The DH

[Brodirt]

With Memorial Day passed baseball is hot and heavy.

A favorite gentlemanly debate of mine is the pro/con DH debate.

So, post your arguments for or against the DH.

Mine is con. Every player plays defense and offense, a pitcher's specialty is defense while his weakness is offense. A first baseman's specialty is usually offense while his weakness is defense and no one plays defense for him. Historically, a shortstop's specialty is defense and his weakness is offense and no one has every batted for him...and so on through the lineup.

 

[Gruder]

Horrible idea that's screwed up the game (particularly with interleague play). If it went away tomorrow, no one but a few whiny pitchers would miss it. Go National League. Go Reds!

 

[castlecraver]

There are definitely a lot of cons, but I think the pros outweigh them. (on any other board I'd be flamed into oblivion right about now)

It seems the DH produces an all-around more lively offense (as evidenced by the AL's consistently higher batting average every year), and I'd rather see that than suffer through an "easy out" every time through the lineup. I also appreciate the fact that the DH rule has extended careers and undoubtedly contributed to fewer injuries amongst pitchers (and utility players who might get rotated through the DH slot for whatever reason).

Pitchers are made to be pitchers, regardless of whether they have to bat or not. And 99% of them are going to suck at the plate. Decades upon decades of baseball have cemented this as a simple fact of pro ball. So the decision becomes whether there's an "easy out" slot in the order, the bullpen gets taxed, etc etc or (IMHO, with the DH rule) you make the most of the matchup between a pitcher who's not in danger of getting prematurely pulled for offensive purposes and a more formidable offensive lineup. It improves the level of competition.

 

[stobes21]

The DH started as a gimmick to give has been baseball stars who could no longer field a way to extend their glory a few extra years and bring fans in to see them. It's still a gimmick and one that should have been dropped when the AL matched the NL in popularity.

Every player on the field should be an athlete who competes in every aspect of the game. A pitcher who contributes on offense makes his job easier on the other side of the field. A shortstop who hits lightly but plays spectacular defense may be more valuable to the team as a whole than a slugger who can't field as well.

A manager's job is to match the teams needs (offensively, defensively, and pitching) with the players he has. This should not be any different for pitchers.

 

[40boy]

I think the DH is a terrible idea. IMHO it has taken so much away from the game. The judicious use of the bullpen, conserving bench players, and double-switches are virtually gone from the AL game.
It has affected all the nuances of the game, and all of the "what-ifs" that make the game special. To have pitchers bat forces the NL pitchers to step up and do their full job. To bunt a runner over. To run the bases effectively. It makes the 8th place hitter job more important. to take a walk to turn over the line up. It makes the AL pitchers more like specialists, not a well rounded player.

The AL is programmable baseball. Put in 9 guys to pound the ball and take the pitcher out when he's tired, or when he sucks.

A monkey could manage an AL team.

It has messed up the World Series most of all. Play by both sets of rules in one series? Come on!??!!

Seems like a rule made up by the union to prolong the careers over-paid, over-the-hill, no-defense sluggers.

 

[Confilo]

It does not matter, with or without the RED SOX are taking all

 

[ouch]

Sorry, but the DH rule is not real baseball.

By having a DH, you get rid of the lousy batter, but you also get rid of the of the compelling strategy of when to pull the pitcher. Your pitcher is mowing down the opposition? Let him earn his right to stay in the game.

It's the three point shot of baseball.

 

[danek]

The DH rule would have to first be eliminated in College ball, because pitchers are going to have to learn how to hit.

 

[gone down south]

Would you extend those arguments to football? Should we go back to the old 2-way players?

(For the record, the answer is Yes! The very concept of a person who's whole job is being a long-snapper or mid-range field goal kicker and nothing else just rubs me the wrong way.)

 

[Shane]

For me, I look at it from an offensive standpoint. In the NL, barring pitchers that can actually hit like Carlos Zambrano, the pitchers are construed as an easy out. This is because that's exactly what they are; their primary obligation is to pitch and not to hit. Many times managers send a pinch hitter to bat for the pitcher, and if they don't, a pinch runner is used on the off chance that a pitcher gets a base hit. Gone are the days of Babe Ruth when one could be both a dominant pitcher AND a dominant hitter.

In the AL, I don't think it's too much different. A lot of DHs are older players that don't have the fuel to be a defensive player. In some cases, when a DH gets a base hit, a manager will swap out the DH for a faster pinch runner. The DH exists to move base runners and score runs, but that's about it. Pitchers in the NL that come up to bat have generally abysmal batting averages and, though pitchers are becoming better hitters lately for whatever reason, they don't contribute enough at the plate to make a difference.

The bottom line for me is that the game has changed and it's alright to have specialists. Pitchers pitch, hitters hit.

 

[castlecraver]

By having a DH, you get rid of the lousy batter, but you also get rid of the of the compelling strategy of when to pull the pitcher. Your pitcher is mowing down the opposition? Let him earn his right to stay in the game.

This never really made sense to me. If a pitcher is truly mowing down the opposition, presumably his team isn't playing from behind. Unless you're desperate for runs, you'd not have much reason to pull the guy if he's pitching well. If the score is tight later in the game and you're already going through your bullpen, the decision's already made for you. Pull the reliever and get your aging power hitter off the bench. Then it effectively becomes a DH slot at that point anyway. There's no strategy there in either case.

I found a quote from Jim Leyland (who's managed in both leagues) which seems to back me up:

"Everyone in the world disagrees with me, including some managers, but I think managing in the American League is much more difficult for that very reason (having the designated hitter). In the National League, my situation is dictated for me. If I'm behind in the game, I've got to pinch hit. I've got to take my pitcher out. In the American League, you have to zero in. You have to know exactly when to take them out of there. In the National League, that's done for you."
​

 

[Brodirt]

This never really made sense to me. If a pitcher is truly mowing down the opposition, presumably his team isn't playing from behind. Unless you're desperate for runs, you'd not have much reason to pull the guy if he's pitching well. If the score is tight later in the game and you're already going through your bullpen, the decision's already made for you. Pull the reliever and get your aging power hitter off the bench. Then it effectively becomes a DH slot at that point anyway. There's no strategy there in either case.

I found a quote from Jim Leyland (who's managed in both leagues) which seems to back me up:

"Everyone in the world disagrees with me, including some managers, but I think managing in the American League is much more difficult for that very reason (having the designated hitter). In the National League, my situation is dictated for me. If I'm behind in the game, I've got to pinch hit. I've got to take my pitcher out. In the American League, you have to zero in. You have to know exactly when to take them out of there. In the National League, that's done for you."
​

There may, in fact, be less specific decisions at that point, but that decision starts the row of dominoes toppling as to how you are going to handle your bullpen, your bench, your batting order, when to double switch, etc.

How often do AL managers have to deal with the strategy of a double switch?

 

[TimmyBoston]

I'd personally rather see all players hit as well, but it's pointless to debate it because the DH spot will never disappear in the AL. It's too well established and there are too many players who have spent their careers only hitting or never hitting.

 

[PKHammer]

Like it or not, its not going anywhere. Only the NL and Japan's Central League don't use it among professionals and it is almost universal among amateur leagues. Honestly, who wants to see a pitcher hit when they flail at the ball. I'd much rather see a DH who knows what he is doing up there swinging (and usually swinging for the fences).

What needs to be addressed is the disadvantage it puts AL teams under during the WS. You go all season with a basically set lineup and during the biggest games of the year you have to tinker with it depending on if you are the home team or not. Fair? Certainly not by any stretch of the imagination. But then this is a sport that determines the home field advantage by the result of the All Star Game.

As much as I am a NL guy (go Phillies), I'm also pro-DH.

 

[TimmyBoston]

But then this is a sport that determines the home field advantage by the result of the All Star Game.

STUPIDEST thing ever.

 

[ratcheer]

I am against the DH for many reasons.

• It lets the manager change pitchers too often without having to worry about how it affects his lineup.
  
• There is too much offense in the game these days, anyway. As a purist, I would much rather watch a 2-1 game than a 12-9 game.
  
• As already mentioned, it screws up one of the basic principles of baseball - if you come out of the game, you can't go back in.
  
• It is really fun watching a pitcher who is hitting .087 hit a game winning home run (or any other big hit).

Those are just a few.

Tim

 

[crocto]

2 reasons why the DH sucks see this video.

couldn't spot them? ok here they are:

1. big z took a mighty hack and nearly spun himself out of his shoes!
2. he snaps the bat like a freakin' twig!

 

[Walter Sobchak]

In a world of ideals, I'm all for getting rid of the DH. I'd have loved to see Pedro Martinez stand in there and have to deal with some of the high heat and/or headhunting he's famous for. Not to mention, it's a romantic notion to think that all guys will go out there and be two-sided players.

In the real world, however, I'm a DH guy all the way. A pitcher is a specialized position, kind of like a goaltender. In our modern age, I think it's safe to say most pundits agree that pitching wins championships. If pitching indeed wins championships, then pitchers will always be pressed into focusing on nurturing their talent on the mound and not their chops at the plate. An ace, top of the rotation pitcher, is a MAJOR commodity and one that I think most managers like to see safe(r) from injury while removed from the offensive side of the game. I'd much rather see a guy at the plate who's electrifying with the bat than a pitcher who won't or can't devote the time to get handy with the stick.

 

[Heron]

How 'bout another round of this debate?
I'm anti-DH, for the many reasons listed above.

 

[RealPretendPsychic]

How 'bout another round of this debate?
I'm anti-DH, for the many reasons listed above.

But what about the fragile obliques of the poor pitchers that have to bat?!

Anti-DH!