[the 'stache]

I may be a purist, but as I clearly indicated, I have no problem whatsoever with changing the game when it is warranted. The example you provided of purists viewing GPS as terrible because "folding maps worked just fine" is a bit specious, logically. The technological advance realized by GPS makes traveling easier, and safer, and nobody in their right mind would forego the use of a TomTom, if available, out of some misplaced affinity for maps. Baseball purists are not archaic thinkers, not by a long shot. Yes, we are mindful of the game's past, but that doesn't mean we are so set in our ways that we won't consider or embrace change. Rather, we don't want the fundamentals of the game changed unnecessarily. And we certainly would never support a rules change which affected only half of the game.

I understand the competitive advantages teams seek as a means of increasing the likelihood of winning, but that's just the thing. The example you provided of the change in pitcher utilization (starters throwing complete games in the olden days vs the specialized relievers prevalent in today's game) is not really germane to this discussion. Why? Because it wasn't a mandated change to the game that brought about this evolution. Major League Baseball did not decree that "starting pitchers must throw a maximum of x pitches per season", thereby requiring that teams keep on hand a number of specialists ready to go on a moment's notice. Baseball evolved on its own. And, that's how the game should change, if it is going to change.

Occasionally, MLB makes prudent decisions. Decades ago, the requirement that batters wear helmets at the plate increased player safety, as did the eventual addition of the ear flap to the helmet. But changing the game just for the sake of making a change doesn't enhance the game at all, rather, it diminishes it. And the implementation of the designated hitter was completely superfluous. Again, the designated hitter's introduction amounted to overcompensation by the league. Tweaking the strike zone and lowering the pitcher's mound was sufficient to reign in pitching dominance. How do I know this? The mound was lowered, and the strike zone expanded after the 1968 season, when an average of 3.43 runs were scored per game in the National League. In 1969, that averaged jumped to 4.05 runs per game, and 4.52 in 1970. That's a statistically significant change achieved with pitchers still appearing in the lineup every day. In the American League, an average of 3.41 runs per game were scored in 1968. After the changes, that average jumped to 4.09 in 1969, and 4.17 in 1970. In 1972, the American League average dropped back to 3.47 (it was 3.91 in the N.L.). The DH was implemented in the American League in 1973, and scoring jumped to 4.28 runs per game, and has never been below 4.0 runs per game again. But in the N.L., which did not see the designated hitter, scoring jumped to 4.15 runs per game for the 1973 season. In 1974, the National League, with no designated hitter, averaged 4.15 runs per game, while the American League, with the DH, averaged 4.10 runs per game.

Between 1968 and 1972, the National League saw an average of 3.96 runs scored per game. The American League, over the same period, saw an average of 3.80 runs per game. The N.L. realized a +0.16 runs per game differential. Scoring across the leagues was pretty close, as one would expect. In the 16 years between 1975 and 1990, the National League saw an average of 4.10 runs scored per game, while the American League, over the same sixteen year period, saw an average of 4.41 runs scored per game. While the National League realized a slight change to runs scored per game (+0.14), the American League saw a huge, and I would argue, unnatural spike in runs scored per game (+.61).

The designated hitter being introduced to the game was completely unnecessary, not because purists entertain some misplaced fondness for how the game used to be, but because it amounted to the placing of a Band-Aid when there was no cut. And now, we have this ridiculous imbalance between the Leagues. Giving the National League the DH is a stupid idea. Get rid of the DH altogether, and restore competitive balance.