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
You've looked through the new CBA. You've read the analysis. You think you know what will happen over its five-year span. And you're very likely going to be wrong.
Nov 25, 2011 - Once upon a time, major league baseball teams had to give up major league players, from what was called a "compensation pool", if they signed a free agent under certain conditions; free agents were separated into Type A (major league compensation), Type B (draft pick compensation) and Type C (no compensation).
A number of players swapped teams under this early-1980s scheme, most notably future Hall of Famer Tom Seaver, who had been left unprotected by the Mets, who thought his big contract would prevent him from being selected. Mets fans were horrified, and Seaver wound up posting his 300th career win in the red-white-and-blue White Sox uniform of that era instead of Mets pinstripes.
There are more details on this short-lived system here; it met its demise after the Yankees lost just-drafted Tim Belcher to the Athletics (because he had been signed too late to exclude him from the compensation pool), to the consternation of George Steinbrenner, who led the move to eliminate the system in the next CBA. No one had really liked this system in the first place, and it was replaced by a system where teams got draft picks, based on a ranking of free agents, this time "Type A" and "Type B".
Over time, teams began gaming the system, to the point where certain clubs were able to stockpile draft choices. Harrumphing loudly, the Powers That Be declared that this system must be changed, and so it has been; no more "Type A" and "Type B" free agents; only players who get high-dollar offers will rate compensation.
That seems all well and good, but there might be one provision that will result in unintended consequences:
If a player gets traded in midseason, the team that trades for him will get zero compensation, no matter how big a star he is. Doesn't matter if he's CC Sabathia or Felipe Lopez. The only players who can bring any sort of compensation are players who spent the entire season with one club. Think that'll change the July trade-deadline madness? Teams are still trying to figure that out themselves.
It very well could change the "July trade-deadline madness". Do you think the Pirates would have dealt for Derrek Lee this past summer if they knew they wouldn't get compensation if he left? The Pirates did offer Lee arbitration under the old system, but it doesn't seem likely that they would under the new, and maybe they wouldn't have traded for him at all.
In trying to eliminate a system that some felt was being unfairly leveraged, baseball moguls could have thrown a wet blanket over July trades. We won't know for sure until next summer.
There's another unintended consequence that could occur in 2013 when the Astros move to the American League; with 15 teams in each league it will be necessary to have interleague play all season, instead of having it shoved into one block in June. Maury Brown points out a potential issue:
Imagine the Red Sox are fighting for a playoff spot, and instead of playing games in division where they can quickly climb up the standings, they have to hop a plane and play the Reds. Suddenly, there’s no DH and your pitcher is a critical player in your offensive line-up.
That's not just a plausible scenario, it very likely will happen. You're thinking, "What's the big deal? Just make sure contending teams don't have to play interleague games in September."
That sounds easy in principle, but doing it in real life might not be so simple. For one thing, no one yet knows what the breakdown of games must be for such a schedule to work. Baseball's schedulers might be able to work out a scheme where no one plays more than 18 interleague games (the current maximum), but another workable schedule would have teams playing as many as 30. It just doesn't seem possible to avoid one or more AL contenders missing their DH when they most need him; even if you try to schedule, say, only the "worst" teams from the previous season into September interleague games, what happens if an AL team not expected to contend has a miracle season?
The obvious answer is to have the DH in all games -- especially if there are 30 interleague games, where you'd force the AL club to play without its DH in 15 road games, almost 19 percent of its road schedule. Or get rid of it entirely. The leagues are no longer separate; there are no longer individual league presidents and they share umpiring crews. They're more like the NFC and AFC than the bitter rivals they once were.
Regardless, there are going to be consequences from the new CBA that no one anticipates, even with so many words being spilled over the last few days about how "awful" the new draft caps are. Baseball people are resilient and resourceful. Those who figure out how to leverage the new system will wind up winners; others will scramble.
The only thing we do know for sure is that over the five-year span of the agreement, things will be revealed -- the above are just a couple of examples -- that we can't possibly know now.
64 comments
14
May 3
23
Apr 25
1
Mar 30
2
Mar 13
10
Jan 5
19
Nov 30
Al Yellon:
The Law Of Unintended Consequences And The New CBA
64
Nov 25
2
Nov 23
5
Nov 23
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
One thing to keep in mind about playing interleague games in September
is that September games, while more exciting because we know more about how they will impact the final standings than we do about games in April, are not really any more important than games in April. If the Red Sox had one one more game in April this year, and the rest of their schedule played out the same, they would have been in the playoffs.
by Bradsbeard on Nov 25, 2011 10:11 AM EST reply actions
In theory, you are correct.
In practice, September games become more important because of the leverage they have. Teams don’t pay that much attention to one loss that puts them a game farther behind in April, because so much time is left for them to make up that game, or even four or five or six games.
Four or five or six games behind in September? That puts pressure on because there is so little time left to make up that ground.
(For the 2011 Red Sox, it would have been TWO more wins in April, by your scenario. One more win would have simply gotten them a tiebreaker game with the Rays.)
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 25, 2011 10:26 AM EST up reply actions
I'm not saying it wouldn't stink for an AL team to be in that position
but they should know going into the season that they have to play those games in September and that they need to take care of business in advance. As long as all the AL teams are playing the same amount of interleague games over the season, it’s not really unfair if some of them have interleague games in September and others don’t. There actually may be a bit of an advantage for the teams playing interleague games in September (as opposed to those playing earlier), because of expanded rosters in September.
by Bradsbeard on Nov 25, 2011 11:14 AM EST up reply actions
But again
… how do you know which teams are going to be in that situation in September?
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 25, 2011 11:32 AM EST up reply actions
It doesn't matter
as long as everyone in the AL is playing the same number of interleague games in NL parks over the course of a season. The games in April count just as much as the games in September. Yeah, it’s harder for a team who needs to gain ground in the standings to do so with fewer games left, but that doesn’t make those games at the end of the year worth any more than the games at the beginning of the year.
To take the Red Sox again, if they had won two more games on the season (I sit corrected), they would be in the playoffs. They lost two road games against Pittsburgh in June. You could argue that if they had played those games at home with Ortiz in the lineup, they would have likely scored more runs and possibly won them. At the end of the year, those two games made all the difference between the playoffs and the couch.
If you like, you can focus the narrative and say those two games were the most critical games of the season and that it was unfair for the Red Sox to have to play their two most critical games without their DH. But in reality, you play to win every game. Just because you have more knowledge about how many games you need to win to make the playoffs in September does not mean September games are more important than June games.
Granted, there is more pressure at the end of the year when all the focus and attention is on the playoff race. That’s certainly true, but I’m not sure it makes the schedule unfair. I will also admit that there are all sorts of variables between April and September that do change the nature and character of games at different points in time. Sometimes teams may be playing better at different times of the year, that there are unforseen injuries, trades, etc., but again, that’s just bad luck. There’s no way to schedule around that.
All that said, I do think that the leagues should be uniform and both employ the DH. That’s coming from a longtime NL fan who just doesn’t care anymore about the traditionalist argument for pitchers batting and the leagues being unique. I think the game is better and the leagues will be more balanced with the DH in both leagues.
by Bradsbeard on Nov 25, 2011 1:17 PM EST up reply actions
here is why DH is def bad except for a few has-been players who should retire
by dramaking on Nov 25, 2011 10:40 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I concur with this, and rec'd as well
11 in '11, Check.
12 in 12, WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
by I-Musial-ly-Am on Nov 27, 2011 2:15 PM EST up reply actions
As the old saying goes, "You can't legislate stupid"
Your “September games become more important because of the leverage they have” is not practice – it’s perception. Now if for some reason a September victory was worth 1.5 wins in the standings or something like that, fine – they would be more important. But the reality is an April win counts just the same as a September win.
