The Reds & and the new DH debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by traderumor

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.

---

Agreed. Using the DH takes most of the strategy and intrigue out of the game. It becomes a much more brain-dead and less interesting game. There is a lot more to a baseball game than throwing and swinging. Playing with the DH dumbs down the sport.

It is kind of like the difference between checkers and chess.
It is kind of like the difference between gambling on slot machines and blackjack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CySeymour

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.

---

I don't think its always just practice, but sometimes a guy can be a good pitcher and awful hitter. Two totally different skillsets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by traderumor

I don't think its always just practice, but sometimes a guy can be a good pitcher and awful hitter. Two totally different skillsets.

---

Oh, I agree....but it just seemed to me that others were arguing that pitchers stopped being good hitters once the DH came around. I don't think as a general rule they were every good hitters as a whole. Sure, Babe Ruth started as a pitcher, but there are always exceptions to rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by traderumor

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.

---

Aaron Harang is probably going to attempt a bunt until he has 2 strikes unless the bases are loaded or he is in a 2 out situation. In those exceptions, Aaron Harang is going to wildly flail and almost certainly fail.

There really isn't the fertile strategic majesty that many seem to be suggesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CySeymour

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.

---

Agreed. Pitchers have never been as good as hitting as other position players, but the dichotomy has grown extreme.

I would rather see more good hitting pitchers like Mike Leake, Stephen Strasburg or Dontrelle Willis and fewer fat, lazy non-athletes like Bartolo Colon or Aaron Harang.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jojo

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

---

Spoon feed it to me then, I hate the DH and no amount of brow beating from those who find it a viable alternative to the NL game will change my mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jojo

Aaron Harang is probably going to attempt a bunt until he has 2 strikes unless the bases are loaded or he is in a 2 out situation. In those exceptions, Aaron Harang is going to wildly flail and almost certainly fail.

There really isn't the fertile strategic majesty that many seem to be suggesting. And yes, I may have just invented a word.

---

Much of the strategy comes in the at-bats leading up to the pitcher's plate appearance. Come on now.

Is the manager going to let the pitcher hit or is he going to put in a pinch-hitter? Which pinch hitter? Will the other team react with a pitching change? Will the offense put on a bunt play or a hit-and-run? How about a pitch-out? Many different options are on the table, not just a routine sacrifice bunt play.

With the DH it is just another routine at-bat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Most of the strategy comes in the at-bats leading up to the pitcher's plate appearance. Come on now.

---

I already mentioned how forcing the pitcher to hit actually emasculates two positions in the lineup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by westofyou

Spoon feed it to me then, I hate the DH and no amount of brow beating from those who find it a viable alternative to the NL game will change my mind.

---

It's not browbeating you to point out that the DH allows Mauer to get at bats at the expense of Aaron Harang.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Much of the strategy comes in the at-bats leading up to the pitcher's plate appearance. Come on now.

Is the manager going to let the pitcher hit or is he going to put in a pinch-hitter? Which pinch hitter? Will the other team react with a pitching change? Will the offense put on a bunt play or a hit-and-run? How about a pitch-out? Many different options are on the table, not just a routine sacrifice bunt play.

With the DH it is just another routine at-bat.

---

And the game just got 45 minutes longer as the manager made several trips to mound and three pitchers warmed up two of whom only have one pitch and are basically situational arms used to exploit platoon advantages, a paradigm hardly in keeping with the notion of a "complete baseball player".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jojo

And the game just got 45 minutes longer as the manager made several trips to mound and three pitchers warmed up two of whom only have one pitch and are basically situational arms used to exploit platoon advantages, a paradigm hardly in keeping with the notion of a "complete baseball player".

---

Longer game sounds good to me. If I have sat down to watch a game, which is about 95% of evenings in the summer, I am not in hurry to do something else. I always find it weird when people complain about game lengths. If a game is compelling by all means give me more time to spend watching it. If its not compelling I will stop watching it anyways. I believe Yankees-Red Sox always top list of longest games anyways. Cant blame that on pitchers batting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jojo

And the game just got 45 minutes longer as the manager made several trips to mound and three pitchers warmed up two of whom only have one pitch and are basically situational arms used to exploit platoon advantages, a paradigm hardly in keeping with the notion of a "complete baseball player".

---

Then why are American League games longer than National League games? Using a DH actually makes the games take longer: http://www.platoonadvantage.com/2012.../cee-angi.html

I think everyone would agreee that players who play both offense and defense are more complete ballplayers than those who play only offense or defense. That pretty much goes without saying, so I am not going to argue it with you. In the National League pitchers are often expected to bat, in the American League they don't bat. The conclusion is obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Then why are American League games longer than National League games? Using a DH actually makes the games take longer: http://www.platoonadvantage.com/2012.../cee-angi.html

---

Because the AL is a higher run scoring environment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

I think everyone would agreee that players who play both offense and defense are more complete ballplayers than those who play only offense or defense. That pretty much goes without saying, so I am not going to argue it with you. In the National League pitchers are often expected to bat, in the American League they don't bat. The conclusion is obvious.

---

Lost in your argument about "complete" ballplayers is the fact that the style of baseball you are advocating creates a situation that glaringly exposes the lack of a pitcher's ability to hit thus creating an offensive black hole in the lineup.

Allowing a DH to bat for a pitcher transforms a severely flawed poistion in the lineup into a composite that is undeniably a more complete position than if a pitcher is forced to bat which ultimately makes the AL much closer to the ideal of fielding "complete baseball players" than the NL.

There are arguments for and against the DH but the notion that a DH isn't a complete ballplayer isn't a very compelling argument against the DH given what the NL does to the 9th spot in its lineups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jojo

Because the AL is a higher run scoring environment?



Lost in your argument about "complete" ballplayers is the fact that the style of baseball you are advocating creates a situation that glaringly exposes the lack of a pitcher's ability to hit thus creating an offensive black hole in the lineup.

Allowing a DH to bat for a pitcher transforms a severely flawed poistion in the lineup into a composite that is undeniably a more complete position than if a pitcher is forced to bat which ultimately makes the AL much closer to the ideal of fielding "complete baseball players" than the NL.

There are arguments for and against the DH but the notion that a DH isn't a complete ballplayer isn't a very compelling argument against the DH given what the NL does to the 9th spot in its lineups.

---

I guess by your logic an NFL quarterback is a complete football player too. :eek:

Having a designated free throw shooter wouldn't make NBA Centers more complete basketball players either.

Having the DH doesn't make a pitcher a more complete ballplayer. The opposite is true without a doubt.

Many people will always look down with disdain upon the DH as a cop out that allows fat, non-athletic people to keep playing baseball despite the fact they aren't good enough to be complete ballplayers. That applies to both the hitters who can't field and the pitchers who can't hit or run the bases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by westofyou

Spoon feed it to me then, I hate the DH and no amount of brow beating from those who find it a viable alternative to the NL game will change my mind.

---

I agree with you 100%. I hate the DH. Players aside, I feel when the DH was adopted long ago it was a gimmick to get more people in seats because their will be more offense and home runs..wooo home runs.

Some baseball fans, like myself, love the style of NL baseball. Much more thinking involved. The idea of a defensive/pitching battle >>>>>> homerun derby any day. sorry im a fan of small ball/old school ball

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jojo

2012 P ave: .129/.162/.166

Yawn.

Pitch around the catcher, ring out up the pitcher....rally, rally, rally killer!

---

Not boring to me - I want to see the strategy of dealing with a lineup with runners on base when the pitcher's spot is nearby. If it were up to me, it'd be all of MLB aboloshing the DH, not the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jojo

I already mentioned how forcing the pitcher to hit actually emasculates two positions in the lineup.

---

You're still looking at it in a vacuum. The pitcher hitting has ramifications for both sides throughout the entire game.

Since I moved to an AL city 6 years ago I have attended a grand total of one professional baseball game. Previously I lived in a city of one of the worst NL teams and, even though I was not a fan of that team, I attended 4-5 games a year. AL baseball bores me to tears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by puca

You're still looking at it in a vacuum. The pitcher hitting has ramifications for both sides throughout the entire game.

Since I moved to an AL city 6 years ago I have attended a grand total of one professional baseball game. Previously I lived in a city of one of the worst NL teams and, even though I was not a fan of that team, I attended 4-5 games a year. AL baseball bores me to tears.

---

I lived in the Bay Area for 20 years and I can tell you I gravitated towards the NL game 90% of the time, all while the A's had the better park, the better team with the bigger names.

I know what I like and I know it ain't the DH game

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

I guess by your logic an NFL quarterback is a complete football player too. :eek:

Having a designated free throw shooter wouldn't make NBA Centers more complete basketball players either.

Having the DH doesn't make a pitcher a more complete ballplayer. The opposite is true without a doubt.

Many people will always look down with disdain upon the DH as a cop out that allows fat, non-athletic people to keep playing baseball despite the fact they aren't good enough to be complete ballplayers. That applies to both the hitters who can't field and the pitchers who can't hit or run the bases.

---

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.

Reasonable people can disagree about the DH of course because this discussion is more like arguing about music than absolutes but the notion that DHs aren't complete players simply isn't a good argument against the DH. This is especially so because of the way typical DH PAs are divied up. Often players are rotated through the position on a given day to maximize at bats for other players and to allow favorable matchups (i.e. often players will split time between first, OF and DH depending upon the pitching match up etc). The DH presents different sets of managerial decisions than the NL situation. It doesn't reduce the thinking involved like some suggest. It both complicates and makes roster formulation much more interesting and dynamic.

Pitchers are such horrible hitters as a group relative to a major league average hitter that it makes little sense to allow them to bat if one is basing their argument about the DH upon composite skillsets. Likewise someone making such an argument also needs to voice equally strong condemnation for modern bullpen usage. The majority of bullpen arms are by definition pitchers who couldn't cut it as starters. They can't start or hit!!!! Oh the humanity! If one is serious about not letting incompete ballplayers play in the NL, they also need to start a movement to eliminate the bullpen. And, frankly, such a person probably wants to wretch at the notion that Dunn was ever a Red especially since ironically he is now playing his natural position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Having the DH doesn't make a pitcher a more complete ballplayer. The opposite is true without a doubt.

---

It makes the position in the lineup a much more complete composite. That is true without a doubt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jojo

Aaron Harang is probably going to attempt a bunt until he has 2 strikes unless the bases are loaded or he is in a 2 out situation. In those exceptions, Aaron Harang is going to wildly flail and almost certainly fail.

There really isn't the fertile strategic majesty that many seem to be suggesting.

---

Because that's the only situation which is created by pitcher hitting baseball vs. the DH, right? If you're looking for "fertile strategic majesty," baseball might not even be the right sport for someone, but there is a lot more strategery (to quote the immortal Bugs Bunny, baseball rabbit) involved on a daily basis in the NL than the AL game. That is pretty much a given.

I am quite honestly surprised at the level of argumentation from you on this issue, jojo. You've now torched two strawmen, is that all you have here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by traderumor

Because that's the only situation which is created by pitcher hitting baseball vs. the DH, right? If you're looking for "fertile strategic majesty," baseball might not even be the right sport for someone, but there is a lot more strategery (to quote the immortal Bugs Bunny, baseball rabbit) involved on a daily basis in the NL than the AL game. That is pretty much a given.

I am quite honestly surprised at the level of argumentation from you on this issue, jojo. You've now torched two strawmen, is that all you have here?

---

I haven't even lit a cigarette let alone set foot on a farm so no strawmen were injured during the creation of this discussion.

The AL and the NL styles present different sets of managerial decisions. One style makes you watch the guy batting 8th get pitched around so you can watch the pitcher try to hit. The other doesn't.

I greatly enjoy thinking about and debating roster management and concerning the game itself, outside of seeing great defensive plays (especially at key moments of the game) and the ballet that is good defense, and perhaps the suicide squeeze/play at the plate, my favorite part of the game is watching the battle between the pitcher and hitter.

The NL style literally dilutes that aspect of the experience (battle between pitcher and hitter). Stating that does not imply a moral judgement-it simply acknowledges a fact.

After watching Tim Lincecum hit, I decided it is a bad idea.

Atomic Dumpling keeps arguing about skill and then the answer is letting the pitcher hit.

I want the best stick up there and to watch that battle.

I don't want Lincecum versus Cliff Lee for six innings and then maybe, just maybe, Bruce Bochy has to make an exciting "decision" by letting the third string SS to hit.

NL baseball is anti climactic. You get a rally going and here comes the pitcher to kill it. Awful.

People who like pitcher's hitting are usually fans of "Yulee's Gold."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

People who like pitcher's hitting are usually fans of "Yulee's Gold."

---

<counterpoint> People who like the DH should watch more slow pitch softball.

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?

---

The designated runner is used in youth league games, mainly for the catcher, for the sole reason that most youth league games work on a time limit. Getting the catcher off the bases and back in the dugout to get his gear on saves time between innings which leads to more innings for the kids in the actual game.

As far as the DH for the NL? Never is my hope. I hate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jojo

I haven't even lit a cigarette let alone set foot on a farm so no strawmen were injured during the creation of this discussion.

The AL and the NL styles present different sets of managerial decisions. One style makes you watch the guy batting 8th get pitched around so you can watch the pitcher try to hit. The other doesn't.

I greatly enjoy thinking about and debating roster management and concerning the game itself, outside of seeing great defensive plays (especially at key moments of the game) and the ballet that is good defense, and perhaps the suicide squeeze/play at the plate, my favorite part of the game is watching the battle between the pitcher and hitter.

The NL style literally dilutes that aspect of the experience (battle between pitcher and hitter). Stating that does not imply a moral judgement-it simply acknowledges a fact.

---

Again, so those are the only two differences in managing an NL and AL game?

This discussion seems to be about preference, yet folks claim their reasons are superior. It really is not much deeper than the women who root for a team because of the pretty team colors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by traderumor

Again, so those are the only two differences in managing an NL and AL game?

---

Ive repeatedly said that the NL and AL styles present different SETS of managerial decisions. If you're truly worried about accurate contrasts, you need to question those who argue the AL style just allows the manager to sit on his hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by traderumor

This discussion seems to be about preference, yet folks claim their reasons are superior. It really is not much deeper than the women who root for a team because of the pretty team colors.

---

I've simply explained the reasons for my preference and argued that the notion that a "complete player" standard suggests the AL style is inferior really isn't valid because of the contradictions inherent in such a position. BTW, in an earlier post I've also qualified my preference as just that-not an absolute as reasonable people can disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966

<counterpoint> People who like the DH should watch more slow pitch softball.

---

Presumably Aaron Harang wouldn't need a DH to hit for him in slow-pitch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jojo

Presumably Aaron Harang wouldn't need a DH to hit for him in slow-pitch.

---

Yes he would. Have you seen that swing he has? :laugh:

If you're one of the 9 on the field, then you should be one of the 9 at the plate. If the pitcher is a horrbile hitter, then you have a horrible hitter in your lineup. Bat him last. This is not a new concept.

The DH only in the AL at this point is good for baseball. DH or no DH has its pros and cons, but it is one more thing that helps further define two separate leagues. (And for another discussion, I think there should be only one interleague series a year, being the last one played in October...)

I see introducing the DH to the NL will only lead to the castration of the sport. It's a slipper slope...Look at what the NFL is doing with the kickoff, or how tackling the QB is sometimes a penalty...It's a different (and less-great) game because of it.

I wouldn't point fingers at the MLBPA for support of this type of move, but more towards the executives, FO's, and others with their arms elbow-deep in the revenue generated by the sport. They're the ones with the influence powerful enough to change the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Yes he would. Have you seen that swing he has? :laugh:

---

You're probably right. I conceed that Aaron Harang is not a complete player. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

NL baseball is anti climactic.

---

I'd argue there isn't a more suspenseful time in a baseball game than the extra-inning NL tilt where double-switches and pinch-hits have left a team without any additional pitchers and they're forced to send a backup SS to the mound for an inning or two.

It's like getting an entire bowl of marshmallows by random chance when you pour out your lucky charms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

I'd argue there isn't a more suspenseful time in a baseball game than the extra-inning NL tilt where double-switches and pinch-hits have left a team without any additional pitchers and they're forced to send a backup SS to the mound for an inning or two.

It's like getting an entire bowl of marshmallows by random chance when you pour out your lucky charms.

---

Aaron Harang HATES those types of games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

I'd argue there isn't a more suspenseful time in a baseball game than the extra-inning NL tilt where double-switches and pinch-hits have left a team without any additional pitchers and they're forced to send a backup SS to the mound for an inning or two.

It's like getting an entire bowl of marshmallows by random chance when you pour out your lucky charms.

---

So I have to sit through 3 Tim Lincecum at bats for the hope of an extra inning game?

A team running out of pitchers is exciting? You are describing less than one percent of baseball games.

Here is 100% of NL games: the pitcher hits. Ick.

I pay to watch skill. Pitchers as batters is not skill. It's a debacle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

I'd argue there isn't a more suspenseful time in a baseball game than the extra-inning NL tilt where double-switches and pinch-hits have left a team without any additional pitchers and they're forced to send a backup SS to the mound for an inning or two.

It's like getting an entire bowl of marshmallows by random chance when you pour out your lucky charms.

---

Oh and funny you should say this: I swear on my father's grave I bought a box of Lucky Charms that had 100% marsmallows. It was awful. You need the oats...trust me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jojo

It makes the position in the lineup a much more complete composite. That is true without a doubt.

---

Two incompletes does not make a complete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Two incompletes does not make a complete.

---

Exactly.

A pitcher who can't hit is incomplete.

Yours is the funniest argument I've heard.

You argue for more skill and the result is less skill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Two incompletes does not make a complete.

---

Earl Weaver disagrees...sometimes two incompletes add up to greater than complete...

Quote:

---

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.

Reasonable people can disagree about the DH of course because this discussion is more like arguing about music than absolutes but the notion that DHs aren't complete players simply isn't a good argument against the DH. This is especially so because of the way typical DH PAs are divied up. Often players are rotated through the position on a given day to maximize at bats for other players and to allow favorable matchups (i.e. often players will split time between first, OF and DH depending upon the pitching match up etc). The DH presents different sets of managerial decisions than the NL situation. It doesn't reduce the thinking involved like some suggest. It both complicates and makes roster formulation much more interesting and dynamic.

Pitchers are such horrible hitters as a group relative to a major league average hitter that it makes little sense to allow them to bat if one is basing their argument about the DH upon composite skillsets. Likewise someone making such an argument also needs to voice equally strong condemnation for modern bullpen usage. The majority of bullpen arms are by definition pitchers who couldn't cut it as starters. They can't start or hit!!!! Oh the humanity! If one is serious about not letting incompete ballplayers play in the NL, they also need to start a movement to eliminate the bullpen. And, frankly, such a person probably wants to wretch at the notion that Dunn was ever a Red especially since ironically he is now playing his natural position.

---

If you think the pitcher's slot is a throwaway PA then you don't watch much baseball. There is often more movement and communication amongst the defenders during a pitcher's at-bat than a slugger's at-bat. I can see how you would think a pitcher batting is boring if you don't understand what is going on during the event and leading up to it.

The NL presents a varied set of managerial decisions. The AL prevents the need to make decisions.

Adam Dunn as a Red actually played both offense and defense. As a White Sox he often only DHs. Clearly he was a more complete player as a Red and the more complete game in the NL served to expose his weaknesses as an all-around player. The AL lets weak defenders skate by whereas in the NL you have to have a well-rounded game to be successful.

If you appreciate the strategy in baseball you enjoy NL games better. If you only enjoy pyrotechnics you may like the AL better. The AL is a stripped-down and dumbed-down version more akin to softball. The NL is a more cerebral game full of nuance and subterfuge, action and reaction, sign-flashing and sign-stealing, pitchouts, wheel plays and double-switches. Fundamentals are paramount. Want to throw a brushback pitch? Might want to be careful since you will be at the plate soon. It is checkers vs chess.