Long-live the DH
In keeping with the sports theme and avoiding any and all contracts studying, DS offers the following defense of the designated hitter.
First, an excellent quote from Little Big League, an underated movie if there ever was one.
Joey - “Who you gonna get to replace O’Farrell?”
Billy - “I don’t know. Whitey Herzog turned us down, same with Valentine. None of the good guys want to work for a kid.”
Joey - “You should do it!”
Billy - “Yeah, right. Get real!”
Joey - “No, you get real. You’d be great!”
Billy - “You know how hard it is to manage?”
Joey - “It’s the American League. They’ve got the DH. How hard could it be?”
There seem to be two main arguments against the DH. First, if you're a ball player, you should be able to hit. American league pitchers aren't true players because they never have to get in that batter's box. This is nonsense. This argument would have some weight if NL pitchers were much better hitters than AL pitchers. If the NL pitchers were more valuable to their team because they could pitch AND hit, then yes, there would be a strong argument against the one-dimensional nature of the AL pitcher. But that's not the case. National league pitchers in interleague games are not better hitters than AL pitchers (at least not by enough to matter to a major league team). Now, DS doesn't have premium access to baseballprospectus.com, so he can't truly compare NL pitchers stats to their counterparts in the AL, but if NL pitchers were better hitters, then in a game played in an NL ballpark, the National league team would have a decided advantage. And for any game played in an AL park, every team has a DH, so things are neutral. But, since 1997 and the start of interleague play, the AL has a 1,249 to 1,202 record against NL teams. Maybe AL teams are that much better that they can overcome their inferior hitting from pitchers and still take the edge on the overall record, but it's more likely that AL and NL pitchers are equally as bad at hitting. Which, in turn, makes the argument that all ball players should get an at-bat nonsense. NL pitchers get at bats, and they don't help their clubs while they do it, so they're really no different from AL pitchers.
The alternative of this is that if you're a good hitter, you should be required to field. This argument resonates a little more, but not much. There is a problem with specialist DHs, like the Big Hurt or Piazza. But, if we want to force guys to play, don't get rid of the DH, just require that any DH must play in 2 or 3 out of every 7 games. Force DH's to play, not pitchers to hit.
The other, and perhaps more persuasive argument would be that in the NL there's more strategy than the AL. Managers have to worry about where ptichers come in the lineup. Managers know their pitchers are (almost) automatic outs, so they have to pinch-hit more and move more players around. This is all fine and good, but why is extra strategy a good thing. 1) There's enough strategy involved in baseball anyway. 2) If you want a rule that artificially requires more managerial strategy, why not say that the 5th batter up every inning must hit the ball to the opposite field? That would require managers and players to expand skills and evaluate where certain guys get placed in the lineup. If you want more pitchers to be used, why not a rule requiring a new pitcher every 4 innings? If you want more double switches, why not require one double switch for every two lineup changes in the course of a game? If your goal is to have an easy out every nine batters, why not require a 15 year old fan to bat one out of every nine times. Now, of course, all these rules are stupid. They do nothing for the game. But the idea that the DH is bad for the game because it requires less strategy on a manger's part is nonsense too. Why is strategy an issue. It's making the game more complicated for the sake of making the game more complicated. It does not make sense.
Give DS the DH anyday. Baseball teams shouldn't have an automatic out every nine batters. Pitchers shouldn't be let off the hook at least once through the line-up. If your goal is to reduce run output, raise the mound back up. Don't get rid of hitting. Make pitchers face better hitting, not worse.
First, an excellent quote from Little Big League, an underated movie if there ever was one.
Joey - “Who you gonna get to replace O’Farrell?”
Billy - “I don’t know. Whitey Herzog turned us down, same with Valentine. None of the good guys want to work for a kid.”
Joey - “You should do it!”
Billy - “Yeah, right. Get real!”
Joey - “No, you get real. You’d be great!”
Billy - “You know how hard it is to manage?”
Joey - “It’s the American League. They’ve got the DH. How hard could it be?”
