This isn’t an opinion thread (please please no massive debate); I just want the specific arguments as to why the designate hitter position is a bad thing.
The one I’ve heard most often was that it “creates a class of one-dimensional players who draw enormous salaries”. But that’s not an argument against the DH, that’s an argument against overpaid players (which could be easily remedied by a salary cap or other restraining measure). Another one is that it’s “not right” to have a position that never has to field. This never made much sense to me, and it’s a subjective point at any rate, certainly not enough to consider eliminating a position altogether.
I know I’m missing something here, so does anyone have the full, detailed arguments?
One argument against the DH is that it cuts down on strategy. If you need a big offensive inning, for instance, and the pitcher’s spot in the order is coming up, the decision is pretty critical for a manager who doesn’t have the DH: Should he yank his pitcher, who might be pitching a great game, for a pinch-hitter, thereby losing the services of that pitcher for the rest of the game?
The framing of your question is interesting. You ask for an opinion, then belittle any subjective evaluation.
Unlike football, or even hockey for that matter, baseball is (was) a game where each of the nine players on the field is called upon to take part at all levels. In theory at least, each of the nine can step into any other position on the field. Yes, I know that a middle infielder can’t step onto the mound and do a great job, but he could at least step up and pitch if need be (it has happened).
Also each player is called upon to play both offense and defense. No player, as with most other sports, is allowed to sit out and just play defense or just play offense. While it is acceptable for some players to be bad at a specific responsibility (pitcher batting, for example), all must take part and do his best (or worst), which is part of the fun of the game.
With the DH, this ceases to be the case. A player only plays a portion of the game. A player does not pull his weight in both directions.
I extend your question. Why don’t we expand the DH to nine men on a defensive squad and nine designated hitters? If it is all right to have one man exclusively hitting and not fielding why not nine? I would bet you don’t like this idea, but it is a logical extension of a single hitting specialist substituted every nine at bats for a traditionally poor hitting position.
I supposes we’ll use similar logic that led to the use of the DH.
We have enough offense, so it’s time the DH rule was retired. Enough is enough already.
Big deal, so the pitcher was always the worst hitter? Big whoop. So be it. That’s baseball. I guess if we find that shortstops are poor hitters, we should DH them as well?
Please, can we just drop the DH already? Baseball has bigger things to worry about that will affect it’s long term appeal.
Well, you can. You can designate a hitter for any one position player, it just so happens that’s it’s always the pitcher because they can’t seem to find any time in between starts to step into the cage for a few swings. I guess that every 5th day work schedule can be grueling.
If we abolish the DH,what do we do for comic relief during interleague play? I just LOVE watching an American league pitcher bat or attempt to bunt.Seeing Hideki Irabu flail like a rusty gate made my day.
The DH is an unfair advantage to lazy or untalented pitchers. All other things being equal, a good-hitting pitcher will beat a poor-hitting pitcher. Pitchers like Fernando Valenzuela and Greg Maddux won many games because they bunted reliably and usually hit over .200.
There are certain pitchers who make a practice of deliberately throwing right at batter’s heads. This ends careers and has been known to kill people. The habitual beanball pitcher who comes to bat will have the opportunity to learn that what goes around comes around.
I would note also that certain fans do not consider one-dimensional starting players to be a good thing, regardless of whether they draw huge salaries or not.
TV Time - You misunderstood. Don’t worry, it happens all the time, even on these boards. I was not supporting the DH rule. To be honest, I don’t give a damn either way. It’s a rule; some like it, some don’t. I was just curious as to what the arguments against it were. The arguments for it are obvious (don’t have one really easy out per rotation, more offense), but every argument I heard against it boiled down to the two I mentioned.
And I wanted to avoid a huge debate because I’ve herad a number of huge debates on this, and they all bored me half to death. (Of course, the same was true for any number of other huge debates…)
Tradition, you say? Well, yes, that’s certainly a valid answer, seeing how steeped in tradition the sport is. I just find it unusual that tradition would produce one league with the rule and one league without it. Ah well.
