NL might grow up!

[gunnarthor]

Talk about adding the DH to the NL has "more momentum" than before.  It sounds like the NL is still going to go very slow into the discussion, and it probably won't be in time for the 2017 CBA, more but more people in the NL seem to be considering it.  

 

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/mozeliak-says-more-momentum-for-dh-in-national-league/article_a9649bff-5ba1-5a1a-9864-e6b40f6dda12.html

 

Personally, I detest the NL game and hope they add the DH sooner rather than later.  But it seems like it'll eventually happen.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

I don't detest the NL system but I think it leads to inferior baseball most of the time.

 

For every time you get to see an interesting double-switch, pitcher hit, or move you weren't expecting, you have the privilege of watching a pitcher with a .400 OPS take 50 painful-to-watch swings at a baseball.

 

It's about the sheer numbers. If there were more interesting moves in the NL game, I'd enjoy it more... But what will improve the game with the most frequency is adding a DH in an attempt to avoid giving away 11% of your team's plate appearances.

[biggentleben]

This whole post just needs to go. Growing up? The American League brought in the DH because they were so badly stuck in their ways of bigotry and racism that they were being shelled by the National League in every All Star game due to the talent disparity. Fans in cities with multiple teams would absolutely choose the better talent, and in the days before huge TV deals, ticket sales and merchandise meant profits, so the AL was desperate to do something, anything to bring added interest to the game.

 

So you can have all the negative feelings you want and say all the disparaging things you'd like about NL baseball, but you need to look no farther than the efforts of the man celebrated yesterday to see why the DH happened, and the future decision of whether to adopt the rule league-wide will be made by primarily rich, white men, but I do find it incredible the lineage of strong National League backing in the African American community similar to the loyalty the same community has to the Democratic Party.

[Oldgoat_MN]

I like the DH rule far more than I thought I would when it first came about.

 

I also like it that the two leagues do things differently.

 

Still believe that if the game had been invented with a DH and a hundred years later someone said, "Hey, let's have the pitcher bat", everyone would think that person was an idiot.

[Mike Sixel]

I don't like that the rules are different in the same sport. Pick one.

 

I prefer the DH, because of what Brock posted.....90+% of the time, the same move is made (after watching the pitcher suck for 2-3 ABs). 

 

It really isn't all that interesting, strategically, if you do the same thing almost ALL THE TIME.

[gunnarthor]

 

This whole post just needs to go. Growing up? The American League brought in the DH because they were so badly stuck in their ways of bigotry and racism that they were being shelled by the National League in every All Star game due to the talent disparity. Fans in cities with multiple teams would absolutely choose the better talent, and in the days before huge TV deals, ticket sales and merchandise meant profits, so the AL was desperate to do something, anything to bring added interest to the game.

So you can have all the negative feelings you want and say all the disparaging things you'd like about NL baseball, but you need to look no farther than the efforts of the man celebrated yesterday to see why the DH happened, and the future decision of whether to adopt the rule league-wide will be made by primarily rich, white men, but I do find it incredible the lineage of strong National League backing in the African American community similar to the loyalty the same community has to the Democratic Party.

The NL should absolutely be proud of its work integrating the game and we should always remember the teams/owners who tried to stop its progress.  For some people, I think that can be reason enough for the NL to be better.

 

But from an entertainment point of view, I hate the NL.  I also think, from a labor perspective, the NL's lack of a DH keeps player's payroll lower (cheaper to pay a bench bat than a DH and older players don't have as much job security).  

[Willihammer]

 

I don't detest the NL system but I think it leads to inferior baseball most of the time.

 

For every time you get to see an interesting double-switch, pitcher hit, or move you weren't expecting, you have the privilege of watching a pitcher with a .400 OPS take 50 painful-to-watch swings at a baseball.

No, you get to watch him bunt. Which is fun, because small ball is fun and it makes sense in that spot. Unlike the AL where it almost never does. Keep small ball in the game, keep pitchers in the lineup I say.

