The Reds & and the new DH debate

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

Like I've said, the logical conclusion of the DH argument is 2 platoon baseball, i.e. a defense team and an offense team. If you are going to compensate for a lousy hitting pitcher, the what about catchers and shortstops? Late inning outfield replacements? Most players are skewed either offensively or defensively. Not that I think its going to happen, but it seems to be the issue that is being argued.

My argument isn't that pitchers are below average so they should be replaced at the plate. It's that they are so bad, that their performance doesn't even rise to the threshold of acceptable.

BTW, those trying to take this to an extreme regarding offensive specialization (i.e. replacing position players at bats with the DH), seem to ignore that pitching staffs have already evolved to a level of specialization that is well past what proponents of the DH assume would be the logical use of a DH (i.e. batting for the pitcher). Also, it's not like NL rosters haven't carried defensive specialists to serve as late inning defensive replacements or pinch hitting gurus at the ends of their benches.

The concept has been embraced as part of the NL fabric for forever. I'm not sure why so many so easily take the notion of the DH to an extreme when arguing against it.

I get that alot of people are traditionalists. I get that alot of people like to bite their nails pondering what Dusty will do with Cueto in the bottom of the 7th. But I don't get acting like the evil AL is plotting to force the NL to bat Adam Dunn 9 times in a row or that the DH would alter baseball into some unreconizeable game that might as well be played by robots.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

True. But it seems the slippery slope argument. You've taken away the premise that every player hits, fields, and runs the bases.

We've had about 4 decades of the DH in professional baseball. Has the DH rule been expanded to allow pitchers, catchers and shortstops to all be replaced with designated hitters in a line up?

[scott91575]

Originally Posted by jojo

Lets measure success using your own variables:



It's pretty evident that the DH has increased run scoring and attendance in the AL. A couple of economists looked at this issue in 1990 (Domazlicky and Kerr, 1990 The American Economist 34:62-68) and estimated the impact of adding the DH to translate into 12.8% more runs and 13.4% greater attendance for the AL.

Here's snap shot of "a day in the life" of mlb in 1972 (pre-DH) and last season:

	        Attendance		
	    AL	            NL	         %
1972	  953,212	1,294,144	74%
2012	2,438,828	2,592,218	94%
	  Runs/game		
	 AL	 NL	 %
1972	3.47	3.91	74%
2012	4.54	4.22	108%

The DH has pretty much closed the historic attendance disparity between the two leagues and has opened a scoring disparity in the AL's favor. If the DH was implemented in order to increase run scoring and attendance compared to the NL, then it certainly looks to have worked.

I'd guess that implementing the DH in the NL ultimately would increase revenue.

1972 was the absolute rock bottom for the AL. Prior to the 60's the AL was very similar to the NL in attendance and even beat the NL many years. There was not some historic disparity prior to the 60's...



There were many reasons for problems in the AL in the 60's into the early 70's. The main thing was the choices for expansion and relocation. The big thing was the NL got a New York franchise and the old New York franchise became the team in LA (with huge attendance). The AL got a LA franchise, but it floundered along with their new franchise in Seattle. It also helps the NL grabbed the bay area with the Giants and the A's struggled in Oakland. Another factor is the NL saw more new ballparks which increased attendance for the NL in the short term. The White Sox also had attendance issues as rumors of relocation to Milwaukee swirled around the team (which made sense since the White Sox started playing some of their home games in Milwaukee, another reason White Sox fans just love Bud Selig). Even one of the NL expansion teams that completely fell apart thanks to attendance was actually a major attraction. The Expos were incredibly successful from an attendance standpoint in their early years.

A case could be made that while the DH was a reactionary measure and the AL saw bumps in attendance, it was not the only reason the AL rebounded. The new teams began to take hold, the novelty of the new stadiums in the NL lost their luster while KC and Seattle added new stadiums, and overall stability in baseball returned after a very turbulent time. The return to glory by the Yankees in the mid to late 70's also helped the AL after going through a tough time (for them). Changes do not happen in a vacuum, and the increase in AL attendance cannot simply be attributed to the DH. Especially when you consider the AL and NL attendance figures prior to the 60's were very similar.

[Plus Plus]

Originally Posted by jojo

Lets stop acting like we've hit our heads on something hard and lets back away from insane hyperbole for a second....

This is the baseball equivalent of a clown car: .129/.162/.165, wOBA=.149 (pitcher offense last season). And it's not lact like there are tomes of great wisdom that have been created to allow managers to compensate for having such a black hole in their lineups. What's more, given the impact the DH has had on the AL style and the resulting increase in attendance, it's pretty hard to argue that the DH has been a blight on baseball-when it's been implemented, fans have reacted positively. And frankly, it's begging the question to A) argue NL fans are smarter or more prone to be students of the game than AL fans, and B) that the majority of fans at the park are even actually watching the game at any given point in the game....

