Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CySeymour
Not on the whole it isn't.
It's a sport where pitchers who have an ERA or FIP of 3.5 instead of 4.0 are viewed very differently, where batters who hit .300 are viewed very differently than those who hit .275, where catchers who "call good games" are viewed very differently than those who "don't," where 20 home runs from SS is a great feat but 15 is commonplace, where an OBP of .330 is undesirable for a leadoff spot but .400 is elite, even though the difference is something like one time every 4 games. Discussions of players in 2013 revolve around the idea of replacement-level batters and pitchers, player value in terms of wins above replacement, and weighted stats that define not only what players are better or worse than their peers, but how much better or worse they are given the nature of what an average peer at a given point in time is doing. Upgrading from Ryan Ludwick to Matt Holliday would be a welcome one (given a salary and prospect neutral trade), even though the players have been very similar in recent years. Every bullpen transaction that doesn't involve fringe guys is based around marginal upgrades; Broxton replacing Arredondo as a RHSU was a large upgrade last year, even though they are reasonably similar guys.
If baseball wasn't won on the margins, the worst teams would lose 145 games and the best teams would win 145. The game is really, really, really hard and anyone can beat anyone on any given day. There is a minimum talent level that exists in baseball but doesn't exist in basketball or football.
And that's what makes baseball so special in my eyes.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
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.
Just purely playing devil's advocate for a moment: If pitchers have to hit, why don't hitters have to pitch?
Seems we're saying one class of ballplayer has to have three skills (hit, field, run the bases) and another has to have four (hit, field, run the bases, pitch). With the DH, pitchers only have to field and pitch, which is two skills. So it's unequal either way.
(I'm still a NL guy, just poking at the argument for fun.)
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Seems to me like the whole thread is "pecking at the margins." I hate the DH, but leave it the way it is. People have a choice that way.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
The best hitting pitching staff in the NL during 2012 was roughly 20 runs better than the absolute worst hitting pitching staff offensively.
The Reds hitter-pitchers (one of the best groups in the league) were 5 runs better than the Cards (close to average)..
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MikeThierry
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.
No way with the Brewers. Not a chance in h e double hockey sticks. They hardly even talked to Fielder. They simply do not have the money to even be in the ballpark while still signing Braun.
As for Pujols, it's not about his fielding. They still offered him 9 years, 1 less than the Angels.
On top of all of that, they are first baseman. This is not a catcher or SS we are talking about here. 1B is the NL DH for all intents and purposes.
I will also add this is all speculation on your behalf. It was known for the longest time the Brewers were going to let Fielder walk before they even know who they would be going up against in a bidding war, and the Cards still offered Pujols a contract that would have taken him well past his defensive prime.
There is zero absolute truth there is any imbalance here, and your two examples were very poor since the Brewers never once got into a bidding war and the Cards offered Pujols a contract that would have taken him well past his defensive prime. The Angels offered him one that would take him well past his usage as even a DH. The Cards are simply more cash strapped than the Angels, plain and simple. The Cards have a good payroll, but the Angels can essentially write blank checks to their players. That was a huge market team vs. a mid market team, not AL vs. NL. Besides all of that, not signing Pujols is probably a blessing in disguise for the Cards and most likely will be a huge albatross for the Angels (although they can afford to eat big contracts more than a team like the Cards can).
If you want to look at the flip side, let's talk about Jose Reyes, or Matt Holliday, or Carlos Lee, or Alfonso Soriano, or Jason Bay. All signed to huge contracts by NL teams while being a free agent. Chase Utley, Ryan Howard, Joey Votto, David Wright, and others I am sure I am forgetting decided to re up with their NL team instead of entering free agency to get that (supposed) better AL contract. Heck, let's not forget a little guy by the name of Barry Bonds albeit it 20 years ago. Yet the DH was around then.
I am sorry guys, but this is at best a very minor issue and most likely complete fallacy created here. Like I have stated, it has been said many times in the media most AL owners would love to get rid of the DH for salary reasons. It drives tons of cost with little revenue benefit. Yet it's so entrenched the MLBPA would never let it go. Why would any NL owner want something the MLBPA would kill for since they know it transfers a bunch of revenue percentage to the players? Isn't that something that screams NL owners would not want it? Occam's razor here folks. You guys are really searching for something completely minor and I doubt even exists.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Plus Plus
It's a sport where pitchers who have an ERA or FIP of 3.5 instead of 4.0 are viewed very differently, where batters who hit .300 are viewed very differently than those who hit .275, where catchers who "call good games" are viewed very differently than those who "don't," where 20 home runs from SS is a great feat but 15 is commonplace, where an OBP of .330 is undesirable for a leadoff spot but .400 is elite, even though the difference is something like one time every 4 games. Discussions of players in 2013 revolve around the idea of replacement-level batters and pitchers, player value in terms of wins above replacement, and weighted stats that define not only what players are better or worse than their peers, but how much better or worse they are given the nature of what an average peer at a given point in time is doing. Upgrading from Ryan Ludwick to Matt Holliday would be a welcome one (given a salary and prospect neutral trade), even though the players have been very similar in recent years. Every bullpen transaction that doesn't involve fringe guys is based around marginal upgrades; Broxton replacing Arredondo as a RHSU was a large upgrade last year, even though they are reasonably similar guys.
