The Reds & and the new DH debate

[jojo]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

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.

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.

Again, no one forced you to post the unprovoked attacks you have now posted multiple times.

Please for the sake of the thread, put me on ignore and importantly refrain from further attacks.

[westofyou]

"I don't think our fans are the least bit interested in seeing the DH be part of the National League landscape."

Andy MacPhail

QFT

"It's 30 years down the DH highway, and this rule makes even less sense now than it did in 1973 — if that's possible. Here are five reasons baseball should abolish this abomination now (by Jayson Stark in ESPN.com on April 4, 2003):

1. Once, it was at least slightly intriguing to have two leagues playing the same sport using different rules. Now, with interleague play, it's not intriguing anymore. It's absurd.

2. Let's take that one step further. The DH rule may have cost the Giants the World Series. This was a team constructed around its bullpen, not its spare bench parts. So Dusty Baker essentially had no DH. In fact, his Game 7 DH — Pedro Feliz — was a guy who had made it through the first six games without an at-bat. No other sport would tolerate a situation this farcical.

3. The idea 30 years ago was that the DH would allow some beloved older hitters to extend their careers once they could no longer play the field. Whatever happened to that brainstorm? All these beloved older hitters DH'd Opening Day: Ken Harvey, Al Martin, Jeremy Giambi, Matt LeCroy and Josh Phelps. Face it: The DH is now just an excuse to be one-dimensional.

4. The only reason to have a DH rule is that fans allegedly like more offense. Obviously, DHs are better hitters than pitchers. But how much more offense does this rule really generate? The average AL team scored one more run every three games than the average NL team last year — and got one more hit every four games. So we're talking about two extra runs a week. That'll pack 'em in, all right.

5. Finally, the game is simply way more interesting without the DH than with it. Period. Ask any manager which is more strategically challenging — managing a game under NL rules or AL rules. It's no contest. It's baseball's cerebral side that separates it from all the other games ever invented. And the game is way more cerebral with no DH than with it. That's one thing that hasn't changed in 30 years — and never will.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by westofyou

"I don't think our fans are the least bit interested in seeing the DH be part of the National League landscape."

Andy MacPhail

QFT

The NL might have as much to lose as it has to gain by adopting the DH.

If I was going to start anywhere with sweeping reform, i'd start by abolishing the rule that the outcome of the All-star game determines home field advantage in the world series because actually, no the AS game doesn't actually matter. BTW, pitchers no longer (and never really did) bat in the AS game because DHs are used which is kind of ironic.

[MikeThierry]

Originally Posted by scott91575

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.

I mentioned this early in a post so it is something I recognized. It is an evolving position that doesn't have a barrel chested slugger sitting on the bench waiting to hit for most teams. I used Pujols because it was the clear advantage that I could think of at the time but there are other examples that could have been used like the A-Rod deal, etc. Peter Gammons explains it a bit better than I can at work:

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?...s_mlb&c_id=mlb

He makes an excellent point that there are some trades that are higher risk for NL teams because they do not have the DL. If a young player like a catcher is used as trade bait, an NL team will have a harder time making that trade not knowing the future of how that young player will turn out at that position. An AL team can simply place a high impact catcher prospect at DH if that prospect doesn't turn out well at being an MLB catcher. A catcher is just one example here as it applies to other positions in the field.

The piece by Gammons was written in January of 2012 so some of this data might be out of date but he says this:

According to Cot's Contracts, the top nine all-time contracts have all involved American League teams. Matt Kemp ($160 million, 2012-19) and Troy Tulowitzki ($157 million, 2011-20) are the only National League signings in the top 14.

[scott91575]

Originally Posted by jojo

Again, no one forced you to post the unprovoked attacks you have now posted multiple times.

Please for the sake of the thread, put me on ignore and importantly refrain from further attacks.

Please refrain from quoting that guy. It defeats the purpose of the ignore feature.

[scott91575]

Originally Posted by MikeThierry

I mentioned this early in a post so it is something I recognized. It is an evolving position that doesn't have a barrel chested slugger sitting on the bench waiting to hit for most teams. I used Pujols because it was the clear advantage that I could think of at the time but there are other examples that could have been used like the A-Rod deal, etc. Peter Gammons explains it a bit better than I can at work:

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?...s_mlb&c_id=mlb

He makes an excellent point that there are some trades that are higher risk for NL teams because they do not have the DL. If a young player like a catcher is used as trade bait, an NL team will have a harder time making that trade not knowing the future of how that young player will turn out at that position. An AL team can simply place a high impact catcher prospect at DH if that prospect doesn't turn out well at being an MLB catcher. A catcher is just one example here as it applies to other positions in the field.

The piece by Gammons was written in January of 2012 so some of this data might be out of date but he says this:

and now Adrian Gonzalez is in the NL. The argument just doesn't hold up over time. It's about revenue and supply and demand. No team is saying "well, just let him go because that last year where he might not be so good in the field is not worth it. Let's just start that replacement level guy, that should work out for the next 6 years because that 7th year, oh no, we can't deal with that." What about the fact the NL has the advantage with the fact they don't have to pay a DH or what is essentially a 9th starter since the role of DH has changed? Naw, let's just ignore that. Bob Melvin is just crying. That is what I got from that. The first baseman argument also makes no freaking sense. If it was a difficult position I would understand, yet 1B is the least demanding postion on the field. That is the one spot where the NL can compete directly with the AL on giving guys a long term deal (assuming this idea is correct). Melvin is just mad he doesn't have the Tiger's money. Too bad Victor Martinez got hurt and the Tiger's got desperate, otherwise it would be tough for Melvin to justify his failure when Fielder went to LA.

As for keeping guys free from injury and fresh, I would really like to see the breakdown on injuries league vs. league. That is really the only lasting impact since the playoffs have plenty of off days, and NL teams are only competing with other NL teams during the season (yes, they play the AL, but so do all NL teams and in the end your record vs. other NL teams is what counts).

Like I have stated, if teams are doing it they are basing it on a fallacy. It's a perceived advantage that simply does not exist. This is all about big vs. small market. Call me when the Cards lose a guy to the Twins because the contract offer was a year or two short. Not when the Tigers, Angels, and Red Sox are getting guys from the Brewers, Cards, and Padres (yes, I know when he became a free agent he was with the Red Sox but the reason he was originally there was because SD could not sign him). That is all about revenue disparity, not this supposed difference in AL vs. NL.

edit: oh, and to the young catcher argument, that doesn't make any sense either due to the fact AL teams are now using guys that have to play the field on a regular basis as a rotating DH. No team is taking a young catcher that can't catch on the off chance he becomes their full time DH. AL teams realize that is a waste. Like I have stated before, the idea of a full time DH is almost gone in baseball.

The only real advantage to the DH is simple. AL teams, when at home in the WS, have a 9th starter where the NL teams have a backup guy as their 9th guy. Yet the NL has done pretty well for themselves in the WS. The AL also does have a disadvantage though too since their pitchers never hit and their DH rotation is normally only a few guys over the same positions, so often the guy not in their lineup will not be their 9th best hitter.

[Plus Plus]

Personal attacks have no place in this discussion- I tried to address this earlier, but apparently was not direct enough.

If you can't have an intelligent discussion (which this has been up until the last page or two) without sideways jabs, then I recommend not participating.

Carry on.

[Raisor]

I haven't read the tread really.

I'm just going to say I like the DH.

If that makes me a bad person so be it.

I'd also like to take the opportunity to say that RF is old.

[defender]

We should be able to agree, the NL is at a disadvantage. NL teams have one extra bullpen arm, AL teams have one extra hitter. In AL parks, the AL team will more likely have the better DH. In NL parks, the AL team will most likely have the better bench. Over time, AL teams will get better, because investing in hitter provides a better return than investing in middle relievers.

We should also be willing to accept that the players union might part with the DH. I think most players would vote to trade 2 roster spots (27 man rosters) for the DH.

Both leagues need to play by the same rules. I think both options are possible. The only thing we should be debating is the DH. I enjoy each at bat because of the framework of the game. I like the NL game better. For me, it is not just about the most ABs with the best pitcher V. the best hitters.

However, I agree, that rosters with 12 pitchers and 13 position players make for less exciting late game PH ABs. I think 27 player rosters would help eliminate some of the bad ABs the pro DH guys don't like

[Dom Heffner]

It's great to be a purist- but are you really a purist?

You want to go back to spitballs? Whites only? Ebbet's field?

Doesn't anyone find it a little odd that we ask someone to get major league hitters out AND be able to hit major league pitching?

I..it's a competition that takes a steep dive once every nine batters.

[cincinnati chili]

I don't expect to change anyone else's mind, but I hate the DH. If the DH is made universal, baseball will get significantly less of my attention and my money. This is not an idle threat. I will hold this grudge effectively. And you can't really call me a "traditionalist" for feeling this way, because the DH has been in effect since 1 was one years old. It's been a reality since I became aware of baseball, and the more I learn about baseball, the more I don't like it.

Scarcity is interesting on a macro level. When conditions of scarcity exist, decisions have to be made. Decisions are interesting. Those of you who say it's less interesting on a micro level to watch a pitcher hit than to watch a good position player hit are correct; however, this has a highly positive effect on the macro level. Even if I have to suffer through a couple at-bats per night from a starting pitcher, I like the fact that if the hitters in your starting lineup fail to score runs, your ace pitcher might have to come out of the game in the 7th inning. It's a team sport, after all.

The way the game is now, if you fail to field a balance team, your team gets punished. Punishment is awesome:

Punishment: If your team can't score runs, and if your starting pitcher (like 99% of starting pitchers) can't hit either, he might have to get pinch hit for in the late innings

Punishment: If you have a slugger who's a butcher with the glove, then he should be forced to humiliate himself and amuse the rest of us by having to play the field.

Bud Selig is going to retire in the next few years (I assume), and this issue is one of the only things I care about in terms his successor. I could live with a 2 or 3 year work stoppage in exchange for another 40-50 years in which the Reds get to play DH-free baseball. Let me put it another way:

I'd be just fine with Mahmoud Abedinejad as the next commissioner of baseball, so long as he will prevent expansion of the DH.

As an aside, I think the importance of field goal kicking has hurt football immensely. I think it's absurd that a specialized skill which is so removed from the essence of the game can decide whether a team wins or loses a championship. If I were king of the world in football, anyone who hadn't appeared in one of the prior 3 plays from scrimmage would not be allowed to kick the ball.

As another aside, I am highly skeptical of the post above which said that the Red Sox would not have won the World Series in 2004 were it not for the DH. If the DH wasn't an option, Ortiz would have played 1B more often (btw, he started 31 games there in 2004). And they would have been fine. He's not a great defender, but Miguel Cabrera isn't a great 3B either. The Tigers did okay this year.

I could also argue (probably correctly) that if Edgar Martinez played in the NL he would have played 3B and or 1B, he would have won several batting titles, nobody would really notice his subpar defense (heck, he might have even improved over time), and he'd be in the Hall of Fame now.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by cincinnati chili

I don't expect to change anyone else's mind, but I hate the DH. If the DH is made universal, baseball will get significantly less of my attention and my money. This is not an idle threat. I will hold this grudge effectively. And you can't really call me a "traditionalist" for feeling this way, because the DH has been in effect since 1 was one years old. It's been a reality since I became aware of baseball, and the more I learn about baseball, the more I don't like it.

Scarcity is interesting on a macro level. When conditions of scarcity exist, decisions have to be made. Decisions are interesting. Those of you who say it's less interesting on a micro level to watch a pitcher hit than to watch a good position player hit are correct; however, this has a highly positive effect on the macro level. Even if I have to suffer through a couple at-bats per night from a starting pitcher, I like the fact that if the hitters in your starting lineup fail to score runs, your ace pitcher might have to come out of the game in the 7th inning. It's a team sport, after all.

The way the game is now, if you fail to field a balance team, your team gets punished. Punishment is awesome:

Punishment: If your team can't score runs, and if your starting pitcher (like 99% of starting pitchers) can't hit either, he might have to get pinch hit for in the late innings

Punishment: If you have a slugger who's a butcher with the glove, then he should be forced to humiliate himself and amuse the rest of us by having to play the field.

Bud Selig is going to retire in the next few years (I assume), and this issue is one of the only things I care about in terms his successor. I could live with a 2 or 3 year work stoppage in exchange for another 40-50 years in which the Reds get to play DH-free baseball. Let me put it another way:

I'd be just fine with Mahmoud Abedinejad as the next commissioner of baseball, so long as he will prevent expansion of the DH.

As an aside, I think the importance of field goal kicking has hurt football immensely. I think it's absurd that a specialized skill which is so removed from the essence of the game can decide whether a team wins or loses a championship. If I were king of the world in football, anyone who hadn't appeared in one of the prior 3 plays from scrimmage would not be allowed to kick the ball.

As another aside, I am highly skeptical of the post above which said that the Red Sox would not have won the World Series in 2004 were it not for the DH. If the DH wasn't an option, Ortiz would have played 1B more often (btw, he started 31 games there in 2004). And they would have been fine. He's not a great defender, but Miguel Cabrera isn't a great 3B either. The Tigers did okay this year.

I could also argue (probably correctly) that if Edgar Martinez played in the NL he would have played 3B and or 1B, he would have won several batting titles, nobody would really notice his subpar defense (heck, he might have even improved over time), and he'd be in the Hall of Fame now.

Don't run to the college game for refuge. It's been ruined by bats that are worse than wood and balls that feel kinda rubbery.

[marcshoe]

We're wasting time debating the DH when the real threat to the game is the pythons that are coming up from the Everglades and will inevitably invade every stadium in the US and Canada.

I still would prefer to have no DH, and think Stark's list is great, but if it happens, it happens. And I have a queasy feeling that if we were to play one year with reversed rules (which couldn't happen for practical reasons) more NL fans would start supporting the DH than AL fans would turn against it.

[SweetLou1990]

If the purpose is to make both leagues play under the same rules, let the AL abolish the DH. That is also a clown car. Should we ever take away a known cerebral aspect of the game, knowing that it would never return?

[Dom Heffner]

Bottom of the third, Tim Lincecum up is a cerebral moment?

An easy out is cerebral?