Terence Moore thinks that the DH is a blight upon the baseball record book. Huh.
Feb 2, 2012 - Terence Moore thinks that …
Wait! Come back! I just wanted to write that Terence Moore thinks that the designated hitter cheapens all of the records pertaining to home runs.
Ruth and Mays never were DHs, because that option wasn't available to them when they played.
It was for Bonds.
Bombshell. Of Bonds' 762 homers, ten were hit as a DH. This apparently means something, even when you consider that Hank Aaron, the man Bonds passed, hit 22 home runs as a DH. Moore goes down through the list, removing home runs from modern players by the dozens -- usually just a dozen or two, really -- for no real discernible reason. Well, there's no reason at first.
You can picture Moore entering "all-time home run leaders" into HotBot and somehow finding Baseball Reference. Cut to the montage of him data mining. The clicking of the mouse. The furrowing of the brow. The hastily scribbled notes. At the end of his quest, he comes to an inescapable conclusion: 80% of the players in the top-ten list for home runs played after 1973, when the rules of baseball changed. You're more than welcome to take a sip of something and spit it out for effect.
But that's not what the article's really about. What the article turns into, what it's really about, is a screed against the possibility of Alex Rodriguez finishing his career as a DH. Rodriguez has eleventy-six years left on his contract, and he's already getting shot up with his own blood to help his knee problems, so the move to DH is inevitable. That might be one of the reasons the Yankees were willing to part with Jesus Montero.
If Moore's argument is that it's gross that Alex Rodriguez will eventually have the most career home runs in history, well, that's a perfectly acceptable argument. Because it's sort of gross that Alex Rodriguez could eventually have the most career home runs in history. The idea of Barry Bonds holding the title now is gross to a lot of folks, so I'm not sure what would change. But I can get behind the argument that Alex Rodriguez is a gross weirdo who is all weird and gross.
Leave the rules of baseball out of it, though. This doesn't just apply to Moore. Please, everybody, let's sign a contract or something and move on. There was pre-DH and post-DH, pre-expansion and post-expansion, pre-162-game seasons and post-162-game seasons, pre-integration and post-integration, some hitters got to hit at Coors Field before the humidor and some didn't, some hitters got to hit in the Baker Bowl and some didn't. It would appear -- and stop me if I'm getting weird -- that baseball changes. You'll have standards, like 60 ft., six inches, but the game is always, always evolving.
My favorite example of how baseball isn't static will always be Home Run Baker, who is in the Hall of Fame. Home Run Baker led his league in home runs in each year from 1911 to 1913. This was not an ironic nickname, like calling a large man "Tiny." Home Run Baker earned his name by hitting all sorts of home runs. And in 2002, Omar Vizquel hit more home runs in a single season than Home Run Baker had ever hit in a single season.
Somehow we went from "My word! This chap hits divers home runs! S'pose he should be known henceforth as 'Home Run' Baker, eh?" to a 35-year-old, 5'9" shortstop besting that player's single-season mark by flicking his wrists. Every record needs to be taken into context. There are so many factors. In the olden days, the baseball was just a bison skull that was filled with lead and wrapped in papier-mâché. It traveled three feet when shot out of a musket. Of course statistics from back then will look different. We just have to know this and adjust for it in our minds if we choose.
And if you don't know the context -- if you have no idea that there was a pre-integration/post-integration era, or a pre-DH/post-DH era -- well, you probably shouldn't care so much about these silly things. Let the nerds hash it out. But for the people who know the context, they should know that there's too much context to ever arrive at an indisputable, ironclad set of numbers. And in this morass of the context swamp, figuring who hit a score of home runs as a DH is pretty much the smallest worry we should have.
Pirates DFA One-Season Wonder Nate McLouth
Pablo Sandoval Swinging, Fielding
Yankees Sign John Maine To Minor-League Deal
Lance Berkman Injury: Out 8-10 Weeks After Knee Surgery
Orioles, Adam Jones Reportedly Agree To Extension +1
Ryan Howard Still Taking Batting Practice
John Danks DL'd With Shoulder Tightness
Austin Jackson Heading To Disabled List +1
Emilio Bonifacio Will Have Thumb Surgery +1
Brewers' Marco Estrada On DL With Quad Strain +1
More News »
Comments
That is such a beautiful, perfectly realized Grantism, I’m going to go get something to sip and spit right now just to celebrate.
by Roger on Feb 2, 2012 12:51 PM EST reply actions
BONDZ EXPLOITED TEH DH RULE, THAT RASCAL!
Or Moore’s readers, I’m assuming.
You know what that column needs?
A few more one-sentence paragraphs.
Punchy!
Like listening to Andy Rooney.
11 01 10
Veni Vidi Vixi
by WhereThere'sAWillieThere'sAMays on Feb 2, 2012 1:02 PM EST reply actions
Always the sign of a bad writer
So he’s got that going for him, in addition to being an idiot.
by J0SER on Feb 2, 2012 1:21 PM EST up reply actions
“My word! This chap hits divers home runs! S’pose he should be known henceforth as ‘Home Run’ Baker, eh?”
…just slayed me. I think I will attempt to speak like that all weekend.
Entire article is spot-on, and hilarious.
by Jorio on Feb 2, 2012 1:21 PM EST reply actions
Great Column
You know, I shuffled over to this site a year ago because of Rob Neyer, but this Grant Bisbee fellow ain’t bad at all.
by Tom Ruane on Feb 2, 2012 1:38 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
+1
by drwmsu1 on Feb 2, 2012 1:52 PM EST up reply actions
Steroids already kinda ruined the whole thing
So it doesn’t really matter anyway.
by aronofsky40 on Feb 2, 2012 1:39 PM EST reply actions
Oh, you.
