Al Yellon
Editor
It's Gotta Be The Hair - May 15
Grant Brisbee
Editor
Tarasco Sauce - May 16
Jeff Sullivan
Editor
Mission Accomplished - May 16
Rob Neyer
National Baseball Editor
Baseball is Unpredictable - May 12
Dan Moore
Contributor
Joey Votto And The Twilight Of The Giant First Basemen - Apr 14
Jason Brannon
Hot Corner Scribe
Len Kasper Has Been Over Into The Future... - May 15
Jim Baker
Contributor
eBay Item Of The Day - May 15
Marc Normandin
Contributor
The Royals And Pitcher Development - May 15
Wendy Thurm
Contributor
On Being Young And Brash In The Social Media Age - May 12
Will the adoption of the DH in the National League be an inevitable result of the Astros' upcoming move to the American League?
Nov 17, 2011 - Sometime Thursday, MLB owners are going to vote on approving the sale of the Houston Astros from Drayton McLane to Jim Crane. This has been quite a long process, but the sale is expected to be approved. As part of this deal, Crane has been given a "discount" -- somewhere around $70 million -- in exchange for agreeing to move the Astros from the NL Central to the AL West.
Yesterday, Marc Normandin examined exactly what kind of team Crane is inheriting and how soon they might contend again.
Today, Jeff Sullivan asked if Astros fans would accept this move. (Answer: after initial complaining, probably.)
But there's one other thing that needs to be mentioned. By moving the Astros to the American League, MLB would be creating two 15-team leagues, each having three divisions of five teams. That sounds wonderful and symmetrical and all, but there's one big problem -- unless you are going to have large blocks of off days and the World Series ending around Thanksgiving, having an odd number of teams in each league means that there would have to be one interleague series at all times.
Which would mean an increase in the number of interleague games. Now, some people are likely saying, "Great!" while others, purists who are still horrified that the leagues aren't completely separate, with league presidents with slicked-back hair and horn-rim glasses and players wearing wool flannels, yell, "No way!"
In 2011, teams played either 15 or 18 interleague games, depending on their division. One proposed schedule for two 15-team leagues goes this way:
18 games against each team in your own division = 72 games
6 games against each other team in your league = 60 games
6 games against each team in one division of the other league = 30 games
That makes 162 games, same as now, and if you think you could get that reduced to the pre-expansion 154, you're fooling yourself. No owner is going to give up the revenue from four home dates. That is the most likely split; the interleague play could be tweaked a bit to keep the "rivalry" games (Cubs/White Sox, Yankees/Mets, Giants/Athletics, etc.), although those would probably be reduced to one series a year instead of two.
Thirty interleague games aren't that many more than the current 15-18, but there's one further rub. American League teams aren't going to want to sit their DH for 15 road games -- nearly 10% of the total schedule -- and be forced to have their pitcher bat.
Which is why I think the universal DH is an inevitable result of this realignment. With two equal-sized leagues playing roughly equivalent schedules, there's no logical reason for having different rules in the leagues, which aren't really "leagues" any more; they're more like the AFC and NFC in pro football.
The DH is nearly 40 years old and was discussed in the 1920s, nearly being adopted in 1929. In 2011, major league pitchers hit .141/.175/.182. No, that's not a typo; that's a .182 slugging percentage. They struck out 1,944 times in 5,096 at-bats -- that's 38.3% of all pitcher at-bats resulting in a K. (That was actually down a bit from 2010, when the K/AB ratio for pitchers was 39.2%.) The occasional Carlos Zambrano, Randy Wolf or Yovani Gallardo notwithstanding, most pitchers are terrible hitters and many of them can't bunt, either. Further, over the last few years, several pitchers have gotten hurt (notably, Jake Peavy in 2009) running the bases. Why risk this?
It makes sense. It could be negotiated as part of the current CBA talks, or be added before the Astros join the AL in 2013 and realignment happens.
As I said, I'm not particularly a fan of the DH. But I think its time has come. We've had 40 years of two leagues operating with different rules; they are no longer separate entities. It's time to make the DH universal in major league baseball, and spare us watching guys like Ted Lilly and Matt Garza flail aimlessly at baseballs ever again.
