PDA

View Full Version : Will the DH soon be universal?



corkedbat
03-07-2012, 01:26 AM
If the Reds are able to somehow extend Joey (BIG IF), Soto (unlike Yonder) might have a place - Francisco too.

http://www.cnnsi.com/2012/writers/tom_verducci/03/06/designated.hitter.national.league/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t11_a2

I think there are a three reasons it might happen:

1. More offense

2. Something needs to be done before the 'Stros are shipped to the AL because of all the constant interleague play.

3. It will be an easy sell to the players, as opposed to abolishing the DH.

I personally lean slightly toward doing away with the DH, but won't scream if it is adopted. I just want both leagues to have the same rules of play. In other words, I don't care what they do as long as everything is universal.

KronoRed
03-07-2012, 03:29 AM
I expect it to happen, then we can get to work on the designated runner.

Somewhere Charlie Finley will smile.

AtomicDumpling
03-07-2012, 04:28 AM
Pretty soon baseball will be like football. One set of players for offense, one set of players for defense. Football players used to play both offense and defense back when men were men.

Baseball was the most popular sport in the country for 100 years with no designated hitter or second-place teams winning the World Series. Why fix what is not broken? These "fixes" are not designed to make the game better, they are designed to put more money in the offshore bank accounts of the millionaire players and the billionaire owners.

If you can't hit you are not a real baseball player.

Does Kobe Bryant need a designated free throw shooter? Of course not, he is a real basketball player. He has to play offense and defense.

Does Tiger Woods need a designated putter? Of course not, he is a real golfer. He has to hit drives, chips and puts.

Does Ron Jeremy get a designated.... oh you get the idea.

RedsBaron
03-07-2012, 06:40 AM
I don't like the DH (although I do believe the DH should be used in the All Star game), but no way does the players union ever agree to it being abolished. The lack of a DH puts NL teams in general, including the Reds, at a competitive disadvantage. Under these circumstances, and after 40 years, I expect that the NL will adopt the DH, and should do so.

mattfeet
03-07-2012, 06:44 AM
Does Ron Jeremy get a designated.... oh you get the idea.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

AtomicDumpling
03-07-2012, 07:08 AM
I don't like the DH (although I do believe the DH should be used in the All Star game), but no way does the players union ever agree to it being abolished. The lack of a DH puts NL teams in general, including the Reds, at a competitive disadvantage. Under these circumstances, and after 40 years, I expect that the NL will adopt the DH, and should do so.

You make a couple good points but I have a different opinion. I am not sure the DH puts NL teams at a disadvantage. Teams budget their payroll based on how much the owner wants to spend, then the GM allocates that money to the various positions as he sees fit. DHs can be expensive, which means the AL teams have to spend big money to fill that particular position, leaving them less money to spend on the rest of the team's needs. NL teams can use the money they don't have to spend on a DH to bolster their pitching staff or another position. If the players' union feels the DH is putting more money in their pockets they are mistaken. Having the DH doesn't increase the total amount of money teams spend on players, it only affects where they spend it. The Red Sox would not lower their payroll if having David Ortiz at DH were not an option, they would just use his money to bring in another stud pitcher or upgrade somewhere else.

I think if MLB really wanted to abolish the DH they could negotiate with the union to make it happen. The DH is here to stay because the owners feel the added offense makes them more money than added strategy does. Casual fans like the DH because they think watching a pitcher bat is boring, largely because they are oblivious to the subtle strategies being employed by NL teams.

gilpdawg
03-07-2012, 08:24 AM
I've always been firmly in the camp of use it in both leagues or neither one. However, the fact that pretty much all the minors use it now, makes me lean toward just get rid of the pitchers hitting. It's kind of a joke that some guys won't get their first professional at bat until they reach the major leagues. I don't agree with it, but I think they've gone too far to turn back now. Just make it universal and get on with it.

_Sir_Charles_
03-07-2012, 08:28 AM
Pretty soon baseball will be like football. One set of players for offense, one set of players for defense. Football players used to play both offense and defense back when men were men.

