Has anyone else started to soften up to the DH?

[SouthSideRyan]

I know I would choose Doug Mientkiewicz over Frank Thomas.

 

That's the point, you gotta take Thomas's defense to get his offense. You have to take Mink's "offense" to get his defense. Just because teams don't evaluate pitcher's offense doesn't mean it doesn't have an effect.

[brinoch]

I know I would choose Doug Mientkiewicz over Frank Thomas.

 

That's the point, you gotta take Thomas's defense to get his offense. You have to take Mink's "offense" to get his defense. Just because teams don't evaluate pitcher's offense doesn't mean it doesn't have an effect.

 

And, hey, if you can find a way to develop/acquire good pitchers who also hit well, you help your team in two ways.

[erik316wttn]

I like the DH, and I find most arguments against it to be pretty reactionary nonsense.

 

A lot of times you see people get misty eyed and talk all about that superior NL "strategy." And then someone comes up with a complete load of crap example. Like: "Your pitcher is throwing a no-hitter in a 0-0 game and comes up with the bases loaded and 1 out in the 8th inning, what do you do?" And I'm thinking to myself "What is this crap? How often in the history of baseball has this happened?"

 

The DH-phobes like to think two things. One, that their reasoning is logical and not emotional, and two, NL baseball is more "pure" than AL baseball when both things are not true. Hey, let's go back to the 1883 version of baseball, that's more "pure."

 

Most pitching changes are utterly routine. The idea that there is some kind of grand chess match of strategy going on in the NL sounds like advertising copy to me. Furthermore, yes, I'd rather watch David Ortiz, Travis Hafner, and so forth, hit without the penalty of watching them have to play defense than to see Doug Davis go 0-43. Micah Owings is swell and all but the novelty factor wears off.

 

In short, the idea that the NL is some grand showcase of strategy is one of the biggest myths that still exists in baseball. When you get right down to the "strategy" that these people wax poetic about, it is usually pretty boring and mundane things. "Whoa! The pitcher used to bat 9th, now that spot is #2! This **** is totally blowing my mind! Now that is STRATERGY."

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.

 

Winner.

[erik316wttn]

What's all this talk of strategy? When the pitcher comes up late in the game, he's replaced with a pinch hitter. Usually one that hits from the opposite side of what the pitcher throws from. Early in the game with someone's on base, the pitcher is usually instructed to make an automatic out in the hopes of moving a runner up one base. In any other scenario, they just flail away at the ball and try not to get hurt. Does an interesting situation come up more than once in every 100 at bats? Is this really all that titillating to people?

 

Let's say it's the bottom of the 6th, the game is tied 1-1. The opposing pitcher has been mowing down your offense all day. In the top of the 7th, 6-7-8 is due up in the order. 6 and 7 make outs. You walk the 8th guy intentionally to force the opposing manager to remove his pitcher. Then say your team scores some runs off the bullpen and wins the game. It was because you were able to force the other manager's hand and force him to act. There is nothing like this in the AL.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

What's all this talk of strategy? When the pitcher comes up late in the game, he's replaced with a pinch hitter. Usually one that hits from the opposite side of what the pitcher throws from. Early in the game with someone's on base, the pitcher is usually instructed to make an automatic out in the hopes of moving a runner up one base. In any other scenario, they just flail away at the ball and try not to get hurt. Does an interesting situation come up more than once in every 100 at bats? Is this really all that titillating to people?

 

Let's say it's the bottom of the 6th, the game is tied 1-1. The opposing pitcher has been mowing down your offense all day. In the top of the 7th, 6-7-8 is due up in the order. 6 and 7 make outs. You walk the 8th guy intentionally to force the opposing manager to remove his pitcher. Then say your team scores some runs off the bullpen and wins the game. It was because you were able to force the other manager's hand and force him to act. There is nothing like this in the AL.

 

First, I don't think there's much chance most managers pull the pitcher in that scenario.

 

Second, there's no guarantee the pitcher pulled wouldn't have given up runs.

 

Third, you might have won that game later anyways.

 

Even if the perfect, imaginary scenario for the anti-DH argument, things fall pretty flat.

[Chocolate Milk]

Hart's spot is coming up to bat. What is Lou going to do? He goes with Fontenot! Oh man how interesting! They'll be talking about this move around water coolers all over Chicago!

 

Sorry, I'm just not seeing it.

 

In my opinion, the only interesting thing about having pitchers bat is the senario when you actually have a pitcher that can swing the bat and the advantage that gives to you. I just don't think it's interesting enough to justify clinging to it.

[Flames24Rulz]

Hart's spot is coming up to bat. What is Lou going to do? He goes with Fontenot! Oh man how interesting! They'll be talking about this move around water coolers all over Chicago!

 

Sorry, I'm just not seeing it.

 

In my opinion, the only interesting thing about having pitchers bat is the senario when you actually have a pitcher that can swing the bat and the advantage that gives to you. I just don't think it's interesting enough to justify clinging to it.

 

Exactly.

[SouthSideRyan]

So in the early 80s when every SS was an abysmal hitter, you guys would've been okay with having DHs for them?

[erik316wttn]

If you can't play the field as well as hit, then you shouldn't be able to play. So what if we can see aging sluggers who can barely move anymore pad their career stats for a few years over in the AL? Like Tim said, if you're going to replace the pitcher, why not have 9 DH's and 9 fielders? Or, you could have guys who can just field and not hit. Just imagine how much longer Ozzie Smith could have been making great defensive plays had this rule been in effect!

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If you can't play the field as well as hit, then you shouldn't be able to play. So what if we can see aging sluggers who can barely move anymore pad their career stats for a few years over in the AL? Like Tim said, if you're going to replace the pitcher, why not have 9 DH's and 9 fielders? Or, you could have guys who can just field and not hit. Just imagine how much longer Ozzie Smith could have been making great defensive plays had this rule been in effect!

 

Slippery slope arguments make for poor logic.

[Soul]

Hart's spot is coming up to bat. What is Lou going to do? He goes with Fontenot! Oh man how interesting! They'll be talking about this move around water coolers all over Chicago!

 

 

It's interesting that every time someone who loves the DH tries to explain why NL baseball sucks, they have to resort to belittling the decision-making process and the strategy that goes along with it by coming up with some hyperbolic scenario and then making a wise crack about it.

 

I find these late-inning decisions in the NL to be fun, and interesting to watch. And yes -- SHOCK -- I enjoy debating about them afterwards. I guess the millions of fans who enjoy this are just a bunch of idiots though, right?

[Geech]

I find these late-inning decisions in the NL to be fun, and interesting to watch. And yes -- SHOCK -- I enjoy debating about them afterwards. I guess the millions of fans who enjoy this are just a bunch of idiots though, right?

 

I'm glad we're all finally on the same page, here.

[Soul]

I find these late-inning decisions in the NL to be fun, and interesting to watch. And yes -- SHOCK -- I enjoy debating about them afterwards. I guess the millions of fans who enjoy this are just a bunch of idiots though, right?

 

I'm glad we're all finally on the same page, here.

 

Cute. I suppose I did leave myself wide open for that.

[rocket]

Hart's spot is coming up to bat. What is Lou going to do? He goes with Fontenot! Oh man how interesting! They'll be talking about this move around water coolers all over Chicago!

 

 

It's interesting that every time someone who loves the DH tries to explain why NL baseball sucks, they have to resort to belittling the decision-making process and the strategy that goes along with it by coming up with some hyperbolic scenario and then making a wise crack about it.

 

I find these late-inning decisions in the NL to be fun, and interesting to watch. And yes -- SHOCK -- I enjoy debating about them afterwards. I guess the millions of fans who enjoy this are just a bunch of idiots though, right?

 

I don't think NL baseball sucks. I don't just see how having the pitcher bat keeps the game pure or any of that other poetic nonsense that's used to describe "real" baseball. Having the DH doesn't detract or enhance the game for me, I love it either way. I'd be fine with the AL getting rid of the DH to keep the leagues the same, but that will never happen. So I'm totally in favor of the NL adopting the DH.

 

Plus, I think it sucks that the Cubs are automatically shut out when it comes to signing sluggers who aren't that great in the field. How badass would it be for Travis Hafner to be a Cub, or David Ortiz?

[erik316wttn]

If you can't play the field as well as hit, then you shouldn't be able to play. So what if we can see aging sluggers who can barely move anymore pad their career stats for a few years over in the AL? Like Tim said, if you're going to replace the pitcher, why not have 9 DH's and 9 fielders? Or, you could have guys who can just field and not hit. Just imagine how much longer Ozzie Smith could have been making great defensive plays had this rule been in effect!

 

Slippery slope arguments make for poor logic.

 

How so?

 

Most of the pro-DH arguments on here are "pitchers are poor hitters. I don't want to see that, so to make the game more exciting, we shall have someone replace them at the plate." Pitchers do not have to bat.

 

So then why not replace a poor fielder with a defensive wizard? Everyone likes to see great plays in the field, right? Wouldn't that make the game more exciting, rather than see someone make an error, or simply let the ball go past for a hit?

 

Also, let me pose another question to those who are anti-DH: If it meant a hard salary cap, would you be willing to trade the DH in the National League?

[Guest]

Hart's spot is coming up to bat. What is Lou going to do? He goes with Fontenot! Oh man how interesting! They'll be talking about this move around water coolers all over Chicago!

 

 

It's interesting that every time someone who loves the DH tries to explain why NL baseball sucks, they have to resort to belittling the decision-making process and the strategy that goes along with it by coming up with some hyperbolic scenario and then making a wise crack about it.

 

I find these late-inning decisions in the NL to be fun, and interesting to watch. And yes -- SHOCK -- I enjoy debating about them afterwards. I guess the millions of fans who enjoy this are just a bunch of idiots though, right?

 

I don't think NL baseball sucks. I don't just see how having the pitcher bat keeps the game pure or any of that other poetic nonsense that's used to describe "real" baseball. Having the DH doesn't detract or enhance the game for me, I love it either way. I'd be fine with the AL getting rid of the DH to keep the leagues the same, but that will never happen. So I'm totally in favor of the NL adopting the DH.

 

Plus, I think it sucks that the Cubs are automatically shut out when it comes to signing sluggers who aren't that great in the field. How badass would it be for Travis Hafner to be a Cub, or David Ortiz?

 

And how nice would it be to not have AL teams be able to sign more players because they can stash them as the DH instead of having to find a position on the field for them. If the AL teams can't sign as many sluggers because there is no DH, it would mean more would be available for NL teams to sign.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If you can't play the field as well as hit, then you shouldn't be able to play. So what if we can see aging sluggers who can barely move anymore pad their career stats for a few years over in the AL? Like Tim said, if you're going to replace the pitcher, why not have 9 DH's and 9 fielders? Or, you could have guys who can just field and not hit. Just imagine how much longer Ozzie Smith could have been making great defensive plays had this rule been in effect!

 

Slippery slope arguments make for poor logic.

 

How so?

 

Most of the pro-DH arguments on here are "pitchers are poor hitters. I don't want to see that, so to make the game more exciting, we shall have someone replace them at the plate." Pitchers do not have to bat.

 

So then why not replace a poor fielder with a defensive wizard? Everyone likes to see great plays in the field, right? Wouldn't that make the game more exciting, rather than see someone make an error, or simply let the ball go past for a hit?

 

Because there is a real, measurable difference in the gap between pitchers and non-pitchers hitting abilities and poor fielders and good fielders' fielding ability.

 

Just because a line is arbitrary doesn't make it completely invalid.

[Guest]

I just wanted to say that MPrior is my favorite poster for today.

[Guest]

If you can't play the field as well as hit, then you shouldn't be able to play. So what if we can see aging sluggers who can barely move anymore pad their career stats for a few years over in the AL? Like Tim said, if you're going to replace the pitcher, why not have 9 DH's and 9 fielders? Or, you could have guys who can just field and not hit. Just imagine how much longer Ozzie Smith could have been making great defensive plays had this rule been in effect!

 

Slippery slope arguments make for poor logic.

 

How so?

 

Most of the pro-DH arguments on here are "pitchers are poor hitters. I don't want to see that, so to make the game more exciting, we shall have someone replace them at the plate." Pitchers do not have to bat.

 

So then why not replace a poor fielder with a defensive wizard? Everyone likes to see great plays in the field, right? Wouldn't that make the game more exciting, rather than see someone make an error, or simply let the ball go past for a hit?

 

Because there is a real, measurable difference in the gap between pitchers and non-pitchers hitting abilities and poor fielders and good fielders' fielding ability.

 

Just because a line is arbitrary doesn't make it completely invalid.

Some slippery slope arguments are real, though. Once you decide it is okay to draw an arbitrary line, who is to say which line is more valid than any other? Why does it make more sense to only replace the pitcher than to allow completely separate offensive and defensive teams? This isn't like basketball where you have to keep the same players on the court at all times. So, just as a serious thought question: based on the arguments for having a DH, why not have completely different players for offense and defense?

[Illini Iceman]

What's all this talk of strategy? When the pitcher comes up late in the game, he's replaced with a pinch hitter. Usually one that hits from the opposite side of what the pitcher throws from. Early in the game with someone's on base, the pitcher is usually instructed to make an automatic out in the hopes of moving a runner up one base. In any other scenario, they just flail away at the ball and try not to get hurt. Does an interesting situation come up more than once in every 100 at bats? Is this really all that titillating to people?

 

Let's say it's the bottom of the 6th, the game is tied 1-1. The opposing pitcher has been mowing down your offense all day. In the top of the 7th, 6-7-8 is due up in the order. 6 and 7 make outs. You walk the 8th guy intentionally to force the opposing manager to remove his pitcher. Then say your team scores some runs off the bullpen and wins the game. It was because you were able to force the other manager's hand and force him to act. There is nothing like this in the AL.

 

Has anything like that ever happened? Intentionally walk the 8th hitter to force the pitcher to the plate?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Some slippery slope arguments are real, though. Once you decide it is okay to draw an arbitrary line, who is to say which line is more valid than any other? Why does it make more sense to only replace the pitcher than to allow completely separate offensive and defensive teams? This isn't like basketball where you have to keep the same players on the court at all times. So, just as a serious thought question: based on the arguments for having a DH, why not have completely different players for offense and defense?

 

They are real in the sense that they are bad arguments, yes. There is a reason they are listed under the classical logical fallacies: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html.

 

 

The reason for the line between the DH and further specialization has been clearly laid out: There is no other position on the field where the balance between run prevention and run creation is completely ignored.

[biittner77]

The reason for the line between the DH and further specialization has been clearly laid out: There is no other position on the field where the balance between run prevention and run creation is completely ignored.

 

I'd say it's pretty close with catchers. Of course it probably won't happen anytime soon but I could see a time when they added a 2nd DH so that Catchers didn't have to hit. Actually that would be a lot more interesting than 1 DH for the pitcher if you allowed the team to choose which position didn't have to hit that day.

[biittner77]

A couple other things. How many AL teams have a full time DH? I don't watch many AL games so I have no idea what teams like KC, Seattle, etc do in this role.

 

2nd question, doesn't the DH favor big market teams? A full time DH gets paid a starter's salary. Smaller market teams you'd have to think wouldn't be able to afford to pay another starter. So teams like Boston and NY get a much better extra player in their lineup that they can stash away from the rest of the league.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The reason for the line between the DH and further specialization has been clearly laid out: There is no other position on the field where the balance between run prevention and run creation is completely ignored.

 

I'd say it's pretty close with catchers. Of course it probably won't happen anytime soon but I could see a time when they added a 2nd DH so that Catchers didn't have to hit. Actually that would be a lot more interesting than 1 DH for the pitcher if you allowed the team to choose which position didn't have to hit that day.

 

Mike Piazza and Jason Kendall say hello. Catcher is a highly defensively prioritized position, sure, but when will we ever see the Mike Piazza of pitchers? A guy who is kept at pitcher because he can be barely functional at the position while providing a big plus bat?

[Soul]

The reason for the line between the DH and further specialization has been clearly laid out: There is no other position on the field where the balance between run prevention and run creation is completely ignored.

 

I'd say it's pretty close with catchers. Of course it probably won't happen anytime soon but I could see a time when they added a 2nd DH so that Catchers didn't have to hit. Actually that would be a lot more interesting than 1 DH for the pitcher if you allowed the team to choose which position didn't have to hit that day.

 

Mike Piazza and Jason Kendall say hello. Catcher is a highly defensively prioritized position, sure, but when will we ever see the Mike Piazza of pitchers? A guy who is kept at pitcher because he can be barely functional at the position while providing a big plus bat?

 

There have been pitchers who put up some pretty good numbers. Look at Gibson's year in 1970, Don Drysdale in '65, Newcombe in '59, '58, '55 (114, 122, 165 OPS+ respectively). I agree it's not going to be like a Piazza, especially since there aren't enough ABs, but the point is valid IMO. Nearly every catcher is offensively weak. The few exceptions don't uproot the general rule, just as the few pitcher exceptions don't. Catcher would be a very logical extension of the DH, and something could easily be seen as viable down the line if the whole league went to a DH format.