97 comments
4
Jan 31
25
Jan 24
79
Jan 23
1
Nov 17
Al Yellon:
The Unspoken Letters Regarding The Astros AL Move: 'DH'
97
Nov 17
28
Nov 17
5
Nov 16
Mickey Hatcher, Angels Hitting Coach, Relieved Of Duties
Vance Worley Has 'Soreness', Will Miss Wednesday Start
Justin Morneau Will Be Activated From DL Wednesday
Manny Ramirez Rehab Assignment Will Start Saturday In Albuquerque
Jon Jay Heading To Disabled List; Shane Robinson Recalled
Troy Tulowitzki Day-To-Day With Deep Leg Bruise
Matt Kemp Goes On 15-Day DL With Sore Hamstring
Jeff Niemann Likely Missing 'A Few Months' With Leg Injury
VIDEO: Bryce Harper's First Career Home Run
Torii Hunter Placed On Restricted List Following Son's Arrest
More News »
Comments
Premise is untrue
Having an interleague series every day does not necessitate more interleague play. Whether there is more is another matter, but to imply that more is a requirement is incorrect. You just need one interleague series going on at a time. You could do this with each team playing 3 interleague series per year.
As bad as interleague play is, I much prefer a scenario where there is not a defined “interleague block”, where three weeks in June are hyped. Sprinkle it throughout the season and people stop caring about it so much.
by Mark Armour on Nov 17, 2011 11:33 AM EST reply actions
How would you arrange such a schedule
… with each team playing only nine interleague games?
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 17, 2011 11:43 AM EST up reply actions
Simple: 153 non-interleague games (divided however Selig and co. want), 9 interleague games.
by Phrozen on Nov 17, 2011 12:06 PM EST up reply actions
Easy to type one sentence.
Not quite so easy to arrange in a logical form.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 17, 2011 12:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It shouldn’t matter at all. The point is you don’t need 30 interleague games.
But you could do 18 games times four divisional opponents, eight games times ten non-divisional opponents, nine interleague games and one floating game against whoever to fill in the holes. That would work fine.
Or if you wanted to stick to 18 interleague games, you could do 16 games against four divisional opponents, eight games against ten non-divisional opponents, and 18 interleague games.
That took me like four minutes. Still pretty easy,
by Phrozen on Nov 17, 2011 12:33 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, it took you four minutes to type that.
But have you actually worked out the schedule and logistics?
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 17, 2011 12:35 PM EST up reply actions
Logistics? You mean like scheduling road trips and flights and such? What the hell kind of question is that?
Did you? I mean, I see your proposal up there and all, but I don’t see if you’ll put the Indians on the 757 to Milwaukee or make them ride the DC-3.
And what does it matter? Does everyone who proposes a schedule breakdown have to work “out the schedule and logistics” now?
by Phrozen on Nov 17, 2011 1:11 PM EST up reply actions
To be credible, yes, you do
because otherwise you’re not doing, y’know, a schedule. It takes more than showing your solution works as a math problem, it has to work as a schedule.
by The Ancient Mariner on Nov 17, 2011 1:23 PM EST up reply actions
Okay… so where’s the “schedule and logistics” for this?
You’re telling me I can’t credibly argue with this unless I spend the many man-hours (dozens?) needed to develop and plan the entire MLB schedule? Seriously?
by Phrozen on Nov 17, 2011 1:28 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not saying I have all the logistical answers either.
But it seems to me you’d need more than 18 interleague games per team, in order to have one series at all times.
If you have proof your way works, let’s see it.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 17, 2011 1:32 PM EST up reply actions
It should work fine. Mathematically, you have 162 game-days. Assuming no off-days, that means you need a minimum of 81 interleague games (if you add in off-days that number goes up or down depending on how they are distributed).
To schedule 81 interleague games, each team would need to play 5.4 games, or 12 teams would play six games and the other 18 would play five.
If you schedule 18 interleague games per team, same as now, more or less, then you’re well covered mathematically.
by Phrozen on Nov 17, 2011 1:44 PM EST up reply actions
Mathematically, maybe.
But logistically? What you suggest might wind up with a lot of one-game series.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 17, 2011 1:53 PM EST up reply actions
With five or six games, yeah, but with 18 games, you could easily set up six three-game series, and still have at least one game played every day.
by Phrozen on Nov 17, 2011 2:08 PM EST up reply actions
Only 9 games causes problems for schedule
when you consider that baseball is still going to force the regional rivalries to happen every year.
So you’ll have 1/3 or 2/3 of the interleague games for the Mets be against the Yankees every year, or the Royals against the Cardinals, and the other teams in the division get to avoid those types of teams pretty easily.
