The DH

[MrWideFrame]

The amount of vitriol coming from the anti-DH crowd is ASTOUNDING.

[dunningrb]

Interesting article on this subject: Don't bring the designated hitter to the National League.

[metsguy234]

Looking back at this thread when the NL inevitably adds the DH will be funny.

[bwburke94]

Re: DH/strategy

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far, away, there was a man named Bill James. And I can't keep the Star Wars references going, so I'll just say that Bill James thinks the DH increases strategic decisions.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by Anyone

Did I claim that? Nope.

I will cite the above polls as proof that (a) more fans would rather see the DH eliminated in the AL than added to the NL, and (b) the vast majority of fans do not want to see it added to the NL.

I'll cite my own link that, at least as of 2009, the MLB owners wanted to eliminate the DH from the AL, and it would have been eliminated, except that the MLBPA blocked it, a move that I conceded was probably in the best interest of their members because they were not offered enough to make it in the players' financial interests.

I also offered a plan that I never claimed would be adopted, that was an emotional response to the inevitability argument, because if something horrible (by the standards of sports; nothing can happen in sports that's as horrible-- or as good-- as things that can happen in real life, but the forcing of the DH into the NL would be one of the worst things that has ever happened in sports that lacked outside-of-sports implications) were inevitable, you have to "make it evitable."

But rather than argue the merits, because for pro-DHers that is unwinnable, you perpetuate the myth that it's inevitable that the DH will be universal, which has a bandwagon effect if people believe it, because some people are shallow enough not to evaluate the merits but rather will join any side they feel certain will win.

The owners do not want to add the DH rule to the NL, and in fact probably, as in 2009, would strip it from the AL if they could. The fans don't want the DH in the NL also. The MLBPA wants to force it in-- in this case, not rationally evaluating its members interest (the responding dip in baseball revenues, even though I admit it would probably almost all be a temporary dip, would mean owners would spend less money on player contracts due to lesser revenue until revenue rebounded).

The MLBPA has outmaneuvered the owners before, which I usually have applauded. I particularly don't like the salary cap owners would also like, because I think it should be possible to keep a great team together. Is it possible the MLBPA will outmanuever the owners and get it in? It's possible. It's more likely the MLBPA will extract other concessions (ones I might well like) instead. It's far from inevitable.

And if you're for the DH, you should be able to argue why less strategy and more one-dimensional beer leaguers make for a better game.

Edited to add: Yes, I realize Chuck and others on this topic are largely trolling at this point just to get people who prefer real baseball to DH-ball riled up, but I guess I lack the self-control not to respond despite that.

There is nothing in the link you provided that confirms that MLB owners wanted to eliminate the DH in 2009, and did not only because of the MLBPA. If you insist there is, then you will have to cite chapter and verse from that article, and here's the link to make it easier on you and anyone else who would like to try.

I have not argued that a game with less strategy is preferable. I have been arguing that the DH game results in greater differences among managers in strategic decision-making, whereas pitchers hitting results in more strategic homogeneity among managers. I myself find pushbutton managing boring, but hey, to each his own.

Lastly, since you have resorted to tactics like calling out opponents and throwing bombs, rather than staying on point in the discussion, it looks like you are losing confidence in your own argument. People who are confident in their positions don't have to get cute by going ad hominem. They stick to the point.

[Anyone]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

Lastly, since you have resorted to tactics like calling out opponents and throwing bombs, rather than staying on point in the discussion, it looks like you are losing confidence in your own argument. People who are confident in their positions don't have to get cute by going ad hominem. They stick to the point.

I have called out the use of manipulative rhetorical techniques, which is what arguing from so-called "inevitability" is. If you're honest, you'll at least admit that if you believe it will happen that has absolutely zero bearing on whether it should.

Chapter and verse from the article that shows the owners wanted to eliminate the DH in 2009:

"DH's are high paid, one dimensional players - exactly the kind of player that teams really don't want to pay. With attendance high and juiced players scoring plenty of runs, the need for the DH as a augmentation to the offense has been basically removed.