Everyone - Thanks for the answers. Incidentally, some have proposed that the ninth spot on the batting order be removed altogether. But that would lead to more at bats per player, which would probably screw up any number of stats…guess we’re stuck with the leagues as they are, like it or not.
No you cannot. The DH can be used only in place of the pitcher. Refer to Rule 6.10 (b), which states:
Danimal:
My guess is that Fernando and Greg Maddux won a lot of games because they were good pitchers; I don’t see any evidence their hitting helped them much.
It’s interesting you name them, though. Maddux is an awful hitter, .179 for his career with four home runs in over 1,000 at bats. Valenzuela hit .200 (actually, .1998) with ten home runs in just under 1,000 at bats. I doubt either of them could have hit decent college pitching.
I don’t think .179 is particularly bad for a pitcher; by comparison, Sandy Koufax hit .097 for his career. I admit that with both Valenzuela and Maddux I was going by their reputation (i.e. the opinion of pro sports commentators) rather than any knowledge of their stats.
The question was what arguments against the designated hitter were, and the OP apparently was not aware of those two. I do not know how well supported those two arguments are (I’ve seen no stats on whether bad-hitting pitchers win more games upon transfer to the AL, for instance, or on whether hit batsmen are more common there), but I did think he should be aware of them.
I’m not so sure how valid this is. A good starting point might be data indicating that the number of hit batsman were substantially higher in American League games than National League or Interleague games.
One labor related issue is that the union doesn’t want to give up the DH because it means a loss of jobs (to a handful of players: Baines, Edgar Martinez, etc). I seem to recall one possible solution was that the owners might temporarily extend the 25 man roster to 26 men (temporarily opening up more jobs) for a year or two to get the union to agree on the abolition of the DH.
Bill James has actually made the argument that the not having the DH would decrease strategy, because bunting for the pitcher (with a runner on first and/or second and less than two outs) is so commonplace that it really isn’t a “decision”. (It’s done so often that it “doesn’t count” as a strategic decision)
I hate the DH rule for removing strategy, which by the way, consists of more than just having the pitcher bunt. A great deal of NL strategy involves when to pinch hit for the pitcher, and whether to yank a pitcher whose spot is due up next inning. Plus I always like a good double switch.
I also hate it for screwing up the record books. Harold Baines may make it to 3000 hits (though it seems quite unlikely now), and he hasn’t played in the field since 1986! The only three players in history with 500 homers and 3000 hits are the great Hank Aaron, the great Willie Mays, and the oh-so mediocre Eddie Murray. Again, thanks to the DH, which allows players far past their primes to stay in the game without having to do pesky things like field and throw.
Lack of a DH decreases strategy? How does the presence of a DH increase strategy? Is he arguing that the DH gives the team more hit-and-run opportunities?
Oh-so mediocre? What an outrageously atrocious adjective. You name a club that’s so elite that only 3 men in history can say they’re a member and you add “oh-so mediocre”. You completely erased all creditability for yourself with those two malplaced words.
Harold Baines has been a DH a long time and has barely played the field at all in years, yes, but he last played the field in 1997, not 1986. You may have meant he was last a regular fielder in 1986.
Eddie Murray was a hell of a player. He wasn’t mediocre or anything close to it, and he played almost his entire career in the field. (In fact, he won three Gold Gloves.) He was a Rookie of the Year, an eight-time All Star, a key player for several championship teams, and a legitimately outstanding hitter.
The “3000 hits/500 homers” standard silly, anyway. Who cares? That’s obviously an artificial combination of numbers you’re using just for the sake of getting those three names together. Why not say 3000 hits/600 homers, in which case Hank and Willie are the only names? Why not 500 homers/3000 hits/200 steals? Why not 500 homers, 3000 hits, and a career .300 average? All those standards would include just Aaron and Mays. Or why not say 500 homers/2000 hits and include a whole bunch of guys? If you just look at two numbers, you can put Eddie Murray in a group with Hank Aaron, but if you include all the numbers and don’t draw silly lines in the sand, it’s obvious Murray was closer in greatness to Billy Williams or Willie McCovey, and he’d have to leapfrog Yogi Berra and Mike Schmidt before he could see Willie Mays.