@TheRealSoxy
by mcsoxerhoff on Nov 22, 2011 4:59 PM EST up reply actions
Not sure
It might not be possible to arrange such that each team plays precisely the same distribution of division/league matchups. I am sure that your specified scenario is impossible. Your breakdown does not allow for the fact that many series must be four games (teams often schedule seven games per week, not six) unless you allowed series to begin/end on any day (Wednesday-Friday series one week, Sunday-Tuesday the next).
The schedule is not going to be uniform, the math and the constraints do not allow for it.
by Mark Armour on Nov 17, 2011 12:12 PM EST up reply actions
Why do series HAVE to be four games?
You could have all three-game series, if you had every team off either on Monday or Thursday every week. What’s wrong with that?
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 17, 2011 12:19 PM EST up reply actions
Unlikely
If you have six games per week, it would take 27 weeks to play the season, and another half week for the All-Star game. So, if you started on April 1, you would end about October 10. Seasons have been 26 weeks long for the past 25 years or so, and baseball would prefer it was even shorter.
I actually like the idea of having a day off a week (I think the quality of play would improve with more in-season rest). But you would need to reduce the schedule by at least 10 games. My ideal season would be about 144 games, but that ain’t going to happen.
by Mark Armour on Nov 17, 2011 12:24 PM EST up reply actions
Point taken.
I still think you need more interleague games in order to make 15-team leagues work.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 17, 2011 12:36 PM EST up reply actions
You’d only need a minimum of 81 interleague games for two 15-team leagues to work. Less, actually, if you balanced off-days carefully.
by Phrozen on Nov 17, 2011 1:12 PM EST up reply actions
Explain, please.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 17, 2011 1:32 PM EST up reply actions
See above.
by Phrozen on Nov 17, 2011 1:44 PM EST up reply actions
I don't like the DH
can we make it so the DH is used always except for when the Dbacks are playing?
Oh where oh where have my Dbacks gone? Oh where oh where could they be!
by imstillhungry95 on Nov 17, 2011 11:51 AM EST reply actions
I really can’t agree with any of this. The premise is fatally flawed. The DH sucks. Having different sets of rules in each league is not a bad thing.
by Phrozen on Nov 17, 2011 12:08 PM EST reply actions
DH is illogical
q.e.d.
by dramaking on Nov 23, 2011 8:16 PM EST up reply actions
I'd much rather see more games in their own division.
21 games against each team in your own division = 87 games
6 games against each other team in your league = 60 games
3 games against each team in one division of the other league = 15 games
Just rotate Home/Away each year in a 6 year rotation it’ll cover every team.
by ubercubsfan on Nov 17, 2011 12:09 PM EST reply actions
Oops! Math is wrong!
21 games against each team in your own division = 84 games
6 games against each other team in your league = 60 games
3 games against each team in one division of the other league = 15 games+3game town rival=18
by ubercubsfan on Nov 17, 2011 12:11 PM EST up reply actions
This, I like
by GBSimons on Nov 17, 2011 12:21 PM EST up reply actions
Bud can still keep their cross town rival at least one series a year.
Then a year where say the Cubs play ALC, they get a home AND away series. The benefit of this also is you don’t get a majority of your wins outside your own division. You truly make the playoffs based on inter-divisional play.
by ubercubsfan on Nov 17, 2011 12:23 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, this. This is good.
by Phrozen on Nov 17, 2011 12:34 PM EST up reply actions
As a Jays fan
This idea sucks. Think of how you’d like the cubbies to play the Yankees and Red Sox every year knowing that you have to beat at least one of them to have a sniff at the playoffs.
Balanced schedule please.
by siggian on Nov 17, 2011 1:45 PM EST up reply actions
If they balance like you want, might as well get rid of leagues.
Win your division, win your league, when the WS.
by ubercubsfan on Nov 17, 2011 2:30 PM EST up reply actions
Interesting
I am not sure if that number of interleague games would actually make the schedule feasible. Plus, it still maintains interleague schedule inbalance.
How about:
One 4-game series against each team in other league = 60 games
One 3-game, 1 4-game series against each team in other divisions = 70 games
Two 4-game series against teams in own division = 32 games
This would be a much more fair and balanced schedule. Downside is a lot more interleague play and fewer inter-division games. But I think schedule fairness has to be the most important thing.
Perfect world, there would be two more teams added (one to each league), interleague play and wildcard banished, and 4 four-team divisions. But until then, this would do.
by cookiedabookie on Nov 17, 2011 12:46 PM EST up reply actions
In your scenario...
… the Yankees would play the Mariners almost as much as they play the Red Sox.
