Quote:
Originally Posted by puca
Walking the 8th batter to create a force on any bag and bring the pitcher to the plate.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by puca
Walking the 8th batter to create a force on any bag and bring the pitcher to the plate.
Baseball is won or lost on these margins. Maybe not precisely about pitcher hitting (although that is a piece of the puzzle currently in the NL, like it or not), but throughout any roster construction.Quote:
Originally Posted by jojo
I'll concede that the DH position hits better as a whole than the P position, but I won't concede that the DH creates a more interesting level of roster construction. I think that the AL and NL are simply different and that both leagues will see their advantages and disadvantages.
I agree with your assertion here. I would rather get rid of the DH all together but I don't see that happening and I do think that there needs to eventually be uniform rules; regardless if they decide to abolish it or keep it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Plus Plus
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by westofyou
You could post tons of stats about how many more runs would be scored, how many more great rallies would be kept alive, or how many clutch ABs would be added to a game because of the DH and I wouldn't care a bit.
I hate the DH. I hate the element it removes from baseball. I hate watching games that involve a DH.
No appeal is going to change my position on this matter.
Not on the whole it isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Plus Plus
It's a sport where pitchers who have an ERA or FIP of 3.5 instead of 4.0 are viewed very differently, where batters who hit .300 are viewed very differently than those who hit .275, where catchers who "call good games" are viewed very differently than those who "don't," where 20 home runs from SS is a great feat but 15 is commonplace, where an OBP of .330 is undesirable for a leadoff spot but .400 is elite, even though the difference is something like one time every 4 games. Discussions of players in 2013 revolve around the idea of replacement-level batters and pitchers, player value in terms of wins above replacement, and weighted stats that define not only what players are better or worse than their peers, but how much better or worse they are given the nature of what an average peer at a given point in time is doing. Upgrading from Ryan Ludwick to Matt Holliday would be a welcome one (given a salary and prospect neutral trade), even though the players have been very similar in recent years. Every bullpen transaction that doesn't involve fringe guys is based around marginal upgrades; Broxton replacing Arredondo as a RHSU was a large upgrade last year, even though they are reasonably similar guys.Quote:
Originally Posted by CySeymour
If baseball wasn't won on the margins, the worst teams would lose 145 games and the best teams would win 145. The game is really, really, really hard and anyone can beat anyone on any given day. There is a minimum talent level that exists in baseball but doesn't exist in basketball or football.
And that's what makes baseball so special in my eyes.
Just purely playing devil's advocate for a moment: If pitchers have to hit, why don't hitters have to pitch?Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Tucker
Seems we're saying one class of ballplayer has to have three skills (hit, field, run the bases) and another has to have four (hit, field, run the bases, pitch). With the DH, pitchers only have to field and pitch, which is two skills. So it's unequal either way.
(I'm still a NL guy, just poking at the argument for fun.)
Seems to me like the whole thread is "pecking at the margins." I hate the DH, but leave it the way it is. People have a choice that way.
The best hitting pitching staff in the NL during 2012 was roughly 20 runs better than the absolute worst hitting pitching staff offensively.
The Reds hitter-pitchers (one of the best groups in the league) were 5 runs better than the Cards (close to average)..
No way with the Brewers. Not a chance in h e double hockey sticks. They hardly even talked to Fielder. They simply do not have the money to even be in the ballpark while still signing Braun.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeThierry
As for Pujols, it's not about his fielding. They still offered him 9 years, 1 less than the Angels.
On top of all of that, they are first baseman. This is not a catcher or SS we are talking about here. 1B is the NL DH for all intents and purposes.
I will also add this is all speculation on your behalf. It was known for the longest time the Brewers were going to let Fielder walk before they even know who they would be going up against in a bidding war, and the Cards still offered Pujols a contract that would have taken him well past his defensive prime.
There is zero absolute truth there is any imbalance here, and your two examples were very poor since the Brewers never once got into a bidding war and the Cards offered Pujols a contract that would have taken him well past his defensive prime. The Angels offered him one that would take him well past his usage as even a DH. The Cards are simply more cash strapped than the Angels, plain and simple. The Cards have a good payroll, but the Angels can essentially write blank checks to their players. That was a huge market team vs. a mid market team, not AL vs. NL. Besides all of that, not signing Pujols is probably a blessing in disguise for the Cards and most likely will be a huge albatross for the Angels (although they can afford to eat big contracts more than a team like the Cards can).
