DH to the NL??

[dgo71]

I appreciate the well thought out reply. While I respect your opinion, what I'm reading is that the long answer is really just expounding on the short answer - personal preference. And that is completely fine. It does however confirm my suspicions that most anti-DH folks are in the purist group. Again, fine to appreciate the nostalgia of the game but it doesn't lend itself to a high degree of change. It's a little like saying the GPS is terrible because folding maps worked just fine.

With the way the game has become specialized, it takes some changes to stay competitive and keep the winning edge. A purist example might be that pitchers regularly finished the games they started, or even logged 250, even 300 innings a season. With pitch counts that is becoming more and more of a rarity. The bullpen is critical, and it's gone beyond simply a dominating closer, to now having 7th inning guys, setup men, LOOGIs, etc. To say that hasn't been an improvement for the game depends on what side of the fence you're on. A fan may think, from a purist standpoint, this has diminished the quality of pitching. The teams however, feel it increases their chance of winning, and that is the paramount goal of every team. Just ask the last several World Series winners how they feel about bullpens and their importance to the game. The same can be said of the DH. I know as a Yankee fan much of my life that David Ortiz in 2004 was a killer, and whether he played the field or not he certainly was a major player in the Sox curse-ending WS run.

I didn't take the time to research this, but it may even be argued that without having to focus on other aspects of the game, pitching has improved in the AL because pitchers can focus solely on their primary function. There are only so many hours in a day, and any time spent in the cage is time they are not working on grips, release points, arm angles, landing off the mound, overall philosophy, etc. Again, not sure this is a proven fact but on the surface makes sense to me that focusing on one aspect versus two or three would yield better results.

I definitely agree with your point on the AL and NL playing very different games, and that's mostly my biggest problem with all of this. It's increasingly apparent too, with interleague play now integrated into the schedule every day and not just some cross-town novelty. Interesting topic. Another unique thing about baseball is the hours of debate that can be had about all of the game's subtle nuances. Thanks for your thoughtful response!

[itjclarke]

Derek, I think you are oversimplifying by saying those against the NL DH are "purists", "antiquated" in our thinking, and refusing any change. I think several have acknowledged what we've considered as having been good changes, just don't think this one is good.

As said, it's a personal preference. I personally love getting deep into the strategy of the game while watching (similar to watching NFL), anticipating managerial moves, etc. From this standpoint, I find AL games boring as hell in comparison to NL games. I'm a huge Giants fan who likes the A's, but I'd be much more likely to watch the Bucs play the Cards on Sunday night than I would to sit through any A's game. This has nothing to do with being unwilling to accept change, just prefer the more dynamic tactics and strategies at play in NL ball.

I'm happy to agree to disagree, as long as the DH doesn't invade the NL. You clearly enjoy the game differently than those who oppose the DH. Totally fine, you have your league and we ours.

[the 'stache]

I may be a purist, but as I clearly indicated, I have no problem whatsoever with changing the game when it is warranted. The example you provided of purists viewing GPS as terrible because "folding maps worked just fine" is a bit specious, logically. The technological advance realized by GPS makes traveling easier, and safer, and nobody in their right mind would forego the use of a TomTom, if available, out of some misplaced affinity for maps. Baseball purists are not archaic thinkers, not by a long shot. Yes, we are mindful of the game's past, but that doesn't mean we are so set in our ways that we won't consider or embrace change. Rather, we don't want the fundamentals of the game changed unnecessarily. And we certainly would never support a rules change which affected only half of the game.

I understand the competitive advantages teams seek as a means of increasing the likelihood of winning, but that's just the thing. The example you provided of the change in pitcher utilization (starters throwing complete games in the olden days vs the specialized relievers prevalent in today's game) is not really germane to this discussion. Why? Because it wasn't a mandated change to the game that brought about this evolution. Major League Baseball did not decree that "starting pitchers must throw a maximum of x pitches per season", thereby requiring that teams keep on hand a number of specialists ready to go on a moment's notice. Baseball evolved on its own. And, that's how the game should change, if it is going to change.

