What I find funny is how the opponents of the DH rule seem to think that it’s better than the alternative. You want to keep baseball “pure” by requiring the pitchers to bat like everyone else? Fine, then, you should actually require them to bat. Honestly, I’m not too fond of designated hitting, either, but it’s a heck of a lot better than the managerial gymnastics the NL goes through instead, to keep pitchers off the plate. If you want to make the kindergartner rules comparison, when was the last time you saw kids with single-digit ages rotating through pitchers and pinch-hitters? Now, that would be a travesty.
This is another topic where it is impossible to have a non-biased debate because the entire essence of the debate is oppinion. Therefore, since it is impossible to be nonbiased, I will make no effort to hide my oppinions (but I will not use diplomatic phrases like, “I disagree,” or, “In my opinion,” because I am lazy.
Anyway, my response is something like this:
The insane managerial moves by NL managers to avoid making pitchers bat make the game the awesome sport that it is! It’s no different than using war of atrition(sp?) style rightie/leftie matchups. My favorite example of this happened during some Yankees playoff game:
Some guy for the non-Yankees was going to bat. Joe Torre didn’t like the matchup, so he switched to another pitcher. The opposing manager pinch-hit for the manager. In response, Torre had the new player intentionally walked. For the next batter, Torre got yet another pitcher, saying, “I’m sorry. Your control is terrible. I just can’t use you.”
Instances like that are in the nature of the game, and adding the DH did nothing to remove it (considering the aforementioned event happened in the American League.
I gotta agree with the guy who asked the question of the column (jojothecannibal). This was a pathetic column, where Cecil didn’t answer the question at all, but just quoted pithy comments that other people have made about the designated hitter rule and how they thought it influenced the game.
Cecil seemed to think the words of the rule were explicit and clear, but the question itself states that they aren’t. I know I’m having difficulty making sense of what was said. Part of it probably being my lack of familiarity with baseball rules and the terms used. Hey, I only played little league, not like I know the rules.
My parsing of the rule: The Designated Hitter is a person you put into the lineup to bat for the pitcher, so you don’t have to have the pitcher bat. (Why? Is this to protect the pitcher’s arm? Because pitcher’s are notoriously bad batters, but necessary because few can do the pitching job? No explanation here.) This allows you to have someone continually bat for the pitcher, rather than replace him with someone different each round (pinch hitting).
Next, batting order. Isn’t batting order predetermined? You list out which player from that inning bats in which part of the sequence, and then you flow through the sequence that inning, and start over if you’re still batting and make it through one cycle? (First Base, Second Base, Short Stop, Third Base, Pitcher, Catcher, Right Field, Center Field, Left Field). So each player has a designated spot in the batting lineup. So the pitcher is, for example, the fifth batter - and he’s always #5 in the lineup. If you put in a DH, then the DH bats in #5 slot.
“The Designated Hitter may be used defensively, continuing to bat in the same position in the batting order,…”
This states that you can take the player who is DH and put him into the field to play a position. (It took me a bit to figure out what “used defensively” means - it means letting him play a position on the field. I was trying to make it mean something about how he was batting. How do you bat defensively vs. offensively?) What this part of the rule is saying is that you could rotate the DH into the position and put in a new DH, or you can let this DH play in the field but still bat for the pitcher in the lineup. From before, I said the pitcher is #5. We’re letting this DH still bat #5 in the lineup, but now there’s an open slot from the position he’s playing, say Center Field. This rule states that the pitcher now has to bat in the Center Fielder’s position in the lineup, say #8.
“…unless more than one substitution is made, and the manager then must designate their spots in the batting order.”
Not sure what “more than one substitution” means. Does this mean picking a new DH, or does this mean playing shell games? The DH now playing CF still bats 5, but the short stop now bats 8, and the former CF bats 4 now.
“once a pinch hitter bats for any player in the batting order and then enters the game to pitch, this move shall terminate the Designated Hitter role for the remainder of the game. Once the game pitcher bats for the Designated Hitter this move shall terminate the Designated Hitter role for the remainder of the game.”
This seems to be saying the above shell game of batting substitutions is in effect. Now a pinch hitter (subbing for the RF because he’s batting for the CF who is batting for the Pitcher…) rotates into the game and the next inning comes in to pitch. That hits “reset” and the first DH playing CF is now no longer the DH, but just the CF batting #8, and all the other batting substitutions reset. Ditto if the original pitcher bats in the DH position (#8).
Now the question others have asked: why would someone bat the pitcher in place of the DH? Well, once you start the shell game, the shell game goes all over the place. Maybe your pitcher only bats .090 but your DH bats .200. But that .090 is better than some other schmuck on the bench who only bats .040. I don’t know - the point is that the shell game gets going, so this just states that if the shell game gets to the point that the pitcher starts batting for the DH or a substitute batter starts pitching, you reset and turn of DH for the rest of the game.
Players cannot be moved to a different spot in the batting order.
