What do you want?

[Chip R]

We hear fans all the time say that MLB should listen to them and do what they want as far as the game on the field is concerned. Obviously this group is a small sample size but I think it's representative of MLB fans as a whole. Over the past several years there have been some changes. Several have been to help speed up the game although how successful they have been in achieving that goal is debatable. I thought I'd post some polls here and see what you really think. I'm going to post quite a few of these and I'd rather people just select their choice rather than debate the merits of the rule and each other's opinions. If you do comment, leave the labor stuff out of it since we have a few threads about that.

[MoneyInTheBank]

It needs to be the same in both leagues but let pitchers pitch and hitters hit (unless you are Ohtani). Double switches are neat and quirky but I'm not sure they do anything to add to my enjoyment of baseball

[RedsBaron]

The AL has been using the DH for almost a half century, and by now the NL is virtually the only significant part of organized baseball not using the DH. Like, love or loath the DH, it isn't going away. I believe that the NL should adopt it.

[redsmetz]

I don't care for the DH personally, but I want baseball - just do the blasted DH in both leagues and Play Ball!

[RedsManRick]

I've come around on having DH in both leagues. In theory, I like the simplicity of the idea of pitchers having to pull their weight as hitters, of the game being a 9v9 competition with each sides players always swapping between offense and defense. It also creates sometimes interesting strategic choices. In practice, there are two main problems.

Aesthetics: Unlike most other sports, baseball simultaneous requires the use of a specialist and demands said specialist be given equal opportunities to perform outside of his specialization. Imagine if kickers in the NFL had to play every down on offense. Imagine if every player on a basketball team had to be given an equal number of shots. Imagine if goalies in hockey and soccer had to play forward for a small chunk of each game. Would this make those games better? It could be interesting, I'll admit. But better? I don't think so. As a rule of thumb, sports are at their most entertaining when they maximize the opportunity for players to do what they do better than everyone else. Especially considering how the talent level of the game has increased, pitchers are collectively as close to being as productive as a fan (~.135 wOBA) as they are to a replacement level position player (~.270 for a good defender). Yes, it can be fun when that guy does something productive. But it's arguably more frustrating to know that the pitcher's existence in the lineup hurts the value of your batters and will often be the cause, direct or indirect, of offensive opportunities withering on the vine. On net, I don't think it makes the offense more fun to watch.

Practicality: The AL is never going back to pitchers hitting. The players union would never allow the loss of highish paying jobs that represents, especially when DHs are often older players with disproportionate power in the union. So the "No DH at all" option is a pipe dream. So we're left asking whether it's a positive or a negative that the leagues are different. I argue it's a negative, specifically for the NL. Players who excel at hitting but who are poor fielders still provide substantial value. But they are more inclined to go to an AL team where the option exists to fix the downside cost of their defense -- especially as they age. Meanwhile, few pitchers prefer NL teams because it gives them the opportunity to hit; and some presumably avoid the NL because they don't want to hit. Ultimately, it just gives AL teams a bigger pool of players to work with and gives them a lasting advantage in H2H matchups.

[CaiGuy]

I don't like the DH, but I think having the DH gives the AL an advantage over the NL. They can attract hitters that the NL can't, and their rosters are set up for it during their home inter-league games.

Also, it is good for the players and can keep some fun bats around longer than they would be able to otherwise.

Just adopt it in the NL.

[mth123]

The trend to 5 inning starters changed my mind on this. Pulling the pitcher for a pinch hitter is the key strategic move that the DH takes away and the pitcher gets pulled these days anyway making it a moot point. The rest of the stuff, double switches, etc aren't really complicated and "Strategy" that just about any 8 year could figure out. The loss of strategy brought on by having the DH is lost DH or not anymore.

Bring on the DH

[mth123]

I don't like the DH, but I think having the DH gives the AL an advantage over the NL. They can attract hitters that the NL can't, and their rosters are set up for it during their home inter-league games.

Also, it is good for the players and can keep some fun bats around longer than they would be able to otherwise.

Just adopt it in the NL.

Exactly. Mainly they can take more chances to lure guys because as they age they have the safety net of the DH to keep their bat in the line-up while in the NL he'd just be an expensive bench player in his later years. A lot of good hitters are lost to theAL because that AL can offer that extra year on teh contract that the NL is more hesitant to offer. There needs to be a level playing field in that regard.

[RedsBrick]

I was never a proponent of the DH in the NL. Over the past couple of years I've shifted my thinking and prefer the DH in both. These NL pitchers can't even lay down a successful bunt anymore.

[cumberlandreds]

I voted no DH. I still think the pitcher should hit. But I know its inevitable that it is coming to the NL.

[DayGameRedLegs]

I like pitchers hitting b/c when it's our pitcher and he gets a hit, that's amazing! Not only that, but usually pitchers are the only ones that will bunt anymore.

[DayGameRedLegs]

I read The Glory of Their Times and one of the players mentioned that most games used to only take 1.5 hrs in the dead ball era, b/c nowadays the pitchers take forever to throw the ball, and batters take forever to get set to hit.

I'm open to the idea of a time clock between pitches and not letting batters step out of the batters box so often.

[Bourgeois Zee]

I read The Glory of Their Times and one of the players mentioned that most games used to only take 1.5 hrs in the dead ball era, b/c nowadays the pitchers take forever to throw the ball, and batters take forever to get set to hit.

It's not the time between pitches that makes games super long-- it's the time between half-innings.

It's a television construct so that MLB can jam more commercials in there.

An extra 90 seconds every half-inning is a half an hour of wait time that could be excised from the game.

That said, networks need that time to defray costs and allow me to watch the game in the comfort of my own living room.

[Jaysland Red]

It’s interesting that most of the comments have been about the DH when we were asked to think of anything. Strictly enforcing the time limit between pitches would make the game flow better and would favour interesting finesse pitchers who tend to work more quickly. A lot of people here have commented on what an electrifying player Billy Hamilton was with the Reds. Maybe we should introduce a DPR - Designated Pinch Runner - who can be brought in any time a player gets on base but without that player losing their spot in the line-up. This would give fast base-runners who don’t hit well a role in keeping an inning alive. If the DH does come to the NL and with it those power-happy slowcoaches who fill that role, the DPR would compensate for it.

[Ron Madden]

It’s interesting that most of the comments have been about the DH when we were asked to think of anything.

The poll question right above the 1st post is about Designated Hitter or no Designated Hitter.