Baseball was the most popular sport in the country for 100 years with no designated hitter or second-place teams winning the World Series. Why fix what is not broken? These "fixes" are not designed to make the game better, they are designed to put more money in the offshore bank accounts of the millionaire players and the billionaire owners.

If you can't hit you are not a real baseball player.

Does Kobe Bryant need a designated free throw shooter? Of course not, he is a real basketball player. He has to play offense and defense.

Does Tiger Woods need a designated putter? Of course not, he is a real golfer. He has to hit drives, chips and puts.

Does Ron Jeremy get a designated.... oh you get the idea.

*high five*

dougdirt
03-07-2012, 08:36 AM
Does Kobe Bryant need a designated free throw shooter? Of course not, he is a real basketball player. He has to play offense and defense.


Kobe Bryant doesn't, but plenty of guys SHOULD have one. And plenty of guys are only "one way" players in the NBA. Just like in baseball. And hockey.

membengal
03-07-2012, 08:41 AM
I am 41, and in the past 15 years MLB has done so much to mess up what was "traditional" that they have numbed me to further changes. The world didn't end when they went to the Wild Card format, and I guess it won't end when the NL gets the DH. I won't initially like it, but I will likely get used to it.

westofyou
03-07-2012, 08:52 AM
Nope, won't happen

Roy Tucker
03-07-2012, 09:15 AM
Not everything has to be symmetrical. Anomalies can and do exist. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. I like the idiosyncrasy of pitchers hitting.

Just say no to the DH.

IslandRed
03-07-2012, 09:18 AM
If you can't hit you are not a real baseball player.

In theory.

In practice? No. Being written into the batting order doesn't make a guy a hitter. Truth is, the ability to hit is, in 99-plus percent of cases, a complete non-factor in determining whether a pitcher makes the major leagues and stays in the major leagues. It's barely more relevant to his employment prospects than his ability to sing karaoke or do quadratic equations or play the lead in Fiddler On the Roof.

Having said that, I don't want to adopt the DH in the National League because I do like the strategic aspects of it, the bunting and pinch-hitting and double switches and all of it. But let's call the strategies what they are: schemes based on the fundamental premise that pitchers can't hit.

REDREAD
03-07-2012, 09:18 AM
Honestly, Bud and his cronies have changed so much now, that it really makes sense to make the DH universal.

15 teams in each league (forcing interleague play) is more outrageous.
There's really no point in even having two seperate leagues anymore.
So, we might as well make the rules uniform.

Honestly, I don't get the "checkers and chess" reasoning.. Does anyone really get excited if the Reds have to use Leake as a PH? There's really not that much skill/strategy involved in doing double switches and pinch hitting.
I'd much rather protect pitchers from getting injured while batting.

Another advantage of the DH is that potentially clubs could go back to carrying 11 pitchers instead of 12. I remember as a kid, when the norm was to only carry 10 pitchers. It was nice to have a deeper bench of position players.

WildcatFan
03-07-2012, 09:29 AM
I want to see anything that keeps the leagues as separate as possible. As an almost exclusively NL fan, I like the novelty of interleague play and seeing a DH in my lineup every once in a while, but I'm with IslandRed that I prefer even the small strategic considerations that come from having a pitcher hit. It's fun for me to think about and debate those moves.

Roy Tucker
03-07-2012, 09:35 AM
I'm a curmudgeon. I like the oddities to occur. Baseball embraces them. I like that MLB has different sized stadiums, that they don't legislate what numbers position players wear, how big your stirrups are, how much pine tar is on your helmet, how you celebrate when hitting a HR.

If you want everything to be totally consistent and legislated and homogenous and vanilla, go watch the NFL.

Bah. Get off my lawn.

westofyou
03-07-2012, 09:41 AM
Honestly, Bud and his cronies have changed so much now, that it really makes sense to make the DH universal.

15 teams in each league (forcing interleague play) is more outrageous.
There's really no point in even having two seperate leagues anymore.
So, we might as well make the rules uniform.

Honestly, I don't get the "checkers and chess" reasoning.. Does anyone really get excited if the Reds have to use Leake as a PH? There's really not that much skill/strategy involved in doing double switches and pinch hitting.
I'd much rather protect pitchers from getting injured while batting.

