-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MikeThierry
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:
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The piece by Gammons was written in January of 2012 so some of this data might be out of date but he says this:
and now Adrian Gonzalez is in the NL. The argument just doesn't hold up over time. It's about revenue and supply and demand. No team is saying "well, just let him go because that last year where he might not be so good in the field is not worth it. Let's just start that replacement level guy, that should work out for the next 6 years because that 7th year, oh no, we can't deal with that." What about the fact the NL has the advantage with the fact they don't have to pay a DH or what is essentially a 9th starter since the role of DH has changed? Naw, let's just ignore that. Bob Melvin is just crying. That is what I got from that. The first baseman argument also makes no freaking sense. If it was a difficult position I would understand, yet 1B is the least demanding postion on the field. That is the one spot where the NL can compete directly with the AL on giving guys a long term deal (assuming this idea is correct). Melvin is just mad he doesn't have the Tiger's money. Too bad Victor Martinez got hurt and the Tiger's got desperate, otherwise it would be tough for Melvin to justify his failure when Fielder went to LA.
As for keeping guys free from injury and fresh, I would really like to see the breakdown on injuries league vs. league. That is really the only lasting impact since the playoffs have plenty of off days, and NL teams are only competing with other NL teams during the season (yes, they play the AL, but so do all NL teams and in the end your record vs. other NL teams is what counts).
Like I have stated, if teams are doing it they are basing it on a fallacy. It's a perceived advantage that simply does not exist. This is all about big vs. small market. Call me when the Cards lose a guy to the Twins because the contract offer was a year or two short. Not when the Tigers, Angels, and Red Sox are getting guys from the Brewers, Cards, and Padres (yes, I know when he became a free agent he was with the Red Sox but the reason he was originally there was because SD could not sign him). That is all about revenue disparity, not this supposed difference in AL vs. NL.
edit: oh, and to the young catcher argument, that doesn't make any sense either due to the fact AL teams are now using guys that have to play the field on a regular basis as a rotating DH. No team is taking a young catcher that can't catch on the off chance he becomes their full time DH. AL teams realize that is a waste. Like I have stated before, the idea of a full time DH is almost gone in baseball.
The only real advantage to the DH is simple. AL teams, when at home in the WS, have a 9th starter where the NL teams have a backup guy as their 9th guy. Yet the NL has done pretty well for themselves in the WS. The AL also does have a disadvantage though too since their pitchers never hit and their DH rotation is normally only a few guys over the same positions, so often the guy not in their lineup will not be their 9th best hitter.
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Personal attacks have no place in this discussion- I tried to address this earlier, but apparently was not direct enough.
If you can't have an intelligent discussion (which this has been up until the last page or two) without sideways jabs, then I recommend not participating.
Carry on.
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
I haven't read the tread really.
I'm just going to say I like the DH.
If that makes me a bad person so be it.
I'd also like to take the opportunity to say that RF is old.
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
We should be able to agree, the NL is at a disadvantage. NL teams have one extra bullpen arm, AL teams have one extra hitter. In AL parks, the AL team will more likely have the better DH. In NL parks, the AL team will most likely have the better bench. Over time, AL teams will get better, because investing in hitter provides a better return than investing in middle relievers.
We should also be willing to accept that the players union might part with the DH. I think most players would vote to trade 2 roster spots (27 man rosters) for the DH.
Both leagues need to play by the same rules. I think both options are possible. The only thing we should be debating is the DH. I enjoy each at bat because of the framework of the game. I like the NL game better. For me, it is not just about the most ABs with the best pitcher V. the best hitters.
However, I agree, that rosters with 12 pitchers and 13 position players make for less exciting late game PH ABs. I think 27 player rosters would help eliminate some of the bad ABs the pro DH guys don't like
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
It's great to be a purist- but are you really a purist?
You want to go back to spitballs? Whites only? Ebbet's field?
Doesn't anyone find it a little odd that we ask someone to get major league hitters out AND be able to hit major league pitching?
I..it's a competition that takes a steep dive once every nine batters.