[TheLeviathan]

Man I hope this happens, pitchers batting is just goofy.  

 

It's like requiring your running back to punt or your goalie to try in a shoot-out.  

[GACbaseball]

I personally love the game without a DH. It makes it much more interesting and strategic than just having every at-bat be the exact same. Plus it actually makes a good, versatile bench a requirement, not just a group of guys who give your starter a rest every 6 days.

[nicksaviking]

Well if rosters are going to expand from 25 as has been discussed, it would absolutely make sense to bring the DH to the NL.

 

The players union has to be in favor of this as the DH is a potential landing spot for aging veterans who struggle in the field and may otherwise have little attraction to a MLB team.

[GACbaseball]

Man I hope this happens, pitchers batting is just goofy.  

 

It's like requiring your running back to punt or your goalie to try in a shoot-out.

 

Not having pitchers bat would be like saying every basketball team only has 4 players who can cross half court, while one player on each team stays on offense and one stays on defense

[TheLeviathan]

 

Not having pitchers bat would be like saying every basketball team only has 4 players who can cross half court, while one player on each team stays on offense and one stays on defense

 

Then use the football analogy.  It's literally like forcing your QB to punt because he's one of the 11 on the field.  If the pitchers could actually hit I'd be fine with it, but most of them hit no better than some random person plucked from the crowd.  It's more pathetic than anything.

[Thrylos]

It is a CBA negotiation/posturing tool, that has the potential to add 15 veteran jobs, extend the careers of 15 aging players and add $150 million or so in player compensation.

 

Dangled to see what the players are willing to give up, I suspect.

Don't believe what you read in the last season of the effective CBA.

[GACbaseball]

Then use the football analogy.  It's literally like forcing your QB to punt because he's one of the 11 on the field.  If the pitchers could actually hit I'd be fine with it, but most of them hit no better than some random person plucked from the crowd.  It's more pathetic than anything.

It's like saying they should have let someone else shoot free throws for Shaq because watching him shoot them was more pathetic than having pitchers hit in my opinion haha.

 

I prefer a more well rounded sport, not one where everything is as specialized as football is.

[TheLeviathan]

 

It's like saying they should have let someone else shoot free throws for Shaq because watching him shoot them was more pathetic than having pitchers hit in my opinion haha.

I prefer a more well rounded sport, not one where everything is as specialized as football is.

 

I just can't get behind this.  It doesn't make a sport more "well rounded" to force someone to do something they can't do by the rules of the game.

 

We're forced to watch Shaq shoot free throws because of events in the game.  We're forced to watch pitchers hit because of the rules of the game.  We have an existing alternative to avoid this and yet choose any way to make inept men stand up there hoping to successfully get out most of the time.

[biggentleben]

 

I just can't get behind this.  It doesn't make a sport more "well rounded" to force someone to do something they can't do by the rules of the game.

 

We're forced to watch Shaq shoot free throws because of events in the game.  We're forced to watch pitchers hit because of the rules of the game.  We have an existing alternative to avoid this and yet choose any way to make inept men stand up there hoping to successfully get out most of the time.

 

They could have put in a rule to bring in a designated free-throw shooter in basketball to change those "events". Interestingly, pitchers became MUCH worse hitters after the adoption of the DH. Odd, that, isn't it?

[Seauville]

How dare you all consider taking pitchers batting away. How else can we be as entertained as we are when Barolo Colon comes to bat??

 

[GACbaseball]

I just can't get behind this.  It doesn't make a sport more "well rounded" to force someone to do something they can't do by the rules of the game.

 

We're forced to watch Shaq shoot free throws because of events in the game.  We're forced to watch pitchers hit because of the rules of the game.  We have an existing alternative to avoid this and yet choose any way to make inept men stand up there hoping to successfully get out most of the time.

