He would, but he’s now out of pocket for the rest of the afternoon.
Plus I have no bandwidth to start reinventing the wheel.
DH:
Some guy who is too fat, old to play but can hit the horsehide off the ball.
I’ll turn that around.
NL Pitcher:
Some gangly mook who’s too uncoordinated to hit a baseball despite knowing the mindset of the guy throwing it, but can throw a ball decently.
Maybe all NL pitchers need an asterisk next to their ERA stat saying (faced an easy out putz at least 3 times every game).
When Randy Johnson was still active I attended the Diamondback home game where he hit his only major or minor league home run ever. I’ve wondered how the pitcher felt about that.
And speaking of gangly, another game he had a 2B hit and the next batter, speedball Midre Cummings, hit an in-park home run. By the time RJ galumphed from second to home, Cummings was right behind him crossing the plate.
If the NL had a DH, I would have missed those moments. Baseball is a game played by nine men, not eight and two halves.
If you want to see a clown act, go to the circus.
Hitting is done by players actually trying to hit and often succeeding, not pretending and failing.
For certain, not-very-large values of “often.” 
One of the particular quirks of baseball is that the offense fails more often than not. A batter who fails at his primary job 2/3 of the time may very well still be posting numbers that would place him in the Hall of Fame. Last season, batters successfully hit the ball only 24.8% of the time that they came to bat (the lowest success rate since 1974).
And if you want mindless, continuous action, go to a basketball game.
The opportunity to stand at home plate and attempt to hit a baseball is not a RIGHT; it is a PRIVILEGE which is EARNED by playing defense. It is also an OBLIGATION for anyone who wishes to continue playing in the game.
Similarly, the opportunity to participate in baseball game against a team in the other league is not a RIGHT; it is a PRIVILEGE which your team can EARN by winning the pennant in its league.
These are MORAL issues, which, if abandoned, threaten to transmogrify the sacred pastime of baseball (GIFTED by the Grace of the CREATOR of the UNIVERSE to an unworthy humanity) into a mere exercise in Commerce. To that I say PFUI!
How many DHs actually DH because they’re to fat, old or uncoordinated to play the field?
It’s a rhetorical question; the answer is “very few, and in fact almost none.” There is no reason JD Martinez, Kendrys Morales, Edwin Encarnacion, Khris Davis, Nelson Cruz or Giancarlo Stanton couldn’t play the field, and all of those guys did at some point last year; they just play for teams that usually wanted someone else to play the field more. Many teams don’t have a regular DH at all, they rotate guys in and out. The idea the DH is a repository for fat, unless turds is just not true.
It’s a sport, not a constitution. The rules are whatever the powers than be decide they are; the only thing that matters is whether they produce a functioning game that people enjoy playing and watching.
Major League Baseball has been played by teams of 25 men since the First World War.
As to cool moments, I agree it’s neat to see a pitcher hit a homer. It was also cool to watch 37-year-old DH Rance Mulliniks hit an inside the park homer on July 11, 1991, and I was there to see it. It was an awesome moment. I am sure people who watched Edgar Martinez or David Ortiz got a lot of great moments too. There is an opportunity cost to everything; having DHs means you don’t see Randy Johnson hit a homer, but not seeing them means many beloved players who not have left behind many wonderful memories.
I’m a traditionalist. If I wanted to see more hitting just for the sake of hitting, I’d advocate bringing back the rule that batters call their own pitches, high or low.
So why don’t you? When did the constantly-changing rules of the game crystallize for you into a form that can never be altered without degrading from their perfection?
I’d be inclined to say “1956” (my birth year), but I didn’t really become aware of baseball’s existence until I was about five, so let’s say 1961.
The same reason, I suppose, you don’t advocate having completely separate offensive and defensive squads – nine men fielding and nine men hitting. Works for the NFL, doesn’t it?
Yes, it works for the NFL, but it would not work for baseball.
Just saying “look this other sport does things totally differently” means jack. The NFL does it differently because that works in football, for a number of really indisputable reasons. For one, football is an exceptionally damaging and dangerous sport, and it is unlikely most players could effectively play on both sides of the ball for the entire game. For another, the positions are, as it happens, extremely specialized. There IS some crossover - you will on occasion see a defensive back/safety who is also used on offensive special teams - but you will generally not see defensive players used on offense, or vice versa, because they just aren’t good enough at it. Quarterbacks are not good safeties. Defensive linemen are not good running backs, except for the Fridge. Those jobs are so different that they are totally different sets of people.
Baseball has, with one exception, neither of these issues. It is not especially dangerous, exhausting or punishing to play both offense and defense, and the set of athletes who can both field and hit is generally the same set of men. Most of the greatest fielding players of all time were highly competent hitters, and none were pitcher-bad or anywhere close to it It would be a waste of time and resources to have separate offensive and defensive teams.
The only position where baseball is similar to football is… pitchers. Pitching is so incredibly different and specialized from hitting and fielding that there is almost no talent crossover at the major league level. Pitchers are incompetent MLB hitters for exactly the same reason professional golfers, NHL goalies and Olympic volleyball players are incompetent MLB hitters; it is not what they were selected for in the Darwinian world of sports. It isn’t worth giving up any pitching ability to get a pitcher who can hit a little. Pitchers aren’t even really selected for fielding ability; some pitchers are quite good fielders but a surprising number are terrible at it.
Yeah, there’s the odd Shohei Ohtani or Babe Ruth, just as there’s the odd Deion Sanders or Troy Brown. It’s odd, though.
To be fair, football teams did use to be less specialized. The single platoon was normal when teams could only afford much smaller rosters, and the players accommodated it by pacing themselves more. The same happened when baseball pitchers completed games far more often - they paced themselves too, and thereby let the rosters include a reasonable number of utility players (and pinch hitters). The increase in specialization in both sports, and in other examples like two-platoon football and kicking specialists and closers and DH’s, directly resulted from the increased revenue provided by television, and customers’ desire to see the best games, with each position played by the people who were best at playing those positions.
I’ve come to realize that, for most sports fans, their idealized version of the sport is the way that it was played when they first started following the sport (i.e., from age 5 or so, up through your teens). Unless you’re a serious scholar of the sport, how it was played before then is hazy; and, for most of us, how the sport has evolved since then is often painful to watch. 
Especially George Will himself. He’s always needed a dope-slap or 12. 
As for the merits of the proposed rule changes:
- Yes to the pitch clock.
- Yes to the batter’ faced minimum.
- No to the NL-DH. It gives us all something harmless to argue about, as we have been doing since 1973.
- No to runner on 2d to start extra innngs. Not just no, but hell no.
- Yes to 12 man limit on roster pitching staffs.
- Yes to ending interleague play. Except for intercity rivalries. Mets/Yankees, Cubs/White Sox, Angels/Dodgers, Giants/A’s etc.
Wouldn’t that be unfair to either the teams that had to do it or the teams that didn’t have to? (I’m not sure which way is an advantage). If you have 4 or 5 teams that face different opponents than the rest of the league, you’re creating issues. I know we don’t have balanced schedules anymore, but everyone plays the same number of in league and inter league games.
I’d be strongly in favor of at least reducing it substantially (to return some of the novelty / specialness that it had when it was first introduced), but doing so would also require either (a) expansion, adding another team to each league, or (b) moving a team from one league to the other once again.
We wound up with full-year interleague play when MLB moved Houston to the AL, which gave a balanced number of teams in each league, but also yielded an odd number of teams in each league.