I wouldn’t want this, but as I’ve said here before, it would make for a terrific all-star game. Great defense would finally get its due. Guys like Andrelton Simmons, Kevin Kiermaier, Matt Chapman and Jason Heyward would have appeared regularly. Truly elite all-stars would be voted in both ways. Crowded dugouts, though.
As for the DH, it should have been decided by NL fans. If they want to suffer through countless at-bats with some shlub standing motionless with a bat on his shoulder, then that should be their choice. One Ticket, One Vote, I say.
Given how many people love the DH and how many people hate it, I’m surprised no one has suggested just having two separate leagues: one with the DH and one without. Then everybody’s happy.
Teams will face their four division opponents 14 times each season – seven home and seven away – for a total of 56 games. They will also face the other 10 teams in their league six times apiece, playing a three-game set at each ballpark.
Rather than 16 Interleague games, teams will have 46 such games on the schedule – four against their geographic rival and three each against the other 14 teams, alternating ballparks annually.
Good that there are fewer intradivision games, bad that there are more interleague games. I’d rather see each team visit each park in the same league twice. But at least they got rid of the ridiculous number of intradivision games.
As far as shifts go, Lou Boudreau tried shifts on Ted Williams in 1946. They had some success, partly due to Williams’s psychology–he would beat the shift by hitting a home run.
(a) The Designated Hitter Rule provides as follows:
(1) A hitter may be designated to bat for the starting pitcher and all subsequent pitchers in any game without otherwise affecting the status of the pitcher(s) in the game. A Designated Hitter for the pitcher, if any, must be selected prior to the game and must be included in the lineup cards presented to the umpire-in-chief. If a manager lists 10 players in his team’s lineup card, but fails to indicate one as the Designated Hitter, and an umpire or either manager (or designee of either manager who presents his team’s lineup card) notices the error before the umpire-in-chief calls “Play” to start the game,
the umpire-in-chief shall direct the manager who had made the omission to designate which of the nine players, other than the pitcher, will be the Designated Hitter.
As mentioned upthread, this is a terrible argument. There are far more interesting aspects to pay attention to than when to pull the pitcher before his turn in the lineup.
Yeah, but the past two years have been pandemic years and not the norm. They also had cardboard cutouts in the stands in 2020, that doesn’t make it the norm.
I’m honestly not trying to be snarky here, but I’ve answered that a couple of times.
Do you have anything to support that MLB is keeping rosters at 26 because of the universal DH? It’s not like the AL had an extra roster spot since 1973.
It appears that the union, and thus the players, wanted the DH.
It benefits players in that, as they grow older, they are less mobile to play on the defensive side. Thus, in a DH league, they can DH and teams can take advantage of their bat only, less liability defensively. Many players in the past have done this. It extended their career by a few years and thus beneficial financially.
I don’t see how it can benefit owners nor hinder for that matter. It would hinder them financially if they hire an old player to DH only. That kind of past all-star would cost more than a younger player, not that this would be extreme. Maybe someone else has an opinion on that.
It benefits the fans since pitchers contributed very little offensively. Most fans want more runs and the DH provides that.
So for the point of view of teams, it accomplishes more offense. The fans may like that too. The union and players, more “jobs” although technically that’s not true, the roster limit hasn’t changed. They did increase it from 25 to 26 in 2020. The DH simply affords more players to actually play, less players on the bench. I think the idea in the union’s mind is that full-time players should be paid more and thus benefits players.
As I purist, I suppose I prefer the game without the DH. Everyone plays defense, everyone hits. But the DH has been in the game for 50 years. It’s a game; they can play by any rules they want.
I’m not sure why the rosters added an extra man two years ago. I don’t believe it’s because of the now-universal DH. It wasn’t because of the pandemic, it was decided before as I recall. I believe it was just decided it would be better and I don’t think that’s changing.
It wasn’t only an extra roster position. The number of pitchers is limited to a fixed number (can’t remember how many, 13?) which is what most teams go with, five starters and 7 or 8 relievers. Taking that 13 number, it means 13 position players, 8 plus the DH playing which leaves four on the bench. One of those is an extra catcher which means just 3 players available for pinch-hitting which is now going to be used much less often, pinch-running (could we see PR specialists in the future) and replace injured players, other than the catcher. Better to have 4 guys on the bench rather than 3 so that’s why I guess the roster limit was increased and it’s not about to change.
The September callup roster has also changed from 40 (your whole 40-man roster if you wanted to) down to 28.
But it was the Union who were pushing for the DH during negotiations, not the owners. The Union felt that it offered another job opportunity for veteran players. They’ve been pushing for a DH in the NL for years.
Quote: The union seeks changes to the league’s eligibility for free agency. Players currently need six years of MLB service time to satisfy that requirement.
Players are hoping to see that threshold lowered, allowing them to become free agents while younger and more valuable. They also want to see a designated hitter (DH) added to National League rosters, which players hope will secure a job for a veteran.
This is one area where the game has really changed–teams had 4 starters and maybe 4 relievers. Starters would often relieve on days they didn’t start. That left many, many more bench players. Most teams had 3 catchers, leaving plenty of defensive substitutes, pinch runners, and pinch hitters. Earl Weaver would drive himself crazy trying to decide who to keep on the bench, running game scenarios through his mind.
It’s been a really long time since teams only carried eight pitchers in the regular season.
In fact, prior to the late 1950s, teams often didn’t have fixed starting rotations. Back in the day there were more off days and scheduled doubleheaders, so keeping a four or five men rotation consistent was very hard. It was common for a team’s best pitcher to be deployed in such a manner as to pitch against the best teams a lot, or for a guy to start 10-12 games a year but always specifically half of a doubleheader. In 1942 Ted Lyons started 20 games, and 14 of them were the first game of a doubleheader, almost all of them on Sunday. Top starters were often used in relief a lot; Lefty Grove had years with weird usage patters like 30 starts and 14 relief appearances, 28 starts and 16 relief appearances, stuff like that.
Certainly, though, at least up to about 35 years ago having more than 10 pitchers at a time was a bit unusual.
This is incorrect. Both sides have been very much in favor of it throughout the process. It was agreed upon extremely early during the negotiations, neither side giving anything up in return for it.
