The Reds & and the new DH debate

There's a lot of speculation about the National League potentially adopting the Designated Hitter next winter and the DH being a full-time staple in both leagues for the 2014 season.

While I've always been an NL purest and enjoy the pace and strategy of the National League game more than the AL, I'm starting to think there are some potential benefits to the Reds - both short term (in 2014) and looking into the not-so distant future.

Just a few off the top of my head...

1. If the NL adopts the DH for 2014, I think it is highly more likely the Reds sign Shin Soo-Choo to a long-term deal. This would allow Ludwick (if Hamilton is ready in center) to slide to a more of a full-time DH role during the last year on his contract.
2. It could potentially open a spot in the lineup by 2015 for a bat like Donald Lutz, who Dusty seems quite enamored with. Personally, I don't see Lutz playing a full season in left at close to 250 pounds. However, if his bat continues to improve, he would make a decent DH/part-time outfielder candidate.
3. The same goes for Chris Heisey - from the right-side of the plate.
4. Most importantly, the DH could serve as a nice buffer for Joey Votto as he ages into the last 11 years of his contract and could serve as protection against the full-time grind on what could be a balky knee.
5. Finally, the DH could protect Dusty Baker from himself. While I had no issue with the way he managed the bullpen last year, I have been increasingly frustrated by how he uses over matched bench bats in late-inning clutch situations. While this isn't just a Reds problem, the DH could save my head from a few more Dusty-induced gray hairs.

A lot of what-ifs, but I sense this is a topic that will gain a lot of momentum as we deal with daily interleague games - and two separate sets of rules - this year.

Id be like a kid on Christmas if #1 pans out. It does make sense, but I too prefer the NL rules. While it's goofy to have 2 sets of rules for the same sport, I still like that there is some difference between AL and NL.

Where is this speculation?

before you link me let me say, ain't gonna happen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by westofyou

Where is this speculation?

before you link me let me say, ain't gonna happen

---

Hope you're right, but I think the DH in the National League is inevitable over the next several years.

A lot of those speculations also have Dusty Baker tied in as the Reds Manager. You have to think that Dusty will probably retire eventually in the next few years (just my own thoughts). And the next Reds manager may not have the same managerial tendencies that Dusty has.

I don't see it happening. The only step I could see them taking that early would be adopting DH for all interleague games no matter the home venue. Would avoid some of the gripes people have with scheduling now that interleague will be year round. Contenders not wanting to sit their DH final week of season due to being on road in the NL and such. That I wouldn't mind terribly, NL adopting the DH full time is something I hope to never see.

It'll be a sad day for the game of baseball if it does happen.

If you can't hit you are not a real baseball player. If you can't play defense you are not a real baseball player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

If you can't hit you are not a real baseball player. If you can't play defense you are not a real baseball player.

---

Pitchers aren't real baseball players? You must really, really hate LOOGYs!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jojo

Pitchers aren't real baseball players? You must really, really hate LOOGYs!

---

If they can't bat without hurting themselves or making a fool of themselves then they are not real baseball players.

Many people claim we should have the DH so that pitchers don't get hurt while batting or running the bases. If you can't do those things then don't play baseball.

The sooner it happens, the better it will be for NL baseball. Personally, I don't like the DH, but I also know that it is never going away because the MLBPA isn't going to allow it. Too many guys have held jobs longer than they otherwise would have and gotten paid very well because of it to let it happen.

It creates inequality for the AL. They can sign contracts that NL teams simply can't. That allows them to stack more talent overall than the NL can. They can sign a big slugger in his early 30's to a big deal that a team in the NL can't because they know in 5-7 years he won't be able to play defense at all, so they can't pay him $15+M. The AL can though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dougdirt

The sooner it happens, the better it will be for NL baseball. Personally, I don't like the DH, but I also know that it is never going away because the MLBPA isn't going to allow it. Too many guys have held jobs longer than they otherwise would have and gotten paid very well because of it to let it happen.

It creates inequality for the AL. They can sign contracts that NL teams simply can't. That allows them to stack more talent overall than the NL can. They can sign a big slugger in his early 30's to a big deal that a team in the NL can't because they know in 5-7 years he won't be able to play defense at all, so they can't pay him $15+M. The AL can though.

---

I think the MLBPA is smart enough to know that the DH doesn't add more money into the game. It shifts money away from young guys and gives it to old guys, but it doesn't increase the total amount of money given to players across the league. There are still going to be 25 roster slots per team with or without the DH. If the DH is making big bucks that is less money the team can give to another player or players. I don't see why the MLBPA would automatically be in favor of the DH.

If American League teams want to invest a ton of money for a long-term contract to a DH then they will have less money to invest in the rest of their team, so I don't think having the DH gives AL teams an advantage over NL teams. Having a DH doesn't give a team more money to spend on payroll, it merely changes how they distribute the money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

I think the MLBPA is smart enough to know that the DH doesn't add more money into the game. It shifts money away from young guys and gives it to old guys, but it doesn't increase the total amount of money given to players across the league. There are still going to be 25 roster slots per team with or without the DH. If the DH is making big bucks that is less money the team can give to another player or players. I don't see why the MLBPA would automatically be in favor of the DH.

If American League teams want to invest a ton of money for a long-term contract to a DH then they will have less money to invest in the rest of their team, so I don't think having the DH gives AL teams an advantage over NL teams. Having a DH doesn't give a team more money to spend on payroll, it merely changes how they distribute the money.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

If they can't bat without hurting themselves or making a fool of themselves then they are not real baseball players.

Many people claim we should have the DH so that pitchers don't get hurt while batting or running the bases. If you can't do those things then don't play baseball.

---

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.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/ey...ter-compromise

Quote:

---

With that out of the way, here's what I propose: Make the DH rule the prerogative of the home team. Yes, I hereby propose that in advance of each regular-season and postseason game, the home team should be able to declare whether the DH shall be used for the contest in question.

---

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.

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

Screw the DH. Does basketball have a designated free throw shooter? Dumbest thing ever.

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.

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?

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.

I want no part of jet pack baseball.

Designated fielder is next.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

What do American League managers even do?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jojo

More boring than watching Harang come to bat with bases loaded and two outs?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crumbley

What do American League managers even do?

---

Francona: "Nothing. I change my chaw every once in awhile. For all I know, guys could be in the clubhouse eating fried chicken and drinking beer." :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by traderumor

Designated runner is in use in youth sports. Now that is ludicrous.

---

What is the reasoning there? Are some kids too out of shape to run the bases or is it to just get more an opportunity to play?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CySeymour

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.

---

Why should they work on their hitting when they don't have to hit? Heck, even in the National League it is only starting pitchers who have to bat, and even then it is only once or twice per game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crumbley

What is the reasoning there, are some kids too out of shape to run the bases or is it to just get more an opportunity to play?

---

I've seen it in the Little League World Series play, so I'm not sure what the logic is. It might be increased participation, but it is so much silliness and unfair to the designated runner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by westofyou

Yep, I live in Mariner country I know boring well

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jojo

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

---

I think that is a false dichotomy. The pitcher hitting results in a different set of strategies and outcomes in a game. I know when I manage DH rules in Strat, there isn't much to do except roll the dice. Play pitcher hitting rules and there are strategies in play from the outset.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Why should they work on their hitting when they don't have to hit? Heck, even in the National League it is only starting pitchers who have to bat, and even then it is only once or twice per game.

---

Even in the old days, did they practice that much instead of working on pitching? MLB pitchers have never been good hitters as a whole, even before the DH.

Good gosh I hope we never see the DH in the NL. I don't mind it in an the AL, but it needs to stay in that league. I actually enjoy watching a pitcher try to help himself at the plate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jojo

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

---

Who would you rather watch play defense in 2013: Derek Jeter or Paul Janish? Institute the Designated Fielder and you get Jeter's bat in the lineup at SS, but the glove of Janish.

I like that baseball is such a weird game. I'd be a lot more interested in football if the left tackle had to take three snaps at quarterback per game. A pitcher's Babe Ruth home run trot after he finally gets a hold of one is my favorite moment in sports.