Here’s a hypothetical batting order with the DH at 5th.
- Charles Friedman (CF)
- Theodore Brown (3B)
- Stanley Smith (SS)
- Lance Fizerman (LF)
- Doug Harris (DH)
- Fred Bannister (1B)
- Richie Foster (RF)
- Tweedles Bahoney (2B)
- Chuck Carford ©
So, say (trying to stay close to your example here) Doug Harris is the backup centerfielder. Charles Friedman gets injured in a collision with the outfield wall and Harris is the only guy that can replace him. So Doug Harris (the DH) moves to the defensive position of Centerfielder. He still bats 5th. Since the DH is being used defensively, the pitcher now has to bat in the lineup – he replaces the player coming out of the lineup (Charles Friedman), so he bats 1st.
You got that far by yourself.
The ‘more than one substitution’ probably refers to more than one player being replaced in the lineup – for example, if the above exchange occurs AND the second baseman gets injured in a collision during the same play (somehow… humor me). So both the Centerfielder and the Second baseman need to be replaced. Doug Harris moves to the CF defensive position – but he still bats 5th in the order. That means the pitcher has to come into the game. Tweedles Bahoney is also coming out of the game and being replaced by backup infielder Brian Irving. So the #1 and #8 slots in the lineup are open – Brian Irving and the starting pitcher Steven Pritchard have to fill those two slots (either guy can go to either spot).
New lineup:
- Brian Irving (bench - 2B)
- Theodore Brown (3B)
- Stanley Smith (SS)
- Lance Fizerman (LF)
- Doug Harris (DH - CF)
- Fred Bannister (1B)
- Richie Foster (RF)
- Steve Pritchard §
- Chuck Carford ©
There’s now no longer a DH in this lineup; the team forfeited that privilege by making their former DH play the field.
If I’m understanding you correctly you’ve got it wrong; the players cannot move around in the lineup, they only can move around in the field.
So if, in the next inning, the 8th spot in the order comes up and Steve Pritchard gets pinch-hit for, pinch-hitter Paul Harvey comes up to bat in the #8 spot. After the team has batted, he can remain in the game in the #8 spot and play in the field – but they now need to bring in Ricardo Pontius to pitch (the more simple solution would be to maintain the defensive arrangement and insert Pontius in the 8th spot in the batting lineup). If Harvey plays RF, then Richie Foster needs to come out (or move), and Pontius goes into the batting order in his spot. Or maybe Harvey plays RF but Foster moves to LF – now Lance Fizerman needs to come out, and the Pontius would bat 4th. And so on.
Batting order assignments remain constant. Defensive positions change as much as necessary.
Is that any clearer, or did I just muddy the waters even further?
The only reason I would see for batting the pitcher in place of the DH would be if the DH were injured and there were no other position players to replace him OR if something like this happened.
Joe Ace Closer comes in to pitch the bottom of the 8th and gets the last out. Old Vet DH comes to bat in the 9th. On his first swing, he fouls a pitch off of his foot. Befuddled manager realizes that he has burned all of his position players earlier in the game.
So Joe Ace Closer goes up to finish Old Vet DH’s at bat.
Nah, it’s just catching and throwing and hitting and running. What could be simpler than that? (somebody identify that quote, please.) The way I see it, it’s supposed to be the players playing the game, not the managers. Something as simple as alternating northpaws and southpaws is so simple that it’s not really a “game” to do it: There’s no big decision. But the pinch-shuffling does involve decisions, and is a game. Heck, maybe it’s even a good game, but it’s not the game of baseball. Baseball’s the game played with the little white sphere, the wooden sticks, and the bags of sand, not the game played with the sheets of paper and a pencil.
What bothers you just doesn’t bother me. I mean, you say that baseball is game meant to be played by the players, and the DH eliminates that. I mean, in the AL, a team can have nine solid batters, and a team of .100 defensive replacements and be set; however, in the NL every player has to be able to play because of the very managerial trickery that you loathe makes sure that the very best teams have incredable depth, whereas in the AL this is less important.
Also, the key differences in our views stems from our perception of what “baseball” is. You say that baseball is not a game to be played on a piece of paper, whereas the baseball rulebook describes baseball as (and I paraphrase) a game of nine players who both field and bat. My definition of baseball has the sideffects of managerial gymnastics. Frankly, I consider the “nine player” philosophy to be the cornerstone of the game, and even though I like the managerial moves, suppose I didn’t for a moment. I would still rather keep the baby and remove the bathwater.
You also mentioned that the game is to be played with wooden sticks. Funny how the DH makes a player free from bother with these aforementioned wooden sticks.
Anyway, I do appologize for my gramatical errors. They stem from my flow-of-consciousness brain and my sleepiness.
I just want to know why Cecil spelled “überfan” without the requisite umlaut.
Which is why, when I’m not watching baseball, I am quite often out playing it. (I’m hitting .450, actually.) Everyone should play baseball. The world would be a much better place if everyone in it took up baseball (or softball, or whatever their personal level of ability allowed.)