Fair, maybe, but I doubt the TV networks would like it much.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 17, 2011 12:48 PM EST up reply actions
Doing this would just be wrong.
Where is the incentive to win your own division? May as well do away with divisions and just take best record in each league at the end of a season. 32 games overall in your own division does not show who is the division winner.
by ubercubsfan on Nov 17, 2011 4:39 PM EST up reply actions
Sure it does
You still have to win more than your division mates.
by cookiedabookie on Nov 17, 2011 4:58 PM EST up reply actions
Teams should play a majority of their games in their divisions.
That is what they are battling for, division championship. When they win that, they go against their own league. Therefor, it should be Division>Same League>Interleague.
by ubercubsfan on Nov 17, 2011 9:00 PM EST up reply actions
Pawns aren't powerful as other chess pieces.
Therefore, we should play checkers from now on.
Hey, most catchers are below average at the plate. They should get a designated hitter too! And how about middle infielders?
Or- and bear with me, this is a little crazy- we could keep a modicum of strategy in the game by ditching the DH entirely. Whoa! Expand team rosters to 26 to placate the players union, put Edgar Martinez in the Hall, and otherwise pretend that whole sordid experiment never happened.
Seriously, pitchers get hurt running the bases? That’s actually part of your argument? Are designated hitters gifted with some magically protection that pitchers lack?
11 01 10
Veni Vidi Vixi
by WhereThere'sAWillieThere'sAMays on Nov 17, 2011 12:43 PM EST reply actions 4 recs
No, of course DH's can get hurt running the bases.
I would argue that running the bases is such a small part of a pitcher’s usefulness to a team, that it might be best to simply eliminate it.
Pitchers are crappy hitters; do you really enjoy watching them strike out nearly 40% of the time?
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 17, 2011 12:46 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Do I enjoy watching old fat guys who can't run, field, or throw be allowed on a baseball diamond?
Not really, no.
11 01 10
Veni Vidi Vixi
by WhereThere'sAWillieThere'sAMays on Nov 17, 2011 12:48 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Not all DH's fit that description.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 17, 2011 12:48 PM EST up reply actions
I'll bet "nearly 40%" of them do.
11 01 10
Veni Vidi Vixi
by WhereThere'sAWillieThere'sAMays on Nov 17, 2011 12:50 PM EST up reply actions
Name 'em.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 17, 2011 12:52 PM EST up reply actions
I was under the impression that you agreed with me.
What are your reasons for not caring for the DH, and why do you think that those are no longer valid enough concerns?
11 01 10
Veni Vidi Vixi
by WhereThere'sAWillieThere'sAMays on Nov 17, 2011 1:02 PM EST up reply actions
I've always been a traditionalist.
But the fact is, we cannot have two leagues with different rules, especially when they’re really not different leagues, but more like NFL-style conferences.
Pitchers are lousy hitters. I’d rather see hitters who know how to hit, than, as I said, watch people like Ted Lilly and Matt Garza, who look awful at the plate, attempt to hit.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 17, 2011 1:05 PM EST up reply actions
So, if we can’t have two leagues with different rules (another flawed premise), then why not abolish the DH and be done with it?
As far as awful hitters go, well, there’s no shortage of them. Personally, I’d rather have Cliff Lee at bat than Wilson Valdez in a tight situation.
by Phrozen on Nov 17, 2011 1:17 PM EST up reply actions
No, you really wouldn’t. Lee is a pretty good hitter — for a pitcher. In his career, he has struck out 37% of the time and drawn two walks in 153 PA. His career OPS is .416.
Valdez isn’t a great hitter, but he has a career OPS more than 200 points higher (.621).
It’s the same kind of thinking that says, “Carlos Zambrano hits a lot of HR for a pitcher! Let’s use him as a PH!”
As a PH, Zambrano is 3-for-29 with 14 strikeouts. Why would you keep doing that?
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 17, 2011 1:35 PM EST up reply actions
Well, maybe that was a bad example, then, but from watching them both all year, that’s still my gut (La Russa’d) choice.
by Phrozen on Nov 17, 2011 1:47 PM EST up reply actions
I'd never choose a pitcher above a position player in such a situation.
Ever.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 17, 2011 1:53 PM EST up reply actions
Why not have an 8 man lineup, or a 5 man lineup, if you feel this strongly about it? Why the DH?
by dramaking on Nov 23, 2011 8:24 PM EST up reply actions
You keep repeating those two arguments as though repetition increases their strength.
But A) your first “fact” is an opinion; we’ve had two leagues coexist with different rules for, as you say, 40 years now. And B) that “fact” could as easily be solved by the DH’s elimination as its expansion.
