Designated Hitter

[Gashouse6]

Do you think there should be a DH? Please explain.

[Astro]

No, there shouldnt be a DH... there is no reason why pitchers shouldnt have to hit

[KingJ]

No. It just makes American teams better by keep 14 or so guys from playing a position on another team that could use their talent and hurting the NL's chances in the World Series. It is especially pointless now that pretty much every DH in the league can play 1B or OF.

[KCGHOST]

I can't stand to watch pitchers "hit".

[Nomtoc]

Stupid, stupid rule! I HATE the DH!

[trosmok]

I can't stand to watch pitchers "hit".

I dislike the DH rule primarily because every stinking league on the planet uses it except the NL and their AAA affiliates when playing other NL AAA teams. This has robbed two full generations of the beauty of the way the game is supposed to be played: outdoors, in the sunshine, on real grass, by nine players, not eight and two halves! To me, there are few things more beautiful in our game than a pitcher who can actually acquit himself with the stick, and there are lots of them. Bob Gibson, Greg Maddux, Fernando Valenzuela. Dontrelle Willis, and many others know how to sacrifice, blast one in the gap, wait for a hittable pitch, lay down a bunt, etc. and contibute to the offense. It is painful, though, like KCGhost posted, to see some guys that look like they aren't sure which end of the bat to grasp.:noidea Secondly, I like the way the rule in MLB provides some of the last vestiges of distinction between the two leagues, which has been eroded since Slug has played the role of puppet commissioner. Finally, the DH rule has provided some sluggers with the opportunity to extend their careers, and this in turn allows some youngsters to see some stellar players in the twilight of their playing days that would have already retired before the little shavers had the chance to watch some legendary figures perform.

[Lindseynelson]

Without the DH Bonds would be 22 closer to Hank. I wish Bonds had not had his late "blossoming" which clearly suggests Roid use( check out that pesky forehead ridge) because it takes away from how great a ballplayer he is all around. prior to his alleged use he looked like his Dad, long, lean, and recognised as one of the All Time Greats already. His combination of power(natural), speed and batting eye as well as his defense were unmatched. I wonder if he regrets his "makeover" because although his power grew it still is his natural reflexes and hand eye coordination that were and are so great to watch.Anyway, Ron Bloomberg aside I dislike the DH because it A) allows guys to hang on one dimensionally B) it takes so much drama and strategy out of the game and C) It makes for a stupid rules problem in Inter-league( don't get me started) and more importantly Series time

[west coast orange and black]

i strongly dislike the dh.
originally created to "liven up the game"*, it's time has long passed.

there is no longer a dearth of offense. as so many here have argued when comparing players of different eras and individual player achievements. today's players enjoy bettered phyical prowess, smaller ballparks, advanced medicine, "throwers" as opposed to "pitchers", and more.

yeah, ok, but "who wants to watch a pitcher bat?

when a pitcher bats more strategy enters the game. the very question of leaving the pitcher in the game to fend for himself gets asked. that can be a very interesting and hair-greying question with 1 out in the 8th and 2 men are on and you're down by 1.

with no dh, managers are required to manage according to rules in place long before the designated hitter existed. rules that make for a game of strategy.

with no dh players are forced to field and bat and run and throw and be well-rounded. baseball can exist beautifully without being so specialized.


*puppet commissioner (thanx, trosmok)

[Lindseynelson]

i strongly dislike the dh.
originally created to "liven up the game"*, it's time has long passed.

there is no longer a dearth of offense. as so many here have argued when comparing players of different eras and individual player achievements. today's players enjoy bettered phyical prowess, smaller ballparks, advanced medicine, "throwers" as opposed to "pitchers", and more.

yeah, ok, but "who wants to watch a pitcher bat?

when a pitcher bats more strategy enters the game. the very question of leaving the pitcher in the game to fend for himself gets asked. that can be a very interesting and hair-greying question with 1 out in the 8th and 2 men are on and you're down by 1.

with no dh, managers are required to manage according to rules in place long before the designated hitter existed. rules that make for a game of strategy.

with no dh players are forced to field and bat and run and throw and be well-rounded. baseball can exist beautifully without being so specialized.


*puppet commissioner (thanx, trosmok)Exactly .Bobby Cox had to decide whether or not to bat or pinch hit for guys like Maddox,Glavine, Smoltz etc.AL mgrs could leave a Rocket, or Hudson or Unit etc.in the game. Since 73 that means Seavers best NL years for example he was a decision to be made while Bert Blyleven as an example could keep on going.

[Mattingly]

The purity and sanctity of the game may have been threatened to some by the DH. I'm curious, would people like David Ortiz (not like there's anyone else like him) be playing 1B otherwise?

What I'm asking is, what would the folks here do with guys who can either only hit, or whose fielding isn't worth writing home about, but their bat speaks for itself?

[Lindseynelson]

Well Don Baylor for one would not have had a fine offensive career followed by his mgr jobs. That said nothing made me laugh harder than when baylor knocked Sosa for not being a more complete player. This being a guy who made a career out of exercycling until it was time to bat because he could barely field and had a terrible arm talking about a guy who hit 300 homeruns over 5 years and drove in practically every Cub that managed to get on( and there weren't many) while playing 155 games in right 100 of which were day games..If a guy can't play the field anymore , times up. What would Teddy Ballgame have done with the DH? How about JoeD? He quit because he could no longer take the daily pounding in the field on his heels. Betchya he could have had 2 or 3 more 25-95-290,300 seasons with the old between abs epsom salts..I love watching Edgar Martinez hit and good for him for taking advantage of the AL rule but either put it in both leagues or dump it. BTW you could save a lot of AL teams money dumping DH contracts.

[BristolBoy]

To steal one of Trosmok's favourite quotes, the game should be played by nine, not eight and two halves. The nature of the game when it was invented was that pitchers should hit - the AL isn't playing baseball.

[laxplayer81217]

I do not like the DH, I also enjoy watching the extra strategy used (i.e sac bunt.) I went to a Mets game last summer against the Cubs, Glavine had more hits than half of the Cubs lineup!

[KHenry14]

I too am against the DH. Like WCOB said, the reason it was brought into being no longer exists. Plus the AL plays much longer games now, but of the shift in strategy that the DH brings. Nothing like seeing a succession of pitchers being brought in to pitch to one guy to bore a fan to death like you see so often in the AL.

And for decades, teams had to play great hitters who were bad defenders just to get their bat into the game. Dick Stuart anyone? Now a guy like Baylor can hide in the trainer's room from those pesky plays in the field.

But one thing, it's NEVER going to change. The NL will never adopt it, and the Union will never agree to it's abolishment. <sigh>

KH14

[redlegsfan21]

Major League Baseball Official Rulebook

1.01
Baseball is a game between two teams of nine players each, under direction of a manager, played on an enclosed field in accordance with these rules, under jurisdiction of one or more umpires.

[Appling]

Is there any rule difference other than the DH which causes such a difference between the AL and NL "styles of play"?

As far as I know, both Major Leagues plan to continue using wooden bats -- and both still play nine innings with three outs per inning. Can you IMAGINE what it would be like if either league decided to use aluminum bats? (Pitchers wouldn't be able to buy life insurance!)

[Solair Wright]

What I think: When interleague games surface, the AL home games should go like this: NL pitcher SHOULD bat, and AL goes by the DH rule. Same with NL Home games, AL should go by the DH rule too to liven the game up ONLY for their team. In the World Series when the AL team is at home: they go by the DH rule regardless. With the All-Star game, regardless of the ballpark, they go by the DH rule.

[Astro]

What I think: When interleague games surface, the AL home games should go like this: NL pitcher SHOULD bat, and AL goes by the DH rule. Same with NL Home games, AL should go by the DH rule too to liven the game up ONLY for their team. In the World Series when the AL team is at home: they go by the DH rule regardless. With the All-Star game, regardless of the ballpark, they go by the DH rule.
Because that is real fair for the NL team...

[antihipster]

First of all, I would say that I definately dislike the designated hitter. The designated benchwarmer, uh, I mean hitter, is a terrible rule which takes a lot of strategy out of the game.

On the otherhand, there should either be a dh or not be one. Inner-league play and the World Series are nothing more than a cocophony because it is a total burden on the game about deciding who will be dh'ing. It is time MLB decides either to use the dh for both league or to scrap the rule altogether.

Of course in a more perfect world, the NL version of the game would be played 100% of the time.

[trosmok]

Is there any rule difference other than the DH which causes such a difference between the AL and NL "styles of play"?

As far as I know, both Major Leagues plan to continue using wooden bats -- and both still play nine innings with three outs per inning. Can you IMAGINE what it would be like if either league decided to use aluminum bats? (Pitchers wouldn't be able to buy life insurance!)

There used to be separate umpire crews, league offices, and even league presidents in the AL and NL, but I don't recall any specific rules that differentiated the two major leagues.

All pro leagues use wooden bats, and more and more localities, HS, Colleges, and even Little Leagues, are banning that gawdawful aluminum crap, and going back to ash, maple, and hickory sticks. Evidently, the mad scientists at the Easton aluminum company have developed weapons that have a frighteningly dangerous "trampoline" effect when a baseball is struck squarely by them. Give me the crack of the bat not a "ping" any day.

[Lindseynelson]

The nail was hit squarely on the head by the poster that reminded us all that the Players Union would never go for it far too much money in big time contracts for old timers and one dimensionals

[west coast orange and black]

the players union is on record that they would drop the dh in favor of adding one more player to team rosters.
but, that is something that the owners have been unwilling to do.

stalemate.

[bluezebra]

The purity and sanctity of the game may have been threatened to some by the DH. I'm curious, would people like David Ortiz (not like there's anyone else like him) be playing 1B otherwise?

What I'm asking is, what would the folks here do with guys who can either only hit, or whose fielding isn't worth writing home about, but their bat speaks for itself?

"What "purity and sanctity"? The game has changed radically over the past 40 years or so. The height of the mound has been raised and lowered so many times, it's surprising some pitchers don't get the bends. A pitcher who holds the opposition to four runs or less in six innings, is considered to have a "quality start". Forty years ago, that sent him to the bullpen, the minors, or to Hamburger U. If a manager went to the mound to take the ball from pitchers like Bob Gibson, Don Drysdale, et al, he'd be in a wrestling match. Today, a base hit, and the pitcher is looking to the 'pen for relief. A pitching staff has more "specialists" than a doctors' convention.

I'm an "Old Timer" (saw my first game in 1936), and I like the DH. Iwould have loved to see a 60-year-old Ted Williams still hitting line drives to the outfield.

Bob

[Yankeebiscuitfan]

I have voted to keep it the way it is. Most pitchers can not hit, so the DH solves that problem.

But I like it the way it is. IMO it is a nice tactical game during the World Series and Interleague Play.

[Dontworry]

I don't really care, in the end the DH won't be rid of. AL fans would have a fit, and if they tried to force the NL to adopt it then their fans would have a fit. For now, it's going to stick around for one league and not the other until one or the other gradually adopts the views of the DH that the other league has.

It can be fun, but it can also be a reason for an over the hill player to continue his career when he should've retired 2 or 3 years earlier. In some instances it might help someone reach personal milestones, but people before the DH didn't get the same advantage. Also, there is a certain amount of added strategy that a manager must have to deal with the fact that he has a pitcher coming up to bat. It puts the pressure on him...does he leave the pitcher in to face the next batter, or take him out for a BP guy even though they're only 1 out away from their turn at bat- and the pitcher's spot is coming up? There are a million reasons why it adds somethign to the game, and makes a manager and his decisions important (double switches, etc).

Disclaimer: That's the reasons why I like the NL rules that a pitcher must hit, so anyone else is welcome to explain why they like having the DH and hopefully without insulting others, I know I've done my best. Lets at least try to say why we LIKE our respective league's rule, and not why we DON'T like the other league's rule.

[wamby]

What I think: When interleague games surface, the AL home games should go like this: NL pitcher SHOULD bat, and AL goes by the DH rule. Same with NL Home games, AL should go by the DH rule too to liven the game up ONLY for their team. In the World Series when the AL team is at home: they go by the DH rule regardless. With the All-Star game, regardless of the ballpark, they go by the DH rule.

Here is what I think: No matter who is playing who, the AL teams should always be able to use the DH and the NL teams should never be allowed to use the DH.

[iPod]

Here is what I think: No matter who is playing who, the AL teams should always be able to use the DH and the NL teams should never be allowed to use the DH.

That's awfully disrespectful to the National League.

[The Big C]

"What "purity and sanctity"? The game has changed radically over the past 40 years or so. The height of the mound has been raised and lowered so many times, it's surprising some pitchers don't get the bends. A pitcher who holds the opposition to four runs or less in six innings, is considered to have a "quality start". Forty years ago, that sent him to the bullpen, the minors, or to Hamburger U. If a manager went to the mound to take the ball from pitchers like Bob Gibson, Don Drysdale, et al, he'd be in a wrestling match. Today, a base hit, and the pitcher is looking to the 'pen for relief. A pitching staff has more "specialists" than a doctors' convention.

I'm an "Old Timer" (saw my first game in 1936), and I like the DH. Iwould have loved to see a 60-year-old Ted Williams still hitting line drives to the outfield.

Bob
Wow, you are an old timer. My grandfather was BORN in 1937.

As for the DH, I don't really like it, but Bluezebra makes a great point in that many other things have changed throughout the years. I think we all will just have to accept that it is probably not going away any time soon.

[LET'S ROLL !!!]

The Big C, great picture. I will never forget that game.

[johnny]

and I say that as a huge fan of Edgar M. :clapping
much much better for the game for the big bat on the bench to be part of the strategy and to allow the fans to guess -or second guess- as to the best time to employ an Edgar type player.
recall the days of Manny Mota? :clapping

[wamby]

That's awfully disrespectful to the National League.

I don't see it that way. If the NL is unwilling to adapt the DH, then why should they be able to use the DH in an AL park? They should stick to their league's tradition and not use the DH.

[Mattingly]

I don't see it that way. If the NL is unwilling to adapt the DH, then why should they be able to use the DH in an AL park? They should stick to their league's tradition and not use the DH.
You expect to have an NL team using some .090 batting pitcher when the AL team is putting in David Ortiz or someone like Gary Sheffield at the plate? C'mon, that can't be possibly fair.

There's a reason the NL teams use the DH in AL park: so they won't be at a disadvantage, even if the players, manager, etc don't like the rule.

[wamby]

You expect to have an NL team using some .090 batting pitcher when the AL team is putting in David Ortiz or someone like Gary Sheffield at the plate? C'mon, that can't be possibly fair.

There's a reason the NL teams use the DH in AL park: so they won't be at a disadvantage, even if the players, manager, etc don't like the rule.

Then the NL should join the 21st century and adapt the DH. Why should an AL team be forced to change its entire gameplan because they happen to be playing in an NL park?

[sandlot]

There is much talk in other contexts of placing an asterisk next to records. That's not something I advocate at all, but I'm wondering if those who do advocate it in certain circumstances also think that records after the DH era began should be asterisked as well? Not just hitting records would need to marked, in that case, but stats regarding pitchers as well. After all, if a tough DH is up, a manager may pull a pitcher if it's late in the game, to bring in a specialist, etc., where as if the opposing pitcher were up to bat, the pitcher on the mound would likely be left in. So a lot of numbers change. I completely agree with the statement that it makes no sense to talk about "purity" when there have been so many changes over the decades -- lights, night games, plane travel, mounds, shoes, turf, ball, stadia, gloves, rules -- you name it, it's different, except the basic dimension of the diamond. And of course, if either league switched its stance on the DH, the records would need to get asterisked again, no? My guess, FWIW, is that the decline and demise of the steroids era will eventually be followed by a declining interest in the DH. And that's exactly why the union's suggestion of adding another roster play makes sense -- it would keep players like Bernie Williams in the game longer by getting them off their feet, rather than tempting them to extend their careers by turning to the chemical farm for longevity help (and I'm not at all suggesting that BW has done that).

[iPod]

Then the NL should join the 21st century and adapt the DH. Why should an AL team be forced to change its entire gameplan because they happen to be playing in an NL park?

I could easily switch that statement around and ask why an NL team should have to compete against a DH'ed team in an AL ballpark. I actually think that makes more sense than the AL method presiding over the NL method. After all, the NL way came first. It's the way the rules were written. It's been done longer. If either method were to totally preside over the other, I think the NL DH-less lineup is more appropriate.

With that said, I think the current way of doing things is the right one; both teams use a DH in an AL park, neither in an NL park. Aside from the entirely appropriate argument that it's ridiculous for two teams playing in the same game to play under different rules, there's just simply the idea of respecting the host's way of doing things when you're in his or her home. I like to eat dinner at 7, but if I get invited to someone's house for dinner, and they eat at 6, I'm not going to ask "Why should I be forced to change my entire eating schedule because you happen to eat at a different time than me?"

[wamby]

I could easily switch that statement around and ask why an NL team should have to compete against a DH'ed team in an AL ballpark. I actually think that makes more sense than the AL method presiding over the NL method. After all, the NL way came first. It's the way the rules were written. It's been done longer. If either method were to totally preside over the other, I think the NL DH-less lineup is more appropriate.

With that said, I think the current way of doing things is the right one; both teams use a DH in an AL park, neither in an NL park. Aside from the entirely appropriate argument that it's ridiculous for two teams playing in the same game to play under different rules, there's just simply the idea of respecting the host's way of doing things when you're in his or her home. I like to eat dinner at 7, but if I get invited to someone's house for dinner, and they eat at 6, I'm not going to ask "Why should I be forced to change my entire eating schedule because you happen to eat at a different time than me?"

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think visiting someones house and a ballgame is a valid comparison.

I believe that the AL teams get screwed a lot harder with the current DH rules.

[trosmok]

... If the NL is unwilling to adapt the DH, then why should they be able to use the DH in an AL park? They should stick to their league's tradition and not use the DH.

Almost right, wamby, the NL teams shouldn't even be playing in AL ballparks!:clapping That is, of course unless it is for an exhibition or World Series. AL teams shouldn't play in NL parks, either, at least not during the regular season. Agree?

[wamby]

Almost right, wamby, the NL teams shouldn't even be playing in AL ballparks!:clapping That is, of course unless it is for an exhibition or World Series. AL teams shouldn't play in NL parks, either, at least not during the regular season. Agree?

On inter-league play? Absolutely, except for the wild-card, I think it is Selig's worst innovation. But in the World Series, there is no way that I think the NL should be allowed to use the DH, and no way that the AL should not be allowed to use it.

[Cubsfan97]

Wow this is a lop-sided poll. I think they need to get rid of it. The DH rule is stupid. Pitchers are supposed to hit.

[iPod]

I believe that the AL teams get screwed a lot harder with the current DH rules.

...The AL screwed itself over, so the NL has to pay for it.

I absolutely think the analogy to visiting someone's house applies. The NL has decided not to allow a DH into it's ballparks. "Well, we do it this way, so screw your traditions," is essentially what you're saying.

[Edgartohof]

I can totally understand the purists POV on this, I don't agree with it, but I understand it. The game wasn't meant to be played with a DH originally, but they are part of the game today, so live with it. I personally like it, I mean just look at my name, that says it all.

I would say we should just leave it the way it is, have the DH in the AL, and no DH in the NL. Also, I am not totally for interleague, nor am I totally against it, but what I wouldn't mind seeing is playing with a DH in NL parks, and no DH in AL parks, just to change it up. But then again it's just my opinion, but luckily for me, the MLB agrees with me (for the most part).

[wamby]

...The AL screwed itself over, so the NL has to pay for it.

I absolutely think the analogy to visiting someone's house applies. The NL has decided not to allow a DH into it's ballparks. "Well, we do it this way, so screw your traditions," is essentially what you're saying.

No I'm not. The DH is now an AL tradition and it the AL teams should be allowed to use it whenever they play a game.

[west coast orange and black]

"the nl should stick to their league's tradition and not use the dh."

by way of tradition, the al oughtta drop the dh. they adopted it merely 33 years ago.

[west coast orange and black]

iPod: The AL screwed itself over, so the NL has to pay for it.

exactly, man.

[wamby]

"the nl should stick to their league's tradition and not use the dh."

by way of tradition, the al oughtta drop the dh. they adopted it merely 33 years ago.

That 33 years is nearly 1/3rd of the ALs existance. I'm ambivelent about the DH but I don't think it will be eliminated anytime soon.

[west coast orange and black]

good point, bluezebra, about the changes in the game (the mound, pitching stats).

so, it is high time that the american league reverts to the good ol' days.

[west coast orange and black]

wamby: ...I don't think it will be eliminated anytime soon.

agreed.
post #22: "stalemate."

[wamby]

wamby: ...I don't think it will be eliminated anytime soon.

agreed.
post #22: "stalemate."

I don't know whether the DH is a good thing or not. I started attending games in 1972, so I've only seen one year of non-DH ball.

[west coast orange and black]

dude, there are 16 nl clubs and only 14 in the junior league.
by way of the law of averages...

[wamby]

dude, there are 16 nl clubs and only 14 in the junior league.
by way of the law of averages...

There is only one AL team in Cleveland though.

[west coast orange and black]

cruise on over to pittsburgh. :D

[wamby]

cruise on over to pittsburgh. :D

I've been there a few times.

[west coast orange and black]

ok. now try an' tell me that you did not like the brand of ball. :waving

[wamby]

ok. now try an' tell me that you did not like the brand of ball. :waving

It was alright but I think I prefer the brand that I grew up with.

[west coast orange and black]

fair enough, man.

[DownUnderDodger]

The annual question and my annual answer - no way to the DH. I will also steal one of Trosmok's favourite quotes,
the game should be played by nine, not eight and two halves. If a pitcher cannot hold a bat find one who can. If a batter is too slow or incompetent to hold a position in the field find one who can!!

[Brannu]

I voted against it. However, my general belief is that if you are going to have the DH, then it should be in both leagues. I think MLB should choose one way, either or ... not one way in one league and different in another.

Excuse me not reading all of the other 55 posts.

[Chisox]

I think that both leagues should use the DH, but with a qualifier: pitchers have to bat for the majority of the would be PAs on the year or be excluded from the playoffs and have ALL their draft and trading rights stripped for a year.

BTW, baseball has always had the DH, it's called the pinch-hitter. Exactly how much different is my way from the NL?

Also isn't the DH an OPTION for the A.L., not a LAW?

[Chisox]

dude, there are 16 nl clubs and only 14 in the junior league.
by way of the law of averages...

And until Bud's Brewers moved to the N.L. with the latest round of expansion, their were 14 in the A.L. and 12 in the N.L., so by those laws of averages...

[west coast orange and black]

pittsburgh has been playing the whole way through. the 16 have been there since '98.
what's yer beef?

[iPod]

BTW, baseball has always had the DH, it's called the pinch-hitter. Exactly how much different is my way from the NL?


Uhhh... a lot different. There are a lot of directions to go in search of a good argument for the DH. This isn't one of them.



Also isn't the DH an OPTION for the A.L., not a LAW?


I don't know, but either way it's irrelevant. Given the option, of course all teams are going to use the DH. It makes their team better. The NL fan argues that they shouldn't be given that option.

[Tigerfan1974]

Do you think there should be a DH? Please explain.

The DH is an abomination that should be eradicated from the face of the earth.
(Thanks so much Charles Finley!)