There seem to be two main arguments against the DH. First, if you're a ball player, you should be able to hit. American league pitchers aren't true players because they never have to get in that batter's box. This is nonsense. This argument would have some weight if NL pitchers were much better hitters than AL pitchers. If the NL pitchers were more valuable to their team because they could pitch AND hit, then yes, there would be a strong argument against the one-dimensional nature of the AL pitcher. But that's not the case. National league pitchers in interleague games are not better hitters than AL pitchers (at least not by enough to matter to a major league team). Now, DS doesn't have premium access to baseballprospectus.com, so he can't truly compare NL pitchers stats to their counterparts in the AL, but if NL pitchers were better hitters, then in a game played in an NL ballpark, the National league team would have a decided advantage. And for any game played in an AL park, every team has a DH, so things are neutral. But, since 1997 and the start of interleague play, the AL has a 1,249 to 1,202 record against NL teams. Maybe AL teams are that much better that they can overcome their inferior hitting from pitchers and still take the edge on the overall record, but it's more likely that AL and NL pitchers are equally as bad at hitting. Which, in turn, makes the argument that all ball players should get an at-bat nonsense. NL pitchers get at bats, and they don't help their clubs while they do it, so they're really no different from AL pitchers.
The alternative of this is that if you're a good hitter, you should be required to field. This argument resonates a little more, but not much. There is a problem with specialist DHs, like the Big Hurt or Piazza. But, if we want to force guys to play, don't get rid of the DH, just require that any DH must play in 2 or 3 out of every 7 games. Force DH's to play, not pitchers to hit.
The other, and perhaps more persuasive argument would be that in the NL there's more strategy than the AL. Managers have to worry about where ptichers come in the lineup. Managers know their pitchers are (almost) automatic outs, so they have to pinch-hit more and move more players around. This is all fine and good, but why is extra strategy a good thing. 1) There's enough strategy involved in baseball anyway. 2) If you want a rule that artificially requires more managerial strategy, why not say that the 5th batter up every inning must hit the ball to the opposite field? That would require managers and players to expand skills and evaluate where certain guys get placed in the lineup. If you want more pitchers to be used, why not a rule requiring a new pitcher every 4 innings? If you want more double switches, why not require one double switch for every two lineup changes in the course of a game? If your goal is to have an easy out every nine batters, why not require a 15 year old fan to bat one out of every nine times. Now, of course, all these rules are stupid. They do nothing for the game. But the idea that the DH is bad for the game because it requires less strategy on a manger's part is nonsense too. Why is strategy an issue. It's making the game more complicated for the sake of making the game more complicated. It does not make sense.
Give DS the DH anyday. Baseball teams shouldn't have an automatic out every nine batters. Pitchers shouldn't be let off the hook at least once through the line-up. If your goal is to reduce run output, raise the mound back up. Don't get rid of hitting. Make pitchers face better hitting, not worse.
posted by Disco Stu at 9:51 PM
16 Comments:
Contracts sucks. And so does the DH. I'll take the double switches of the NL--and particularly those made by the Dodgers--any day.
As for the argument about minimal differences between the batting stats of AL and NL pitchers--you claim that because they are similar (and I think you're right) there is no advantage for the NL in NL parks, and no advantage for the AL in AL parks. What you don't take into consideration is that AL teams are built differently than NL teams. Whereas AL teams attempt to have 9 solid hitters for their everyday lineup (and sign players accordingly), NL teams only try to have 8. So when NL teams play in AL ballparks, they're forced to throw a benchwarming schlub out there, while the AL team has its everyday lineup.
Now, you could say the inverse is true in NL ballparks, because AL teams can't use their DH. But most AL teams will throw their DH out there on defense, so as to get their best 8 batters in the lineup (even Ortiz and Thome usually play 1st I think--Thomas is really one of the few who simply doesn't play in NL parks). So really, not much disadvantage there--and really probably an advantage, because AL teams tend to be built more for offense, so their top 8 is likely to be better than an NL team's top 8 (with the 9th spot being a wash).
So this was unnecessarily long, but that's what happens when you can't face another set of sub-50% contracts questions.
You're argument (and it's a valid one) goes to the AL's slight winning record against the NL in interleague play. It says nothing about why the DH is bad for baseball.
DS, you're crazy. I love ya, but you're crazy.
Save your logic for contracts! The best reason to abolish the DH is that it just feels wrong!
