The DH

[ctorg]

In real baseball, I like watching games without the DH more. There's much more to contend with strategically. However, in OOTP, I go back and forth. I like individual games more without the DH, but on a more macro level (which is more like how I play OOTP), I like the various things DHs allow you to do. Plus, I feel like the AI does a better job running teams when the DH is on. I go back and forth or sometimes split the leagues like MLB does and leave it that way.

[Anyone]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

Just because Davey Johnson botched a double switch once doesn't mean it's rocket science. It's not. It's a pushbutton decision any fan with average or above baseball intelligence can easily make.

As I said before, there is no one right answer to how to make a double switch. You don't take the last batter out all or even (if you're me) most of the time. Sometimes you don't make the double switch as you don't intend for the pitcher you're putting in to pitch more than one inning-- or in most cases, you don't if it's early in the game.

But let's say the circumstances call for one. The team I mentioned with the great hit/no field LF, whose season I just finished simming. Suppose the pitcher's spot, #9, is due up first next inning. My C, who batted #8, made the last out. We'll say a righty started against us for purposes of who'd be in the lineup and where.

Do I do the switch with the C? Probably not a great idea, because the backup isn't much of a hitter, so I'm gaining less offense from the switch.

My #7 hitter, a great field/not so great hit SS, could come out, but my backup there, while decent offensively (and better leading off an inning, as he'd do, because he's an OBP guy), is a mediocre fielder. It probably is a good idea if I'm behind, maybe tied, but do I want to sacrifice the defense if I lead?

Or do I do my #6 hitter, half of a 1B platoon, with the other half? Not a bad choice, if the other team hasn't switched pitchers' handedness leading me to sub there.

Then there's the #4 hitter, the LF who can hit so well but can't field. If I lead, I may well do it there-- my bench is strongest at corner OF, anyway-- but of course that spot may come up the next inning.

I think the C sub would be foolish. Any of the others could be argued for, and any of them could bite me back later. That's called interesting strategy.

Originally Posted by chucksabr

You can hope against hope, or pray to the deity of your choice if you prefer, until you turn blue, but leagues around the world dropping the DH en masse simply is never going to happen.

In practice, probably true. But MLB with my rule could make it happen. Not saying they will, but if MLB were determined, they could.

Originally Posted by chucksabr

Pitchers learning to hit will never happen.

First, even assuming that's true, that doesn't budge me one millimeter on the DH rule. But pitchers learned to hit (a little) before, including during the time the AL already had the awful rule. NL pitchers still tend to learn to bunt. Trends do reverse.

Originally Posted by chucksabr

Your only hope is that the National League remains on the wrong side of history.

The "wrong side of history" is the one that wants to rob the NL game of strategy and make it as dull as the AL game. It's also the side that wants to keep McNamara from having to choose between going for an insurance run or keeping Clemens in the game. It's the one that wants to make room for unathletic guys who can't play the field even to the level of my fictional LF (but can hit) to play like in a beer league and take their hacks 4 times a game and grow fatter on the bench the rest of the time.

I guarantee that if the NL adopts the DH, there will be a few seasons of large attendance and ratings drops in NL cities. I'm not saying fans would never come back-- in the end, people will want baseball and the vast majority will eventually adjust to the inferior brand being all that's available. I have no idea what happened with the DH adoption in the AL. If I had to guess, in fact, my guess would be that what was then a novelty may even have caused an attendance spike.

A DH hater, like myself, can always cling to the fact there's still a league in which real baseball is played. Take that away, I'd make a point not to spend any money on baseball, and I'd watch less (The lack of offense already is reducing my viewership-- and yes, I know the DH increases offense, but there are many better ways to do that. Oh, and that isn't pining for the steroid era HR's-- though compared to what we have now, it wasn't as bad-- but ideally for fewer K's and the resulting higher batting averages).

But take away that I can follow real baseball in one of the major leagues, and I'll spitefully withhold money, and even watch less for free. Those could eventually stop for me, and would eventually almost definitely stop for most alienated fans. But there'd be a real drop in revenue for a while, even if temporary-- and no long term gain. The MLBPA thinks they gain because of 15 more starters, but if less revenue comes into the game, teams will be less willing to pay as much for players. So their push for it may be shortsighted even from players' points of view.

