He has no preference other than that there is consistency. That’s a reasonable point of view.
Again, though, you’re assuming that this is going to change anything, but it’s not.
Practically speaking, what will happen in the absence of the DH is those guys will play first base or, failing that, left field. Nobody, ever, in the entire history of baseball has benched an elite bat because they couldn’t field. That just doesn’t happen. If there was no DH, then Edgar Martinez and David Ortiz would have played first base. The list of slow, clumsy guys who could hit like crazy prior to the DH is a long one, and the result was always the same; they played. Greg Luzinski played the outfield for the Phillies for years and he couldn’t catch a cold.
Oh, absolutely. Of course these guys will continue to play. That’s exactly my point. Hey, I used to watch the Cubs when they had Dave Kingman in left and Mike Vail in right; that was a trip.
It’s just that playing Kingman in left or Martinez at first includes a tradeoff. I completely agree that these types of guys are not going to be benched. But by forcing them to play in the field you have to take the bad with the good. I like that a lot better than the consequence-free write-his-name-into-the-lineup-as-DH-and-never-mind-the-fielding attitude that is possible in the AL.
So haters of the DH would rather have to both watch pitchers flail away at the ball AND see more defensive liabilities in the field? Fun.
Strategery. 
And yes, kinda. Again, my team has historically had, and does have now, some pretty good hitting pitchers. As mentioned (repeatedly) above, killing the DH makes your line-up more of a chess match - do you need the defense more than the offense in this situation? Is the other team weak on lefty hitters? Then the good hitting galumph of a fielder gets to play right this series. Lots more interesting than using the DH.
But then, I love pitching duels, which most people find boring as hell.
“Boring as hell” is too strong. “Not my preferred game type” is more accurate. I’d chose 5-4 over 1-0 virtually every time.
NONE of that is eliminated in the AL.
Yeah, and chess would be more fun if you replaced all the other pieces with queens.
Is anyone claiming that the strategy of managing a DH game/team is exactly the same as the strategy of managing a non-DH game/team? Because if not, “I prefer the strategic aspects of non-DH baseball” is a perfectly legitimate position to take.
You’re correct - no one is making that claim. But the claim that IS being made is that the strategic aspects of non-DH baseball are only infinitesimally more complex than DH baseball. The double switch is a nearly irrelevant aspect of NL baseball (especially with the prevalence of deeper bullpens), and the good defense/bad bat or good bat/bad defense aspect is really one made solely by the ownership and GM, not the manager on the field.
And no - I’m not stating that that’s an illegitimate position to take. I’d just like to see some statements supporting that position that acknowledge how utterly minuscule that portion of the game is.
I will make the claim that DH baseball requires *more *strategy than non-DH baseball. You can still prefer the non-DH variety, that’s fine. But you must acknowledge that pitching and defensive strategy for a DH is much more critical than for a pitcher at bat.
For that particular PA, sure. Not for whole games and seasons.
I sadly have to agree with this. In the NL, it’s pretty clear when you yank the pitcher versus when you let him bat. In the AL, there are more decisions about pitcher-batter matchups, and you see more variation in how different managers react to that. (And to be a bit pedantic, none of this is strategy. It’s tactics.)
But I prefer the [del]strategy[/del] tactics of the NL, for the reasons described by Ulf the Unwashed and Peremensoe. Forcing a team to plan for weaknesses and play around them makes the game more exciting for me. The DH for me is like a cheat code for a gamer.
So - when are you going to make your football players play both offence and defence? And while you are at it - make kickers and punters full-time players as well. (It’s not that hard to learn to kick).
If you have a player in the game - make them play the entire game.
I for one would be all for it.
Well, I’ve always been an NL kind of gal. Like a lot of baseball fans, I’m a traditionalist. The game has a long history and a lot of tradition, and messing with something as fundamental as whether a pitcher gets to hit is like replacing the peanuts in Kung Pao Chicken with Raisinets–it just doesn’t go down well.
I never liked the DH, I hate interleague play and the extra round of playoffs that pushes the Series into Christmas week, and I don’t like how relief pitchers are brought in to pitch to only one guy and then changed because the next hitter hits from the other side of the plate. I mean, you are a major-league pitcher and you can’t pitch to righties and lefties?
I remember when pitchers weren’t hothouse flowers…when they pitched complete games…when they at least knew which end of the bat to grab…when men were men…hey, get off my lawn…!