But, yeah. I can at least understand that argument a little better.
by Grant Brisbee on Feb 2, 2012 2:11 PM EST up reply actions
OH, YOU!
by notjoemorgan on Feb 2, 2012 7:03 PM EST up reply actions
Jesus Christ
this guy’s getting payed to write this
His 2011 wRC+ is 26
by Pikachu on Feb 2, 2012 2:09 PM EST reply actions
this guy as in Moore
His 2011 wRC+ is 26
by Pikachu on Feb 2, 2012 2:09 PM EST up reply actions
You have no idea
When I lived in Atlanta and this guy wrote for the local paper, I was convinced that the Peter Principle had reached its frozen limit. But now MLB.com is willingly passing along his patented beef-witted drivel, and presumably paying HIM for the privilege! Apparently, my whole life I’ve been underestimating what I could get away with.
by Jhimmibhob on Feb 3, 2012 11:01 AM EST up reply actions
Goes back to my theory that there's three kinds of baseball writers...
1) Understand that they’re part of a community of baseball fans/researchers/writers and are open to new ideas, comments, corrections, and other opinions. Most of the Baseball Nation team meets this high standard. Understand why the internet was called “the world wide web” and view the exchange of information and opinions per that understanding.
2) Writers who miss the good days when basebal information only came printed on dead trees and none of those darn whipper-snappers could sully their articles with “facts” and “reasonableness” in the comments section. See information as a one-way street that runs down steep hill. They’re at the top of the hill. After all, they get PAID to write about baseball.
3) SI.com writers. Their site doesn’t allow comments, so they all assume they’re wicked smart. Have Compuserve email accounts, but haven’t check them since last time their geeky nephew was in town and helped them learn computers. Saw a baseball game once, but fell asleep part way through.
by MikeD76 on Feb 2, 2012 2:37 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
abso frickin lutely
by Thorpac on Feb 2, 2012 3:00 PM EST up reply actions
I wish we were in the “post-DH” era.
by Phrozen on Feb 2, 2012 3:41 PM EST reply actions
Wait, what?
Still trying to comprehend how someone who played his entire career as a NL left fielder was helped by existence of a DH in the AL.
by jsantoro12 on Feb 2, 2012 3:44 PM EST via Android app reply actions 1 recs
Because of steriods and his coldness to the media.
Ross on Halladay: "I’d tried everything against him…going the other way, taking pitches, trying to walk…and nothing worked. I’d never tried going up there and just trying to hit a home run off him."
My boy has mad hops
I rant on Twitter
by scout6 on Feb 2, 2012 4:06 PM EST up reply actions
A broken watch is right twice a day
Because the guy is a moron doesn’t mean the DH isn’t an abomination. The DH was a gimmick cooked up in the early 70s by owners that radically changed a game that didn’t need to be changed. By your argument, if one DH is good, why not add two DH slots. “I mean, do we really have to have only 9 hitters in a lineup? Let’s make the baseball neon orange while we’re at it so the fans can see it better.”
Comparing the DH to the racial inegration of baseball is…. Well… It’s a lot of things, but ludicrous is one.
Baseball's hard, guys. I mean, it really is. You can love it but, believe me, it don't always love you back. It's kind of like dating a German chick, you know?
by Buttermaker on Feb 2, 2012 4:31 PM EST reply actions
I did not see a judgment made on the DH.
It seemed like Grant was simply acknowledging that there have been eras and change through baseball history beyond the DH. While one might not agree that the DH has been a positive change, one should take it in context to the whole of baseball history, not simply dismiss it because they personally dislike it.
by smrt on Feb 2, 2012 5:00 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah. I don't like the DH.
But it’s here. It’s part of the rules. Might as well get used to it without throwing a fit.
by Grant Brisbee on Feb 2, 2012 5:55 PM EST up reply actions
The fact that we still argue about the DH amazes me....
I’m not young. I’m 35 years old. The DH has been around longer than I’ve been alive.
by MikeD76 on Feb 2, 2012 4:44 PM EST reply actions
I see both the positive and negative of the DH
But more than anything, I would like the two leagues to agree on one or the other. I don’t like the disparity between the two.
by aronofsky40 on Feb 2, 2012 5:45 PM EST reply actions
Man, Home Run Baker was *awesome.*
Look at this series of OPS+, from his first full season until World War I interrupted his career in his prime: 147, 126, 149, 173, 167, 151.
Those aren’t quite vintage Bonds numbers, but they’re pretty great.
by nvalvo on Feb 3, 2012 1:11 PM EST reply actions
I thought Baker
got the nickname specifically for hitting two home runs in key situations in the 1911 World Series, not necessarily because he hit a prodigous number of homers in the regular season (averaged 10.5 for those four years). He wasn’t hitting THAT many more than everyone else. In the 1911 regular season, when Baker led the league with 11, Cobb and Speaker hit eight each and Crawford, Jackson and Duffy Lewis hit seven each. In 1912, Speaker tied Baker for first, with 10. In 1913, Baker hit 12 and Crawford nine. In 1914, Baker hit nine and Crawford eight.
I guess all that swattin’ could have left fans of the day feeling awestruck, but this wasn’t like Babe Ruth outhomering half the teams in the league.
by bucdaddy on Feb 4, 2012 12:10 PM EST reply actions
this is correct
Trolling the Offseason: Starring Jamie Moyer, Directed by Dan O'Dowd, with Executive Producers Dick and Charlie Monfort
PRMLB Arizona Diamondbacks GM
by papality on Feb 5, 2012 4:39 AM EST via Android app up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed