The Reds & and the new DH debate

Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm not a purist, I just don't like the DH. For me it takes more away from the game of baseball than it adds. I get that not everyone feels that way. I've watched AL baseball. I live in an AL town. I choose to watch DH-less baseball and have found myself avoiding the other kind as much as I can. If you enjoy the DH you already have a lot of choices. Please don't take away the brand of baseball I enjoy.

Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate

Quote:

Originally Posted by puca

I'm not a purist, I just don't like the DH. For me it takes more away from the game of baseball than it adds. I get that not everyone feels that way. I've watched AL baseball. I live in an AL town. I choose to watch DH-less baseball and have found myself avoiding the other kind as much as I can. If you enjoy the DH you already have a lot of choices. Please don't take away the brand of baseball I enjoy.

I wholly respect this.

It is a preference thing.

Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate

I like to play poker... I like to play poker without wild cards.

The DH is baseball's equivalent of the wild card.

You may like it I don't.

Let's remember that some of us don't like wild cards

Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Sure. Also mandate that players ride from their homes to the field on a horse, declare there are only 38 states, and use leeches to treat a batting slump. C'mon man!

In my opinion, if you're going to have two different leagues with two different rules, then do away with interleague play. It would sure make the All-Star Game and World Series mean more. It still to this day blows my mind that the World Series could possibly be a rematch every year, and that still doesn't feel right. Having AL teams decide pennant races in the NL is even more frustrating. If you're going to do it is it too much to ask that interleague schedules are balanced? Either unify the rules or treat them like separate leagues. The differences between the NL and AL are appealing to me and watching the line between them both slowly blur is frustrating.

But, it's Bud Selig's world. I just reluctantly live in it.

Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate

For the price of watching a pitcher hit a couple of times a game, I receive in return:

-More competitive (fewer early inning blowouts), closer and shorter games.
-Fewer mid-inning pitching changes (very boring-still too many for my taste)
-More complex game strategy.

The frustration of seeing my team's pitcher fail at bat in a early inning situation, is offset by relief when the opposing pitcher does likewise and my team can stay in a game that may be otherwise blown open.

-I admit that in DH-less baseball it is more difficult to surmount a large deficit. But then those large deficits are more common with a DH hitting instead of auto-out pitchers.

-I also admit that the DH gives a shot to some experienced hitters to get playing time that they may not otherwise get. Those ABs can be fun to watch.

Overall however, for me, the entertainment experience of the NL game is far superior. I really hope the DH is not adopted.

Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate

Quote:

Originally Posted by oneupper

For the price of watching a pitcher hit a couple of times a game, I receive in return:

-More competitive (fewer early inning blowouts), closer and shorter games.
-Fewer mid-inning pitching changes (very boring-still too many for my taste)
-More complex game strategy.

The frustration of seeing my team's pitcher fail at bat in a early inning situation, is offset by relief when the opposing pitcher does likewise and my team can stay in a game that may be otherwise blown open.

-I admit that in DH-less baseball it is more difficult to surmount a large deficit. But then those large deficits are more common with a DH hitting instead of auto-out pitchers.

-I also admit that the DH gives a shot to some experienced hitters to get playing time that they may not otherwise get. Those ABs can be fun to watch.

Overall however, for me, the entertainment experience of the NL game is far superior. I really hope the DH is not adopted.

Blow outs by league over the last decade:

Code:

Margin > 4 runs Season AL NL 2012 881 986 2011 881 885 2010 909 1010 2009 950 1032 2008 978 1056 2007 974 1125 2006 1006 1079 2005 964 1009 2004 1015 1027 2003 1037 1087 total 9595 10296 ave/yr 960 1030

There isn't a single season in that span where large deficits were more common in the AL vs the NL suggesting that on average AL games are more competitive than NL games.

Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate

Quote:

Originally Posted by blumj

I really don't see checkers to chess, to me they're both checkers wth slight variations. I grew up watching AL ball, and I expected to see some chess once I got the opportunity to watch more NL games, but all I really see is checkers with different rules. The strategy is too simple to make an entertainment value difference to me. I prefer AL, but only because I don't want to miss those last few seasons of guys like Frank Thomas and Vlad, otherwise, either or both is fine to me.

