Has anyone else started to soften up to the DH?

[Jehrico]

The only really compelling argument for the DH is that it prevents people like Dusty Baker from overmanaging games.

This is great if Dusty is your manager, not so if you're playing against him.

[Jehrico]

Bring on the DH. Watching almost every pitcher in the National League make an automatic out is stupid. Watching dudes like Hill and Randy Johnson hit because they have to is basically a joke. I can't understand why anyone likes it. Tradition for the sake of tradition is lame.

 

It isn't that, it is the fact we like the chess match of the NL, where overall talent is important and the manager plays a hand in the games outcome, compared to the the AL that demands barely anything out of the manager and reduces one player to knowing only one skill.

 

Most "chess match" decisions in baseball are 51/49 type decisions. There are very few, if any, game-changing decisions based on matchups.

I wasn't referring to matchups. I was referring to when it's the 12th inning, and you're down to your next to last or last reliever or you have no pinch hitters left because of the quick double switches that were pulled during the 7th-9th innings while the game is looking like one that could possibly go 18+.

[chuckywang]

i bet you prefer Arena Football to the NFL too

 

Between AFL and NFL, the NFL is the one that has the best players performing at the skills they are paid for.

 

Between NL and AL, it's the AL that has the best players performing at the skills they are paid for.

 

Players in the NFL use too much energy and get punished too much for them to be able to play both offense and defense. AFL can do it because it's a 50 yard field.

If this weren't the case, I'd think we would see NFL players play both sides of the ball.

[Jehrico]

The other part of that argument " I don't want to see a pitcher K or bunt" ignores the reality of crappy hitting MI or C that play for some AL teams who do a lot of bunting or striking out.

 

That's some ugly equivocation. Bad-hitting MI or Cs are nowhere near the level of pitchers.

Not really. There's plenty of back up MIFs and Cs that can barely hit 200-220. There's plenty of pitchers that can hit at least .230 out there.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The other part of that argument " I don't want to see a pitcher K or bunt" ignores the reality of crappy hitting MI or C that play for some AL teams who do a lot of bunting or striking out.

 

That's some ugly equivocation. Bad-hitting MI or Cs are nowhere near the level of pitchers.

Not really. There's plenty of back up MIFs and Cs that can barely hit 200-220. There's plenty of pitchers that can hit at least .230 out there.

 

Mike Hampton .242 .292 .354

Rey Ordonez .246 .289 .310

 

Ouch.

[Soul]

Bring on the DH. Watching almost every pitcher in the National League make an automatic out is stupid. Watching dudes like Hill and Randy Johnson hit because they have to is basically a joke. I can't understand why anyone likes it. Tradition for the sake of tradition is lame.

 

It isn't that, it is the fact we like the chess match of the NL, where overall talent is important and the manager plays a hand in the games outcome, compared to the the AL that demands barely anything out of the manager and reduces one player to knowing only one skill.

 

Most "chess match" decisions in baseball are 51/49 type decisions. There are very few, if any, game-changing decisions based on matchups.

 

I haven't run the stats but I don't really care. I enjoy the "chess match" aspect, especially in the later innings, and I find AL baseball to be less enjoyable because it has less of it. And I'm too old to change ;)

[badnews]

Why do all of the positions you take have to be demeaning to anyone that doesn't think the same way?

 

Now, extending your logic...

 

Let's expand rosters to 35 guys and put entirely different teams out there for offense and defense. That way, we can sign Barry Bonds to hit and get Chris Walker back to play left for him. Theriot can stay at SS, but we can see Hoffpauir or Fox hit for that position instead. Wouldn't that be much more fun? Just find nine guys who can hit and nine guys who can field. Much more exciting. Why all these requirements for players who can excel at everything? They're too damn hard to find.

 

I don't think I was being demeaning. Look at some of the responses to my posts. Now that is demeaning.

 

"Extending my logic" like that is kind of a cheat. I can just reply as such: let's all go back to the 1883 or what have you version of baseball. That's the only "real" form. Otherwise it's just like pro wrestling. You get the drift.

 

DH = Fake Baseball

 

Anything updated from 19th century baseball = fake baseball.

 

We're letting flawed athletes (ie: no glove) replace other flawed ballplayers (ie: can't hit) and its BS.

 

It's BS because... you say so? Only you have the One True Vision for baseball? Hmm.

 

How often does a manager's use of his bullpen and the doubleswitch impact who wins games? I would say that a majority of extra inning games are definitely impacted by the manager's use of the pen and bench. The bench doesn't go nearly as quickly in the AL due to the DH and the lack of double switches, like we saw in the Pittsburgh series.

 

And that is endlessly fascinating stuff. The Rangers-Blue Jays extra innings game I watched was more entertaining than that.

 

i bet you prefer Arena Football to the NFL too

 

Had to bring in some personal jab into this, eh? Falling back on that old crutch? Well, if it's not 19th century pure baseball to me than it's just Arena League crap to me as well. Hell, it also became more Arena League when they lowered the mound and such.

 

That argument isn't going to work. It's too easily turned back upon you.

 

The "I'd rather watch Travis Haffner, Frank Thomas, David Ortiz" argument ignores the fact that these guys could all play somewhere else 1st base/ LF if they had too.

 

Frank Thomas? Huh.

 

It isn't that, it is the fact we like the chess match of the NL, where overall talent is important and the manager plays a hand in the games outcome, compared to the the AL that demands barely anything out of the manager and reduces one player to knowing only one skill.

 

Except that's a lie and a myth. What chess match? Most of you just make this all up with moves that aren't interesting, diverting, or anything more than utterly routine.

 

I haven't run the stats but I don't really care. I enjoy the "chess match" aspect

 

The chess match aspect that doesn't actually exist anywhere but in people's imaginations? Ah yes, that double switch, that's like watching Deep Blue vs. Kasparov, I'm just stunned at the amount of strategy going on there.

[CubColtPacer]

Bring on the DH. Watching almost every pitcher in the National League make an automatic out is stupid. Watching dudes like Hill and Randy Johnson hit because they have to is basically a joke. I can't understand why anyone likes it. Tradition for the sake of tradition is lame.

 

It isn't that, it is the fact we like the chess match of the NL, where overall talent is important and the manager plays a hand in the games outcome, compared to the the AL that demands barely anything out of the manager and reduces one player to knowing only one skill.

 

Most "chess match" decisions in baseball are 51/49 type decisions. There are very few, if any, game-changing decisions based on matchups.

 

I haven't run the stats but I don't really care. I enjoy the "chess match" aspect, especially in the later innings, and I find AL baseball to be less enjoyable because it has less of it. And I'm too old to change ;)

 

Agreed. I definitely don't enjoy AL baseball nearly as much because of this.

 

I like seeing a pitcher on the mound struggling who is also due up the next inning, and then having to make the decision of 1) trying to ride the pitcher until the end of the inning, 2) put another pitcher in (typically a good reliever to get out of the jam) who is going to only face 1-2 batters, or 3) double switch. I like how on offense when one team has a rally going in the 5th or 6th inning and the pitcher's spot is coming up the team has to decide 1) if the pitcher is going to bat or not (do you sacrifice the pitcher or the potential offense). The other team has to decide if it's worth it to walk the 8th hitter in order to get that pitcher out of the game. I love knowing how typically in any given game multiple pinch hitters are going to be needed for that spot, so managers have to plan carefully to try to put each of their bench players into the best possible spot.

 

I know it likely won't make much difference over a full season, but it's a big part of why I fell in love with baseball and why I continue loving it. I would find it a much more boring game without constantly thinking during ballgames about how all the pieces of the team should fit together to give the team the best chance to win for that particular game situation. The puzzle is constantly changing as the game unfolds, and I find that fascinating.

[Jehrico]

Why do all of the positions you take have to be demeaning to anyone that doesn't think the same way?

 

Now, extending your logic...

 

Let's expand rosters to 35 guys and put entirely different teams out there for offense and defense. That way, we can sign Barry Bonds to hit and get Chris Walker back to play left for him. Theriot can stay at SS, but we can see Hoffpauir or Fox hit for that position instead. Wouldn't that be much more fun? Just find nine guys who can hit and nine guys who can field. Much more exciting. Why all these requirements for players who can excel at everything? They're too damn hard to find.

 

I don't think I was being demeaning. Look at some of the responses to my posts. Now that is demeaning.

 

"Extending my logic" like that is kind of a cheat. I can just reply as such: let's all go back to the 1883 or what have you version of baseball. That's the only "real" form. Otherwise it's just like pro wrestling. You get the drift.

