OT: DH coming for NL?
Per Cardinals GM Jon Mozeliak, there is an increasing (if not certain) sense that the DH could be coming to the National league as soon as 2017. Personally, I am for it. I would rather see professional hitters do the hitting and pitchers do the pitching.
I have never understood the argument that having a pitcher bat adds strategy; it would be like the NFL requiring QBs to also play linebacker or something. Makes zero sense to me. I would rather have uniform leagues, uniform rules, and have players do what they are the best at.
January 18th, 2016 at 10:31 AM ^
Aren't many highly-paid DHs players who were signed as position players - but have declined (or never were good) in the field?
They could always deploy the DH by commmitte option as well.
January 18th, 2016 at 11:35 AM ^
It is more popular with fans,
Are you sure about that? NL fans seem generally happy without the DH and AL fans aren't all behind it either (as this thread shows).
January 18th, 2016 at 11:36 AM ^
The Dodgers, Cardinals, Giants (top 3 teams in attendance last year), Cubs, etc. have no shortage of fans. The DH, lack of scoring, length of games, etc. are things people who aren't fans use to criticize the sport or justify their own lack of interest. Catering to people who already don't have an interest in baseball is a futile effort.
Catering to people who aren't fans already is how you end up with a glowing blue ball around a hockey puck on TV. That really drove up the ratings for the NHL didn't it? Soccer has grown in America as more people have access to seeing it played at its highest levels and embracing the sport as it is, not by allowing the players to pick up the ball or turning games into 25-21 shootouts as dumbass old sportswriters often suggest.
Baseball is doing fine. Changing the DH rule in the NL is only going to piss off actual fans, not add any new ones.
January 18th, 2016 at 11:41 AM ^
Thanks!
This is all I'm saying.
"Fans" who want to DH in both leagues will watch exactly 3 games once it happens and go "meh" and return to watching UFC XXXL or some crap.
Just dont try to change baseball because you think it will help a game that A) doesnt need help and B) you dont really care that much about anyway.
That's all I'm saying. Baseball is great exactly how it is.
January 18th, 2016 at 10:23 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 18th, 2016 at 10:24 AM ^
As long as they add a stipulation to the rule requiring Bartolo Colon to keep batting - I'm all for it.
January 18th, 2016 at 10:45 AM ^
I'd rather see them drop it in the American League.
Making pitchers bat adds a whole additional dimension to game strategy. Taking that out of the game would be a shame. I've also never really cared for the concept of having a player only bat and not take the field.
January 18th, 2016 at 11:33 AM ^
I disagree with you. And so does famed baseball writer/thinker Bill James:
"The D.H. rule, far from draining strategy out of the game, simply removes from the game the most trite, predictable, nonstrategic part of it.
Strategy exists only in making choices, only in the face of options. The National League game confronts the NL manager with frequent no-option situations, situations in which he must bunt or he must pinch hit.
The American League game allows a true option, and thus true strategy. That is clearly reflected in the fact that the American League has clear groups of big-inning teams and one-run teams, while the National League does not."
http://www.operationsports.com/forums/pro-baseball/198703-dh-rule-incre…
January 18th, 2016 at 11:41 AM ^
Bill James does not understand the difference between strategy and tactics. In-game decisions are tactics. Assembling a roster is a strategic undertaking. This entire argument is invalid because it makes no sense conceptually.
January 18th, 2016 at 1:26 PM ^
and wager that Bill James may have put more research into baseball than you have.
January 18th, 2016 at 2:18 PM ^
I respect James and all, but I don't agree with his analysis here. There may be times when putting in a pinch hitter is obvious, but not always. Say it's the seventh inning and the score is tied. Is it a no-brainer to pull the pitcher? I would say no, especially if your bullpen isn't that strong.
To argue that there is actually more strategy involved with the DH doesn't make sense to me. All of the strategic decisions in the AL - the lefty/righty stuff, whether to bunt, whether to pinch-hit or pinch-run - those all exist in the NL. But there's a whole set of decisions that NL managers routinely have to make that doesn't exist in the AL. I think the AL is worse off for that.
January 19th, 2016 at 10:40 AM ^
I don't think James is saying that there are never strategic decisions in the NL. I just think he's saying that there are more often truly strategic decisions in the AL.
January 18th, 2016 at 11:00 AM ^
Pitchers hitting is boring. The bunt is boring. IBB are boring. Id rather see a great pitcher go into the 8th inning of a tie game than be pulled for a punch and judy bench player and a relief pitcher thats not good enough to pitch to more than 1 batter. Without the DH the quality of the players on the field is reduced in the late innings and we see part timers and hacks finish the most important innings.
January 18th, 2016 at 11:41 AM ^
6 of the top 10 leaders in innings pitched came from the NL last year, and 10 of the top 20. The idea that the DH makes it more likely that good pitchers will be taken out of games doesn't correlate with reality in practice.
January 18th, 2016 at 11:10 AM ^
January 18th, 2016 at 11:10 AM ^
Growing up a Tiger fan I spent decades arguing for the DH. I live in Colorado and started following the Rockies when they arrived, and I go to lots of games. Much to my surprise, I much prefer the NL's no DH.
It's not just the double switch, it's the use of the bench in the late innings. Starting pitchers almost never go past the 6th inning any more (especially in Colorado). Once the bullpen parade starts, pitchers don't hit anyway. You don't know who will hit in the pitchers spot, anticipating/predicting which hitter will be used and when does add a level strategy.
I've been a baseball fan for over 50 years. Trust me, no DH is the way to go.