Another advantage of the DH is that potentially clubs could go back to carrying 11 pitchers instead of 12. I remember as a kid, when the norm was to only carry 10 pitchers. It was nice to have a deeper bench of position players.

There's no skill or strategy involved in the game with the DH, zip, zilch.

Is that better than "little or none"?

And some might not get excited by Leake pinch hitting, But is it any worse than watching Jack Cust?

lollipopcurve
03-07-2012, 09:45 AM
Would be a very unfortunate move, IMO. But I get the feeling baseball is desperate to "innovate" as it keeps losing ground to the NFL and to sports you can do by yourself.

lollipopcurve
03-07-2012, 09:46 AM
And some might not get excited by Leake pinch hitting, But is it any worse than watching Jack Cust?

Ha. Indeed, it is not!

RANDY IN INDY
03-07-2012, 10:34 AM
Don't see it happening. The NL, nearly unanimously, likes it's style of baseball. So do I.

puca
03-07-2012, 11:13 AM
I hate the DH. I absolutely hate it. As far as I'm concerned the DH destroys the entire ebb and flow of a baseball game.

yab1112
03-07-2012, 11:20 AM
I'm a curmudgeon. I like the oddities to occur. Baseball embraces them. I like that MLB has different sized stadiums, that they don't legislate what numbers position players wear, how big your stirrups are, how much pine tar is on your helmet, how you celebrate when hitting a HR.

If you want everything to be totally consistent and legislated and homogenous and vanilla, go watch the NFL.

Bah. Get off my lawn.

This is pretty much how I feel as well. The differences and asymmetry of baseball make it unique and full of flavor. That's why my friend and I have been trying to visit every MLB stadium over the last few years. You think I care about seeing all the NBA arenas or NFL stadiums? That's a big ol' negative.

As for the argument that the DH creates a competitive advantage, I say...meh. Since the DH was instituted, the AL holds a 21-17 World Series advantage. That's a relatively balanced bottom line. I think it'd be cool to see the DH alternate years between the AL and NL but that obviously wouldn't work for a number of reasons.

If they implement the DH in the NL or create regulations for outfield distance I have little doubt I'd still follow the game, but it will have lost some of its charm.

Sea Ray
03-07-2012, 11:34 AM
The DH debate is more than double switches and seeing Mike Leake hit. The DH completely changes how the game is played. In the NL you need a deeper bullpen and a deeper bench. It affects how you put your roster together. In the AL it's all about your starters because unless injuries happen your bench players won't play much of a factor.

I know this bit about the players union won't go for abolishing it but think about it. Don't we hear more players saying that they prefer the NL game than the other way around? I hear that all the time. Guys like Adam Dunn and Griffey didn't want to DH. Pitchers like getting that free out at the bottom of the order. The only players that really like the Dh are guys like Edgar Martinez who thrive on it.

It's nuts that MLB has two different sets of rules but I blame Bowie Kuhn for ever letting it get to this point. He was the worst MLB commissioner ever

Unassisted
03-07-2012, 11:54 AM
If Bud Selig wanted it to be that way, it would be that way by now. IMO it won't happen as long as he's commissioner. He wants his legacy to be one of innovative change and going entirely with or without the DH would be contentious.

defender
03-07-2012, 02:02 PM
Eliminate the dh and expand rosters to 27. The players union should agree, and it will improve play.

medford
03-07-2012, 02:22 PM
Eliminate the dh and expand rosters to 27. The players union should agree, and it will improve play.

the problem w/ 27 players, is that I think there would be a lot more Tony LaRussa types who would use situational pitchers way too much and drag out the later innings of a game. If they'd combine it with maximum # of pitchers I'd be ok, but if not, I think seeing multiple pitching changes in the 7th & 8th inning would be the norm, meaning the last 3 innings could drag out as long as the first 6.

We've all seen the Poz quote about not talking to the person who thinks baseball is boring b/c "Baseball is boring, then all of a sudden its not which makes it a great game" Similarly, nobody wants to see their pitcher at the plate w/ a runner in scoring position and 2 outs, until the pitcher gets a hit and drives the runner in and everybody talks about it more than the 3 hole hitter hitting a homer.

FlightRick
03-07-2012, 02:53 PM
the problem w/ 27 players, is that I think there would be a lot more Tony LaRussa types who would use situational pitchers way too much and drag out the later innings of a game.

Ahem: http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2530350#post2530350

If I've said it once, I've said it, oh, maybe a half-dozen times, now... expand the rosters to 27 or 28, but on game day, the manager has to designate 25 eligible players. Voila.

You get the union to give up the DH, you don't affect gameplay/gamesmanship because you still only have 25 players to use on a given night, there are other benefits in terms of managing day-to-day injuries or dealing with a tired bullpen, and in general, every time I have to mention this pet notion of mine, I become more and more convinced that it is ingenious.

Which is, of course, why MLB would never even consider implementing such a thing....


Rick

REDREAD
03-07-2012, 04:04 PM
There's no skill or strategy involved in the game with the DH, zip, zilch.

Is that better than "little or none"?

And some might not get excited by Leake pinch hitting, But is it any worse than watching Jack Cust?

Well the A's (where Cust got most of his ABs) are not really a legitimate team.

We have to see the pitcher bat 2-4 times in a typical game. It's boring, an almost automatic out. Also, the #8 hitter often gets pitched around because the pitcher is up next.
I just don't see the suspense in watching whether the manager will pinch hit for the pitcher or not. Most of the time, it's very predictable.
There's still PH situations in the AL. There's still defensive substitutions in the AL.

But yea, I would much rather see Ortiz, Hafner, etc bat than the pitcher.
The DH lets some elite hitters prolong their career, like Paul Molitor.
That's good for the game, especially as talent is in relatively short supply.

Also, it sure did suck when Browning had that knee (?) injury running the bases which effectively ended his career.

REDREAD
03-07-2012, 04:08 PM
Ahem: If I've said it once, I've said it, oh, maybe a half-dozen times, now... expand the rosters to 27 or 28, but on game day, the manager has to designate 25 eligible players. Voila.


Well, in that case, you just temporarily drop the 2 most recently used starting pitchers from the roster each day since they can't pitch anyway.
Might as well keep it simple and let them use the full 27 players every day.

FlightRick
03-07-2012, 06:10 PM
Well, in that case, you just temporarily drop the 2 most recently used starting pitchers from the roster each day since they can't pitch anyway.

That's why I put the link to one of the other 5 times I explained my idea at the top of my above post. That consideration (and many others) have been, well, considered. I just didn't feel like re-typing the whole thing when it's already been made a matter of record.

Trust me, I do not throw around accusations of genius lightly. Even when I throw them at myself...

Rick

The Operator
03-07-2012, 10:35 PM
Also, it sure did suck when Browning had that knee (?) injury running the bases which effectively ended his career.A knee injury?

I thought Browning broke his arm while pitching, or am I remembering wrong?

The Operator
03-07-2012, 10:40 PM
I blame Bowie Kuhn for ever letting it get to this point. He was the worst MLB commissioner everWhoa now, let's not get crazy. I wasn't around during those years, but I can't imagine anyone equaling the master of suckitude:

http://mit.zenfs.com/121/2011/04/selig.jpg

Dom Heffner
03-08-2012, 12:31 AM
Okay, I'll be the only one.

I like the DH (ducks).

I don't like pitchers getting an easy out once every three innings.

I don't pay to watch Dusty Baker think.

Watching most pitchers hit is like watching most actors direct.

If strategy is defined by pinch hitting a guy hitting .190 with another guy not good enough to be in the starting 8 and hitting .250 then let's take the strategy out of the game.

There's something wrong with letting a guy with a batting average under .220 stand up and face major league pitching.

Yes, he can sacrifice, but there's still an out involved. In fact, there seems to be a lot of outs around these guys when they hit.

Call me weird, I don't go to baseball games to watch easy outs and managers think and bunts and my favorite pitcher getting yanked because of strategy.

I'd rather see a hitter extend his career than see Tim Lincecum flail at a major leagie curve ball.