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
I don't expect to change anyone else's mind, but I hate the DH. If the DH is made universal, baseball will get significantly less of my attention and my money. This is not an idle threat. I will hold this grudge effectively. And you can't really call me a "traditionalist" for feeling this way, because the DH has been in effect since 1 was one years old. It's been a reality since I became aware of baseball, and the more I learn about baseball, the more I don't like it.
Scarcity is interesting on a macro level. When conditions of scarcity exist, decisions have to be made. Decisions are interesting. Those of you who say it's less interesting on a micro level to watch a pitcher hit than to watch a good position player hit are correct; however, this has a highly positive effect on the macro level. Even if I have to suffer through a couple at-bats per night from a starting pitcher, I like the fact that if the hitters in your starting lineup fail to score runs, your ace pitcher might have to come out of the game in the 7th inning. It's a team sport, after all.
The way the game is now, if you fail to field a balance team, your team gets punished. Punishment is awesome:
Punishment: If your team can't score runs, and if your starting pitcher (like 99% of starting pitchers) can't hit either, he might have to get pinch hit for in the late innings
Punishment: If you have a slugger who's a butcher with the glove, then he should be forced to humiliate himself and amuse the rest of us by having to play the field.
Bud Selig is going to retire in the next few years (I assume), and this issue is one of the only things I care about in terms his successor. I could live with a 2 or 3 year work stoppage in exchange for another 40-50 years in which the Reds get to play DH-free baseball. Let me put it another way:
I'd be just fine with Mahmoud Abedinejad as the next commissioner of baseball, so long as he will prevent expansion of the DH.
As an aside, I think the importance of field goal kicking has hurt football immensely. I think it's absurd that a specialized skill which is so removed from the essence of the game can decide whether a team wins or loses a championship. If I were king of the world in football, anyone who hadn't appeared in one of the prior 3 plays from scrimmage would not be allowed to kick the ball.
As another aside, I am highly skeptical of the post above which said that the Red Sox would not have won the World Series in 2004 were it not for the DH. If the DH wasn't an option, Ortiz would have played 1B more often (btw, he started 31 games there in 2004). And they would have been fine. He's not a great defender, but Miguel Cabrera isn't a great 3B either. The Tigers did okay this year.
I could also argue (probably correctly) that if Edgar Martinez played in the NL he would have played 3B and or 1B, he would have won several batting titles, nobody would really notice his subpar defense (heck, he might have even improved over time), and he'd be in the Hall of Fame now.
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cincinnati chili
I don't expect to change anyone else's mind, but I hate the DH. If the DH is made universal, baseball will get significantly less of my attention and my money. This is not an idle threat. I will hold this grudge effectively. And you can't really call me a "traditionalist" for feeling this way, because the DH has been in effect since 1 was one years old. It's been a reality since I became aware of baseball, and the more I learn about baseball, the more I don't like it.
Scarcity is interesting on a macro level. When conditions of scarcity exist, decisions have to be made. Decisions are interesting. Those of you who say it's less interesting on a micro level to watch a pitcher hit than to watch a good position player hit are correct; however, this has a highly positive effect on the macro level. Even if I have to suffer through a couple at-bats per night from a starting pitcher, I like the fact that if the hitters in your starting lineup fail to score runs, your ace pitcher might have to come out of the game in the 7th inning. It's a team sport, after all.
The way the game is now, if you fail to field a balance team, your team gets punished. Punishment is awesome:
Punishment: If your team can't score runs, and if your starting pitcher (like 99% of starting pitchers) can't hit either, he might have to get pinch hit for in the late innings
Punishment: If you have a slugger who's a butcher with the glove, then he should be forced to humiliate himself and amuse the rest of us by having to play the field.
Bud Selig is going to retire in the next few years (I assume), and this issue is one of the only things I care about in terms his successor. I could live with a 2 or 3 year work stoppage in exchange for another 40-50 years in which the Reds get to play DH-free baseball. Let me put it another way:
I'd be just fine with Mahmoud Abedinejad as the next commissioner of baseball, so long as he will prevent expansion of the DH.
As an aside, I think the importance of field goal kicking has hurt football immensely. I think it's absurd that a specialized skill which is so removed from the essence of the game can decide whether a team wins or loses a championship. If I were king of the world in football, anyone who hadn't appeared in one of the prior 3 plays from scrimmage would not be allowed to kick the ball.
As another aside, I am highly skeptical of the post above which said that the Red Sox would not have won the World Series in 2004 were it not for the DH. If the DH wasn't an option, Ortiz would have played 1B more often (btw, he started 31 games there in 2004). And they would have been fine. He's not a great defender, but Miguel Cabrera isn't a great 3B either. The Tigers did okay this year.
I could also argue (probably correctly) that if Edgar Martinez played in the NL he would have played 3B and or 1B, he would have won several batting titles, nobody would really notice his subpar defense (heck, he might have even improved over time), and he'd be in the Hall of Fame now.
Don't run to the college game for refuge. It's been ruined by bats that are worse than wood and balls that feel kinda rubbery.
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
We're wasting time debating the DH when the real threat to the game is the pythons that are coming up from the Everglades and will inevitably invade every stadium in the US and Canada.
I still would prefer to have no DH, and think Stark's list is great, but if it happens, it happens. And I have a queasy feeling that if we were to play one year with reversed rules (which couldn't happen for practical reasons) more NL fans would start supporting the DH than AL fans would turn against it.
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
If the purpose is to make both leagues play under the same rules, let the AL abolish the DH. That is also a clown car. Should we ever take away a known cerebral aspect of the game, knowing that it would never return?
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Bottom of the third, Tim Lincecum up is a cerebral moment?
An easy out is cerebral?
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dom Heffner
It's great to be a purist- but are you really a purist?
You want to go back to spitballs? Whites only? Ebbet's field?
Doesn't anyone find it a little odd that we ask someone to get major league hitters out AND be able to hit major league pitching?
I..it's a competition that takes a steep dive once every nine batters.
I'm not a purist, I just don't like the DH. For me it takes more away from the game of baseball than it adds. I get that not everyone feels that way. I've watched AL baseball. I live in an AL town. I choose to watch DH-less baseball and have found myself avoiding the other kind as much as I can. If you enjoy the DH you already have a lot of choices. Please don't take away the brand of baseball I enjoy.
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
puca
I'm not a purist, I just don't like the DH. For me it takes more away from the game of baseball than it adds. I get that not everyone feels that way. I've watched AL baseball. I live in an AL town. I choose to watch DH-less baseball and have found myself avoiding the other kind as much as I can. If you enjoy the DH you already have a lot of choices. Please don't take away the brand of baseball I enjoy.
I wholly respect this.
It is a preference thing.
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
I like to play poker... I like to play poker without wild cards.
The DH is baseball's equivalent of the wild card.
You may like it I don't.
Let's remember that some of us don't like wild cards
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dom Heffner
It's great to be a purist- but are you really a purist?
You want to go back to spitballs? Whites only? Ebbet's field?
Doesn't anyone find it a little odd that we ask someone to get major league hitters out AND be able to hit major league pitching?
I..it's a competition that takes a steep dive once every nine batters.
Sure. Also mandate that players ride from their homes to the field on a horse, declare there are only 38 states, and use leeches to treat a batting slump. C'mon man!
-
In my opinion, if you're going to have two different leagues with two different rules, then do away with interleague play. It would sure make the All-Star Game and World Series mean more. It still to this day blows my mind that the World Series could possibly be a rematch every year, and that still doesn't feel right. Having AL teams decide pennant races in the NL is even more frustrating. If you're going to do it is it too much to ask that interleague schedules are balanced? Either unify the rules or treat them like separate leagues. The differences between the NL and AL are appealing to me and watching the line between them both slowly blur is frustrating.
But, it's Bud Selig's world. I just reluctantly live in it.
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
For the price of watching a pitcher hit a couple of times a game, I receive in return:
-More competitive (fewer early inning blowouts), closer and shorter games.
-Fewer mid-inning pitching changes (very boring-still too many for my taste)
-More complex game strategy.
The frustration of seeing my team's pitcher fail at bat in a early inning situation, is offset by relief when the opposing pitcher does likewise and my team can stay in a game that may be otherwise blown open.