If baseball wasn't won on the margins, the worst teams would lose 145 games and the best teams would win 145. The game is really, really, really hard and anyone can beat anyone on any given day. There is a minimum talent level that exists in baseball but doesn't exist in basketball or football.
And that's what makes baseball so special in my eyes.
I know you were making a grander point and this isn't meant to splash paint on the portrait but since 2009 Holliday has been worth 15 WAR more than Ludwick (an average of 30 runs/season). That's not really pecking at the margins.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IslandRed
Just purely playing devil's advocate for a moment: If pitchers have to hit, why don't hitters have to pitch?
Seems we're saying one class of ballplayer has to have three skills (hit, field, run the bases) and another has to have four (hit, field, run the bases, pitch). With the DH, pitchers only have to field and pitch, which is two skills. So it's unequal either way.
(I'm still a NL guy, just poking at the argument for fun.)
Fileding and pitching are the same thing. Defense. Outfielders don't have to play the infield or catch.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scott91575
No way with the Brewers. Not a chance in h e double hockey sticks. They hardly even talked to Fielder. They simply do not have the money to even be in the ballpark while still signing Braun.
As for Pujols, it's not about his fielding. They still offered him 9 years, 1 less than the Angels.
On top of all of that, they are first baseman. This is not a catcher or SS we are talking about here. 1B is the NL DH for all intents and purposes.
I will also add this is all speculation on your behalf. It was known for the longest time the Brewers were going to let Fielder walk before they even know who they would be going up against in a bidding war, and the Cards still offered Pujols a contract that would have taken him well past his defensive prime.
There is zero absolute truth there is any imbalance here, and your two examples were very poor since the Brewers never once got into a bidding war and the Cards offered Pujols a contract that would have taken him well past his defensive prime. The Angels offered him one that would take him well past his usage as even a DH. The Cards are simply more cash strapped than the Angels, plain and simple. The Cards have a good payroll, but the Angels can essentially write blank checks to their players. That was a huge market team vs. a mid market team, not AL vs. NL. Besides all of that, not signing Pujols is probably a blessing in disguise for the Cards and most likely will be a huge albatross for the Angels (although they can afford to eat big contracts more than a team like the Cards can).
If you want to look at the flip side, let's talk about Jose Reyes, or Matt Holliday, or Carlos Lee, or Alfonso Soriano, or Jason Bay. All signed to huge contracts by NL teams while being a free agent. Chase Utley, Ryan Howard, Joey Votto, David Wright, and others I am sure I am forgetting decided to re up with their NL team instead of entering free agency to get that (supposed) better AL contract. Heck, let's not forget a little guy by the name of Barry Bonds albeit it 20 years ago. Yet the DH was around then.
I am sorry guys, but this is at best a very minor issue and most likely complete fallacy created here. Like I have stated, it has been said many times in the media most AL owners would love to get rid of the DH for salary reasons. It drives tons of cost with little revenue benefit. Yet it's so entrenched the MLBPA would never let it go. Why would any NL owner want something the MLBPA would kill for since they know it transfers a bunch of revenue percentage to the players? Isn't that something that screams NL owners would not want it? Occam's razor here folks. You guys are really searching for something completely minor and I doubt even exists.
I see what you are trying to say, but I suppose we are defining the margins differently.
But for me and the DH, I can take it or leave it. I enjoy getting to see actual hitters getting to hit, but I can also appreciate the strategic dilemma of deciding whether or not to pinch hit for your starting pitcher in the 6th inning because you need a run.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
I'll fully admit to being a hidebound NL traditionalist. Raised on it and have watched it for 50 years. I didn't like the DH when it was introduced and I don't like it now. I understand that other fans like it and that's fine with me. You have the AL, I've got the NL. Not everything in the world has to be orthogonal and symmetrical. And I understand the logic of the DH and it has merit. But taken as a whole, I vote thumbs down.
