PDA

View Full Version : No DH in the World Series is a farce


Fenway
10-27-2007, 10:50 AM
Every year we go through this. Selig has to stop this now.

Same set of rules for everyone. I don't care if we have a DH or no DH as long as everyone is on the same page.


The real question is why we're even having this discussion. There is no longer any administrative difference between the American League and National League. The respective presidencies were abolished years ago. The umpires are under the same umbrella. It's all about scheduling, nothing else. So why do we have two sets of playing rules? How does that make sense?

The whole thing is ridiculous. No other sport operates like this. It would be like telling the Colts they can't use Adam Vinatieri when they go to Philadelphia.


http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2007/10/27/whos_on_first_ortiz_youkilis_sits/?page=full

FedEx227
10-27-2007, 11:01 AM
I like it. I have no problem with it whatsoever. Just because SAWKZ Nation has to sit on of their un-athletic corner infielders mean the 75+ year rule needs to change?

DumpJerry
10-27-2007, 11:03 AM
:violin:

Even if the DH were used in Denver, I don't think the Rox fans would chant "Youk" when Youklis comes up.

Let's take your argument and go the other way: what would prevent MLB from saying that there is to be no DH in the World Series whatsoever?

Both teams play by the same rules, leave sleeping dogs lie.

Fenway
10-27-2007, 11:06 AM
I like it. I have no problem with it whatsoever. Just because SAWKZ Nation has to sit on of their un-athletic corner infielders mean the 75+ year rule needs to change?

This is not a Boston issue...

35 years ago the DH was a gimmick to help the sagging American League.....there is no need for it now.

Funny thing is it really hasn't hurt the AL teams in the World Series as much as one would think.

FarWestChicago
10-27-2007, 11:09 AM
35 years ago the DH was a gimmick to help the sagging American League.....there is no need for it now.If you like watching pitchers bat. I don't. I'm no Wrong Sox fan and I would still rather see Ortiz at the plate instead of Schilling.

FedEx227
10-27-2007, 11:11 AM
This is not a Boston issue...

35 years ago the DH was a gimmick to help the sagging American League.....there is no need for it now.

Funny thing is it really hasn't hurt the AL teams in the World Series as much as one would think.

Exactly. So I don't see the problem.

I am on the same page as you I think the rule is outdated, but the only thing that really pisses me off is the fact that these pitchers refuse to get better at hitting outside of a some rare cases.

When you actually have decent hitting-pitchers it becomes a pretty sweet oddity, guys like Micah Owings and Dontrelle Willis make it fun to watch because then you get to a point where if the guy is pitching well you have to think about sacrificing his great pitching day for maybe a better hitter, but he's also 1-3 on the day... stuff like that I like a lot.

It hasn't hurt the AL at all, and it makes the NL vulnerable when its World Series time and they have only a backup corner infielder to throw in at DH, what's the big deal?

And I think we're all missing the real point here. With pitch-hitting we're almost guaranteed to see THE CHOICE sometime during the series.

Fenway
10-27-2007, 11:17 AM
Exactly. So I don't see the problem.

I am on the same page as you I think the rule is outdated, but the only thing that really pisses me off is the fact that these pitchers refuse to get better at hitting outside of a some rare cases.

When you actually have decent hitting-pitchers it becomes a pretty sweet oddity, guys like Micah Owings and Dontrelle Willis.

It hasn't hurt the AL at all, and it makes the NL vulnerable when its World Series time and they have only a backup corner infielder to throw in at DH, what's the big deal?

And I think we're all missing the real point here. With pitch-hitting we're almost guaranteed to see THE CHOICE sometime during the series.

Problem is how are pitchers supposed to learn how to hit? The minor leagues use the DH, the NCAA uses it. All the summer leagues like the Cape Cod use the DH.

Look the rule book says MLB NOT American League.

This code of rules is written to govern the playing of baseball games by professional teams of Major League Baseball and the leagues that are members of the National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/foreword.jsp

The AL doesn't exist anymore except in name. MLB was too cheap to even buy the domain name
http://www.americanleague.com (http://www.americanleague.com)

oeo
10-27-2007, 11:50 AM
Every year we go through this. Selig has to stop this now.

Same set of rules for everyone. I don't care if we have a DH or no DH as long as everyone is on the same page.