 

DH = Fake Baseball

 

Anything updated from 19th century baseball = fake baseball.

 

We're letting flawed athletes (ie: no glove) replace other flawed ballplayers (ie: can't hit) and its BS.

 

It's BS because... you say so? Only you have the One True Vision for baseball? Hmm.

 

How often does a manager's use of his bullpen and the doubleswitch impact who wins games? I would say that a majority of extra inning games are definitely impacted by the manager's use of the pen and bench. The bench doesn't go nearly as quickly in the AL due to the DH and the lack of double switches, like we saw in the Pittsburgh series.

 

And that is endlessly fascinating stuff. The Rangers-Blue Jays extra innings game I watched was more entertaining than that.

 

i bet you prefer Arena Football to the NFL too

 

Had to bring in some personal jab into this, eh? Falling back on that old crutch? Well, if it's not 19th century pure baseball to me than it's just Arena League crap to me as well. Hell, it also became more Arena League when they lowered the mound and such.

 

That argument isn't going to work. It's too easily turned back upon you.

 

The "I'd rather watch Travis Haffner, Frank Thomas, David Ortiz" argument ignores the fact that these guys could all play somewhere else 1st base/ LF if they had too.

 

Frank Thomas? Huh.

 

It isn't that, it is the fact we like the chess match of the NL, where overall talent is important and the manager plays a hand in the games outcome, compared to the the AL that demands barely anything out of the manager and reduces one player to knowing only one skill.

 

Except that's a lie and a myth. What chess match? Most of you just make this all up with moves that aren't interesting, diverting, or anything more than utterly routine.

 

I haven't run the stats but I don't really care. I enjoy the "chess match" aspect

 

The chess match aspect that doesn't actually exist anywhere but in people's imaginations? Ah yes, that double switch, that's like watching Deep Blue vs. Kasparov, I'm just stunned at the amount of strategy going on there.

You did nothing more in that entire post other than say that you think your opinions are better than everyone elses. You could have just said that in seven words and saved yourself all of the hassle.

[badnews]

You did nothing more in that entire post other than say that you think your opinions are better than everyone elses. You could have just said that in seven words and saved yourself all of the hassle.

 

Well, you could've actually read my post instead of just quoting and grasping around for something to lash out again, but what are you going to do. It wasn't much of a hassle to post that.

 

Most posts on message boards are simply "My opinion is better than yours." So you have both pointed out the obvious while ignoring several statements of mine that were clearly not in that category.

 

I can understand that you disagree but you're just kicking dirt around, not even talking baseball.

[badnews]

Agreed. I definitely don't enjoy AL baseball nearly as much because of this.

 

I like seeing a pitcher on the mound struggling who is also due up the next inning, and then having to make the decision of 1) trying to ride the pitcher until the end of the inning, 2) put another pitcher in (typically a good reliever to get out of the jam) who is going to only face 1-2 batters, or 3) double switch.

 

I don't enjoy such things. I don't see what pleasure there is to be derived from it. I could go so far as to say it would be like enjoying wondering what color pen a manager is going to use to fill out the lineup. Most of the time the manager tries to go with the pitcher, but if the pitcher craps out too much, then he goes with the reliever eventually. At least that is what happens in 95% of the games I've watched. I'm not exactly on the edge of my seat like: "Oooooh! Is the pitcher going to make it to the end of the inning? I can't bear to look!"

 

I like how on offense when one team has a rally going in the 5th or 6th inning and the pitcher's spot is coming up the team has to decide 1) if the pitcher is going to bat or not (do you sacrifice the pitcher or the potential offense).

 

This happens like once every 100 games I watch. Even so, why should I care? Again, we're talking about routine moves that people are over-glamorizing.

 

I love knowing how typically in any given game multiple pinch hitters are going to be needed for that spot,

 

I know. Seeing a pinch hitter is an amazing sight, like seeing a bald eagle in a 500 year old old growth western hemlock.

 

I would find it a much more boring game without constantly thinking during ballgames about how all the pieces of the team should fit together to give the team the best chance to win for that particular game situation. The puzzle is constantly changing as the game unfolds, and I find that fascinating.

 

Most of which rarely happens in the ways you say, or happens in other ways in the AL as well.

 

I don't know. Call me crazy but I don't derive that much joy from petty, routine decisions. I don't understand the thinking of those who do either. Do you guys get bursts of orgasmic pleasure from seeing a double switch? Do you jump out of your chair, elbow your buddy and shout "Holy CRAP. Did you just see that double switch? UN-****-INGBELIEVABLE."

 

I don't understand this worship of the double switch that makes people *loathe* the AL.

 

Here's what else I don't care for:

 

- The obnoxious elitism that is pervasive among those who like the NL better. Like Mr. Arena Football. "I likes my locomotives steam-powered, my cigarettes filterless, my coffee black, and my baseball without DHes." Most of it is just reactionary. "The AL rules are bad because that's not the way things have always been." Reactionary.

 

- Misuse of the term "chess match." In a chess match, each move requires a countermove. In many of the situations describe, there is no corresponding countermove that needs to be made. So what's a chess match that has no moves in response to other moves? Simple. That's not a chess match.

 

- I don't like pitchers getting injured doing what isn't their primary job. I don't like guys like Russ Ortiz making a career out of walking guys until he got to the pitcher and got out of a jam. I like how the AL doesn't leave as big of a dead zone for pitchers to relax in like the NL.

 

And yeah, I like seeing lumbering oxes get to hit. Which, according to the elitists, is against The Bible and Jesus and makes you a Philistine.

[Guest]

I don't mind the DH but its absurd that the two leagues have different rules. And since I'd prefer no DH slightly more than the DH, I'm on the side of getting rid of the DH.

 

But the leagues having the same rules is the most important part.

[CoolHandLuke]

I don't mind the DH but its absurd that the two leagues have different rules. And since I'd prefer no DH slightly more than the DH, I'm on the side of getting rid of the DH.

 

But the leagues having the same rules is the most important part.

 

Like I have said before, this is the correct opinion!

[hardcorecubfan]

i bet you prefer Arena Football to the NFL too

 

Between AFL and NFL, the NFL is the one that has the best players performing at the skills they are paid for.

 

Between NL and AL, it's the AL that has the best players performing at the skills they are paid for.

 

Does that include the manager?

[loukycub]

question:

 

for those who favor the dh or favor both leagues having one set of rules, do you then support merging both leagues and just have one league with 6 or 8 geographical divisions? it makes sense because one of the main reasons for having both leagues is because of the dh. if there is a uniform rule why bother?

 

with no real rule preventing this how would fans feel about being in a division with the white sox, twins, brewers, cardinals, and brewers?

 

and by the way, even though i don't watch the nfl, i don't see much of a reason to have two conferences with teams in the same region and not in the same division.

[brinoch]

I really don't enjoy being called a reactionary because I prefer pitchers hitting to having a DH.

[Soul]

I haven't run the stats but I don't really care. I enjoy the "chess match" aspect

 

The chess match aspect that doesn't actually exist anywhere but in people's imaginations? Ah yes, that double switch, that's like watching Deep Blue vs. Kasparov, I'm just stunned at the amount of strategy going on there.

 

So it's in my imagination but you just came up with an example yourself? How does that work?

 

I get that you don't care about it. I do.

[Derwood]

i think have poor fielding sluggers on the field is great fun (see: Barry Bonds, Adam Dunn, Ryan Braun)

[bcl412]

I don't mind the DH but its absurd that the two leagues have different rules. And since I'd prefer no DH slightly more than the DH, I'm on the side of getting rid of the DH.

 

But the leagues having the same rules is the most important part.

 

Like I have said before, this is the correct opinion!

 

I would most love the leagues to have the same rules now that they have been merged for a long time. I do think that the DH does make the game artificial and feel more like amateur baseball but I wouldn't lose sleep in the NL instituted it.

[jersey cubs fan]

and by the way, even though i don't watch the nfl, i don't see much of a reason to have two conferences with teams in the same region and not in the same division.

 

You mean just like baseball? The NFL is like that because the AFL and NFL were two seperate leagues, and when they merged they went to two conferences.

[brinoch]

I think that it's important that the 9 players selected to play each day participate in both hitting and defense.

[biittner77]

That argument isn't going to work. It's too easily turned back upon you.

 

 

Quote:

The "I'd rather watch Travis Haffner, Frank Thomas, David Ortiz" argument ignores the fact that these guys could all play somewhere else 1st base/ LF if they had too.

 

 

Frank Thomas? Huh.