The NBA could have made a rule allowing for one "Designated Shooter", and had a player shoot free throws for Shaq. It seems ridiculous to do this now but this is literally what Major League Baseball did when they made the DH.

 

Why make an inept free throw shooter stand up there doing something they can't do?

[Seauville]

 

The NBA could have made a rule allowing for one "Designated Shooter", and had a player shoot free throws for Shaq. It seems ridiculous to do this now but this is literally what Major League Baseball did when they made the DH.

Why make an inept free throw shooter stand up there doing something they can't do?

Your point is valid. My devil's advocate on that scenario, however, would be that in basketball you can still meaningfully contribute offensively despite being a horrid free throw shooter. In baseball, pitchers normally are unable to contribute much at all offensively. You could argue that they should just work on being better batters, but would that take away from their time honing their craft of pitching? Not a question I can personally answer, but I'd rather have top-level pitching AND top-level batting than a lesser form of both.

[Vanimal46]

 

How dare you all consider taking pitchers batting away. How else can we be as entertained as we are when Barolo Colon comes to bat??

 

Bartolo Colon at the plate is a treat I look forward to every summer. Unfortunately we're running out of time to watch the magic happen (he's 42 now! holy cow!) 

[Vanimal46]

Jesse Spector of Sporting News released a new article relating to this subject. Here's a pretty telling stat that may balance the leagues going forward if the NL installs a DH...

"Since the DH was instituted, American League teams have a 23-19 edge in the World Series. More tellingly, NL teams have been soundly throttled in interleague play, with an all-time record of 2,299-2,565. American League teams have had the edge in interleague each of the last 12 years, and 15 out of 19 overall."

[HitInAPinch]

A little perspective here.......

 

The first team to play baseball under modern rules were the New York Knickerbockers. The club was founded on September 23, 1845, as a social club for the upper middle classes of New York City, and was strictly amateur until it disbanded.

 

On April 6, 1973--Opening Day--Ron Blomberg of the New York Yankees became the league's first ever designated hitter.  In his first plate appearance, he was walked on a full count by the Boston Red Sox pitcher Luis Tiant.

 

I'm not really arguing one way or another.  But I think it's not fair or honest to say that the DH has made the game better compared to the 128 years we went without it.  It's different, like Astro-Turf. 

 

I grew up playing ball on grass fields and blacktop.  Didn't really care. 

 

With batting helmets and DH's, sliders, "turf", steroids and sabermetrics, the game has somewhat passed me by. 

 

But not by much.

[gunnarthor]

 

I personally love the game without a DH. It makes it much more interesting and strategic than just having every at-bat be the exact same. Plus it actually makes a good, versatile bench a requirement, not just a group of guys who give your starter a rest every 6 days.

Yeah, this argument comes up a lot but it doesn't really make sense.  It's not really "strategy" to have a .095 hitter bunt.  And NL benches are still weak.  NL pitchers face an inferior lineup because pitcher's hit.  I think it's pretty boring watching pitchers walk the #8 hitter to get to the automatic out.

[Vanimal46]

 

Yeah, this argument comes up a lot but it doesn't really make sense.  It's not really "strategy" to have a .095 hitter bunt.  And NL benches are still weak.  NL pitchers face an inferior lineup because pitcher's hit.  I think it's pretty boring watching pitchers walk the #8 hitter to get to the automatic out.

I will say I did enjoy Joe Maddon's strategy of having the pitcher bat 8th in the lineup and Addison Russell batting 9th.. But he may be the only one who's consistently tried this method. 

[biggentleben]

 

Your point is valid. My devil's advocate on that scenario, however, would be that in basketball you can still meaningfully contribute offensively despite being a horrid free throw shooter. In baseball, pitchers normally are unable to contribute much at all offensively. You could argue that they should just work on being better batters, but would that take away from their time honing their craft of pitching? Not a question I can personally answer, but I'd rather have top-level pitching AND top-level batting than a lesser form of both.

 

I'd counter that with that pitchers were much better hitters before the DH.

 

That said, you don't have to even hit .300 to positively impact the game. A smooth fielding, .230-hitting shortstop can have a long major league career being just that. As a Braves fan in the 1990s, I can tell you that none of Smoltz, Maddux, and Glavine were going to be position players if they couldn't pitch. However, there were probably a half-dozen to dozen games a season where the pitcher for the Braves impacted the winning run in the game by moving the runner over. Even without bunting, Glavine was a master of rolling over a ball just right to get a grounder to the second baseman and move a runner from second to third. Maddux had a similar skill in landing a ball between the pitcher and second baseman with a swinging bunt with a guy on third. Those end up as outs, counted against batting average, but they're often vital to a win, and with the Braves in that era, it was rare that they were scoring a ton, so pushing over a runner was a huge, impactful thing that the team found out guys like Vinny Castilla, JD Drew, and Gary Sheffield simply couldn't do, in spite of all their big bopper power.

[biggentleben]

 

I will say I did enjoy Joe Maddon's strategy of having the pitcher bat 8th in the lineup and Addison Russell batting 9th.. But he may be the only one who's consistently tried this method. 

 

Tony LaRussa did it as well quite a bit.

[TheLeviathan]

The NBA could have made a rule allowing for one "Designated Shooter", and had a player shoot free throws for Shaq. It seems ridiculous to do this now but this is literally what Major League Baseball did when they made the DH.

Why make an inept free throw shooter stand up there doing something they can't do?

Other teams choose to put them there as strategy, the rules of the game don't force them there, that is a huge difference.

 

We can lament the loss of hitting pitchers but it's a reality that isn't changing. As long as pitchers are this useless at it....there isn't much of a justification to keep it short of the "we've always done it" fallacy.

[GACbaseball]

Other teams choose to put them there as strategy, the rules of the game don't force them there, that is a huge difference.

We can lament the loss of hitting pitchers but it's a reality that isn't changing. As long as pitchers are this useless at it....there isn't much of a justification to keep it short of the "we've always done it" fallacy.

I've never used the "we've always done it this way" fallacy, I just personally enjoy the late game strategy that comes with NL baseball that just doesn't with AL and the DH. Pinch hitting, bunting, decisions on when to take out a pitcher for a hitter in a RISP situation if they are dealing, and the need for a deep bench are all things that have much more importance in the NL, which I like more than having one extra hitter in the lineup

[biggentleben]

 

Other teams choose to put them there as strategy, the rules of the game don't force them there, that is a huge difference.

We can lament the loss of hitting pitchers but it's a reality that isn't changing. As long as pitchers are this useless at it....there isn't much of a justification to keep it short of the "we've always done it" fallacy.

 

It is only a huge difference because no one in the NBA has ever challenged and/or changed that rule. If we'd never known anything but pitchers hitting, it wouldn't be a rule, it'd be a consequence of someone being so comfortable with the pitching they're getting that they're tolerating whatever contributions they get at the plate - or even vice versa. However, baseball made a rule that said pitchers DON'T have to hit (not that they do, as the standard that every player playing the game hits was standard part of the basics of the game from the inception of the concept of the game, just as the idea of a player shooting a free throw after being fouled was part of the basics of the game, unless a rule changes that). So, a rule was required to STOP pitchers from hitting, not to allow it.

[biggentleben]

In fact to further the basketball point, a similar rule in the NBA would be that all power forwards from this point on would have a designated free-throw shooter. This player would enter the game any time a free throw was to be shot and immediately removed once the free throws were completed.

 

If a designated hitter would have been put in place for any position of the manager's choosing (a poor-hitting catcher or shortstop, for instance), comparing directly to free throw shooting in the entirety of the NBA would be a more apt discussion. However, you blanketly remove those pitchers who do contribute with their bats as well as those who are incompetent, just as you'd remove the power forwards who shoot 90% from the free throw line along with those who shoot 50%.