PDA

View Full Version : DH question


LITTLE NELL
09-13-2012, 06:35 AM
It was mentioned that with the new schedule that inter-league games will be played all season long. The Angels open up in Cincy in 2013 and will play without the DH right off the bat. My question is with who makes up the rules now, there really is no seperation of the leagues right now like there once was with each league having a president. Would not Selig have the power to have the DH in both leagues?

DumpJerry
09-13-2012, 08:32 AM
The Rules Committee makes the rules. There have been interleague games since the inception of the DH (World Series, then regular season games). The Rules Committee probably sees no reason to change the rules since it disadvantages both leagues equally.

Lip Man 1
09-13-2012, 10:10 AM
And because the MLBPA will never agree to the loss of higher paid DH jobs in the A.L. if both leagues were to let pitchers hit.

I could potentially someday see the N.L. adopting the DH but it would take a leader than can really work the owners and call in favors.

I don't care what they do, but both leagues have got to play by the same fundamental rules.

Lip

Chez
09-13-2012, 10:30 AM
Over the years, the DH has been phased into World Series play. I believe it went like this: after it was originally adopted by the A.L., there was a period of time when there was no DH used in the World Series (or All-Star Game). Then there was a time when the the use of the DH alternated year to year (in alternate years there was a DH used in all games or no games) until it morphed into its present usage -- DH used in games played in A.L. parks. I think I've got this right and I'm sure someone will correct me if I don't.

Huisj
09-13-2012, 11:27 AM
Over the years, the DH has been phased into World Series play. I believe it went like this: after it was originally adopted by the A.L., there was a period of time when there was no DH used in the World Series (or All-Star Game). Then there was a time when the the use of the DH alternated year to year (in alternate years there was a DH used in all games or no games) until it morphed into its present usage -- DH used in games played in A.L. parks. I think I've got this right and I'm sure someone will correct me if I don't.

A quick browse of boxscores shows that it looks like 1986 was the first year of the current system of DH in AL parks and Pitcher batting in NL parks. It looks like from '76 to '85, they alternated years with a DH in all WS games some years and in no games other years.

Chez
09-13-2012, 11:58 AM
A quick browse of boxscores shows that it looks like 1986 was the first year of the current system of DH in AL parks and Pitcher batting in NL parks. It looks like from '76 to '85, they alternated years with a DH in all WS games some years and in no games other years.

My God; my memory was correct!? Unbelievable!

russ99
09-13-2012, 12:02 PM
Changing to the DH was a fairly large reason why Astros fans hate the move to the AL.

...along with too many west coast night games, a forced rivalry with the Rangers (that really doesn't exist)/loss of Cards/Cubs/Reds rivalries and Bud forcing Crane to make the move as a condition of the sale, when realignment should be a larger question - IMO Bud's Brewers going back to the AL is the best choice. (/rant over)

Back to the topic: Even getting MLBPA approval to switch everyone to the DH would be met with huge disapproval by fans in NL cities, because the fans prefer the game to be played without the DH.

Fans of NL teams see the DH rule as taking away strategy and putting an often aging slugger in the lineup where in a non DH league, he would have to play a fielding position or pinch hit.

Bucky F. Dent
09-13-2012, 12:02 PM
And because the MLBPA will never agree to the loss of higher paid DH jobs in the A.L. if both leagues were to let pitchers hit.

I could potentially someday see the N.L. adopting the DH but it would take a leader than can really work the owners and call in favors.

I don't care what they do, but both leagues have got to play by the same fundamental rules.

Lip


That's the essence of it, right there. Keep the DH. Get rid of the DH. Have a DH and let the pitcher hit. I really don't care....but let's pick one.

russ99
09-13-2012, 12:08 PM
That's the essence of it, right there. Keep the DH. Get rid of the DH. Have a DH and let the pitcher hit. I really don't care....but let's pick one.

Again, I see no issue with keeping things as they are.

The leagues are historically different, even before the advent of the DH. Why bunch everyone together now?

And if we do that, why not do it all the way with common rules, major realignment and real playoff expansion instead of Bud's stupid stopgap fixes to keep his failed interleague experiment going?

Nellie_Fox
09-13-2012, 12:17 PM
Again, I see no issue with keeping things as they are.

The leagues are historically different, even before the advent of the DH. Why bunch everyone together now?

And if we do that, why not do it all the way with common rules, major realignment and real playoff expansion instead of Bud's stupid stopgap fixes to keep his failed interleague experiment going?My preference would be to do away with interleague play altogether, but I guess I'm in the minority on that. However, with interleague being expanded, having two different sets of rules is stupid. Imagine if the NFL was still playing with a different ball in the NFC than in the AFC, or if the NBA was using the tri-color ball and 3-point shot in one conference, and the brown ball and no three pointers in the other. That's how much sense the current MLB treatment of the DH makes.

But to answer the original question, no, Bud does not have the authority to just order it. It is a contractual issue that would have to be negotiated with the MLBPA.

PatK
09-13-2012, 12:59 PM
My preference would be to do away with interleague play altogether, but I guess I'm in the minority on that. However, with interleague being expanded, having two different sets of rules is stupid. Imagine if the NFL was still playing with a different ball in the NFC than in the AFC, or if the NBA was using the tri-color ball and 3-point shot in one conference, and the brown ball and no three pointers in the other. That's how much sense the current MLB treatment of the DH makes.

But to answer the original question, no, Bud does not have the authority to just order it. It is a contractual issue that would have to be negotiated with the MLBPA.

I wish they would do away with interleague as well.

Unless it is totally balanced, where each team in the division plays the same teams the same amount of times in interleague play

Lip Man 1
09-13-2012, 01:09 PM
Russ:

Arizona WANTED to go to the A.L. They were ready to do so. Gonzo told me that for some reason Bud never even bothered to ask them.

Apparently he or his staff was dead set on Houston making the move.

Lip

DumpJerry
09-13-2012, 01:47 PM
I'm not a big fan of interleague play, either. However, now that the Astros are in the AL, we're stuck with it unless MLB can figure out how to expand with two more teams-one for each league. Expansion would give each league an even number of teams, thereby obviating the need for interleague.

Huisj
09-13-2012, 02:22 PM
I'm not a big fan of interleague play, either. However, now that the Astros are in the AL, we're stuck with it unless MLB can figure out how to expand with two more teams-one for each league. Expansion would give each league an even number of teams, thereby obviating the need for interleague.

Anyone see Jim Caple's article proposing just that the other day? He said they should put a team back in Montreal and in Brooklyn, and then go to four four-team divisions in each league. His divisions were a little goofy though.

I was thinking about it and came up with some cool divisions (though the chances of something like this happening are next to zero):

AL East: Yankees, Red Sox, Orioles, Nationals
This makes a very tidy division geographically, and brings DC back to the AL where it was in the past. The Nationals would probably put up a big fuss about that though.

AL North: Tigers, Blue Jays, Indians, Montreal expansion team
This makes an eastern great lakes division that gives Canada two division rivals to hopefully drum up more interest north of the border. Obviously a long shot.

AL Central: Sox, Brewers, Twins, Royals
Milwaukee might put up a fuss about moving back to the AL too, but I'd dig the renewed Sox-Brewers games.

AL West: Rangers, Angels, A's, Mariners
Texas would be stuck back with their old problem of all their division foes being in the Pacific time zone, so they'd be unhappy even though they've lived with that successfully for years now.

NL East: Phillies, Mets, Pirates, Brooklyn expansion team
This puts the Pennsylvania teams back in one division.

NL South: Braves, Marlins, Astros, Rays
Moves Tampa Bay to NL so Florida can have a bit of rivalry between their teams, and puts Astros back in the NL where they should be. Makes a fairly nice division geographically.

NL Central: Cardinals, Reds, Cubs, Rockies
Kind of a big division geographically with the Rockies, but they're only a time zone away from Chicago and St. Louis.

NL West: Giants, Dodgers, Padres, Diamondbacks
Seems logical enough.

cub killer
09-13-2012, 03:27 PM
There are quite a few realignment plans floating all over the 'net, none of which will probably ever happen though.

Among the interesting ones:

-One that wanted the AL to be the de facto eastern conference, while the NL would be the de facto western conference. Sox and cubs would stay in their respective leagues.

-One that would do away with leagues, and just have 8 localized divisions. Sox and cubs in same division. Division winners would go to MLB quarterfinals.

34rancher
09-13-2012, 07:51 PM
I don't get the desire not to have a DH in the modern day. With the salaries as high of an investment in pitching and health of pitching being a serious issue, why risk a $15-25 million dollar pitcher to be hit by a pitch or run the base paths? Also for the Dynamically Priced $billion dollar upper deck seats, I don't want to pay to see a pitcher strikeout. I want to see a legit major league batter for the dough it costs now.

TDog
09-14-2012, 12:41 AM
My preference would be to do away with interleague play altogether, but I guess I'm in the minority on that. However, with interleague being expanded, having two different sets of rules is stupid. Imagine if the NFL was still playing with a different ball in the NFC than in the AFC, or if the NBA was using the tri-color ball and 3-point shot in one conference, and the brown ball and no three pointers in the other. That's how much sense the current MLB treatment of the DH makes.

But to answer the original question, no, Bud does not have the authority to just order it. It is a contractual issue that would have to be negotiated with the MLBPA.

I do away with the designated hitter before doing away with interleague play. That's the way I felt when the DH was adopted by the American League and interleague play was rejected, and I have come full circle on the view after watching a lot of baseball.

Interleague play isn't being expanded. It is being spread out. And it's still interleague play. The American and National leagues have spearate identities even if they have don't separate administrations. If follow both leagues, and I can see it. The leagues really do play two different games.

When I was in Wisconsin going to Brewers games, fans told me they were happy, sometimes enthusiastically, to be rid of the DH. I've hear fans in Houston are upset about having the DH thrust upon them. And I'm sure White Sox fans would be furious if the DH were eliminated, which isn't going to happen.

I grew up an American League fan who, as an adult, has followed National League teams close to where I've lived -- Padres, Brewers Giants. I always have been and always will be a White Sox fan, but if a game doesn't involve the White Sox, I think a National League game is more interesting because it has the checks and balances of having every defensive player come up to hit or take a seat on the bench. I like a team being able to beat a dominant pitcher by holding the opposition to force him out of the game for a pinch-hitter. I like someone who is all-hit, no-field being forced to make key defensive plays if he is going to contribute to the offense. I would love to see Justin Verlander have to hit three or four times at the expense of a professional hitter in the lineup if Verlander is going to throw 130 pitches.

I understand where National League fans are coming from. And I hope the inconvieniencing of American League teams in National League parks never forces the the National League to adopt the designated hitter.