So you have a bad hitter in your lineup. Oh no. Compensating for weakness is an exciting part of the strategy of the game: double-switching, lefty-righty matchups, “pitcher’s spot is due up next inning; can my guy make it through one more out, or do I burn a reliever?” All the things that Ron Washington embarrassed himself attempting in the last two World Serieses.
I would rather not have watched Aaron Rowand chase outside sliders in the dirt for three years, but I’m not calling for a DH for center fielders.
11 01 10
Veni Vidi Vixi
by WhereThere'sAWillieThere'sAMays on Nov 17, 2011 1:33 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I don’t see why this is true. In fact, I think it’s an important part of the identity of MLB. It’s not absolutely critical, sure, but it’s a great way to differentiate it from the other major sports. The internal cohesion of the two leagues is something that no other sport has — a unique thing — and that isn’t bad. At least for me, it also helps increase the intensity of the rivalries (NFL does this well, too, by going with small divisions.)
by Late-era Dugout Convert on Nov 17, 2011 1:52 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Well said
I also completely disagree with Al’s unfounded premise.
"The Helping Phriendly Book it seems contained the ancient secrets of eternal joy and neverending splendor. The trick was to surrender to the flow." Phish - The Lizards
by indakind on Nov 17, 2011 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Why is it unfounded?
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 17, 2011 4:22 PM EST up reply actions
I can’t speak for indakind, but as I see it, we have, for several decades, had just what you said we cannot have. So I think you would need to argue your point that “we cannot have two leagues with different rules” since it isn’t a fact of nature, but a preference, and as such, can’t be accepted without support.
At least for me, I think if you dropped the part I quoted and just used the ‘pitchers can’t hit’ part… well, I’d still disagree that that’s a solid enough reason to universalize the DH, but it seems to me like a stronger argument.
by Late-era Dugout Convert on Nov 17, 2011 4:34 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Fair enough.
Yes, obviously, we have had it for almost 40 years. Doesn’t make it the right thing to do in perpetuity.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 17, 2011 6:11 PM EST up reply actions
Nor does it make it the wrong thing.
And I think if you’ve been doing something for 40 years without problems, you should have a pretty convincing argument to change it. “Pitchers are lousy hitters” isn’t a great one. If your goal is to remove lousy hitters from the game, the logical extreme is to have offensive and defensive lineups (because more wild cards isn’t emulating the NFL enough).
by Darklighter on Nov 17, 2011 6:25 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
And special teams. We need special teams!
by Phrozen on Nov 18, 2011 12:18 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
the DH is unjustified
You can have an 8 man lineup. What’s your justification for the DH? Why shouldn’t the pitcher stand in the box like any other player and risk getting hit?
by dramaking on Nov 23, 2011 8:29 PM EST up reply actions
DH's
I’m not really on either side of this argument, but I wanted to see how many of the DHs fit the criteria (old, can’t run, field or throw) put above (I’m leaving out fat). So, by the DH with the most PAs per team (age from 2011 season, fielding=UZR from the last couple of years, baserunning=BSR, throwing from the Fan Scouting Report):
Angels: Bobby Abreu. Old (37), bad fielder, okay arm, -3.3 baserunning (although he did have 21 SBs and was caught only 5 times). Borderline.
Athletics: Hideki Matsui. Old (37), bad fielder, okay arm, 0.2 baserunning. Fits the criteria.
Mariners: Jack Cust. Old-ish (32), bad fielder, bad arm, -2.5 baserunning. Fits the criteria.
Rangers: Michael Young. Old (34), bad fielder, okay arm, +4.5 baserunning. Doesn’t fit the criteria.
Blue Jays: Edwin Encarnacion. Not old (28), bad fielder, bad arm, +1.7 baserunning. Doesn’t fit the criteria.
Orioles: Vladimir Guerrero. Old (36), bad fielder, good arm, -4.3 baserunning. His arm is probably still good, but he’s such a bad fielder that it doesn’t matter much. Fits the criteria.
Rays: Johnny Damon. Old (37), average fielder, bad arm, -1.1 baserunning. Borderline.
Red Sox: David Ortiz. Old (35), bad fielder, bad arm, -5.4 baserunning. Fits the criteria.
Yankees: Jorge Posada. Old (39), bad fielder, bad arm, -3.4 baserunning. Fits the criteria.
Indians: Travis Hafner. Old (34), bad fielder, bad arm, -2.4 baserunning. Fits the criteria.