Seriously, though, it's an artifact from an obsolete era, when AL scoring was so low that the fans were pissed. Once upon a time, the AL and its owners tried a lot of publicity-related things to stand out from the NL, such as A's owner Charles O'Finley giving bonuses to players who grew crazy mustaches and didn't cut their hair. Those days are gone, and those fads have either faded away or harmlessly integrated (I believe the AL was the first league to sell beer at games - that was a good idea) but the DH rule lives on, a permanent stain on the landscape.
Imagine this: The AFC, tired of its quarterbacks getting hurt by DBs, comes up with a new position - let's call him a third-back - whose job is to line up next to the QB and take all the sacks. Defensive players are no longer allowed to sack QBs; they can only sack the no-talent schlub third-back. If that happens, the play is dead and the QB can't complete the play. Good rule? No! Crazy rule! Yet it meets the basic characteristics of the DH rule. Teams have a legitimate interest in improving offense by sparing their quarterback pain and injury. It might give scoring a real boost.
Okay, it's not the purest analogy, but you get the idea. Just because something has some logic to it doesn't mean we should corrupt our celebrated traditions.
You say at the end of your impassioned defense of DHs that going non-DH for strategy's sake is complication for the sake of complication. Beg pardon, but it's the opposite of that. It's uncomplication - a return to the game as it used to be played.
For me, the strategy argument or the obligation to swing a bat if you're in a game or the obligation to play the field if you swing a bat are all sort of beside the point. The best reason to ditch the rule is because it's unnecessary. The game can be played wonderfully without it. Last I checked, scoring in the AL isn't suffering anymore.
Now all that said, there is no way the rule is going away because the players' union would never hear of it - abolishing it would cut back on available jobs. And it's a pretty powerful union.
By the way, that's as long a Little Big League excerpt as maybe has ever been reproduced. Well done.
you sell the strategy argument too short. not only does having no DH require strategy in switching pinch hitters, but it also makes pitchers bunt, which adds another interesting element to the game. Plus, if anything it's the DH rule that's artificial, not forcing a pitcher to bat like everyone else.
Bunting, base-running etc. are under-appreciated. But it's those kind of subtle skills, not just bashing the ball over the fence, that make baseball really satisfying. And you can see that a grind-it-out team with no big sluggers, like the dodgers this year, can still excel when they play strong defense and good small ball.
Anyway, I got no love for the AL. And all espn ever has on is yankees-bosox. who cares.
go dodgers!
The Designated Hitter rule is a Communist subversion designed to sap us of our precious bodily fluids.
Lisa: But my parents are counting on seeing me dance! And I've worked ever so hard.
Vicki: I'm sorry, Lisa, but giving everyone an equal part when they're clearly not equal is called what, again, class?
Class: Communism!
Vicki: That's right. And I didn't tap all those Morse code messages to the Allies 'til my shoes filled with blood to just roll out the welcome mat for the Reds.
Wow, so is DS the only person supportive of the DH???
In response to mad.j.d., if that is his real name, there are lots of rules that are artifacts of an obsolete era in sports. Why don't we get rid of them all. Let's go back to all wooden "woods" in golf. Let's go back to shitty gloves and no helmets in baseball (although protective batting gear should be outlawed). More to the point, let's get rid of all instant replay (in any sport since it's soon to be adopted in baseball) and return to how the game was played when first invented. Let's move all rules to their most uncomplicated form and outlaw any further changes--we wouldn't want to complicate things.
Additionally, the DH is good, because it gives some difference between the AL and NL. People have a favorite league, and that's a good thing. Do football fans have a reason to favor the NFC or AFC other than one is the conference in which their favorite team plays? No. There's not strategy difference between playing in either league. It's the same game.
That's not true in baseball, where strategy is different. Where managers and players have to adapt between the two leagues. And, where fans have reasons aside from teams why they like the league. Obviously, DS prefers the AL. He doesn't like to see an easy out every nine batters. He wants his pitchers to get challenged at every spot in the order.