-I admit that in DH-less baseball it is more difficult to surmount a large deficit. But then those large deficits are more common with a DH hitting instead of auto-out pitchers.
-I also admit that the DH gives a shot to some experienced hitters to get playing time that they may not otherwise get. Those ABs can be fun to watch.
Overall however, for me, the entertainment experience of the NL game is far superior. I really hope the DH is not adopted.
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
oneupper
For the price of watching a pitcher hit a couple of times a game, I receive in return:
-More competitive (fewer early inning blowouts), closer and shorter games.
-Fewer mid-inning pitching changes (very boring-still too many for my taste)
-More complex game strategy.
The frustration of seeing my team's pitcher fail at bat in a early inning situation, is offset by relief when the opposing pitcher does likewise and my team can stay in a game that may be otherwise blown open.
-I admit that in DH-less baseball it is more difficult to surmount a large deficit. But then those large deficits are more common with a DH hitting instead of auto-out pitchers.
-I also admit that the DH gives a shot to some experienced hitters to get playing time that they may not otherwise get. Those ABs can be fun to watch.
Overall however, for me, the entertainment experience of the NL game is far superior. I really hope the DH is not adopted.
Blow outs by league over the last decade:
Code:
Margin > 4 runs
Season AL NL
2012 881 986
2011 881 885
2010 909 1010
2009 950 1032
2008 978 1056
2007 974 1125
2006 1006 1079
2005 964 1009
2004 1015 1027
2003 1037 1087
total 9595 10296
ave/yr 960 1030
There isn't a single season in that span where large deficits were more common in the AL vs the NL suggesting that on average AL games are more competitive than NL games.
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
blumj
I really don't see checkers to chess, to me they're both checkers wth slight variations. I grew up watching AL ball, and I expected to see some chess once I got the opportunity to watch more NL games, but all I really see is checkers with different rules. The strategy is too simple to make an entertainment value difference to me. I prefer AL, but only because I don't want to miss those last few seasons of guys like Frank Thomas and Vlad, otherwise, either or both is fine to me.
Yes, I agree. How often was it a "cliffhanger" on whether the NL pitcher got pinch hit for or not? Not very often.
Although it's kind of funny, Dusty tends to surprise me more than anyone by letting his pitcher hit when I wouldn't expect him to. Not a criticism, just an observation (maybe it was because he has historically had a bench with 1-3 really bad hitters on it while here).
In any event, I just don't get the excitement over whether Homer will be allowed to hit, or if Valdez is going to PH for him :lol:
The only downside I see to the DH is that now the NL clubs will be forced to spend some money on another position player. For example, this year if the Reds expected to contend in a DH league, they'd probably have to spend some money on another hitter for the bench ... Heck, maybe Rolen would've been resigned to create a rotation or something, but it's still an additional expense which drains the Reds' limited budget.
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
The only downside I see to the DH is that now the NL clubs will be forced to spend some money on another position player. For example, this year if the Reds expected to contend in a DH league, they'd probably have to spend some money on another hitter for the bench ... Heck, maybe Rolen would've been resigned to create a rotation or something, but it's still an additional expense which drains the Reds' limited budget.
If the N.L. adds the Designated Hitter it will save the Reds money. They'll just make Baker a player-manager. He said he can still hit and you know he is itching to get back out there. :)
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
REDREAD
Yes, I agree. How often was it a "cliffhanger" on whether the NL pitcher got pinch hit for or not? Not very often.
Although it's kind of funny, Dusty tends to surprise me more than anyone by letting his pitcher hit when I wouldn't expect him to. Not a criticism, just an observation (maybe it was because he has historically had a bench with 1-3 really bad hitters on it while here).
In any event, I just don't get the excitement over whether Homer will be allowed to hit, or if Valdez is going to PH for him :lol:
I don't get the position of some posters that the only tactical difference between DH-ball and baseball occurs during a pitcher's turn to bat.
Because the pitcher is such a weak hitter, apart from scoring runs the offensive team is trying to turn over the lineup and avoid having the pitcher lead off the next inning. On the other side of the coin, the defensive team would love to have the pitcher's spot leading off the next inning, but obviously not at the expense of giving up runs.
I like thinking about the decisions as they are being made while the bottom half of the order is batting and how the might impact that secondary goal. Add the unknown of whether the manager might remove his pitcher in order to improve his odds of scoring and you have enough variables to keep the most analytic person busy.
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
Blow outs by league over the last decade:
Code:
Margin > 4 runs
Season AL NL
2012 881 986
2011 881 885
2010 909 1010
2009 950 1032
2008 978 1056
2007 974 1125
2006 1006 1079
2005 964 1009
2004 1015 1027
2003 1037 1087
total 9595 10296
ave/yr 960 1030
There isn't a single season in that span where large deficits were more common in the AL vs the NL suggesting that on average AL games are more competitive than NL games.
Maybe there's a stat for that, but this one isn't it. Around 40% of all games would be non-competitive by this measure. And of course there are more NL games than AL games (2 extra teams).
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
oneupper
Maybe there's a stat for that, but this one isn't it. Around 40% of all games would be non-competitive by this measure. And of course there are more NL games than AL games (2 extra teams).
Then what would be a better indicator of a large deficit?
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
Then what would be a better indicator of a large deficit?
Percentage of games, instead of number of games would be better.
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Captain13
Percentage of games, instead of number of games would be better.
He doesn't even like >4 runs defined as a large deficit.
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scott91575
Like I have stated, if teams are doing it they are basing it on a fallacy. It's a perceived advantage that simply does not exist. This is all about big vs. small market. Call me when the Cards lose a guy to the Twins because the contract offer was a year or two short. Not when the Tigers, Angels, and Red Sox are getting guys from the Brewers, Cards, and Padres (yes, I know when he became a free agent he was with the Red Sox but the reason he was originally there was because SD could not sign him). That is all about revenue disparity, not this supposed difference in AL vs. NL.
.
Another thing to consider.. In the old days, teams only carried 10 pitchers, so they had the luxury of a deep bench. It was plausible to carry a DH only guy, or a pinch hitter specialist, or even a pinch runner specialist.
Now, it seems like most (if not all) teams want to carry 12 pitchers. There's simply no room to have a DH only guy if you only have 13 position players.. 8 starters, backup middle inflielder, back up CF, backup catcher, second backup OF, second backup infielder... plus, ideally at least 2 of those backups are competent pinch hitters (even in the AL).
Other than a few rare cases (Ortiz, Haffner when he was healthy, Adam Dunn), a DH only guy on an American league team is a mistake, not something the teams planned on doing. It puts the team in an awkward position.. they can only carry 11 pitchers or they have to have a guy that can backup both infield and outfield.
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
puca
I don't get the position of some posters that the only tactical difference between DH-ball and baseball occurs during a pitcher's turn to bat.
Because the pitcher is such a weak hitter, apart from scoring runs the offensive team is trying to turn over the lineup and avoid having the pitcher lead off the next inning. On the other side of the coin, the defensive team would love to have the pitcher's spot leading off the next inning, but obviously not at the expense of giving up runs.
I like thinking about the decisions as they are being made while the bottom half of the order is batting and how the might impact that secondary goal. Add the unknown of whether the manager might remove his pitcher in order to improve his odds of scoring and you have enough variables to keep the most analytic person busy.
I guess I feel that every batter is trying to avoid making an out every time up, regardless of whether there is a DH or not.
But you're right, there's a greater impact that the pitchers' at bat.
We often get to watch the #8 hitter get pitched around when men are in scoring position, because the pitcher is a much easier out to record.
I guess I don't consider it exciting when Hannigan walks so the opposing pitcher can pitch to our pitcher. It's maybe exciting in the 2 games per year when our pitcher lucks into a hit, but most of the time, it's tedious.
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
REDREAD
I guess I feel that every batter is trying to avoid making an out every time up, regardless of whether there is a DH or not.
But you're right, there's a greater impact that the pitchers' at bat.
We often get to watch the #8 hitter get pitched around when men are in scoring position, because the pitcher is a much easier out to record.
I guess I don't consider it exciting when Hannigan walks so the opposing pitcher can pitch to our pitcher. It's maybe exciting in the 2 games per year when our pitcher lucks into a hit, but most of the time, it's tedious.
But when the #7 guy gets on first with 2 outs should he try and steal? What if there is also a runner on third? Under what circumstances would have the #7 hitter bunt? Does the pitcher challange or work around the #8 hitter - does he try to eliminate any chance of giving up a run this inning or does he set up the next inning with the pitcher leading off? There are a lot of decisions to be made even in the early innings that are directly related to the fact that the pitcher is hitting.
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
What if pitchers learned to hit?
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
puca
But when the #7 guy gets on first with 2 outs should he try and steal? What if there is also a runner on third?
Under most circumstances, no he should not try to steal, because that means the #8 hitter will be walked to get to the pitcher.
Quote:
Under what circumstances would have the #7 hitter bunt?
Almost never. I can't think of a time when he should, because again.. if he successfully bunts, the #8 hitter will be walked because there's an open base.
Let's say there's zero outs. Bunt successful. #8 walked. Pitcher gets out.
Now you've gone from a man on first and no outs (run expectancy = .941) to 1st and 2nd, 2 outs (Run expectancy .471).. Of course, with one or more out, it makes even less sense to bunt.. Now granted, the pitcher is likely an automatic out, so it's not completely fair to use run expectancy, but the bottom line is that the #7 hitter should always try to get on base if the pitcher is going to hit.
Quote:
Does the pitcher challange or work around the #8 hitter - does he try to eliminate any chance of giving up a run this inning or does he set up the next inning with the pitcher leading off? There are a lot of decisions to be made even in the early innings that are directly related to the fact that the pitcher is hitting.
It almost depends on the score of the game. If it's a close game, the #8 hitter is almost always pitched around. If the pitcher has a lead, he will challenge the #8 hitter.
I guess I don't see how there's a lot of heavy thinking in these scenerios.. When I watch the games, it almost always seems to end up with the same decision, regardless of who is managing.
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
oneupper
Maybe there's a stat for that, but this one isn't it. Around 40% of all games would be non-competitive by this measure. And of course there are more NL games than AL games (2 extra teams).
Turns out baseball is often boring in both leagues... expressed as a percentage of total games, 42% of AL games were decided by > 4 runs over the last decade while 41% of NL games were decided by > 4 runs.
Regardless, I don't think the difference between the two leagues is great enough to support a bold statement that AL games are noticeably less competitive than NL games.
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
I like the NL game if only because the pitcher batting gives the game more shape. In AL games, I'm often losing interest in the middle innings. The question of when the pitcher is going to come out simply isn't a topic of conversation. But with the factor of him hitting and that being a prime opportunity to make a strategic move, it adds an element that the AL game just doesn't have.
As for watching pitchers hit. I like having that reminder of just how hard it is to play the game. It makes watching a guy like Votto all the more enjoyable while also creating a fun "root for the underdog" moment a few times a game.
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cincinnati chili
I don't expect to change anyone else's mind, but I hate the DH. If the DH is made universal, baseball will get significantly less of my attention and my money. This is not an idle threat. I will hold this grudge effectively. And you can't really call me a "traditionalist" for feeling this way, because the DH has been in effect since 1 was one years old. It's been a reality since I became aware of baseball, and the more I learn about baseball, the more I don't like it.
Scarcity is interesting on a macro level. When conditions of scarcity exist, decisions have to be made. Decisions are interesting. Those of you who say it's less interesting on a micro level to watch a pitcher hit than to watch a good position player hit are correct; however, this has a highly positive effect on the macro level. Even if I have to suffer through a couple at-bats per night from a starting pitcher, I like the fact that if the hitters in your starting lineup fail to score runs, your ace pitcher might have to come out of the game in the 7th inning. It's a team sport, after all.
