O/T - Are you in favor of the DH? Do you think rosters should be expanded? [Archive]

Archive

04-04-2009, 07:11 AM

Posted By: Richard SimonPersonally I hate the DH and think it should never have been instituted. With major league baseball's emphasis on the bullpen teams now carry 11-12 pitchers, thus reducing the bench. Should rosters be increased to 26 so teams could carry another bench player? ===== I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Unknown author -- We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember. No retreat baby, no surrender. The Boss

Archive

04-04-2009, 07:13 AM

Posted By: LarryThere never should have been a DH in baseball. And give Richard Simon a new coin to flip when he determines authenticity. Heads means authentic. Tails means unable to determine authenticity. Tails will come up more often, since it's easier to steal the customers' money by playing it safe.

Archive

04-04-2009, 07:20 AM

Posted By: JasonNo decreased and no DH.

Archive

04-04-2009, 07:28 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanI agree with Jason.

Archive

04-04-2009, 07:30 AM

Posted By: Frank A.I never liked the DH and still don't. I agree, it never should have been.

Archive

04-04-2009, 07:34 AM

Posted By: Big JDesignated Hitter should definitely go. Interleague play should go. Bud Selig should go. ...and now time for me to go!

Archive

04-04-2009, 07:35 AM

Posted By: Richard Cline - RCI don't like the DH and would have no problem seeing the rosters expanded by 1 or 2 players. With pitchers specializing as they do in the game today it would help teams to have more options with their players in the field. I understand the argument some have who support the DH such as not having to watch pitchers attempt to hit, keeping a good bat in the line-up, etc... but really to me we might as well go to a field platoon system and batting platoon system to keep your best fielders in the field and best hitters at bat, to me that is what we are doing with the DH on a more limited basis. RC

Archive

04-04-2009, 07:40 AM

Posted By: barrysloateWhile I don't hate the DH- I'm a fan of high scoring games- it wouldn't matter to me if it were discontinued. However, what I do find ridiculous is that each league operates under a different set of rules; and when the World Series is played, half the games use the DH and half don't. That needs to end. As far as expanding rosters, an extra player on each team would give the manager more options, wouldn't dilute talent, and would provide thirty more jobs in the majors. That would be good.

Archive

04-04-2009, 08:06 AM

Posted By: AnonymousNo DH. Let the pitcher hit. The pitcher takes the field. The pitcher hits.

Archive

04-04-2009, 08:12 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanBarry, I think the creation of more high paying jobs for its union members is the only reason the Players Association cares about the DH, additional roster spots, etc. That's not a good enough reason in my opinion to subvert the purity of the game with not only the DH but different rules for each league. And somehow for 100 years MLB managed to have 10 pitchers on a team with just 4 starters. The specialization of baseball has gotten out of control.

Archive

04-04-2009, 08:18 AM

Posted By: Kenneth A. CohenCount me in among the "dinosaurs." I for one always liked the fact that 9 men hit and the same 9 played the field. I too dislike interleague play. It kills the uniqueness of the World Series and is inherently unfair. In a game where records are accorded such high importance, it seems to me that basic rules and traditions should be maintained. By the way, I blame Bush and Cheney for the instituting of the DH and interleage play.

Archive

04-04-2009, 08:25 AM

Posted By: Richard SimonJeff - how about a deal between MLB and the union to eliminate the DH but incerease the rosters to 26? That should make everyone happy. I really dislike the edge that the AL has in the WS because the NL has no real DH and has to use a guy who probably never DH'd before. I think Bush was against the DH but in favor of interleague play because he thought that NL teams playing in Texas would boost attendance there <img src="/images/happy.gif" height="14" width="14" alt="happy.gif">. == I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Unknown author -- We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember. No retreat baby, no surrender. The Boss

Archive

04-04-2009, 08:34 AM

Posted By: barrysloateJeff- I agree that I don't like the way pitchers are being used. I hate to see a guy pitching six solid innings of one-run ball and then being pulled for a reliever. I don't quite understand how that evolved. The common wisdom is that because pitchers are paid so much they have to be protected. But guys like Gibson and Marichal and Spahn pitched complete games nearly every time out and had long and productive careers. If the rosters ever were expanded I would hope it would not be to add yet another mediocre pitcher but instead a position player. And like I said I wouldn't miss the DH if it were abolished, but as a casual fan who easily nods off during a terminally long baseball game, I would rather watch a 10-8 game then a 3-1 one.

Archive

04-04-2009, 08:43 AM

Posted By: DougI say no on both.

Archive

04-04-2009, 08:48 AM

Posted By: Richard SimonI would hope if rosters were expanded that a position player would be added. Adding a #13 pitcher would further dilute the pitching that is there now. == I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Unknown author -- We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember. No retreat baby, no surrender. The Boss

Archive

04-04-2009, 09:14 AM

Posted By: Rich KleinI'd prefer something very similar to what hockey; basketball and football now do. That is, and when you do this; you could eliminate the DH. Is a 28 to make 25. Meaning; that each game 3 players, who would be full major leaguers (the Union would love this) would sit; in Hockey we call them healthy scratches; Basketball now has a 15 man roster to which 12 are eligible each nite and football has a 53 man roster to which 48 can play. Your 28 man roster must be 16 position players and 12 pitchers and you could only have 15 position players and 10 pitchers eligible each game. Obviously; one of your scratches would normally be the starting pitcher the game before. Regards Rich

Archive

04-04-2009, 09:22 AM

Posted By: Bob C. No other U.S. professional sport has anything like the DH. Could you see the NBA allowing allowing Reggie Miller to come in and shoot free thows for Shaq? And what would you call him? The DFT'er?