And lets state another obvious point...for as beautiful as watching Mike Leake bat like a shortstop is, you still then have to watch him pitch like a batting practice pitcher (dinger, dinger, dinger)....

That first line seems rude and doesn't read like much of a conversation-starter. I'm not sure why that was included in your reply, given that the entire discussion here is being brought about in hypotheticals and that both sides are using hyperbole in this discussion, yourself included.

Aside:

Is there a compelling argument to be made that the DH is a necessary evil in baseball at all? I understand that pitchers are poor at the plate, but there are 15 teams that have to suffer through the aforementioned .149 wOBA, so it doesn't seem like something that necessarily needs to be addressed unless the fear is that it will cause the NL to fall behind the AL and, in the future, lead to a division of MLB into two leagues. As it currently stands, a disadvantage to the entire league is an advantage to none, and it allows for a different analysis of positional capability to be utilized.

Baseball is a really unique sport in the fact that a team in 2013 contains such a wide number of specialists. The closest sport to baseball, cricket, has rules in place that require a number of fielders (5 in a game with 20 overs, with each bowling four overs) to bowl and bowlers to bat, which mitigates the number of true specialists that exist on a team (e.g. there are seldom elite pitchers who are feeble at the stumps, and there are seldom elite hitters who are feeble in the field). The understanding that a player brings a different value because they must be responsible not only for holding the other team's run scoring to a minimum but also try and score runs for their own team means that pitcher value is really the only positional value that goes two directions. Is a pitcher who has an xFIP of 4.10 and a wOBA of .175 better or worse than a pitcher who has an xFIP of 4.50 and a wOBA of .215? Teams can consider this and design a roster accordingly given the individual players that they have.

I remember a lot of valuable discussion about Micah Owings and the value that he would have as a fifth starter back in 2009 because of the value he had as a batter that mitigated his shortcomings as a pitcher.

Furthermore, acting like every pitcher is a poor hitter is a little bit misleading. Yovani Gallardo, Carlos Zambrano, CC Sabathia, Mike Leake, Travis Wood, (the ghost of) Micah Owings, (the ghost of) Mike Hampton, and even Bronson Arroyo or Johnny Cueto (to an extent) are reasonably good batters. It provides for another line of thought in terms of roster creation and, even if pitchers never become better than their .149 wOBA, the hit provided by a pitcher that extends a rally is always a fun rarity to see, at least to me.

[scott91575]

Originally Posted by Chip R

I think, as was stated above, the competition for free agents is probably the impetus behind it. Pujols, Fielder, Hamilton all either switched to the AL or stayed in the AL. A guy like Choo is going to be a free agent after this year. He's still relatively young but he's not getting any younger. He'll have his pick of teams to go to but he's got to be thinking that getting a spot start as a DH is pretty attractive. I would also think some owners in the NL would believe that a DH may be able to lengthen the career of their stars while keeping their bats in the lineup. Of course that's always been the case but with the big money these guys are being paid these days, you have to believe they are thinking about it.

Personally, I'm against the DH.

I don't buy this argument at all. Those contracts are all about franchises willing to spend big money. Two of the NL big time spenders are in rebuild mode (NY Mets and Chicago Cubs). The Dodgers just went on a spending spree. The Phillies already blew all their money, and that includes position players like Utley and Howard. The Marlins had a fire sale after spending a ton on long term contracts.

NL teams know they can sign guys to big contracts, and if they become a defensive liability they still have a dumping ground for those types of players called the AL. On top of all of that, baseball is becoming like the NFL. The importance of draft picks is becoming huge while only the high end clubs are spending big money on free agents (even some of them have stopped, including the Yankees vs. what they used to do). Like I stated, the NL is still winning the most important interleague games and attendance is good. If a team really wants those guys they will pay them, and deal with the ramifications later. Yet the vast majority of the teams are making offers based on their bottom line (or lack thereof for the major market teams). The DH does nothing but hurt the bottom line for the majority of NL teams, so it does nothing for them since paying a DH would take away from what they can pay the rest of their players.

I am sorry, that argument makes little sense to me. The big market clubs are going to spend no matter what, and the DH would hurt the mid to lower level teams, not help them. In fact, most AL owners would desperately love to get rid of the DH but the MLBPA won't let it happen.

[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?

[westofyou]

Billy Martin, on the DH rule:

"It could be one of the biggest mistakes baseball ever made.

Who voted? The NL, voted to let the AL use it."

[puca]

Originally Posted by jojo

My argument isn't that pitchers are below average so they should be replaced at the plate. It's that they are so bad, that their performance doesn't even rise to the threshold of acceptable.

BTW, those trying to take this to an extreme regarding offensive specialization (i.e. replacing position players at bats with the DH), seem to ignore that pitching staffs have already evolved to a level of specialization that is well past what proponents of the DH assume would be the logical use of a DH (i.e. batting for the pitcher). Also, it's not like NL rosters haven't carried defensive specialists to serve as late inning defensive replacements or pinch hitting gurus at the ends of their benches.

The concept has been embraced as part of the NL fabric for forever. I'm not sure why so many so easily take the notion of the DH to an extreme when arguing against it.

I get that alot of people are traditionalists. I get that alot of people like to bite their nails pondering what Dusty will do with Cueto in the bottom of the 7th. But I don't get acting like the evil AL is plotting to force the NL to bat Adam Dunn 9 times in a row or that the DH would alter baseball into some unreconizeable game that might as well be played by robots.

Isn't part of the reason pitchers are so bad at the plate because they don't have to be good? If a offensive/defensive platoon system was put in place at all levels of baseball wouldn't that ultimately result in the intersection of the set of great hitters and the set of great fielders to decrease? Haven't we seen that happen already with pitchers? I would wager the average minor league pitcher spends much less time working on his hitting than before the adoption of the DH.

[MikeThierry]

Originally Posted by scott91575

I don't buy this argument at all. Those contracts are all about franchises willing to spend big money. Two of the NL big time spenders are in rebuild mode (NY Mets and Chicago Cubs). The Dodgers just went on a spending spree. The Phillies already blew all their money, and that includes position players like Utley and Howard. The Marlins had a fire sale after spending a ton on long term contracts.

NL teams know they can sign guys to big contracts, and if they become a defensive liability they still have a dumping ground for those types of players called the AL. On top of all of that, baseball is becoming like the NFL. The importance of draft picks is becoming huge while only the high end clubs are spending big money on free agents (even some of them have stopped, including the Yankees vs. what they used to do). Like I stated, the NL is still winning the most important interleague games and attendance is good. If a team really wants those guys they will pay them, and deal with the ramifications later. Yet the vast majority of the teams are making offers based on their bottom line (or lack thereof for the major market teams). The DH does nothing but hurt the bottom line for the majority of NL teams, so it does nothing for them since paying a DH would take away from what they can pay the rest of their players.

I am sorry, that argument makes little sense to me. The big market clubs are going to spend no matter what, and the DH would hurt the mid to lower level teams, not help them. In fact, most AL owners would desperately love to get rid of the DH but the MLBPA won't let it happen.

The problem with that line of thinking is with many of these big contracts, players sign no trade clauses. Teams can't dump older players to the AL without cutting the player.

You can think it's silly if you want but it is an absolute truth that there is an imbalance here. Teams like the Cardinals and Brewers would have been able to sign their superstars to long term deals if the DH was in the NL. Fielder wouldn't have gone anywhere and the Cardinals would have been able to keep Pujols. You're right that big spending clubs will still be spending money but even they aren't willing to take some of the risk that comes with older players. You mentioned the Dodgers as an example. You're right to say that they added a lot of money however a good chunk of those players were traded, in the middle of their prime, and still relatively young.

Also, can we please stop with these slippery slope arguments? People act as if the DH will bring cats and dogs living together and the lake of fire will open up in the middle of Iowa. It's been in the league for 40+ years and every baseball league in the world has it. It hasn't destroyed the game or brought unsavory elements into it.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Plus Plus

I'm not sure why that was included in your reply, given that the entire discussion here is being brought about in hypotheticals and that both sides are using hyperbole in this discussion, yourself included.

Where have I used hyperbole as a meaningful part of my argument in this thread? The best you could hang your hat is me turning Walter Alston's famous quote about Willie McCovey not being a "Punch and Judy belter" into pitchers aren't even Judy's, they're prepubesent Judy's (9 yo) because they aren't even singles hitters. When as a group they post a wOBA =.149 (75 runs worse than a replacement level hitter over 600 PAs), that's not really hyperbole....

Originally Posted by Plus Plus

Aside:

Is there a compelling argument to be made that the DH is a necessary evil in baseball at all?

To the extent anything in baseball is a "necesary" evil, there's an argument for the DH. The NL can probably get along just fine without the DH. The AL is getting along just fine with the DH.