To argue anything else means you’re bringing perception into the discussion, and if that is considered a detriment, then you’re also bringing a team’s self-inflicted weakness into the discussion. And if a team can’t handle that, then let the chips fall where they may – there’s no reason for “something” to be done about it.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
by ballhawk on Nov 25, 2011 2:38 PM EST up reply actions
It's more than perception.
It’s the fact, as I mentioned, that teams don’t feel the urgency to win one game in April if they’re four games behind, because there’s plenty of time to make up that deficit. Not so much time in September, and for a team that, say, has not had its pitchers bat in a month suddenly having to do so, does not seem fair.
If you’re going to have year-round interleague, I believe you have to have the same rules for both leagues.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 25, 2011 2:58 PM EST up reply actions
Again - you can't legislate stupid.
If a team doesn’t feel the urgency to win a game in April when it counts just as much as in September, why should extra effort be put forth to try and help them? They can read a schedule in March just as well as anyone – they should be able to see when their pitchers are going to batters as well. There’s no “suddenly” involved here.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
by ballhawk on Nov 25, 2011 4:04 PM EST up reply actions
It's really more a matter of fairness.
If you’re going to have realignment and year-round interleague, have the same rules for both leagues.
It would be like having two-point conversions in NFC games but not in AFC games.
Or three-point shots in the NBA East but not the NBA West.
See the difference?
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 25, 2011 4:23 PM EST up reply actions
Depends on what you're arguing
If you’re arguing DH vs no DH – yes, that’s a difference and from an overall MLB perspective, it’s unfair. But if the purpose of the regular season is to produce league champions, then as long as it’s consistent within each league, it’s fair. IOW, if all the AL teams have the same number of no DH games, then it is fair.
If you’re arguing the timing aspect, i.e. April vs September (which is what I thought you were), as long as all the teams play the same number of games, it’s fair.
And as to your other sport examples… as long as all the NFC teams played the same number of 2-point conversion games, then yes – it would be fair. It’d be weird, but it’d be fair.
Same for the NBA.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
by ballhawk on Nov 25, 2011 4:50 PM EST up reply actions
You don't believe in WPA, do you?
by The Ancient Mariner on Nov 25, 2011 11:14 PM EST up reply actions
yes.
baseball is a game for nine players.
Dump the DH.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Nov 28, 2011 11:04 AM EST up reply actions
I was thinking this exact same thing
All games are equal.
GO BULLS AND BLACKHAWKS!
by SouthsideCUBSfan on Nov 26, 2011 10:31 AM EST up reply actions
I say
just get rid of the DH. The AL has had the DH for a lot less time than the NL has not had it, so why should tradition bend to will of something that doesn’t add all that much to the game, and, purely in my opinion, detracts from the game?
Oh where oh where have my Dbacks gone? Oh where oh where could they be!
by imstillhungry95 on Nov 25, 2011 10:45 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Either way
… I don’t see how they can continue to play with different rules after realignment.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 25, 2011 10:46 AM EST up reply actions
I have said for a long time
that I’d be willing to accept the DH in return for equalizing the number of teams in each division, which I thought was the bigger evil. Never, of course, thinking baseball would have the good sense even to do that much.
Well, be careful what you wish for …
On the plus side, no more watching the Ross Ohlendorfs* of the world swing a bat.
*—Career /// line: .085/.110/.113
by bucdaddy on Nov 25, 2011 11:03 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah.
I’d rather never again see Matt Garza bat, myself. Even when he gets a hit, you’re thinking, “He must have closed his eyes and swung.”