Royals: Billy Butler. Not old (25), bad fielder, bad arm, -6.0 baserunning. Does not fit the criteria.
Tigers: Victor Martinez. Old-ish (32), bad fielder, okay arm, -4.6 baserunning. Borderline, leaning toward fitting the criteria.
Twins: Jim Thome. Old (39), bad fielder, data doesn’t really exist for his arm, -2.7 baserunning. Fits the criteria.
White Sox: Adam Dunn. Old-ish (31), bad fielder, bad arm, -4.9 baserunning. Borderline, leaning toward fitting the criteria.
So of the 14 DHs with the most PAs, 7 definitely fit (Thome, Hafner, Posada, Ortiz, Vlad, Cust, Matsui). 4 other are borderline, due to age (Dunn, Martinez) or baserunning (Damon, Abreu). The last 3 do not fit the criteria (Butler, Encarnacion, Young).
This painstaking methodology has come to the important conclusion that over 40% of the DHs in the league are old guys who can’t run, field, or throw! Whether that’s enjoyable to watch is anyone’s guess, but there it is.
by scotterduder on Nov 17, 2011 2:48 PM EST up reply actions
Wow.
This is far more work than my offhand comment deserved. Nice to be right, though!
11 01 10
Veni Vidi Vixi
by WhereThere'sAWillieThere'sAMays on Nov 18, 2011 10:19 PM EST up reply actions
excellent analysis
and it’s one of the reasons that the DH is bad for the sport. nothing against fat or old guys, … I’ll root for an old fat guy any day, but I want to see him play the field. If he can’t hack it, then it’s time for him to retire, make room for a hungry rookie.
by dramaking on Nov 23, 2011 8:36 PM EST up reply actions
Ortiz does
And he’s the most famous DH at the moment. Won an MVP. Wouldn’t even have played a full season if he had to play the field.
by dramaking on Nov 23, 2011 8:31 PM EST up reply actions
What I like about having pitchers hit
is watching a manager sweat it out trying to get one more inning out of his pitcher that is clearly out of gas just because his spot in the batting order is up next inning.
I know I’m in the minority, but that is a big part of baseball strategy that I will miss seeing should the DH be adopted universally.
by Rick Meyer on Nov 17, 2011 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Not to mention the thrill of those few times the pitcher does come through.
Any Giants fan will tell you how crucial Jonathan Sanchez’s triple was against the Padres in Game 162 of 2010.
11 01 10
Veni Vidi Vixi
by WhereThere'sAWillieThere'sAMays on Nov 17, 2011 1:59 PM EST up reply actions
I'm behind this argument
But in the end, im sure we’re all just crying and moaning and we’ll lose out and see the DH in every major league game.
Love is the most important thing in the world. But baseball is pretty close. - Unknown
by RarefiedAir9 on Nov 17, 2011 6:28 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
I agree that it's time to permanently institute the DH.
The competitive advantageness to AL teams that have heavy money invested in a DH is an issue. I’m largely thinking of the Royals – Billy Butler had to sit during almost all of the games played in NL parks this year (I mean, he could play 1B, but they’re not going to pull Eric Hosmer).
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!
by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 17, 2011 12:46 PM EST reply actions
Well, don't invest so much money...
in a guy who can’t really play baseball.
by azshadowwalker on Nov 17, 2011 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
It's Time for All DH, All The Time
Not only is it awful watching most pitchers try not to strike out, but most are terrible baserunners when they’re NOT getting hurt, and the idea that your ace could go down, costing you a playoff spot et cetera, because he slid poorly into second is just dumb. Pitching has become such a delicate, invaluable part of the game, and exposing it to the same risk as other positions, which are NOWHERE NEAR as specialized, is dumb. I enjoy the strategy of keeping a pitcher in, but not when it sucks the fun out of the offensive side of baseball.
Also, AL pitchers are at an immediate disadvantage, since they never hit unless they’re in some NL park.
Baseball already has the wonderful joy that is non-standard park dimensions. Let’s make the lineup standard.
R.I.P. Nick Adenhart - Always an Angel
by Kernel on Nov 17, 2011 1:08 PM EST reply actions
I have always been an NL fan(the Giants)
and I used to hate the DH, but a while ago I read someone explain it simply as this;
MLB should be the best pitchers in the world, going up against the best hitters in the world.
Thinking of it that way, I thought, it really isn’t good for a baseball as a game to let inferior players bat.