[Amazin69]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

Just because Davey Johnson botched a double switch once doesn't mean it's rocket science. It's not.

Well, he "botched" it (we did win the game, after all) multiple times in one particular game. It's likely that this wasn't the only time he screwed that pooch in 15 or so years of managing. I spotlighted it because it was a famous game, that's all.

It's a pushbutton decision any fan with average or above baseball intelligence can easily make.

Really? Okay, then, let's go! You get to be Davey Johnson for a Day!

Reset: Top of the 8th inning, Game 6 of the World Series, your team trails 3-2 in the game, and 3-2 in the series as well. Boston has the bases loaded, two out, and a lefty (Bill Buckner) at the plate. The pitcher's spot will be leading off the bottom of the 8th, and Calvin Schiraldi is probably coming into the game for Boston.

Do you

a) Leave Roger McDowell in the game, pinch-hit for McDowell leading off the bottom of the inning, and save Jesse Orosco for the 9th? But McDowell is trying to finish out his second inning, that walk to Marty Barrett to load the bases (after the IBB to Boggs) doesn't look good, and if you bring in Orosco you get the platoon advantage. (But what if McNamara then pinch-hits Don Baylor for Buckner?)

or

b) Bring Orosco in the game, bat him 9th, knowing that you'll have to pinch-hit for him leading off the next inning? Meaning that your best reliever works 1/3 inning, tops, and you're putting Rick Aguilera out there for the 9th…and possibly, beyond.

or

c) Bring in Orosco, bat him 8th (replacing Kevin Elster) and put Howard Johnson in the 9th spot to play SS? Hojo isn't exactly a whiz with the glove, though, and you'd rather use Lee Mazzilli to start the bottom of the inning, all other things being equal.

OR

d) Bring in Orosco, bat him 7th (replacing Mookie Wilson) and put Mazzilli in the 9th spot to lead off the 8th? That solves most of your problems, but what if we don't score in the 8th? That means any "last chance" rally in the 9th would likely bring up Orosco's spot and it's one thing to have take out Elster, a rookie back-up, and have to pinch-hit for the spot, but I'd hate to have the game come around to Mookie's spot and have Mookie (a consistent veteran hitter with good game intelligence and speed) be out of there, if I could have kept him in before this.

Come on, "Davey", the clock is ticking! You've got four options here, and the ump is going to want your decision right now…I mean, this is "a pushbutton decision any fan with average or above baseball intelligence can easily make", so what's taking you so long? Manager of the Year, my ass!

(Spoiler: Davey chose "b". And Mazzilli started the tying rally, and Darryl Strawberry, batting in the 5th spot, made the last out. So now what?

Do you

B1) Bring in Aguilera and put him in Darryl's spot? This means he won't have to hit in the bottom of the 9th, but I'd hate to lose the Series because the order comes around in extra innings and you took Darryl Strawberry, future Hall of Famer (hey, he looked like it!) out of the game, and didn't have him when you needed him. For example, down 5-3 in the 10th, two out, one on, the #5 spot coming up…

or

B2) Bring Aguilera in and bat him 9th, replacing Mazzilli. This keeps Darryl in the game and the order in order, but now there's a pretty good chance Aggy will bat in the bottom of the 9th. Are you going to let him hit, which probably won't help if you have a rally going, or are you going to hit for him and keep running through your bullpen so that if the game goes long enough, you'll end up with Doug Sisk on the mound?

or

B3) Bring Aguilera in, and bat him leadoff, replacing Len Dykstra? Well, this way we get 4 batters up in the 9th before Aguilera is due up, not 3, so hopefully we can win the game before his batting is even an issue. But you're only saving one spot and Dykstra (the hero of Game 3) is a way better hitter than Mazzilli…is it enough of a risk/reward equation to sacrifice that much offense to save one lousy spot in the order?