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 25, 2011 11:33 AM EST up reply actions
Exactly
I don’t want to see a pitcher trying to hit, or getting hurt trying to hit. Plus, it is much more interesting to see a good hitter up than a terrible one.
by cookiedabookie on Nov 25, 2011 11:49 AM EST up reply actions
that does not explain why you need a DH
by dramaking on Nov 25, 2011 10:48 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
6 hitters, 9 fielders
I like it! You would have more amazing defensive specialists, and get to see the best hitters way more often!
by hotwater2 on Nov 25, 2011 11:30 PM EST up reply actions
I love all of the camel's nose arguments.
If we institute the DH in all leagues today, then whats next? Will somebody please think of the children?
The fact is, the AL has had the DH since 1973. The NPB (w/ the exception of the CL) adopted it in 1975. Almost 40 years later and all of these slippery-slope horror stories that the anti-DH people are spouting have not come true. What makes you think that the NL adopting the DH would suddenly change things now?
The NL and CL are the only hold-outs left. Let’s not act like the possibility of them adding the DH is going to ruin baseball.
boxcars boxcars boxcars
by soxshenanigans on Nov 26, 2011 11:22 AM EST up reply actions
The arguments are intentionally sperious, to illustrate the stupidity of the “Oh noes Matt Garza sucks at batting” nonsense. Matt Garza et al has been hitting for well over one hundred years and baseball isn’t ruined.
And, speaking of holdouts, I played ball through high school, and never had a DH.
by Phrozen on Nov 26, 2011 4:12 PM EST up reply actions
The DH is there for the players union.
It allows for one more big contract player and a place for aging stars. It also keeps pitchers out of more instances to get hurt. And yes, it does keep us from watching an (almost) guaranteed out every 9 batters.
Instituting the DH in the NL is not going to lead to any of the extremely ridiculous situations that every thinks is apparently coming.
Matt Garza et al has been hitting for well over a hundred years and baseball isn’t ruined. DHs have been hitting for 40 years and I can tell you the exact same thing – baseball isn’t ruined.
Keeping things just for the sake of tradition is also a silly argument. Rules change, the game adapts, and I still have 162+ games to enjoy every season.
boxcars boxcars boxcars
by soxshenanigans on Nov 26, 2011 4:44 PM EST up reply actions
for me, the DH is bad enough
I don’t like watching it. I’d rather watch the loser Mets play real baseball than the cross town Yankees play handicap baseball.
I want to see the pitcher take his at-bats. If he can throw high and tight, then I want to see him take it. And if he’s made of glass, then too bad. I’d like to see the pitcher downgraded to a more normal position, where baseball prowess in all its forms is rewarded.
And if it was decided he definitely isn’t batting, then I do not see why we can’t just have an 8 man lineup, instead of the preposterous substitute hitter. Ortiz should have been out of baseball.
I see no good arguments for a DH.
by dramaking on Nov 26, 2011 5:50 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe so, but it’s a better argument than making changes for the sake of making changes.
by Phrozen on Nov 26, 2011 7:55 PM EST up reply actions
Except having played with different rules for several decades now, including 13 years of interleague play?
Look at it this way. The Red Sox are at a disadvantage when travelling to Pittsburgh without their DH. But the Red Sox are not competing against the Pirates, they’re competing against the Yankees, who, at the same time, are travelling to Colorado without their DH. Meanwhile, in the NL, the Barves are at a disadvantage because they have to press Eric Hinske or whoever into service as a DH against Seattle, but no more than the Marlins, who have to use
Albert PujolsOmar infante.These advantages and disadvantages should balance each other out, and as long as the Red Sox don’t have to play the Phillies and Cardinals every series while the Yankees play the Pirates and Padres, they will.
by Phrozen on Nov 25, 2011 3:21 PM EST up reply actions
Isn't the hope...
that there will only be one interleague series at a time? So if that happens, the Yankees won’t be in Colorado while Boston’s in Pittsburgh. They’ll be in Minnesota, getting wins that are mere formalities, given history.
by meshuggen8r on Nov 25, 2011 5:59 PM EST up reply actions
Or maybe they’ll go to Pittsburgh the following week.