Plus with the type of money that teams invest into these pitchers, with no regard to hitting ability, whats the point of risking that investment on possible injury while doing something they weren’t paying them to do
by NateEveryday on Nov 17, 2011 1:18 PM EST reply actions
So why not specialize everything, then? Because MLB should have the best fielders in the world, right?
So each team has one set of pitchers, one set of fielders, and one set of hitters, and no one ever has to think again!
11 01 10
Veni Vidi Vixi
by WhereThere'sAWillieThere'sAMays on Nov 17, 2011 1:39 PM EST up reply actions
Taking this to extreme conclusions does not make for an effective argument
by Gihyou on Nov 17, 2011 1:42 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You say “extreme conclusion,” I say “logical endpoint.” I find the DH to be a silly gimmick and am demonstrating it as such.
11 01 10
Veni Vidi Vixi
by WhereThere'sAWillieThere'sAMays on Nov 17, 2011 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Don’t forget a set of specialized runners!
by Phrozen on Nov 17, 2011 1:48 PM EST up reply actions
Why not specialize in everything?
obviously having designated fielders is too far, nobody is arguing for that.
but the past 40 years in the AL shows that the DH works.
In College baseball, its shown that some pitchers can it, but the competition in MLB is too good for a player to be good at both hitting and pitching. Why stick with something that doesn’t work.
by NateEveryday on Nov 17, 2011 1:53 PM EST up reply actions
You already have a designated fielder. You can view the pitcher being the fielder for the batter. Why not allow a DH for other positions? Zambrano can handle a bat so why not have Soriano DH and have Reed Johnson in left? How is that any different?
by BruceOite on Nov 17, 2011 2:31 PM EST up reply actions
how has the AL shown that the DH works?
I could go to Yankee games and watch ‘meaningful games’ in August, but I go to the Mets so I can see a real baseball game instead.
by dramaking on Nov 23, 2011 8:39 PM EST up reply actions
This article from last June lays out a 15-teams-in-each-league schedule exactly the way I put it.
The idea wasn’t original with me; I didn’t see this article in June but I did see this format mentioned somewhere else. I think it’s the most workable.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 17, 2011 1:39 PM EST reply actions
The framework I don’t have a problem with. Interleague play every day makes much more sense than a couple week marathon in June.
by Phrozen on Nov 17, 2011 1:50 PM EST up reply actions
This, I agree with.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 17, 2011 1:54 PM EST up reply actions
As do I.
Though I would prefer not to have any interleague at all until the World Series (which you snidely declared makes me a LOLnerdboy-stuck-in-the-past!), I would rather have it spread evenly throughout the year if it must exist.
11 01 10
Veni Vidi Vixi
by WhereThere'sAWillieThere'sAMays on Nov 17, 2011 2:05 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I like this example.
There are many ways to skin a cat. This article is a way that I think I’d enjoy.
Its not the only answer though. But unless you could show a simple example of what the list of opponents would be (not including logistics please), attacking the idea does nothing more than stir the pot for pot’s sake (enjoy that one).
With consistent interleague match-ups, the DH rule ought to be same-same. I’d like it to go away, but I’d be costing 15 people their jobs. I think I’d lose.
by Tat14 on Nov 17, 2011 2:41 PM EST up reply actions
So expand rosters by one while cutting the DH. Then 15 guys GAIN jobs!
11 01 10
Veni Vidi Vixi
by WhereThere'sAWillieThere'sAMays on Nov 18, 2011 10:22 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Bring the DH on.
I’d much rather see a guy like Jim Thome hit than Roy Halladay look like a fool at the plate… It’s embarrassing.
"Don't you think it's strange that you'll make more money than President Hoover this year?"
"Why not? I had a better year than he did." - G.H. Ruth
Posting pictures
by Andrew GM on Nov 17, 2011 1:39 PM EST reply actions
And Adam Dunn wasn't embarrassing this year?
11 01 10
Veni Vidi Vixi
by WhereThere'sAWillieThere'sAMays on Nov 17, 2011 1:41 PM EST up reply actions
Exception to the rule…
"Don't you think it's strange that you'll make more money than President Hoover this year?"
"Why not? I had a better year than he did." - G.H. Ruth
Posting pictures
by Andrew GM on Nov 21, 2011 2:42 PM EST up reply actions
I'd much rather see
the DH eliminated from the AL rather than add it to the NL. Although I can’t really see it happening unfortunately.
by Lweb23 on Nov 17, 2011 2:26 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
DEATH BEFORE DH
Baseball is 9 men to a side. Not 10.
by idiosynch on Nov 17, 2011 2:30 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Of course he was
But at least we didn’t have to see him pitch.
R.I.P. Nick Adenhart - Always an Angel
by Kernel on Nov 17, 2011 2:31 PM EST reply actions
DH for all!
Nothing like a rally dying when the pitcher has to hit.
If you want to be all pure and righteous, then get rid of the curveball or something. Pitchers should be feeding the ball to the batters, not trying to get them out, just like the good old days around the civil war
1
Where do you draw the line? Pitchers these days focus entirely on pitching, unlike 100 years ago, and it sucks to watch them at bat. DH makes it a better game by keeping the offense going and keeping the defense on its toes. And someone like Justin Verlander getting hurt trying to bat would take away from the quality of the games.
Another argument is it takes away strategy? You still have to use defensive and pitching strategy when you’ve got someone like Jim Thome coming to bat. In fact, it may take more to compensate for 9 batters who can all hit.
by Oberon on Nov 17, 2011 2:57 PM EST reply actions
OK, let me take a crack at this
In order to have two 15 team leagues, you need one series per block to be an interleague series.
If the season runs from April 1 – Sept 28, you have 26 weeks. Cut those 26 weeks in half, and you have 52 blocks of 3 for interleague requirements. Take 1 block out for the All Star break and it’s 51
You would have each time in the league playing 5 (or 6) series against opponents from the other league. For the sake of simplicity, let’s say you have 5 interleague series per team – each time in the AL East plays on in the NL East, AL Central vs NL Central, AL West vs NL Central. That amounts to 3 sets of 5×5 (or 75). So you have 75 series to put in 51 blocks.
You can set it up where you have 6 blocks including 5 IL series in a block, with the rest of the blocks filled with single series. Yeah, you don’t get the hoopla you would with IL series now, but it works from a logistical standpoint.
by msgg139 on Nov 17, 2011 4:14 PM EST reply actions
Does someone take Shaq's free throws?
Get rid of the DH, make it a requirement that everyone in the league is a BASEBALL PLAYER. I’m sure this has been said a dozen plus times above, but it’s been a strike against AL baseball for years.
Love is the most important thing in the world. But baseball is pretty close. - Unknown
by RarefiedAir9 on Nov 17, 2011 6:23 PM EST via iPhone app reply actions 1 recs
Having separate rules for different positions is by no means unique within sports.
In hockey, if a goalie gets a penalty, somebody else gets to serve it in his place.
These analogies aren’t getting us anywhere. What is best for the game?
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!
by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 17, 2011 11:09 PM EST up reply actions
what's best for the game is ...
Fine, I’ve got some good reasons above for having the pitcher hit. For one, since the pitcher throws at hitters, he should have to stand in the box.
But giving you your point for a second, that the pitcher shouldn’t have to hit, then why not have an 8 man lineup? Why the DH?
Please, try to think through the logic of it completely.
by dramaking on Nov 23, 2011 8:22 PM EST up reply actions
It wouldn't completely eliminate the reason for having 9 players bat,
since you can still move players around positionally/move your DH to 1st if you have to/etc.
In theory, I don’t really care if pitchers bat around the league (well, I would, because my favorite team recently invested a lot of money in a DH). I just think it’s important for both leagues to be consistent.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!
by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 24, 2011 1:26 AM EST up reply actions
You can remove the DH when you remove the notion of relief pitching
I mean really, what is this nonsense about specialized pitchers coming in for just the 9th inning? Or for only one inning? Or to face one batter? Or as early as the 6th inning in a non-blowout?
Hell, you have some guys whose entire JOB is predicated on only pitching to above-average right handed batters in high-leverage situations.
Remove closers and LOOGYs and long relief men, and then get back to me about how specialized and weird a DH is.
by Chris_FB on Nov 22, 2011 5:55 PM EST reply actions
dude...
The idea of baseball is that you can be replaced but, once replaced, you can’t go back in the game. Relief pitching doesn’t violate that. DH does.
by dramaking on Nov 23, 2011 8:19 PM EST up reply actions
The uniqueness of baseball is not replacing players who then can't come back, it's that the defense has the ball
Everything else is up for interpretation.
I admit to bias since I follow an AL team and my love of baseball came from watching an AL style of play. But still, it baffles me that people can be ok with pitcher specialization, variable outfield dimensions, the introduction of instant replay, or even if you want to take a longer view changing the height of the mound… but somehow the DH is a freakish broken thing.
by Chris_FB on Dec 1, 2011 11:36 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed