DH to the NL??

[RichardSimon]

There are some stories in print and on the web stating that the NL may institute the DH starting in 2017.
I vote no and I think it should be done away with in the AL also.
How do you guys feel?
I would favor adding another player to the roster since bullpens are so deep and benches are so short.
Any thoughts on that idea?

[BearBailey]

The Dh starts in high school and doesn't disappear again unless you play in the NL, why the national league hasn't adopted a Dh yet perplexes me. Imo both leagues should have a Dh. If not using a Dh was beneficial then one of the NL teams should opt not to use in in the World Series.

[Econteachert205]

The dh turns chess into checkers mixed with slow pitch softball.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by BearBailey

The Dh starts in high school and doesn't disappear again unless you play in the NL, why the national league hasn't adopted a Dh yet perplexes me. Imo both leagues should have a Dh. If not using a Dh was beneficial then one of the NL teams should opt not to use in in the World Series.

I would be all in favor of no DH in the World Series or interleague play.
The AL has a distinct advantage during the WS and interleague play, using a real hitter to DH, while the NL uses some guy off the bench who probably did not bat a lot during the regular season.

[frankbmd]

Tell me why it makes sense that two leagues that play the same game don't play the same game.

Tell me why it makes sense that 90% of relief pitchers can only pitch 1 inning, creating that long bench in the bull pen.

Tell me why the best relief pitcher is utilized only when he is able to add to his statistical save total. Should the ability to get three outs before giving up three runs really determine how the game is managed?

Tell me why the winner of an all-star exhibition (not really a game) determines home field advantage in a World Series between two teams that aren't playing the same game.

It is as if the Patriots and the Colts were playing a football game and one team was using deflated footballs. Oh wait, they did.

[esd10]

I hate dh and believe if you pitch you should go up to the plate and swing the bat.

[Runscott]

I don't like the DH but as a fan who is not a millionaire, my opinion doesn't count. The old school baseball purist owners in the NL are dying out and the new breed will eventually vote for the DL. At some point we might get a 2nd DL for the next position where MLB is having a tough time finding defensive players who can also hit - the catcher. Laugh, but if it makes money for the players and owners it will someday happen.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

It is as if the Patriots and the Colts were playing a football game and one team was using deflated footballs. Oh wait, they did.

You must work for the NFL!

[AGuinness]

Sometimes it helps me to think about a topic if the situation were reversed... in this case, if the NL already had the DH (or if baseball always had DH) and the consideration were to eliminate it.

I think in that case, it would be hard to argue to go to pitchers hitting. Just look at the stats difference in this article:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-n...inally-get-it/

I welcome the inevitable addition of the DH to the NL.

[the 'stache]

No. Just....no. The designated hitter is one of the worst decisions in baseball history. Hitters should be required to field, and pitchers should be required to hit.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Hitters should be required to field, and pitchers should be required to hit.

I'm just curious why this seems to be the over-riding sentiment. A lot of people obviously agree with this statement, but this is a "what", not a "why." Just curious what makes people think this is better - not simply preferential, but better - than having a DH.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by dgo71

I'm just curious why this seems to be the over-riding sentiment. A lot of people obviously agree with this statement, but this is a "what", not a "why." Just curious what makes people think this is better - not simply preferential, but better - than having a DH.

That's a real good question, Derek, and I'll do my best to answer it.

The short answer? It's a matter of opinion, really. The long answer, however, is a tad more involved.

When it comes to baseball, I am a purist. This game has been played for a very long time with essentially the same rules. Nine men on the field. Three outs in an inning. Nine innings in a game. Baseball, in its design, is beautiful. It is unique. There is no clock. The defense has the ball, and, unlike football, soccer, hockey, or basketball, where a lead can become essentially insurmountable because of the time remaining, in baseball, a team can overcome nearly any deficit if they play smart, and work together. But unlike these other sports, you cannot keep feeding the ball to one player. The greatest hitter in the game comes to the plate once every nine at bats. Then he sits down. There is no Michael Jordan taking the game winning shot, and you can't keep feeding the ball off to Earl Campbell. Every man in the lineup has to come up, and swing the bat. Every man, likewise, should take the field.

