PDA

View Full Version : DH vs Pitcher


HotelWhiteSox
06-16-2006, 10:01 PM
Pros of a pitcher being forced to hit:
- Less instances of Vicente Padilla tough guys
- "Strategy"

Cons:
- Automatic out
- Will be no place for a lot of good hitters

SouthSide_HitMen
06-16-2006, 10:22 PM
Pros of a pitcher being forced to hit:
- Less instances of Vicente Padilla tough guys
- "Strategy"

Cons:
- Automatic out
- Will be no place for a lot of good hitters

Actually I would scratch strategy. I don't think "the flip flop" or taking a pitcher out in the 6th or 7th with runners on and your team down is a huge strategic decision. In the AL you need to make decisions on pitchers and upcoming hitters - not have the situation make the decision for you. Walk the 8th hitter with the base open. The AL has good hitters 1-9 which is why they are the better league.

Every league but one (American League, Minor League Baseball, NCAA Baseball, High School Baseball) uses the DH. You don't ask a place kicker play the line and you don't ask a goalie to make a penalty shot. Given the nature of pitching (once a week) pitchers are not given the chance to perform as hitters and it makes their appearances baseball pretty weak.

I am an American League fan and always have been so I am biased but I don't understand having a .100 or .130 hitter waste three at bats - for the game itself and for the fans who pay to see it.

Since I am conservative by nature I don't know if I would be against the DH when it came out (probably - I was too young at the time) but I think this was one change for the better.

Edward
06-16-2006, 10:24 PM
I'll take the pitcher hitting. True, it is an automatic out almost everytime, but the other team has the same disadvantage. Often times pitchers in the AL start to become bullies because they know they will face no consequences minus a charge to the mound. Pitchers in the NL can bean somebody, but they know that at some point they will have to step to the plate and possibly face the same fate. Other than this reason, I am all for the DH.

SOXSINCE'70
06-16-2006, 10:39 PM
I grew up in the era of the DH,so let the pitcher pitch and let the
hitters hit.Do Sox fans really want to see a member of the starting
rotation strain a groin muscle sliding into a base?? Better yet,
what if Contreras tore his ACL trying to break up a double play??

Lip Man 1
06-16-2006, 10:42 PM
I don't care who hits as long as both leagues play by the same rules.

Lip

steveironcity
06-16-2006, 10:53 PM
The DH sucks. It was a ploy by Charles O. Finley to sell tickets, and its sad it has lasted. It takes away strategy, and makes a managers job easier than it should be. Did John McGraw have that option? Connie Mack? Miller Huggins? Joe McCarthy? Bill McKechnie? Bucky Harris? Casey Stengel? Al Lopez? Walter Alston? no, they were great strategists.

Daver
06-16-2006, 11:04 PM
Strategy my ass, pitchers hitting is tough to watch.

RKMeibalane
06-16-2006, 11:10 PM
:hurt

"You know what I'm going to say."

Seriously, though, there are too many pitchers who just can't hit. The designated hitter has allowed many good hitters (Thomas, Thome, Eddie Murray, Dave Winfield, Edgar Martinez) to extend their careers, and it also makes for more competitive baseball in the American League, because every hitter in the lineup can swing the bat and help his team. Having an automatic out at the bottom of the order irritating to watch. I admit to being biased because I was first exposed to baseball watching American League teams play, but I prefer the DH over the pitcher hitting.

One other point: the DH also allows teams to find a spot for a player who is good enough to play everyday, but plays a defensive position occupied by another player. That's why the Sox could have both Frank Thomas and Paul Konerko around in the past, and now Konerko and Jim Thome, instead of just one or the other.

JB98
06-17-2006, 12:07 AM
There's no "strategy" involved in the pitchers' hitting. It's boring crap, plain and simple. I'm a strong proponent of the DH. As I've always said, who would you pay to see hit? Frank Thomas or Ben Sheets?

HotelWhiteSox
06-17-2006, 12:26 AM
Hence the quotation marks :D:

TornLabrum
06-17-2006, 12:28 AM
The DH sucks. It was a ploy by Charles O. Finley to sell tickets, and its sad it has lasted. It takes away strategy, and makes a managers job easier than it should be. Did John McGraw have that option? Connie Mack? Miller Huggins? Joe McCarthy? Bill McKechnie? Bucky Harris? Casey Stengel? Al Lopez? Walter Alston? no, they were great strategists.

Yeah, it takes a real genius to figure out when and how to use the double switch.

steveironcity
06-17-2006, 12:54 AM
Yeah, it takes a real genius to figure out when and how to use the double switch.

Well, if a game comes down to a pitcher batting, we know where strategy comes in

Pirates pitcher Zach Duke had 4 RBI's in thursdays 9-7 win against the Cardinals

CubsfansareDRUNK
06-17-2006, 12:57 AM
Leave the pitching to the pitchers and the hitting to the hitters. You don't see Joe Crede tossin' fastballs out there. Case and point.

HomeFish
06-17-2006, 01:19 AM
Leave the pitching to the pitchers and the hitting to the hitters. You don't see Joe Crede tossin' fastballs out there. Case and point.

My friend and I swear we saw Tony Graffanino warming in the bullpen one time in 2003. Anyone remember this?

Anyway, the modification I'd like to see is a rule allowing you to use the DH for any one of your defensive positions, not necessarily the pitcher. The manager would pick at the beginning of the game. For instance, if you had Dontrelle Willis as your starter for a particular game, and had Royce Clayton at shortstop, you could make the DH bat for your SS that game.

StillMissOzzie
06-17-2006, 01:41 AM
I don't care who hits as long as both leagues play by the same rules.

Lip

That would be my first choice too, Lip. Since the DH is used at every other level in the minor leagues, I wonder why it hasn't been foisted upon the NL by now.

OTOH, I am also still waiting for one of the NL managers to "make a point" and bat the pitcher in one of the interleague games in the AL park.

SMO
:gulp:

CommanderPudge72
06-17-2006, 01:51 AM
For my money, the strategy lies in how to deal with hitters like Thome, Konerko and Dye, with Pierzynski batting .330 as the chaser....now that is living on the edge and will cause you to stock up on the Rolaids...not waiting till the automatic rally killer comes up to bat in the 9 spot.

Give me strength against strength anyday....

I love tradition and history, but sometimes it is a short-cut to thinking. I believe half the purists that love the pitcher at bat and hate interleague play have an argument more based on history than competitive interest of the game....

Like I would enjoy the Sox playing Tampa Bay 4 more times a year than go head to head in a meaningful Cub games....or see Jenks bat than watch Thome handle pitchers.....c'mon.

Jenks is awesome at what he does and so is Thome. Let that be enough.

You can control the Padilla stuff other ways. If the ump handles that situation with Padilla with half a brain, it would have been settled within the game and left there.

It is because the ump didn't handle it right, that he was emboldened to throw the 2nd time. If he would have been tossed after the 2nd time, well, Padilla you just succeeded in taking yourself out in a game you were on a roll in....congratulations, you're an idiot.

The pitcher batting during a rally with 2 outs has all the interest as a tie in hockey.

:walkoff:
"Don't be a player hater, hate the Crapolay"

Ol' No. 2
06-17-2006, 01:52 AM
Pitchers are part of the team. They should stand up and hit like everybody else.

Lip Man 1
06-17-2006, 02:05 AM
StillMissOzzie:

I'll go you one better. The DH is used by EVERY professional league in the WORLD except for the National League.

Lip

gobears1987
06-17-2006, 02:18 AM
Watching a pitcher strike out in the 9 hole is like watching Brian Anderson bat.

OK, I kid. I like BA and am glad to see him doing some damage now.

SouthSide_HitMen
06-17-2006, 03:14 AM
I love tradition and history, but sometimes it is a short-cut to thinking. I believe half the purists that love the pitcher at bat and hate interleague play have an argument more based on history than competitive interest of the game.

How is competing for the division title and not having the same schedule as your opponents (one interleague schedule has the Yankees, Red Sox and Blue Jays while your opponent plays the Devil Rays, Nationals and Royals) improve the actual competition? If a team loses their division by a game because they played much tougher (or weaker) opponents it makes the regular season a farce - the same as the 82 exhibition season the NHL and NBA have to determine playoff seeds.

TornLabrum
06-17-2006, 09:16 AM
Pitchers are part of the team. They should stand up and hit like everybody else.

The problem is, except for a precious few, they don't hit. They either bunt (now there's strategy) or flail away. Wasn't Bob Buhl something like 0 for 5 seasons?

Trav
06-17-2006, 09:37 AM
I was under the impression that not every game in the minors has the DH. I forgot the rule but it was a strange one.

The Racehorse
06-17-2006, 10:02 AM
The DH is used by EVERY professional league in the WORLD except for the National League.

Lip

I don't consider myself as being resistant to change, but the National League came into existence way before all other professional leagues, and with the NL came came pitchers batting just like all other position players.

What would give me pause if the DH was used in professional leagues around the world prior to the AL adopting it in 1973... it'd give me pause, but wouldn't change my mind. Pitchers should get their asses up to the plate and hack like the rest of the team.

RKMeibalane
06-17-2006, 10:11 AM
My friend and I swear we saw Tony Graffanino warming in the bullpen one time in 2003. Anyone remember this?

Anyway, the modification I'd like to see is a rule allowing you to use the DH for any one of your defensive positions, not necessarily the pitcher. The manager would pick at the beginning of the game. For instance, if you had Dontrelle Willis as your starter for a particular game, and had Royce Clayton at shortstop, you could make the DH bat for your SS that game.

That's a good idea. Cue flashback...

May, 2002:

CF- Lofton
2B- Durham
DH- Thomas
RF- The Other Guy
1B- Konerko
3B- Valentin
LF- Lee
C- Johnson
P- Buehrle

:hitless

"Damn! No ice cream for me, it looks like."

tigersfan25
06-17-2006, 10:12 AM
I used to say the pitcher... but then I realized how dumb it is to have a black hole in the lineup.

TornLabrum
06-17-2006, 10:16 AM
I used to say the pitcher... but then I realized how dumb it is to have a black hole in the lineup.

For a Tiggers fan you've bot a pretty good head on your shoulders.

cbotnyse
06-17-2006, 11:23 AM
It is a pitchers job to pitch, and that is way more than enough to worry about....not going up to the plate and looking like a fool.......but to this day I dont understand why its different for either league. makes no sense to me.

I was trying to think of any pitcher that was also a good hitter and Babe Ruth was the only one I could come up with.

Trav
06-17-2006, 11:29 AM
It is a pitchers job to pitch, and that is way more than enough to worry about....not going up to the plate and looking like a fool.......but to this day I dont understand why its different for either league. makes no sense to me.

I was trying to think of any pitcher that was also a good hitter and Babe Ruth was the only one I could come up with.

Bob Gibson was a great hitter. He used to pinch hit on days he didn't pitch.
If you can bunt and get a runner over, you are not that bad. Let the pitchers help their cause.

cbotnyse
06-17-2006, 11:43 AM
Bob Gibson was a great hitter. He used to pinch hit on days he didn't pitch.
If you can bunt and get a runner over, you are not that bad. Let the pitchers help their cause.
OK thats 2.....any others in the last 100 years? probably not many.

Who would you rather see bat, Thome? or Freddy Garcia? I like when pitchers get up there and lay down a good bunt, but what if there is no one on? they look like complete fools. Hitting is not their job.

areilly
06-17-2006, 11:50 AM
There's nothing more exciting than the tying run at second, 2 outs, bottom of the 3rd, watching a legend like Greg Maddux or Roger Clemens...come to bat against Tim Hamulack (http://losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/stats/individual_stats_player.jsp?c_id=la&playerID=425787).

RKMeibalane
06-17-2006, 11:52 AM
There's nothing more exciting than the tying run at second, 2 outs, bottom of the 3rd, watching a legend like Greg Maddux or Roger Clemens...come to bat against Tim Hamulack (http://losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/stats/individual_stats_player.jsp?c_id=la&playerID=425787).

Maddux is actually a good hitter. He's had a few home runs during his career.

Other good hitting pitchers:

John Smoltz
Tom Glavine
Mike Morgan
Dwight Gooden
John Smiley
Bronson Arroyo

TornLabrum
06-17-2006, 11:57 AM
Maddux is actually a good hitter. He's had a few home runs during his career.

Other good hitting pitchers:

John Smoltz
Tom Glavine
Mike Morgan
Dwight Gooden
John Smiley
Bronson Arroyo

Considering that close to half the players in the National League are pitchers, that's quite an impressive list.

Paulwny
06-17-2006, 12:02 PM
The problem is, except for a precious few, they don't hit. They either bunt (now there's strategy) or flail away. Wasn't Bob Buhl something like 0 for 5 seasons?

I'm not sure about Buhl, but I remember Hank Aguirre of the Tigers bragging that he was hitting .333, 1 hit in 3 yrs.:rolleyes:

JohnBasedowYoda
06-17-2006, 12:19 PM
Strategy my ass, pitchers hitting is tough to watch.

True, but it was fun watching Arroyo belt a couple of long ones against the shlubs

slobes
06-17-2006, 12:30 PM
Leave the pitching to the pitchers and the hitting to the hitters. You don't see Joe Crede tossin' fastballs out there. Case and point.

Robin Ventura had a brief pitching stint with the Dodgers in '04 (1 IP). Lifetime ERA of 0.00? That's pretty solid.
Haha I think I remember him throwing knuckleballs out there or something.

MarySwiss
06-17-2006, 12:40 PM
Maddux is actually a good hitter. He's had a few home runs during his career.

Other good hitting pitchers:

John Smoltz
Tom Glavine
Mike Morgan
Dwight Gooden
John Smiley
Bronson Arroyo

Maddux has five home runs in 21 years. He was really hot in 1999; he hit two that year.

Crede_Fan
06-17-2006, 01:08 PM
Isn't Zambrano a good hitter?

TornLabrum
06-17-2006, 01:20 PM
Check out Terry Forster's lifetime BA:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/forstte01.shtml

TDog
06-17-2006, 02:01 PM
I roll my eyes at the purists' use of the word "strategy" in the DH debate.

The strategy of DH-less baseball is overrated. Sure, there are different decisions to be made with the pitcher having a turn in the order, but that presence in the lineup also serves as a control for managers on handling their pitching staffs.

When the DH was first instituted, the American League saw a plethora of 20-game winners. In one of the first DH seasons there were 10 or so. (Yes, I have to go into work and I'm too lazy to look it up.) It was in those years that Wilbur Wood went 24 and 20. Managers were leaving their successful pitchers in longer, even if they were getting beaten. One reason why Mark Buehrle this year became the first MLB pitcher in history to give up 7 in the first and still win the game is because a pre-DH or NL game that would require the pitcher to hit after that would dictate hitting for the pitcher to catch up. Managers eventually learned that handling pitching staffs independently of the lineup was required for a team to be most successful. It wasn't just a matter of keeping the pitcher in the game.

There are AL managers who just fill up a lineup card. Some have had enough talent to win titles. Obviously Ozzie Guillen isn't among them. There also are National League managers who go "by the book." What they consider strategy is dictated by convention that they follow after they fill out the lineup card.

Strategic decisions involve more than the pitcher. There are still pinch hitters and pinch runners, sacrifice bunts and hit-and-run plays to worry about on top of deciding if your starter has had enough, even if he has pitched masterfully in a 1-0 game. The other night when the Sox came back twice to win, there were fans in chat who wanted Podsednik to run for Konerko instead of Gload (who was doubled off on a hit and run). I thought Ozzie was saving Pods to run for Widger, but Ozzie was saving AJ to hit for Widger and Pods to get the big pinch hit. That game, where Jenks was the first call to the bullpen, wasn't the only game the Sox won this year with masterful managing. There are some NL managers who leave their starters in too long for their own good, just as the AL managers did when they came to the park and found out they didn't have to worry about pinch hitters anymore.

It doesn't bother me that the AL and NL use different rules, though. Having a DH league and a pitcher-hitting league offers fans an alternative.

voodoochile
06-17-2006, 02:06 PM
Watching a pitcher strike out in the 9 hole is like watching Brian Anderson bat.

OK, I kid. I like BA and am glad to see him doing some damage now.


Personally, I'm not a fan of IBB to .220 hitting SS batting in the 8th hole.

The NL will eventually have to adopt the DH if they ever want to be seriously competitive in the WS.

voodoochile
06-17-2006, 02:07 PM
How is competing for the division title and not having the same schedule as your opponents (one interleague schedule has the Yankees, Red Sox and Blue Jays while your opponent plays the Devil Rays, Nationals and Royals) improve the actual competition? If a team loses their division by a game because they played much tougher (or weaker) opponents it makes the regular season a farce - the same as the 82 exhibition season the NHL and NBA have to determine playoff seeds.

Because division winners should be determined by playing teams in your own division. Don't hate the system, hate the teams who consistently suck.

RKMeibalane
06-17-2006, 02:24 PM
Because division winners should be determined by playing teams in your own division. Don't hate the system, hate the teams who consistently suck.

Agreed. The only alternative is go back to the balanced schedule, but then I'm sure someone will find a reason to complain about that. Personally, I'd like to see baseball revert to the pre-1994 format, using an Eastern and Western division for each league. I'm sure Budlight would want to allow four participants from each league in the post-season, so there could be two wildcard winners in each league, as well.

The divisions would break down like this:

American League East:
Baltimore Orioles
Boston Red Sox
Cleveland Indians
Detroit Tigers
New York Yankees
Tampa Bay Devil Rays
Toronto Blue Jays

American League West:
Chicago White Sox
Kansas City Royals
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
Minnesota Twins
Oakland Athletics
Seattle Mariners
Texas Rangers

National League East:
Atlanta Braves
Cincinnati Reds
Florida Marlins
Milwaukee Brewers
New York Mets
Philadelphia Phillies
Pittsburgh Pirates
Washington Nationals

National League West:
Arizona Diamondbacks
Chicago Cubs
Colorado Rockies
Houston Astros
Los Angeles Dodgers
San Diego Padres
San Francisco Giants
St. Louis Cardinals

Playoff Format: Each divison-winner, regardless of record, faces the WC winner from the opposite division. Homefield is award to the team with the best record.

Sox It To Em
06-17-2006, 02:28 PM
I think in tonight's game Ozzie should have Matt Thornton catching, Paul Konkerko playing short, Pierzynski playing centerfield, and Scott Podesednik on the bump.

Because as we all know, specialism in the game detracts from the amount of strategy involved.

Trav
06-17-2006, 02:28 PM
Personally, I'm not a fan of IBB to .220 hitting SS batting in the 8th hole.

The NL will eventually have to adopt the DH if they ever want to be seriously competitive in the WS.

I think that the NL has the advantage because they are used to playing with no DH and they gain a bat when they go to the AL parks.

Besides being better built from the start of the year to carry a guy with a heavier bat then most NL teams' DH, I don't see the DH as the reason why NL teams haven't won the Series for a few years.

voodoochile
06-17-2006, 02:32 PM
I think that the NL has the advantage because they are used to playing with no DH and they gain a bat when they go to the AL parks.

Besides being better built from the start of the year to carry a guy with a heavier bat then most NL teams' DH, I don't see the DH as the reason why NL teams haven't won the Series for a few years.

No, absolutely not. NL teams don't have a guy like Frank Thomas or Jim Thome sitting on the bench. Best they can do is a Mackowiak. If they had Jim Thome, for example, he would be playing 1B for them.

NL teams get to play their best BENCH player as DH (or as a fielder with that position player going to the DH slot - but it comes out to the same thing).

If all the position players are equivalent in terms of hitting ability league to league then the team that has the monster bat to use as a DH clearly has an advantage.

Trav
06-17-2006, 02:47 PM
Well that's my point. The only advantage the AL has is one more heavy hitter than the NL teams. And they get used to it so when they have to play a minimum of two games in the NL parks during the WS they are not as accustomed to it.

Clearly, having one more bopper is a big advantage but I also think being able score runs around a "black hole" in the lineup is an advantage as well.

voodoochile
06-17-2006, 02:54 PM
Well that's my point. The only advantage the AL has is one more heavy hitter than the NL teams. And they get used to it so when they have to play a minimum of two games in the NL parks during the WS they are not as accustomed to it.

Clearly, having one more bopper is a big advantage but I also think being able score runs around a "black hole" in the lineup is an advantage as well.

The difference between pitchers is about .040 OPS or something. Most NL pitchers don't hit for power. So the difference between a NL pitcher with a .150/.170/.220 line and an AL pitcher with a .090/.110/.150 line is not nearly as important as the difference between an AL DH with a .280/.380/.500 line and the bench guy who plays DH for the NL team with a .250/.300/.350 line.

One monster bat can make a HUGE difference in any game.

Besides, what makes you think AL teams are at any kind of a disadvantage in scraping out the 1 run a game (at most) you are talking about? All things being even at the other positions, does not make this nearly a huge detrement to AL teams playing in NL parks that not having a true DH is for the NL teams when they have to play in AL parks

soxwon
06-17-2006, 03:00 PM
The DH sucks. It was a ploy by Charles O. Finley to sell tickets, and its sad it has lasted. It takes away strategy, and makes a managers job easier than it should be. Did John McGraw have that option? Connie Mack? Miller Huggins? Joe McCarthy? Bill McKechnie? Bucky Harris? Casey Stengel? Al Lopez? Walter Alston? no, they were great strategists.


DH rules
i cant stand N.L. Rules
A players career can be prolonged by being a DH.

Paulwny
06-17-2006, 03:03 PM
The difference between pitchers is about .040 OPS or something. Most NL pitchers don't hit for power. So the difference between a NL pitcher with a .150/.170/.220 line and an AL pitcher with a .090/.110/.150 line is not nearly as important as the difference between an AL DH with a .280/.380/.500 line and the bench guy who plays DH for the NL team with a .250/.300/.350 line.

One monster bat can make a HUGE difference in any game.

Besides, what makes you think AL teams are at any kind of a disadvantage in scraping out the 1 run a game (at most) you are talking about? All things being even at the other positions, does not make this nearly a huge detrement to AL teams playing in NL parks that not having a true DH is for the NL teams when they have to play in AL parks

The NL team will always have the same 3-6 in the line-up power hitters at their park or at an AL park. The AL team loses one of their 3-6 in the line-up power hitters when in a NL park. Advantage to NL team.

SouthSide_HitMen
06-17-2006, 03:04 PM
Because division winners should be determined by playing teams in your own division. Don't hate the system, hate the teams who consistently suck.

It is jackass that teams in the same division play different opponents based on what Bud thinks will draw an extra couple thousand fans to the park.

Interleague is a complete joke. To argue that it "increases" competitive interest is nonsense - it makes a farce of the regular season - the same as the wildcard.

Teams competing for a division championship should play the same teams and second place teams should go home. Period.

RKMeibalane
06-17-2006, 03:05 PM
DH rules
i cant stand N.L. Rules
A players career can be prolonged by being a DH.

Exactly. Take Jim Thome or Frank Thomas out of the Sox lineup over the past eight or nine years and think about how bad things would have been.

RKMeibalane
06-17-2006, 03:06 PM
It is jackass that teams in the same division play different opponents based on what Bud thinks will draw an extra couple thousand fans to the park.

Interleague is a complete joke. To argue that it "increases" competitive interest is nonsense - it makes a farce of the regular season - the same as the wildcard.

Teams competing for a division championship should play the same teams and second place teams should go home. Period.

I agree, but Budlight will never agree to anything like that. He wants to make MLB like the NFL or NBA, and he's succeeding because of TV ratings and increased revenue. He'll never give that up, even if it is better for the game long-term.

voodoochile
06-17-2006, 03:07 PM
It is jackass that teams in the same division play different opponents based on what Bud thinks will draw an extra couple thousand fans to the park.

Interleague is a complete joke. To argue that it "increases" competitive interest is nonsense - it makes a farce of the regular season - the same as the wildcard.

Teams competing for a division championship should play the same teams and second place teams should go home. Period.

I have no love for Interleague play, but believe that if it was done away with they should still play an unbalanced schedule inside of their respective leagues.

voodoochile
06-17-2006, 03:10 PM
The NL team will always have the same 3-6 in the line-up power hitters at their park or at an AL park. The AL team loses one of their 3-6 in the line-up power hitters when in a NL park. Advantage to NL team.

Right, but you are assuming that the NL position players batting 3-6 are inherently better hitters than their AL counterparts. I think that is bad logic.

In NL parks the only difference in the lineups should be the difference between the respective pitchers - which is minute.

In AL parks the difference between lineups is the monster DH bat against some bench player - which is huge.

RKMeibalane
06-17-2006, 03:10 PM
I have no love for Interleague play, but believe that if it was done away with they should still play an unbalanced schedule inside of their respective leagues.

The way I see it, Budlight has a decision to make. I don't think it's feasible to continue having both interleague play and the unbalanced schedule. One of them has to go, because people are getting tired of playing teams from other divisions only once. I'd like to see the Sox have more than six games each season against New York and Boston, for example.

Trav
06-17-2006, 03:12 PM
The difference between pitchers is about .040 OPS or something. Most NL pitchers don't hit for power. So the difference between a NL pitcher with a .150/.170/.220 line and an AL pitcher with a .090/.110/.150 line is not nearly as important as the difference between an AL DH with a .280/.380/.500 line and the bench guy who plays DH for the NL team with a .250/.300/.350 line.

One monster bat can make a HUGE difference in any game.

Besides, what makes you think AL teams are at any kind of a disadvantage in scraping out the 1 run a game (at most) you are talking about? All things being even at the other positions, does not make this nearly a huge detrement to AL teams playing in NL parks that not having a true DH is for the NL teams when they have to play in AL parks

You are right, one bat can make a huge difference in a game. My point was that I don't think the NL needs to adopt the DH to compete with the AL. The AL's dominance is just a trend right now and will shift in a few years.

JohnBasedowYoda
06-17-2006, 03:13 PM
I have no love for Interleague play, but believe that if it was done away with they should still play an unbalanced schedule inside of their respective leagues.

I like interleague but they're going way overboard. How about 2 series on the road and 2 at home?

voodoochile
06-17-2006, 03:20 PM
You are right, one bat can make a huge difference in a game. My point was that I don't think the NL needs to adopt the DH to compete with the AL. The AL's dominance is just a trend right now and will shift in a few years.

So long as the AL can continue sucking off the aging cream of the hitting crop from the NL, the NL is in trouble, IMO.

RKMeibalane
06-17-2006, 03:21 PM
You are right, one bat can make a huge difference in a game. My point was that I don't think the NL needs to adopt the DH to compete with the AL. The AL's dominance is just a trend right now and will shift in a few years.

I don't know. The AL has dominated the NL over the past twenty six seasons (excluding '94). I think that's more than a trend.

1980- Philadelphia Phillies
1981- Los Angeles Dodgers
1982- St. Louis Cardinals
1983- Baltimore Orioles
1984- Detroit Tigers
1985- Kansas City Royals
1986- New York Mets
1987- Minnesota Twins
1988- Los Angeles Dodgers
1989- Oakland Athletics
1990- Cincinnati Reds
1991- Minnesota Twins
1992- Toronto Blue Jays
1993- Toronto Blue Jays
1994- Strike Year
1995- Atlanta Braves
1996- New York Yankees
1997- Florida Marlins
1998- New York Yankees
1999- New York Yankees
2000- New York Yankees
2001- Arizona Diamondbacks
2002- Anaheim Angels
2003- Florida Marlins
2004- Boston Red Sox
2005- Chicago White Sox

AL Victories- 15
NL Victories- 10

Granted, the '80's were evenly-matched, but the dominance of the AL over the past fifteen years or so is particularly striking. Since '90, the AL holds a 10-5 advantage.

SouthSide_HitMen
06-17-2006, 03:24 PM
I have no love for Interleague play, but believe that if it was done away with they should still play an unbalanced schedule inside of their respective leagues.

Balanced or unbalanced, your division opponents face the same teams. If interleague was constructed on a fair level, each team in one division will play an opposite division on a rotating basis (AL East plays NL East year 1, NL Central year 2, etc.). You would have a few teams that would not have the same exact schedule (due to the fact the NL has two more teams and thus two NL teams skip interleague each series) but it would be much better than the current setup. That leaves the wildcard as the only spot not determined by teams playing the same schedule (the wildcard should be removed as well).

There are few division races down the wire with this set up. What would have been a great conclusion to the season (Yankees vs. Red Sox, White Sox vs. Indians) was reduced to playoff seeding and 1 of 4 teams eliminated (instead of 2 of 4).

My suggested changes:

Least likely (though my choice) - Four divisions, 7 teams each, four playoff spots. Keep the lame interleague if you must (rotate between the two divisions each year having 21 games total).

Another unlikely alternative (though better than the current setup) Since baseball will most likely never give up a playoff round, keep the same 6 division format and have the division winners with the #2 and #3 record play a best of five and let the winner face the division winner with the best record in the league get a bye to face the winner in a best of seven. Teams would fight hard all season to get the bye and no second place team would advance.

Most likely (and something I could live with though I'd prefer seven / eight team divisions) - add two teams and have four 4 team divisions in each league with no wild card (even more $ for MLB - probably the only option they will accept).

If you must have interleague, rotate it so each team in your division plays the same teams (every other team) and at least the competition side of the argument is resolved. Scrap the Sox v. Cubs (and other annual games) 6 game nonsense.

RKMeibalane
06-17-2006, 03:25 PM
So long as the AL can continue sucking off the aging cream of the hitting crop from the NL, the NL is in trouble, IMO.

Agreed. It all goes back to the fact that guys like Jim Thome and Frank Thomas can play for AL teams, but not for NL teams. As long as power hitters like these guys are hanging around the AL only, the NL is going to get crushed during the post-season. Four games of Frank Thomas or Jim Thome swinging the bat translates into much more of an impact than three games of Barry Zito or Freddy Garcia trying to hit.

CommanderPudge72
06-17-2006, 04:02 PM
It is jackass that teams in the same division play different opponents based on what Bud thinks will draw an extra couple thousand fans to the park.

Interleague is a complete joke. To argue that it "increases" competitive interest is nonsense - it makes a farce of the regular season - the same as the wildcard.

Teams competing for a division championship should play the same teams and second place teams should go home. Period.

That is the biggest nonsense argument. You are assuming that because everyone plays eachother the same amount of times, that is equal????

Yeah...talk to the teams that played against the 83 Sox prior and post all-star game.

The game and teams are dynamic, you catch a team in a slump, in a hot streak, before an injury or after, or before a trade or after. Any of those factors change a team...within the same season. There is no great equalizer, that is why you play the game.....

Unh, I played the Best Team in the West and you played the worst in the East during the week of 6/10/06 :whiner: Not fair!!!!! Let me take my ball and go home.

And yes, pitching to Jim Thome instead of Mark Burhle is more competitive....and playing Tampa Bay 5 more times a year is as interesting as watching the Sox play the Rockies.

Bottom line, the teams play eachother quite a bit within the division, if you can beat up your division, you can win the division.

:walkoff:
"Don't try and tell me Jenks is an equivalent to Thome at the plate."

vegyrex
06-17-2006, 05:10 PM
I favor the DH. The only meaningfull argument I hear against the DH is that it cuts out strategy. According to Jim Leyland the DH opens up more opportunities for strategy, not less. Jeff Torborg said the DH doesn't take anything away from the game it just makes managing different. Even Tony Gwynn, who use to be against the DH, began to appreciate it after he became a coach at San Diego State. Tony now thinks the DH is a good idea.

SouthSide_HitMen
06-17-2006, 05:11 PM
That is the biggest nonsense argument. You are assuming that because everyone plays eachother the same amount of times, that is equal????....

Bottom line, the teams play eachother quite a bit within the division, if you can beat up your division, you can win the division.



:rolleyes:

And if two teams are all square in head to head and divisional / league matchups the winner is determined by the whims of Bud Selig’s unequal interleague schedule where exciting rivalries like Tampa vs. Florida and Toronto vs. Washington rule the day.

The current interleague schedule is indefensible (it is also old and totally played out).

Ol' No. 2
06-17-2006, 10:28 PM
My friend and I swear we saw Tony Graffanino warming in the bullpen one time in 2003. Anyone remember this?

Anyway, the modification I'd like to see is a rule allowing you to use the DH for any one of your defensive positions, not necessarily the pitcher. The manager would pick at the beginning of the game. For instance, if you had Dontrelle Willis as your starter for a particular game, and had Royce Clayton at shortstop, you could make the DH bat for your SS that game.Even better, use a DH for ALL your defensive positions AND the pitcher. Let pitchers pitch, fielders field and hitters hit. Just think how great that would be.

Hitmen77
06-17-2006, 11:58 PM
Question: Do they use the DH in other countries such as Japan or Latin American countries? Or does baseball in other nations have the pitcher bat.

Also, did the DH first originate in the AL and then spread to the minors, etc? Or was in place below the major league level before the AL adopted it?

I voted for the DH. I think the pitcher hitting is boring and is overrated.

tigersfan25
06-18-2006, 12:49 AM
For a Tiggers fan you've bot a pretty good head on your shoulders.
I grew up in Joliet... I have Sox fan relatives... I know the territory.

TornLabrum
06-18-2006, 01:41 AM
I grew up in Joliet... I have Sox fan relatives... I know the territory.

Where at in Joliet? We moved to Joliet 30 years ago this August.

Oh, and some of those Sox genes must have rubbed off.

bigfoot
06-18-2006, 09:45 AM
[quote=Hitmen77]Question: Do they use the DH in other countries such as Japan or Latin American countries?

Yes

bigfoot
06-18-2006, 09:47 AM
Even better, use a DH for ALL your defensive positions AND the pitcher. Let pitchers pitch, fielders field and hitters hit. Just think how great that would be.

That would require a bigger roster limit, right?

Ol' No. 2
06-18-2006, 09:50 AM
That would require a bigger roster limit, right?Great! More jobs for aging stars.

soxruleEP
06-18-2006, 03:48 PM
My friend and I swear we saw Tony Graffanino warming in the bullpen one time in 2003. Anyone remember this?

Anyway, the modification I'd like to see is a rule allowing you to use the DH for any one of your defensive positions, not necessarily the pitcher. The manager would pick at the beginning of the game. For instance, if you had Dontrelle Willis as your starter for a particular game, and had Royce Clayton at shortstop, you could make the DH bat for your SS that game.

Unless the rule is different in the major leagues than in college, you can. You simply designate that the htter is for the shortstop (or whatever) instead of the pitcher. It's just that the pitcher is usually (always?) the worst hitter in the pros.

TornLabrum
06-18-2006, 03:51 PM
Unless the rule is different in the major leagues than in college, you can. You simply designate that the htter is for the shortstop (or whatever) instead of the pitcher. It's just that the pitcher is usually (always?) the worst hitter in the pros.

The rule in pro ball is that the DH is for the pitcher.

chisoxmike
06-18-2006, 04:09 PM
DH

I hate seeing pitchers bat.

MarySwiss
06-18-2006, 05:41 PM
DH

I hate seeing pitchers bat.

Based on recent developments, would you care to rephrase? :D:

batmanZoSo
06-18-2006, 05:59 PM
Maybe if pitchers found a way to make it a challenge up there and actually be respectable, but in over 100 years, they have yet to do it. DH all the way. It's just too easy and it cuts starters' outings too short too often.

CommanderPudge72
06-19-2006, 12:34 AM
:rolleyes:

And if two teams are all square in head to head and divisional / league matchups the winner is determined by the whims of Bud Selig’s unequal interleague schedule where exciting rivalries like Tampa vs. Florida and Toronto vs. Washington rule the day.

The current interleague schedule is indefensible (it is also old and totally played out).

Yeah, but I am sure when the Yanks, Red Sox and Blue Jays saw the schedule this year and saw that the Red Sox had the Braves and the Blue Jays had the Marlins, the Blue Jays thought there is a sweep for us.....instead, they get swept ( a team that hit a .300 avg collectively)...any team, any time
:walkoff:

On a side note, I believe it is commonly held that one of the hardest things to do in sports is to hit major league pitching....even harder when coming off the bench to hit 4 times a night....

So riddle me this, Batman, (not batmanzoso) why are "old guys sucking off youth cream" if they can still accomplish that feat.

How many mediocre pitchers are hid in the pens and still can't bat. Chances are, if you are a DH, you are a productive player and can accomplish a very hard task...what's cheap about that?
:harry&jimmy;
"That Jim Thome, he can sure hit, and Thome rhymes with Homie"

PKalltheway
06-19-2006, 01:52 AM
I don't know. The AL has dominated the NL over the past twenty six seasons (excluding '94). I think that's more than a trend.

1980- Philadelphia Phillies
1981- Los Angeles Dodgers
1982- St. Louis Cardinals
1983- Baltimore Orioles
1984- Detroit Tigers
1985- Kansas City Royals
1986- New York Mets
1987- Minnesota Twins
1988- Los Angeles Dodgers
1989- Oakland Athletics
1990- Cincinnati Reds
1991- Minnesota Twins
1992- Toronto Blue Jays
1993- Toronto Blue Jays
1994- Strike Year
1995- Atlanta Braves
1996- New York Yankees
1997- Florida Marlins
1998- New York Yankees
1999- New York Yankees
2000- New York Yankees
2001- Arizona Diamondbacks
2002- Anaheim Angels
2003- Florida Marlins
2004- Boston Red Sox
2005- Chicago White Sox

AL Victories- 15
NL Victories- 10

Granted, the '80's were evenly-matched, but the dominance of the AL over the past fifteen years or so is particularly striking. Since '90, the AL holds a 10-5 advantage.
Yes that is true, but it is a cycle. I think the NL had great teams during th 1990's though. The Giants had 103 wins in 1993 and went home. The Reds had 96 wins in 1999 and went home. During the 1960's and 1970's the NL had better EVERYTHING. The NL had better hitters and better pitching. I'll list off some of the great players from each league from that time period. *-Hall of Famer
National League:
Roberto Clemente*
Willie Stargell*
Willie McCovey*
Willie Mays*
Hank Aaron*
Pete Rose
Johnny Bench*
Steve Carlton*
Bob Gibson*
Fergie Jenkins*
Sandy Koufax*
Don Drysdale*
Phil Niekro*
Joe Morgan*
Don Sutton*
Steve Garvey
Mike Schmidt*
Juan Marichal*
Gaylord Perry*
Lou Brock*
Ernie Banks* (aged by late sixtes though)

American League:
Mickey Mantle (best years were behind him by the mid-1960's)*
Harmon Killebrew*
Al Kaline*
Reggie Jackson*
Thurman Munson
Carl Yastrzemski*
Rollie Fingers*
Catfish Hunter*
Nolan Ryan*
Frank Robinson (he could be included in the National League list as well)*
Brooks Robinson*
Luis Tiant
Bob Allison
Jim Palmer*
Boog Powell
Yogi Berra (twilight of his career was in the sixties though)*
Whitey Ford*

Which league from that time period would you take? The AL right now though, has the NL beat in EVERYTHING. The only thing the AL doesn't have right now is the game's best hitter (Albert Pujols). How in the world can you be out for two weeks and STILL lead the majors in homers?:o:

Steelrod
06-19-2006, 05:09 AM
Strategy my ass, pitchers hitting is tough to watch.
As far as strategy goes, the double switch is automatic. Wheres the strategy?

Trav
06-19-2006, 05:30 AM
As far as strategy goes, the double switch is automatic. Wheres the strategy?

Man on first and third one out, bottom 6 down by 2. Pitcher is coming up. He has pitched well so far. Do you take him out for a batter?

Taking out a pitcher in the AL is simple. Let him start the inning and if he gets into trouble then you yank him. In the NL you have to way the effectivness of the bullpen against the effectiveness of what the pitcher has left and his bat.

viagracat
06-19-2006, 11:09 AM
As a "purist", I'll say that once upon a time I didn't like the DH and in fact admired the kind of ball that sometimes used to be called "National League"-style baseball, today better-known as "Ozzieball". :D:

But today, the argument for the pitcher hitting is less persuasive. Back in 1973 when the DH was introduced, starters went deeper into games. You didn't have positions such as "set-up man" as well-defined. A starter is now considered to have done his job if he goes five or six innings. So after the fifth or sixth inning; in general, pitchers don't bat in either league.

Double-switches are the most overrated "strategies" in the game. Any idiot can do one.

A better argument from a strategic standpoint is whether you let your starter get that third at-bat in the sixth down 2-1 with a man on base. Do you lift your starter for a pinch-hitter in that situation in hopes of getting that increasingly important run in? Or keep him in, have him bunt or whatever in the hopes he can go another inning or two out there. It depends on the game situation (number of outs, speed and baserunning prowess of the baserunner[s], etc), his abilities at the plate, the condition of the bullpen (have they been overworked?), and other things. I'll admit that's exciting at times, but it doesn't make up for the wretched at-bats pitchers usually have in NL games.

So put me down for the DH. Even from this purist.

Hitmen77
06-19-2006, 01:36 PM
Yes that is true, but it is a cycle. I think the NL had great teams during th 1990's though. The Giants had 103 wins in 1993 and went home. The Reds had 96 wins in 1999 and went home.

How do those 2 teams' win totals prove anything about the quality of the NL if they all came against other NL teams? If anything they might point to a large disparity between the good NL teams and the bad NL teams at the time.

Frater Perdurabo
06-19-2006, 02:06 PM
If anyone needs to be reminded at how bad the NL really is, just consider that the last three NL World Series champions were very recent EXPANSION teams. None of them even existed in 1990!

Traditionally powerful NL franchises like the Reds, Dodgers, Cardinals, Mets and even the Braves failed to overcome EXPANSION teams. Even in their run of dominance, the Braves won just one World Series.

Ten different AL teams have won a World Series just since 1983.

Besides chemicals, it's no coincidence that Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds accummulated record-setting home run totals in the NL; they feasted on inferior NL pitchers who in addition to being piss-poor are more likely to throw fastballs on the first pitch! Although AL and NL aces are roughly equal, AL rotations overall are stronger than NL rotations.

Trav
06-19-2006, 03:27 PM
If anyone needs to be reminded at how bad the NL really is, just consider that the last three NL World Series champions were very recent EXPANSION teams. None of them even existed in 1990!

Traditionally powerful NL franchises like the Reds, Dodgers, Cardinals, Mets and even the Braves failed to overcome EXPANSION teams. Even in their run of dominance, the Braves won just one World Series.

Ten different AL teams have won a World Series just since 1983.

Besides chemicals, it's no coincidence that Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds accummulated record-setting home run totals in the NL; they feasted on inferior NL pitchers who in addition to being piss-poor are more likely to throw fastballs on the first pitch! Although AL and NL aces are roughly equal, AL rotations overall are stronger than NL rotations.

How does the strength of pitching between leagues affect the DH?

ComiskeyBrewer
06-19-2006, 04:01 PM
I have seen my team play in both the AL and the NL, so i have seen both styles used quite a bit for my team. Personally, i like the NL style more. I don't think it's because of strategy(there is some extra strategy, but it's overplayed), it's just the way i like it. I feel that if a player is good enough to play the field, he is good enough to hit. Although, it does appear that in the NL, the bench is much more important.
For example, in the NL, a 4th outfielder plays almost everyday(pinch hit, double switches, ect), so if he is horrible, it effects the team quite a bit. In the AL, 4th OFers are seldom used(only when there is an injury, or a player needs a rest). I just think that you can hide a bad bench easier in the AL, as they aren't used as often. Now, is it extremely painful to watch pitchers hit? Usually, yes. However, when they do succeed, it makes it that much more exciting to see him do it. How many of you cheered extra hard when Garland hit that Jack the other day? To me, that's more exciting than seeing Thome do it.

FarWestChicago
06-19-2006, 08:53 PM
How many of you cheered extra hard when Garland hit that Jack the other day? To me, that's more exciting than seeing Thome do it.Yes, but anybody who prefers watching Garland bat to Thome is truly demented. :o:

Railsplitter
06-19-2006, 09:06 PM
If you can't put on a glove, you can't play baseball, period.

TornLabrum
06-19-2006, 10:15 PM
If you can't put on a glove, you can't play baseball, period.

You are correct. If you can't put on a glove that means you have no hands, and I've yet to see anyone play baseball with less than one.

voodoochile
06-20-2006, 11:47 AM
If you can't put on a glove, you can't play baseball, period.

:hurt:
"Do batting gloves count?"
(reaches down for large piece of metal pipe to begin stretching

RKMeibalane
06-20-2006, 02:13 PM
How do those 2 teams' win totals prove anything about the quality of the NL if they all came against other NL teams? If anything they might point to a large disparity between the good NL teams and the bad NL teams at the time.

Exactly. 1993 was an expansion year, with the Marlins and Rockies beginning play, and it was also the year that the Mets and Padres completely bottomed out, finishing with the two worst records in baseball.

RKMeibalane
06-20-2006, 02:15 PM
Yes, but anybody who prefers watching Garland bat to Thome is truly demented. :o:

Exactly.

Would people rather see Frank Thomas or Barry Zito?

David Ortiz or Curt Schilling?

Travis Hafner or C.C. Sabathia?

And so on, and so on...

Trav
06-20-2006, 03:18 PM
:hurt:
"Do batting gloves count?"
(reaches down for large piece of metal pipe to begin stretching

Since he took the re-barb from Old Comiskey to the new park, does anyone know if he took it with him to Oakland? I always thought it was cool that he grabbed it to keep a bit of the old park with him. At least that was the story I was told.

soxinem1
06-20-2006, 03:21 PM
There's no "strategy" involved in the pitchers' hitting. It's boring crap, plain and simple. I'm a strong proponent of the DH. As I've always said, who would you pay to see hit? Frank Thomas or Ben Sheets?

How about Mike Hampton, Terry Forester, or Tim Lollar? They were excellent hitting pitchers?

They are also rare exceptions, pitchers have always been lame hiiters, for the most part.

I do wish the NL had the DH too, so all those so-called 'Baseball Purist' fans of that league would stop hissing about the DH messing up things.

And as far as those who say that the DH allows players who are either limited physically or defensively (or both) to swell their career numbers, that is total BS. Every sport has positions of speciality, so the DH works in my book.

The beanball incidents are the only draw back, but for the once every 30 games that comes into play, I'll take a closer/DH showdown in the late innngs over Quinten McCracken PH for a pitcher anyday!

RKMeibalane
06-20-2006, 03:30 PM
Since he took the re-barb from Old Comiskey to the new park, does anyone know if he took it with him to Oakland? I always thought it was cool that he grabbed it to keep a bit of the old park with him. At least that was the story I was told.

Yes. He didn't have it early in the season, but picked it up when he came back to Chicago last month. He's had it with him ever since.

Trav
06-20-2006, 03:33 PM
Yes. He didn't have it early in the season, but picked it up when he came back to Chicago last month. He's had it with him ever since.

Thanks. That is so cool.

wilburaga
06-20-2006, 04:05 PM
DH - I'd rather see Jim Thome bat than Phil Garner think.

W

voodoochile
06-21-2006, 01:13 AM
DH - I'd rather see Jim Thome bat than Phil Garner think.

W

*****!

POTW (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=13&id=3175)

:)