Proposed New Designated Hitter Rule for Both Leagues

[strumdatjaguar]

The designated hitter rule should be in both leagues, with some major changes:

Each team, on a pregame line-up card, DESIGNATES one player to be its Designated Hitter.  That hitter may substitute for another player like any other bench player (for example, in case of injury) OR take his one DH at-bat in the ninth spot in the batting order, in the first six innings.  After six innings, presuming there have been at least 8 at-bats since that first DH at-bat, the DH may be used like any other player off the bench.  In most games the DH will have one or two at-bats and not play in the field. 

 

This new DH rule would add strategy to the game (Did the manager use his DH at-bat too soon or wait too long?), will reduce rally-killing at-bats by poor-hitting pitchers (by allowing the manager to insert the better hitting DH in the line-up while keeping his pitcher on the mound, if desired, in the first 6 innings), and will speed up games by having those poor hitting pitchers bat and end innings when the DH is not used (pitcher would likely bat with two out and no men on base in the second inning, for example).

[strumdatjaguar]

I tried to Edit the Topic to change it to PROPOSED New Designated Hitter Rule.  Unfortunately, Twins Daily allows editing the message, but not the Subject Line.  Sorry if the title got anyone worked up. 

[Squirrel]

I tried to Edit the Topic to change it to PROPOSED New Designated Hitter Rule.  Unfortunately, Twins Daily allows editing the message, but not the Subject Line.  Sorry if the title got anyone worked up.

 

FIFY

[Bark's Lounge]

Creativity is a very good thing and I commend you on that.

 

I like how the DH works now and I am glad it is an American League only rule. I appreciate that it is a rule divide between the AL and NL. So many things have changed in MLB over the last 20 years. The wild card, inter-league play, instant-replay dealios, etc., etc. - as a fan it is good to have the differences between the leagues.

 

The DH rule has been around for about 42-43 years? To me it has a historical quotient and is important.

 

One of the greatest things about MLB is its history. It sort of has a mythological feeling to it. Think about it, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Walter Johnson, and many more have a Sasquatch or Roswell Alien Crash Aura around them, the difference is, Babe Ruth and the others I mentioned did those things and accomplished baseball feats of an almost unbelievable magnitude. They were real.

 

I believe the history of this game is one of the great factors that make it an attractive sport to delve yourself into. No other sport has a greater historical story than MLB and it's not even close.

[jokin]

Creativity is a very good thing and I commend you on that.

 

I like how the DH works now and I am glad it is an American League only rule. I appreciate that it is a rule divide between the AL and NL. So many things have changed in MLB over the last 20 years. The wild card, inter-league play, instant-replay dealios, etc., etc. - as a fan it is good to have the differences between the leagues.

 

The DH rule has been around for about 42-43 years? To me it has a historical quotient and is important.

 

One of the greatest things about MLB is its history. It sort of has a mythological feeling to it. Think about it, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Walter Johnson, and many more have a Sasquatch or Roswell Alien Crash Aura around them, the difference is, Babe Ruth and the others I mentioned did those things and accomplished baseball feats of an almost unbelievable magnitude. They were real.

 

I believe the history of this game is one of the great factors that make it an attractive sport to delve yourself into. No other sport has a greater historical story than MLB and it's not even close.

 

One of the pithiest posts ever  Well stated.

[gunnarthor]

The only rule that baseball needs is to institute the DH in the NL.

[Bark's Lounge]

One of the pithiest posts ever  Well stated.

Thank you my friend. That means a lot to me.

[Oldgoat_MN]

I like the DH rule the way it is. The added strategy your proposal would suggest would, in fact, be interesting. Still, I'm not fond of changing rules very often.

 

If the game had been invented with a DH and then 100 years later someone said, "Hey, I know! Let's have the pitcher hit!" everyone would think that person was an idiot.

 

That said, I like the one league having the DH and the other league having their pitchers bat.

[Thrylos]

I like the rule as is with a single change:   A team loses its DH if its pitcher hits an opposing batter, making that pitcher having to bat.

[ashbury]

I like the rule as is with a single change:   A team loses its DH if its pitcher hits an opposing batter, making that pitcher having to bat.

