PDA

View Full Version : The DH will never go away....


munchman33
02-03-2004, 10:52 PM
Interesting article by McAdam about how the DH will never leave, but neither will the debate. Personally, I hope it doesn't. But it's been around longer than I've been alive, so I never experienced A.L. baseball without it. What's everyone else's opinion?

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?id=1725503

beckett21
02-03-2004, 11:11 PM
Nice thread. This should provoke some interesting responses. I have always been a Sox fan, hence an AL fan. Personally, as wishy-washy as it sounds, I like the current system with the difference between leagues. It always spurs debate as to strategy, league superiority, etc. I hope things stay as is indefinitely--pretty cool if you ask me. It would be a shame if the AL were to ever abolish the DH...which for obvious economic reasons would never happen anyway IMO. By the same token, I would hate it if the NL adopted the DH...it just wouldn't seem right. Keep things as is, IMO.

That said, if I were a MLB pitcher, I would want to bat. :D:

idseer
02-03-2004, 11:22 PM
the dh rule is as bad as the new all-star game/world series connection.

i know that changes have always taken place in mlb ... and long before i was alive too, but i reserve the right to be attached to the game I fell in love with in the 50's.

every change since then has eaten away just a little more from my first kiss. the expansion, mound height, dh, playoffs, all-star, free agency (especially free agency) .... you name it.

specifically the dh has removed much of the strategy, it's changed the pitching, and good hitting pitchers no longer has meaning.

boooo on the dh!

WinningUgly!
02-03-2004, 11:26 PM
I never used to mind the DH, until the White Sox started stockpiling them.

munchman33
02-03-2004, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!
I never used to mind the DH, until the White Sox started stockpiling them.

You wouldn't think that with the amount of people around here clamoring for a return of Frank to first base.

ChiWhiteSox1337
02-03-2004, 11:40 PM
Besides Frank and Edgar, are there really any notable DHs in the AL? I don't really mind the DH rule

munchman33
02-03-2004, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by ChiWhiteSox1337
Besides Frank and Edgar, are there really any notable DHs in the AL? I don't really mind the DH rule

If not for the whole Bernie Williams, Kenny Lofton fiasco we'd be putting Jason Giambi on that list.

WinningUgly!
02-03-2004, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by ChiWhiteSox1337
Besides Frank and Edgar, are there really any notable DHs in the AL? I don't really mind the DH rule

David Ortiz, Tim Salmon & Rafael Palmeiro.

carusochop
02-03-2004, 11:54 PM
I like the DH if only for the fact ath we get to see guys like Edgar and Harold Baines play where they would've had to retire.

MRKARNO
02-03-2004, 11:55 PM
It's more fun that the two leagues are distinct in my opinion

munchman33
02-04-2004, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by carusochop
I like the DH if only for the fact ath we get to see guys like Edgar and Harold Baines play where they would've had to retire.

I agree. I love seeing all my favorite superstars extend their careers. It's just a move that makes sense, as these players are both a draw and can make a case for the Hall with the extra numbers they put up.

I do, however, have a problem with the idea of a career DH. A player should at least play half his career at a position in the field.

What about an age restriction on the DH? Say only players 35 or older, or those with at least 12 years in the league?

This could also help to keep younger players more in shape. I hate that many non-baseball fans have the perception that most baseball players are overweight and not real athletes.

mdep524
02-04-2004, 01:53 AM
Originally posted by beckett21
Nice thread. This should provoke some interesting responses. I have always been a Sox fan, hence an AL fan. Personally, as wishy-washy as it sounds, I like the current system with the difference between leagues. It always spurs debate as to strategy, league superiority, etc. I hope things stay as is indefinitely--pretty cool if you ask me. It would be a shame if the AL were to ever abolish the DH...which for obvious economic reasons would never happen anyway IMO. By the same token, I would hate it if the NL adopted the DH...it just wouldn't seem right. Keep things as is, IMO.

This pretty much sums up my opinion too. I like the DH, and I like that there is a difference between the AL and the NL, it's part of what makes baseball unique.

StillMissOzzie
02-04-2004, 02:13 AM
I disagree with those that like this difference between the AL and the NL. I wish that both leagues were the same. Whether this means that both leagues HAD the DH or both leagues DIDN'T have the DH, either way. I'd prefer that both leagues didn't have it, but I also wouldn't mind if both leagues did.

I worry that the AL will become the dumping ground for guys who can still bat but can't play in the field anymore.

What I can't understand is how one league hasn't been able to foist it's will upon the other. If the MLBPA is so strong as to prevent abolition of the DH, why can't they force it upon the NL?
That would be 16 more high-paying jobs in the NL.

Or, why can't the Commissioner force the AL to end the DH?

The other problem I have is that I feel that the AL is at a disadvantage during interleague play. When the NL plays at the AL home, the NL gets the DH for the pitcher, but when the AL plays at the NL home, the AL team has to bat a guy who hasn't even picked up a bat all year! It has to be easier for the NL team to find a full-time pinch hitter than it is for the AL team to make a hitter out of the pitcher, which screws up the structure of the team.

If the NL feels so strongly about no DH, why don't they have to continue to bat their pitcher even when they play interleague at home?

SMO
:gulp:

mdep524
02-04-2004, 03:11 AM
Originally posted by StillMissOzzie
I disagree with those that like this difference between the AL and the NL. I wish that both leagues were the same. Whether this means that both leagues HAD the DH or both leagues DIDN'T have the DH, either way. I'd prefer that both leagues didn't have it, but I also wouldn't mind if both leagues did.

We just disagree here I guess. I like the variety, it makes baseball unique.

I worry that the AL will become the dumping ground for guys who can still bat but can't play in the field anymore.

Kind of like the NFL is a dumping ground for skinny out-of-shape guys who can only kick a football between two uprights? Or how the NBA is a dumping ground for absurdly skinny, uncoordinated tall guys who can only stand in the paint and block shots?

What I can't understand is how one league hasn't been able to foist it's will upon the other. If the MLBPA is so strong as to prevent abolition of the DH, why can't they force it upon the NL?
That would be 16 more high-paying jobs in the NL.

The NL will never EVER implement the DH. EVER. NL fans would NEVER go for it.

Or, why can't the Commissioner force the AL to end the DH?

He doesn't want to, and he doesn't have that much power by himself.

The other problem I have is that I feel that the AL is at a disadvantage during interleague play. When the NL plays at the AL home, the NL gets the DH for the pitcher, but when the AL plays at the NL home, the AL team has to bat a guy who hasn't even picked up a bat all year! It has to be easier for the NL team to find a full-time pinch hitter than it is for the AL team to make a hitter out of the pitcher, which screws up the structure of the team.

I don't think there's that much of a difference between AL pitchers and NL pitchers overall hitting-wise, especially since so many AL pitchers have played inthe NL at some point in their careers. Besides, there's no reason AL pitchers can't pick up a bat during BP like NL pitchers do.

Also, if AL DHs are elite hitters for thier team, they will deal with playing the field for a few games per season.

If the NL feels so strongly about no DH, why don't they have to continue to bat their pitcher even when they play interleague at home?

It would put them at a severe disadvantage when playing in AL parks, so despite their philosophical differences, NL teams realize if they want a higher percentage chance at winning they better use the DH.

beckett21
02-04-2004, 10:23 AM
Also, if they added the DH to the NL, unless they extended roster size somebody else would be out of a job, it wouldn't necessarily be a gain of 16 jobs. The net effect would be no new jobs, if that makes any sense.

I can understand the point against the DH for those who enjoyed the game prior to its inception. My dad hates AL baseball, although he has mellowed in recent years. I really didn't follow baseball before 1973, since I was born in 1970. So to me it's all I know. And I still like having some differences between the leagues. For example there are 16 teams in the NL now, and 14 in the AL. For the longest time it was 14 and 12 AL/NL. Personally I don't see why things need to be exactly the same between leagues. Any change either way would alienate a large group of fans at this point. I can't imagine it will ever change.

idseer
02-04-2004, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by beckett21
Also, if they added the DH to the NL, unless they extended roster size somebody else would be out of a job, it wouldn't necessarily be a gain of 16 jobs. The net effect would be no new jobs, if that makes any sense.

I can understand the point against the DH for those who enjoyed the game prior to its inception. My dad hates AL baseball, although he has mellowed in recent years. I really didn't follow baseball before 1973, since I was born in 1970. So to me it's all I know. And I still like having some differences between the leagues. For example there are 16 teams in the NL now, and 14 in the AL. For the longest time it was 14 and 12 AL/NL. Personally I don't see why things need to be exactly the same between leagues. Any change either way would alienate a large group of fans at this point. I can't imagine it will ever change.

it makes sense that most people who fell in love with the game with the way they first saw it will be against any change from that way.

i remember when the dh rule first came out we used to say ... hey, why not a roving fielder too. if we're going to copy softball, let's do it all the way.

KingXerxes
02-04-2004, 11:46 AM
In my opinion the DH took too much strategy out of the American League. The fact that you can watch some guys in the twilight of their careers bat 4 times a game does not make up for this loss of strategic and tactical maneurvering. Get rid of the DH.

voodoochile
02-04-2004, 11:54 AM
I like the DH.

If they added it to the NL you wouldn't gain 16 jobs, but you would be replacing 16 25th men with 16 well paid sluggers. The Union would love it.

I get tired of watching guys like Augie Ojeda get intentional walks because the pitcher is coming up next.

StillMissOzzie
02-04-2004, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by beckett21
Also, if they added the DH to the NL, unless they extended roster size somebody else would be out of a job, it wouldn't necessarily be a gain of 16 jobs. The net effect would be no new jobs, if that makes any sense.


Originally posted by voodoochile
I like the DH.

If they added it to the NL you wouldn't gain 16 jobs, but you would be replacing 16 25th men with 16 well paid sluggers. The Union would love it.

I get tired of watching guys like Augie Ojeda get intentional walks because the pitcher is coming up next.

I think you parsed my phrase about "high-paying jobs" incorrectly, beckett. Voodoo has it right.
I'm not saying that there would be MORE jobs, just that the DH's making $3-5M/yr would be there instead of the 25th man backup infielder making the MLB minimum wage of $300K.
I also agree with PART of the comments made w/r/t strategy. While the double-flip when bringing in the pitcher to bat for the guy who made the last out and someone else who bats in the #9 slot does not involve rocket science, there is the issue of pinch-hitting for the pitcher when he's pitching well but you're down by a run late in a game.

SMO
:gulp:

munchman33
02-04-2004, 01:04 PM
Most teams in the N.L. would lose a pitching spot if they took on the D.H. Could improve the overall quality of pitching.

beckett21
02-04-2004, 04:30 PM
K.Originally posted by StillMissOzzie
I think you parsed my phrase about "high-paying jobs" incorrectly, beckett. Voodoo has it right.
I'm not saying that there would be MORE jobs, just that the DH's making $3-5M/yr would be there instead of the 25th man backup infielder making the MLB minimum wage of $300 K.

I gotcha. That makes sense. Sorry! :smile:

beckett21
02-04-2004, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
In my opinion the DH took too much strategy out of the American League. The fact that you can watch some guys in the twilight of their careers bat 4 times a game does not make up for this loss of strategic and tactical maneurvering. Get rid of the DH.

True enough. It did take a component of strategy out of the game, and that is by far the biggest argument against the DH, if not the only one. It just makes for a different game the way I look at it, no better or worse. Just different. I wouldn't expect either league to want to change at this point, it would be as if admitting they were wrong. Nothing wrong with being different. Gives the fans more to argue about! :)

Daver
02-04-2004, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by mdep524


He doesn't want to, and he doesn't have that much power by himself.



Perhaps you have forgotten that Bud chose to do away with the AL and NL presidents position to increase his power base years ago,he answers to no one but the owners.

The only thing that would stop him would be the fact that he is not interested in taking on the MLBPA,mainly because they have a habit of kicking his ass on average of about 8 out of every ten fights.

kempsted
02-05-2004, 12:37 AM
What some of you are missing is that virtually every level of baseball uses the DH now. In fact the NL is one of the only leagues left in America that does not use the DH

kempsted
02-05-2004, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
In my opinion the DH took too much strategy out of the American League. The fact that you can watch some guys in the twilight of their careers bat 4 times a game does not make up for this loss of strategic and tactical maneurvering. Get rid of the DH.

This is one of those great misconceptions. There is far less strategy in the NL than the AL. It is not strategy to say - here comes the pitcher - go up there and bunt. It is automatic. It also takes a lot out of the game when your 7 and 8 hitters start a rally with 2 outs and you can be virtually certain it will be destroyed by the pitcher. Why do you want to see someone who bats .112?

The real hard part in baseball is managing your pitchers. This is far easier in the NL where you regularly take them out for pinch hitters.

Oh but I forgot about that key piece of strategy the double switch. Ohhhh.
Other than that making your score card a mess there isn't much to it.

munchman33
02-06-2004, 12:01 AM
I agree. I hate the perception that the lack of a DH makes the N.L. more strategy based. If anything, all it does is deplete your bench in the seventh inning with all those double switches. If risking putting a pitcher in the outfield due to an injury on an almost daily basis is more "strategy," then I want no part of it.

mdep524
02-06-2004, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by Daver
The only thing that would stop him would be the fact that he is not interested in taking on the MLBPA,mainly because they have a habit of kicking his ass on average of about 8 out of every ten fights.

Hey Daver, you're right, that's pretty much what I meant.

sas1974
02-06-2004, 12:10 AM
I am too young to remember the "good old days" before the DH, but the thought of watching some out of shape guy futilely wave a bat a ball doesn't thrill me. Unless the pitcher is up there trying to move runners over via the bunt, the effort that most pitchers put out is embarrassing. I would rather them let the manager bat. Or better yet, pick a fan out of the crowd...

hellenicsoxfan
02-06-2004, 12:50 AM
[
Oh but I forgot about that key piece of strategy the double switch. Ohhhh.
Other than that making your score card a mess there isn't much to it. [/B][/QUOTE]

Good point. People talk about the double switch like the manager just split the atom. Can't remember the last time I went to a baseball game to see a double switch. If you want some real laughs, go to Wrigley next summer and ask the people there what a double switch is. I'm sure you'll get some incredible answers.

Personally, the DH came into being only a few years after I became a baseball fan and since my favorite team uses the DH, I've grown to like it. One thing I don't like is that during the World Series, games 3, 4 & 5 are played by a different set of rules than games 1, 2, 6 & 7. Couldn't they just play the whole series with or without the DH. Or would the AL team (hopefully, the White Sox) be at too big of a disadvantage if they did not use the DH for the whole series?

sas1974
02-06-2004, 12:55 AM
If you want some real laughs, go to Wrigley next summer and ask the people there what a double switch is. I'm sure you'll get some incredible answers.

I guessing they will think it's something that two guys do at one of those fancy troughs they have.

TDog
02-06-2004, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by munchman33
...What about an age restriction on the DH? Say only players 35 or older, or those with at least 12 years in the league?...

Most people forget that Harold Baines was an excellent rightfielder with a cannon for an arm. Problems with his knees forced him into a role of DH long before he was 35. Without the DH, such players used to end up at first, but as WSI regulars often lament, you can only put one player at first. The early poster boy for the adoption of the DH, Tony Oliva, was an incredible hitter who had problems (I think it was with his knees) that hobbled him long before he turned 35 or had 12 years in the league.