Well, Davey? What do you want to do? What do you want to do? Come on, already! Oh, come on, we only have three options now, not four, this one is easy! Sheesh…)

The only way pitchers are going to hit better is for them to work on their hitting, and that is not going to happen. A pitcher makes all his money, every last penny, pitching, and he is not going to give up any of the time he spends working on his pitching to work on hitting, because in a super competitive environment in which a couple of bad outings in a row can cost him his career, he is not going to risk losing one bit of his edge so he can learn how to ground out instead of strike out.

Your hyperbolic attempts to state your opinion as fact don't make it so.

• Pitchers will work on their hitting when the manager tells them to work on their hitting. Your whole argument here is off point.

• Most pitchers LOVE to hit and want to do it more. They have little contests among the pitchers for who gets the most hits over the course of a season. A good-hitting pitcher, be he Doc Gooden or Jacob deGrom, takes pride in how he's an all-around athlete and helps the team. Did you see Doc on Olbermann, getting wistful about his 8 career home runs?

• The idea that a pitcher's time is so tightly budgeted he can't possibly spare 15 minutes to work in his hitting is a complete joke. I hate to break it to you, but pitchers do all sorts of things at the ballpark. They eat, they go to the bathroom, they get dressed. They talk to fans, they talk to reporters, they sit and think. They do crossword puzzles, they answer fan mail, they sometimes sneak a smoke. They run sprints in the outfield, they shag fly balls, sometimes they just stand around and shoot the sh*t. Squeezing in 15 minutes every now and then to work on hitting is not going "take away from the time he spends on pitching", not in a million years.

And if it would, the manager can have the pitchers come to the park 15 minutes earlier. I mean, come on now.

You can hope against hope, or pray to the deity of your choice if you prefer, until you turn blue, but leagues around the world dropping the DH en masse simply is never going to happen. Pitchers learning to hit will never happen. Your only hope is that the National League remains on the wrong side of history. Anything more than that is nothing more, nothing less, than wishful thinking.

You can make overblown, absolutist, declarative statement after statement about what's going to happen in the future, until you turn blue, or you can pray to the deity of your choice, but you still don't know what's going to happen in the future. Any more than you knew the defensive shifts would happen, or the steroids would happen, or 33% of the teams making the "playoffs" would happen, or anything else that changes the shape of the game. All you have is "nothing more, nothing less" than your opinion, and opinions are like a-holes, everybody's got one.

And I'm not the one yelling. You are.

Interesting that my version of "yelling" doesn't involve absolutist statements ("never going to happen"), slanted analyses ("wrong side of history") or condescending remarks like 'wishful thinking", over and over again. It's a little annoying, which is why I mentioned it to begin with. Tone it down, please. Thank you.

[Amazin69]

Originally Posted by Anyone

I have no idea what happened with the DH adoption in the AL. If I had to guess, in fact, my guess would be that what was then a novelty may even have caused an attendance spike.

Tough to say. The AL was certainly lagging the NL in average attendance and pulled even by the end of the decade, but other factors could have contributed to this. The NL had opened a lot of new parks (we hate the "toilet bowls" of Three Rivers/Riverfront/Vet Stadium/Busch II in retrospect, but they probably boosted attendance, sadly) and the AL hadn't, but soon the Kingdome and Exhibition Stadium would be pulling up the averages that Cleveland was holding back.

Also, I'd bet the AL average was always heavily dependent on the Yankees' total, and the CBS years saw the Bronx Bumblers pulling down the league instead of pulling it up. Once George got the team out of Shea, into his renovated stadium, and back into the World Series, the historical value of the brand returned to the norm. Just a thought, I'd have to see the team-by-team data to be sure.



Likewise, the overall average showed no significant increase for the first few years of the DH, it was only in '77 that the upward trend started. While the SEA/TOR expansion may have been the initial impetus, I wonder if free agency wasn't what really rejuvenated moribund markets. Instead of Brewers fans being "it's hopeless" they were now like, "Man, can you imagine if we could get Reggie Jackson…" Dreams were easier when you had a chance at buying what you needed.



I also note that some of the other spikes were rather once-offs; the '58-'59 totals are all due to the new West Coast figures, especially the huge crowds the Dodgers drew at the LA Coliseum. I'm not sure the "return to norm" in the 1960s should be blamed on anything, per se. And what was with '66? Odd year for a spike…was Atlanta really such an improvement on Milwaukee?

Likewise, for all the talk about support for baseball "collapsing" after the '94 strike and World Series cancellation (and Bud Selig using this to justify all the crap he pulled ), I have to wonder how much of that is true. The 1995 average looks to be in tune with the 1992 average; there was a big jump in 1993, but that's about the record-setting lookie-loos for the new franchises; Colorado set the all-time attendance record that debut season, and even the Marlins drew 3,000,000+ fans. (They've never come within 700,000 of that, since.) And '94 was a partial season, which also featured the return of the Yankees to top form. Is it terribly surprising that 1995 was a step back, especially since they couldn't sell season tickets until the strike was settled?

But no, it's a disaster, Bud says so! Time for radical change! Bring on interleague play, those Astros-Brewers games are a sure money-maker, I tells you! Sigh.

[Anyone]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

Tough to say. The AL was certainly lagging the NL in average attendance and pulled even by the end of the decade, but other factors could have contributed to this. The NL had opened a lot of new parks (we hate the "toilet bowls" of Three Rivers/Riverfront/Vet Stadium/Busch II in retrospect, but they probably boosted attendance, sadly) and the AL hadn't, but soon the Kingdome and Exhibition Stadium would be pulling up the averages that Cleveland was holding back.

Also, I'd bet the AL average was always heavily dependent on the Yankees' total, and the CBS years saw the Bronx Bumblers pulling down the league instead of pulling it up. Once George got the team out of Shea, into his renovated stadium, and back into the World Series, the historical value of the brand returned to the norm. Just a thought, I'd have to see the team-by-team data to be sure.



<snip...lots of great stuff, but you can see it in his post>

But no, it's a disaster, Bud says so! Time for radical change! Bring on interleague play, those Astros-Brewers games are a sure money-maker, I tells you! Sigh.

First of all, great job putting that together. I was even too lazy to check to see if there was a spike for the DH in the AL, which there actually wasn't.

Back in 2009 (which I know the year because I had to look that up to prove I hadn't just made up the 26 man roster in return for ending the DH in the AL proposal), one of the reasons MLB wanted to eliminate the DH was that more fans disliked it than liked it. No, I never found a poll online, but I remember that as a reason. I can't be sure it's still the same today, but very something very noteworthy from your chart:

The NL is doing significantly better than the AL in attendance recently, if I read it right. Given the AL, with the Yankees as both the most loved by some and hated by some team, has a built in advantage in attendance due to their presence. Yet the NL is outdrawing them, and has for a while. That seems to suggest the DH does not help attendance, and probably hinders it.

I will admit that while I'd love to see the DH entirely out of baseball including, of course, the AL, from a profit standpoint it probably is best for baseball to have one league with and one without. I'd bet that any poll conducted today would still show more fans oppose the DH than support it, but it does have its staunch supporters, and it probably grows overall MLB popularity to offer both in different leagues. But if the leagues had to be aligned, everything I can see, and your chart adds to this, suggests that they'd be much better off dumping it in the AL than adding it in the NL.

Of course, if I were "baseball czar" and could do anything I thought was best for the game (as opposed to profits), I'd eradicate the whole damn thing, to have the best baseball possible.

By the way, interleague play is similar, although I feel less strongly about it. I'd prefer not to have it (though it's a much weaker preference than my opposition to the DH) but interleague play is popular, and while it may not have been needed, I think overall it makes MLB money.

[Matt Arnold]

I doubt the DH has any noticeable impact on attendance. AL vs NL attendance more likely has to do with which teams are in which league. It's not like you have people who think, "Well, I want to go out to a game this weekend. Let's go to the Mets game because there's no DH there instead of the Yankees game."

There might be a small impact on the popularity of the sport as a whole, but whatever way they go, people will adapt. Whenever they do end up adopting the DH everywhere will be more about the fact that pitchers are terrible hitters, and "protecting" pitchers, than it will be about popularity. And people may not like the DH, but they like offense, so those 2 forces would likely cancel each other out.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Anyone

Edit to add: As to the harshness of the proposed penalty, it isn't really because it would never be imposed. Someone might think he can get away with covertly betting on baseball. No one would think he wouldn't be caught having played as an adult in any sort of significant league. Maybe leagues unworthy of the name would have to be exempted. I have no desire to punish the guy who thinks there's no chance he'll ever be a high level pro baseball player and plays semi-pro ball in some small league that has a DH.

It's to get the DH out of any significant league in the world. I'd exempt "amateur" leagues, except that college leagues are technically considered "amateur."

Originally Posted by Anyone

In practice, probably true. But MLB with my rule could make it happen. Not saying they will, but if MLB were determined, they could.

The whole banning the DH in other leagues by making players ineligible idea is pretty bizarre to begin with imo, but I'm not even going to bother arguing the premise.

What I will argue is whether this rule would have the effect you think it would. I guarantee it wouldn't.

You think the ***, KBO, Serie Nacional, even the CPBL like losing players to MLB? They'd not only keep the DH rule where it's already implemented, but I'm fairly certain the Central League would almost certainly immediately add the DH rule as well.

Then Japan, Cuba etc. would never have to worry about losing their stars to MLB again and MLB would shoot themselves in the foot by creating a lower quality of play overall that would forever keep any native Japanese, Cuban, Korean or Taiwanese players out of MLB.

And for what? To get rid of something that most fans actually like and that only a few people who I'd guarantee have an average age of 50-60 or higher really dislike. MLB wants younger fans, they likely couldn't care less about appeasing a very small handful of older folks who are motivated by nostalgia more than anything.

Considering this a bit further, I doubt the NCAA would even care. 99% of NCAA players will never go pro and college baseball isn't a big money making sport to begin with. I bet the NCAA would just deal with losing the couple hundred guys a year that would jump straight to the pros under that sort of rule. In fact college coaches would probably love not losing their top players to the draft as juniors anymore.

[jaysdailydose]

Yeah, I would put the odds on something like that happening at like 0.001 percent...

I prefer to think in terms of things that are actually being discussed or considered. The loss of fifteen starter salaries in the American League with no tangible gain for the membership is an absolute non-starter, at least without concessions that there would be no way MLB would consider or that would not alter the game in much larger ways than the DH.

Mind you, I'm a person that hates the DH, but this whole "ban the DH in every other league" idea is too far-fetched to be being debated so seriously. Just my two cents.

We might get lucky and keep the DH in the NL, but it isn't ever going away. Ever.

[Anyone]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

And for what? To get rid of something that most fans actually like and that only a few people who I'd guarantee have an average age of 50-60 or higher really dislike. MLB wants younger fans, they likely couldn't care less about appeasing a very small handful of older folks who are motivated by nostalgia more than anything.

As of 2009, and I'd bet still today, most fans dislike the DH. This is doubly true in NL markets where people are used to games without it and also the pro-NL partisanship leads people to want to view "their" leagues way as the best.

Those of us who hate the DH aren't (generally) motivated by nostalgia: I'm not old enough to have ever seen baseball without the DH existing in one league. We're motivated by wanting a strategic game.

Originally Posted by lukasberger

Considering this a bit further, I doubt the NCAA would even care. 99% of NCAA players will never go pro and college baseball isn't a big money making sport to begin with. I bet the NCAA would just deal with losing the couple hundred guys a year that would jump straight to the pros under that sort of rule. In fact college coaches would probably love not losing their top players to the draft as juniors anymore.

The NCAA would ultra-care. Many, many people play NCAA sports thinking they'll eventually go pro, including some who have no realistic chance and are deceiving themselves. This is strongest in their bigger revenue sports, especially football. It's true in baseball as well, though, if not to the same extent. A lot of players don't graduate, because they don't care about graduating. They're auditioning for the pros. The NCAA would lose so many players if it kept the DH (under my rule that I realize has virtually zero chance of ever actually being adopted, but you're debating what its effect would be) it would be amazing. It would be gone.

