DH or no DH?

[TomVeal]

Originally Posted by Ty Cobb

The game was better without this abomination...just like it was better when there were no lights at Wrigley, and Tiger Stadium was still at the corner of Michigan and Trumbull, and Ebbets and the Polo Grounds stood, and Three Rivers and the Vet had never been built...

Oh, excuse me. I was ranting.

More important than all that, the game was better when you could buy beer after the 7th inning! And when the beer was cheaper! (According to Scorecasting, attendance at Cub games correlates much more closely with beer prices than with the team's record, a phenomenon that OOTP's financial model sadly fails to reflect.)

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Westheim

While I am not quite under 25 anymore (28), I do care about this. Not because I have been around for that long, but because I'm standing put on my opinion that a game with the DH in place offers less strategical games than a game without the DH, and as thus makes - not always, but more often than not - for a less exciting contest.

And to come to OOTP, managing such contest is especially poor, spamming Enter 80 times in quick succession.

I have a spacebar and two enter buttons. Really breaks up the monotony for me.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by RchW

I have a spacebar and two enter buttons. Really breaks up the monotony for me.

Sometimes I find changing hands can make a world of difference as well.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Sometimes I find changing hands can make a world of difference as well.

... which is true in so many aspects of life ...

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Originally Posted by frangipard

Sure. But if you're the Dodgers or the Phillies and looking to contend now, the goal isn't to get value in terms of production per-dollar, it's to get max production, period, efficiency be damned. They'd prefer to have cost-controlled players, but if they don't have them, they can look to buy what they need. Small-market teams are much less able to do so. If the DH had been implemented in the NL this offseason, Nelson Cruz and Delmon Young and a few others would have suddenly found themselves much more in demand, and the price would have been prohibitive for some teams. Those teams would mostly be the small-market clubs.

I just don't agree that the cost of fielding a DH will raise some new competitive balance issue. In recent years the average AL team has been outspending the average NL team by about 10%, or $10 million per year, which isn't actually a lot in the grand scheme of things. It would buy you Billy Butler. So generally, in an all-DH world, the LA Dodgers will have a roster with fewer holes in it than small market NL teams and AL teams. But that's the case now, too.

To compare apples to apples, I think not having the DH actually disadvantages small market NL teams against small market AL teams, because NL teams have to take on greater risk in long-term contracts where fielding ability is concerned.

This line of debate paints small market teams with a very broad brush, and treats the AL and NL tag as deterministic about teams' finances. I don't know why the small market Kansas City Royals can become competitive and a DH-universe Pittsburgh Pirates couldn't, other than the fact that they just haven't been forced to try yet.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by TomVeal

More important than all that, the game was better when you could buy beer after the 7th inning! And when the beer was cheaper! (According to Scorecasting, attendance at Cub games correlates much more closely with beer prices than with the team's record, a phenomenon that OOTP's financial model sadly fails to reflect.)

When my copy of OOTP delivers a cold beer right to me, true management sim nirvana will have been achieved.

[swoboda]

Originally Posted by RchW

When my copy of OOTP delivers a cold beer right to me, true management sim nirvana will have been achieved.

Until then, how about a pop-up 3 second video of the winning manager downing a cold one?

[Le Grande Orange]

In terms of the salary cost of having a DH, here is the 2011 average player salary by position as calculated by the MLBPA. It is based on the salaries of the major league players on the active and disabled lists as of August 31st of the 2011 season and a minimum of 100 games played (with three exceptions).

2011

Average Major League Salary by Position


Pos*   AL         NL        MLB
-----------------------------------
1B  7,749,371  9,762,073  8,899,486
2B  4,724,321  5,575,067  5,216,858
3B  4,760,508  5,514,814  5,179,567
SS  3,744,539  4,060,631  3,895,714
C   1,984,353  3,030,465  2,565,526
OF  6,605,469  4,865,755  5,618,063
DH  9,324,807          -  9,324,807

SP  4,504,030  5,227,861  4,882,396
RP  2,182,664  1,753,580  1,945,774


*100 or more games except as noted below

 DH: 80 or more games
 SP: 19 or more starts
 RP: 10 or less starts;
     25 or more relief appearances

[frangipard]

Originally Posted by Cinnamon J. Scudworth

This line of debate paints small market teams with a very broad brush, and treats the AL and NL tag as deterministic about teams' finances. I don't know why the small market Kansas City Royals can become competitive and a DH-universe Pittsburgh Pirates couldn't, other than the fact that they just haven't been forced to try yet.

The argument isn't that small-market teams would never, ever compete with a DH, just that it adds to their disadvantage. One anecdote isn't exactly a refutation of that, any more than "being overweight is unhealthy" is disproven by one 90 year old fat guy. I mean, a big part of the reason KC's run last year was so exciting was that they've pretty much sucked every year since the late 80s. (And likely will regress this year.)


In any event, the point I was making is that it's absurd to argue that teams would want the DH because it would make everyone better. A pennant race is a zero-sum game, and rules changes will inevitably help some teams more than others (it may even help one team more this year, hurt them another year). It's highly unlikely that you ever have 15 of 15 teams saying "this will help us win more," for the simple reason that it's mathematically impossible for it to be true.

The small-market idea was just one guess.

[Elektranaut]

One of the most interesting aspects of cricket which baseball doesn't have is the position of 'all-rounder',which is basically a player who is just as good at batting as he is at bowling.There is a long tradition of these guys who are often revered for their prowess at both bat and ball.

[Elektranaut]

Without actually looking it up I think there has been a steady decline in overall pitcher ERA's over the last few years so the pitcher coming up to bat is becoming increasingly laughable.I'm not a DH fan but that's the way the National League is going.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by Elektranaut

One of the most interesting aspects of cricket which baseball doesn't have is the position of 'all-rounder',which is basically a player who is just as good at batting as he is at bowling.There is a long tradition of these guys who are often revered for their prowess at both bat and ball.

I think all-rounders are basically guys in the middle of the order who can both bat and bowl, right? And the all-rounders who are better batsmen than bowlers bat higher in the order than all-rounders who are better bowlers than batsmen, do they not?

[TomVeal]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

I think all-rounders are basically guys in the middle of the order who can both bat and bowl, right? And the all-rounders who are better batsmen than bowlers bat higher in the order than all-rounders who are better bowlers than batsmen, do they not?

The key point is that a fairly large proportion of cricket players can both bat and bowl competently, while almost all baseball pitchers are weak batters and hardly any position players can pitch even as well as the average pitcher hits. The reason why all-rounders are possible is that bowling is much less difficult than pitching.

[FunkyBike1]

I wasn't aware this was a cricket forum.

I prefer to use the DH, if only since it removes some of the AI stupidity and evens the playing field.

[frangipard]

Originally Posted by TomVeal

The key point is that a fairly large proportion of cricket players can both bat and bowl competently, while almost all baseball pitchers are weak batters and hardly any position players can pitch even as well as the average pitcher hits. The reason why all-rounders are possible is that bowling is much less difficult than pitching.

There's a great line about this in this year's Baseball Prospectus, pointing out that Adam Loewen is a better hitter than any pitcher in the majors, and a better pitcher than any hitter ... but since he's basically AAAA at both, there's no place for him.

Given a slightly different set of rules, he'd be a superstar.

[Westheim]

Has anybody seen a good cricket sim lately?

[TomVeal]

Originally Posted by Westheim

Has anybody seen a good cricket sim lately?

I've been trying Cricket Coach (Cricket Coach 2014 | Cricket Coach 2014), which others recommended on an OOTP forum. So far, it looks pretty good, and the cost is low - less than $20, though that purchases only a single license.

[TwinsGuy11]

I'm a fan of it. Biggest reason: Tony Oliva was one of the greatest Twins of all-time. He could run, hit for average, hit for power, field, and throw. Literally a 5-tool player, but his knees gave out on him. The DH gave him a chance to extend his career.

Now get him in the HOF!

[Assos]

Originally Posted by TwinsGuy11

I'm a fan of it. Biggest reason: Tony Oliva was one of the greatest Twins of all-time. He could run, hit for average, hit for power, field, and throw. Literally a 5-tool player, but his knees gave out on him. The DH gave him a chance to extend his career.

Now get him in the HOF!

But it makes me sad when a 25 year old is DHing because he did not take the time to learn to be a better fielder. Older players I can understand, but a 25 year or young DH is sad.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by Assos

But it makes me sad when a 25 year old is DHing because he did not take the time to learn to be a better fielder. Older players I can understand, but a 25 year or young DH is sad.

Would you prefer that a 25 year old who can hit a ton but will never be able to field a lick simply quit baseball?