In any case, for there to be only one interleague series at a time (my personal hope), there would be only 5.4 IL games per team, which is less than one-third of the current average. I’m expecting three IL series at a time all season, more or less.
by Phrozen on Nov 25, 2011 8:20 PM EST up reply actions
Understandably, it has to be three at a time, if a team is going to face all five opponents in an opposite-league division, and still have “rivalry” games too. I admit, I don’t know how serious MLB is about keeping those “rivalries”, but I imagine they wouldn’t give up two years of White Sox-Cubs, Yankees-Mets, Angels-Dodgers, and other matchups that at least make geographic sense.
Theoretically, couldn’t AL teams experiment with their DH’s in the field, and modified lineups, starting in spring training, with random practices throughout the season? They know what their schedule will be, so why not try to get a sense of their flexibility early? It isn’t lost on me that some players are sure to balk at the idea of switching positions, and injuries can change plans in an instant, but it seems it would be in their best interest to prepare as best they can, well ahead of time.
by meshuggen8r on Nov 25, 2011 9:14 PM EST up reply actions
The DH doesn't add anything to the game?
Then what does pitchers hitting add to the game, besides more pitcher injuries? And if you say double switches…
by ahhall on Nov 25, 2011 3:11 PM EST up reply actions
Double switches. What?
I could just as easily ask what having Adam Dunn hitting adds to the game? Or what Mark Reynolds fielding adds to the game? Or having Brian Matsuz pitch, for that matter?
It’s tradition. It’s part of the game. Without an overly compelling reason to change it (and no, OMG MOAR RUNNZ is not compelling), it’s something not worth changing.
by Phrozen on Nov 25, 2011 3:26 PM EST up reply actions
Well said
Oh where oh where have my Dbacks gone? Oh where oh where could they be!
by imstillhungry95 on Nov 25, 2011 10:34 PM EST up reply actions
for one thing ...
pitchers hitting adds accountability.
If a pitcher throws high and inside, well then, … let’s see how he likes it in his turn at bat.
by dramaking on Nov 25, 2011 10:49 PM EST up reply actions
them actually having to play
both offense and defense.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Nov 28, 2011 11:23 AM EST up reply actions
The DH
was a Player’s Union add-on to enable aging players to play on well after their fielding skills had deteriorated. It did nothing to improve the game itself or put the best players on the field. I’m with ISH95, I’d like to see it go the way of Climate Change, and be a bad idea relegated to the dustbin of history.
Is it mid-February yet?
by NASCARbernet on Nov 25, 2011 11:13 AM EST reply actions
absolutely right, and....
…. I’m surprised at how few people here grasp that. The DH-defenders keep talking about how they hate watching a pitcher hit, but it doesn’t seem to dawn on them that if this was their singular (misguided) concern, then they could simply contract the batting order to the 8 position players.
The DH is an artificial construct, and an unnecessary one. It clearly serves the MLBPA and no one else.
by dramaking on Nov 25, 2011 10:59 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Getting rid of the DH will never happen. The union would never go for it, and really, the number of fans who’d rather see Josh Beckett hit with men on base instead of David Ortiz is probably pretty small.
It’s not like DH is especially new. It’s older than I am, and I’m 35.
by MikeD76 on Nov 25, 2011 12:08 PM EST reply actions
Which is why I think it eventually has to go in both leagues.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 25, 2011 2:09 PM EST up reply actions
What happens if 2 teams get added?
Or two teams get contracted (which has been a possible scenario for a decade or more)? Does the different DH rules b/w the Leagues revert?
by Doshi on Nov 25, 2011 3:58 PM EST up reply actions
No, I think once you have one rule for both leagues you stick with it.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 25, 2011 4:23 PM EST up reply actions
If you're saying we need the DH in both leagues, why?
Why not just have an 8 man lineup? And, please, don’t talk to me about tradition, when you’re arguing for the DH, and don’t talk about intransigence of the MLBPA as an excuse for such a rule change in the NL.
Are you for designated runners? Is that another postiion whose time has come? Why should we watch an overweight catcher chug the bases and kill a rally when we have unemployed track stars?
by dramaking on Nov 25, 2011 10:52 PM EST up reply actions
I think you miss my point.
I’m not really a fan of the DH (although watching Matt Garza bat is cringeworthy).
I’m in favor of having the same rules for both leagues.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 26, 2011 8:44 AM EST up reply actions
If Matt Garza is an argument for the DH, than shouldn’t Adam Dunn be an argument against it?
And if you want the same rules, then why not pick the ruleset that’s been in play much longer?
by Phrozen on Nov 26, 2011 4:13 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not opposed to that.
But the leagues really do need the same rules.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 27, 2011 12:28 PM EST up reply actions
I disagree there. They’ve had different rules for 40 years! Hell, you could argue they’ve had different rules since 1903!
by Phrozen on Nov 27, 2011 3:22 PM EST up reply actions
is watching a catcher run out a triple cringeworthy?
why would uniformity in the leagues justify handicapping the players with substitutes?
I’d prefer the NL go right along w/o a DH, with or without the AL.
by dramaking on Nov 26, 2011 5:53 PM EST up reply actions
plate appearances go way up, record book is compromised
MLB will never go for that.
by ABsteve on Nov 26, 2011 3:39 PM EST up reply actions
They have roughly a year to sort this out but,
I can’t see where there would not be at least one interleague series happening during any given period of the season.
That being said, I wouldn’t dare to “guess” which teams would have the more important match-ups in September; too many variables. It’ll be what it’ll be.
So, make the DH even. I’d rather see it go. It probably won’t though. The new alignment demands a balance though.
by Tat14 on Nov 25, 2011 1:01 PM EST reply actions
You're right
Someone is going to figure out how to game this system. It always happens. And there are going to be some changes.
For example, you may be completely wrong about the changing interleague rules hurting the AL. Some people have pointed out that it could seriously hurt the NL. Why? Because currently with the interleague games mostly clumped in June, teams would drop a pitcher and call up an extra hitter to DH through the interleague schedule. Wily Mo Pena did this last season. But now with teams needing a DH for a few games each month, this just isn’t going to be possible.
No one has even mentioned the 26 man rosters for double headers. It’s going to be interesting to see who the first one is find a way to exploit that.
by Josh Timmers on Nov 25, 2011 1:29 PM EST reply actions
From my understanding
… the doubleheader thing is only going to be for “select” doubleheaders where it’s known more than 48 hours before that one is going to be played. So, most likely, it’ll be used when a game is rained out in April, for example, and made up in June.
There is also a proposal out there that would have every team schedule a split DH or two every year, to try to shorten the schedule without giving up any home dates. I can see that happening, even though no one — fans, broadcasters, players, other team employees — likes them.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Nov 25, 2011 2:10 PM EST up reply actions
CBA
Besides the uneven league split, I didn’t see anything the new CBA had to fix. The draft system was still working well at the time of this CBA.
Also, the league evening out should have included a final resolution on the DH issue. Now every NL team will be overpaying some pinch hitter to DH from time to time.
An online friend
by kiper on Nov 25, 2011 2:30 PM EST reply actions
Change the DH to an EH (extra hitter) and adopt it for both leagues.
If uniformity is valued over everything else, and presumably AL teams don’t want to give up the DH, and NL teams don’t want to adopt it, then just change it to an EH and keep the pitching spot in the lineup.
You still get the benefit of an offense-only spot in the lineup for your aging slugging stars, and you still get the benefit of keeping strategy relevant in the game with pitchers hitting and double-switching considerations late in the game.
The only downside to the EH that I can see is that a 10 player batting lineup doesn’t fit in as well with 9 innings, 27 outs, etc. You definitely lose the whole “multiple of 3” thing.