These “He’s in a group” arguments are the oldest chestnut going. NOBODY believes Eddie Murray or Harold Baines are comparable to Hank Aaron and Willie Mays just because they all met one or two arbitrary statistical measures. The 500 homers thing - I mean, everyone sees through that. Murray hit 503 homers, Willie hit 660, and Hank Aaron hit 755. There are what, 15 other guys between Murray and Aaron? Nobody thinks Eddie Murray’s in a class with Hank Aaron. He was a great player, but he wasn’t an immortal. Murray DOES belong in the Hall of Fame, and he will make it there. Baines doesn’t, and trust me, he won’t (he probably won’t make 3000 hits, anyway.)
The record books haven’t been “Screwed up” by the DH. Very few players owe a significant part of their careers to the DH, and Eddie isn’t one of them; the only two that jump to mind are Paul Molitor and Baines, stretching the definition of “Great.” Frank Thomas and Edgar Martinez too, but they’ve set no really significant milestones, and Thomas would have played the field absent a DH rule (this recent injury puts his career in doubt, though.) Dave Winfield probably DHed for 350 games or so but he too likely would’ve played the field anyway if the DH had not been an option. And no DH has ever actually set a record. 500 home runs is a milestone.
Here are a few numbers and Danimal, the early returns don’t look good for your thesis.
From 1991-1999 (I couldn’t find 2000) AL pitchers hit 29.3 batters per 100 games, NL pitchers 28.1 per 100 games. That’s about 4% difference in rate. This year things seem a little more heated: AL 39.1/100 G, NL 36.4/100 G, or 7% difference.
I think these small differences in league values can be explained in several ways. The DH is in use in the AL after all, and an active batter, one challenging the pitcher for control of the plate, would be more likely than some snake-killing pitcher to get hit. Another possibility is random chance. Yet another is the relative dearth of players like Don Baylor and Ron Hunt, who dived into the plate and frequently led the league in getting hit.
More interesting, and even less supportive of your views, are the AL rates before and after the DH was implemented. For 1968-72 AL pitchers hit 22.8 batters per 100 G. From 1973-78, when according to you they were unconstrained from hunting heads, they hit batters at a rate of 20.4/100 G, or more than 10% less frequently.
Even discounting the numbers I don’t believe your argument holds up. If Clemens hits Ramirez, Martinez will be gunning for Jeter. It’s always been that way, and the fact that Clemens and Martinez don’t swing a bat doesn’t change the fact of payback.
That is indeed strong evidence against the payback theory. While it is theoretically questionable whether a pitcher cares as much about his star hitter getting hit as being hit himself, your data militates strongly against that theory.
As I mentioned above, the OP asked to know what the arguments were, and I stated two of which he was evidently unaware. In future discussions where the argument comes up, I will mention that evidence against the payback theory.
I don’t have the book in question handy, but my recollection was that having the pitcher bat all but assured a bunting situation whenever a runner was on (exception: runner on third base only) and there were less than two outs. Since bunting with the pitcher was pretty much a given in this situation, James argued that it didn’t really increase the batting team’s options…something to the effect that if a certain manuever was obviously the correct manuever in a huge majority of cases, how many options does one really have. I don’t think I’m explaining this well, but I’m going by recollection of an article I haven’t read in awhile.
I agree that the DH reduces the double switch opportunities, but James may have addressed this as well.
As to who Bill James is, it’s my personal opinion that he’s the greatest baseball writer/analyst in this half century, at least. He’s the author of the Baseball Abstract which ran from 1982-1988, and has published books on statistical analysis, the Hall of Fame, Managers, etc.
Any serious baseball fan should acquaint himself with James’s works. Many statistical analysis books on baseball–the Baseball Prospectus comes to mind–owe a huge debt to Bill James.