And, in response to 7:47--the greatest manager in the history of the game disagrees with you about speed being important. http://users.rcn.com/pkatcher/audio/EarlWeaverTirade.mp3
Skipper J said...
o it's so painfully obvious! inter-league play was created by communist fantasy baseball managers in cahoots with the Rank Corporation so that they could earn extra position eligibility for the DH they drafted in the 5th round not knowing that you could only put Jim Thome in the "Utility" slot!
to recap, we have an agreement, an intent to agree, an intent to commit an unlawful act, And an overt act. that's conspiracy.
we are through the looking glass, people.
clearly, the R-A-N-D Corporation has hacked into Nuts and Boalts and will not permit me to reveal their wrongful acts.
if they have gotten to nuts and boalts, just think of what else they have done.
DS, I'm just about through engaging in this debate, but let me just say that equipment upgrades for safety and performance reasons are not the same as crazy, arbitrary rule changes that come (to borrow a phrase) completely out of left field. So let's just draw a distinction there. Your slippery slope just isn't that slippery.
I don't begrudge your preference for the AL. In fact, last year's "world series" aside, I think the level of competition in the AL is pretty clearly superior. And I think it would probably remain so even if pitchers there had to hit.
One other thing: I have to disagree that instant replay is imminent. Umpires are, by and large, amazingly capable of getting calls right. Until an absolutely disastrous call changes the course of a pennant race or something, I think baseball has proven, as with the DH rule, that they just don't need it to play good baseball. The same is not true in football, so let them have (and keep) all the high tech gadgetry they need to get things right.
Ah, Earl Weaver....he was accidentally Billy Beane before Billy Beane was Billy Beane.
7:47, I agree with you as to "Go Dodgers" but disagree on just about everything else. Base running and bunting are most definitely not underappreciated--they are OVERappreciated. Not to say that they don't have value...just that they have much less value then, say, not making outs and crossing home plate. While I do have an affinity for this particular Dodgers team, it certainly isn't because of the players who practice the fine arts of base stealing and bunting...ahem, Juan Pierre.
I would happily trade "gritty" "veterans" like Nomar, Pierre, and Gonzo for a slow, fat guy who can actually hit the ball far...or, failing that, I would trade those three for a box of ice cream sandwiches.
Also, just for the record, the Dodgers defense sucks at all but 2 or 3 positions (depending on who is playing 3rd base). Nonetheless, they should win the NL West behind good pitching and just enough hitting. Here's hoping.
Another point that nobody has brought up is the mentality of pitchers in the AL. Obviously establishing the inside corner is necessary to be an effective pitcher in MLB. But when you don't have to fear retribution from opposing pitchers after zinging a batter with a 90+ mph fastball, you can be much more bold in your pitch location. From my experience in baseball, pitchers tend to expect their batters to take a bean ball for their mistakes. It becomes much different when the pitcher is the one getting hit.
Two or three years ago this came up when Clemens (then on the Yankees) hit Piazza (I think on the Mets at the time?). Oddly enough, when they played in the NL stadium the next time around... Clemens didn't pitch.
i can't believe the dodgers took Chris Withrow when J.P. Arencibia was still on the board. if you ask me, they should have traded up to get Ross Detwiler. mark my words, the dodgers will rue this day!
note in your golf example, there actually is some talk of constricting what the pros can use. while us regular duffers need all the help we can get (tho i sure can't afford it), technology is making some golf courses too easy for the pros. you already see some par 5s being turned into par 4s. so no, not every advance is necessarily good for a sport.
of course, i'm not saying use real woods, but there is a reason major leaguers still use wooden bats while everyone else gets super titanium alloy or whatver.
Weaver was right about the big issues but you need to qualify what he said about speed. The neo-Weaverians know that speed is fantastic -- as long as we're talking about how it affects OBP. That way, the speedy guys will be standing safely on base (not getting CS) when the longball guys go long (not bunt).
why do you think guys like Greg Maddux never have and never will pitch in the AL?
If you think its coz they just love swinging the bat then you are dead wrong. There is a strategical element of pitching in the NL that makes it very boring to watch. You pitch around the lineup, get to the pitcher and strike him out or get him to hit into a double play or whatever.
A great lineup shouldn't have any holes in it and this is just not possible in the NL.
for me the NL is boring when compared to the AL.
People talk about the beauty of small ball sac bunts and what not. I completely agree, but you don't need to play that way THE ENTIRE GAME.
Post a Comment
<< Home