Printable View
I can guarantee you if there wasn't a DH, the Red Sox would have not won in 2004. Ortiz was BOSS in the playoffs that year. I know it's just one example but it's the clearest example I can give at the top of my head as to where the DH has been successful. I also don't think Seattle would have had those great teams of the 90's and early 2000's without Edgar Martinez.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966
Also, the whole idea that there's an old guy playing there, withering away not being able to play defense, is not really the case now. More and more, the DH is a fluid position in the AL and there isn't a set player in the DH like there was maybe 20 years ago. You might see Trumbo DHing one night and Pujols the next. The Yankees have used a roving DH for years now. There are few Billy Butlers left on American League teams and now it's more "lets give this guy a day off on defense".
When I read the thread topic, I figured this was the source of the rumor was based on.
On this week's Sunday Morning Sports Talk show on WLW, Ken Broo had a guest from Baseball Prospectus. I didn't catch the guest's name. This BP writer firmly believes that this first season with daily interleague baseball will lead to a great epiphany that the National League needs the DH. He expects that TPTB will be inspired to adopt the DH across the game within a season or two.
I agree with him on this. I think it will not only be an epiphany for NL fans but fans of AL teams who are at a disadvantage when coming into NL parks. At least I think a major discussion will start to take place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unassisted
Lets measure success using your own variables:Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966
It's pretty evident that the DH has increased run scoring and attendance in the AL. A couple of economists looked at this issue in 1990 (Domazlicky and Kerr, 1990 The American Economist 34:62-68) and estimated the impact of adding the DH to translate into 12.8% more runs and 13.4% greater attendance for the AL.Quote:
Amd it was only implemented in the AL b/c they were lacking in attendance and scoring compared to the NL.
Here's snap shot of "a day in the life" of mlb in 1972 (pre-DH) and last season:
The DH has pretty much closed the historic attendance disparity between the two leagues and has opened a scoring disparity in the AL's favor. If the DH was implemented in order to increase run scoring and attendance compared to the NL, then it certainly looks to have worked.Code:Attendance
AL NL %
1972 953,212 1,294,144 74%
2012 2,438,828 2,592,218 94%
Runs/game
AL NL %
1972 3.47 3.91 74%
2012 4.54 4.22 108%
I'd guess that implementing the DH in the NL ultimately would increase revenue.
I see the DH being like the "farmer's hand" rule in Euchre. Many have adopted it, but it's still a bunch of garbage to me, and I'd like to play without it.
I find it interesting that DH proponents will whine when playing in an NL park, but when an NL team visits an AL park, not having someone bat for the pitcher seems like a big treat. An "Okay, we'll play by your rules since we're here" type of mentality. But their stance on the DH doesn't change. Nor should it. There is plenty of pride in not having a DH in the lineup, especially when it's backed up...
The NL is 15-31 in World Series Titles when a DH was used.
So the NL plays a more difficult game and can still win it all. I can see how a firm opinion of anti-DH is hard to sway. Introducing the DH to the NL would castrate the game. I'd still watch, but with a broken heart.
While that record is not necessarily primarily due to the DH rule, I sure wouldn't use that record as support for the NL holding their own despite the DH. That's 1962 Mets territory as a winning percentage.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRedLegger
The NL is 13-27 in WS that the Yankees played tooQuote:
Originally Posted by traderumor
Not really following the logic. Interleague play has presented an ample opportunity for that epiphany, yet here we are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unassisted
Most of us here love stats and I think it is safe to assume you do as well. I believe the 12.8% more runs, but how can 13.4% attendance be attributed to the DH? I would love to see the facts that prove this 13.4% attendance boost that is relative to the DH. I will Google the study you mention. Of course you said "estimated"... like Calgon gets dishes "virtually" spot-free.Quote:
Originally Posted by jojo
I can argue that a good economy during the 1980s helped attendance. The 3-in-a-row and personable A's might have helped. Those memorable 77-78 Yanks and Mr. October. Perhaps the Cable TV thing (TBS, WGN, ESPN, etc) might have helped interest/attendance.
The scoring now does favor the AL. As the pitching now favors the NL, right? And as there is always a thick line drawn between the two sides of this argument, it leads me to ask: does the really knowledgable (not so much passionate) fan appreciate more scoring or better pitching? I do not know. I only know that I like my team to score lots of runs and the opposing team to score none lol. I am selfish like that.
One more question. Not sure how much you care for basketball (b-ball), but you are sharp. Why not have a designated free throw shooter in b-ball? Say any time a team has a free throw they can substitute in their DFT (desig. free thrower) for the person at the line? Scoring is sexy and increases attendance and revenue. Why not?
Part of the DH emerging was to prolong superstars careers, prior to it most players didn't make it past 36 as a regular. The 1st season of the DH saw players like Kaline getting more ABs and then Aaron in 74/75
More abs for those guys means more jack in payroll too
That's an epiphany in itself
DH to the NL would be just another in the long line of unnecessary gimmicks to be implemented while the sacred game of baseball has been run by a used car salesman.
I'm an assistant coach on my 9 year old daughter's softball team. At this age, there is minimal correlation between the girls who can occasionally pitch a strike and the girls who can put the ball in play. But you know what? The pitchers hit.
If 9 year old girls can do it, grown men should too.
Grown men who hit like 9 year old girls can't actually hit though.Quote:
Originally Posted by 15fan
But his point was that the concentrated doses of it in May and June were such a novelty that this level of introspection wasn't happening. His point was that having it occur continuously from April-October would cause the shift in thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by traderumor
Not saying I agree with the premise either, but this guy Broo interviewed was convinced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojo
Assuming you mean in-game decisions, can you give an example of a managerial decision in an AL game that isn't also present in an NL game? I'm not trying to be snarky, just trying to see the AL side of this argument and I'm having a hard time coming up with one myself. And I hope you agree that saying pinch hitting or pinch running for the DH would be a complete cop out.
Anyone that thinks Joe Mauer wouldn't be in the lineup if not for the DH is not being intellectually honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by jojo
Would you rather watch Mike Leake or Chris Heisey bat? That is a much fairer and much tougher question.
It can be argued that the DH makes the game more interesting to watch. But the same game be said about adding grenades into the game.
Why did they have to make the game more interesting? Was it really getting boring with the pitchers batting? Watching pitchers hit can be no fun. But so can watching an Astros-Cubs game last season. The game is a beautiful game, but like anything beautiful, it will always have its faults. I prefer my game to be natural and real, free of plastic surgery attempting to perfect it.
Perhaps the bottom of the 6th is a bit early. What if it were the bottom of the 7th? Does that change anything?Quote:
Originally Posted by jojo
Plenty of managers will bunt late in the game to get the winning run on third with less than two outs. The NL manager has to decide whether he is ultimately willing to sacrifice his pitcher to increase his chances of taking the lead. If you bunt in that situation there is a very good chance the #8 hitter is walked and the pitcher is due up with the bases loaded and one out. If you are not willing to pinch hit there, then you probably should not have bunted in the first place.
Let me come at this at a different angle. Is there any scenario where you as a manager would intentionally walk the other team's #8 hitter? If so, what factors would you consider?
The game just came off the biggest offense era ever, is introducing offense really needed?
That's how the devil got in the house the 1st time.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...84/1/index.htm
Quote:
1972:
The pitchers are suffocating the hitters again, driving batting averages down and throwing shutouts at an even more frequent rate than in '68. August has been a particularly bewildering month for those who assumed that the lowering of the pitching mound and tightening of the strike zone back in 1969 had accomplished for all time the purpose of equalizing offense and defense. At the end of last week, with 36 games still to be played in the month, 57 shutouts had been thrown in August alone, and there had been 59 games in which pitchers gave up four or fewer hits. There were 40 more in which one team or the other had only five hits
Quote:
Lee MacPhail
"There is little doubt," MacPhail said, "that the pitchers may have adapted quicker to lowering the mound than we thought they would. But many people in the game are quite conservative, and making a lot of rule changes all at once will not happen.
"Some people," says MacPhail, "have discussed an eight-man lineup as a solution to the problem because the reduced batting order would get your three, four and five hitters—your key run producers—up twice more a game in many cases. There are also those who want to limit the number of pitchers you can have on a team. This would help the hitter in that he would not be seeing so many different pitchers. I don't know that I like the idea too much. Some of the bigger heroes in the game are relief pitchers and I don't think we should lose sight of that fact."
The idea MacPhail still likes best is the "designated hitter," a man who would usually bat in place of the pitcher. "It was tried in the International League three years ago with great success," he says. "It does not mess up strategy that much, and the starting pitcher stays in the game. It is also a way to keep well-known players in baseball just to hit without requiring them to withstand the wear and tear of playing defense. I'm talking about men like Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays and maybe Henry Aaron in a couple of years.
"The one thing I am sure of is that the hitting situation is not a matter just of the National League or the American," he concluded. "It doesn't go along league lines. It's everyone's problem. I hope that we are not back to exactly where we were four years ago. But what I see of the trend I don't like."
Is it okay to say that the DH was a GIMMICK when introduced? Other sports gimmicks... XFL deciding game opening possession with "who gets the ball first" and the White Sox in shorts. Next thing you know we will see Spiderman Movie logos on the bases. Keep GIMMICKS out of a great game.
Yes because grenades and above average hitters getting more PA's in lieu of automatic outs are the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by 757690
Hey, at least sending the pitcher to the plate gives fans more opportunities to come to the game and not actually watch it and those PA's are legit reasons they don't have to feel guilty about or stodgy fans can mock them for....
Why don't we add designated runners too? Who wants to see a slow guy run the bases.
How about unlimited substitutions like basketball? That would add some excitement, eh?
Why not just bring the relief pitcher in from the bullpen in a little red clown car? The kids would love it and it would add a new level of entertainment for the casual fans who can't stand such mundane stuff as the actual strategy and tactics which evolved over the past 150 years.
After all, all that thinking can hurt your brain. I want to be entertained. Blow something up, for goodness sake!!!!
Lets stop acting like we've hit our heads on something hard and lets back away from insane hyperbole for a second....Quote:
Originally Posted by RFS62
This is the baseball equivalent of a clown car: .129/.162/.165, wOBA=.149 (pitcher offense last season). And it's not lact like there are tomes of great wisdom that have been created to allow managers to compensate for having such a black hole in their lineups. What's more, given the impact the DH has had on the AL style and the resulting increase in attendance, it's pretty hard to argue that the DH has been a blight on baseball-when it's been implemented, fans have reacted positively. And frankly, it's begging the question to A) argue NL fans are smarter or more prone to be students of the game than AL fans, and B) that the majority of fans at the park are even actually watching the game at any given point in the game....
And lets state another obvious point...for as beautiful as watching Mike Leake bat like a shortstop is, you still then have to watch him pitch like a batting practice pitcher (dinger, dinger, dinger).... :p
Actually, I'd rather see Leake up there!Quote:
Originally Posted by puca
Leake is an example that shows that if a pitcher takes his BP seriously, he can be a threat with the bat and is not a black hole in the lineup. Carlos Zambrano was another example.
I remember a few years ago Randy Wolf said that before he came to the Brewers, he wouldn't see the inside of the batting cage for almost two weeks sometimes when he was with the Dodgers.
The DH is coming, though, to the NL - it's just a matter of time (probably about five years). Get used to it.