But speaking as a traditionalist, I’d rather live with 10 vs 9 ignominy than the abomination the DH has been.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
by ballhawk on Nov 25, 2011 2:49 PM EST reply actions
That is a compromise I could live with.
Ideally for me they’d get rid of the DH altogether, but if that can’t happen, this is an interesting idea.
♪ He held me very tight under stars so bright and whispered darlin' "Who do you love tonight?" I told him "baseball, baseball...." ♫
by katie casey on Nov 25, 2011 3:27 PM EST up reply actions
So both David Ortiz and Josh Beckett bat? Dude, that’s even worse.
by Phrozen on Nov 25, 2011 3:28 PM EST up reply actions
Why not go all the way
And have the pitchers throw underhand?
by maguro on Nov 25, 2011 9:46 PM EST up reply actions
Actually, I'd like to see how major-leaguers could do playing tee-ball...
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
by ballhawk on Nov 26, 2011 1:02 PM EST up reply actions
Okay
I’m against the DH, but that would be completely changing the fabric of the game. If we must have something that goes against tradition, lets take the one that almost fits in with the way that it has been played for over a century
Oh where oh where have my Dbacks gone? Oh where oh where could they be!
by imstillhungry95 on Nov 25, 2011 10:38 PM EST up reply actions
What's The Difference
Between an AL team needing to play an NL-rules game in the middle of September, and needing to play an NL-rules game in the World Series? I would say the leverge doesn’t get higher than that. If you can’t handle NL rules, your AL team will never win a title anyway. May as well start getting used to it during the regular season, whether it be June or September.
by ahhall on Nov 25, 2011 3:09 PM EST reply actions
Agreed.
The best team will win out. If nothing else, it’s a preview of an impending interleague championship series. What will be
stupidweird is when there’s a September matchup of two eventual Series contestants. If a team has a problem with interleague play down the stretch, there’s now an extra fall-back playoff spot.Ridiculous. Thank goodness we don’t have argue about the MLB DH (both leagues) for another 4-5 years. It all started going downhill when league umpires merged.
Come visit me inside Wrigley along the Addison side mezzanine fence straight up from 1st base.
by section229beer on Nov 26, 2011 5:34 PM EST up reply actions
On the impact on mid-season trades
I’d think the biggest impact would not necessarily be a reduction in trades, but instead, a reduction in the price in prospects you can expect to get. It might also lead to more offseason trades, for obvious reasons.
The confluence I can’t quite wrap my head around yet – and it will probably just have to play out over a number of years – is how the dollars transferred from the amateur side to the big league side will impact trades. On the one hand, established prospects will be more valuable because you can’t as easily stock up in the draft or internationally. On the other hand, big league players under contract are more valuable because teams will necessarily be spending more money on their big league roster than they were previously (when those extra dollars went on the amateur side). So … does trade value increase, or decrease? Really hard to anticipate.
Then again, maybe the owners will just pocket those extra dollars, and there will be no shift from the amateur side to the big league side.
Bleacher Nation - Cubs Rumors and News
by Brett Taylor on Nov 25, 2011 3:56 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
15 team divisions
I don’t get the point of have only two divisions of 15 teams. If anything, THAT seems the most illogical of all. There is nothing wrong with the current three divisions. They just need a little reorganization with the Astros moving to the AL>
I'm going to the 2012 Randy Hundley Fantasy Camp!!! Who's with me?
by VegasCubFan on Nov 26, 2011 12:11 AM EST reply actions
Imagine the Red Sox are fighting for a playoff spot, and instead of playing games in division where they can quickly climb up the standings, they have to hop a plane and play the Reds. Suddenly, there’s no DH and your pitcher is a critical player in your offensive line-up.
You mean they might have to actually play baseball? My heart bleeds.
Give me a break.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Nov 28, 2011 11:40 AM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed