The DH

[javy knows my name]

Bob's diatribe about the DH got me to thinking. I absolutely agree that Zambrano in the AL would be ridiculous and sad, but I don't share his strong anti-DH feelings. I do think it's crap that some guys never put on a glove in their whole career (Bret Boone, I believe), and others use it to prolong their careers by 5 to 10 years. Also, I'm sure I will hate it much more once Braun ends up on the Yankees.

Vote and discuss.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm fine with it, I'm fine without it, but I'd like to see both confere- I mean leagues play the same rules.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'd prefer to have it done away with, but it's not something I get too worked up about.

[Vanilla Ice]

in before move to polls

[OleMissCub]

The DH was just a gimmick from the 70's like colored baseballs or shorts as uniform pants that happened to catch on. Should be done away with.

[SouthSideRyan]

Bob's diatribe about the DH got me to thinking. I absolutely agree that Zambrano in the AL would be ridiculous and sad, but I don't share his strong anti-DH feelings. I do think it's crap that some guys never put on a glove in their whole career (Bret Boone, I believe), and others use it to prolong their careers by 5 to 10 years. Also, I'm sure I will hate it much more once Braun ends up on the Yankees.

Vote and discuss.

 

I'm guessing you're thinking of Edgar Martinez, not Brett Boone. Though Martinez did play quite a few games at 3B early in his career. Even the DHiest of DHs like Pronk or Frank Thomas put in time in the field.

 

That said, it's an abomination. Bastardization of the game.

[mcgoobs]

Being in favor of the DH is being against the double-switch, which is just wrong.

[JimSorgi]

it's an abomination. Bastardization of the game.

+1

[rocket]

i think the nl should adopt the dh.

[NCCubFan]

In baseball DH should stand for double header. Get rid of the other meaning.

[Post Count Padder]

I really don't care that much, but it is stupid to have it, especially in only one league.

[jersey cubs fan]

It's more than a mild annoyance but less than a total perversion of the game.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

It's more than a mild annoyance but less than a total perversion of the game.

more like a total annoyance or mild perversion?

[OleMissCub]

So much of playing baseball is that you have to play BOTH offense and defense. It'd be like in basketball if there was a rule where the centers could just park in the paint the whole game.

[Rob]

I love the DH... but only in the All-Star game. I don't want to go to an All-Star game and see Pedro Martinez swing a bat.

[OleMissCub]

I love the DH... but only in the All-Star game. I don't want to go to an All-Star game and see Pedro Martinez swing a bat.

 

That's a good point. I'd be fine with it during exhibitions, etc.

[NCCubFan]

It'd be like in basketball if there was a rule where the centers could just park in the paint the whole game.

Or hockey if there were a rule that a player could be parked at the net the entire game. :D

[RedFlash]

I'm fine with the DH, really. It's not a "bastardization" of baseball (moving the Brewers to the NL, was a bigger bastardization, IMO, hehe) of baseball. I do agree that the DH means teams can get lazy with developing players as complete players, not just offensive players, but other then that, I have no problem with the DH.

 

But IMO, to counter the DH rules in the AL, AL ballparks should be made bigger, then NL parks. I say 370 down the lines, 450 to straight away center, and 400 in the gaps. If AL has the DH, then teams in the AL MUST move their fense back.

[MPrior]

I'm not necessarily a traditionalist, but something about each player playing offense and defense is appealingly simple, so I wish they'd get rid of the DH. The players would never allow it, though.

 

The bigger issue at hand, though, is that one league has it while the other doesn't, and it really does constitute an advantage, and I believe it's a large part of the reason that the AL is so much better than the NL.

 

For one, an AL GM has a greater pool of players from which he could reasonably build his team, because of the many hitters who are good enough to hit, but not really to play the field - additionally, these "extra" hitters are often very good ones. How many times do we say of a player "he belongs in the AL as a DH"? If that's true even half the time, it follows that the players in the AL will be better on average.

