The most sweeping rule change in baseball before the introduction of the designated hitter was, what, outlawing the spitball? Was that viewed with a similar level of revulsion?
Now that Edgar Martinez has retired, they can abolish the DH.
I actually think the DH is good for baseball (the business), but bad for baseball (the game).
The business has expanded to more and more teams over the last 50 years, and pitching talent has gotten very thin. Those few talented arms can’t be risked in a collision at the plate, or pulling a hamstring on a slide, or stepping wrong on a bag, or being beaned in the skull. For the same reason that we have rules protecting the quarterbacks, we have rules (in one league) that keep the pitchers free of the potential injuries in the rest of the game.
That said, most teams don’t make as much of the DH spot as they could. It’s not really a “position,” in that somebody practices and specializes in strategies peculiar to it. It doesn’t make the game particularly more interesting except three, perhaps four times a game.
Eliminate pinch hitters and pinch runners. Relief pitchers bye bye.
Those are called “substitutions.” The DH is not.
You don’t. There’s no strategy in this situation.
Absolutely true. The #9 hitter will always be the worst hitter anyway, unless the manager is experimenting, in which case the worst hitter will be #8.
[Hijack Alert!]
I remember reading in one of my Fireside Book(s) of Baseball, an article in which Bobby Bragan (managing the Pirates in the 50’s) proposed putting his power hitter in the #1 slot, in order to give him more opportunities to do damage. Never caught on, though.
Which reminds me of Earl Weaver’s (or someone’s) reaction to the five man rotation: “Wait, I should take eight starts away from my best pitcher, eight starts away from my second-best pitcher, eight starts away from my third-best pitcher, eight starts away from my fourth-best pitcher, and give them ALL to my fifth-best pitcher?”
Never in the history of professional baseball have teams been comprised of just nine players.
And at any time, each team has only nine players in play; the offensive team has nine men in the lineup, and the defensive team has nine men on the field. What’s the problem?
Pitching talent is no thinner now than it was fifty years ago. The 1956 season featured arguably WORSE pitching than today; pitchers walked more batters then than they do now.
The objections to the DH amount to “That isn’t the way they did it back in the olden days!” So what? Back in the olden days they left their gloves in the field all the time and sometimes let fans stand right on the outfield and got into fistfights all the time. Just because something is the way they did it Way Back When does not mean it’s of any value now.
Watching pitchers hit is boring. It does NOT add any significant amount of strategy to the game; 99% of all the decisions made with respect to the pitcher hitting are pretty much automatic. I find it bizarre that anyone thinks Major League Baseball would have been more fun these past thirty years with less Edgar Martinez, Hal McRae, Paul Molitor and Dave Winfield, and more pitchers wasting at bats in which they barely even try.
Personally, I really like the current system of having one league with it and one without. I think it’s cool.
If you want ACTION, go to a hockey game. Football has less action than baseball. NFL games take substantially longer to play than MLB games (a little over 3 hours for an NFL game; MLB games take about 2 hours, 45 minutes.) Within that span of time a football game does not actually have very much actual action; although the “play clock” is 60 minutes, the vast majority of that time is spent doing nothing - players just walking around or huddling. NFL games rarely have more than 10-12 minutes of actual play.
Figuring out the time in an MLB game spent playing is difficult and I can’t find a cite that nails it down, but it’s pretty close to the same as an NFL game, if my rough estimates are correct - but in a shorter period of time between the game’s commencement and its conclusion.
By comparison, an NHL game delivers 60 minutes of action in about 2 hours 20 minutes. The NBA delivers 48 minutes in about the same total time.
Joe Torre would beg to differ, because he called on Jeter for 7 sacrifice bunts this
year. My point of course is that if there is a significant difference of opinion regarding
a course of action, you have strategy. Forced choices everyone would make (well,
other than maybe Grady Little) aren’t strategy.
I don’t disagree that you might have some different strategy in the NL, why is it that a very very very very wide margin of managers fuck up all those vital strategic situations, then? Why do they even GET those jobs in the first place?
The DH removes some monday morning quarterbacking from the equation. Then, they can’t say that Grady Little is a fool for subbing his pitcher out for a hitter for the Dodgers, just that he wouldn’t take his pitcher out in the 7th for the Red Sox.
I kind of like having different rules for each league. I like having the pitcher bat, especially if it’s a pitcher that has finally figured out what end of the bat is the hitting part. But I also like having the DH and watching some careers get expanded and having decent offenses.
The NL is CLEARLY an inferior (offensive) league because of this. They should all have, by definition, superior pitching staves because of the dead spot in the lineup.
Someone go clone Herman Ruth.
I’d like to re-differ and say that sacrifice bunting is a very stupid thing to do. I realize that if you need a run, sometimes you can manufacture that run. But you’re also giving up an out. Baseball is the only (American) game that has no time limit. It ends when 27 outs are achieved by the home team. Giving one of those runs up means you have less game to play.
and before someone says it, no i would not rather watch someone hit into a double play.
Exampes. Hank Aguirre Tiger pitcher 6ft 5 220lbs
388 career at bats 236 strike outs
33 hits in career life time ba .085
Jerry Koosman much better
life time .148 struck out 418 times in 915 at bats 2 career home runs
They dont steal bases. They dont add one bit but they takeaway from the game.
