DH or no DH?

[RchW]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

If you want marginally more offense at the expense of having fewer strategic options, then use it. It's your game, play it your way. But I will personally never be able to accept the DH as being real baseball. To me it's like letting the outfielders use nets - it's interesting and different, but it's just not real baseball.

Well compared to the gloves of the past outfielders are using nets today. No irregularities in the space time continuum have been reported.

[TomVeal]

Originally Posted by RchW

There is no logic suggesting that even remotely. If so we would still have courtesy runners.

The idea of separate offensive and defensive platoons - and why not a running special team, too? - is, to baseball fans, absurd on its face, but can you formulate any strong arguments against it that are not also arguments against the designated hitter?

Bear in mind that baseball and cricket are, so far as I know, the only major sports with stringent limits on substitutions. We stand against the "tide of history" and ought to be careful not to let our stance be undermined by subconscious acceptance of the other side's premises.

[Assos]

Originally Posted by TomVeal

The idea of separate offensive and defensive platoons - and why not a running special team, too? - is, to baseball fans, absurd on its face, but can you formulate any strong arguments against it that are not also arguments against the designated hitter?

Bear in mind that baseball and cricket are, so far as I know, the only major sports with stringent limits on substitutions. We stand against the "tide of history" and ought to be careful not to let our stance be undermined by subconscious acceptance of the other side's premises.

But the limited subs are what makes baseball so special, it is more of a thinking man's game. True there are formations on basketball and hockey plays and there is a limited roster, but if you keep changing parts on those teams. In baseball, once you are out of a game, you are out of the game. Even the odd DH rule, if you replace the DH with the pitcher, the DH position is no longer valid. Joe Maddon liked to use that trick when with the Rays and now really does not have to change his style in the National League. You have to think!
To me, American Football is more like a limited pre-American Civil War battle, two sides fight and try to stop each other, one side pushes, the other side pushes back, but the NFL and the collegiate have evolved into a game with way too many specialists because the roster is so big. Take the Running Back and Full Back, third down backs, up the middle backs, short yard, long yard, backs that go out in the formation. That can be five players right there.

[rpriske]

Originally Posted by Trebro

I've seen a few folks mention this "that's what makes them different" remark now.

Pardon my potential missing out on something, but except for the 14 vs 12 years and a longer season for a year or two, what really made them that different other than the DH? I thought by the time MLB formed the 16-team lock down in the early 1900s they were standard on all the rules.

The style of play used to be quite different (in part due to the DH, but more than that). I mean, there was a time when the STRIKE ZONE was different! (Not officially, but in practical terms.)


By the way, for the people talking about management decisions, that is actually one of the things I like about the DH. The automatic bunt is death to an exciting game, and more importantly (to me), taking a pitcher out of a game for reasons OTHER than his pitching performance really annoys me.

[Assos]

This is a good summary of the the DH rule and history.

Designated hitter - BR Bullpen

[smiller]

Never use DH in my fictional league. When I've played real-life games, I always manage an NL team.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by TomVeal

The idea of separate offensive and defensive platoons - and why not a running special team, too? - is, to baseball fans, absurd on its face, but can you formulate any strong arguments against it that are not also arguments against the designated hitter?

Bear in mind that baseball and cricket are, so far as I know, the only major sports with stringent limits on substitutions. We stand against the "tide of history" and ought to be careful not to let our stance be undermined by subconscious acceptance of the other side's premises.

We are into the 42nd year of the DH and no significant movement regarding substitutions has been made. That's why I consider your premise absurd.

[Assos]

BTW, I really like the passion that I hoped this topic would bring up. It is amazing after 42 years of the DH, how it stirs the emotions of the baseball fanatic.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by rpriske

The style of play used to be quite different (in part due to the DH, but more than that). I mean, there was a time when the STRIKE ZONE was different! (Not officially, but in practical terms.)


By the way, for the people talking about management decisions, that is actually one of the things I like about the DH. The automatic bunt is death to an exciting game, and more importantly (to me), taking a pitcher out of a game for reasons OTHER than his pitching performance really annoys me.

Actually the strike zone was different for physical reasons. AL umpires wore the outside chest protector and literally could not call the low strike at the knees. They compensated by calling high strikes that were balls in the NL.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by TomVeal

Bear in mind that baseball and cricket are, so far as I know, the only major sports with stringent limits on substitutions. We stand against the "tide of history" and ought to be careful not to let our stance be undermined by subconscious acceptance of the other side's premises.