Making a modern day Ron Hunt or Don Baylor additionally valuable to his team.

[lightfoot789]

Awesome read on Twins very own Larry Hisle who was the 1st ever DH in baseball history (exhibition game).  Just interesting Trivia

 

http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/99d6b47d

[Richie the Rally Goat]

The designated hitter rule should be in both leagues, with some major changes:

Each team, on a pregame line-up card, DESIGNATES one player to be its Designated Hitter.  That hitter may substitute for another player like any other bench player (for example, in case of injury) OR take his one DH at-bat in the ninth spot in the batting order, in the first six innings.  After six innings, presuming there have been at least 8 at-bats since that first DH at-bat, the DH may be used like any other player off the bench.  In most games the DH will have one or two at-bats and not play in the field. 

 

This new DH rule would add strategy to the game (Did the manager use his DH at-bat too soon or wait too long?), will reduce rally-killing at-bats by poor-hitting pitchers (by allowing the manager to insert the better hitting DH in the line-up while keeping his pitcher on the mound, if desired, in the first 6 innings), and will speed up games by having those poor hitting pitchers bat and end innings when the DH is not used (pitcher would likely bat with two out and no men on base in the second inning, for example).

like others I too like the DH AL only, but in one of the few ways I have ever agreed with Gardy, this is one. I think it would be more interesting when during interleague play, it's the visitor rules that apply. It would make interleague and DH more interesting.

[Linus]

As usual, I am the contrarian, I guess.  I hate the DH and consider it one of the few mistakes baseball has made with its rule changes.  I love the strategy of the NL and the decisions a manager has to make.

 

I get that watching pitchers hit isn't all that exciting but watching them lay down a bunt or not, and the resulting play is much more exciting than watching Pedro Florimon or Drew Butera hit (or I dare say Aaron Hicks).....

[gunnarthor]

As usual, I am the contrarian, I guess.  I hate the DH and consider it one of the few mistakes baseball has made with its rule changes.  I love the strategy of the NL and the decisions a manager has to make.

 

I get that watching pitchers hit isn't all that exciting but watching them lay down a bunt or not, and the resulting play is much more exciting than watching Pedro Florimon or Drew Butera hit (or I dare say Aaron Hicks).....

How is it fun to see a pitcher pulled so a bench guy can bat and then we see a bunch of relievers finish the game?  I absolutely hate the NL style of game and they are the only league that plays it anymore. 

[gunnarthor]

A team loses its DH if its pitcher hits an opposing batter, making that pitcher having to bat.

I suspect you and I would disagree on why this is a good idea but man, wouldn't that be something?  David Ortiz is out of the game b/c AJ Pierzsky (sp) leaned into a Pedro Martinez curveball?  In a playoff game?  Amazing.  (I suppose you could modify the rule by trying to enforce the rule that batters had to try and get out of the way - Kevin Youkliss was really good at leaning in and having the ball hit his body armor).  Could you imagine the fan rage that would cause?  That literally might cause a riot.

 

Incidentally, if this is a thread about rule changes, I'd love for them to prohibit batters from wearing body armor.

[nicksaviking]

DH vs no DH would be close to a "push" for me until I factor in all the at bats Twins minor league prospects would lose due to what would certainly be a comprehensive reversal of the rule.  Vargas would have lost a quarter of his development time had he not been playing DH in the minors.

[biggentleben]

The only rule that baseball needs is to institute the DH in the NL.

 

No, no, 1,000 times no.

[biggentleben]

As usual, I am the contrarian, I guess.  I hate the DH and consider it one of the few mistakes baseball has made with its rule changes.  I love the strategy of the NL and the decisions a manager has to make.

 

I get that watching pitchers hit isn't all that exciting but watching them lay down a bunt or not, and the resulting play is much more exciting than watching Pedro Florimon or Drew Butera hit (or I dare say Aaron Hicks).....

 

I prefer the NL strategy, but I know that there are folks 100% against a pitcher hitting, and their opinions are allowed, whether I believe they should be or not. 

[Mike Sixel]

The only rule that baseball needs is to institute the DH in the NL.

