DH to the NL??

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by dgo71

You're assuming the starter got shelled. It could be a 1-1 game with runners on 1st and 2nd, 2 outs. You want to squander a scoring opportunity just because you need to lift your pitcher to get a run home? It's just silly tradition that keeps baseball from making changes. It's not 1940, let the pitchers focus on pitching and the hitters on hitting. Just the way I see it.

Guessing maybe you're more of an AL fan? No problem with that, but no NL manager would pull his ace (guy like Kershaw, Bum, Grienke, Scherzer, etc) in that situation unless there's something else at play (starter felt a twinge in his side... starter doesn't have his A stuff and has labored through 4 or 5 and at 100+ pitches). If a starter is cruising and is a guy who usually goes deep, I highly doubt pulling him in a tie game becomes a consideration until the 7th. Plus, if that pitcher is an all around "ballplayer" and can deliver in situations (bunt, butcher), or can just flat out hit (Bumgarner), he can greatly influence his manager's decision.

I love the anticipation ahead of each of these moments in an NL game (less than 2 out, 8 hitter up with RISP and pen warming up), and sometimes a manager surprises you. I love Boch for the fact he'll often leave a guy like Bum in to hit in the late innings of close games. Every time he does that, he's showing great faith in his guys, and I think this is one of the reasons his guys are so loyal.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

Guessing maybe you're more of an AL fan? No problem with that, but no NL manager would pull his ace (guy like Kershaw, Bum, Grienke, Scherzer, etc) in that situation unless there's something else at play (starter felt a twinge in his side... starter doesn't have his A stuff and has labored through 4 or 5 and at 100+ pitches). If a starter is cruising and is a guy who usually goes deep, I highly doubt pulling him in a tie game becomes a consideration until the 7th. Plus, if that pitcher is an all around "ballplayer" and can deliver in situations (bunt, butcher), or can just flat out hit (Bumgarner), he can greatly influence his manager's decision.

I'm more of a fan of consistency I guess than one league versus another. It makes no sense to have the two leagues playing the same game under a different set of rules. Maybe my example isn't the best or most plausible, but my point is that the game changes and I don't see any reason to NOT change just because something was a certain way 100 years ago. If the NL institues the DH, I'll be OK missing out on Madison Bumgarner "raking." The idea that Mad-Bum's .183 career average makes him more of a "ballplayer" than any pitcher in the AL over the last 4 decades is exactly the type of antiquated thinking that prevents changes from being made, in any walk of life. The game is going to change, just like anything, and I see no need to resist it just because it's not the same old thing I'm used to.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by dgo71

I'm more of a fan of consistency I guess than one league versus another. It makes no sense to have the two leagues playing the same game under a different set of rules. Maybe my example isn't the best or most plausible, but my point is that the game changes and I don't see any reason to NOT change just because something was a certain way 100 years ago. If the NL institues the DH, I'll be OK missing out on Madison Bumgarner "raking." The idea that Mad-Bum's .183 career average makes him more of a "ballplayer" than any pitcher in the AL over the last 4 decades is exactly the type of antiquated thinking that prevents changes from being made, in any walk of life. The game is going to change, just like anything, and I see no need to resist it just because it's not the same old thing I'm used to.

I'm a fan of change, but it's got to be good change. I think the AL DH rule took something away from the game, and don't think having an extra hitter in the lineup necessarily makes the game better or more exciting. As Packs says, it's also fun to see a pitcher hit a bomb... or get a crucial hit. It's fun to see the unexpected.

And trust me, anyone who's watched the Giants regularly over the past two years knows Bum rakes. We always knew he had power, maybe more than anyone on the roster, but it took him a few years to catch up with MLB pitching. Now that he has, he's become a legitimate threat like Zambrano, Ankiel, Hampton, Drysdale, Spahn, Ferrell before him. Very honestly, he is my favorite Giant to watch hit. He always swings from the heals (part of what's fun to watch) and does strike out at an incredible rate, but also routinely gets big run producing hits, and has 9 HRs over the past two years. He's also able to bunt when needed, and even his strikeouts are entertaining because you see how much passion he takes to the plate. I wish all NL pitchers took hitting as seriously. Would I get tired of an everyday player striking out 200+ times a year, yes... but I'll gladly take three big swinging Bum ABs every 5 days.

I also have no problem seeing the game played by two sets of rules, especially since the AL DH is not going away. I think it adds to the charm of the WS, and frankly the WS needs any additional allure it can drum up since much of the novelty of "NL vs AL" disappeared in 1997 with the advent of interleague. Consistency can be a good thing, but isn't this game about its asymmetry as well? Weird ivy covered walls and Green Monsters? If it need be totally consistent, I guess we better standardize foul territory and make all fences 335' down the lines, 385' to the allies and 400' to center.

Baseball has quirks and I'm fine with that. I am not opposed to change (happy to see drug testing, MLB's attempt to promote as a world game, even OK seeing home plate collisions phased out) but totally prefer keeping this as is.