The way the game is now, if you fail to field a balance team, your team gets punished. Punishment is awesome:
Punishment: If your team can't score runs, and if your starting pitcher (like 99% of starting pitchers) can't hit either, he might have to get pinch hit for in the late innings
Punishment: If you have a slugger who's a butcher with the glove, then he should be forced to humiliate himself and amuse the rest of us by having to play the field.
Bud Selig is going to retire in the next few years (I assume), and this issue is one of the only things I care about in terms his successor. I could live with a 2 or 3 year work stoppage in exchange for another 40-50 years in which the Reds get to play DH-free baseball. Let me put it another way:
I'd be just fine with Mahmoud Abedinejad as the next commissioner of baseball, so long as he will prevent expansion of the DH.
As an aside, I think the importance of field goal kicking has hurt football immensely. I think it's absurd that a specialized skill which is so removed from the essence of the game can decide whether a team wins or loses a championship. If I were king of the world in football, anyone who hadn't appeared in one of the prior 3 plays from scrimmage would not be allowed to kick the ball.
As another aside, I am highly skeptical of the post above which said that the Red Sox would not have won the World Series in 2004 were it not for the DH. If the DH wasn't an option, Ortiz would have played 1B more often (btw, he started 31 games there in 2004). And they would have been fine. He's not a great defender, but Miguel Cabrera isn't a great 3B either. The Tigers did okay this year.
I could also argue (probably correctly) that if Edgar Martinez played in the NL he would have played 3B and or 1B, he would have won several batting titles, nobody would really notice his subpar defense (heck, he might have even improved over time), and he'd be in the Hall of Fame now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
westofyou
I like to play poker... I like to play poker without wild cards.
The DH is baseball's equivalent of the wild card.
You may like it I don't.
Let's remember that some of us don't like wild cards
Quote:
Originally Posted by
oneupper
For the price of watching a pitcher hit a couple of times a game, I receive in return:
-More competitive (fewer early inning blowouts), closer and shorter games.
-Fewer mid-inning pitching changes (very boring-still too many for my taste)
-More complex game strategy.
The frustration of seeing my team's pitcher fail at bat in a early inning situation, is offset by relief when the opposing pitcher does likewise and my team can stay in a game that may be otherwise blown open.
-I admit that in DH-less baseball it is more difficult to surmount a large deficit. But then those large deficits are more common with a DH hitting instead of auto-out pitchers.
-I also admit that the DH gives a shot to some experienced hitters to get playing time that they may not otherwise get. Those ABs can be fun to watch.
Overall however, for me, the entertainment experience of the NL game is far superior. I really hope the DH is not adopted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
puca
But when the #7 guy gets on first with 2 outs should he try and steal? What if there is also a runner on third? Under what circumstances would have the #7 hitter bunt? Does the pitcher challange or work around the #8 hitter - does he try to eliminate any chance of giving up a run this inning or does he set up the next inning with the pitcher leading off? There are a lot of decisions to be made even in the early innings that are directly related to the fact that the pitcher is hitting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RedsManRick
I like the NL game if only because the pitcher batting gives the game more shape. In AL games, I'm often losing interest in the middle innings. The question of when the pitcher is going to come out simply isn't a topic of conversation. But with the factor of him hitting and that being a prime opportunity to make a strategic move, it adds an element that the AL game just doesn't have.
As for watching pitchers hit. I like having that reminder of just how hard it is to play the game. It makes watching a guy like Votto all the more enjoyable while also creating a fun "root for the underdog" moment a few times a game.
Nice work, guys. Many others too, didn't want to quote them all.
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
One good thing about the DH is that it's a dandy way to stir the pot. If discussion over beers is getting slow, just throw out "I think the DH is great/sucks". Next thing you know, you've got the Huegenot Rebellion on your hands.
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
One guy is such a lousy hitter that it becomes a "strategy."
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
How about a designated tackler on kickoffs/punts in the NFL? As soon as the ball is kicked the weak kicker sprints off the field and is replaced by a real defensive player who suddenly becomes "the last man to beat"?
I kid of course but I do favor the pitcher hitting. Why? No good reason.
Pitchers typically stink as hitters, and I'm fine with that. Mock if you must, but I enjoy how that does often throw a wrench into things. And on the flipside, it's fun to see a noodle-bat pitcher help himself out. I totally get that others feel differently and that's ok.