And the Rockies weren't at a disadvantage at Fenway? :?:

NL teams do not have the advantage of having a pure DH like a Ortiz; they just have to pick someone off the bench to fill that void. At least in the NL stadium, it's even.

The AL should keep the DH; I don't care what the NL does. National League baseball is quite boring to me.

And think about it, if you eliminate the DH, some of the best hitters are gone already. Frank, Thome, Ortiz probably would have never become what he is today, etc. Don't fix what's not broken...just keep things the way they are.

DSpivack
10-27-2007, 12:13 PM
Perhaps it's because I grew up long after the inception of the DH, but I like the dichotomy of one league having it and another not. I like having a difference in strategy and what not between one league and another; if you apply the same rules to each league, why even have leagues? Just go to east and west; although I guess the NFL maintains an arbitrary difference. Still, baseball is unique in this way I wouldn't mind it staying this way.

FedEx227
10-27-2007, 12:17 PM
That's how I am. It accomplishes one thing that no major sports has, a true difference in the leagues.

NBA East plays West constantly
NFL AFC plays NFC constantly

While in the MLB we have the little bit of interleague play, then the World Series and that's it. The No-DH rule creates a difference with the leagues that's pretty fun to see. I agree it can be a hassle and boring, but I like it the way it is.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-27-2007, 12:17 PM
I hate bunting. The DH gives every manager more strategic options to decide how to utilize his roster to his best advantage -- not just sit back and make obvious choices any 9 year-old (like my son Pants) can figure out. You don't let Bob Gibson bat for himself with 2 outs in the ninth inning when you're trailing by a run. Well, duh...

The National League needs to join the 20th Century. Then we can all march together towards the 21st one, too.
:cool:

Oblong
10-27-2007, 12:41 PM
I don't like the non DH either. Just like I've said regarding the multiple days off (not so big of a deal in the WS) in the playoffs, I don't like this because it once again changes the game in what's considered the most important games. It's not a problem so much for the NL team as they can stick a better hitter than the pitcher in the lineup, but it's really not fair for the AL team to suddenly make them take out a guy who's helped them all year. It's just dumb to play a certain way for 162 games plus another dozen or so, then to have to change it up like that.

The alleged strategic impact in the NL regarding pitchers hitting is overrated anyway. It doesn't take a genius to pull off a double switch. When Jim Leyland got the Tiger job a reporter asked him about the differences between the NL and AL and if he'd have trouble managing that way. He said he thinks it's actually harder in the AL because in the NL your decisions are often made for you regarding the pitching management. If the pitcher comes up in a key situation later in the game then you know what you have to do. There's no thought process there. In the AL you have to make the decision solely on the pitching matchup. I never thought about it that way until then.

Plus, like I read here a few weeks ago, "I'd rather watch Jim Thome hit than Dusty Baker think". Classic line.

This is the World Series. If it's not supposed to be an exhibition then play the games as they were all year long. Just add the DH to the whole series. It's not hurting anything because MLB used to rotate it from year to year. One year the DH was used and the next it wasn't used. Just like the home field advantage.

TDog
10-27-2007, 01:31 PM
I wish I had a copy of The Sporting News Baseball Guide for 1973, so I could look up the DH vote. I had one once. As I recall, there were two issues at the winter meetings in December 1972. One was the DH, which had been experimented with in spring exhibitions games, although people called it the "designated pinch hitter," and I always saw him batting ninth. The other was limited interleague play -- Cubs vs. White Sox, Angels vs. Dodgers, Giants vs. A's etc. I went to bed in favor of interleague play but opposed to the DH because it felt it would change the game itself.

The next morning, I read in the Tribune that interleague play was rejected. It required a supermajority, if not a unanimous vote by the National League at the time, as well as passing in the American League, where less support was needed for passage. Because it involved both leagues, it required passage by both leagues, which it didn't get.

The DH three-year experiment was approved by the AL -- unanimously I believe. At the time the AL was what many see the NL as today. It was the lower scoring, weaker hitting league in an era when the NL dominated the All-Star Game.