 

Correct. One set of rules for the sport. And, it should be the rules about entertainment, not about sticking to the past, imo.

 

There is no NL "strategy".....99% of the time the managers make the same decision over and over. There is rarely any "strategy". And, the vast majority of non-fans could not care less about managers, they want to watch great hitters and pitchers face each other.

[Kwak]

How is it fun to see a pitcher pulled so a bench guy can bat and then we see a bunch of relievers finish the game?  I absolutely hate the NL style of game and they are the only league that plays it anymore. 

Like virtually every Twins game? 

[biggentleben]

Like virtually every Twins game? 

 

Or every game pitched in modern baseball regardless of league...

[Brock Beauchamp]

There isn't much strategy in the NL game most of the time. It's the same routine over and over again. Yeah, once a blue moon you'll see something interesting happen with double switches but that will be more than offset by replacing .500 OPS hitters with .750 OPS hitters in NL lineups on a daily basis.

[Mike Sixel]

Three awful at bats by a pitcher, followed by a pinch hitter in inning 7, then maybe another one in inning 8 or nine. And, those pinch hitters aren't very good hitters.

 

In the mean time, you had to watch a pitcher "hit" three times. Ooooh, the excitement!

[TheLeviathan]

Yeah, the myth of NL "strategy" is alive and well and every bit as silly as ever. Time for that myth to die along with pitchers batting.

[Dman]

I like the rule as is with a single change:   A team loses its DH if its pitcher hits an opposing batter, making that pitcher having to bat.

 

I like that idea.  Maybe a beanball wouldn't be such a great strategy if the pitcher had to face potential retaliation or lose their DH.

[Mike Sixel]

I like that idea.  Maybe a beanball wouldn't be such a great strategy if the pitcher had to face potential retaliation or lose their DH.

 

These aren't board games.....simple sets of rules, so it is about the athletes, not about the rules.

[markos]

My DH rule change would be to allow an unlimited number of DHs but keep the same 25-man roster size. I think it would provide a lot of interesting roster-construction strategies as teams would try to skimp on bench players and relievers to add some more sluggers and glove-only defenders.

 

Overall, the incentives would probably:

1) improve overall offense

2) add more elite defenders

3) versatile bench players would be super valuable.

4) fewer specialized relievers and fewer pitching changes.

[Linus]

Three awful at bats by a pitcher, followed by a pinch hitter in inning 7, then maybe another one in inning 8 or nine. And, those pinch hitters aren't very good hitters.

 

In the mean time, you had to watch a pitcher "hit" three times. Ooooh, the excitement!

Snarky much?  Now that I've been enlightened by your point of view I guess I will have to reconsider having my own opinion.......or not.

[Mike Sixel]

Snarky much?  Now that I've been enlightened by your point of view I guess I will have to reconsider having my own opinion.......or not.

 

What's snarky about that? 

 

there are three terrible at bats by pitchers, then they sub 1 or 2 times, and they sub with generally bad hitters.

 

Are those not facts?

 

For me, nothing about that is exciting, not one bit.

[biggentleben]

Once again, the beat down version of discussion when approaching the DH issue.  Lovely to see not much has changed with many in spite of the move to TD.

 

I watch a LOT of baseball, and you can say there's not strategy in the NL like I can say there's no strategy in AL, but we'd both be wrong.  I love the NL game, and many baseball fans do.  You're on a team board for a team in the American League, of course most of the (primarily younger) fans will only know a game with a DH, so the fact that there is not one in the NL seems odd and not like the baseball they're used to.  Similarly, the family I was raised in was very much an NL team, and to this day my grandfather struggles with the idea of a DH in the game.

 

Perhaps the fact that there is a DH at minor league levels is why people are so frustrated watching pitchers pitch.  You try going into the gym and jumping the same height or better than you did 3 years ago without any practice whatsoever.  A pitcher is drafted and then never faces live pitching until he gets near the majors and is in spring training doing bunting/hitting drills.

 

I honestly enjoy the duality as it makes for two different brands of baseball coming together each October, but it frustrates me the way people attack one side or the other of the issue.