 

Secondly, AL GMs have more roster flexibility, because they don't have to worry as much about redundant players. The Cubs, for example, would never go out and pick up an available first baseman, because we have Derrek Lee, who plays nearly every day and is awesome. However, an AL team with a fantastic 1B might still go and acquire a good 1B and just play him at DH.

 

Lastly, many pitchers MAY prefer the AL because they don't have to bat, run bases, etc. I don't know if that's actually true or not, but it's reasonable to think that it might be the case (obviously, Zambrano would be an exception to this rule).

 

I'm sure there are more things I can think of, but the point is, the DH contributes to league imbalance, and makes the game a little less fun for that reason. So if we're not going to get rid of it, we might as well institute it in the NL.

[CubbieBum]

I'm fine with the DH, really. It's not a "bastardization" of baseball (moving the Brewers to the NL, was a bigger bastardization, IMO, hehe) of baseball. I do agree that the DH means teams can get lazy with developing players as complete players, not just offensive players, but other then that, I have no problem with the DH.

 

But IMO, to counter the DH rules in the AL, AL ballparks should be made bigger, then NL parks. I say 370 down the lines, 450 to straight away center, and 400 in the gaps. If AL has the DH, then teams in the AL MUST move their fense back.

 

I hope you were kidding about moving the fences back. For one only one or two guys on every team have the power to hit 400 foot home runs more than a hand full of times in a season. For instance Sosa and Ramirez can/could hit bombs but D . Lee doesn't really hit bombs but just 370-390 foot home runs. Also offense would only improve by moving the fences back. Think about it. How hard is it to cover the outfield? Imagine it being 50 feet bigger everywhere. Teams would just hit the gaps all game long and have doubles and triples. Heck you could see more inside the park home runs than actual home runs.

 

That said the DH I think is a neat idea but not something that should be used at the MLB level or minors level; college eh. This said as much as I like seeing pitchers hit (and I really do enjoy it because if they get a hit it's like getting a home run) I would more so just like it to be equal. The Dh gives the AL too big of an advantage. No NL teams have a great bat on the bench (well Ward would make a good DH in the AL) meanwhile AL pitchers can't bat but neither can NL pitchers so the AL comes out ahead. The argument against this is why is it all-of-a-sudden a major issue. To me I believe it is the change that AL teams have finally realized its an advantage and are willing to spend the dough to have a good DH. In the past a lot of AL teams didn't seek out DH's they just plugged the best leftover guy into the DH slot after Spring Training.

[javy knows my name]

I'm not necessarily a traditionalist, but something about each player playing offense and defense is appealingly simple, so I wish they'd get rid of the DH. The players would never allow it, though.

 

The bigger issue at hand, though, is that one league has it while the other doesn't, and it really does constitute an advantage, and I believe it's a large part of the reason that the AL is so much better than the NL.

 

For one, an AL GM has a greater pool of players from which he could reasonably build his team, because of the many hitters who are good enough to hit, but not really to play the field - additionally, these "extra" hitters are often very good ones. How many times do we say of a player "he belongs in the AL as a DH"? If that's true even half the time, it follows that the players in the AL will be better on average.

 

Secondly, AL GMs have more roster flexibility, because they don't have to worry as much about redundant players. The Cubs, for example, would never go out and pick up an available first baseman, because we have Derrek Lee, who plays nearly every day and is awesome. However, an AL team with a fantastic 1B might still go and acquire a good 1B and just play him at DH.

 

Lastly, many pitchers MAY prefer the AL because they don't have to bat, run bases, etc. I don't know if that's actually true or not, but it's reasonable to think that it might be the case (obviously, Zambrano would be an exception to this rule).

 

I'm sure there are more things I can think of, but the point is, the DH contributes to league imbalance, and makes the game a little less fun for that reason. So if we're not going to get rid of it, we might as well institute it in the NL.

 

This is an excellent post, even though your first two points are exactly the same. I think the real question here is, and I know this is difficult to evaluate without bias, but if the DH were on our side and not the other, would we prefer it? Would we support its adoption in the AL? The only people to whom I could address this fairly are Sox fans, and I don't really want to talk to them, and even if I did, I wouldn't want to hear what they have to say about baseball.

[rawaction]

I think baseball should allow designated defenders too. Let a guy play defense, but have someone else hit for him. Daryle Ward could hit everyday for Theriot or Pie. Or a designated runner. If Pie doesn't start, he can run for anyone at any base at any time all game long.

 

Both these ideas are as ridiculous as the designated hitter.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I think the DH could be gotten rid of if rosters were expanded by 1-2 players. While some players whose skills are eroding would lose jobs as DHes, the one or two extra players on each roster would more than make up for those lost jobs.

 

It would also have to be a gradual phase out. Allow teams and players time to prepare for its elimination.

[OleMissCub]

I think the DH could be gotten rid of if rosters were expanded by 1-2 players. While some players whose skills are eroding would lose jobs as DHes, the one or two extra players on each roster would more than make up for those lost jobs.

 

This was what Costas (future commissioner of MLB :beg:) was advocating in Fair Ball.

[MPrior]

I'm not necessarily a traditionalist, but something about each player playing offense and defense is appealingly simple, so I wish they'd get rid of the DH. The players would never allow it, though.

 

The bigger issue at hand, though, is that one league has it while the other doesn't, and it really does constitute an advantage, and I believe it's a large part of the reason that the AL is so much better than the NL.

 

For one, an AL GM has a greater pool of players from which he could reasonably build his team, because of the many hitters who are good enough to hit, but not really to play the field - additionally, these "extra" hitters are often very good ones. How many times do we say of a player "he belongs in the AL as a DH"? If that's true even half the time, it follows that the players in the AL will be better on average.

 

Secondly, AL GMs have more roster flexibility, because they don't have to worry as much about redundant players. The Cubs, for example, would never go out and pick up an available first baseman, because we have Derrek Lee, who plays nearly every day and is awesome. However, an AL team with a fantastic 1B might still go and acquire a good 1B and just play him at DH.

 

Lastly, many pitchers MAY prefer the AL because they don't have to bat, run bases, etc. I don't know if that's actually true or not, but it's reasonable to think that it might be the case (obviously, Zambrano would be an exception to this rule).

 

I'm sure there are more things I can think of, but the point is, the DH contributes to league imbalance, and makes the game a little less fun for that reason. So if we're not going to get rid of it, we might as well institute it in the NL.

 

This is an excellent post, even though your first two points are exactly the same. I think the real question here is, and I know this is difficult to evaluate without bias, but if the DH were on our side and not the other, would we prefer it? Would we support its adoption in the AL? The only people to whom I could address this fairly are Sox fans, and I don't really want to talk to them, and even if I did, I wouldn't want to hear what they have to say about baseball.

 

My first two points may seem similar, but they are actually two separate ideas. The first is that the pool of players from which AL teams are constructed is simply larger - there are players like David Ortiz, Travis Hafner, Jim Thome, etc. who, if available, probably wouldn't be signed by an NL team because of their inability to play reasonable defense (and/or health/durability concerns). The second has to do with flexibility - let's say, for whatever reason, that Mark Teixiera becomes available through trade. Obviously, he's a tempting player, but any NL team with an entrenched 1B probably wouldn't trade for him, while every single AL team who didn't have an entrenched 1B AND and an entrenched DH would probably be interested. So there are two different concepts: one, the overall pool of possible players for AL teams is bigger and better, and two, that AL teams will be better able to accommodate quality new players, regardless of their defensive abilities.

 

With respect to your hypothetical, I'd like to think that I'd still favor getting rid of the DH, but I'm not sure how I'd feel if, say, David Ortiz was on our team as the DH. I'm fairly certain that at the very least, I'd be totally amenable to instituting it in the opposite league, purely in the interest of fairness and parity.