Occasionally, MLB makes prudent decisions. Decades ago, the requirement that batters wear helmets at the plate increased player safety, as did the eventual addition of the ear flap to the helmet. But changing the game just for the sake of making a change doesn't enhance the game at all, rather, it diminishes it. And the implementation of the designated hitter was completely superfluous. Again, the designated hitter's introduction amounted to overcompensation by the league. Tweaking the strike zone and lowering the pitcher's mound was sufficient to reign in pitching dominance. How do I know this? The mound was lowered, and the strike zone expanded after the 1968 season, when an average of 3.43 runs were scored per game in the National League. In 1969, that averaged jumped to 4.05 runs per game, and 4.52 in 1970. That's a statistically significant change achieved with pitchers still appearing in the lineup every day. In the American League, an average of 3.41 runs per game were scored in 1968. After the changes, that average jumped to 4.09 in 1969, and 4.17 in 1970. In 1972, the American League average dropped back to 3.47 (it was 3.91 in the N.L.). The DH was implemented in the American League in 1973, and scoring jumped to 4.28 runs per game, and has never been below 4.0 runs per game again. But in the N.L., which did not see the designated hitter, scoring jumped to 4.15 runs per game for the 1973 season. In 1974, the National League, with no designated hitter, averaged 4.15 runs per game, while the American League, with the DH, averaged 4.10 runs per game.

Between 1968 and 1972, the National League saw an average of 3.96 runs scored per game. The American League, over the same period, saw an average of 3.80 runs per game. The N.L. realized a +0.16 runs per game differential. Scoring across the leagues was pretty close, as one would expect. In the 16 years between 1975 and 1990, the National League saw an average of 4.10 runs scored per game, while the American League, over the same sixteen year period, saw an average of 4.41 runs scored per game. While the National League realized a slight change to runs scored per game (+0.14), the American League saw a huge, and I would argue, unnatural spike in runs scored per game (+.61).

The designated hitter being introduced to the game was completely unnecessary, not because purists entertain some misplaced fondness for how the game used to be, but because it amounted to the placing of a Band-Aid when there was no cut. And now, we have this ridiculous imbalance between the Leagues. Giving the National League the DH is a stupid idea. Get rid of the DH altogether, and restore competitive balance.

[packs]

I think the designated hitter is fine for the AL because it changes the game for half the league. That makes watching an AL game and an NL game different. That makes things exciting. That makes inter-league games fun. That makes the World Series more fun.

But if everything was the same you lose a lot of intrigue and if baseball is looking to be more exciting, then cutting out an intriguing part of the game is the wrong direction to go in.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by packs

I think the designated hitter is fine for the AL because it changes the game for half the league. That makes watching an AL game and an NL game different. That makes things exciting. That makes inter-league games fun. That makes the World Series more fun.

But if everything was the same you lose a lot of intrigue and if baseball is looking to be more exciting, then cutting out an intriguing part of the game is the wrong direction to go in.

Same for me, except the part in red above Since strategy is so different in each league, I don't think it's right in a best of 7 series for all the marbles, to put one of the teams at a disadvantage every game. The home field thing is the only disadvantage they need to go through. I don't mind it so much in inter-league games because you have 162 games total, so the effect isn't as big.

[dgo71]

Ian and Bill, that's exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. I just kept hearing blanket statements like "The DH sucks!" with little other explanation behind it, so it led me to believe it was simply out of rigidity that people didn't want changes made in the game. I now understand a lot better why some folks are so against the DH position, and see how some would feel it equates to the rules implemented to protect a quarterback that have essentially turned the NFL into a two-hand touch league. I think it was Maddux that said "chicks dig the longball." Points well taken and I appreciate the time put into the thoughtfulness of your responses!

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by dgo71

I think it was Maddux that said "chicks dig the longball."

Haha, possibly the greatest sports commercial ever. Maddux smacking Glavine in the abs over and over with a bat, "step into it Alice!".

Yes, agreed, good banter back and forth on the topic and appreciate all points of view. I agree with an idea someone else mentioned, baseball is great in that there's enough fan passion (and attention to detail) you can debate something like this forever.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by dgo71

Ian and Bill, that's exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. I just kept hearing blanket statements like "The DH sucks!" with little other explanation behind it, so it led me to believe it was simply out of rigidity that people didn't want changes made in the game. I now understand a lot better why some folks are so against the DH position, and see how some would feel it equates to the rules implemented to protect a quarterback that have essentially turned the NFL into a two-hand touch league. I think it was Maddux that said "chicks dig the longball." Points well taken and I appreciate the time put into the thoughtfulness of your responses!

Thumbs up, Derek.