Maybe wait to read the paper before criticizing their approach? :beerme:Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966
Why would these things disproportionately impact the AL and not the NL corresponding to the the AL instituting the DH?Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966
Actually no. AL pitching is generally stronger. AL pitchers don't get to pad their stats by pitching to other pitchers. Generally, pitchers going from the AL to the NL have their peripherals rise while pitchers going the other way see their peripherals fall.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966
I really don't care for basketball much these days. What is sexy is talent. Pitchers clearly can't hit and the disparity between pitchers and league average offensive performance is gaping. We're not talking about Shaq shooting 50% from the free throw line. We're talking about a player shooting 10% meaning literally there is no reasonable expectation for acceptable success so the game actually changes to exploit this futility.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966
That's the NL "strategy" that many hold so dear. A relatively small set of strategem meant to exploit or compensate futility.
There is nothing wrong with that and it's reasonable for people to enjoy watching that wrinkle. But it's also reasonable for people to enjoy not having to watch futility. Clearly I watch both styles, being a fan of teams that play in both leagues.
I know everyone is saying "oh, it's coming!" Yet what is the justification behind it? When it was introduced in the early 70's offense was way down and the AL was floundering. They needed some sort of gimmick to bring people to the ballpark. Yet baseball popularity is on the rise, and the NL beats the AL in average attendance most years (adding Houston to the AL will only make it worse). Television and radio ratings in NL towns are also consistently higher. So what benefit would NL owners see? Adding the DL would add cost and would likely not bring in any more revenue. It's no longer a novelty. People see it all the time in the AL. Maybe if the MLBPA really pushed for it, but once again, why would owners in the NL be willing to give up something that would be used as a bargaining chip in negotiations for all of MLB? No way they sign off on something where they are the only ones taking a hit.
Competition? While the AL often wins interleague, the NL has won 4 of the last 5 World Series and 7 of the last 12. So in the only interleague games that really matter, the NL competes really well.
I just don't see the reasoning behind it from the NL's perpective. Added cost for zero to minimal benefit. Why in the world would any NL owner want it?
I think, as was stated above, the competition for free agents is probably the impetus behind it. Pujols, Fielder, Hamilton all either switched to the AL or stayed in the AL. A guy like Choo is going to be a free agent after this year. He's still relatively young but he's not getting any younger. He'll have his pick of teams to go to but he's got to be thinking that getting a spot start as a DH is pretty attractive. I would also think some owners in the NL would believe that a DH may be able to lengthen the career of their stars while keeping their bats in the lineup. Of course that's always been the case but with the big money these guys are being paid these days, you have to believe they are thinking about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by scott91575
Personally, I'm against the DH.
Like I've said, the logical conclusion of the DH argument is 2 platoon baseball, i.e. a defense team and an offense team. If you are going to compensate for a lousy hitting pitcher, the what about catchers and shortstops? Late inning outfield replacements? Most players are skewed either offensively or defensively. Not that I think its going to happen, but it seems to be the issue that is being argued.
Not really. The issue, to me at least, seems to be with pitchers, their offensive abilities are never even considered. If they can pitch well, then they will play. With position players, there is at least some debate about whether their lack of hitting/fielding will determine their playing time.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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CySeymour
My argument isn't that pitchers are below average so they should be replaced at the plate. It's that they are so bad, that their performance doesn't even rise to the threshold of acceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Tucker
BTW, those trying to take this to an extreme regarding offensive specialization (i.e. replacing position players at bats with the DH), seem to ignore that pitching staffs have already evolved to a level of specialization that is well past what proponents of the DH assume would be the logical use of a DH (i.e. batting for the pitcher). Also, it's not like NL rosters haven't carried defensive specialists to serve as late inning defensive replacements or pinch hitting gurus at the ends of their benches.
The concept has been embraced as part of the NL fabric for forever. I'm not sure why so many so easily take the notion of the DH to an extreme when arguing against it.
I get that alot of people are traditionalists. I get that alot of people like to bite their nails pondering what Dusty will do with Cueto in the bottom of the 7th. But I don't get acting like the evil AL is plotting to force the NL to bat Adam Dunn 9 times in a row or that the DH would alter baseball into some unreconizeable game that might as well be played by robots.
We've had about 4 decades of the DH in professional baseball. Has the DH rule been expanded to allow pitchers, catchers and shortstops to all be replaced with designated hitters in a line up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Tucker
1972 was the absolute rock bottom for the AL. Prior to the 60's the AL was very similar to the NL in attendance and even beat the NL many years. There was not some historic disparity prior to the 60's...Quote:
Originally Posted by jojo
http://michaelbein.com/Baseball/all_ATT.JPG
There were many reasons for problems in the AL in the 60's into the early 70's. The main thing was the choices for expansion and relocation. The big thing was the NL got a New York franchise and the old New York franchise became the team in LA (with huge attendance). The AL got a LA franchise, but it floundered along with their new franchise in Seattle. It also helps the NL grabbed the bay area with the Giants and the A's struggled in Oakland. Another factor is the NL saw more new ballparks which increased attendance for the NL in the short term. The White Sox also had attendance issues as rumors of relocation to Milwaukee swirled around the team (which made sense since the White Sox started playing some of their home games in Milwaukee, another reason White Sox fans just love Bud Selig). Even one of the NL expansion teams that completely fell apart thanks to attendance was actually a major attraction. The Expos were incredibly successful from an attendance standpoint in their early years.
A case could be made that while the DH was a reactionary measure and the AL saw bumps in attendance, it was not the only reason the AL rebounded. The new teams began to take hold, the novelty of the new stadiums in the NL lost their luster while KC and Seattle added new stadiums, and overall stability in baseball returned after a very turbulent time. The return to glory by the Yankees in the mid to late 70's also helped the AL after going through a tough time (for them). Changes do not happen in a vacuum, and the increase in AL attendance cannot simply be attributed to the DH. Especially when you consider the AL and NL attendance figures prior to the 60's were very similar.
That first line seems rude and doesn't read like much of a conversation-starter. I'm not sure why that was included in your reply, given that the entire discussion here is being brought about in hypotheticals and that both sides are using hyperbole in this discussion, yourself included.Quote:
Originally Posted by jojo
Aside:
Is there a compelling argument to be made that the DH is a necessary evil in baseball at all? I understand that pitchers are poor at the plate, but there are 15 teams that have to suffer through the aforementioned .149 wOBA, so it doesn't seem like something that necessarily needs to be addressed unless the fear is that it will cause the NL to fall behind the AL and, in the future, lead to a division of MLB into two leagues. As it currently stands, a disadvantage to the entire league is an advantage to none, and it allows for a different analysis of positional capability to be utilized.
Baseball is a really unique sport in the fact that a team in 2013 contains such a wide number of specialists. The closest sport to baseball, cricket, has rules in place that require a number of fielders (5 in a game with 20 overs, with each bowling four overs) to bowl and bowlers to bat, which mitigates the number of true specialists that exist on a team (e.g. there are seldom elite pitchers who are feeble at the stumps, and there are seldom elite hitters who are feeble in the field). The understanding that a player brings a different value because they must be responsible not only for holding the other team's run scoring to a minimum but also try and score runs for their own team means that pitcher value is really the only positional value that goes two directions. Is a pitcher who has an xFIP of 4.10 and a wOBA of .175 better or worse than a pitcher who has an xFIP of 4.50 and a wOBA of .215? Teams can consider this and design a roster accordingly given the individual players that they have.
I remember a lot of valuable discussion about Micah Owings and the value that he would have as a fifth starter back in 2009 because of the value he had as a batter that mitigated his shortcomings as a pitcher.
Furthermore, acting like every pitcher is a poor hitter is a little bit misleading. Yovani Gallardo, Carlos Zambrano, CC Sabathia, Mike Leake, Travis Wood, (the ghost of) Micah Owings, (the ghost of) Mike Hampton, and even Bronson Arroyo or Johnny Cueto (to an extent) are reasonably good batters. It provides for another line of thought in terms of roster creation and, even if pitchers never become better than their .149 wOBA, the hit provided by a pitcher that extends a rally is always a fun rarity to see, at least to me.
I don't buy this argument at all. Those contracts are all about franchises willing to spend big money. Two of the NL big time spenders are in rebuild mode (NY Mets and Chicago Cubs). The Dodgers just went on a spending spree. The Phillies already blew all their money, and that includes position players like Utley and Howard. The Marlins had a fire sale after spending a ton on long term contracts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip R
NL teams know they can sign guys to big contracts, and if they become a defensive liability they still have a dumping ground for those types of players called the AL. On top of all of that, baseball is becoming like the NFL. The importance of draft picks is becoming huge while only the high end clubs are spending big money on free agents (even some of them have stopped, including the Yankees vs. what they used to do). Like I stated, the NL is still winning the most important interleague games and attendance is good. If a team really wants those guys they will pay them, and deal with the ramifications later. Yet the vast majority of the teams are making offers based on their bottom line (or lack thereof for the major market teams). The DH does nothing but hurt the bottom line for the majority of NL teams, so it does nothing for them since paying a DH would take away from what they can pay the rest of their players.
I am sorry, that argument makes little sense to me. The big market clubs are going to spend no matter what, and the DH would hurt the mid to lower level teams, not help them. In fact, most AL owners would desperately love to get rid of the DH but the MLBPA won't let it happen.
This just in... Reasons all over this thread and yet... I still loath the DH and have not changed my mind nor will I.
Now how about Lee MacPhail's 8 men in the lineup instead of 9?
Genius!!
Not really.
FYI the DH idea was first floated during the 1890s, it took 80 years to arrive in the league that didn't exist when the idea was floated.
Ironic no?
Billy Martin, on the DH rule:
"It could be one of the biggest mistakes baseball ever made.
Who voted? The NL, voted to let the AL use it."
Isn't part of the reason pitchers are so bad at the plate because they don't have to be good? If a offensive/defensive platoon system was put in place at all levels of baseball wouldn't that ultimately result in the intersection of the set of great hitters and the set of great fielders to decrease? Haven't we seen that happen already with pitchers? I would wager the average minor league pitcher spends much less time working on his hitting than before the adoption of the DH.Quote:
Originally Posted by jojo
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by scott91575
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.
Where have I used hyperbole as a meaningful part of my argument in this thread? The best you could hang your hat is me turning Walter Alston's famous quote about Willie McCovey not being a "Punch and Judy belter" into pitchers aren't even Judy's, they're prepubesent Judy's (9 yo) because they aren't even singles hitters. When as a group they post a wOBA =.149 (75 runs worse than a replacement level hitter over 600 PAs), that's not really hyperbole....Quote:
Originally Posted by Plus Plus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plus Plus
To the extent anything in baseball is a "necesary" evil, there's an argument for the DH. The NL can probably get along just fine without the DH. The AL is getting along just fine with the DH.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojo
This is a pretty rare thing and it pales in comparison to the roster management/manipulation and lineup decisions that the DH allows in the AL. If roster management is really something you find fascinating, then you'd really benefit from the introduction of the DH to the NL because frankly, the hitting prowess of a pitcher really doesn't effect roster decisions all that much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Plus Plus
We know how that turned out too. Micah couldn't pitch well enough to get to the plate...Quote:
Originally Posted by Plus Plus
Again though, rosters really aren't shaped by the hitting prowess of the pitching staff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Plus Plus
Here is Cueto's career line: .089/.119/.093, wOBA= .102. Here's Bronson's .130 .153/.195, wOBA= .155.
Zambrano/Sabathia might seem like gamers until you realize that their bats are 10-15 runs worse than a replacement level bat. There really isn't gobs of value there. Leake and Hampton are actually a rare thing you wouldn't get to see in the AL as they have been basically replacement level bats given their career numbers and since Leake is a rubber arm, he could add some value with his bat.
Again, arguing about what a pitcher adds by his hitting is pecking at the margins.