I think the NL voted 7-5 in favor of the DH. That would have been far short of passage. Maybe there was less NL support than that. It could have bee 10-2 against and I could be confusing it with another vote. I don't have access to the 1973 Baseball Guide. I'm pretty sure, that the Expos voted for the DH and the Cubs voted against it. The DH barred from the All-Star Game, which is ridiculous because that is the last place you want a pitcher to hit, and the World Series, although its World Series use was allowed in alternating years beginning in 1976, which wasn't a big deal because championship NL teams had great DHs who weren't starting, and they tended to be more athletic than the DHs used by AL teams. White Sox fans forget the if the Sox had beaten Baltimore in the 1983 ALCS, Greg Luzinski would not have been able to DH at all against the Phillies in the World Series. There is no way Luzinski would have been able to start in left field.

If there was any National League support for the DH in the early 1970s, it disappeared when the DH became part of the American League game. The AL was the junior circuit as far as fan interest was concerned. The NL game was considered more exciting because it had more offense. The AL by this time also had owners that could be considered more progressive, such as Charlie Finley, who proposed three-ball walks and orange baseballs, both of which were tried out in spring exhibition games.

I don't have any problem with the leagues playing under different rules. I don't have any problem with the teams playing by the rules of the home team's league. It's part of what makes the World Series an interleague contest.

GAsoxfan
10-27-2007, 01:49 PM
I don't like the non DH either. Just like I've said regarding the multiple days off (not so big of a deal in the WS) in the playoffs, I don't like this because it once again changes the game in what's considered the most important games. It's not a problem so much for the NL team as they can stick a better hitter than the pitcher in the lineup, but it's really not fair for the AL team to suddenly make them take out a guy who's helped them all year.

I would say it affects the NL more than the AL. Like someone said earlier, the Rockies don't have a DH type guy to bring in off the bench. So I think it's more unfair to make the NL use a DH than to make the AL pitchers bat.


It's just dumb to play a certain way for 162 games plus another dozen or so, then to have to change it up like that.

This goes both ways. It's dumb to have the Rockies use the pitcher for 162 games, and then allow them to use a DH for a few of them.


This is the World Series. If it's not supposed to be an exhibition then play the games as they were all year long. Just add the DH to the whole series.

This statement doesn't make any sense. You do realize the NL played without a DH all year long, therefore adding a DH to the entire series would force them to play a different way than they did all year long.

I like the fact the leagues have different rules. I think it makes the World Series more interesting.

Brian26
10-27-2007, 03:18 PM
Every year we go through this. Selig has to stop this now.

Same set of rules for everyone.

Everyone does have the same set of rules. In the AL parks, the DH is used. In the NL parks, it's not. Nothing needs to be fixed. The rule has been around long enough now that there should be some tradition and respect associated with it.

What would be completely unfair would be if Boston continued to use the DH at Colorado while the Rockies had to have their pitchers bat. :D:

PKalltheway
10-27-2007, 03:50 PM
I have no problem with the way things are now. They aren't going to get rid of the DH, and the NL isn't going to get on board with it, either. Just let sleeping dogs lie. Besides, it's the only discernable difference between the two leagues anymore, and I kinda like that. In other sports, there's no difference between the leagues/conferences, but in baseball, there is. It's what makes baseball unique.

Oblong
10-27-2007, 04:00 PM
I would say it affects the NL more than the AL. Like someone said earlier, the Rockies don't have a DH type guy to bring in off the bench. So I think it's more unfair to make the NL use a DH than to make the AL pitchers bat.




This goes both ways. It's dumb to have the Rockies use the pitcher for 162 games, and then allow them to use a DH for a few of them.




This statement doesn't make any sense. You do realize the NL played without a DH all year long, therefore adding a DH to the entire series would force them to play a different way than they did all year long.

I like the fact the leagues have different rules. I think it makes the World Series more interesting.

Under what possible scenario does making an NL team use a DH hurt them? How does it affect their team in a negative way? |Any player they stick in there is going to be better than a pitcher at the plate. And if that's not the case then just let the pitcher hit and don't use the DH. An NL team does not have to use a DH in a DH game anyway so your point doesn't make sense. They can put the pitcher out there if it's changing what they do. You are not subtracting anything from an NL team but in a DH game you are subtracting something an AL team used all year.

captainclutch24
10-27-2007, 07:30 PM
I hate the DH, I want to see them ditch it

Daver
10-27-2007, 07:37 PM
I hate the DH, I want to see them ditch it

Hate the DH all you want, but it is the accepted norm for every level of baseball above little league, except the MLB NL. Most high schools use it, the NCAA uses it, and every minor league level, both league affiliate and independent use it. Sure seems to me that it is the NL that is missing the bus on this one, and not the other way around.