Archive

04-04-2009, 09:29 AM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldNo DH. No expansion. Idiots that MLB are, if they had half a clue, they'd reverse what they do in interleague play. Show off the DH when in National League cities, and then do without the DH when an interleague game is in an American League city. That way fans could get a sampling of the 'other' way. But no... can't go doing anything that would be good for the game or the fans. It's all about money, owners, and players. What we need is a fans' association, then could root-hog into the negotiations among the owners, owners vs players, and owners vs umpires. Then we'd have something.

Archive

04-04-2009, 09:41 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanRichard is right--add the 26th player and eliminate the DH. The only reason the DH has not been eliminated is due to the Players Association doing all that they can to save another high-paying job. So give it to them (a non-pitcher spot) and eliminate the DH. The American League has too great an advantage during the WS with the DH as they have a player designated solely to hit; the NL ends up putting a bench player in this spot for the WS.

Archive

04-04-2009, 09:47 AM

Posted By: JimCrandellNo DH No interleague play Get rid of divisions--1 American and 1 National League champion play each other in World Series. Disband the Players and Umpires Union

Archive

04-04-2009, 09:53 AM

Posted By: JoannAx the DH. It makes baseball something like the NBA. Watch as much of a typical NBA game as you can tolerate and count how many shots are not either within 5 feet or a 3-pt. It's become a game of either dunks or 3's - kind of like the longball oriented DH model. The NL has a much more strategic task, it seems. I know - a stretch of an analogy with the NBA there and poorly explained, but somehow to me AL ball can have the same feel as the NBA. Dull dull dull pop. Dull dull dull pop. And no to roster expansions. I'd rather back it all upstream and get rid of one to force teams to use fewer specialized pitchers. J

Archive

04-04-2009, 09:59 AM

Posted By: Max WederBob C said: "No other U.S. professional sport has anything like the DH. Could you see the NBA allowing allowing Reggie Miller to come in and shoot free thows for Shaq? And what would you call him? The DFT'er?" Actually, there is such a league: the National Football League. In the early days of football, players played both offence and defence. Now, there are only 1 way players, with kicking specialists. I actually like the way it is, as it does inspire debates such as these. I do however wish I wss old enough to remember Bob Buhl or Ron Herbel hit. Max

Archive

04-04-2009, 10:00 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanJim, for the same reason the NFL went to 14, then 16 and soon 18 games, there will always be more divisions in baseball and not less: $$$$$. More divisions means more playoff games, etc.

Archive

04-04-2009, 10:02 AM

Posted By: Kenneth A. CohenInteresting point on reducing rosters. The managing of pitching by rote (7th inning guy, 8th inning guy, closer) has gotten pretty tedious. There's something to say for forcing a more freeform and creative use of pitchers. Unfortunately, it'll never happen.

Archive

04-04-2009, 10:09 AM

Posted By: barrysloateHow about doing away with $2500 seats at Yankee Stadium?

Archive

04-04-2009, 10:13 AM

Posted By: leonI have never been in favor of the DH. Pitchers being able to hit, or not, is part of the game. Do away with it, is my vote. The roster can have one less or more person. I don't really care about that too much....

Archive

04-04-2009, 10:55 AM

Posted By: john/z28jd The fact that the DH was put in before I was born might weigh in on my opinion but I actually like the DH because it gives star players chances to hang on a little longer. I also watch a ton of national league games being in a house of Mets and Phillies fans and me myself being a Pirates fan and I can't stand seeing a weak hitting 8th place hitter get pitched around to face a pitcher who has no chance. I wouldnt change the NL to a DH league because its been around so much longer than the AL though. If you think about it though,on the average after the fifth inning the NL is basically a DH league because of pinch hitters,so really you would be changing half of a 9 inning game going without the DH in the AL,not really that big of a deal. I wouldnt add another player either,MLB is already watered down talent-wise,adding another 30 marginal players would just make the skill level that much worse

Archive

04-04-2009, 01:08 PM

Posted By: David McDonaldBring back baggy uniforms!! <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/kawika_o_ka_pakipika/bbbofsfirstclass/holygrailcards/websize/Fatima%20Murray.jpg" alt="[linked image]">

Archive

04-04-2009, 01:22 PM

Posted By: Bob ManningTo respond to an earlier comment, the DH rule was instituted on a trial basis in January, 1973. Which would make it a product, not of Bush and Cheney, but of Richard M Nixon (deep in the Watergate mess by then) and Zero T Agnew (deep in everything else by then). Oh, and Charley Finley had a hand in it too, when he wasn't playing with yellow balls. No DH; No additional roster spots; For God's sake, no interleague play; And the leagues alternate honors for first game home team in the WS, the way they did before Bud showed up. Why? Does anybody else remember... Pitcher Tony Cloninger, who hit two slams in a game? Or go check out Warren Spahn's career hitting stats, or Bob Lemon's, or Wes Ferrell's. Surely none of them would have had a chance at the plate had the DH rule been in place. (Sticklers: Yes ... Two of Lemon's homers came as a PH; on the other hand, Wes almost out-averaged his brother Rick, the HOF catcher, .280 to .281, over their careers) Ever have the honor of watching Greg Maddux bunt? That's enough. B

Archive

04-04-2009, 01:22 PM

Posted By: Roger I don't like the DH That is one of the reasons I prefer the NL. I think that no DH requires more strategy and a manager that is on his toes when making lineup changes. Roger

Archive

04-04-2009, 02:00 PM

Posted By: Marty OgelvieI hate the DH rule but don't want to see it go... reason; my 4 year old is a BORN DHer. He hates to play the field and rarely keeps his glove on but give him a bat and he's all business. Of course he is in TBall but we pitch to our T ballers (3 pitches) and then we put it on a T for them. My 4 year old rarely sees the T. He's a natural lefty and loves low pitches. Of course it doesn't hurt that i am the coach/pitcher and I know exactly where his sweet spot is.. marty

Archive

04-04-2009, 02:03 PM

Posted By: Mark LNo DH. Interleague play should be limited to 6 games per year, at most. And we NEED to go back to two sets of umpires, with different strike zones.

Archive

04-04-2009, 05:32 PM

Posted By: Dan P.Barry-- The reason why Spahn, Marichal, and Gibson (and others of that era and earlier) pitched so many complete games is pitch counts. This didn't exist until recently so those pitchers were geared up to pitch complete games. Modern pitchers are put on pitch counts and removed when they reach the count number. Remember, ladies and gentermen--PITCH COUNTS ARE FOR WIMPS. Let's go back to the rules and strategies of that era (including no dh).

Archive

04-04-2009, 06:17 PM

Posted By: BobAgree with Jim C. on 3 of the 4 comments: No DH No interleague play Get rid of divisions--1 American and 1 National League champion play each other in World Series. No DH is possible. No interleague is possible but less likely. Getting rid of divisions is close to impossible. Revenue and fan interest demands this be retained although I like the good old days. Can't go with the dissolution of the player's union, though, although the danger of a reinstatement of a reserve clause and owner collusion is not as likely as it was years ago.

Archive

04-04-2009, 06:37 PM

Posted By: Fred CI don't mind the DH so long as it stays in the AL only. Expand the rosters? NO. There's got to be a little strategy that managers can employ during the game/season. It's not like I'm against change or anything. There have been so many changes in baseball through the years: No Sunday ball - the sabatarians lost that one. No alcohol sold at the games - looks like the sabatarians lost another. No night games - thank you Thomas Alva Edison What if orange baseballs caught on? What about the designated runner. Thank goodness Charlie O. missed on that one too.

Archive

04-04-2009, 08:14 PM

Posted By: Patrick McHughI feel that all players should play the entire game unless injured pitchers included. Todays baseball is not the game i grew up with. Why in high school ball the pitcher would throw 7 regardless of score or pitch count. Talking 15 year old kid. Todays game 28 year old man can only throw 100 pitches? Are you kidding me. DH Should go.Rosters should be decreased, way to many minor league pitchers sitting in major league bullpens.

Archive

04-04-2009, 08:31 PM

Posted By: Stephen MitchellI favor abolishing the DH. When I used to tune in (radio) Red Sox ballgames as a kid, whenever Earl Wilson was slated to pitch my imagination (stoked by announcers for the Sox) would wander: Would Wilson hit another homer to help his own cause tonight? And it almost seemed the broadcasters would build up Earl's AB as much as that of Yaz or other offensive heroes of the day. Invariably, Wilson would come through, if not with a home run, then with some other tactical maneuver - even if just by fouling off innumerable pitches he tired the opposing hurler prematurely.

Archive

04-04-2009, 08:35 PM

Posted By: MikeI think the home team manager should decide before each game ( dh or not). That would be the same in both leagues. This would add additional stratedy to the game . For example: factors involved ( who's pitching that day, does the team have a good dh vs your dh, is your dh needing a day off, if so play without dh that day, it allows a team to force the dh out of a particular game or force him into a defensive role that day). If the other team only has one good DH and he is a right handed hitter and you are pitching a left handed pitcher the manager may select no DH that day.All teams would be the same and have the choice when at home - DH or not DH ( 81 games per year). Since baseball is full of stratedy, and the DH rule has been criticize between of lack of stratedy, I believe the DH option for each game would make the managers think each game out more and add stratedy to the game not less and also both leagues would be the same. Fans could really have opinions of why a manager did or did not use the DH that day. Home field advantage. Only concern I have is that the managers wuld not be able to figure out if it was an advantage to use or not use the DH that day. A lot of thinking would have to go into the decision.