The National League needs the Designated Hitter

[BC867]

I have always disliked the concept of the American League's DH. It takes away from strategy.

But, at this point, I would settle for the DH in the National League to put us on equal footing with the American League.

They staff for nine out of nine batting positions. We have eight out of nine, then scramble in their park to try to adjust.

And they can work their pitching staff strictly based upon pitching rather than their place coming up in the batting order.

It is time to even the odds.

What do the AS effens think?

 

[frankeegee1]

No way.

 

[Matt L]

I would be fine with it.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

No thanks.

 

[Catlover]

One game, one set of rules. You're never getting the genie back into the bottle so it's time to add DH to the National League.

 

[AZCrazy]

The DH sucks. In the American League, you have one purely defensive player, eight two way players, and one purely offensive player. It's inane.

Either make them all be ballplayers, like in the NL, or quit the farce and go all the way. A lot of compromises have to be made trying to find just the right balance between offensive talent and defensive liability, or vice versa. Go all the way means do it like football does it - have a defensive team playing the field and an offensive team that goes up to bat. Imagine the quality of games having nine spectacular defenders on the field without having to worry about their crappy hitting, opposing nine terrific hitters trying to get past them. There are plenty of unreal players who can't make it to the bigs because one aspect of their game isn't up to scratch, but they are better than most major leaguers in some other way.

 

[DWKB]

My opinion of this back in 2003:

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showpost.php?p=94407&postcount=4

Sure thing AZCB34, anything to generate discussion:

There are several reasons I've seen for the extingueshing of the DH, so I'll address some of them and offer a counter.

WARNING: I don't profess these ideas to be truely original. I have formed my opinions based on arguements I've heard and read.

DH's are 1-dimentional players

Well yes, they can be. I won't argue against it. Baseball is filled with 1-dimentional players. Hell, baseball is filled with 1/2-dimentional players. If offense is one dimention and defense (and pitching) is another, then what is situational offense (pinch hitter/runner) or situational defense (LOOGY, closer)? Is that not 1/2 a dimention?
Last year our 12 man bullpen had a total of 3 ABs.

DH's aren't always 1-dimentional anyways. The DH position gives a team a lot of flexibility in how they chose to use it. Just because it is a 1-dimentional role does not mean that only 1-dimentional players can fill it (see Durham, Ray).

NL Pitchers have an advantage in interleague play and the WS

Well let's compare the two leagues in 2002:

Lg   AB   R   H  2B 3B HR RBI SB CS  BB   SO IBB HBP  SH SF   BA  OBP SLUG  OPS
AL  281  14  38   5  0  0   9  1  0  12  121  0    0  25  1 .135 .170 .153 .323
NL 4864 276 709 128  7 23 287  1  2 176 1820  0   15 557 16 .146 .177 .189 .367

The numbers can speak for themselves, but I don't see any real advantage (or ability) that the NL pitchers have over AL pitchers and I think this shows how 1-dimentional MLB pitchers really are.

The NL is the "pure" way to play the game

It is?

There are two leagues in the world that I know of that force pitchers to hit: the NL and the Japanese Central League.

HS, College, Minors, Mexican Leagues, Japanese Pacific LEague, AL, etc.. all have the DH implemented. The only time pitchers hit in the minors is when two NL farm clubs meet up and they "agree" to have their pitchers hit.

This is basically saying "I won't use a DH if you won't"

If the NL is the right way to play the game, then we need to run out and tell the rest of the world.

The DH takes away strategy

This is the most common of reasoning and probably the longest to address. So I'm going to ask Bill James to help me here (lots of quotes). James wrote an article in his Historical Baseball Abstract entitled: "1973: DH Rule Increases Strategy" (gasp!)

What the DH rule actually does…is to eliminate from the game a series of forced, obvious moves, which involve in fact no option on the part of either manager, and thus no strategy. You've got a .113 hitter at the plate. A runner on first, and nobody out in the fourth, and you have to bunt don't you? Where's the strategy? With a DH up there at least you can do something. You're down four runs in the seventh with the pitcher leading off, and you have to pinch hit for him, don't you? What's strategic about that? The DH rule saves the pinch hitters, and thus in effect makes the roster larger. As such it creates, not eliminates, strategic options for American League managers.

James backed this statement up by running a study to see how SAC hits and pinch hitters were used in the AL and NL from 1968 to 1986. James compares the standard deviation in the AL and NL in how these strategic tools are used and then compares the leagues to each other. What James discovered was that although they are used less in the AL, the situations they are used in vary much more than they do in the NL.

James sums up his thoughts in a way I couldn't put better myself:

What the truth comes down to here is, a question of in what does strategy reside? Does strategy exist in the act of bunting? If so, the Designated Hitter Rule has reduced strategy. But if strategy exists in the decision about when a bunt should be used, then the DH rule has increased the differences of opinion which exist about that question, and thus has increased strategy. But if strategy is an argument, then I would argue that there is more of a difference of opinion, not less, in the American League.

To add a personal observation of last nights game:

ARIZONA 3RD
-Bottom of the 3rd inning
-C Moeller singled to center.
-B Kim sacrificed to catcher, C Moeller to second.
-C Counsell grounded out to second, C Moeller to third.
-J Spivey struck out swinging.

0 runs, 1 hit, 0 errors
Florida 5, Arizona 0

This, to me, isn't strategy, it's desperation. I can't call it stupid because I don't know that BB had another option, but what good does a SAC do you when you're down 5 runs? The 7 pitchers in that game went 0-2 with 2 Ks and a SAC.


All of this isn't to convince the "purist" or "anti-DH" people to convert. It's just another point of view. I have no problems with people saying they prefer the pitcher hitting, I just don't like the questionable excuses as to why it makes the game better.

If you put all of these together (already 1-dimentional players in the NL, lack of offensive contribution of these players, practically every other league in the world uses DH, no increas in strategy and possibly a decrease) you can argue that the NL should be the league to change its rules.

 

[Ronin]

I don't like it but a NL DH is going to happen.imo

 

[puckhead]

I hate the DH.

 

[Dback Jon]

I don't like it but a NL DH is going to happen.imo

I feel the same way.

 

[BC867]

I meant, of course, designated hitter

Oops, I said designator hitter. I should have just said DH.

 

[AZ Native]

DH sucks, I want no part of it.

 

[DWKB]

Do you all also hate relief pitchers?

 

[Dback Jon]

Do you all also hate relief pitchers?

Lol. Not even the same thing

 

[82CardsGrad]

Do you all also hate relief pitchers?

I do miss the days when starters were left in games thru 7 or 8 innings and relievers would often pitch more than an inning. So yea, not only I am not a fan of the DH, but I also don't like how the game has steadily shifted and is now firmly and forever a game of specialized pitchers...

 

[DWKB]

Lol. Not even the same thing

How so? How many AB does our relief core have this season total?

 

[puckhead]

Do you all also hate relief pitchers?

No. They eventually run out and they're very unpredictable. That's usually why they're not starters.

 

[DWKB]

No. They eventually run out and they're very unpredictable. That's usually why they're not starters.

I don't understand your answer. I'm still not sure why a DH is different than a RP. The DH is actually more of a complete player IMO

 

[puckhead]

I don't understand your answer. I'm still not sure why a DH is different than a RP. The DH is actually more of a complete player IMO

To me, it seems like the DH is a way to avoid using your pitcher to hit. IMO, a baseball pitcher should be forced to hit.

A relief pitcher comes in for various circumstances, but over a season, the arms need to be managed for fatigue reasons. So, they eventually "run out" of RP's. Eventually, a pitcher will need to hit even if you trot out a reliever every inning.

 

[elindholm]

I agree that relief pitchers are as one-dimensional as DHs.

James's 1973 analysis, at least as quoted above, is glib and superficial. Sure, there will be obvious bunt situations when a pitcher is at the plate. But there are also obvious bunt positions when a weak-hitting position player is at the plate. So that's no big deal.

The best strategic tradeoffs in the NL are when a starting pitcher who is going well is coming up in the late innings. Bottom of the 7th, 1-1 game, runner at second, one out, pitcher at the plate. Let's say your bullpen sucks, or is tired, or the starter still has a low pitch count. How to handle this AB is a pretty interesting call. And what makes it more interesting is that some pitchers can actually hit, so it's an extra skill that increases their value in situations just like this one.

And you can run the tape backward in that scenario to find another interesting call. Let's say that it was the #7 hitter who led off with a single and the #8 hitter has been struggling. If you're planning to pinch-hit for the pitcher, you can have the #8 bunt. If you want to keep your pitcher, maybe you have to have the #8 swing away. Or maybe you risk having the #7 guy steal after his single, because you know you have to try to manufacture something.

Basically, making pitchers hit makes the game more difficult, and any increase in difficulty increases strategic possibilities.

 

[Dback Jon]

I agree that relief pitchers are as one-dimensional as DHs.

James's 1973 analysis, at least as quoted above, is glib and superficial. Sure, there will be obvious bunt situations when a pitcher is at the plate. But there are also obvious bunt positions when a weak-hitting position player is at the plate. So that's no big deal.

The best strategic tradeoffs in the NL are when a starting pitcher who is going well is coming up in the late innings. Bottom of the 7th, 1-1 game, runner at second, one out, pitcher at the plate. Let's say your bullpen sucks, or is tired, or the starter still has a low pitch count. How to handle this AB is a pretty interesting call. And what makes it more interesting is that some pitchers can actually hit, so it's an extra skill that increases their value in situations just like this one.