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by dgo71

I'm more of a fan of consistency I guess than one league versus another. It makes no sense to have the two leagues playing the same game under a different set of rules. Maybe my example isn't the best or most plausible, but my point is that the game changes and I don't see any reason to NOT change just because something was a certain way 100 years ago. If the NL institues the DH, I'll be OK missing out on Madison Bumgarner "raking." The idea that Mad-Bum's .183 career average makes him more of a "ballplayer" than any pitcher in the AL over the last 4 decades is exactly the type of antiquated thinking that prevents changes from being made, in any walk of life. The game is going to change, just like anything, and I see no need to resist it just because it's not the same old thing I'm used to.

So it seems what you're saying that the NL should change the rules of the game for no other reason than to match the AL. If that is so, why not have the AL change to match the NL and get rid of the DH? The weakness of the pitcher hitting is part of the strategy of the game. The only part of the game that is enhanced by the DH is the ability to score runs. IMHO, the people who only watch and enjoy baseball for the run scoring are missing out on much of the joy of the game.


You see these types of changes in all the sports to enhance scoring as apparently, no one will watch if the teams aren't scoring runs all the time. I guess a 1-0 game is waay less entertaining then a 9-8 game.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

So it seems what you're saying that the NL should change the rules of the game for no other reason than to match the AL. If that is so, why not have the AL change to match the NL and get rid of the DH? The weakness of the pitcher hitting is part of the strategy of the game. The only part of the game that is enhanced by the DH is the ability to score runs. IMHO, the people who only watch and enjoy baseball for the run scoring are missing out on much of the joy of the game.

I'm not saying that at all. If the DH went away in the AL I'd feel the same way about it. At least the rules of the game (much different than the varying aspects of the fields they play on IMO) would be consistent. I definitely am not saying one league is right. My personal preference I suppose, would be DH all around, but I'd feel better about it if they were the same. There are cons on both sides of the debate.

[Joshchisox08]

Very shocked as I assume (no offence) that most of you are from the older crowd (40+). It has been the norm with this crowd for change in our beloved sport. I just for the life of me can't figure out why.

I hardly ever believe in the phrase "If it ain't broken don't fix it" but MLB WAS the case. The replay bull shit started, the pitch clock, and now this shit. All the while I feel like the MLB is trying to keep up with the NBA and NFL. Both of which, in my opinion, are extremely hard to watch or care for. Both of which I stopped following some 10 years ago easily.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Joshchisox08

Very shocked as I assume (no offence) that most of you are from the older crowd (40+). It has been the norm with this crowd for change in our beloved sport. I just for the life of me can't figure out why.

I hardly ever believe in the phrase "If it ain't broken don't fix it" but MLB WAS the case. The replay bull shit started, the pitch clock, and now this shit. All the while I feel like the MLB is trying to keep up with the NBA and NFL. Both of which, in my opinion, are extremely hard to watch or care for. Both of which I stopped following some 10 years ago easily.

I still watch the NFL, but it's becoming less and less compelling to me. Ridiculous rules changes aside, even the coaches don't know what constitutes a catch, and what does not.

Basketball? I haven't watched an NBA game in 10 years, if not longer. I used to love the game, but it became more about making Sportscenter highlights, and less about fundamentals. No thank you.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

Guessing maybe you're more of an AL fan? No problem with that, but no NL manager would pull his ace (guy like Kershaw, Bum, Grienke, Scherzer, etc) in that situation unless there's something else at play (starter felt a twinge in his side... starter doesn't have his A stuff and has labored through 4 or 5 and at 100+ pitches). If a starter is cruising and is a guy who usually goes deep, I highly doubt pulling him in a tie game becomes a consideration until the 7th. Plus, if that pitcher is an all around "ballplayer" and can deliver in situations (bunt, butcher), or can just flat out hit (Bumgarner), he can greatly influence his manager's decision.

I love the anticipation ahead of each of these moments in an NL game (less than 2 out, 8 hitter up with RISP and pen warming up), and sometimes a manager surprises you. I love Boch for the fact he'll often leave a guy like Bum in to hit in the late innings of close games. Every time he does that, he's showing great faith in his guys, and I think this is one of the reasons his guys are so loyal.

right it never happens in the 4th or 5th inning...if the 25 million dollar pitcher is pitching well...7th inning yes ....no way in heck the 4th or 5th inning..that would be brutal on the bullpen for the next game..and afterall part of getting paid 25 million is not just to win games but its to help save the bullpen with long outings

[packs]

Everyone likes to see a pitcher hit a homer. Just like they like to see a lineman score a touchdown. It makes you think you could do it too.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

right it never happens in the 4th or 5th inning...if the 25 million dollar pitcher is pitching well...7th inning yes ....no way in heck the 4th or 5th inning..that would be brutal on the bullpen for the next game..and afterall part of getting paid 25 million is not just to win games but its to help save the bullpen with long outings

See my post above. You guys are missing my point because you're focusing on my admittedly bad example.