Implementing the designated hitter meant one less skill that pitchers had to master. It also meant that players who could hit, but were poor defensively, could still play the game. It meant that careers were being artificially prolonged. Fundamentally, I take issue with a player who comes to the plate three or four times, takes his swings, and then sits on the bench for the remainder of the game. If he's not good enough to play defense, as well, then he shouldn't be in the Major Leagues.

Some changes that have been made to the game have improved the overall enjoyment level of baseball. Whereas you used to have only one team in each league going to the post season, you now have division winners, and a select few wildcard teams, playing for the right to be world champions. The road to the World Series is infinitely more difficult. More teams have a chance to win it all, and more fans can cheer their teams on in the post season.

The designated hitter change, however, was an overreaction to the pitching dominance of the late 1960s. And now, you have the American League playing one style of baseball, while the National League plays quite another.

If I had my way, the DH would be eliminated, and those hitters who could not field would be putting in extra time working with the glove, or get sent packing back to the minors.

[dgo71]

I appreciate the well thought out reply. While I respect your opinion, what I'm reading is that the long answer is really just expounding on the short answer - personal preference. And that is completely fine. It does however confirm my suspicions that most anti-DH folks are in the purist group. Again, fine to appreciate the nostalgia of the game but it doesn't lend itself to a high degree of change. It's a little like saying the GPS is terrible because folding maps worked just fine.

With the way the game has become specialized, it takes some changes to stay competitive and keep the winning edge. A purist example might be that pitchers regularly finished the games they started, or even logged 250, even 300 innings a season. With pitch counts that is becoming more and more of a rarity. The bullpen is critical, and it's gone beyond simply a dominating closer, to now having 7th inning guys, setup men, LOOGIs, etc. To say that hasn't been an improvement for the game depends on what side of the fence you're on. A fan may think, from a purist standpoint, this has diminished the quality of pitching. The teams however, feel it increases their chance of winning, and that is the paramount goal of every team. Just ask the last several World Series winners how they feel about bullpens and their importance to the game. The same can be said of the DH. I know as a Yankee fan much of my life that David Ortiz in 2004 was a killer, and whether he played the field or not he certainly was a major player in the Sox curse-ending WS run.

I didn't take the time to research this, but it may even be argued that without having to focus on other aspects of the game, pitching has improved in the AL because pitchers can focus solely on their primary function. There are only so many hours in a day, and any time spent in the cage is time they are not working on grips, release points, arm angles, landing off the mound, overall philosophy, etc. Again, not sure this is a proven fact but on the surface makes sense to me that focusing on one aspect versus two or three would yield better results.

I definitely agree with your point on the AL and NL playing very different games, and that's mostly my biggest problem with all of this. It's increasingly apparent too, with interleague play now integrated into the schedule every day and not just some cross-town novelty. Interesting topic. Another unique thing about baseball is the hours of debate that can be had about all of the game's subtle nuances. Thanks for your thoughtful response!

[itjclarke]

Derek, I think you are oversimplifying by saying those against the NL DH are "purists", "antiquated" in our thinking, and refusing any change. I think several have acknowledged what we've considered as having been good changes, just don't think this one is good.

As said, it's a personal preference. I personally love getting deep into the strategy of the game while watching (similar to watching NFL), anticipating managerial moves, etc. From this standpoint, I find AL games boring as hell in comparison to NL games. I'm a huge Giants fan who likes the A's, but I'd be much more likely to watch the Bucs play the Cards on Sunday night than I would to sit through any A's game. This has nothing to do with being unwilling to accept change, just prefer the more dynamic tactics and strategies at play in NL ball.

I'm happy to agree to disagree, as long as the DH doesn't invade the NL. You clearly enjoy the game differently than those who oppose the DH. Totally fine, you have your league and we ours.