 

So you're saying that there are zero teams that would trade Frank Thomas offense for his bad defense at 1st base? The easiest position on the field? The #1 position for hiding a guy that can hit but can't field or run a lick?

 

Really?

[jersey cubs fan]

That argument isn't going to work. It's too easily turned back upon you.

 

 

Quote:

The "I'd rather watch Travis Haffner, Frank Thomas, David Ortiz" argument ignores the fact that these guys could all play somewhere else 1st base/ LF if they had too.

 

 

Frank Thomas? Huh.

 

So you're saying that there are zero teams that would trade Frank Thomas offense for his bad defense at 1st base? The easiest position on the field? The #1 position for hiding a guy that can hit but can't field or run a lick?

 

Really?

 

The Big Hurt hasn't been all that special the past 1+ seasons. So I'm not sure why anybody cares whether or not they can still see him play. However, there are currently 12 teams with an OPS below 750 out of their 1B position. There were 14 teams that finished 2007 with a sub 800 OPS out of 1B. I'd assume many of them would be more than happy to have Thomas replace their 1B production, regardless of defense, even though he's off to a slow start.

[MPrior]

Badnews, I'm sure there is a case to be made here, but you're sure not making it very well. You are, as Tim already pointed out, attempting at every turn to demean those who disagree with you, even on issues that are ENTIRELY matters of opinion, such as this one:

 

I don't enjoy such things. I don't see what pleasure there is to be derived from it. I could go so far as to say it would be like enjoying wondering what color pen a manager is going to use to fill out the lineup. Most of the time the manager tries to go with the pitcher, but if the pitcher craps out too much, then he goes with the reliever eventually. At least that is what happens in 95% of the games I've watched. I'm not exactly on the edge of my seat like: "Oooooh! Is the pitcher going to make it to the end of the inning? I can't bear to look!"

 

Not only is your post dripping with condescension and hyperbole, you're basically telling someone that the fact that they enjoy something that you don't enjoy is stupid and inferior. What does that contribute to any discussion of the value of the DH? And, as a side note, in the situation above, I'd be willing to bet that the manager either stays with the pitcher or eventually goes to reliever a whopping 100% of the time.

 

You also are putting words into people's mouths, dramatically overstating their arguments (which in some cases they never made at all), and ripping them for it:

 

I know. Seeing a pinch hitter is an amazing sight, like seeing a bald eagle in a 500 year old old growth western hemlock.

 

and

 

I don't know. Call me crazy but I don't derive that much joy from petty, routine decisions. I don't understand the thinking of those who do either. Do you guys get bursts of orgasmic pleasure from seeing a double switch? Do you jump out of your chair, elbow your buddy and shout "Holy CRAP. Did you just see that double switch? UN-****-INGBELIEVABLE."

 

and

 

I don't understand this worship of the double switch that makes people *loathe* the AL.

 

and

 

And yeah, I like seeing lumbering oxes get to hit. Which, according to the elitists, is against The Bible and Jesus and makes you a Philistine.

 

You're pretty much stretching others' arguments to the point where they're unrecognizable, and then blasting them for it, in addition to your condescension. You're not helping yourself out here - you've yet to provide anything particularly convincing.

 

Also, there's this:

 

Most of it is just reactionary. "The AL rules are bad because that's not the way things have always been." Reactionary.

 

Very few of the cogent arguments against the DH in this thread have had anything to do with this. It's essentially a strawman argument.

 

 

obnoxious elitism

 

Oh, the irony.

 

Misuse of the term "chess match."

 

So you're getting on people because their metaphor isn't perfect. Few metaphors are. And again, it's entirely irrelevant to the point of the discussion.

 

So for all of your blustering, I've yet to glean anything from your posts other than arrogance, condescension, childish insults, hypocrisy, strawman arguments, and hyperbole, all of which are apparently there because you're having trouble expressing your opinion (which, as far as I can tell, may actually have some merit) in a coherent way.

 

I don't even necessarily disagree with you all that strongly, but it really bothers me when people on this board are such jerks. There's absolutely no good reason to be that way.

 

As far as my feeling on the DH, I agree with Soccer10k. What's most important is that both leagues play by the same rules - and I would prefer that those rules be NL rules (i.e., no DH), but either way is probably fine, as long as they're the same.

[CoolHandLuke]

I know I would choose Doug Mientkiewicz over Frank Thomas.