Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
westofyou
This just in... Reasons all over this thread and yet... I still loath the DH and have not changed my mind nor will I.
Now how about Lee MacPhail's 8 men in the lineup instead of 9?
Genius!!
Not really.
FYI the DH idea was first floated during the 1890s, it took 80 years to arrive in the league that didn't exist when the idea was floated.
Ironic no?
Exactly. And it's funny how using an extreme example and some humor is "hyperbole".
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scott91575
and as I have shown, when guys stop being able to play defense, most of the time they can't hit either. Your statement is simply not true. The only example is David Ortiz. That's it. Maybe Victor Martinez if his body hasn't completely fallen apart by this point. If AL teams are doing that, they are doing it on a fallacy and something that would be a longshot. It's a made up advantage that most AL teams don't do.
It isn't about them doing something later, it is the fact that they can give that extra year or two on a contract today, when the guy is still really good, that an NL team can't. Then they can do it again in 6 years with someone else.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
The Mariners use the DH position to rotate guys between catcher, firstbase, and the corner outfield positions. Unless Jason Bay pulls off a springtime miracle, the average age of players taking their DH PAs will be under 30. The D in DH more and more stands for dynamic instead of duh.
That is how most AL teams use the DH. They rotate guys around who are actually fairly young and can play the field. I think there were only about 4 true DH's in the AL last year. The idea that over the guys that still can hit but can't field anymore become DH's in the AL is a fallacy for the most part.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
757690
Fileding and pitching are the same thing. Defense. Outfielders don't have to play the infield or catch.
As displayed by one of the 1st ML players to be a DH in the initial experiment in the IL in the 60’s
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...2695/index.htm
Quote:
"Being the Designated Hitter," Campbell said last week at Silver Stadium in Rochester, "made me start to think a little more about hitting. If the pitcher got me the first time I could go back to the bench and think about how he had done it and what I had done wrong. Because I didn't have to go out and play in the field the idea of hitting was more on my mind. I had never done much pinch-hitting, but I know it's different. With the Designated Hitter rule you go up to bat and know that if you don't get a hit the first time up that you are still going to get two or three more chances."
Complete players.. thanks to the DH?
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dougdirt
It isn't about them doing something later, it is the fact that they can give that extra year or two on a contract today, when the guy is still really good, that an NL team can't. Then they can do it again in 6 years with someone else.
Yet they don't add value in those years in most instances. Seriously, if that was true, the AL would be full of those guys. There is one. I will say it again. ONE! Maybe a possibility of two. At the very most, 4-5 if Hafner and Berkman suddenly find the fountain of youth and Dunn learns there is more to hitting than the long ball. That is huge outside shot where only 33% of the teams in the AL doing that. AL teams simply do not build themselves around that for the most part. They realize it's stupid to clog up the DH spot with an over the hill guy when they can rotate around good young hitters instead.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scott91575
Yet they don't add value in those years in most instances. Seriously, if that was true, the AL would be full of those guys. There is one. I will say it again. ONE! Maybe a possibility of two. At the very most, 4-5 if Hafner and Berkman suddenly find the fountain of youth and Dunn learns there is more to hitting than the long ball. That is huge outside shot where only 33% of the teams in the AL doing that. AL teams simply do not build themselves around that for the most part. They realize it's stupid to clog up the DH spot with an over the hill guy when they can rotate around good young hitters instead.
You are missing my point. I could care less about what the free agent do once they get to the DH role. I am saying it allows AL teams to sign guys than NL teams don't and get good production out of them for 3-5 years before they decline and become a so-so DH. NL teams aren't signing those guys as often because they can't move them to DH. They have to move them to the bench, or let them continue to play in the field where they aren't good on either side of the ball at that point. So they just don't offer as many of those guys similar contracts. Then guys sign with the AL team because they were offered 6 or 7 years instead of 4 or 5 from the NL teams.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RFS62
Exactly. And it's funny how using an extreme example and some humor is "hyperbole".
You suggested red clown cars and blowing stuff up.
BTW, the Reds didn't use red clown cars but they did allow their relievers to be blown up between '06 and '08. It didn't go over well.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dougdirt
You are missing my point. I could care less about what the free agent do once they get to the DH role. I am saying it allows AL teams to sign guys than NL teams don't and get good production out of them for 3-5 years before they decline and become a so-so DH. NL teams aren't signing those guys as often because they can't move them to DH. They have to move them to the bench, or let them continue to play in the field where they aren't good on either side of the ball at that point. So they just don't offer as many of those guys similar contracts. Then guys sign with the AL team because they were offered 6 or 7 years instead of 4 or 5 from the NL teams.
I completely understand what you are saying, and very few AL teams are doing that with even fewer every year. They realize the value of a so so over the hill hitter is worth just about as much as just cutting the guy and going with a younger guy that can actually be rotated around in the field if needed. The value is simply not there. The A's and Tigers signed Pujols and Fielder to massive, long term contracts because they have the money. They are not justifying it with "well, he can become a DH." They simply wanted the guy and paid him what it would take because they could. In the Tiger's case, they got desperate when Victor Martinez got hurt and shelled out whatever it took to get Fielder. He was expected to sign with the Dodgers until that point, and many in the Dodgers front office thought it was pretty much a done deal. Let's also just ignore the fact the Marlins reportedly offered more to Pujols than the Angels.
The value of a so so over the hill DH is so minimal it makes little to no difference in the contract that gets offered to free agents.
At this point, we can just agree to disagree. Yet very little backs up your assertion, and if AL teams are doing it they are going it based on a fallacy, not an actual advantage.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RFS62
Exactly. And it's funny how using an extreme example and some humor is "hyperbole".
I'll take the humor, RFS62. All the other stuff is mind numbing at best.
And I still hate the DH.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
I'm a purist myself, but also get that the DH isn't going anywhere, so I propose a compromise rule where you can send a DH up to bat for somebody, but then DH either stays in the game, or is burnt and the guy who was hit for can go back in......adds some strategy. 1 on 2 out, Cueto up in the second inning....burn a DH or just have Cueto go up?!?!
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bigfunguy
I'm a purist myself, but also get that the DH isn't going anywhere, so I propose a compromise rule where you can send a DH up to bat for somebody, but then DH either stays in the game, or is burnt and the guy who was hit for can go back in......adds some strategy. 1 on 2 out, Cueto up in the second inning....burn a DH or just have Cueto go up?!?!
Ughh... you leave the game you're out of the game.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MikeThierry
Also, we might want to cool down the rhetoric here. Obviously I'm not a mod but the personal attacks are kind of ridiculous here. We aren't debating the meaning of life, we aren't debating the Law of Diminishing Returns, we aren't debating some important policy decision by Washington. We're debating the validity of the DH. It's hardly a subject in which people need to personally attack someone over.
my 2 cents on the matter.
Agreed. Unfortunately it is the nature of the beast when he joins a thread. It has been that way for years. He is back on Ignore.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AtomicDumpling
Agreed. Unfortunately it is the nature of the beast when he joins a thread. It has been that way for years. He is back on Ignore.
No one made you post this or your previous personal attacks. It's not the nature of the beast. It was a personal choice you made.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MikeThierry
Everyone on here is bringing up legitimate points on the in-game issues involved with the DH. However, I think there is a more practical, business, reason as to why the DH is coming to the NL. The National League is more and more at a disadvantage compared to American League teams in signing big name free agents and NL teams keeping their "franchise" players. The risk is far less for American League teams to sign a free agent for $20-$25 million because those players can DH later in their career. AL teams will still get use from older players when they DH where as NL players the use will be far less. As an example, if there was a DH in the NL, the Cardinals would have probably signed Pujols long term. This disadvantage has always been there since the DH was created, however now it's more magnified the way salaries are going in baseball. I think for future competitive reasons, they either need to adopt it in both leagues or get rid of it. It cannot continue to be the same structure we're using today. From a business standpoint it doesn't make sense.
I see your point and I agree that is an advantage. However it can also be a disadvantage. Those AL teams who choose to sign an aging slugger to those long contracts are spending a lot of money in a way that NL teams don't have to do. Every million dollars those AL teams spend on a DH is a million dollars they can't spend on pitching or other positions, which gives the NL teams an advantage going after those players. Also, those aging DH type players can't play in half of interleague games and postseason games (or else will be a defensive liability) -- and that is a big disadvantage for those AL teams who choose to fill their DH slot with an expensive aging slugger. I personally believe it is unwise for an AL team to sign that type of player.
So in the end I think the DH is neither an advantage nor a disadvantage for the AL and NL teams. It is a difference, but not one that helps or hurts either side.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
No one made you post this or your previous personal attacks. It's not the nature of the beast. It was a personal choice you made.
LOL you are a piece of work. You are the king of personal attacks and insults and argumentative posts without substance. We all know it and have known it for years. You should have seen my PM box after your barrage. Lots of laughs and thank you's. People know how you are and apparently they like it when you get a comeuppance. :lol:
My Ignore List re-set after the site got moved, but now the only member of its population is about to be repatriated.....and... done! Ah, much better now.
Please just share your opinion and move on without harassing me and others with sniping distortions of our opinions.
I apologize for falling prey to his shenanigans guys. I won't let it happen again. Nothing but peace and serenity now that the Ignore List is protecting me again. :thumbup: