Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RedFanAlways1966
Really twisting hard with this, aren't you? LOL! I will keep it simple just in case... how many names are on the umpire's lineup card AT ONE TIME in the NL and in the AL? Or how many guys are eligible to play but on the bench to start the game in the NL and in the AL. No fuzzy math as you attempted to display above. There are different numbers in each league. But you know that.
No problem. Fonzie could not say he was wr-wrrr-wrrroo-wrroo-wrong either. :)
Except I'm not wrong concerning the actual point which you seem to want to obfuscate so badly-there is no practical difference in skill sets demanded between a guy batting for a pitcher in the first inning but not playing the field and a guy batting for a pitcher in the 8th inning but not playing in the field. That's not fuzzy math at all-it's acknowledging the actual pertinent issue. Are you willing to concede that point or have you jumped Fonzie over a shark tank?
Its been kosher for pitchers to get to pitch but not have to actually hit in the NL for eons. It's pedantic to call scorecard in the first inning as if it actually has a deep significance and it's a little strange for opponents of the DH to use THAT as their argument.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
I'll also say the DH is fun to argue about. It's one of the few things in life where you can take a purist stance.
Much of life is compromise and meeting in the middle and give and take and concessions. They big gray area. The DH allows a piece of my world to be black and white
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
Except I'm not wrong concerning the actual point which you seem to want to obfuscate so badly-there is no practical difference in skill sets demanded between a guy batting for a pitcher in the first inning but not playing the field and a guy batting for a pitcher in the 8th inning but not playing in the field. That's not fuzzy math at all-it's acknowledging the actual pertinent issue. Are you willing to concede that point or have you jumped Fonzie over a shark tank?
Its been kosher for pitchers to get to pitch but not have to actually hit in the NL for eons. It's pedantic to call scorecard in the first inning as if it actually has a deep significance and it's a little strange for opponents of the DH to use THAT as their argument.
I know these things... baseball from its inception had nine men in the lineup and each one played in the field (wore a glove or barehanded in the old-old days). Each one of them had to bat too. Until an attempt to generate revenue in one league changed a part of this great game that lasted 100+ years. I also know softball has 10 players "playing/on-the-scorecard" at once like the AL.
Now arguments since you ask. You seem intelligent and write well. Strategy is usually considered to be a thinking man's thing. If another player is chosen by a manager to bat for one of them, that guy is now ineligible to play in this game. If that guy batting for ineligible #1 sits down after batting b/c he hit for the pitcher, then he is now ineligible #2. Kind of a neat thing about this game... you come out and you are done. I guess big time soccer is like this but not too many other sports. Now rosters have limits and I'll admit that it isn't often that a manager gets pressed on running out of options. But who to use if early or who to save in case you need a PH later. Throws a twist in strategy that is seldom seen in the AL.
And realistically a pitcher only gets around 2.2 ABs per game. So about half the time you sort of have a DH in the NL. But who to choose, LH/RH strategies including making the opposing manager switch pitchers to change RH-to-LH or LH-to-RH. And a pitcher change after a PH is announced causes the PH manager to take him down w/out a PA and bring in his RH-to-LH or LH-to-RH PH2... strategy, intellect in the game? Kind of cool and might make Fonz say AYYYYYYY. But that stuff seldom happens in the AL. No AL team has as many PH appearances as the 16th lowest NLteam. Never even close that top AL team's PH-PA number vs the lowest NL team!
It also creates situations where strategies get involved again (thinking game, cool) when "bunt or do not bunt" happens. And this happens a lot when a pitcher hits. I am not here to argue "bunts suck or bunts are OK" BTW. Just to say a bunt situation makes the fielding team decide where to position fielders and who is covering what base. Bunt or swing away for the batting manager? 1st base line or 3rd baseline? 2 strikes now do I still bunt at risk of a foulball? Thinking game. Do I PH now for a pitcher that seems to have more gas to continue throwing, but this is a chance to score/rally? Decisions/thinking... AYYYYY. Not Gorman Thomas batting for the 3rd/4th/5th time and all the extra position players still available after the 8th inning. Like bowling (AL) vs chess (NL) in regard to decisions and strategies that are required in the games of the two leagues b/c of the DH.
While it is still about hitting/throwing/pitching/running/fielding it is kind of cool to have some extra strategies and decisions by managers. Like it was for the first 100+ years before 1973. The way the founders created it and thought it should be played. That in itself and the fact it lasted that long is very important. It is the way the game was MEANT TO BE PLAYED. Then a gimmick was introduced (argue that is wasn't a gimmcik?) by a league that was needing more revenue. We might be better served to stop arguing whether to have or not have the DH... argue whether the DH makes it real baseball or less-than-real baseball.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
First, who argued there was a problem with someone "liking DH-free baseball because they do not want to diminish game complexity"? If someone enjoys double switches, great! Just don't argue that the DH is baby ball because it allows incomplete players to play while also pontificating about the cerebral nature of the NL style that lets a guy hit who'll never see the field and letting a guy play the field who you never intend to let hit all as a way of compensating for letting a guy who has almost no chance of getting a hit take up a spot in the batting order. Dont argue that Al managers don't have to make many in game decisions despite changing pitchers more often. The NL style embraces fractional players.
Second, "It is an extreme application of the above counter-argument." really answers your own question. The hypothetical you suggest is an extreme that no longer resembles a reasonable interpretation or extension of the counterargument. You made a strawman.
If it wasn't meant to be an extension of an argument for the DH, then why do you qualify it as "an extreme application of the above counter-argument"?
If an extreme application of view point made for affect isn't hyperbole then what is?
But I'm willing to accept your clarification that it was actually an absurdity not meant to represent the perspective of fans that enjoy the AL style and move on. Hopefully, you can likewise gracefully allow that the original confusion regarding your point was reasonable.
I pretty clearly pointed out that such a hypothetical was not representative of the argument for the DH.
Actually no it's not. The NL has allowed the duties associated with a lineup spot to be fullfilled by multiple players for over a decade. A player can pitch and never hit. One can pinch hit and never play defense and even be lifted for a pinchrunner if he succesfully reaches. A player can play the field as a defensive replacement never meant to bat. That's not a strawman. Thats reality and it's also why the 10 on 10 vs 9 on 9 argument wasn't valid.
Nope and nope.
I neither have to show that to argue the AL style of play is a valid one nor to argue that the notion of the NL being superior because it is less specialized just isn't accurate.
You are completely wrong concerning my passion for the game. It's presumptuous to assume such a thing to begin with but on this point, this thread has been good discussion with the notably exception where a few specific posters have tried to ruin it with blatant personal attacks.
There really is no need for comments such as these.
Yeah I'm out. I have concluded that one of us is either unwilling or unable to attend to the critical principles of the argument. I am happy to let each redzoner make their own determination about the guilty party. Actually, I would advise them to skip the entire series of LeDoux/jojo posts. They are a long series of detours that arrive at nowhere.
/white flag
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LeDoux
Yeah I'm out. I have concluded that one of us is either unwilling or unable to attend to the critical principles of the argument. I am happy to let each redzoner make their own determination about the guilty party. Actually, I would advise them to skip the entire series of LeDoux/jojo posts. They are a long series of detours that arrive at nowhere.
/white flag
I'm comfortable with the notion of others evaluating my positions discussed in this thread and i've bent over backwards to engage yours respectfully.
But since your last few posts have made it clear that you've decided to follow the lead of a few others earlier and have chosen use a healthy discussion topic as a platform to post unprovoked personal attacks, I do think it is time to end our interactions.
I'd prefer to debate the merits of the DH and talk about baseball stuff.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
I have an R2D2 Pez dispenser.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raisor
I have an R2D2 Pez dispenser.
In it's original packaging?
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
In it's original packaging?
Yes.
It's actually a collector's set:
The Death Star
Boba Fett
The Emperor
Vader
R2
Chewie
Yoda
and C3PO.
Shrinkwraped.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
westofyou
I had a cat named Pez.
I used to have a cat named Fez.
After the Steely Dan song.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
I used to date a chica named Dez who like to pretend that she was a cat.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Roy Tucker
I used to have a cat named Fez.
After the Steely Dan song.
Don't make me do it without the fez on.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
I'm comfortable with the notion of others evaluating my positions discussed in this thread and i've bent over backwards to engage yours respectfully.
But since your last few posts have made it clear that you've decided to follow the lead of a few others earlier and have chosen use a healthy discussion topic as a platform to post unprovoked personal attacks, I do think it is time to end our interactions.
I'd prefer to debate the merits of the DH and talk about baseball stuff.
In retrospect I was somewhat more snarky than I would like during this discussion. For that I apologize. But, and I say this without attempting of a personal attack, I do not see you as an innocent bystander. I also see little evidence of someone bending over backwards to be respectful during these interactions – the opposite in fact. Interpret as you see fit.
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LeDoux
In retrospect I was somewhat more snarky than I would like during this discussion. For that I apologize. But, and I say this without attempting of a personal attack, I do not see you as an innocent bystander. I also see little evidence of someone bending over backwards to be respectful during these interactions – the opposite in fact. Interpret as you see fit.
Alright now you're on ignore. This is PM material.
