Printable View
If you're ever curious, feel free to check some NL box scores. You may be shocked to see some guys who pitched but never even hit, some guys who hit but never played the field, some guys who played the field but never hit, and you may even find a guy who only ran the bases! :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by LeDoux
What you won't find very often if ever is an NL game that was nine versus nine.
Specialists have always been part of the game. Seriously, buy a history book. Relief pitching and pinch hitting aren't newfangled tactics. Yet until the DH came along, specialists occupied the margins. You want to come in the game for an AB or as a pure defensive sub or to pitch an inning or two? That's specialist work.Quote:
Originally Posted by jojo
You want to play the bulk of the game in most of the games your team plays? That requires a bit more. Players aspire to be the guys who have to do it all.
And I suspect if you asked Aroldis Chapman, he'd tell you he takes some professional pride in handling a bat even if the opportunity has yet to present itself. In fact, I'd be surprised if he wasn't itching to step to the plate.
Anyway, Joe Mauer doesn't need a booster seat and baseball fans don't need to be protected from baseball.
Strawmen apparently need restraining orders though.Quote:
Originally Posted by M2
BTW, Chapman wants to be a closer. I doubt he's pining for pine tar.
Yeah, that's why Chapman wants to be a closer - to avoid having to hit. Clearly it's the only explanation. In fact that's why he defected from Cuba. He just couldn't abide playing in a country without the DH rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by jojo
And along with be bad at analogies and summation, and not getting LeDoux's jokes (at all), you've now taken up strawman misidentification.
Progress! Now let's try post 282 again! :thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by jojo
Actually none of that is true, I didn't actually argue that chapman wanted to close to avoid hitting, and it seems unlikely that Chapman is itching to hit.Quote:
Originally Posted by M2
Straw is taking a beating though.
Actually let's just avoid the cheerleaders and skip to post 286.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeDoux
My original post was intended to spark a debate about how the DH could 'potentially' benefit the Reds with Votto's long-term contract, etc. I brought it up because I hear (just some inside chatter) MLB will put this plan in front of owners as a potential full-time change in 2014. Because of this, the debate will only pick up.
Now, while I personally favor the NL rules, I do believe the DH (gimmick and all does have some benefit to roster flexibility - especially with aging rosters). Now the Reds aren't there yet, but give us four or five years.
However, the conversation on this thread has me believing that MLB would have an outright rebellion on its hands if it changes such a sacred-cow rule. I just wonder when the time does come (and it will come), if MLB will stand its ground on expanding the MLB or if NL owners will listen to their fans and unite to squash the rebellion.
The post where you ignored the definition of nine versus nine as "NL rules", bypassed the primary point of discussion, and tried to convert the conversation into something easier for you to argue (and I was never advocating to begin with)? That sounds kinda boring.Quote:
Originally Posted by jojo
Let us go back to post 278. What is not to like? No more Hanigan lumbering the base paths. No more feeble middle infielder PAs. Just pure skill (and eyecandy depending where you come down on the cheerleaders) all the time. It would be the highest of high art. We can drink to this, surely.
:beerme:
I don't have much to add to the debate, but I will say that it completely shocks me that there are serious baseball fans who like the DH.
I didn't bypass the primary point of discussion. I aimed directly at the heart of it. The notion that the NL is superior because it is less specialized just isn't accurate. It is just specialized in a way meant to compensate for a huge talent disparity in one spot of it's batting order.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeDoux
If your point simply was that the AL uses a DH and that makes the AL different than the NL, then, I concede that point.
If you want to talk about bypassing the primary point of the discussion, post 278 largely is a hyperbolic strawman that no one in this thread has ever advocated. It certainly isn't a logical extension of the argument for the DH and frankly the sentiment represents opinion about the pinch hitter "back in the day". NL fans now cherish the notion of a pinch hitter and defensive replacement-i.e. a guy who may only bat and a guy who may only play defense as a tandem filling a single lineup spot (that math doesn't seem to add up to "nine on nine" to me)-all orchestrated often in response to using a relief specialist who may only be effective against half of a platoon because his repertoire doesn't allow him to even be a complete pitcher.
The irony is that post 278 really embodies the NL style much closer than it represents a caricature of the AL. Perhaps that's your point? You were mocking those who have argued so vehemently against the DH?
I feel like I just watched an episode of Charlie Brown with the teacher talking.
It's not that we necessarily like the DH, it's just the reality of competitive balance and interlegue being played on a daily basis makes the DH in the NL one of those things that we might have to live with. In a perfect world I wouldn't have it but the world isn't perfect nor is it reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds
Not sure this is wise, but I've never been accused of that anyhow.
Shortstops have to hit to reach the major leagues. Pitchers no longer do. They've always lagged behind position players (at least since it became the most important defensive position on the field), but that gap has almost certainly grown wider because of the DH. I wonder how many pitchers actually work on their hitting? Do AL minor league pitchers even pick up a bat? I wonder what would happen to the shortstop position 30 years down the road if they no longer had to swing the bat. Every other position it is necessary to balance the expected offensive and defensive contributions, but the pitcher/DH is immune.Quote:
Originally Posted by jojo
Anyone who thinks Joe Mauer would not play regularly if there was no DH is definitely overdosing on hyperbole.Quote:
Originally Posted by jojo
Anyone who claims they would rather see Derek Jeter play defense than Adeiny Hechavarria or Brendan Ryan is probably overdosing on hyperbole.
Anyone who claims they would rather see Prince Fielder run the bases than Billy Hamilton is probably overdosing on hyperbole.
But it is misleading at best. Even with the DH rule in effect for most of his games, Mauer started over 70% of the time either at C or 1b. Without the DH Ryan Doumit or Justin Morneau would lose playing time, not Joe Mauer.Quote:
Originally Posted by jojo
Asthetics are subjective so your argument is not simple. Now if you mean the asthetic of that singular AB taken in isolation then we have some common ground. However since in the NL you always have the choice of replacing the pitcher with a competent hitter (if indeed you pitcher is incompetent), I really don't see the issue. It's not like the pitcher is forced to bat in the NL. There is a penalty associated with putting in a better hitter of course, namely that the pitcher must be removed from the game. Likewise if at some point during the game you feel that replacing a bad fielder with a better one, or a slow runner with a better one will improve your changes of winning then that player also must be taken out of the game not to return. That sounds fair and consistent.Quote:
Originally Posted by jojo
I have to imagine you would find a great baserunner more aestically pleasing than a catcher lumbering around the bases, so I don't know why you wouldn't also be in favor of designated runners.
A lot of baseball fans now grew up watching nothing but AL baseball, how can anyone be shocked that there are people who prefer the game they grew up watching? Even if you consider it inferior, they're used to it. It's only recently that fans can watch any game they want whenever they want, and even then, they're still going to watch their local team's games way more often than not, and become accustomed to whatever style that team happens to play. If you believe that makes them not serious baseball fans, okay.