MarySwiss
10-27-2007, 07:43 PM
I hate the DH, I want to see them ditch it

Guess it just sort of depends on your point of view. For my part, I love the DH. I can't think of a bigger rally killer than having runners on second and third in an early inning with two out, and the pitcher due up. No way you'll remove the pitcher at that point, so you're pretty much conceding the inning.

StillMissOzzie
10-27-2007, 08:27 PM
Same set of rules for everyone. I don't care if we have a DH or no DH as long as everyone is on the same page.
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2007/10/27/whos_on_first_ortiz_youkilis_sits/?page=full

That would be my druthers as well. DH or no DH, have everyone play the same game.

And the Rockies weren't at a disadvantage at Fenway? :?:

NL teams do not have the advantage of having a pure DH like a Ortiz; they just have to pick someone off the bench to fill that void. At least in the NL stadium, it's even.

True, their roster spot is probably filled by a MLB minimum wage earning utility man, not a $5-10M hitter.

Plus, like I read here a few weeks ago, "I'd rather watch Jim Thome hit than Dusty Baker think". Classic line.

It's not hurting anything because MLB used to rotate it from year to year. One year the DH was used and the next it wasn't used. Just like the home field advantage.
Today's column by The Moron had some valid points, IMHO. (Hey, even a blind dog finds a bone once in a while). He pointed out that the Red Sox' home field advantage was provided by the likes of Ichiro Suzuki and Carl Crawford in the All Star game. Crawford in particular will never play in a World Series game while he's mired in Tampa Bay, but he helps decide that the Series opened in Boston with home field advantage. Get rid of the "Now It Counts" crapola and either alternate home field advantage or give it to the best record instead.

I would say it affects the NL more than the AL. Like someone said earlier, the Rockies don't have a DH type guy to bring in off the bench. So I think it's more unfair to make the NL use a DH than to make the AL pitchers bat.

This goes both ways. It's dumb to have the Rockies use the pitcher for 162 games, and then allow them to use a DH for a few of them.

If the Rockies had a slugging pitcher, they'd have been free to ignore the DH. However, it didn't seem to help the Big Z and Cubs get past the D-Backs.

Hate the DH all you want, but it is the accepted norm for every level of baseball above little league, except the MLB NL. Most high schools use it, the NCAA uses it, and every minor league level, both league affiliate and independent use it. Sure seems to me that it is the NL that is missing the bus on this one, and not the other way around.

That's why I eventually think that the NL will cave in. While I do want everyone to play the same game, I think that eventually it will be with the DH since it is so ingrained at every other level.

SMO
:gulp:

Railsplitter
10-27-2007, 09:07 PM
Everybody hit, everybody wear a glove. That's the way it should be.

Patrick134
10-27-2007, 10:15 PM
Everybody hit, everybody wear a glove. That's the way it should be.


That's how it is now. Batting gloves.

TheVulture
10-27-2007, 11:45 PM
The DH kills the natural symmetry of baseball and it does put the NL team at a disadvantage when playing at AL parks in my opinion. On the other hand, I like watching the Frank Thomas's, Harold Baines's and Greg Luzinski's of the world hit.

Johnny Mostil
10-27-2007, 11:55 PM
This is not a Boston issue...

35 years ago the DH was a gimmick to help the sagging American League.....there is no need for it now.

Funny thing is it really hasn't hurt the AL teams in the World Series as much as one would think.

The most recent articles that I recall--not well enough, unfortunately, to find any links--dissecting reasons for AL superiority have pointed to the DH as one reason why. AL hitting is better, so AL pitching in turn improves, etc.

Oblong
10-28-2007, 12:03 AM
The DH kills the natural symmetry of baseball and it does put the NL team at a disadvantage when playing at AL parks in my opinion. On the other hand, I like watching the Frank Thomas's, Harold Baines's and Greg Luzinski's of the world hit.

What am I missing in that I see no reason why an NL team is at a disadvantage by using the DH? They get to put replace the worst hitter with a better one. And if the pitcher's not the worst hitter then they can leave him in.

Is it soley because the starting pitcher for the NL team has to face the DH?

oeo
10-28-2007, 12:10 AM
What am I missing in that I see no reason why an NL team is at a disadvantage by using the DH? They get to put replace the worst hitter with a better one. And if the pitcher's not the worst hitter then they can leave him in.