TheNext44
03-08-2012, 01:19 AM
Whoa now, let's not get crazy. I wasn't around during those years, but I can't imagine anyone equaling the master of suckitude:

http://mit.zenfs.com/121/2011/04/selig.jpg

I'm not you can accurately call Selig a commissioner. CEO is more fitting.

AtomicDumpling
03-08-2012, 04:35 AM
I'm not you can accurately call Selig a commissioner. CEO is more fitting.

Or stool pigeon for the owners. The owners like Selig and keep him in power because he is a bumbling fool that is easy to control. He lets them do exactly what they want to do. He can preside over All Star game ties, cancel the World Series, turn a blind eye to blatant steroid usage and foster the erosion of the integrity of the game as long as the money keeps rolling in.

REDREAD
03-08-2012, 10:06 AM
That's why I put the link to one of the other 5 times I explained my idea at the top of my above post. That consideration (and many others) have been, well, considered. I just didn't feel like re-typing the whole thing when it's already been made a matter of record.

Trust me, I do not throw around accusations of genius lightly. Even when I throw them at myself...

Rick

lol .. I just think it would be cumbersome for the manager to decide who to drop every day, and could lead to hard feelings. The team is going to have to pay all 27 players anyhow, why not just let them use all 27? If people want more double switches, pinch hitters, "strategy", etc then a 27 man roster will give it to them.

REDREAD
03-08-2012, 10:08 AM
A knee injury?

I thought Browning broke his arm while pitching, or am I remembering wrong?

That happened to. But I remember him having a big leg injury sliding into home plate.. He rehabbed, came back, and broke his arm shortly thereafter.

So, yea, I guess technically the leg injury did not end his career, but he pitched very little (effective) innings after the leg injury.

puca
03-08-2012, 10:45 AM
It is hard for me to believe than anyone that follows the NL cannot see beyond the immediate decisions made when its the pitchers turn to bat.

Depending on the context of the game the objectives of the hitter, pitcher, baserunners and fielders are all affected at least 2-3 batters ahead of the pitcher's slot. Managers are making decisions even before that. Not to mention a good NL manager needs to understand the opponents bench to have the right reliever(s) ready.

Roster construction is much more important in the NL as is the need to keep the bench players game ready.

Johnny Footstool
03-08-2012, 10:58 AM
Not everything has to be symmetrical. Anomalies can and do exist. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. I like the idiosyncrasy of pitchers hitting.

Just say no to the DH.

"A *foolish* consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

The quote still applies, though, because the DH has always been foolish.

Sea Ray
03-08-2012, 11:07 AM
It is hard for me to believe than anyone that follows the NL cannot see beyond the immediate decisions made when its the pitchers turn to bat.

Depending on the context of the game the objectives of the hitter, pitcher, baserunners and fielders are all affected at least 2-3 batters ahead of the pitcher's slot. Managers are making decisions even before that. Not to mention a good NL manager needs to understand the opponents bench to have the right reliever(s) ready.

Roster construction is much more important in the NL as is the need to keep the bench players game ready.

Exactly. There's the strategy of a game where the opposing pitcher is really on his game so you might pitch around the 8th hitter so they have to make a decision about bringing in a pinch hitter and thus forcing them to go to the 'pen

To me the analogy is akin to debating baseball's rule that once you take a player out he's gone. Would anyone like to see baseball adopt the rule of other sports that you can put players in and out without losing them for the game? My guess is not and the reason is that it would take away the strategy of the game. Well the same kind of thinking applies to the DH debate

Col_ IN Reds fan
03-08-2012, 11:30 AM
What probably needs to happen is expand to 32 teams.

1) four 4 team divisions in each league.

2) eliminate interleague play

3) eliminate DH

4) have "double headers"

5) expand playoff games

6) 2 teams with best record and wins their division get 1st round byes


2 more teams is not ideal , but having interleague all the time is awful.
Adding 2 teams in exchange for doing away with the dh may get by the union.
Interleague play does nothing for me.

bucksfan2
03-08-2012, 11:58 AM
Or stool pigeon for the owners. The owners like Selig and keep him in power because he is a bumbling fool that is easy to control. He lets them do exactly what they want to do. He can preside over All Star game ties, cancel the World Series, turn a blind eye to blatant steroid usage and foster the erosion of the integrity of the game as long as the money keeps rolling in.

Selig is a very reactive commishioner. He really has never had the forsight to do something first. Baseball has seen some tremendous gains in techonology that Selig was handed. Baseball has a 8-9 month period when they can broadcast games and talk about baseball, but the NFL network beat them to the punch in developing thier own network. The wild card, NFL. Televised draft, NFL copycat. The extra wild card, well that is Selig's idea, and I think its stupid. The reason game 162 was so fun last year was because it rarely ever happens. Most seasons the Wild Card or division winners are decided before the last week of the season. Your never going to be able to replicated that type of drama in a one game WC playoff.

I think the DH is coming, it will help the large markets, hurt the small markets. Its your typical Selig move. I just wish baseball had a forward looking commish instead of a reactive commish.

corkedbat
03-08-2012, 03:29 PM
What probably needs to happen is expand to 32 teams.

1) four 4 team divisions in each league.

2) eliminate interleague play

3) eliminate DH

4) have "double headers"

5) expand playoff games

6) 2 teams with best record and wins their division get 1st round byes


2 more teams is not ideal , but having interleague all the time is awful.
Adding 2 teams in exchange for doing away with the dh may get by the union.
Interleague play does nothing for me.

32 teams is the optimal number for most of the pro leagues in the US and the saturation point (unless you're going international). It makes it easy to balance the play among teams in your 4-team division, while also simplify rotations among the other 7 divisions each year (much like the NFL).

Two main problems:

1) many in the game still feel that the last round of expansion stretched talent levels too thin already.

2) some already feel that the saturation point has already been met and there should be contraction. There aren't that many readily apparent expansion markets. Charlotte, Portland, Las Vegas, Memphis, another team in the MYC market? Something "innovative" like maybe San Juan, PR, Mexico City? Heck, by the time they're ready to actually expand, Havana may be an option.

Chip R
03-08-2012, 04:20 PM
Selig is a very reactive commishioner. He really has never had the forsight to do something first. Baseball has seen some tremendous gains in techonology that Selig was handed. Baseball has a 8-9 month period when they can broadcast games and talk about baseball, but the NFL network beat them to the punch in developing thier own network. The wild card, NFL. Televised draft, NFL copycat. The extra wild card, well that is Selig's idea, and I think its stupid. The reason game 162 was so fun last year was because it rarely ever happens. Most seasons the Wild Card or division winners are decided before the last week of the season. Your never going to be able to replicated that type of drama in a one game WC playoff.

I think the DH is coming, it will help the large markets, hurt the small markets. Its your typical Selig move. I just wish baseball had a forward looking commish instead of a reactive commish.

Believe me, I'm no Bud Selig fan but as far as changes go, I think he has a difficult job. He has to balance the interests of the traditionalists against the interests of fans who are wanting to "modernize" the game - for lack of a better word. In this thread alone we have passionate arguments for and against the DH. We - and fans everywhere - have had the same arguments about interleague play, doubleheaders, uniforms, etc. He makes a decision in favor of putting Spiderman logos on the bases and he's derided by the traditionalists. If his decision went the other way, he'd have been criticized for standing in the way of progress. I'm not sure there's a decision he can make that isn't going to be criticized by one faction or another. There is no other sport that has to balance the interest of traditionalists against modernists. You don't hear NFL fans complain about interleague play or wild cards or playing games at night. No one cares that much if there are logos on the jerseys or the field or if there's instant replay. No one is longing for the return of the set shot in the NBA. I'm sure no one wants to see the short shorts again. Few will care if there are changes to the 3 point line or if they put in a charge/block semi-circle below the basket.



32 teams is the optimal number for most of the pro leagues in the US and the saturation point (unless you're going international). It makes it easy to balance the play among teams in your 4-team division, while also simplify rotations among the other 7 divisions each year (much like the NFL).

Two main problems:

1) many in the game still feel that the last round of expansion stretched talent levels too thin already.

2) some already feel that the saturation point has already been met and there should be contraction. There aren't that many readily apparent expansion markets. Charlotte, Portland, Las Vegas, Memphis, another team in the MYC market? Something "innovative" like maybe San Juan, PR, Mexico City? Heck, by the time they're ready to actually expand, Havana may be an option.

I think you're right about 32 teams being the optimal number. However I don't think that the talent level has got thinner. I think with the increase of international players and the general population increase, the supply is out there. However, young athletes in this country have more of a choice these days. They can choose to play football or basketball or golf or tennis or soccer instead of baseball. Perhaps that is to baseball's detriment but the choice is really up to the kid.

I don't think there should be contraction. I do agree that there aren't a lot of expansion candidates out there especially how the revenue is distributed. Let's say that Birmingham, AL got an expansion team in the NFL. They would get as much of a share of the TV money as the Giants or Bears or Patriots do. It should be impossible for an NFL franchise to lose money no matter how poorly they are run - look at the Bengals for example. You give Portland a MLB franchise and they aren't going to be able to bring in the kind of revenue as some teams do. They would almost have to build a domed stadium there to avoid rainouts. I have no doubt that the population is passionate enough to support a MLB team but unless they sell out every game, that may not be enough.

OldRightHander
03-08-2012, 05:11 PM
This is pretty much how I feel as well. The differences and asymmetry of baseball make it unique and full of flavor. That's why my friend and I have been trying to visit every MLB stadium over the last few years. You think I care about seeing all the NBA arenas or NFL stadiums? That's a big ol' negative.


Same here. I've been to quite a few ballparks and a couple different NFL stadiums. Baseball is unique in that the differences are what makes it interesting. If every park was identical, it would take a lot away.

Johnny Footstool
03-09-2012, 12:23 AM
He makes a decision in favor of putting Spiderman logos on the bases and he's derided by the traditionalists. If his decision went the other way, he'd have been criticized for standing in the way of progress.

I think traditionalists and modernists alike can agree that putting Spider-Man ads on the bases was a horrible idea.

Yachtzee
03-09-2012, 01:12 AM
Selig is a bad commissioner because all the changes he's presided over have been window dressing to avoid dealing with the elephant in the room, revenue disparity. The All Star game, interleague play, switching the Astros to the AL, all just bogus moves to make it look like he's trying to make the game more popular. The real problem is that he's been the "appeasement commissioner" on the tough issues. He only got on board with Steriod testing when Congress and public opinion put pressure on him. With regard to revenue sharing, it's been little half measures to throw a bone to small market owners without upsetting the big market guys. Until they change the system to allow teams in every market to keep star players and compete in the free agent market, MLB will continue to have issues with maintaining fan interest in markets outside the Northeast. They don't need to achieve parity, not even the NFL has that. Otherwise the Browns and Bengals would have Super Bowl championships under their belts. They do need to at least create a system where fans at least have hope their team can compete consistently. Currently, fans in many markets view their team as little more than a farm team for the big markets, knowing that any success will be short-lived as the best players leave or get sent away once they near the end of their contract.

AtomicDumpling
03-09-2012, 02:38 AM
Selig is a bad commissioner because all the changes he's presided over have been window dressing to avoid dealing with the elephant in the room, revenue disparity. The All Star game, interleague play, switching the Astros to the AL, all just bogus moves to make it look like he's trying to make the game more popular. The real problem is that he's been the "appeasement commissioner" on the tough issues. He only got on board with Steriod testing when Congress and public opinion put pressure on him. With regard to revenue sharing, it's been little half measures to throw a bone to small market owners without upsetting the big market guys. Until they change the system to allow teams in every market to keep star players and compete in the free agent market, MLB will continue to have issues with maintaining fan interest in markets outside the Northeast. They don't need to achieve parity, not even the NFL has that. Otherwise the Browns and Bengals would have Super Bowl championships under their belts. They do need to at least create a system where fans at least have hope their team can compete consistently. Currently, fans in many markets view their team as little more than a farm team for the big markets, knowing that any success will be short-lived as the best players leave or get sent away once they near the end of their contract.

Agreed 100%.

To me the word "parity" means creating a level playing field. Some people think the word "parity" means evenly divided championships.

In the NFL they have much better real parity than in MLB, not because many different teams win championships, but because each team is given basically the same opportunity to build a good team. Some teams have smarter management and consistently whip teams like the Browns and Bengals, but that is because they are better football organizations -- not because they are allowed to spend more money to buy all the best players.

In baseball some teams are allowed to spend 5-7 times more than other teams and hence most of the best players end up on those powerhouse big-spending teams. Those teams are better simply because they spend more money, not because they are smarter or better baseball organizations. Some mid-market teams are able to compete for brief periods because they are smart and innovative enough to overcome the huge economic disadvantage for a couple years. Rather than address this economic disparity that slopes the playing field toward big city teams, MLB has opted to create a false "parity" by adding random variation and second-chances to the playoff structure so inferior 2nd-place teams can defeat superior teams in short playoff series. The net result is the World Series championship moves around to different cities but the champion is rarely the best team. So we have big-market teams with mega-payrolls full of All Star players dominating the regular season and making the post-season almost every year only to be eliminated by obviously inferior teams in a short series. To me that is not real parity.

_Sir_Charles_
03-09-2012, 11:18 AM
:thumbup::beerme::thumbup:

OldRightHander
03-11-2012, 06:47 PM
I would love to see the playing field leveled, but I think it would be a bit more complicated than the NFL because of the minor leagues. You can't just cap the MLB salaries because the larger markets wills till outspend everyone. Can you cap organizational spending and give the small market teams a chance? An international draft would probably help as well.

Yachtzee
03-11-2012, 10:41 PM
I would love to see the playing field leveled, but I think it would be a bit more complicated than the NFL because of the minor leagues. You can't just cap the MLB salaries because the larger markets wills till outspend everyone. Can you cap organizational spending and give the small market teams a chance? An international draft would probably help as well.

The problem isn't resolved by a salary cap as much as it would be through greater revenue sharing. The only reason large market teams have access to greater revenue streams is because MLB rules give them exclusive rights within their territory, preventing other teams from arbitrarily moving into their market. Without them, any other team could set up shop in an existing team's market, provided they could find a place to play. For that reason, I feel all revenues should be shared equally. I would have all TV contracts require MLB approval to prevent teams with self-owned media outlets from hiding revenue through advantageous contract terms. The sooner MLB stops treating teams as individual businesses and starts viewing them as outlets of one business entity, the sooner they can work to promote the sport nationwide.

redsmetz
04-04-2012, 11:44 AM
Someone mentioned on the thread about the impact on the minors of Votto's extension and asked whether DH'ing could be in Neftali Soto's future, especially if something like this takes place.

As a side question to this discussion, how does a move like this look as a way of keeping Votto's bat in the line-up in the latter years of his contract? Or giving us a chance to use another impact bat in the line-up since their position is blocked?

WebScorpion
04-04-2012, 11:57 PM
I think the NL should go a step further and institute TWO DH's one for your pitcher and another for the worst offensive player in your every day lineup. That would make Paul Janish so much more valuable... ;) Then we could actually have a (virtual) player who hits like Dunn and fields like Janish. :D

Yachtzee
04-05-2012, 01:44 AM
I think the NL should go a step further and institute TWO DH's one for your pitcher and another for the worst offensive player in your every day lineup. That would make Paul Janish so much more valuable... ;) Then we could actually have a (virtual) player who hits like Dunn and fields like Janish. :D

Or, just expand the rosters and have players specialize in offense or defense, like football. A whole lineup of DHs who never field and a field of glove men who never hit.

puca
04-05-2012, 11:12 AM
I think the NL should go a step further and institute TWO DH's one for your pitcher and another for the worst offensive player in your every day lineup. That would make Paul Janish so much more valuable... ;) Then we could actually have a (virtual) player who hits like Dunn and fields like Janish. :D

Well not sure you would want the 2011 version of that player.

jojo
04-05-2012, 04:23 PM
If you're going to make pitchers hit, then you need to make DHs pitch. It's only fair.