The Reds & and the new DH debate

[jojo]

But what factors led up to that bases loaded situation? And how many decisions were made by the managers that got you to this point? How do those decisions change if you are an AL versus NL manager?

The AL and NL styles don't really present dramatically different sets of decisions in this hypothetical. The largest really is how the #8 hitter is handled.

Bottom 6th inning 1-1 ball game, you're the home manager. Your best starter has been pitching brilliantly and has a low pitch count.

The first 2 batters reach base. With runners on 1st and 2nd the 7th place hitter is up. He has been in a terrible slump lately, but he's your catcher and you can't really PH for him. He is really slow and hits a lot of grounders, so a DP is possible. Do you have him bunt?

No and frankly very few times ever in the NL would the decision actually be yes.

Now assume he bunts, and does so successfully, play out the rest of the inning DH versus no DH for both the home and visiting teams.

I don't know of an NL manager who would take his pitcher out in that situation. Assuming the catcher was the first out, you've slightly reduced your run expectancy with the sacrifice and now have one out with runners on second and third. In doing so, you've taken the bat out of the hands of a competent hitter (I don't care about a slump, I care about his true talent level and the most likely next outcome). The opposing manager then has the option to bring in a releiver to exploit a platoon advantage on your #8 hitter or presumably given the scenario you described, his starter is pitching lights out too so the opposng manager decides to let him stay in the game and punch out your #8 guy mano to mano. Do you pinch hit for your ace in the bottom of the 6th in a game where he has been brilliant? No. You watch him strike out and end the potential rally. No manager pulls their ace in the scenario. Ever. Its way too easy to be criticized and managers don't keep their jobs by having giraffe necks. But by giving up a free out, you've dramatically increased the odds that your lead off hitter wont see the plate this inning.

How would this play out in a DH-league? You probably wouldn't have to endure watching your catcher bunt. But I donno. I've seen Mike Hargrove do some pretty interesting things.....

[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.

[jojo]

I am not surprised. I explained it pretty darn clearly. I guess you could read the posts again if you are really interested in understanding it.

Here's the thing, you actually haven’t explained the obvious contradiction inherent in arguing both that the AL style is boring because it eliminates the need to make decisions and that the AL game is longer because AL managers make more decisions.

It is not worth the time to discuss an issue with someone who intentionally distorts the posts of others just so he can avoid admitting he is wrong. You are like this in almost every thread. Just arguing without adding anything useful or interesting to the discussion. You have the option of stating your opinion and moving on without harassing other people who don't share your opinion.

I've carefully read each of your posts before responding with questions. You position has not been distorted at all by me.

It’s perfectly valid to prefer the NL style to the AL style but there really is zero justification for personal attacks like these because you clearly had the option to either continue to address questions about your position or move on without engaging in poor behavior. The questions I've asked cut to the heart of your position and they are pretty obvious ones given your argument.

I don't have a problem with someone preferring the less strategic AL game because in the end it is just a matter of personal opinion, but you have to admit it is insane to argue that a specialist is a more complete player than a player who does it all. If you can't admit that then you are just arguing for the sake of arguing and there is no point in reading your posts, and I don't in most threads.

This is an ironic thing to post given this quote:

It is not worth the time to discuss an issue with someone who intentionally distorts the posts of others just so he can avoid admitting he is wrong.

No one has argued what you are claiming. The argument was very simple-a DH+pitcher represent a more complete composite player than a pitcher who is forced to bat. It’s difficult to see how someone could be so against the DH on this principle but be in favor of a style that depends upon pinch hitters and not be bothered in the slightest by relief specialists, platoons, and defensive replacements-all highly specialized roles associated with the NL game, the fact that pitchers are anything but complete ballplayers notwithstanding. Then there is that whole 20+ page thread paying homage to a player who frankly may be the quintessential prototype of a DH for his generation. The contradictions are discussion worthy and it’s confusing why you’re so offended and acting now so offensively. Don’t be a DH.

If you like having a whole range of players that specialize in doing only one thing well that is fine. Other people appreciate multi-talented athletes who are complete baseball players and can perform all aspects of the game without having to be replaced. The DH exterminates a large portion of the intrigue and nuance of the game that some people still appreciate. I personally believe that National League baseball is a more advanced and challenging form of baseball. It is like chess to checkers. I prefer chess. Some people like checkers better and that is perfectly OK too.

First, please again consider this quote:

It is not worth the time to discuss an issue with someone who intentionally distorts the posts of others just so he can avoid admitting he is wrong.

It is a gross distortion to characterize a position that the AL-style of play is exciting as a lack of appreciation for multi-talented athletes and complete baseball players.

Seriously, it’s a ridiculous argument on its face. Then of course you and I have been part of almost a gazillion discussions about WAR and Dunn etc, where it is absolutely clear that I view player value based upon everything they bring to the table and the more complete a player, the more valuable.

The combination of a pitcher+DH is more valuable than a pitcher who is forced to hit. Why? Because the composite player is a more complete version.

The fact is that making a pitcher hit dilutes out one of the more interesting aspects of baseball-the battle between the pitcher and hitter. Most often the battle between a pitcher and a pitcher is an opportunity to make a quick trip to the fridge or the loo. If anything, the DH is a nod to eliminating the expression of performance that is obviously so hideous that it is fatally below major league quality. All the DH does is elminate a fairly small set of strategic decisions meant to compensate for allowing an inferior player bat. The AL and NL just present a slightly different set of decisions. It's not like we're talking about the difference baseball and crickett.

And, frankly you’re arguing for a version of the NL that doesn’t actually exist – i.e. one that doesn’t heavily rely upon players with very specialized talents/roles and one populated with multi-talented pitchers that give their teams a tangible advantage due to their hitting prowess.

[BenHayes]

But has this really created an on field advantage for the AL? Other than the Yankees run of WS titles the NL has held it's own pretty well. I'm definately not a fan of the DH. I like the strategy of REAL baseball as it has been played for the majority of its existence. To me the dh is only a way to keep guys who can hit but are otherwise worthless. The only real reason it is still around is that the players union won't let it die because it keeps older hitters around.

[MikeThierry]

But has this really created an on field advantage for the AL? Other than the Yankees run of WS titles the NL has held it's own pretty well. I'm definately not a fan of the DH. I like the strategy of REAL baseball as it has been played for the majority of its existence. To me the dh is only a way to keep guys who can hit but are otherwise worthless. The only real reason it is still around is that the players union won't let it die because it keeps older hitters around.

I think when it gets to the playoffs, it's random and I don't know if we can correlate anything. However it is true that the AL has a huge advantage over total wins since interleague began. There are other factors involved such as not all the best NL teams played an AL team on a given interleague weekend but the DH is still a factor in all of this. Also, by the very fact that big named free agents have trended to play in the AL because of the DH factor gives AL teams an advantage from the very jump.

[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.

[jojo]

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.

I absolutely agree. There was no need for them and hopefully they will stop because for the most part this has been a civil discussion.

[BenHayes]

I agree that it seems to give the AL the advantage in free agency. It also is apparent in interleague play. But that advantage is off set somewhat when the AL plays in a NL park because the DH can't play and in general the AL teams either have a weaker bench or a manager who doesn't know how to use it.

[MikeThierry]

I agree that it seems to give the AL the advantage in free agency. It also is apparent in interleague play. But that advantage is off set somewhat when the AL plays in a NL park because the DH can't play and in general the AL teams either have a weaker bench or a manager who doesn't know how to use it.

I'm kind of indifferent on it. It's been in baseball for 40 some odd years and every baseball league in the world uses it. It hasn't destroyed baseball. I prefer the NL style of ball but it wouldn't bother me if it came to the NL. I'm far more concerned about the contractual side of things on this topic. To me, it outweighs any on the field advantages or disadvantages it gives to a given team.

[corkedbat]

I'm kind of indifferent on it. It's been in baseball for 40 some odd years and every baseball league in the world uses it. It hasn't destroyed baseball. I prefer the NL style of ball but it wouldn't bother me if it came to the NL. I'm far more concerned about the contractual side of things on this topic. To me, it outweighs any on the field advantages or disadvantages it gives to a given team.

I really am not that adamant one way or another, but have felt with th enew 15-team leagues and season-long inter-league play, MLB would move to standardize play. Since I believe that the MLBPA would be more adamant against abolishing the DH (and the loss of 15 highly-paid DH jobs) than the owners would be woners would against its full-time use, I've felt that we will see the universal DH sooner rather than later.

The only way I could possibly see the player's association agreeing to its abolishment is by permanently expanding the roster by one pitcher and one position player to 27 total (even then, they probably wouldn't bit since the 26th & 27th guys would probably be makihng league - minimum.

If it were to be adopted, the one member of the Reds organiztion who might gain most by it could be Neftali Soto. As it now stands, I see little future, if any, for him with the Reds (other than as possible trade-bait) due to Votto's presence. Adopt the DH and that could change.

[RedFanAlways1966]

I'm kind of indifferent on it. It's been in baseball for 40 some odd years and every baseball league in the world uses it. It hasn't destroyed baseball. I prefer the NL style of ball but it wouldn't bother me if it came to the NL.

Amd it was only implemented in the AL b/c they were lacking in attendance and scoring compared to the NL. Do we see the DH in the NL increasing attendance (or more importantly increasing TV revenue) these days? I have to say no.

The main proponent for the DH back in the early 19070s was Charlie Finley. The same guy who thought MLB should use orange baseballs to add excitement to the boring old game. There are more "crazy" Finley stories (google it up, it is entertaining), but the orange basbeall thing should be enough to support my anti-DH feelings and why I brought up the #1 proponent for it when it was started.

[MikeThierry]

I would love to have the DH on a selfish level because that means the Cards can use Oscar Taveras or Matt Adams on a daily basis. Adams has DH written all over him:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/mi...d=adams-001mat

[MikeThierry]

Amd it was only implemented in the AL b/c they were lacking in attendance and scoring compared to the NL. Do we see the DH in the NL increasing attendance (or more importantly increasing TV revenue) these days? I have to say no.

The main proponent for the DH back in the early 19070s was Charlie Finley. The same guy who thought MLB should use orange baseballs to add excitement to the boring old game. There are more "crazy" Finley stories (google it up, it is entertaining), but the orange basbeall thing should be enough to support my anti-DH feelings and why I brought up the #1 proponent for it when it was started.

I think meaning of things change over time. Just because it was a gimmick then (I'm not denying that) doesn't mean it's the same sort of standard now. It's been part of American and World baseball so long that it's gone beyond the gimmick stage.

[jojo]

Amd it was only implemented in the AL b/c they were lacking in attendance and scoring compared to the NL. Do we see the DH in the NL increasing attendance (or more importantly increasing TV revenue) these days? I have to say no.

The main proponent for the DH back in the early 19070s was Charlie Finley. The same guy who thought MLB should use orange baseballs to add excitement to the boring old game. There are more "crazy" Finley stories (google it up, it is entertaining), but the orange basbeall thing should be enough to support my anti-DH feelings and why I brought up the #1 proponent for it when it was started.

The DH has been a pretty big success. I'm not sure how the perceived failed ideas of a deceased owner who happened to be a self-made business success and marketing genius informs the validity of the DH. But I've heard weirder arguments.

[RedFanAlways1966]

The DH has been a pretty big success. I'm not sure how the perceived failed ideas of a deceased owner who happened to be a self-made business success and marketing genius informs the validity of the DH. But I've heard weirder arguments.

A big success for who? Players that are too old or not capable to play with a piece of leather on their non-throwing hand, but can still swing the stick. For the union rep? So you must think the DH in the NL will increase revenue?

Finley was a proponent for a bit of time before the other owners approved it. He was also somewhat of a crackpot with some of his BASEBALL ideas and there is nothing weird about mentioning that. So was Bill Veeck. Some were good and some were downright silly. I hope that you will agree that for every marketing success there are a lot more failures. And for every person who likes the DH, there are as many (maybe more) who do not like it.

How do you measure success relative to the DH? I am very curious. Not opinions about excitement and the like. Those are opinions like those who are excited to see a manager make decisions b/c a pitcher is due to bat. Pretty big success, you say. How is that measured?