Is it soley because the starting pitcher for the NL team has to face the DH?

They're at a disadvantage because the AL team has a DH. A guy that's on the payroll specifically for hitting the ball, and hitting it with authority. The NL doesn't have that guy. Sure, their lineup is better than with the pitcher in it, but they still don't have that pure hitter like the AL team does (at least in most cases).

The Rockies' DH was Spilborghs...you can't even compare him to Ortiz.

Steelrod
10-28-2007, 03:47 AM
The DH kills the natural symmetry of baseball and it does put the NL team at a disadvantage when playing at AL parks in my opinion. On the other hand, I like watching the Frank Thomas's, Harold Baines's and Greg Luzinski's of the world hit.
I think the DH rule favors the National League in the series, although recent success might prove otherwise.
An AL team allocates a large sum of it's budget to a player who becomes nothing more that a pitch hitter in the National League park. It is probably the highest paid position on average in the American League.

Grzegorz
10-28-2007, 05:53 AM
This is not a Boston issue...

35 years ago the DH was a gimmick to help the sagging American League.....there is no need for it now.

Funny thing is it really hasn't hurt the AL teams in the World Series as much as one would think.

The DH was used to inject offense into the game. Nice, if your goal is to "dumb down" the game in order to attract the "crash and boom" crowd. Unfortunately, the removal has become quite the intractable problem. The a player's union will not let go of the concept because of all those additional members that pay dues.

Steelrod
10-28-2007, 08:11 AM
The DH was used to inject offense into the game. Nice, if your goal is to "dumb down" the game in order to attract the "crash and boom" crowd. Unfortunately, the removal has become quite the intractable problem. The a player's union will not let go of the concept because of all those additional members that pay dues.
Not additional members, the roster size is the same. It's the higher average salary for long term members which has the union's attention.

Grzegorz
10-28-2007, 10:39 AM
The a player's union will not let go of the concept because of all those additional members that pay dues.

Not additional members, the roster size is the same. It's the higher average salary for long term members which has the union's attention.

Yes, you have hit the nail on the head; thank you for the clarification.

wassagstdu
10-28-2007, 03:52 PM
Why just one DH? I say use 3: pitcher, catcher, shortstop. Or 9, heck football saw the light years ago.

But seriously, every position requires a balance of offense and defense, and that is the way it should be. Pitchers are not entirely incompetent (Case in point, Dice-K last night. First hit since high school. Actually made me wince to recall the futility of so many Sox hitters in 2007.) Baseball ain't home run derby.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-28-2007, 04:34 PM
Why just one DH? I say use 3: pitcher, catcher, shortstop. Or 9, heck football saw the light years ago.

I realize you're being sarcastic, but specialization in baseball is as American as apple pie. Without specialization everyone on defense ought to be made to pitch in order the same way they already must bat in order. In fact it is integral to every team's strategy to arrange who must bat and who must pitch ("bowl") in cricket. This is not without precedent.

Baseball has ALWAYS made allowances for specialists, and pitchers are the most obvious ones. It's disingenuous to suggest designating a hitter for the pitcher isn't true to the sport. It's just N.L. bull****.

The National Leaguers need to stop dragging their knuckles on the ground and join with every other organized baseball league on the planet. What was "traditional" in 1973 has now become a bit of a laughingstock in the 21st century.

I'm enjoying watching the Rockies look like cream puffs against the A.L. In fact I hope the A.L. keeps locking up home-field for the World Series the next 20 years, too. Pounding sense into some Neanderthals takes longer than others.
:cool:

Daver
10-28-2007, 04:59 PM
I realize you're being sarcastic, but specialization in baseball is as American as apple pie. Without specialization everyone on defense ought to be made to pitch in order the same way they already must bat in order. In fact it is integral to every team's strategy to arrange who must bat and who must pitch ("bowl") in cricket. This is not without precedent.

Baseball has ALWAYS made allowances for specialists, and pitchers are the most obvious ones. It's disingenuous to suggest designating a hitter for the pitcher isn't true to the sport. It's just N.L. bull****.

The National Leaguers need to stop dragging their knuckles on the ground and join with every other organized baseball league on the planet. What was "traditional" in 1973 has now become a bit of a laughingstock in the 21st century.

