John Fay sez DH will likely be universal when baseball returns

[RedsfaninMT]

Whoever sez is if he has a decent bat and can play ss, the Reds should sign him.

[Chip R]

I used to be opposed to the DH. I officially made the switch last year. I think I finally got tired of seeing a rally die because the pitcher came to the plate. There will still be plenty of strategy and decisions to be made despite it.

Will you feel better when a rally dies when a .220 hitter comes to the plate?

[Old school 1983]

I used to be against the DH. I have changed my mind and now I'm all for it.

Why?

During this whole BUDLITE-19 thing, I have watched and listened to a fair amount of Reds games from the late 70s and 80s.

...the game has changed. A lot. I could write a large novel on how much it has changed but the easiest description of the contrast between now and then, is that the game is much simpler now. The checkers vs chess analogy used above, fits here as well.

Baseball has been dumbed down to such a degree, that all the nuances that came with the pitcher batting 9th are all but irrelevant. And everybody under 40 thinks those nuances are boring anyway. MLB is trying so hard to be the NFL. 3 automatic outs/rally killers every night makes no sense in today's game.
1. Smaller parks.
2. Robot umps.
3. 3 outcome at-bats
4. Nets covering everything
5. Nobody in the stands watching anyway.

Today's baseball is pretty much like a video game with commercials. If you're a purist, the game is already ruined. Might as well open the floodgates.

I’m under 40 but I feel ya.

[Redsfaithful]

I'd argue that, as analytics and math have caught up with the game, we've realized all those little moves that managers used to pull have been discovered to be detrimental to scoring runs.

This is the case, and it's kind of sad in some ways (not all), but the data is the data.

You know how you could get 70s / 80s baseball back? Drastically reduce the number of games. Far enough down to where each team would only have 2 or 3 starting pitchers, most of whom can go 7+ innings regularly. Maybe an NBA/NHL length season. That would be an environment where things like sac bunts, steals, etc. would maybe make sense because runs would be harder to come by, home runs would be less frequent, etc.

That would suck, I don't want that.

Anyway, pitchers hitting has always been so boring. We don't have to watch shortstops hitting .210 with singles power anymore, and we shouldn't put up with pitchers hitting either.

You look at regular season games from 30-40 years ago and fully 1/3 of an average NL team's lineup was an offensive black hole, often more. There are things I miss from 80's baseball, but watching guys who can't hit isn't one of those things, and I won't miss watching pitchers hit either.

[westofyou]

I used to be against the DH. I have changed my mind and now I'm all for it.

Why?

During this whole BUDLITE-19 thing, I have watched and listened to a fair amount of Reds games from the late 70s and 80s.

...the game has changed. A lot. I could write a large novel on how much it has changed but the easiest description of the contrast between now and then, is that the game is much simpler now. The checkers vs chess analogy used above, fits here as well.

Baseball has been dumbed down to such a degree, that all the nuances that came with the pitcher batting 9th are all but irrelevant. And everybody under 40 thinks those nuances are boring anyway. MLB is trying so hard to be the NFL. 3 automatic outs/rally killers every night makes no sense in today's game.
1. Smaller parks.
2. Robot umps.
3. 3 outcome at-bats
4. Nets covering everything
5. Nobody in the stands watching anyway.

Today's baseball is pretty much like a video game with commercials. If you're a purist, the game is already ruined. Might as well open the floodgates.

Aside from the DH, rampant relief use and the league wide three outcome saturation I see a lot of the 1950s in today's game. Small parks, station to station ball, HR dependence, small stealing numbers. As for the nets you probably wouldn't need them in the 1950's attendance was abysmal most places and a two thousand paid attendance contest was pretty normal

[757690]

I'd argue that, as analytics and math have caught up with the game, we've realized all those little moves that managers used to pull have been discovered to be detrimental to scoring runs.

Sacrifice bunts look like a manager's working hard. In fact, they're often a bad move.

Stealing bases, double steals, and sacrifices are in the same boat.

Basically, according to math, it's best to pull the Early (Weaver), with a side of Casey Stengel (platoons), and LaRussa (bullpen management/ specialization).

Since almost everyone has learned that, the game looks less complicated. But it is more conducive to scoring and preventing runs than before.

Pitch hitting for a pitcher in the late innings of a close game is still considered a statistically smart move most of the time. Having a pitcher bunt a runner over is still a statistically smart move most of the time. Those are the manager move that the DH eliminate.

[mth123]

Pitch hitting for a pitcher in the late innings of a close game is still considered a statistically smart move most of the time. Having a pitcher bunt a runner over is still a statistically smart move most of the time. Those are the manager move that the DH eliminate.

Any time after the 5th inning, always pinch hit. The pitcher is coming out of the game regardless. Why let him give the PA away? The only exception is the last pitcher left in extra innings and by then there probably isn't anyone available to hit anyway. .

[jwdoc77]

Pitch hitting for a pitcher in the late innings of a close game is still considered a statistically smart move most of the time. Having a pitcher bunt a runner over is still a statistically smart move most of the time. Those are the manager move that the DH eliminate.

What about a rule where if you remove the starting pitcher, you also lose the DH. The DH could still stay in the game and be switched out for a position player, like the double switch. Reduces the number of times you see a pitcher hit to almost zero (how often does a reliever hit?) Still keeps the late game strategy people like about the NL, pretty much eliminates pitchers hitting at the same time. I would be in favor of that rule in both leagues.

[Roy Tucker]

If I want homogenization, I’ll drink a glass of milk.

[Bourgeois Zee]

Pitch hitting for a pitcher in the late innings of a close game is still considered a statistically smart move most of the time. Having a pitcher bunt a runner over is still a statistically smart move most of the time. Those are the manager move that the DH eliminate.

Those aren't hard calls or chess moves, as mth says. They're just the moves everyone makes.

More fun, IMO, would be pinch hitting for a regular who's struggling. A ninth place hitter who provides plus defense, perhaps.

That's a chess move. (One way or another.)

And you typically don't see that happen on NL teams as much as AL teams.

[NeilHamburger]

Good news for the Reds. Castellanos and Winker in the same outfield never made much sense defensively. You can stand one of the two.

[757690]

Any time after the 5th inning, always pinch hit. The pitcher is coming out of the game regardless. Why let him give the PA away? The only exception is the last pitcher left in extra innings and by then there probably isn't anyone available to hit anyway. .

Depends on the starting pitcher and the team’s pen situation. The team’s bottom of the rotation guys have always been pinch hit for early. The better pitchers, it’s still a tough decision.

Are you pinch hitting for Castillo in the sixth when he’s pitching a gem?

[Wonderful Monds]

I think the biggest thing I’ll miss is the odd pitcher here and there that really could hit, that was always entertaining. But whatever I guess, the writing has been on the wall for years with this.

Now I’m just hoping Manfred doesn’t use this as an excuse to implement automatic runners on second in extras or any of his other stupid ideas.

[Groujo]

What about a rule where if you remove the starting pitcher, you also lose the DH. The DH could still stay in the game and be switched out for a position player, like the double switch. Reduces the number of times you see a pitcher hit to almost zero (how often does a reliever hit?) Still keeps the late game strategy people like about the NL, pretty much eliminates pitchers hitting at the same time. I would be in favor of that rule in both leagues.

This is a great idea. I've never heard this one before. It adds to the import of the decision to replace a pitcher. You essentially "pair up" a pitcher and hitter. I'd add that if a DH has been announced but has not come to the plate yet, he can be paired with the next pitcher.

[corkedbat]

OF would be a 5-man rotation for 4 spots (including a DH)

LF Shogo
1B Votto
3B Suarez
2B Moustakas
RF Castellanos
DH Winker/Aquino
CF Senzel
CA Barnhart/Casali
SS Galvis

IF Farmer
OF Ervin