And you can run the tape backward in that scenario to find another interesting call. Let's say that it was the #7 hitter who led off with a single and the #8 hitter has been struggling. If you're planning to pinch-hit for the pitcher, you can have the #8 bunt. If you want to keep your pitcher, maybe you have to have the SS swing away. Or maybe you risk having the #7 guy steal after his single, because you know you have to try to manufacture something.

Basically, making pitchers hit makes the game more difficult, and any increase in difficulty increases strategic possibilities.

Well stated

 

[DWKB]

I agree that relief pitchers are as one-dimensional as DHs.

James's 1973 analysis, at least as quoted above, is glib and superficial. Sure, there will be obvious bunt situations when a pitcher is at the plate. But there are also obvious bunt positions when a weak-hitting position player is at the plate. So that's no big deal.

The best strategic tradeoffs in the NL are when a starting pitcher who is going well is coming up in the late innings. Bottom of the 7th, 1-1 game, runner at second, one out, pitcher at the plate. Let's say your bullpen sucks, or is tired, or the starter still has a low pitch count. How to handle this AB is a pretty interesting call. And what makes it more interesting is that some pitchers can actually hit, so it's an extra skill that increases their value in situations just like this one.

And you can run the tape backward in that scenario to find another interesting call. Let's say that it was the #7 hitter who led off with a single and the #8 hitter has been struggling. If you're planning to pinch-hit for the pitcher, you can have the #8 bunt. If you want to keep your pitcher, maybe you have to have the #8 swing away. Or maybe you risk having the #7 guy steal after his single, because you know you have to try to manufacture something.

Basically, making pitchers hit makes the game more difficult, and any increase in difficulty increases strategic possibilities.

There really is no actual strategy employed in your scenario though. Not specific to the pitcher anyways. The NL Manager sticks with the pitcher just like the AL manager would.

So you're strategy is what to do when essentially a LL hitter is up regardless of position. "The book" says you try to bunt the runner in scoring position and accept the two outs. It's better than a strikeout and it greatly reduces the DP. Your play is decided as a Manager because having your SP remain in the game is your priority.

As James states, the strategic situations in the NL tend to be paint by numbers, whereas the scenarios in the AL offer differing philosophies that having the automatic out hinders. Your roster orientation is more limited because to the need for more RP so your bench is less flexible. Your platoon options are less abundant. You can't carry a PR on your roster for SB scenarios as easily. IOW, because one of your players really sucks at part of his job, you need other players to be more flexible and less specialized to make up for that and those players are both harder to find and don't enhance the Manager or GMs ability to both find a specialist and stick them into game scenarios. That scenario you use in the AL has a different position than Pitcher and maybe you have a platoon advantage on your bench you can utilize and force the opposing managers hand. More variation and flexibilty for the decision makers.

If having really poor performing players in the game makes it more apealing then why do we desire to see those who are the best at their craft? That is simply counter intuitive. To me, those who argue that the NL offers more strategy have a limited perception of what strategy actually entails.
None of this changes the fact that nobody wants to see a Pitcher hit anyways. While I find 82CardsGrad's position more convincing than any other argument stated here, it's hurting the apeal of the game and it's turning it's fanbase older and crotchitier in general.

Counter that with the current NBA where GMs and Managers are becoming more successful at finding players who excel at a particular skill set and finding ways to maximize that skill within the team dynamic. It makes the game faster, better, and more exciting to watch.

 

[elindholm]

There really is no actual strategy employed in your scenario though. Not specific to the pitcher anyways. The NL Manager sticks with the pitcher just like the AL manager would.

A lot of NL managers would pinch-hit there. It's not an automatic decision at all.

So you're strategy is what to do when essentially a LL hitter is up regardless of position.

But it's all relative, right? What's the Mendoza line for a LL (I'm guessing you mean little-league) hitter? The difference between a .275 hitter and a .175 one is only one successful attempt out of ten. Nine times out of ten, they are the same.

As James states, the strategic situations in the NL tend to be paint by numbers, whereas the scenarios in the AL offer differing philosophies that having the automatic out hinders.

Can you give a specific example of a strategic decision that an AL manager would face that wouldn't also apply in the NL?

Your roster orientation is more limited because to the need for more RP so your bench is less flexible.

Actually I think AL teams tend to carry more pitchers than NL teams do.

If having really poor performing players in the game makes it more apealing then why do we desire to see those who are the best at their craft?

We like to see them challenged. The excitement of someone chasing .400 is that we know it's hard. If everyone did it, we wouldn't care.

To me, those who argue that the NL offers more strategy have a limited perception of what strategy actually entails.

It must be nice to be blessed with such distinctive insight. The old "anyone who disagrees with me must be uninformed" trope.

None of this changes the fact that nobody wants to see a Pitcher hit anyways.

It's like you think all pitchers hit .100 or worse. There are a handful who hit decently and it's clear they take it seriously. I think I counted 13 pitchers who are hitting at least .170 with at least 30 ABs this season. http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/sortable.j...278843&timeframe=&position='1'&playerType=ALL And yes, I like watching those pitchers hit.

Even for the guys hitting in .150 territory, there's a big difference between someone who strikes out 2/3 of the time and someone who usually gets the ball in play. On the other hand, if all pitchers really did bat zero or close to it, I'd be a lot more inclined to support universal DHs.

While I find 82CardsGrad's position more convincing than any other argument stated here, it's hurting the apeal of the game

Is there any evidence that fans are more drawn to AL teams than to NL ones?

Counter that with the current NBA where GMs and Managers are becoming more successful at finding players who excel at a particular skill set and finding ways to maximize that skill within the team dynamic. It makes the game faster, better, and more exciting to watch.

Actually that's an NL argument, not an AL one. All NBA players have to play both sides of the floor. If you go with a defensive specialist who is an offensive liability, that's a tradeoff with constant strategic implications. That's one reason that you see coaches juggling their lineups to try to find the right combination of strengths and weaknesses, especially as a close playoff series unfolds.

 

[cardncubfan]

I hate the DH.

Same here.

 

[DWKB]

A lot of NL managers would pinch-hit there. It's not an automatic decision at all.

Well, based upon your scenario (BP worn down, SP with low PC), it is rather automatic. That doesn't mean it's 100%, but it's up there that you let the SP bunt.

But it's all relative, right? What's the Mendoza line for a LL (I'm guessing you mean little-league) hitter? The difference between a .275 hitter and a .175 one is only one successful attempt out of ten. Nine times out of ten, they are the same.

Well it's actually around 50 more hits in a season's worth of ABs and that's a lot. That also doesn't account for SLG and OBP. The total line of pitchers in 2014 was .122/.153/.153. That is rather pathetic.

Can you give a specific example of a strategic decision that an AL manager would face that wouldn't also apply in the NL?

This is what I was refering to below that you took offense to. Strategy is not simply reacting to the situation on the field in front of you. That's only one small aspect. It's also creating an advantage or forcing the opponents to react. With the cost of losing your SP off the table, you can substitute in more varied situations to take advantage. You don't need to save your bench players for the neccessary PH or Double Switch of your SP.

Actually I think AL teams tend to carry more pitchers than NL teams do.

While it is small, NL rosters carry more RP and less POS players as a league.

We like to see them challenged. The excitement of someone chasing .400 is that we know it's hard. If everyone did it, we wouldn't care.

Yes, but I fail to see how this relates to watching someone who isn't capable of even being close to average attempt and generally fail. It's why we don't care to watch average joes try and hit MLB pitching.

It must be nice to be blessed with such distinctive insight. The old "anyone who disagrees with me must be uninformed" trope.

Not uninformed, just simply looking at the issue in too constricted a mannor.

It's like you think all pitchers hit .100 or worse. There are a handful who hit decently and it's clear they take it seriously. I think I counted 13 pitchers who are hitting at least .170 with at least 30 ABs this season. http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/sortable.js...playerType=ALL And yes, I like watching those pitchers hit.

Even for the guys hitting in .150 territory, there's a big difference between someone who strikes out 2/3 of the time and someone who usually gets the ball in play. On the other hand, if all pitchers really did bat zero or close to it, I'd be a lot more inclined to support universal DHs.

To repeat that line from last year: .122/.153/.153
To be fair, I also have no interest in watching David Ortiz field. Losing the DH will not make pitchers hit better, it will not make the game more interesting, and it will take away the enjoyment of seeing David Ortiz or Edgar Martinez hit. It will end Jim Thome's career earlier as well.

Is there any evidence that fans are more drawn to AL teams than to NL ones?

Probably not, because it's not the only variable. I was simply refering to the mentality that MLB and its fans take on that is keeping younger kids away from the game. Statistically, the demographic is getting older. Studies have shown that younger fans are more accepting of the DH rule than older fans.

Actually that's an NL argument, not an AL one. All NBA players have to play both sides of the floor. If you go with a defensive specialist who is an offensive liability, that's a tradeoff with constant strategic implications. That's one reason that you see coaches juggling their lineups to try to find the right combination of strengths and weaknesses, especially as a close playoff series unfolds.

NBA coaches will stick a 3-pt specialist on their roster, or a great pick and roll big despite their other inadequacies because they can utilize them for a particular set of minutes and they develop plays around that particular skill. They aren't full time players. That was my point. The manager has more strategic options as the player evaluation has gotten better. This could be utilized in baseball as well, particularly in the AL because of the DH.