I'm enjoying watching the Rockies look like cream puffs against the A.L. In fact I hope the A.L. keeps locking up home-field for the World Series the next 20 years, too. Pounding sense into some Neanderthals takes longer than others.
:cool:

The DH serves another purpose besides being another bat in the line-up, it keeps the pitcher from risking an injury from both a HBP as well as a baserunning blunder, that is why it is used in the minors.

Oblong
10-28-2007, 08:39 PM
The DH serves another purpose besides being another bat in the line-up, it keeps the pitcher from risking an injury from both a HBP as well as a baserunning blunder, that is why it is used in the minors.
and I think that's a very important reason. The pitchers are a very unique thing out there and it just improves the quality of play throughout baseball to keep these guys from doing things that can hurt their ability to pitch. They are different from every other player on the field so no slippery slope argument applies. There's a reason beyond angles that they're not supposed to catch infield pop ups. It's not an issue of machismo but protection of assets. Baseball already concedes a certain level of protection by letting them get a jacket on whenever they reach base. Is that allowed by any other players?

fquaye149
10-28-2007, 09:21 PM
I hate bunting. The DH gives every manager more strategic options to decide how to utilize his roster to his best advantage -- not just sit back and make obvious choices any 9 year-old (like my son Pants) can figure out. You don't let Bob Gibson bat for himself with 2 outs in the ninth inning when you're trailing by a run. Well, duh...

The National League needs to join the 20th Century. Then we can all march together towards the 21st one, too.
:cool:

Bingo.

The DH exists and it's existed for 35 years. You don't have to like it, but this is the way things are right now.

There's no objective argument you can make for why the DH should exist or should not. The only argument that could be made (tradition) has fallen by the wayside because DH is now a part of a historical tradition nearly half a century.

If the national league wants to adopt the DH, fine. If the American League wants to drop the DH, fine (I won't be happy, but it's the sport's prerogative). However, as long as it exists as such, it's completely fair that the AL should have DH in their home games and vice versa during the WS.

I don't understand what the *****ing's about here. The AL has the advantage during DH-games b/c the NL teams don't carry an extra slugger for the expressed purpose of DH, and the NL is at an advantage during DH-less games because the AL loses their slugger.

Big ****ing whoop. This is not an issue to whine about, and it's a tired discussion that should have died about 15 years ago but won't because some people put "purism" above their enjoyment of the game.

fquaye149
10-28-2007, 09:23 PM
Under what possible scenario does making an NL team use a DH hurt them? How does it affect their team in a negative way? |Any player they stick in there is going to be better than a pitcher at the plate. And if that's not the case then just let the pitcher hit and don't use the DH. An NL team does not have to use a DH in a DH game anyway so your point doesn't make sense. They can put the pitcher out there if it's changing what they do. You are not subtracting anything from an NL team but in a DH game you are subtracting something an AL team used all year.


Are you kidding? The NL teams don't pay a person upwards of 6 million dollars a year just to hit.

There are no David Ortiz's on the Rockies roster, because they have to allocate their resources to everyday players. You're asking them to carry a top-tier hitter all year just to keep on the bench? No ****ing way.

fquaye149
10-28-2007, 09:26 PM
I realize you're being sarcastic, but specialization in baseball is as American as apple pie. Without specialization everyone on defense ought to be made to pitch in order the same way they already must bat in order. In fact it is integral to every team's strategy to arrange who must bat and who must pitch ("bowl") in cricket. This is not without precedent.

Baseball has ALWAYS made allowances for specialists, and pitchers are the most obvious ones. It's disingenuous to suggest designating a hitter for the pitcher isn't true to the sport. It's just N.L. bull****.

The National Leaguers need to stop dragging their knuckles on the ground and join with every other organized baseball league on the planet. What was "traditional" in 1973 has now become a bit of a laughingstock in the 21st century.

I'm enjoying watching the Rockies look like cream puffs against the A.L. In fact I hope the A.L. keeps locking up home-field for the World Series the next 20 years, too. Pounding sense into some Neanderthals takes longer than others.
:cool:

In all honesty, it wouldn't upset me greatly to see the MLB adopt a courtesy runner for the catcher like they do in many high school leagues.