And a fair number of international players would skip the Japanese League and similar leagues if, under that rule, they kept the DH, going straight to the American minors instead. Not even most, but enough it would hurt them.

I recognize that the actual adoption of my rule idea is far more a pipe dream than anything that would actually happen. But if it were adopted, I definitely hold it would have the effect I would want, at the very least in the NCAA.

I think in reality there's a stalemate on the DH that will keep the status quo for the foreseeable future. The MLBPA won't agree to take it out of the AL, but the owners don't want to add it to the NL. And though I'd love to see it gone from both leagues, that duality is very likely the most marketable form baseball can have, as well.

Again, though, as "baseball czar" if such a position existed and I were that person (commissioner wouldn't do it, because I'd have to persuade the owners to follow me) I think it would be possible to get the MLBPA to agree to eliminate the DH in the AL by offering not expanded rosters (which wasn't enough in '09 and still wouldn't be), but expansion teams. Two expansion teams, even combined with the end of the DH, lose 15 DH starting spots in the AL, but then create 16 starting spots on the two teams, plus 10 rotation spots and 2 closer spots. And the subs get to be in the majors too, when otherwise they'd be in the minors.

The owners really don't want to expand, so that's pretty much off the table, and I also have to admit that financially, the owners are likely better off with the status quo on the DH than with dumping it in the AL. People have accepted the duality, and to some degree (some limits, because it's costly to get lots of out of market games) get to follow the league whose rules they prefer.

[italyprof]

Originally Posted by ThatSeventiesGuy

I was at the local Half-Price Books yesterday, and picked up something interesting. A copy of the 1973 Baseball Digest season preview issue, for only $3!

In it, there was an interesting discussion about the pros and cons of the new DH rule. Very similar to some of the arguments posted here, but I did notice one anti-DH argument there that never really came to pass.

Some of the antis thought that the DH would lead to pitchers throwing at random batters more often, since the pitcher no longer batted, and therefore couldn't be held responsible for brushbacks when his time to bat came around. Another reason I love old articles like that...you get the perspective at the time, unfiltered by years of hindsight.

They also had the Cubs winning the NL East in '73...so take it all with a grain of salt, I guess.

Actually the book "The Baseball Economist" (author's name escapes me) pretty much demonstrates that the numbers for hit batsmen are much higher in the AL ever since the DH and for that very reason (ahem, Roger Clemens).

[Airdrop01]

Who doesn't enjoy watching pitchers "hit." Oh. I know. Adam Wainwright.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by italyprof

Actually the book "The Baseball Economist" (author's name escapes me) pretty much demonstrates that the numbers for hit batsmen are much higher in the AL ever since the DH and for that very reason (ahem, Roger Clemens).

It's certainly not true for the last decade. Another bogus argument perhaps?

Link to Baseball Reference.

2005 Major League Baseball Season Summary | Baseball-Reference.com

[Anyone]

Originally Posted by Airdrop01

Who doesn't enjoy watching pitchers "hit." Oh. I know. Adam Wainwright.

Shortstop Ray Chapman was killed from being hit by a pitch while batting. I guess shortstops had better not bat, either.

Seriously, you can't exempt people from having to bat due to potential injury. That's the most insane argument there is.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

I doubt the DH has any noticeable impact on attendance. AL vs NL attendance more likely has to do with which teams are in which league. It's not like you have people who think, "Well, I want to go out to a game this weekend. Let's go to the Mets game because there's no DH there instead of the Yankees game."

There might be a small impact on the popularity of the sport as a whole, but whatever way they go, people will adapt. Whenever they do end up adopting the DH everywhere will be more about the fact that pitchers are terrible hitters, and "protecting" pitchers, than it will be about popularity. And people may not like the DH, but they like offense, so those 2 forces would likely cancel each other out.

Notwithstanding the increase in attendance the AL saw when the DH was first implemented, plenty of articles show that attendance is better at NL parks and has been for some time. Yeah, people probably aren't asking themselves, "should we go see the Dodgers or the Angels today?", but I wouldn't say it's out of the question that people who go to a NL game are more likely to go back more often. I know that if I have the choice of watching an AL game on tv or an NL game, I'll often pick the NL game and that's even with the closest team I follow being the Jays.

The DH in itself actually doesn't result in that much more offense, at least not enough that you'd likely really notice. Quick, ask yourself how many games it takes, on average, an AL team to score one more run than the NL? I bet most would guess 2 games, maybe 3. Well, run the numbers (1/(AL RPG-NL RPG) and you'll see that AL teams last year only scored an extra run every 4.33 games. Now yeah, it fluctuates from year to year and I've always thought that a run environment of 4.5 RPG was ideal (mostly because it would mean a total of 9 runs per game and the number 9 and baseball go so well together), but how much do you really notice 1 run every 4+ games? Not much, I'd say.

And say the DH was added to the NL, you wouldn't be able to clone another Ortiz and Encarnacion and whomever else and add them to the NL. You'd be giving those extra DH positions to lesser players so the increase in offense would be even less. I agree, there are reasons to add the DH, or some form of it, to the NL, but if anyone thinks it's going to have a noticeable increase in offense, it most likely wouldn't. And if you think about it, while it would likely increase offense a bit in the NL, it would also likely decrease offense in the AL because some of the best DHs would go to the NL and more of the better pitchers would be more likely to go the AL. And do ALers really want that?

[Airdrop01]

Originally Posted by Anyone

Shortstop Ray Chapman was killed from being hit by a pitch while batting. I guess shortstops had better not bat, either.

Seriously, you can't exempt people from having to bat due to potential injury. That's the most insane argument there is.

It is a joke.

Lighten up, Francis.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Airdrop01

It is a joke.

Lighten up, Francis.

LOL some really uptight posters here. One could mispronounce NL to describe them.

[RandyMyers]

I have been reading this thread again and it just cracks me up. There is no chance, none, zero, absolutely impossible, etc., etc. of ever getting rid of the DH. And honestly, as a whole baseball fans prefer the DH game. Most fans would rather see Ortiz bat than a guy who has as much chance of hitting the ball closing his eyes than leaving them open.

The more strategy argument just does not hold the test of validity. In truth strategy is in many ways higher when you do not have an automatic out in the lineup.

I love reading the arguments thou.... it amazes me how vigorously some people argue a point that is 100% unsupported by fact (look at the HBP numbers/argument above).

Bottom line, the few remaining holdouts (NL) will adopt the DH within a short period of time. There are too many "discussion" taking place in MLB for this not to occur. Unfair advantages to the NL in interleague and world series games, injury to pitchers who are vastly becoming an extremely protected commodity, etc.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Anyone

The NCAA would ultra-care. Many, many people play NCAA sports thinking they'll eventually go pro, including some who have no realistic chance and are deceiving themselves. This is strongest in their bigger revenue sports, especially football. It's true in baseball as well, though, if not to the same extent. A lot of players don't graduate, because they don't care about graduating. They're auditioning for the pros. The NCAA would lose so many players if it kept the DH (under my rule that I realize has virtually zero chance of ever actually being adopted, but you're debating what its effect would be) it would be amazing. It would be gone.

And a fair number of international players would skip the Japanese League and similar leagues if, under that rule, they kept the DH, going straight to the American minors instead. Not even most, but enough it would hurt them.

I recognize that the actual adoption of my rule idea is far more a pipe dream than anything that would actually happen. But if it were adopted, I definitely hold it would have the effect I would want, at the very least in the NCAA.

I think in reality there's a stalemate on the DH that will keep the status quo for the foreseeable future. The MLBPA won't agree to take it out of the AL, but the owners don't want to add it to the NL. And though I'd love to see it gone from both leagues, that duality is very likely the most marketable form baseball can have, as well.