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
From a purely anectdotal perspective, I think the NL stands to lose more fans by adopting the DH than the AL stands to lose by dumping it. The value of the DH has been debated most of my life since I was born 2 years before it's adoption. In all the dicussions I've been involved in, I've heard a lot of NL fans say they would stop watching baseball if the DH were adopted. I've also heard lots of AL fans say they like the DH, but never have I heard them say they would quit watching baseball if the AL did away with it. Would those NL fans quit? Maybe, maybe not. But they'll definitely be upset. It's never a good idea in business to make changes likely to upset a significant portion of your core consumers unless the benefits significantly outweigh the costs. From what I can see, the slight benefits of the DH on scoring don't justify risking fans choosing to spend less money on baseball because they're mad at you.
Adopting the DH in the NL would be a "New Coke" move.
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
For me personally, I've grown up with NL-style baseball. The AL is foreign to me, like turkey bacon. It may look and smell like bacon, but it's not bacon.
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Trajinous
What if pitchers learned to hit?
http://ct.fra.bz/il/fz/se/tx/200x200...abz-4ef68b.jpg
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dom Heffner
One guy is such a lousy hitter that it becomes a "strategy."
Part of the strategy, variation adds to strategy.
Would chess be more or less interesting if pawns were given the power of queens?
-
Re: The Reds & and the new DH debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
REDREAD
Under most circumstances, no he should not try to steal, because that means the #8 hitter will be walked to get to the pitcher.
I disagree. If the #8 hitter has little extra base power it actually might be a good strategy to steal.
The runner on 1st will not score from first anyhow without an extra base hit. Even if the #8 hitter gets a single or walks, by your reasoning the pitcher will end the inning. On the other hand if your #8 hitter makes an out, which he will 70% of the time, the pitcher will be leading off the next inning which is a big disadvantage. Again using your assumption that the pitcher is an automatic out the run expectancy of the next inning goes from .54 (0 on 0 out) to .29 (0 on 1 out) with the pitcher leading off.
If you successfully steal and the #8 hitter is walked and the pitcher makes the last out you lead off the next inning with the top of the order thus improving your run expectancy. Even if the runner is caught stealing, you lead off the next inning with the #8 hitter. That at least gives you a 30% chance that there will be a runner on base when the pitcher bats so he can advance the runner during his 'automatic out'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
REDREAD
Almost never. I can't think of a time when he should, because again.. if he successfully bunts, the #8 hitter will be walked because there's an open base.
Let's say there's zero outs. Bunt successful. #8 walked. Pitcher gets out.
Now you've gone from a man on first and no outs (run expectancy = .941) to 1st and 2nd, 2 outs (Run expectancy .471).. Of course, with one or more out, it makes even less sense to bunt.. Now granted, the pitcher is likely an automatic out, so it's not completely fair to use run expectancy, but the bottom line is that the #7 hitter should always try to get on base if the pitcher is going to hit.
Run expectancy is way out of whack when dealing with the bottom of the order. If you count the pitcher as an automatic out then the run expectancy of 1 on 0 out and the #7 hitter up is much less than .941 - but you sort of conceded that fact already. I basically agree with your last point - if you are not willing to pinch hit for your pitcher then you probably don't bunt. However that decision point along with the penalty of doing it, only exists if there is no DH.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
REDREAD
It almost depends on the score of the game. If it's a close game, the #8 hitter is almost always pitched around. If the pitcher has a lead, he will challenge the #8 hitter.
If it is not a close game then it really isn't that exciting anyhow (at least to me). Anyhow I disagree that it is so cut and dried because of the option, and associated penalty, of pinch hitting for the pitcher and the relative advantage/disadvantage of having the pitcher's spot leading off the next inning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
REDREAD
I guess I don't see how there's a lot of heavy thinking in these scenerios.. When I watch the games, it almost always seems to end up with the same decision, regardless of who is managing.
I don't think you are watching (or listening) carefully enough then. Tony LaRussa and Dusty Baker often made very different in-game managing decisions.
