number of them are one-word responses like "no!" and "never!"

And pro-DHers are the gay marriage opponents. It's not enough that you can find a spouse and be happy, the world won't be right unless those "other people" can't.

Also, why are you complaining about short and dismissive replies on Twitter? Isn't getting a quick and shallow hot take the whole point of a medium where you're limited to 140 characters?

Actually, the exact opposite argument has been made.

And pro-DHers are the gay marriage opponents. It's not enough that you can find a spouse and be happy, the world won't be right unless those "other people" can't.

Actually, the exact opposite argument has been made. Specifically in the book "Debating Same-Sex Marriage" By John Corvino, Maggie Gallagher.

I'm sure it has been made. But it was a shitty one.

Some of the better debates I've had in the past several years have been on Twitter.

This might make sense if I only watched games played under AL rules. But I'm a baseball fan, so I watch baseball, including games played under NL rules. When I do, I don't want to see the pitcher hit, and I don't find it more "interesting" or "exciting" or more strategy-oriented.

Well, both are because it's a shitty construct.

If the DH were instituted in the NL tomorrow, there would be no discernible impact on attendance or ratings. None.


Delivering that statement in your best Ray voice doesn't make that any more true Jim.

The anti-DH people are far more strident. I'm pro DH, but don't particularly care if the NL maintains the status quo.

They aren't bad arguments, Ray, they're subjective ones. You don't like a game in which pitchers hit. I don't like a game in which they don't.* There is no right or wrong. Right now, we can both see our optimal game. You'd like me not to be able to.

Really? What's the basis for your opinion?

Really? What's the basis for your opinion? (BTW, trying to take a swipe at me and Ray doesn't improve your argument.)

The lack of uniformity in the league presents an objective and unequivocal disadvantage in interleague play and the World Series.

But who are the anti-DHers like that apart from Craig?

I'd rather watch a pitcher hit than I would any DH, even Edgar Martinez.

Prove it.

I can see myself now, in a nursing home, in 2065, shedding a single tear as Addison Russell, Jr., the last two-way player, announces his retirement, leaving every team in the majors sending nine batters out to hit and a different nine fielders out to field. Sigh.