G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG
Aguirre: 16 Seasons 447 388 14 33 7 1 0 21 1 0 14 236 .085 .117 .108
19 Seasons 612 915 36 109 12 1 2 46 1 0 33 418 .119 .151 .141
There, now those stats are readable.
How does having the pitcher bat “take away from the game” anyway? Every other player on the field bats, so why should we make an exception for the pitcher? There are such things as good-hitting pitchers: Carlos Zambrano had more home runs this year than David Eckstein. Should the Cardinals petition for a DH for Eckstein?
Heck, Tony La Russa used Jason Marquis to pinch-hit in 13 games this season, often in situations where he had more than one bench player available. Pitchers CAN hit, if they put the time and effort into working on hitting. Leo Mazzone used to make his pitchers take BP every day in Atlanta, and as a result Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz were pretty dangerous hitters. Glavine actually hit .289 in 1996.
The DH makes games longer, encourages teams to give roster spots to aging sluggers who couldn’t play the field on a Rascal scooter and removes the double switch from the manager’s toolbox.
D’oh, forgot to put Koosman’s name in on that second line.
G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG
Aguirre: 16 Seasons 447 388 14 33 7 1 0 21 1 0 14 236 .085 .117 .108
Koosman: 19 Seasons 612 915 36 109 12 1 2 46 1 0 33 418 .119 .151 .141
Pitchers are an offensive dead spot.They add nothing to the game .I think they take a lot of excitemehttp://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=lemonbo01nt out. Want good hitting pitchers,look up Bob Lemon,(former outfielder) He pinch hit a few times. Still the exception proves nothing.
So what if they’re “an offensive dead spot” (which I disagree with.) The other team still has to get them out, and as we’ve seen as recently as Game 3 of the NLCS, it’s not guaranteed that they can’t score runs.
How does seeing a defensive liability like David Ortiz bat 5 times while spending the rest of the game eating sunflower seeds on the bench next to Gabe Kapler increase excitement?
“Ooh, the DH is coming to the on-deck circle! This is the greatest moment in the history of baseball!”
Give me Jeff Suppan helping his own cause with a home run or a well-placed sacrifice any day of the week (even if I do dislike the idea of the bunt in 99% of situations.)
As a foreigner who grew up on a steady diet of cricket and rugby, i came to baseball with no preconceived allegiances or ideas about what the game should be, and only a very general notion of the rules.
When i first found out that the pitcher doesn’t get to hit, and that there was a special guy called the Designated Hitter who hits but doesn’t have to stand in the field, it struck me then as a silly idea. I was even more flabbergasted to find out that only about half of the teams played under such an arrangement, and that there was this whole other group of teams where the pitcher hits and there is no DH. This compounded my confusion. I mean, why would you have such a stupid rule and then only apply it to half of the teams in your competition.
Of course, since then i’ve learned a bit about the historical differences between the AL and the NL, and the origins of the DH, etc., etc. My own team is an American League team.
And i still think the DH is an abomination.
Purely for comparison purposes: in cricket, does the bowler go up there and take his licks at “the plate” during the game?
He sure does.
Not only that, but there is more than one bowler on the team, and every bowler is part of the batting lineup.
In cricket, as in baseball, bowlers are generally far less skilled at hitting than the specialist batters are, so when choosing 11 men for your cricket team, part of the skill is balancing the numbers of batters and bowlers in the lineup. One of the players also needs to be a wicketkeeper (like a catcher), and it’s usually expected that he will be a pretty competent batter.
You could put eight batters and three bowlers in your team, which would give you an excellent chance of getting a lot of runs, but very little chance of getting the other team out. You could play five batters and six bowlers, but you’d probably hardly score any runs, and it becomes useless having too many bowlers.
There are also players in cricket known as all-rounders, who are considered competent batters and who can also bowl. There are genuine all-rounders, who are very good at batting and bowling. One of the first that comes to mind for me is the great Englishman Ian Botham. There are batting all-rounders, who are mainly batters but who are competent bowlers and often get used as bowlers. And there are bowling all-rounders, who are mainly in the team for their bowling, but who are also expected to get some runs with the bat.
Along with this, the whole issue of players and substitutions is considerably more rigid in cricket than in baseball. In cricket, even in a five-day test match, you are basically expected to finish the game with the same 11 players that you start with. Substitutions are really only allowed in the event of injury or illness, and there are strict limits to what a substitute can do. He can basically only field; he can’t bat or bowl. If your best bowler gets injured in the game, you are one bowler short for the rest of the game; if your best batter gets injured, you’re one man short in your batting lineup.
The dh extends careers. Maybe Bonds will go to American league to extend his career and increase his numbers.It is a good way for National League stars to go on the road to be seen by a whole new group of fans.
You want no change something. Get rid of artificial turf.
Exactly!
It extends the careers of people who should retire from baseball and make room for people who can play, rather than just hit.
All the steroid controversy issues aside, one of the reasons i prefer a guy like Barry Bonds over, say, David Ortiz, is that Bonds has to get out there every day and actually play baseball.