I love it when a thread comes together. 
But why can’t pitchers hit? It’s a ball. They’ve thrown them. Okay, maybe this one is coming backwards, but why can’t they hit it?
Oh, I certainly don’t buy the “more strategy” argument. It’s not rocket science, I agree. I just think it’s aesthetically more pleasing to have the pitchers hit. Symmetry and all that.
Are pitchers athletes? What about professional billiards players or professional golfers or dart players? Could a positional player be a big league pitcher? Could a defensive lineman in the NFL be a placekicker? What about the other way around?
Sure, that’s a little far fetched towards the end, but the point stands. You can be an incredible athlete or be able to replicate a motion, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you could or should be able to do other unrelated athletic endeavors.
I would prefer that pitchers have to hit. The DH kind of takes the spirit of the game away, although it makes strategy more interesting.
However, from a GM point of view, I would never let my pitcher hit. So, there’s that.
I grew up preferring the NL, but my current home team is AL.
The DH is unlikely to ever go away. That’s a shame.
I know the reasons that Pro DH people state over and over… and it’s hard to refute the point that a pitcher is usually a dead zone in a line up.
I don’t mind this, though. It’s part of the game as far as i’m concerned, and if a pitcher can learn how to hit or sacrifice they would help their own cause in winning a game. Plus, I like the idea of a pitcher having to face the opponent pitcher. I think a pitcher who has to bat will think twice before throwing a pitch at someones earhole.
and finally, it DOES add strategy to a game, no matter what people think. Pinch hitting for the pitcher, the 2 for 1 switcheroo, etc all bring a level of enjoyment to the game for me.
YMMV.
The pro DH guys don’t understand the strategy part, because they’ve never seen any.
there are only so many hours in a week. You can either focus on being a world class pitcher, or a world class hitter, you can’t do both at the same time, unless your name is Ruth.
Pitchers get, what, 3-4 at bats every 5 games? Regular players get 4-5 every game, practice makes perfect.
Frankly, I’m not a fan of strategy that can be described as “how do we keep that incompetent boob from ruining our inning?”
Nah, I don’t think that’s true. Tony La Russa has managed in both leagues and is on record as saying he thinks that the strategy is just as tough in the AL (I believe he said tougher).
Ron Washington notwithstanding, it’s really not that hard to avoid making horrible mistakes with the pitcher’s spot.
Frankly, I like it out of spite. 
I picture anyone who is anti-DH to be like Bob Costas or George Will, and they therefore deserve the steam coming out of their ears as they say it’s not real baseball when the pitcher doesn’t come to the plate. I’m an AL guy, and I hate hearing how the double-switch is some formula that no one who hasn’t played/managed in the NL can possibly understand, and I think it’s better to see a pitcher do what he does best against a hitter do what he does best. But overall, it’s probably just a 1/10 or 2/10 better chance that the DH will be more successful at the plate, so I’m not married to the DH, either.
Why not, actually? Some NL fans are such huge fans of strategy; wouldn’t this add a layer of strategy if there were a DR available for, say, every round through the line-up? It adds to both sides of the equation. The pitcher would maybe have to pitch to a great, but slow, hitter knowing the DR could come in that place at 1st base if there were an intentional walk. The batting team’s manager would have to think, “Do I want my DR in at 1st base even though my slow catcher is in the on-deck circle right now?” Every now and then, I cross paths with Bud Selig in the lobby of the building for his office. Tell me why I shouldn’t slip him a note saying this is a great idea, besides the fact I can’t stand him and am not actually in support of the idea of a DR (though I admit I could possibly be convinced otherwise)?
I hate the DH. It used to be that pitchers didn’t suck as bad at the plate as they do today (Earl Wilson, Detroit Tigers comes to mind). It’s just that every professional league except the NL has the DH, so pitchers don’t learn to hit in A ball, AA, or AAA. I miss the strategy- you have a scoreless game in the sixth. Your pitcher is due up first. Do you let him bat or change pitchers? Even the notoriously bad hitting pitchers get the occasional hit- I still remember Hank Aguirre of the Tigers hitting one over the centerfielder of the Yankees and the ball rolling to the monuments. It’s also extended some careers that shouldn’t be extended- if you’re too old to field or have hands like bricks, then either get the hell off the team or let the other team hit the ball your way.
See, I don’t like the idea of drastically changing the game with the idea of taking out a pitcher who’s throwing a gem through 6. I’d rather see the players decide the game with a DH in that spot than the manager possibly decide the game by pulling the pitcher or making it, in all likelihood, a 2-out inning.
In my youth I used to agree about the DH. I understand the argument about strategy and tactics. But in reality having the pitcher hit just means most of the time just a throw away inning and a more boring game. There is a lot less strategy anyway now. Unless they get knocked out early a pitcher goes six maybe seven then the set up guys and the closer come in. The days of pitchers routinely pitching 9 innings is long gone.
This is probably my biggest bone of contention with the DH rule. It has infiltrated our colleges–and even our high schools. We will never see another Dave Winfield again (great college pitcher, but an even better hitter). It has stunted the development of young players who are still cultivating their skill sets. As such, it is a sin against all that is sacred.
Lifetime .195 BA with OPS+ of 76. At best that earns you a “He doesn’t completely suck, he can be a backup utility infielder.”
You’re saying the game is improved by removing a pitcher who is doing really well, rather than letting him continue to pitch? All because he sucks ass at hitting, something that has been true of 99% of the pitchers playing the game over the last 100 years.
This, to me, is a more compelling argument than pitchers hitting or not hitting.
I can accept the argument that pitchers shouldn’t have to hit (not that I agree completely, but I can accept it), but hitters should have to be able to field.
I don’t understand the hatred for the DH. Who would I rather see hit? Big Papi or Josh Beckett? Like it or not, pitchers can’t hit. Why make them? What fun is an automatic out, or maybe, if you’re lucky, a sac bunt, or if you’re really lucky, a dribbler up the middle for a single.
Like it or not, lots of middle infielders can’t hit either. We still make them. And plenty of hitters can’t field, and we still make them do that too.
Your argument could very easily be extended to a team of 9 hitters and 9 fielders.
We could go further. Let’s have designated runners for every hitter. The Bambino had it, why did we halt the progress there? And let’s allow unlimited substitutions, the DR gets on base, then we have the designated stealer replace him. And when a right hander is at bat we’ll put all southpaws on the field.
How about a compromise - the once-a-game DH. One time per game a player on the bench can bat for another player without that player being removed from the game. Sort of a super pinch hitter.
The level of incompetence displayed by pitchers at the plate is nothing like “bad” hitters / fielders being forced to play that part of the game. The very best hitting pitchers of all time are barely passable as hitters.