January 18th, 2016 at 11:12 AM ^
I love the idea, but we need to go further. After all, there are many SS and CF and catchers only in for their defense. We should be able to have DHs for them as well. I mean, I hate when the good hitters get pulled for defense late in the game. So lets not stop at pitchers not having to hit.
Also, no one pays to see power hitters run the bases. And who does not love the element added by the threat of a steal. So I think we should also have hitters allowed to have designated runners for them after they hit the ball.
Enough of the whole '5 tool player' I want my baseball players to excel at only 1 or 2 skills.
January 18th, 2016 at 4:23 PM ^
i guess you could go to the extreme like football. you have an offense and defense. you have a bunch of jose iglesiases playing D and a bunch of VMarts batting.
January 18th, 2016 at 11:15 AM ^
Make the field 100 yards long. Switch the ball to an oblong ball and and uprights. Then make it so you get points if you cross this line at either end or kick through said uprights.
There I have fixed baseball.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 18th, 2016 at 11:20 AM ^
January 18th, 2016 at 11:26 AM ^
I mean, part of what makes baseball baseball is the requirement that all players bat and field. It becomes something different when you have someone who bats but doesn't field.
January 18th, 2016 at 11:30 AM ^
That makes zero sense, in my opinion. You're saying "the rules of baseball are currently the rules of baseball, and if they changed them they would be different."
January 18th, 2016 at 11:46 AM ^
I think PrincetonBlue is referring to the original rules of the sport. Purists versus Modernists. Not a new discussion.
January 19th, 2016 at 10:41 AM ^
The original rules of the sport also said that if you caught a ball on one hop it was an out. It's become clear that the game is better with the current fly ball rules.
January 18th, 2016 at 11:28 AM ^
January 18th, 2016 at 11:29 AM ^
The DH is an abomination of the sport.
January 18th, 2016 at 11:47 AM ^
January 18th, 2016 at 11:52 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 18th, 2016 at 2:31 PM ^
January 18th, 2016 at 12:03 PM ^
Think about a basketball or hockey player only having to play offense or defense but not both. Yeah that doesn't really make any sense does it? Same for baseball IMO.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 18th, 2016 at 1:20 PM ^
Compare it to a kicker than. Why aren't kickers required to also play offense and/or defense? It's because it takes a VERY DIFFERENT SKILL SET.
Also: I can't believe that people think the NL plays chess while the AL plays checkers. It's not like there are some genius tactics or anythign that makes the NL more pure. There are three opitions a manager has late in a tight game because of a pitcher. 1) Give the pitcher a chance; 2) Pinch Hit; 3) Bunt. To me, none of those options is preferable to seeing a DH at the plate.
January 18th, 2016 at 12:10 PM ^
January 18th, 2016 at 12:53 PM ^
As usual, lots of great discussion. It gives me pause. I was born long before the DH began, and I consider myself a traditionalist in most things, baseball included. But I do feel that the time has come to bring the DH to the NL.
Pitchers are so valuable now that risking injury while hitting and running the bases, the time it takes to train to hit a baseball, the non-uniformity between leagues, increased offense, are all reasons why.
As a Tiger fan I want to see Miguel Cabrera hit until he's 40. Love watching Victor Martinez hit, who'd be retired by now if not for the DH. I like watching great hitters hit, and great pitchers pitch. Seeing Verlander and other pitchers wave at pitches is embarassing. Some guys have the natural ability to hit but it is so difficult that I don't feel you can expect a pitcher to take the time to effectively train as hitter, which takes away from his main craft. So you get many laughable at bats. Sure it's a different form of baseball but IMO it's time to move on.
January 18th, 2016 at 12:55 PM ^
January 18th, 2016 at 1:30 PM ^
Rick Rhoden did in 1988. You can thank Billy Martin for that.
http://articles.latimes.com/1988-06-12/sports/sp-7243_1_american-league…
January 18th, 2016 at 2:13 PM ^
Ugh. In addition to eliminating a huge strategic component of the game, and being just fundamentally bizzare (why not replace the two or three worst hitting players in the lineup), the DH tends to promote offense completely dependent on the home run (obviously this is not universally true Royals fans). Ultimately it's a personal preference but I find "get 'em on, get 'em over, get 'em in" far more interesting than watching a team version of the Home Run Derby.
January 18th, 2016 at 2:42 PM ^
It is ridiculous that they have a rule that different within the same league. That would be like the AFC only being able to kick extra points while the NFC can only go for two, or in the NBA the Eastern Conference having a 3 point shot and the Western Conference not having one.
January 18th, 2016 at 4:13 PM ^
/s and football on the mind
January 18th, 2016 at 6:06 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 18th, 2016 at 9:10 PM ^
The DH was added as a "reform" measure (along with lowering the mound, IIRC) to help raise batting averages. It has not done that.
I'm indifferent as to whether the NL adopts the DH (ok, in reality, I'd like to see it done away with, but it's not worth arguing over) but baseball itself has to stop tinkering at the margin and fix the pace of the game and the lack of productivity at the plate. Compare college baseball to the pros: last year, the top 50 hitters in college hit .365 and over, and the top 8 hit .402 and over. Can you imagine what it would be like to go see a ballgame like that in Comerica Park? Well, it would be like the 1930s, which sadly is the last time we saw games like that in professional baseball.
If I could, I'd allow aluminum bats tomorrow. That probably isn't the entire reason why the college game is so much better, but it would make a dent in the problem. I know a whole bunch of purists will argue it'll defile the records and books. Same thing was no doubt said at the end of the dead ball era. Time to move on.