NL might grow up!

[GACbaseball]

Why do they make Drew Butera hit then when he catches? Why does Mastroianni have to hit?

 

Ideally for you then, would you prefer to see a game with 9 fielders and 9 different batters? Let the best 9 defenders play the field like in football and have the best 9 batters hit?

[jimmer]

A pitcher is one of nine defensive players on the field. Suggesting everyone who plays defense should hit doesn't equate to 'well if that is the case they should all be able to pitch too' . That makes zero sense. They already contribute to the defensive part of the game playing their respective positions.

[Dman]

 

The American League instituted the designated hitter rule primarily because they were falling so far behind the National League in All Star Games and national fan interest due to the integration of African American ballplayers into the National League and the exciting brand of baseball they were playing. Stars like Aaron, Mays, and Robinson were all National League guys, and the American League was very hesitant as a whole to integrate. This began hurting the AL's finances, and they were desperate to find anything to turn that around. When the NL rejected the proposal, the AL went ahead with it anyway, creating the split in league rules to attempt to fix their years of bigotry and racism. To have two sets of rules is not positive for the sport, as we've found for 40 years now, whether it's added excitement or energy or whatever to the game for some subset of fans.

 

While I agree if true that is an ugly reason to create the DH, but aren't you also admitting that the AL knew the DH was going to create more fan interest in the game?  Doesn't that run counter to your argument to get rid of the DH? Or keep the game pure or whatever?

[TheLeviathan]

Why do they make Drew Butera hit then when he catches? Why does Mastroianni have to hit?

Ideally for you then, would you prefer to see a game with 9 fielders and 9 different batters? Let the best 9 defenders play the field like in football and have the best 9 batters hit?

As bad as Mastro and Butera are they are still twice as good as your average pitcher, I think that fact is getting lost in this comparison as it was when Ben was making it.

 

For me I like the DH because it doesn't pretend pitchers are anything other than incompetent hitters. It recognizes that making them bat is forcing them into a situation in which they are thoroughly overmatched. And pitchers have been badly overmatched for over 50 years. This isn't some new thing brought about by sports specialization. It's just common sense: it's a rare enough gift to throw 95 much less be able to hit 95 with any consistency. It's not ever going to happen enough to mark pitchers a competent group as a whole. It just won't.

 

No sane advocate for pitchers batting has ever advocated hitters pitching for a reason: they know they are so incapable that it would hurt the game. Yet the same problem exists for pitchers in this case, we've just grown so accustomed to this arrangement we seem to miss this fact.

[GACbaseball]

As bad as Mastro and Butera are they are still twice as good as your average pitcher, I think that fact is getting lost in this comparison as it was when Ben was making it.

For me I like the DH because it doesn't pretend pitchers are anything other than incompetent hitters. It recognizes that making them bat is forcing them into a situation in which they are thoroughly overmatched. And pitchers have been badly overmatched for over 50 years. This isn't some new thing brought about by sports specialization. It's just common sense: it's a rare enough gift to throw 95 much less be able to hit 95 with any consistency. It's not ever going to happen enough to mark pitchers a competent group as a whole. It just won't.

No sane advocate for pitchers batting has ever advocated hitters pitching for a reason: they know they are so incapable that it would hurt the game. Yet the same problem exists for pitchers in this case, we've just grown so accustomed to this arrangement we seem to miss this fact.

I never said pitchers were good at hitting, I know they suck and I've conceded several times that they typically give away 2 at bats per game.

 

I just prefer the tactical side of the game that comes out more in the National League, even if that means sacrificing one run every fourth game (AL runs per game average last year=4.38 vs. NL=4.11). To me, a 0.27 difference in runs per game is worth the extra mind game that goes on with double switches, when to pinch hit for a pitcher, how to manage your bullpen knowing the pitcher spot is coming up, etc.

 

I'm curious if you think the game would be better if there were 9 different fielders and batters every game to have the best possible matchups every at bat?

[DaveW]

So if they decide to actually wise up and put the DH in the NL, how many years "notice" will they give teams? To immediately implement it would put some teams at a disadvantage IMO, maybe a 2 to 3 year notice would suffice?

[GACbaseball]

I would imagine they would work it into the new CBA and make it effective for the 2017 season. As long as they give everyone a full offseason to address the need for another hitter, it shouldn't be too big of a problem

[nicksaviking]

 

 

These kids don't stop hitting because they're realizing at 11 years old that they have a major league future as a pitcher. They're not hitting because the DH has pushed its way down all the way to youth baseball, and by that point, pitchers no longer hit for themselves. With most colleges and high schools also employing the DH, a youth that is a pitcher will not have hit on the day he pitches for over a decade by the time he gets to the major leagues. He very well may play another position as typically the guys good enough to make it to the majors are the best of the best and are studs at other positions as well in high school and sometimes even in college. However, they haven't had to have the game preparation of picking up a bat in between innings of pitching. That is a big thing to get back used to as a pitcher. I had one summer where I didn't hit for myself, and it is a big change mentally.

 

 

Specializing in youth sports is bad, but I'm not sure what youth leagues you have in your area, but from what I can tell, if the pitchers are good hitters, they are going to hit. Even in the youth leagues where there is a DH option, coaches aren't going to leave their best hitter on the bench just because he's a pitcher. Many of the guys who can both pitch and hit don't have to make that choice until they are drafted by a MLB team, perhaps some colleges expect specialization, but not all, and certainly, we see tons of HS kids drafted where the talk is whether they will start their professional career as a hitter or a pitcher. Both Byron Buxton and Aaron Hicks fall into this category.

 

Which brings up the matter that even in the AL, the DH is still optional. If a pitcher can hit, or strategy calls for it, the pitcher can hit. This is not an option that is off the table, simply there is an incentive in place to put your best team on the field. Not taking that option is generally doing a disservice to your team and your fans, but it is an option.

[TheLeviathan]

I'm curious if you think the game would be better if there were 9 different fielders and batters every game to have the best possible matchups every at bat?

I prefer the DH model as optimal. It's the most realistic about athleticism and how to have the best play possible of the game.

 

Having pitchers hit is deliberately creating mismatches in which someone competent gets to face someone woefully overmatched and incompetent several times a game. And, again, any extra "strategy" is largely overblown. It's a robotic response to the same situations that happen every game.

[GACbaseball]

I prefer the DH model as optimal. It's the most realistic about athleticism and how to have the best play possible of the game.

Having pitchers hit is deliberately creating mismatches in which someone competent gets to face someone woefully overmatched and incompetent several times a game. And, again, any extra "strategy" is largely overblown. It's a robotic response to the same situations that happen every game.

To me, it's not overblown or robotic. Not all teams do it the same way and an individual team doesn't do it the same every time.

Also, having 9 DHs would be the most realistic about athleticism. Why force the White Sox to have to play one of Jose Abreu or Avisail Garcia in the field? To have the best play possible of the game, wouldn't it make sense to have someone in the field for them so they can focus on hitting?

 

I understand your point about not preferring to see pitchers hitting, and respect that. I know that the DH is inevitable and will be fine with it when it comes. I'm just waiting for an acknowledgment that an opposing viewpoint can be valid, not just woeful and overblown. And in the meantime, stirring the pot a little more

[Dman]

 

To me, it's not overblown or robotic. Not all teams do it the same way and an individual team doesn't do it the same every time.
Also, having 9 DHs would be the most realistic about athleticism. Why force the White Sox to have to play one of Jose Abreu or Avisail Garcia in the field? To have the best play possible of the game, wouldn't it make sense to have someone in the field for them so they can focus on hitting?

I understand your point about not preferring to see pitchers hitting, and respect that. I know that the DH is inevitable and will be fine with it when it comes. I'm just waiting for an acknowledgment that an opposing viewpoint can be valid, not just woeful and overblown. And in the meantime, stirring the pot a little more

 

For me personally I wouldn't mind 9 DH's.  I like to see the best matchup's possible.  To me it creates more excitement.  More opportunities for things to happen.  I don't think baseball would do it or the players association as it would rearrange the salary structure.  Players would have to make less to accommodate potentially another 9 players.

 

The rules can change and it can create other types of strategy, excitement and or enjoyment.  Maybe allow for a double DH.  Have the option to DH for one of your best defensive players who can't hit.  Do a pitch clock.  That would create all kinds of new strategies and keep the game moving.  i think there are lot's of things they could do to spice up the game.

 

I don't think the game has to stay stuck in nostalgia.  Let it evolve and move forward to make it more interesting.

[GACbaseball]

For me personally I wouldn't mind 9 DH's.  I like to see the best matchup's possible.  To me it creates more excitement.  More opportunities for things to happen.  I don't think baseball would do it or the players association as it would rearrange the salary structure.  Players would have to make less to accommodate potentially another 9 players.

 

The rules can change and it can create other types of strategy, excitement and or enjoyment.  Maybe allow for a double DH.  Have the option to DH for one of your best defensive players who can't hit.  Do a pitch clock.  That would create all kinds of new strategies and keep the game moving.  i think there are lot's of things they could do to spice up the game.

 

I don't think the game has to stay stuck in nostalgia.  Let it evolve and move forward to make it more interesting.

That's really intriguing. I'm sure many football fans thought it was crazy for players to specialize on offense or defense at one point, too.

I enjoy being nostalgic, however, and while that may make the game less entertaining for most people, I prefer the game to continue to resemble the game that I played when I was younger. If the game changes, I'm not going to stop watching, but just my preference!

[TheLeviathan]

 

To me, it's not overblown or robotic. Not all teams do it the same way and an individual team doesn't do it the same every time.
Also, having 9 DHs would be the most realistic about athleticism. Why force the White Sox to have to play one of Jose Abreu or Avisail Garcia in the field? To have the best play possible of the game, wouldn't it make sense to have someone in the field for them so they can focus on hitting?

I understand your point about not preferring to see pitchers hitting, and respect that. I know that the DH is inevitable and will be fine with it when it comes. I'm just waiting for an acknowledgment that an opposing viewpoint can be valid, not just woeful and overblown. And in the meantime, stirring the pot a little more

 

Look, where the viewpoint is valid comes down to years of viewing it that way and personal preference.  If the end of your argument was "I just like it like that".  Well, then, to each their own.  I prefer hockey to basketball but that doesn't make it so.

 

If, however, I dabble into justifying my belief beyond that I'm subjecting it to critical examination.  Most of the time how managers respond to pitchers batting stays pretty universal.  Just like many things in sports people tend to copy the status quo.  So it's not like we see a lot of innovative approaches to it.  So I don't really buy there is a lot of actual strategy going on.  

 

As for the 9 DHs...you're probably right.  That would be a logical continuation of my point.  If it came down to offensive specialists vs. defensive specialists I wouldn't be opposed to it at all.  Give teams the option to field whomever they want for both, mix and match your expanded roster however you want, have guys play both ways - that'd all be fine with me.  As long as the goal is to have the sport played at an elite level.

[GACbaseball]

Look, where the viewpoint is valid comes down to years of viewing it that way and personal preference.  If the end of your argument was "I just like it like that".  Well, then, to each their own.  I prefer hockey to basketball but that doesn't make it so.

 

If, however, I dabble into justifying my belief beyond that I'm subjecting it to critical examination.  Most of the time how managers respond to pitchers batting stays pretty universal.  Just like many things in sports people tend to copy the status quo.  So it's not like we see a lot of innovative approaches to it.  So I don't really buy there is a lot of actual strategy going on.  

 

As for the 9 DHs...you're probably right.  That would be a logical continuation of my point.  If it came down to offensive specialists vs. defensive specialists I wouldn't be opposed to it at all.  Give teams the option to field whomever they want for both, mix and match your expanded roster however you want, have guys play both ways - that'd all be fine with me.  As long as the goal is to have the sport played at an elite level.

Is there any strategy at all in sports then? Pitchers copy the status quo by throwing fastballs when behind in the count, managers pinch hit for weak hitting players, and pinch run when they need a stolen base. The whole sport is basically a routine because everyone attempts to do the same thing in every situation

[TheLeviathan]

Im not sure guys pitch the same way every time in the same sense of pinch hitting for pitchers.  My time watching the Cubs and Brewers regularly didnt leave me feeling like any kind of radical strategy was happening.  Felt like getting a lefty to face a lefty sort of routine.

[Physics Guy]

I think the time has come for the two leagues to play by the same rules. It may be quaint to have those differences during the regular season, but it is utterly distasteful to me that the rules change in the middle of the World Series, depending on which stadium the game is played in. Since MLBPA will never allow for the removal of the DH, it is probably inevitable that the NL adopt the DH.

 

It seems like much of the discussion here is an attempt to sway the other side. Both sides seem firmly entrenched in their preference, and that is what it is, a preference. It's about a style of play and which style you prefer. My preference is the DH. I don't enjoy watching pitchers hit in general. Of course there are exceptions.

 

I will add two points to the discussion. Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anybody has mentioned protecting pitchers from injury. Adam Wainright last year comes to mind. With the HUGE contracts being thrown at FA pitchers these days, I would hate to see my team's pitcher on the DL because he was hurt running bases.

 

My other point has to do with the argument that everyone who has a glove should have to hit. Many used analogies to basketball to support their argument, but I think comparing a pitcher to a goalie is the best analogy. A pitcher's value to the team's defense is exponentially more important to their team than any other position, much like a goalie. Just like a goalie only plays defense (yes, they occasionally get an assist), why not let pitchers focus on pitching and not worry about hitting?

[The Wise One]

 

 

 

I sure wish the American League would have had the ability to put aside their bigotry and integrated rather than changing rules of the game and led us to this point, but it's where we're at, and now, I do think you have to have one consistent rule, and with the MLBPA, that won't be getting rid of well-paid DHs.

In the mid 60's the two leagues were nearly even in percentages of players of African heritage by a SABR study.  The  difference in Win Shares only means the NL signed a few better players, not that one league is more racist than another.  Heck, both leagues have a team with a Native American nickname and there is nothing in the indigenous people's history to baseball.  That one league is more racist than another is laughable

[biggentleben]

In the mid 60's the two leagues were nearly even in percentages of players of African heritage by a SABR study. The difference in Win Shares only means the NL signed a few better players, not that one league is more racist than another. Heck, both leagues have a team with a Native American nickname and there is nothing in the indigenous people's history to baseball. That one league is more racist than another is laughable

Laughable to you, but certainly not in the eyes of many fans across the country who felt the "star" players of color were in the National League. I think it's laughable to think you could statistically measure the perception of the nation, especially the African American community.

[The Wise One]

 

Laughable to you, but certainly not in the eyes of many fans across the country who felt the "star" players of color were in the National League. I think it's laughable to think you could statistically measure the perception of the nation, especially the African American community

By 1965 the statistics show there were as many black players in each league. So the perception that one league is more racist than the other then is inaccurate.  One holds onto a perception long after the situation changes.   The alternative is that if  you are not a star player and black, you do not count.

[USAFChief]

In the mid 60's the two leagues were nearly even in percentages of players of African heritage by a SABR study. The difference in Win Shares only means the NL signed a few better players, not that one league is more racist than another. Heck, both leagues have a team with a Native American nickname and there is nothing in the indigenous people's history to baseball. That one league is more racist than another is laughable

Thank you.

 

I can't believe it's taken more than 100 posts for someone to call out this ridiculous "DH is due to racism" theory.

 

Good lord.

[laloesch]

 

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.

 

 

I have to reply to this post.  Not only is it is factually inaccurate it's just as racist and disparaging as your claims that the AL added the DH because they couldn't handle African Americans playing in the NL.  The NL had a small advantage in numbers in the early days of integration but that percentage grew and peaked in the 1970's.  

 

However, that did not stop Mantle's Yankees (mostly Caucasian up until the early 60's) from winning 7 world series titles beginning in the early 50's.  Not only is the comment about "talent disparity" where you are inferring that African Americans are superior athletes covertly racist it's inaccurate. 

 

The NL was better at recruiting African Americans but also star players which was partly due to the geographic locations of those franchises.  The number of African Americans has been steadily declining since.  

 

The rest of the post, propaganda.