Originally Posted by jojo

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.

Originally Posted by Plus Plus

Baseball is a really unique sport in the fact that a team in 2013 contains such a wide number of specialists. The closest sport to baseball, cricket, has rules in place that require a number of fielders (5 in a game with 20 overs, with each bowling four overs) to bowl and bowlers to bat, which mitigates the number of true specialists that exist on a team (e.g. there are seldom elite pitchers who are feeble at the stumps, and there are seldom elite hitters who are feeble in the field). The understanding that a player brings a different value because they must be responsible not only for holding the other team's run scoring to a minimum but also try and score runs for their own team means that pitcher value is really the only positional value that goes two directions. Is a pitcher who has an xFIP of 4.10 and a wOBA of .175 better or worse than a pitcher who has an xFIP of 4.50 and a wOBA of .215? Teams can consider this and design a roster accordingly given the individual players that they have.

This is a pretty rare thing and it pales in comparison to the roster management/manipulation and lineup decisions that the DH allows in the AL. If roster management is really something you find fascinating, then you'd really benefit from the introduction of the DH to the NL because frankly, the hitting prowess of a pitcher really doesn't effect roster decisions all that much.

Originally Posted by Plus Plus

I remember a lot of valuable discussion about Micah Owings and the value that he would have as a fifth starter back in 2009 because of the value he had as a batter that mitigated his shortcomings as a pitcher.

We know how that turned out too. Micah couldn't pitch well enough to get to the plate...

Originally Posted by Plus Plus

Furthermore, acting like every pitcher is a poor hitter is a little bit misleading. Yovani Gallardo, Carlos Zambrano, CC Sabathia, Mike Leake, Travis Wood, (the ghost of) Micah Owings, (the ghost of) Mike Hampton, and even Bronson Arroyo or Johnny Cueto (to an extent) are reasonably good batters. It provides for another line of thought in terms of roster creation and, even if pitchers never become better than their .149 wOBA, the hit provided by a pitcher that extends a rally is always a fun rarity to see, at least to me.

Again though, rosters really aren't shaped by the hitting prowess of the pitching staff.

Here is Cueto's career line: .089/.119/.093, wOBA= .102. Here's Bronson's .130 .153/.195, wOBA= .155.

Zambrano/Sabathia might seem like gamers until you realize that their bats are 10-15 runs worse than a replacement level bat. There really isn't gobs of value there. Leake and Hampton are actually a rare thing you wouldn't get to see in the AL as they have been basically replacement level bats given their career numbers and since Leake is a rubber arm, he could add some value with his bat.

Again, arguing about what a pitcher adds by his hitting is pecking at the margins.

[MrRedLegger]

Originally Posted by puca

Assuming you mean in-game decisions, can you give an example of a managerial decision in an AL game that isn't also present in an NL game? I'm not trying to be snarky, just trying to see the AL side of this argument and I'm having a hard time coming up with one myself. And I hope you agree that saying pinch hitting or pinch running for the DH would be a complete cop out.

Walking the 8th batter to create a force on any bag and bring the pitcher to the plate.

[Plus Plus]

Originally Posted by jojo

\Again, arguing about what a pitcher adds by his hitting is pecking at the margins.

Baseball is won or lost on these margins. Maybe not precisely about pitcher hitting (although that is a piece of the puzzle currently in the NL, like it or not), but throughout any roster construction.

I'll concede that the DH position hits better as a whole than the P position, but I won't concede that the DH creates a more interesting level of roster construction. I think that the AL and NL are simply different and that both leagues will see their advantages and disadvantages.

[MikeThierry]

Originally Posted by Plus Plus

Baseball is won or lost on these margins. Maybe not precisely about pitcher hitting (although that is a piece of the puzzle currently in the NL, like it or not), but throughout any roster construction.

I'll concede that the DH position hits better as a whole than the P position, but I won't concede that the DH creates a more interesting level of roster construction. I think that the AL and NL are simply different and that both leagues will see their advantages and disadvantages.

I agree with your assertion here. I would rather get rid of the DH all together but I don't see that happening and I do think that there needs to eventually be uniform rules; regardless if they decide to abolish it or keep it.

[Caveat Emperor]

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.

Agreed.

You could post tons of stats about how many more runs would be scored, how many more great rallies would be kept alive, or how many clutch ABs would be added to a game because of the DH and I wouldn't care a bit.

I hate the DH. I hate the element it removes from baseball. I hate watching games that involve a DH.

No appeal is going to change my position on this matter.

[CySeymour]

Originally Posted by Plus Plus

Baseball is won or lost on these margins.

Not on the whole it isn't.