Again, though, as "baseball czar" if such a position existed and I were that person (commissioner wouldn't do it, because I'd have to persuade the owners to follow me) I think it would be possible to get the MLBPA to agree to eliminate the DH in the AL by offering not expanded rosters (which wasn't enough in '09 and still wouldn't be), but expansion teams. Two expansion teams, even combined with the end of the DH, lose 15 DH starting spots in the AL, but then create 16 starting spots on the two teams, plus 10 rotation spots and 2 closer spots. And the subs get to be in the majors too, when otherwise they'd be in the minors.

The owners really don't want to expand, so that's pretty much off the table, and I also have to admit that financially, the owners are likely better off with the status quo on the DH than with dumping it in the AL. People have accepted the duality, and to some degree (some limits, because it's costly to get lots of out of market games) get to follow the league whose rules they prefer.

On the NCAA, your case might be true in football, but NCAA baseball is totally different. Most players do graduate, and in fact a surprisingly large amount of even decent NCAA baseball players will quit baseball to concentrate on academics. NCAA baseball really isn't about trying for the pros, like football and basketball are. The pro focused guys can, and do, sign straight on of HS in baseball which they cannot do in football or basketball, and the few pro type guys that don't do so now wouldn't be a significant enough loss for the NCAA to care imo.

As for int leagues, you're really, really overestimating how much int players want to play in MLB.

95% of the those guys are happy to stay in their home leagues permanently even under the current rules, even if they're good enough for MLB. Even in Cuba, where the pay is negligible, a great deal of the great Cuban players have never even considered defecting. That's exponentially more true in Japan and Korea, where the pay is very good, significantly better than it is in MiLB in fact.

If they were forced to choose between their home leagues and MiLB at an earlier age, where they stood even less chance at ever making MLB and a long slog through the minors in a foreign country, making far, far less than they would in their home leagues, you'd see that number go up to 99%+.

[RandyMyers]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

On the NCAA, your case might be true in football, but NCAA baseball is totally different. Most players do graduate, and in fact a surprisingly large amount of even decent NCAA baseball players will quit baseball to concentrate on academics. NCAA baseball really isn't about trying for the pros, like football and basketball are. The pro focused guys can, and do, sign straight on of HS in baseball and the few pro type guys that don't do so now wouldn't be a significant enough loss for the NCAA to care imo.

As for int leagues, you're really, really overestimating how much int players want to play in MLB.

95% of the those guys are happy to stay in their home leagues permanently even under the current rules, even if they're good enough for MLB. Even in Cuba, where the pay is negligible, a great deal of the great Cuban players have never even considered defecting. That's exponentially more true in Japan and Korea, where the pay is very good, significantly better than it is in MiLB in fact.

If they were forced to choose between their home leagues and MiLB at an earlier age, where they stood even less chance at ever making MLB and a long slog through the minors in a foreign country, making far, far less than they would in their home leagues, you'd see that number go up to 99%+.

Nice post and I totally agree. Bottom line is that in pretty much every baseball league out there the DH is here to stay and the various arguments trying to be made just do not pass the credibility test. The remaining few holdouts will eventually give in and add the DH. There is just too much evidence and real reasons to use it and virtually none not to.

[RchW]

This is an interesting article. Note that the concept of 26 man rosters v universal DH is neutral with respect to players share of MLB revenue. The DH, universal or not has little effect on player salaries compared to the whole. It seems to me that a possible compromise on the DH would be to make it apply to all interleague games regardless of location. That allows the NL to retain claims of purity and removes any AL claims of disadvantage when playing in NL parks.

What is of more interest to me is how far players share of MLB revenue has fallen. If people think that salaries are high now they better be prepared for significant increases as the MLBPA will clearly target at least 50% of revenues as a starting point in the next CBA. The current FA compensation rule will also go away. It clearly suppresses the FA market and actually punishes mid-level teams. I have a feeling that the DH issue (other than the compromise above) may get shelved for all or part of the next CBA. As new, younger executives continue to populate all teams the NL objection will go away.

Universal DH a Small Help to Player Salaries | FanGraphs Baseball