If you want to look at the flip side, let's talk about Jose Reyes, or Matt Holliday, or Carlos Lee, or Alfonso Soriano, or Jason Bay. All signed to huge contracts by NL teams while being a free agent. Chase Utley, Ryan Howard, Joey Votto, David Wright, and others I am sure I am forgetting decided to re up with their NL team instead of entering free agency to get that (supposed) better AL contract. Heck, let's not forget a little guy by the name of Barry Bonds albeit it 20 years ago. Yet the DH was around then.
I am sorry guys, but this is at best a very minor issue and most likely complete fallacy created here. Like I have stated, it has been said many times in the media most AL owners would love to get rid of the DH for salary reasons. It drives tons of cost with little revenue benefit. Yet it's so entrenched the MLBPA would never let it go. Why would any NL owner want something the MLBPA would kill for since they know it transfers a bunch of revenue percentage to the players? Isn't that something that screams NL owners would not want it? Occam's razor here folks. You guys are really searching for something completely minor and I doubt even exists.
I know you were making a grander point and this isn't meant to splash paint on the portrait but since 2009 Holliday has been worth 15 WAR more than Ludwick (an average of 30 runs/season). That's not really pecking at the margins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Plus Plus
Fileding and pitching are the same thing. Defense. Outfielders don't have to play the infield or catch.Quote:
Originally Posted by IslandRed
I see what you are trying to say, but I suppose we are defining the margins differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by scott91575
But for me and the DH, I can take it or leave it. I enjoy getting to see actual hitters getting to hit, but I can also appreciate the strategic dilemma of deciding whether or not to pinch hit for your starting pitcher in the 6th inning because you need a run.
I'll fully admit to being a hidebound NL traditionalist. Raised on it and have watched it for 50 years. I didn't like the DH when it was introduced and I don't like it now. I understand that other fans like it and that's fine with me. You have the AL, I've got the NL. Not everything in the world has to be orthogonal and symmetrical. And I understand the logic of the DH and it has merit. But taken as a whole, I vote thumbs down.
And I understand that 2 platoon baseball takes the model to its extreme and some think that is ridiculous. That also can be argued and I sure don't think it would happen any time soon. But I take a historical look at things now. Baseball changes at a glacial pace, but also, the precedent has been set. It may be 50 years, but the more impatient wants more action modern fan, I don't think it is unthinkable.
I would also like to point out people are acting like the AL is full of these over the hill guys still raking at the plate but cannot play any defense. It's only a handful of guys. David Ortiz and umm, yeah, David Ortiz. There is Dunn, and hey, he hits home runs. Yet his value is very much in question, especially after 2011. Even his 2012 was not that great when you break it down. Travis Hafner? Give me a break. Luke Scott? Sucks. Edwin Encarnacion, not old and could never play a lick of D so he had no use for NL teams. Adam Lind, not old. Mark Reynolds, not old. Victor Martinez, maybe if he stays healthy. Billy Butler, not old. Ryan Doumit and Mauer, both young (or relatively young) and still can play the field. Brett Wallace, young. Mark Trumbo, young. Seth Smith, young (30, so fairly young). Lance Berkman, maybe, but his hitting a huge question now. There are other DH's that share time with those guys, but they all play defense and so do many on the list.
There you have it. I don't think you guys watch much AL baseball. Most DH's are young guys who can also play defense or would have no value to NL teams (so NL teams are not bidding for services anyway). The older guys not only cannot play defense, but aren't the best hitters anymore either. Seriously, it's David Ortiz and that is it. The idea that DH's are really good older players who lost their defense and still hit great is just not true. By the time a guy can't play the field anymore, most the time he cannot hit either. The sample sizes are so small for the guys that can still hit but cannot field due to age it has very little effect when signing a free agent many years before he hits that point.
While you may be right, it still gives AL teams an advantage in free agency because they can sign guys who are good now, to longer contracts, because when they start to decline as almost all aging players do, they can still get value out of them at DH, where an NL team couldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by scott91575
Of course, but if you look at 2012 the difference between was scant, but I would wager that most would pay to upgrade from Ludwick to Holliday even for just the scant increase.Quote:
Originally Posted by jojo
and as I have shown, when guys stop being able to play defense, most of the time they can't hit either. Your statement is simply not true. The only example is David Ortiz. That's it. Maybe Victor Martinez if his body hasn't completely fallen apart by this point. If AL teams are doing that, they are doing it on a fallacy and something that would be a longshot. It's a made up advantage that most AL teams don't do.Quote:
Originally Posted by dougdirt
Sure, if we're distilling it all down to offense and defense. In practice, pitching is a highly specialized skill and their natural selection process is 99% based on the ability to pitch. It's fine with me if we make them hit anyway, but I'm not as quick as others to credit them with being more complete players simply because we're making them do something they're unqualified to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by 757690
The Mariners use the DH position to rotate guys between catcher, firstbase, and the corner outfield positions. Unless Jason Bay pulls off a springtime miracle, the average age of players taking their DH PAs will be under 30. The D in DH more and more stands for dynamic instead of duh.Quote:
Originally Posted by scott91575
Quote:
Originally Posted by westofyou
Exactly. And it's funny how using an extreme example and some humor is "hyperbole".
It isn't about them doing something later, it is the fact that they can give that extra year or two on a contract today, when the guy is still really good, that an NL team can't. Then they can do it again in 6 years with someone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by scott91575
That is how most AL teams use the DH. They rotate guys around who are actually fairly young and can play the field. I think there were only about 4 true DH's in the AL last year. The idea that over the guys that still can hit but can't field anymore become DH's in the AL is a fallacy for the most part.Quote:
Originally Posted by jojo
As displayed by one of the 1st ML players to be a DH in the initial experiment in the IL in the 60’sQuote:
Originally Posted by 757690
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...2695/index.htm
Complete players.. thanks to the DH?Quote:
"Being the Designated Hitter," Campbell said last week at Silver Stadium in Rochester, "made me start to think a little more about hitting. If the pitcher got me the first time I could go back to the bench and think about how he had done it and what I had done wrong. Because I didn't have to go out and play in the field the idea of hitting was more on my mind. I had never done much pinch-hitting, but I know it's different. With the Designated Hitter rule you go up to bat and know that if you don't get a hit the first time up that you are still going to get two or three more chances."
Yet they don't add value in those years in most instances. Seriously, if that was true, the AL would be full of those guys. There is one. I will say it again. ONE! Maybe a possibility of two. At the very most, 4-5 if Hafner and Berkman suddenly find the fountain of youth and Dunn learns there is more to hitting than the long ball. That is huge outside shot where only 33% of the teams in the AL doing that. AL teams simply do not build themselves around that for the most part. They realize it's stupid to clog up the DH spot with an over the hill guy when they can rotate around good young hitters instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by dougdirt
You are missing my point. I could care less about what the free agent do once they get to the DH role. I am saying it allows AL teams to sign guys than NL teams don't and get good production out of them for 3-5 years before they decline and become a so-so DH. NL teams aren't signing those guys as often because they can't move them to DH. They have to move them to the bench, or let them continue to play in the field where they aren't good on either side of the ball at that point. So they just don't offer as many of those guys similar contracts. Then guys sign with the AL team because they were offered 6 or 7 years instead of 4 or 5 from the NL teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by scott91575
You suggested red clown cars and blowing stuff up.Quote:
Originally Posted by RFS62
BTW, the Reds didn't use red clown cars but they did allow their relievers to be blown up between '06 and '08. It didn't go over well.
I completely understand what you are saying, and very few AL teams are doing that with even fewer every year. They realize the value of a so so over the hill hitter is worth just about as much as just cutting the guy and going with a younger guy that can actually be rotated around in the field if needed. The value is simply not there. The A's and Tigers signed Pujols and Fielder to massive, long term contracts because they have the money. They are not justifying it with "well, he can become a DH." They simply wanted the guy and paid him what it would take because they could. In the Tiger's case, they got desperate when Victor Martinez got hurt and shelled out whatever it took to get Fielder. He was expected to sign with the Dodgers until that point, and many in the Dodgers front office thought it was pretty much a done deal. Let's also just ignore the fact the Marlins reportedly offered more to Pujols than the Angels.Quote:
Originally Posted by dougdirt
The value of a so so over the hill DH is so minimal it makes little to no difference in the contract that gets offered to free agents.
At this point, we can just agree to disagree. Yet very little backs up your assertion, and if AL teams are doing it they are going it based on a fallacy, not an actual advantage.
I'll take the humor, RFS62. All the other stuff is mind numbing at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by RFS62
And I still hate the DH.
I'm a purist myself, but also get that the DH isn't going anywhere, so I propose a compromise rule where you can send a DH up to bat for somebody, but then DH either stays in the game, or is burnt and the guy who was hit for can go back in......adds some strategy. 1 on 2 out, Cueto up in the second inning....burn a DH or just have Cueto go up?!?!
Ughh... you leave the game you're out of the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfunguy
Agreed. Unfortunately it is the nature of the beast when he joins a thread. It has been that way for years. He is back on Ignore.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeThierry
No one made you post this or your previous personal attacks. It's not the nature of the beast. It was a personal choice you made.Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling
I see your point and I agree that is an advantage. However it can also be a disadvantage. Those AL teams who choose to sign an aging slugger to those long contracts are spending a lot of money in a way that NL teams don't have to do. Every million dollars those AL teams spend on a DH is a million dollars they can't spend on pitching or other positions, which gives the NL teams an advantage going after those players. Also, those aging DH type players can't play in half of interleague games and postseason games (or else will be a defensive liability) -- and that is a big disadvantage for those AL teams who choose to fill their DH slot with an expensive aging slugger. I personally believe it is unwise for an AL team to sign that type of player.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeThierry
So in the end I think the DH is neither an advantage nor a disadvantage for the AL and NL teams. It is a difference, but not one that helps or hurts either side.
LOL you are a piece of work. You are the king of personal attacks and insults and argumentative posts without substance. We all know it and have known it for years. You should have seen my PM box after your barrage. Lots of laughs and thank you's. People know how you are and apparently they like it when you get a comeuppance. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by jojo
My Ignore List re-set after the site got moved, but now the only member of its population is about to be repatriated.....and... done! Ah, much better now.
Please just share your opinion and move on without harassing me and others with sniping distortions of our opinions.
I apologize for falling prey to his shenanigans guys. I won't let it happen again. Nothing but peace and serenity now that the Ignore List is protecting me again. :thumbup:
Again, no one forced you to post the unprovoked attacks you have now posted multiple times.Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling
Please for the sake of the thread, put me on ignore and importantly refrain from further attacks.
"I don't think our fans are the least bit interested in seeing the DH be part of the National League landscape."
Andy MacPhail
QFT
Quote:
"It's 30 years down the DH highway, and this rule makes even less sense now than it did in 1973 — if that's possible. Here are five reasons baseball should abolish this abomination now (by Jayson Stark in ESPN.com on April 4, 2003):
1. Once, it was at least slightly intriguing to have two leagues playing the same sport using different rules. Now, with interleague play, it's not intriguing anymore. It's absurd.
2. Let's take that one step further. The DH rule may have cost the Giants the World Series. This was a team constructed around its bullpen, not its spare bench parts. So Dusty Baker essentially had no DH. In fact, his Game 7 DH — Pedro Feliz — was a guy who had made it through the first six games without an at-bat. No other sport would tolerate a situation this farcical.
3. The idea 30 years ago was that the DH would allow some beloved older hitters to extend their careers once they could no longer play the field. Whatever happened to that brainstorm? All these beloved older hitters DH'd Opening Day: Ken Harvey, Al Martin, Jeremy Giambi, Matt LeCroy and Josh Phelps. Face it: The DH is now just an excuse to be one-dimensional.
4. The only reason to have a DH rule is that fans allegedly like more offense. Obviously, DHs are better hitters than pitchers. But how much more offense does this rule really generate? The average AL team scored one more run every three games than the average NL team last year — and got one more hit every four games. So we're talking about two extra runs a week. That'll pack 'em in, all right.
5. Finally, the game is simply way more interesting without the DH than with it. Period. Ask any manager which is more strategically challenging — managing a game under NL rules or AL rules. It's no contest. It's baseball's cerebral side that separates it from all the other games ever invented. And the game is way more cerebral with no DH than with it. That's one thing that hasn't changed in 30 years — and never will.
The NL might have as much to lose as it has to gain by adopting the DH.Quote:
Originally Posted by westofyou
If I was going to start anywhere with sweeping reform, i'd start by abolishing the rule that the outcome of the All-star game determines home field advantage in the world series because actually, no the AS game doesn't actually matter. BTW, pitchers no longer (and never really did) bat in the AS game because DHs are used which is kind of ironic.
I mentioned this early in a post so it is something I recognized. It is an evolving position that doesn't have a barrel chested slugger sitting on the bench waiting to hit for most teams. I used Pujols because it was the clear advantage that I could think of at the time but there are other examples that could have been used like the A-Rod deal, etc. Peter Gammons explains it a bit better than I can at work:Quote:
Originally Posted by scott91575
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?...s_mlb&c_id=mlb
He makes an excellent point that there are some trades that are higher risk for NL teams because they do not have the DL. If a young player like a catcher is used as trade bait, an NL team will have a harder time making that trade not knowing the future of how that young player will turn out at that position. An AL team can simply place a high impact catcher prospect at DH if that prospect doesn't turn out well at being an MLB catcher. A catcher is just one example here as it applies to other positions in the field.
The piece by Gammons was written in January of 2012 so some of this data might be out of date but he says this:
Quote:
According to Cot's Contracts, the top nine all-time contracts have all involved American League teams. Matt Kemp ($160 million, 2012-19) and Troy Tulowitzki ($157 million, 2011-20) are the only National League signings in the top 14.
Please refrain from quoting that guy. It defeats the purpose of the ignore feature.Quote:
Originally Posted by jojo