And I understand that 2 platoon baseball takes the model to its extreme and some think that is ridiculous. That also can be argued and I sure don't think it would happen any time soon. But I take a historical look at things now. Baseball changes at a glacial pace, but also, the precedent has been set. It may be 50 years, but the more impatient wants more action modern fan, I don't think it is unthinkable.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
I would also like to point out people are acting like the AL is full of these over the hill guys still raking at the plate but cannot play any defense. It's only a handful of guys. David Ortiz and umm, yeah, David Ortiz. There is Dunn, and hey, he hits home runs. Yet his value is very much in question, especially after 2011. Even his 2012 was not that great when you break it down. Travis Hafner? Give me a break. Luke Scott? Sucks. Edwin Encarnacion, not old and could never play a lick of D so he had no use for NL teams. Adam Lind, not old. Mark Reynolds, not old. Victor Martinez, maybe if he stays healthy. Billy Butler, not old. Ryan Doumit and Mauer, both young (or relatively young) and still can play the field. Brett Wallace, young. Mark Trumbo, young. Seth Smith, young (30, so fairly young). Lance Berkman, maybe, but his hitting a huge question now. There are other DH's that share time with those guys, but they all play defense and so do many on the list.
There you have it. I don't think you guys watch much AL baseball. Most DH's are young guys who can also play defense or would have no value to NL teams (so NL teams are not bidding for services anyway). The older guys not only cannot play defense, but aren't the best hitters anymore either. Seriously, it's David Ortiz and that is it. The idea that DH's are really good older players who lost their defense and still hit great is just not true. By the time a guy can't play the field anymore, most the time he cannot hit either. The sample sizes are so small for the guys that can still hit but cannot field due to age it has very little effect when signing a free agent many years before he hits that point.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scott91575
I would also like to point out people are acting like the AL is full of these over the hill guys still raking at the plate but cannot play any defense. It's only a handful of guys.
While you may be right, it still gives AL teams an advantage in free agency because they can sign guys who are good now, to longer contracts, because when they start to decline as almost all aging players do, they can still get value out of them at DH, where an NL team couldn't.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
I know you were making a grander point and this isn't meant to splash paint on the portrait but since 2009 Holliday has been worth 15 WAR more than Ludwick (an average of 30 runs/season). That's not really pecking at the margins.
Of course, but if you look at 2012 the difference between was scant, but I would wager that most would pay to upgrade from Ludwick to Holliday even for just the scant increase.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dougdirt
While you may be right, it still gives AL teams an advantage in free agency because they can sign guys who are good now, to longer contracts, because when they start to decline as almost all aging players do, they can still get value out of them at DH, where an NL team couldn't.
and as I have shown, when guys stop being able to play defense, most of the time they can't hit either. Your statement is simply not true. The only example is David Ortiz. That's it. Maybe Victor Martinez if his body hasn't completely fallen apart by this point. If AL teams are doing that, they are doing it on a fallacy and something that would be a longshot. It's a made up advantage that most AL teams don't do.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
757690
Fileding and pitching are the same thing. Defense. Outfielders don't have to play the infield or catch.
Sure, if we're distilling it all down to offense and defense. In practice, pitching is a highly specialized skill and their natural selection process is 99% based on the ability to pitch. It's fine with me if we make them hit anyway, but I'm not as quick as others to credit them with being more complete players simply because we're making them do something they're unqualified to do.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scott91575
I would also like to point out people are acting like the AL is full of these over the hill guys still raking at the plate but cannot play any defense. It's only a handful of guys. David Ortiz and umm, yeah, David Ortiz. There is Dunn, and hey, he hits home runs. Yet his value is very much in question, especially after 2011. Even his 2012 was not that great when you break it down. Travis Hafner? Give me a break. Luke Scott? Sucks. Edwin Encarnacion, not old and could never play a lick of D so he had no use for NL teams. Adam Lind, not old. Mark Reynolds, not old. Victor Martinez, maybe if he stays healthy. Billy Butler, not old. Ryan Doumit and Mauer, both young (or relatively young) and still can play the field. Brett Wallace, young. Mark Trumbo, young. Seth Smith, young (30, so fairly young). Lance Berkman, maybe, but his hitting a huge question now. There are other DH's that share time with those guys, but they all play defense and so do many on the list.
There you have it. I don't think you guys watch much AL baseball. Most DH's are young guys who can also play defense or would have no value to NL teams (so NL teams are not bidding for services anyway). The older guys not only cannot play defense, but aren't the best hitters anymore either. Seriously, it's David Ortiz and that is it. The idea that DH's are really good older players who lost their defense and still hit great is just not true. By the time a guy can't play the field anymore, most the time he cannot hit either. The sample sizes are so small for the guys that can still hit but cannot field due to age is so small it has very little effect when signing a free agent many years before he hits that point.
The Mariners use the DH position to rotate guys between catcher, firstbase, and the corner outfield positions. Unless Jason Bay pulls off a springtime miracle, the average age of players taking their DH PAs will be under 30. The D in DH more and more stands for dynamic instead of duh.