Soccer is limited to 3 subs per game (or 6 in exhibitions*).

As for baseball related things on that regard, it would be interesting to allow the DH for someone other than the pitcher as is the case in High School baseball IIRC.

*Used to be 12 or 13 in exhibitions, until Sven Goran Erikson was England manager and had habits of always changing the whole team at half time, much to the annoyance of fans and just about everyone else.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Dead wrong. Have you coached in both a DH and a non DH-league? I have (non-professionally) and what you posted was nonsense. DH is pure autopilot. Non-DH gets really exciting when your team is losing or tied in late innings, or even when you have a narrow lead.

This could not be farther from the truth. The extra strategy starts with the batting order. With P hitting you only have to worry about eight slots at the most, because pitcher batting ninth is a push button strategy. With DH you have to strategically fill the bottom slots, and there are different approaches to it depending on who you have on your team, who's hurt or not, what kind of defense your opponent is playing, and so on.

When you change a P in the NL, there is frequently a push button strategy involved. Down one run in the seventh and P is due up at the plate? Push a button and put in a PH. Every NL manager does exactly that, and everybody in the ballpark knows it's going to happen. How can it be so strategically superior if all 40,000 people in the same place would have done exactly the same thing? Maybe you think that's exciting, but I don't.

With a DH there is no pushing that button: you have to figure out exactly when it makes sense to pull the pitcher on his own merit, and that's going to be dependent on who coming up to the plate, how the pitcher is throwing that inning, what the likely result of an encounter is going to be and who you have on defense behind him. That's not pushing buttons as sending up the PH in the NL.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

This could not be farther from the truth. The extra strategy starts with the batting order. With P hitting you only have to worry about eight slots at the most, because pitcher batting ninth is a push button strategy. With DH you have to strategically fill the bottom slots, and there are different approaches to it depending on who you have on your team, who's hurt or not, what kind of defense your opponent is playing, and so on.

When you change a P in the NL, there is frequently a push button strategy involved. Down one run in the seventh and P is due up at the plate? Push a button and put in a PH. Every NL manager does exactly that, and everybody in the ballpark knows it's going to happen. How can it be so strategically superior if all 40,000 people in the same place would have done exactly the same thing? Maybe you think that's exciting, but I don't.

With a DH there is no pushing that button: you have to figure out exactly when it makes sense to pull the pitcher on his own merit, and that's going to be dependent on who coming up to the plate, how the pitcher is throwing that inning, what the likely result of an encounter is going to be and who you have on defense behind him. That's not pushing buttons as sending up the PH in the NL.

You make valid points, but it's not as cut-and-dry as you make it out to be. For instance, down 1-0 and your ace on the hill and coming up to hit in the 7th? Not an automatic "push button" PH situation. Also, which PH do you use? Your best bench bat, or do you save him for a possible RBI spot in the 8th or 9th? Or do you use your best bat and double switch him into the field so he might get a second AB but also weaken your defense with him in the field?

What happens if you're winning, your starter is reaching the point where he tends to start to tire, but he's due up late in the order, say somewhere from sixth through ninth? Do you try to get another inning out of him? If not, do you double switch before you go back out into the field to get two innings out of your reliever? Or do you bring in your ace setup guy in the 7th without double switching and risk possibly having him come up to hit in the 8th?

The same argument that NL is "push button" strategy can be made against the AL by simply saying that managers don't even have to push a button. They just roll out a nine-man lineup and only have to make pitching changes and maybe an obvious defensive move late in the game when ahead.

I'm not trying to tell you that you're wrong, but I think it's fairly easy to see that there are a lot more possible substitution scenarios that can happen when the DH is not used. Whether or not those situations that are "forced" on the manager because most pitchers are awful hitters makes for better or worse baseball is what the real debate should be.

[Leo_The_Lip]

I use a DH while playing OOTP because I think the AI handles teams with DHs better than it handles non-DH teams. By that I mean use of the DH gives the AI fewer opportunities to mess up. I think the AI can handle pitching changes well enough, but when it combines this with pinch-hitting and lineup switches, the AI is less than optimal.

Using the DH in an OOTP league presents a better challenge for the gamer because it limits the amount of opportunities for the AI to make a bad move.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Assos

BTW, I really like the passion that I hoped this topic would bring up. It is amazing after 42 years of the DH, how it stirs the emotions of the baseball fanatic.

Stupid and illogical ideas always will stir up emotions. And the DH is both.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

This could not be farther from the truth. The extra strategy starts with the batting order. With P hitting you only have to worry about eight slots at the most, because pitcher batting ninth is a push button strategy. With DH you have to strategically fill the bottom slots, and there are different approaches to it depending on who you have on your team, who's hurt or not, what kind of defense your opponent is playing, and so on.

When you change a P in the NL, there is frequently a push button strategy involved. Down one run in the seventh and P is due up at the plate? Push a button and put in a PH. Every NL manager does exactly that, and everybody in the ballpark knows it's going to happen. How can it be so strategically superior if all 40,000 people in the same place would have done exactly the same thing? Maybe you think that's exciting, but I don't.

With a DH there is no pushing that button: you have to figure out exactly when it makes sense to pull the pitcher on his own merit, and that's going to be dependent on who coming up to the plate, how the pitcher is throwing that inning, what the likely result of an encounter is going to be and who you have on defense behind him. That's not pushing buttons as sending up the PH in the NL.

That's nothing but drivel and nonsense. I've done it real life both ways, and nothing you are describing is true.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

You make valid points, but it's not as cut-and-dry as you make it out to be. For instance, down 1-0 and your ace on the hill and coming up to hit in the 7th? Not an automatic "push button" PH situation. Also, which PH do you use? Your best bench bat, or do you save him for a possible RBI spot in the 8th or 9th? Or do you use your best bat and double switch him into the field so he might get a second AB but also weaken your defense with him in the field?

What happens if you're winning, your starter is reaching the point where he tends to start to tire, but he's due up late in the order, say somewhere from sixth through ninth? Do you try to get another inning out of him? If not, do you double switch before you go back out into the field to get two innings out of your reliever? Or do you bring in your ace setup guy in the 7th without double switching and risk possibly having him come up to hit in the 8th?

The same argument that NL is "push button" strategy can be made against the AL by simply saying that managers don't even have to push a button. They just roll out a nine-man lineup and only have to make pitching changes and maybe an obvious defensive move late in the game when ahead.

I'm not trying to tell you that you're wrong, but I think it's fairly easy to see that there are a lot more possible substitution scenarios that can happen when the DH is not used. Whether or not those situations that are "forced" on the manager because most pitchers are awful hitters makes for better or worse baseball is what the real debate should be.

Everything you say that applies to this side of the argument applies to the other side of the argument as well. If the standard for defining "push button" is that the strategy has to be applied in 100.0% of the situations—not 99.9%, but 100.0%—then almost nothing is "push-button".

Yes, there are isolated cases in which your SP is down 1-0 in the seventh, he's due up, and this manager at this point in time decides to let SP bat even though the team is in imminent danger of losing the game for lack of scoring runs. That does happen more than 0.0% of the time. But even the other side will concur that is not the usual decision that is made. It's not even common enough to be considered an unusual decision. This decision is literally a rarity, and would happen maybe single digit percent of the time. The other 90+%, that pitcher is coming out, and a pinch hitter is coming in*.

And I hear ya regarding the selection of which pinch hitter comes up, and any non-P on the bench is technically an option. But seriously, if you have to have a run just to keep yourself in the game, your only logical option is to push that button and get the best hitter available up to the plate, regardless of the strategic implications as the pertain to future possibilities.





* - I would actually like to know how OOTP plays this, other things being equal. Down a run in the seventh in a non-DH game and P is due up at the plate, how often does OOTP AI let him hit versus pulling him for a PH?

[David Watts]

Interesting thread.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

That's nothing but drivel and nonsense. I've done it real life both ways, and nothing you are describing is true.

OK, well, if you're resting your case, then we'll leave it up to the people to decide.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

OK, well, if you're resting your case, then we'll leave it up to the people to decide.

Facts aren't subject to polls.

Tom Candiotti: "I played in both leagues and enjoyed playing the National League game better than the American League game. The game itself is better without the designated hitter. There is more strategy involved with double switches, balance in the bullpen and the benches becoming more important, and that adds to the excitement of the game for players. Most of that is lost with the DH."

[Bluenoser]

Some really good points on both sides here. I never gave a lot of thought to it as some are describing, but it sure has opened up my awareness much more.

Tks, keep it coming.