Yes, I agree. How often was it a "cliffhanger" on whether the NL pitcher got pinch hit for or not? Not very often.
Although it's kind of funny, Dusty tends to surprise me more than anyone by letting his pitcher hit when I wouldn't expect him to. Not a criticism, just an observation (maybe it was because he has historically had a bench with 1-3 really bad hitters on it while here).

In any event, I just don't get the excitement over whether Homer will be allowed to hit, or if Valdez is going to PH for him :lol:

The only downside I see to the DH is that now the NL clubs will be forced to spend some money on another position player. For example, this year if the Reds expected to contend in a DH league, they'd probably have to spend some money on another hitter for the bench ... Heck, maybe Rolen would've been resigned to create a rotation or something, but it's still an additional expense which drains the Reds' limited budget.

Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate

Quote:

The only downside I see to the DH is that now the NL clubs will be forced to spend some money on another position player. For example, this year if the Reds expected to contend in a DH league, they'd probably have to spend some money on another hitter for the bench ... Heck, maybe Rolen would've been resigned to create a rotation or something, but it's still an additional expense which drains the Reds' limited budget.

If the N.L. adds the Designated Hitter it will save the Reds money. They'll just make Baker a player-manager. He said he can still hit and you know he is itching to get back out there. :)

Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate

Quote:

Originally Posted by REDREAD

Yes, I agree. How often was it a "cliffhanger" on whether the NL pitcher got pinch hit for or not? Not very often.
Although it's kind of funny, Dusty tends to surprise me more than anyone by letting his pitcher hit when I wouldn't expect him to. Not a criticism, just an observation (maybe it was because he has historically had a bench with 1-3 really bad hitters on it while here).

In any event, I just don't get the excitement over whether Homer will be allowed to hit, or if Valdez is going to PH for him :lol:

I don't get the position of some posters that the only tactical difference between DH-ball and baseball occurs during a pitcher's turn to bat.

Because the pitcher is such a weak hitter, apart from scoring runs the offensive team is trying to turn over the lineup and avoid having the pitcher lead off the next inning. On the other side of the coin, the defensive team would love to have the pitcher's spot leading off the next inning, but obviously not at the expense of giving up runs.

I like thinking about the decisions as they are being made while the bottom half of the order is batting and how the might impact that secondary goal. Add the unknown of whether the manager might remove his pitcher in order to improve his odds of scoring and you have enough variables to keep the most analytic person busy.

Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate

Quote:

Originally Posted by jojo

Blow outs by league over the last decade:

Code:

Margin > 4 runs Season AL NL 2012 881 986 2011 881 885 2010 909 1010 2009 950 1032 2008 978 1056 2007 974 1125 2006 1006 1079 2005 964 1009 2004 1015 1027 2003 1037 1087 total 9595 10296 ave/yr 960 1030

There isn't a single season in that span where large deficits were more common in the AL vs the NL suggesting that on average AL games are more competitive than NL games.

Maybe there's a stat for that, but this one isn't it. Around 40% of all games would be non-competitive by this measure. And of course there are more NL games than AL games (2 extra teams).

Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate

Quote:

Originally Posted by oneupper

Maybe there's a stat for that, but this one isn't it. Around 40% of all games would be non-competitive by this measure. And of course there are more NL games than AL games (2 extra teams).

Then what would be a better indicator of a large deficit?

Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate

Quote:

Originally Posted by jojo

Then what would be a better indicator of a large deficit?

Percentage of games, instead of number of games would be better.

Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain13

Percentage of games, instead of number of games would be better.

He doesn't even like >4 runs defined as a large deficit.

Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate

Quote:

Originally Posted by scott91575

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.
.

Another thing to consider.. In the old days, teams only carried 10 pitchers, so they had the luxury of a deep bench. It was plausible to carry a DH only guy, or a pinch hitter specialist, or even a pinch runner specialist.

Now, it seems like most (if not all) teams want to carry 12 pitchers. There's simply no room to have a DH only guy if you only have 13 position players.. 8 starters, backup middle inflielder, back up CF, backup catcher, second backup OF, second backup infielder... plus, ideally at least 2 of those backups are competent pinch hitters (even in the AL).

Other than a few rare cases (Ortiz, Haffner when he was healthy, Adam Dunn), a DH only guy on an American league team is a mistake, not something the teams planned on doing. It puts the team in an awkward position.. they can only carry 11 pitchers or they have to have a guy that can backup both infield and outfield.