Baseball is meant to be played, AND watched, AND listened to, and read about, and studied, and thought about. People should do all those things, not just some of them. Personally, I can’t play enough baseball to satiate my need for more baseball; I have to watch it, read about it, reflect upon it. I became an umpire so I could spend even more time involved in baseball - just playing was not enough. To suggest that spectating is “morally dubious” is absurd. The entire point to a game of baseball is that it can be enjoyed by players, coaches, umpires, and fans present and remote, all on different levels. Spectating is a critical part of the experience of baseball. Surely you enjoy watching kids play baseball? You can’t be a fan without spectating.
And as a commercial enterprise, Major League Baseball does have a need to make the experience of watching baseball more pleasant. What’s more fun; watching a game in a charming, beautiful ballpark like Pacific Bell Park, or watching it in a horrible, stinking dump like Stade Olympique? Having seen games in both places I’ll tell you it makes a BIG difference. What’s more fun, watching a game in a dome or watching it under sky? What’s more fun, watching a game with organ music playing and kids laughing and cheering, or watching it with loud pop music blaring and nasty drunks screaming obscenities? You can’t just have men play and expect that to be enough. Baseball is a pastime, not just a sport.
Anyway, if you don’t watch it why do you care if the American League uses the DH? How did you even become aware they use the DH?
A cornerstone which both leagues have abandoned. In the AL, you’ve got the nine field positions plus a DH. In the NL, you have nine field positions plus pinch-hitters. How, then, is the NL approach superior to the AL approach?
Now, suppose you eliminated the DH, and added a rule that you could only put in pinch-hitters in the event of injury. That, I could support. But just eliminating the DH makes no difference at all.
Incidentally, just FYI, Rick Rhoden, on June 11, 1988, became the first and ONLY pitcher to start a game at DH. Result? Sacrifice fly, 1 RBI. So, it has happened, once.
Of course, if Drysdale were playing in the era of the DH, he’d have hit anyway. Some pitchers could flat hit. Exhibit A: Babe Ruth. 
But the National League has not abbandoned that philosphy, because the pinch-hitting gymnastics is still centered around the “nine-player” philosophy. What you’re proposing is having no pinch-hitters at all except for injury. That’s terrible! What about a route where bench-warmers can finally get some playing time? And what about double-switches? That would be just ANOTHER way around that is not even covered in your “no pinch-hitter” proposition. The whole point of having a team is to use the players, and what you’re proposing would diminish the playing time of everyone except the regulars, and it still would NOT DO ANY GOOD!
Don Drysdale batted .186 in his career. He hit 29 home runs, but he was pretty much an all or nothing type hitter. Even accounting for the low offense era, he played in, it’s likely that the Dodgers could have come up with a better hitter to replace him.
Now Wes Ferrell, there was a good hitting pitcher.
I disagree that NL pinch-hitting is based on players being ‘full time’, that is both hitting and fielding. The pinch hitter comes in for one at bat, then goes back on the bench, replaced by the ‘full time’ relief pitcher, who will then be conveniently replaced during his first at bat by another ‘full time’ pinch hitter, who is immediately replaced by another ‘full time’ pitcher. None of them are really full time, they’re all either hitting or pitching, just like the AL’s pitchers and DHs.
When you approach the end of a game, the NL basically has rotating DHs that kick out the current pitcher from the lineup.
If pitchers weren’t so amazingly bad at hitting, this wouldn’t even be a discussion. Rarely in sport do you put people in a position where they are laughably ineffective compared to their peers. Are there similar situations in other sports?
I doubt that many kickers or punters in football can catch or throw passes or block and tackle well.
Cricket has very much this situation. Quite a few bowlers are very poor batsmen, but they still have to bat from time to time…
True enough. However, cricket does not involve the sort of “two outs and the bases loaded” situations that make it tremendously important that X not bat now.
I confess that I feel the DH rule is, so to speak, “not cricket”.
I thought I saw something glowing in this thread. Can I touch you?
Don Drysdale was a career .186 hitter with about as much power as Mike Bordick. He’s very famous for his big 1965 season when he hit .300 with 7 homers, but for his career he was a good hitter for a pitcher but a brutal hitter for a hitter. Any manager would have used a DH instead.
On top of that, remember, too, that **if you start out with Drysdale hitting, all relief pitchers must also hit. ** You lose the DH rule if you begin the game with the pitcher batting - so even if Drysdale can hit, you cripple yourself once he comes out of the game. Of course, then you could just use pinch hitters, I guess, but you’re at a significant disadvantage if your pitcher gets knocked out early. I’ll grant that Drysdale completed a third of his games and went deep in most of them, but then, he also blew him shoulder out by age 31. If he pitched today they wouldn’t abuse his arm like that.
The last pitcher who was really a GOOD hitter was probably Don Newcombe.