The Reds & and the new DH debate

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by jojo

Anyone who'd rather watch Aaron Harang hit than Joe Mauer is probably overdosing on hyperbole.

Spoon feed it to me then, I hate the DH and no amount of brow beating from those who find it a viable alternative to the NL game will change my mind.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by jojo

Aaron Harang is probably going to attempt a bunt until he has 2 strikes unless the bases are loaded or he is in a 2 out situation. In those exceptions, Aaron Harang is going to wildly flail and almost certainly fail.

There really isn't the fertile strategic majesty that many seem to be suggesting. And yes, I may have just invented a word.

Much of the strategy comes in the at-bats leading up to the pitcher's plate appearance. Come on now.

Is the manager going to let the pitcher hit or is he going to put in a pinch-hitter? Which pinch hitter? Will the other team react with a pitching change? Will the offense put on a bunt play or a hit-and-run? How about a pitch-out? Many different options are on the table, not just a routine sacrifice bunt play.

With the DH it is just another routine at-bat.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Most of the strategy comes in the at-bats leading up to the pitcher's plate appearance. Come on now.

I already mentioned how forcing the pitcher to hit actually emasculates two positions in the lineup.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Spoon feed it to me then, I hate the DH and no amount of brow beating from those who find it a viable alternative to the NL game will change my mind.

It's not browbeating you to point out that the DH allows Mauer to get at bats at the expense of Aaron Harang.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Much of the strategy comes in the at-bats leading up to the pitcher's plate appearance. Come on now.

Is the manager going to let the pitcher hit or is he going to put in a pinch-hitter? Which pinch hitter? Will the other team react with a pitching change? Will the offense put on a bunt play or a hit-and-run? How about a pitch-out? Many different options are on the table, not just a routine sacrifice bunt play.

With the DH it is just another routine at-bat.

And the game just got 45 minutes longer as the manager made several trips to mound and three pitchers warmed up two of whom only have one pitch and are basically situational arms used to exploit platoon advantages, a paradigm hardly in keeping with the notion of a "complete baseball player".

[RadfordVA]

Originally Posted by jojo

And the game just got 45 minutes longer as the manager made several trips to mound and three pitchers warmed up two of whom only have one pitch and are basically situational arms used to exploit platoon advantages, a paradigm hardly in keeping with the notion of a "complete baseball player".

Longer game sounds good to me. If I have sat down to watch a game, which is about 95% of evenings in the summer, I am not in hurry to do something else. I always find it weird when people complain about game lengths. If a game is compelling by all means give me more time to spend watching it. If its not compelling I will stop watching it anyways. I believe Yankees-Red Sox always top list of longest games anyways. Cant blame that on pitchers batting.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by jojo

And the game just got 45 minutes longer as the manager made several trips to mound and three pitchers warmed up two of whom only have one pitch and are basically situational arms used to exploit platoon advantages, a paradigm hardly in keeping with the notion of a "complete baseball player".

Then why are American League games longer than National League games? Using a DH actually makes the games take longer: http://www.platoonadvantage.com/2012.../cee-angi.html

I think everyone would agreee that players who play both offense and defense are more complete ballplayers than those who play only offense or defense. That pretty much goes without saying, so I am not going to argue it with you. In the National League pitchers are often expected to bat, in the American League they don't bat. The conclusion is obvious.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Then why are American League games longer than National League games? Using a DH actually makes the games take longer: http://www.platoonadvantage.com/2012.../cee-angi.html

Because the AL is a higher run scoring environment?

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

I think everyone would agreee that players who play both offense and defense are more complete ballplayers than those who play only offense or defense. That pretty much goes without saying, so I am not going to argue it with you. In the National League pitchers are often expected to bat, in the American League they don't bat. The conclusion is obvious.

Lost in your argument about "complete" ballplayers is the fact that the style of baseball you are advocating creates a situation that glaringly exposes the lack of a pitcher's ability to hit thus creating an offensive black hole in the lineup.

Allowing a DH to bat for a pitcher transforms a severely flawed poistion in the lineup into a composite that is undeniably a more complete position than if a pitcher is forced to bat which ultimately makes the AL much closer to the ideal of fielding "complete baseball players" than the NL.

There are arguments for and against the DH but the notion that a DH isn't a complete ballplayer isn't a very compelling argument against the DH given what the NL does to the 9th spot in its lineups.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by jojo

Because the AL is a higher run scoring environment?



Lost in your argument about "complete" ballplayers is the fact that the style of baseball you are advocating creates a situation that glaringly exposes the lack of a pitcher's ability to hit thus creating an offensive black hole in the lineup.

Allowing a DH to bat for a pitcher transforms a severely flawed poistion in the lineup into a composite that is undeniably a more complete position than if a pitcher is forced to bat which ultimately makes the AL much closer to the ideal of fielding "complete baseball players" than the NL.

There are arguments for and against the DH but the notion that a DH isn't a complete ballplayer isn't a very compelling argument against the DH given what the NL does to the 9th spot in its lineups.

I guess by your logic an NFL quarterback is a complete football player too.

Having a designated free throw shooter wouldn't make NBA Centers more complete basketball players either.

Having the DH doesn't make a pitcher a more complete ballplayer. The opposite is true without a doubt.

Many people will always look down with disdain upon the DH as a cop out that allows fat, non-athletic people to keep playing baseball despite the fact they aren't good enough to be complete ballplayers. That applies to both the hitters who can't field and the pitchers who can't hit or run the bases.

[coachpipe]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Spoon feed it to me then, I hate the DH and no amount of brow beating from those who find it a viable alternative to the NL game will change my mind.

I agree with you 100%. I hate the DH. Players aside, I feel when the DH was adopted long ago it was a gimmick to get more people in seats because their will be more offense and home runs..wooo home runs.

Some baseball fans, like myself, love the style of NL baseball. Much more thinking involved. The idea of a defensive/pitching battle >>>>>> homerun derby any day. sorry im a fan of small ball/old school ball

[Cyclone792]

Originally Posted by jojo

2012 P ave: .129/.162/.166

Yawn.

Pitch around the catcher, ring out up the pitcher....rally, rally, rally killer!

Not boring to me - I want to see the strategy of dealing with a lineup with runners on base when the pitcher's spot is nearby. If it were up to me, it'd be all of MLB aboloshing the DH, not the other way around.

[puca]

Originally Posted by jojo

I already mentioned how forcing the pitcher to hit actually emasculates two positions in the lineup.

You're still looking at it in a vacuum. The pitcher hitting has ramifications for both sides throughout the entire game.

Since I moved to an AL city 6 years ago I have attended a grand total of one professional baseball game. Previously I lived in a city of one of the worst NL teams and, even though I was not a fan of that team, I attended 4-5 games a year. AL baseball bores me to tears.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by puca

You're still looking at it in a vacuum. The pitcher hitting has ramifications for both sides throughout the entire game.

Since I moved to an AL city 6 years ago I have attended a grand total of one professional baseball game. Previously I lived in a city of one of the worst NL teams and, even though I was not a fan of that team, I attended 4-5 games a year. AL baseball bores me to tears.

I lived in the Bay Area for 20 years and I can tell you I gravitated towards the NL game 90% of the time, all while the A's had the better park, the better team with the bigger names.

I know what I like and I know it ain't the DH game

[jojo]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

I guess by your logic an NFL quarterback is a complete football player too.

Having a designated free throw shooter wouldn't make NBA Centers more complete basketball players either.

Having the DH doesn't make a pitcher a more complete ballplayer. The opposite is true without a doubt.

Many people will always look down with disdain upon the DH as a cop out that allows fat, non-athletic people to keep playing baseball despite the fact they aren't good enough to be complete ballplayers. That applies to both the hitters who can't field and the pitchers who can't hit or run the bases.

Lets be completely honest and fair about my position. The pitcher's spot in the lineup is so unproductive that it can reasonably be termed a throw away PA. How the heck is that defensible (pun intended-that's the problem-the pitcher's at bat is far too easy to defend)? Pitchers are so horrible at hitting that replacing them with a competent major league hitter improves the asthetic of the game. The argument is that simple.

Reasonable people can disagree about the DH of course because this discussion is more like arguing about music than absolutes but the notion that DHs aren't complete players simply isn't a good argument against the DH. This is especially so because of the way typical DH PAs are divied up. Often players are rotated through the position on a given day to maximize at bats for other players and to allow favorable matchups (i.e. often players will split time between first, OF and DH depending upon the pitching match up etc). The DH presents different sets of managerial decisions than the NL situation. It doesn't reduce the thinking involved like some suggest. It both complicates and makes roster formulation much more interesting and dynamic.

Pitchers are such horrible hitters as a group relative to a major league average hitter that it makes little sense to allow them to bat if one is basing their argument about the DH upon composite skillsets. Likewise someone making such an argument also needs to voice equally strong condemnation for modern bullpen usage. The majority of bullpen arms are by definition pitchers who couldn't cut it as starters. They can't start or hit!!!! Oh the humanity! If one is serious about not letting incompete ballplayers play in the NL, they also need to start a movement to eliminate the bullpen. And, frankly, such a person probably wants to wretch at the notion that Dunn was ever a Red especially since ironically he is now playing his natural position.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Having the DH doesn't make a pitcher a more complete ballplayer. The opposite is true without a doubt.

It makes the position in the lineup a much more complete composite. That is true without a doubt.