[TXRangersFan]

Also isn't the DH an OPTION for the A.L., not a LAW?
Yes, it's optional. An AL team doesn't have to use a DH if they don't want to.

[Appling]

Yes, it's optional. An AL team doesn't have to use a DH if they don't want to.
But who would not use this "option" if available to them -- unless their pitcher was a better hitter than any potential DH on the roster?

Seems like two boxers challenging each other in a fight. Boxer A says he will fight blind-folded. (Like NL saying they will require their pitchers to hit.) If Boxer B doesn't agree to be blind-folded, it doesn't follow that one will be blind-folded when they face in a scheduled bout. In any given fight (or baseball contest) both sides must play by the same rules.

If boxer B finds someone else willing to fight him in a blind-fold contest, fine. They can form their own association of blind-folded boxers -- to fight each other with the same handicap. (Much like the NL, agreeing that pitchers must be required to bat).

[Chisox]

Uhhh... a lot different. There are a lot of directions to go in search of a good argument for the DH. This isn't one of them.
How exactly is it A LOT different? Hitters don't pinch hit for pitchers in the NL?


I don't know, but either way it's irrelevant. Given the option, of course all teams are going to use the DH. It makes their team better. The NL fan argues that they shouldn't be given that option.
So you're against teams making themselves better? You're against BETTER?

[west coast orange and black]

agree with ipod:
i think that having to remove the pitcher when batting for him (when pinch-batting in the national league) v not having to remove the pitcher when batting for him (american league designated hitter) is a chasm of difference.

i think that there is no real comparison to be made between those two situations.

[Evangelion]

How exactly is it A LOT different? Hitters don't pinch hit for pitchers in the NL?
Problem is when a hitter does pinch hit for a pitcher, he's removed from the game. If it was 0-0 and it's the bottom of 8th inning and your pitcher been shutting down the other time, but his time to bat and a runner on third base, you would pinch hit for him and remove him from the game or leave him there since he's been so effective. In this regard, I admit most decision making is required than just letting the DH go up there and bat.

I'm trying to understand your stand, but having a diffcult point understanding it. While you can pinch hit for a pitcher, you don't always want to remove him from the game, but you don't want him to hit since he clearly can't hit.

My stand on the subject is have a DH or don't, but both leagues follow the same rules. While it might provide varitey to the game, it really doesn't any longer since they introduction inter-league play, which I am not a fan of at all. DH gives the American league an hitter they usually won't have out there. Blue Jays can keep Shea since there's a DH. Allow them to keep an extra player they usually won't have. This also allow the American League team an extra player to hit and develop during the season. A bit unfair in my eyes.

I believe Ortiz was brought up earlier. You would have him at 1B. You're not always going to have a player with no weakness, Ortiz is not a great fielder. For his bat, you give up fielding. Just how it goes, or how it should go. Would Ortiz probably won the MVP last year if he was at 1B and even playing poorly there? He probably would had a better chance.

[Appling]

i think that having to remove the pitcher when batting for him (when pinch-batting in the national league) v not having to remove the pitcher when batting for him (american league designated hitter) is a chasm of difference.

i think that there is no real comparison to be made between those two situations.
Do any of you remember college football in the 1950's? For a few years, a player taken out for a substitute could not return in that half. Made it a really different game -- no offensive and defensive specialists!

It seems to me that DH baseball is something like that 1950's football game -- except that by baseball DH rules only the QB can alternate with some defensive specialist. All other players must "go both ways". Should baseball go like football -- rotate with one lineup of offensive (hitting) specialists and another team of defensive specialists alternating whenever the team at bat is retired and takes the field?

[Chisox]

Problem is when a hitter does pinch hit for a pitcher, he's removed from the game. If it was 0-0 and it's the bottom of 8th inning and your pitcher been shutting down the other time, but his time to bat and a runner on third base, you would pinch hit for him and remove him from the game or leave him there since he's been so effective. In this regard, I admit most decision making is required than just letting the DH go up there and bat.

I'm trying to understand your stand, but having a diffcult point understanding it. While you can pinch hit for a pitcher, you don't always want to remove him from the game, but you don't want him to hit since he clearly can't hit.
My point is the game has always had guys bat for the pitcher, the DH just means that the pitcher can stay in the game. The biggest arguement for not having the DH is so that the pitcher can hit, and if is not, has to be removed. The DH eliminates the "strategy" of this. My point is that it doesn't have to. If you set-up rules to govern how much the DH is used, you keep that strategy. I would also like to point out that the pitcher hitting doesn't give much strategy; a guarenteed out; everyone knows what's coming. The DH opens more strategy options than closes since the hitter can do a lot more than the pitcher at the plate/on basepaths.


My stand on the subject is have a DH or don't, but both leagues follow the same rules. While it might provide varitey to the game, it really doesn't any longer since they introduction inter-league play, which I am not a fan of at all.
Both leagues should play under the same rules.


DH gives the American league an hitter they usually won't have out there. Blue Jays can keep Shea since there's a DH. Allow them to keep an extra player they usually won't have. This also allow the American League team an extra player to hit and develop during the season. A bit unfair in my eyes.
You mean "otherwise" instead of "usually" right? Again, it makes them better to have the DH. Unfair because one league choses not to do it, so not unfair at all. Giving one side the option of doing something, but them choosing not to while the other side does use the option isn't unfair; it's stupidity on the part of the N.L. if it puts them at a disadvantage.


I believe Ortiz was brought up earlier. You would have him at 1B. You're not always going to have a player with no weakness, Ortiz is not a great fielder. For his bat, you give up fielding. Just how it goes, or how it should go. Would Ortiz probably won the MVP last year if he was at 1B and even playing poorly there? He probably would had a better chance.
I think he would have, but I would have voted for Manny for MVP of that team, anyway, even though I believe Ortiz was slightly better offensively.

[Appling]

You mean "otherwise" instead of "usually" right? Again, it makes them better to have the DH. Unfair because one league choses not to do it, so not unfair at all. Giving one side the option of doing something, but them choosing not to while the other side does use the option isn't unfair; it's stupidity on the part of the N.L. if it puts them at a disadvantage.

In any given game, both sides play by the same rules (NL rules if NL park, AL rules with DH for both teams for games in AL park). So I don't see any "unfairness" here...

...except that when AL team plays in NL park their pitchers are forced to hit (something they haven't done all year, or perhaps EVER -- and the AL team may ALSO need to put their DH (perhaps the team's best hitter) in a fielding position he seldom or never plays. Oh yes, and when an NL team plays in AL park they must find an "extra" position player who can hit effectively in the DH spot.

This IMO is the main "home field advantage" in any game: the home team is "built" to play under their league's rules -- and this is why it really makes a difference to have 4 of 7 WS games played in "my" home park.

[iPod]

How exactly is it A LOT different? Hitters don't pinch hit for pitchers in the NL?


Pinch hitting has a cost; you don't get to use your pitcher again. DH'ing is a free lunch.



So you're against teams making themselves better? You're against BETTER?

To what end? Basketball teams would be "better" if they had a designated free-throw-taker. That doesn't mean it's not a lame idea that should never be implemented.

[west coast orange and black]

Appling: Should baseball rotate with one lineup of offensive specialists and another team of defensive specialists alternating?

well, of course it ought to! wouldn't that make the grand game even that much uh, more grander?

[trosmok]

...Should baseball go like football..

The DH rule was the first step toward the specialist nonsense; taken to the extreme would be the worst thing imaginable for my love of the game since the demise of the Expos and the lockout of '94.

Someone (TxRF?) mentioned that the DH is in fact an option and not required by the AL teams, however, they all employ a DH in every game they play within their own league and at home. This is not the way it was supposed to happen; when the rule was first instigated in 1973 by the business acumen challenged AL owners, it was not considered anything more than a temporary "experiment", and didn't think teams would use it very often. Boy, oh boy, were they wrong, and now every bum league on the planet utilizes the abomination, to the detriment of the youngsters who never saw the game performed by nine the way it was intended to be played.

[west coast orange and black]

teams are built not just for their home park but for their league's rules, correct. and because of this the american league seems to enjoy a distinct advantage when teams from the two leagues oppose each other.

nl teams many times must insert a non-slugging player into the dh slot (beacause of the way the team is built) whereas the al pitchers pretty much stand as good a chance at succeeding at the plate as do their nl counterparts.
the majority of pitchers are decent athletes, and the league crossover results in a good number of al pitchers having nl plate experience.

[trosmok]

....
the majority of pitchers are decent athletes,..

Couldn't have said it better myself, wcoab, and I suppose that is the main reason the proliferation of the DH rule infuriates me the most; too many young pros don't learn the whole game. Even as late as high school, the best hitters are often the pitchers, because they are usually some of the best all-around athletes on the team. They also frequently letter in another sport or two, but if they start on the pro ball track, they get pigeon-holed into just pitching, or getting shifted to the outfield and trained to learn only to hit and field. I wish there were more Brooks Kieschniks around these days.:lookitup

[Twisted Wicker]

How do you guys feel about the fact that it can extend an aging sluggers career? Someone like Piazza, who really can't catch anymore, but can still swing a bat. I think that was one of the main reasons it was designed in the first place.

I think it should only remain in the AL. Aside from the DH, there's not really much to distinguish the two leagues from each other anymore.

[west coast orange and black]

it is time to get rid of the designated hitter.

twisted, the dh was reated to bring in more revenue. that was the bottom line.
citing "more offense" and "slumping box office", the american league figured that their "experiment" would assist. mlb brass doesn't give a sweet fig about extending careers of aging sluggers

it is time to get rid of the disignated hitter.

the play of the two leagues is remarkably different, by the way. that could be an entertaining new thread.

(uh, it's the designated hitter that was created. :o )

[csh19792001]

it is time to get rid of the designated hitter.

twisted, the dh was reated to bring in more revenue. that was the bottom line.
citing "more offense" and "slumping box office", the american league figured that their "experiment" would assist. mlb brass doesn't give a sweet fig about extending careers of aging sluggers

it is time to get rid of the disignated hitter.

the play of the two leagues is remarkably different, by the way. that could be an entertaining new thread.

Amen, Tony, Amen.

I grew up watching the AL, yet much prefer the NL. My entire family follows the Yankees, but Torre's BLAH HR/BB/K sans strategy style of managing makes it difficult to pull for them. The Yanks pitchers also never finish games, and the ridiculous obsession with pitch counts/relief pitching is yet another scourge of today's game. A couple years back the Yankees had 1 complete game pitched out of 162.

Blech.

[Tigerfan1974]

How do you guys feel about the fact that it can extend an aging sluggers career? Someone like Piazza, who really can't catch anymore, but can still swing a bat. I think that was one of the main reasons it was designed in the first place.

I think it should only remain in the AL. Aside from the DH, there's not really much to distinguish the two leagues from each other anymore.

So then it 'artificially' inflates their stats? I think it needs to go.

Without the DH, Pitchers are more involved, in better shape and more strategy is needed to make the game even more intriguing than I already find it.

[Tigerfan1974]

it is time to get rid of the designated hitter.

twisted, the dh was reated to bring in more revenue. that was the bottom line.
citing "more offense" and "slumping box office", the american league figured that their "experiment" would assist. mlb brass doesn't give a sweet fig about extending careers of aging sluggers

it is time to get rid of the disignated hitter.

the play of the two leagues is remarkably different, by the way. that could be an entertaining new thread.

(uh, it's the designated hitter that was created. :o )

Here, Here!!!
Thank you Westie!

[Evangelion]

Without the DH, Pitchers are more involved, in better shape and more strategy is needed to make the game even more intriguing than I already find it.
I'm incline to agree with this logic. We all have notice the life of pitcher these days, no? We also know how absurd some of the contracts pitcher have been receiving in recent years. Pitchers like Clement, Pavano, Milwood and many more average to medicore level players don't deserve 10 plus million dollars a year. Maybe if player are more into the game, it would help. Also, when pitcher at bat, the pitcher doesn't have to worry about every spot at all times.

[Goofy]

i strongly dislike the dh.
originally created to "liven up the game"*, it's time has long passed.



yeah, ok, but "who wants to watch a pitcher bat?

when a pitcher bats more strategy enters the game. the very question of leaving the pitcher in the game to fend for himself gets asked. that can be a very interesting and hair-greying question with 1 out in the 8th and 2 men are on and you're down by 1.

with no dh, managers are required to manage according to rules in place long before the designated hitter existed. rules that make for a game of strategy.

with no dh players are forced to field and bat and run and throw and be well-rounded. baseball can exist beautifully without being so specialized.


*puppet commissioner (thanx, trosmok)



I agree totally!!! I mentioned the part about the strategy of leaving a pitcher in in a close game in another thread. I very certainly dislike the Dh and always will. To me it kills a good part of baseball. Of course I also hate a few other aspects of the "new game" I was brought up in the 60's and 70's when pitchers more often than not completed thier games they started (now they rarely last 6 innings...take my fav team the Orioles....71 complete games in 1971 2 complete games in 2005!!) Two other things I really hate are
interleague play: what's the point of having a World Series then? The 2 leagues should meet in just 2 series: The All-Star Game and the World Series...leave the regular season for the pennant races and change the interleague games to division games.

Divisional series: I liked the old way of best of 5....that is what separated it from the World Series to me back then. One was best of 5 where you had to chose which 3 pitchers you'd go with and the best of 7. Now it's like watching 2 world series a year. The season drags on a bit too long for me. If My team isn't in it now I don't watch (and given the current circumstances I won't be watching for a long long time haha).
4th on my list is the All Star game ...2 things about that...now it's not an All Star game but a popularity contest. the best players don't always get in because fans vote for who they like instead of who is the best player that year. I think the vote should be taken away from the fans and based on the seasons stats at the time. I remember voting for every oriole on the list just because that was my favorite team. And 2nd is the way it's played...everyone doesn't have to play. The all star game of what 2 years ago or so where it ended up in a tie was totally stupid!!! You have reserves in case of extra innings (you don't put every player in the regular season in every game just to have everyone play do you?) but to run out of players made the All Star game a joke!!! Gone it seems are the days of good old Baseball!!
Sorry for the long post and thanks for letting me vent.