The league wants the DH to go away...How do they get the union to agree to this? The last thing the MLBPA wants is to see salaries go down Here's one idea. Go to a 26 man roster with a 1-man inactive slot. From the MLBPA's position, the league is going to take away 14 high paying jobs, but they will be replaced with 30 brand new jobs. Those 30 minor leaguers who are union members but stuck in AAA are certainly going to vote in favor of no-DH and yes-extra roster spot."

The pro-DH crowd also won't stay on point and respond to such on-point examples as how the Davey Johnson and John McNamara examples are exactly the opposite of push button managing. Or the double-switch choices I had my most recent OOTP season, also the opposite.

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Originally Posted by Anyone

Chapter and verse from the article that shows the owners wanted to eliminate the DH in 2009:

"DH's are high paid, one dimensional players - exactly the kind of player that teams really don't want to pay. With attendance high and juiced players scoring plenty of runs, the need for the DH as a augmentation to the offense has been basically removed.

The league wants the DH to go away...How do they get the union to agree to this? The last thing the MLBPA wants is to see salaries go down Here's one idea. Go to a 26 man roster with a 1-man inactive slot. From the MLBPA's position, the league is going to take away 14 high paying jobs, but they will be replaced with 30 brand new jobs. Those 30 minor leaguers who are union members but stuck in AAA are certainly going to vote in favor of no-DH and yes-extra roster spot."

I'm ignorant as to who exactly the voice of "Ivy Chat" is, but please realize that you are quoting a semi-anonymous blog post that is presenting an analysis of a fairly mundane Chicago Tribune article about the announcement of an MLB Competition Committee. It's no more authoritative than a post I could make here presenting an opinion about whether Rob Manfred really wants to shorten the MLB season or not.

What the actual Chicago Tribune article reports is that two out of 14 members of Bud Selig's then brand-new Competition Committee (Tony La Russa and John Schuerholz) said when asked in a press conference that the DH rule should be on the table, along with other matters such as "scheduling, postseason format, umpiring, pace of play and instant replay."

It hardly sounds from that article like there was a groundswell against the DH. And the factors that the blog post cites as being things that would cause MLB owners to hate the DH (DH's are high paid, one dimensional players... juiced players scoring plenty of runs, the need for the DH as a augmentation to the offense has been basically removed) are mostly now irrelevant in 2015. Hulking, one-dimensional DHs are relatively few and far between, and offenses are at historic lows.

[Anyone]

Originally Posted by Cinnamon J. Scudworth

What the actual Chicago Tribune article reports is that two out of 14 members of Bud Selig's then brand-new Competition Committee (Tony La Russa and John Schuerholz) said when asked in a press conference that the DH rule should be on the table, along with other matters such as "scheduling, postseason format, umpiring, pace of play and instant replay."

It hardly sounds from that article like there was a groundswell against the DH. And the factors that your blog post cites as being things that would cause MLB owners to hate the DH (DH's are high paid, one dimensional players... juiced players scoring plenty of runs, the need for the DH as a augmentation to the offense has been basically removed) are mostly now irrelevant in 2015. Hulking, one-dimensional DHs are relatively few and far between, and offenses are at historic lows.

It's not "my" blog post. I had nothing to do with it. I Google searched when I was challenged by others who seemed to imply that I'd made up the occurrence, one that I remembered clearly, in which the owners did, in fact, propose to eliminate the DH from all of MLB in return for a 26 man roster, and the MLBPA turned them down.

I clicked from inside the Ivy Chat article to find the Tribune article it referenced, and when I clicked it came up that the article was not available. I'm glad you found one about it, because the Tribune is certainly a bigger source. Since I was simply trying to prove I wasn't making the thing up, this seemed like a good enough source to prove that, however.

I also recall the "competition committee" actually coming back with the remove-the-DH recommendation in return for 26 man rosters and the MLBPA calling it a non-starter. At that point, I remember it was the owners backing down rather than fight over the issue. The fact still remains that if the MLBPA had said, "That sounds like a great idea!" the DH would be gone. I also never vilified the MLBPA for rejecting the proposal, given its job was to represent its players and it would have traded off high paying jobs for lower paying ones.

Then I was challenged to quote the article I'd linked to, to find anything that said the owners wanted to get rid of the DH in 2009 (note it did not have to apply today). "The league wants the DH to go away" is as direct a statement of that as can be made, but Chuck had implied the article itself said nothing of the sort, when it clearly did.

It's true that the amount of offense in MLB has changed a lot between 2009 and now, and I think more offense is needed, when I wouldn't have said so then. Somewhere in this thread I said, however, that there are many far better ways get more offense, such as lowering the mound and squeezing the strike zone.

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

I apologize for my careless wording. I didn't mean to say it was "your" blog post. I'd edited that before you finished your response.

Originally Posted by Anyone

I also recall the "competition committee" actually coming back with the remove-the-DH recommendation in return for 26 man rosters and the MLBPA calling it a non-starter. At that point, I remember it was the owners backing down rather than fight over the issue. The fact still remains that if the MLBPA had said, "That sounds like a great idea!" the DH would be gone. I also never vilified the MLBPA for rejecting the proposal, given its job was to represent its players and it would have traded off high paying jobs for lower paying ones.

Where you're still missing a connection is that the Competition Committee =/= MLB owners. Four out of the 14 members are ownership representatives, two from the AL and two from the NL. By design, the Committee's proposals are non-binding and do not represent the position of ownership (i.e. the MLB). So maybe they did float what you're suggesting and the MLBPA issued its strong opposition and that was that. But it doesn't follow that if the MLBPA had said "great" that it would have actually come about.

[Anyone]

Originally Posted by Cinnamon J. Scudworth

I apologize for my careless wording. I didn't mean to say it was "your" blog post. I'd edited that before you finished your response.



Where you're still missing a connection is that the Competition Committee =/= MLB owners. Four out of the 14 members are ownership representatives, two from the AL and two from the NL. By design, the Committee's proposals are non-binding and do not represent the position of ownership (i.e. the MLB). So maybe they did float what you're suggesting and the MLBPA issued its strong opposition and that was that. But it doesn't follow that if the MLBPA had said "great" that it would have actually come about.

That, I can't say couldn't be right, so I'll admit that could have been what happened. I remember it as being pretty certain had the union signed off on it, but that could potentially have been wishful thinking on my part in 2009.

I'm reasonably sure in my head, though, that the competition committee at least had the respect of the owners, such that if the MLBPA had said "great" I believe it would have happened. I can't prove it though, and can't even say I'm absolutely certain in my own mind of that. So I'll concede it's not certain.

[kq76]

This is old and that's why a lot of people probably don't remember it, but MLB tried to get rid of the DH back in the mid-late 90s. Even the AL voted 7-7 on it. I doubt things have changed all that much since then.

Baseball owners moved yesterday to streamline the debate over realignment by offering to eliminate the designated hitter rule, but it appears highly unlikely the Major League Baseball Players Association will go along for the ride.

The owners' Player Relations Committee asked union officials to allow the industry to phase out the DH in the American League over a period of several years in exchange for an expanded regular-season roster limit

...

Even some AL owners are in favor of eliminating the DH to save money. A straw poll of AL owners in September 1995 tied 7-7.

Owners for DH strikeout But union holds firm in realignment debate - tribunedigital-baltimoresun

In fact, while you can find baseball people on both sides of the issue it seems to me that the prevailing attitude is that many, including Selig and Manfred, felt/feel that the controversy is good for baseball. By his own admission, Selig was one of the ones who voted it in back in 1973, but later he said he was open to getting rid of it and even moved his to team to the NL (who knows how little the DH played into the move though).

Selig:

"I tend to agree with those who think the controversy and conversation is good for the game. The clubs and the leagues don't have to agree on everything. My feeling is the DH should be retained, but in the spirit of moving the industry ahead I would understand if the clubs voted to give it up."

Going to Bat for Designated Hitter : American League Feature at Risk, but Players Will Lobby to Keep It - Page 2 - latimes

Manfred:

Manfred, in fact, seemed to shoot down the possibility of the DH in both leagues Sunday, telling The New York Times: “I can’t see the American League clubs giving it up, and right now, given the composition of our National League owners, I don’t see them buying into it. So I think we’re staying where we are.”"

New MLB commissioner Rob Manfred says he is open to discussing any change to improve pace, offense, attraction of baseball to younger fan, and that is just the perspective baseball needs right now, Ken Rosenthal says | FOX Sports

"'Over the long haul, I'm a status quo person on the DH. I think the difference between the two leagues is a source of debate among fans, and I'm a big believer in the idea of when people are talking about baseball it's a good thing.'"

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/manfred...1020--mlb.html

[Anyone]

At the risk of being accused of accepting "inevitability" and thus looking for a hybrid, which isn't what I'm doing at all, I read the hybrid solutions linked in kq76's signature, and they inspired my own hybrid idea that isn't quite as good for me as "no DH at all" but is at least 80% as good; and should be about as good to DH supporters because it would eliminate about 80% of pitcher plate appearances, maybe more.

My idea (based on the best aspects of Starting Pitcher Only DH idea in kq76's links) would be the "6 Inning DH."

The vast majority of the strategy from the DH rule occurs after the 6th inning. The only part that really doesn't is that "no DH" makes the batting order more intricate. If you pinch hit for the pitcher before the 7th inning most of the time that's an obvious case that comes from being far enough behind that it's not that big of a deal for you to pull the starter, as he can't be pitching that well.

So, for 6 innings the DH rule is in force. In the 7th inning either the pitcher's spot becomes the former DH's spot or the DH can be moved to the field in a form of double switch that can be done in the AL now but the DH is lost if you do so almost no one does it. However, in this case, you're losing the DH anyway, so you might do it to keep that batter in the game, especially if he replaces a fielder not due up soon (as it becomes like a double switch).

Even in the NL, the pitcher doesn't bat that often after the 6th inning. When there's a real decision about whether to have him bat in the 7th or later, if the score is close that's when it's often a more difficult and interesting strategic decision where losing the pitcher vs. gaining the batter can make people think. Just tying it to the starting pitcher isn't enough (though would improve on the AL rules) because often the decision is about whether or not to let the starter hit so he can stay in to pitch.

It's not as good to me as "no DH" because of the pitchers' spot influence on batting order selection and because it lets a guy who can't field at all bat for 6 innings without making his team suffer his (lack of) glove. It wouldn't be as good for people who love the DH because to them any time the pitcher bats is boring, and there would still be times that the pitcher bats.

But if you look at it from a standpoint of making everyone as happy as possible, it would preserve about 80% of what I like about not having the DH, while removing (I'd figure) about 80% of the pitcher plate appearances that DH supporters find so boring (and aren't really in themselves what I'm adamant about protecting). So, on balance, I think the average fan would be happier than with either AL or NL rules, even if few would be as happy as they are with their preferred league's rules. It's worth some thought.

[kq76]

I've seen the 6 (or 7) inning DH proposed before and I didn't care for it because I agree with the pro-DHers that we shouldn't pull a starting pitcher who is pitching a good game just to get a better bat into the game. Yes, you're removing some strategy from the game by not doing that, but I don't believe all strategy is necessarily good. I also don't care for the idea of changing things in the game simply based on the inning (I don't think there any other rules like this in baseball and I guess it's like the 2-minute drill in football and probably other rules in other sports, but I'm not a fan of that). I'd much rather tie the rule change to a role change as that seems much more natural, like simply replacing a guy for a pinch hitter.

However, the 6-inning DH probably is the fairest compromise between the two that I've seen suggested (I've been keeping a list of DH alternatives I've seen and it's up to almost 20) as it does keep most aspects of both. I do prefer the SP-only DH to give the manager the incentive to keep the SP in as long as possible, but I'd certainly prefer the 6-inning DH over the current DH rules as it would still give back AL baseball the wonderment of late game moves and more of the roster gets to play everyday.

[truebatman]

I'm 100% for DH... in real life and in any league I form in OOTP.. I get the fun factor of the strategy later in the game of pinch hitting for pitcher and so forth but as a fan, when im watching a game, team is down say 3-0 like in 4th inning or so but they got the bases loaded with 2 outs, they got a chance here to get back in the game when... the pitchers turn to bat, it seriously kills my enthusiasm cuz though he could get a hit, a lot more often than not he wont. That's just from my view though, I do get why people don't like the DH cuz of strategy involved

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by Anyone

I have called out the use of manipulative rhetorical techniques, which is what arguing from so-called "inevitability" is. If you're honest, you'll at least admit that if you believe it will happen that has absolutely zero bearing on whether it should.

Chapter and verse from the article that shows the owners wanted to eliminate the DH in 2009:

"DH's are high paid, one dimensional players - exactly the kind of player that teams really don't want to pay. With attendance high and juiced players scoring plenty of runs, the need for the DH as a augmentation to the offense has been basically removed.

The league wants the DH to go away...How do they get the union to agree to this? The last thing the MLBPA wants is to see salaries go down Here's one idea. Go to a 26 man roster with a 1-man inactive slot. From the MLBPA's position, the league is going to take away 14 high paying jobs, but they will be replaced with 30 brand new jobs. Those 30 minor leaguers who are union members but stuck in AAA are certainly going to vote in favor of no-DH and yes-extra roster spot."

The pro-DH crowd also won't stay on point and respond to such on-point examples as how the Davey Johnson and John McNamara examples are exactly the opposite of push button managing. Or the double-switch choices I had my most recent OOTP season, also the opposite.

That statement is not proof that the owners want the DH to go away. It is only the opinion of some dude named Chuck who has a blog. There are no quotes from owners in his post. Can you honestly not tell the difference? Because I'm pretty sure the rest of us can.

Pitchers hitting definitely does lead to push button tactical decisions, regardless of rare anecdotes about managers unclear on the concept of pushing buttons. It is the DH that imparts truly strategic decision making into the acts of pinch hitting, sacrifice bunting and the removal of pitchers. Because with the DH, you have the make the decision to change pitchers based on how the pitcher is actually doing, or on feel and gut, rather than on If-A-Then-B flowcharting. With pinch hitting and bunting, the decision is made based more often on managerial fiat and on the element of surprise, rather than on conditions that 10,000 other people in the ballpark can clearly see.

[Anyone]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

That statement is not proof that the owners want the DH to go away. It is only the opinion of some dude named Chuck who has a blog. There are no quotes from owners in his post. Can you honestly not tell the difference? Because I'm pretty sure the rest of us can.

Pitchers hitting definitely does lead to push button tactical decisions, regardless of rare anecdotes about managers unclear on the concept of pushing buttons. It is the DH that imparts truly strategic decision making into the acts of pinch hitting, sacrifice bunting and the removal of pitchers. Because with the DH, you have the make the decision to change pitchers based on how the pitcher is actually doing, or on feel and gut, rather than on If-A-Then-B flowcharting. With pinch hitting and bunting, the decision is made based more often on managerial fiat and on the element of surprise, rather than on conditions that 10,000 other people in the ballpark can clearly see.

You had claimed that nowhere in the article does it say that. It does say that in the article. If you want to dispute the article's spin, I understand that. But don't claim I said something was in the article that wasn't there, when it was.

You accused me of being inflammatory (some of my statements about how bad the DH is are, I guess), but you're the one doing more of such in this thread. "Cinnamon J. Scudworth" calmly made the point that the Competition Committee may not have represented the owners' thought, that what may have happened was that in 2009 the Competition Committee made its recommendation to dump the DH, based on a number of things including the poll I remembered and Amazin found, the MLBPA voiced strong opposition, and the matter was dropped before we could really see how many owners wanted to do away with the DH.

I admitted that was possible, and after thinking about it I think it's more likely than I stated in my response. I still think it would likely (not definitely) have happened had the MLBPA said "Great idea!" but I'm no longer sure and we'll never know.

What is certain was in 2009 we were certainly closer to eliminating the DH from MLB than to universalizing it. Now, we're certainly closer to universalizing it than eliminating it, but I hold that neither is very likely anytime soon, though it doesn't matter in evaluating whether it should happen or not.

As far as your claim in of the "push button" manager decision, there are examples in this thread where it was clearly anything but. I believe that's fairly common. Your starter's pitching a very good game, tied 1-1 in the 7th and has only thrown 83 pitches. Your bullpen is pretty weak. The first two hitters in the 7th get on and the pitcher's up. You can have the pitcher bunt and hope your 1/2 men can score the runners, or you can take three shots by pinch hitting. Most managers probably bunt there, but it's not push button. What if there's one out? You only get one shot if you don't pinch hit. Tough call whether to pinch hit or not. Some guys even leave him in with 2 outs, so they can keep him in the game. That's a tough decision AL managers don't have to make.

The McNamara and Davey Johnson decisions from playoff games are well explained in the thread, and are examples of the far from push-button decisions that NL managers have to make every day. Go back and tell me what the supposedly obvious "push button" decision was they should have made. There was none. Decisions were harder. The decision I had to make every game last OOTP season about who to pull on a double switch, that I also described, made me think quite a bit when playing, and added to my enjoyment when playing out a game. Had I been watching the game, it would have added to my enjoyment when watching it.

You say the DH frees the manager not to have to consider when the pitcher is due up when he decides whether to pull a pitcher, as if that's good. To me, that simplifies the decision and makes it far less interesting. Of course, there can still be interesting leave-in or pull-the-pitcher decisions with the DH, including the very famous Grady Little choice to stick with Pedro too long, resulting in the Red Sox losing the ALCS to the Yankees. They occur much more often with no DH, though.

Yes, the DH frees a manager not to bunt, ever, at all, which is probably close to what I'd do if managing in a DH league. And it is push-button, I freely admit, that the pitcher comes up in a potential DP situation, if he isn't an unusually good hitter for a pitcher and it's too early to pinch hit, to have him bunt...although I guess some sabermetricians are questioning whether one should bunt even then...interesting, as is the sabermetric view gaining some acceptance that the pitcher should bat 8th-- both conversations you don't have to have in the AL.

I find it very weak to claim there is no strategy gained from the NL rules, when you've been posted strategy dilemmas and can't find the one, obvious, push button way out of them.

I think the pro-DH argument is more that it's so boring to watch pitchers bat and so frustrating to see a rally die out because the pitcher came up to outweigh the non-DH benefits. But to deny those benefits even exist seems silly to me.

Then there's a purely aesthetic argument, about whether lummoxes who can't field (any more; often they fielded in their primes) should have a chance to bat if they can still do so, without the team suffering in the field because they are no longer really athletes. To me, it's obvious which way those arguments fall. To you, they likely fall the other way. To the MLBPA, they fall on the pro-DH side, because those lummoxes are among those they represent. Of course, those guys would still be on rosters as pinch hitters in real (non-DH) baseball, but would get paid much less-- which explains the MLBPA's stance, but not necessarily why fans back them.

[frangipard]

I am always amused when people regard the DH as either "inevitably" spreading to the NL or going away from the AL.

The status quo has been in place for 42 years now. It may change, but calling it "inevitable" is laughable. You might as well talk about how this rock-and-roll fad will never last.

[jaysdailydose]

RE: Vitriol by "anti-DH" crowd

I don't have any. I prefer the no-DH game, which I've said is weird because my hometown team has always been an AL team and has had the DH my whole lifetime.

The only reason I have said that DH in both league is "inevitable" is because of money. The best pitchers make a ton of it, and its really not worth it to the teams to have these guys taking on additional injury risk.

Adding on the fact that the union would absolutely love to get 15 more DH salaries in the league, it probably is inevitable. Money drives all of professional sports.

It is also a concession that the owners can make if there is contentious negotiations with the union on a more significant issue, such as more stringent drug tests, other areas of conduct policy, etc.

I'm not saying it makes the most sense for the GAME, but it does make a ton of sense for BUSINESS.

It won't bother me one way or the other if it goes or stays, to be real honest with you, but I'll tell you this. I was a very good pitcher when I was coming up, and I damn sure wanted my swings. That's why I am for no-DH. I think if you are good enough to be on that field, you oughta bat for yourself. Just like I think in the case of the hitter, if you are good enough to be on that field, you should have to field a position like everyone else.

But vitriol? No, never.

[Kronos]

Originally Posted by frangipard

I am always amused when people regard the DH as either "inevitably" spreading to the NL or going away from the AL.

The status quo has been in place for 42 years now. It may change, but calling it "inevitable" is laughable. You might as well talk about how this rock-and-roll fad will never last.

Rock is dead and the DH is coming.

[Fyrestorm3]

This debate will never end, not even if/when both leagues adopt one standard or the other. Some people like it one way, some like it the other. How about you consider yourselves lucky we're living in an era with two separate leagues? If the DH gets adopted by the NL somewhere down the line, you won't have a choice as to which style of baseball you get to watch.