I have seen it argued that the DH will be used in the National League from now on because it adds a roster space to the team and therefore the players’ union will support it. I do not think that is true. I say the DH will not increase roster space, all it adjusts is the number of position players versus the number of pitchers on the team. The roster size will be 25 players per team (or 26 or 30 or whatever), and that doesn’t change (excepting additional players on the disabled list etc), and that determines how many paying MLB jobs there are.
The union will almost certainly insist that rosters increase to accommodate the DH in the NL. The evidence for this is that they use pretty much any reason to push for expanding the rosters.
Obviously, it doesn’t actually add a literal roster space, as the NL and AL have been using the same roster size as each other all along. So, anyone who says that is either goofy, or not thinking it through.
What I have read, over the years, is the occasional argument that the presence of the DH in the AL has made it more palatable for teams to keep a player who’s a good hitter, but a liability in the field – particularly older players, who may have been adequate fielders when they were younger, but who are now really only valuable for their bats.
So, the DH doesn’t actually employ more major leaguers, but arguably makes it more likely that a handful of good-hit, no-glove players are able to keep playing.
I find the roster space argument weird because of course it’s not true. The roster size is what it is. It’s been 25 players for longer than I have been alive.
The league is likely going to hike it to 26 players permanently but it wouldn’t matter f the DH was staying or not. It will, but that’s not really why they’re expanding it. Using a DH means you make
FEWER substitutions.
Of course, why would the players care about this? As long as X guys are getting paid, who cares what position they play?
As a matter of practical reality, the DH doesn’t really keep shitty old players around. It has in some cases, but very few. In most cases teams don’t have regular DHs at all, or the regular DH could play a position if he needed to but there’s someone ahead of him. David Ortiz absolutely could have been a first baseman - he did play 278 games there and was good enough. He sure couldn’t have been any worse than Frank Thomas. Even players who are the DH most of the time usually play the field a bit. I believe the only player last year to DH any significant number of games and not play in the field at all was Nelson Cruz.
The DH doesn’t add a roster spot, it converts a relatively low-salaried roster spot into a high-salaried spot. For example, the White Sox signed Edwin Encarnacion to be their DH this year at a salary of $12 million. If the DH did not exist, I can categorically guarantee that the extra bench player or relief pitcher the White Sox would add would make less than that. That’s why the union has always supported the DH.
Of course, the flaw in the union’s thinking is that the DH doesn’t necessarily increase total payroll, it just spreads it around differently. It’s possible that if the DH didn’t exist, the extra $12 million would be imperceptibly spread among other players as the White Sox sought other ways to get good. But, human beings in general don’t like “imperceptible spread”. They like “DH = $12 million player = good for union”.
Speaking as a former union leader for airline pilots …
In general more total jobs is good but higher wages for all is better.
In many unions that last gets perverted into higher wages just for the top guys is best. The slogan being “You’ll all get those high wages when you get to the top”. Failing to mention that even in a pure seniority system like pilots not everyone will make it to the top due to age, injury, etc. In a more talent-based promotion system like MLB it’s especially likely they won’t “all” make it to the top.
My non-expert impression of MLBPA is they aren’t totally in love with “max wages for the best 1% of players”, but that idea still has at least some traction.
Well, I guess Nelson Cruz. It’s not common, though.
Edgar is unusual in that he didn’t just finish his career there; he spent most of his career there, about 70% of all the games he ever played. So far as I can tell only nine players have been a DH in more than 1000 games.
“The version I heard was,” the main reason the players’ union supports the DH is, it allows for some players who are past their prime as fielders but can still hit the ball to remain in the league.