Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dougdirt
Young players don't get $15M a year. Old guys do. Every league in this country is set up to pay old guys and not young guys. They all set it up that way because they (the old guys) are the ones running the players associations. They know it keeps them in the leagues longer.
It isn't that having the DH that gives them the advantage though. It is the fact that they can add talent that NL teams simply can't in free agency. They can sign first basemen and left fielders and third basemen that are going to likely decline out of defensive values but can hit very well still and use them in their early 30's at those positions still, before transitioning them to DH later. NL teams can't do that, so they just don't wind up signing some of those guys and miss out on the still very producing early 30's part of their careers because they just couldn't risk the mid and late 30's part where they would still have to play defense with those guys.
That is beside the point. The point is that having a DH doesn't increase the pool of money a team can spend. If the National League were to add the designated hitter it doesn't give the Reds an extra $15 million to spend right? So how does adding the DH give the players more money? It doesn't. It only changes how that money is distributed. More money going to a DH means less money going to a pitcher. The players' association doesn't care if the money goes to player A or player B, what they want is to maximize the total amount of money given to players -- and the DH doesn't change that one bit. The number of major league jobs and the total amount of money paid to players is unaffected by whether the DH is used or not, therefore the players' association is not going to take one side over the other.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
To me the most compelling argument for a DH is, "Who wants to watch a pitcher bat or run the bases?".
I get that pinch-hitting for the pitcher adds a uniqueness to the NL style of baseball but it's not really dramatically different that AL managers using the pen to exploit platoon splits in the late innings.
Also, bullpen specialists might represent a class of player with the most limited skillset in their sport. In many cases, they are the baseball version of a placekicker. No one picks on the modern specialization of the pen as an affront to baseball players. I'd take an Edgar Martinez over a George Sherrill (aka "death to lefties") anyday concerning baseball players.
Me.
I hate the DH, it's boring baseball
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Screw the DH. Does basketball have a designated free throw shooter? Dumbest thing ever.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AtomicDumpling
That is beside the point. The point is that having a DH doesn't increase the pool of money a team can spend. If the National League were to add the designated hitter it doesn't give the Reds an extra $15 million to spend right? So how does adding the DH give the players more money? It doesn't. It only changes how that money is distributed. More money going to a DH means less money going to a pitcher. The players' association doesn't care if the money goes to player A or player B, what they want is to maximize the total amount of money given to players -- and the DH doesn't change that one bit. The number of major league jobs and the total amount of money paid to players is unaffected by whether the DH is used or not, therefore the players' association is not going to take one side over the other.
You are assuming that all of that money will still be spent. I don't think they believe it will be because the money may not make other players any more valuable.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
westofyou
Me.
I hate the DH, it's boring baseball
More boring than watching Harang come to bat with bases loaded and two outs?
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
To me the most compelling argument for a DH is, "Who wants to watch a pitcher bat or run the bases?".
I get that pinch-hitting for the pitcher adds a uniqueness to the NL style of baseball but it's not really dramatically different that AL managers using the pen to exploit platoon splits in the late innings.
Also, bullpen specialists might represent a class of player with the most limited skillset in their sport. In many cases, they are the baseball version of a placekicker. No one picks on the modern specialization of the pen as an affront to baseball players. I'd take an Edgar Martinez over a George Sherrill (aka "death to lefties") anyday concerning baseball players.
Who wants to see Shaquille O'Neal shoot free throws? It is part of the game. Just because a player has a weakness doesn't mean his team should be allowed to use another player to pick up his slack. If a player has a weakness he should work hard to improve and get better.
If you are a baseball player you have to play offense and defense.
Part of the reason pitchers can't hit is because the DH rule was invented. They stop batting as soon as they turn pro. All through the amateur ranks pitchers play both ways. Oftentimes a team's best pitcher is also their best hitter. A good athlete should be able to do both.
A pitcher who can hit can be quite an advantage for his team. Team's should be rewarded for having good all-around baseball players instead of nonathletic specialists who can only do one thing well.
If you are going to allow DHs to bat in the pitcher's spot, why not have a DH for the shortstop too? Shortstop is a defensive position often played by a weak hitter. Who wants to watch a shortstop hit? Shouldn't they allow a real hitter to take his spot in the lineup? Why not just be like football and one group of guys play offense and another group of guys play defense? Nah, that would be ridiculous -- just like the DH.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
I want no part of jet pack baseball.
Designated fielder is next.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
More boring than watching Harang come to bat with bases loaded and two outs?
Yep, I live in Mariner country I know boring well
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
More boring than watching Harang come to bat with bases loaded and two outs?
The manager then has to make a tough decision. Let the pitcher hit or take him out and use a pinch hitter. More strategy. If the pitcher is talented enough to hit it gives his team an advantage over other teams.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AtomicDumpling
Who wants to see Shaquille O'Neal shoot free throws? It is part of the game. Just because a player has a weakness doesn't mean his team should be allowed to use another player to pick up his slack. If a player has a weakness he should work hard to improve and get better.
If you are a baseball player you have to play offense and defense.
Part of the reason pitchers can't hit is because the DH rule was invented. They stop batting as soon as they turn pro. All through the amateur ranks pitchers play both ways. Oftentimes a team's best pitcher is also their best hitter. A good athlete should be able to do both.
A pitcher who can hit can be quite an advantage for his team. Team's should be rewarded for having good all-around baseball players instead of nonathletic specialists who can only do one thing well.
If you are going to allow DHs to bat in the pitcher's spot, why not have a DH for the shortstop too? Shortstop is a defensive position often played by a weak hitter. Who wants to watch a shortstop hit? Shouldn't they allow a real hitter to take his spot in the lineup? Why not just be like football and one group of guys play offense and another group of guys play defense? Nah, that would be ridiculous -- just like the DH.
2012 mlb ave: .255/.319/.405
2012 ss ave: .257/.310/.378
2012 P ave: .129/.162/.166
Why not DH for a shortstop? Because generally, shortstops can actually hit. Pitchers are about as close to a sure out as any outcome in baseball. That's pretty boring.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
westofyou
Me.
I hate the DH, it's boring baseball
I used to be at this end of the spectrum on the subject. However, I have found my position drifting a little bit. Most of it comes at the frustration of watching a good rally fizzle as the team fails to work around the pitcher's spot. It also has been a function of my disdain for the sacrifice bunt growing over the years.
But I agree, this has a very low probability of happening. Its too bad the other discussion doesn't take place, whereby the DH is eliminated with interleague play. That would restore some order in the MLB universe.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AtomicDumpling
Part of the reason pitchers can't hit is because the DH rule was invented. They stop batting as soon as they turn pro. All through the amateur ranks pitchers play both ways. Oftentimes a team's best pitcher is also their best hitter. A good athlete should be able to do both.
Pitchers don't get as much opportunity to work on their hitting at the pro level. Their prep time is spent working on mechanics, fielding, and preparing their arm for their next turn.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AtomicDumpling
The manager then has to make a tough decision. Let the pitcher hit or take him out and use a pinch hitter. More strategy. If the pitcher is talented enough to hit it gives his team an advantage over other teams.
2012 P ave: .129/.162/.166
Yawn.
Pitch around the catcher, ring out up the pitcher....rally, rally, rally killer!
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
What do American League managers even do?
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Crumbley
I want no part of jet pack baseball.
Designated fielder is next.
Designated runner is in use in youth sports. Now that is ludicrous.
If its increasing employment, have offensive and defensive platoons like football.