I'm not going to rally for it, but I don't see what the big deal would be. Better play, longer career. I guess people are against that....

pierzynski07
10-29-2007, 12:42 AM
9 fielders, 9 hitters. End of story. :cool:

StepsInSC
10-29-2007, 03:07 PM
9 fielders, 9 hitters. End of story. :cool:

Maybe, but not until Frank Thomas retires....:D:

Foulke You
10-29-2007, 03:33 PM
I disagree about the NL being at a bigger disadvantage playing AL rules. The pinch hitters on the bench of a lot of NL teams aren't as weak as what Colorado had. Many teams keep a potent bat on the bench specifically to come in for the pitcher late in a ball game. A lot of these guys are veterans with power who can do some damage in a DH role. I will concede that none of these guys are on the level of a David Ortiz, Jim Thome, or Travis Hafner but they aren't slouches like Spillbourghs was for Colorado. Off the top of my head, the following NL teams had capable DH caliber bats on their bench that could've been competent in a World Series scenario.

Mets- Jeff Conine
Cubs- Craig Monroe/Daryl Ward/Cliff Floyd
D'backs- Tony Clark/Conor Jackson (1 is always available due to the platoon)
Brewers- Kevin Mench
Padres- Rob Mackowiak
Phillies- Greg Dobbs

There are probably more that I'm not aware of but my point is that a lot of NL teams aren't at a HUGE disadvantage as some have said because they have capable DH types already on their bench. To me, the AL teams are at a huge disadvantage because our pitchers NEVER bat and most of them haven't picked up a bat in years.

AZChiSoxFan
10-29-2007, 06:06 PM
And the Rockies weren't at a disadvantage at Fenway? :?:

NL teams do not have the advantage of having a pure DH like a Ortiz; they just have to pick someone off the bench to fill that void. At least in the NL stadium, it's even.

The AL should keep the DH; I don't care what the NL does. National League baseball is quite boring to me.

And think about it, if you eliminate the DH, some of the best hitters are gone already. Frank, Thome, Ortiz probably would have never become what he is today, etc. Don't fix what's not broken...just keep things the way they are.

The DH will never be eliminated. The union simply won't allow it. IIRC, a few years back the owners made a proposal to the players union in which they offered one extra roster spot for every team in MLB, in exchange for getting rid of the DH. Of course, the union said no. I love the way the union looks out for the players. MLB gave them an offer that would have put 30 more men in the bigs and they turned it down.

Daver
10-29-2007, 06:17 PM
The DH will never be eliminated. The union simply won't allow it. IIRC, a few years back the owners made a proposal to the players union in which they offered one extra roster spot for every team in MLB, in exchange for getting rid of the DH. Of course, the union said no. I love the way the union looks out for the players. MLB gave them an offer that would have put 30 more men in the bigs and they turned it down.

That offer was also tied to a salary cap, why in the hell would the players accept that?

AZChiSoxFan
10-29-2007, 06:19 PM
That offer was also tied to a salary cap, why in the hell would the players accept that?

My bad, I thought it was an independent offer and didn't remember that it was tied in with the cap. Sorry about that.

Goose
10-29-2007, 06:51 PM
What I have not seen mentioned yet was the advantage the NL has in an NL park in Intraleague and WS games:

The pitcher has more experience hitting than the AL pitcher does...therefore, the NL team has 1 player with a great deal of more experience than the AL counterpart in those games. When you couple that with a decent hitting pitcher, it may make up for the DH roster spot the AL has...

Even so, I prefer the NL rules. Go figure.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-29-2007, 08:56 PM
Whether the N.L. has an advantage over a DH-less A.L. team is a rather moot point compared to the very obvious situation that the current DH policies of each league has now created where the American League has vastly superior ballplayers since there are no virtually automatic outs every ninth hitter to derail an otherwise potent offense, nor offer a reprieve to an otherwise terrible pitching staff.

The National League is for *******. Their pitchers get easy outs and their offensive production sucks, too.

Yeah, sign me up for watching more mediocre baseball at major league prices!
:kukoo:

It has become a bad, bad joke...

pierzynski07
10-29-2007, 09:42 PM
And the AL is home for wusses, players who are too weak to get on the field.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-29-2007, 09:46 PM
And the AL is home for wusses, players who are too weak to get on the field.

Make that world champion wusses locking up home-field advantage every July and I'll agree.

:cool:

santo=dorf
10-29-2007, 09:50 PM
I never get this argument.

A player can not be a starting pitcher 100+ games a year. A player in any other position is capable of doing it. The starting pitcher is a special spot and those guys need to be protected as much as possible. They are already burning up their arms and elbows, why should we have them step in the box against some punk like Clemens? Mark Prior missed a month in 2003 because he screwed up on the basepaths.

johnr1note
10-29-2007, 09:53 PM
I have often argued that the tradition and "strategy" arguments are really red herrings. The DH has strategy -- just different strategy.

In The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract (1986), Bill James addressed the question of whether the DH rule diminishes baseball by obviating the need for certain applications of strategy, "strategy" being defined in the minds of purists as (a) having the pitcher bunt with a man on; (b) the use of the "double switch," that is, changing the pitcher and and another position player at the same time so the pitcher will bat in the other player's spot in the order, and (c) pinch-hitting for the pitcher late in the game. Making use of the concept of standard deviation, which is supposedly not that complicated but is something I don't myself understand well, James mathematically demonstrated that the DH rule actually increased the use of strategy, provided it was defined more sensibly not as the rote application of traditional moves in traditional situations but rather as the thoughtful consideration of options.

Also, for those who argue that the DH rule was adopted to "save" the sagging AL in the early 1970s, we must remember the DH rule was originally proposed by National League president John Heydler, and on Dec. 17, 1928, presented a proposal for designated hitters for pitchers. New York Giants' manager John McGraw endorsed the proposal, which gave the idea much prestige, and the National League promptly passed it but the American League rejected it, which prevented its implementation at the time. Charles Comiskey probably rejected it because he realized he would have had to pay more money to a hire profile player to fill that spot on the roster.

FarWestChicago
10-29-2007, 10:02 PM
And the AL is home for wusses, players who are too weak to get on the field.I would love to see you call Frank Thomas a wuss or weak to his face. :rolling:

He was probably a better athlete at age 8 than you were as an adult. :rolleyes:

MarySwiss
10-29-2007, 10:17 PM
And the AL is home for wusses, players who are too weak to get on the field.

Excuse me. You DO understand that this is the home site for an AL team?

PaleHoseGeorge
10-29-2007, 10:37 PM
I have often argued that the tradition and "strategy" arguments are really red herrings. The DH has strategy -- just different strategy.

In The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract (1986), Bill James addressed the question of whether the DH rule diminishes baseball ... Making use of the concept of standard deviation, ... James mathematically demonstrated that the DH rule actually increased the use of strategy, provided it was defined more sensibly not as the rote application of traditional moves in traditional situations but rather as the thoughtful consideration of options.

I have this same book and this passage alone is worth the price of owning it. It really debunks the Neanderthal arguments the NLers make for their weak-minded point of view.

A standard deviation simply measures how much a set of data points deviates from their average. James debunks the notion that NL ball has more "strategy" by showing how the (then) 12 NL managers had a very small deviation from one another in how often they bunted, thus showing the "strategy" was no strategy at all. EVERY NL manager was basically forced to bunt because no sensible strategy could otherwise be deployed.

With the DH rule the AL managers bunted less often but the deviation from one another was far greater as each AL manager was free to set his own strategy (to bunt or not to bunt) and make a real strategic difference in the outcome of each game.

Of course if they're still even reading this all the N.L. Neanderthals are totally confused and back to beating a tree root against a hand-sized rock. I'm guessing the A.L. humiliating them every July and every October will finally bring them around... in about 20 years.

Unga bunga... Boonga Boonga! You NLers are being humiliated, understand?
:cool:

ode to veeck
10-30-2007, 11:31 AM
Everyone does have the same set of rules. In the AL parks, the DH is used. In the NL parks, it's not. Nothing needs to be fixed. The rule has been around long enough now that there should be some tradition and respect associated with it.

What would be completely unfair would be if Boston continued to use the DH at Colorado while the Rockies had to have their pitchers bat. :D:

so when the Cubs are playing in the Cell in 2010 after the Urinal collapses in tragic death of drunken yuppies in 2009, they will play with the DH while a new Urinal is built

ode to veeck
10-30-2007, 11:34 AM
Unga bunga... Boonga Boonga! You NLers are being humiliated, understand?
:cool:

as the red hot Colorado Rockies (what did they win like 20/21 of their last NL games including the NL playoffs) go down in flames and get swept by the Red Sox